Extension of Remarks: Do we need a war president?

The lead op-ed in today's Buffalo News is a provocative one from the seemingly omnipresent Fareed Zakaria [left] of Newsweek/The Washington Post/CNN.
He points out how President Bush has claimed so many extraordinary powers for himself and his administration on the grounds that he is "a war president." Even most of the criticisms of the administration by Democrats are more in the vein of attacking Bush's conduct of the war, suggesting his missteps have increased the danger of terrorism rather than reduced it. They don't question the suggestion that we are in great danger.
Zakaria does question it. Life in America hasn't changed that much. Violence and terror are down. Al Qaida hasn't come anywhere near taking over the Muslim world, much less the rest of the planet. Even the CIA says the terror networks are on the ropes.
In fact, America is an extremely powerful country, with a unique and extraordinary set of strengths. The only way that position can truly be eroded is by its own actions and overreactions — by unwise and imprudent leadership. A good way to start correcting the errors of the past would be to recognize that we are not at war.

Elsewhere:
* A review of Zakaria's new Sunday morning talk show, with the necessary Tim Russert mention, from The Los Angeles Times.
* Example of how the Boy Who Cried Wolf Administration isn't going to be believed so easily in the future: A federal appeals court known for a conservative bent has rejected Pentagon claims that it can hold someone as an enemy combatant just by "saying it thrice," after Lewis Carroll's "The Hunting of the Snark: an Agony in Eight Fits."
* At the Philly Daily News, Will Bunch tells the story of CBS war correspondent Lara Logan, who one minute was complaining that the American media have forgotten to cover Iraq, and the next minute is embroiled in a cheap sex scandal that may or may not have any substance to it. Payback?
* Whether this is a war or not, it has become more deadly to be standing in the middle of whatever it is in Afghanistan than whatever it is in Iraq.

--George Pyle/Editorial Writer

Comments

[Al]

Zakaria's past views have too much self-assumed political sway (he's not alone) to be other than another pundit. Just look at the national budget and the funding (again another $60 plus Billion) for war. The U.S.A. is at war by any definition. Soldiers are being killed and wounded. Whether it is a sectarian civil war, a cold war, a hot war, or a terror war, the U.S. IS at war. Its policies have put the U.S. squarely inside a territorial war footing. Zakaria has suspected agendas that make him a non-trusted journalist.
The economy is in part in decline because of war, so the effects are now reaching out and touching everyone. Oil is about power and control, and can lead to even more serious war. The greatest danger is to play down the dangers in the world. But the way to fight it is with adequate intelligence services and less with weapons and troops.
I've always thought it, but this latest shows Zakaria is full of it.

[Willy]

When exactly do we win this war and say it's over?
Only after complete global domination?

Maybe the rest of the globe DON'T want it either, which is why we are constantly perpetuating wars everywhere.
I see no roses offered anywhere.

Are any of these wars really helping any of the "real" people, the citizens, ANYWHERE?
Has it improved their lives?
Has it improved our lives?

Whose lives, if any, has it improved?

In factual "reality"?

We must get real, and the faster the better.

[BobbyCat]

Zacharia is one of the few who deserve the name 'pundit' and he's the smartest of the lot. But sometimes Fareed is too polite to describe this President, who wants to be known as the 'war president'. Why? For the same reason he surrounds himself with soldiers and police. He's basks in their light; He glorifies in his title of Commander in Chief. The name confers to him attributes that he longs for, namely courage.

Bush is haunted, no doubt, by his own shameful history as a loafer, a drunk, and a coward. His proximity to valient soldiers and his title 'Commander' helps him to forget that he was too drunk and cowardly to serve in Vietnam. He want to be a 'War President' because It sounds courageous. He can no longer find his courage in a bottle so he must find it by standing among the courageous.

This President is no different than any drunk - with the same chronic personality defects. But in his case, he gets honored and saluted by his own military. Of course he wants to be a 'war president'. He needs it to bolster his sagging esteem. Can it get any lower? Much of the world calls him the worst President in history. Is it conceivable that he created the Iraq war out of thin air just to assuage his ego? Many believe just that, but history will tell.

Many will label this as 'Bush bashing". It's not. I've known many drunks, some friends and family included. They all suffer the many of same predictable maladies.

We would do well to look closely for personality defects in our next Commander in Chief and hope he has no hidden axes to grind.