Bush says regrets talking tough

Ah Bill - you are almost the only force there is that can make me glad Bush is president - though there WERE alternatives available who are not you...so maybe.... lol.

0 Replies

It's no fair that on line you couldn't hear me doing the whistle from Clint Eastwood's spaghetti westerns. I can't tell you how much that last post tickled me. :wink:

0 Replies

Hmmmmmmmm.....

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Hmmmm - ok.

You do not (gazing into your crystal ball) think it betokens any general softening of belligerent rhetoric?

Condoleeza's speech yesterday gave lots and lots of cues of such a general softening, according to how it was reported in the (leftist) Volkskrant here ...

Just translating excerpts from their take:

Quote:

Rice: America will listen and become much more diplomatic

"The time for diplomacy has come". So Condoleezza Rice marked a different American foreign policy for the second term of President Bush this Tuesday to the Senate. Rice [..] outspokenly let it be known that consultation and international co-operation must take the place of self-willedness.

"We have to deploy American diplomacy to reach a balance of power in the world that promotes freedom", the trustee of President Bush said [..] she quoted the president who recently declared that "no country can build a safe and better world all on its own".

Rice: "Alliances and international institutions can multiply the power of peace-loving nations. When I'm appointed, I will let that hard conviction lead me."

Later in her declaration to the Senate committee [she] said: "Americans must seriously start trying to understand other cultures and they have to learn foreign languages. Our interaction with the rest of the world must be a conversation, not a monologue."

They were declarations that indicate a desire/need of the superpower America for the amelioration of the damaged relationships with the abroad. Rice apparently sees it as her task to work away the damaging effects of the unilateral declaration of war against Iraq [..]

The gist of her declaration [..] corresponded to an observation in the Washington Post, also yesterday, by Richard Holbrooke [..] According to Holbrooke Rice has "in private meetings with foreign ambassadors and other visitors indicated that it will be one of her first priorities to restore the image of the US and the understanding with close friends and allies".

In late February President Bush will come to Europe. According to Rice the intention will then be "to come together" and "focus on what we can do together".

[..] Its generally assumed that Condoleezza Rice is in a stronger position to turn such intentions into deeds than her predecessor Colin Powell. [..] Rice has developed into an intimus of the president. It gives her an authority [Powell lacked] both domestically and abroad. Her word is like the word of Bush. [..]

In short, the way this Dutch centre-left newspaper sees it, Rice was elaborately reversing, even apologising for, the methods of Bush's first term, and sounding, well, like John "building alliances" Kerry. Or even Chirac - when's the last time you heard a Bush minister emphasise the need for a "balance of power" in the world? The effort is in fact so almost over the top it almost becomes cartoonish at times: "Americans must learn foreign languages"?

0 Replies

Nah, it's all bullshit. Don't believe it, Nimh.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Talk is cheap!

0 Replies

I myself however liked this part a lot in particular:

Quote:

She spoke with concern about the development of democracy in Russia and said that the US will address democratically elected leaders who develop an autocratic regime. [..]

[She] said about six countries in the world that they were "outposts of tyranny": Cuba, Birma, North-Korea, Iran, Byelorussia and Zimbabwe. The world needs to subject these countries, according to her, to "the test of the marketplace": if someone can not talk freely when he's at the market, then such a person lives in a society of fear. "We will not rest until every person who lives in a society of fear will eventually have conquered his freedom".

Rice called the Middle East a good example. According to her Bush has broken with "six decades of apologeticness and resignation to a deficit in freedom in the hope of achieving stability [..]". It was her most important argument in defence of the Iraq war.

This is all good in my book. I dunno necessarily how Bush has "broken" with the pattern, but at least she's got the pattern defined, hitting the nail on the head. The shameful legacy of realpolitik, always excusing current dictatorships in the hope they'll at least guarantee stable allies, not realising that its these very dictatorships that will breed the most dangerous, militant backlash over time. One of Al-Qaeda's "parents" is the West's silent toleration and even encouragement of corrupt, dictatorial regimes in the Middle East. Good for her to identify the guilt in that pattern overall, instead of hypocritically singling out some specific "rogue" dictators as "the bad guys", while glossing over continuing silent support for the others.

Plus, I really like that "outposts of tyranny" list. First, for the change in label. "Axis of evil" implied all the Good versus Evil, Us vs Them, Christian inspired zeal of Bush's first term, while implying some kind of conspirative alliance among them at that. "Outposts of tyranny" still is pretty rhetorical, but its also true - a pretty matter of fact observation. There's no attempt to elevate these countries into the One Big Conspirative Evil Force Threatening the Planet; there is merely the plain observation that there's still "outposts" left of the worst of 20th century totalitarianism, and they will not be stood for.

The actual list of countries also makes me kinda hopeful. The Axis of Evil - Iraq, Iran, N-Korea - read a lot like a list of America's pet enemies, the countries it still had accounts to settle with. Iran, for one, at the time the phrase was coined actually had a democratically elected and minded President and parliament - how many other countries would not have fitted the label better? Why were random other countries ignored, why this all too clearly partisan narrow focus on America's traditional enemies, dressed up in the language of a moral crusade?

But now look at this list. Birma. Zimbabwe. Byelorussia. These are not exactly pet enemies of the US. They do not reflect an obsession with "finishing the job" Bush's father, or Jimmy Carter, failed to wrap up or get down. It reads in fact pretty much like a matter-of-fact rundown of the Top Ten offenders in any Human Rights Watch or Amnesty report. No oil in most of 'em either. In fact, there's a number of countries there that America has blatantly disregarded in its self-proclaimed mission for democracy before, because they lacked any such strategic value or assets.

In short, in my personal view, just going on a few paragraphs like that, the concept of "outposts of tyranny" versus "Axis of Evil" replaces the language of American vengeance with that of ... well, an Amnesty report. If she acts on these words, its gonna be hard for American liberals to explain away how "it must just be" ... I dunno, oil, or hurt family pride, or something. Damn near time the world community started tackling Byelorussia, Birma or Zimbabwe too - they're democracy's orphans.

0 Replies

Ah - so it WAS a straw in the wind! Thanks Nimh - remains to be seen if any change in behaviour is to be seen - like, if the US invades Iran at all, or in the same way as it invaded Iraq.

Hmmmmmm.....

0 Replies

Like I said...

...TALK IS CHEAP!

0 Replies

We heard you the first time, Frank.

Nimh - thanks for translating that. Much appreciated.

0 Replies

Hope you heard me the second time, too, JW.

It is important.

0 Replies

Yes, thanks Nimh!

I watched the hearing late last night and I was quite impressed with Dr. Rice. It was used mostly for Bush-bashing face-time by fools like Boxer and Kerry, but the few questions they actually posed she answered well and held her ground. I got the impression she will have more pull with Bush than Powell ever had (maybe she has something over him? :razz:) ... and I think people she negotiates with will take her quite seriously. Frankly, she handled herself far better than the sound bites and quotes the news here has been running would indicate. I was happily surprised (when not being disgusted by Boxer and Kerry's showboating, to hear a lot of my own rhetoric coming from her. :wink:)

0 Replies

Thanks JW. It must be weird seeing those Rice quotes translated back into English - like in the whispering game, they must have come out quite different from the actual words she had used (would be interesting to compare). But I thought it'd be cool to show what we get to read about it, what the take on it here is.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Yes, thanks Nimh!

I watched the hearing late last night and I was quite impressed with Dr. Rice.

Yo, Bill...there's no chance she is Michael Strahan in drag...is there?

0 Replies

You'd have to give me 10 to 1...

0 Replies

nimh

I'm more than a little dubious that Rice's words demonstrate any change in how this administration thinks about the rest of the world and of it's place in that world. I think it more likely that her words have been carefully written to give that impression. There's little if anything to suggest that Rice is more independent of mind than was her predecessor and much to suggest the opposite is true. "Axis of evil" got them in no small bit of trouble, and it seems almost predictable that they'd fashion a new phrase. Any learning done is, I fear, of the PR sort. A leaning towards Amnesty Int values is belied by just about everything that has come out of the Rodriguez hearings and subsequent details provided over the last couple of days.

Note also that Rice spent some particular attention on Venezuela. That's not a good sign. As you know, the US has a pretty disgusting track record in South and Central America and this case has the earmarks of old obsessions and ideology. And zest for oil, of course.

There was an earlier suggestion here by Lash that now the election is done, there's little reason for administration officials to worry about the way the administration presents itself. But in the same manner as democrats are already planning how to gain control in four years, these boys and girls are deeply interested in maintaining control. Iraq is the big issue for them, and their policies regarding what to do there - or more important, how to present what's going on there and what ought to be done - will be driven most fundamentally with an eye to the next elections in 2 and 4 years.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

I'm more than a little dubious that Rice's words demonstrate any change in how this administration thinks about the rest of the world and of it's place in that world. I think it more likely that her words have been carefully written to give that impression. [..] Axis of evil" got them in no small bit of trouble, and it seems almost predictable that they'd fashion a new phrase.

"Axis of evil" was also just a phrase, but like you said, it caused no small bit of trouble, playing a vital role in stoking suspicion and resentment worldwide. And they used it regardless, as if to show off that they didnt care, so convinced were they of their Good vs Evil scheme.

"Axis of Evil" was a phrase, but even just phrases can make politics, shaping international attitudes and relationships and driving politics (you cant well go back to negotiating or UN inspector teams once you called someone part of an "Axis of Evil").

So no, the fact that its 'just a phrase' does not prove that its meaningless and might just as well be overlooked. The question is not whether they've sincerely converted to Amnesty values - the question is which line of argument they're choosing to pursue in their foreign policy in the upcoming time. The language and arguments they choose, no matter if its for merely strategic reasons, will impact the roads they'll be able to follow.

Now that Iran has apparently been demoted from Axis of Evil to a mere "outpost" of tyranny, for example, it's a little harder to imagine the upcoming Iraq-style invasion of the country that's been speculated on here lately.

blatham wrote:

Note also that Rice spent some particular attention on Venezuela. That's not a good sign. As you know, the US has a pretty disgusting track record in South and Central America and this case has the earmarks of old obsessions and ideology. And zest for oil, of course.

Awright. So they picked Venezuela because of the oil. So why did they pick Zimbabwe? Burma?

Or are we to believe that the choice of one country is just random PR, but that of another is clearly an expression of devious intentions?

0 Replies

I have to find the transcript, but I think "Venzuela" was a response and the others more voluntary comment.

0 Replies

I have this kind of feeling that change in rhetoric IS somewhat significant - I said it somewhere earlier:

"Rhetoric can be damned important in foreign relations - especially in dealing with countries without a largely shared history and world view.

I mean, when western countries communicate, there is generally, I think, a sort of shared code, and understood subscript.

I think it far easier to truly alienate and close off dialogue with countries - like many Asian and especially Middle Eastern ones - and feed into an enemies and nothing but enemies mindset. (Ignoring actual acts of invasion, which tend to arouse certain beliefs in the invaded, and those near them).

The US - (and also Australia, when our PM followed your president by - in a way that seemed quite demented - saying that WE would embrace a first strike policy in our region, too the damage THAT did may well not be wiped out even by the tsunami!) - rhetoric has, in my view, done a lot of harm in terms of fanning flames of mistrust in the Islamic world - perhaps more than it realizes, given the different language of diplomacy in those countries.

As I said, I do not consider rhetoric immaterial and unimportant in its psychological effect."

Does anyone agree with me - or do you think that only actions count/have an effect?

I mean - mebbe I am really naive...

0 Replies

nimh and deb

Let's acknowledge first of all that we are deep into surmise here.

I just watched, not five minutes past, a wonderful interview on PBS News with three former high level White House officials from the Clinton and Bush/Reagan administrations and in the case of David Gergen five Republican and Democratic administrations. The first question posed was "what pitfalls is a second term president and administration most likely to fall into?". All immediately agreed that 'hubris' was the big one.

A bit further into the interview, while discussing 'lame duck' presidencies and what they might attempt to accomplish and how that would be influenced by the fact that the President no longer has to be concerned with electoral matters and how much 'legacy' would be a motivator, David Gergen (a Republican one ought to note) said - and he said it categorically - that Bush and Rove are seeking to create a Republican dominance in US governance to last thirty years.

The three of us, and all of us here, take our readings of what this administration intends through the lens of whatever we've found that seems explanatory. For me, a fundamental lens was the letter to Suskind from John DiIulio published in Esquire of how this administration operates and what it values. In a more general way, I view through the lens of all the misrepresentations and media manipulations we've witnessed.

Thus, for me, that this administration would be concerned primarily - and I mean by this, to a degree I've never witnessed before in a western government - with image for political gain as an absolutely over-riding policy.

The confirmation hearings of Rice and Gonzales (did I write Rodriquez earlier? I think I did) demonstrate with utter clarity...absolutely on message and rehearsed within an inch of their lives.

There's the recent piece by Hersch in the New Yorker on Iran. What reasons would we have to doubt it?

I might be wrong, of course. But I just see no reason to suspect it.

0 Replies

Bush says regrets talking tough

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know