Politics: A new beginning

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
We should form a club or something.

Only if I get to be Frasier.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I see State as the source of conflict in this. (Yes, I know Bush is in charge of State, and I'm still wondering when he will TAKE charge of State.)

The source of conflict is that Bush has hired strong-minded people with different views to run State and Defense. He also has one as VP. None of this is, of itself, a bad thing, but it calls for strong leadership and coordination. No one really thinks Bush is a strong enough leader in foreign policy terms to keep Powell, Rumsfeld and Cheney on the same page himself, but I think they jump when he tells them to. What this calls for is a National Security Advisor who can manage all of this. One of two things is happening. Condi Rice is failing at her job, or the President isn't giving her the support she needs.

Because it's not working, Bush has gone and gotten another strong-minded fellow in Baker, and has given him yet another overlapping portfolio. This should make Rice's job even more fun. But by all accounts she is very tight with the President.

edited to fix spelling

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
America suffers just as much from a world perception of lack of will and lack of principles as it does from ill will from the world due to our past actions, I think. We need to address both.
...
I think Bush perceives value in combatting this perception. I do too....
I see Bush's approach as serving that value, and so I quantify the value of his approach as "high". I see the cost of his statement as being relatively low. What change is going to occur at this point because Bush said something not diplomatic about how the rest of the world can't just say "pay us or we'll call you impolite and undiplomatic"? Very little, I think. He's simply making it clear that they can no longer hold us hostage by and with our honor and simultaneously expect to act without honor themselves.

I don't necessarily disagree. I just think that a truly balanced view would observe that Bush's comments have potential costs beyond just the changes that occur as a direct result of those comments.

I agree that our mileage may and does vary. But in my view the pattern of disdain that this admin has shown for the views of the rest of the world (of which this quote is a part) is going to bite us someday, despite our powerful military and huge economy. We need cooperation from other countries, and not just the traitorous French.

It's a fine line to walk between credibly talking tough and alienating our potential allies while we talk tough. The failures we have had in gaining additional assistance since the end of the war make me pessimistic that we will be able to walk that line. Off-the-cuff statements like this certainly don't give me more confidence.

In a world where intelligent dialogue is important, but where defense against crazies and idealogues is equally important, I don't think we can ignore one and just work on the other.

Someone snarkier than me might say that Bush has ignored the intelligent dialogue side of the equation throughout his presidency. Not me though.

[edited to put in the correct quote from Bilmore]

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You're so shrill.

Am I doing this right?

here is what I don't get. how the fuck can the French be considered to build anything. fuck, we shouldn't let them build in France. THEY'D be better off if Haliburton had to be general contractor on all construction in Paris.

these silly shits can't provide adequate HVAC to survive a Paris summer. 7000 of them died last summer from this somewhat moderate heat. how could theyt even bid on making buildings where people have to survive Bahgdad heat?
if we let France build fuck-all we'll be getting blamed by iraqui orphans for decades, Every new building needs a Carrier AC unit outside. but, thanks for playing.

and fuck planting a seed of democracy in the middle east. How about creating a country where people have access to showers and are encouraged to use them. plant a seed of american style hygiene. Are the French going to do that? The French are on the short list for smelliest people.

if we can get the iraqui's washing, our grandkids might be able to get into cabs someday without gagging. Me? now that all the antiquities are back at the Baghdad museum I'm planning on taking the wife and kids, and I want to be able to shower and breath.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
here is what I don't get. how the fuck can the French be considered to build anything. fuck, we shouldn't let them build in France. THEY'D be better off if Haliburton had to be general contractor on all construction in Paris.

these silly shits can't provide adequate HVAC to survive a Paris summer. 7000 of them died last summer from this somewhat moderate heat. how could theyt even bid on making buildings where people have to survive Bahgdad heat?
if we let France build fuck-all we'll be getting blamed by iraqui orphans for decades, Every new building needs a Carrier AC unit outside. but, thanks for playing.

and fuck planting a seed of democracy in the middle east. How about creating a country where people have access to showers and are encouraged to use them. plant a seed of american style hygiene. Are the French going to do that? The French are on the short list for smelliest people.

if we can get the iraqui's washing, our grandkids might be able to get into cabs someday without gagging. Me? now that all the antiquities are back at the Baghdad museum I'm planning on taking the wife and kids, and I want to be able to shower and breath.

This post reads like a Seinfeld monologue.

Assuming JS liked to drop F-bombs more often, of course.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive

As an illustration of Atticus' point, I am both more uppity and more likely to have premaritial (or postdivorcal) sex than I was in 1973.

That you didn't have sex before you were born is not impressive -- neither did anyone else.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The source of conflict is that Bush has hired strong-minded people with different views to run State and Defense. He also has one as VP. None of this is, of itself, a bad thing, but it calls for strong leadership and coordination. No one really thinks Bush is a strong enough leader in foreign policy terms to keep Powell, Rumsfeld and Cheney on the same page himself, but I think they jump when he tells them too. What this calls for is a National Security Advisor who can manage all of this.

Exactly. No one says Bush is not a strong leader, but I think it is pretty clear that he is not a strong _Manager_ (I think few modern Presidents were). That's not surprising -- nothing in his past said otherwise.

S_A_M

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
But again, the real question is, what is the doomsday scenario? Is there a specific horse-trading scenario that has Missourians telling Californians what they can't do with their own money?

If so, how, and how do we see this as even a credible possibility?

Hello

A specific Version 1.0 of his dooms-day scen-ar-i-o.

Going three times here.

Hello

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Good post.

Originally posted by bilmore
America suffers just as much from a world perception of lack of will and lack of principles as it does from ill will from the world due to our past actions, I think. We need to address both. OBL did what he did in part because of a perception that our presence in his area was bad, but also in part because of his perception that the danger of retaliation from us was nonexistent. Somolia taught him that, as did other past trends that we have exhibited.

I agree completely. I think that the world perception of lack of American will and principles originates from the funk America fell into in the immediate post-Vietnam 1970s. Nixon and the economy did us no favors in that regard -- sapping energy and attention from world affairs. The Iranian hostge crisis was another horrible example, but the U.S. had little experience at dealing with such events then -- and Carter was not the sort of man to risk killing off a large number of American hostages to avoid a two-year+ humiliation in the eyes of the world.

Originally posted by bilmore
I think Bush perceives value in combatting this perception. I do too. (Politeness is important, but frankly, if some little schmuck tries to sucker-punch me, I'm going to hit back and pull no punches. I am not going to buy the justification that I have to be restrained because I'm bigger. They will not use my honor as a weapon against me when they have none.) The measures he has taken tend to put a bit of menace back in our image. I like that. In a world where intelligent dialogue is important, but where defense against crazies and idealogues is equally important, I don't think we can ignore one and just work on the other.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by bilmore
I see Bush's approach as serving that value, and so I quantify the value of his approach as "high". I see the cost of his statement as being relatively low. What change is going to occur at this point because Bush said something not diplomatic about how the rest of the world can't just say "pay us or we'll call you impolite and undiplomatic"? Very little, I think. He's simply making it clear that they can no longer hold us hostage by and with our honor and simultaneously expect to act without honor themselves. That's been his message from 9/11. Eventually, I think they'll get it. Right now, they're still stuck in the "but he can't DO that!" stage. They think he can't do that, because America isn't supposed to act that way, while they are allowed any action they deem profitable. I think that's over.

I agree that the cost of this statement is low, in context, but I see it as emblematic of a style (personal style, I suppose) that I am just not happy to see in a head of state. I think that the cost of this approach in terms of U.S. credibility and the opportunity costs for lost cooperation have been medium to high, and that while the world is more afraid of us (and considers us unpredictable) -- that also has a significant cost that, as yet, exceeds the benefits. (The benefits of this effect are less certain and can only be reaped in the long term.)

In my view, as to Bush's foreign policy, I disagree as much or more with HOW he does it as I do with WHAT he does. The first often influences the second. I think that there are other, better ways to get the same job done -- witness Bush I and project how he might have handled post-9/11. The events might not be too different but the style would be. In my view, then and now, his foreign policy was masterful and his style and experience were brilliantly suited to representing America in the world. [It was domestic issues, and particularly the raging cultural wars and the issue of Supreme Court nominees that led me to vote against him in 1992.]

S_A_M

[Not Temp Sock]

Secret_Agent_Man
Exactly. No one says Bush is not a strong leader, but I think it is pretty clear that he is not a strong _Manager_ (I think few modern Presidents were). That's not surprising -- nothing in his past said otherwise.

S_A_M

Unlike Billary, whose strong pimp hand was legendary amongst the fat whores that used to pass through the hallowed halls of 1800.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

I agree completely. I think that the world perception of lack of American will and principles originates from the funk America fell into in the immediate post-Vietnam 1970s. Nixon and the economy did us no favors in that regard -- sapping energy and attention from world affairs. The Iranian hostge crisis was another horrible example, but the U.S. had little experience at dealing with such events then -- and Carter was not the sort of man to risk killing off a large number of American hostages to avoid a two-year+ humiliation in the eyes of the world.

Perhaps it originated there, but there was a long hiatus from 1980 through 1992. The current perception is caused by our miserable foreign policy from 1993-2000 (and perhaps through 9/10/01).

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
In my view, as to Bush's foreign policy, I disagree as much or more with HOW he does it as I do with WHAT he does. The first often influences the second. I think that there are other, better ways to get the same job done -- witness Bush I and project how he might have handled post-9/11. The events might not be too different but the style would be. In my view, then and now, his foreign policy was masterful and his style and experience were brilliantly suited to representing America in the world. [It was domestic issues, and particularly the raging cultural wars and the issue of Supreme Court nominees that led me to vote against him in 1992.]

S_A_M

You may be right on this, but I note that similiar things were said about Reagan throughout his term and beyond until, to quote JCM, the walls came tumbling down.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The current perception is caused by our miserable foreign policy from 1993-2000 (and perhaps through 9/10/01).

Please explain what you would have done differently, without the benefit of hindsight about 9/11.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Please explain what you would have done differently, without the benefit of hindsight about 9/11.

9/11 may have been a wake up call for you, but it was not for everybody. There were many (conservative) publications hemming and hawing about Clinton's foreign policy from about 1994 on. Were these partisan attacks? Partially, but there were many areas of substantive critique as well, and I was in agreement on most issues with them (except Bosnia/Serbia - I think Clinton was right on that one).

In order to answer your question, I think we would need to go hot spot by hot spot, but here is a quick list of those I can remember off the top of my head: Rwanda, Aphganistan, North Korea, the Middle East (i.e., Palestine/Israel), Iraq, Somalia and Haiti. Did I miss any?

My central thesis is that Clinton was willing to act in low risk areas (Haiti) and used a band-aid or ostrich approach everywhere else.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Temp Sock
Unlike Billary, whose strong pimp hand was legendary amongst the fat whores that used to pass through the hallowed halls of 1800.

While I appreciate your trolling efforts --

No, Clinton was also a poor manager (especially early in his administration) for different reasons. He dissipated the energy of his administration by trying to do way too many things at once -- keeping lots of different groups churning away until it was like a five-ring circus. He had enormous energy and a high work ethic (No 2 hour workouts or afternoon naps), and had a hand in everything without being a micromanager -- but he was somewhat undisciplined in his professional life as well as in his personal.

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
and had a hand in everything
S_A_M

and everyone