May 19, 2008 • Vol. 13, No. 34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Main
With Silvio Berlusconi's sweeping back into power in a rather unsurprising general election victory, it's worth taking stock of where Bush's friends and enemies have ended up over the years. The left has long fancied the notion that friendship with Bush was political suicide for foreign leaders, but...
Berlusconi is back.
British PM Tony Blair stepped down after 10 years in power.
Australian PM John Howard was booted after more than ten years in office.
José María Aznar got booted after one term (but mostly because the Spanish gave in to terrorism).
As far as Bush's enemies on the international stage, Chirac and Shroeder were replaced by the less hostile Sarko and Merkel. Conservatives were elected in Canada and Mexico. If Bush isn't popular abroad, and he isn't, it's hard to see how that's hurt the foreign leaders closest to him.
So sayeth two official biographers of the Bush presidency. Faster than usual for an Oliver Stone movie, the film hasn't even entered production and it's already being sharply criticized for favoring left-wing talking points over historical accuracy.
Reactions to the script from the biographers were mixed. They said specific scenes are largely based in fact but noted that the screenplay contains inaccurate and over-the-top caricatures of Bush and his inner circle.
"It leaves you with the impression that the White House is run as a fraternity house with no reverence for hierarchy, the office itself or for the implications of policy," said Robert Draper, author of "Dead Certain: The Presidency of George Bush." "Everybody calling everybody else nicknames and chatting about whether to go to war as if they were chatting about how to bet on a football game really misses the mark of how many White Houses, including this one, are run."
Jacob Weisberg ("The Bush Tragedy") was skeptical about Stone's claim that he wants to make "a fair, true portrait" of Bush. "His saying he is going to be fair to Bush is like Donald Trump saying he is going to be modest," Weisberg quipped.
The dead giveaway that "W" is destined to be nothing more than low-brow ideological porn aimed at satisfying the legions of fanatical anti-Bush fetishists is the release date. Stone wants the filck to be up and running in theaters before the November election. So, unless you believe that a reactionary filmmaker like Oliver Stone is trying to swing the election for McCain, I'd expect something very similar to Nixon: both in storyline and attention to...facts.
My not particularly bold prediction? W tanks at the domestic box office, but soars in European theaters.
Key graph:
“The surge has done more than turn the situation in Iraq around -- it has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror. For the terrorists, Iraq was supposed to be the place where al Qaeda rallied Arab masses to drive America out. Instead, Iraq has become the place where Arabs joined with Americans to drive al Qaeda out. In Iraq, we are witnessing the first large-scale Arab uprising against Osama bin Laden, his grim ideology, and his murderous network. And the significance of this development cannot be overstated. The terrorist movement feeds on a sense of inevitability, and claims to rise on the tide of history. The accomplishments of the surge in Iraq are exposing this myth and discrediting the extremists. When Iraqi and American forces finish the job, the effects will reverberate far beyond Iraq's borders. Osama bin Laden once said: "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse." By defeating al Qaeda in Iraq, we will show the world that al Qaeda is the weak horse.
It's true that the Awakening in Anbar represented the first time that Muslims violently rejected the totalitarian ideology of al Qaeda. One can debate endlessly whether the success of the surge created room for the Awakening or whether the success of the Awakening created room for the surge, but the result is the same. And we have routed al Qaeda from most of the country--the final blow is likely to come soon in Mosul.
The Israeli experience of the last few years offers a real lesson here. They pulled out of Lebanon--unilaterally and not out of military necessity--and Hezbollah claimed victory. More than that, Hezbollah became the vanguard of global jihad. Likewise in Gaza. The Israelis withdrew--unilaterally and not out of military necessity--and Hamas claimed victory. More than that, they overthrew Fatah and radicalized the Palestinian population (really, they are more radical).
If we pull out of Iraq, al Qaeda will claim victory--that much is certain. It will also grow stronger--who would stop it? This is an intolerable outcome. Five years after the initial invasion, nearly 4,000 U.S. troops have died, thousands more have been injured, and much work remains to be done. But it is foolish to think that things couldn't get worse if U.S. troops were to leave, and there is every reason to believe that U.S. troops are finally on the path to victory.
Being a dedicated blogger can be lonely duty -- as the accompanying photo shows. When the president began his address to CPAC at 7:15 (text here), only a few bloggers were there to watch.
Though he has not addressed CPAC since the start of his presidency, Bush seemed very comfortable here. Some of his lines prompted warm and clear responses from his audience -- like the call of 'we love you,' when he spoke about the importance of reaching out lovingly to troubled soul. (Bush's answer back: 'My soul is not that troubled.') He joked about his gray hair, about Dick Cheney being a better vice president than his father was, and about critics like CodePink and MoveOn.org.
The speech overall seemed to reflect the tail end of his administration -- he explained and justified his policies on national security, spending, and social issues, while laying down a marker for his eventual successor. He didn't directly reference the presidential race, or John McCain, except (perhaps) for a reference to how he had listened to the advice of others, and decided to send more troops to Iraq:
One year ago, things were not going well in that country. Terrorists and extremists were succeeding in their efforts to plunge Iraq into chaos. You see, they wanted to deny Iraqis their liberty -- they can't stand freedom; they wanted to establish safe havens in Iraq from which to launch attacks against America and its allies. I strongly believe that America's security and peace in the world depend upon defeating this enemy. (Applause.) So we reviewed our strategy. Things weren't working, I need to know why and what it would take to make things better. And that's why you review a strategy.
I made up my mind. I listened carefully to a lot of folks. And I decided to send more troops into Iraq -- in a dramatic policy shift -- and the policy shift has become known as "the surge."
Bush sounded ambitious -- particularly on fiscal issues. He pressed for reform of entitlements and health care, while declaring himself ready to 'finish strong.' It's too bad that's essentially impossible.
Fiscal conservatives are crying in their beer over the word that the president is unlikely to issue an Executive Order directing agencies to disregard non-binding earmarks. As if to soften the blow, Stephen Moore reports today in the Wall Street Journal's Political Diary (subscription only) that Bush may use an Executive Order to index the capital gains tax for inflation:
We've learned that the White House is seriously considering a plan to index capital gains taxes for inflation as part of its economic stimulus package. This would be done by an executive order by the President, not through legislation. Under the executive order, the Treasury Department would define "cost" in assessing capital gains taxes as "historical cost plus inflation."
It's about time. Such an order would undo an injustice in the tax code that means, as a new National Center for Policy Analysis report puts it, that "investors pay billions of dollars of tax on phantom gains." The American Shareholders Association strongly supports indexation and argues that if Congress were to challenge or overturn President Bush's order, "this would make the November election worth tens of thousands of dollars for millions of Americans. They would not forget."
This idea is anything but new. It was suggested at least as far back as the first Bush presidency, and pro-growth advocates in Congress have introduced legislation to require the change. It has vocal proponents in the current debate as well.
In many ways, the idea seems a no-brainer. In contrast to many other proposed economic 'stimuli,' there's little disagreement that this would help boost economic activity. Further, it would not require Congressional approval, and could be put in place immediately -- rather than months from now. This is in dramatic contrast to most (if not all) of the other proposals currently on the table.
Over at Hot Air, Bryan writes:
What does “justice” mean in the context of jihad, if jihadists perpetrated this attack? When they’re caught, tried and imprisoned in some countries, they remain unapologetic enemies of the rest of the world and they tend to get early parole. If they’re not allowed to escape by allies in strategic government positions. When we capture them and hold them at Guantanamo, “human rights” groups agitate for them and the ACLU goes to bat for them while the MSM reports their fabricated accusations against our personnel as truth, all while the political opposition works to grant them full habeas corpus rights. So what does “justice” mean when these assassins, whoever they may turn out to be, could well have touched off a civil war in a nuclear country?
It should be emphasized that Pakistan has become the main front for al Qaeda not only because of the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the compromises of Musharraf with the radicals, but because al Qaeda in Iraq is being beaten and they are seeking a more vulnerable front. Pakistan has been the second bloodiest theater in the GWOT after Iraq for years now. So while it's all well and good to say that the perpetrators, almost certainly members of al Qaeda, must be brought to justice, as Bryan points out, there is no justice for terrorists. The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.
For weeks we've been wondering whether the clear improvement in the public view of the war in Iraq might lead to improvement in the president's job approval rating. According to Gallup's latest poll, the view of the president improved consistently throughout November, and is now closing in on 40 percent--a mark not seen in more than a year:
A new Gallup Poll, conducted Dec. 6-9, finds 37% of Americans approving of the job George W. Bush is doing as president, an improvement from his recent scores in the low 30s. Meanwhile, 22% of Americans approve of Congress, essentially unchanged from last month. Both Bush's and Congress' ratings remain low by historical standards.
In early November, 31% of Americans approved of Bush as president -- just two points off his term-low rating of 29%. Since then, his rating has improved on each Gallup Poll, and although none of these individual changes have been statistically significant, the long-term increase from 31% in early November to 37% in the new poll is.
What can Congress do to change its low approval rating? Well, refusing to fund the war on terror is bound to lead to a shift of some sort.
The Los Angeles Times reports today on their own polling under the headline "Bush Loses Ground by Military Families":
Families with ties to the military, long a reliable source of support for wartime presidents, disapprove of President Bush and his handling of the war in Iraq, with a majority concluding the invasion was not worth it, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.
The views of the military community, which includes active-duty service members, veterans and their family members, mirror those of the overall adult population, a sign that the strong military endorsement that the administration often pointed to has dwindled in the war's fifth year.
Nearly six out of every 10 military families disapprove of Bush's job performance and the way he has run the war, rating him only slightly better than the general population does.
And among those families with soldiers, sailors and Marines who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, 60% say that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost, the same result as all adults surveyed.
A couple of points in response sent along from a friend:
1.) It asks the families “whether the war was worth it.” The relevant question is not revisiting decisions that were made five years ago, but whether now, as 2007 comes to a close, we should continue with a strategy that is working, that has put al-Qaeda on the run, and that has fostered ground-up reconciliation and cooperation in Iraq paving the way for future troop reductions. Most polls show the number of Americans answering yes to that question is growing. The story does not offer this perspective or acknowledge this trend.
2.) The poll found that 60% of families want our troops to come home either right away or within a year (the only other choice was “stay as long as it takes”). There’s a serious omission though, one which would certainly influence the results: that is, under what circumstances they want that to happen. Would they want them to return home with al-Qaeda or Iran in firm control and building terrorist training grounds? Or would they want them to come home after al-Qaeda has been defeated and Iraq has the security it needs to rebuild its battered society and institutions? We all want our soldier to return safely and as soon as possible. When, though, can’t be answered in a vacuum. General Petraeus has outlined the circumstances under which we can begin to reduce our troop levels – and have already begun to do so. These results show how important it is that we continue to define the choices we face and what victory means.
In today's edition of the Daily Mail:
A front-page piece on today’s Daily Kos gives an insight into a mindset that’s all-too prevalent on the modern left. “As U.S. casualties have continued to drop,” Kossack Brandon Friedman writes, “many people on the anti-Bush side of the aisle have begun to quietly panic in recent days over this question: ‘Could George W. Bush and Frederick Kagan have possibly been right about the surge?’”
There was a “quiet panic” that the surge might be working? That we might be winning the war? Hey, it’s Friedman’s turn of phrase, not mine.
Now, Brandon Friedman doesn’t fit the stereotype of the typical Kos Kid typing away in fury in his mother’s basement. In truth, that stereotype isn’t accurate at all. The typical Kos Kid is middle-aged, has some disposable income, and in some cases left his mother’s basement months ago.
But even having dispelled that myth, it’s worth pointing out exactly who Brandon Friedman is. Friedman is the vice-president of the anti-Iraq war organization VoteVets.org. He served in the infantry in both Iraq and Afghanistan before coming home in 2003. He’s also the author of a book called “The War I Always Wanted.”
Publisher’s Weekly website describes Freidman’s book as a “cynical but appealing memoir by a lieutenant in the elite 101st Airborne (that) recounts his unpleasant times fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. After a quick review of his youth (shy, smart, dreaming of glory), Friedman describes his unit's deployment to Afghanistan after 9/11 to fight the Taliban. Its mission turns out to be guarding an air base, four months of demoralizing boredom followed by urgent orders into battle. The result is an exhausting 11-hour march high into freezing mountains, where the soldiers arrive as the fighting ends. A year later, as American forces invade Iraq in March 2003, Friedman's unit advances almost to Baghdad without encountering resistance but yearning to fight. There follows three months of dull occupation duty until, to everyone's horror, a grenade kills two soldiers on patrol, and the insurgency begins. The author accepts that America needed to fight in Afghanistan, but can't fathom why we invaded Iraq. He does not re-enlist.”
Given his background of serving our country, it’s impossible to believe Friedman was really rooting against the surge, even if he had developed a healthy hatred for George W. Bush. Perhaps Friedman hadn’t considered the implications of his verb and adverb.
Probably the best way to deal with Brandon Friedman’s blog-post is to leave the author and his motives out of it. Better to focus on what he reports seeing on the “anti-Bush side of the aisle:” “Quiet panic” over the possibility that George W. Bush may have been right and that the surge may be working.
Has there ever been a more damning assessment of the modern left written by one of its own?
When, earlier this week, I saw the pictures of the first lady sitting on a pink couch bracketed by, well, you couldn’t quite tell what they were, because they're wearing head-to-toe burqas, I thought she was making a powerful statement. Americans don't force their women to wear those ridiculous outfits, and by all rights they shouldn’t be forced to do so just because they are visiting a Muslim country. We live in a free country--if Muslims (or anyone else trying to go incognito) want to wear those things over here, that’s their prerogative. By the same token, any American woman wishing to brazenly flash a little ankle is also free to do so.
Most Americans traveling the Middle East have little recourse but to don the black sheets, but the first lady certainly does. She can dress as she likes. Which is why I find the image (at right) from Saudi Arabia so disturbing. The first lady represents the American people, she is not a private citizen, and she certainly isn't acting as a private citizen in her tour of the Middle East. That she would oblige her hosts by wearing a shmata on her head is a tacit endorsement of Islam's subjugation of women. Do I expect a visitor to a synagogue to wear a yarmulke? Yes, though I wouldn't force them, and a yarmulke isn't a sign of subordination to another group of people, but to God. And also, radical Jews didn't attack this country, radical Saudi Muslims did. This isn't merely a question of being a polite guest.
And what will happen if Hillary wins the White House in 2008? Will she be expected to don the burqa on her trips to Saudi? One would hope not. Sitting presidents don't take fashion commands from foreign dignitaries, and neither should first ladies. Where are the feminists when we actually need them?
HT Hot Air, LGF
President Bush hosted an event on the White House lawn this morning honoring a number of veterans orgnaizations and support groups including Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission, Vets for Freedom, the American Legion, and Veterans of Foreign Wars.
Here's the transcript:
It's important people hear from you. It's important people hear your voice. And I want to thank you for organizing. I want to thank you not only for the grassroots support of our families, I want to thank you for going up to Capitol Hill. And here's a message I hope you deliver: The Commander-in-Chief wants to succeed -- (applause) -- and the Commander-in-Chief takes seriously the recommendations of our military commanders. General Petraeus came back to the United States to deliver the recommendations he made to me. Inherent in his recommendations is, one, his belief we're succeeding, his belief we will succeed, and I ask the United States Congress to support the troop levels and the strategies I have embraced. (Applause.)
AUDIENCE: USA! USA! USA!
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. When the history books are finally written about this chapter in the war against extremists and radicals, they will recognize certain truths: one, that we recognize that if we were to retreat from the Middle East the enemy would not be content to remain where they are, but they would follow us here. We recognize that the best way to protect our homeland is to defeat an enemy overseas so we do not have to face them here on the streets of America. And we recognize that liberty is powerful, that liberty will yield the peace that we want for generations to come; that will recognize that this generation of Americans did the hard work now, so that future generations could live in security and peace.
And so on this beautiful morning we thank you for your steadfast resolve, we appreciate your support of those brave souls who have volunteered in the face of the danger. We ask for God's blessings on the families and our troop in harm's way. And we thank you from the bottom of our collective hearts. God bless you all.
I thought the president did a pretty good job there. The Corner has the tape of the exchange between Bush and David Gregory in which Gregory tells Bush that Republicans don't trust him anymore and asks how he, the president, can still believe he's "a credible messenger on the war." Paraphrasing Bush's response: you're naive and you're lucky I'm here to protect your children.
Sounds about right to me.
Certainly the most memorable moment of the press conference has to be the president telling the Chinese people: "They need to be eating U.S. beef. It's good for them. They'll like it."
Other than that, Bush said of this country's relationship with China, "This is a complex relationship. There's areas where there's friction, and we just got to work through the friction." Of course, the average American may be a bit more hostile to China than the president. Zogby released a poll yesterday that seems to show Americans generally view China as a serious threat:
The 5,141 U.S. residents who took part in the poll were asked to rate their level of concern regarding China's military buildup, with "1" meaning "not at all concerned" and "5" representing "highly concerned."...
Some 29.7 percent of those surveyed said they were "highly concerned" over China's military buildup, while 33.1 percent gave "4" as a response. Some 24.2 percent gave "3" -- a neutral answer -- and 7.9 percent said "2." Less than 3 percent said they were "not at all concerned" about China's military growth.
64 percent of respondents gave the president poor marks for his handling of the U.S.-China relationship, but there's at least one question about that handling that Bush won't be asked anytime soon: 'Where's the beef?'
|
|
|
|
|
|
