Political-Commentary.com

Arnold "I Want to Be Loved" Schwarzenegger

California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is a guy who craves the adulation of the crowd. It is becoming clear that he ran for governor due to this craving, not because he had any interest in policy. Basically, politics was a new way to get the public approval he previously received as a movie star.

Of course, a lack of interest in policy is not necessarily fatal. Look at President Bush, who has a similar lack of interest, yet retains high standings in the polls. With Schwarzenegger, however, a new problem has appeared -- when you crave the approval of the masses, you are not likely to do anything that might jeopardize that approval. Instead, you make the masses happy by cutting taxes, maintaining all popular spending programs, and borrowing to make up the difference. In other words, give the voters whatever they want. Don't tell them that by borrowing you are just raising their future taxes -- that won't keep those adoring crowds cheering!

Qaddafi Defeated by Bush!

Was Qaddafi's decision to give up some of his weapons a direct result of Bush's Iraq policy? We will never know for certain. But it seems unlikely -- we were not threatening an invasion of Libya, so Qaddafi was feeling no pressure.

Most likely, Qaddafi simply decided it was time to get the U.S. to lift the economic sanctions against his country. Also, Bush could have sweetened the deal right now so it would appear that the Iraq war is having some beneficial side effects. Further, talk is cheap. It is easy for Qaddafi to talk about giving up some weapons, but that doesn't mean he will. Or that we will even care -- just 20 years ago we didn't care about Saddam Hussein's weapons.

Finally, who knows whether Qaddafi even has any of the weapons he is promising to give up? Remember that guy Saddam Hussein who was supposed to have all those weapons?

We Are Safer Now?

Just days ago, we were told that Saddam Hussein's capture made America a safer place. But now, the U.S. government raises the terror-threat level to "high." Doesn't this disprove the idea that taking out Saddam made us safer? Or at least suggest that Saddam was not a key element in the terrorist threat? And if he was not a key element, why have we devoted so many resources to him?

The raising of the terror threat immediately after the capture of Saddam almost seems designed to make Bush look bad.

Bush's Blip in the Polls

The commentators tell us that the capture of Saddam Hussein helps Bush. Doubtless it does, in the short run. In the long run, however, it will lead to a trial. At that trial, Hussein will defend his actions on the ground (among others) that America supported his regime while it was committing atrocities. This argument will not be good for Bush, since it was the Republicans who supported Hussein. Some of those same Republicans, in fact, have close ties to the present Bush Administration.

Also, before Hussein was captured, it could be argued that Bush had not "completed" his job in Iraq. Now that he has completed it, people may begin to wonder why things haven't turned out like he promised. Of course, no one should have realistically expected democracy to flower overnight, but isn't that what Bush promised us?

Still Waiting . . .

There seems to be a general feeling that the capture of Saddam Hussein has made America safer. Those who have disagreed with this conventional wisdom have been called "stupid," "fools," and worse.

The one thing absent from this discussion -- if it may be called that -- is any explanation of why Hussein's capture has made America safer. His capture may have made Iraq safer, assuming that it leads to a reduction in the fighting there, or provides useful information to American troops. But the claim that it has made America safer is unexplained. Anyone?

Tony Blair, Here We Come!

Some are claiming that the capture of Saddam Hussein ends the debate about the war, guarantees Bush's re-election, and destroys Dean as a candidate. However, to say that the capture justifies the war is like saying that the capture of Tony Blair would justify an invasion of Great Britain.

Capturing someone is good only if achieves some goal. Start talking about goals in Iraq, however, and we are back to the old debate about whether we should have invaded Iraq, especially given the post-war mess. Unless the capture of Hussein achieves some goal, it is not a significant event. It certainly is not relevant to the issue of whether we should have invaded Iraq -- no one's position on that issue hinged on whether or not Hussein would be captured. It may be relevant to the current mess, provided that the capture leads to peace. Whether it will, of course, is anyone's guess. Offhand, it would appear that the people setting off bombs have an agenda that will exist regardless of whether Saddam is hiding in a hole in the ground, or is in American custody. But, who knows?

Dean Is Not Inconsistent

In April, Howard Dean said that he supposed it was a good thing that Saddam Hussein had been removed from office. Now, referring to Saddam's capture, Dean says "This is a great day for the Iraqi people, the U.S., and the international community."

Some may criticize Dean for inconsistency. However, the statements are not inconsistent because Dean was talking about two different things. In the first statement, he was talking about the choice between war (Hussein deposed) and no war (Hussein still in power). That statement was a weak endorsement of the war. In the second statement, he was talking about the choice between post-war Iraq with Saddam on the loose, and post-war Iraq with Saddam in custody. No one with any sense could think that capture was bad under these circumstances.

What Does Saddam's Capture Mean?

What does Saddam's capture mean? Nothing. It is just an interesting, but unimportant, footnote to the war.

Bush and his supporters doubtless will claim that the capture somehow vindicates the war, but we didn't go into Iraq to capture Saddam. Instead, we went in to remove him from power. We did that months ago.

Unless Saddam's capture brings out some new information (such as the location of those chemical weapons), it will have no bearing upon the issue of whether we should have invaded Iraq, or the issue of the policies we should follow there now. It has no relevance to a single criticism of Bush's handling of the war, unless one criticism of Bush was that he failed to capture Saddam. But no one has made that criticism, which just proves that Saddam's capture was not a significant goal of the war.

What Could Bush Be Thinking? Or Is He?

So Bush thinks that reconstruction contracts should not go to any countries that opposed the Iraq war. What could he possibly be thinking?

How will this policy help Iraq? How will this help the United States? How will this help any one?

It is reported that Bush holds grudges. That appears to be what is going on here -- Bush wants to get back at those countries that did not support his policy. What other explanation is there?