It looks like I'm finally done with a long project, so I can give my two cents on Bush's inaugural address. How could I have held off so long, you're thinking.
One thing I want to make clear again is that I really think Bush has good intentions. I'm not one of those who think it's all about oil, for example. And I'm really willing to believe that he's a born again Christian, although I don't think he has technically used these words of himself (I could be wrong).
Of course this doesn't mean I idealize him as a Christian whose example I want to follow. Anyone who knows me, particularly in class, know my failings. They are enormous, so I'm not saying I'm better than Bush on any number of things that are important--especially for being President.
On the other hand, there are some things I think he could improve on. I was disappointed that he didn't take the time to address the Tsunami immediately because he was on vacation. Sure, I respect the need for a President to have space--just like a pastor needs to have some space that the church can't get into. I don't think he did wrong--but he was not the best President that day.
And I was a little irritated that I had to be soothed by Gulianni after 9-11 while Bush was flying around somewhere in Air Force One. Sure, they needed to make sure he was safe. They did nothing wrong--but he was not the best President that day.
But none of these things are very serious or important. They're trivial matters that were just a little disappointing to me. I suspect Bush errs a little on the self-centered side, or at least he's not as caring and daring as I prefer in a President (remember Bush senior yawning and looking at his watch during Presidential debates).
But the address.
It scared me. Are we really going to try to overthrow every totalitarian regime in the world? Of course it was not a good speech because of its vague generalities. I've come to expect this from Bush. He repeats the same phrase over and over without really saying anything specific.
So what did it mean? What was he trying to say about what we will be doing the next four years? The speech didn't really tell me. Are we going to invade Iran and North Korea?
Well, we're not, even if Bush was thinking this. There's no way America will let him. If he proposes a new war, there will be a debate this time, and his reasons will come under scrutiny. There will be no "don't debate in reverence to those who lost their lives to 9-11." There will be no "don't debate because we need morale to be up."
Congress simply will not give Bush approval to attack any nation that does not attack us again. It's one thing to try to defend a vote you mistakenly made in the past. It's another to vote on something you're going to do with a lot more experience than you had the last time.
Of course, I could be wrong...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
you are right when you say that we won't go into iran and north korea... but what would be wrong if we did? have we not been granted [by God?] the most powerful military in history? as Christians, should we not desire and work for others to live freely, thus worship freely? *gasp* yes, i am suggesting that perhaps words require action.
to whom much has been given...
I am not opposed in principle to liberating oppressed peoples and overthrowing dictators. But I think there are all kinds of conditions we have to place on these kinds of actions (e.g., preemption without broad based international support seems incredibly iffy to me).
Since I just saw part of Scooby Doo 2, I feel like Bush's way of going about things is like the way Shaggy and Scooby capture the bad guy. It almost always turns out a whole lot sloppier than the plan.
I'm trying now not to cry too much over spilt milk. I think Bush meant well with Iraq and at least the election makes it look like it might work out. But boy, I don't want to start it all over again somewhere else unless we dot all our i's and cross our t's this time. Bush in Iraq made me think of someone stomping on an ant pile.
Post a Comment