Planning

Recently online I came across a couple of interesting items from the past that relate to current events in the Middle East and to current American politics. They also have to do with words matching actions, and with planning.

The first item concerns the rising gas prices, which makes headline news nearly every day now and which often is mentioned in emails we receive from home. Gas is, by the way, still cheaper in the United States than it is here. Anyway, a week or so ago President Bush was in Saudi Arabia to commemorate 75 years of US-Saudi relations, and while there he politely asked the Saudis to increase output in order to facilitate lower prices. The Saudis, however, as you may know, declined his request. You can read about it here.

I found this to be interesting because I happened to discover online the other day that asking the Saudis for a break is exactly what Bush said he would do while on the campaign trail in 2000. If gas got too expensive, he said, he would talk to the Saudis or Kuwaitis "and convince them to open up the spigot." You can read about that here. So, here is an example of a presidential candidate doing exactly what he said he would do, even eight years after his statement was made. Unfortunately, though, it didn't work. So I wonder, was that his plan for dealing with energy related issues from the beginning? And, if so, what's Plan B?

The second item concerns the war in Iraq, and the issue of giving American troops and the American people a timetable for American withdrawal. This is a hot issue because Bush is steadfastly opposed to such a timetable, while many in the Democratic Party support the idea, and presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both discussed what their timetables might be if elected. Although I was steadfastly opposed to making war with Iraq--complete with protesting in anti-war marches, peace buttons, a sign in our front yard and plenty of conversations with people about war not being the answer--I haven't totally made up my mind on the merits of a timetable or early withdrawal. After all, it is possible that pulling out early may unleash even more chaos on Iraq if the instability created by the war isn't cleaned up. All that said, though, also as I happened to discover online the other day, then candidate Bush actually supported setting a timetable for American involvement in Kosovo when on the campaign trail in 1999. At that time, during the campaign designed to protect Albanians from being attacked by Serbians in what was then Yugoslavia, he said that it was "important" for then President Bill Clinton "to lay out a timetable as to how long [the troops] will be involved and when they will be withdrawn." You can read about it here.

So, here is an example of a presidential candidate seemingly at odds with a previous statement regarding a similar situation. Yes, it is true that the two wars aren't totally analogous--and people and situations change--but his current rhetoric in which he deplores the very idea of a timetable as "defeatist" language seems out of step with his earlier rhetoric. So, again I wonder about the plans he had from the beginning. Since he seemed to have believed a timetable was appropriate for his predecessor, why was and is it not appropriate for him? What was his plan for leaving Iraq at the start of the war? After five years, are we on Plan B, C? It just seems that whether the early rhetoric of President Bush matched his later actions or not, it appears obvious--as the price of gas continues to rise and the violence rages on in Iraq--that better plans were needed.