BS: What if?

Subject: RE: BS: What if?
From: DougR
Date: 23 Aug 02 - 02:31 PM

Nope, Bush didn't, Fionn. And if he had, you liberals would have screamed to high heaven for his picking on poor old Bin Laden who hadn't done anything on his watch. There would be calls for tarring and feathering Bush, and riding him out of Washinton on a broom.

When Bin Laden DID do something on Bush's watch ...well, that's history. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: What if?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 23 Aug 02 - 06:48 AM

Spaw's line is disproved by Thatcher's election and re-election (1979 and 83) which set the UK on a new course - which it is on still - in terms of the balance between self and state.

Would Clinton nor Bush would have had Rumsfeld in Defence (OK, Defense) and allowed his voice to drown out the State department?

Whistle Stop, this present president is surely proof that you don't need qualifications for the job - just the ability to amass funds and secure, by one means or another, the backing of big business. (The US press seems to have made little of the Texas scam whereby Junior turned in a profit of $15 million on an investment of $600,000.)

Doug, I don't remember Dubya going after Bin Laden when he was elected, whereas Clinton did at last bomb a medicine factory in the effort. The question I'd be asking is what if the US cops another 9/11? (Apart from mass emigration.) There must be more people wanting to see it happen now than a year ago, and no matter what defensive measures are taken, where there's a will there's a way.

Subject: RE: BS: What if?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 22 Aug 02 - 08:00 AM

Spaw, I haven't read anything by Ellul, but as recounted by you it sounds like a bit of an overstatement to me. Yes, the system will force politicians to moderate their positions and/or behavior to some degree, but the strengths, weaknesses and inclinations of the individuals in charge are not meaningless. This may be particularly true in the early days of a Presidency, when the new Administration's patterns are being established and the rest of the world is reading the signs to see how business will be conducted under the new regime. I still feel that we disengaged from the Middle East in a fairly significant way in the first year of the current Bush administration, that this was noted by the players in that region, and that it allowed that situation to spin out of control more quickly and profoundly than would have been the case if we had stayed involved.

But of course, we'll never know for sure; this is all just Monday-morning quarterbacking.

Subject: RE: BS: What if?
From: DougR
Date: 20 Aug 02 - 08:51 PM

Thread creep alert: Yep, Rick, I remember FDR well. Cried like a baby at the age of 15 when he died. He certainly was the most beloved president, I believe, during my lifetime. I can't say I am a great admirer of FDR now. But at the time, there were few people in the country who did not admire him. The press was not as diligent in it's reporting of president's activities in those days as they are today. I would guess a majority of the people in the U. S. were not aware that FDR could not stand alone without help, because the press protected him.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: What if?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 20 Aug 02 - 06:53 PM

I can't believe you remember FDR Doug! Damn, I feel young again. Good post Spaw. You articulated what I tried to say.

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: What if?
From: DougR
Date: 20 Aug 02 - 05:14 PM

Interesting thoughts all. I really hadn't thought of the political situation in the terms you outline Spaw. I'll try to get my hands on that book.

Nicole, Whistle Stop: On this we agree: Bush is a lousy public speaker. I can empathize with your running for cover when he takes to the microphone Nicole. He has made a couple of memorable speeches, which says a lot for the speechwriter, who unfortuntely rarely gets any recognition at all, but in those two speeches he gave a decent delivery too. No question in my mind but that Reagan and Clinton were two of the best we have had. Almost as good as FDR.

DougR

I can't believe I wrote, right, for write, in my previous message. It must have been late when I "rote" it.

Subject: RE: BS: What if?
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Aug 02 - 04:21 PM

I hate to beat this horse, but I wish some of you would read ol' Jacques Ellul......Politics is a matter of methodology and once you establish the method, the actions of those holding any office are limited by it. Period.

That's why it's such an incredible waste to argue over the actions of one versus another. Let's say that each president has a 10 degree arc he can function in. Bush pushes the outside to one direction and sooner or later gets swatted down as happened to Clinton on the other side of the arc, although Clinton pushed very little (and was effective because of it). Bush may screw things up for the liberals but it will come back again because the system will not allow it to ever get too far....It's the method, not the man. We could have elected Wallace years ago and things wouldn't have been too different.....same with say McGovern. Only a revolutionary change will affect the method, and that's not happening here at the moment either. Nader or a Green Party candidate wouldn't be revolution, just another funtionary within the method just as Wallace or McGovern would have been.

I think you could get a lot more out of discussing Nixon-Kennedy in 1960. Kennedy pushed too hard to seem a master of foreign affairs when in fact Nixon actually was to some degree. Nixon had absolutely NO interest in anything having to do with VietNam and his policy toward Cuba fell under the Eisenhower doctrines of very covert operations........So no assassination of Nixon, no expansion in VietNam, no Bay of Pigs, no Missile Crisis...........What might have happened though? The country was ready for social changes and Nixon was not the man for that, although the system may well have forced him there, as it forced JFK into Cuba.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: What if?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 20 Aug 02 - 02:26 PM

Yes, I have noticed that Bush ad libs a lot less these days, which is a good thing. In general, I agree that he's still not much of a speaker, but I have to admit that his speech to Congress after the 9/11 attacks was outstanding -- exactly what the moment called for. I'm sure he had a lot of help on that one, but he was the man in the spotlight, and he delivered.

Reagan truly was a great public speaker. So was Clinton, who in fact could ad lib a lot better than Reagan, although he couldn't pull off the grandfatherly twinkle in the eye like Reagan could. I think that the ability to communicate effectively and eloquently is one of the most important qualities in a leader, and one that is often discounted by people who consider it only a cosmetic consideration rather than a substantive one. In the end, our greatest leaders (Lincoln, Churchill, or take your pick) don't really do much except talk, thereby convincing and inspiring others to act. If a leader can't speak, he or she can't lead.

Subject: RE: BS: What if?
From: NicoleC
Date: 20 Aug 02 - 01:50 PM

Interesting point about Gore's speaking abilities. Gore is genuinely a smart guy with a lot on the ball, but he manages to come across as both condescending and detached. Making people feel inferior isn't good for getting votes.

I still don't think that Bush makes much of a speaker, though. I can't stand to hear him speak; it gives me the willies, and every time he ventures away from his speech-writers script he manages to stick his foot in his mouth. He IS learning not to ad lib, have you noticed?

I guess not every president can have the public speaking talents of Reagan. :)

Subject: RE: BS: What if?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 20 Aug 02 - 01:09 PM

Doug, you pose an interesting question. I think there are some similarities between the Bush response, and the likely Gore response, to the 9/11 attacks. For the most part, I think Gore would have followed the same script with respect to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and he would have had the benefit of some expert advisors in doing so, as Bush has. [I'm not sure who his Secretary of State would have been, but his predecessor boss had one of the best we've ever had in Madeleine Albright.]

I don't know whether Gore would have been as good at crystallizing the issues and communicating American resolve as Bush has been. Frankly, I never considered Bush to be a very effective communicator, but he surprised and impressed me with the clarity and vigor of his immediate response to the attacks, his framing of the issues, his address to Congress, etc. Gore has always had trouble losing the wooden, over-rehearsed (and seemingly insincere) aspect to his public presentations, and I think this trouble might have continued to plague him even after the attacks, when the times called for a strong and sincere statement of American anger and resolve. But for the most part, I think the two men would have responded to that event similarly.

I think that the major difference between Gore and Bush would have been in their level of engagement in the Middle East prior to the attacks. During the 2000 campaign Bush spoke very disparagingly about our level of diplomatic engagement in the world's trouble spots, and our efforts at "nation building," and his Administration's rapid withdrawal from significant diplomatic involvement in the Israeli/Palestinian situation showed that he meant what he said. In retrospect, I think he realizes that he was wrong to disengage so completely from the region, and he now recognizes that US interests are inextricably tied to the fate of that region of the world. Gore knew this all along; I think that he would have stayed engaged, and that continuing American participation/mediation would have prevented that situation from getting so completely out of control (remember, the closest the parties ever got to a sustainable peace was during Clinton's watch). That is critically important, and has consequences beyond Israel's borders. For that reason I think the world might be in better shape today if Gore had made it to the White house.

Nader never had a shot at the White House, and he knew it, of course. If by some fluke he had gotten in, it would have been a disaster. He can be a pretty effective gadfly, but that's not much of a qualification for the Presidency.

Subject: RE: BS: What if?
From: NicoleC
Date: 20 Aug 02 - 12:58 PM

Gore on foreign policy: 8 years in the House 12 years in the Senate 8 years experience as a Vice President, almost exclusively handling foreign relations for another president with limited foreign experience, Clinton. While Vice President, Gore travelled extensively conducting negotiations and improving diplomatic relations. Saying the Gore doesn't have any foreign policy experience is just sour grapes -- you might disagree with his actions, but to deny they ever happened???

Bush on foreign policy: Bragged at a speech I attended that he only read the Sports section and never travelled outside the US. Some experience with Mexico while Governor of Texas.

Chalk up yet another blunder (of many) in Gore's presidential campaign that the issue of foreign policy experience was hardly discussed.

Gore's environmental record is awful. You won't find me championing his environmental history.

I'm not a Gore fan. When I say that I think he would have pursued a more diplomatic route, I think he would have done so because of his comfort level with it, not because he was somehow more noble and peaceful. As for the American public wanting blood -- well, it wouldn't have been hard to manipulate the media coverage to show how tough the Gore administration was being by going straight to the bad guy. The Bush administration did the same thing by perpetuating this image that every American wanted blood and Bush was tough by giving it to them.

Everyone was a bit shocked in the wake of 9/11. ANY kind of strong leadership from the White House would have been welcome. Many Americans approved of the bombing because they wanted us to do *something,* not necessarily because they wanted the wrong people to die.

As for the inaction during the Clinton adminstration, I definately agree. They could have moved a lot sooner, as could George Sr., because this issue has ben around for decades. But you can't extradite someone for a crime they haven't committed yet or one which you can't prove. The Clinton adminsitration, like George Sr's administration, did squat. The Clinton administration DID leave an anti-terrorism plan of action for the next administration, unfortunately they ignored it... apparently because they disagreed with anything on principle that the previous administration might have done, even if it coincided with their own politics. I kind of doubt it would have prevented 9/11, but it's frustrating just the same.

Newsflash: Some of us were quite aware of the Taliban and what they stood for before 9/11. The US government didn't give a damn about the women of Afghanistan until it became politically expedient to use that as justification for their actions. Right up until then the Taliban was their best buddies and it didn't matter that a woman could be beaten to death for no reason, or that a 12 year old girl who was raped would be killed for violating her family's honor while the perpetrator was just a victim of her uncleanliness.

So spare me the stories about how bad the Taliban is, and how wonderful we are for getting them out of power. Their brutality had nothing to do with why we pushed them out of power, and like fighting terrorism, we could have done something much sooner. Nor does the US have any laurels to rest on with the Northern Alliance. They may think TV and radio are okay, but women are still suffering from rapes, honor killings and lack of medical care at their hands. Once the Northern Alliance is firmly in power and the world is busy looking elsewhere -- at Iraq, for instance, the women of Afghanistan will be no better off than they were under the Taliban.

Then the Northern Alliance will be our best buddies and the US government will go back to not caring about it.

Subject: RE: BS: What if?
From: DougR
Date: 20 Aug 02 - 03:31 AM

Nicole: thanks for the additional message. Sorry you lost the first one.

I think you have an interesting take on the subject. It would never occur to me that Nader might, had he been elected, choose cabinet members that do not completely share his view of things. I have serious doubts Colin Powell would have joined his administration myself, because I believe he is more conservative than liberals would like to think. Your assessment that Gore had a strong understanding of foreign affairs is also in doubt in my opinion. Perhaps you could point out what he did during his years as a U. S. Senator, or as Vice President that leads you to this conculsion. I would be interested in knowing. He also is known in some circles as a great environmentalist, but in eight years as VP, there is little evidence he did anything other than right a book about the environment.

As to Gore trying diplomacy prior to bombs, I would question that too, because both he and President Clinton had ample provocation and opportunity to deal with Osama during the eight years they were in office. They did nothing. Oh, they may have used diplomacy of one sort of another, but it didn't prevent 9/11 did it?

Also, I'm not sure the American people would have stood for Gore to announce that he was going to try to enter into negotation with the Taliban to surrender Osama after the planes crashed into the WTC, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania soil. I think GWB's response was exactly what the majority of the American public wanted to hear, and polls show the the majority approved of his using military force.

Your seeming defense of the Taliban is puzzeling to me. The Taliban was, by I believe most of the free world's measure, one of the most repressive in history. You present an argument that leans toward our being the bad guy because we threw them out of power. I wonder if the average woman in Afghanstan would agree with that POV.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: What if?
From: NicoleC
Date: 19 Aug 02 - 04:53 PM

Okay, you twisted my arm. As if I ever need any encouragement to spout off any of my opinions :) I'll try to be more brief this time.

The "What would Nader do" question is a red herring. Nader never intended to get elected; he wanted to bring issues to the table that the Dems and 'pubs never talk about. Having said that, though, if Nader did get elected by some fluke, I think he's smart enough to have assembled an experienced, bi-partisan cabinet. Since Nader knows as little about foreign policy as Bush does, the real question is more likely, "What would Nader's Secretary of State do?" (It wouldn't be Albright... I wonder if it would have been Powell? Even liberals like Powell -- you may disagree with his politics but at least he's open-minded.)

As for Gore, it's probably a mistake to completely discount his actions. Gore's specialty was always foreign policy, and he's far more cognizant of the way an action can have many unequal reactions when you are dealing with foreign politics.

In the wake of 9/11 I was particularly appalled by the way that diplomacy was not only ignored, but completely rejected. However repulsive I may have found the Taliban, they a) were our allies, b) we knew that Osama was an honored guest in their country because of his actions during their war with the USSR, c) as a guest, they were honor-bound by their culture to protect him unless he broke their rules, and not engaging in acts of terrorism was one of them, and d) we still haven't seen any evidence that the Taliban was involved. So when the Taliban offered to turn Osama over to an Islamic country for trial, it was a very serious action for them. They COULDN'T turn over a guest unless they had proof that he had violated their laws. As opening bids for negotiation go, it wasn't a bad one. The Bush administration completely spurned them. We wouldn't release an American citizen for trial in a foreign country without some evidence -- it looks particularly bad when we demand that another coutry do so.

It's impossible to say at this point how serious the Taliban was -- it *could* have been a delaying tactic. Personally, I'm inclined to think that the Taliban wasn't involved, simply because they already had one war on their hands and didn't have the resources to invest in another. Whether the Taliban approved of Osama's actions or not, Osama had become a deadly liability and I think they were genuinely trying to find a way out of their cultural conundrum.

The upshot of all this hypothesizing is that I think Gore would have at least tried to use the Taliban to extradite Osama. If we could have succeeded in extraditing Osama, we could have saved the lives of both American soldiers and thousands of Afghan civilians who had nothing to do with the incident, brought his to public trial, and not only got the bad guy but maintained some credibility in the middle east. I don't think the anti-American sentiment in the region would be running as high as it is now if we'd been able to achieve a peaceful resolution. (I do think that Gore would have indulged in a little military grandstanding and killed a few hundred Arabs or Afghans just to make the more bloodthirstly elements of the voting public happy.)

On the other hand, if diplomacy didn't work, we would still have military options open. What's to lose?

The other alternative would have been a military police action -- drop in, find the bad guys and bring them home for trial. I think the Taliban would have been very careful to be conveniently out of our way while publically protesting the "persecution" of their guest. We needed the Northern Alliance to displace the Taliban, not to find Osama; an international task force could have handled that well -- we avoid the unilateral action accusation while earning brownie points for justice. Many of the military leaders were unhappy about us deliberately causing the civil war to flare up, because it made the job of finding Osama more difficult.

We have achieved NONE of the (publically) stated objectives in Afghanistan, except for the overthrow of our former ally, the Taliban, who probably weren't involved but were really pesky about not letting up build that gas pipeline. With Taliban gone the pipeline is one schedule, and the Northern Alliance is just as nasty as the Taliban was. It should be obvious by now to anyone with half a brain that Bush's so-called "cowboy diplomacy" doesn't work with fundamentalists. They just get the dander up and get more stubborn than ever. Meanwhile, Osama is relaxing somewhere out of the line of fire. (I think he's alive, the bit about how he died sounds like propaganda to both save face and try to undermine his movement... alternately we may have found him and executed him, but hushed it up to prevent creating a martyr.)

In summary: I don't think that Gore would be worried any more than Bush about the lives and deaths of the Afghan civilians or the American soldiers that died, but I do think he would have exhausted the diplomacy angle first, and probably focused on more of a police action than a whole bombing of the country.

Subject: RE: BS: What if?
From: DougR
Date: 19 Aug 02 - 03:30 PM

Aw shucks, Nicole, write it again! I'd be interested in your comments. Can you summarize it?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: What if?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 19 Aug 02 - 03:21 PM

Nicole, Nicole, Nicole.....tsk, tsk, tsk....

Haven't you learned to always create long posts in Word or Wordpad and paste them here? Any post of more than five sentences is guaranteed to be eaten by something before it gets to Mudcatville unless you have saved a copy of it.

Subject: RE: BS: What if?
From: NicoleC
Date: 19 Aug 02 - 02:44 PM

I just wrote a long detailed message, and then the server ate it by going offline. Ya'll will have to wonder what I might have said, because I'm not writing it again!

Subject: RE: BS: What if?
From: DougR
Date: 19 Aug 02 - 01:33 PM

But I didn't inhale!

Subject: RE: BS: What if?
From: DougR
Date: 19 Aug 02 - 01:32 PM

Hi Rick!

You're probably right about the title. I selected the one I did because it is a favorite tool of writers of fiction. The writer asks her/himself "what if?" and lets his/her imagination run amok, setting it all down on paper. I'm sure, though, the thread would have drawn more attention had I elected to use any one of your suggestions.

Your comment about Nader turning to the right surprised me. He always has impressed me as being as steadfast in his political philosophy as anyone could be.

Thread drift warning!!! I smoked a great meatloaf yesterday.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: What if?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 19 Aug 02 - 10:46 AM

Hi Doug, hope all is well. It's a good question, but as I found out, as Mudcat gets more and more 'open' (as in fewer people drawn here BECAUSE we're music folk) the headlines have to be much more specific to get a lot of responses.

Had you titled it:

"Is Dubya the anti-christ?" or

"Gore was cryogenically frozen BEFORE last election!" or

"Ralph Nader is Osama Bin Laudin's third cousin!"

...you'd have gotten a huge response.

However, just to throw my two cents worth in (and no surprise here)... although I find (found) Dubya to be a rather average appearing guy (although filthy rich) with an obvious inability to absorb (and hold) information of a political nature, I doubt that he's any less of a prisoner to his advisors than Gore would have been. Had Nader through some fluke become President, I think his shift to the right would have been almost instantaneous. The nature of the country is that no one can be too left or too right. Same as Canada. It simply boils down to the kind of co-operation needed from the opposition in order to get ANYTHING done.

Cheers

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: What if?
From: Chip2447
Date: 19 Aug 02 - 02:34 AM

Hussien has proved over and over to the world that he is an unstable element in the middle east, and someone, somewhere is going to have to deal with him. Since he kicked the U.N. mandated weapons inspectors out, four or five years ago, no one knows how his weapons development/ aqquistion program is going. He still has some 400k men in the army, of which 100 thousand are the Republican Guard, (which by many are still considered seasoned, well trained, well disciplined troops). Given time, he will find a way to drop a WMD on Israel. Do we remove him from power now, or do we wait and let the Israelis retaliate for the attack that will come. That could bring Armaggedon to the Middle East.
Offering a hand to a rabid dog could very well result in a dogbite.

Can we defeat him without a war? While much more pleasant, I'm doubtful that it will work. Ten years of sanctions have done little to affect change in the Iraqi leadership.
Can we, meaning the civilized nations of the world talk him down? Possibly, but for how long? And talking him down gives him more time to work on his NBC devices. I really don't see any way to oust him other than by force. I'd rather not see that happen. But I really don't want to see Iraq use WMDs on Israel, or Israel respond with a nuke of their own.
It's a violatile situation, and will have to be addressed sometime.
As far as either Nader or Gore goes, the initial response to the actions of Sep 11 would have been virtually the same. How things would have progressed from there is speculation.

Chip2447

Subject: RE: BS: What if?
From: DougR
Date: 19 Aug 02 - 01:42 AM

Bee-Dubya: I really don't think it is a personal thing with Dubya. Based on reports on various televison shows, many of those who are urging caution in relation to the Iraqi question are predicting that the world will have to deal with Saddam eventually. Most of those who are critical of talks of invading Iraq are merely asking for more validation for doing so. I don't think that is an unreasonable position to take at all.

I'm a bit surprised, after posting this thread, that more people have not responded to my question. Causes me to wonder if those who are so critical of the current U. S. administration are only interested in criticizing rather than offering alternatives to GWB's policies.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: What if?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 17 Aug 02 - 12:30 PM

I agree with Kendall. If Gore were President, or if 9/11 had happened a couple of years earlier while Clinton was still in office, the difference in response would have been negligible. In such a situation, any President is going to ultimately do what his advisors advise and what the public demands. The perception of Republicans as hawks and Democrats as doves is BS. It made no difference which party was in power during Vietnam, and it wouldn't make any difference today.

On the other hand, Dubya's obsession with Iraq is a personal issue and only peripherally related to 9/11. If Gore had won the election, I don't think we would have to be dealing with that issue. Unfortunately, success in Afghanistan has reinforced Dubya's cowboy mentality and he's lookin' for another Indian to shoot. Fortunately, his advisors now seem to be telling him to cool it. American public opinion may be in favor of attacking Saddam, but World opinion is definitely not. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: What if?
From: kendall
Date: 17 Aug 02 - 04:10 AM

Doug, all politicians are the same. They have advisors. GB seems bent on attacking Iraq and finishing the job his father didn't do. The reason he didn't do it is because he had no right to do it! If Iraq is such a threat (after 9 years of weapons inspections) why are we the only country to see it? BECAUSE BUSH NEEDS AN ENEMY, and Saddam is it! I do believe that Gore couldn't screw things up any worse than Bush has, but, that's damning with faint praise I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: What if?
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Aug 02 - 03:28 AM

As a UK outsider, I'd have been quite concerned by the effect that Joseph Liberman as Gore's VP might have on the Middle East. No matter what Liberman did or how he behaved, it would have been used as yet another reason why the US could not be trusted re the Arab world.

Subject: What if?
From: DougR
Date: 17 Aug 02 - 03:15 AM

There has been a great deal of dissatisfaction expressed by Mudcatters with the way George Bush is running things as president. Multiple threads have been posted, or messages have been posted to other threads, about how he stole the election, etc. The inference being that either Gore or Nader would have done a better job.

I'm curious. How do you think Al Gore would have handled things if he was President of the U. S. today? For the benefit of Nader fans, how would he have handled things?

Specifically, how would both gentlemen have handled the threat of terror, and the problems of the economy? What would they have done to make our strategic partners more comfortable with world events than Bush has done?

DougR