"Mr. Bush should have just stayed home." (NYT Edit)

[kpete]

Editorial
Mr. Bush's Asian Road Trip
Published: March 7, 2006

There is a lot of good a president can do on a visit to another country: negotiate treaties that enhance American security, shore up a shaky alliance, generate good will in important parts of the world. Unfortunately, President Bush didn't do any of those good things on his just-completed visit to Pakistan and India and may have done some real harm.

.............

But sticking Mr. Musharraf with the unwelcome task of explaining to Pakistanis why his friend and ally, Mr. Bush, had granted favorable nuclear terms to Pakistan's archrival, India, while withholding them from Pakistan left him less likely to do Washington any special, and politically unpopular, favors on the terrorism front.

It's just baffling why Mr. Bush traveled halfway around the world to stand right next to one of his most important allies against terrorists — and embarrass him. India and Pakistan are military rivals that have fought each other repeatedly. They have both developed nuclear weapons outside the nonproliferation treaty, which both refuse to sign. When India exploded its first acknowledged nuclear weapons eight years ago, Pakistan felt obliged to follow suit within weeks.

So when Mr. Bush agreed to carve out an exception to global nonproliferation rules for India, it should have been obvious that Pakistani opinion would demand the same privileged treatment, and that Mr. Musharraf would be embarrassed by Mr. Bush's explicit refusal to provide it.

Mr. Bush was right to say no to Pakistan. It would be an unthinkably bad idea to grant a loophole to a country whose top nuclear scientist helped transfer nuclear technology to leading rogue states. Granting India a loophole that damages a vital treaty and lets New Delhi accelerate production of nuclear bombs makes no sense either.

Mr. Bush should have just stayed home.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/opinion/07tue1.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[AndyA]

1. You have to have tact, ethics and compassion

To handle situations with foreign countries properly. You have to know what is off limits in their culture, so you don't do something stupid like let your Secret Service dogs walk on sacred ground, which is an insult to the people of the country.

George Bush has none of these qualities, which is why he is a bad President. He's an embarrassment to America, and it will take decades to undo the damage he's caused.

[Memory Container]

11. There are no words to describe the travesty which is Bush**

This is the saddest excuse for a "President" this country has ever had. Zero dimplomatic skill, zero savoir-faire, zero appeal... (to all but the lowest common denominator)...
Just a big zero.
And that's being kind considering the negative effects he's had on America.

[newyawker99]

51. Hi Memory Container!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Memory Container]

54. Thanks!

Long time lurker, first time poster.

[acmavm]

2. Mr. bush** should just stay down on the pig farm. Permanently.

.

[EFerrari]

3. I swear Junior and the Mad Hatter are trying to start WWIII

Why do we complain when he vacations at "the ranch"? At least there, he's only a danger to a few scrub brushes.

[madokie]

10. i'm inclined to believe that is where they cook up the plans

[libhill]

47. Why shouldn't they

start World War 3? Tremendous profits to be made, and only poor whites and Minorities will have to do the fighting, anyway. Buffy and Duffy and J.B. Jr. will be at college.

[donheld]

4. This president has done more harm to international affairs

than any president than I can recall. He's made the US the laughing stock of the world, and put us in real jeopardy.

[deb98126]

37. Militarism promotes terrorism

For an experiential-based account of how U.S. military policy
is promoting terrorism, written by a former U.S. special
forces soilder go to:

http://www.thesunmagazine.org/347_Goff.pdf


As you all know, and as I have mentioned before, the result of
this was is universal human right's violations, even here in
the U.S.  To read a true account of my illegal hospitalization
and detainment by the FBI in Atlanta, Georgia go to:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/03/1806390.php

if there are any human right's attorneys out there, please
help me!

Deborah

[newyawker99]

52. Hi deb98126!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[tanyev]

5. He's the Baffler-in-Chief.

[WhizzbangMN]

12. So true...

It was one thing to disagree with Bush's choices but he's become so much more non-sensical. I know you all are saying "no shit!!!", but really, when the repuglicans start asking "what the HELL is he doing?" you just know we're all in deep shit.

[Higans]

43. Yup

[BlueStorm]

49. Mmm-hmm that little picture tells all doesn't it? n/t

[newyawker99]

53. Hi WhizzbangMN!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[acmavm]

6. By the way, notice it's MR. BUSH? That must rankle his arrogant

little soul.

[Catherine Vincent]

7. And also repuke cspan callers.

They hate it when reporters and guests call their president as Mr. Bush. I lmao everytime when I hear them whining about that.

[LibDemAlways]

8. I noticed that too. It has to be deliberate as

the NYT is very deferential and would certainly use "President" if the editors thought he deserved the respect. Hell, even murderers and lowlifes get called "Mr." by the NYT. Hey, on second thought ....

[Tesha]

9. "Mr." is just the way the Times Stylebook calls for it.

It's common to simply use "Mr.", "Miss", "Mrs.", and "Ms."
for all references after the first.

Now when they start saying "The putz", *THEN* you'll have
something to talk about.

Tesha

[librechik]

27. yeah, back before the righties demanded "Your Majesty"

as the standard.

[librechik]

28. self delete

.

[lostnfound]

13. I'm not so sure Musharaf is an ally in the war on terror

Look at the gentle treatment of both (nuclear-weapon-proliferator) A Q Khan and (the wire-transferrer) Lt Gen Mahmoud Ahmed.

[IronLionZion]

33. His people definitely are not our allies

those two got gentle treatment because they are national heroes to the people.

[tocqueville]

41. besides he won't last forever...

people like him have a tendency to end vaporized by some 500 pounds bomb on some dirtroad...

[stevietheman]

14. Now we know why we got the fake ABC Iran bomb story last night...

because the Bush regime understands that either its nuclear arms accusations against Iran were falling flat, or Bush's inexplicable trip to and concessions for India wholly undercut their nuclear complaints against Iran.

Even while pursuing sinister intentions, this is becoming the gang that can't shoot straight.

[DaveT]

15. Whenever Bush Does Another Stupid Thing,

the first question should be to consider a possible ulterior motive.

Watching the series of inexplicably ludicrous moves in Iraq -- from bulldozing Shinsecki and attacking Iraq with less than half the necessary troop strength and then failing to secure many key strategic areas at the start of this bogus war to the spectacular failure of the farcical "democracy" being imposed on Iraq to create a stable central government,leading to the current chaos that appears to be heading for a cataclysmic conclusion -- the common denominator is that America seems to be consciously trying to create perpetual war and perpetual terrorism.

We sent in just enough troops to create a failed state; we haplessly "train" Iraqi cops and soldiers to make war on other Iraqis while ancient prejudices somehow emerge to dominate events. Either we are run by the stupidest individuals ever to walk the world stage, or there is another agenda at work -- a nihilistic lust for chaos and the government contracts that chaos justifies. The religious kooks and the war profiteers in a cozy little bed, turning Armageddon into boodle.

Now that Bush has gone out of his way to spit in Pakistan's face, it makes me wonder if the idea is not simply to force Pakistan into the terrorist "camp" -- to make sure that the "war" has a nuclear threat.

The floor is open for other explanations of this bizarre move.

[realFedUp]

16. and creating enough time for building permanent bases in Iraq

and the region...take our troops off the streets
in major cities in Iraq and hide them inside the
bases, before our elections...mission accomplished.

[Duncan]

17. Well spoken.

Whether or not forcing Pakistan into the terrorist "camp" is the ulterior motive, Bush's actions certainly push that way. It is also certain that the Bush cabal is both evil and stupid. I am truly afraid of what has happened/is happening/and especially what might happen as a result of the Bushists' idiocy and fanatacism.

We need verifiable voting. I really believe we will end this nightmare, but only if election theft is prevented from recurring.

[Higans]

44. Election theft prevented from recurring.

Interesting choice of words. in order to prevent fraud from recurring wouldn't it be necessary to prove that fraud occurred in the first place? I know, I'm playing devils advocate, but it is an interesting choice of words because:

In the press shortly before and after the 04 selection the question and statements were regarding Bush's "re-election". the point I always thought worthy of making is that Bush was not elected in 2000 but rather he was appointed by the supreme court. hence it would be impossible for him to be "Re-elected". but I guess it is all watter under the bridge now right?

[Marr]

18. Just who the hell profits from this deal, anyway?

I know Bush and his cronies are willing to sell our national security whenever it profits their specific clique, but they don't typically just give the goods away. They want some payback for their political or business agenda. I don't see who profits from this arrangement besides India.

[IronLionZion]

30. mango eaters

and companies that do business with India. 1 billion people require a lot of electricity. Rural electrification would help alleviate poverty and increase their demand for US goods.

[Higans]

45. THe American People profit, we get Mangos...

[dbonds]

19. Wasn't this to get support to attack Iran?

[chelsea0011]

20. "favorable nuclear terms" It wasn't long ago that both India and

Pakistan were in the same boat as No. Korea and Iran. Neither listened when the world denounced them for going forward to become nuclear nations. And am I correct that neither of them to this day have signed on to any nuclear treaties? they are still rouge nations? So it is amusing to see Bush give favorable status to India.

[IronLionZion]

29. India is the world's largest democracy

is very stable, an important trading partner, and a US ally. Why shouldn't they have nuclear technology?

The technology Bush is trading is for energy. 1 billion people require a lot of energy. You can't get that much from big dams and windmills. And India doesn't have much coal. What else are they going to do?

[Higans]

46. Maby they should make energy from Mango juce.

[chelsea0011]

48. Who's saying they shouldn't. The Non-Proliferation Treaty doesn't

care what any country stands for. It simply doesn't want any other countries going nuclear. It makes for a very unstable situation. As in Kashmir. India nad Pakistan told the world to fuck off. We are world powers and will do as we please. Fine. But Bush wants to make No. Korea and Iran out as demons to be destroyed if necessary. And all they are doing is the same as India and Pakistan have and are now being welcomed to the world community even thought they still refuse to work out any treaty with anyone concerning nukes. You can say all you want that India is the largest democracy, the more nations with the nukes, the worse off for the world. Iran and No. Korea shouldn't have nukes anymore than Pakistan, Indai, China, the US, Israel and all the rest should have them.

[neoblues]

36. Ironic, strange, stupid, contradictory, dangerous, disturbing,...

and any number of other words can describe Bush's seemingly rash decision to extend favorable status or whatever allowing India to proceed with nuclear development. While hopefully it will prove self-destructive of Bush's political standing and ability to pursue his aims, I can't say I find it amusing. I guess I've lost my sense of humor when it comes to the vast number of seriously harmful decisions and actions perpetrated by this administration (in collusion with the republican leadership).

From what I read, you're correct that these two nations remain outside the existing anti-nuclear proliferation framework and it's setting a dangerous presedent to do anything to promote their capabilities in this area. They belong in the same boat with North Korea and IRAN (which has probably made the least effort towards nuclear weapons development, though they've clearly changed their minds and decided to catch up--I guess what happened to IRAQ has left them feeling a little vulnerable...). In any case, Bush seems to be the proverbial Bull in the china shop when it comes to international relations, especially nuclear non-proliferation.

Sure India is almost sure to become one of the worlds most powerful countries, with that much human capital it's all but a foregone conclusion and yes, of course we want to make friends with such countries--but Bush has never shown the least sort of wisdom when it comes to foreign policy... So what is he up to? Why is he suddenly showing concern for such matters? It's hardly a surprise that his efforts are bizarre, confusing or dangerous--that's just the best he can do even if he genuinely wanted to improve the situation. Putting aside the almost absurd notion that he's actually trying to do some good and applying what we generally know about him... where's the profit in doing this? Who's going to make money from this?

Or, as others have perceptively pointed out, is he just trying to ensure Republican ascendency by guaranteeing a future with a serious nuclear threat and increased terrorism and war?

In any case, it seems we had better re-double our efforts to restore balance to our government, if only to bring sufficient numbers of Democrats into Congress that the rational thinking faction has a chance to at least be heard. It even seems to me that one of our future goals should be to find a way to involve Congress in foreign policy--or at least give them greater oversight over the Executive Branch (because, as we're witnessing, all it takes is one individual lunatic (and maybe a few like-minded friends) to somehow take posession of the Presidency and the world's greatest power becomes as unstable, unpredictable and dangerous as that lone individual).

[savemefromdumbya]

21. He is a liability and an embarassment - he just makes things worse

Bush has some strange bedfellows - the dictator Musharraf for instance!

[RazzleDazzle]

22. How long will it take before people start to realize it's all INTENTIONAL

This level of APPARENTLY stupid and inept action -- and not just by Bush but by everyone who works for him -- goes well beyond what can possibly be explained by ACTUAL stupidity and ineptness. Really.

Step back and rememb er what thugs they are, how they love to throw their weight around, show who's boss, embarrass people if those people haven't toed the line or if they somehow deserve contempt by being weak to start with.

Step back and think of their grand geopolitical plans, not to mention all the arms dealers and other war profiteers who benefit from the very types of global conflicts that such APPARENTLY stupid and inept actions promote.

Think of how much easier it is to exploit nations whose populations are in conflict and turmoil.

It's really just like the voting machine problems that cropped up in the 2004 election: not a damn one of the errors, glitches and problems favored John Kerry. ALL of them favored George Bush, which is statistically impossible unless there was vote-rigging built into the machines and its software.

Same here. If this were mere ineptness, sometimes it would work in the direction of AIDING and helping the nation(s) involved (and sometimes at our expense) instead of spreading turmoil and unrest and embarrassment and so forth and so on.

[Higans]

23. We really wanted thouse Mangos

So when Mr. Bush agreed to carve out an exception to global nonproliferation rules for India, it should have been obvious that Pakistani opinion would demand the same privileged treatment, and that Mr. Musharraf would be embarrassed by Mr. Bush's explicit refusal to provide it.

(snip)

We really wanted thouse Mangos.

[IronLionZion]

31. Mangos are very delicious

and Pakistan has a proven history of proliferation to other muslim states as well as a history of unstable reactionary extremism.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

24. Bush

:eyes:

[Crankie Avalon]

25. Showing favoritism to a non-Muslim nation over its Muslim rival...

...doesn't help dispel the perception of America waging a war on Islam, does it?

[IronLionZion]

32. Pakistan has an unstable and violent history

that includes sponsoring terrorism and selling nuclear weapons technology to middle eastern nations.

[Crankie Avalon]

34. There's always an excuse...

...but what many muslims will perceive is that, once again, America seems to side more with one group than the other in situations involving muslims and non-muslims.

[Brotherjohn]

26. Bush gave them "an exception"? Then shouldn't he bomb himself...

...before invading Iran?

Seriously, WhoTF does he think he is, arbitrarily setting his own "exceptions" to global nonproliferation rules? Isn't he pushing for stronger action against Iran (read "invasion, conquest and occupation") because they're making their own arbitrary "exceptions" to global nonproliferation rules?

[pacalo]

35. Purpose of trip: To stir up unrest between the M.E. countries...

I heard a Washington Journal caller say this & it makes sense, considering the WH's neocon mindset.

[Up2Late]

38. Yep, Joseph Cirincione at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

...said much the same thing on NPR yesterday. You can hear the segment at this link:

<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5247773>

Examining the U.S.-India Nuclear Deal

Listen to this story...

Talk of the Nation, March 6, 2006 · A new agreement gives India access to U.S. nuclear power technology and opens up India's civilian power plants to international inspectors. But first, the deal must pass Congress. Our guests discuss questions about India's nuclear weapons arsenal and the future of non-proliferation.

Guests:

Joseph Cirincione, senior associate and director for Non-Proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Ambassador Raminder Singh Jassal, charge d'affaires of the Indian Embassy

Rep. Joseph Crowley, Democrat from New York

Rep. Ed Markey, Democrat from Massachusetts; ranking Democrat on the House Energy Committee

[father_of_hope]

39. too DAMN late

After enabling this cancer's 3 election thefts by not exposing Florida and Ohio etc etc the way an honest news organization would, and after enabling this cancer's illegal war by publishing fake WMD stories, this corrupt newspaper tries to redeem itself. Hundreds of thousands of Americans and Iraqis are now dead, murdered by Bush.

TOO DAMN LATE! Shove this rag up your asses you corporate whores!

[eppur_se_muova]

40. "Yes Prime Minister" used to be a comedy, now seems like prophecy.

For those of you who haven't seen this Britcom, a particularly relevant remark was something along the lines of "every time a prime minister goes on a state visit, it sets the Foreign Office back by years". It's a very funny show, but a lot of the politics, even presented satirically, is quite serious. In this case, the message is that diplomacy should be left to experienced professional diplomats, not to publicity-seeking politicians with no accomplishments more substantial than feel-good speechifying.

Mangoes? Why didn't he hold out for jackfruit? Them suckers is BIG.

[tocqueville]

42. I loved that show

there was even a "Rove" character (Nigel Hawkins ?)...

[cain_7777]

50. Bush should never stay home!

Exile bush, better yet drop him off in another country like an unwanted dog; he's so stupid he'll never be able to find his way back.