Changing the Bush mindset that got us to this point

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Boston University's Andrew Bacevich has an important op-ed today that strikes some painfully obvious notes, which seem to go entirely overlooked in our political discourse.

Bacevich notes the "considerable legacy" on foreign and national security policy that Bush will soon leave the nation, including an open-ended "global war," the perception of an "age of terror," a doctrine of preventive war, a limitless Pentagon budget, and an abandonment of checks and balances when it comes to presidential power and national security. Bacevich explains:

Bush's harshest critics, left liberals as well as traditional conservatives, have repeatedly called attention to this record. That criticism has yet to garner mainstream political traction. Throughout the long primary season, even as various contenders in both parties argued endlessly about Iraq, they seemed oblivious to the more fundamental questions raised by the Bush years: whether global war makes sense as an antidote to terror, whether preventive war works, whether the costs of "global leadership" are sustainable, and whether events in Asia rather than the Middle East just might determine the course of the 21st century.

Now only two candidates remain standing…. The burden of identifying and confronting the Bush legacy necessarily falls on Obama. Although for tactical reasons McCain will distance himself from the president's record, he largely subscribes to the principles informing Bush's post-9/11 policies…. The challenge facing Obama is clear: he must go beyond merely pointing out the folly of the Iraq war; he must demonstrate that Iraq represents the truest manifestation of an approach to national security that is fundamentally flawed, thereby helping Americans discern the correct lessons of that misbegotten conflict.

(For those of you who've read Matt Yglesias' terrific new book, "Heads in the Sand," this thesis will no doubt sound familiar.)

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

[alienlovechild 75]

Speaking of perceptions. . . How do you those nice folks in the deserts and mountains of the Middle East will feel facing off against the former "community organizer" from Chicago with the familiar middle name of Hussein? They're quaking in their combat boots at the thought of hope and change.

Who doesn't laugh when Obama talks about a troop surge of his own in Afghanistan (without a definition of victory), going after Bin Laden in Pakistan and rebuilding the U.S. military? Confront Iran? No way, it ain't going to happen. Prevent domestic terrorism? Not until the body count or inconvience gets high enough.

There's no reason to believe any of it because his own party won't back him and he has to pay for all of his domestic programs somehow, somewhere.

[GaryC 7]

Just more carpetbagger bull sh!t. Give it up Steven.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I dunno Gary - it seems pretty spot-on as far as Obama needing to turn his opposition to the Iraq war into something more concrete as far as workable policy.

I don't think the assessment of Bush's record is far off the mark either. Bush's record on foreign policy is defined by 9/11 and his response to it. A response which has garnered him much criticism from around the world and alienated a lot of the US' traditional allies.

[GaryC 7]

I dunno Gary - it seems pretty spot-on as far as Obama needing to turn his opposition to the Iraq war into something more concrete as far as workable policy.

I don't think the assessment of Bush's record is far off the mark either. Bush's record on foreign policy is defined by 9/11 and his response to it. A response which has garnered him much criticism from around the world and alienated a lot of the US' traditional allies.

Ah, so op-ed stories from far left web sites are OK but op-ed stories from conservative sites are met with calls for moritoriums and political free days. Not to mention the PM's asking me to stop. I see how it goes here.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Ah, so op-ed stories from far left web sites are OK but op-ed stories from conservative sites are met with calls for moritoriums and political free days. Not to mention the PM's asking me to stop. I see how it goes here.

Now you're learning, Gary

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I dunno Gary - it seems pretty spot-on as far as Obama needing to turn his opposition to the Iraq war into something more concrete as far as workable policy.

I don't think the assessment of Bush's record is far off the mark either. Bush's record on foreign policy is defined by 9/11 and his response to it. A response which has garnered him much criticism from around the world and alienated a lot of the US' traditional allies.

Ah, so op-ed stories from far left web sites are OK but op-ed stories from conservative sites are met with calls for moritoriums and political free days. Not to mention the PM's asking me to stop. I see how it goes here.

I dunno Gary - I actually read the piece and rendered my own opinion on it. Did you...?

Regardless of the pedigree of the source I'm struggling to find what it is that's "far left" in that article. Perhaps you can fill in the blanks

_______?

[GaryC 7]

I dunno Gary - it seems pretty spot-on as far as Obama needing to turn his opposition to the Iraq war into something more concrete as far as workable policy.

I don't think the assessment of Bush's record is far off the mark either. Bush's record on foreign policy is defined by 9/11 and his response to it. A response which has garnered him much criticism from around the world and alienated a lot of the US' traditional allies.

Ah, so op-ed stories from far left web sites are OK but op-ed stories from conservative sites are met with calls for moritoriums and political free days. Not to mention the PM's asking me to stop. I see how it goes here.

I dunno Gary - I actually read the piece and rendered my own opinion on it. Did you...?

Regardless of the pedigree of the source I'm struggling to find what it is that's "far left" in that article. Perhaps you can fill in the blanks

_______?

I will remember that when the next Fox news story is responded to with that classic photo of a sheep watching the TV.

Edited July 1, 2008 by GaryC

[one...two...tree 2,762]

For the record, I've never said anything about Op/Ed pieces being posted here. If you actually look at the piece, Gary, Steve Benin is merely referencing another person's Op/Ed but makes it into a short, concise point, worthy of discussing. I think it would be silly never to post Op/Ed pieces, but perhaps edit them down to as short as possible or highlight the point you are arguing for or against.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's the piece in it's entirety....note the author:

Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. His new book is "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism."

What Bush hath wrought

FEW AMERICANS, whatever their political persuasion, will mourn George W. Bush's departure from office. Democrats and Republicans alike are counting the days until the inauguration of a new president will wipe the slate clean.

Yet in crucial respects, the Bush era will not end Jan. 20, 2009. The administration's many failures, especially those related to Iraq, mask a considerable legacy. Among other things, the Bush team has accomplished the following:

# Defined the contemporary era as an "age of terror" with an open-ended "global war" as the necessary, indeed the only logical, response;

# Promulgated and implemented a doctrine of preventive war, thereby creating a far more permissive rationale for employing armed force;

# Affirmed - despite the catastrophe of Sept. 11, 2001 - that the primary role of the Department of Defense is not defense, but power projection;

# Removed constraints on military spending so that once more, as Ronald Reagan used to declare, "defense is not a budget item";

# Enhanced the prerogatives of the imperial presidency on all matters pertaining to national security, effectively eviscerating the system of checks and balances;

# Preserved and even expanded the national security state, despite the manifest shortcomings of institutions such as the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff;

# Preempted any inclination to question the wisdom of the post-Cold War foreign policy consensus, founded on expectations of a sole superpower exercising "global leadership";

# Completed the shift of US strategic priorities away from Europe and toward the Greater Middle East, the defense of Israel having now supplanted the defense of Berlin as the cause to which presidents and would-be presidents ritually declare their fealty.

By almost any measure, this constitutes a record of substantial, if almost entirely malignant, achievement.

Bush's harshest critics, left liberals as well as traditional conservatives, have repeatedly called attention to this record. That criticism has yet to garner mainstream political traction. Throughout the long primary season, even as various contenders in both parties argued endlessly about Iraq, they seemed oblivious to the more fundamental questions raised by the Bush years: whether global war makes sense as an antidote to terror, whether preventive war works, whether the costs of "global leadership" are sustainable, and whether events in Asia rather than the Middle East just might determine the course of the 21st century.

Now only two candidates remain standing. Senators John McCain and Barack Obama both insist that the presidential contest will mark a historic turning point. Yet, absent a willingness to assess in full all that Bush has wrought, the general election won't signify a real break from the past.

The burden of identifying and confronting the Bush legacy necessarily falls on Obama. Although for tactical reasons McCain will distance himself from the president's record, he largely subscribes to the principles informing Bush's post-9/11 policies. McCain's determination to stay the course in Iraq expresses his commitment not simply to the ongoing conflict there, but to the ideas that gave rise to that war in the first place. While McCain may differ with the president on certain particulars, his election will affirm the main thrust of Bush's approach to national security.

The challenge facing Obama is clear: he must go beyond merely pointing out the folly of the Iraq war; he must demonstrate that Iraq represents the truest manifestation of an approach to national security that is fundamentally flawed, thereby helping Americans discern the correct lessons of that misbegotten conflict.

By showing that Bush has put the country on a path pointing to permanent war, ever increasing debt and dependency, and further abuses of executive authority, Obama can transform the election into a referendum on the current administration's entire national security legacy. By articulating a set of principles that will safeguard the country's vital interests, both today and in the long run, at a price we can afford while preserving rather than distorting the Constitution, Obama can persuade Americans to repudiate the Bush legacy and to choose another course.

This is a stiff test, not the work of a speech or two, but of an entire campaign. Whether or not Obama passes the test will determine his fitness for the presidency.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editoria...h_hath_wrought/

[GaryC 7]

For the record, I've never said anything about Op/Ed pieces being posted here. If you actually look at the piece, Gary, Steve Benin is merely referencing another person's Op/Ed but makes it into a short, concise point, worthy of discussing. I think it would be silly never to post Op/Ed pieces, but perhaps edit them down to as short as possible or highlight the point you are arguing for or against.

Your so far left you don't even see what your posting. This story isn't fair, it isn't objective, it's written from the perspective of "fixing" the bush "mindset". Go right ahead and post away Steven. The lefties have succeded in shouting down anyone that they disagree with. I don't even care anymore.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

For the record, I've never said anything about Op/Ed pieces being posted here. If you actually look at the piece, Gary, Steve Benin is merely referencing another person's Op/Ed but makes it into a short, concise point, worthy of discussing. I think it would be silly never to post Op/Ed pieces, but perhaps edit them down to as short as possible or highlight the point you are arguing for or against.

Your so far left you don't even see what your posting. This story isn't fair, it isn't objective, it's written from the perspective of "fixing" the bush "mindset". Go right ahead and post away Steven. The lefties have succeded in shouting down anyone that they disagree with. I don't even care anymore.

LOL...I have no idea what you're griping about Gary. If someone PM'd you about your political posts, that's got nothing to do with me. Don't paint everyone with the same brush. I suggested loooong ago that we have an election subforum, but that was because of the numerous threads started just about the elections and candidates. My advice as a friend, let that water roll off your back and keep posting what you want. I think most of us who do post take a moment to decide whether what we post here is worthy of discussion, but the threads that get posted that don't arouse a discussion, quickly disappear onto the 2nd or 3rd page. Let bygones be bygones and let's discuss politics.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I dunno Gary - it seems pretty spot-on as far as Obama needing to turn his opposition to the Iraq war into something more concrete as far as workable policy.

I don't think the assessment of Bush's record is far off the mark either. Bush's record on foreign policy is defined by 9/11 and his response to it. A response which has garnered him much criticism from around the world and alienated a lot of the US' traditional allies.

Ah, so op-ed stories from far left web sites are OK but op-ed stories from conservative sites are met with calls for moritoriums and political free days. Not to mention the PM's asking me to stop. I see how it goes here.

I dunno Gary - I actually read the piece and rendered my own opinion on it. Did you...?

Regardless of the pedigree of the source I'm struggling to find what it is that's "far left" in that article. Perhaps you can fill in the blanks

_______?

I will remember that when the next Fox news story is responded to with that classic photo of a sheep watching the TV.

I dunno Gary - you can pull generalised anecdotes out of your ####### all day long, but the fact remains that in the specific context of a single thread you seem to think its perfectly ok to write off what is in effect a rather moderate opinion on the basis of the source and secondly because Steven posted it. At the end of the day its simply a dishonest argument.

For the record - I have never used the picture you describe (or indeed any picture cartoon) to slam a Fox News story, so I'm not really sure why you're associating that with me. Unless of course its because you assume that all people of a similar political persuasion are in cahoots.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

For the record, I've never said anything about Op/Ed pieces being posted here. If you actually look at the piece, Gary, Steve Benin is merely referencing another person's Op/Ed but makes it into a short, concise point, worthy of discussing. I think it would be silly never to post Op/Ed pieces, but perhaps edit them down to as short as possible or highlight the point you are arguing for or against.

Your so far left you don't even see what your posting. This story isn't fair, it isn't objective, it's written from the perspective of "fixing" the bush "mindset". Go right ahead and post away Steven. The lefties have succeded in shouting down anyone that they disagree with. I don't even care anymore.

Its an op-ed piece - its not meant to be "objective" in the sense of traditional news reporting. But again - there's nothing in the guy's opinion that makes it "far left", if anything his assessment of Bush's record is Centrist.

Fixating on the title is just weak and yet more evidence that you didn't actually read the thing before you started hitting the keys.

[alienlovechild 75]

I dunno Gary - I actually read the piece and rendered my own opinion on it. Did you...?

I read it, 6. I turned it around on Obama's position(s) on use of military force and international perception. Nobody dared question Obama or my take so it must have way out, over their heads or right on the money.

Posting the whole article was like giving seconds on an already rancid dish. Nothing new, just like Obama himself.