8B - The Michigan Daily - New Student Edition - Fall 2005 COMMENTARY I 4 }L -.000 'Woo 5; -* 4 I // _ A-r rr I 0 r. _ 0 0 Squandering the mandate SUHAEL MOMIN AN ALTERNATIVE SPIN 0 OCTOBER 28, 2004 History does not view as "great" those presidents who presided with little challenge over periods of prosperity. It is only those who successfully led this nation to triumph in the face of dire difficul- ties that achieve "greatness." Follow- ing Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush had a chance to distinguish himself in this manner and join the ranks of Washington, Lincoln and F.D.R. His speech on Sept. 20, 2001 to a joint session of Con- gress was undeniably the best of his career. The "cowboy from Texas" sounded like John Kennedy when he pledged that "the advance of human freedom - the great achi~eve- ment of our time, and the great hope of every time - now depends on us ... We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter and we will not fail." In the days following Sept. 11, as members of Congress stood on the steps of the Capitol singing "God Bless America," they threw out partisan- ship to celebrate their common love of this nation. When the Germans played the American national anthem at the Brandenburg Gate and the French newspaper Le Monde headlined (in French) "We are all Americans," they stood in solidarity, political and spiritual, with the United States. For the first time in its history, NATO invoked Article 5 of its charter: An attack on one member is an attack on the alliance at large. Domestically and internationally, Bush was handed the mandate his administration had previ- ously lacked. He was given the public support and politi- cal capital necessary to lead the fight for the fundamental human values binding the free world. As an initial, defensive response to Sept. 11, the United States embarked on a course of action against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Around the world, Bush did not need to actively seek support for this war - American allies gave it freely. Militarily, financially and politically, the major alliances entwining the free world held firm. Even the American public was fully committed - for the first time since Vietnam, we were willing to accept significant mili- tary casualties to secure a victory. The Bush administra- tion was not merely leading; it was securing its place in history. Three years after the attacks, however, domestic and international unity is merely a memory. Since 2001, the international coalition behind the "war on terror" has faltered, and the bipartisan domestic consensus behind homeland security has deteriorated into shameless elec- toral strategizing. The Bush administration turned its post-Sept. 11 mandate into a false justification for a radi- cal agenda. The attacks have provided a rationale for the war in Iraq and explained the weak economy, the gaping budget deficits and even the need for additional tax cuts. He took his incredible opportunity to lead the nation and create a great legacy ... and passed it up. Instead of continuing this war against known terrorists in Afghanistan, Bush embarked on a mission to invade Iraq. Asserting that Saddam Hussein possessed danger- ous weapons of mass destruction, the administration pre- sented military action in Iraq not as a possibility, but as an inevitability. Even though the United Nations sent weap- ons inspectors to Iraq to find and dismantle WMD, they were not allowed to complete their work. Even though Bush pledged to consult the United Nations, he deemed it irrelevant when the Security Council appeared unwilling to authorize war. The rhetoric of "rallying the world" to defend human freedom was forgotten; the chance to unify the free world in a fight for liberty was lost. Even at home, Bush's politics obliterated any vestiges of post-Sept. 11 political unity. During the 2002 midterm elections, the GOP unabashedly exploited the attacks for electoral purposes. In Georgia, it attempted to link Sen. Max Cleland, who did not support the president's home- land security bill, to terrorists. Cleland's opponent, Saxby Chambliss, ran TV ads that compared Cleland, a veteran who lost three limbs in Vietnam, to Osama bin Laden, the Sept. 11 mastermind. Leading Republicans and conserva- tive pundits regularly exploit patriotism as a partisan emo- tion when they make the absurd argument that liberals love this country less because they don't support the president. In spite of a campaign promise to "unite, not divide," Bush has worked closely with the Republican-controlled Con- gress to remove Democrats from discussions of energy policy, defense policy, tax policy and health care policy. The administration has inexcusably taken the immediate post-Sept. 11 notion of reaching across aisles and working with all Americans for the betterment of this nation and put it in a trash can. When voters head to the polls, they will hold a refer- endum on the Bush presidency thus far. Whether he wins or loses, however, history will view these past three years as nothing more than a missed opportunity. Few presi- dents are ever given the type of mandate that Sept. 11 gave George Bush, and fewer yet have wasted it. Momin can be reached at smomin @umich.edu. Mixed up morals Election results speak to value divisions NOVEMBER 9, 2004 sthe country recovers from its election hangover or euphoria - depending on individuals' political beliefs - two words are dominating the post-election analysis: moral values. Exit polls have shown that more voters made their decisions based on moral issues then terrorism, the war in Iraq or the economy. The Bush campaign was clearly more effective in con- necting with traditionalist voters on issues like gay marriage, stem-cell research and abortion. Eighty percent of voters who considered moral values the most important issue cast their ballots for President Bush. The Democrats' failure to connect with mid- dle Americans in the heartland indicates that they may be out of touch with so-called mainstream values. However, while Republicans successfully converted gay marriage into the chief moral issue of the last election, other issues of moral import hold sway for the future of the nation. A third of voters reported the loss of a job by a faL , m mh rnA-_r the Rich a'Aminctrmatin and Iraq as their most important issue, as many experts had believed. Needless to say, foreign policy is still at the forefront of Americans' minds, and Bush's victory will be viewed by many Republicans as approval of his foreign policy. Again, it is worth examining the morality of Bush's policy. The moral righteousness of pre-emptive war, especial- ly in light of revelations indicating Saddam Hus- sein posed no credible threat, is questionable. With almost 150,000 American troops bogged down in Iraq, the president's options for further action are limited. Is it morally just to cut and run from Iraq? Is a draft justified? Health care is an issue that didn't garner much attention this election, but according to recent Census Bureau statistics, 45 million Americans lack health insurance coverage. The candidates set forth starkly different plans to address health care concerns, with John Kerry proposing an unprec- edented commitment of taxpayer dollars while the Bush proposal centered around tax credits to enconratne nrivate ownershin of health insurance. Sam Butler The Soapbox SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 I. _ _ _ _ _ _ k 4 tg ;r: > J ;isl i!'Bc t#'i 1 ,, j I J h kppy.. ". ,'1 tf# 4 :. C Y t )} . mu wrest i arri v TONI G BUSVI I