Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Who will the world blame when Bush is gone
Posted by: McQ on Friday, March 02, 2007

That's the question Gerard Baker asks in his TimesOnline article.

Now these sorts of articles are usually reduced quickly to two groups of people shouting past each other in the comment section. But I think Baker raises some interesting points. For instance:
When President Bush goes into the Texas sunset, and especially if he is replaced by an enlightened, world-embracing Democrat, their one excuse, their sole explanation for all human suffering in the world will disappear too. And they may just find that the world is not as simple as they thought it was.
While it has now become a running joke, "it's Bush's fault" has become a default position for much of the world. As Baker infers, when Bush is gone, that position is gone too. So will those who favor it suddenly understand that while Bush may have been responsible for plenty, he was also not responsible for most of that for which he's blamed. There is a convenience factor in that sort of blame which allows those doing the blaming to ignore the complexities of a situation as Baker notes. So with him gone, what will the new default position be?

Speaking of Bush and Cheney, Baker says:
Having those guys around for so long provided a comfortable substitute for thinking hard about global challenges, a kind of intellectual escapism.
Heh ... you don't say.
Some day soon, though, this escapism will run into the dead end of reality. In fact, the most compelling case for the American people to elect a Democrat as president next year is that, in the US, leadership in a time of war requires the inclusion of both political parties, and in the rest of the world, people will have to start thinking about what is really the cause of all our woes.
Well that would be wonderful, but speaking of reality, those who would be the Democratic President elect don't plan on fighting the war in Iraq. And if you want to see reality as you've probably not seen it before, elect a Democrat and then watch what happens in Iraq. There'll be no "it's Bush's fault" to fall back on at that point. We will indeed then see a valid comparison to Vietnam unfold. Vietnam in 1975.

Baker turns his eyes to the "good war", Afghanistan and makes the point about the "intellectual escapism" that blaming Bush has provided in very brutal terms.
Take a look at the miserable mess that is unfolding in what is supposed to be the “West’s” fight in Afghanistan against the Taleban and al-Qaeda. Afghanistan was, remember, unlike Iraq, “the good war”. Within days of September 11, 2001, all the European members of Nato readily signed up to assist America in righting the wrongs of international terrorism by defeating the Kabul regime and its allies.

Even after the alliance fell out over the Iraq war, those who opposed that conflict reiterated their dedication to winning the one in Afghanistan. When the Spanish socialists pulled their nation’s troops out of Iraq in 2004, they insisted they were fully committed to the war against the Taleban.

But what is the state of that struggle? These days, despite the notional presence of a Nato force involving more than 15 countries, only a handful — Britain, the Netherlands, Canada, and plucky Lithuania included — are putting anything like the effort required in terms of resources and willingness to take the fight to the enemy.

Others — such as the Germans and the French — will commit troops and equipment but won’t let them fight, preferring noncombatant roles. Last week the Italian Government collapsed because some of its members actually want to make friends with the Taleban. European countries are not failing to fight the war in Afghanistan because they don’t like George Bush. They lack either the perception of the threat or the will to deal with it.
It is rather hard to blame Bush for the lack of will, lack of commitment and lack of foresight our "European allies" have demonstrated with Afghanistan, isn't it? And how, pray tell, will that change just because George Bush leaves office? Of course it won't. Masters of the empty gesture and the token force, Europe won't change a bit simply because someone else occupies the Oval Office.

But it is still useful, apparently, to assume the default position as Democrats are now demonstrating in Congress:
This escapism is not confined to President Bush’s critics in Europe, as the current battle over Iraq in Congress demonstrates. The Democrats have majorities in both houses. They could, if they wished, move to end the war in Iraq, which most of them — having once supported it — now oppose. They could vote to cut off funding for US troops and force the Pentagon to bring them home.

But they won’t do that. That would involve taking responsibility for a dangerous war. They would much rather, carp and cavil and pass “nonbinding” resolutions that express dissatisfaction with the war but leave the actual job of ending it to the Bush Administration.
Political courage, thy name is Democrat. And, of course, Bush isn't going to end it. If it is ended it will fall to the next administration to do so. My guess is, just as the Democrats discovered when they became the responsible party in Congress, talking about ending a war is a heck of a lot easier than actually pulling the plug.

But until then, the leadership in Congress and the world will use the familiar and comfortable escapism provided by blaming Bush. I cannot wait to see who or what fills the new default "blame" position when 2009 arrives and the reality most have so blithely ignored hits them right in the face.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Come on McQ... you know that ALL the worlds problems for the next decade will be Bush’s fault. Think about it, all those years of practice...

Repeat after me -

’Well when Bush...’
’If Bush had...’
’If Bush had not...’

Ad nauseum.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
If you’re looking for even-handed rationality from "them", holler "there she blows" when you see it. I never have, even when I was one. They still talk about Reagan like he was a failure when they think you’re one of them just because you aren’t speaking in tongues and juggling rattlesnakes while singing "Yes Jesus Loves Me".

The general group we currently call "conservatives" in America look at the general group we call "liberals" and thinks: "idiots". The "liberals", however, look at the "conservatives" and , again, generally, think: "evil". Those are vastly different paradigms, and call for very different responses.

The short answer to the question of "who are they going to blame when George W. Bush is gone", is George W. Bush. They are STILL spinning on their heads and spitting wooden nickels over the election in 2000, even though the facts aren’t on their side. You’ll see pitbulls let go of infants dipped in BBQ sauce sooner than you see the Libs let go of Bush. BDS is like herpes, it’s forever, baby.



 
Written By: Augustus
URL: http://
You’ll see pitbulls let go of infants dipped in BBQ sauce sooner than you see the Libs let go of Bush.
LOL!

That’s the line of the day, Augustus.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Which is why I get genuinely worried when I see people with the financial clout of a George Soros saying America will have to be "De-Nazified". The Left truly believes that they are justified in seeking for the deaths of anyone on the Right: witness the wonderful comments on HuffPo after the Taliban claimed it was attacking Cheney.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
Which is why I get genuinely worried when I see people with the financial clout of a George Soros saying America will have to be "De-Nazified".
Why you worried? We got all the guns.
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
There is the old story about the new commander of a military unit taking command and finds in his desk a note from the previous commander. It says, "There are three letters here numbered 1, 2, 3. The first time you have a problem, open the first letter and so on. Good Luck." And sure enough, under the post-it note was three sealed letters. He place them back in the drawer and went about his business.

After about a month he ran into a major problem. He remembered the letters and went into the drawer and opened number one. It said, "Tell them you inherited this problem from the previous commander." He thought that was good advice..

After a couple of more months, another problem arose and he opened Letter number two. It said, "Tell them the policies you have instituted have not had enough time to take effect." He thought to himself that again this guy was spot on.

Curiously, he then opened the third letter to see what advice he was given from the old commander for the next problem he would face. It read, "Write Three Letters."
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
McQ,

The article just simplistically assumes that *all* the people in the world believe that *all* their problems are cause by Bush. That is just hogwash...

But the situation in Iraq can be squarely laid on his shoulders, even after he has left office

Here was a country:

1. That was under sanctions for more than 10 years
2. Whose Army and Airforce were completely destroyed in 1991
3. Could not re-arm itself
4. Ruled by a tyrant

If Bush cannot pacify such a country, what is he good at ?? Let us look what he had:

1. Total support of the American People
2. A republican-controlled congress that pretty much gave him whatever he wanted.

I wish that he retired to his ranch earlier than 2009. You give him 2 more years, Consevatism would become a cussword, on par with liberalism
 
Written By: Ivan
URL: http://
The article just simplistically assumes that *all* the people in the world believe that *all* their problems are cause by Bush. That is just hogwash...
Actually its a strawman. It talks about those who do blame Bush for just about everything (and they know who they are) and asks what they will do when Bush is no longer available for blame.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
1. That was under sanctions for more than 10 years
And those sanctions were immoral in their primary effect, and ineffective in their secondary effect—as Saddam never made a complete accounting of previously possesed WMDs, and never convincingly gave up the goal of obtaining them.
2. Whose Army and Airforce were completely destroyed in 1991
Which has what to do with it?
3. Could not re-arm itself.
Could and did, as the nice new French made missiles used in the immediately post invasion period showed.
4. Ruled by a tyrant
Which other than making him as valid a target for overthrowal as Putin, if not more so, has what to do with it?
1. Total support of the American People
At best he had 75% of the people, and only about a third had more than fleeting enthusiasm for whatever course he took.
2. A republican-controlled congress that pretty much gave him whatever he wanted.
Which has what to with it? Lincoln had a Congress even more fully behind him, and more at stake. It still took finding Grant for the war to be settled on good terms. Petraeus may be the Grant analog for this one.
You give him 2 more years, Consevatism would become a cussword, on par with liberalism.
If Bush was conservervative, it would be at least possible.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Which has what to with it? Lincoln had a Congress even more fully behind him, and more at stake. It still took finding Grant for the war to be settled on good terms. Petraeus may be the Grant analog for this one.
So you are suggesting that the Confederate states were as analogously weak and backward as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia? Good luck with that.

In analogous terms the Confederates approximate 100x the strength of the enemies Bush is fighting. Heck even McCellan could win this one, just not under Bush.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://
Who will they blame? Well, Bush, of course.

But they’ll also blame the next president whoever he or she is. The Europeans, in particular, have been blaming the American president for practically everything for nearly two generations. Now it’s a time-hallowed tradition.
 
Written By: Dave Schuler
URL: http://www.theglitteringeye.com
Some day soon, though, this escapism will run into the dead end of reality. In fact, the most compelling case for the American people to elect a Democrat as president next year is that, in the US, leadership in a time of war requires the inclusion of both political parties, and in the rest of the world, people will have to start thinking about what is really the cause of all our woes
That sounds suspiciously like "let the baby have his bottle" crap. If the Dems are willfully disengaging in favor of Bush bashing for political gain, I can not think of a better indicator that they deserve to not even come close to power.
But until then, the leadership in Congress and the world will use the familiar and comfortable escapism provided by blaming Bush. I cannot wait to see who or what fills the new default "blame" position when 2009 arrives and the reality most have so blithely ignored hits them right in the face.
The left still trots out Newt f*cking Gingrich as a boogeyman from time to time for gods sake. Do you really think that the left will ever "move on"?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
The general group we currently call "conservatives" in America look at the general group we call "liberals" and thinks: "idiots". The "liberals", however, look at the "conservatives" and , again, generally, think: "evil"
The conservatives I know generally look at liberals and think ’idiots’ and ’evil’.

 
Written By: Grandersnack
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider