Dubya's Daddy Speaks Out Against Unilateralism
	found on the Times written by polychrome, edited by George (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Thu 13 Mar 11:20am
		"The Times of London is reporting that President Bush's father disapproves of his foreign relations tactics," polychrome writes. The first President Bush has told his son that hopes of peace in the Middle East would be ruined if a war with Iraq were not backed by international unity.

	"After being publicly supportive during the early days of his son's administration, the elder Bush has been relatively silent during the current buildup to war. Now GHWB is speaking out and letting GWB (and the rest of us) know exactly what he thinks of the current trend in unilateralism and Euro-bashing. The former President's comments reflect unease among the Bush family and its entourage at the way that George W. Bush is ignoring international opinion and overriding the institutions that his father sought to uphold. Mr Bush Sr is a former US Ambassador to the UN and comes from a family steeped in multi-lateralist traditions. "GHWB knows firsthand how much international diplomatic cooperation is needed for regional peace and the continuing political relevance of even the most powerful military nation in the world. Meanwhile, the current administration fuels a wave of anti-European sentiment, Rumsfeld even going so far as to suggest that the U.S. would go to war without the UK. "The elder Bush, arguably one of the most knowledgeable people in the world regarding Hussein's Iraq, is even questioning the evidence justifying war. He said that the key question of how many weapons of mass destruction Iraq held 'could be debated'. The case against Saddam was 'less clear' than in 1991, when Mr Bush Sr led an international coalition to expel invading Iraqi troops from Kuwait. "Is this the death of the American Cowboy in international relations? Or is Daddy just becoming a peacenik in his old age?"

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 64 commentsbest: 13 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Better source...   by Eppy       at Thu 13 Mar 11:32am score of 2 informative     ...is this Salon article (worth clicking through the ads) which summarizes the issue well. It mentions, for instance, that Scowcroft's scathing editorial in the WSJ last fall condemning the tactics being used was almost certainly vetted (if not instigated) by Bush pere. The article also makes the fairly persuasive case that, rather than a shift in Bush I's attitude, this represents a long-standing division on the right about foreign policy, with the older generation favoring a cautious approach, versus the neoconservative Pearle / Rumsfeld axis favoring spreading democracy through war. More impressively, it makes you kind of like George HW Bush, which I never thought would be in the realm of possibility--for me, anyway. "ninja, fuck, baby, special olympics"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Re: Better source...   by captainebo       at Thu 13 Mar 11:42am score of 3.5 intriguing   in reply to comment 1     More impressively, it makes you kind of like George HW Bush, which I never thought would be in the realm of possibility--for me, anyway. Of course I generally prefer Democratic Administrations, but two year under Dubya have made me miss sane Conservatives like Eeych-Dubya or even Nixon. Under Bushweiser, I may have disagreed with the President's economic policies, but I always felt safe and secure in my own country. Twelve years ago, politics was something I thought about when I felt like thinking about politics. Now, under Bush Light, politics has become an all consuming weight of dread. There are literally nights when I cannot sleep, consumed by fear of what my own government is doing. I miss the days when the GOP were noble and misguided. There was a time when I believed they truly wanted what was best for the country, and could be taught to do so well. Now they've become consumed with their own selfish desires, and that greed has made them truly monstrous. Ebo "In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds." -Martin Luther King   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   5.  Re: Better source...   by Eppy       at Thu 13 Mar 11:47am score of 2.5 compelling   in reply to comment 3     Of course, the counter-argument here would be that you felt safer under Bush I because he was doing all his evil stuff in secret. Every time Bush II does something evil he has Ashcroft announce it, because, well, they don't think it's evil. HW Bush just had the the decency to recognize that overthrowing foreign governments and violating constitutional rights was something best done in secret. That's probably the most infuriating thing about neocons--they seem to have convinced themselves that a lot of the bad shit the US does is actually morally justified. "ninja, fuck, baby, special olympics"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Re: Better source...   by eiger       at Thu 13 Mar 8:42pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     'miss sane Conservatives like Eeych-Dubya or even Nixon' Sane and Nixon in the same sentence. Wow, that must be a first. Then again I thought Kerry was going to win. So, what the hell do I know?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   57.  Re: Better source...   by tlacolotl       at Fri 14 Mar 9:39am score of 0.5 irrelevant   in reply to comment 3     To me, it's like at least Bush Sr & Reagan (et al) had some sort of ideology behind their actions: put America first, for it's own sake and that of the Free World -- which isn't really my own ideology, but at least I felt that it was some kind of ideology. With the current guy (I don't even want to type his name) it just seems like there's nothing behind his actions/words except bravado and egotism -- not even conservatism, Christian do-goodism, or evangelical capitalism are driving him and his pals. It's almost as if (and stop me if I'm stretching it a bit) they're simply drunk on power. And I'm talking wasted. Their conservative agenda (and all it entails) comes across as no more than lip-service to their fan base, which is probably going to realize soon that they're being duped like the rest of us (well, most of us). Hell, I would even feel better if the President were a neo-Nazi or something -- at least then I'd have some kind of ideology to rail against. But all I have is pure egotism, nothing more, and when the subject in question is Leader of the Free World, it's kinda hard to get any kind of debate on the table, you know? Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of thy law   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: Better source...   by phenry       at Thu 13 Mar 4:57pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 1     More impressively, it makes you kind of like George HW Bush, which I never thought would be in the realm of possibility--for me, anyway. Hey, I'm finding that every day that goes by makes me appreciate Poppy more and more. Any chance we might persuade him to put Junior over his knee one last time? phh | Away for 3 years and still in the karma top 50! Woo hoo!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  I never liked him as President,   by savagesquirrel       at Thu 13 Mar 11:39am score of 1.5 interesting     but the elder Bush at least had a real reason to invade Iraq. I think that Bush Sr. is merely looking for the best interest of his son. He knows that if the international communtiny at large doesn't support the invasion of Iraq and the regime change, then there could be dissent within his own country. I can't find the link, but on crossfire Paul Begala had a poll showing the 62% questioned in the survey would vote for any democratic nominee then the current President. I know that you can get a statistic for anything, but the aforementioned one is a little concerning. Also his father was the head of the CIA. I'm sure no fool gets to be the pimp behind the wheel of that agency without being somewhat intelligent. So no, Daddy isn't just becoming a peacenik in his old age. He probably knows some information reserved for a very few people, from being the head of the CIA and the country at some point in his life, and is making an informed decision. Eh, it's time for an old-fashioned hippie ass-whomping!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Re: I never liked him as President,   by Disgruntled Engineer       at Thu 13 Mar 12:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     I wonder if Bush I is not plugged into the situation and has all the same information as Bush II and the rest. Here we have the privy council and any former PM is a member of the privy council which means that there is NO information which can be kept from them on any basis, national security etc. I wonder if this is true of the US. If so it may suggest that Bush I knows the facts as well and perhaps while not being a peacenik doesnt believe the current situation requires unilateral action by the US. Not only does this undermine the work and goal of the UN over the years, it alienates current allies, and engenders resentment. While the US may be the only remaining "Superpower, Megapower, HyperPower" ( can we upsize that anymore? ) it seems the rest of the world doesnt like having it thrown in their face. The rest of the world is not impotent and Bush II treats them as they are. Bush II has ample reason to be concerned.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  The metric system and cosmic dominance   by sglover910       at Thu 13 Mar 4:04pm score of 1   in reply to comment 9     "Superpower, Megapower, HyperPower" ( can we upsize that anymore? ) Well, there's always Ultra-Power. Fortunately the scientific community has anticipated this. I reckon we'll achieve Terrapower (ahem) status when we take over the world. Maybe when we conquer the Solar System we can brag about being a Petapower. If Exapower status makes us galactic overlords, we'll still have Zetta-power and Yotta-power levels left if we're feeling really ambitious. An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  Re: I never liked him as President,   by stevetherobot       at Fri 14 Mar 7:34am score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 9     Here we have the privy council and any former PM is a member of the privy council which means that there is NO information which can be kept from them on any basis, national security etc. I wonder if this is true of the US. Nope. Once a president is out of office, their official access to information is gone.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: The metric system and cosmic dominance   by mightygodking       at Thu 13 Mar 5:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 27     And yet, your Yotta-power will still pale next to the power of the Force. It's not just a government any more!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Re: I never liked him as President,   by Citizen Erectus       at Thu 13 Mar 12:53pm score of 2.5 interesting   in reply to comment 2     but the elder Bush at least had a real reason to invade Iraq. I think that Bush Sr. is merely looking for the best interest of his son. Sr was a skilled and experienced politician even if he was a basket-case president. He had his tenure as CIA chief and ViceP to lead him into the presidency. Dubya is obviously incompetent and inexperienced, easy meat for the predators in big-business and politics. With all the shrewd operators pulling the strings making a killing out of him, getting their greedy/racist/fundamentalist agenda and using his pardon to cover their ass. Heard much from Cheney lately? He's still being paid by Halliburton, who are currently raking it in. Perle's also raking it in with Trireme. What ever happened to Lay? The list goes on and I can't help but see Bush for what he is, a sucker. By killing people.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   61.  Re: I never liked him as President,   by slavdude       at Fri 14 Mar 10:52am score of 1   in reply to comment 2     I thought Bush Sr., when he was President, couldn't keep a straight face when addressing the nation. I also opposed the war with Iraq then, mostly because I thought it was about oil. Like many, though, I wish they had finished the job, and I've come to respect Bush Sr. since he left office. I have to agree with many of the other posts here that The Shrub is doing this for reasons known only to himself and the other warmongers in the administration. 2004 can't come soon enough. Tomorrow I will be sober, but you will still be ugly.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   63.  Number is a little lower, but Dem's still bet W   by jd142       at Fri 14 Mar 12:16pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     Here was the news site I read it on. a www.quinnipiac.edu link The number there is 48% any democrat to 44% Bush. Margin of error was 2.8%. Some small glimmer of hope begins to form.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  source...   by Anonymous Idiot       at Thu 13 Mar 11:43am score of 0.5 informative     speech! Q&A :D   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  He's Still Got It!   by BatGuano       at Thu 13 Mar 12:17pm score of 2 funny   in reply to comment 4     Demonstrators heckle, so as they're being taken out, Bush tells a story: "Barbara would kill me, but I'm going to tell you a story while they're being gracefully exited. You think this is something. You ought to have gone in with me when I was President, to San Francisco. We rode in - I picture the place well. The Secret Service police keep the people back. And this one demonstrator was standing there, the worst looking woman I've ever seen in my life. And she had a big sign. She came running up to the side of the car saying, "Stay out of my womb." No problem, lady." your radio friend, Bat Guano   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   16.  Re: source...   by Airbag       at Thu 13 Mar 1:39pm score of 1   in reply to comment 4     The speech doesn't really show 41 diverging from 43. It looks like that only if you ignore 41's capacity to embrace both sides of a contradiction. Consider the following statement: If I might add, together with the Palestinian statehood initiative announced last June by the President, when our President called for statehood for the Palestinians, I believe the plan introduced by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia last year to advance the peace process does offer real hope for ending the bloodshed in the Middle East. I wasn't under the impression that the Saudi proposal was something that kept well in a freezer. Is 41 suggesting that 43 will thaw it out again after Iraq is all tidy and neat? Doesn't Dubya's plan piss on the Prince's plan? Apart from this glaring contradiction, I suppose 41 was just trying to say that Saudi Arabians are cool with him and how upsetting it was for him to have all those Saudi citizens who were involved in nine eleven reflect anything bad about the country they came from. Speaking of contradictions, this passage was from the the Q and A: And so, if there's a perception that we said, "You go and rise up and we'll help you," that's an erroneous perception. I did say, "I'd like to see the Iraqi people take care of their own problems," because frankly I, and most other leaders in -- well, all the leaders in the Gulf, and Mitterand and, I think, the Brits, certainly -- in Turkey and Mubarak all felt that the people from within would take care of Hussein. That he couldn't exist, you see. So, I was wrong in that. Did he think that they would be able to "take care of things" while we idly watched Hussein beat the shit out of the Shi'is in Basra? With all those troops watching a few miles away, there was an opportunity to adjust the estimation. So there is no disagreement between 41 and 43. It is just a trick of the light that creates the illusion.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Dubya's Take   by JET24       at Thu 13 Mar 11:48am score of 1.5 succinct     43 will probably treat this opinion with the same amount of respect as he has shown toward protesters, world leaders, domestic opinion, and world opinion. In other words, he'll ignore it completely in favor of his own warmongering agenda. Religion don't mean a thing; it's just another way to be right. - Spoon   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  WHAT?   by eduardo       at Thu 13 Mar 11:49am score of 1.5 witty     Is this to imply that Bush the Elder and Bush the Younger are NOT part of the same Republican conspiracy to ruin everything that's good in the world? Who would have thought such a thing. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  Re: WHAT?   by charlies       at Thu 13 Mar 12:15pm score of 1.5 clever   in reply to comment 7     Hmmm. Eduardo, are you trying to challenge my prejudices? I think political parties have wings. George I is heir to the Wendell Wilkie/Eisenhower wing of the party; George II is heir to the Robert Taft/David Duke wing of the party. Of course, an alternative explanation has to do with mental illness striking any family. Actually, that's not all that funny. George II has quite a constellation of symptoms. We're fighting in a war we lost before the war began.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  Re: WHAT?   by Disgruntled Engineer       at Thu 13 Mar 12:15pm score of 1.5 novel   in reply to comment 7     Or perhaps Bush II is taking a different tact that daddy because quite simply if he followed the same road as Bush I, Bush II would be looked upon as being controlled by daddy and daddy's oil buddies. Surely the fact that Bush II has been a screw up most of his life, and is little more than an overprivileged brat who has had everything handed to him in life including a presidency. Even though I did not like Version 1.0 much better, he was at least far more intelligent and his own man. Perhaps Bush I is trying a different approach so as too appear to be his own man as well. For a man who wants to run the country like a business, he might want to fire his PR people and hire some better sales people.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: WHAT?   by Dan_Boston       at Thu 13 Mar 1:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 7     Hey, just as long as the Democratic conspiracy to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator is still intact. If you guys start in-fighting, then some progress might actually take place! EEK!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  From that Times article   by Brian Jones       at Thu 13 Mar 1:03pm score of 2 funny     The former President's comments reflect unease among the Bush family and its entourage... Entourage?! I had no idea they were blingin' in Kennebunkport. Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

53.  Re: From that Times article   by KOMPRESSOR       at Fri 14 Mar 8:51am score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 15     In a related story, close Bush family friend Lawrence Turead (Mr. T) declared that he "pitied the foo who started a unilateral war." Bush Jr. was reportedly "unimpressederated." KOMPRESSOR apple: not just a different way, a better way   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  How about them Cowboys!   by Kilroy77       at Thu 13 Mar 1:44pm score of 2.5 astute     You know what they say about if enough people think you're a horse's ass(including, if not most importantly your own father - former Pres, CIA Director, US Ambassador), you'd better start looking for a saddle. GWB is out of control, he's picked a fight that nobody wants and eventually this "War Against Terrorism" is going to run out of gas. Even if Iraq was in league with Al-Queda, why would they strike and American target now(other than that whole zealot-homicidal-martyr thing)? This would give GWB just the excuse he needs. That's how the Amish get you, first you eat their cheese, then you are a thrall in their plans for world domination.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

23.  Re: How about them Cowboys!   by sglover910       at Thu 13 Mar 2:54pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 17     Even if Iraq was in league with Al-Queda, why would they strike and American target now(other than that whole zealot-homicidal-martyr thing)? This would give GWB just the excuse he needs. Far be it from me to shill for Bush, but consider a question that bothered me in 1979: Why aren't the Iranians releasing those hostages? If they think Carter is the Great Satan, what do they expect from Reagan? Why are they helping him get elected? I don't buy the administration's line about Saddam's complicity with al-Qaeda, but I wouldn't rule it out solely because it's not rational. October Surprise speculations aside, as far as I can tell Iran acted quite opposite to its own interests during the hostage episode. And Saddam's got a real flair for stupidity; he's practically the Michaelangelo of bad decisions. An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: How about them Cowboys!   by captainebo       at Thu 13 Mar 3:09pm score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 23     Intreging, but I disagree. 1979 Iran was a Islamist theocracy, meaning the Ayatollah was as much influenced by Bin Ladenesque revenge as he was by the interests of his state. 2003 Iraq, on the other hand, is a secular dictatorship. As such it is most influenced by Saddam's desire to stay in power. Saddam is, to paraphrase Dubya, an evil, evil man, but I don't accept your suggestion that he is "not rational." If anything, Saddam is hyper-rational, manipulating the UN inspectors and domestic opinion with all the skill of a plate spinner. If anything, this hyper-rationality is the best argument against a war in Iraq. Borrowing this time from George Tenet, Iraq is only likely to attack us if it has nothing more to lose. Ebo "In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds." -Martin Luther King   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Hyper-rational?!?!?   by sglover910       at Thu 13 Mar 3:52pm score of 1   in reply to comment 24     If anything, Saddam is hyper-rational, manipulating the UN inspectors and domestic opinion with all the skill of a plate spinner. Yes, he's so adroit that he's probably gonna be roasted within the next few weeks. His misreading of Bush is a replay of his inspired decisions to invade Iran and Kuwait. Don't kid yourself, Saddam's got all the finesse of an acne-faced street thug. An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  Re: Hyper-rational?!?!?   by Tashtego       at Thu 13 Mar 4:48pm score of 1.5 succinct   in reply to comment 26     Don't kid yourself, Saddam's got all the finesse of an acne-faced street thug. An acne-faced street thug trying to run a repressive dictatorship would have been sent away to take the Long Nap under a sand dune years ago. The fact that Saddam is closing in on a quarter century in power gives lie to your assertion. I'm no fan of SH, but let's all be honest and call a spade a fucking shovel here. Liberals are always right about everything.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  *shudder*   by mad_clown       at Thu 13 Mar 5:38pm score of 3 astute   in reply to comment 29     I'm going to have to take sglover's side on this one. Saddam may be clever. Saddam may be very skilled at manipulating both the U.N. and public opinion abroad. Saddam may, in fact, be one of the greatest masters of propaganda in our time. One thing history has shown, though, is that Saddam Hussein is not "hyper-rational." Saddam Hussein, on two major occasions (three, if you count the current crisis), has utterly and completely misjudged the implications of his actions. When he invaded Iran in the 1980's, Saddam Hussein, because of the absolutely horrible international opinion of revolutionary Iran, expected to receive overwhelming support. He did not. He received some token support from various Western states, including the United States, in the form of weapons and intelligence. His claims to the Shatt al-Arab were, despite Iran's position as an international pariah at the time, simply not compelling enough for any state at all to openly align themselves with Iraq. Even the states that supported him essentially stood aside and let Iraq fight against Iran. Hussein's vast miscalculation ended in a bloody, eight year stalemate and a lot of dead bodies. Hussein's second mind-boggling miscalculation was his invasion and annexation of Kuwait. Simply put, that action was a flagrant violation of the post-WWII normative environment. Yes, states like North Vietnam have annexed South Vietnam, but in that case, the division between was seen as artificial, and the working unit was really "Vietnam" as a whole. Similarly, when the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia and Hungary, those states remained nominally independent entities on the map of the world. They were not incorporated into "the Soviet Union" proper. Thus, when Iraq annexed Kuwait, this was an essentially unprecedented move in the modern state system, and was met with an unprecedented reaction. Even the Soviet Union and the United States operated on the same side. This absolutely gross miscalculation really should've been apparent to Hussein from the outset. Had he wanted to invade Kuwait with relatively little interference, he very well could've framed his invasion of Kuwait as a border dispute, as he did with Iran. It's very likely, in that case, that very little would've been done about it. Border disputes are common, and the U.N. doesn't really do all that much about most of them. Instead, he chose, for whatever reasons, to outright annex another state, and that single mistake has made him the international pariah that he is today. No, Saddam may be clever and manipulative. But he's shown time and again that he's not "hyper-rational." Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   50.  Its all about the data.   by rough ashler       at Fri 14 Mar 8:24am score of 1.5 succinct   in reply to comment 34     Saddam Hussein is not "hyper-rational. For Saddam to make a decision, he has to have data. Where does Saddam get his data? From his underlings. If Saddam approached you and asked your input on some choice of action, are you going to tell him news he wants to hear or not want to hear? The normal answer would be tell him info that will keep you alive long enough to create a paper trail of blame so your underlings are shot and not you.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   67.  Re: Its all about the data.   by mad_clown       at Fri 14 Mar 2:29pm score of 1   in reply to comment 50     Everything that you're saying completely supports my argument that Saddam Hussein isn't "hyper-rational." Let's take a look at your argument: 1) Hussein gets his information from underlings. 2) These underlings are sycophants who fear for their lives because Saddam Hussein tends to get rid of the people who don't agree with him. Is it characteristic of a rational person to kill everyone who doesn't tell him what he wants to hear? Of course not. This is the same symptom that Stalin exhibited. Stalin was not rational. He was a brutal paranoiac. The same applies to Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein is not "hyper-rational." Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   69.  the implications of non-conquest   by joyful immolation       at Fri 14 Mar 4:22pm score of 1   in reply to comment 67     for what it's worth, I agree with your perspective on the Kuwait annexation. Although Iraq did have a historical territorial dispute and although the state of Kuwait is pretty ridiculous to begin with (if you look at a map, it looks like it was constructed to give some larger power a military base and cut Iraq off from the Gulf), it definitely existed as an independent state for 70 years, Iraq had no business trying to rewrite history, and we were right to kick him out. I supported the Gulf War, and I still do. Because territorial conquest is supposed to be dead in this world, and if it ain't, that's the goal. Both because of the equally unforgivable solutions as to what to do with the indigenous population (expel them, kill them, or repress/ deny them political rights), and because it's part of the way the international system is supposed to work - and is evolving towards. However, I thought I would point out that my understanding of those same principles leads me to unhesitantingly condemn both Israel, for whatever you want to label the process of subjugation in the terrirories between 1967 and 2003, and Bush's oncoming war in Iraq, because pre-epmtive wars in all but the most immediate and direct danger of imminent destruction are as no less warping and destructive to the global norms we're trying to create as flat-out conquest. this city's dance/makes you feel so cold, it's got/so many people, but it's got no soul-   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   70.  Re: *shudder*   by arkhan       at Fri 14 Mar 4:32pm score of 1   in reply to comment 34     To back that up slightly, I still remember what my history teacher said just after the first gulf war started - that Saddam had a really bad sense of timing. If he'd invaded Kuwait a few years earlier, he could have had the backing of the Soviets; if he'd waited a few years more, he'd have been a nuclear power and the West wouldn't have dared touch him.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   73.  Re: Hyper-rational?!?!?   by charlies       at Sat 15 Mar 3:33am score of 1   in reply to comment 26     Good argument, sglover910, and I agree with you. But I want to add one qualifier--Way better minds than Saddam have misread the vagaries of the minds of both Bush and Shrub. I was convinced that, like Reagan, Shrub would, by accident, do something right every now and then. We're fighting in a war we lost before the war began.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

25.  Scanning through here...   by Nameless Cynic       at Thu 13 Mar 3:48pm score of 1     I thought I'd comment on a couple of the points I've seen. (post 3) There are literally nights when I cannot sleep, consumed by fear of what my own government is doing. Melatonin and valerian, Ebo. Trust me. (post 2) ...on crossfire Paul Begala had a poll showing the 62% questioned in the survey would vote for any democratic nominee then the current President. Thanks, squirrel. You realize that 67% of all statistics are made up on the spot, right? (post 9) "Superpower, Megapower, HyperPower" ( can we upsize that anymore? ) Biggie Power (although Plasticians in the UK, or in other former British colonies might not have Wendy's)       Gigapower       Magnum Power (post 17) You know what they say about if enough people think you're a horse's ass(including, if not most importantly your own father...) Well, actually, it only seems fair. Most teenagers think their father is an idiot. And turnabout is fair play, right? But Bush v1.0 has an important point. We have a global economy (can anybody look in their driveway and show me a 100% American-made car? And what's the brand-name on your VCR/DVD player?) We need to be in the good graces of the international community. One of Dubya's handlers needs to point this out to him. "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." ~~ Napoleon Bonaparte   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

55.  Re: Scanning through here...   by savagesquirrel       at Fri 14 Mar 9:03am score of 1.5 witty   in reply to comment 25     I know most statistics are made up or that if you sample the right population you can get them always in your favor. To say that you would vote for any democratic candidate without even knowing who they are still seems to be a significant statement. Especially if it turned out to be Al Sharpton. Now that's really a statement. Eh, it's time for an old-fashioned hippie ass-whomping!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

28.  Something's fishy   by M. Mosher       at Thu 13 Mar 4:48pm score of 3 intriguing     I did a quick google search to see if others had the same take on Bush Sr.'s speech and I came up with a whole lot of silence. However, this link from Tufts University seems to describe a completely different speech. Is it possible that Roland Watson's Times article is engaging in a bit of wishful thinking? Finally I decided to gut it out and read the whole thing. The only paragraph in Bush Sr.'s speech I could find that would justify Watson's opinion is: Incidentally, the Madrid conference would never have happened if the international coalition that fought together in Desert Storm had acceded the U.N. mandate and gone on on its own if the United States had gone on on its own, had gone into Baghdad after Saddam and his forces had surrendered and agreed to disarm. The coalition would have instantly shattered. And the political capital that we had gained as a result of our principle restraint to jumpstart the peace process would have been lost. We would have lost all support from our coalition, with the possible exception of England. And we would have lost all support from the smaller nations in the United Nations as well. But the rest of the speech was quite supportive of Bush Jr. These two paragraphs are fairly representative of the bulk of his comments: I would ask them hypothetically, "Were we wrong back in 1942 - Had we gone into World War II earlier to save a million Jews, and to save one million Poles, would that have been wrong to use force?" I don't know how the protestors say, "No war on any circumstance," would answer a question like that. But, I think, there is such a concept as a just war. I know we have differences with European countries, and they've got differences with us, some of them. There's a vast array and coalition with supporting the United States, and supporting the President now, but there's a couple quite obvious exceptions to that. But, I worked on those relationships, and I feel confident that when all this calms down, when Iraq lives within the international law, you will see the United States back together as allies and friends with both Germany and France. If this weren't the Times I would suspect a hoax. Instead, I have to ask if Watson assumed the world hadn't heard or wouldn't read the speech.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

31.  Re: Something's fishy   by kohnJarma       at Thu 13 Mar 4:59pm score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 28     PRESIDENT BUSH: I agree with the President, it would be much better to act with as much international support as possible. The difference between '91 and today is that the objective was clearer, in a way, back when I was President. You could see the occupying forces. You could get the reports of the brutality of the Iraqi soldiers to the Kuwaiti women, and to the torture of the young men. You could see that the forces, in my view, were determined to go even further south to try to take over -- that was my view -- to take over Saudi Arabia. Today it's less clear. The violations of the U.N. resolutions by Saddam Hussein are clear. But, the question is how much does he have in a way of weapons of mass destruction? That could be debated. But, I think, most people conclude that he has not done what he was called on to do, to fully disarm. So, it's a little fuzzier today. But, then you have another ingredient today that we didn't have back then. You saw September 11th. Now, I'm not saying that this is a big conspiracy between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, but the United States must do what it can to protect itself and its friends against the use of weapons of mass destruction. And here's somebody that's violated these norms. And, I think, that it is understandable we're trying to get him to live within those resolutions, and whether we stay together enough to make him change his ways without fighting, I don't know, I just don't know. From the Q&A.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  Re: Something's fishy   by phenry       at Thu 13 Mar 5:06pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 28     But, I worked on those relationships, and I feel confident that when all this calms down, when Iraq lives within the international law, you will see the United States back together as allies and friends with both Germany and France. See, but that's just it. If he'd really meant to be supportive of Junior, he'd have said that he feels confident that when all this calms down, you will see the United States invading France, renaming it Freedom, and double-dog-daring Gerhard Schroeder to look at us cockeyed. phh | Away for 3 years and still in the karma top 50! Woo hoo!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Re: Something's fishy   by OSULugan       at Thu 13 Mar 10:04pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 32     ...will see the United States invading France, renaming it Freedom, and double-dog-daring Gerhard Schroeder to look at us cockeyed. Somehow, I just can't comprehend Germany being terribly hurt when seeing a defeated France. And God says, "No, that's not right." Yeah. Well. Whatever. You can't teach God anything.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: Something's fishy   by eminem enterprises       at Thu 13 Mar 6:30pm score of 1   in reply to comment 28     I too read the whole speech and agree with you. The Madrid conference paragraph doesn't have to be interpreted as a shot at Bush 43's unilateralism. I think it simply represents Bush 41 still feeling defensive about his controversial decision not to keep going all the way to Baghdad. OTOH, the Salon article did point out that Brent Scowcroft probably wouldn't have come out so hard against the enterprise without Bush 41's say so. But that is debatable. Everybody has a share   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

35.  This is all quite normal.   by MAYORBOB       at Thu 13 Mar 5:41pm score of 1.5 clever     That a father has a difference of opinion from a son isn't anything new. And, after all, when George W. finally grows up, his father will probably lighten up on the poor boy. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

37.  Eh, blah, what of it   by chasing       at Thu 13 Mar 6:35pm score of 0.5 incoherent     The elder Bush is not the younger Bush (and neither are that other Bush), so why is anyone surprised, exactly? I'm sure daddy didn't approve of the coke habit, either (and son didn't approve of the kiddie's own underage lushdom). Blah blah blah. And of course the case is "less clear" - I never once heard anyone say anything to the contrary (though that isn't to suggest it hasn't been said, just that perhaps I was busy pouring iced tea at the time, loudly). And Rumsfeld's "suggestion" that we could go it without the UK wasn't Euro-bashing in the least. He no doubt would suggest they could invade without my mother, should a reporter ask - and I wouldn't take it personally (and neither would she). But then, neither I nor my mother are in danger of losing power in our respective households over this whole Iraq thing, so I doubt a reporter would be bothered to ask in the first place. Oh, and Bush Sr was an American Cowboy? If that's the suggestion, than I merely ask: on what planet? It sure as hell wasn't on Planet Texas. Otherwise, please rephrase, I'm admittedly a bit confuzzled...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

39.  Re: Eh, blah, what of it   by polychrome       at Thu 13 Mar 8:47pm score of 1   in reply to comment 37     Sorry to confuse. I would argue that this disparity between the Bushes is interesting since Sr has been in a similar spot and has a good deal of experience handling similar situations, if you don't agree that's fine by me. The comment about going to war without Brittain is admittedly not the best example of Euro-bashing, but one need not look far to see a disregard for international diplomacy and outright antagonism (e.g. 'Old Europe'). Not to mention what's happening domestically. Going to war without international support has more consequences than Tony Blair losing the Prime Ministership too, particularly for post-war relations between the US and Europe and for peace efforts in the region. Again, if you don't think this is significant, fine. Finally, I wouldn't want to be taken for arguing that any of the Bushies was a real cowboy. American Cowboy diplomacy is meant to reference the 'dead or alive,' 'with us or against us,' 'no need for international consensus' approach that has alienated so many. Sorry to bore you with this story, I found it interesting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

42.  Sounds like Parental Intervention...   by sledge       at Fri 14 Mar 1:22am score of 1     and I bet it was something of a routine in the Bush Sr. household once upon a time.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

49.  I am glad this was posted...   by LeighBCD       at Fri 14 Mar 8:13am score of 1.5 compelling     There is a sneaking suspicion among European conspiracy theorists is that the reason that Bush Jnr wants to wage war on Iraq is to settle old scores and avenge the shame on his father's honour for not having dispatched Saddam to the cosmos the first time around. It is intriguing to read that in fact, Bush Snr does not seem to advocate war at any price nor under all scenarios - which is extremely gratifying to hear. Perhaps the conspiracists are wrong on this count. It would be fascinating to know more about Bush Snr's role in the present crisis and whether, and the extent to which, he has the ear of his son right now. It saddens me to think that Bush Snr has less influence on his son than somebody like Donald Rumsfeld. If Bush Jnr cared at all about the perception of America abroad he would silence Donald Rumsfeld. Forever. Now. And he would listen to saner voices, such as his dad's. To rose-lipt maidens and lightfoot lads   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

60.  Re: I am glad this was posted...   by ThePlague       at Fri 14 Mar 10:48am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 49     Damn, things are really bad when people are pining for the wisdom of Bush Senior.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

51.  So Dadddy wants the son to make the same...   by Wolfetone       at Fri 14 Mar 8:38am score of 1 interesting     ....mistake he did? The biggest mistake of Bush I, IMHO, was that he did not take Saddam out of power when he had a chance. The reason he didn't was because the coalition he built wouldn't let him. He had to stipulate to that and other conditions in order to get the pussyfooting French and the rest of the countries to back him and that was during a time when he should have had a clear mandate from all sane countries without having to accede to any stipulations. Also, it doesn't matter how many times you say it, or write it for that matter, Bush II is not acting unilaterally, unless of course you are one of those people who can't count. For those people who can't count; Why is it bad for Bush to act unilatterally in regards to Iraq, but, in some countries opinions, Bush II needs to act unilaterally in regards to North Korea?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

52.  Maybe the speech was a deliberate misdirection   by John the Cynic       at Fri 14 Mar 8:48am score of 0.5 incoherent     Does anyone besides me think that this is all just disinformation? GWB I isn't going to line up with Clinton and Carter without a reason. There are a lot of complaints from many quarters that the administration is sending mixed signals. Right now, no one seems to know just what is going to happen next (beyond the obvious)- and that is just what every military planner dreams of. The D-Day invasion didn't start at Calais either- disinformation can be a great ally. I'm still not convinced that all those troops are needed for just Iraq. Something else might be planned too.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

54.  Diplomatic errors of GWB   by davidpalter       at Fri 14 Mar 9:01am score of 2 astute     In general, I have been forced to agree that Saddam Hussein really is a threat to the US and to the international community, and that this threat can only be overcome by military means, since Saddam is not a reasonable person, to put it mildly. Nonetheless, it does seem that GWB is making diplomatic errors. Because the US has moved a massive military force into the region and THEN went to the UN to seek a resolution authorizing war, it appears that the US regards such authorization as a mere formality or a forgone conclusion - or even worse, that the war will proceed even if it is not authorized by the UN. Naturally, the nations whose authorization is being sought resent being taken so lightly. It would have been much better, diplomatically, to get all needed authorizations before undertaking any military mobilization. Considering that the problem of Iraq has been unresolved for the past 12 years, I cannot believe that the extra month that might be needed to get all the military forces in place, would have made such a great difference. Whereas in terms of showing respect for the UN and its member nations, the delay would have made every difference. And this, I believe, is why the elder Bush might now be critical of his son's performance. --dp   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

65.  Re: Diplomatic errors of GWB   by useless       at Fri 14 Mar 12:48pm score of 1   in reply to comment 54     In general, I have been forced to agree that Saddam Hussein really is a threat to the US and to the international community, and that this threat can only be overcome by military means... sucker. Unless by "forced" you mean Rummy has sent you pictures of some goons holding your puppy over a wood chipper, along with a note saying "Please reconsider your stance on the upcoming war." you should watch less FOX News. If Saddam is such a world-wide threat, where's the support form the "international community"?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   74.  inside information   by davidpalter       at Sat 15 Mar 7:11am score of 1   in reply to comment 65     How did you find out about my puppy? --dp   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   72.  Re: Diplomatic errors of GWB   by ohplease       at Fri 14 Mar 11:12pm score of 1   in reply to comment 54     Here's the whole problem with the Iraqi invasion in a nutshell, posed unwittingly: If the invasion does not need to be immediate, then is Saddam that much of a threat? Meantime, not only has the Iraq-U.S. tension not been resolved for 12 years, but Iraq has never attacked the United States in the 12 years since Desert Storm. That's why you don't have to worry about an Iraqi-led invasion if you wait six months to a year or however long it takes to get UN approval. Simply put: Iraq's not going to do anything, if it hasn't by now. It seems obvious to me that this is your presumption. Otherwise, from the standpoint of almost every type of any time-tested foreign relations theory imaginable, your argument makes no sense whatsoever.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   75.  Is Saddam a threat?   by davidpalter       at Sat 15 Mar 7:25am score of 1   in reply to comment 72     You are simply arguing that if Iraq is not an immediate threat (as I concede) then it is also not a long-term threat. That does not necessarily follow. If we briefly review the history of the brewing conflict between the Islamic & western worlds, we see that for the first half-century or so, the animosity of the Islamic world was clearly focused on Israel. Gradually the US (because of its support for Israel, as well as other indiscretions) began to be included in this animosity (earning the covetted title of "the Great Satan"). Then, rather suddenly, the US found itself under serious attack, with major loss of life and property, on the infamous date of 9-11-01. This illustrates the fact that some dangers do have a long incubation period. And real danger does seem to be incubating in Iraq. We could, of course, just wait for Saddam to make his move (if indeed he ever does so) to avoid any unnecessary fighting. But there is a price to be paid for allowing him to strike first. We will not necessarily be successful in deflecting the blow. We don't want another 9-11, or indeed, something even worse than 9-11, which is all too possible in the modern era of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. There is absolutely nothing about either the actions (past or present) or the rhetoric of Saddam Hussein which would lead a reasonable observer to believe that he has good intentions. --dp   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

58.  And next...   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Fri 14 Mar 9:56am score of 1.5 witty     ... Lizzie Borden's father speaks out against his daughter's hatcheting. Oops, too late. The time for effective parenting would seem to be long past, I think. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

59.  i always suspect something sinister   by montana rain       at Fri 14 Mar 10:21am score of 1     I don't buy Bush Sr. turning into a peacenik. I think this opinion is a result of the embarrassment he feels over the "Sadaam tried to kill my daddy" comment that Bush Jr. made. Daddy is simply just sick and tired of his friends calling him a pussy that has his kid fight for him. If he comes out as being opposed to war with Iraq, he's hoping that people will stop thinking that the whole thing is about revenge. Or maybe he's just senile. He's getting pretty old. someone once told me that i was radical... i said, yeah, like, totally!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

62.  One question   by ThePlague       at Fri 14 Mar 10:56am score of 1     If Iraq is such a threat to the international community, why are so few of the bordering nations clamoring for invasion? It stands to reason that they would be in the most danger from an armed Iraq, yet Turkey won't let the U.S. even base there, SA has allowed use of it's bases for "defensive purposes", and Iran is pretty dead set against it. Ok, Kuwait certainly seems enthusiastic for it, but hell that could just be interpreted as honoring a debt. And I think Syria is allowing fly-overs. For being such a threat, their reaction/assistance is striking.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

78.  Watch for Bush the Elder to Disappear   by evilhenchdyke       at Sun 16 Mar 9:19am score of 1.5 nuanced     Watch for Bush the Elder to disappear, when he is quietly taken into custody as a threat to homeland security. If he thinks being related to the current president will save him, he doesn't understand either megalomania or political hysteria.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]