The Best President, The Worst President -- Same Guy?
My life is so much simpler when the Bush administration takes positions that are blatantly wrong, if not actively destructive of our Constitutional protections. Special shout-out to the federal judge who "questioned why there was such anxiety over the policy. After all, there have been no mass roundups of citizens and no indications the White House is coming for innocent Americans next." Dude, you fail at history.
But then I'm listening to NPR and hear about how that same administration is considering creating "some of the largest marine reserves in the world — far larger than national parks like Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon." As a scuba diver who has seen the degradation our few U.S. coral reefs have suffered during my lifetime, this would be almost indescribably happy news.
Talk about your intense ambivalence....
posted by QueensGuy @ 5:33 AM
4 Comments:
I, on the other hand, have no such ambivalence. Oh, sure, the man isn't perfect - what President has been? - and his domestic policies, other than cutting taxes, have been mostly hash (what, he just learns the power of veto in his last two years in office?).
But when it comes to his actions in the war on terror, whatever his missteps - which I'm sure we could discuss/argue for hours, if not days - they have been done with one thing in mind: to keep us safe.
I believe history will judge him as a good, if not great, President who rose to one of the biggest challenges any President has ever faced.
I'm not sure we'd have much argument when it comes to motives. I firmly believe the man is a patriot who wishes to keep his country safe from its enemies. I also believe he is not a bigot, and cares about the welfare of America's poor. He cares about the environment, balancing that concern about the need to maintain economic growth, as all sane leaders should.
However, I believe he is deeply lacking in judgment. Our society has survived many venal, weak, lazy, selfish, or just plain incompetent administrations largely because of the robustness of our Constitutional structure and its enshrinement of fundamental individual liberties. To the extent he has upset the balance of the former and weakened the latter, I fear he has done lasting harm to our society. I deeply hope that I'm wrong and, like the judge in that detention case believes, it all turns out to have been no big deal. But to the extent it turns out he weakened us, lacked foresight and vision, and his policies will turn out have been largely ineffectual in both foreign and domestic affairs, I believe he will be judged by history quite harshly. Here's to hoping you're right.
Reading the article, it seems to me that MSNBC is sliding over the fact that Al Marri is not a citizen. I have no trouble with legal residents (here on one visa or another) being treated differently than citizens. It is a risk that a non-citizen faces - after all they do not have a right to be in this country and should be especially diligent not to violate US laws.
Given that Al Marri is not a citizen, it seems a stretch to warn that any one of us may be next. The Padilla case (which does involve a citizen), is more troubling.
I had the same reaction to the author's failure to acknowledge the citizen/resident distinction -- up until I read this question and answer:
"What you assert is the power of the military to seize a person in the United States, including an American citizen, on suspicion of being an enemy combatant?" Judge William B. Traxler asked.
"Yes, your honor," Justice Department lawyer Gregory Garre replied.
Post a Comment
<< Home