Full Version: Bush's Burned Bridges
I recently read this article. It's written by a Law professor at the University of Virginia. She often contributes to the LA Times. I have to say I agree w/ her 100%.
I realize she wrote the article before yesterday's development in which our State Dept. took an Israeli minister to task for inferring that the failure in Rome gave Israel carte blanche to proceed in Lebanon as it chooses, but she's a bit long on conclusions and short of proof. Sorry to say so of a fellow counselor, but she illustrates a common joke among attorneys: "Q: What do you call a lawyer who doesn't practice law? A: Professor."
Very good points! I agree with the premise of the article, that the Bush Regime has squandered our influence on a virtually meaningless war in Iraq. If we were able to maintain our focus, keep our eyes on the prize, then we would not have gone for leadership change in Iraq. Here we are 3 and 1/2 years later there and very little has changed since Saddam's toppling.
Yes, the Bush Regime has squandered our worldwide resources on a whimsical desire to rewrite history for the name of W's father. It sickens and angers me to think about that final point. :mad:
Yes, the Bush Regime has squandered our worldwide resources on a whimsical desire to rewrite history for the name of W's father. It sickens and angers me to think about that final point. :mad:
Quote:
"...she's a bit long on conclusions and short of proof..."
Oh, I disagree. All one has to do is check recent international polls re: how the world views American policies by both the foreign general population & world leaders.
"...she's a bit long on conclusions and short of proof..."
Oh, I disagree. All one has to do is check recent international polls re: how the world views American policies by both the foreign general population & world leaders.
Quote:
"...Sorry to say so of a fellow counselor, but she illustrates a common joke among attorneys: 'Q: What do you call a lawyer who doesn't practice law? A: Professor.'"
I would hardly consider her credentials a joke.
"...Sorry to say so of a fellow counselor, but she illustrates a common joke among attorneys: 'Q: What do you call a lawyer who doesn't practice law? A: Professor.'"
I would hardly consider her credentials a joke.
Yes, she has quite the liberal pedigree, but "has she ever tried a case?"
Not to focus on her, though, but her arguments. The conduct of foreign policy has never been a popularity contest and there is nothing wrong with legitimate self-interest. We are in a tough situation and I trust this administration to navigate it much better than any of the two alternatives offered in '00 and '04 might have. In fact, the most I can say about the pilots that might have steered us instead is that they would have best kept home in port. But that would only have allowed the problems to fester, as they did under Clinton. So, I still say that difficult and frustrating as it has seemed at times, the present course is worth staying. That's not to say there aren't other routes, but so far they haven't been charted and sailing by erratic moral compasses could leave us all adrift.
Not to focus on her, though, but her arguments. The conduct of foreign policy has never been a popularity contest and there is nothing wrong with legitimate self-interest. We are in a tough situation and I trust this administration to navigate it much better than any of the two alternatives offered in '00 and '04 might have. In fact, the most I can say about the pilots that might have steered us instead is that they would have best kept home in port. But that would only have allowed the problems to fester, as they did under Clinton. So, I still say that difficult and frustrating as it has seemed at times, the present course is worth staying. That's not to say there aren't other routes, but so far they haven't been charted and sailing by erratic moral compasses could leave us all adrift.
Please...altogther now, lets blame Clinton again. Tired. Speaking of festering, kind of like Iran and North Korea have under W. eh? The only thing I trust about this administration is that America will be hated even moreso than it was before he became President.
I can understand the "might is right" approach (although I disagree w/ it as a pacifist), but the problem w/ the current administration is that that's their only response to a crisis. What about diplomacy? What about talks? What about other peaceful incentives in combo w/ "might"? And that's where I believe the Bush Administration doesn't get it. History has proven again & again that violence & hatred ALWAYS begets more violence & hatred. Have we not as a human race learned our lesson? Are we not advanced enough to understand that? Sadly, I think not. I mean come on. We've made some much progress in so many other areas (ie science, technology), but not in the international political arena. We're still behaving like a bunch of animalistic primates. That's what so frustrating for me.
Some, but not all of us humans, earthlings, carbon units, whatever have learned that lesson SC, but not ALL, and it's those who haven't that cause the problems. Both Bush admins tried diplomacy - remember the UN sanctions against Iraq re: inspections, etc.? - but it failed because Iraq refused to cooperate in good faith. Same for Iran and its nukes. Where was the diplomacy in the Syrian-bred assassination of Lebanon's PM a while ago? Diplomacy was tried, but it failed. Condi Rice isn't exactly flying all over the Mediterranean doing nothing, is she? For any good to come out of diplomacy, ALL sides have to bargain in good faith, and so far the US and some of its allies are the only ones who've done so. To persevere in senseless diplomacy solely for "diplomacy's" sake would only be to dither, with all its Chamberlainesque and even more deadly implications.
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
Both Bush admins tried diplomacy - remember the UN sanctions against Iraq re: inspections, etc.? - but it failed because Iraq refused to cooperate in good faith. .................................Condi Rice isn't exactly flying all over the Mediterranean doing nothing, is she?
Bush may have talked diplomacy, but didn't let the UN finish it's job. Both Bush admins tried diplomacy - remember the UN sanctions against Iraq re: inspections, etc.? - but it failed because Iraq refused to cooperate in good faith. .................................Condi Rice isn't exactly flying all over the Mediterranean doing nothing, is she?
Remember the whole "we need to stop his WMD or they could hit the US" arguement?
Bush went into Iraq before the UN weapons inspectors were finished. Sadamm had thrown them out, but when threatened with a war, he relented, and invited them back in.
The Bush administrations reaction? Ignore, and start the war anyway.
As for Condi flying around, its a good PR show, but you must realize that no matter how good she is, most of the Muslim countries will "listen", but not react seriously. Their warped reasoning is that it is because she is a woman.
But hell, even if Muhammed himself said what she says, it still comes as "Too little, too late".
The vast majority of the muslim countries see the US (wrongly, I beleive) as Pro-Israel, anti-Muslim.
Clinton's diplomacy was starting to change attitudes. because of Bush, it will take a generation, of not more, to repair the damage to the US' reputation overseas.
[ July 28, 2006, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: Lksimcoe ]
LK, you make some good arguments, and then lose your temper, launch into profanity and mischaracterize my politics and me - when you've never even MET me! - thereby undoing whatever good you did. Focus on the issue, not the person - whether it's me, Ann Coulter, our President or anyone else you just happen to disagree with.
PS - Thank you for your prudent editing. wink
[ July 28, 2006, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]
PS - Thank you for your prudent editing. wink
[ July 28, 2006, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]
OUR president??? What you mean we, white man? 
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, he's not MY president.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, he's not MY president.
QUOTE
MarcusF:
OUR president??? What you mean we, white man? I've said it before, and I'll say it again, he's not MY president.
Ditto
OUR president??? What you mean we, white man?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, he's not MY president.
Yes, yes, I know all about "not in my name" and "selected" vs. "elected," but between two nations SOMEBODY has to speak for one and the other!
QUOTE
Lksimcoe:
As for Condi flying around, its a good PR show, but you must realize that no matter how good she is, most of the Muslim countries will \"listen\", but not react seriously. Their warped reasoning is that it is because she is a woman.
Wait a second! Let's not bury the lead here. Condi really is a woman? Well, she has bigger balls and more intrepidity than most guys I know! As for Condi flying around, its a good PR show, but you must realize that no matter how good she is, most of the Muslim countries will \"listen\", but not react seriously. Their warped reasoning is that it is because she is a woman.
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
I trust this administration to navigate it much better than any of the two alternatives offered in '00 and '04 might have.
You would really trust the person (W.) who gave this answer more than Gore or Kerry? I trust this administration to navigate it much better than any of the two alternatives offered in '00 and '04 might have.
QUOTE
Q: Mr. President, both of you, I'd like to ask you about the big picture that you're discussing.
Mr. President, three years ago, you argued that an invasion of Iraq would create a new stage of Arab-Israeli peace. And yet today there is an Iraqi prime minister who has been sharply critical of Israel.
Arab governments, despite your arguments, who first criticized Hezbollah, have now changed their tune. Now they're sharply critical of Israel.
And despite from both of you warnings to Syria and Iran to back off support from Hezbollah, effectively, Mr. President, your words are being ignored.
So what has happened to America's clout in this region that you've committed yourself to transform?
Bush: David, it's an interesting period because, instead of having foreign policies based upon trying to create a sense of stability, we have a foreign policy that addresses the root causes of violence and instability.
For a while, American foreign policy was just, Let's hope everything is calm - kind of, managed calm. But beneath the surface brewed a lot of resentment and anger that was manifested on September the 11th.
And so we have, we've taken a foreign policy that says: On the one hand, we will protect ourselves from further attack in the short run by being aggressive in chasing down the killers and bringing them to justice.
And make no mistake: They're still out there, and they would like to harm our respective peoples because of what we stand for.
In the long term, to defeat this ideology - and they're bound by an ideology - you defeat it with a more hopeful ideology called freedom.
And, look, I fully understand some people don't believe it's possible for freedom and democracy to overcome this ideology of hatred. I understand that. I just happen to believe it is possible.
And I believe it will happen.
And so what you're seeing is, you know, a clash of governing styles.
For example, you know, the notion of democracy beginning to emerge scares the ideologues, the totalitarians, those who want to impose their vision. It just frightens them.
And so they respond. They've always been violent.
You know, I hear this amazing kind of editorial thought that says, all of a sudden, Hezbollah's become violent because we're promoting democracy. They have been violent for a long period of time. Or Hamas?
One reason why the Palestinians still suffer is because there are militants who refuse to accept a Palestinian state based upon democratic principles.
And so what the world is seeing is a desire by this country and our allies to defeat the ideology of hate with an ideology that has worked and that brings hope.
And one of the challenges, of course, is to convince people that Muslims would like to be free, you know, that there's other people other than people in Britain and America that would like to be free in the world.
There's this kind of almost – you know, kind of a weird kind of elitism that says well maybe - maybe certain people in certain parts of the world shouldn't be free; maybe it's best just to let them sit in these tyrannical societies.
And our foreign policy rejects that concept. We don't accept it. And so we're working.
This is why I worry about the future of our country. Seemingly intelligent people still think Bush is competent enough to handle these sorts of problems. Lord help us.
Mr. President, three years ago, you argued that an invasion of Iraq would create a new stage of Arab-Israeli peace. And yet today there is an Iraqi prime minister who has been sharply critical of Israel.
Arab governments, despite your arguments, who first criticized Hezbollah, have now changed their tune. Now they're sharply critical of Israel.
And despite from both of you warnings to Syria and Iran to back off support from Hezbollah, effectively, Mr. President, your words are being ignored.
So what has happened to America's clout in this region that you've committed yourself to transform?
Bush: David, it's an interesting period because, instead of having foreign policies based upon trying to create a sense of stability, we have a foreign policy that addresses the root causes of violence and instability.
For a while, American foreign policy was just, Let's hope everything is calm - kind of, managed calm. But beneath the surface brewed a lot of resentment and anger that was manifested on September the 11th.
And so we have, we've taken a foreign policy that says: On the one hand, we will protect ourselves from further attack in the short run by being aggressive in chasing down the killers and bringing them to justice.
And make no mistake: They're still out there, and they would like to harm our respective peoples because of what we stand for.
In the long term, to defeat this ideology - and they're bound by an ideology - you defeat it with a more hopeful ideology called freedom.
And, look, I fully understand some people don't believe it's possible for freedom and democracy to overcome this ideology of hatred. I understand that. I just happen to believe it is possible.
And I believe it will happen.
And so what you're seeing is, you know, a clash of governing styles.
For example, you know, the notion of democracy beginning to emerge scares the ideologues, the totalitarians, those who want to impose their vision. It just frightens them.
And so they respond. They've always been violent.
You know, I hear this amazing kind of editorial thought that says, all of a sudden, Hezbollah's become violent because we're promoting democracy. They have been violent for a long period of time. Or Hamas?
One reason why the Palestinians still suffer is because there are militants who refuse to accept a Palestinian state based upon democratic principles.
And so what the world is seeing is a desire by this country and our allies to defeat the ideology of hate with an ideology that has worked and that brings hope.
And one of the challenges, of course, is to convince people that Muslims would like to be free, you know, that there's other people other than people in Britain and America that would like to be free in the world.
There's this kind of almost – you know, kind of a weird kind of elitism that says well maybe - maybe certain people in certain parts of the world shouldn't be free; maybe it's best just to let them sit in these tyrannical societies.
And our foreign policy rejects that concept. We don't accept it. And so we're working.
Well, shawnq, I'd like to see the other response - was it from Kerry? - and have the whole thing placed into context, but no, I don't really have a problem with the President's words quoted here. It sounds like he was speaking off the cuff, and he's making a lot more sense on this record than I've read from transcripts quoting judges, lawyers, CEOs and others presumably better educated than he. Distill his words and what you come up with - ironically, no doubt, for some of his critics here - is "give peace [and democracy] a chance." What's wrong with that? Especially in light of the alternative, which would have allowed SHussein to continue murdering his own and other people.
Quote:
"...Condi Rice isn't exactly flying all over the Mediterranean doing nothing, is she? For any good to come out of diplomacy, ALL sides have to bargain in good faith, and so far the US and some of its allies are the only ones who've done so..."
According to this article Blair is our only ally (and I would venture to guess that probably most of Britain is against Blair's blanket support of Bush in this). And everything I keep reading about what Condi/Bush are proposing is an "all or nothing" approach & aren't budging. I would hardly consider that diplomacy or bargaining.
"...Condi Rice isn't exactly flying all over the Mediterranean doing nothing, is she? For any good to come out of diplomacy, ALL sides have to bargain in good faith, and so far the US and some of its allies are the only ones who've done so..."
According to this article Blair is our only ally (and I would venture to guess that probably most of Britain is against Blair's blanket support of Bush in this). And everything I keep reading about what Condi/Bush are proposing is an "all or nothing" approach & aren't budging. I would hardly consider that diplomacy or bargaining.
Bargaining involves posturing at times, just as diplomacy does, and especially as's required when you're dealing with hard-nosed terrorists. But behind technique, why should ANYONE budge by agreeing to a cease-fire now, thus allowing Hezbollah to regroup. For me, the diplomacy is well-suited to the occasion and is proceeding just as it should.
If others wail, "Meanwhile innocents continue to die!", then I say let Hezbollah withdraw at once from its positions - and why rule out their surrender? - and the bloodshed will end just as the bombing does.
The article begs a question that's been floating around the web today: if a multinational force in the buffer zone will keep things peaceful, isn't it pretty obvious that the UN failed in its mission to do so when it had observers there? How good were their observations if Hezbollah was able to build itself up as strongly as it did. Kofi, front and center!
OK, enough politics for one day: San Diego Pride is NOW and I'm off to the first of several parties. Happy weekend to all. :cool:
If others wail, "Meanwhile innocents continue to die!", then I say let Hezbollah withdraw at once from its positions - and why rule out their surrender? - and the bloodshed will end just as the bombing does.
The article begs a question that's been floating around the web today: if a multinational force in the buffer zone will keep things peaceful, isn't it pretty obvious that the UN failed in its mission to do so when it had observers there? How good were their observations if Hezbollah was able to build itself up as strongly as it did. Kofi, front and center!
OK, enough politics for one day: San Diego Pride is NOW and I'm off to the first of several parties. Happy weekend to all. :cool:
This just in from CNN. What will it take for Bush to listen?
And this just in from MSNBC.
I admire Hagel for having the courage to speak up and out. He has also been calling for an end to the quagmire in Iraq as well..In many ways he sounds alot like a Democrat. It should be interesting to hear the response, if any on the right.
Here's another interesting article from a Jewish American reporter's perspective on MSNBC.
I don't think W will ever get it. He has surrounded himself with power-hungry sycophants like Karl Rove and Paul Wolfowitz, to name two. Therefore he will never get an opposing perspective that would cast some enlightenment on his choices. Instead, his choices all reflect the neoconservative perspective.
As my dear criminal friend, Rush Limbaugh, once said, "A neoconservative is just a liberal who got mugged by life." As it turns out, these neocons are mugging America now. Sad, isn't it?
As my dear criminal friend, Rush Limbaugh, once said, "A neoconservative is just a liberal who got mugged by life." As it turns out, these neocons are mugging America now. Sad, isn't it?
Is that the sound of crickets I hear coming from the GOPer's on this board? Odd how they had so much to say earlier in this thread.
UCLA, you are sooo right. I heard on the news that Shrub goes in for his annual physical examination today. I found myself wondering about a mental exam as well. wink eek!
QUOTE
millerbeach:
Is that the sound of crickets I hear coming from the GOPer's on this board? Odd how they had so much to say earlier in this thread.
Crickets can be used for bait, so I'll spring, Millerboy. But no real silence, anyway, since the posts post-my last have been developed on another thread dealing with Israel vs. Hezbollah. And don't forget, a penalty is called only after 7 days goes by with no response or an attempt to resurrect a thread that has since died, so "no foul, no harm."Is that the sound of crickets I hear coming from the GOPer's on this board? Odd how they had so much to say earlier in this thread.
But to summarize, Hagel's wrong, IMHO. As stated elsewhere, an immediate cease-fire will help only Hezbollah, who deserve destruction, not assistance. Events since 7-28 show that they maintained their rocket barrages despite Israel's temporary lull in their own bombing, and let's not forget that Israel is acting in self-defense against Hezbollah-initiated attacks. So who's the aggressor here, Sen. Hagel, and what are your own foreign policy credentials?
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
So who's the aggressor here, Sen. Hagel, and what are your own foreign policy credentials?
You'll forgive me here if I laugh at the implication that W's foreign policy credentials are better than anyone else's. So who's the aggressor here, Sen. Hagel, and what are your own foreign policy credentials?
That's an implication that no one with a keen mind could pass up. W is a failure in the foreign policy area, which can be summed up in this aphorism: "Might makes right."Hell, if anyone needs any proof, then look to his boorish behavior at the G8 summit.
A fair enough implication, but only if you're focusing on Bush's alone and not his advisors' staff's and cabinet's. Together, they far outshine Hagel's.
Iraq? Iran? North Korea? Are these the shining accomplishments of foreign policy for the Bush Regime?
I'm laughing at these superior achievements.
[ August 01, 2006, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: UCLAfan ]
I'm laughing at these superior achievements.
[ August 01, 2006, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: UCLAfan ]
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.