It is a grand irony that Bush I is now coming to salvage the presidency of Bush II (“The Rescue Squad,” Nov. 20). Just five years ago, in the afterglow of his September 11 performance, some commentators argued for the coronation of George W. as likely one of the best presidents in American history. Now his stock sinks to the level of one of the worst presidents, if not the very worst. Tragically, he’s taken the country’s reputation with him. George H.W. Bush and his insiders are working to offset egregious leadership mistakes and a profoundly bad legacy. We can be grateful for any salvaging he and his team can manage if it brings into order the messes of the son and his constellation of disastrous advisers.
The triumph of the Democratic Party in the November elections shows that the United States lacks the spiritual strength to put up with setbacks and to persevere in its goals. Indeed, any setback makes the United States too easily succumb in the face of the determination of its enemies. And to see Democrats and Muslims celebrate together the defeat of President Bush is unbearably sad. Besides, if Americans had dedicated to winning the war all the enthusiasm they put into buying Playstation 3, the war would have been over by now. Osama bin Laden was right. What a pity.
I am by no means a supporter of George W. Bush’s policies, but I think your cover is a cheap, demeaning shot at him now that he has finally called on some seasoned diplomats and politicians. Your cover appears at a time when America’s image has already suffered too much. I think President Bush has followed a foolish course in international relations, undoing years of good will in much of the world, but we should be looking for an intelligent way out of this mess, not for childish editorial expression.
One indeed may be wondering what the reasons behind the November election results in the United States were. While a few may say that voters have demonstrated a preference for the Democratic Party’s policies, most know that the shift of power in the United States Congress is a result of dissatisfaction with the current administration and the Republican Party’s direction. And while most may say that the political adage regarding the dominant significance of local politics didn’t hold up this time around, a few know that this is not the case. All politics is (and remains) local. The only thing that has changed is the size of the local neighborhood. In the era of globalization one surely must acknowledge that Iraq, Iran and every other place on the planet are parts of everyone’s back yard; and they can determine electoral results, now more than ever.
The statement on your cover, “Father Knows Best,” brought to mind the following equation and question: a zero earned by the senior George Bush for his presidency plus a zero earned by George W. Bush equals zero. How can a former zero president like the senior Bush save the presidency of Bush Junior, who with Prime Minister Tony Blair created a war to raise the price of oil so that BP executives and every member of the Bush family could become billionaires? In this case, Father does not know what is best. And it will take the Democratic majority of Congress to force Bush Junior to withdraw all American troops from Iraq immediately. The senior Bush and Bush Junior have failed to achieve the Republican Party objective of controlling the Middle East and should allow Iraqis to form their own government. The United States must develop a “peace- time economy.” The American government needs to stop subsidizing the civilian military-industrial complex by appropriating to it more than $300 billion each year. We must change the policy that “a little war stimulates our economy,” which has been the case since the end of World War II.
I found your series of articles concerning the election aftershock to be a very interesting and enlightening read. I was perturbed, however, by the steady stream of anonymous aides and unnamed staffers who supplied your reporters with quotes and information. One would have thought that in a modern, open and democratically governed society, there would be more people in the corridors of power actually willing to put their names to what they have a perfectly legitimate right to say.
It was evident when I opened the Nov. 20 NEWSWEEK that even a major shift by the American electorate didn’t change the Washington media’s obsession with the Republicans and the right wing. After an election where the Democratic Party won both houses of Congress, and, even more remarkably, did not lose a single incumbent representative, senator or governor, NEWSWEEK still can’t see past the GOP. I was flabbergasted to see that there was not a single story in the issue focused on the new majority. If it had not been for the few graphics and tables, no one would know that the Democrats had won the November election. Don’t you think your readers, especially your many readers outside the United States, would have liked to learn who the leaders of this movement are rather than read more pieces on the same people you have genuflected to for the last six years?
President Bush is bringing about his own downfall. The main cause of that failing is the military action he blindly launched against Iraq. There was no justification for war. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Who armed Saddam Hussein when he used weapons of mass destruction against the Kurds? The former Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld was in Baghdad in 1983 when chemical weapons were being sold. Look at the quagmire into which Bush has dragged the world. Look how the American image has been blemished worldwide. The greatest democracy in the world is waning. Western security is in jeopardy because of one stubborn man. We had better save democracy instead of Bush’s presidency. We need a new visionary leader to put America back on the right track, to regain America’s lost prestige and fundamental values, and to get America to dare to be great again.
Now that the arrogant, egotistical Donald Rumsfeld has been jettisoned by the Bush administration (“A Warrior Lays Down His Arms,” Nov. 20), can the world expect some efficient and effective legal action against him? This is the person who has given the United States a bad international image. He appears to have overruled his military advisers and generals continually, resulting in the bloody mess that is Iraq today. There are surely many charges that can be brought against this man, such as incompetence and neglect of duty and responsibility. But much of the misery he has caused must be classified as genocide. It is difficult to understand why President Bush kept him onboard so long when it was clear that he was and still is “bad news.” President Bush is not blameless as commander in chief, but he would have done a great deal better if the Rumsfeld albatross had been jettisoned long ago, in 2003, before the shambles in Iraq became a disaster. The support given to Rumsfeld by Dick Cheney must also be an embarrassment to all Americans. I suspect that had Rumsfeld dangled at the end of a rope next to Saddam, certain elements of society would have celebrated! However, I doubt that this would have achieved anything. Detain him in one of his own delightful interrogation centers for the rest of his life to keep him isolated and away from the rest of the world’s people.
Donald Rumsfeld is not the only one who can be or should be blamed for the Iraq fiasco. America is a democracy and a very credible one, with institutions that have strength and repute. In a country where democracy is a way of life, I don’t think one person should be ridiculed for the mess America has encountered in Iraq–especially in hindsight given the Vietnam War. There is a president, vice president, secretary of State and Congress. The decision to go to war was made with everyone onboard, including many well-known Democrats. Since the November elections, Rumsfeld has been made a scapegoat for all the blunders and the mindless decisions taken by the Bush administration. It would have been more appropriate for President Bush to listen to what Americans said in the midterm elections, which was that they simply want U.S. troops out of Iraq and the meaningless bloodshed in Iraq stopped.
Fareed Zakaria made some good points (“Mao & Stalin, Osama & Saddam,” Sept. 18) when he noted that his president was wrong to put all his enemies in the same bag–wrong for the world and for Bush, too? Do you really believe Bush wants to stop the Iraq war? Has he not done everything he could, very consistently, to start it and keep it going? Without it, he would no longer be president. What else has he done? He is not very different from the tribal war chiefs he likes to fight, or even to sponsor. All have the same interest. It is classic: a good war to rally all behind the chief, to stop citizens’ rights, to line their pockets–and, above all, to stay in power. Was it not Mikhail Gorbachev who said to Ronald Reagan: “I will deprive you of your enemy” when he started perestroika ? That is the essence of it. You say, “But why is Bush making bin Laden’s case?” Those two have been each other’s best sponsors–one would not exist without the other. Look how powerful their alliance has been: Bush was re-elected, he can now play even more with his WMD as he pretends to fight other rogue states, and the Islamic fundamentalists of the world have never been stronger or more united. What a liability for the free, democratic, lawful, multilateral world. How do we go forward?
Your article (“Blacksnake’s Lair,” Oct. 9) reveals that PKK terrorists are under the impression that America would support terrorist organizations in exchange for help in furthering American aspirations in the area. Those of us living with the threat of that same terrorism are under that impression, too. Moreover, your magazine does not have any scruples about marking a certain area of a sovereign state, Turkey, as the “area of Kurdistan” which, as far as I can follow, was also done by U.S. military officials in a meeting with Turkish military officials. What really amazes me is how your government can still manage to wonder why people all around the world resent American foreign policies.
While Morocco has changed a lot (“Sunny, Modern Morocco,” Oct. 9) since the times of the late King Hassan II, it still illegally occupies Western Sahara and restricts the rights of its people to their own resources while stealing from them. As long as this continues, many people in Europe are against closer ties with Morocco. Investment should not be taken as an indicator of political approval. Greed for profit and human rights, especially for a suppressed minority under occupation, are two completely separate issues and do not agree with each other most of the time.
In your Oct. 30th issue, “Handicapping the Hedge Hogs” says “There are about 300 hundred-billion-dollar hedge funds.” This is a gross exaggeration. The total assets of hedge funds was only $1.225 trillion in the second quarter of 2006, according to Hedge Fund Research, Inc.
