A little history goes a long way
At Bush's press conference yesterday, he was asked several questions about some of the books written about him, such as the Bob Woodward book "State of Denial". He made the comment, "You know, there's just a lot of look-backs. Presidents don't get to look back..."
When Bush said that presidents don't get to look back, nothing could be further from the truth, or troubling, coming from someone in his position. There is no more powerful a tool for a leader than the lessons of history and it has been said that those who ignore the mistakes of history are destined to repeat them. Bush is not navigating uncharted territory by any means but he has decided to disregard the detailed map left behind by his predecessors. This country has been in existence long enough to have the experience of many past presidents, wars, social struggles, natural disasters, economic disasters and also many positive things, giving us more than enough to draw from. There is, however, plenty of evidence to suggest that Bush is not interested in the wisdom of history and that is, perhaps, the root cause of his failure in nearly everything he has done, or attempted to do. In a nation built on the rule of law, what do you see in every law office? A wall of history, the volumes of case law, the wisdom of historical precedent. Looking back is the first thing any decider should do before moving forward.
2 comments:
col mustard -- it's now easy and clear to see from whence your anger at thoughtful dissent comes. Ann Coulter would be at least marginally believable if she did not exude so much venomous hatred.
Democracy is based soundly on thoughtful debate. Sarcasm and anger are tools of those who have nothing better to say.
Ann Coulter says, as per your own quote, -- In 1994, the Clinton administration got a call from Jimmy Carter — probably collect — who was with the then-leader of North Korea, saying: "Hey, Kim Il Sung is a total stud, and I've worked out a terrific deal. I'll give you the details later."
Is this kind of expression not hateful? Dear col, you could pick a much better spokesperson of your position to quote.
It seems to me that the strongest weapon in the right wing arsenal involves blaming President Clinton for EVERYTHING. It won't work because it is so obviously a distraction full of half-truths and alterations of facts.
If you have convictions and are able to articulate them, you could do much better than you do. Let's hear some thoughtful debate, and leave the trash to those who like trash.
My humble advice: Follow some of the links on RickO's page and you will come to one where service men and women on active duty voice their views and opinions. It's quite interesting.
There was an article by Ann Coulter pasted in as a comment here. Because Coulter's words are not welcome here (unless being quoted by me or someone like me), I've deleted it.
If you haven't read it, you're not missing much because it is her usual spitting attack on things she does not fully comprehend.
It has been argued that she is highly educated, and by virtue of that fact, she has a certain credibility. I will concede that she has a law degree. So does Saddam Hussein (in case you didn't know that). Osama bin Laden has multiple degrees in Management and Economics, which have apparently served him well.
Using her legendary scholarly prowess, Coulter said, shortly after 9/11, that "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity". The Arabic word for that, I believe, is "Jihad", at least in the current extremist vernacular. Just substitute Islam for Chrisianity in her statement and you'll find clear ideological parity between Coulter and Axis-of-Evilians to whom she is referring.
What makes her statement here so classically Coulter, is that she is talking about invading soveriegn nations, toppling governments, and forcing them to adopt a religion they consider an apostacy. This has been tried, it was called the Crusades, and failed miserably because the crusaders, like Coulter, did not understand the culture of the middle east or south asia.
That does not deter people like Coulter from making such statements, but more ominously, it does not deter our present adminstration from blindly wandering into the hornet's nest I just mentioned.
Here's an example. Meghan O'Sullivan, a deputy national security adviser to President Bush, was noted as not knowing what the "Durand Line" in Afghanistan is. This is astounding because it is akin to an expert on the US not knowing what the Mississippi river is. Incidentally, the Durand Line is an artificial border imposed on Afghanistan by the British and is the cause of great tension between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Not knowing this little detail creates a significant blind spot in our foreign policy making, which is, in large part, the role of national security advisers.
Memorizing case law and passing the bar exam does not an education make. Coulter's words, based on venomous hatred but lacking an "understanding of how the world works" (let's call that education) is dangerous, wasteful, destructive and has no place in thoughtful company.
That's why I deleted it.
Post a Comment