He's not spending all of our money...didn't we get $300 in the mail?
Bush lied (what did he know and when did he know it)
by Phantom Stranger 21 Replies latest social current
-
-
Phantom Stranger
I would post this on its own...but thread limits rear their ugly head:)
Bush's Many Miscalculations On Sept. 11, the president was handed a historic opportunity. He ignored it. By Fred Kaplan
Painful as it is to recall those planes smashing into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon two years ago this week, it's nearly as heartbreaking to think back on the moment of nascent harmony that ticked in the wake of the attack—until President Bush decided to reject the opportunity that History thrust before him.
Posted Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 4:05 PM PTRemember? The French newspaper Le Monde, never one for trans-Atlantic sentimentalism, proclaimed, "We are all Americans." The band outside Buckingham Palace played "The Star-Spangled Banner" during a changing of the guard, as thousands of Londoners tearfully waved American flags. Most significant, the European leaders of NATO, for the first time in the organization's history, invoked Article 5 of its charter, calling on its 19 member-nations to treat the attack on America as an attack on them all—a particularly moving gesture, as Article 5 had been intended to guarantee American retaliation against an attack on Europe.
But the Bush administration brushed aside these supportive gestures—and that may loom as the greatest tragedy of Sept. 11, apart from the tolls taken by the attack itself.
Ever since the crumbling of the Soviet Union, foreign-policy specialists had been wondering how to create a new world order for an era that lacked a common enemy. Now, suddenly, here was that enemy. And here was a moment when the world viewed America with more empathy than it had in the past half-century. An American leader could have taken advantage of that moment and reached out to the world, forged new alliances, strengthened old ones, and laid the foundations of a new, broad-based system of international security for the post-Cold War era—much as Harry Truman and George Marshall had done in the months and years following World War II.
But George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice did not take that path.
Aside from letting a handful of NATO's AWACS radar planes come help patrol American skies, Bush's response was a shockingly terse: Thanks, but no thanks; we'll handle it by ourselves. Marc Grossman, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, later admitted to the Washington Times that the United States initially "blew off" the allies. Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy, said that the United States, in the Times' words, "was so busy developing its [Afghanistan] war plans that it did not have time to focus on coordinating Europe's military role."
The effect, of course, was to alienate the allies just as they were rediscovering their affections. As London's conservative Financial Times later put it, "A disdainful refusal even to respond to a genuine offer of support from close allies, at the time of America's most serious crisis in decades, spoke volumes about its attitude to the alliance."
As late as a year ago, around the time of the attack's first anniversary, the bloom had not yet entirely worn off. On Sept. 8, 2002, the French president, Jacques Chirac, repeated the words of Le Monde as if they were his own—"We are all Americans"—and added that these feelings "haven't disappeared," that "when the chips are down, the French and Americans have always stood together and have never failed to be there for one another."
Two months later NATO held a summit in Prague, mainly to expand its membership to include several nations of the former Warsaw Pact, but also to devise what planning documents called "a comprehensive package of measures" to combat terrorism and other threats. Among these measures would be the creation of a "NATO Response Force"—the documents even envisioned an acronym, the "NRF"—consisting of "a technologically advanced, flexible, deployable, interoperable, and sustainable force … ready to move quickly to wherever needed, as decided by the [NATO] Council."
A week before the Prague Summit, Lord George Robertson, NATO's secretary-general, gave a glowing speech about its prospects to the NATO parliamentary assembly in Istanbul. "Prague," he said, would "give us the chance to demonstrate that not only our security environment has changed, but that NATO has changed with it." The summit would confirm that NATO was becoming "the focal point" for the fight against terrorism. And it would "debunk the myth that has crept into the trans-Atlantic relationship after 9/11—the myth that the US and its Allies are no longer able or willing to cooperate as a military team. … It will demonstrate that Europe and America are on the same wavelength—both mentally and militarily."
Of course, the summit did no such thing. Bush's delegates used it only as a vehicle to rally support for the impending war against Iraq. Rumsfeld exacerbated the growing rift by going so far as to tout the new members of the alliance—the small nations of the former Soviet empire, whose leaders tended to endorse the war—over the traditional and much larger Western allies, whose leaders tended to oppose it.
The centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin editorialized, "Rarely has a NATO summit been dominated by the United States as much as in Prague." De Financieel-Economische Tijd of Brussels reported, "More and more, the Americans view NATO as a useful toolbox," choosing their partners "as a function of their loyalty and obedience."
By the summer of 2003, it could fairly be said that most of the world hated the United States, or at least feared the current U.S. government. A particularly disturbing poll commissioned by the BBC revealed that the vast majority of Jordanians and Indonesians consider the United States more dangerous than al-Qaida. A majority in India, Russia, South Korea, and Brazil see us as more dangerous than Iran. An international poll by the Pew Research Center reported that over 70 percent of citizens in such generally friendly countries as Spain, France, Russia, and South Korea think the United States doesn't take into account the interests of others.
Two years ago, according to the Pew survey, three-quarters of Indonesians had a positive view of America; now, more than four-fifths have a negative view. In the summer of 2002, two-thirds of French and Germans viewed America favorably; now the share has dropped to less than half. Even support for America's war on terrorism—a cause that should transcend politics—has dropped in France, Germany, and Russia from more than 70 percent a year ago to less than 60 percent now.
Over the past couple of weeks, as the fighting persists in Baghdad, as the Taliban attempts a comeback in Afghanistan, as Saddam and Osama Bin Laden remain on the prowl—in short, as the light glows dimmer, the tunnel stretches longer, the budget piles higher, and the desert-swamp gets deeper—President Bush seems to have realized he took a wrong turn back at the 9/11 junction. He has been persuaded to go back to the much-loathed United Nations, for assistance and legitimacy. In his televised speech Sunday night, he referred to the allied nations that had opposed the war as "our friends," a phrase he had not bestowed on them for a very long time.
He has extended his hand a bit late in the game. Two years ago, even one year ago, Bush could have delivered such a speech with an air of strength and mutual confidence. Now it is seen, all too clearly, as a sign of desperation and therefore of dubious authenticity. The opportunity presented by 9/11 may not be irretrievably lost, but it has been muffed, and its recovery will require more decisive signals than Bush has so far sent. It will also, to be fair, require a less prickly world-weariness on the part of the French and Germans. Maybe they should reconvene the Prague Summit and, this time, take it seriously.Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate.
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2088113/ -
patio34
Thanks, Phantom Stranger, for that information. President Bush is the worst president we've ever had, hands down. I only hope people wake up and see that he appears to be set to bankrupt the country. It'll take years to recover from his disastrous policies.
Pat
-
ignorance is strength
One less despotism. What does it matter?
-
Jayson
One less despotism. What does it matter?
You are right, one's not enough, let's do it again. Now we need to decide Syria or Iran. Well, Iran has oil. Soooo, my bet is Iran. Maybe if we empire build it right we can get the Persians to fight the Arabs again. They like to do that. They have been doing it a long time. [Gettyup]
Maybe our "EuroAllies" that some say we "need" so badly can teach us a thing or two about that Empire Building. After all no one was better at it in their day. Maybe we will say please this time. (not)
"When the missles finally fly (if they must) and the earth is distroyed and God has to choose a new Adam and Eve He should choose them from America and not Europe this time."
-
Yerusalyim
Phantom,
Interesting opinion article there.
My opinion, and that of most Americans...is a lot different.
-
joannadandy
He's not spending all of our money...didn't we get $300 in the mail?
HAHAHAHA!
Yeah--I got Nadda--ZIP!! I didn't qualify. A couple of my friends got $50. Yeah...that trickle down economics is really jump starting the economy...between the three of us we can buy 20 pizzas.
-
Inquiry
Thanks Phantom...
I found the second article quite well balanced... it articilated America's problem with it's allies very well, and it's a problem that will come back and bite us on our butts, time and time again... For a very short time, America, through a horrific attack was embraced and loved by many... not just Americans... and it was an OPPORTUNITY that those who are acustomed to leadership should not have missed... I mean really, we were just off the heels of an election... a very gritty, divisive election....what the heck happened to all those brilliant opportunists? Apparently.... they can prove their mettle in an election, but can't do a damn thing when it comes to real world problems...
Our problems now have increased in the middle east and our friends are few... it's going to become an issue of economics, because we simply can't afford to keep it up... and we are going to pay dearly for the war deficit in the future... the not too distant future... and trust me... the $300 cheques... aren't going to be so forthcoming and taxes will have to go back up... that's what happens when you have huge deficits... This growing deficit can and probably will cripple an already very humbled economy... that much is obvious... George Bush and his policies are going to haunt us for many years after he has left office. We had problems before, but he's made them much worse. I for one, as an American, don't appreciate that legacy.
Inq
-
Phantom Stranger
Thanks for the comments, all.
Yeru, the article below seems to say that most Americans agree with the opinion article above. Hey, I don't write the news...I just report it.
This is a fascinating article from the Financial Times (published in the other coalition member and Simon's home, the UK). The Financial Times is Britain's Wall Street Journal, and has a similar slight-to-medium right slant (as opposed to the WSJ editorial page, which is very slanted and vituperative).
Americans think Bush aggravates terrorists By Edward Alden in Washington Published: September 10 2003 17:38 | Last Updated: September 10 2003 17:38 Most Americans think the US administration's aggressive military pursuit of the war on terrorism has made further terrorist attacks more rather than less likely, according to polls released this week before Thursday's second anniversary of the September 11 2001 attacks.
Sixty-four per cent of respondents said that the US military presence in the Middle East increased the likelihood of terrorism, 77 per cent thought there were widespread negative feelings towards the US in the Islamic world that enhanced terrorist recruiting, and 54 per cent thought the US had been too assertive in its foreign policies.
In addition, 81 per cent thought a key lesson of September 11 was that the US needed to work more closely with other countries to fight terrorism, up from 61 per cent in a similar poll more than a year ago.
The findings were part of a comprehensive survey of US foreign policy attitudes released this week by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (Pipa) at the University of Maryland.
"I don't think there's a desire to simply disengage," said Steven Kull, director of the programme. "But there's a feeling that the US, in a unilateral mode, is playing too dynamic a role."
An ABC News opinion poll this week showed similarly rising scepticism about the wisdom of the war in Iraq. Forty-eight per cent of Americans now thought the Iraq war had increased the risk of terrorism against the US, while 40 per cent thought it had decreased the threat. Those findings were far more pessimistic than a similar poll in April after the US military victory, when only 29 per cent thought the Iraq war would make terrorist attacks more likely.
President George W. Bush's administration is trying to persuade Congress and the American people to back a long-term effort to transform Iraq, including $87bn (£54.7bn, €77.5bn) in new spending for next year alone. The surveys reveal a deep ambivalence in the US about that project.
In the Pipa poll, taken between August 26 and September 3, respondents were split equally on whether the US should undertake a new "Marshall Plan" to transform the Middle East as it did in Europe after the second world war. But 50 per cent thought Mr Bush was not prepared to commit resources on that scale, while only 39 per cent thought he would.
The survey also revealed deep concern about how the US was perceived in the Islamic world. Fifty-seven per cent thought, for instance, that while Muslim countries oppose al-Qaeda's terrorism, they shared many of its hostile feelings towards the US. Large majorities also thought the US should make greater efforts to improve relations with the Muslim world.
"There's definitely a feeling that we are overexposed in the Middle East - that we're too large and that we're a target," said Mr Kull of Pipa. He added that, in spite of public support for Mr Bush, "there is a fair amount of unease about a lot of the ways he is approaching the war on terrorism".
-
blacksheep
"I agree with PS, and I'm a tried and true Bush reformer. I DONT agree with Bush's politics, even though I voted for them. I think he is wasting our money for a vendetta for his Father, to impress his Father. This is not about politics, it's about family. He's trying to spend all of OUR MONEY to impress his Father, and outweigh him. which is sad"
That's about one of the most unsophisticated, asinine agruments I've heard thus far.
