Posted on 12/21/2002 11:11:29 AM PST by Pokey78
As President Bush wraps up his second year in the White House, he finds himself juggling an armful of new crises and old problems. In recent weeks, he fired his two chief economic advisers and replaced them with a supposedly more telegenic and persuasive team led by Treasury Secretary-designate John Snow. He ordered the construction of a rudimentary and controversial antimissile system to be based in Alaska and California. He tried to balance his calls for "compassionate conservatism" with tepid support for the besieged Mississippi conservative Trent Lott, who finally withdrew from his post as Senate Republican leader five days before Christmas. Most important, the president took another step toward war by citing omissions and deceptions in Saddam Hussein's new United Nations-required report on the status of Iraq's weapons programs.
Yet, in a revealing year-end interview with U.S. News, Bush was optimistic about the future even as he acknowledged the daunting tasks ahead. He showed none of the cowboy swagger and Lone Ranger impulses for which he has been caricatured. "I hope the American people trust me," Bush said, sitting in front of an Oval Office fireplace bordered with pine cones, apples, and holiday greenery. "I hope they trust me when it comes to fighting this war on terror, and I hope they trust me when it comes to leading toward a more compassionate tomorrow, because I'm a compassionate person. The only thing I know to do is to speak my mind, show my heart as best I can, and to lead."
What came across most vividly was his desire not to settle for small victories in 2003 but to think big. In a separate interview, White House counselor Karl Rove told U.S. News: "You've got to stick with trying to achieve what you set out to do in the first place. But leadership is creating political capital and then expending it on behalf of big things, new big things that are in keeping with your philosophical approach. Once you pass a big idea that's part of your platform–tax cut, education reform, trade promotion authority, and so forth–you have to go back and refresh the agenda and keep expanding it."
No bigotry. Lott's withdrawal as Senate leader gives the president the opportunity to renew his campaign to prove he is a different kind of Republican, without the complication of working with a man tainted as a sometime defender of segregation. In the interview, Bush was eager, for the first time, to detail his views on America's continuing racial divide. But just 48 hours before Lott stepped down, Bush said Lott "shouldn't leave his position." The president did not want to give Lott the final public shove, even while his allies were working behind the scenes to force Lott out. "My attitude about race is that we ought to confront bigotry, all forms of bigotry," Bush said, "and I believe the American–I know the American people are good, honorable, decent people. And occasionally the bigot has his day. I don't think Trent Lott is a bigot. I find him to be a, you know, he's a friend. . . . My job is to continue to work for an America that welcomes all and that is nondiscriminatory, and I will do that."
The controversy over whether Lott was fit to lead Senate Republicans ensures that Bush will feel compelled to address the racial issue in his State of the Union speech in late January. U.S. News has learned that White House aides were drafting what they called a "healing speech" for the mid-January Africa trip that Bush canceled the day Lott withdrew.
A visibly tired Bush–who was nursing a cold–volunteered that he was shaking hands with 1,500 people a night at the seemingly endless series of White House holiday parties. He emphasized that he didn't really mind the chore, but aides said he was looking forward to a brief vacation at his ranch in Texas.
Weighing war. When he returns from that getaway, he may face the most critical decision of his presidency: whether to go to war against Iraq. It is clear that this possibility is never far from Bush's mind. He argued that his foreign policy "has got to be bold, but it's also got to be understanding in that the nature of the new wars we face, in the nature of the problems we face, understanding the sense that we've got to work with others to achieve common objectives, and we're doing that."
"The biggest issues facing us in '03 will be continuing the war on terror," Bush said. "The al Qaeda is in 40, 50, 60 countries; they're scattered around. We will have to continue to pursue them, which means that we must continue to work hard to keep this coalition together. The war on terror will require a constant evaluation of progress. . . .
"A second phase of the war on terror, and an important part of the peace platform, will be Iraq. And we have worked closely with friends and allies in convincing them to join us and insisting that Saddam Hussein disarm. As you know, I have made it clear that if he won't disarm that we will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm him. My hope is that he will disarm."
If Saddam does not, the men and women of the armed forces may be called to do the job. "You know, when you've got kids off in Afghanistan, the remote regions of Afghanistan, hunting in caves for al Qaeda killers, you're asking a lot of people. And we'll continue asking them to make that sacrifice." As Bush knows all too well, ordering Americans into combat is a burden that only the commander in chief can fully understand–and it is a decision he may face in Iraq all too soon.
-------------------------
The reason there is so much juggling is Bush never prepared himself for the presidency, or for that matter anything else as nearly as I can see. Each event taking place does not occur within previously thought out considerations, but is a bolt out of the blue requiring instant decisions that should have been thought out years before, but weren't. He's about 20 years behind the development level he should be to be a president. What little development has taken place has been in the wrong direction. The fact Monica Lewinsky isn't under the desk and the Bush's look dignified on Christmas cards doesn't change it.
It must be a hard enough job without listening to all the carping going on from both liberals and so-called conservatives. It's really pretty embarrassing to watch some of these people expose their ignorance.
Oh well, I guess it doesn't matter, they're too dumb to know just how ignorant they really are.
-------------------------
Get the book, Reagan's War by Schweizer. Reagan was diligently preparing himself through intense study and development 30 years before he ran for the presidency. He was highly intelligent and inquisitive. Bush is, and never will be, a Ronald Reagan.
For my part, I'm not fooled at all. While he spouts malapropisms in public, he is quietly consolidating more power than any president in U.S. history, including Lincoln. And, all the while, his opponents continue to make the supreme mistake of underrating his abilities -- and they are paying the price for their misperceptions.
So we clearly see different things when we look at Bush, and that alone should be cause for reflection. While I think Bush's motives are honorable, I am nonetheless very concerned about the monumental shifts in the balance of power that are taking place. We are still suffering from the consequences of Lincoln's federal-heavy policies and Reconstruction legislation.
I recommend looking at what Bush does, not what he says. History will reveal soon enough which perspective is right.
-------------------------------
Bush is no Abe Lincoln. You people are becoming delusion in attempts to salvage this man and create a teenage idol.
If that is all you have to offer, then you've already written everything worth reading from you.
It is rather awe-inspiring to see how swiftly Bush has achieved this: he's got both houses of Congress, he's just ousted that feckless idiot Lott and will have a virtual cabinet member running the Senate, he'll soon be stacking the Supreme Court, and his opponents are in complete disarray. But, we should not be surprised. Look at Texas and Florida. These were solid Democrat strongholds before the Bush brothers hit town. Now, the Dems there aren't just in the minority -- they have been totally routed and rendered irrelevant. The same thing is happening on the national level, because the same causes give rise to the same effects. And, unlike Reagan, Bush didn't have Jimmy Carter to grease the skids for him. Getting here has been uphill all the way. And the desperation of the Democrats is a joy to behold...
I have enjoyed watching that obnoxious and rampantly corrupt party catch a dose of reality. It is also telling how they respond to it: with near-paranoid, self-indulgent cries of "foul!" and abject denial of the truth of their situation. Such pathos loses its allure after a relatively short time, though.
Having sidelined themselves for a while, the Democrats are mainly a peripheral factor until the next elections. They still wield a great deal of power, to be sure, but, fractured as it is, Democrat influence on the agenda of the next two years is more likely to be a nuisance for the Republicans than an impediment.
Rather, I am keenly interested in what this fully Republican federal government is going to do with its time. All indications are that they have some major changes planned that will have long reaching effects.
As an American citizen, I believe it is my duty, and that of all Americans, to keep a careful watch over the government in the months to come, since we are the final "check and balance" against potentially disastrous actions by our government, and it needs to hear our voices.
I think that's far too long to keep this going on, and 18 months in particular would have the U.S. attacking in the summer heat. Not a good scenario for soldiers in MOPP gear. It would be a disaster.
Also, it's unimaginable that the sort of political tension this is causing could be sustained for such a long period. Neither the American people nor Middle East countries would tolerate such a protracted "crisis".
Everything I've seen so far points to late January or early February of 2003 for commencing attacks, with January a clear favorite for the beginning of the traditional bombing campaign.
Of course, we'll know soon enough if I'm right or wrong.
THANK THE LORD it wasn't algore at the helm.
No adminstration would have had the foresight to tackle or the skill to achieve ANY of these MUST DO'S.
Shall we go on to...education/vouchers, racism/Lott?
Sorry you don't like 'W' but he was up close and personal with his dad in the house and if you think he didn't learn anything, you're a fool. But don't take my word for it...look at the record.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.