AIM Report: Media Blame Bush for Clinton Legacy

Time magazine's much-publicized July 17th cover story, "The End of Cowboy Diplomacy," has been viewed as a seminal media effort to capture the transformation of the Bush Administration from a trigger-happy approach in foreign policy to reliance on other nations and the U.N. But a careful analysis shows that Time exaggerated and distorted the facts in order to produce a story that would entice and mislead its readers.

It would be foolish to insist that changes in the Bush foreign policy have not been made. Since Condoleezza Rice became Secretary of State, she has clearly been relying more on the bureaucracy, including such figures as Clinton holdover Nicholas Burns, the Undersecretary of State, to make policy.

But it has never been the case that the Bush Administration has been a tough-talking, unilaterally-acting power, short on diplomacy and long on bullying. The cowboy metaphor is designed to create the impression that the Bush Administration has been acting alone, pursuing preemptive wars and presenting non-negotiable demands. Such a charge is designed to hurt the President's party at the polls this November.

A valid criticism, not made by Time, is that the Bush Administration has promoted democracy for a region of the world that has become so radicalized by propaganda from Arab TV channels such as Al-Jazeera that it doesn't yet seem quite capable of accepting it. The effort, however, still has to be considered a noble cause that was a far better option than maintaining a status quo that produced al Qaeda and 9/11. This struggle will continue for years, if not decades, and holds the promise of making the region—and America—safer in the long run. Our media have no patience for such an approach.

The other critical factor that has to be considered in evaluating the approach...

Good analysis. Time should have done a report on the transformation of the Democrats from multilateralists to unilateralists on Iran and North Korea since they're now urging we give our allies the brush off and take over talks with the two rogue states and meet with the one on one, leaving allies with important stakes in Iran and North Korea out of the process. That is the truly stunning political make-over, not the continuation of Bush's policy of using diplomacy as a prelude to a possible use of force which is also what he did with Iraq.

The difference between the current situations with Iran and North Korea is the time duration the administration was willing to give diplomacy before more forceful measures are used. But then the administration had every reason to act quickly after 9-11 knowing how Saddam after 12 years of fruitless diplomatic and sanctions efforts to get Saddam to comply just continued to result with him giving a big middle finger to the world community.

AIM Report: Media Blame Bush for Clinton Legacy

wow, I didn't know Bush was behind him getting Blow J*bs in the White House....

Bush and Rove are masters of the universe....

Mention Clinton, first thought.... BJ by fat chicks in the White House.... he must be so proud....his daughter must just have nightmares thinking that no matter what anybody says to her, Her mom is a lesbo, her Dad is Webster Hubble and the guy that lives with her mom is getting young fat chicks to give him BJ's and moisten cigars...

what a bunch of Arkansas Caucasian recycled waste.

then you compare him to Reagan, either Bush... and there's not enough Elavil to keep the gun barrel from rattling against your teeth....

goes double for Herr Hillary..

Good for AIM!!!!!

snip from article.......
A valid criticism, not made by Time, is that the Bush Administration has promoted democracy for a region of the world that has become so radicalized by propaganda from Arab TV channels such as Al-Jazeera that it doesn't yet seem quite capable of accepting it. The effort, however, still has to be considered a noble cause that was a far better option than maintaining a status quo that produced al Qaeda and 9/11. This struggle will continue for years, if not decades, and holds the promise of making the region—and America—safer in the long run. Our media have no patience for such an approach.

another snip .........

Media Onslaught

Miscalculations have been made, but these have included a failure to understand how anti-war propaganda—by the U.S. and European media and outlets like Al-Jazeera—would encourage the enemy and make victory more difficult.

The Time reporters wrote that Bush came to office with goals to "pursue a 'humble' foreign policy that would avoid the entanglements of the Bill Clinton years."

But then everything changed. "After Sept. 11, ............

and another..............

What was left unsaid, of course, was that 9/11 could have possibly been avoided if the Clinton Administration had been able to accomplish something more in the war on terrorism than merely indicting Osama bin Laden and bombing one of his empty training camps in Afghanistan.

from yesterdays presser......

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1688630/posts

Q Senator McCain, in his comments yesterday, said that the American people had been led to believe by the administration that the Iraq war would be a "day at the beach." Does that concern the White House? Do you feel that you're losing support among Republicans?

MS. PERINO: I think it's important to look back at what President Bush has said from the beginning. If you look at what he has said, starting even in March of 2003, that, "Helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable, and free country will require our sustained commitment." Throughout the year, since we've been in Iraq, he has called it -- he has said that it is difficult work to do, going to require sacrifice and patience, prevailing in Iraq is going to require much more tough fighting, it's going to require more sacrifice, and he's thankful for the sacrifices that the military and military families are making.

It's puzzling to me that McCain's comments yesterday are getting so much attention today when if you look over the past couple of months, Senator McCain has made similar comments. He is a Senator who is not shy about sharing his views. That's one of the reasons he is such a unique figure in American politics, and also one of the most popular. And he shares, however, a commitment with the President that we win Iraq, and he understands the struggle that we're in. The President appreciates his support.

The President has never made the comments that you referred to. Any time that the President has felt a need to acknowledge mistakes in the war on Iraq, he has done so. And other members of his administration, they can speak for themselves. And I know that the Vice President has repeatedly been asked about comments that he's made in the past, and he's answered them. So I don't understand why we're going back over all this ground now.

Q Well, perhaps because support for the war seems to be slipping, it's down at a new low point in the latest polling, and may reflect concern for the political year that we're in.

MS. PERINO: I think if you look at what the President said on Monday, this is tough work that we're doing in Iraq, and criticism is part of our system of government and certainly a part of when you take tough action and when you are stalwart in your action. We're aware of the polls, and the President said on Monday, of course, you want people in America to support your positions. You've seen him out talking about it. His administration is going to continue to explain to the American people the situation that we're in, the struggle that we face and how important it is that we win.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.