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


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g9fom3hfalt2lukefubaivvbpbqtqmltmv@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:34:39 -0600, "John Galt"
<whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"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


<snip>


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.



You looked like you were getting pretty hyperbolic yourself
to me there, but never mind. I haven't been as involved in
this thread as yourself and George Z., so I'm likely not fully
appreciating the undercurrents.


<snip>



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.



"Hate" is a very strong word. I don't "hate" Reagan or
Thatcher, but I don't think they were particularly good for
the human race. I'd be more comfortable saying I "hate"
what they did, though they arguably had noble intent.

A much more balanced view, IMO. Thanks.

Parties have disappeared before. I don't expect the
current Republican party to disappear anytime soon, but
it might and I personally wouldn't shed any tears.


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.

OK. I wouldn't see that as a "serious action" myself, but
as I noted above, I'm probably not appreciating the
undercurrents. Maybe I'm butting in, as I so often do, without
apprising myself adequately of the ongoing dynamics.

YOU, *** IN, Rump?

NO, not YOU..... :-)

(heheheheh)







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.


Well, there's more than a subjective difference to those
words themselves. It might be subjective which applies to
a given situation.

Quite so.

JG


.