You’ll probably dismiss this as another case of my “arrogant, retarded jingoism,” but I’ll take a crack at refuting some of your finer arguments:
He stole the election in the first place.
“Stole the election?” No. The man was put into office via the Electoral College and confirmed via the Supreme Court of the United States of America to have won the election of November 2000. Whether or not you place much stock in the popular vote, it has no true
legal value other than as an indicator. Members of the Electoral College are
intended but
not required to vote along with their constituencies. They might have done you an ideological or philosophical disservice, but that does not mean our system was crushed underfoot.
You might not have expected this to come down to the Electoral College, but that’s what happened. It’s occurred before. Remember President Samuel B. Tilden? Oh, that’s right, Rutherford B. Hayes made a deal with the Democratic Party ensuring that Tilden would
never ascend despite gaining the popular vote. Technically, their agreement was legal even if not in Tilden’s own best interest. There are plenty of loopholes and bear traps in our system which become pertinent from time to time. It does not mean that crimes were committed. It should at least salve your conscience to know that Bush had over forty-nine percent of the popular vote. One can credibly say that approximately half of the United States pushed the Republican lever.
For the sake of argument – not that it necessarily matters here or with our system -, you might as well acknowledge how much more advanced our democracy is in terms of recognizing your rights as compared to others. At the very least you can
usually expect the Electoral College to heed your own private ballot. Britons cannot even vote directly for a Prime Minister, only for a seat in Parliament. The French were faced last year with a choice between long-standing leader (fourteen years, to be exact) Jacques Chirac and a neo-Nazi, Jean-Marine Le Pen. Big surprise at
that outcome. Want to talk about the Russian Federation? Most people credibly identify Vladimir Putin as a thinly veiled dictator. At least you
get to vote as an individual.
He's arrogant, stupid, and aggressive.
“Arrogant?” Okay, I’ll bite. Bush can be extremely grating sometimes and has shown unilateral tendencies that both anger and alarm. But a significant degree of the backlash comes in the radical difference of his approach as compared to that of Bill Clinton, far more a globalistic leader. You also need to understand that the new administration identifies itself as having to fend off rather than cooperate with the United Nations. The White House is now managed by an administration patently out for the best interests of the United States of America and its allies rather than humanity as a whole. Despite George W. Bush and his moralistic outlook, we have rarely been in so unique a position since before the Second World War.
Europe is flexing its muscles as a whole now, competing with the United States as Cold War alliances thaw. Bush understands that after the Iraqis, our next big concern might just be corporate skirmishing. Clinton enjoyed a less-than tense relationship with the Chinese, yes. But Bush successfully maneuvered his way through a dangerous crisis involving an American spy plane and is now at least credibly engaging Hu Jintao on his own turf. Any President would have had hang-ups over Korea. At this point in time, Bush gets five stars not merely for effort. The Middle East has never been a more complicated region. Clinton never dreamed he’d have to manage affairs with a heavy hand – probably to our detriment.
A great deal of Bush’s arrogance comes out of his defiance of treaty agreements that mean next to nothing anyway. Kyoto? I agree that was handled badly. As has been suggested in the past, Bush should have pandered to it for the sake of show and then let Congress blast it down. But the ABM treaty? North Korea has proven its worth and at this stage, most analysts predict that nothing bad will come of it. Our closest competitors already enjoy the MAD capability. Not even a new anti-ballistic missile shield will tilt that balance appreciably. The International Criminal Court? Again, Bush is being slammed for something to which he could never agree. Just like the landmine treaty, it binds the hands of the most active militarily. How would you feel right now if Saddam tried to capitalize on international goodwill by demanding that certain American generals assaulting Baghdad appear before the ICC? Can you imagine what would happen if the Russians and Chinese, out of “desire for legitimate investigation,” actually
echoed Iraq’s demands?
“Stupid?” No. Bush might have choked on a pretzel, but I’m sure you’ve had trouble swallowing a mouthful of food at some time in your life. Shall I now call you “idiot” and proceed to insult you mercilessly? A C-average report card? Well, Bill Gates managed that one. And he didn’t even
finish college. All of the most in-depth coverage suggests that Bush is privately a very sharp, personable man with a keen grasp of international affairs not immediately evident when he tries to maintain a façade of legalese against prying cameras. The man minces words, granted, but at least he doesn’t look as if he’s about to cry hysterically after finishing ever sentence. Remember Clinton’s baby face?
Aggressive? Afghanistan was a foregone conclusion. Gore would have been labeled equally as “dangerous” by the international community. As for Iraq, you can call Bush out all you like. The fact of the matter is that nobody could copy our example even if they tried. We aren’t setting any kind of “new precedent” because we ourselves will end military preemption once Hussein is out. Period. Aside from a few missiles falling on a nuclear facility nearing completion in Tehran, I seriously doubt whether any kind of large-scale fire force will be seen roving around the Middle East once Baghdad is under Coalition control and the Republic of Iraq reconstituted. Aside from their being correct about his proactive attitude, critics of Bush are wrong that his outlook is really very dangerous.
He turned the world against our country.
Yes and no. He could have handled the situation far better, but Chirac and Schroeder, I am now convinced, would have been equally as stubborn about elevating UNMOVIC as a means to an end in and of itself. If Bush hadn’t gone in, we’d face massive humiliation and embolden a whole slew of dictators to flock and rally around around Europe, hoping desperately to capitalize on the new waves of independence. Our enemies are testing the waters with the help of a huge base of critics here at home, blasting the American President as much for his character as for his vision. The fact of the matter is that his war will do more good than bad in the end. Many protestors are out there only to be heard. A great deal have absolutely no strategic outlook worthy of the name. Others are idealistic past the point of reason. There’s no way Bush could have won this one.
The world will in time come to appreciate America once the EU begins becoming more aggressive. By the end of this whole debacle in Iraq, the United Nations will again be sated and Hans Blix discredited entirely. Anti-Americanism will remain a powerful force, yes, but how much of that was inevitable? Clinton enjoyed a calm before the storm so to speak, riding the last waves of the Cold War era. Now, it’s a far more autonomous Europe and a far more critical post-war populace.
He's taken us to war at the cost of the lives of soldiers with bright futures for bullshit reasons.
That’s an opinion. I’m sure you already know I disagree completely. I truly believe Bush when he suggests that there is no full disarmament without régime-change.
He did nothing about the Enron, Worldcom, etc. scandals.
What could he have done but respond retroactively?
He cut taxes for the rich, and cut programs for the poor.
That’s always been a staple of the Republican ticket.
He promotes destruction of the wall between church and state.
Not necessarily. Support for faith-based charities doesn’t really bring the government into league with any extremists. We’re not going to form the Church of the United States of America here. And perhaps it is time we look to religion. We’ve seen what impact it has elsewhere. Why not pump our money into faith-based initiatives?
He's a liar (eg. "Saddam and his terrorist allies").
Hussein does have terrorist allies as far as I can tell. And if you think you’ve never been lied to by an American President before, you’re quite naïve. Not to mention that Chirac, Schroeder, Putin, and others are far worse by any stretch of the imagination.
He's an ex-cokehead turned born-again. Honestly, when your president has the characteristics of the Bible thumping McDonald's employee who shows up at everyone's high-school reunion, we've got some serious fucking problems.
Oh please. You don’t think early Presidents at one time in their lives smoked opium? Clinton “lit up.”
The people that do his thinking for him are some of the worst, most immoral people on the face of the planet (make no mistake, the real Axis of Evil is Ashcroft, Cheney, and Rumsfeld).
And it’s worse than Chirac, Schroeder, Putin, Hu, and Hussein? We’ve got to have pragmatic people in office.
He's pissed all over the Bill of Rights with this Patriot Act horseshit. Perhaps you haven't noticed that you don't have the right to due process or trial by jury anymore.
These are changing times. Has your daily routine
really changed? Now I’m not saying we shouldn’t have handled this with kit gloves or that I like the idea that my Muslim neighbors could be carted off, but I’m saying that even without the Patriot Act, some of this stuff was bound to happen. And by and large, a relatively small percentage of the nation.
You call Bush “the lesser of two evils?”
I agree with Kelly. Gore – nor Nader for that matter – would have been any better. Probably a lot worse.
By the way, a terrorist camp was struck by cruise missiles in Northern Iraq killing about a hundred terrorist fighters. If you're going to come up with an example of his lying please actually find one.
