I'm a little shocked that the pundits are giving Dubya a pass on this notion that he is somehow a "Wartime President."
Wars as a rule have at least as many people opposed to them, as support them.
And, you simply can not START a war, and then claim to be a "Wartime President." I think we are confusing the "Roosevlet Model" with the historical norm in this regard.
Dubya has invaded two countries, since 911. And, he has very little to show for it.
The sad truth is that 911 was a crime, not an act of war.
TRUE, A HUGE CRIME, BUT STILL A CRIME.
How so?
Well, to actually have a "normal war" you need an enemy power, some government to blame. Because, war is "justifible violence" to handle inter govenmental disputes. Or, if you prefer, politics by other means.
The notion that the Taliban were "harboring" Osama, could have been dealt with though diplomatic means. And, the idea that Saddam may have been a "bad person," or was thinking "bad thoughts" was not a causus belli, normally defined.
When Hitler invaded Poland, he didn't try to hide it!
When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, they didn't blame it on someone else!
THAT'S REAL WAR!
Not this mumbo-jumbo stuff coming out of Washington.
In today's NYT David Brooks is starting to portray Dubya as THE MISUNDERSTOOD NOBLE SAVAGE, who may lose the election, but for pure and honorable reasons.
The idea seems to be: We were attacked and we had to attack back. Well, maybe...... But look were that reasoning has got us!
MAYBE IF DUBYA HAD BEEN ON THE BALL IN THE MIDDLE EAST INSTEAD OF KOW-TOWING TO SHARON AND THE LIKUD PARTY; DUBYA COULD HAVE BEEN THE "HONEST BROKER."
MAYBE NOT, MAYBE POPPY BUSH NIXED THAT IDEA IN THE MINDS OF THE ISLAMISTS, STARTING FROM THE DUBYA'S FIRST DAY IN OFFICE.
I suppose we'll never know what forks in the road weren't taken.
STILL, IF THE NOTION NOW IS THAT DUBYA HAS TO CONQUOR THE ENTIRE EMPIRE OF ISLAM;
SO SHARON AND THE LIKUD CAN SAFELY TAKE THE WEST BANK? Which they have never denied was their ultimate goal!
WE HAVE TAKEN A WRONG TURN SOMEWHERE!
