Almost but not quite
Well, the war in Afghanistan thus far successful, the economy on the rebound, I think critics are under a lot of pressure to point out the mans personal flaws. If he is an idiot, yet can successfully manage American affairs, then so be it. He leans a bit too far to the right for my tastes, but I think he has done well
Bowser,
While I agree that the state of things might compel critics to look back toward Bush's personal flaws, what might we then say of the Clinton Inquisition? Not to take issue with the whole of your post, but with this part, I'm curious as to your opinion of Bush's manufacturing of the bad economy. Certes, it was unstable, and this is bad during election season, but it's not just a fiction that I relate when I remind everybody that the economists were screaming that there was no recession despite what the president-elect (-thief?) might have said. Go look up
Time magazine, for instance; actually, someday I'll pull that one out myself, but I admit I'm not that devoted to the point at present. Around January 7, 2001, you'll find an issue with the cover story, "Surviving the Recession". This is the actual start of the recession, for any intents and purposes. A recession has a technical definition that doesn't mean much, but we understand the psychology of financial markets. Recessions seem to make or break elections when they really shouldn't.
So where I run into trouble is the idea that the economy is on the rebound. I'm not sure it ever should have been that far off-track. I would, in fact, accuse the President of deliberately sabotaging the economy with his rhetoric, creating a false-alarm, and thus costing many people their jobs, savings, or retirements, in order to secure power for the GOP. It used to be that when a president needed information, he
asked experts. Every day of the Economic Bush War seems to be a case of the executive telling the experts what reality was.
Okay, and of the Afghan success ... sure. But here I'm wondering. Operation Anaconda has been called a success, but there are still some who insist we won the Vietnam War. It seems that Operation Anaconda is successful in the way Operation Desert Storm was successful; that is, we'll just forget the glaring details.
The remaining Al-Qaeda are "probably non-Afghan" members, yet some remain. What was the expressed mission of Anaconda? Aside from killing some and scattering others, what has been accomplished? I think of Bush: "We wil not falter, we will not fail." I think of Rumsfeld: "We may not ever get bin Laden" and "You're taking me out of context". And now we see the successful missions closing without fulfilling the whole of their goal? What part of the Afghani operation is a success? Is it the sparkling new democracy? The sterling economy? (Yes, I understand these successes take a while; I'm not sure those proclaiming the American success in Afghanistan do.) In the figurative sense, none of it matters if we don't get bin Laden. I'm quite serious when I worry that it's a "race against God", as such. So when bin Laden dies of liver or kidney failure, or cancer or a heart attack, or simply slips away into the night--our experts don't think he's healthy, y'know--it will have the effect of telling
how many fence-sitting would-be extremists that God delivered bin Laden to Paradise and spared him the clutches of the Great Satan. And when that happens, and when the next round is afoot, does that mean we were truly successful?
If the critics are returning to their original complaints about Bush, it might be because none of those issues were ever addressed or resolved, the issues seem to have attained the endorsement from the same bunch that normally disapproves of such, and because those complaints are reflected in the complications of the Afghani Bush War that the people have failed to address.
On the one hand, the people are the people and that's that. If they choose to approve of this lying, hypocritical, self-righteous, incoherent idiot, then so be it. That is reality. It doesn't make it right.
Think of it in terms of Dan Quayle. After he erroneously corrected a student, pundits could be found pointing out archaic spellings of potatoe that Quayle may have been influenced by. Yes, and Lovecraft writes the word
antient (ancient) but it doesn't make
antient a word in the present, regardless of what authority Lovecraft holds in his field.
Take the analogous leap. Even though the successes of the Bush Wars are accepted, they are not by the relevant standards; e.g. we are faltering.
And this isn't so much of a problem, except for the megalomaniac way in which Bush bandied around words when speaking while angry. This is a holy war for Americans, and that's flat absurd. Faltering is a normal part of the process, but we have declared that we shall not, and so the world wonders. Perhaps it breathes a sigh of relief, though, since we chose to falter instead of blindly destroying
everything. The most frightening aspect of
that, however, is that this relief comes because of a
blunder--the inability to quickly accomplish our declared goals--and not deliberate wisdom--e.g. understanding that, despite being the good guys, we can't kick the world around like this.
So, on the one hand, if the critics are picking on personal aspects of the man, it's because they already were, long before he was "elected" (
). To the other, if they're picking on the personal aspects of the man, it's because character was made an issue by his own faction of supporters. And, to yet another, if they're picking on the personal aspects of the man, it may be because those personal failures are reflecting in his performance of his duties.
At this point, Bush would do the world the greatest service by simply trouncing all international and constitutional restraints, visiting a scourge of death and ambition upon the world, and then resigning from office and surrendering to the World Court, offering the defense, "Well, I did it. At least there's that."
It has the same effect. Dragging it out and calling it right when it's not is a worse crime than to simply circumvent the law and be done with it.
Like I said,
Bowser, there's not much of that post that I argue with. But this, it was a springboard. Afghanistan is only a success if we lower our standards. Of course, that's just my opinion, or something like that.
I suppose the key lies where you note that you have yet to feel the consequences of the administration. We might just measure by a different stick. In fact, I'm sure of it. Be that as it may, though, I must disagree with the notion that critics focus on Bush's personal aspects for lack of legitimate ammunition.
thanx,
Tiassa
