Nous Sommes Tous Americains
Just as the first Kerry-Bush debate failed to deal with the principle of preemtive war, so too did the Edwards-Cheney debate miss an opportunity to examine why America – and the world – has become so politically divided in the months following of 9/11.
In the days that followed the disaster in New York, it seemed as though the entire world was on America's side, sympathizing with those who lost their lives on 9/11 and showing complete solidarity with the American people and America as a nation. What happened that day was not only a shock to New Yorkers and Americans, it was shock heard round the world. As I recall, one French headline blared, "Maintenent, nous sommes tous Americains" (Now we are all Americans).
After the Bush Administration's refusal to defer to the international community and its rush to judgement in basing an invasion of Iraq on weapons of mass destruction, virtually the entire industrialised world first questioned, then protested and finally turned away from American leadership in the world. Polls taken in Europe at the time of the invasion showed every country except Poland against the American incursion in Iraq without UN sanctions – including a majority in the UK, Spain and Italy, countries that initially joined the so-called coalition of the willing.
Ironically, after France's refusal to support the Bush administration's war, conservative Americans turned against the people of France – those same people who a few months earlier had proclaimed their solidarity with America. In effect, Bush's rank and file ignored the reasons that virtually the whole world, including the French, had supported America when it was attacked unjustly by foreign elements and then condemned them for protesting when the Bush administration invaded a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Unfortunately, the Edwards-Cheney debate did not deal with this issue to the extent that it deserves. If Kerry wins in November, it may take him four more years just to repair the damage Bush has done to international relations. If Bush wins ... well, the French have a word for that -- merde.
In the days that followed the disaster in New York, it seemed as though the entire world was on America's side, sympathizing with those who lost their lives on 9/11 and showing complete solidarity with the American people and America as a nation. What happened that day was not only a shock to New Yorkers and Americans, it was shock heard round the world. As I recall, one French headline blared, "Maintenent, nous sommes tous Americains" (Now we are all Americans).
After the Bush Administration's refusal to defer to the international community and its rush to judgement in basing an invasion of Iraq on weapons of mass destruction, virtually the entire industrialised world first questioned, then protested and finally turned away from American leadership in the world. Polls taken in Europe at the time of the invasion showed every country except Poland against the American incursion in Iraq without UN sanctions – including a majority in the UK, Spain and Italy, countries that initially joined the so-called coalition of the willing.
Ironically, after France's refusal to support the Bush administration's war, conservative Americans turned against the people of France – those same people who a few months earlier had proclaimed their solidarity with America. In effect, Bush's rank and file ignored the reasons that virtually the whole world, including the French, had supported America when it was attacked unjustly by foreign elements and then condemned them for protesting when the Bush administration invaded a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Unfortunately, the Edwards-Cheney debate did not deal with this issue to the extent that it deserves. If Kerry wins in November, it may take him four more years just to repair the damage Bush has done to international relations. If Bush wins ... well, the French have a word for that -- merde.
posted by J. DeVincent at 5:10 AM
4 Comments:
After asking others, and myself "how did we get shoved into this post 9/11 world?”, I did some reading. I was reminded that the world has a very short memory and is too lazy to look up the facts. Here are some items to think about…. Did the UN do anything in Iraq for the last 15 years accept inspect and make threats that it was not going to enforce? Is the UN currently under investigation? Did the CIA and FBI suddenly become corrupt or did the process take several years? What does production of the flu vaccine have to do with Bush? Thanks for your time.
Interesting questions. One should bear in mind, however, that the UN is not an autonomous organization. It is highly dependent on the activity of its members. The US is an active member of the UN and so bears responsibility for anything that happens in that body. One can argue about the sanctions imposed on Iraq and the process of inspections, but the reality is that the inspectors did not find any evidence of WMDs and, therefore, the arguments of those countries that wanted to extend the inspections proved in the end to be valid. The US jumped the gun and went to war for no valid reason, other than ridding the world of a tin-pan dictator.
Clearly, there are worse dictators afoot, which could do much more damage to the US and the world than what was pretty much conceded to be a "toothless" Saddam after the first Gulf War.
As you say, the problems with intelligence date back further than the Bush Administration. And no one could reasonably hold Bush responsible for the flu-vaccine shortage. However, the fact remains that Bush acted on faulty intelligence and did not ensure that his health department was in control of the supply situation for the flue vaccine.
In any enterprise other than the burocacy of the US government, the chief honcho would be held accountable for such miscalculations.
The question remains, do we need someone in charge of government who takes actions that endanger Americans based on faulty information and who fails to provide the leadership necessary to ensure that Americans have proper health protection, when needed?
Perhaps we have different answers to that question. That's what makes life so interesting.
Hello JD. I had thought to post a reply sooner, yet in the end I'm glad I waited. A couple of developements that I have found interresting here in Texas may give hope to you and others in Europe, one being that we are a red state, along with Louisiana, yet there have been 527 anti Kerry advertisements run on KLOL morning show. KLOL was the original underground FM rock'n'roll station in the late 60's and early 70's which is now owned by Clear Channel Communications out of San Antonio. I find this odd, unless the Republican internal polls are showing things that the once trusted Gallup polls do not.
The other less important developement is that Tom DeLay is running a full blown TV ad campaign in the Houston area, which I don't recall ever seeing. "Why Tom, we hardly knew you until now."
As for American foriegn policy, it along with our economic policy, appear to be on the same bus that Mr. Bush has driven over the cliff, with an election to decide whom we wish to be at the wheel when the bus hits the canyon floor.
As a leftist, I am glad I decided to walk. I shall of course pray for the dead, and give aid to the injured, but first I must shout, look out below.
Interesting about Texas, EZ. I suspect, however, that there is so much political uncertainty on both sides of the fence this election that no one is taking anything for granted.
I, for one, will be sitting on the edge of my seat come November 2. But then, I'm a born politician -- in the sense that I simply love a good political brawl. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home