Is This Politics Or Notice to 'Allies?'

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Annie, Dec 13, 2003.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/13/opinion/13BROO.html



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    December 13, 2003
    OP-ED COLUMNIST
    A Fetish of Candor
    By DAVID BROOKS

    think we are all disgusted by the way George W. Bush's administration has allowed honesty and candor to seep into the genteel world of international affairs.

    Until the Bush team came to power, foreign relations were conducted with a certain gentlemanly decorum. The first Bush administration urged regime change in Iraq, without sullying itself with the Iraqi peasants actually trying to do it. The Clinton administration pretended to fight terrorism without committing the sin of unilateralism by trying very hard.

    The United Nations passed resolution after resolution condemning the government of Iraq, without committing the faux pas of actually enforcing them. The leaders of France and Germany announced their abhorrence of Saddam's regime, and expressed this abhorrence by doing as much business with Saddam as possible.

    Then came George W. Bush, the cowboy out of the West, and all good manners were discarded. The first sign of trouble came when the Bush administration declared its opposition to the Kyoto treaty. Up until that time, all decent governments had remained platonically in love with the treaty. They praised it, but gave no thought to actually enacting it.

    Bush said he would scuttle it and did.

    Then Bush scandalized the world by announcing his desire to enforce the U.N.'s resolutions on Iraq. And he gave a speech announcing his doctrine of pre-emptive war. Instead of merely taking out Saddam while pretending to abide by the inherited rules of conduct, he actually announced what he was going to do before doing it. This was honesty taken to a reckless extreme.

    Now his administration has taken to honesty like a drunken sailor. It has made a fetish of candor and forthrightness. Things are wildly out of control.

    The U.S. administration is confronted with three nations that have stabbed it in the back with alacrity. The German leader vowed not to run a re-election campaign based on anti-Americanism, then turned around and did just that. The French government has done all it could to ensure that the U.S. effort to transform Iraq would fail. Russia was also willing to let the Iraqis rot in their slave state.

    The U.S. now has roughly $18 billion to spend on the effort to rebuild Iraq, and it must figure out whether to allow companies from these countries to profit from the effort.

    The wise course is obvious. You loudly announce that all is forgiven, that, of course, the companies from the wayward nations will be allowed to bid for contracts. And then behind the scenes you stiff them cold.

    This policy is hypocritical, so it is probably the right policy to enact. It acknowledges that the United States has important business to do with powers like Germany, Russia and France, and cannot afford continued bad relations. It acknowledges that good-hearted people in the United States and abroad do not want to see the U.S. acting like a bully. But it recognizes that people who undermine U.S. policy must pay a price.

    But the Bush administration, drunk on truth serum, has done the exact opposite. It has declared in public that countries that did not help overthrow Saddam do not get to benefit from the aftermath. But then in private White House officials seem to be offering every assurance to the offended nations. Moreover the U.S. is still allowing the offending nations to bid on the subcontracts, where there is much money to be made.

    This is a policy based on candor, and therefore it is a mess.

    If the U.S. is going to right its foreign policy, it is going to have to rein in President Bush's tendency to be straightforward. It is going to have to acknowledge that honesty is a good thing when it comes to international affairs — in theory.

    The administration's fundamental problem is that it is not very good at dealing with people it can't stand. The men and women in this White House are exceptionally forthright. When they come across someone they regard as insufferable, their instinct is to be blunt. They seek to be honest rather than insincere, to not sugar things up but to let these people know how they really feel.

    Sometimes you've got to be slippery to accomplish real good. The Bush administration is thus facing an insincerity crisis. It has become addicted to candor and forthrightness. It needs an immediate back-stabbing infusion.

    Perhaps Al Gore could be brought in to offer advice.
     
  2. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    This column is silly! Bush has no clue of how international relations work. Just because leaders in Russia, France and Germany opposed our action in Iraq is no reason then to take slaps at them at every possible turn. He's also taking shots at Canada, a country who has financially supported the war but did not send troops, by refusing them access to contracts.

    The other silly misstatement in this article is that somehow Bush was being "truthful" when he announced he would conduct a pre-emptive war. He wasn't being truthful or forthright. It is clear now that he, at the very least, relied on poor intelligence to justify his war. We have Saddam, but we still have not a single weapon of mass destruction or chemical or biological warfare lab, or anything else.

    There was a disagreement on whether or not Iraq was complying with the UN resolutions. Bush and Blair said they weren't, but others weren't so sure. Fact is, had Bush brought a resolution to the UN security council for a vote, it would not even have garnered a majority vote. Other countries had, IMHO, reasonable objection to Bush's plan. Bush decided he didn't want to bring a resolution to a vote, and decided to put together his own coalition and launch the U.S. first pre-emptive war. Bush's behavior shows that he and his cabinet clearly have no idea how the UN and NATO are supposed to work. The UN's primary mission is to prevent war, not prosecute it. NATO is a defensive alliance, not an instrument for pre-emptive war.

    I also thought this administration was for a free market. Evidently you only get to participate if Bush decides he likes you. If you don't kiss Bush's butt, you don't get to bid on contracts. That's not good old Republican free market economics. It also goes even further to harm relations with many of our European allies.
     
  3. jon_forward
    Offline

    jon_forward Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,436
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    nashville.tn
    Ratings:
    +5
    define 'taking shots', and taking 'slaps at them at every chance' when and where. who was G.W. not 'truthful' he said we were going to iraq, we went, kick saddams ass, got the butcher of bagdad behind bars. hundreds of thousands of iraqi's blood is on saddams hands, that justify things. saddam was thumbing his nose at the UN. how many resolutions had been passed by the UN to no avail, more than one, thats enough in my book. he played roulette with the USA once to many times. the UN is broken, has been for along time...paper tiger. NATO, who is that oh yea..the rent a cop company. on closing, to the victor go the spoils of war...in this case contracts to rebuild/modernize the New Iraq nation. reynolds wrap is in isle #6 one last thing I think its great that we have a president that talks the talk and back up that talk with in your face action...no backstabber here,
     
  4. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    I can't believe that this is a serious column. Are you sure Dave Barry didn't write that?
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    It's called satire, with a message.
     
  6. jon_forward
    Offline

    jon_forward Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,436
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    nashville.tn
    Ratings:
    +5
    yea,jeff got a lil off on a tirriad[spell]
     
  7. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Sorry... my bad. I'm just so used to you posting serious articles, Kathianne, that I assumed it was not a satire.
     
  8. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    LOL, you have a point. For some reason I find myself in a giddy mood.
     
  9. rawmuse
    Online

    rawmuse Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I just love reading the comments of folks that think that they have the right to kick you in the soft parts, then take your money... We used to call that "mugging". Then, all at once, the "muggees" stood up on their hind legs and pronounced "hey, we don't necessarily have to be mugged, at least, not all at once..." and we elected Dubya. Been hell to pay ever since...

    Since when is it the obligation of the American taxpayer to subsidize our noisy, (and seldom bathing) detractors?

    Hey, kick me in the soft parts all you want, but don't expect me to either a) like it, or b) pay for it.

    Real life has some consequences, you know what I mean??




    :cof:
     

Share This Page