" It seems I take too much amusement in baiting the loons (and even the moderately loony)... and too often that spills over onto more serious folks like you and Deb. You both have my apologies. I'll continue to have fun with the loons... but redouble my efforts to focus when engaging folks who are disinterested in the Bush-Bush-Sucks game. "
Thanks Bill.
To be honest, I have almost despaired of getting a political discussion going that is not just internal US sniping. Even my damn Team America thread got turned into the usual crap.
I don't know if you were able to hear his speech today... but it was utterly devoid of the "do it our way or I'll kick your ass" attitude... and chuck full of the "if you seek freedom, we will help you" replacement. It was music to the ears of any who were listening to what he said for a purpose other than sniping points. Projecting myself into the mind of a repressed foreigner (stop laughing), I heard an offer of a hand up... not a threat to be slapped down. While it's true these are just words, they were words spoken by the single greatest concern of non-democratic countries everywhere. The contrast between this speech and previous ones was undeniable, and your prediction was spot on.
He didn't back off the hard-line stance, however; and made it clear that he believes only freeing oppressed peoples will stop the growth of terrorism (sound familiar? :razz:). I do hope he keeps up this more thoughtful demeanor for the state-of-the-unionÂ… because today he sounded like a man who could be the world's friend... while at the same time, he didn't take the fiend's off notice.
I think he's getting the hang of this leadership stuff!
Like I said, Bush rhetoric is cheap:
And believe or not, there are many democratic countries just as concerned about this imbecile.
If the thesis is, then, that any decrease in the stridency of rhetoric is a positive thing in itself for foreign relations and international co-operation, particular the 'us versus them' rhetoric, yes, I'd agree. It's better than what has been the case.
I'll note that this is occuring in US/Canada relations as well.
We'll just have to wait and see what lies behind that change.
Truthfulness obliges me to add that tonight I read the "news analysis" of another Dutch paper on Rice's performance (interestingly enough, a centre-right newspaper, the NRC) - and it did not at all share the optimism of de Volkskrant's take. Its interpretation of Rice's remarks was more like Blatham's in fact: it noted the carefully obligation-free choice of words in Rice's rhetorics, the refusal to explicitly acknowledge any mistakes made and the fact that personnel decisions thus far indicate, if anything, a continuation of the first term's hard line. In short, Rice remains "His Master's Voice" and for now we'd better remain sceptical and just wait and see.
Well, wait and see is what we're gonna do of course - not much choice there.
(Btw, funny cartoon Mesquite <grins>)
That was actually interesting ... (well it was about a poll, so of course I would find it interesting).
Note also that it's the Germans who have an even more negative view of America's influence on the world than the French ... as do the Turks, Russians, Argentinians, Chileans, Mexicans and Canadians (!).
Related stories:
BBC: Global poll slams Bush leadership
BBC: India Backs Bush in global poll
Details from the study by one of the organisers, the PIPA (including charts)
Nimh, when: "the refusal to explicitly acknowledge any mistakes made", that was probably after one of Boxer's obscenely long, complicated questions (
Circulus in demonstrando :wink:), that only a fool would have answered affirmatively. When you ask a dozen related damning question at a clip, you're guaranteed to get an extremely cautious answer from anyone who's wearing their thinking cap... and Dr. Rice was wearing hers. Neither Boxer nor Kerry's tactics would have been tolerated here on A2K without even people who agree with them chastising them for their ridiculously fallacious techniques. Is there no transcript?
Nah, bill. I watched a couple of hours of her hearing, and same with Gonzales.
There is a 'strategy' constantly and consistently in use by this administration to never admit mistakes or failures, other than where the blame shifts to elsewhere, as in "we trusted the intelligence, and it proved mistaken". The Iraq and WOMD situations have been marked by this 'strategy', and it's exactly why folks keep asking, "Why won't you admit you've made some mistakes?" And the invitations, in press conferences, interviews, and in congressional or senate hearings have been numerous.
I surmise that someone has established as a principle of governance that admitting weakness promotes weakness, that if you acknowledge some failing, then that opens the door to attack. Nothing else I can think of explains how the administration is behaving.
It could be, surmising again, that this is a component to the promotion of Bush as 'resolute'. We know, from Woodward, that Rove arrived at Camp David early in Bush's term with a list of words that would be used to 'position' (a marketing term...coke is 'the real thing', etc) the President. "Resolute" was one of those five or six words.
So I don't know whose idea this is, nor what technology or philosophy leads to the strategy, but it is in place and it is used nearly every day.
Blatham, I didn't mean to deny BushCo's habitual denial of mistakes at all. I was just pointing out that Senator's Boxer and Kerry left her little choice by the length and wording of their questions. They would have been ducked by anybody because they were clearly grandstanding, witch-hunting and frankly; testifying more than anything else. I deny denying the denial because it's undeniable.
shaking hands...returning to corners
Ding
Just kidding...but I was just browsing through AP and this is exactly a case in point...
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday that he overestimated the pace of Iraq's recovery from the U.S.-led invasion because...
he didn't realize the lasting devastation wrought by Saddam Hussein on his people after the first Gulf War.
Good one, about Cheney, Blatham.
Listen you shadow-boxing Sergeant Preston wannabe... I done told you; I don't deny the denial. Let me state for the record; Bush and everybody who looks like him are up to their necks in denial for every mistake they ever made. I'll bet if you ask him; he'll gladly tell you he chewed that pretzel 20 times before he even thought about swallowing, too.
(I'm trying Deb, really I am.)
lol sorry, bill, it was simply the coincidence of our conversation, then reading Cheney's remark two minutes later. I promise never to throw this smelly duck in your face again.
Keep the lol, lose the sorry or I'll think you thought I was serious.:wink:
I know you weren't serious. But I hesitated even posting the item. Mom said I ought not to hurt boys littler than me.
