"Being
president is like being a jackass in a hailstorm. There's nothing to
do but to stand there and take
it." -Lyndon B. Johnson
Over
the course of his first two years in office, some false notions
about President Bush have propagated throughout news stories and
opinion columns across the country. The stories have become so
ubiquitous, that at this point they are now treated as presumed
facts.
I say these notions are false not as some
political insider with privileged information, but just as a
deliberative and prudent observer who is constantly trying to
reconcile what I read about the President against what are mostly
self-evident facts.
Myth
#1: Bush is opposed to multilateral agreements.
First and foremost among these false notions is
the idea that George W. Bush is opposed to multilateral coalitions
and agreements. From his very first trip abroad as President, we
have heard portrayals of Bush as a lone cowboy from Texas who likes
to shoot from the hip and ask for consensus later.
Those who
make this claim often cite Bush’s stark opposition to the Kyoto
protocol, his administration’s departure from peace talks with North
Korea, and his withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty as
evidence of this. Yet these cases hardly prove Bush is opposed to
multilateral agreements so much as opposed to those
multilateral agreements.
The Senate’s overwhelming
95-0 vote to pass the Byrd-Hagel Resolution five years ago sent a
strong signal that the Kyoto Treaty stood little chance of ever
being ratified. North Korea’s recent admission of a nuclear weapons
program has justified the administration’s hard line approach since
it indicates that their government can’t be taken at their word. And
U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Treaty actually demonstrates
the President’s commitment to preserving the integrity of our
multilateral treaties since he has made no qualms about moving
forward with a missile defense program.
One only has to
look at the success with which this administration has recently
sought and obtained a unanimous vote on a UN resolution sending arms
inspectors back to Iraq to conclude that while they may be prepared
to go it alone if necessary, there is a preference for multilateral
coalitions and agreements whenever possible.
Myth #2: Colin Powell often strongly disagrees with the
positions that the President and others in the administration
take.
Over the last two years there has been a flurry of stories
predicting the departure of Colin Powell from his job as Secretary
of State due to frustration with losing so many internal debates
over policy decisions.More recently, there have been editorial columns where
writers have painstakingly tried to remove Powell from a broad
stroke of criticism aimed at every other member of the Bush cabinet.
The implication is often that Colin Powell is a reluctant
participant in a cabinet full of right-wing
zealots.
The administration has seemingly even used
this perception to their advantage by creating a form of “good
cop-bad cop” diplomacy in international relations. In a standoff
with China over the return of service men and women involved in a
spy plane accident, Bush maintained a tough rhetorical stance while
a softer-toned letter from Secretary Powell finally eased the
situation. Similarly, the administration has quelled virulent
disputes between the Israelis and Palestinians, with Bush and others
voicing firm support for the Israeli government and Powell speaking
more sympathetically about the Palestinians.
While it is most
likely true that there have been significant disagreements among top
members of Bush’s cabinet as there have been in any previous
administration, it’s hard to believe that Powell can be too unhappy.
At the end of the day, he remains a member of the Bush team, and
perhaps the most key member in terms of public stature and
popularity. If he were truly dissatisfied with any major decisions,
it would be easy enough for him to force the President’s hand by
walking away and taking with him the enormous weight that his
presence brings. The fact that he hasn’t done so yet can only be
construed as at least a partial endorsement of the majority of
decisions.
At the Annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation
Dinner in New York this past October, Secretary Powell made light of
the situation, recounting a likely fictitious Oval Office
conversation with Bush, “Mr. President, I don't know how to handle
it. It's so hard. The New York Times wants me to quit, the
Washington Times wants you to fire me.” The punch line of the
Secretary’s joke was a response back by the President stating,
“Colin, that's right where I want you to
be.”
Myth #3: The
reason for the President’s insistence on war with Iraq is to avenge
the assassination attempt on his father and/or to salvage his
father’s legacy regarding the Persian Gulf War.
For someone to believe that the President’s
actions regarding Iraq are strictly on a personal level, it would
indicate that they have little confidence in the integrity of all
the major members of the Bush cabinet. Given the long track record
of distinguished service by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfield,
Condoleezza Rice, and yes Colin Powell, it is beyond even the
wildest of imaginations to seriously believe that all of these
distinguished public servants have bought-in to a policy---one that
involves the complete mobilization of our armed forces---if it were
merely based on a personal vendetta.
Every member of the
administration has publicly stated that the reason for waging war
with Iraq is due to the serious threat that they pose to our
national security as indicated by their continual effort to pursue
programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and their
well-documented history of using such weapons both inside and
outside its borders. With such a credible stated argument for taking
a tough stand with Iraq, there would seem to be little reason to
give much credence to frivolous speculation on ulterior
motives.
