Bush weak and ineffectual

April 27, 2002 12:48 PM

Bush weak and ineffectual "President George W. Bush is facing the possibility that his presidency may be undone not by an enemy ---- foreign or domestic ---- but by an ally" Is this the "real" Bush, the one the democrats described during the campaign?
posted by onegoodmove (31 comments total)

Does the writer of this article seriously believe that Bush is putting "pressure" on Sharon? I thought everybody and their cat would understand by now that the former is just sending Powell around travellin' to keep the mouths of the kneejerking Europeans shut.

Not that I blame him, quite the contrary, I think it's the second best thing to bluntly telling them to shut up.
posted by dagny at 12:58 PM on April 27, 2002

And Bush's chance for re-election depends far more heavily upon whether the Mideast disintegrates into full-scale war than it does upon Bush wooing the influential U.S. Jewish vote, which he is unlikely to win no matter what he does.

IMO, the crux of his/her argument, and it was rather weak. The Middle East conflict weighs more heavily upon the perception of our foreign policy as seen by the world's leaders. And considering the historical perspective, i.e. it's been going on for decades, I can't believe that Bush's credibility will be hurt all that much.

The American people care, to an extent, about the Middle East. But to not re-elect based upon it, possible but VERY unlikely. Something tells me the author of this editorial simply wants more intervention against Israel, but that's another thread altogether, right?
posted by BlueTrain at 1:01 PM on April 27, 2002

i like the term "client state"
posted by rhyax at 1:08 PM on April 27, 2002

Of course Sharon shrugs the request off, because the request is so hypocritical. Who believes the US wouldn't be doing the exact same thing in Mexico if they were continually sending in suicide bombers? And then of course there's Afganistan.
posted by ArkIlloid at 1:44 PM on April 27, 2002

The state of American journalis is neatly dep[icted in that article! One quote:" Israel is willing to take from Washington $5 billion a year in foreign aid, military support and loan guarantees, but when the peace of the world and the credibility of the U.S. president are on the line, Israel will beg off. "---the peace of the world?
Israel has stated that it gradually going to take less and less money from the U.S.--and in 5 years will take none. Egypt gets over 2 billion per year and their papers are filled with hatred of our country.
Arafat seems not to listen to Bush either.
We are not in charge of the entire world,and if you put the deaths in Israel since Intifada II in terms of the percentage of the American population you come up with some 21,ooo people killed. Look what we are doing becuase of 9/11 with 3 thousand killed.
As Bush has said: you are with us or against us; terrorists if protected by a state indicate that that state is against us etc etc.
And what of the Saudi Princeand his demands? bush is caught between a batch of leaders--Sharon, Arafat, Saudi Prince, Saddam....and it doesn't make much difference who is the president.
posted by Postroad at 2:04 PM on April 27, 2002

It should be a matter of policy that 100% of US foreign aid is cut off to any nation while it is engaged in a military conflict regardless of its alignment or the motive for the action.
posted by plaino at 3:33 PM on April 27, 2002

plaino, i've never heard of something so ridiculous. Please elaborate...
posted by BlueTrain at 3:40 PM on April 27, 2002

It should be a matter of policy that 100% of US foreign aid is cut off to any nation while it is engaged in a military conflict regardless of its alignment or the motive for the action.

I would agree, it's called 'non intervention'

It's pretty simple: don't mettle in the affairs of others.
posted by insomnyuk at 4:04 PM on April 27, 2002

"Does the writer of this article seriously believe that Bush is putting "pressure" on Sharon? I thought everybody and their cat would understand by now that the former is just sending Powell around travellin' to keep the mouths of the kneejerking Europeans shut."

So what you are saying is that George W. Bush is lying to the public?
posted by onegoodmove at 5:01 PM on April 27, 2002

Israel has stated that it gradually going to take less and less money from the U.S.--and in 5 years will take none.

Um, what?
posted by donkeyschlong at 5:11 PM on April 27, 2002

I don't think this is a perception that is shared around the country, at least I haven't heard it widely mentioned. Bush is saying that Israel is pulling out, and that the Arab nations have agreed to pitch in against the war against terror. I'm not a big fan of Bush, but what is it exactly that he should be doing right now that he isn't?
posted by xammerboy at 5:18 PM on April 27, 2002

Postroad: And if you figured pallistinean deaths by ratio in that time it would be like 100,000. Whats your point?
posted by delmoi at 5:21 PM on April 27, 2002

Israel has stated that it gradually going to take less and less money from the U.S.--and in 5 years will take none.
source for this?
posted by Dean King at 5:31 PM on April 27, 2002

"The fact is, the United States is unwilling to terminate its support for Israel no matter what the Israeli army does ..."
oh, really? source for this?
posted by sheauga at 5:53 PM on April 27, 2002

It should be a matter of policy that 100% of US foreign aid is cut off to any nation while it is engaged in a military conflict regardless of its alignment or the motive for the action.

I wonder how that kind of policy would have played out in WWII?
posted by ArkIlloid at 6:35 PM on April 27, 2002

"It should be a matter of policy that 100% of US foreign aid is cut off to any nation while it is engaged in a military conflict regardless of its alignment or the motive for the action."

That is just about the most head in the sand pronouncement I have ever heard. Nonintervention and isolationism will get you nowhere in a world where there are really some bad actors out there looking to mess up your life if you show yourself to be a weak player.
posted by MAYORBOB at 6:56 PM on April 27, 2002

Postroad: I have heard this statistic mentioned by a member of Congress on C-SPAN during an after-hours pro-Israel speech marathon. Its usefulness is a bit fishy: if five people were killed in a car bomb explosion set by Corsican extremists in Monaco, does that give Monaco more of a moral right to bomb, strafe, and generally wreak havoc in Corsica than Israel has in the Territories? It seems a little absurd to me to suggest that the right to retaliation of a political entity, even a state, varies inversely with its population.

In any case, if we want to play that game, perhaps it should be mentioned that putting the number of Palestinian deaths during the Al-Aqsa Intifada in terms of a percentage of the U.S. population yields a result of 48,161 to 98,563 American deaths (depending on whether one counts Palestinians outside as well as inside of the West Bank and Gaza). So are Palestinians twice as righteous now? Does their righteousness go down as their population goes up?

I think the main point to remember is that the American operation in Afghanistan, regardless of whether you're for or against it, is just not comparable with the Israeli occupation, or its military campaign of the last month or so. Most Afghan people are not dead-set opposed to what the Americans are doing in their country. There is no chance that the United States will attempt to colonize or annex Afghanistan, and pretty much everyone understands that. Afghanistan's problems with nation-building are not the result of, nor greatly exacerbated by, the stationing of U.S. forces there. The opposite is true of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, on all of the above.
posted by skoosh at 6:57 PM on April 27, 2002

Israel has stated that it gradually going to take less and less money from the U.S.--and in 5 years will take none.
source for this?

"The fact is, the United States is unwilling to terminate its support for Israel no matter what the Israeli army does ..."
oh, really? source for this?

I don't know if the latter was an oblique reference to the former, but I wanted to point out that an assertion of the unstated thought patterns of policymakers, unlike the assertion that an actual public statement was made, is not likely to be confirmed by any source. Thus, it's kind of pointless to ask for a source for it; it's basically just an opinion. Unless that was the point of asking?
posted by skoosh at 7:16 PM on April 27, 2002

"The fact is, the United States is unwilling to terminate its support for Israel no matter what the Israeli army does ..."
oh, really? source for this?

How about the US Congress, who were going to pass a bipartisan resolution in support of Israel, until Bush asked Tom Delay to hold off because it may piss off -- and I use this term lightly -- our Arab allies.
posted by Rastafari at 8:55 PM on April 27, 2002

That is just about the most head in the sand pronouncement I have ever heard. Nonintervention and isolationism will get you nowhere in a world where there are really some bad actors out there looking to mess up your life if you show yourself to be a weak player.

After getting past the ad hominem attack, I wonder what you mean by "get you nowhere"? Where do we want to 'get'? I'm confused, I guess. The other contention I would take issue with is that by not intervening in foreign affairs, we are somehow weak. You can have a strong national defense, and not be considered weak. Not fighting offensive wars does not mean you are weak, it means you are smart. Ever since the Spanish American war, our country has been embroiled in fruitless geopolitical gamemanship which has cost trillions of dollars and billions of lives, resources which perhaps could have gone anything else, which would be better than war.
posted by insomnyuk at 9:50 PM on April 27, 2002

*gone to anything else
posted by insomnyuk at 9:51 PM on April 27, 2002

The question is, insomnyuk, would the United States be as rich as it is without those foreign entanglements? Money is behind most wars, and I wonder how many people would be willing to give up their wealth if it meant a retreat to the borders.
posted by chaz at 11:08 PM on April 27, 2002

I think we would have more wealth without the foreign entanglements. Most countries would trade with us even if we weren't world hegemon, and besides, the economic production of millions of young men was essentially lost due to war.
posted by insomnyuk at 1:31 AM on April 28, 2002

Since you are talking about millions, I have to disagree-- do you really think we would have more countries to trade with if we hadn't entered WWII?

Furthermore, we trade with virtually every country worth trading with, even running deficits with countries we used atomic weapons on.

If you focused your argument on smaller conflicts, I might be more inclined to agree, but when you start talking about millions (and billions) of people, the net result of entering those wars has undoubtedly be positive for both the economy and the populace.
posted by chaz at 2:49 AM on April 28, 2002

Ever since the Spanish American war, our country has been embroiled in fruitless geopolitical gamemanship which has cost trillions of dollars and billions of lives, resources which perhaps could have gone [to] anything else, which would be better than war.

Is there anyone who would rather fight a war than not?

I would just like to say that I am pro-exaggeration — when it makes sense. You though, insomnyuk, need to get some sleep.
posted by Dick Paris at 2:52 AM on April 28, 2002

Ever since the Spanish American war, our country has been embroiled in fruitless geopolitical gamemanship which has cost trillions of dollars and billions of lives, resources which perhaps could have gone anything else, which would be better than war.

Congratulations, insomnyuk...you've mastered multi-syllable words. Now, let's try to make some sense when writing them. If you can sit there and honestly say that our involvement in WWI or WWII was wrong, I'll bet that democracy, as we know it, would no longer exist. You think that Hitler would've stopped with Europe? Beyond that, even if Britain and France were able to hold off Germany, do you think their economies would have survived following the Wars?

I'm sure you've researched the Inter-War periods...Everyone devalued their currency, multiple times, to repair themselves. Who do you think they borrowed from? I'm sure you also know about the triangle of money flow that went from Britain and France, to the US, to Germany, who had to pay reparations. Then, during WWII, after we lent countries military supplies, they were able to hold off Hitler while we profited. We lost lives, we lost money; but what was the alternative?

I think we would have more wealth without the foreign entanglements.

See above. I think that a hands-off approach worked during the 19th century because we weren't a superpower. After the Wars, however, our economy and military strength could not be rivaled. Based upon this, our foreign policy had to become more invasive and enveloping. It is incredibly naive to believe that we could have gone this long without foreign military intervention. We need oil, as an example. Other countries know this and are robbing us blind. But once again, what is the alternative? As much as people would love to say solar power or fuel cells, right now they are not a viable option. So we meddle. It's the way of the world. You cannot isolated yourself from others. It doesn't work. They bring you into their business whether you like it or not, especially when you stand as the world's leader.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:38 AM on April 28, 2002

6th graders memorize SAT words.

enough said.
posted by Satapher at 2:39 PM on April 28, 2002

Is there anyone who would rather fight a war than not?

That strikes me as an incredibly naive statement. There are certainly many, many such people.
posted by rushmc at 8:58 PM on April 28, 2002

6th graders memorize SAT words.

enough said.

I don't understand what this means. Does this mean that I'm in the 6th grade, or that I've taken the SAT, or that I used big words to try and sound smart. (You know, it is possible I used those particular words because I thought it got the point across best)

Congratulations, insomnyuk...you've mastered multi-syllable words. Now, let's try to make some sense when writing them.

Bravo, you've mastered ad hominem attacks.

You cannot isolated yourself from others.

I never said we should. I'm all for free trade, just not war.

You though, insomnyuk, need to get some sleep.

Maybe so, but I'm getting the feeling I'm not welcome in this thread.
posted by insomnyuk at 1:15 AM on April 29, 2002

Back to the original focus of the thread.....

"Does the writer of this article seriously believe that Bush is putting "pressure" on Sharon? I thought everybody and their cat would understand by now that the former is just sending Powell around travellin' to keep the mouths of the kneejerking Europeans shut."

So what you are saying is that George W. Bush is lying to the public?

That is exactly what he is saying onegoodmove. Just remember that lying is a "constitutional crisis" thing ONLY if you belong to the OTHER political party. Thanks, that was oengoodpoint.
posted by nofundy at 5:53 AM on April 29, 2002

insomnyuk, you've completely avoided the point and instead chastise us for attacking you. Put up or shut up. I gave you an explanation of why we could not avoid the World Wars and how our involvement was necessary and beneficial for the free world. You disagree. Prove your point. Otherwise, you're simply dancing around waiting for us to attack so that you can whine a little more.
posted by BlueTrain at 10:30 AM on April 29, 2002