[
9:51 AM]
A President Afraid of Talking about His Presidency?Whether he likes it or not President George W. Bush's presidency will be defined in large part by foreign affairs. It's no secret that this isn't his strong suit and coupled with his inability to articulate complex and yes even simple ideas many times, makes it unlikely that he will engage the public or the media in extended or in-depth dialogue about foreign affairs. This borders on criminal. In his press conference today, the president mentioned repeatedly "taking this to the American people." One wonders if he realizes the words he is speaking. This is not a president who discusses much publicly other than making obvious and facile statements that are so simplistic they are hard to refute but shed light on little.
Is this beating a dead horse? I don't think so. In 1000 days in office, President Kennedy conducted
66 news conferences. President Bush, past the 1000 days mark, has held 11 counting
today's uninformative "Saddam is bad" presentation. Tony Blair (and every British prime minister) must answer questions before the House of Commons each week. One might argue which U.S. president faced more daunting challenges globally. Kennedy governed in the midst of the Cold War, presided over a failed invasion of Cuba, and of course stood toe to toe with the Soviets in nuclear missile crisis. But on President Bush's watch, the United States suffered its worst terrorist attack ever. The president subsequently waged war in Afghanistan and Iraq. He faces a nuclear armed and increasingly belligerent North Korea and a nuclear ambitious Iran. Yet facing what by conservative characterization has to be called at minimum, very serious security issues, this president cannot find it in himself to step up to the podium and talk to the American people about these matters.
These situations are serious enough to risk and lose American and foreign lives, alienate traditional allies, and alter geopolitical situations. But they don't rise to such a level of seriousness that GWB feels it necessary to sacrifice his level of discomfort and engage in a serious (no pre-chosen softball questioners) dialogue. This administration loves to offhandedly suggest that if you aren't with them, your patriotism is questionable. Is it too much of a stretch to use their same logic on their own behavior? I don't think so. The stakes are too high.
President Bush has the opportunity to remake some parts of the world that hold considerable strategic value for the United States. I disagree with most of his policies in those parts. But perhaps if the president spoke with more often, and with more nuance I might at least understand the logic behind some and as a result be less cynical about motives. More importantly, since I am concerned with international affairs, I think it reasonable that the leader of the most powerful country in the world talk to his constituency about them.
It is not surprising that Americans have such limited knowledge of the rest of the world. This president is not only a reflection of that, but he contributes to that ignorance and fosters misperceptions such as Saddam�s links to Al Qaida.
I know the president is still a beginning student on foreign affairs and faces a steep learning curve. But all presidents face a learning curve on some aspect of policy. It is insulting to the American people and the policy community for him to continue to avoid any substantive dialogue. This president feels obliged to use the trapping of office to improve his political stature. He must also remember that the office has other requirements, some of which will take him out of his comfort zone. At such a pivotal point in American history, for a U.S. president to fear news conferences and attempt to orchestrate them is truly frightening.
(see link at the left for some of his interesting background) is a senior advisor for constitutional law to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, and assistant professor of law at NYU. With Saddam’s capture he’s popping up more and more in the media to talk about what a trial of Saddam might look like. He always had very interesting things to say. Check him out on the NPR show "The Connection" this week. One of the most interesting things he brought up in this and other interviews is that U.S. is going to have to come to terms with its support of Saddam all through the late 1970s up until Desert Storm -- the time when many of his crimes were committed. That’s something I haven’t heard many other people talk about, perhaps for fear of being branded a left-wing Berkeley liberal.
