But now you're no longer discussing his speech, you're discussing his decision-making process, which wasn't the topic of the OP. And you're also in much more uncertain waters, because from our external position we really can't know what Bush considers when making decisions, we can only know what the final decisions are.
Ahem. I was responding to a point that I thought was not well-made. As for what Bush considers when making decisions, one can learn about this from a number of sources, including (but not limited to) Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack," Colin Powell, Richard Clarke, and others. We also hear it from little Bush's own mouth, when he "advocates" for what he wants.
But that ISN'T any different than other politicians. That IS politics.
I recommend you pay more attention to the practices of past politicians and to history. I stand by my assertion that little Bush stands nearly alone in his selectiveness. His predecessors have not been as dishonest on foreign policy as he has, and it is incorrect to say that all politicians are that way.
Trust is a funny thing, and there are different kinds of it. If Bush says he will do something, even our enemies trust that he will probably do it. That kind of trust is worth quite a lot. I doubt someone as "trustworthy" as Carter, for example, had as much of that kind of trust as Bush does.
Bush cried "wolf" when there was no wolf, thereby trashing the United States' national prestige and credibility. In the event of an actual emergency, if Bush cries "wolf" again, it is very unlikely that anyone else in the world will take his warning seriously, even if it very well-founded in fact. People do NOT trust him.
Since you brought up Carter, let's talk about him. Carter has tremendous personal prestige and trustworthiness now, and he also was deemed internationally trustworthy while he was president. His perseverence and prestige led to the Camp David accords, recognition of China, and widespread consistency in foreign relations. He did not invade any countries under false pretenses.
Back to speculation. And off topic as well: Clinton's actual speeches were still always given from a very definite perspective, and did not dwell on all the possible counterarguments. That's the way it has always been, and that's perfectly acceptable. I wouldn't want Lincoln, for example, to have talked about the possibility of making peace with the South during his Gettysburg address, even if it made his speech more "balanced" and less "selective".
You'd better go back and read Clinton's speeches, because you seem to be the one who is speculating. Or, to be more blunt, you don't know what you are talking about. First, Clinton did not habitually paint a rosy picture when the situation was not rosy, as little Bush has frequently done. Second, Clinton's people--from both parties, mind you--marveled that he made a point of knowing as much as he could about a foreign policy issue, to the point of being the most educated person in the room. Third, Clinton had the b@lls to stand up and take questions about his policies from the media, even from people in the media whom he knew did not like him and who asked hostile questions. Clinton defended his policies exceptionally well. Little Bush does not have the b@lls to do this.
