January 17, 2007

No Diplomacy For You!

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Better a failed war president

than a success at diplomacy?

According to the BBC, In 2003, Iran offered to deal with the United States. They offered to end support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups, and to add transparency to their nuclear program.

One of Colin Powell’s top aides says that the state department wanted to pursue the plan. The White House shut it down. I guess you kinda paint yourself into a corner with your supporters when you place someone on an axis of evil before you’re actually at war with them.

What has happened subsequently to the US rejection of the offer?

Since that time, Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah inflicted significant military losses on the major US ally in the region, Israel, in the 2006 conflict and is now claiming increased political power in Lebanon.
Palestinian militant group Hamas won power in parliamentary elections a year ago, opening a new chapter of conflict in Gaza and the West Bank.

Oh yeah, and Iraq has gone to hell, with Iran’s hand heavily in that.

Coincidentally:
Observers say the Iranian offer as outlined nearly four years ago corresponds pretty closely to what Washington is demanding from Tehran now.

You don’t say? Brilliant.

It’s difficult to know where we’d be now if we’d started diplomacy in 2003. If Iran had screwed us, Bush might actually have a stronger case for war with Iran. If Iran had played ball, perhaps Iraq would not be in quite as much of a mess (if Iran saw an interest in appearing more cooperative). The congress might still be in Republican hands, Iraq would not be such a disaster and John McCain might be imagining much clearer sailing to Campaign 2008.

Even if it meant keeping the Republican congress, I’d rather not be in the situation we face today.

If diplomacy fails, sometimes you get screwed.

Do any of you get the feeling Bush is afraid to both fail through diplomacy, but is also afraid to succeed?

Posted by James at January 17, 2007 2:57 PM
Create Social Bookmark Links
Comments

Afraid to succeed? I've never thought of it that way... I more thought of it as too PigHeaded to succeed.

I read this book about negotiation called Getting to Yes. It outlines negotiation for position or status, (which isn't good because you end up in a battle of personal wills) or you can negotiate on the principals. I get the feeling bush's ego wants him to win by outwilling other people.


Jay

Posted by: Hooligan at January 18, 2007 3:41 PM

I've heard people argue that Bush isn't dumb, that's just his persona... that he's actually quite smart. Well, I don't consider anybody who got lower SAT scores than mine to be "quite smart." I know I'm smart, but I'm not smart enough to run the country, and neither is this guy. He's just plain dumb and he believes there's a universal "right" and "wrong," and the Lord put him in office, so he's always right. What more do you need?

Posted by: Maggie at January 18, 2007 4:35 PM

I think we should get some zealots to spin the fact that the Lord put Bush in office as a punishment for our wicked ways. After all, he's done more damage to America than Katrina, and they blamed that on our sins...

Posted by: briwei at January 18, 2007 5:22 PM

LOL, Brian, I love that spin!

This is from the NYT yesterday:
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/washington/20intel.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)
Mr. Rockefeller was biting in his criticism of how President Bush has dealt with the threat of Islamic radicalism since the Sept. 11 attacks, saying he believed that the campaign against international terrorism was “still a mystery” to the president.

“I don’t think he understands the world,” Mr. Rockefeller said. “I don’t think he’s particularly curious about the world. I don’t think he reads like he says he does.”

He added, “Every time he’s read something he tells you about it, I think.”

Posted by: Maggie at January 21, 2007 9:15 AM

Copyright © 1999-2007 James P. Burke. All Rights Reserved