Did anyone see Crossfire tonight? Lawrence Eagleburger, who was George Bush Sr.'s Secretary of State, made an interesting revelation tonight. James Carville put up a list of seven names on the screen. They included: George Bush jr. Dick Cheney Collin Powell Donald Rumsfeld Paul Wolfowitz Some guy on Cheney's staff(I think his chief of staff, but I can't remember who) and a seventh guy who I can't remember. James asked Eagleburger, who of course worked with a lot of these guys how many of them are happy that diplomacy failed, and the U.S. is going to war. Eagleburger said three of them for sure, maybe four... Eagleburger, by the way, believes that war is the right thing, but is disappointed in how the diplomatic end of things were managed. I was shocked to hear a Bush supporter openly admit that members of the staff were actually hoping for and wanting war. It was refreshing honesty but very scary that these are the kinds of people governing our country.
Well, you know two of the ones Eagleburger would assume were happy were Rumsfeld and Cheney. That's obvious. And you know Powell wasn't. That's obvious too. My guess for the "maybe four" would be W, as he's worked closely with all the other guys and would have a confident guess with regard to them, but hasn't worked closely with W. On the other thing -- the refreshing honesty coupled with the disappointment in what they're being honest about -- yes, disappointing, but duh. This admin made clear from the start they were going to war no matter what. The diplomacy game was just that. They knew they had to go through the motions and they're glad that part's over. There was quite a lot on last night's news about how the mood in the White House was akin to that just before a big football game. They're excited. They can't wait. ABC's White House correspondent talked last night about what he called the misconception that Bush had wanted this war since he took office. He said that was false -- that many in his cabinet came into the White House very eager to do it and considered it a top priority but that Bush wasn't convinced of the urgency, until 9/11. At that point, the correspondent (Terry Hurley? Is that his name?) said Bush turned and agreed to pursue regime change full force. I remember when Bush first addressed the nation after 9/11 and said the war on terror wouldn't be limited to those directly responsible -- that it would include all rogue nations who might be tied to terrorism. I, and people I watched with, thought at the time, 'Oh wow. He found the excuse to restart the Iraq war.' And he did. But the diplomatic 'efforts' were never anything more than, okay, we'll give you 30 or 40 or 60 or however many days to agree with us that we're justified in attacking. When asked for evidence of the urgency, we turned up our nose. It was never about convincing anyone. It was just about saying 'we're doing this. Get with us or get left behind.' And now they're doing it. Like they said they would. World opinion be damned. The diplomacy game was a game. Even so, my hat's off to them. Game well played. My sincerest hope now is they win their next game quickly and the fewest possible people die. Being part of that lunatic fringe that remains opposed to the unnecessary killing of innocents, that's all I've got left.
FB, If they are glad that diplomacy failed, I imagine that would be so because they want to get rid of saddam, not just saddam's current weapons. FWIW. batman, Innocents die every day in Iraq.
Wasn't that the name of one of the nerds in "Revenge of the Nerds"? Or maybe "Rock N Roll High School"? I'm so damn old I can't remember these things anymore. Senility is a terrible thing!
It appears as though the liberals' talking point for the day is the "failure of diplomacy". Conveniently, whenever they mention that diplomacy failed, they seem to imply accountability on the part of President Bush. This is pure lunacy, of course, but frustrated as the failed liberal protesters are, they must find someway to slander our Commander in Chief -- even in this time of war. The failure of diplomacy is directly the fault of the team comprised of the French and Saddam. The French had the mindset that they would veto any use of force, regardless of debate and evidence. The French even went so far as to travel the globe attempting to rally pro-Saddam support. Saddam had the agenda of attempting to sway world opinion through stall tactics, partial compliance, and unfounded accusations. It is only the simple-minded intellectual dullards and the 'anti-Bush at all costs activists' who bought into this argument and were swayed. France and the liberal extremists fell for Saddam's argument hook, line and sinker. Disgusting. Let's set the facts straight -- Diplomacy failed because of France's obstinance and Saddam's manipulation. The international coalition which has sided with the United States is not at fault in the failure to disarm Saddam peacefully.
But if you are against the unnecessary killing of innocents, then the war will be a good thing. After all, liberation of Iraq and lifting of sanctions may end up saving a lot of lives. Maybe the diplomacy was a game...but I wonder what would have happened if France had agreed at some point in the future to go to war (if inspections failed). Instead, France said they would veto ANY trigger for war. Makes me wonder if it could have been delayed longer. Bush seemed open to waiting, I'm surprised we waited until the middle of March.
Why is this scary? If your stated goal in Iraq is regime change, which it's been since Clinton, then war is the only way to make that happen. Also, do you always believe the opinions of former Republican cabinet members, or just in this case?
Lawrence Eagleburger is a liberal??? I wonder if his old boss would agree. If you can not see Bush's failures in diplomancy, then you are truly blinded by your partisanship. I would have actually been suprised if the French would have gone along with GWB, after all of the extensive public diss-ing by his Admin. BTW, France is a democracy where the overwhelming majority did not want this war now. For the French leaders to vote what their people wanted is democracy in action. To view their vote negatively is to not understand and embrass democracy for what it is. Glad, I could this up for you.
Diplomacy is a "game" in the sense that Bush alone would not make diplomacy work. Bush needed the cooperation of France, Britain, et al to make diplomacy work. In this instance, the world diplomacy failed, ie, everyone's diplomacy failed. Yes, Bush's diplomacy failed, but that statement alone does not automatically put the culpability on Bush. (Personally I think France is more guilty and their diplomatic gamble will cost them more than would cost the US.)
Boy, you really had to warp reality to come up with this. Before diplomacy started, the Bush Admin told the rest of the World (including France) that we would go it alone, reguardless of their consent or their support. Before diplomacy started, the Bush Admin told the UN and in particular the UN Security Council (including France) that if the UN did not go along with the US that they would become irrelevant. After diplomacy started, the Bush Admin repeated the above two statements and added that NATO would be irrelevant if they did not go along with the US. Also after diplomacy started, the Bush Admin called out both Germany and France as being part of the "Old Europe" which was part of the problem. Insulting Security Council voters, before and after the US started its Iraq diplomacy, can be laid at the feet of Bush and his Admin.
You know, for all the harping on and on about the failure of diplomacy we've witnessed, I have yet to hear a realistic scenario in which diplomacy would have succeeded. Had Bush said ahead of time something along the lines of "We will do whatever the UNSC decides is best; if it approves force, then great, but if it decides that force is not necessary, then we will not resort to force". Had he said something along those lines, does anyone think that that would have made Saddam more cooperative? Does anyone think that it would have made France, Germany, Russia et al more amenable to a forceful resolution? The fact of the matter is that there is *no* way that any of the opposition would have been on board with a forceful option - no matter what. The opposition has a vested interest in keeping Saddam's regime in place, and would not have been more cooperative had Bush been more pliant. That they might have been more cooperative had Bush done something different is a pipe dream. Unless the administration was never really serious about regime change/disarming Iraq (same thing, can't do one without the other), then diplomacy never had a chance anyway. There was never any realistic hope of a diplomatic solution from the beginning. To think otherwise is to misunderstand the situation. To think tha we somehow could have gotten France, Germany, Russia and China on our side had we done something different diplomatically is pure folly. All that we could have accomplished would be to postpone the war, and that would not have been advisable, as postponement only works in Saddam's favor. The opposition were as set in their goals as we were.
In diplomacy, you do the RIGHT thing whether or not you have been "insulted". Saying that we coulda, woulda do something is just a fact. If the UNSC had done the right thing, which was to authorize the use of force because 1441 was not fully complied with, the UNSC would not have been irrelevant. Bush told them that the UNSC would be irrelevant if it can not live to its responsibilities on the Iraq issue. Surprise! Now they are. You say my reality is warped. It seems someone is allegic to reality. Do I wish the tone of the Bush administration coould be a little more subtle? Yes I do. But the so called "allies" did much more to wreck the whole diplomacy game. Don't even remind me about France's blanket veto. And the biggest loser in the diplomacy game? Sadam Hussein. Hey, he was playing this game as well. Now he blew it by continuing hiding WMD, he's a goner, with or without UNSC authorization. Repeat, WITH OR WITHOUT UNSC AUTHORIZATION. Call me a cowboy, sue me. Tab's on me.
