|
|
|
Jennifer's Progressive Politics Homepage | home
Bush:War on Terrorism | Bankruptcy Bill | Kosovo | Compassionate Conservatism = Self Serving Charity
Bush:War on Terrorism
Why Democrats Should Not Be Intimidated By Bush Because Of the “War on Terrorism!"
Issue 1) He is not negotiating as an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians. He appears to be quite weak and incapable of dealing with the task. The threats of sanctions are appropriate against Arafat for his continued insistence on the right of return.
That is obviously a lack of commitment to Bush's stated objectives for "a secure Israel and an Independent Palestinian state on the West Bank".
It is also a lack of commitment to the to the Peace process, for Sharon to be attacking Palestinian police forces,
so they can't crack down on Hamas. It also displays his hostility to the peace process to put Yasser Arafat under house arrest while complaining about how irrelevant and ineffectual he is at maintaining law and order, and cracking down on terrorists. Logic: If he is irrelevant, he wouldn't be under house arrest? The logic of complaining about the PA inability to crack down on terrorists while attacking the PA police forces eludes me, as well. It also displays a lack of commitment to the peace process, and to America's stated policy, for Sharon to state publicly he intends to settle a million and a half Israeli immigrants on the West Bank.
It is also shows a lack of commitment to the peace process for Sharon's administration to accuse resisting reservists of sedition, not for resisting, but for believing Israelis should "end the occupation, stop supporting illegal settlements and allow an independent Palestinian state." These are precisely GWB's stated goals in the region, so how can that be seditious?
Bush should also be aware from recent history, that the people Sharon represents in Israel are not bereaved on their terrorist elements. It was a settler who killed Rabin a mere 6 years ago. The settler group the assassin came from built a monument to the killer. Maybe Arafat is implicated in arms shipments, but Sharon is implicated in assassinating a witness against him, at a human rights trial, involving "War Crimes" in Lebanon.
Why not threaten Sharon with foreign aid sanctions? Israel receives much more than the PA, anyway? Furthermore Bush should have been insulted by the notion that the assassination of a known advocate of deporting all the Palestinians from the West Bank, is the exact same thing as what Al Qaeda did to the WTC. It certainly violated the peace but you are minimizing the victims in the WTC by allowing Sharon to make such comparisons.
Issue 2) who could argue with the overall good that was done in ousting the odious Taliban regime, and making life hard for Al Qaeda? Who would fail to support the President, given the fact that he is the only one we have? Unfortunately as things stand now, he doesn't look like the best man for the job, and I don't think he should be getting such credit from voters. It doesn't mean credit should automatically translate to republicans in congress either. For instance, it was understood from day one that there would be a law and order problem once we reached our goal in Afghanistan, of destroying the Al Qaeda friendly Taliban. For weeks Aid Agencies and others concerned with the region, had stressed the need for some kind of UN peace keeping force all over the country in order to secure aid routes and prevent war lordism that led to the Taliban.
It didn't have to include American troops, but they needed something. Yet, the only place we have deployed them thus far is Kabul! It now appears that the feared civil war between Afghan factions is breaking out. After weeks of requests for multinational peacekeepers, nothing has been done. The feared factional war is starting in the North.
Furthermore the window of opportunity we had in mitigating the long standing famine problem has been ignored, because of intransigence over putting multinational peace keepers all over the region to secure aid routes. This instability has also complicated our effort against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, because some roads are just too insecure for our soldiers to pursue the still missing bin Laden, and Mullah Omar.
He is most certainly squandering the good will we cultivated with the Afghani people over the ouster of the Taliban through some sort of numbness on the matter. Maybe he is resting on his laurels. Maybe minimally skilled Bush is in over his head. Who knows? I just think it is pretty obvious Gore would have been better at all these things. It really doesn't take that much political skill to say,"evil doers." It does take skills to deal with the diplomatic consequences involved in all of these decisions. These include, and interest in foreign affairs, and some minimal level of knowledge about current events in that region.
Issue 3)"The Axis of Evil" and all it implies! This metaphor was used to describe three counties, North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. The metaphor alludes to the Axis powers of WWII, Japan, Germany, and Italy. This metaphor is a bad one because WWII Axis countries were bound together through treaty and had all declared war on America. Furthermore unlike the countries in the WWII Axis, none have anything in common. None have declared war, and they are all very different ideologically. They are also in different phases as far as being friendly to the west. Iran is starting to move toward friendly relations with the west. North Korea is just an eccentric regime. Iraq's leader is Saddam Hussien. Sadam is more in the tradition of Stalin then religious fanatic bin Laden. The only thing they have in common is that Sharon dislikes them! Not only does this comparison display a remarkably sophomoric view of three, non-allied, completely different countries; it also alludes again to his inability to honestly broker a peace between Israel and the PA. It alludes yet again to Bush's lack of perspective, and objectivity.
In conclusion, I have to say Bush's traditional lack of interest and knowledge of the rest of the world is still hurting him. In conclusion I must say that Gore would have done a better job. Things may change. I hope they do, but I feel that we are in the doldrums yet again with regards to Mr. Bush and the rest of the world.
|