Your editorial cheering on ”a new, visibly more sure-footed and confident George Bush” (”Bush earns the `presidential` seal”-Sept. 12)
simplistically equated a show of military force with strong leadership. Sure, the Gulf crisis makes Bush appear stronger and more presidential, but appearances can be deceiving-especially in Bush`s case.
Is it ”presidential” for Bush to rush unilaterally into committing tens of thousands of troops at a cost of more than $50 million per day when we are already living on borrowed funds? Is it ”presidential” for Bush to take this action without allowing enough time for economic sanctions to work, and without truly seeking a diplomatic solution through the United Nations? Is it ”presidential” for Bush to speak arrogantly of ”protecting the American way of life,” sidestepping such crucial issues as energy conservation and U.S. oil addiction?
In defending Bush, you write that ”the wimp thing has always been a bum rap,” observing that he is ”the most active White House jock in memory.”
Building on this silly notion that leadership derives from machismo, you add that ”Saddam had better pull out his `High Noon` video and start thinking about what might come next.” Well, I realize that Ronald Reagan effectively turned the White House into a movie set, but for you to buy into that mentality is ridiculous.
Bush`s principles have never matched his rhetoric. Time and again-in his 1988 race against Dukakis, in ”opposing” new taxes, in hailing the spread of democracy while resisting meaningful cuts in Pentagon spending, and now in whipping the American public into a misguided frenzy over the Gulf crisis-he has proven himself to be anything but presidential. No, the leadership Bush provides is that of the opportunist and demagogue. Editorials like yours obscure this sad truth, and help perpetuate an excessively aggressive foreign policy.
