They have no serious plan for Iraq, no plan for Iran, no plan for North Korea, no plan for democracy promotion, no plan for anything.

They have power. As far as they are concerned, what else is there?

They are just waiting for everyone to settle down so they can begin the Iran War in earnest without all those pesky objections from our friends and allies.

Besides, the Democrats would be much worse, because, um, well, they're not Republicans. And gay marriage. Don't forget that.

Hey, is that a flag over there? God bless America!

What were you saying again, Kevin?

Foreign policy of the Bush White House: Deer in the headlights.

They are simply overwhelmed by the on-rush of events. They have no plans. They consider no contingencies.

This is the most incompetent bunch in power since...John Tyler, Warren G. Harding, US Grant or William G. McKinley.

Um....... North Korea is being contained and isolated. Iran is being forced to make difficult decisions about facing worldwide sanctions. Iraq continues to be a fledgling democracy. Afghanistan is going well. It is true that Bush isn't donning blue tights and flying off to fix everything at once, but that's apparently the only thing that would make you happy...

the Bush administration has "effectively given up on democracy promotion"

Wrong again Kevin. Why don't you start listening to the words of George W Bush, Commander-in-Chief of the War on Terrorism, rather than listen to the words of fellow liberal bloggers?

Link

"No question, the enemy is violent and mean. But the enemy doesn't stand for anything. They have no message of hope. They have no positive philosophy. All they can do is kill and hope that the government splits up, or that the American people lose their will. And I keep reminding the American people that the stakes are worth it. It is worth it to help Iraq succeed. It is worth it to have a democracy in the Middle East. It is worth it to show other reformers and people who want to live in a free society what is possible."

George Bush, our Lord and Savior, has done his best to free the Islamofascists. But they clearly are uncivilized and uncivilizable. So we must kill them before they kill us.

And pay Halliburton handsomly.

It really is a case of projection here. Before the war, the left constantly ranted about how the Arab world had no Enlightenment, how it was impossible to skip 600 years of history, etc., thinly veiling its theory that brown people weren't ready for democracy. Now thet we're on the cusp of an Arab democracy in the heart of the middle east, they have to accuse the right of being theones igiving up on it. Then, when it works, the left will try to take credit for it. Brilliant, but diabolical.

Kevin wrote: There's virtually no ideological coherency to their foreign policy that I can discern, and no credible followup on what little coherency is left.

There is total ideological consistency to the Bush administration's foreign policy, and its domestic policy as well. The ideology is greed. The sole and entire purpose of the Cheney / Bush cartel -- which is a criminal gang masquerading as right-wing politicians -- is to enrich and empower its already wealthy and powerful cronies and financial backers in the military-industrial-petroleum complex. And the Bush administration has consistently and coherently, and mostly successfully, pursued that purpose from January 21, 2001 until this very day.

Um....... North Korea is being contained and isolated.

What a fucking moron.

8 missiles in the last 2 days, moron.

That's isolation?

You are a total boob.

Go back to East Germany where you belong.

Things are going well in Afghanistan? In what universe, American Hawk?

Hawk nails Al!

Just listen to George, and you will get all hard like me, Hawk, and Al!

Yeah, Spread that Democracy, George!

As Craigie said, they have power. And they are enriching their friends.

Tell me again what else they really care about?

In a parliamentary system, George W. Bush would have been long gone. Tell me again what makes this system so great?

Sure there's a foreign policy. It's kill, rape, sodomize, oppress and steal from brown and black people, especially non-Christians. Same foreign (and domestic) policy we've had for the last two hundred years. Geez, it's plain to me, how could you miss it?!

Grant was great.
See http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/jul/04/ulysses_grant_our_greatest_president

How about we fight terrorism and help Iraq form a government over a long period of time? The president said it would take a LONG TIME which since we started in 2003 is only 3 years, that is not a long time unless your life span is that of a cicada.

How about looking back at the amount of time we started to form the Declaration of Independence and when our republic was actually established. Oh and don't forget our own civil war much later.

It's fun to watch the Neville Chamberlains of our modern day say we should give up.

Did you hear they found weapons of mass destructin in Iraq?

Before the war, the left constantly ranted about how the Arab world had no Enlightenment, how it was impossible to skip 600 years of history, etc., thinly veiling its theory that brown people weren't ready for democracy.

Geez, to call that a straw man would be insulting to straw.

Let's set aside the whole did-he-have-WMD debate, as that's a different issue. Before the war, "the left" was actually divided - which is why Bush went to war so easily - but most of those who were against the war believed democracy would go badly not because "brown people weren't ready for democracy," but because the Sunni, Shiites, and Kurds in Iraq have always hated each other.

What, pray tell, has happened? Sunni, Shiites, and Kurds have engaged in violence. Zarqawi may prove to have been a flash in the pan, but sectarian violence has not. The Enlightenment is not the issue; the fact that Bush didn't even know the difference between Sunni and Shiites until the January before he invaded is the problem.

Did you hear they found weapons of mass destructin in Iraq?

No because it ain't true.

TRY, JUST TRY, ONCE TO THINK It's hard, it's hard, I know, but you need to do it.

That is ALL REPUKLISCUM PROPAGANDA.

And don't forget the vigorous pursuit of bin Laden!

And the many many WMD in Iraq that were about to kill us all!!!

American Chickenhawk: It really is a case of projection here.

No, it's really a case of you lying, disinforming, misdefining, and rewriting history again and again.

weapons of mass destructin

What is mass destrictin anyway? Kind of a redneck bondage game or somthing?

Also, Orwell puts up another straw man when he says

How about we fight terrorism and help Iraq form a government over a long period of time?

Would that it were so simple. Not all of the violence in Iraq is "terrorism" per se. Sure, there was al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the capturing and beheading of civilians is definitely terrorist violence.

However, Iraq is a bit more complicated than the average troll's mind can grasp. There are also a whole lot of people who fancy themselves as Iraqi versions of George Washington, kicking out the invading foreign presence. There are Sunni or Shiites who are resorting to violence because they don't want the other group to set up a majority government.

Iraq is not as simple as Afghanistan. It's not even as simple as our own civil war. It's a mess, and one that anybody who knew the history of the region could have predicted.

What a puzzlement. We have no foreign policy?

Look at who's "in charge": The president's closest foreign-policy adviser, Miss "No One Could Have Imagined" herself. Preoccupied with looking good while doing bad. Preoccupied with appearing competent while remaining ignorant.

Rumsfeld? Busy trashing the armed forces and getting richer.

Cheney? I got your foreign policy: Them and us. Put your hands up and step away from the oil. And gimme more money.

American Chickengawk: It is true that Bush isn't donning blue tights and flying off to fix everything at once, but that's apparently the only thing that would make you happy...

Because the Right and Bush himself have held Bush up to be a superhero, capable of bringing order to the entire world through the verbal projection of strength alone, nothing less than that should suffice.

Remember, if we simply wanted John Kerry (as described by mendacious conservatives like you) with a sneering, weasley grin, we could have elected Kerry and given him some plastic surgery.

You are the ones who proclaimed Bush was the answer to the world's ills and that invading Iraq would solve all terrorist-related problems.

Deal with it.

“Bush isn't donning blue tights..””

Not since Jimmy/Jeff quit hanging out at the White House he isn’t.

Orwell: Did you hear they found weapons of mass destructin in Iraq?

Yes, I heard those lies and then promptly forgot them.

The president said it would take a LONG TIME . . .

And he sent out his subordinates to say it would take six months.

How about looking back at the amount of time we started to form the Declaration of Independence and when our republic was actually established. Oh and don't forget our own civil war much later.

How about we consider the technology and power at Iraq's service which the Founding Fathers and Lincoln didn't have?

Typical conservative misanalogizing.

I tell you what, Orwell, replace all the motor vehicles in Iraq, including military, with horses, remove phones and electricity, etc, and we'll give you the same amount of time as the Founding Fathers and Lincoln had.

What an idiot you are, as well as a liar.

American Hawk,

Afghanistan is going well.

You aren't really up-to-date on the status of the Taliban in Afghanistan, are you?

The Left didn't say much about democracy in the middle east leading up to the Iraq war because that wasn't the topic of discussion: I for one kept pointing out that everyone who was on the ground in Iraq kept saying that there was no evidence of WMDs (remember Hans Blix), and that there certainly wasn't any indication that Hussein posed an imminent threat. Turns out I was right on that, I was just some schmuck in grad school studying mathematics.

To the extent that democracy came into the discussion, I expressed skepticism that we could invade a country and install a democracy and pointed at the long histoy of U.S.-installed dictatorships (including, indirectly, Hussein himself).

And wasn't Hamid Karzaid just complaining about our lack of commitment to stabilizing Afghanistan?

For more background, see:
"The Myth of the Bush Doctrine."

White House policy: Criminal abrogation of responsiiblity. It's not that there are no plans its that the White House is unwilling eo even listen to them.

The problem with demanding so much control is that you get to be held accountable when you misuse it.

President Bush: Lame duck or simply lame.

Discuss.

American Hawk: Now thet we're on the cusp of an Arab democracy in the heart of the middle east....

You are so uninformed.

Al Dawa is a fundamentalist Shiite faction.

Al Dawa is Pro-Iranian.

CORRECTION: Now that we're on the cusp of a fundamentalist Shiite democracy which has extremely close and long standing ties to Iran, which the Decider called an `axis of evil', a country whose leader has denied the Holocaust and has vowed to wipe Isralel off the map.

Drum: Taylor wonders if this explains why Maliki's proposal has gotten so little attention in the American press.

The lack of attention that proposal is getting is vastly uni-important to the lack of attention the media is paying to the historic roots of the fundamentalist nature of the democratically elected Al Dawa party, i.e. the fundamentalist Shia faction based in Iran which has been trying to transform a secular Iraq into a fundamentalist Iraq during the 20+ years prior to the deposing of Saddam Hussein.

To those who know anything about Al Dawa, this latest move by Al Maliki is no surprise at all.

Al Maliki has been slowly revealing the blade with which he will behead the American occupation.

It is just a matter of time before the infidel US is kicked out of Iraq, a holiest of holies for Muslims.

Al Dawa, the party of PM Al Maliki, is a terrorist group with direct and long standing ties with Iran.

A `suicider' from the Al-Dawa party bombed the US embassy in Kuwait in 1983.

In 1984, four men from Al Dawa highjacked a Kuwait airbus travelling from Kuwait to Pakistan.

They held the plane for six days.

During this time, these four men from Al Dawa shot and killed two Americans: Mr Charles Hegna and Mr William Stanford.

Our plans are crystal clear:

Plan for Iraq: Keep fighting insurgents indefinitely, occasionally drop bombs, tell the American people how great things are going and hope things get better.
Plan for Iran: Bomb and hope that solves the problem.
Plan for North Korea: Hope they go away.

I didn't say we had a plan to WIN. I just said we had a plan.

“Afghanistan is going well”

June ’06 - 21 Dead
June ’05 - 24 Dead
June ’04 - 4 Dead
June ’03 - 1 Dead

Its going very well for somebody
I guess

...the Bush administration literally seems to have no foreign policy at all anymore

Not true. The foreign policy of the Bush administration is based on a single, clearly articulatable proposition: 'Yee-haw!'

Not to be harsh, but I'm pretty tired of these pronouncements from the 'Arab world'. When Bush was big on democracy promotion, we were told by the Arab world that they didn't buy it. Now that he's given up, we hear that they *did* buy it, but now they're disillusioned. Before Iraq, we heard how much the Arab world hated us. After Iraq, we find out that they didn't mind us before, but now they *really* hate us. Dunno, maybe this is just a problem with the media and pundits, they tend to spin things negatively all the time, so when things get really bad, they don't have any rhetorical rope left to express the change. But I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of (non-leftist) Americans are like me: at this point, we just tune out talk of how much we're hated.

Um....... North Korea is being contained and isolated. Iran is being forced to make difficult decisions about facing worldwide sanctions. Iraq continues to be a fledgling democracy. Afghanistan is going well. It is true that Bush isn't donning blue tights and flying off to fix everything at once, but that's apparently the only thing that would make you happy...

Make us happy? Why don't you try your brand of happiness on Neo-Con cheerleader Kristol? Whom, BTW just said that Afghanistan is getting worse.
Aren't you getting your talking "point" from your buckley fax machine anymore?

American Hawk: Now thet we're on the cusp of an Arab democracy in the heart of the middle east....

On 9/11, nearly three thousand people died ghastly deaths and hundreds of billions of dollars in damage were incurred.

Thanks to your support, George W. Bush in direct reponse to these ghastly attacks has *inadvertently* fathered a burgeoning fundamentalist democratically elected Islamic republic which has a 20+ year history of trying to violently transform a secular Iraq into a fundamentalist Iraq.

9/11 + Iraq = Bush's Fundamentalist Islamic Republic

WTF?

Traitor!!!!!

How about we fight terrorism and help Iraq form a government over a long period of time? The president said it would take a LONG TIME which since we started in 2003 is only 3 years, that is not a long time unless your life span is that of a cicada.

How about looking back at the amount of time we started to form the Declaration of Independence and when our republic was actually established. Oh and don't forget our own civil war much later.

By my calculations, that's about 89 years. So we'll be in Iraq for 89 years and then they'll have democracy? At a cost of 800 soldiers and $100 million a year? Totally worth it.

Can Democracy Stop Terrorism?
F. Gregory Gause III
From Foreign Affairs, September/October 2005

Summary: The Bush administration contends that the push for democracy in the Muslim world will improve U.S. security. But this premise is faulty: there is no evidence that democracy reduces terrorism. Indeed, a democratic Middle East would probably result in Islamist governments unwilling to cooperate with Washington.

Oops, I meant $100 BILLION a year in Iraq. With a "B." $100 million was wishful thinking.

"They have no serious plan for Iraq, no plan for Iran, no plan for North Korea, no plan for democracy promotion, no plan for anything."

They have a plan for more tax cuts for the Rich & Corporate.

So what if they've already plunged income tax revenues to 1950s levels ? Let's shoot for the 1930s !!!
.

Foreign policy of the Bush White House: Manifest Destiny.

Don't even bother responding to the trolls on this one, folks. The voting is over, and W has already lost the test of history. It's just one long mop-up operation now. It took the Cheney crowd less than two years to undo the successes of Clinton's eight in office, but it will take at least 15 to right even half of these wrongs.

The fact that neither president (and I use the term loosely in the latter place; what he presided over wasn't exactly the USA) lifted a finger to protect the environment is the time bomb we'll have the hardest time dismantling. Maybe Bruce Willis should be elected; he's good at stuff like that. Of course, we might have to send him into space, to blow up a meteorite or something Americans can relate to.

It is true that Bush isn't donning blue tights and flying off to fix everything at once

So he's even bad at being his alter-ego, The Decider!

.

The Bush administration learned a great lesson in Iraq. Only the people in a country can fight for and bring about their freedom and whatever form of governance that will suit them best. It can't be thrust upon them.

In our own fight for freedom from British rule, the French were in no hurry to jump in and did not take the commanding role that we did in Iraq.

We solved our problem in Iraq with the removal of Saddam, but we can't solve the Iraqis problems, which created Saddam.

"The Left didn't say much about democracy in the middle east leading up to the Iraq war because that wasn't the topic of discussion"

Well quibbling about the word "much" aside there was talk of the progress being made toward democracy in the middle east and how we could encourage (and stop discoraging) it by the left before Bush was elected. Iran was looking promising for a couple years there. Several middle eastern oil states (eg Bahrain) were dipping their toes into the waters of democracy. Generally it seemed that little bits of progress were being made made and that we could and should support that sort of thing around the world.

When Bush was selling his war as a cheap and easy way to promote democracy the left was very critical, but the idea that democracy is impossible in the middle east for some racial or cultural reason comes largely from the isolationist right like Pat Buchanan and those who whatever thier other political views may be are far right on all issues surrounding Israel. The left was critical of the idea that it could be cheap or easy or that war was a good way to go about encouraging democracy. Basically a trillion dollars (or half a trillion or two trillion or whatever the war ends up costing in all) could have bought a lot more democracy and/or human life saving than we are going to get out of Iraq with fewer negative side effects.

As any number of commentators from Plato to Orwell have noted, vague terms like "democracy" have little or no intrinsic meaning and can be twisted in almost any direction. E.g., East Germany was the German Democratic Republic.

So we begin with the idea that "democracy promotion" is bullshit.

This is particularly the case when the Bush administration rejects elected governments such as Hamas and Chavez.

Scott G
You have learned those lessons.
Don't credit the mentally challenged with the same.
The department of wishful thinking and selling same with messianic zeal is on full throttle.

There's virtually no ideological coherency to their foreign policy that I can discern, and no credible followup on what little coherency is left.

If they have finally come down to Planet Earth and are actually being pragmatic about American interests -- this is good news!!!

It's a good thing there were no IUDs during the American Revolution. Those that sat it out in New York and several other cities throughout may not have been "quiet" supporters of King George.

With the bungling of security since day one of the US led invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq ( 1 in 8 trucks crossing in to Syria in those first days of the war carried nuclear material) conventional weapons and explosives are readily available to the civilian population since the misguided "leadership" decided to disband the Iraqi military.

Would those in support of US independence have won against an armed insurgency?

Can one have freedom forced upon them?

I hear China is thinking of invading the US to free us from the current fascist regime under which we are all forced to live. We are being saved from “fixed” elections (I think fixed means the same thing in England) and loss of civil liberties through coercion and media ownership.

Long live China! Our saviors!

This is the most incompetent bunch in power since...John Tyler, Warren G. Harding, US Grant or William G. McKinley.

We object! Sir, in the strongest possible terms we object to this vile and contemptible libel! Bush is far, far worse than we ever were!

The Bush administration learned a great lesson in Iraq. Only the people in a country can fight for and bring about their freedom and whatever form of governance that will suit them best. It can't be thrust upon them.

Hmm. I'm not sure this guy has learned anything. I have the feeling that these people have repeated thair rhetoric so much that they actually believe it now. Either that, or it's not good for the GOP to campaign on "flip flopping". I'd like to believe it's the former. While incompetence is bad, deliberately playing politics on our security and with the lives of troops in danger is much, much worse.

BTW, nut, you do mean IEDs not IUDs, right? I think they were actually trying to increase population, not contain it at that point.

Bush didn't give a damn about democracy for Arabs except as the marketing campaign for American empire.

Before the invasion Bush gave Congress bullshit versions of CIA reports, subverting the democratic process of Congressional review. He made sure the American people were disastrously misinformed about the rationale for war

When Garner foolishly believed the democracy cover story and tried to get elections set up early, Bush yanked his ass out and sent in Bremer to stall until things could be properly rigged.

A democratic referendum in Iraq would tell us to get the hell out, and a democratic referendum among the world community of nations would overwhelmingly oppose our minority "coalition" policies. Bush claimed to champion democracy while arrogantly thumbing his nose at the majority of world opinion.

Anyone who now observes that the Bush administration is backing off its former commitment to democracy was buying into purest bullshit in the first place.

The president said it would take a LONG TIME . . .

Wait, I thought Dick Cheney said it was in its last throes? Man, I wish they could keep their lies straight....

It's a good thing there were no IUDs during the American Revolution.

Should I point out the obvious joke here? No, I won't...OK, wait, I can't resist....yes, I can...no, can't, resistance...weakening...easy joke...within reach........

I think the problem is that Bush only understands A'-rahbs and has no clue about Arabs. Just like we have North Korea's nuke-yah-lar capabilities in check, but probably not their nuclear capabilities.

Seriously, after 6+ years in office, saying "nuke-yah-lar" is no longer "cute".

“We solved our problem in Iraq with the removal of Saddam”

That’s a very parse-able statement:

We – Who’s we neo-con?
Solved – As Clousseau might say about Iraq, “the case in not solvv-edd.”
Our problem – Dubya had an Oedipal problem about Saddam, I’m not sure about the rest of us.
Removal of Saddam – Osama who?

Thinker,

Hamas and Hugo are doing just fine. The preferred policy in Israel is Sharons of 'giving' Palestine their own state totally separate from Israel. As long as Hamas is in control Israel will define the border to be where it is safest for them. Not that it matters but through all of this the UN and EU can only be further marginalized. They backed the wrong pony and no matter what happens here cannot win.

What we get to watch now is Hamas try to run a state. Moe, Larry and Curley would do much better. The answer to the question, "Are Palestinains capable of civilized behavior" is getting answered every day.

Meanwhile their ability to damage Israel diminishes every day. Israel has promised to complete the security fence before GWB leaves office. Once completed what remains of a destitute economy will be finished. The West Bank and Gaza will become even worse ghetto's than we see today.

There are two other side benefits.

Today the UN announced they are looking into charges Israel is violating civil rights in Gaza. The UN was fine with Hamas launching missles into Israel. This is actually good. It's long been impossible to take the UN seriously. But the more evidence the better. No American under the age of 50 can remember any useful thing the UN has ever done. Those under the age of 40 see a blantely anti-American instutition. With the emergence of talk-radio, the blogs and Fox this is like shooting apples in a barrel. Polls for the UN are by far the lowest they've ever been and are headed lower.

The 2nd benefit is Palestine is effectively a client state of the EU. The US under GWB will never support Hamas and you can be certain any democratic candidate in 2008 not explicitly clear on this issue has no shot at getting elected. The EU will eventually cave and start supporting Palestine. Those in the EU who see their role to counter the US will be far too poor to do so. Palestine can help them. Palestine can only drain their treasury.

Moreover, Sharon's policies have done wonders for the Israeli economy. While he was building the fence he also initiated supply-side tax cuts and the economy is booming. As Palestine and the EU lag the rest of the world Israeli is growing 3x's as fast as France.

For a guy without a brain and without a foreign policy things seem to be going well for him in Israel and not so well for terrorists.

So how come the liberals have nothing to say on this issue?

Thinker,

Chavez another of your heroes?

I love liberals. Other than a few whackjobs in New England he doesn't seem to be getting much support in America.

How cool is it this freak gives free heating oil to New Englanders, the richest region in the richest country in the world, while Venezuela has a poverty rate of 45%?

Has he declared war on Mexico yet?

But that's really just a single piece of a broader, and even more remarkable turn of events: the Bush administration literally seems to have no foreign policy at all anymore.

I must have blinked and missed it—was there a point when the Bush Administration seemed to any reasonable observer to have any substantial foreign policy besides doing whatever seemed politically expedient at the moment? Or was the "anymore" deliberately superfluous?

They have no serious plan for Iraq, no plan for Iran, no plan for North Korea, no plan for democracy promotion, no plan for anything.

When was that not the case? Sure, perhaps one might very early on have assumed that there was some serious plan if one was extremely generous and very good at rationalizing the various stories coming out of the administration, but its been clear for years now that there never was much of a plan besides "it'll all magically work out" for Iraq, for instance.

With the neocons on the outs, Condoleezza Rice at the State Department, and Dick Cheney continuing to drift into an alternate universe at the OVP, the Bush administration seems completely at sea. There's virtually no ideological coherency to their foreign policy that I can discern, and no credible followup on what little coherency is left.

When was there ever any ideological coherency, beyond "advancing the political prospects of the Republican Party" as the governing ideology?

Certainly, it seems to me more accurate to say that a wider and wider number of people are recognizing that there was never any there there.

Would those in support of US independence have won against an armed insurgency?

Um, those in support of US independence were an armed insurgency.

If they had had IED's (and no doubt they did, though not as small and versatile as the same would be now, given the quality of explosives available), they no doubt would have been using them against the foreign occupying army, just as they used every other tool at their disposal.

The bush people don't use the same dictionary the rest of the English-speaking world uses. They've proven this time and time again, and thinking they do is a big mistake. "Democracy" to them mostly means "leaders we can control."

It's especially fun for the bushistas when those controllable leaders get into power by something that looks democratic on the surface, like an election. Then they can tell the people who get screwed that it's their own fault.

Their model successes are Harper in Canada and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. They miscalculated with Putin, misfired in Somalia just now, and are in the process of misfiring in Afghanistan.

They also, as lots of people have already pointed out, can't stand real democratic processes that give them leaders they can't control. But they have no problem with undemocratic governments they *can* control (or think they can control-- when they're so often really being manipulated).

Regime change, Kevin. Regime change is the answer to your question. That's the bush foreign policy.

Certainly, it seems to me more accurate to say that a wider and wider number of people are recognizing that there was never any there there.

This is nothing more than wishful thinking consistent on the left from day one. Despite the so-called lack of a governing ideology GWB remains as much in control as ever. The opposition has either been in total support of GWB or absolutely incoherent. Think of "I voted for it before I voted against it."

Up until last month the campaign theme was going to be the culture of corruption. Harry 'ringside' Reid and Willaim 'icebox' Jefferson ended that. That theme is dead and the 'thing' they announced to replace it is also dead and they have nothing now. I think that's a specific example of a wider and wider group of people recognizing there's no there there.

Joe Biden just announced he is running for President bringing up the number of Senate Democrats running to a dozen. There is no chance the Democrats can develop anything approaching a coherent approach in this situation. Joe might be even less coherent than John Kerry.

Democrats expected to pick-up seats in 2002 and failed. Democrats expected to pick up seats and the Presidency and failed worse. This despite there never being any there, there.

It seems to me to be more accurate to say liberals are so far outside the mainstream they have no idea what normal, average Americans think.

God wrote: Summary: The Bush administration contends that the push for democracy in the Muslim world will improve U.S. security. But this premise is faulty: there is no evidence that democracy reduces terrorism. Indeed, a democratic Middle East would probably result in Islamist governments unwilling to cooperate with Washington.

So, not only has Bush given up on promoting middle eastern democracy, but he also continues to promote middle eastern democracy, except that it will boomerang.

From the libs' POV, Bush will be wrong whether middle eastern democracy succeeds or fails. The only consistency in leftist criticism of Bush is that regardless of what he does or doesn't do, he's always wrong.

"Democracy" to them mostly means "leaders we can control."

Exactly

For confirmation refer to posts by rdw about Hamas & Chavez.

Palestine, Israel, Biden, Venezuela blah blah blah

Shorter rdw: Iraq truly is a fucked up disaster, so I better try and change the subject of this thread.

Man, you can actually smell the desperation coming off of him.

For a guy without a brain and without a foreign policy things seem to be going well for him in Israel and not so well for terrorists.

Whaaaaaa??? Israel controls Israel's policies, not George Wanker Bush.

Or in your mind is he already just the grooviest the ruler of the world -- RW + GW True Love Always?

Good comment from Mr. Drum, but I think we all know that it contains one significant error:

...the Bush administration literally seems to have no foreign policy at all anymore. They have no serious plan for Iraq, no plan for Iran, no plan for North Korea, no plan for democracy promotion, no plan for anything.... the Bush administration seems completely at sea. There's virtually no ideological coherency to their foreign policy that I can discern, and no credible followup on what little coherency is left.

There is a goal, and they're attached to it with fanatical (and worried) zeal -- keeping the Republican Party in control of the Congress. The administration has too many people with too much to lose, should investigations and subpoenas start flying. Everything else is subordinate to the need to keep skins and bank accounts intact.

kevin: the Bush administration literally seems to have no foreign policy at all anymore.

and this has harmed -them- exactly...how?

policy?

what do these 3-statements have in common?

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and...use an airplane as a missile." - National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice 5/16/02

"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees..." - President GWB 9/1/05

"I don't think anybody anticipated the level of violence that we've encountered.." - VP Dick Cheney 6/19/06

"Um....... North Korea is being contained and isolated."

Ha ha ha HA HA HA ha ha ha.

American Hawk needs to change his moniker to American Parrot.

"what do these 3-statements have in common?"

I don't think anybody can come up with the correct answer.

Chavez is a freak!
Palestine is a ghetto!
Kerry is incoherent!
Biden too!

Whoa... Bush learned something?
Maybe there's hope after all!

I think it's interesting that the debate in the MSM has been framed in terns of whether or not it's a good idea to promote democracy everywhere, and not whetehr to not teh Bush administration really supports democracy for everyone. At first I thought the so-called Bush Doctrine was interesting in that it seemed to be a slap in the face to his dad and all of the other cold warriors / real politik people who favored stability over human rights. However, it quickly became obvious that Bush had no more of a desire to promote democracy than the US had during the cold war, and only the words had changed. Thatis to say, democracy/democratic governments = people want in power. Promoting democracy is good when it gets rid of a government we don't like (i.e. Lebanon) but not good when it puts someone in place whom we don't like (i.e. Venezuela). Threatening voters in Bolivia & Nicaragua, telling them there will be serious consequences if they vote for one party/candidate is not promoting democracy. I can only imagine it was out of desperation that anyone in the Middle East believed Bush was going to promote democracy there, especially when in the months after 9/11 he placed several unabashed supporters of terrorism and unrepentant enemmies of democracy (Iran-Contra retreads like Negroponte and Reich) in his administration.

Now thet we're on the cusp of an Arab democracy in the heart of the middle east, they have to accuse the right of being theones igiving up on it.
Posted by: American Hawk on July 6, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

I thought we were on the cusp 2 years ago? Must be a pretty big cusp.

By the way, I *love* how Palestinian and Iranian democracy turned out.

You can't force freedom onto people who don't want it. They'll vote for the return of tyranny. Unless you educate them somewhere other than a Petrodollar-financed Saudi-wahhabist/salafist madrassa.

Cheer up! At least the rich have gotten richer.

Man, you can actually smell the desperation coming off of him.

That's the ticket! John Kerry said he means business this time. Al Gore is back in the headlines. Joe Biden just declared. Howard Dean, as high as 3rd place finisher in one primary, at the DNC.

Of course I'm desperate! What else could I be?

what do these 3-statements have in common?

They're running the country while John Kerry dreams?

Its a commonly known precept of civics: Institutions are based on belief systems/Ideology. Belief systems are based upon shared history and shared experience.

You can't impose democratic institutions upon a society that isn't condition for it by experience.

You can't chop of a dictatorial head and expect a democratic one grow in its place.

This isn't rocket science. In the field of civics, this just basic blocking and tackling. This is just the ABCs.

You can't be an advocate for the Bush administration if you are literate in the field of civics.

Whaaaaaa??? Israel controls Israel's policies, not George Wanker Bush.

But of course! That's the beauty. Israel is doing what Ariel Sharon says. Even in a coma after a stroke Ariel controls policy. And what foreign leader of the last 3 decades is the most hated by the left?

Yes, that same Ariel Sharon.

I'd like to give credit to GWB for helping elect Ariel but that honor goes to Bill Clinton and Bill Clinton alone. GWB is the President letting Ariel be Ariel.

The absolute last thing the left wanted was Ariel defeating the terrorists, as he did, and creating separate states, as is happening. All this with NO negotiations.

There is a reason the mew PM of Israel announced a short time ago the security fence will be completed by 2009. That's because GWB won't be around to ensure Israel can be Israel.

This has GWBs fingerprints all over it. The UN has zero involvement. The EU has zero involvement. Hamas leaders are getting assassinated proving the American left has zero influence. The entire rest of the world is pissed but Israel only needs one friend and GWB is their friend.

Will this be a campaign issue in the USA? As dumb as the American left can be they aren't that stupid. That's because GWB is merely sitting back and letting Israel do their thing and the left can say nothing. The left loses the jewish vote they lose every election.

GWB is calling this shot.

rdw: "The absolute last thing the left wanted was Ariel defeating the terrorists, as he did, and creating separate states, as is happening. All this with NO negotiations."

Is that really happening? Am I missing something?

rdw exemplary of the fact that Bush admin advocacy is 90% liberal-bashing.

Rave on rdw. I'll be looking to pick up your crystal ball for 2 cents on eBay come November.

博丽维机票酒店预定网北京机票北京飞机票北京打折机票北京特价机票北京航班查询北京学生机票北京国际机票北京酒店预定航空公司

Is that really happening? Am I missing something?

Nah, don't worry. The creature known as rdw is our resident paranoid psychotic, with a strong tinge of mania and obsessive-compulsive thought, who lives in a world completely of his own imagining. His posts bear little or no relation to anything resembling the real world -- he might as well be living in Narnia for all the tether to reality he has.

It is human to fill gaps in your imagination with assumptions.

In politics, where people are ignorant, they fill those gaps with what their ideology tells them should be there.

In the case of Bush Administration, they've gone so far as to erase facts (knowledge) and fill them with ideology.

That's why the foriegn policy is such a failure. Its based upon wishes and hunches and what they want to believe. Its not based upon knowledge or facts or even informed guess.

Now they are faced with a world crumbling apart at the seems and a situation their ideology just doesn't address.

Thus there is no plan.

Also, plans cost money to formulate and execute. The treasurey is bare. To do anything would require taxing the rich, the only people with money.

But enriching the rich is what their ideology was created for in the first place.

Thus no plan. nothing. Chaos. They are hopping for a new dark age. Then they can have a new medieval feudalism. That's much closer to what they really want.

This is what happens when extremist theorist get access to power.

rdw: Why do you put the energy into posting here? I'm honestly curious.

The Bush/neocon foreign policy was to remove Saddam. They've achieved it - they've got exactly what they wanted. Why should they care about anything else now? And clearly, they don't.

Now thet we're on the cusp of an Arab democracy in the heart of the middle east....

It takes a lot more than an election to make a democracy.

The elected Iraqi government can't keep the peace, can't enforce the law and can't even move around the capitol city without considerable risk. "On the cusp" is quite an exageration.

Meanwhile, the other governments in the middle east are showing the violence of Iraq and using it as an excuse not to move toward democracy.
After all, who would want a situation like Iraq in their country.

Is the kool-aid really that good ?

No picking on U.S. Grant. He was a truly great man, with an incredibly strong sense of personal responsibility. Attacks on him and his presidency are largely the product of confederate sympathizers who controlled the historical narrative at times in the past.

No, for ineptitude beyond even Bush's, you have to look to James Buchanan. He's the gold standard of incomptetence.

rdw: Why do you put the energy into posting here? I'm honestly curious.

Because I know the people here remained baffled they keep on losing elections. Every two years they get their hopes built up knowing their candidates are obviously vastly superior only to be stunned in losing yet again.

This is my contribution to the nations general mental health. I'm hoping the libs don't get their head stuck so far up their asses they have a complete mental breakdown the next election eve.

Plus I love irony. I never tire of listening to clearly brilliant people opine on how dumb the guy is who keeps kicking their asses in elections. I never tire of listening to them demand he fire Rumsfeld. I never tire of him ignoring them and their outrage.

I'm sure you recall the Senate hearings of both Roberts and Alito. I loved watching two brilliant men use their smarts and their reasonableness to utterly destroy their critics. Even Chuck Schumer realized early on in both sets of hearings his was a lost cause and pulled back. Reading these lefty blogs reminds me of those torchings.

It also gives me confidence in the future. Only on the left could Al Gore ever be considered an intellectual

North Korea is isolated? Umm, yes, for decades now.

Iran is struggling with decisions? Umm, ditto.

Things are going well in Afghanistan? Who is reporting that? Michelle Malkin?

OMG - the ostrich syndrome.

"Joe might be even less coherent than John Kerry."

Keep clicking your heels together there, rdw, and who knows...maybe faeries will fly out of your butt and grant you your wishes.

The absolute last thing the left wanted was Ariel defeating the terrorists, as he did, and creating separate states, as is happening.

I don't know about any amorphous "left", but I've been hoping for an Israeli state secure from terrorism and the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip living in peace and security in a state answerable to their will—either an enlarged Israel in which they were equally treated, an independent democratic "Palestinian State", or, less likely, an expanded and radically democratically transformed Egypt and/or Jordan or some other state—since, well, I was even vaguely aware of the conflict in the Middle East.

If the policies begun under Sharon achieve that at the end, I'll certainly be happy with that result, even while still condemning some of the abuses that occurred along the way, just as I'm happy with the outcome of the Allied war effort in WWII, even though some particular elements (like the Japanese internment in the US) stand out as examples of places where we could have morally done better.

who lives in a world completely of his own imagining. His posts bear little or no relation to anything resembling the real world

Stefan,

Not only is Israel completing the fence but we're building one ourselves. And there's nothing the liberals can do to stop either. In fact, as angry as they are over the lack of negotiations, they are silent. With Hamas in control they can say nothing, do nothing. There won't be any negotiating.

Israel is going to finish that fence and we're going to help pay for it.

Here's something else you'll enjoy:

According to the Marietta Journal an amendment (H.AMDT.1058 (A003) ) was added to the House’s 2007 Defense Appropriations bill (H.R.5631 ) which passed back on June 20th, and is scheduled for markup in the Senate starting July 20th.

The amendment removes the restrictions from sale of our newly minted and not even fully deployed yet F/A-22 Raptor fighter aircraft to other nations

You are of course aware those planes will be headed for Israel.

In order to have an end of democracy promotion in the Arab world I suspect you first need to have a beginning of democracy promotion in the Arab world, and apart from heeding Sistani's demand for elections in Iraq (under threat of potentially being told to leave the country by the Shiite Leader Emeritus) I'm in no sense convinced there ever was a beginning of democracy promotion in the Arab world.

Still, I quibble with this:

"No longer, Hamzawy argued — America's turn away from democracy and reform had badly hurt its image and its credibility with this Arab political class...."

Who are what is meant here by "political class"? Here in the west it tends to refer to the people actually in charge, and those doing their bidding in the press. Are we really to believe the House of Saud and Egyptian state media are disappointed that America has retreated from its mostly non-existent efforts to "promote democracy" in the region?

On the other hand, I'm in no way convinced that the emergence of radical Islam, the ongoing chaos in Iraq, and the exploding young, male underclass in the Arab world is not a toxic cocktail sufficient for toppling the old order, and ushering in a new era of sectarian bloodletting in certain states if not region-wide.

I continue to maintain that with the exception of Egypt (the oldest country in the world) and perhaps a few other nation-states in the region, most of the walled fiefdoms created out of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire are geographical fictions (held together by appalling force) that never cohered around a strong set of national institutions or a national culture. Some of these states (including Iraq) have little reason to exist beyond the dispensation of oil revenues. Others have virtually no reason to exist at all.

The more natural state of the Arab world is I think a kind of postmodern version of Ottoman times, with local governance, open borders, and a centralized bureaucracy handling currency and economic policy, and regional security, with Islam as the unifying glue; it may take a generation of bloodshed to get there. Ironically, a new "caliphate" may not only be the most likely outcome of the demise of the present order, but in the best interest of western security.

"we're going to help pay for it"

You mean money is going to be transferred from Washington to finance Israel?
When the hell did this start happening?
And why weren't we told?
And American Military Equipment is being sold to Israel, and being paid for with money Washington gave Israel?

This IS news!

Next you're going to be telling me that the Israelis kicked the Palestinians off the land that now makes up the nation of Israel.

I don't know about any amorphous "left", but I've been hoping for an Israeli state secure from terrorism and the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip

I use left and liberal interchangeably to signify the far left of the post-68 Democratic Party. To be fair there are some sober liberals, but not many. My example would be Joe Leiberman and he is without question a pre-68 democrat. I believe some describe this as the Scoop Jackson wing of the party.

Joe is very liberal on most things and while strongly disagreeing I respect his positions. It's interesting that the areas where we agree are getting him drummed out of the party. I can respect serious liberals but my sense is a large majority suffer from BDS, Bush Derangement Syndrome, and they deserve only contempt.

I'm sure you wanted a secure place for Israel and Palestine. Same as everyone else. The problem was your party forced Israel to negotiate with a man who had absolutely no intent of negotiating and forced only Israel into concessions. Clintons pollyannish view of the world and his own self confidence (ego-mania) made him the perfect sap for Yasir Arafat who played him like a violin, one con-artist to another. Oslo was a disaster.

Every single liberal in the Clinton administration and those rumored to have a spot in a Gore administration hated Sharon with a passion. They hated his policy of assassination and they hated the fact he pulled out of Gaza without negotiating.

Your post seems amazingly sober but I suspect you also had Sharon in the war criminal camp and still do and you had Yasir Afarat as the peacemaker fully deserving, still, of his nobel peace prize. You are likely fine with his great wealth and probably not at all bothered Sharon is incompacited. I'd also net you were against the targeted assassinations because they only continued the cycle of violence and are a regular practioner of liberal moral equivalence which holds that an Israeli pilot shooting a missle to assassinate a terror leader is no different than a Palestinian suicide bomber standing next to an Israeli baby carriage in a pizzaria and butchering that baby and her family. Only a liberal would even consider the bomber as a victim.

Maybe I'm wrong and you are not that far left. If so I apologize. But that is where the mainstream of your party is. You would be in the minority.

BTW: I suspect the dailykos and moveon.org are moving your party further left and it's going to be a disaster. While I love the fact it makes Conservative dominance easier I'd rather have a healthy opposition. I don't think GWB is God and I do think a coherent opposition with real ideas would be a good thing. Being against everything GWB is for does not make for an opposition. It makes for easy election victories.

rdw: Only on the left could Al Gore ever be considered an intellectual.

Only self-loving, self-congratulatory, and arrogant rdw could ever consider a failure like Bush to be a success, simply because he wins elections while the country loses.

Next you're going to be telling me that the Israelis kicked the Palestinians off the land that now makes up the nation of Israel.

I thought the UN, pushed by the Brits did that. Actually wasn't it the Brits and the French deciding all of the borders there?

Joe might be even less coherent than John Kerry."

Keep clicking your heels together there, rdw, and who knows...maybe faeries will fly out of your butt and grant you your wishes.

Sheeh,

You've got to remember that great moment during the Roberts hearings when Big Joe got his 15 minutes and then talked for 15 minutes without asking a single question. You had to see it. Fox played it 25x's and still runs it periodically.

They didn't show the entire 15 minutes of course. They showed earnest Joe babbling away as impressed with himself as ever when Arlen Spector said "Your 15 minutes are up Senator Biden." And then apologizing to John Roberts for having to listen to that nonsense without getting a single question.

I'm not sure what was funnier. The sheepish look on Joe's face as he wondered if the MSM would show his performance or the sheepish look on Roberts face not wanting to join the laughter and add to Joe's humiliation but barely able to supress himself.

The thing about Joe is we have 20 years of video showing no one on this planet is more impressed with Joe Biden than Joe Biden. This would be th same Joe Biden who after the Alito hearings suggested the Senate find another way to hold the hearings so he could avoid making such as ass of himself.

Did I even mention that plagerism thing?

What a guy! What a candidate!

Repeated due to excessive amounts of truth :) :

"There is total ideological consistency to the Bush administration's foreign policy, and its domestic policy as well. The ideology is greed. The sole and entire purpose of the Cheney / Bush cartel -- which is a criminal gang masquerading as right-wing politicians -- is to enrich and empower its already wealthy and powerful cronies and financial backers in the military-industrial-petroleum complex."
--SecularAnimist

Exactly.

The Republicans have taken sides in a reactionary-conservative coalition that wants to face the coming economic and financial troubles by bleeding the lower classes dry to keep their rich friends living well. The pie that is America is no longer expanding and hasn't been for some time. The internet boom of the 90s was the last ditch attempt to turn this around and begin actually growing, but it failed.

The rich are now fighting over who gets the biggest pieces of the shrinking pie. In the end, they'll end up with less than they have now, but it will still be much, much more than the rest of us get. The Bush admin's foreign and domestic policies are all in line with this goal. Secure more oil abroad, more pork for defense, plow money into home construction (build those exurbs for votes!), make bankruptcy laws harsher, etc.

They're propping up the existing oil-based energy infrastructure (which many of them have huge stakes in), tying more peoples' livelihoods to defense jobs (and directly to our warmaking endeavors), and creating a financial situation where real wages are falling (after inflation), savings are less than nil, healthcare is getting too expensive, homes are overpriced (foreclosures up), and bankruptcy laws are harsher than ever. There's more, but all these trends favor the elite and improverish the rest of us.

They just happen to be pretty damn incompetent too, so things aren't quite working out as they wanted. But we're still heading in the direction they want us to :(.

"I do think a coherent opposition with real ideas would be a good thing."

You could look it up.

rdw: But that is where the mainstream of your party is.

You wouldn't know the mainstream if you were swimming in it and if someone identified it for you then you'd lie about where it was!

. . . a regular practioner of liberal moral equivalence which holds that an Israeli pilot shooting a missle to assassinate a terror leader is no different than a Palestinian suicide bomber standing next to an Israeli baby carriage in a pizzaria and butchering that baby and her family.

You are a regular practitioner of mendacity and a moral equivalence which holds that an Israeli that deliberately bombs innocent Palestinian civilians is no different than a heroic American soldier shooting an enemy soldier about to kill his buddy.

Every single liberal in the Clinton administration and those rumored to have a spot in a Gore administration hated Sharon with a passion.

Yet another lie.

Lieberman would not have hated Sharon, even assuming everyone else would have.

Yet again, your capacity to lie, lie, lie without shame is exposed for all the world to see.

rdw: Did I even mention that plagerism thing?

Did we ever mention the lies about WMDs, the violations of national security for partisan political reasons, and the utter incompetence of the Bush administration that led to 9/11 and the deaths of 2500+ American soldiers in Iraq?

"They hated his policy of assassination"

Now that's democracy in action

rdw: Why do you put the energy into posting here? I'm honestly curious.

Like I've said before, he's mentally ill. And just to be clear, I'm not saying that to be cruel, or dismissive, or snarky -- I seriously believe that rdw's writings exhibit a virtual drugstore's worth of pathologies. Given how obvious his detachment from reality is, it's curious to me to see how many posters try to engage him in a one-on-one conversation. You can of course rebut his points, but addressing him by name and attempting to get any sort of cogent response makes as much sense as talking to Ann Coulter, or the local lunatic on the corner (same thing, really) or about politics. His paranoid psychosis runs so deep that there is nothing, nothing you can say that will ever convince him.

If this was ten years ago, rdw would be reduced to scribbling his musings on notebook paper and sending them off, wrapped in tinfoil, to the local paper, but given the low barriers to posting here here he can do so to his heart's content. My recommendation is to step gingerly around him and avoid eye contact -- speaking to him only encourages his psychosis.

No, for ineptitude beyond even Bush's, you have to look to James Buchanan

Sorry Mr. Boil!

In fact GWB will do quite well and certainly better than Carter and Clinton. Jimmy will be ranked as the worst President of the last century with the 444 day hostage crises ranked as the most humiliating event in all of American history.

Clinton will do better than Jimmy if only because he won't be remembered. At the top of the list will be Monica, impeachment, losing his law license, the pardon sales, etc but nothing else stands out. Kosovo was nothing and Oslo was a disaster and the infatada belongs to slick willie. I was a fan of NAFTA but trade deals do not make history. I was a bigger fan of his support for stronger sentencing and prison construction but that doesn't make history either. Even welfare reform is less than memorable. Other than the salacious stuff