Burning Bush: a Dubya Entendre
Do we need to replace WWJD with WICSI?
If we want to have an honest public discussion about war (and, judging by what's on television, I'm not sure a whole lot of people do), I think we need an observation out in the open. Let's call it Public Discourse Rule #1:
Conservatives need to realize that there are a heaping helping of people who think of Bush the way conservatives thought of Clinton.
I realized this when Bush was first selected as president. I noticed that people were saying a lot about Bush what conservatives had been saying about Bill Clinton: especially regarding honesty and integrity. My total lack of trust in Bush brought me a clearer understood what people thought of Clinton.
This is why I think the argument "Bush is a noble, honest person and we should follow his lead" does not work. There are many among us who do not find Bush noble or honest. (And how strange is it that REPUBLICANS are telling us to trust the government? Isn't their slogan "Don't trust the government"?) Truth be told, I'd rather Bush went back to slacking at his pappy's place. That doesn't appear to be an option, so we'd best move on. But the pro-war pro-discussion folk should realize that "trust Bush" is about as strong an argument as "trust Clinton" which can be about as strong an argument as is "Mmmmm ... doughnut."
(I'd like to pause to mention that flag waving has become so dominant that when I typed "Don't trust the government," the Microsoft Word spelling and grammar checker suggested I change it to "Do trust government.")
But it can go too far the other way, also. Many people are accused of being against Bush administration policies simply because the policies are from the Bush administration. I often thought the same thing of conservatives with regards to Bill Clinton. At times it seemed like if Clinton were to eat his mashed potatoes first, the Republicans would cry bloody murder and write a law demanding the meat entree be eaten first. Now it appears that a lot of partisan folks would do the same thing if Bush ate his mashed potatoes first.
Which brings us to the fore-mentioned burning question.
A popular question (and adaptations of said question) going around is "What would Jesus do?" or WWJD. Perhaps it could be adapted again to read "What if Clinton said it?" or WICSI. Everyone--liberals and conservatives, pro-war and pro-peace--should take what comes out of the Bush administration and imagine Clinton said it. If your opinion doesn't change, then go with that opinion. If your opinion does change then you might be basing your opinion on the person and not the policy itself. It's pretty simplistic (and based on my opinion that Bush and Clinton are equally trustworthy), but, hopefully, it will get more people to think thoughts rather than just regurgitate them.
Why does a U.N. Resolution violation mean we get to kill people?
I get that Saddam is bad. I get that he's violated some U.N. resolution(s). What has never been even attempted is connecting the resolution violation with bombing the snot out of Iraq. Is it assumed that any country in violation of a U.N. resolution can/should be blown up? Isn't there some intermediate penalty? Does this extend past U.N. resolutions? For instance, does the Bush administration tearing up the ABM treaty mean that Russia is now allowed to bomb Kennebunkport? Does it extend further than that? What happens if the pizza delivery dude is a bit late?
Cheney: Sir, it has been thirty-seven minutes since we ordered the pizza.
Powell: This is clearly a violation of the 30-minutes-or-less resolution. I have pictures and I recorded the phone call.
Dubya: WE MUST INVADE DOMINOES!
I just don't see where, in 50 years, history teachers are going to be telling their students "World War III started because some guy didn't allow inspections or dismantle warheads." I'll tell you this, if you thought Germany got a bad reputation after World War II, just wait to see the perception of the United States after forcing a country to disarm itself and then bombing the hell out that country anyway. It won't be pretty.
How have recent events affected the Bush Administration credibility gap?
As stated, trusting Bush is a stretch for many people. So, the Bush administration did the wise thing and had America's most trusted person, Colin Powell, give a power point demonstration to the U.N. to prove that Iraq is bad. Powell was one of the last people in the Bush Administration to support military action in Iraq. Many people wondered why the Bush Administration hadn't given this evidence to the inspectors long ago so they could have done a better job of inspecting. Not me. I was more concerned about what this did to the credibility gaps.
Did Powell's high personal credibility give the Bush Administration more credibility by association? Does the fact that Powell is now in favor of war and has pictures for a slide show narrow the credibility gap for Bush?
Or does it go the other way? By selling out and caving in to Bush's wishes and arguing for a war he previously stated was unnecessary, did Powell widen his own credibility gap?
Or both?
What's the difference between "ironic" and "hypocritical?"
The U.S. has plenty of weapons of mass destruction. The Bush is furious because Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Bush is complaining that some countries don't elect their leaders by popular vote. Bush is a leader even though he came in second in the popular vote. Bush condemns other countries' leaders for not taking care of their "folks," while his policies are increasing the number of impoverished, uninsured, and jobless folks here in the United States. Bush says he's going to stop terrorist but has done nothing about the training ground at Fort Benning, Georgia formerly called the School of the Americas and is now called Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC). Finally, Bush has condemned Saddam Hussein for thumbing his nose at the U.N. However, Bush has made it clear he's going to ignore the U.N. if the U.N. doesn't pronounce Bush correct.
I keep reading about the irony in the Bush administration. Sorry, but some of these ironies are simply hypocrisies. But what is the difference? Is "irony" the politically-correct non-confrontative version of "hypocrisy?" Or is either the correct term to use in this situation? What is the correct term for Bush's condemning others for engaging in the very actions in which he is engaging?
So those are a few of the questions burning in my mind. If you have the answers, God bless you! Hopefully, you can have an honest open discussion about the impending war. But bring a book.
It might be a while before anyone else shows up.
return to Commentary index
The opinions expressed here are solely those of the writer and do not neccessarily reflect those of the rest of the family.
© 2003, Mark Wentz