Keith, I've found it interesting that both NBC and PBS evening news programs here have shown footage, more than a few seconds worth for once, of the Parliament debate and question/answer period. It's good for more Americans to see how policy is debated in the UK, but I couldn't help thinking that the leader of the US would have a lot of trouble "in the well" responding on the spot and keeping up with the running debate.
In my opinion, the White House produced a national strategy document that builds a defense case, not envisions. It has cleaned up the dirty world of realpolitiks with clean Methodist language so that "the boys in Lubbock can understand", as Bush has been quoted instructing Ms. Rice. As plain speaking as that might be, the interpretation can be made that foreign policy is now decreed by presidential perception alone. Those seismic tremors you may be feeling are The Founders rolling over in their graves. Here is a short buffet of commentaries about the first National Security of the US document produced by this President, as required by Congress, 20 months after taking office: Bush Outlines Doctrine of Striking Foes First by David Sanger @ http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/international/20CND-STRA.html Shoot First: Bush's Whitewashed National Security Manifesto by Wm. Saleton @ http://www.slate.msn.com/?id=2071309 Loud and Clear by Jonathon Alter @ http://www.msnbc.com/news/810753.asp?0dm=C11SO#TOP I tried to find a couple of good commentaries that supported the first issue of the Bush doctrine, but discovered the two written I could find that mildly supported it were sadly below the quality of mainstream media, and better for the tabloids or shock TV. You can put the presidential seal on 33 pages of text, but it does not make it the Magna Carta. Between the covers, this is still Cowboy Politics. We can sum up the Bush doctrine, as we've seen it so far, with the production of Oklahoma! where the cowboy and the rancher just couldn't learn to be friends. However, the Sunday Washington Post editorial makes a good point that containment alone may not survive the millennium as a strategic policy, and endorses Congressional approval of the Bush resolution while complaining that the method of getting there is lacking. That debate will and should continue. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47016-2002Sep21.html) I hope I am not alone in opposing deterrence as the best policy we can export, military hardware and standing armies our specialty, like the Prussian state of old. I am encouraged that various members of Congress drafted their own versions of a war resolution, not content to vote straight up or down on Bush's version, but if it democratic process takes too long Bush will apply more patriotic/national security pressure the closer we get to those EOM and quarterly retirement statements and the monthly economic indicators are come home to roost. It was news to me, but Alan Dershowitz mentioned on the Today show of all places in a civil liberties conversation with the ACLU that it's true the US does not use torture - we subcontract it out to the Philippines, Egypt or Jordan. Can anyone comment on this? He was also promoting his new book Why Terrorism Works. And yes, the new Washington buzz phrase is "connect the dots", as in everyone is afraid they will be the next one to fail to.... Perhaps the investigation into intelligence failures pre-9/11 won't become Watergate or Whitewater hearings, but they are not helping the impression that the administration has only been successful with the extensive help of police work by allies overseas. Gen. Rove is not happy. Expect to see more flag waving. - Karen
