Times Calls for Change

Filed under: Foreign Affairs, George W. Bush, Radical Islam, United States — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on December 31, 2007 @ 5:00 pm CET

If anyone’s still wondering whether the NYT’s editorial board is extremely liberal or not, well, I’d say just read this editorial.

Although I agree with the Times on a few issues, I can’t help but think “yeah, yeah. Yeah.” to myself when reading the article.

Firstly, let me respond to this: “Out of panic and ideology, President Bush squandered America’s position of moral and political leadership…” To the NYT: the only ones who believe that America had a position of moral and political leadership, let alone authority, are Americans. The rest of the world begs to differ. Some, like myself, are pro-American and have quite a nuanced view, others - and this is the far majority of all the people in the world - aren’t and haven’t. To them, America represents a great deal, but moral leadership / authority isn’t one of them.

Having said that, although Bush has gone too far morally and politically with regards to Gitmo, Abu, etc., he has been a political leader. The rest of the world was forced to choose: to be with the US or against it. Most Western countries - and most countries in the world for that matter - decided to be with the US, at least nominally. In the war against radical Islam, furthermore, Bush is undoubtedly the leader of the world. If it were left up to Europe, nothing would’ve happened and extremists would’ve taken over many more countries in the years since 9/11/2001.

Again, the Times is right about some issues: Bush has certainly not been the greatest president in US history, not even in modern US history. On the other hand, he hasn’t been the failure his liberal opponents like to pretend either. Bush has one main legacy, and that’s that the West is on the offense against radical Islam.

And that’s quite something.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email.

1 Rudi666

December 31, 2007 @ 5:43 pm CET

We have seen the president, sworn to defend the Constitution, turn his powers on his own citizens, authorizing the intelligence agencies to spy on Americans, wiretapping phones and intercepting international e-mail messages without a warrant.

I believe that Bill Clinton(Clenis) layed the ground work for some of this BS. Wiretaps and rendition started with Clenis, W just improved on the techniques.

2 Xel

December 31, 2007 @ 6:36 pm CET

"“Out of panic and ideology, President Bush squandered America’s position of moral and political leadership…”"
He sure did. Most Europeans thought the US had an airtight rationale for defending itself. Most Europeans had the perspective to see that the invasion of Iraq did not consitute self-defense, and the incredible flaws inherent in the Afghanistan/Iraq invasions (flaws that could have been prevented if only people hadn’t opted for the propaganda and sweet-talking) made people doubt that the US was acting out of reasonable motives with a reasonable mindset.
"The rest of the world was forced to choose: to be with the US or against it."
Ah yes, that old rationale. Once again, no country had the slightest of reasons to help out with the invasion of Iraq. I am all for sticking to Afghanistan, but if I have to get Iraq as a package deal then maybe I simply don’t find the US to be a very effective and thoughtful leader.
I still feel Iraq was originally about the oil. Today, the only reason I want the US to stay even one more day is because I care about the human rights and happiness of the Iraqi citizens.
"In the war against radical Islam, furthermore, Bush is undoubtedly the leader of the world."
And what results we are seeing!

3 sashal

December 31, 2007 @ 6:45 pm CET

I really have nothing to add to Xel’s post, besides that it is a spot on ( not sure about the oil part as the only motivator, do not discard the academic Utopian fantasies of changing the nations and the world using military power-called neoconservatism)
But I really want to use that opportunity to wish Happy New Year to everybody and hope that it will be better then 2007.