A real question
I think we've sort of had this discussion before, but I don't remember it well and it bears repeating. I liked the European mini-play, and yes it would be tremendous if the world worked like that. New Diplomacy®! But the Bush paragraph leads me to an important question...
Do you think he really believes in Democracy promotion, or is it a political maneuver? I mean, something has to fill the void left by the missing WMDs, and we certainly didn't go over there to end torture and violence in the region. So we get warm fuzzies over Democracy. But in reading about the Great Power machinations in the Arab world during WW1 it is clear to me that easily 9/10 of the people talking about Arab independence actually meant "Arab independence in name but with heavy 'guidance' from a European State Sponsor." So I'm wary.
Making me even more wary, though, is the recent release of those tapes where Bush says he smoked weed and, more importantly, didn't want to bash gays, thinks gays are a-ok, etc etc. That all sounds great (the President isn't a bigot!) until you realize that as soon as it became politically expedient he wielded gay-bashing like a club for all it was worth. Which leads me to think he isn't the straight shooter he's lead everyone to believe. Why should Iraq be any different?
This is a genuinely important question to me, and probably to history. If this whole adventure becomes a huge clusterfuck then the intentions behind it will become tantamount. So what's the argument for Bush? Anything other than his speeches, which are almost always daydreamy nonsense (to Mars! We will never accept tyrrany, uhh, except from a number of allies!). As much as I dislike the man, I'd really like to be convinced on this one.
Do you think he really believes in Democracy promotion, or is it a political maneuver? I mean, something has to fill the void left by the missing WMDs, and we certainly didn't go over there to end torture and violence in the region. So we get warm fuzzies over Democracy. But in reading about the Great Power machinations in the Arab world during WW1 it is clear to me that easily 9/10 of the people talking about Arab independence actually meant "Arab independence in name but with heavy 'guidance' from a European State Sponsor." So I'm wary.
Making me even more wary, though, is the recent release of those tapes where Bush says he smoked weed and, more importantly, didn't want to bash gays, thinks gays are a-ok, etc etc. That all sounds great (the President isn't a bigot!) until you realize that as soon as it became politically expedient he wielded gay-bashing like a club for all it was worth. Which leads me to think he isn't the straight shooter he's lead everyone to believe. Why should Iraq be any different?
This is a genuinely important question to me, and probably to history. If this whole adventure becomes a huge clusterfuck then the intentions behind it will become tantamount. So what's the argument for Bush? Anything other than his speeches, which are almost always daydreamy nonsense (to Mars! We will never accept tyrrany, uhh, except from a number of allies!). As much as I dislike the man, I'd really like to be convinced on this one.
2 Comments:
I think he believes it. He's obsessed with Reagan and Churchill, and they seemed to believe it more than anyone (never mind that Churchill was a blatant imperialist...)
But I don't think Bush used to wake up every morning thinking about how spreading liberty and democracy was the great goal of our times. I think this is purely a retroactive political calculation. But not a cynical one. If that makes sense.
One of the things I've realized in the past year, is that Bush is actually a pretty adept politician. Really, we should have all seen this coming (of coure, we didn't); I mean, the man is from Texas. When have they *not* produced a savvy politico?
Anyway, Bush's transformation sort of mirrors my own, as I used to be the traditional, isolationist Republican, and now I truly believe that we must be the global policeman and not do it on the cheap (Bush hasn't caught up with me here yet). I really don't have a problem with Bush or the GOP contradicting themselves on earlier platforms or campaign pledges ("no more nation-building!"). It's cliche, but 9/11 changed *everything*.
And now Iraq has changed *everything* too.
(I actually think Bush is keen on the Mars, stuff, but not for scientific reasons, more out of nationalism and nostalgia for "the good old days." Fine by me. Whatever gets us back to the moon. I mean, Mars was on nobody's radar this year, and the media (even the conservative media) couldn't care less about the Vision for Space Exploration. But Bush still ordered a 2.5% budget increase in NASA for 2006. I think he means it. I really hope he does.)
If anything that Euro play warranted a posting for the Tony Blair cameo at the end. That's what sold me.
Post a Comment
<< Home