Ask North Korea. Threats and threats and threats. Then they made a nuke, test fired a missile into the Yellow Sea, and now nobody says boo. There they sit. The game's over.
The one guy who didn't follow the script was George W. Bush. Right or wrong, he did something after threats didn't work. It got him a two-term presidency, but it also got him lambasted as a dummy and an evil dictator the world over. Politicians want the former, but not at the price of the latter.
There's the big L word: legacy. Or the G word: guts. They don't always go together too well.
Some guys do well with their legacy by going the gutsy route, but it's so damn risky. Better to play it the easy way, the way most Western politicians do when faced with thugs.
Here's President Obama's weekly address from this morning. I'm reading between the lines:
This week, we joined with the United Kingdom and France [this is NOT a unilateral decision] in presenting evidence that Iran has been building a secret nuclear facility to enrich uranium [this is different then the totally out in the open facility; they have two]. This is a serious challenge to the global nonproliferation regime [which didn't stop North Korea, but hey, there's always hope], and continues a disturbing pattern of Iranian evasion [please ignore the word "pattern," as it might make you believe that they won't change their tune after we ask pretty please]. That is why international negotiations [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera] with Iran scheduled for October 1st now take on added urgency [as opposed to before; now it's important].
My offer of a serious, meaningful dialogue to resolve this issue remains open [no doubt the Iranian dictators will listen this time - because we're serious]. But Iran must now cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and take action to demonstrate its peaceful intentions [last month they shot women in the street for taking part in political demonstrations; the regime also hangs people for the crime of being gay; but now they have a chance to show their peaceful intentions; look, we all know this a load of bull, but I have to say this stuff].
On this, the international community [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera] is more united than ever before. Yesterday, I stood shoulder-to-shoulder with our European allies [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera] in condemning Iran’s program. In our meetings and public statements, President Medvedev of Russia and I agreed [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera] that Iran must pursue a new course or face consequences. All of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera], and Germany [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera], have made it clear that Iran must fulfill its responsibilities [okay, okay; Iran doesn't have any responsibilities except to themselves, but we're going to pretend that they share the same world view as us. We're making it up. Easier that way].
Iran’s leaders must now choose [I hate using that 'with us/with the terrorists' language, but I wrote this first thing in the morning and I was still a little groggy. Don't ask me about it later] – they can live up to their responsibilities and achieve integration with the community of nations. Or they will face increased pressure and isolation, and deny opportunity to their own people [sure, this paragraph was full of beans, but cut me some slack. Iran doesn't have any responsibilities, true, and they don't care if they're isolated, fine, and they don't care about their own people, okay. But...well, what do you want me to say? It's all a farce, anyway].
These are the urgent threats of our time. And the United States is committed to a new chapter of international cooperation [this is NOT a unilateral decision, etc. Huh? Come again? Oh. How can there be international cooperation when nobody's cooperating? Search me.] to meet them. This new chapter will not be written in one week or even one year [sorry, but this my out. I know it's a bit slippery, but come on, there's nothing I can do about this stuff. Iran's going to get a nuke one way or the other. If they get it within a year, I need to be able to say that it was going to take more than a year to get international cooperation kick started. A week, a year, who cares? I'd say 'decade' but you'd think I flipped my lid]. But we have begun. And for the American people and the people of the world [in case you thought this was a unilateral decision], it will mean greater security and prosperity for years to come [in other words, we aren't going to accomplish jack; but it feels good to know that in some mystic future, you'll have a safe, secure life. Anybody got a glass of water?].
1 comment:
Throughout his presidency, President Bush was willing to make unpleasant and impolitic decisions without hesitation, for the purpose of doing what he saw as the task he was elected to do, protect the people of the United States. For his part, President Obama is also willing to do things that are unpopular, with little regard for whether the people and government are fully behind what he is doing. In this, he may very well be thinking of what he will be thought of in the future, a legacy that he will leave America changed forever. President Bush had no such allusions. He has stated that he believes history will regard him fairly, regardless of how he was being portrayed at the time of his term in office. It is a noble quality to act without regard to one’s critics. However, he might have been more effective if he had been willing to argue for the policies he had undertaken, rather than abandoning the field of public discourse, as the political costs of failing to defend his policy decisions was to hamstring his effectiveness and the effectiveness of his party, ultimately leading to the present situation.
The President who always was playing to the crowd and had a seemingly insatiable desire to be caressed by the public was the big boomer himself, Bill Clinton. And though very popular at the time of his presidency, the ramifications of his self-absorption are glaringly obvious today. Subsequently, he is largely viewed as an inconsequential president.
Prosperity ultimately has not been kind to him, a fate he richly deserved. My guess is the same will be true for President Obama, albeit for entirely different reasons.
Good post.
Post a Comment