Beating the U.S. Increasingly a Measure of Legitimacy

-

While I never believed that the sanctions measure being prepared by the UN Security Council against Iran would have had much effect on Iran, “losing” too many of these initiatives in which the U.S. has invested in — particularly ones that mostly have symbolic significance — become benchmarks for America’s declining influence and the rise of “others.”
In this case, the rising power is Russia, which is clearly back big time in the diplomatic game.


What many Americans fail to understand, is that George W. Bush’s swaggering pugnaciousness and invasion of Iraq justified by the president with contrived and false excuses made much of the world very, very angry with us. That anger has been measured by the well known Pew Global Attitudes Project but by others as well.
While Bush scoffed at this global reaction, it has since hardened into power strategies — and global leaders know that they can achieve greater legitimacy at home now by thwarting American preferences — like in the latest UN sanctions against Iran.
American diplomacy needs to take this into account. Everything we want in the world is more expensive now — not only because of a weakened dollar — but because of our deteriorating political position and the anger that so many have at this country and our president.
But we do need to win some battles, or at least put things on hold, until there is someone in the White House who can begin turning around the tattered state of America’s foreign policy position.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

35 comments on “Beating the U.S. Increasingly a Measure of Legitimacy

  1. ... says:

    Kotzabasis quote >>But in a world that is ominously threatened by global terror and Islamofascist states such as Iran aiming to acquire nuclear weapons, it’s better to be damned for doing things–<< that was the same logic and reasoning that gave us the war in iraq… when will some folks ever learn? the world is ominously threadtened by global terror via state sponsored terrorism direct from the usa, and folks like Kotzabasis are all in favour of it continuing.. i suppose this is ‘an eye for an eye’ philosphsy executed by the blind..

    Reply

  2. MP says:

    There was a small article in today’s post 12/26 that some experts believe that Iran may run out of oil by 2015–hence their desire to build up nuclear power for domestic purposes. I don’t recall the details, but the study was produced by the US Navy or a group contracted to the Navy.

    Reply

  3. Marky says:

    Yes, fabricating the cassus for the belli and then screwing up the belli is just great for American interests.
    I’ll take enlightened realism over the Bush dynasty’s headlong plunge into the Dark Ages any day.

    Reply

  4. Kotzabasis says:

    Enlightened realists, like Clemons and many others, do not realize that America being the sole superpower is in the unenviable position of being damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t. But in a world that is ominously threatened by global terror and Islamofascist states such as Iran aiming to acquire nuclear weapons, it’s better to be damned for doing things–even if one commits mistakes as a result of the huge scale of one’s involvement and the uncertainties of war–than for doing nothing. Of course, if one does nothing (“nothing comes out of nothing”, King Lear)one will be totally exempt from committing any mistakes.

    Reply

  5. Pissed Off American says:

    The following article has it wrong. These were not “detentions”, but were in fact “kidnappings”. They were also criminal tamperings in the Iraqi government’s attempt to determine its own destiny and bring some order into the chaos and bloodshed that Bush has brought upon on the Iraqi people. What right does our government have to “detain”, (kidnap), the representatives of a government that was INVITED into Iraq to advise the Iraqis on security matters? Just because this fucking maniac Bush thinks that Iran needs to be ommitted from offering solutions to the Iraq mess doesn’t mean that the Iraqis have to share in his insane denial. Is this lying piece of crap going to hand the reins to the Iraqis or not? Apparently, suprise suprise, Bush is just handing us more horseshit every time he talks about the Iraqi government’s need to stand up and take the reins. Someone needs to clue this ignorant asshole into the FACT that his inept and criminal handling of Iraq has handed Iraq to Iran on a silver platter, and that the American people are not as gullible as he would like to believe. Either this fucker needs to tell us the truth, or he needs to shut his lying maw and let Cheney and Rove unabashedly and openly spew forth with thier insane intentions. The more I see of the actions of this criminal cabal of traitorous megalomaniacs in the White House, the more I come to believe that they are actually insane enough to attack Iran. And it is obvious these mewling cowards we just voted in do not intend to do anything about it.
    Iran summons US representative over detention of diplomats
    dpa German Press Agency
    Published: Monday December 25, 2006
    Washington/Tehran- Iran on Monday summoned the Swiss ambassador, whose country represents the United States interests in the Islamic republic, over the detention of Iranian diplomats by the US military in Iraq, ISNA news agency reported. The Foreign Ministry conveyed its protest to US officials via the Swiss ambassador and termed the move as being against all diplomatic norms.
    The US military detained at least four Iranians in Iraq on suspicion of carrying out or planning attacks against Iraqi security forces, the New York Times reported Monday.
    The White House confirmed the seizure in response to questions by the newspaper, but did not make an official announcement. Bush administration officials identified those seized as “senior military officials.”
    “The Iranian diplomats were invited by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and the Iraqi government is therefore responsible for their release and the intruders (US) should give relevant explanations in accordance with international norms,” Foreign Minister spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini said.
    “This move will have unpleasant consequences,” the spokesman said without giving further details.
    The US has long charged that Shiite-dominated Iran has been interfering in Iraq and supporting militant actions aimed at the Sunni minority that was overthrown with the 2003 ouster of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
    Another two Iranians, who were accredited diplomats, were also seized and turned over to Iraqi authorities who released them, according to Gordon D Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council.
    In reference to the remaining Iranians in custody, Johndroe said, “We continue to work with the government of Iraq on the status of the detainees.”
    The seizures occurred in two separate raids and have upset Iraqi officials who have been trying to get Iran involved in calming Iraq’s chaotic situation, the New York Times said.
    One of the raids occurred on the Baghdad compound of a man who met US President George Bush last week, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a powerful Shiite leader.
    © 2006 dpa German Press Agency

    Reply

  6. Pissed Off American says:

    So, we keep being told that Bush expects the Iraqi “government” to eventually stand up and provide thier own security. So, hey, the Iraqi leadership invites Iranian experts in to advise them on security. Whats this lyin’ piece of shit Bush do? He promptly kidnaps them, labels them as terrorists, and completely ignores the will of the so called “freely elected” government of Iraq. Meanwhile, Bush is also working to undermine the influence of Sadr, ignoring the fact that Sadr is THE dominant force in the cabinet of the “freely elected” government. So much for “democracy”, eh? It appears that “freedom of government”, In Bush’s Iraq, means “Free to do what we tell you to do”.

    Reply

  7. AlanDownunder says:

    These comments are getting very extreme and partisan. I blame it on a very extreme and partisan Presidency. Also a spectacularly and wilfully stupid one, however much some of its prime movers (who weren’t exactly short of a buck in the first place) have been personally enriched by insider information about, and investment in, war support and reconstruction.
    Karen, sane people do not want to ‘celebrate’ the Bush disaster – all they want to do is prosecute anyone responsible for calculated, deceptive, unprovoked mass murder and torture – whatever creed they demean, whatever flag, if any, they debase and whatever the appeal of their fantasies for public consumption and private self-delusion.
    To this non-American, it makes no difference whether it is Bin Laden, Milosevic, Saddam, Pinochet or Bush. The only US exceptionalism I see for Bush is not that he’s American, so he’s still a goodie by definition; it’s that his crimes are orders of magnitude greater, so his prosecution ought to be the most urgent priority.

    Reply

  8. liz says:

    “” Heck of a job, Bushie et al”

    Reply

  9. Marky says:

    No investigation of the war crimes and war fever of the last several years will be complete without a thoroughgoing investigation of the large media corporations. Their shameless, whoring propaganda for the war needs to be understood. I do not know why the NYtimes, CNN and other bastions of the right wing corporate media have been so willing to present lies and distortions of the White House, but I think the public needs to understand whether these lies have been promulgated from a direct pipeline to the White House, whether the corporate owners have insisted on the war drumbeat, or whether the anchors and reporters actually believed the swill they were serving.
    Nothing disgusted me more than the CNN war logo and music in 2002 and 2003—the triumph of this war will over reasoned reporting was extremely disturbing.
    Why I bring this up now is that in my viewing of the cable news these days, I see the “fact” that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons reported daily, without question. This highly inflammatory warmongering without a well-established basis in fact is inexcusable.
    If the public does believe that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, then Bush will likely get his war. Two years and two or three mushroom clouds later, perhaps we will have another “where were the WMD’s moment”. I’m sure the dead will be comforted.

    Reply

  10. Easy E says:

    ARE BUSH AND CHENEY PLANNING AN EARLY ATTACK ON IRAN?
    Crime of the Century
    By DAVE LINDORFF
    Back on October 9, I wrote in The Nation that it looked like the Bush-Cheney gang, worried about the November election, was gearing up for an unprovoked attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, with a carrier strike group led by the USS Eisenhower being ordered to depart a month early from Norfolk, VA to join the already-on-station USS Enterprise. That article was based on reports from angry sailors based on the Eisenhower who had leaked word of their mission.
    There was, thankfully, no attack on Iran before Election Day, but it is starting to look like I may have been right about the plan after all, but wrong about the timing.
    As the threat of a catastrophic US election-eve attack on Iran started to look increasingly likely, reports began to trickle out of the Pentagon that the generals and admirals were protesting. They knew that the US military is stretched to the limit in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that a war with Iran would be a disaster of historic proportions. To bolster their blocking efforts, the Iraq Study Group, headed by Republican fixer and former Secretary of State (under Bush Pere) James Baker, which had been slated to release its report on what to do about Iraq in January, 2007, pushed forward its report. Baker, together with co-chair Lee Hamilton, went prematurely public with the group’s conclusion that the Iraq war was a failure, and that the US should be trying to negotiate with Iran, not attack that country.
    That joint effort appeared to have blocked Bush and Cheney’s war plan, but the reprieve may have only been temporary.
    It now appears that the idea of attacking Iran is again moving forward. The Eisenhower strike force, armed with some 800 Tomahawk cruise missiles as well as a fleet of strike aircraft, and already on station in the Arabian Sea for over a month and a half, has moved into the Persian Gulf. A second carrier group, led by the USS Stennis, is steaming toward the Gulf, too. Already in position are three expeditionary strike groups and an amphibious warship, all suitable for landing Marines on Iranian beaches. On December 20, the New York Times, citing Pentagon sources, reported that both Britain and the U.S. are moving additional naval forces into the region “in a display of military resolve toward Iran that will come as the United Nations continues to debate possible sanctions against the country.” (We’ve all seen what “displays of force” by the Bush administration actually turn out to be.)
    The idea of hitting Iran may make sense from the Bush-Cheney bunker, where the only consideration is not what’s good for the country, but what’s good for Bush and Cheney. After all, if you’re losing your war in Iraq, and if you have hit bottom politically at home (Bush’s ppublic support ratings are now down in the 20s, where Nixon’s were just before his resignation, and Cheney’s numbers have been in the teens for months), and if the public is clamoring for an end to it all–and maybe for your heads, too–expanding the conflict and putting the nation on a full war footing can look like an attractive even if desperate gambit.
    From the nation’s point of view, of course, an attack on Iran would be an unmitigated disaster. There are no more troops that the U.S. could throw into battle (the Pentagon is scrambling just to find another 20,000 or so bodies that Bush wants to throw into the Iraq quagmire), so an attack would have to be basically that–an attack.
    Certainly the forces the Navy is assembling in the Persian Gulf, together with the B-52s and B-1s and B-2s available at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and at bases in other countries in the region, are capable of destroying most of Iran’s nuclear facilities, as well as its military infrastructure. But in terms of conquering territory, the most the U.S. could hope to do would be to perhaps hold a beachhead on the Straits of Hormuz, where the Persian Gulf links to the Arabian Sea. And even that would be a bloody challenge.
    There is no way the U.S. could hope to conquer Iran.
    Nor would the Iranian people rise up and overthrow their theocratic leaders–the same neoconservative fantasy that Bush war-mongers promised ahead of the Iraq invasion, and which they are re-cycling now to justify an attack on Iran. In fact, an attack on Iran, far from sparking a rebellion against the government there, would crush the new wave of reform that was evidenced in last week’s local elections in Iran, which dealt a blow to the country’s hardliners. Iran is a proud nation with a history reaching back thousands of years. If attacked, its people can be counted on to rally around their current rulers, and its war-hardened soldiers can be counted on to fight to the death to defend their country.
    Moreover, while its military may be no match for America’s, Iran has many asymmetrical options for retaliation. As the key player in Iraq, with close links to Iraq’s Shia factions, Iran’s military has trained and armed the Badr Brigades–the largest and best-armed faction in Iraq, and one which to date has stayed out of the fighting against US forces. Iran is also close to the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al Sadr, and could unleash his fanatical troops too, against US forces in Iraq. If this happens, count on American casualty rates leaping to or even surpassing Korea or Vietnam-era levels overnight.
    Additionally, Iraq’s intelligence services have connections with Shia groups in Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing countries, and can be expected to quickly organize cells to strike at economic and US military targets there.
    More seriously, of course, an attack on Iran will jack the price of oil to levels never seen before. Even if the US managed to militarily control the Straits of Hormuz, Iran’s hundreds of stockpiled anti-ship missiles, which are buried in bunkers all along the Persian Gulf, would cause insurance rates to soar so high that no tanker could afford to sail that route, effectively cutting off over one quarter of the world’s oil supply. Virtually all of the oil produced in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait and the Arab Emirates would be trapped in the ground. As well, the network of pipelines that bring oil from wellheads to refineries and to storage and pier facilities would be virtually indefensible against Iran-inspired sapper attacks.
    Oil industry analysts have talked of oil leaping in price to $200 a barrel or more in the event of a US war with Iran, and given how panicked this country got when oil reached $80 a barrel recently, there’s no need to go into detail explaining what $200/barrel oil would do to the U.S. economy–or to the global economy.
    Of course, the biggest issue is that attacking Iran would be yet another war crime by this craven administration. No one can argue that Iran poses an imminent threat to anyone, least of all to the U.S.–the only legitimate grounds under the U.N. Charter and the Nuremburg Charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory, for initiating a war. Attacking a country that poses no such threat is defined as the most heinous of war crimes: a Crime Against Peace.
    If Bush and Cheney perpetrate this crime, the Congress should initiate immediate impeachment proceedings and should simultaneously pass legislation terminating funding for the war. The important thing now is for the American people to register their opposition to this war before it happens. Call your senators and your representative and let them know you don’t want it to happen, and you want impeachment if it does. And add your name to the petition against war. Also mark down January 27 in your calendar, for the big march and rally against war and for impeachment in Washington, D.C. (to be followed by two days of lobbying Congress on Jan. 28-29.
    Finally, send this story to everyone you know, and urge them to do the same. At this point, with Democrats still cowering in their offices, only the American people can stop this madness.
    Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal.
    ******************
    Perhaps this is how Bush/Cheney have enlisted support of top commanders, including Gen. Casey, for increased combat forces causing them to flip-flop on prior positions.
    http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/23/casey-iraq-troops/
    PAY ATTENTION FOLKS BECAUSE SOMETHING SMELLS REAL BAD.

    Reply

  11. Easy E says:

    ARE BUSH AND CHENEY PLANNING AN EARLY ATTACK ON IRAN?
    Crime of the Century
    By DAVE LINDORFF
    Back on October 9, I wrote in The Nation that it looked like the Bush-Cheney gang, worried about the November election, was gearing up for an unprovoked attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, with a carrier strike group led by the USS Eisenhower being ordered to depart a month early from Norfolk, VA to join the already-on-station USS Enterprise. That article was based on reports from angry sailors based on the Eisenhower who had leaked word of their mission.
    There was, thankfully, no attack on Iran before Election Day, but it is starting to look like I may have been right about the plan after all, but wrong about the timing.
    As the threat of a catastrophic US election-eve attack on Iran started to look increasingly likely, reports began to trickle out of the Pentagon that the generals and admirals were protesting. They knew that the US military is stretched to the limit in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that a war with Iran would be a disaster of historic proportions. To bolster their blocking efforts, the Iraq Study Group, headed by Republican fixer and former Secretary of State (under Bush Pere) James Baker, which had been slated to release its report on what to do about Iraq in January, 2007, pushed forward its report. Baker, together with co-chair Lee Hamilton, went prematurely public with the group’s conclusion that the Iraq war was a failure, and that the US should be trying to negotiate with Iran, not attack that country.
    That joint effort appeared to have blocked Bush and Cheney’s war plan, but the reprieve may have only been temporary.
    It now appears that the idea of attacking Iran is again moving forward. The Eisenhower strike force, armed with some 800 Tomahawk cruise missiles as well as a fleet of strike aircraft, and already on station in the Arabian Sea for over a month and a half, has moved into the Persian Gulf. A second carrier group, led by the USS Stennis, is steaming toward the Gulf, too. Already in position are three expeditionary strike groups and an amphibious warship, all suitable for landing Marines on Iranian beaches. On December 20, the New York Times, citing Pentagon sources, reported that both Britain and the U.S. are moving additional naval forces into the region “in a display of military resolve toward Iran that will come as the United Nations continues to debate possible sanctions against the country.” (We’ve all seen what “displays of force” by the Bush administration actually turn out to be.)
    The idea of hitting Iran may make sense from the Bush-Cheney bunker, where the only consideration is not what’s good for the country, but what’s good for Bush and Cheney. After all, if you’re losing your war in Iraq, and if you have hit bottom politically at home (Bush’s ppublic support ratings are now down in the 20s, where Nixon’s were just before his resignation, and Cheney’s numbers have been in the teens for months), and if the public is clamoring for an end to it all–and maybe for your heads, too–expanding the conflict and putting the nation on a full war footing can look like an attractive even if desperate gambit.
    From the nation’s point of view, of course, an attack on Iran would be an unmitigated disaster. There are no more troops that the U.S. could throw into battle (the Pentagon is scrambling just to find another 20,000 or so bodies that Bush wants to throw into the Iraq quagmire), so an attack would have to be basically that–an attack.
    Certainly the forces the Navy is assembling in the Persian Gulf, together with the B-52s and B-1s and B-2s available at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and at bases in other countries in the region, are capable of destroying most of Iran’s nuclear facilities, as well as its military infrastructure. But in terms of conquering territory, the most the U.S. could hope to do would be to perhaps hold a beachhead on the Straits of Hormuz, where the Persian Gulf links to the Arabian Sea. And even that would be a bloody challenge.
    There is no way the U.S. could hope to conquer Iran.
    Nor would the Iranian people rise up and overthrow their theocratic leaders–the same neoconservative fantasy that Bush war-mongers promised ahead of the Iraq invasion, and which they are re-cycling now to justify an attack on Iran. In fact, an attack on Iran, far from sparking a rebellion against the government there, would crush the new wave of reform that was evidenced in last week’s local elections in Iran, which dealt a blow to the country’s hardliners. Iran is a proud nation with a history reaching back thousands of years. If attacked, its people can be counted on to rally around their current rulers, and its war-hardened soldiers can be counted on to fight to the death to defend their country.
    Moreover, while its military may be no match for America’s, Iran has many asymmetrical options for retaliation. As the key player in Iraq, with close links to Iraq’s Shia factions, Iran’s military has trained and armed the Badr Brigades–the largest and best-armed faction in Iraq, and one which to date has stayed out of the fighting against US forces. Iran is also close to the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al Sadr, and could unleash his fanatical troops too, against US forces in Iraq. If this happens, count on American casualty rates leaping to or even surpassing Korea or Vietnam-era levels overnight.
    Additionally, Iraq’s intelligence services have connections with Shia groups in Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing countries, and can be expected to quickly organize cells to strike at economic and US military targets there.
    More seriously, of course, an attack on Iran will jack the price of oil to levels never seen before. Even if the US managed to militarily control the Straits of Hormuz, Iran’s hundreds of stockpiled anti-ship missiles, which are buried in bunkers all along the Persian Gulf, would cause insurance rates to soar so high that no tanker could afford to sail that route, effectively cutting off over one quarter of the world’s oil supply. Virtually all of the oil produced in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait and the Arab Emirates would be trapped in the ground. As well, the network of pipelines that bring oil from wellheads to refineries and to storage and pier facilities would be virtually indefensible against Iran-inspired sapper attacks.
    Oil industry analysts have talked of oil leaping in price to $200 a barrel or more in the event of a US war with Iran, and given how panicked this country got when oil reached $80 a barrel recently, there’s no need to go into detail explaining what $200/barrel oil would do to the U.S. economy–or to the global economy.
    Of course, the biggest issue is that attacking Iran would be yet another war crime by this craven administration. No one can argue that Iran poses an imminent threat to anyone, least of all to the U.S.–the only legitimate grounds under the U.N. Charter and the Nuremburg Charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory, for initiating a war. Attacking a country that poses no such threat is defined as the most heinous of war crimes: a Crime Against Peace.
    If Bush and Cheney perpetrate this crime, the Congress should initiate immediate impeachment proceedings and should simultaneously pass legislation terminating funding for the war. The important thing now is for the American people to register their opposition to this war before it happens. Call your senators and your representative and let them know you don’t want it to happen, and you want impeachment if it does. And add your name to the petition against war. Also mark down January 27 in your calendar, for the big march and rally against war and for impeachment in Washington, D.C. (to be followed by two days of lobbying Congress on Jan. 28-29.
    Finally, send this story to everyone you know, and urge them to do the same. At this point, with Democrats still cowering in their offices, only the American people can stop this madness.
    Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal.
    ******************
    Perhaps this is how Bush/Cheney have enlisted support of top commanders, including Gen. Casey, for increased combat forces causing them to flip-flop on prior positions.
    http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/23/casey-iraq-troops/
    PAY ATTENTION FOLKS BECAUSE SMELLS REAL BAD.

    Reply

  12. Pissed Off American says:

    Merry Christmas to you too.
    And I would like to thank you for the simplicity of your screen name, especially your thoughtful ommission of an “I”. It would be damned difficult trying to remember whether to call you “EIT” or “IET”, particularly considering the absence of a “C”.

    Reply

  13. ET says:

    A Merry Hell for Christmas?
    Ah, that sweet talkin’ cowboy. Kinda gets ya right here (in the tutu) 😀
    Merry Christmas, POA, from ET.

    Reply

  14. Pissed Off American says:

    POA,
    that “Mark” above is not the same person as me. I hope you weren’t making that mistake.
    Posted by marky
    Naaaah. I did a google on the damned fool, and saw one link where he refers to himself as “MarkyMark”. His “thing” seems to be an obsession to spread the lie about Saddam being connected to Al Qaeda. It escapes me what motivates some of these people to spend so much time and energy selling known fallacies.

    Reply

  15. Carroll says:

    Russia is not news,I commented some time ago that Russia was replacing the US as the international voice of reason and diplomacy (to most countries)…and gathering more influence at the UN everyday.
    You men (Bush) aren’t very good judges of character…I looked into Putin’s eyes and saw a winter fox, with one eye on his prey and the other eye on his competition.
    Putin has one goal, to restore Russia’s former greatness..and he is doing a masterful job. I think I mentioned before that Russia paid off all it’s previous debt to Europe this year…all of it. Done under Putin. To me he is the smartest, most cunning and formitable world leader on the stage today.
    So let’s piss him off shall we? Brillant idea…like Bush refusing to admit Russia to the WTO. I suppose we will make the same mistake with Russia that we did after WWII…keep them as an enemy instead of making a allience. Very, very stupid.
    America gets stupider every day. Our politicans are NOT reformable.
    Burn Washington to the Ground and Start Over.

    Reply

  16. marky says:

    POA,
    that “Mark” above is not the same person as me. I hope you weren’t making that mistake.

    Reply

  17. Pissed Off American says:

    A Merry Hell for Christmas
    http://tinyurl.com/yjyd2x

    Reply

  18. Pissed Off American says:

    “People who care enough to point them out do so because they believe/expect that we can do better.”
    Actually Karen, I disagree. I have seen the comments and public statements of the incoming Democratic leadership, and I suffer from no delusions that they will pull this country out of this mess. And the fact that they have ruled out impeachment proceedings tells me that they too hold themslves above the law. I neither “expect” nor “believe” that we can “do better”. In fact, it seems that our incoming “representatives” have no intention of “doing better”.
    I expect, and believe, that we will simply be sold the same bill of goods, albiet by a different salesman.

    Reply

  19. steve duncan says:

    Watch this and tell me the whole goddamned genocidal lot of them shouldn’t be hanged. I’d erect the gallows on the White House lawn.
    http://911blogger.com/node/5219

    Reply

  20. Cloned Poster says:

    In this case, the rising power is Russia, which is clearly back big time in the diplomatic game.
    Steve, have you asleep for the last ten years or what?

    Reply

  21. karenk says:

    oops, I meant Jan 2009(wishful thinking kicked in there)

    Reply

  22. karenk says:

    Acknowledging errors in policy and attempting to have them corrected is not the same as celebrating them. This is our job as American citizens, no matter who is in power. People who care enough to point them out do so because they believe/expect that we can do better. If someone doesn’t agree with Bush Admin policies, it doesn’t mean they are anti American. This Administration is not America, and the two should not be confused. Bush is merely a temporary occupant of the White House. (He has to move in Jan 2008)

    Reply

  23. ... says:

    Mark, it helps to be sure you know who the enemies are… it is something like swearing you know where the wmds are… later after you’ve murdered a few hundred thousand, you find out you were wrong…great! get worked up about that and i would be impressed… bush representing the usa is a mass murder at present and he needs to be brought to justice for war crimes… that would do much to put a stop to all the enemies he is similtaneously creating with his illegal wars around the globe.

    Reply

  24. Pissed Off American says:

    BTW, Marky. I see you wrote a little piece entitled “Al Qaida Leaders Caught or Killed, Linked to Saddam’s Regime”. I also note that it is completely devoid of any mention of sources for your, (ahem), “information”. Perhaps at this time you would like to clear the air and enlighten us as to where this “information” came from. Do us a favor though. If it came from where I think it did, kindly leave it there, this is hardly the place to perform an enema.
    http://tinyurl.com/y8kslm
    Of course, pay no attention to the fact that that one piece, unconfirmed or unsourced, shows you as either a liar or a damned fool. Or both.

    Reply

  25. Pissed Off American says:

    Come on, Mark, I dare ya. Tell us, EXACTLY who is the “enemy” in Iraq?

    Reply

  26. Pissed Off American says:

    Would you care to expand on that thought, you blathering idiot? First, how about you tell us exactly WHERE it is that we have “liberated millions of Muslims”.
    Are you detached from reality? Have you not been following the “success” story in Afghanistan. Or perhaps you have slept through this traitorous bastard Bush’s “mission accomoplished” in Iraq? Or maybe your ignorant bullshit includes the opinion that “liberation” is the same as “death”, in which case you can make the case that we have in fact “liberated” over 600,000 innocent Iraqis.
    And don’t think for a minute that the Democratic party is innocent of complicity here, or that there is not plenty that BOTH parties need to be held accountable for. But as you spew your hypocritical venom about partisanship, at least use one of your three brain cells to grasp the fact that your constant harping about the DNC is raw partisanship in its most vulgar form. You ARE exactly what you claim to abhor.
    Dismissed.

    Reply

  27. Mark says:

    http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=123&art_id=qw1166562364967B262
    Especially when the monster described above is FINALLY getting his justice you self loathing libs continue pushing for DNC over USA. Absolutely sick. Just sick.

    Reply

  28. Mark says:


    I don’t give a damn about the Pew study. Why not HELP the U.S. repair it’s image by explaining what we stand for and the good we do (liberating millions of Muslims) instead of attacking our leaders and giving aid and comfort to our enemies?
    Why do you prefer to weaken America instead of bringing sensible, reasonable, non-shrill debate of legit ideas? You guys just wish to tear people down without offering any alternatives?
    Go outside the U.S.? I can assure you I’ve spent far more time outside the U.S. than most and the bad rap on the U.S. is because people like you find it easier and far more expedient to trash this country than to take a few minutes to try and understand AND explain our country.
    Sure, we’ve made mistakes but your constant foaming at the mouth at our leaders and attacking every little thing they do AIDS AND ABETTS our enemies. al Qaeda has been saying this all week long. They are thanking Democrats. What the hell does that say about you people? What is your response to that?

    Reply

  29. ... says:

    thomas – i guess the pew global attitudes project is partisan politics to you as well… i think you need to get outside of the usa (or your partisan position) to see how badly the usa is viewed for many of its actions brought on by the present administration..

    Reply

  30. Thomas says:

    Why do you liberals continue celebrating American setbacks?
    Did Clinton have a ton of success with Iran? Why is EVERYTHING a partisan issue to you people?
    I really like reading this blog because it’s educational and I appreciate your guys perspective but I constantly find myself being reminded that Democrats do in fact celebrate American setbacks and its freaking disgusting.

    Reply

  31. karenk says:

    American diplomacy? We still have that? I thought we did as we wanted and everyone who’s not with us is against us.
    I’m reminded of a book by Robert Fulgam, “All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten” Basically, be pleasant, have manners, clean up after yourself, etc. Its light but in essence is really a guide for Global Leadership and should be mandatory reading for Bush Cheney and company.It’s an easy read for Mr Bush too, considering he doesn’t do it too often. But I suspect they’re not really interested in American interests-just their own. Pray for Divine Intervention until 2008-we need it. Merry Christmas!!!

    Reply

  32. Dan Kervick says:

    Steve,
    Looking at the foreign relations consequences of the Bush presidency, I think there is something more important than whether people in other countries are now *angry* with us. That is only an emotional reaction. And while such emotions may play a role in influencing a government’s policies, they are not the factors that chiefly drive their long-term calculations and planning.
    A more important factor is that the deceptive, erratic and destabilizing US behavior under Bush has lead to the view that the US is more *untrustworthy* and *dangerous* than previously believed. And given that perception, it a entirely rational for other countries to conclude that checking and constraining US power has to be one important component of their statecraft.
    What this means is that, at times, other countries may oppose US initiatives that they would otherwise support, simply because they believe it is important to deliver an occasional blow to US ambitions, and roll back US power.
    Now where Russia is concerned, until Americans manage to shake off the childish, petulant attitudes on display in the Post editorial, it is going to be hard for us to respond to Russian policies in an intelligent way.
    The UN deliberations are said by the Post to have been “hijacked” by Putin. They are “holding the deliberations hostage”. Their policies are “cynical”.
    It always seems that when the US pursues its own national interests, that pursuit is described as “pragmatic”. But when other countries do it, they are being cynical.

    Reply

  33. Averageidiot says:

    With the insurgency in its last throes, and the road to democracy in Iraq paved at last, all Americans can revel in thier new-found security. The domestic and international naysayers fail to recognize all the good we have done in Iraq. For every innocent dead Iraqi, we have also killed .016 % of an actual evildoer. That adds up to a heck of a lot of evildoers if you consider we have killed over 600,000 innocent Iraqis!
    God bless George Bush, the almighty dollar, and AAA batteries.

    Reply

  34. Jon Stopa says:

    The unfortunate fact is that no matter what track Bush and Rice try they will fail at it. That is what happens when you are an Empire and can create your own reality; real-reality doesn’t care what you imagine, and it can bite. They have not given an inch in the WAY they create their phoney world. Considering what a monster was loosened into our politics by the Impeachment of Clinton, it is a terrible fact that the only real way to stop Bush and Cheney from killing more to coverup the mess they have created is to remove them office. I was hoping that would have occured in 04; no such luck. I guess there is nothing we can do except sit on our butts until 08. Assuming elections are held then. After all, they have a lot to hide. Maybe too much.
    Just think of how many people who are alive now will be dead by then. Give up. There’s nothing we can do.

    Reply

  35. JB (not John Bolton) says:

    It is a corollary of the Administration’s manufacture of its own “reality” that it ignores the most basic characteristics of human nature, one in particular: if you treat your nominal friends with disrespect those friends will look elsewhere for friendship and, if things go too far, will work actively to weaken your position.
    Newton’s 3rd Law of Physics: to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *