edit

My anger stems from the fact that GW is a liar, mass murderer, war criminal, and an insecure tiny little man who has attempted to circumvent the constitution, replace the Bill Of Rights, sown the seeds of fear in order to further his own agenda, and is a major embarrassment because of his inability to construct a simple sentence. Thats All.

edit

To name just a few things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismiss...ys_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_leak_scandal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantan...detention_camp
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...ml?source=mypi (Cheney claims he's not part of the executive OR legislative branch)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war (setting aside that we shouldn't have gone in the first place, it's been horrendously mismanaged and continues to be)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_laden (instead of focusing on Iraq, we should have always had our top efforts on this guy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan (and now Afghanistan is going south due to our lack of attention as well)

see dc_dux's post below for more

Welcome otto! New voices and new perspectives are always welcome, but its asking alot to rehash all of the many issues with Bush that have been well documented here in numerous threads.

I agree with Dave, but I will try to be a little more specific, with just a few examples.

Start with the most serious....the undermining of the concept of the separation of powers:
And then there is the withholding of pre-war intel from Congress that questioned his WMD rationale for war and his lying to the American people ("Congress had the same intel I had")to justify the invasion and the ongoing misrepresentation of the facts to continue (for 4 years) a failed occupation.

Warrantless wiretapping of citizens in violation of FISA (at the time...as determined by FISA judges and DoJ attorneys) and Bush's personal order to block DOJ internal investigations by denying security clearances to DoJ investigators

Not to mention the blatant and excessive manipulation of scientific data of federal agencies for political purposes.....we had a long thread on that one:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...cientific+data

As well as serious potential violations of the Presidential Records Act and attempts to block Freedom of Information Act requests along with the massive level of new secrecy and classification of documents... all to prevent access to the federal government to a public that has a right to know.

I have lots more when I have time :)

The damage Bush had done to our relatively open and balanced (between the branches) system of government has been wide and deep. Fortunately, the system is still stronger than one man and can be corrected.

His words are not only foolish, but truly hateful. Beyond that, I'm not 100% sure how much of the catastrophes during his presidency he's actually responsible for.

His administration, his responsibility. (That's not to say the other people responsible shouldn't also be held accountable.)

It's one thing for the occasional government fuck-up - it happens - but he has appointed far too many people who have gone on to do terrible jobs. If nothing else, it shows that he has an extreme lack of judgment in people, and that alone is enough to think he's a terrible president.

Not completely off-topic...

SecretMethod, nice Ted Leo picks. :)

I'm suggesting it's possible we're in a situation where there might as well be a trained seal in the oval office. He could very well just be some idiot figurehead that has no real power or decision making capabilities. It's possible.

Whether he's massively stupid, massively corrupt, or some combination, he has no business being in the oval office. He never even won the 2000 election, legally. It's been the worst presidency in American history, even dwarfing Nixon.

I dislike his awkward and muddled speaking style and I cringe every time I see him give an address or speech, no matter the content.

I find it hard to believe he even understands what he's saying. It's like he has to work so hard at memorizing the words that he forgets the substance in the process.

I admit this is my own base impression, but it's a hard one to shake.

edit

Thanks to SecretMethod70 & dc dux, my power went out and has just now come back on. I doubt I would've taken the time to dig up the examples anyway, if you dont know whats been going on for the past 7 years you must have been living under a rock, ottopilot.

It's absolutely worth exploring because I think that we should all step back from time to time and check to make sure that what we believe actually lines up with reality. In fact I think it was Bush & Co's failure to do this that has led to this "intense hatred" of him that you speak of. After 9/11 they had LOADS of fun telling us that whatever they say, goes, and if you don't agree you're an unpatriotic, un-American, freedom fry eating bastard. And sadly the country for the most part lined up like the good little sheep they were and bought into it. Now that Bush has not only failed to deliver on his promise that his actions would make us safer, but has in fact made us quite a bit less safe, those former sheep have turned into wolves and are pissed. And who can blame them? They got rooked. Royally, utterly snookered.

I'm sure you've been ripped off in the past and I'm guessing you were pretty pissed off about it. It's the same thing here, only in this case people have finally realized that. . . well I'll put it this way. In my opinion everyone currently on this forum will be dead before this mess is completely cleaned up. Knowing that is enough to make anyone angry at the man who was the architect of this situation, don't you think?

Will, would you like to compare this admin to the Carter administration? I think you will find Jimma the peanut farma was THE worst.

I'd suggest people check their posts in this as it could quickly turn into a flame fest. I've said in other threads why I dislike this administration and everyone else is hitting many of my points already so i'm going to refrain.

Also anyone ever think about how much different the world could have been just because of a pretzel?

For the first time in my entire life....I am ashamed to be a citizen of the United States.

At least with Jimmy he's not massively corrupt. Yeah, he comes off a bit okey dokey, but he's more like a friendly neighbor.

Carter: Friendly Neighbor
Reagan: Cranky Grandpa
Bush1: The Usher at Church you keeps you from getting a cookie after the service
Clinton: Uncle that buys you beer and teaches you about the birds and the bees
Bush2: Jackass frat brother/kid with a rich dad that passes with all Ds

I wasn't around for Vietnam or Korea. People weren't ashamed then?

I dont hate Bush but I think he is incompetent and more importantly, immoral and unethical when it comes to honoring the public trust that was placed in him. I dont think any of the examples I listed were "piling on."

I do hate what he has done to the institution of government by anointing himself chief legislator and chief justice in addition to chief executive by unilaterally deciding ("I am the decider") what is (or is not) the law and how such laws are to be interpreted....thus obstructing Congress and the federal judiciary from performing their Constitutional responsibilities.

The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, created a federal system that would ensure the each branch was checked by the others. Bush's actions in the examples I cited above piss on the concept of checks and balances and separation of powers.

IMO, these actions have a far greater negative impact on the public than lying to a grand jury about a private affair or covering up/obstructing justice of a break-in of a private office or certainly any shortcomings of Carter.

I was only a child during the Vietnam War, but from what I know that had less to do with securing vital natural resources, as the Iraq War does, and more to do with a pissing contest with the USSR. Our troops weren't allowed to properly engage the enemy for fear of provoking the Russians into WW3. Many US civilians blamed the soldiers for the atrocities committed there, which were horrible, but unfortunalty that tends to happen when young men are trained to kill, shipped halfway around the world, and dumped into a nightmare. The soldiers never have a choice, the either go to war or go to prison. Nowadays citizens tend to blame the current regime, instead of the soldiers, which is as it should be, IMO. Governments start wars, not soldiers.

it's the "war on terror."
everything about it.

but i' m pretty indifferent about the person of george w. bush.

Its not just the "war on terror".....its the dishonest attempt at justification of so many of Bush's actions, both domestic and international, subsequent to 9/11 because of the "war on terror".

*Wipes tear from eye* You said it all in one little line. You are one of my heroes! Rock on brother!

What most bothers me about Bush and company is that in all likelihood, they will not be held responsible for their actions. I can only hope that the future proves me wrong

Here we go....
 

[DISCLAIMER] Some of the following pertains to the administration as a whole, but Bush undeniably allows/allowed it all to happen[/DISCLAIMER]

• He's a manipulative lier (Iraq/911 connection, WMD fiasco, he's trying, and will probably succeed in sending us to war with Iran).

• He's a crook (no-bid contracts with companies which have ties in the White House - there can only be one reason for this...).

• He's a murderer (indirectly, but there's still blood on his hands because of insistence on a hypocritical/hopeless/illegal war).

• He's a hypocrite (see previous point).

• He's a religious nut who thinks "God" talks to him and approves of what he's doing.

• He's a hard-headed fool (not negotiating with the Dems for funding/alternative strategies for the war).

• He's idiotic (avoiding questions from the public by using stupid jokes, as evident on YouTube).

• He's destroying the Constitutional foundations of this country (wire-tapping citizens, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, suspension of Habeas Corpus for war-prisoners, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, allowing torture while lying by saying his administration doesn't).

• He tries to instill religion into government/the country (predominantly selecting sub-par graduates from the Conservative Christian Regent University School of Law over more qualified ones because of different religion/politics, screening scientific papers, censures scientific information in the Grand Canyon of all places to make the Bible's alternative explanation that it was carved by Noah's Ark 4,000 years ago more prominent, does not believe in evolution*, wants to teach Creationism alongside evolution, wants heterosexual-only marriage).

• Abuse of power (excessive use of Executive Privilege to protect his bunch of shit-headed aids and protect his own ass, backing that bitch Gonzalez even after he basically perjured himself in front of Congress - twice, allowed the firing of US attorneys because they were investigating too many GOPs, is basically selling our country to China's debt).

I got a little hot there at the end. I would continue, but I feel my blood-pressure rising. I may come back to finish my list later.

*Not only does he not believe in evolution, he "doesn't care about that kind of thing." The man leading this country can't be bothered to read a fucking book and learn about one of the most enlightening scientific discoveries ever made, because he "doesn't care." He's the equivalent of the idiot in high-school who doesn't care about learning anything but still gets by by cheating. It enrages me to no end that such a man can get to hold the most powerful position in the world. -- I have to go lay down for while.

I can't wait for Host to get into this discussion- it's going to be epic!

While I agree with both of these sentiments, what angers me most is what his presidency says about us as a nation. To me, it says to the rest of the world and to us in particular that we are too lazy as citizens to actively participate in the country our forefathers left us. We've allowed, through our own complicity, complacency, or apathy, someone like this to represent us to the world and to run roughshod over the very ideals we supposedly care so deeply about.

What does it say to us as a nation that we're not bothered enough by his actions to actually do anything about it?

Our government is supposed to fear us. It's not supposed to be the other way around. We're supposed to make demands of our president. It's not supposed to be the other way around.

His approval rating is like 25%. 3 of every 4 people thinks he sucks. I'd say we are bothered by it, the problem is that we can't really do anything about it. Pelosi was firing off before she made speaker. Impeachment is off the table now.

I believe Bush should be impeached and there should be a full investigation. If he doesn't cooperate, which he won't, then he leaves the office immediately. Same with Cheney. If both are impeached simultaneously, Pelosi will take office. Not my first choice, but considering who's there now... yeah.

No.
See...I'll never, ever be ashamed to be a citizen of the United States. I may be be embarrased by my government, and of the current circumstances, but I will not be ashamed to be a citizen of the United States.

I can understand that. Hell...I'll even agree with that. But, that's kinda up to all of us isn't it? It truly amazes me that we have allowed this man, and his administation to get away with so much, for so long. Says a lot about the citizenry of the United States, does it not? Hell, we even sent in a Democratic Congress to oversee this mess, and to help set matters straight. Well, that turned out to be pretty ineffectual, didn't it?

Exactly.

Personally...I see Bush more as a puppet, than I do as a President. The GOP, and their corporate overlords, may just as well have put up a cardboard cutout of Howdy Doody in front of the White House pressroom. I believe that we deserve more, but we are not going to get more until we demand it.

After 9/11, we needed strong and decisive leadership. We thought that we were getting it. Bush did look awfully good, with that bullhorn in his hand, standing atop a pile of WTC rubble, did he not? Cooler heads thought more about how they could profit from it all, and turn it to thier advantage. Such was done. Under our watch.

Agreed, but I still agree to a certain extent with Tec's comment. I have friends and business associates from around the world and when introduced to people internationally speaking, I'm not exactly put at ease when saying I'm an American. I've also been attacked in chatrooms for being american BECAUSE of this war - which i, as jane average from mid-america, have absolutely nothing to do with. . Let's just say, Mr President is not exactly on my good list.

An example from today's news....

It this kind of action by top Bush political appointees, along with intervention by affected industries, that is simply appalling.

Yeah...but, while that type of activity might bite an infected ass, it would've gone on no matterwho was sitting in the Whitehouse. It's political pandering, and as much as we like to smear the "other guy" with it, the truth is that no political party is immune from it.

dc: just to clarify, i had the "war on terror" in mind in the broadest sense, to include the entire range of actions that the administration has tried to justify through it, from the attempts on cheney's part to "roll back" the notion of executive power that had developed since the vietnam period to the warantless surveillance to the debacles in iraq and afghanistan and potentially iran. all of it.

at this point, speaking strictly for myself, i find it difficult to work up the energy to rehearse the range of objections i have to this administration's actions in much detail because i feel like i am just repeating myself. while this is maybe problematic in interactions with newer members, it is nonetheless the case.

the only advantage of this is that it is easier now to link some of the various idiocies of this administration back to structural features of the american system than it once was.

i dont regard the bush squad as a particular abberation then: they are the expression of system-level incoherences AND they are in particular almost mind-boggling in their incompetence. the upside is that i think the bush squad is the most damaging blow that contemporary conservatism has yet suffered and look forward to its implosion on account of them. this keeps me chipper. the downside is that the bush squad remains in power, and so long as they are in power, they are capable of doing even more damage--and the appearance the administration is giving that they are actually considering an action against iran is an example of that.

the bush administration inhabits an ideological worldview that i regard as wholly dysfunctional, much more geared around maintaining obsolete categories than about coherence in the face of real-time complexity. i see it as a strange composite, many core elements of which are variants of neo-fascism (the nationalism, they way the bush people have used nationalism to mobilize support since 2001), others of which are simple-minded neo-liberalism (they are not necessarily identical, but in the case of this administration, they are).

i think it may be better to find oneself in a position of being able to see the administration in a cold-blooded way. getting all snarky seems a distraction, a waste of energy.

I agree that it is not the first or will it be the last administration to act in such a manner.

Replacing a rubber nipple covered insulin needle in an ad with a cherry-topped ice cream scoop is not the issue as much as it is representative of how the Bush administration has far exceeded others in such practices of allowing major contributors to influence the messages (particularly when it comes to science and medicine) of the federal goverment.

roach...I agree with your upside and your downside.

I'm still pretty laid back and not all that snarky.

But I am counting down.....507 days, 23 hours, 48 minutes, 33 seconds :)

http://www.bbspot.com/News/2005/01/bush_countdown.html

I, for one, appreciate the efforts made by bush, rove, rumsfeld, cheney, et al, to expose and discredit neoconservatism. It is unfortunate that we actually had to experience it firsthand to realize what a foolish philosophy it is.

edit

I think these questions would be best address in another thread. There's a problem with the system as a whole - but I won't delve deeply into that discussion here.

Otto...your original question was answered and documented with sources by some of the respondents. Yet you appear to shrug them off with more questions rather than address them. We've seen that tactic before.

I dont see any reason to delve more deeptly into the discussion either.

edit

Just for the record, in the 9 months that the Democrats have held the majority in Congress, they have addressed many of the abuses of the Bush administration through oversight hearings and new legislative initiatives.

In others, most particularly the war, they have tried unsuccessfully to build consensus for a veto-proof majority and have failed.

Otto, it is not a requirement to provide numerous examples when stating an opinion. In the past many members have avoided the political forum because of the tendency of some to insist upon multiple sources, and when said sources were provided, they were shot down as unreliable. I have neither the time nor the inclination to provide such sources when a bias will almost certainly be claimed.

Will...I agree with you on that one but as a result of the backlash, you can expect to see corrective legislative before the end of the year.

Thank you. Still, it concerns the shit out of me that it happened in the first place. I still suspect the cause was Dems winning in GOP places, and they pandered to constituency instead of being loyal to the law and Constitution.

We're a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

You are not likely to find it here. Behavior that was acceptable in the previous administration is worthy of impeachment and/or hanging and/or castration if W did it.

One small example: Clinton fired EVERY AG (count them: 93), one of whom was in the middle of investigating Dan Rostenkowski. Bush fired eight, but waited until after she had finished the Duke Cunningham case.

A little more information on that:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110009784

...

edited to remove photo

I don't appreciate your source's obviously biased tones, his blatant lies and misinformation, and his holding back of important information.

^^^This is misinformation. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_U.S._attorney_firings_controversy/Firings_and_activities_of_fired_U.S._attorneys">Source</a>

^^^That one attorneys may seem like a bad thing, but trying to compare that to what Bush has done is out-right dishonest. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_U.S._attorney_firings_controversy/Firings_and_activities_of_fired_U.S._attorneys">Source</a>

Clinton fires 93 attorneys at the beginning of his term (as is normal) and one happens to have an on-going investigation going against a Democrat. - Bush fires 9 attorneys mid-term, and 4 of them happen to have investigations going against Republicans.

These numbers don't add up to "what Bush did was ok because Clinton did worse." Not even remotely. The "B...But Clinton!" argument that is being used to defend Bush has been old for a while, and has been discounted time and time again.

I made a thread way back in 2004 which I revived in 2005 to explore what bush had done RIGHT for the country. The first year I asked people to avoid foreign policy regarding terrorism, the second year opened it to anything at all.

Reading through it again, the few positives about bush that were listed have shown to be false or have gone downhill in the intervening two years to become negative.


At this point, I can't figure out one single bush positive, why anyone at all with an ounce of reason would support such a man.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=74715

Some people don't like Arab people. They might like Bush. Some people want the US to be authoritarian. They might like Bush.

I am almost certain that Bush detractors around here will dismiss the developing N. Korea story or say it was Bush's fault to begin with, but I think Bush's "cowboy diplomacy" is working in this situation.

http://ukpress.google.com/article/AL...I8Imqvyq4N5Ubg

Like they agreed not to develop nuclear weapons? Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.

What is your point? I don't understand the relevance of the comment.

You said his "cowboy diplomacy" is working. My point is that NK saying they're going to do anything rings hollow because they had no trouble going back on their word on the same subject. There's no reason to trust them, therefore this really isn't any kind of result.

Do you or did you believe that NK was attempting to develop nuclear weapons? Do you or did you think NK would be inclined to use them?

I thought most people who disliked Bush, thought that Bush made up the NK threat, just like they thought he made up the Iraq threat.

Bush's "cowboy diplomacy", pretty much is to "call" - to say to the opponent that I don't believe you - to eventually look them in the eye and say "do you feel lucky? Well do you, chump?" Now you seem to be saying don't believe the North Koreans, that they have lied in the past and would do so in the future and that they may actually be a threat.

Surely, I must be wrong. I must be misunderstanding your point. Please forgive me if I am, but I think I am in shock.

I was one of those who was confused when we went after Iraq instead of NK. I'm sure a quick search of my post history would verify that (if you're so inclined). I'm not 100% sure about under what circumstances and what the probability would be so far as using the nukes. I suspect that NK developed the nuclear weapons in order to gain respect more than to attack someone. The issues are, just as with India and Pakistan, reliability of the systems and security. I remember a story not too long ago where (I think it was either India or Pakistan) had an accident in one of their nuclear missile sites. I'll take a look to see if I bookmarked it at home. Imagine if a nuke accidentally melted down or launched. Worse still, what if they are sold or stolen? A country with nukes is a lot more stable and safe than a governmentally independent organization with a nuke. There is no MAD if we don't know where to strike back.
Some may have. I don't recall anyone around here saying that.
I think it's "punk", not "chump", but I digress. The North Koreans are a threat. Not as big a nuclear threat as the US so far as the government choosing to launch weapons, of course, but the security and infrastructure concerns me greatly. I don't think they're ready for nukes.
I recognize that NK has nukes to protect itself from China, Japan, Russia, and the US. They want to join the club. I also recognize that the necessary technology and security don't exist in NK to maintain a safe system. I'd say the second overrules the first.

They need to either disarm, or get support from a more nuclear capable nation (I suspect China or Russia would say no, so maybe the US). They are like a 9 year old in a bad neighborhood with a gun.

In the true spirit of GW, misquotes are to be excepted.:thumbsup:

Clever. Hehe.

Thoughts on NK? Is my stance more clear, I hope?

I believe that Bush helped drive NK towards nuclear weapon production, as follows:

1. Bush declares North Korea, Iran, and Iraq the 'Axis of Evil'.
2. Bush invades Iraq and blows it to smithereens.
3. North Korea decides to develop nuclear weapons to prevent the same fate.

I'm sure this is oversimplified, but it's my best guess.

I think your order is all wrong and there is a number 4. Goes like this:

1. North Korea decides to develop nuclear weapons
2. Bush declares North Korea, Iran, and Iraq the 'Axis of Evil'.
3. Bush invades Iraq and blows it to smithereens.
4. NK negotiates to prevent the same fate.

Yes.

Really you are both wrong.

1. Clinton notices that NK has a nuclear program, he offers them aid in response to major issues facing their country, i.e. them being a pariah country and them facing a major famine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_famine)
2. North Korea never lives up to their end of the Clinton deal (1994ish if I remember) and proceed with their nuclear program.
3. Pres Shrub labels N. Korea members of Axis of Evil, and shifts away from Clinton diplomacy (where they got the aid and didn't keep up end of bargain)
3b. North Korea begins saber rattling of their own because they remain on verge of major famine, and near governmental collapse (Luckily China props them up). Nuclear program acclerates.
3c. 2006 North Korea claims to have successfully detonated a Nuclear device after having a clandestine program operated for at least 15+ years.

North Korea was not pushed to this by Bush, nor his cowboy diplomacy. It is a known fact that they got the majority of the information of their program info from Dr. AQ Khan, the rogue Pakistani scientist who sold nuclear secrets to Iran and Libya. This shady dealings date back as far back as the 80's and 90's, again nothing to do with Shrub.

Will summed up the reasoning behind the madness pretty much. NK is a piece of shit country, operated by a complete nutbar. They saber rattled to keep focus on them because their country couldn't maintain; I think (personal opinion) Bush's "cowboy diplomacy" i.e. not talking with them directly, not caving in to shut them up, worked. I think it should be noted to, that the success of their detenation/program, is up in the air for legitimacy.

My point is that with Bush in the WH, NK had no leverage and was not going to be able to posture, delay, lie and pretend in the manner that they had grown accustom to. Bush established a precedence with Iraq. If we had continued to let Iraq get away with world defiance and the oil for food fraud, NK would have continued on their path of development of nuclear weapons. Bush diplomacy works, just the way Reagan diplomacy worked. Bush deserves some credit if NK stands down on this issue.

Calling someone evil then ignoring them isn't diplomacy.

Ace fundamentally I do not disagree with you. But I personally think you give to much credit to the Dubya foreign policy, at least how it relates to North Korea.

This is probably me just speaking out my own understanding: I by and large maintain Bush W operated under the Neo-Con foreign policy, predominately as it was framed by the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, but most importantly Paul Wolfowitz; the Wolfowitz doctrine pertained particularly to Iraq. North korea by and large had no legitimate ties in policy in to how we dealt with the world at large under the current understanding.

North Korea really is not a threat to America. Never has been, but could possibly be... down the line. I would say you have to approach policy by region. In the Pacific region North Korea is not our primary worry, China is. This is what would ultimatly feed into the Wolfowitz doctrine, as I have come to understand it.

America his its flagship naval unit in the pacific, starting with the 7th fleet, along with the 3rd. North Korea was not a prevailing threat, even now if it is actually nuclear. America operates under a regulating capacity, that would be the reason for this. Our biggest threats going forward is China, and perhaps a destabilized Russia.

If you look at the Middle East, there is no major threat even an Iraq that had WMDs is no great threat to us. No one would deny that militarily Iran, Syria, et al., could stand up to us militarily. The Neo-Cons had to shift policy at the offset of the cold war, this belief was that by establishing a strong presence/stake in the ME would ultimately benefit us. If we regulate the oil supply other countries wouldn't escalate militarily. Who gets their oil from the ME? Not America, but European countries, China, Japan.

Reminscing the likes of Rummy and Cheney went to Clinton in the years of Operation Desert Fox and pushed for regime change... this was in 98' (In Iraq). As such N. Korea is a complete after thought to our policy to Iraq.

North Korea has nothing we want, the country by itself cannot sustain itself, it has no resources, and by and large noting that they have the 4th standing military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...active_troops), they are not a threat. They have no navy, no airforce, their missle capabilities are limited, and their nuclear capabilities although feared are not completely established.

If anything dealing with North Korea only keeps the status quo going, which equates to nothing more than regional stability. You have Japan doing their half de-miltarized thing, a split Korea (where we have clearly sided with the south for the last half a century), Russia is more pertinent to the equation in so far as influence, which ultimately leads us back to China. We have a cute dance going their, giving CHina the full diplomatic recognition, yet simultaneously having defense compacts with Taiwan... were Taiwan to be so brash as declare complete self rule and CHina were to move in, I get the impression we would side with Taiwan.

Not attempting to thread jack I am going to leave that point there, and hopefully make it move forward into legit discussion as to how this thread has evolved.

At the same time Will, I think it is really false to say our diplomacy was to merely call N. Korea evil and not deal with them. We've dealt with them, perhaps not the best way, but still they were a wayward nation that Bush and the Foreign Policy thereof inherited. I think Bush was smart to change it up and deal it with on if not "our" terms, at least on different terms where Clinton signed a compact with them where they got aid which propped them up, yet they were able to maintain their nuclear ambitions, which nobody wanted then and nobody wants now.

Ultimately I can't won't say Bush's FP worked with North Korea. They claim they have nuclear capabilities, and as of the 2nd of Sept. apperently we have reached some deal where they are going to dissmantle said programs, this sounds a lot like the same song and dance of 94' with Clinton. They might not be saber rattling anymore, but worst case scenario now they have nuclear capabilities, so I fail to see how the Bush policy in Iraq worked at least in deterrence to NK.

I hope this makes a lick of sense. I've been away from this forum for a few months and I am feeling the rust. I hope you are kind in repsonse.

Bush and Kim can keep playing cowboy and each can claim that he won the shootout or staredown because they both know that the only country whose actions have a meaningful impact on NK is China. Will NK keep its word on nukes any more now after the Bush "stick" approach rather than the Clinton "carrot" approach....only if China continues to pressure NK in that direction..

It hard for me to imagine how anyone can characterize our cowboy actions in Iraq as precedent for anything positive or that Bush diplomacy works. The use (or threat) of unilateral pre-emptive force is not diplomacy.

The Bush doctrine ("cowboy diplomacy") failed miserably in its first test with the unprovoked invasion of Iraq. With all the bluster about WMD and Saddam's brutality to his own people, the result of our invasion has not created a better state for the Iraqi people, stabilized the region or lessened the threat of terrorism. In fact, quite the opposite.

Iran now has greater influence both in Iraq and the region, the Iraqi people are in the midst of the worst sectarian violence the country has ever seen (much of Baghdad has been ethnically cleansed of Sunnis), our actions have been the best recruiting tool for al Queda that we could have provided, and the image of the US around the world has never been lower.

If diplomacy is more of an art than a science, which I think it is, then there are no formal rules. If call someone evil and ignoring them gets the response one wants and eventually leads to agreement on certain issues - I would call it diplomacy.

But, I can see how people who went to "diplomacy school" and has been in many theoretical diplomacy discussions with others who went to "diplomacy school" but has never been face to face engaged in real world diplomacy see it differently.

Ambassador Ace? I don't think so. I suspect that I've had better experiences in my diplomacy than Bush.

I've had to be diplomatic a lot in my life and treating someone like garbage then ignoring them is a really great way to lose control of them. Losing a war to a poor and supposedly incapable people shows them Bush's weak. Losing the respect of and control of the voter base in the states shows Bush can't rule his own country. Sounding like you're half past retarded when you speak shows you're an okey and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Put all of that together and you've got a diplomatic nightmare.

I admit to making overly simplified statements in regard to this issue. I do understand the complexities and the involvement of other nations.

I agree that there is a concern about China. I have come to the conclusion that we have become too "civilized" to really understand the nature of a threat. Every nation watches everything we do in response to acts of defiance. Perceived weakness or a failure to respond emboldens more powerful threats. If we don't respond to Iraq, others make judgments on that lack of a response. If we don't respond to NK others make judgments on that lack of response. China certainly will assume the position of dealing with NK the way they want if we don't respond. It is to our advantage to take one of the leading roles with NK. I think Bush understands that, I am not sure everyone in Washington does.

One problem I have had on this issue is clearly on how I define threat as compared to you and others. In my mind Saddam's defiance and his failure to follow the mandates of the UN were the biggest threats. I think the same is true with NK.

You don't have to imagine how, you are interacting with someone who does characterize our cowboy action in Iraq as precedent for positives and that Bush diplomacy works. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask.

How do you define diplomacy? Again, are you an individual who would never under any circumstance use preemptive force?

We have not seen how this is going to play out. You may be correct, but in the end you may end up being wrong.

Have you ever "walked away", only to have the other party come back with material concessions?


First, Bush does not fight. This is "our" war. I am not sure how you conclude we are losing a war.

Yet, Bush has gotten everything he has wanted in regard to this war. Name something he has wanted and did not get.


Oooh. My feeling are so hurt. Considering the fallacious arguments I encounter on a comparative basis I would hope to be considered fully retarded by those who don't see the issues clearly.

Are these comments illustrative of your superior diplomacy skills compared to Bush?

I dont have any questions about the Iraq precedent. The facts speak for themselves - an Iran with more influence and power in the region, thousands of civilian deaths and chaos in Iraq, and more terrorists and anti-Americanism worldwide.

As it applies to this discussion, I would define diplomacy as`negotiating with our enemies or perceived enemies to convince them of the value of of acting in a manner that best serves both our interests. One component of those negotiations is the ability to convince the opposition of the relative strength and weaknesses of both parties and the consequences if those strengths and weaknesses are forced into play.

Diplomacy is NOT public bullying and bellicose saber rattling with demands that the enemy "do want we want first..then we can talk". Diplomacy is also NOT impugning the motives of your friends as Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld did with "old Europe" when many of our long-standing allies refused to support our aggressive invasion of a sovereign nation.

Its odd that you say our efforts in Iraq have not fully played out at the same time you credit Bush for a successful diplomatic approach to NK which also has not fully played out. The difference is that "Bush diplomacy" in Iraq costs 3,500+ american lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives that cant be restored if in the wild chance that the effort succeeds in the long term.

I agree with Will that Bush is a diplomatic nightmare by any standard.

i think mojo's post above is quite good.
it repays the reading.
(nice to see you back round these parts as well, mojo)

ace: here's what i see as the problem here. you haven't demonstrated a causal link between what i guess is now called the bush squad"s "cowboy diplomacy" and actions from north korea. you assert them, but you haven't SHOWN anything. without some kind of information, your posts appear circular. you are obviously predisposed to find ways to defend the administration; you find something useful about this "cowboy diplomacy" business, and you want to see a link between it and nk. so you assert one.

and so things go round and round here.

try providing some information in support of your position.
maybe that'd bump this into a less snarky place.

Walk away with something the other party wants and make it clear that had they bent to your will you would have given it to them. They reconsider and decide that the cost of not having that something is too high and agree to your demands. It's an old trick, but I don't see how calling them names and ignoring them has anything to do with this tactic.
Bush is the president and the author of the Iraq War. It's his war more than it is anyone else's. As for losing, I can't imagine how someone can talk about the war without doing continuing research on it. Sectarian violence is on the rise, coalition forces are dying, millions upon millions of civilians are displaced, many in Syria and Iran, As much as or even over a million Iraqis are dead, the puppet president is resisting his masters, and the American people voted in a congress that ran on the platform of ending the war. The only way this could be a bigger failure is if Iran, Syria, and Egypt invaded Iraq and drove the US troops out.
Weapons of mass destruction, peace, any infrastructure, a secular government, control, and power over the region to start.
You know I was talking about Bush (and if you seriously thought I was talking about you, then just wow). He's a bumbling idiot. He is his own worst enemy in that regard in that the cocky idiot isn't a good negotiating point at all. We've seen it fail on TFP before. A new member comes in, guns blazing, without having read the rules. He makes personal attacks and flames and makes really poor (read: stupid) points. What happens? He or she is chastised and then ignored.

It is interesting that you easily accept that people in far away places can see our actions in Iraq and decide to act, in some cases taking up arms against us. But on the other hand you can not accept that the NK leader can see our actions in Iraq and decide to act, possibly taking a position that the potential costs of nuclear development are greater than the benefits. I suppose that one fits a political agenda and the other does not.

You refer to consequences, in your view of diplomacy what would you consider to be consequences? If those consequences are employed and results in the settlement of differences are employing those consequences a part of your definition of diplomacy?

In my view, the threat of force is a consequence and in many cases is the only reason differences are resolved.

Says who? I agree there are stages, and I normally would not start with bullying, etc., but those options would remain available and used if needed. For example if we needed an ally like Saudia Arabia for some military strategic purpose, I would start nicely, but in the end I would demand their cooperation if they put me in that position. Wouldn't you, if you had to.

In my first post on this subject I said the news was "developing". I do give Bush the credit for the progress. I have also given Bush blame for some of the failures in Iraq.

I agree. My views on this are speculation at best. It is possible their is no causal link. Without access to the mind of NK's leader, I will never know and will never be able to prove the point.

My conclusion has nothing to do with a political agenda. It is based on findings by our intel community and not my personal opinion.

Both an NIE from last year and a national security report from several months ago concluded that our invasion of Iraq has resulted in a propaganda tool for al Queda and more terrorist worldwide. There has been no analysis provided by any credible source that the invasion of Iraq had any influence in NK's actions...other that your opinion which you describe as "speculative".

As to your comments on diplomacy, the threat of force is absolutely a part of diplomacy. The issue is how one makes that threat.

Privately making that threat in face-to-face negotiations, when both sides know that the power behind it is real, is the most powerful negotiating tool and is always on the table.

But as I said before, public bullying and bellicose saber rattling is often counter-productive. It only provides further resolve for the opponent to respond in kind in order to save face and show strength to his own people.

IMO, GWB is the worst president in my lifetime (which began during the JFK administration).

The only reason I'm not saying that he is the worst president EVER is because my historical knowledge of presidents prioir to FDR is spotty.

Among the reasons for this are:

* The lies and fiction and innuendo surrounding Iraq's WMD program, Jessica Lynch's heroic fight, the link between Iraq & 9/11 etc. (Yes, they never explicity said that Iraq was involved with 9/11, but it was implied endlessly and still is).

* Using "bumper-sticker" slogans to justify policies rather than intelligent arguments ("Fight them there so we don't fight them here")

* Fiscal irresponsibility. The term "tax & spend liberal" is now obsolete. Bush is the "charge it to the national credit card & spend so-called consevative."

Comparisons to other presidents: Carter's management style was ineffective, but he had integrity. Nixon was corrupt for hiring professional burglers, but we was effective in thawing relations with China and in other foreign policy areas. Clinton? You can fault him for the whole Lewinski thing, but it didn't lead to more American deaths than 9/11.

Speculation is speculation regardless if it comes from me or NIE. The NIE analysis is based on a set of assumptions. I am sure they believe there is a high probability that the assumptions used are correct, but I highly doubt, they would make the statement with 100% certainty. I call speculation what it is, and have no problem with speculating on issues where our knowledge is incomplete. Just as our actions in Iraq could be used as a propaganda tool, our inaction in Iraq also could have been used as a propaganda tool. Who's crystal ball is best at looking into what actually happened compared to what could have happened?

I do not know what the net affect has been on the number of terrorists solely due to our invasion and occupation, I do believe that there are people who choose a side based on our actions, there are some who became terrorists others may have picked a different path.

{added}

Ouch!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15024576/

ace....give me a break!

The combined analysis and resulting conclusions of the hundreds of intel experts, while never 100% certain, has far greater credibility than you, a layperson with an agenda.

In terms of credibility you may be correct, after all I am anonymous to TFP'ers. But this is the same NIE that said Iraq had development programs for WMD as well as chemical and biological weapons. I thought you were among those who felt Bush lied based on his use of NIE analysis.

What does "give me a break!" mean? Are you saying I am wrong to call speculation what it is? Are you saying I should accept NIE information without question? Are you suggesting that I not speculate and others can? What's up with that, I don't get it?

I am saying that your last post was simply a transparent attempt to deflect from the fact that, as roachboy noted, you havent presented any credible information to support your claim that Bush's cowboy diplomacy was in anyway responsible for NK's recent actions.

Just for the record...wrong again. I was one of those who felt that in making the case for war, Bush cherrypicked the intel and misled the public by withholding the fact that there were dissenting opinions on Iraq's posession of WMDs from State Dpt intel experts, DOE intel experts, and DIA intel experts.

And I said Bush lied when he said Congress had the same intel as he had...when,the fact is, Congress did not.

IMO, both cases demonstrate a lack of ethics when making such an important policy decision as asking citizens to put their lives on the line.

Can you give credible evidence to support the NIE claim regarding the Iraq war being the direct cause for an increase in the number of terrorist? I have not found anything referencing the method they used to come to that conclusion.


We been through this before, however, it seems that you now discount the NIE reports when it comes to their pre-war intel. Pretty convenient.

ace....take my comments anyway you want......IMO, its your standard response of twisting what others post or posing new questions when you are confronted with documented information that conflicts with your undocumented opinion.

I gave numerous examples, all with background information, of the issues I have with Bush. And, in this last exchange, I gave my reasons for my issues with Bush cowboy diplomacy, again with background information (I can link the specifics findings of the NIEs if necessary)

The TFP readers can choose to agree with my opinions or not and I'll discuss the issues further with anyone else.....I'm just not going to play that game with you.

(thats not to say I wont comment on your posts when I think there is nothing factual to support them....I'm just not going to go around in circles with you :) )

Here is another twist. Please feel free to ignore it, because it is off topic and only relevant to my curiosity relative to your credibility comment.

Have you read the NIE report you refer to about the increase in terrorist, or have you only read what others have said about the NIE report?


But again, you have me nailed. I twist what others say. I often do it to illustrate something. And I ask questions when confronted with documented information that conflicts with my views, documented or undocumented.

Perhaps some folks in Washington should also ask those kinds of questions, rather than blindly accepting NIE reports that say something like Sadaam has an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons. If I had used that report as a basis for my support of the war, I would be pretty embarrassed, and I would certainly put the future speculations by NIE under a great deal of scrutiny in the future. But thats just me, and as you usually say, I am mostly wrong and I have not documented anything to support that view.:thumbsup:

All I've got to say: I told you so.

Bush gave reasons for war against Iraq with the focus of his concerns involving chemical and biological weapons and the potential for Iraq developing nuclear, Saddam's defiance, and his past record of aggression and his actually using chemical and biological weapons. If Tenant confirms that he told Bush that Saddam had no chemical, biological weapons and no plans on developing nuclear with a higher certainty of the opposite (I am not even looking for certainty, just a higher degree of certainty), I would agree that Bush lied to Congress, the American people and to the world.

I have not read Tenant's book or listened to many of his post resignation interviews, so if you cite a source, you will see me make a complete 180 on this issue.

That's pretty big of you. I'll see if they have a copy of "At the Center of the Storm" around the corner tonight or tomorrow.

Here's an undeniable lie:

In 2002-early 2003, Dick Cheney repeatly told the media "We have confirmed" and "We know for a fact" that Iraq had stickpiles of chemical weapons, etc.

If he had prefaced these comments with "We suspect," that would not have been dishonest, since there was reason to suspect these things. But if they really did did know it for a fact, it would have been a fact.

Apologists for Bush like to say "the intelligence said he had them." That is simplistic. Intelligence is often vague, misleading, contrradictory, and self-serving to the source that is providing it. It's the job of the intelligence people to sort it out.

The tragedy is that after the vote to authorize force (which was essentially a gun pointed at Saddam), he did allow weapons inspectors who had the ability to determine whether or not the WMD existed. They the inspectors didn;t find anything, Bush pushed for the invasion before the consesus could be reached that an invasion could not be justified. That's how I saw as t was happeniing, I don't understand how so few others did as well.