A Fetish of Candor [Archive]

budanski

12-12-2003, 11:46 PM

A Fetish of Candor

New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/13/opinion/13BROO.html?pagewanted=print&position=)
I think we are all disgusted by the way George W. Bush's administration has allowed honesty and candor to seep into the genteel world of international affairs.

Until the Bush team came to power, foreign relations were conducted with a certain gentlemanly decorum. The first Bush administration urged regime change in Iraq, without sullying itself with the Iraqi peasants actually trying to do it. The Clinton administration pretended to fight terrorism without committing the sin of unilateralism by trying very hard.

The United Nations passed resolution after resolution condemning the government of Iraq, without committing the faux pas of actually enforcing them. The leaders of France and Germany announced their abhorrence of Saddam's regime, and expressed this abhorrence by doing as much business with Saddam as possible.

Then came George W. Bush, the cowboy out of the West, and all good manners were discarded. The first sign of trouble came when the Bush administration declared its opposition to the Kyoto treaty. Up until that time, all decent governments had remained platonically in love with the treaty. They praised it, but gave no thought to actually enacting it.

Bush said he would scuttle it and did.

Then Bush scandalized the world by announcing his desire to enforce the U.N.'s resolutions on Iraq. And he gave a speech announcing his doctrine of pre-emptive war. Instead of merely taking out Saddam while pretending to abide by the inherited rules of conduct, he actually announced what he was going to do before doing it. This was honesty taken to a reckless extreme.

Now his administration has taken to honesty like a drunken sailor. It has made a fetish of candor and forthrightness. Things are wildly out of control.

The U.S. administration is confronted with three nations that have stabbed it in the back with alacrity. The German leader vowed not to run a re-election campaign based on anti-Americanism, then turned around and did just that. The French government has done all it could to ensure that the U.S. effort to transform Iraq would fail. Russia was also willing to let the Iraqis rot in their slave state.

The U.S. now has roughly $18 billion to spend on the effort to rebuild Iraq, and it must figure out whether to allow companies from these countries to profit from the effort.

The wise course is obvious. You loudly announce that all is forgiven, that, of course, the companies from the wayward nations will be allowed to bid for contracts. And then behind the scenes you stiff them cold.

This policy is hypocritical, so it is probably the right policy to enact. It acknowledges that the United States has important business to do with powers like Germany, Russia and France, and cannot afford continued bad relations. It acknowledges that good-hearted people in the United States and abroad do not want to see the U.S. acting like a bully. But it recognizes that people who undermine U.S. policy must pay a price.

But the Bush administration, drunk on truth serum, has done the exact opposite. It has declared in public that countries that did not help overthrow Saddam do not get to benefit from the aftermath. But then in private White House officials seem to be offering every assurance to the offended nations. Moreover the U.S. is still allowing the offending nations to bid on the subcontracts, where there is much money to be made.

This is a policy based on candor, and therefore it is a mess.

If the U.S. is going to right its foreign policy, it is going to have to rein in President Bush's tendency to be straightforward. It is going to have to acknowledge that honesty is a good thing when it comes to international affairs — in theory.

The administration's fundamental problem is that it is not very good at dealing with people it can't stand. The men and women in this White House are exceptionally forthright. When they come across someone they regard as insufferable, their instinct is to be blunt. They seek to be honest rather than insincere, to not sugar things up but to let these people know how they really feel.

Sometimes you've got to be slippery to accomplish real good. The Bush administration is thus facing an insincerity crisis. It has become addicted to candor and forthrightness. It needs an immediate back-stabbing infusion.

Perhaps Al Gore could be brought in to offer advice.**

rofl
The fact that this piece came from the New York Times is quite surprising.

Durandal

12-13-2003, 03:26 AM

rofl

Wait a second, are they telling us Bush should be a lying and deceitful bastard? Why don't they say: "Bush should be more like Clinton?

rofl

mocking_loudly_died

12-13-2003, 04:51 AM

All politicians are raging deceitful c*nts.

Left or right they are all on the take.

The Walrus

12-13-2003, 07:34 AM

Durandal

12-13-2003, 09:40 AM

Wait a second, are they telling us Bush should be a lying and deceitful bastard? Why don't they say: "Bush should be more like Clinton?

Lying about a blowjob makes Clinton a 'lying and decietful bastard' while lying to take the most powerful nation on earth to war makes Bush the best president since Lincoln, ironic...

No, lying about a blow job makes Clinton a PURGEROR. I was talking about all the stuff he did BEFORE and AFTER that little event.

:roll:

I am with Mocking_Loudly on this was, I was just being silly.

Most politicians are money and pwer hungry fools ready to lie to the people they love...

The Walrus

12-13-2003, 04:32 PM

California Joe

12-13-2003, 04:37 PM

He was a multitasking bastard. I'll give him that. Getting a hummer while banging a chick with a cigar and talking to Yassir is way cool.

Ratamacue

12-13-2003, 04:52 PM

Clinton never had the balls to go through with or finish anything on the international front. That's what gives him a bad rep on the right wing.

James

12-13-2003, 05:01 PM

I find it interesting that when someone starts saying unkind things about GWB, the conversation quickly evolves to involve Clinton and all the evil that he encompasses.

Ratamacue

12-13-2003, 05:07 PM

Well, actually, Walrus was the one that brought up Clinton.

Durandal

12-13-2003, 05:09 PM

I know, it's just that I don't get why Clinton has such a bad reputation among the right wing, I mean he was a good president both domestically and as a statesman (remember when most of the world actually liked America), his demeanor and media savvy are quite reminiscent of JFK IMO...

I am not right wing and I hated the guy (and voted for him).

This man and several Democrat Senators actually caused me to rethink my political ideology. Clinton is evil dude. He thinks he is above the law. As a lawyer AND President of the US he perjured himself not once BUT TWICE (during the Paula Brown suit he said he NEVER had extramarital affairs and yet he was boning Monica at the same time. He treated women like **** and yet NOW shrugs and says who cares when they screech bloody murder with the CEO of IBM...come on. He allowed Sadam to push the UN (the UN ain't going to push back after-all) out of Iraq (a far more important issue than the war he participated in) during his little fiasco in Serbia during which the same very people that criticize Bush did NOT do the same with him...

Bin Laden could have been almost at any time during the eight years he was in office. He helped bring the CIA and general intelligence fathering lower and lower. There is strong evidence that he committed criminal acts prior to his presidency. Unlike Presidents of the past he bitches and bitches even though, for some reason he has little ground to stand on.

He fled the country during Vietnam...and I respect NO ONE for doing that.

Yes he was media savvy, yes he had a personality. Yes he had a fantastic ability to redirect the media and national attention from important things. The only reason his Statesmanship was appealing is that it was not very confrontational and was what people WANTED to hear. That is not good Statesmanship...good Statesmanship is doing what is right..not becoming the most popular...

Oh, and he was China's bitch.

Enough reasons?

Durandal

12-13-2003, 05:13 PM

Well, actually, Walrus was the one that brought up Clinton.

No, I did. :D

Ratamacue

12-13-2003, 05:17 PM

Gah, my bad.

James

12-13-2003, 05:58 PM

...(Bush) gave a speech announcing his doctrine of pre-emptive war.

I have mixed feelings about pre-emptive action. I think it is acceptable on a small scale, when there is hard intelligence that supports the reasons for taking said action. In any case, there needs to be some sort of threat, no?

I am not pleased with GWB because (in my opinion) he lied to the American people about the reasons for war in Iraq. He took us from a pre-emptive war because of the imminent threat Iraq's huge stockpiles of WMD presented to a war for the liberation of Iraq. If this had been packaged as liberation from the beginning, I might have been more comfortable with the idea (though I wonder why we should go halfway around the world to free a people who couldn't free themselves, and who, with their new freedom, continue to kill their liberators). In my mind, GWB is responsible for the deaths of what, 500 Americans? It was an unneccesary war.

Anyway... I could go on and on. The important thing now, I think, is to get Iraq back on its feet and bring our young men and women home.

mocking_loudly_died

12-13-2003, 06:06 PM

I’m with James, I hope the US doesn't get to carried away with preemption and add fuel to a possible raging fire.

Lets all be grown up and admit it, there was no "imminent" threat in Iraq, we ****ed up good style.

Least we kicked Saddam up the ass. :D

Can we please go and take on Mugabe?, I really dislike that dude.

California Joe

12-13-2003, 06:17 PM

You and me baby. *packing heat*

mocking_loudly_died

12-13-2003, 06:24 PM

I say we just take knives, since we are the worlds baddest mofos!

California Joe

12-13-2003, 06:29 PM

knives and pointy sticks.

Seiyuuki

12-13-2003, 07:50 PM

I like Kelly Hu.

budanski

12-13-2003, 07:56 PM

Here is the "imminent" quote

State of the Union Address (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-22.html)
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

California Joe

12-13-2003, 07:57 PM

Hi pal.

budanski

12-13-2003, 08:00 PM

Hey Joe. Doing a quick hit and run before the kid wakes up. :D

California Joe

12-13-2003, 08:02 PM

nipple or bottle?

budanski

12-13-2003, 08:03 PM

nipple. waiting for her to wake up to catch the next show. ;)

California Joe

12-13-2003, 08:05 PM

Hehehe. Good luck with that. It never get's old.

The Walrus

12-14-2003, 06:55 AM

This man and several Democrat Senators actually caused me to rethink my political ideology. Clinton is evil dude. He thinks he is above the law. As a lawyer AND President of the US he perjured himself not once BUT TWICE (during the Paula Brown suit he said he NEVER had extramarital affairs and yet he was boning Monica at the same time. He treated women like **** and yet NOW shrugs and says who cares when they screech bloody murder with the CEO of IBM...come on.

JFK was just as promiscuous as Clinton, if not even more, and people seem to forget about it. I believe that personality should not be an issue with politicians as it's all simply a big show that has no actual physical resonance on the world or the American people.

He allowed Sadam to push the UN (the UN ain't going to push back after-all) out of Iraq (a far more important issue than the war he participated in) during his little fiasco in Serbia during which the same very people that criticize Bush did NOT do the same with him...

Again, Powel said in 2001 "I think we ought to declare our containment policy a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. He threatens not the United States.", even 5 days after 9/11 Cheney said "Saddam Hussein is bottled up." It was only in early 2002 that the Bush admin. did a U-turn and started paving the path to war.

Bin Laden could have been almost at any time during the eight years he was in office.

You are making a judgement from a post 9/11 mindset, remember that the world political atmosphere was drastically different, the biggest terror attack on America back then was the Oklahoma bombing by McVeigh, if Clinton had a crystal ball and seen 9/11 I'm sure he would have arrested bin Laden too.

He helped bring the CIA and general intelligence fathering lower and lower. There is strong evidence that he committed criminal acts prior to his presidency. Unlike Presidents of the past he bitches and bitches even though, for some reason he has little ground to stand on.

His cuts on the CIA came after revelations of the CIA's actions in Latin America, remember that back then, the cold war was just over and so the CIA's function was seen as being completed.
As for crminal acts, remember Bush's drink driving and alleged cocaine use?

He fled the country during Vietnam...and I respect NO ONE for doing that.

Bush did technically the same (avoided Vietnam) by serving in the Texas air force, I really doubt it's just co-incidence that he got in just before he was due for conscription to Vietnam.

Yes he was media savvy, yes he had a personality. Yes he had a fantastic ability to redirect the media and national attention from important things. The only reason his Statesmanship was appealing is that it was not very confrontational and was what people WANTED to hear. That is not good Statesmanship...good Statesmanship is doing what is right..not becoming the most popular...

Again, you are placing Clintons policies in todays context, the Oslo agreement was done before the 2nd infatada and at a time when Israeli/Palestinian relations seemed relatively good.

Oh, and he was Chinas bitch

After Tienamen square, while officially Bush snr. critisised China and applied sanctions, he sent an envoy on a secret trip to assure China that the incident wouldn't have negative ramifications on long term US-Chinese relations.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB16/documents/34-01.htm

My point with this is that Clinton was essentialy a politician of his times, he guaged the socio-political mindset and like a chameleon, changed himself to fit in with it, like any post-JFK president.
He did make mistakes that now with hindsight look appaling, but you've got to remember that there's no way to predict how the worlds gonna change in the next few years/decades, if Reagan had foreseen Bin Laden using his CIA taught expertise against America, he probably would have altered the policy of unconditional aid to the anti-soviet Mujahadin in Afghanistan.
The same goes for Bush now, maybe in the future his unwillingness to exert real pressure on Saudi-Arabia will come back and bite him in the ass.
You can't blame politicians for lacking a crystal ball.
That's my £0.0118 for now.

Durandal

12-15-2003, 06:58 PM

JFK was just as promiscuous as Clinton, if not even more, and people seem to forget about it. I believe that personality should not be an issue with politicians as it's all simply a big show that has no actual physical resonance on the world or the American people.
[quote]

I am an American, I try to vote for politicians that best represent me. Screwing around on his wife, I think is a horrible example to set, both to the people that elected you and to the world.

I mean, I cannot think of anything that says "You cannot trust me" than cheating on your wife, you know, in the case of these two men, the woman they made promises before good with in a church?

And heck, I am agnostic...

The whole Lowinsky thing wasn't about his ****** life anyways (though it goit turned into it), though it did prove that he perjured himself twice (since he settled out of court with Jones based onthe fact that he had had no realtions outside that with his wife.

[quote]You can't blame politicians for lacking a crystal ball.

No, I blame politicians for lacking political will to do what is right and for the people, rather than themselves.

Take Reagan for example. A good President on the whole...'cept he decided to give guns to relase hostages. What did this teach them? We can get money and arms for hostages, and took more. The process continued ad nauseum, even though Europe of the late 60s, 70s, and 80s PROVED that one could not end terrorism/hostage taking with appeasement.

At the same time, Reagan DID use direct force to end Lybian participation in MUCH of the terrorism that was going on at the later period of that time.

Do I blame hime in general? No. Do I blame a single action? Yes.

I do not like Clinton and find it amusing that Bush (and I have issues with Bush too, do not get me wrong) should be (according to the article, more like Clinton), becaus3e Clinton was deceitful and untrustworthy.

Va_Dinger

12-16-2003, 04:11 AM

Bush Honest?

Let me see:
(1.) Energy Bill- Billions dollars worth of tax breaks+goverment subsidies for his friends in the Oil Industry. Companies already making Billions in profits.
(2.) Medicare reform- Billions in tax breaks+subsidies for the Pharmaceutical + Health insurance industry. Companies already making billions of dollars in profits
(3.) Gulf War II - Weapons on Mass destruction?
(4.) Budget deficit - growing larger by record proportions. Its nice to buy everything and make our kids pay it off.
(5.) 9/11 investigation - Saudi Arabia is the largest supporter of Terrorism/Islamic fundamentalists in the world. Reportly has spent over 70 billion in the last 20 years. Bush deletes or makes "secret" large parts of 9/11 investigation report that has any refernence to their involment. Why, bush family has strong ties and businese deals with Saudi royal family. Saudi Royal family has donated millions to both Bushs relection campaigns.

I could go on, but whats the point?

Durandal

12-16-2003, 10:10 AM

Bush Honest?

You know, I know Bush lies, and that is one of the reasons I find the article amusing. It is also not necessary to go on like some Howard Deam spkesperson. :)

I would LOVE to hear how Bush lied about Medicare and the upcoming Energy bill? I am an opponent of both but the last time I checked Bush never lied about them.

hood

12-16-2003, 10:21 AM

You are making a judgement from a post 9/11 mindset, remember that the world political atmosphere was drastically different, the biggest terror attack on America back then was the Oklahoma bombing by McVeigh, if Clinton had a crystal ball and seen 9/11 I'm sure he would have arrested bin Laden too.

It's kinda funny that we keep going around and around in circles here.. dude, you're forgetting that both the kenyan bombings that killed a LOT of people, and the USS cole attack which killed sailors and disabled a war ship happened on Clinton's watch. He didn't need a crystal ball to see these things.

Trigger

12-16-2003, 11:49 AM