Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Is this an admission? Is what you are saying that whether it is part of the war on terror is dependent on whether or not we are successful?
|
In the sense that you suggest, there is scarcely a part of our foreign policy that is not "part" of the war on terror.
I don't think that for Bush, personally, terrorism was the reason to invade Iraq. For some of his aides, the answer is different.
Quote:
|
I don't agree with that characterization, but if it were true I would say we are losing a portion of the war on terror.
|
Read more of the CSIS report about what's actually going on there -- I think I am fairly representing their findings, albeit very generally so -- and less of the Wall St Journal's puff pieces about all the happy press releases issued there recently.
Quote:
|
I am familar with Russia, but what happened in China?
|
Elections in Hong Kong, in which the pro-democracy forces won clear majorities of the vote but not of the seats, due to the way the elections are structured. China gave a big "FU" to all concerned.
Quote:
|
Iraq has nothing to do with it. And what would you have him do about it? Issue a strong statement? Perhaps, but my guess is that he's weighed this against having a fully engaged Russia in the WOT and has decided that, while not optimal, it is better for America give Putin some slack.
|
Bush has used his capital in Iraq that he doesn't have much left.
You ask a good question about what to do about it. Certainly there are things that we might do that would go unseen. But doesn't Cheney's comment set the wrong tone. Ought we not say something publicly? More fundamentally, can you think of anything Bush has done to strengthen democracy, outside of invading Iraq? You've said in the past that you think it's an important part of his foreign policy -- don't the results leave you feeling let down? Russia, China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Venezuela -- think about it.
