1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

What historians think of the Bush presidency.

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by No Worries, Dec 1, 2003.

  1. No Worries

    No Worries Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    29,840
    Likes Received:
    16,695
  2. RocketMan Tex

    RocketMan Tex Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    18,452
    Likes Received:
    116
    Mr. GARRY WILLS (Presidential Historian):: Well, I think it was a great lost opportunity. Right after the attack on the World Trade Center, the whole world coalesced around us. NATO suspended its rules. They were--there was an outpouring of genuine feeling. And we had the chance then to go to the world, to the UN, and to say, `This is an attack on all of us. This is a crime. And we have to mobilize police forces to chase down these people in whatever country they're in. And we need your intelligence, we need your help, we need cooperation. This is a worldwide thing.' And instead we rebuffed them, we said we didn't need them. We offered to have pre-emptive war. We went on our own. We gave contracts only to our own. We made it clear that we didn't want anything but money and bodies, not anybody to help us, to advise us, to work with us. Great opportunity lost.

    I couldn't have said it better myself.
     
  3. Woofer

    Woofer Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2000
    Messages:
    3,995
    Likes Received:
    1
    A lot of talk in the US press about democracy. a lot of inaction to back it up in the Middle East.


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29621-2003Dec2.html

    Realities Overtake Arab Democracy Drive
    Autocratic Allies and Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Sometimes Block U.S. Efforts
    By Glenn Kessler and Robin Wright
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Wednesday, December 3, 2003; Page A22


    In stark contrast to the president's four powerful speeches this year pledging to promote democracy in the Middle East, the Bush administration has settled on a combination of gentle nudging and modest funding to achieve its ambitious goals, U.S. officials say.



    Policy is constrained by the realities of the Middle East, they say, making it difficult to quickly switch tactics.

    The administration's closest Arab allies are still cited by the State Department as among the world's worst human rights abusers. U.S. aid is still dictated more often by the Arab-Israeli conflict than promoting democracy, officials acknowledge. And U.S. policy still gives greater priority to soliciting help with the war on terrorism than urging political and economic reforms.

    The policy dilemma is reflected again this week, as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell travels to Algeria and Tunisia, in part to thank them for supporting counterterrorism efforts. Both countries have secular governments backed by large security forces that have used torture, arbitrary arrest and extra-judicial killings to stave off popular pro-democracy groups.

    In a letter to Powell, Human Rights Watch said the trip will be a strong indication of how the administration follows up on its pledge to foster Arab democracy.

    "Powell should declare publicly in Algiers [and] Tunis that the fight against terror must not be waged at the expense of human rights," said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director of Human Rights Watch.

    In Tunis yesterday, Powell urged new political openings, but also praised the "excellent partnership" between Tunisia and the United States, and said he was a "great admirer of Tunisia and the progress that it has seen under President [Zine Abidine] Ben Ali." Ben Ali has been in office for 16 years and won his last election in 1999 with 99.44 percent of the vote.

    Nowhere is the balancing act more apparent than in Egypt, which is the second-largest recipient of U.S. aid but also is ruled by one of the Arab world's most autocratic regimes.

    Egypt has a veto over what Egyptian institutions can get U.S. aid, a provision that effectively blocks funding of human rights groups and government critics. For years, not one penny of U.S. aid to Egypt has gone to the Arab world's most outspoken democracy advocate, Saad Eddin Ibrahim, or his Ibn Khaldun Center for Development in Cairo. Funds labeled by Washington as promoting democracy ended up being used for projects such as sludge removal.

    In an attempt to change this situation, Washington is trying to negotiate an agreement with Egypt that would allow it to channel about $20 million directly to independent organizations to promote democracy, including Ibrahim's program, U.S. officials said. Yet the funds are still only a sliver of the nearly $2 billion in annual U.S. military and economic aid.

    And the largest single chunk, $1.3 billion, still goes for Egypt's security forces, which have been repeatedly cited by the State Department's human rights report for torture, prolonged detentions without charge and other abuses.

    Despite U.S. concerns about Egyptian democracy, it seeks Egypt's cooperation in the effort to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. President Bush yesterday spoke to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on the lagging Middle East peace process and also discussed a possible meeting.

    The U.S. policy conundrum also plays out in Iraq, where the administration launched a war in the name of toppling a dictator and creating a democratic model for the Arab world -- but finds its own tactics under fire.

    Human Rights Watch recently criticized the United States for "a pattern of overaggressive tactics, indiscriminate shootings in residential areas and a quick reliance on lethal force," and for the deaths of 94 civilians in "questionable circumstances."


    .
    .
    .
     
  4. IROC it

    IROC it Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 1999
    Messages:
    12,629
    Likes Received:
    88
    The problem with this concept is that you can't really take the views of historian with such a heavily slanted view a historian view... Historians are reputable based on facts, research and concurrance over time, as in the historian view of Pharoah, or Napolean, the ancient Greeks, etc.

    This view is obviously tainted (seen partisanly or not, it's similar to jury selection)... and no one knows if Bush's tenure is totally up... it's not totally "history" yet.

    It's like saying the 2003-2004 Rockets were a dissapointment and a lost opportunity without finishing the season to see if that really panned out that way or not.

    Only counting initial and early results without knowing the long lasting effects and results is not understanding what "history" means.

    This is premature, and goes with speculative half facts based on opinion... and that's not what a true historian does.

    Detective Friday said it best... "Just the facts, ma'am."
     
  5. No Worries

    No Worries Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    29,840
    Likes Received:
    16,695
    It is too premature to write a comprehensive history of the the first three years of the GWB presidency. It is not premature to discuss major historical events of the GWB's first three years, i.e. events which any future comprehensive history could not exclude.
     
  6. goophers

    goophers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2000
    Messages:
    888
    Likes Received:
    16
    I would think that the historian that RMTex quoted would remember history a little better. Bush did most of the stuff that the historian said he should, in Afghanistan. It wasn't until Iraq that he rebuffed allies, etc. Interesting read, even if somewhat slanted.
     
  7. Timing

    Timing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    5,308
    Likes Received:
    1

    I believe he's referring to the US going it mostly alone in the initial military phases of Afghanistan. It wasn't until the occupation that we allowed other nations to help out.
     
  8. goophers

    goophers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2000
    Messages:
    888
    Likes Received:
    16
    When he says "We offered to have pre-emptive war" he is referring to Afghanistan? It sounded to me like he skipped to Iraq.
     
  9. Timing

    Timing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    5,308
    Likes Received:
    1

    I was just pointing out that we rebuffed allies in Afghanistan. Since the beginning we've said we didn't need people, it didn't just start with pre-emptive war.
     
  10. Deuce Rings

    Deuce Rings Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,759
    Likes Received:
    2,618
    A lot of people share this view, but if you look at the facts and the events and how they transpired, the US did ask for help and it was the Europeans, lead by the French and the Germans, who decided to take a stand against the US on the issue (see video of Schroeder and Chirac shaking hands and patting each other on the back while agreeing to block the US attempt to create a coalition only a week after assuring Colin Powell that they had our back). The US has been painted as the bad guy in this mess by the international community which, whether you like it or not, harbors a general jealousy and dislike for Americans. Pop into any European pub and you'll see what I'm talking about. Everyone hates the man on the mountain top and in this era that man is the US. A general dislike for this administration created largely by unfair accusations in the ongoing partisan, political war in Washington lead to views like the one in this article in the present, but I think history will record the facts right in the end.
     
  11. Deuce Rings

    Deuce Rings Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,759
    Likes Received:
    2,618
    The US never said they didn't need allies, they said they did not wish to deal with the UN and why the hell should they since the UN has become a tool for curbing US power more than it is about solving international issues going back 15 years now.
     
  12. GreenVegan76

    GreenVegan76 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,336
    Likes Received:
    1
    Personally, I think historians will look back on Bush as the "WTF? President," but it's WAY too early to put his presidency into any kind of meaningful historical context.

    He still has another year (at least) and presidential policies can reach decades into the future. Check back in 2053, and then we'll have a better idea of where Dubya "ranks" historically among White House occupants.
     
  13. Buck Turgidson

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    84,995
    Likes Received:
    83,160
    We had many allies on the ground & in the skies of Afghanistan. The French flew the second most combat sorties, England was right behind them; many countries had qualified special forces on the ground (UK, Aussie, France, Canada, Poland, etc...). Outside of resisting a UN-led mission, who did we rebuff?
     
  14. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    494
    France and Germany tried to stop a war that they did not believe was necessary and which, in hindsight, probably wasn't either justified or necessary. The US did not ASK for help, we basically told the world that we were going to invade even if the UN did not approve. They would have "had our back" if we had followed international law and waited for a UN resolution.

    Of course, they couldn't let that happen because the inspectors were about to clear Iraq of the WMD charges and we just couldn't let Saddam stay in power.

    The dislike for Bush has nothing to do with unfair accusations, it has to do with the fact that the world (and half of THIS country) do not agree with the way he handled Iraq. Bush had the entire world on his side after 9/11 and squandered that good will to start an unnecessary, unjustified, illegal war.
     
  15. No Worries

    No Worries Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    29,840
    Likes Received:
    16,695
    Let me break this down for you.

    We invaded Iraq because Iraq did not appear to live up to its UN Security Council resolutions from the earlier Gulf War. Specifcally, the US stated that Iraq still had vast stores of WMD and was reconstituting their nuclear program, both violations of the UNSC resolutions.

    The UNSC was the authority of these resolutions and had the responsibility to determine how compliance was being meet and how to deal with noncompliance.

    The UNSC balked at the US's claims on the extent of Iraq's WMD and noncompliance with its resolutions.

    The other UNSC members preferred re-instating the weapons inspection regime, which the US only assisted in the 11th hour.

    The US supplied WMD intelligence proved to useless to the UN insepction teams (and later just as useless to the post Iraq invasion US lead inspection teams).

    The US invaded Iraq under the banner of UNSC resolutions but without the UNSC's blessing. The US needed the violations of the UNSC resolutions to give it the authority for the invasion. The US needed the UN in this regard.

    BTW, GWB repeatly did say that we would invade Iraq with ot without help from other countries. The GWB Admin also said that the UN and NATO (ie France and Germany) were no longer relevant if they did not go along with the US's pre-emptive invasion.
     
  16. Timing

    Timing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    5,308
    Likes Received:
    1

    From my understand the war was fought almost entirely by Americans, though I do recall a British submarine launching a token missile at the outset which was reported over and over again to make it appear like this huge coalition. The aftermath is where the Brits and French have participated as you mention. I can't find numbers on the actual composition of the actual attack force but I did manage to find this small excerpt which confirms the role of the British in the war. From what I recall, the Pentagon didn't want anyone else taking part in their show until the war was basically over and the peace keeping/manhunts were going down. If you can provide something that says conclusively that Brits and French forces took part in the intial phases I'd like to see it because I don't think that's the case.

    Apart from small number of SAS and Special Boat Service troops who have been hunting down Taliban fighters around Kandahar, Britain's role in the Afghan war has been limited to peacekeeping and infrastructure rebuilding in Kabul, and mid-air refuelling of US warplanes.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,669976,00.html
     
  17. Deuce Rings

    Deuce Rings Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,759
    Likes Received:
    2,618
    I don't need anything broken down for me. I rely on the facts and the facts alone. Don't beleive everything you hear in the news. Develop enough of a background in the issues and the political environments around the world so that you can form your own opinions. That's the only way to the truth these days. In my experience, not many people are capable of analyzing the facts for themselves. Instead they whine and moan about whatever the media and the govt lays out for them.
     
  18. Deuce Rings

    Deuce Rings Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,759
    Likes Received:
    2,618
    And to add to that, take NOTHING at face value which is basically what you've done with everything in your post. I think the US invasion of Iraq had as much to do with WMD's as it had to do with Cheerios. I think the Iraq invasion was an attempt to restructure the middle east, bringing their cultures into the 20th century in order to try and suppress an environment that has high potential to breed fanatics that are willing to kill, destroy anything in the name of their religion. That isn't saying that everyone in the middle east or even the majority of the middle east harbors such feelings, but I lived in Saudi Arabia for 15 years and can tell you first hand that in the rural regions of that country and several other middle eastern countries there has been an anti-western movement on the rise for a decade that has only now been able to organize itself with enough funds to carry out their plans. To these people, non-Muslim = Devil and they are willing to take action to stop the devil whether that mean whipping a woman on the streets for wearing blue jeans or flying 767's into buildings. The best chance of curbing this kind of behavior is educating more of the middle east and THAT is the reason we're in Iraq. WMD's was just a good cover story. I mean the President of the United States can't say "Hey, we're going to socially cleanse the middle east".
     
  19. No Worries

    No Worries Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    29,840
    Likes Received:
    16,695
    OK how about this ...

    The US never said they didn't need allies

    Not factual leading into the war. Factual after the post war occupation did play out like the Pentagon leaders thought.

    they said they did not wish to deal with the UN .

    Sorta true and false. The US did not want the UN to get in its way of invading Iraq, but the US also need a "plausible justification" for the invasion for which the UNSC resolutions fit the bill.

    BTW, I agree with you that the Bush Admin wanted to reshape the Middle East political landscape. Wouldn't Saudi Arabia have been a better choice though?
     
  20. Deuce Rings

    Deuce Rings Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,759
    Likes Received:
    2,618
    Yeah, Saudi Arabia is definitely the heart of the problem, but that's where the oil relationship gets involved. The entire economies of the US and Saudi Arabia are tied to the Saudi-American oil relationship. The problem is greed on the Americans part as we just keep buying more and more cars with no regulation. As for the Saudis, they know that the US purchases more Saudi oil than the rest of the world combined so they need their biggest customer. The US can drill in Alaska or buy more oil from Venezuela, but the amount of available oil in these places will not be enough to keep the price of gasoline from doubling or tripling in this country. Either Americans need to regulate their oil consumption, something I see about as possible as peace between Israel and Palestine, accept paying higher prices for less oil, or find the elusive oil substitute which no one is funding research for because of poweful lobbies in Washington. Once any of these three things become a reality we can start talking about dealing with the Saudi Arabian culture which is a problem that is going to fester more and more out of control until it's dealt with.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now