One of the ISG's recommendations for how to proceed in Iraq is to somehow achieve "resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict," but only to negotiate with "those who accept Israel's right to exist," conveniently forgetting that there are no such "those" in the Palestinian territories, nor in their sponsor states of Syria and Iran. The report also proclaims "Iraq's neighbors are not doing enough to help Iraq achieve stability." No **** Sherlock. "The United States should immediately launch a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region," in other words, the ISG wants the US to launch an initiative to totally transform the dynamic in the middle east. Over the past 35 years the US has attempted multiple initiatives to solve the Arab Israeli conflict by diplomatic means, and although there have been temporary successes, Camp David, Oslo, they were in fact illusory, since Israel's neighbors, led by tyrannical dictatorships, including the Arafat led Palestinians, had a vested interest in keeping the conflict alive. It disguises their own failures to provide basic human rights, and provides an external focal point for popular anger. Meanwhile, through oil and aid, these rulers have continued to enrich themselves at their people's expense. Now comes George Bush and "his" war in Iraq. No matter what you may have thought of the reasons for going to war in the first place, whether it was a war for oil, for WMD, for "daddy," whether Bush lied, was wrong, stupid, inept, criminal, at some point the war becames a war for peace. But because so many in this country and in Europe were convinced of Bush's mendacity, no one could bring themselves to recognize it. Because Bush is that most hated of species, a conservative christian, who had the temerity to combine Wilsonian rhetoric with Reganite resolve, a war to free a subject islamic people, a war that could have truly transformed the dynamic in the middle east, a war that could have provided the foundation upon which to finally build a lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, was opposed by the those who most loudly proclaim the rightousness of the Palestinian cause, the liberal intelligentsia of the west. The Irony.
Except that it wasn't. It was opposed by many because it was clear Bush was going about it the wrong way (ie, not having international support from day #1). And not surprisingly, it turned into a big fat clusterf*ck, as was predicted. It's amazing the amount of spin people try to do to justify this mess.
Except most people don't like Bush not because he's a conservative Christian... ...he's just incompetant. That's why he sucks. You forgot to mention that.
I dunno...Jimmy Carter was by most accounts an inept President,but the liberal sheep herd here seem to love him.....
What does Carter's ineptness have to do with Bush's ineptness with regards to his failed middle east policies? I don't even understand why you brought that up? What's your point?
This part I completely agree with. This part is more of the goofy "justification". Now I understand why Iraq is a colossal screw-up: It's because people don't like Bush! How obvious and insightful. Reganite resolve? Ignoring the weird Regan analogy, how can a refusal to listen to advice from your intelligence agencies and top militray brass be called "resolve"? How can anyone possibly spin the willful misinterpretation of intelligence as "resolve"? The only resolve I can find in this post comes from your inability to acknowledge the painfully obvious mistake this war was and is. The most consistent resolve in the Bush Junta is not from his adminstration or polices - nay, Bush and his cronies have done everything but adhere to the Republican doctrines - but rather from the tired admonishments of his delusional supporters. Indeed.
Actually the PLO has recognized Israel's right to exist. So there are some parties in the Palestinian's territories that recognize Israel's right to exist. By the way Carter's book on the Israeli Palestinian situation is a great read. It isn't as indepth and specific as I would have liked, but it has some great ideas.
He was responding to someone who stated that most people don't like Bush because he's incompetent. So a reply about people liking Carter despite incompetence seems fairly on point.
First of all that is only a small part of why peace processes failed with Israel and the Palestinians. The other part is that the Israelis didn't live up to their end of the bargain, and the bargains weren't that fair in the first place. The war could only have brought about freeing the subjects of Iraq if it was approached with legitimacy and a minimal level of comeptance to begin with. It also should have had the support of the people who's benefit it was all for in the first place. Even the Shiites weren't in favor of the invasion from the get-go. You don't force someting on people that haven't asked for it, and were against it, and then act surprised when they aren't thankful, for the infliction of chaos and killing at a far greater rate than they were currently experiencing.
I know a very limited number of people with advanced degrees in history, so we are not talking about a very large sample size, but among the limited number that I do know most agree that Wilson's rhetorical intransigence and resolve in seeking a specific solution to WWI is responsible for creating the conditions that lead to WWII and the rise of Communism in Eastern Europe after that. If you are holding Woodrow Wilson up as the shining example of what ‘W’ can be, I can only revel in the irony. As a president, both Wilson and 'W' are shining examples of how to fail. At least Woodrow Wilson is redeemed by the genuinely pious and well meaning nature of his character outside the office.
I don't think very many people speak highly of his term as president. Most people praise him for his work that he does today like being a major supporter of habitat for humanity and being a big advocate and participant in UN and other multinational election monitoring programs.
The affection for Carter has to do with what he has done since he has left office, which he has been very competant at. I don't think anybody looks back at the Carter Presidency with fondness.
I agree and have been saying this for awhile. The Wilsonian rhetoric was very idealistic but illustrates the problems when idealism meets reality. I can agree that both Wilson and GW Bushes rhetoric sound great but the problems are always in the application.
Inept enough to help bring about a lasting peace between the largest Arab nation and Israel? If Carter did nothing else in his tenure, that alone is an historic accomplishment, one that defined his legacy more so than any other event. Every administration has its moments of glory and moments of shame, but there is almost always a 'defining moment' that they're remembered for, one that defines their legacy more so than anything else. One thing that few people know about Carter is how detail-oriented he was, and how he liked to micromanage everything, which didn't always work to his advantage. He was very knowledgeable, but a lot of the criticism he received was from hawks who preferred a more aggressive foreign policy; there is little doubt that Carter's strong faith was a major factor in play then, and it still largely colors his views to this day.
Excellent point. Amongst established historians and experts of that era, there is little disagreement over how Wilson's policies directly/indirectly 'paved the road' to WWII.
Is this statement ironic? the president speaking on Iraq... is that the press? the Iraqis? the people of America? http://www.nydailynews.com/12-10-2006/news/politics/story/478728p-402763c.html
nice one mc dowd. of course he was talking about historians, not the iraqis. but good try, and thanks for playing!
