One of my favorite sites is that of Reggie Green and friends. I especially like it because of the people who comment and the diversity of their views and yet the comments never get personal, immature or acrimonious. This one discussion got me going, but as is so often the case with me my comment got too long so I brought it home. You can see the entire post and all the comments or just pick up where I took over after a comment by Douglas. (Douglas is one of my favorite people). BB
THE VIEW FROM OUTSIDE MY TINY WINDOW
Post No. 120: “Taking Cover Under the Canopy of Re…
- Douglas said…
- I have one more thought (it just occurred to me)…We want leaders. It’s a natural human desire and most of us would rather be led than lead. But what kind of leader is best?
a) the leader who has a vision of the future, presents it honestly, and doesn’t waver in his beliefs?
b) the leader who wants to follow the wishes of his people and alters his vision to suit the “will of the people”?
BB said: b Douglas and I seem to have begun and ended somewhat in the same space over our lifetime as I can, and do, echo all that he has said. And (a) is the answer we are all looking for whether conservative, liberal or somewhere in between. We want a person who stands up and honestly states his views and aims and then adheres to them once he is in power. It is assumed these are the wishes of the people as they chose to elect him.
The key word is “honestly”. This we seldom see and most certainly did not see with our current President as he did not clearly and honestly state his agenda and he is certainly not following a course the majority of Americans can agree with. In fact even his supporters are still saying, “give him a chance”. I have so much trouble with that statement since no president in history, even FDR, has made so many changes in our national policy in their entire presidency as he has made in the first five months of his. In fact so many changes and so many unalterable moves have been set in place that most of the populous has no idea what has happened. Even Congress has no idea what they have voted for and approved! It is in the fine print and the footnotes of these omnibus bills and budgets he has gotten approved. Some of us are trying to keep abreast of these and to report them to our readers, but even we who are watching daily are falling behind. So it is no wonder that the average person who just listens to the 6:00 news has no idea what is happening and is going to happen because the programs have already been approved and funded! And not one of them was mentioned to the public before or after his election. Not one of them was shown openly and open for debate and input by the public on the government website as he had promised. Not any but the few rather inconsequential actions such as health care reform and taking over the ownership of toxic mortgages thru the federalization of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the auto industry have even been discussed with members of Congress.
So far 30 states of our 50 had passed legislation giving more strength to the 9th. and 10th. amendments of the Constitution. Has it never occurred to any one of Obamas followers to ask why all these people in all 30 states have taken these actions against the federal government? The last time this type of action was taken by any states we had a civil war. As Douglas pointed out only approximately 1/3 or less of the population supported the Revolutionary War—–far more that that number are now in defiance of the policies of the federal government.
I also know that if you would go back and research a bit of political history you will find that Bush W was this type of leader. He stated his views and tried to adhere to them; every one of the goals that he set as a candidate he did try to see thru as President. What happened to Bush W was an attack on American soil that he could not ignore. We had been attacked repeatedly over the years and had ignored these attacks. 9/11 was different and demanded action. With this on his plate his own agenda had to be altered and put in the background. He still however tried to bring about change in Social Security and Medicare which were his two main promises. He had no intentions of being an international president as his agenda was all national and based on fixing the ill conceived and bankrupting entitlement programs. He was a business man and saw the running of this country as a business; a business that had been badly managed and headed for bankruptcy and needed to be downsized and revamped.
This is not to say he did not make mistakes because he most certainly did. his greatest was the one he was coerced into by Republicans in the Congress who were trying desperately to get and/or keep the senior vote. So he gave in to a Senior Drug Plan that was supposed to save seniors money, but is actually costing them more than ever. The Republican Congress gave into their campaign funders and the next year the Democrats Congress again gave into the big drug companies by not stipulating that thye government would open bids with drug companies to provide Medicare beneficiaries with drugs on the line of the US military plan. Instead they allowed individual drug plans designed by the drug companies that seniors could sign up for. A bit of fox in the hen house saying just what would be for dinner. The American public was sold out.
Bush’s next big mistake was at the end of his Presidency when he was so demoralized that he allowed Wall Street to maneuver him into the panic that brought about the Bail Out. Tho at this point he was so marginalized that he actually played a very small role in the enormity of this scam. Rep. Barney Frank and Senator Dodd
were the biggest culprits from beginning to end. They allowed the financial melt down to happen and they pushed the Bail Out thru congress and they gave in to their Wall Street buddies by agreeing to making the Secretary of the Treasury the sole proprietor of these funds. All these $884 billion to the control of one man–the Treasury Secretary! Secretary of the Treasury Geithner is in control of all these funds and answers to no one in how he dispenses it. LOL it would indeed be funny if it were not so disastrous. See my blog on
Tax Thief Sec of Treasury Geithner again Rolling Tax Payers
The one thing President Bush was not wrong in was the war in Iraq. He first went into Afghanistan after the al Qaida and soon discovered that region to be a snake pit and an impossibility for any army to defeat the terrorists in. . The terrain and the 5th. century mentality of the people make this impossible. And yet he needed to confront the enemy somewhere outside of the United States. It was a case of fight them over there or fight them over here. He and his advisers picked the most logical and perhaps the only place that could be explained to the people without telling them the truth of why the United States had to tie up the terrorist somewhere outside of the United States. The world was against Saddam and had issued numerous sanctions against him. He was also weak regardless of the “Mother of All” armies; the first Gulf War had proven this fact.
The war with Iraq then was not a mistake, but a bold and savvy move and it worked. There have been no attacks on American soil since! The terrorist all flocked to the Middle East to do their in fighting with other terrorists groups. That the Iraqi people were caught in the middle is a problem that is why our military is there to protect them as best we can.
And it would have worked and the terrorist would have been greatly weakened if not defeated if the Iraqi people themselves could have gotten their act together and formed a strong union while the American army was protecting their flank. It was the fault of the people and their different interpretations of Islam that made our efforts on their behalf impossible.
The second more subtle reason Bush W had for choosing Iraq was to put an American Army right next door to the next trouble spot: Iran.
Now after all the misery we put on what history will prove to be a good President we have one more Obama promise made: “I will end the war in Iraq”. Well, all he has to do is bring the troops home. It is that simple. Our purpose for being there has served and now there is no reason to stay according to all of Obama’s supporters. It is certain that he will not use the American Army to any advantage where Iran is concerned as was George Bush’s plan. In fact with his slow draw down and tying our Armies up in the impossible snake pit of Afghanistan/Pakistan all he will assure in Iraq now is that a great many American troops will be killed when Iran begins lobing nuclear armed missiles at Israel and Israel begins lobing them back.
Obama is also taking troops into the Afghanistan/Pakistan area which has defeated every attempt for centuries of over taking the natives of this area. There was, and is, an opportunity to form a semi-democratic government in Iraq because the people have known and lived under a strong central government and they have had experience with voting. Afghanistan’s and Pakistan’s people are accustomed to local war lords and a weak ineffective central government. Each war lord controls his territory with a population of men who carry guns from birth to death. War is all they know and have ever known. There is no winning a war because there is no one with whom to negotiate a peace! This is where Obama is taking our troops for no reason except to see that they are killed off and the military loses the faith of the American public. It is my belief that he is doing this because he is afraid of a military revolt when he finally shows his ultimate agenda for the United States.
So there you have it in a nut shell: I have chosen the answer (a) and given you the example of two Presidents who exemplify the two choices. BB
PS If you disagree with any of my assertions and since you are already here why not just use the search up in the right hand corner and I am sure you will find an article complete with references to answer your question and/or prove my point. BB
Thanks Brenda for the compliment regarding our site. As we said before, you’re always welcome there. We relish in all points of view.
We are pasting our brief comment in response to your introductory comments:
“Brenda: Welcome back to our forum. We will post this responsive comment on your lengthier contribution also.
“You indicated that you and Douglas appeared to be of the same mindset on the issue of the honest presentation of views and positions by our political leaders. First of all, isn’t there a difference between honesty and consistency? Aren’t there plausible explanations for inconsistencies particularly when more information is acquired?
“Finally, you will recall that we had a post entitled, “27 Situations Where People We Respect Claim that It Is Appropriate to Lie.” More interestingly, both you and Douglas argued that there are “some occasions” when telling the truth is not the best choice. Douglas in particular argued that politicians need not present an “accurate” picture at all times, but sometimes present one who encourages or motivates the citizenry or makes them feel more optimistic, particularly about their economic future (and implicitly about their chance for success in a military battle or war).
“Are you now suggesting that a politician should be honest 100% of the time and never deviate from that? Or are you suggesting that “honesty” and “telling the truth” are different things?”
Honesty and consistency? Yes and no. To be totally honest you must be consistent in your beliefs and your promises and how you promised to carry them out. The only time inconsistency is allowed is when further knowledge has caused you to change your views and understandings. In that case an honest person comes out and admits that he made a promise but he finds he was not aware of all the facts and now he can not keep the promise as it was made.
Why is Obama remaining in Iraq? Why has he now gone into the Afghanistan/Pakistan area so heavily? If he is remaining in Iraq because he has found that the Bush policy was working then say so and get on with it. He won’t lose his supporters and he may gain some who are now against him. It would also help if he would make clear what he hopes to gain in Afghanistan/Pakistan other than getting American soldiers killed.
I still maintain there are times a “white lie” is the best course when telling the truth will do no good and will do harm. Our mother’s weren’t far off when they admonished don’t say anything if you can’t say something nice when speaking on a social level. Don’t tell a plain girl her outfit does nothing for her. Tell her she looks nice and then try to suggest something that will improve her appearance.
Leaders often find themselves in situations where they must tell a partial truth for national security and/or to get the support of the population for an action they feel must be taken but would be open to debate that would then defeat the purpose. This was the position Bush was in I believe when he went into Iran. He knew he had to take the fight to the enemy. This is just sound military strategy and Bush knew it. One must fight and bottle the terrorist up on their own territory or fight them here at home. Because if we did nothing and allowed 9/11 to go unvindicated we would have been over run with terrorist.
Bush chose first to go after al Qaida in the snake pit of Afghanistan/Pakistan until he realized the impossibility of that fight and the horrendous number of American troops who would be killed in any sustained efforts in that area. So he made a token attempt at setting up some sort of central government in Afghanistan and tried to deal with the government in Pakistan. Knowing both were futile but at least setting up a bit of a smoke screen and there was always the chance of getting bin laden.
Then he decided to go into the heart of terrorist territory which is the Middle East. The easiest country to invade was the one the others all disliked and that was Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Bush and his advisers were not idiots and they knew every terrorist in the business would home in on Iraq because it was necessary that the American Satan be defeated by Islam at home in a Muslim country. We in the US were spared all the little car and suicide bombers who rushed into Iraq. We had to tighten security at home and concentrate heavily on intelligence to catch any large scale attacks. We will never know how many of these were caught before execution because it would give away too much information to allow the people to know, but we have not been attacked since 9/11 so I think that pretty well speaks for the Bush policy. It also explains a situation when a half truth or telling one truth rather than another is necessary and in this case right.
I don’t go along with the example you used Reggie. That is to me just so much gentleman cow stuff. The people know the situation and to have the President or any leader stand up and tell what amounts to a bare faced lie doesn’t do a whole lot for my faith in his leadership. I am inclined to be fearful that the fool believes his own propaganda!
Now you mentioned optimism where war is concerned. Possibly in this case it would be best to keep the actual costs in lives from the people. If in WWII the people had known the actual death toll the Allies would not have won the war because the American public would have demanded that FDR bring the troops back to our own shores and to hell with the rest of the world. This is what happened in Vietnam that caused the defeat of our army. The news media was reporting the numbers and the people refused to accept so many American deaths thus not allowing Johnson to allow the Army to go all out and take out the Vietcong and put enough hurting on China and Russia to get them to pull out. All we had to do was go in and destroy the Russian ships coming into Haiphong Harbor to get the Russians out, but then we would have had to follow up with troops in the area to mop up and that would have added up to too many body bags.
We saw this happen in Iraq. The American public was all for the war until they saw the death toll on the nightly news. This is so silly too since there are 9 times as many people killed on our highways yearly than killed in seven years in Iraq!
Of course this isn’t happening with those being killed in Afghanistan/Pakistan because this is Obama’s war and the MSM will not tell on their boy. But mark my words there are now and there will be Americans killed over there by the thousands before we are out.
I hope I have answered your questions. I’m tired now. BB
I agree with much of what you have to say. However, I still can’t comprehend the position that the truth need not be told 100% of time, regardless of the circumstances. I don’t know how we can allow people to set their own individual standard or situational application, although I fully recognize that is what occurs in reality. The standard and the practice do not necessary coincide with humans. However, the standard should always be high, and one which we continually try to attain.
But it is only possible in Heaven among the angels Reggie, never among mere human beings.
BB