![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Politics as Usual
Feb. 12th, 2004 10:21 amCNN Reports on 'Gutter Politics'
Another Perspective from Fox News
First and foremost, I don't really understand why this is an issue at this point. There are larger issues on the table than whether or not President Bush fulfilled his military service requirements, or that John Kerry was an anti-war protester during the Vietnam era, yet these are the issues that are coming to the forefront of a political race that hasn't even been narrowed to a two-man race yet.
I will be the first to admit that I *did* hold Clinton's lack of military service against him. I don't regret this, and feel that, at the time, this was entirely germaine to the discussion. Throughout his administration, Clinton demonstrated a clear inability to make concrete and resolute decisions regarding international relations and the national security of the United States. He chose, instead, to focus on social issues, seeing many of his international relations obligations as the "leader of the free world" as distractions from his social issue agenda. It was -- and *is* -- his own fault that his legacy is impeachment and not greatness.
During the 2000 election, this country was floundering. The ties which Al Gore had with Clinton left a tarnishing mark on his record, despite how much distance he tried to put between them; the very Southern way in which Bush conducted his interviews and speeches left him open to criticisms of intelligence -- not to mention the issues raised then about his National Guard status. The crisis of transition which this election presented was open to the world. It was in headlines everywhere, and not just in the United States. Indeed, many who despise our liberal democracy were watching closely and deriding us for our inability to choose and believed this showed the weakness inherent in our system.
With the events of 9/11, then, it became even more important for an American president to step up with clear, executive decision making, guided by the intelligence at hand, combined with advise from persons such as SecState Colin Powell, and NSA Condi Rice. We needed not only strong leadership, but the projection of power which had been dormant since the early days of the Clinton administration. And, whether or not I agree with all of Bush's decisions, that is exactly what we got.
The trouble with questioning his National Guard status, and even questioning Kerry's anti-war status, is that time has passed. Thirty years ago, American grand strategy was not facing the quandary of international terrorism as it exists now, but was instead focussed on the "containment" of Communism to the Soviet Union. It was the heart of the Cold War, and both Kerry and Bush perceived their duties differently.
A great deal of time has passed since then. Time, as we all know, brings both change and growth. The international system has changed; we are now not only concerned with state actors in the international relations, but also with independent actors such as Osama Bin Laden -- a sharp change since the late 1960s, early 1970s. Both Kerry and Bush have grown up since then. Kerry's hair has gotten shorter, and George W. is no longer wearing a flight suit (save on special occasions). By being elected to office -- governor, senator, lieutenant governor, or president -- both men have shown that they possess the charisma and leadership which some Americans feel constitute responsible leadership, no matter which side of the polls you're on.
For the continued prominence of this problem, I blame the press. While I do admit that a free press is closely related to the foundation on which this democracy was founded, I do feel that, as was said by Richard Dreyfus in The American President, when it comes to a character debate, the press is an unwitting accomplice. This particular "can of worms" was re-opened by Democrats, seeking to discredit the leadership which Bush has demonstrated in the time since 9/11. Kerry has since told his own party staffers that the issue isn't really an issue; that attention should be diverted elsewhere. The press, however, has its bone, and isn't willing to give it up on the mere suggestion by one of the political combatants. Whether this was a deliberate maneuver by Kerry -- which I'm fairly sure it was -- it still demonstrates exactly what Dreyfus said in the movie. It's still front page news while all the rest seems to have fallen by the wayside.
Bush admittedly hasn't helped; he should have let sleeping dogs lie and not justified the charges with a response. Instead, he's only managed to drag himself into the mudpit and continue the slinging. Still, he's acting instinctively, and there is something to be said for that.
Finally, I have to give kudos to SecState Powell during his testimony to the International Relations Committee. President Bush's military service should never have been a topic under discussion in these hearings. While it does have slight bearing on his leadership ability, the past 3 years under his administration should provide the Committee with all the evidence of his leadership that they need; by asking such a question during hearings is to drag the election and party poltics into something that should be removed somewhat from the campaign trail.
Another Perspective from Fox News
First and foremost, I don't really understand why this is an issue at this point. There are larger issues on the table than whether or not President Bush fulfilled his military service requirements, or that John Kerry was an anti-war protester during the Vietnam era, yet these are the issues that are coming to the forefront of a political race that hasn't even been narrowed to a two-man race yet.
I will be the first to admit that I *did* hold Clinton's lack of military service against him. I don't regret this, and feel that, at the time, this was entirely germaine to the discussion. Throughout his administration, Clinton demonstrated a clear inability to make concrete and resolute decisions regarding international relations and the national security of the United States. He chose, instead, to focus on social issues, seeing many of his international relations obligations as the "leader of the free world" as distractions from his social issue agenda. It was -- and *is* -- his own fault that his legacy is impeachment and not greatness.
During the 2000 election, this country was floundering. The ties which Al Gore had with Clinton left a tarnishing mark on his record, despite how much distance he tried to put between them; the very Southern way in which Bush conducted his interviews and speeches left him open to criticisms of intelligence -- not to mention the issues raised then about his National Guard status. The crisis of transition which this election presented was open to the world. It was in headlines everywhere, and not just in the United States. Indeed, many who despise our liberal democracy were watching closely and deriding us for our inability to choose and believed this showed the weakness inherent in our system.
With the events of 9/11, then, it became even more important for an American president to step up with clear, executive decision making, guided by the intelligence at hand, combined with advise from persons such as SecState Colin Powell, and NSA Condi Rice. We needed not only strong leadership, but the projection of power which had been dormant since the early days of the Clinton administration. And, whether or not I agree with all of Bush's decisions, that is exactly what we got.
The trouble with questioning his National Guard status, and even questioning Kerry's anti-war status, is that time has passed. Thirty years ago, American grand strategy was not facing the quandary of international terrorism as it exists now, but was instead focussed on the "containment" of Communism to the Soviet Union. It was the heart of the Cold War, and both Kerry and Bush perceived their duties differently.
A great deal of time has passed since then. Time, as we all know, brings both change and growth. The international system has changed; we are now not only concerned with state actors in the international relations, but also with independent actors such as Osama Bin Laden -- a sharp change since the late 1960s, early 1970s. Both Kerry and Bush have grown up since then. Kerry's hair has gotten shorter, and George W. is no longer wearing a flight suit (save on special occasions). By being elected to office -- governor, senator, lieutenant governor, or president -- both men have shown that they possess the charisma and leadership which some Americans feel constitute responsible leadership, no matter which side of the polls you're on.
For the continued prominence of this problem, I blame the press. While I do admit that a free press is closely related to the foundation on which this democracy was founded, I do feel that, as was said by Richard Dreyfus in The American President, when it comes to a character debate, the press is an unwitting accomplice. This particular "can of worms" was re-opened by Democrats, seeking to discredit the leadership which Bush has demonstrated in the time since 9/11. Kerry has since told his own party staffers that the issue isn't really an issue; that attention should be diverted elsewhere. The press, however, has its bone, and isn't willing to give it up on the mere suggestion by one of the political combatants. Whether this was a deliberate maneuver by Kerry -- which I'm fairly sure it was -- it still demonstrates exactly what Dreyfus said in the movie. It's still front page news while all the rest seems to have fallen by the wayside.
Bush admittedly hasn't helped; he should have let sleeping dogs lie and not justified the charges with a response. Instead, he's only managed to drag himself into the mudpit and continue the slinging. Still, he's acting instinctively, and there is something to be said for that.
Finally, I have to give kudos to SecState Powell during his testimony to the International Relations Committee. President Bush's military service should never have been a topic under discussion in these hearings. While it does have slight bearing on his leadership ability, the past 3 years under his administration should provide the Committee with all the evidence of his leadership that they need; by asking such a question during hearings is to drag the election and party poltics into something that should be removed somewhat from the campaign trail.