Why are so many nations anxious about Bush's absolutist foreign policy? Well, you might consider this tidbit from longtime White House counter-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke, who served under four presidents, including Dubya. Appearing on CBS News' 60 Minutes, he said that on September 12, 2001, when it had become clear that al-Qaeda attacked NY and Washington, the Bush administration's first choice was to bomb Iraq in retaliation.
"Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq. We all said, "No, no, al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan, and Rumsfeld said, "There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, "Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with (September 11)' ... the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there, saying, "We've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection.'"
Or consider this from James Webb, Secretary of the Navy for Pres. Reagan: "Those around Bush...have attempted to assassinate the character and insult the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them. Some have impugned the culture, history and integrity of entire nations, particularly in Europe, that have been our country's great friends for generations and, in some cases, for centuries."
Should you be anxious about a leader who dictates the singular clarity of his vision while muddying the waters upon which his arguments are meant to float? Should you be anxious about a president whose most compelling argument for re-election is "Don't change horses in mid-apocalypse"? Should you be anxious about where such a leader is leading us? Or are you against us?
