Bush's incomprehension of foreign viewpoints.

[C'DaleRider]

Interesting editorial view of Bush's speech........

Gray Matter
Bush's incomprehension of foreign viewpoints.
By William Saletan
Posted Thursday, March 6, 2003, at 9:18 PM PT


If you tuned in to President Bush's Thursday night press conference to understand his point of view on Iraq, you got what you came for. If you tuned in to find out whether he understood yours, tough luck. That was the deal when we traded in Bill Clinton for Bush. We got a president who understood the difference between truth and lying. We gave up one who understood everything in between. The upside is that our president is doing the right thing in Iraq. The downside is that he can't talk anyone else into going along.

Clinton was famous for seeing three sides of a two-sided issue. There was the time he agreed with the congressional majority on the Persian Gulf war but said he shared the concerns of the minority. There was the time he lamented having raised people's taxes too much. And of course, there was the time he pondered the meanings of "is."

Bush suffers no such ambivalence. Everything he knows about foreign policy, he learned in kindergarten: Love your neighbor, stand by your friends, honor your word. Thursday night, a reporter asked whether Bush held a grudge against Saddam Hussein. "I swore to protect and defend the Constitution," said Bush. "I put my hand on the Bible and took that oath. And that's exactly what I am going to do." He described the United Nations the same way: "The fundamental question facing the Security Council is, will its words mean anything?"

Bush has no trouble calling a lie a lie. While French sophisticates parse the adequacy of Iraq's latest ploy, Bush sees Saddam's game as a whole. "These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade," said Bush. As for those who preach peace, the president observed, "Allowing a dangerous dictator to defy the world and harbor weapons of mass murder and terror is not peace at all. It is pretense."

But sometimes, things aren't black and white. Sometimes they're gray. When the governments of France, China, or Mexico don't see things your way, you have to start the process of persuasion by understanding where they're coming from. That's where Clinton was at his best and Bush is at his worst. Four times at his press conference, Bush was asked why other countries weren't seeing things our way. Four times, he had no idea.

Bloomberg News reporter Dick Keil asked Bush why American allies who had seen U.S. intelligence on Iraq didn't agree that the threat was sufficient to require war. Bush replied that other countries agreed with him. Fox News reporter Jim Angle asked why "so many people around the world take a different view." Bush replied that protest was healthy but that it wouldn't change his opinion?as though the question had been about his opinion. ABC News correspondent Terry Moran asked why "so many governments and peoples around the world now not only disagree with you very strongly, but see the U.S. under your leadership as an arrogant power." Bush replied that the world would come around. Finally, Fort Worth Star-Telegram reporter Ron Hutcheson asked Bush about critics who feared war would destabilize the Middle East: "Do you ever worry, maybe in the wee, small hours, that you might be wrong, and they might be right?" Bush didn't budge. "I know we'll prevail," he said. "And out of that disarmament of Saddam will come a better world."

Again and again, Bush was asked to explain why other nations didn't see things his way. Again and again, he changed the subject to himself and his supporters.

At one point, Bush declared that Iraq's failure to disarm "cannot be denied." At another, he said of Saddam's compliance with U.N. resolutions, "It's hard to believe anybody is saying he isn't in defiance of 1441." At no point did Bush grapple with the fact that Iraq's failure to disarm is being denied and that other governments are saying Saddam isn't in defiance of 1441.

"I pray daily," Bush told the press corps. "I pray for guidance and wisdom and strength." Oh, well. Two out of three ain't bad.

Link

 

[StattlichPassat]

 

[etech]

Four times at his press conference, Bush was asked why other countries weren't seeing things our way. Four times, he had no idea.

I don't think it was because he had no idea. There are just some things about other countries that you don't express openly on nation wide television.

It might shatter foreign relations for years to say that France has oil contracts that it wants to protect.

 

[Spamela]

Originally posted by: etech

Four times at his press conference, Bush was asked why other countries weren't seeing things our way. Four times, he had no idea.

I don't think it was because he had no idea. There are just some things about other countries that you don't express openly on nation wide television.

It might shatter foreign relations for years to say that France has oil contracts that it wants to protect.

it would also be quite stupid, since if oil were what france only cared about, then it would back the usa 100%.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Spamela

Originally posted by: etech

Four times at his press conference, Bush was asked why other countries weren't seeing things our way. Four times, he had no idea.

I don't think it was because he had no idea. There are just some things about other countries that you don't express openly on nation wide television.

It might shatter foreign relations for years to say that France has oil contracts that it wants to protect.

it would also be quite stupid, since if oil were what france only cared about, then it would back the usa 100%.

Read the news sometimes.

France has been getting sweetheart deals from Iraq for their support.

 

[Spamela]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Spamela

Originally posted by: etech

Four times at his press conference, Bush was asked why other countries weren't seeing things our way. Four times, he had no idea.

I don't think it was because he had no idea. There are just some things about other countries that you don't express openly on nation wide television.

It might shatter foreign relations for years to say that France has oil contracts that it wants to protect.

it would also be quite stupid, since if oil were what france only cared about, then it would back the usa 100%.

Read the news sometimes.

France has been getting sweetheart deals from Iraq for their support.

use logic sometime. if france wanted a good deal on oil, then it would get behind the side that going to win the war and kiss up to it.

 

[etech]

Security Council Sells Out

The Politics Of Iraqi Oil

No blood for French oil

Get back to me when you have read up on the situation a little.

 

[Krk3561]

Originally posted by: Spamela

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Spamela

Originally posted by: etech

Four times at his press conference, Bush was asked why other countries weren't seeing things our way. Four times, he had no idea.

I don't think it was because he had no idea. There are just some things about other countries that you don't express openly on nation wide television.

It might shatter foreign relations for years to say that France has oil contracts that it wants to protect.

it would also be quite stupid, since if oil were what france only cared about, then it would back the usa 100%.

Read the news sometimes.

France has been getting sweetheart deals from Iraq for their support.

use logic sometime. if france wanted a good deal on oil, then it would get behind the side that going to win the war and kiss up to it.

Umm, France is already getting oil. France opposses the war because they sell lots of military hardware to Iraq. Russia and Germany are the same story.

 

[etech]

France cannot open the large oil fields that Saddam has almost given them until the sanctions are lifted.

I predict that if Saddam is not removed then France will be very actively pushing for the sanctions on Iraq to be lifted.

 

[Chadder007]

Also the French have been selling parts to Iraq for their air force...even up to January of this year.

Iraq strengthens air force with French parts
Bill Gertz

 A French company has been selling spare parts to Iraq for its fighter jets and military helicopters during the past several months, according to U.S. intelligence officials.
The unidentified company sold the parts to a trading company in the United Arab Emirates, which then shipped the parts through a third country into Iraq by truck.
     The spare parts included goods for Iraq's French-made Mirage F-1 jets and Gazelle attack helicopters.
     An intelligence official said the illegal spare-parts pipeline was discovered in the past two weeks and that sensitive intelligence about the transfers indicates that the parts were smuggled to Iraq as recently as January.
     Other intelligence reports indicate that Iraq had succeeded in acquiring French weaponry illegally for years, the official said.
     The parts appear to be included in an effort by the Iraqi military to build up materiel for its air forces before any U.S. military action, which could occur before the end of the month.
     The officials identified the purchaser of the parts as the Al Tamoor Trading Co., based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. A spokesman for the company could not be reached for comment.
     The French military parts were then sent by truck into Iraq from a neighboring country the officials declined to identify.
     Iraq has more than 50 Mirage F-1 jets and an unknown number of Gazelle attack helicopters, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
     An administration official said the French parts transfers to Iraq may be one reason France has so vehemently opposed U.S. plans for military action against Iraq. "No wonder the French are opposing us," this official said.
     The official, however, said intelligence reports of the parts sale did not indicate that the activity was sanctioned by the French government or that Paris knows about the transfers.
     The intelligence reports did not identify the French company involved in selling the aircraft parts or whether the parts were new or used.
     The Mirage F-1 was made by France's Dassault Aviation. Gazelle helicopters were made by Aerospatiale, which later became part of a consortium of European defense companies.
     The importation of military goods by Iraq is banned under U.N. Security Council resolutions passed since the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
     Nathalie Loiseau, press counselor at the French Embassy, said her government has no information about the spare-parts smuggling and has not been approached by the U.S. government about the matter.
     "We fully comply with the U.N. sanctions, and there is no sale of any kind of military material or weapons to Iraq," she said.
     A CIA spokesman had no comment.
     A senior administration official declined to discuss Iraq's purchase of French warplane and helicopter parts. "It is well known that the Iraqis use front companies to try to obtain a number of prohibited items," the official said.
     The disclosure comes amid heightened anti-French sentiment in the United States over Paris' opposition to U.S. plans for using force to disarm Iraq.
     A senior defense official said France undermined U.S. efforts to disarm Iraq last year by watering down language of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 that last fall required Iraq to disarm all its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
     France, along with Russia, Germany and China, said yesterday that they would block a joint U.S.-British U.N. resolution on the use of force against Iraq.
     French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin told reporters in Paris on Wednesday that France "will not allow a resolution to pass that authorizes resorting to force."
     "Russia and France, as permanent members of the Security Council, will assume their full responsibilities on this point," he stated.
     France has been Iraq's best friend in the West. French arms sales to Baghdad were boosted in the 1970s under Premier Jacques Chirac, the current president. Mr. Chirac once called Saddam Hussein a "personal friend."
     During the 1980s, when Paris backed Iraq in its war against Iran, France sold Mirage fighter bombers and Super Entendard aircraft to Baghdad, along with Exocet anti-ship missiles.
     French-Iraqi ties soured after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait that led to the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
     France now has an estimated $4 billion in debts owed to it by Iraq as a result of arms sales and infrastructure construction projects. The debt is another reason U.S. officials believe France is opposing military force to oust Saddam.
     Henry Sokolski, director of the private Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, said French transfers of military equipment to Iraq would have "an immediate and relevant military consequence, if this was done."
     "The United States with its allies are going to suppress the Iraqi air force and air defense very early on in any conflict, and it's regrettable that the French have let a company complicate that mission," Mr. Sokolski said.
     Secretary of State Colin L. Powell last month released intelligence information showing videotape of an Iraqi F-1 Mirage that had been modified to spray anthrax spores.
     A CIA report to Congress made public in January stated that Iraq has aggressively sought advanced conventional arms. "A thriving gray-arms market and porous borders have allowed Baghdad to acquire smaller arms and components for larger arms, such as spare parts for aircraft, air defense systems, and armored vehicles," the CIA stated.
     Iraq also has obtained some military goods through the U.N.-sponsored oil-for-food program.
     A second CIA report in October on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stated: "Iraq imports goods using planes, trains, trucks, and ships without any type of international inspections ? in violation of UN Security Council resolutions."

There is a now a probe sought after about this... http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030308-25534637.htm

 

[StageLeft]

That was a good article actually.

Anyway once bush mops the floor with Saddamn I'm fairly sure that we'll see a big healthy discovery of various things that Saddamn shouldn't have been doing, then it can be waved in front of the face of France.

 

[MrChicken]

I guess the world has gotten so used to hearing politicians say things that they do not mean that just tend to stop listening.

Bush pledged to "change the tone in washington". He has done that. He does not use the bully pulpit to beat his opponents into the ground like previous administrations did. He has his thoughts as to why our allies oppose us on Iraq, he just refuses to get down in the mud over it.

He will not criticize our allies and the protestors, he is not that type of man.

In a sense he is avoiding the question, in truth he is avoiding a conflict that does not need to be, and he is being true to his word.

IMHO, the reporters were stupid to keep pressing on something he wont answer, or trying to bait him into sensationalism. They should have been asking better questions.

"Bloomberg News reporter Dick Keil asked Bush why American allies who had seen U.S. intelligence on Iraq didn't agree that the threat was sufficient to require war"
Dont you think it would have better to ask "What are you going to do to get our allies on board?" It was foolish to have Bush speculate on the feelings of another nation, no politician is going to give you a good answer on that. The best you'll get is boilerplate drivel. The problem was that the reporters all thought that Bush is a moron and he could so easily be baited into creating international stories and conflict by stupidly blurting out that he thought our allies are stupid/greedy/corrupt and in cahoots with Saddam. It wanst going to happen and it never will.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: etech
France cannot open the large oil fields that Saddam has almost given them until the sanctions are lifted.

I predict that if Saddam is not removed then France will be very actively pushing for the sanctions on Iraq to be lifted.

Why do you think the oil for food program exists? Take a guess who wanted this program started.

The French.

 

[Jmman]

Guys, the French and Russians have been pushing to have the sanctions lifted for years now......😛

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: etech
France cannot open the large oil fields that Saddam has almost given them until the sanctions are lifted.

I predict that if Saddam is not removed then France will be very actively pushing for the sanctions on Iraq to be lifted.

Why do you think the oil for food program exists? Take a guess who wanted this program started.

The French.

I disagree Charison. I think the oil for food was really a humanitarian effort to try and mitigate the suffering of the Iraqi people. Of course it appears that Saddam took much of the money for his palaces but it was started with good intentions.

France can't open the large oil fields until the sanctions are lifted. The contracts they have will be in jepordy if Saddam is not still in power when that happens. Whether that is the main reason they are opposing his removal I can't say for certain of course.

MrChicken
Good post, your brought out some ideas that I hadn't thought of.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: MrChicken
I guess the world has gotten so used to hearing politicians say things that they do not mean that just tend to stop listening.

Bush pledged to "change the tone in washington". He has done that. He does not use the bully pulpit to beat his opponents into the ground like previous administrations did. He has his thoughts as to why our allies oppose us on Iraq, he just refuses to get down in the mud over it.

He will not criticize our allies and the protestors, he is not that type of man.

In a sense he is avoiding the question, in truth he is avoiding a conflict that does not need to be, and he is being true to his word.

IMHO, the reporters were stupid to keep pressing on something he wont answer, or trying to bait him into sensationalism. They should have been asking better questions.

"Bloomberg News reporter Dick Keil asked Bush why American allies who had seen U.S. intelligence on Iraq didn't agree that the threat was sufficient to require war"
Dont you think it would have better to ask "What are you going to do to get our allies on board?" It was foolish to have Bush speculate on the feelings of another nation, no politician is going to give you a good answer on that. The best you'll get is boilerplate drivel. The problem was that the reporters all thought that Bush is a moron and he could so easily be baited into creating international stories and conflict by stupidly blurting out that he thought our allies are stupid/greedy/corrupt and in cahoots with Saddam. It wanst going to happen and it never will.

It would be interesting to know, however. Aren't you at all curious why so much of the country's (and world's) population doesn't agree with our administration?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: MrChicken
I guess the world has gotten so used to hearing politicians say things that they do not mean that just tend to stop listening.

Bush pledged to "change the tone in washington". He has done that. He does not use the bully pulpit to beat his opponents into the ground like previous administrations did. He has his thoughts as to why our allies oppose us on Iraq, he just refuses to get down in the mud over it.

He will not criticize our allies and the protestors, he is not that type of man.

In a sense he is avoiding the question, in truth he is avoiding a conflict that does not need to be, and he is being true to his word.

IMHO, the reporters were stupid to keep pressing on something he wont answer, or trying to bait him into sensationalism. They should have been asking better questions.

"Bloomberg News reporter Dick Keil asked Bush why American allies who had seen U.S. intelligence on Iraq didn't agree that the threat was sufficient to require war"
Dont you think it would have better to ask "What are you going to do to get our allies on board?" It was foolish to have Bush speculate on the feelings of another nation, no politician is going to give you a good answer on that. The best you'll get is boilerplate drivel. The problem was that the reporters all thought that Bush is a moron and he could so easily be baited into creating international stories and conflict by stupidly blurting out that he thought our allies are stupid/greedy/corrupt and in cahoots with Saddam. It wanst going to happen and it never will.

It would be interesting to know, however. Aren't you at all curious why so much of the country's (and world's) population doesn't agree with our administration?

They have their interests, we have ours.

 

[XZeroII]

LINK

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: MrChicken
I guess the world has gotten so used to hearing politicians say things that they do not mean that just tend to stop listening.

Bush pledged to "change the tone in washington". He has done that. He does not use the bully pulpit to beat his opponents into the ground like previous administrations did. He has his thoughts as to why our allies oppose us on Iraq, he just refuses to get down in the mud over it.

He will not criticize our allies and the protestors, he is not that type of man.

In a sense he is avoiding the question, in truth he is avoiding a conflict that does not need to be, and he is being true to his word.

IMHO, the reporters were stupid to keep pressing on something he wont answer, or trying to bait him into sensationalism. They should have been asking better questions.

"Bloomberg News reporter Dick Keil asked Bush why American allies who had seen U.S. intelligence on Iraq didn't agree that the threat was sufficient to require war"
Dont you think it would have better to ask "What are you going to do to get our allies on board?" It was foolish to have Bush speculate on the feelings of another nation, no politician is going to give you a good answer on that. The best you'll get is boilerplate drivel. The problem was that the reporters all thought that Bush is a moron and he could so easily be baited into creating international stories and conflict by stupidly blurting out that he thought our allies are stupid/greedy/corrupt and in cahoots with Saddam. It wanst going to happen and it never will.

It would be interesting to know, however. Aren't you at all curious why so much of the country's (and world's) population doesn't agree with our administration?

They have their interests, we have ours.

I can see that when talking about governments. But I was mainly referring to the public. Why do you think that millions of ordinary Joe's around the world are against the war?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: MrChicken
I guess the world has gotten so used to hearing politicians say things that they do not mean that just tend to stop listening.

Bush pledged to "change the tone in washington". He has done that. He does not use the bully pulpit to beat his opponents into the ground like previous administrations did. He has his thoughts as to why our allies oppose us on Iraq, he just refuses to get down in the mud over it.

He will not criticize our allies and the protestors, he is not that type of man.

In a sense he is avoiding the question, in truth he is avoiding a conflict that does not need to be, and he is being true to his word.

IMHO, the reporters were stupid to keep pressing on something he wont answer, or trying to bait him into sensationalism. They should have been asking better questions.

"Bloomberg News reporter Dick Keil asked Bush why American allies who had seen U.S. intelligence on Iraq didn't agree that the threat was sufficient to require war"
Dont you think it would have better to ask "What are you going to do to get our allies on board?" It was foolish to have Bush speculate on the feelings of another nation, no politician is going to give you a good answer on that. The best you'll get is boilerplate drivel. The problem was that the reporters all thought that Bush is a moron and he could so easily be baited into creating international stories and conflict by stupidly blurting out that he thought our allies are stupid/greedy/corrupt and in cahoots with Saddam. It wanst going to happen and it never will.

It would be interesting to know, however. Aren't you at all curious why so much of the country's (and world's) population doesn't agree with our administration?

They have their interests, we have ours.

I can see that when talking about governments. But I was mainly referring to the public. Why do you think that millions of ordinary Joe's around the world are against the war?

Maybe because war is a horribly thing and should be avoided. This war also does not affect most of the world. Hence most of the world does not support it.

I wonder how most of the world feels about the US keeping Iraq in check the last 10 years.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: MrChicken
I guess the world has gotten so used to hearing politicians say things that they do not mean that just tend to stop listening.

Bush pledged to "change the tone in washington". He has done that. He does not use the bully pulpit to beat his opponents into the ground like previous administrations did. He has his thoughts as to why our allies oppose us on Iraq, he just refuses to get down in the mud over it.

He will not criticize our allies and the protestors, he is not that type of man.

In a sense he is avoiding the question, in truth he is avoiding a conflict that does not need to be, and he is being true to his word.

IMHO, the reporters were stupid to keep pressing on something he wont answer, or trying to bait him into sensationalism. They should have been asking better questions.

"Bloomberg News reporter Dick Keil asked Bush why American allies who had seen U.S. intelligence on Iraq didn't agree that the threat was sufficient to require war"
Dont you think it would have better to ask "What are you going to do to get our allies on board?" It was foolish to have Bush speculate on the feelings of another nation, no politician is going to give you a good answer on that. The best you'll get is boilerplate drivel. The problem was that the reporters all thought that Bush is a moron and he could so easily be baited into creating international stories and conflict by stupidly blurting out that he thought our allies are stupid/greedy/corrupt and in cahoots with Saddam. It wanst going to happen and it never will.

It would be interesting to know, however. Aren't you at all curious why so much of the country's (and world's) population doesn't agree with our administration?

They have their interests, we have ours.

I can see that when talking about governments. But I was mainly referring to the public. Why do you think that millions of ordinary Joe's around the world are against the war?

Maybe because war is a horribly thing and should be avoided. This war also does not affect most of the world. Hence most of the world does not support it.

I wonder how most of the world feels about the US keeping Iraq in check the last 10 years.

I'd like to add one more possibility...and I'm probably going to get jumped on for saying this, but my personal opinion is that the vast majority of those who oppose the war do so because they don't think a war is justified/needed/warranted (take your pick).

I'm still trying to figure out your doesn't affect me statement.

 

[etech]

Gaard

Many of the anti-war people say they are protesting the war because innocent Iraqis might be killed.

Where were they in the past when Saddam was killing innocent Iraqis? Why didn't they protest for them?

 

[Jmman]

I think the main reason is that we were the only country that had airliners full of civilians flown into buildings with huge loss of life. If it had been the Eiffel tower or the Louvre the French would be up in arms too. After those attacks the US is determined that any potential threat is nullified before it has a chance to grow. And no, I don't think that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, but I think they do pose a threat to our national security for several reasons. One, Saddam has no qualms about using terrorists as a tool. He isn't paying off the families of Palestinian suicide bombers just because he is a great humanitarian. Is it too far of a stretch to think that he would supply terrorists with WMD just to get back at the US? Secondly, if he did manage to build a nuclear bomb, he could hold the entire Middle East hostage. Think about the consequences of a madman with a nuke and 50% off the world's oil supply within striking distance.....

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: etech
Gaard

Many of the anti-war people say they are protesting the war because innocent Iraqis might be killed.

Where were they in the past when Saddam was killing innocent Iraqis? Why didn't they protest for them?

I don't know. Maybe because it didn't affect them. 😉 Seriously though, if one believes our president...that this is strictly a humanitarian effort on our part...the fact that civilians might die in the effort isn't a valid arguement, IMO. If one believes it's a humantarian effort, and nothing else, than the end results would be worth it. Again, IMO.

If, however, there are other reasons for wishing to go to war with Iraq, than the colllateral damage arguement becomes a valid one.

 

[C'DaleRider]

Originally posted by: MrChicken
I guess the world has gotten so used to hearing politicians say things that they do not mean that just tend to stop listening.

Bush pledged to "change the tone in washington". He has done that. He does not use the bully pulpit to beat his opponents into the ground like previous administrations did. He has his thoughts as to why our allies oppose us on Iraq, he just refuses to get down in the mud over it.

I suppose, in the bolded section, that you do include the Clinton and previous Bush and the Reagan administrations. Each had MANY more news conferences vs. this Bush administration.

Clinton used it 53 times to this point in his, if I heard correctly. Bush I used it 38 times and Reagan had over 60 uses of news conferences. It seems to me that something this large and far-reaching in its importance would have Bush in news conferences over and over, trying to convince everyone.....yet he had only had 3 news conferences. So why is he so insular?

Instead, we have an administration that won't engage in discussion..........just acts like a child who no one will listen to and keeps repeating the same refrain ad nauseum.