Re: George H.W. Bush will help President Hillary


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mp4om3d6t7f1vtquppmer9vub6r8788ns6@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 06:47:07 -0600, "John Galt"
<whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9b1nm3lshvdlga5v023rbkg9trcgsqs28p@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:15:29 -0600, "John Galt"
<whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"George Z. Bush" <georgezbush@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:W4Gaj.5481$Tt5.4329@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
John Galt wrote:
"George Z. Bush" <georgezbush@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:tFzaj.38$3F.30@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(Snip)

Snicker.


You just might be a tad early snickering.

Or possibly not.

Let's wait and see what happens if a newly installed president
gets
on
the
phone to George HWB and asks him to do some international fence
mending
for the nation with Bill Clinton.

What sort of "fence-mending"? To me, this is a massive straw man,
this
"we
need to mend international alliances." Which ones?

Who said "alliances"? Not me. You have trouble understanding the
English
I used?

OK, reputation. Next?


Now if you're talking about relations with other nations in the
world
that
have gone down the tube and which need mending, the list is huge.


Who? Please be specific as to who we need to mend "relations" with,
why
we
need to do that, what you think needs to be done, and why we need to
deploy
former Presidents to do that.

You can't be that obtuse....the list is legion.

I was rather sure you wouldn't have an answer.


Well, the US has to mend relations with Britain, for starters,

I'll ask you the same question that GZB dodged: WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? If we
were attacked by Russia, to toss out an extreme example, would Britain
look
over and say "tough *** -- we're still pissed at you about Iraq"?



If we were attacked by nuclear bombs from Albania, I suppose
Russia would rush to our defense too, what does that mean?
Calm down.

I'm perfectly calm. The point is to insert some reason into these sorts of
hyperbolic statements.



I hardly
think so. Look, I am not arguing that international opinion is less
favorable towards the US than prior to Iraq.



OK, that's all anybody was saying, not that the whole
world was now enemies of the US, just that the trust that
was there before is diminished now.


What I am asking is what can
tangibly be done about that, particularly by this "special ambassador"
notion, other than to get rid of the irritant (GWB) which will happen on
schedule anyway.

A Post article on the topic which reminds us that Brown is a VERY big
pro-US
fellow, and why, and that the irritant is GWB:


As soon as GWB is gone, or better as soon as the Republicans
are out of the White House, because GWB is just a continuation
of Reagan and Bush the first, I expect international opinion will
start to improve.

The matter doesn't expand to the party. You hate Reagan, (and I'm sure,
Thatcher), but the world doesn't. Even if the Dems win the White House in
this cycle, there will be another Republican president, in four or eight
years, since each party inevitably overreaches when in power, and popular
opinion swings to the other. Disgust with Bush still has not reached the
same level of disgust with Nixon (who had about half the base as GWB
currently does after charges were levied) and the Dems only lasted four
years.

That's the way of democracy.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002584.html

And if this BBC article, with which I agree, indicates any serious action
which a special ambassador could take, I can't see it:

Who was talking about "serious action"? Britain and
others have pulled their troops out of Iraq. They haven't
attacked the US.

This thread started with the defense of the notion that there are some sort
of anti-US issues out there that a special ambassador (the idea floated by
the Clintons, but immediately rebuffed by Bush Sr.) team could fix. That's
"serious action." All I did was ask the original poster to specifically
state what the problems were and what such a team would do to fix them.
This, not surprisingly, was answered angrily with the appeal-to-consensus
argumentum ad hominem. Enough said.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6920877.stm

These quotations hardly sound like somebody who's got a fence mending
issue:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7091454.stm


If nobody can say "Here's what Bill Clinton can do about it"
*specifically*,
then I believe I am justified in my opinion that this is a straw man issue
raised by Hillary for her own purposes, and particularly to call attention
away from her meteoric drop in the polls. (Although, I do grant the
possiblility that Bill might just be looking for a job, particularly one
where he gets to travel a lot and pick up chicks.)

and Britain is naturally among the closest allies the US has.
The previous British government remained with the US
governments's position in Iraq, but the people were souring
on it (as they are in the US) even as the government tried
to stay firm. Now there's a new government, and it's a bit
more reflective of the attitudes of the people. The same
is true of Australia. Also to a lesser extent I suppose with
Canada, though Canada tries to be more diplomatic
because we live in the same house.

All fair statements. MY point was simply that from the standpoint of
actual
alliances, we're not in any sort of declining position. What you seem to
be
referring to is this more nebulous "man on the street" sort of feeling,
and
again, I believe that to be wrapped up, in my experience, with GWB and
policy.


If you equated "declining" with "catastrophic", that would be true.

Subjective opinion.



All I'm looking for is a tangible suggestion as to what can be done that
will be better than simply changing presidents.


I think changing presidents, even changing parties, is
almost essential now before the world will start to think
the USA is starting to come back to its senses.

At least one will happen, perhaps both. Already hard-wired.

JG




There is a lot of mending needed. The USA is not
trusted as it once was, or regarded as a mostly
unblemished force for "good" as it once was.

No, it'ts not. But again, regaining that position is not done by words
spoken by special ambassadors. It's done by deeds.


It's done by changing the mindset, by changing the
ruling party.




Islander posted a link to a Forbes article about
declining trust in the U.S. Forbes is not a radical
leftist rag.

Not at all. Again, the QUESTION is about actions.



Only if you're waiting for Britain to attack the US.




.

Quantcast