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.
What Bush/Cheney Should Do To Win But Wont
There has been something odd about this election year in America. I have been of voting age since 1988 when Bush, Sr. was running against Michael Dukakis and the first election I remember was that of Reagan and Carter in 1980. In all those elections I remember debates about the foreign policy of the United States as a major issue with major diffrences in policy between Republicans and Democrats. Then I noticed a stunning withdrawal of American interest in foreign affairs after the Gulf War was over.
The Gulf War was one of the most successful foreign policy initiatives the United States has ever directed. Also the Gulf War took place at a time when the Cold War came to a clear end. Therefore, I assumed that the Gulf War and America’s victory in the Cold War would also spark debate on a grand scale about America’s role in the world and what that role would be. It did not happen. Clinton won the presidential election against clearly one of the most successful foreign policy administration this nation has ever seen. Clinton did this with out ever putting forth a vision on foreign policy worthy of a president. Clinton even criticized Bush, Sr. on the then current policy towards Haiti, China and Iraq that Clinton later adopted for his own (some would say co-opted from Bush, Sr.).
The American people seemed to accept the abandonment of foreign policy as an issue, if you count the number of Americans that voted for Perot and Clinton against Bush, Sr. I also noticed a lack of differentiation emerge between the mainstream Democratic and Republican members on foreign policy.
I do not know why the American people do not care to discuss foreign policy issues. But ever since Dole vs. Clinton there seems to be a sameness between the two political parties about what foreign policy the United States should follow. I do not remember Dole ever once criticize Clinton for that administrations foreign policy as being totally wrong. In fact it seemed that Dole would support whatever the Clinton foreign policy was and then say he would do more, an exact copy of the way Clinton positioned his foreign policy stance when he first ran for president against Bush, Sr.
The current debate over foreign policy in this presidential debate is none existent. Clearly the Clinton/Gore administration has had failed foreign policy when it comes to Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, Russia, China, Haiti, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan. In fact under Clinton/Gore Pakistan and India became open nuclear powers! But do you hear Bush use the Clinton/Gore debacles in foreign policy as a powerful attack weapon in his arsenal against Gore? Not at all. In fact on Kosovo/Yugoslavia to China Bush seems to imply that he would follow the current Clinton policy but do a better job at it. Does Bush criticize Clinton/Gore on the Kosovo war and the occupation of that province? The Kosovo war was one of the most expensive wars this nation has ever fought and Bush, Jr. ignores it. The troubling foreign policy blunders by Clinton/Gore over Kosovo that have caused Russia to move away from the West and closer to weary Chinese is virtually ignored by the Republican campaign. The failures of Clinton/Gore foreign policy is like a big fat bull’s-eye waiting for a barrage of arrows from Bush, Jr.
Bush, Jr. has admitted to his lack of gravitas when it comes to foreign affairs and his choice of Dick Cheney as the Republican vice-presidential nominee reflects his wish to bolster that weakness. A seemingly shrewd move by Bush, Jr. in what I may hope will be a campaign by Bush/Cheney (more Cheney) against Gore’s central role in planning the foreign policy debacle of the last eight years. But I do not think it will happen.
I do not see Cheney going on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and say to the American people that “my fellow American’s I have to tell you that Kosovo was a war that was ill planned, ill thought out, and most importantly unnecessary. Since the United States forces entered Kosovo, Clinton and Gore have done nothing to stop the reverse ethnic cleansing now occuring against Serbs by the very Albanians the USA went to war to protect. The killing and violence in Kosovo has gotten worse and that at least one thousand people have been murdered and not one murderer has been convicted of these crimes. My fellow Americans if you vote for Bush/Cheney we promise you that all American troops will be out of Kosovo within one year, and we will have a solution to Kosovo that would create a lasting peace and stability to Yugoslavia and the Balkans, etc.”. And this is why I think Bush/Cheney will not be able to make an impact against Gore. To this day I do not know what Bush, Jr. would do about Kosovo or China or Russia, etc. other then to use code words that tell us only that he would follow foreign policy that was in America’s self interest (whatever that means). This seemingly lack of differentiation on foreign policy between Democrats and Republicans is a fatal weakness. Bush, Jr. with Cheney’s help (with Colin Powell helping some) could overcome this weakness by using the failed foreign policy record of Clinton/Gore as a battering ram against Gore but they won’t.
This leaves Bush/Cheney with only domestic concerns to concentrate on and in a boom economy that works in favor of Gore. This is what I fear will be a missed opportunity by Bush and Cheney, and a fatal mistake. Do American’s care about foreign policy? They do if foreign policy is presented in a way that shows how it impacts them and how important it is. If Bush/Cheney hope to win they can not ignore foreign policy as an issue and must be able to aggressively attack Gore on foreign policy by presenting an alternative worldview.
Not bad, P, but get your facts correct. George W. Bush is NOT a "junior", but Al Gore IS!! Go figure.. The liberal slant I guess.. Hmmph, Imagine, only in America is having a dad who was President a hinderance to your election (according to the liberals.)
Bump
bump
bump
Good post. Clinton turned the vice of isolationism into a virtue at the time, exploiting the overexposure of the Gulf War to send the not-so-subtle message "Don't we have concerns here at home to worry about?" Remember the "Peace Dividend?" Smelling free money to be had, many swing voters abandoned Bush. After all, it was the "end of history" when the Berlin Wall fell, and everyone decided that capably executed foreign policy didn't matter as much as the prospect of free government health care. A mistake which may take twenty years to rectify, if it ever can be rectified. It is the height of irony for Clinton to have accused the Republican Congress of isolationism this past year.
<);^)~
Another night on FR, another vanity. Why don't you stick to your "breaking news" thread about the Pan Am crash of a few years ago.
Interesting. Probably the biggest foreign-policy issue for this campaign is Communist China; specifically, PNTR and national security. At this time, however, regarding trade, GWB appears to be taking the Clinton "appeasement" position, which is the GHWB position, which is originally the Nixon/Kissinger position. It is also Gore's position; thus, (and because 73% of Americans are opposed to PNTR), it will probably not be much discussed by either presidential campaign. Unless Americans, many of whom as you note appear to be disinterested in foreign policy, demand a discussion.
What the hell are you talking about? I never posted a Pan-Am article. Im a recent member of FreeRepublic.
First, the American people have never been interested in foreign affairs and have little understanding of it. Obviously, in time of war or threat people pay attention, otherwise, the motto is don't bother me.
One of the sad legacies of Clinton is the wretched foreign policy of the U.S. He has made an absolute mess of things (for all practical purposes, losing Russia) all over the globe. However, the American people give Clinton marks in the high 70s for a good foreign policy. The average person equates good foreign policy with us being at peace. That is as complicated as it gets for most people.
It is an old, old story that the typical American knows less what is going on in the world than someone from another country. Perhaps, it is because they are affected by events to a greater extent than we are.
In foreign countries, there is alot of news about the United States...on TV and in the newspapers. However, we have little coverage of news from other countries. Here, you have to seek it out.
I do not think the foreign policies of both parties are the same. All you have to do is examine where the world was in 92. Bush gave Clinton a unique opportunity to build something truly special in the world. Instead, he has wrecked it. He has lost Russia. China is feverishly building up. Clinton is building nuclear reactors for N Korea....and it won't be long till they have a bomb.
Clinton has run foreign policy like he has domestic policy: anything for a cheap political gain with no long term perspective.
The Repubs have always been good with foreign policy and understand the nuances and the repubs don't always try to politicize something. They are not so quick to appease.
If there is one thing that separates the two parties is the foreign policy.
Excellent and to the point, foreign policy to most Americans, is but an aside....... no one cares, thats why Clinton can bomb with impunity, I don't even think the people notice, Bush as far as I can see, may have some integrity, but on a lot of issues he is very much like the democrats, it would be nice to have a clarification on foreign policy, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it.
Since I can't vote for either,I guess it doesn't much matter what I think.
Good opinion piece. I wouldn't pay any attention to types like Cautor - haven't seen too many in-depth opinion pieces posted by him. ;-)
A vanity is acceptable, when it has a debating point to it.
"The American people seemed to accept the abandonment of foreign policy as an issue..."
You answered your question for yourself.
Foreign policy will be no more than a peripheral issue in this campaign because the electorate is almost totally uninformed on the issue. Thus, disinterested.
On Free Republic, we've been paying attention and are well aware of Clinton's foreign policy failures. And what they may cost us in the future. But, as yet, they have cost the country nothing -- save a large credit against its half-a-century of earned goodwill.
Nor have these adventures cost the electorate anything -- either in terms of dollars or in blood. Thus, the foreign policy argument is one that must be addressed in the abstract -- almost never a productive exercise in politics.
However, once elected, I believe Bush will begin the assiduous re-education of the electorate in things associated with foreign policy and national security -- which are inextricably linked.
Bush can conduct this discussion much more effectively from the Oval Office than from the stump.
And I join you in urging him to do so.
Thanks for the flag.
Having learned at the knee of several of the original FR types, including the originator, my opinions are different than yours.
Initially, they were the same, now they are not.
BTW, great screen name.
In spite of the Supreme Court nominations that will be made on the next 4 years, I will have to talk myself into voting for Bush/Cheney because of Bush's support of the NATO/Kosovo operation. And his foreign policy analyst, Condaleeza Rice, has taken a critical position on Russia's war against Islamic terrorism in Chechnya.
" Do American’s care about foreign policy? They do if foreign policy is presented in a way that shows how it impacts them and how important it is."
Not in the case of Kosovo. The American people actually "cared" about Kosovo precisely because they were lied to effectively and repeatedly.
The main differences I would draw between Kosovo and Iraq / Kuwait were (1.) the lack of a strategic US interest in Kosovo (Kosovo oil pipeline routing arguements are interesting, but not convincing - the economic value of Kuwait's oil is indisputable) and (2.) the fact that Kuwait involved an invasion of a sovereign state whereas Kosovo was essentially the result of Blair, Slick and Schoder attempting to cram unconditional surrender in the form of the Rambouillet "agreement" down the throats of the Serbs.
BTW in my opinion, the grandaddy of all lies, which went unchallenged in the American mass media, was the inference by the proponents of the Kosovo debacle that World War I started because the great powers did not react to events in the Balkans. The exact oposite is true. A regional conflict might have been ignited, but it was interest / escalation by the "great powers" that led to the Great War.
If you saw the Gulf War as a high point (I am not so certain), you will not be disappointed. You will probably see Cheney pointing out the contrasts many times in the coming months.
Sorry, I mistook you for another Greek. Still, this was a vanity not an "editorial opinion," unless you are an editor of FR.
Do you LIKE to read? Do you consider yourself Enlightened about the Real World? If so, why not spend about 10-15 min. digesting these minor details? ---- The Democratic Party's Presidential Drug Money Pipeline
BTW, I can't figger WHY you didn't flag me.
Bush, Jr. has admitted to his lack of gravitas
I see you, Juan Williams, Claire Bloom and a gaggle of other Bush detractors have become "gravitas" groupies. A great word I used to hear all the time not. Did you learn that in your Latin lessons?
unless you are an editor of FR.
I know there are many spelling mavens on the internet, but I am almost certain FR has no editors. That said, this was clearly called an opinion piece. I disagree with nearly the entire piece but for purely selfish reasons not germane to discussion.
While Clinton can be blamed for alot of things, India did not develop nuclear weapons during his mis-administration. India intially tested nuclear weapons in the mid-70's and ceased openly testing them until the mid-90's.
I wouldn't pay any attention to types like Cautor
Sounds like you already did pay attention to old Cautor. You posted this comment. I guess I amused you, LOL.
That said, this was clearly called an opinion piece
It was called an Editorial Opinion, not an opinion piece, a distinction with a meaning. This piece of blater is nothing more than one more pretext to trash Bush...you know, lack of "gravitas."
LOL, the moment I got a glimpse of that word, 'gravitas' I stopped reading.
Claire Bloom
LOL, make that Shipman who is a blooming idiot.
It was called an Editorial Opinion, not an opinion piece, a distinction with a meaning.
No; I'll explain it to you another way. The fact that Free Republic does not have editors simply gives one (me) the impression that the writer is a touch self-absorbed.
I do believe that if the media (and others) continue to use the word "gravitas" enough, most of us will assume it is a metaphor for dead & buried which is of course how Gore comes across and one certainly never will deny he has it in spades.
In any case it would be to the benefit of the Bush-Cheney ticket not to dwell on the Bush pere's success in foreign policy. Then they will start putting Eagleburger and Pearle on prime time and Kissinger as back up for more grave robbing.
This is my opinion.
Good piece.
However, if I were running on the GOP ticket, like Bush and Cheney, I would have learned by now to volunteer very little information to the merciless press. They are master engineers at turning molehills into mountains.
Bush and Cheney said they are ready for Gore's attacks, but I couldn't blame them if they choose not to fight the battles in the media. Maybe the debates will bring forth some of what you would like to see/hear.
To rush out and try to counter Gore on everything he and his media cronies throw out, is fighting the battle on their terms, which is not wise. Wise is the man who ignores the barbs, and picks his time to plunge home the sword.
Before this is over, Gore will be walking in concentric circles, and talking in unknown tongues.
There is no vanity section on this Free Republic web site. There is an editorial section where freepers can write an Op-Ed on topics. As you can see I listed this post under unpublished editorials.
I did not flag you because I have no clue who you are. I have never heard of you nor have I read anything you have posted. In addition, I dont see how what I said makes you think I suppport the Democrats (I do not) over the Republicans. Please improve your reading comprehension.
thanks for the compliment on the name! Since I am a newcomer to Free Republic please let me know what your opinions are. I'd love an exchange of thoughts.
In regards to: " Do American’s care about foreign policy? They do if foreign policy is presented in a way that shows how it impacts them and how important it is."
Not in the case of Kosovo. The American people actually "cared" about Kosovo precisely because they were lied to effectively and repeatedly.
The main differences I would draw between Kosovo and Iraq / Kuwait were (1.) the lack of a strategic US interest in Kosovo (Kosovo oil pipeline routing arguements are interesting, but not convincing - the economic value of Kuwait's oil is indisputable) and (2.) the fact that Kuwait involved an invasion of a sovereign state whereas Kosovo was essentially the result of Blair, Slick and Schoder attempting to cram unconditional surrender in the form of the Rambouillet "agreement" down the throats of the Serbs.
BTW in my opinion, the grandaddy of all lies, which went unchallenged in the American mass media, was the inference by the proponents of the Kosovo debacle that World War I started because the great powers did not react to events in the Balkans. The exact oposite is true. A regional conflict might have been ignited, but it was interest / escalation by the "great powers" that led to the Great War.
If you saw the Gulf War as a high point (I am not so certain), you will not be disappointed. You will probably see Cheney pointing out the contrasts many times in the coming months.
The Gulf War, regardless of what I felt was in my view legal. The UN voted on the issue and gave its OK, the US congress authorized the President's actions and Bush ended the war when the Iraqi's were pushed out of Kuwait. Even if I was anti Gulf War (I was/am not anti Gulf War) Bush acted within international and domestic laws and procedures. Clinton, Blair, etc did not. In my opinon the Kosovo war by NATO against Yugoslavia over Kosovo was illegal. Blair's own Labour controlled parlimentary panel said as much.
Also, I disagree with you that the grandaddy of all lies, which went unchallenged in the American mass media, was the inference by the proponents of the Kosovo debacle that World War I started because the great powers did not react to events in the Balkans. The exact oposite is true. A regional conflict might have been ignited, but it was interest / escalation by the "great powers" that led to the Great War.
While what you said is true in every way, the mother of all lies said about Kosovo was said by Clinton who went on television and said that World War 2 started in the Balkans!!!!!!!!!!!
The President of the United States of America did not seem to know that Poland is no where near the Balkans! Or worse my fellow Americans did not seem to know that either.
I am a Bush supporter! Your reading comprehension ability is way off.
As for Bush's foreign policy accumen, His dad Bush senior also said that Gore held the edge in knowledge about world issues. Since Bush, Jr. is a smart man he strengthens his weakness by getting Cheney who is well versed in foreign affairs as VP.
please discuss them. What do you not agree with what I said? I would love your thoughts. I want Bush to win and it bothers me that he is missing an opportunity to get Gore where he is weak.
Please read my post again. This is not an anti-Bush post at all. I want Bush to win and it bothers me that he is missing an opportunity to get Gore where he is weak.
Speaking politics only, I doubt if playing the anti-Kosovo card will play well (except of course here at FR), particularly if it is enveloped in a larger isolationist theme which of course is not what Bush/Cheney are about.
If as won't happen it were played (Bush is more or less on record as supporting the NATO position among other things), I will be casting about for an alternative candidate - - not that any readily comes to mind that fits very well with my ideology and values.
That doesn't mean that there isn't some other foreign policy material to slam Clinton about which is more "mainstream" stuff, some of which you mentioned, but I'm not sure how much traction that will have against Gore.
Ease up on the throttle. FR has always accepted, even encouraged well thought out and written vanities. It's the one and two liners attempting to remove a bug from their derriers that have to go.
Well done P! Hope to hear more from you in the future!
Thank you!
I agree with you Torie. There are other targets besides Kosovo that can be hit. What about the horrible job Clinton is doing in running Kosovo rather then say that the whole Kosovo adventure is wrong. It is not just one foreign policy issue that Gore is weak on.
Bump!
right on to everything you said.
"Bush gave Clinton a unique opportunity to build something truly special in the world. Instead, he has wrecked it. He has lost Russia. China is feverishly building up"
You hit it right on the head!
You may not be able to vote but your support is appreciated.
Thank you very much for reading and commenting.
I never planned to vote for anyone else other then Bush. In fact when it seemed McCain was hot I was really upset. But Bush is showing himself to be an intelligent, decent, honorable and principled man and I am pleased at the choice of my party for president.
Like I said Kenneth (or are you really Dan Rather?), a sameness in foreign policy thought.
You say: There has been something odd about this election year in America. I have been of voting age since 1988 when Bush, Sr. was running against Michael Dukakis and the first election I remember was that of Reagan and Carter in 1980. In all those elections I remember debates about the foreign policy of the United States as a major issue with major diffrences in policy between Republicans and Democrats.
Then you say: I am a Bush supporter!
Obviously you are not a particularly quick study.
Her's a little blurb that might give you a clue:
Today, on foreign policy, trade policy, immigration policy, Big Government and Beltway power, the two major parties have become inseparable twins. In handing out permanent NATO war guarantees for all of Eastern Europe, Bill Clinton trampled all over the wisdom of Washington and Jefferson-with the backing of the Republican Party. In appeasing China with permanent MFN, Bill Clinton today has the backing of the Republican Party. In his unconstitutional war on Serbia, Mr. Clinton had the backing of the foreign policy elite of the Republican Party. Bush and McCain were unhappy we didn't send in 200,000 American troops. That is not conservatism; that is globalism - and we reject it in the name of Washington, Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Ronald Reagan, and all the other great patriot-presidents who put America First-ahead of anybody's New World Order. (PJB)***
Also, you were way too hard on NDCORUP above.
you said:
"While Clinton can be blamed for alot of things, India did not develop nuclear weapons during his mis-administration. India intially tested nuclear weapons in the mid-70's and ceased openly testing them until the mid-90's."
My reply:
There is a difference in the testing done then and the testing done now by India and Pakistan (this was is the first nuke detonation by Pakistan). India now is openly going to produce nuclear weapons and is openly proclaiming itself a nuclear power.
Testing nuclear detonations to see if Indian technology was capable of producing nuclear weapons to testing nuclear detonations so that nuclear warheads can be designed and then placed on missles or artillery shells are two radicaly different things, would you not agree?
I hope so Frank!
Not in the case of Kosovo. The American people actually "cared" about Kosovo precisely because they were lied to effectively and repeatedly.
That, and they didn't want to take the time to find out about the Chinese spying scandal that was beginning to escalate at the very same time the bombs started dropping on Yugoslavia. Kiritong used Kosovo to divert the American people's attention and they let him play them like the cheap fiddle they are...
Your redaing comprehension is lacking. In several sentences in my post I wrote that I also see no difference in the foreign policy of either the Democrats or Republicans as this one qoute from my post clearly shows: "I also noticed a lack of differentiation emerge between the mainstream Democratic and Republican members on foreign policy."
As for me voting for Bush. I want to vote for someone who has a chance of winning the White House! The United States of America is NOT a proportional parlimentary system. If Pat Buchanan (who I respect) was running under a proportional system then he would have a chance of gaining a seat in government with the small amount of votes he will get, so he would be worth voting for. Unfortunately, Pat has no chance in hell of getting anywhere near the White House other then as a tourist.
Thanks for the heads-up. Good job, well thought-out, even though I don't agree with all of it.
Not in the case of Kosovo. The American people actually "cared" about Kosovo precisely because they were lied to effectively and repeatedly.
That, and they didn't want to take the time to find out about the Chinese spying scandal that was beginning to escalate at the very same time the bombs started dropping on Yugoslavia. Kiritong used Kosovo to divert the American people's attention and they let him play them like the cheap fiddle they are...
you think??
Thank you. I do not mind that you dont agree with all of what I said. I would love to hear what you do not agree with, though. Thanks, again.
Your reading comprehension ability is way off
Your writing, grammar and syntax are way off. You type the word "vanity" in the heading of the story like most others do when they gin up something like this. I guess you don't have the "gravitas" to be a real writer.
I mentioned in post #27 the problem for Bush-Cheney. Simply put it are Eagleburger (Kissinger), Pearle, Armitage, Schultz and Powell. Not to mention Ms. Rice.
They are the kind of group that makes much noise but no solutions. The two greatest failures, Bosnia and Iraq are Bush problems, even though BC made them worse.
"Do American’s care about foreign policy? They do if foreign policy is presented in a way that shows how it impacts them and how important it is."
Try improving Your comprehension. There was no mistake on my part which mob you chose to support. That's the reason I put that thing called a "hyperlink" in my reply to you. Take your cursor and double click on this --- The Democratic Party's Presidential Drug Money Pipeline
If you try just scanning thru the little words you'll see that it goes to the heart of American Politics.
BTW, hasn't Cheney made a ton of money supplying 'something' to the War Efforts in Bosnia, Kosovo, other inside deals? :-)
LOL, your 'gravitas' gives you away.
As for me voting for Bush. I want to vote for someone who has a chance of winning the White House!
Ah! So you are one of the ignorant liars who claim a concern for freedom and and constitutionality while supporting socialism and treason because "winning" is more important than principle. It's too bad the patriots among us have to go down with the suckers, but, like Camelot, we have supported and lived an idea that will linger long beyond the decision by a majority to kiss the feet of tyrants.
At this time, however, regarding trade, GWB appears to be taking the Clinton "appeasement" position, which is the GHWB position, which is originally the Nixon/Kissinger position. It is also Gore's position; .... Ironword (Return Of)
Everybody say "CHEESE!"
To rush out and try to counter Gore on everything he and his media cronies throw out,
Actually, I think Dave Letterman captured the real tactic at work here when he noted the announcement of Cheney and then featured a clip of Gore's reaction ...
Which was to announce he'd picked Cheney!
This is not an anti-Bush post at all. I want Bush to win and it bothers me that he is missing an
opportunity to get Gore where he is weak.
But the reason he is not going to "get Gore where he is weak" is because fundamentally, they are in total agreement on foreign policy.
algore jr's dad was a senator who voted against the 64 civil rights' bill...go figure dems...
Want to compare SAT scores?
Oh I agree with you you on that.
Gives what away? That I think Bush, who I will vote for, knows few details about world situations? Fine, but thats why Presidents appoint men to help them.
Or are you an ignorant liar, that thinks the Pat getting 2 percent of the vote will somehow alter the way government is run. If Pat had the guts, he should run for a Senate seat, an election he might win and build a record other then a speach writer.
That sadly might be true
Want to compare SAT scores?
If you're nice, I'll let you polish my Phi Beta Kappa key and my Phi Eta Sigma key. :>)
Its nice that you can mumble a few letters in Greek. Can you also write coherent paragraphs and post a few "vanities" yourself?
Will you get off Pericles' case? You are obviously unfamiliar with the posting dropdowns that he used. We can agree or disagree with his basic premise, but let's move on from this portion of the conversation.
One-upsmanship with sadly debased collegiate baubles IS amusing! ;-)
you think??
I said it, didn't I?