The President: Paying the Price . . .

Obs, ovanstående teckning ingår inte i artikeln här under. Men jag tycker att den illustrerar Bushs unilaterala in- och utrikespoltik.

Jag bifogar ytterligare en intressant artikel av E.J. Dionne Jr. från Washington Post.

When presidents take big chances, they have two choices. They can take all the responsibility on themselves and hope that when things go well, they will reap allthe rewards. Or they can choose to draw in the opposition from the beginning ...

President Bush took his big chance in Iraq without buying himself an insurance policy. He could have patiently built a coalition of the many -- not only abroad, but also at home -- rather than slapping together a coalition of the few...
...
Instead of reaching out to doubters, Bush derided them. On the campaign trail in September 2002, he characterized Democratic members of Congress who wanted a strong mandate from the United Nations -- exactly what the administration is seeking now -- as evading responsibility. "
...
No wonder the country is so polarized. Behind the president's plummeting poll numbers and public restlessness about the war is an emerging truth about the administration's way of doing business. Iraq was a preemptive war pursued by a president who governs by preemption.

Det är viktigt att detta läses i Sverige så att man kan se hur extrem den bild som herrar Bergström, Ahlmark och andra ger i DN, den direkta svenska motsvarigheten till Washington Post.

There is a sad irony here, sad for Bush and for the country he leads. After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush had the opportunity to transform himself from the winner of a disputed election into a leader with unparalleled political authority.
.....
Democrats were off balance, unsure of how to behave. Republicans recognized that the political ground was shifting in their favor.... At the time, it was possible to imagine the reappearance of something like Eisenhower Republicanism and a long-term Republican majority that would embrace 55 to 60 percent of Americans.

But Bush chose aggressiveness over conciliation. At one point, in the debate over a bill creating a permanent Department of Homeland Security, he even said that "the Senate" -- meaning the bare Democratic majority that existed at the time -- was "not interested in the security of the American people." Don't doubt for a moment that every Democrat in the Senate remembers Bush saying that. You can play political hardball or you can call for national unity. You can't do both.
....
So Bush got what he wanted -- but at a higher price than he expected to pay.
....

Som jag påpekade i min tidigare blog så verkar det som om det amerikanska folket idag är betydligt mer skeptiska mot Bush-regeringen än det svenska. Jag ser inte sådana här artiklar i den svenska pressen. Vi har sett en helomvändning här i landet sedan Abu Ghuraib, men inte alls samma vändning i Sverige. Och jag har inte hört ett ord från Göran Persson eller Laila Freivalds. Fast jag kanske har missat det.