 |
||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Though the Bush presidency began with talk about tax cuts and stem cells, it was soon dominated by foreign policy issues after the September 11 attacks. Elis opined in our pages and elsewhere about the war in Iraq, military tribunals for terror suspects, and America's reputation abroad. For Bush, the problem with law is that it is supposed to apply equally to everyone. Bush wanted more flexibility, especially for the United States but also for its friends. … [H]e made policy—and, as he saw it, a virtue—out of adopting and applying a double standard.
Yale law professors led opposition to President Bush's plan to establish military tribunals for terrorism suspects. A Yale-authored letter signed by more than 700 law professors said the tribunals are "legally deficient, unnecessary, and unwise."
I think they thought they could get away with it, and they wanted to do whatever they could get away with. This was an outrageous, reckless legal gamble that put a lot of American credibility on the line.
I served as associate counsel to President Bush from 2001 to 2003 and was involved in preparing the Military Order of November 13, 2001, by which the president authorized the secretary of defense to establish military tribunals to try suspected terrorists. … Whatever one thinks of the Bush administration, the war against Islamic militants, or the idea of trying suspected terrorists in military tribunals, the president and his team were on solid ground in believing that the order was lawful.
The foreign policies that aroused the greatest anger and opposition were mostly pursued in Bush's first term: the invasion of Iraq, the rejection of treaties, diplomacy and multilateralism. In the past few years, many of these policies have been modified, abandoned or reversed. This has happened without acknowledgment—which is partly what drives critics crazy—and it's often been done surreptitiously. It doesn't reflect a change of heart so much as an admission of failure; the old way simply wasn't working.
We like democracy, except in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt—anywhere important, we don't like it. We like democracy in strategically irrelevant countries.
At the end of the day, Bush may be the last neoconservative in office. He seems to me to truly believe that this Iraq thing, it's not just a good idea; it's truly working. … maybe what he needs is a therapist, not advisers on this. A democratic and modern Iraq would be a great model for the Middle East. It ain't happening. It may not happen for a while.
The British, like everyone else in Europe, have always had a love-hate relationship with America. You consume our mass culture but resent its impact on your own. You revile our politics, but often wind up imitating them. Somehow, Bush has come to stand for the hate part of the love-hate relationship, symbolising the downside of mass culture and the pushy side of American foreign policy, rather than the economic freedom and political openness that many admire.
Could al-Qaeda possibly have found a better publicist than President Bush? At a South Carolina Air Force base yesterday, Bush mentioned al-Qaeda and bin Laden 118 times in 29 minutes, arguing that the violence unleashed by the U.S. invasion in Iraq would somehow come to America's shores if U.S. troops were to withdraw. But … the administration's own intelligence community has concluded that the war in Iraq has helped rather than hurt al-Qaeda.
Dissected from context and magnified beyond proportion in the kangaroo court of world opinion, Abu Ghraib was a public relations disaster. For Bush to call it Mistake Numero Uno after recanting his own colloquial war rhetoric is unwise, weak and, therefore, quite dangerous.
|
Related About That Honorary Doctorate … The Candidate and His Opponents Eli Pundits Weigh In Foreign Policy Performance Reviews Yale Anecdotes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
©1992–2012, Yale Alumni Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. Yale Alumni Magazine, P.O. Box 1905, New Haven, CT 06509-1905, USA. yam@yale.edu |