[lit-ideas] Re: with or without Bush
- From: Andy Amago <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 19:38:57 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
-----Original Message-----
From: John McCreery <mccreery@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Aug 2, 2004 11:29 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: with or without Bush
On 2004/08/03, at 9:19, Andy Amago wrote [in response to Eric Yost]:
>
>
> Stan maintains that if Bush had not been in office, Bin Laden would
> have been
> captured. As if a change of presidents could alter tactical and
> strategic
> factors that work to Bin Laden's benefit. Taken as a statement of
> convictions,
> Stan's hyperbole is hunky-dory. Taken as a tactical prediction . . .
> well . . .
> it's a fine statement of convictions.
>
>
>
> A.A. Eric, are you that much of a fatalist? Is Bin Laden that much in
> control that if another president had pursued him instead of Iraq,
> with the world's support, nothing would be different?
>
>
It could be, of course, that this whole argument is misconceived, since
the mere presence or absence of one or another president is supposed to
have some magical effect.
A.A. In other words, no matter who the president was, the outcome would have
been an invasion of Iraq instead of an emphasis on hunting down bin Laden with
world cooperation. I'm curious why you believe that.
I remember during the debate between Gore and Bush, a question was postulated
regarding how they would handle a foreign crisis, the details of which I do not
remember. Bush gave an answer that bespoke an unawareness of foreign policy.
Gore shook his head while Bush was answering and gave a different answer that
spoke to a familiarity with international crisis.
J.M. Here is another perspective: My daughter, who was serving on the USS
Carl Vinson in the Arabian Sea during the war in Afghanistan was
outraged by the decision to turn the hunt for Bin Laden over to Afghani
militias, a decision made, she says, to minimize US casualties. Not
only was this tactically stupid, since many of the Afghanis may have
been Bin Laden sympathizers, it said, in effect, we are willing to risk
your blood, not ours, a position that she found morally reprehensible.
A.A. Your daughter realized that Afghanistan is full of bin Laden supporters,
but Bush and his team didn't know that. That's rather amazing isn't it? On
the other hand, it is consistent with invading Iraq when Iran was the threat.
What's that joke? He should have appoint a spell check czar? This is not too
surprising for an administration that went to war based on evidence presented
in a best-selling conspiracy book.
J.M. There is, perhaps, an argument to be made that this decision was a
reflection of the administration's desire to make war on the cheap and
avoid the political blow back of large numbers of American body bags.
But the task of untangling the historical record still lies before us.
A.A. Here I think you are being altogether too generous. Bush isn't bothered
by what happens to middle America. His tax cuts, among other things, were not
designed with any love of the middle class in mind. Also, the very idea of
invading Iraq, especially in the face of massive world opposition, indicates no
concern with body bags.
Andy Amago
Cheers,
John
John L. McCreery
International Vice Chair, Democrats Abroad
Tel 81-45-314-9324
Email mccreery@xxxxxxx
>>Life isn't fair. Democracy should be. <<
To learn more about Democrats Abroad, see these websites
In Japan: http://www.demsjapan.jp
Worldwide: http://www.democratsabroad.org
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
