The Diplomacy of George W. Bush - designed for failure

[ChairmanAgnostic]

This Administration sought and actively pursued a revolution in Venezuela - and failed. Its efforts at diplomacy eventually failed when the last of US troops and agents connected with our embassy were forced to leave the country. And today, Chavez avoids small planes at all costs.

The Administration was contacted by Iran after 9/11. They offered logistics, intel, and even prisoners which included high ranking Al Qaida escaping from Afghanistan. WE turned them down.

The Administration pretended to negotiate with Saddam Hussien, all the time changing the rules, the position and making it impossible for Iraq to seek a peaceful resolution to a conflict created by Bush and his cronies.

The Administration now pretends to "negotiate with Iran" again, a conflict created by the Bush cronies, all with an eye at starting a war. There is absolutely no rhyme nor reason to our positions, our threats and our actions at the border and even within their country. Negotiation along these lines is nothing more than an exercise in domestic PR with no intention of succeeding.

It is painfully obvious when you sit back and consider the following: John Bolton is the UN rep for our country? Condi Rice is the Secretary of State? And Karen Hughes is out there 'improving' our image? Only a fool would actually believe that they were serious about any diplomatic success. Add to that the connections between AIPAC and the Administration. Congress does not involve itself in policy: Rabid Israel supporters have hijacked that from our hands. To our detriment. In fact, most of them are too rabid for Israeli politics, if Israeli papers are to be believed.

In all things foreign, our policies were doomed to failure because that was the intent.

It is curious that we did not take note of this earlier. All the signs were there. Because in all domestic affairs, the same approach was applied.
A Uniter? He created the most divided congress in history since the Civil war. A decider? Ah yes, forget about the constitution. We don't need it because the president can decide things for us.

Failure - thy name is Bush.

[shenmue]

1. He never really wanted to learn diplomacy

He looks at government as the tool to get what he wants.

[Eric J in MN]

2. I'm not sure how Bush can even be said to be pretending to

negotiate with Iran.

There are no direct negotiations.

And the US doesn't recognize Iran.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. yet condi's hand-picked pretty boy held an hour press conference

just this week, talking about how uncooperative the Iranians were in negotiations. I can only imagine how they arrived at that conclusion.

[Eric J in MN]

4. Maybe he meant negotiations with Europe.

Which of course are ineffective because the US is the country who has a big military presense in bordering Iraq.

The US is the country which needs to negotiate with Iran.

[annabanana]

5. failure for the world, and everyone in it.. except

the oil barons, and the uber-rich. For them it is a resounding success.

(nom)

[etherealtruth]

6. Sadly

His efforts in those areas have been a resounding success:puke:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. He has earned success?

[etherealtruth]

10. If the goal was to facilitate the filling of the coffers ...

...of the uber rich and multi national companies (and I believe it is) ... the policies of this fool have been extremely successful.

The ranks of that pesky middle class have declined and the ranks of a "subservient" class have increased.

I'd say his efforts to return us to a feudal system are going as planned and are a success.

Edit: I'm being disingenuous ... I believe the goals noted above are those of Cheney and the rest of the cabal ... I, in truth, believe the Chimp suffers from religious delusions/ is just plain crazy.

[applegrove]

8. Oh - they are incompetent. And apply one myth after another. The thing

is that they don't really see long bloody wars as a bad thing or a failure. As to Venezuela? I think they really wanted to oust the freak and that was a real failure on their part.

So you generalize far too much.

As to AIPAC? The people behind the neocons movement are 100% american. So Just sit with that. There are only twelve of them alltogether. Perhaps 16. Who gives a shit what their stated religion is (and it varries - though I think Xtianity is up there too). It is who they are as human beings that is the problem. And what they think of other human beings and how they treat them.

As to Israelis? Well they & their suppreme court just made torture illegal. And these are people who have been constantly at war for the last 60 years. And it was a democratic thing for people to want to stop torture and be the people & the democracy they claim to be and really live that. I would say that makes them the polar opposite of neocons. At least in my book. These people in Israel who pushed for the end of torture.. were democrats but perhaps too - religious or working from a value system that started out as religious but is about love. Walking the walks are like that. Neocons they are not. You see these people undid torture while under duress (intifada, suicide bombs, civilian murders). While the neocons do duress to get the torture on the agenda.

Though - like in any country in the world the virus has spread. I'm sure there is a well funded think tank or two - working on little studies that will back up the conclusions neocons want to reach in their big studies.

There certainly are many other ways of categorizing neocons that do not involve religion. We could look at perhaps the unplayed testosterone of certain types of power hungry men. Perhaps that is the true issue? Certain conflux of personality disorders that repeats itself over social time amongst humans. And forms and reforms once the old versions have been stamped out.

Anyway - I think I hear what you are trying to say.. did they mean to fail in Iraq so they could hang around, destabilize and then move onto the next war? Well people wonder that on the ground in Iraq. As to Venezuela? I really don't think they wanted their machinations to fail there.

So we know that neocons share different values than we do on human suffering as a means to an end. And that they fail as often or more often than their policies work (whatever works means for them). Probably because their policies disregard (or try to harness) human suffering to some end or goal. And that makes the rest of us feel revultion.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

9. AIPAC has a stranglehold over policy in many cases - that is a fact.

Just try criticizing Israel for illegal and immoral wall-building and see what happens. Just try complaining about the use of radar guided artillery and aerial bombing on palestinian buildings - hospitals, schools and government buildings, and watch the reaction. To ignore the power of AIPAC is to dig one's head in the sand and breath deeply.

As to Israel, I do not suggest that it is a coconspirator with the Bushes, except as it pertains to Iraq and Iran. In fact, most of the actions, but for its treatment of the palestinian people, are decent. They are far more civilized than America. We ignore torture laws; they pass rules against it. They even prosecute Israeli soldiers who shoot innocent Palestinian children, although they don't seem to get guilty verdicts. But most of Israel is puzzled by the neocon support of Israel. If they only knew that it has to do with rapture as much as it does, I suspect that they would react as badly as rational thinkers in the US and elsewhere do.

You are right about Venezuela, they did not want to screw up as royally as they did there - but the policy was supposed to be diplomacy, yet it really was not-so-hidden effort to overthrow a democratic leader of an independent nation. So, in that respect, we are both right. What passes for diplomacy is anything but here.

[applegrove]

11. I think some see the wall as the only logical outcome of an intifada

that turned to murdering civilians with terrorist bombers. The wall went up and the suicide bombers have slowed to a crawl. The people responsible for that are the freaks who lure unhappy kids into blowing themselves up - these are child absuers & murderers (of the Palestinian kids they bait & dress up in a vest) as well as mass murderers. However you feel about Israel's borders... you must admit Israelis have a right to protect the family walking down the street on a busy Monday afternoon. I don't think it takes an AIPAC member to say "we need to protect civilians", "the wall has gone up for a specific reason", etc. There was no wall before the terrorist acts on civilians in markets. Now there is. Cause & effect. Hold the leaders of the terrorist responsible too for that wall. They built it too.

How the wall plays out in the peace process or with borders.. I do not know. The people procurering child for war and leaving their own dam selves out dying - have gotten some land back. Some control. And hell - they even have elections.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

12. you make some very fine points. Please let me ponder before I answer them

The wall does cut both ways - that point I concede. But unlike the Fantasticks credo, good walls make happy neighbors, walls like these eventually fall because of the harm they cause.