Thursday, March 03, 2005
The right direction
EMAIL OF THE DAY: "Respectfully, Andrew, I beg to differ on the alleged churlishness of Democrats on progress in the Middle East.
Let me explain what's maddening to Democrats: no matter what happens that is progressive in the Middle East, Republicans and the Bush regime not only claims credit for it, but also claim that the war in Iraq is the reason for the progress. Libya doing a deal on weapons and Lockerbie so it can back into the international oil market? Must be because Bush invaded Iraq! Lebanese reacting with revulsion to Hariri's assassination, probably by Syrian agents, and demanding Syria's exit from their country? Must be because Bush invaded Iraq! Progress in the Palestinian-Israeli peace effort as a result of Arafat's death? Must be because Bush invaded Iraq! Who’s really peddling nonsequitors here?...
And what really kills Democrats is the way that Bush not only takes credit for everything that is going well, and denies any responsibility for things that are going badly (and, when we're honest, how many people really feel that the world is, on balance, headed in the right direction?) -- it's that he then claims these false credit as the basis for "political capital" to spend on what Democrats feel are retrograde domestic policies.
You can see why he's frustrated. When he is being as "honest" as he can be, he doesn't "really feel that the world is, on balance, headed in the right direction." I, on the other hand, do.
9 Comments:
By 
trejrco, at
Thu Mar 03, 09:17:00 AM:
As do I. And as should anyone not blinded by pure hatred of this country, our founding principles and/or our current President.
/TJ
NIF The Wide Awakes
By 
, at
Thu Mar 03, 12:07:00 PM:
Another argument you will see, on my side of the fence, is that since Bush is now working with our allies and using intelligent diplomacy, his policy at the moment *is* the policy that Democrats advocated.
As for the e-mail to Sullivan, the rule in politics is that if it happens on your watch you get credit for it, so the e-mailer should stop complaining.
- Levi
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Mar 03, 01:00:00 PM:
We are obviously headed in the right direction.
The only left-leaning folks at this point who just cannot fathom the correctness of current administration policy are pacifists -- those who reflexively oppose any war, under any circumstances. They may also be socialists, who so deeply oppose conservative economic philosophy and embrace statism, that they must oppose every Bush policy. That's the same crowd that hated Reagan and still does. That crowd is a losing group, and therefore politically irrelevant - except to the extent that they hold hostage the Democratic Party and make it nationally irrelevant.
Levi's comment about the Bush Administration currently adopting or coopting Democratic Party "Advice" on diplomacy is actually pretty amusing. This is someone who wants to admit we're on a better path today and needs some psychological balm to make it okay.
Let me try something else on you Levi. The Europeans are coming around to us, not us to them. They are doing so because our strategy is obviously working. They are irrelevant to the execution of the strategy however. But you know what? We have demonstrated that they need us more than we need them. So they are coming around. And they are scared - of their non integrating muslim population, of dhimmitude, of what it takes to be a power.
Now perhaps you are thinking about Iran. At the moment, Iran's mullahs are very cleverly negotiating with the east and the west in a fashion quite reminiscint of Hitler's parallel negotiations with Chamberlain, on the one hand, and Stalin on the other -- in 1937/1938. The Mullahs are negotiating with the Chinese, the Russians and the western Europeans all at the same time. They are buying time, with each appeaser either just focussed on the money, or pushing the bad actor to aim in the other direction.
The US is sitting this one out, thank you. Logic dictates the Iranians are just playing for time; they fully intend to develop nuclear capability. We and Israel do not intend to let them have it. Ever. But the diplomats seriously believe they can buy their way out of Iranian mullah nukes.
Do you seriously believe the Iranians will stop developing a nuclear option? Do you want them to have one?
So no, we are not going to play footsie with them or the Europeans -- which I assume is what's making you feel better about the Bush Doctrine. You should either now feel worse, or you should look in the mirror and acknowledge that preemption, the use of force, matters. And that until the Democratic Party reacquires the capacity it once had, and lost, to project American force to do good around the world, it will be nationally unimportant. I say this as a Democrat who is thoroughly disgusted with what the Party stands for, and deeply wish it could find its way. But it can't seem to. The Democratic Party needs its own Dwight Eisenhower.
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Mar 03, 01:51:00 PM:
Levi,
Both your points are well taken. My only footnote would be that I believe that the charge that Bush has been "unilateralist" in the past is substantially unfair. We have allies in many places, and have grown closer to some of them under Bush, and further from others. For every France there is an India. The real complaint about Bush is not that he has failed to work with foreign governments, but that for whatever reason Bush and the policies of his administration are so unpopular in Western countries that many of those governments do not want to be seen as cooperating with the United States. The most glaring recent example is Canada's inexplicable decision not to cooperate in North American missile defense, which decision was attributable to popular pressure rather than good ole left brain analysis. One might argue ad infinitum why it is that the Bush administration and even the United States are so unpopular in European and "Euroesque" countries (Canada being perhaps the foremost example of the latter), but it is hard to deny that it is the case that they (we) are.
By , at
Thu Mar 03, 02:00:00 PM:
About diplomacy with Iran, from the previous comment:
"The US is sitting this one out, thank you."
This statement seems a bit odd, since I just looked at a bunch of news articles which all say the US isn't sitting this one out. A fairly typical headline (this one happens to be from The Age, in Australia) says
"US to offer Iran WTO seat if it ends nuclear program"
The previous comment takes the position that any American participation in negotiations is a sham. If this is the case, then I agree that we don't have any bipartisan agreement about policy.
- Levi
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Mar 03, 03:10:00 PM:
Levi,
Please read the whole story, not just the headline. I attach it below. It may be that the writer and editor want deperately to make the same case you believe -- that the US is working with Europe. I don't subscribe to that. As the president remarked the other day (I paraphrase) -- it's ridiculous to assume we're going to attack Iran imminently...but all options are on the table.
US to offer Iran WTO seat if it ends nuclear program
By Michael Gawenda
United States correspondent
Washington
March 2, 2005
US president George Bush is almost certain to agree to Europe's push for incentives, including admitting Iran to the World Trade Organisation, if Tehran agrees to end its uranium enrichment program.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Mr Bush was considering ways, discussed last week in Europe, to encourage Iran to drop its nuclear weapons ambitions. Asked whether Mr Bush would allow Iran into the World Trade Organisation, and other economic incentives, Mr McClellan said nothing could be ruled out.
He said a decision would have to be made soon because negotiations on the nuclear issue with Iran and Britain, France and Germany were due to finish at the end of the month.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in London for a Middle East conference, said Iran's entry into the World Trade Organisation could promote democracy in the country, a key Bush Administration goal.
Dr Rice said President Bush was considering what he could do to help the negotiations.
She said the US wanted to give diplomacy every chance of success.
This represents a victory for the Europeans who have argued that only a carrot-and-stick strategy on Iran's nuclear program had any chance of success.
While Mr Bush resisted pleas from European leaders during his visit last week for the US to get involved in negotiations with Iran, he agreed to consider suggestions Iran be offered incentives to drop its nuclear plans.
Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have been opposed to any concessions, convinced that only regime change would remove the threat the Islamic nation posed to the region.
They argued that it was not just its nuclear ambitions Iran had to abandon, but its support for terrorist organisations, especially Hezbollah, which both Israel and the Palestinian Authority have accused of attempting to sabotage the peace process.
If Mr Bush does agree to the policy change and Iran becomes a member of the World Trade Organisation, US sanctions placed on Iran after the Islamic revolution there more than 25 years ago would almost certainly be lifted.
Since I don't happen to believe the Iranians intend on surrendering their nuclear program (as did Libya, for instance), I think this is likely to lead to disappointment. We'll see what happens. But yes, I view this as the US sitting out this appeasement process and letting the euros do it.
Sorry.
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Mar 03, 03:24:00 PM:
Levi,
one more thought about my disagreement with your view that Bush has "learned the error of his unilaterialist ways" and is using diplomacy. Keep in mind that the Bush Administration waited patiently while the UN tried to get Saddam to come clean and comply with UN resolutions. In so doing, we gave Saddam 6 months to get his insurgency campaign planned and ready, coordinated with Syria. He went to the UN and gave one of the best speeches of his first term.
Frankly, I view this as a far greater effort than "all options are on the table" viz. Iran.
But hey, who cares about the facts?
By , at
Thu Mar 03, 03:26:00 PM:
I had the final word in the last discussion I was in at this site, so I'll let the other side have the final word this time, and no hard feelings.
- Levi
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Mar 03, 03:43:00 PM:
none taken, a good discussion.
