Posted By MJ
I didn’t want to do a post on this. Frankly I think it’s a non-story. I think it’s pretty clear that Doug Wead only wanted to promote his book with some free press. I don’t blame him, he worked hard on his book and now he wants to enjoy some luxuries from it. If I had tapes of a historical figure such as Bush, I’m not sure what I would do either. Now that Wead is turning the tapes over to Bush and his family, it does make me wonder how much pressure the Bush team placed on Wead and what other damaging material is on the tapes. I’m sure there’s plenty. And I do think this is another example of the Bush administration trying to manhandle a situation.
The story, however, just won’t die. The foreign press has picked up on it much more so than the American press. I read a lot of foreign press, on some days more than I do American media, especially right now since Bush is in Europe. But one would think that when Bush is in Europe, which is of much more historical importance than Bush smoking weed or using cocaine, the foreign media would cover the Europe trip over something that happened 30 years ago. Now don’t get me wrong, the foreign press has covered their share of Bush’s trip, but the headlines and the commentary is focused on Bush and his oh so clear admission to using drugs. All that focus by the foreign media is more of a vendetta than good journalism.
Right now, mending fences with Europe and fixing Iraq are the two most important foreign policy issues facing Bush’s second term. And now that Bush is actually out to make things right, the foreign press is trying to center attention away from the Europe trip and onto something personal and something that really should only be between the president and Wead.
Now the domestic side.
For all the people that say that Wead and the NY Times are only out to tarnish the president are, I think, not realizing the full significance of these tapes. I agree the tapes- at least the portions released- don’t really tell us a whole lot that we didn’t already know about President Bush. I think most people probably realize that Bush did some illegal drugs in his day. But I’m also surprised that there are people who still think Bush fulfilled his duty while in the Air National Guard, so if there are people that don’t believe Bush did some wild things while growing up in the 60s it wouldn’t startle me all that much.
Bush, however, has always made it clear that when he was young and stupid, he was young and stupid. I don’t think the president has ever tried to cover up the fact he made some bad decisions when he was younger. And by younger I mean under 40. I think Bush would be the first to tell you that until he was 40, he drank too much and did not fully appreciate his marriage.
Now with all that said, I do agree with the NY Times running the story. If there were tapes of President Clinton (and there probably is) recorded without his knowledge that gave insight to what he was thinking during his run-up to his presidency, no one would have hesitated to run the story. I think fair is fair is fair. If the NY Times had not done the story, Wead would have went to another publication and eventually it would have been printed. There is nothing tacky with the way the NY Times covered it. After all, it was Wead that chose to make them public and he is a self-proclaimed supporter of the president’s.
As forthright as Bush has been about his past, he has still not answered the questions about his drug use. Some people say that’s no big deal, and I agree. What I don’t like about the drug question is that some politicians do answer them and usually the ones that do are Democrats. And when they do, all these experts argue about the sincerity in which they answered the questions and religious leaders immediately weigh in on whether or not God has granted them forgiveness for their past sins. I don’t agree with that part of the process.
Clinton is a perfect example. As ridiculous as his not inhaling answer was, it was treated in the media and by Republicans as reasons to why Clinton can’t be trusted. So I do believe there is a double standard when it comes to people answering the questions and those who don’t.
The answer itself is a personal preference to a personal question. I for one, would much rather have a person seeking office describe to me how he/she intends to handle certain issues and circumstances, rather than have one explain to me what he/she did wrong while wasted at a good party in college. But when those who choose to answer the question do so, they should be given the same respect of those who don’t.
February 24, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Apparently it is obvious that Wead was out to sell books, but I don't think he realized the damage these tapes would, and did cause. Regarding the drug issue, it is hard to use today's standards to yesterday's issues. When Clinton answered the question of illegal drug use in the nineties, it was uncommon for the question to be asked. Now, out of the hippy 60's and 70's come politicians that did use and abuse drugs. True, that shows poor judgement, but for the most part, these actions were years earlier. As long as their dependence stopped a lengthy time before taking office, drugs use in early adulthood does little in shaping future choices.
ReplyDeleteBush said he didn't want the youth to make the same idiotic mistakes he did. And I think many politicians would agree, including Clinton. Too bad Europe, not known for their conservative views on drug use, won't stop casting the proverbial first stone.
Well, it's funny you should say the press is all over it. At least in Germany, it doesn't really seem to be the case. I mean, I was discussing Bush's visit with a friend yesterday, and we talked about it for about 15 minutes...and then at the end he asked, "hey, what was that story with the tapes?" I personally, wouldn't have heard anything about them, had I not listened to NPR here. So, the exposure here may not be as high as you perceive it to be.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I would have to agree with you too, that I don't care if my president wore boxers or briefs, and the past is the past. Although it can sometimes give insight into how that person came to be what he is today, he isn't necessarily the same person anymore. Germany's shining example for that is Joschka Fischer: he was part of a militant opposition to the government in the 60s, and today he is part of the government.
And my German friend said, that in his eyes, these new revelations made Bush seem more human, i.e. the fact that he was admitting to past problems. So, it goes both ways.
But people love gossip. So, no matter how important some issue is, they are always going to go with the gossipy piece.
ValleyGirl, thanks for your comments.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I've read in the papers and seen on television, it appeared to me that the foreign press was really hammering in the story of the tapes. Now when I say foreign press it doesn't just mean Europe. The link I provided in the post is a world survey from the Washington Post, which I think does an excellent job of rounding up world media.
It is obvious, though, that I am not in Germany per se, so I do appreciate your input. You would have a much better grasp of German sentiment than I ever would.
But I do find it comical that now in Germany, America is viewed as the world aggressor.
Again, thank you for commenting. It's always good to have some intel on the ground. Haben Sie ein gutes Wochenende.
Lol...I have become Germany-centric: the rest of the world means everything outside of the US...thus Germany....lol...
ReplyDeleteYeah...it is comical that Germany says America is the agressor, just like when France says America is arrogant. The Germans are good at defending athat though: they say it because of their violent past that they are better equipped to criticize others.
Schoenes Wochenende to you to! And you can say Du to me!