If you tuned in to President Bush's Thursday night press conference to understand his point of view on Iraq, you got what you came for. If you tuned in to find out whether he understood yours, tough luck. That was the deal when we traded in Bill Clinton for Bush. We got a president who understood the difference between truth and lying. We gave up one who understood everything in between. The upside is that our president is doing the right thing in Iraq. The downside is that he can't talk anyone else into going along.
Clinton was famous for seeing three sides of a two-sided issue. There was the time he agreed with the congressional majority on the Persian Gulf war but said he shared the concerns of the minority. There was the time he lamented having raised people's taxes too much. And of course, there was the time he pondered the meanings of "is."
Bush suffers no such ambivalence. Everything he knows about foreign policy, he learned in kindergarten: Love your neighbor, stand by your friends, honor your word. Thursday night, a reporter asked whether Bush held a grudge against Saddam Hussein. "I swore to protect and defend the Constitution," said Bush. "I put my hand on the Bible and took that oath. And that's exactly what I am going to do." He described the United Nations the same way: "The fundamental question facing the Security Council is, will its words mean anything?"
Bush has no trouble calling a lie a lie. While French sophisticates parse the adequacy of Iraq's latest ploy, Bush sees Saddam's game as a whole. "These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade," said Bush. As for those who preach peace, the president observed, "Allowing a dangerous dictator to defy the world and harbor weapons of mass murder and terror is not peace at all. It is pretense."
But sometimes, things aren't black and white. Sometimes they're gray. When the governments of France, China, or Mexico don't see things your way, you have to start the process of persuasion by understanding where they're coming from. That's where Clinton was at his best and Bush is at his worst. Four times at his press conference, Bush was asked why other countries weren't seeing things our way. Four times, he had no idea.
Bloomberg News reporter Dick Keil asked Bush why American allies who had seen U.S. intelligence on Iraq didn't agree that the threat was sufficient to require war. Bush replied that other countries agreed with him. Fox News reporter Jim Angle asked why "so many people around the world take a different view." Bush replied that protest was healthy but that it wouldn't change his opinion—as though the question had been about his opinion. ABC News correspondent Terry Moran asked why "so many governments and peoples around the world now not only disagree with you very strongly, but see the U.S. under your leadership as an arrogant power." Bush replied that the world would come around. Finally, Fort Worth Star-Telegram reporter Ron Hutcheson asked Bush about critics who feared war would destabilize the Middle East: "Do you ever worry, maybe in the wee, small hours, that you might be wrong, and they might be right?" Bush didn't budge. "I know we'll prevail," he said. "And out of that disarmament of Saddam will come a better world."
Again and again, Bush was asked to explain why other nations didn't see things his way. Again and again, he changed the subject to himself and his supporters.
At one point, Bush declared that Iraq's failure to disarm "cannot be denied." At another, he said of Saddam's compliance with U.N. resolutions, "It's hard to believe anybody is saying he isn't in defiance of 1441." At no point did Bush grapple with the fact that Iraq's failure to disarm is being denied and that other governments are saying Saddam isn't in defiance of 1441.
"I pray daily," Bush told the press corps. "I pray for guidance and wisdom and strength." Oh, well. Two out of three ain't bad.
Remarks From The Fray:
I guess my first response would be to ask Saletan how he defines "guidance." I'm trying to figure how he gets two out of three. I'm short one. (For me, 'bad counsel' is not guidance.)
-- zinya
(To reply, click here.)
Saletan points out and others echo the failure of Bush to make an accounting for why others don't see things his way. They find fault with him for not answering this question directly. However, if Bush were to speculate about other's feelings or motivations would he be doing his country any favors by saying what he thinks? How would this answer play?-
"I don't know, Hutch, I think the French and the Russians have got too much investment and oil contract opportunities on the line to back what is obviously best for the world in the long term."
or
"Those Chinese are just busting my balls because they want me to placate the Koreans and give a little on the One China Policy"...
Really, is that what you expect him to do?
Instead of finding fault in his presentation perhaps we should be happy that we have a President that sincerely believes he's doing the right thing by his country and stands his ground. If he is completely unconcerned with international opinion, and his actions over the last six months seemed to indicate the opposite, then that is a fault and one that will come back to bite him. But he isn't President of Germany, he's President of the United States. His job is to do what is best for his country and sometimes that is contrary to other's opinion or motivations
-- Loran
(To reply, click here.)
this is really just so much crap. the reason the french and the germans and all the rest liked clinton is that he never required anything of them. that's particularly true on iraq, where the situation was allowed to fester for years, as we saw all the sides. we had strong words, but we understood how others could disagree, and they did. what's so impressive in maintaining that status quo? something impressive would be bringing a coalition around to end the problem, but that won't happen.
it won't happen in large part because the nation's that are not with us sense an opportunity to use the international order to hem us in, to make us feel as inconsequential and powerless as they are in fact. if they could accomplish that, it would be truly an accomplishment. but they won't, and we'll end up with a more dangerous world as a result of their efforts.
what to do with nations that oppose new resolutions because they favor a 'multipolar' world, as if that were the issue? treat them as the rivals they are, and defeat them.
what to do with nations that insist, despite the evidence and despite the plain words of the UN resolutions, that the facts aren't the facts? ignore them. move on. focus on the problem at hand. and let the international institutions that they would use to hamstring us die.
(better yet: actively kill these institutions. veto every measure brought before the security council. veto, in particular, any effort by france to extend its adventure in the ivory coast. practice the same bad faith they practice, with the same smile and the same snide remarks. then let them kill the UN. we'll do something else, or nothing else, and be better off no matter what.)
-- Doubter
(To reply, click here.)
"this is really just so much crap."
I agree. However, you continue writing, so here goes.
"the reason the french and the germans and all the rest liked clinton is that he never required anything of them."
Or, perhaps, its because he treated them like independent nation-states, rather than like disobedient children.
"that's particularly true on iraq, where the situation was allowed to fester for years, as we saw all the sides."
Again, it is not our situation. It is the United Nations' situation.
"we had strong words, but we understood how others could disagree, and they did. what's so impressive in maintaining that status quo?"
Well, for one, it contained Saddam within his borders, and second, it acknowledged that other nations are not puppets of the United States.
"it won't happen in large part because the nation's that are not with us sense an opportunity to use the international order to hem us in, to make us feel as inconsequential and powerless as they are in fact."
Are you sure the only reason the French and Germans liked Clinton was that he didn't require of them? Or is calling them powerless and inconsequential supposed to fill them with love for us?
"if they could accomplish that, it would be truly an accomplishment. but they won't, and we'll end up with a more dangerous world as a result of their efforts."
Dangerous to whom? There are a lot of people who are less than excited about the prospect of a United States that uses its vast military power wherever and whenever it feels like, international law be damned. I am a loyal American, and *I* am less than excited about this prospect.
"what to do with nations that oppose new resolutions because they favor a 'multipolar' world, as if that were the issue? treat them as the rivals they are, and defeat them."
And this statement would be one reason why I am less than excited about this prospect.
"what to do with nations that insist, despite the evidence and despite the plain words of the UN resolutions, that the facts aren't the facts?"
No one is denying any facts. What is occurring is a disagreement over what to do about them.
"? ignore them. move on. focus on the problem at hand. and let the international institutions that they would use to hamstring us die."
So if the UN does not act as a rubber stamp for US policy, just ignore it? And this would make us different than Saddam how, exactly?
"better yet: actively kill these institutions. veto every measure brought before the security council."
We have already done this, in the case of any and all resolutions condemning Israel.
"we'll do something else, or nothing else, and be better off no matter what."
In our increasingly smaller and vastly more interconnected world, I simply don't see how less international communication and cooperation would make us better off.
-- Scribe57
(To reply, click here.)(3/7)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Happy Birthday, Smokey Bear
Are Gas Grills More Eco-Friendly Than Charcoal Ones?
He-Man: Briefs of Rage and Other Toy-Inspired Movies We're Dying To See
Kaus: Seven Possible Theories Explaining Palin's Resignation
The U.S. Embassy in Djibouti Cordially Invites You to a Fourth of July Cookout
The Week's Best Editorial Cartoons
Remarks From The Fray:
I guess my first response would be to ask Saletan how he defines "guidance." I'm trying to figure how he gets two out of three. I'm short one. (For me, 'bad counsel' is not guidance.)
-- zinya
(To reply, click here.)
Saletan points out and others echo the failure of Bush to make an accounting for why others don't see things his way. They find fault with him for not answering this question directly. However, if Bush were to speculate about other's feelings or motivations would he be doing his country any favors by saying what he thinks? How would this answer play?-
"I don't know, Hutch, I think the French and the Russians have got too much investment and oil contract opportunities on the line to back what is obviously best for the world in the long term."
or
"Those Chinese are just busting my balls because they want me to placate the Koreans and give a little on the One China Policy"...
Really, is that what you expect him to do?
Instead of finding fault in his presentation perhaps we should be happy that we have a President that sincerely believes he's doing the right thing by his country and stands his ground. If he is completely unconcerned with international opinion, and his actions over the last six months seemed to indicate the opposite, then that is a fault and one that will come back to bite him. But he isn't President of Germany, he's President of the United States. His job is to do what is best for his country and sometimes that is contrary to other's opinion or motivations
-- Loran
(To reply, click here.)
this is really just so much crap. the reason the french and the germans and all the rest liked clinton is that he never required anything of them. that's particularly true on iraq, where the situation was allowed to fester for years, as we saw all the sides. we had strong words, but we understood how others could disagree, and they did. what's so impressive in maintaining that status quo? something impressive would be bringing a coalition around to end the problem, but that won't happen.
it won't happen in large part because the nation's that are not with us sense an opportunity to use the international order to hem us in, to make us feel as inconsequential and powerless as they are in fact. if they could accomplish that, it would be truly an accomplishment. but they won't, and we'll end up with a more dangerous world as a result of their efforts.
what to do with nations that oppose new resolutions because they favor a 'multipolar' world, as if that were the issue? treat them as the rivals they are, and defeat them.
what to do with nations that insist, despite the evidence and despite the plain words of the UN resolutions, that the facts aren't the facts? ignore them. move on. focus on the problem at hand. and let the international institutions that they would use to hamstring us die.
(better yet: actively kill these institutions. veto every measure brought before the security council. veto, in particular, any effort by france to extend its adventure in the ivory coast. practice the same bad faith they practice, with the same smile and the same snide remarks. then let them kill the UN. we'll do something else, or nothing else, and be better off no matter what.)
-- Doubter
(To reply, click here.)
"this is really just so much crap."
I agree. However, you continue writing, so here goes.
"the reason the french and the germans and all the rest liked clinton is that he never required anything of them."
Or, perhaps, its because he treated them like independent nation-states, rather than like disobedient children.
"that's particularly true on iraq, where the situation was allowed to fester for years, as we saw all the sides."
Again, it is not our situation. It is the United Nations' situation.
"we had strong words, but we understood how others could disagree, and they did. what's so impressive in maintaining that status quo?"
Well, for one, it contained Saddam within his borders, and second, it acknowledged that other nations are not puppets of the United States.
"it won't happen in large part because the nation's that are not with us sense an opportunity to use the international order to hem us in, to make us feel as inconsequential and powerless as they are in fact."
Are you sure the only reason the French and Germans liked Clinton was that he didn't require of them? Or is calling them powerless and inconsequential supposed to fill them with love for us?
"if they could accomplish that, it would be truly an accomplishment. but they won't, and we'll end up with a more dangerous world as a result of their efforts."
Dangerous to whom? There are a lot of people who are less than excited about the prospect of a United States that uses its vast military power wherever and whenever it feels like, international law be damned. I am a loyal American, and *I* am less than excited about this prospect.
"what to do with nations that oppose new resolutions because they favor a 'multipolar' world, as if that were the issue? treat them as the rivals they are, and defeat them."
And this statement would be one reason why I am less than excited about this prospect.
"what to do with nations that insist, despite the evidence and despite the plain words of the UN resolutions, that the facts aren't the facts?"
No one is denying any facts. What is occurring is a disagreement over what to do about them.
"? ignore them. move on. focus on the problem at hand. and let the international institutions that they would use to hamstring us die."
So if the UN does not act as a rubber stamp for US policy, just ignore it? And this would make us different than Saddam how, exactly?
"better yet: actively kill these institutions. veto every measure brought before the security council."
We have already done this, in the case of any and all resolutions condemning Israel.
"we'll do something else, or nothing else, and be better off no matter what."
In our increasingly smaller and vastly more interconnected world, I simply don't see how less international communication and cooperation would make us better off.
-- Scribe57
(To reply, click here.)
(3/7)