lily
01-24-2007, 10:31 PM
Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16779495/site/newsweek/?rf=nwnewsletter)
A Man Apart
Bush is sticking to his vision, no matter what Congress and the country
think.
WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY
By Howard Fineman
Updated: 11:42 p.m. ET Jan 23, 2007
Jan. 23, 2007 - George W. Bush wanted to be Harry Truman (patron saint of
embattled presidents) in his State of the Union speech, but he may have
reminded voters of Slim Pickens in "Dr. Strangelove." You know the famous
scene: the giddy pilot in a cowboy hat hops aboard his own payload to
Armageddon.
Say this about the president: he is going to stick with his vision, his
strategy and his decisions on Iraq—no matter what the world, the American
voters, the new Democratic Congress, the ’08 presidential contenders or even
his fellow Republicans want.
All the buzz before the speech was that Bush would do something of a quick
shuffle past Iraq. Yes, there was much domestic throat clearing—more than a
half hour’s worth of it (though not a single mention of Katrina and New
Orleans)—but when it came time to turn to Iraq and the “war on terror” he
did not flinch.
Nothing he said was remarkably new—which, in and of itself, was nothing
short of remarkable.
Bush said, with all earnestness, that his goal in Iraq and the Middle East
was—and our goal must be—to “remove conditions that inspire hatred” there.
However, it is hard to find a dispassionate observer of the war who thinks
that we have achieved that goal. Sadly, even many of our own military people
say that just the opposite is true. Our presence has inflamed hatred, not
doused it.
Without a trace of irony, he told the Congress: “Whatever you voted for, you
did not vote for failure.” But most Americans have concluded that we already
have failed.
The speech was worlds away from the dim and dolorous address he gave the
other week on the details of his new Iraq strategy—troop escalation,
reinforcement or surge. Surrounded by the bright lights and trappings of
authority, he was workmanlike and confident. Measured by the number of times
he got Speaker Nancy Pelosi to stand up and applaud, he did a decent job of
suggesting measures that he and the Democratic Congress could work on
together.
But all of that was beside the point. The war in Iraq has cost 3,000 lives,
half a trillion dollars and, just as important, has cost the United States
precious standing and moral authority in the world at large. All of that
will damage us diplomatically, militarily and economically. The dollar is
down, the euro is up; America, sadly, is regarded in much of the world as
almost as great a threat to peace as the “evil” people we have been fighting
for six years.
None of that seems to matter much to the president.
He seems to live in a different world. Most of us increasingly live in a
wiki world, where the digital, online search for information and
enlightenment is a collaborative enterprise—the cumulative, exponential
power of many minds.
Our president, whom I used to view as a gregarious man, does not scour the
world for information. He likes the “one riot, one ranger” theory of life.
I think back to 2000, and remember the bus he rented on the campaign trail
in New Hampshire. It had a big captain’s chair, and even a small Persian rug
and a clock on the wall, but there was something isolating about it—it was
not configured to accommodate a big crowd of people gathering around. He
seemed to be relieved to escape into it.
No, he wants the Democrats to join him in creating a “special advisory
council on the war on terror.” It may be a little late for that—like asking
them to join him for the payload ride down.
A Man Apart
Bush is sticking to his vision, no matter what Congress and the country
think.
WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY
By Howard Fineman
Updated: 11:42 p.m. ET Jan 23, 2007
Jan. 23, 2007 - George W. Bush wanted to be Harry Truman (patron saint of
embattled presidents) in his State of the Union speech, but he may have
reminded voters of Slim Pickens in "Dr. Strangelove." You know the famous
scene: the giddy pilot in a cowboy hat hops aboard his own payload to
Armageddon.
Say this about the president: he is going to stick with his vision, his
strategy and his decisions on Iraq—no matter what the world, the American
voters, the new Democratic Congress, the ’08 presidential contenders or even
his fellow Republicans want.
All the buzz before the speech was that Bush would do something of a quick
shuffle past Iraq. Yes, there was much domestic throat clearing—more than a
half hour’s worth of it (though not a single mention of Katrina and New
Orleans)—but when it came time to turn to Iraq and the “war on terror” he
did not flinch.
Nothing he said was remarkably new—which, in and of itself, was nothing
short of remarkable.
Bush said, with all earnestness, that his goal in Iraq and the Middle East
was—and our goal must be—to “remove conditions that inspire hatred” there.
However, it is hard to find a dispassionate observer of the war who thinks
that we have achieved that goal. Sadly, even many of our own military people
say that just the opposite is true. Our presence has inflamed hatred, not
doused it.
Without a trace of irony, he told the Congress: “Whatever you voted for, you
did not vote for failure.” But most Americans have concluded that we already
have failed.
The speech was worlds away from the dim and dolorous address he gave the
other week on the details of his new Iraq strategy—troop escalation,
reinforcement or surge. Surrounded by the bright lights and trappings of
authority, he was workmanlike and confident. Measured by the number of times
he got Speaker Nancy Pelosi to stand up and applaud, he did a decent job of
suggesting measures that he and the Democratic Congress could work on
together.
But all of that was beside the point. The war in Iraq has cost 3,000 lives,
half a trillion dollars and, just as important, has cost the United States
precious standing and moral authority in the world at large. All of that
will damage us diplomatically, militarily and economically. The dollar is
down, the euro is up; America, sadly, is regarded in much of the world as
almost as great a threat to peace as the “evil” people we have been fighting
for six years.
None of that seems to matter much to the president.
He seems to live in a different world. Most of us increasingly live in a
wiki world, where the digital, online search for information and
enlightenment is a collaborative enterprise—the cumulative, exponential
power of many minds.
Our president, whom I used to view as a gregarious man, does not scour the
world for information. He likes the “one riot, one ranger” theory of life.
I think back to 2000, and remember the bus he rented on the campaign trail
in New Hampshire. It had a big captain’s chair, and even a small Persian rug
and a clock on the wall, but there was something isolating about it—it was
not configured to accommodate a big crowd of people gathering around. He
seemed to be relieved to escape into it.
No, he wants the Democrats to join him in creating a “special advisory
council on the war on terror.” It may be a little late for that—like asking
them to join him for the payload ride down.