# Bush's new "we don't care" policy **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 28, 2003, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757 "2003-04-28T20:01:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2003, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/141 "2003-05-03T00:53:33Z")
> [@](#): > > _ **december** wrote:_ > It’s hard to understand Saddam’s motives. Why didn’t he just comply with the UN resolutions? Then there would have been no invasion, and he’d still be in charge. **Sam Stone** posted this argument recently as well, to which I responded as follows: > [@](#): > > _ **AZCowboy** wrote in a [post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3349023#post3349023) in another thread:_ > Ya know, I was willing to accept this argument as strong circumstancial evidence [that Saddam _had_ WoMD]. Prior to the war, I had no argument for it. > > But remember, the claim of the administration wasn’t that he simply had these WoMD, but that he would use them. Against us. And then, at the start of the war, there was all this intelligence that Iraq was going to use them against us. > > So, why didn’t he? > > The answer I have heard most often from the pro-war folks is that perhaps Saddam was “taken out of the loop” prior to having the chance to issue the order to use them. > > And I find that argument extremely flimsy. First off, everyone, including Saddam, had to know that a major advantage and likely military tactic of the US military was to cut off “command and control” of Iraq’s military commanders and the troops. It is simply implausible that Saddam held onto to some final authorization to use WoMD against invading US troops - he knew that even if he were alive, he may have trouble communicating the order. > > Doesn’t anyone remember the intelligence reports of the “red zone” - the line in the sand - around Baghdad? > > So, against Sam’s circumstancial evidence, the most damning empirical evidence is that Iraq did not use WoMD against invading US troops. If he didn’t use them then, where was the threat, exactly? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2003, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/142 "2003-05-03T01:19:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > That sounds kind of like dressing up diplomatic ineptitude to make it look like courageous integrity. A standard test of skill in a politician is the ability to get what s/he wants **without** pissing off opponents by explicitly saying “we don’t care about your opinion.” This is a good point, and it helps explain the strengths and weakness of the WDC policy. When someone like Chirac or Annan horns in and starts telling the President how he ought to handle Iraq, the more usual response would be to politely discuss it with them or maybe even negotiate with them. I think a dose of WDC is healthy. Neither of them earned the right to sit at the table. Next time perhaps they’ll be more cooperative with US interests. Sometimes negotiation goes better with a bit of rudeness. > [@](#): > > **AZCowboy** > But remember, the claim of the administration wasn’t that he simply had these WoMD, but that he would use them. Against us. And then, at the start of the war, there was all this intelligence that Iraq was going to use them against us. Well, I don’t remember any claim that Saddam _would_ use WMDs against us. I agree that there was a risk that he _might_ use them. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2003, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/143 "2003-05-03T01:29:44Z")
**AZCowboy** has it right: the fact they didn’t use WMDs is _prima facie_ evidence that Bush was lying. Through his teeth. In all of our faces. He doesn’t care, but we should. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2003, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/144 "2003-05-03T02:22:43Z")
**december:** _When someone like Chirac or Annan horns in and starts telling the President how he ought to handle Iraq, the more usual response would be to politely discuss it with them or maybe even negotiate with them._ Given that Kofi Annan is the leader of an international organization of which the US is a member, and whose charter—including its vows to promote peace and justice, and to eschew the use of armed force except in the common interest—the US has solemnly undertaken to uphold, then yes, I would hope that the “usual response” for a President of the US would be to “politely discuss” or even “negotiate” matters that such a leader considers important. _I think a dose of WDC is healthy._ Why? _Neither of them earned the right to sit at the table._ “Earned the right”? You mean, because they didn’t support a war that they didn’t approve of? I.e., if you refuse to agree with me, you’ve forfeited your right to criticize me? Is that kind of logic really likely to impress anybody? _Next time perhaps they’ll be more cooperative with US interests. Sometimes negotiation goes better with a bit of rudeness._ Sounds completely like wishful thinking to me. When other people tell **you** that they don’t care about your opinion and you don’t have any “right” to “horn in”—on matters that in your view are very much your business—does that rudeness really incline you to be “more cooperative” with them? Or do you just tend to think that they’re arrogant selfish jerks who don’t care what happens to anyone else as long as they can get what they want? It is perfectly possible to be determined and courageous without being contemptuous or rude. This so-called “policy” of “we don’t care”, on the other hand, sounds merely like an attempt to make contemptuous rudeness look cool. I wouldn’t exactly call that “foreign policy for grown-ups”. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2003, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/145 "2003-05-03T02:32:40Z")
We are unaccostomed to see American leaders using the stick as well as the carrot. But, why not use both? We’re not talking about military action against Kofi and Jacques, but just ignoring them. > [@](#): > > The importance of behaviour matching up to assertive messages cannot be over-emphasised. There will be further examples of assertiveness in the following chapter, showing how techniques can be used to influence. Chapter Eight contains further mention of its application in dealing with high-status people and conflict. The final chapter shows how to match your behaviour to high-status messages. > > **POWER OF INFLUENCE** Power is always about who does the defining and who accepts the definitions… **Status** is about using your personal power to gain recognition from others… > > **Using the carrot and the stick** : we can get power through our ability to reward and punish others, to give them something or to take it away. When we are children we first experience this use of power by our parents. If you would like a business to help you with a charity appeal, the `carrot" of good publicity may get them to do so. The `stick" of going to a rival company who would use the publicity can act as another pressure. The carrot and stick approach is to do with reward and punishment, incentives and pressures. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2003, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/146 "2003-05-03T02:39:31Z")
No, we’re just unaccustomed to seeing incompetence and dishonesty flaunted without shame. ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2003, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/147 "2003-05-03T03:15:21Z")
> [@](#): > > _ **december** wrote_ > Well, I don’t remember any claim that Saddam _would_ use WMDs against us. I agree that there was a risk that he _might_ use them. **december** , that is absolutely revisionist. The issue wasn’t that he _might_ use them. They were a threat. A real threat. To us. Let me remind you of some of the comments from Dubya and others in the administration: > [@](#): > > **George Bush** said: > We can’t allow the world’s worst leaders to blackmail, threaten, hold freedom-loving nations hostage with the world’s worst weapons." > [Cite](http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/iraq/quotes.html) > [@](#): > > **George Bush** said: > And the fundamental question facing the Security Council is: Will its words mean anything. > [March 7th WH Press Conference](http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/bush_newsconf_transcript030306.html) > [@](#): > > **George Bush** said: > So therefore I think the threat is real. And so do a lot of other people in my government. And since I believe the threat is real and since my most important job is to protect the security of the American people, that’s precisely what we will do. > [March 7th WH Press Conference](http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/bush_newsconf_transcript030306.html) > [@](#): > > **George Bush** said: > Secondly, the American people know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. > [March 7th WH Press Conference](http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/bush_newsconf_transcript030306.html) > [@](#): > > **George Bush** said: > And secondly, he’s used these weapons before. I mean, we’re not speculating about the nature of the man. We know the nature of the man. > [March 7th WH Press Conference](http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/bush_newsconf_transcript030306.html) > [@](#): > > **George Bush** said: > If I thought we were safe from attack, I would be thinking differently. But I see a gathering threat. I mean, it’s a true, real threat to America. And therefore, we will deal with it. > [March 7th WH Press Conference](http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/bush_newsconf_transcript030306.html) > [@](#): > > **George Bush** said: > Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. > [Remarks to the UN General Assembly, 9/12/02](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html) > [@](#): > > **George Bush** said: > To assume this regime’s good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. > [Remarks to the UN General Assembly, 9/12/02](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html) > [@](#): > > **George Bush** said: > The first time we may be completely certain he has a – nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. > [Remarks to the UN General Assembly, 9/12/02](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html) > [@](#): > > **George Bush** said: > First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone – because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States. > [Remarks by the POTUS on Iraq, 10/7/02](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html) > [@](#): > > **George Bush** said: > The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today – and we do – does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons? > [Remarks by the POTUS on Iraq, 10/7/02](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html) > [@](#): > > **George Bush** said: > Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints. > [Remarks by the POTUS on Iraq, 10/7/02](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html) > [@](#): > > **George Bush** said: > The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. > [Remarks by the POTUS on Iraq, 10/7/02](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html) > [@](#): > > **George Bush** said: > Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon. > [Remarks by the POTUS on Iraq, 10/7/02](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html) > [@](#): > > **George Bush** said: > Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring. > [Remarks by the POTUS on Iraq, 10/7/02](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html) > [@](#): > > **George Bush** said: > We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I’m convinced that is a hope against all evidence. > [Remarks by the POTUS on Iraq, 10/7/02](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html) > [@](#): > > **Ari Fliescher** said: > There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest. > [Cite](http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/iraq/quotes.html) > [@](#): > > **Dick Cheney** said: > If we have reason to believe someone is preparing an attack against the U.S., has developed that capability, harbours those aspirations, then I think the U.S. is justified in dealing with that, if necessary, by military force." > [Cite](http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/iraq/quotes.html) Have you really forgotten all of this? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2003, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/148 "2003-05-03T03:32:52Z")
**december:** _We’re not talking about military action against Kofi and Jacques, but just ignoring them._ So as long as we don’t actually undertake military action against somebody, they have nothing to complain about? :rolleyes: You are not inspiring a whole lot of confidence in your understanding of international diplomacy, **december** , despite your earnest quotations from unidentified management-theory handbooks. For one thing, you don’t seem to see any difference between firmness and rudeness. It’s one thing to put “stick”-type pressure on your ally by saying “if you cannot support us in our chosen course of action, we will regretfully be forced to” etc. etc. It requires finesse to avoid the appearance of bullying, but it’s a perfectly legitimate diplomatic maneuver and (contrary to your assertion) we see American leaders do it all the time. It’s quite another thing to **gratuitously** piss off allies by saying “if you cannot support us in our chosen course of action, we don’t care, because your opinion doesn’t matter to us.” It doesn’t say or accomplish a damn thing that couldn’t be better said or accomplished **without** such contemptuous rudeness. It is not how adults do business together. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2003, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/149 "2003-05-03T04:07:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > It’s quite another thing to **gratuitously** piss off allies by saying “if you cannot support us in our chosen course of action, we don’t care, because your opinion doesn’t matter to us.” It doesn’t say or accomplish a damn thing that couldn’t be better said or accomplished **without** such contemptuous rudeness. It is not how adults do business together. You’d be surprised how adults do business. The smartest, most successful businessman I was ever close to was the late Dr. Henry Singleton. He was originally a brilliant research physicist, and later a self-made billionaire. At one meeting, Singleton asked a branch manager why he was selling business at a loss. “We have to eat,” was the response. In other words, he needed a certain volume of business to keep an office running. Singleton shot back, “I don’t care if you starve!” Meaning, it’s not acceptible to lose stockholders’ money just so that employees will have something to do. That was quite a bit ruder than President Bush ignoring Kofi Annan. Singleton got the message across so vividly that I still remember it 27 years later. You can well imagine that I didn’t intentionally sell business at a loss throughout my tenure at Singleton’s company. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2003, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/150 "2003-05-03T05:43:13Z")
**december** , with your usual instinct for an inapt analogy, you’re using as a model for international diplomacy an anecdote of a corporate CEO talking to **his own employees**. Diplomacy is not about how you talk to the people who work for you (although there are plenty of successful and brilliant businesspeople who can accomplish that without rudeness too). Diplomacy is how you talk to the people who are presumed, by the norms of national sovereignty and international law, to be your equals and partners in the tasks of protecting the safety and prosperity of the world. You personally may be perfectly comfortable with the idea of Bush treating the President of France or the Secretary-General of the United Nations like a CEO yelling at one of his branch managers. But you should not be surprised that many other people—many Americans included—would consider it an unacceptable, unprofessional, immature display of arrogance. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2003, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/151 "2003-05-03T10:52:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > **december** , with your usual instinct for an inapt analogy, you’re using as a model for international diplomacy an anecdote of a corporate CEO talking to **his own employees**. In this era of the first global capitalist empire and after the acquisition of Iraq, I fear **december** has chanced across (in his analogy) a perception (beginning to be made a reality) that either of us would wish to acknowledge, at least in as far as things are viewed from parts of this administration - it may not be the world as we want it to be, or as we have seen it historically, but there are some in power who don’t think so very differently from this analogy, IMHO: The Brave New World (Order) … ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2003, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/152 "2003-05-03T11:03:28Z")
Hey, give ol’ GeeDubya some credit! This is both bold and innovative. Admit it, would Bill Clinton have _ever_ thought of raising the hissy fit to a geopolitical stratagem? I think not! ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2003, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/153 "2003-05-03T11:22:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by London\_Calling \* > \*\*In this era of the first global capitalist empire and after the acquisition of Iraq, I fear **december** has chanced across (in his analogy) a perception (beginning to be made a reality) that either of us would wish to acknowledge, at least in as far as things are viewed from parts of this administration - it may not be the world as we want it to be, or as we have seen it historically, but there are some in power who don’t think so very differently from this analogy, IMHO: The Brave New World (Order) … \*\* No, neither **december** ’s analogy nor your projection of it stand up. The president of company A doesn’t say to the president of company B: “You’re either with us or against us, do as we say or you get fired” and rationally expect any response other than: “Are you on crack?” ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2003, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/154 "2003-05-03T11:46:01Z")
The analogy is with one’s own employee’s, not another company. And my point is about the blurring of boundaries (in this new post-9/11 paradigm), about new philosophies / creeds blossoming and this new diplomatic language / approach. The analogy site well with the beliefs of how the US should now operate as per the views of some in this administration, notably, IMHO, Cheney and Rumsfeld. It ain’t my view, it’s my view of their personal perspectives. Aside from that, you were close. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2003, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/155 "2003-05-03T12:36:26Z")
Yes, see, but the rest of the world’s nations don’t see themselves as the US’s employees. **December** & Ilk _do_ see the rest of the world as such. Other leaders, not even the leader of the UN(!), aren’t worthy of sitting at the same table as the Holy American Emperor. Maybe, if they do as they are told, they may earn that right. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2003, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/156 "2003-05-03T12:49:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > **december** , with your usual instinct for an inapt analogy, you’re using as a model for international diplomacy an anecdote of a corporate CEO talking to **his own employees**. You were the one who compared international relations with “how business is done.” > [@](#): > > **Desmostylus** > The president of company A doesn’t say to the president of company B: > > “You’re either with us or against us, do as we say or you get fired” > > and rationally expect any response other than: > > “Are you on crack?” You’d be surprised. My boss was once approached by a tycoon who wanted to buy one of Dr. Singleton’s companies. When my boss passed on the offer, Singleton told him that he didn’t negotiate purchases that way. He said, anyone who wanted to buy one of his companies should hand him a contract with a cashier’s check. If Singleton liked the offer, he would cash the check and sign the contract. In effect, Singleton was saying that he would not trust this tycoon to keep his word. This was not polite, but it was good business. It was typical of Singleton to say just what he thought. Dealing with Singleton wasn’t always pleasant, but at least you alway knew where you stood. Note that Bush has been a businessman, which is uncommon for a national leader. Maybe that background makes him more likely to speak his mind. > [@](#): > > **Kimstu** > Diplomacy is not about how you talk to the people who work for you (although there are plenty of successful and brilliant businesspeople who can accomplish that without rudeness too). Diplomacy is how you talk to the people… No doubt, diplomacy is often about how you talk to people. But IMHO how you talk is a means to an end. Your goal is to get them to do what you want (and theirs is to get you to do what they want.) One shouldn’t merely assume that a certain polite type of discourse is the best way to achieve this end. I agree that politeness is usually best, but not always. > [@](#): > > …who are presumed, by the norms of national sovereignty and international law, to be your equals and partners in the tasks of protecting the safety and prosperity of the world. Again, you have cut to the center of this debate. Annan and Chirac are presumed to be Bush’s equals and partners, but in fact, they are neither. > [@](#): > > You personally may be perfectly comfortable with the idea of Bush treating the President of France or the Secretary-General of the United Nations like a CEO yelling at one of his branch managers. That’s not what I said. I merely explained how business really is done. > [@](#): > > But you should not be surprised that many other people—many Americans included—would consider it an unacceptable, unprofessional, immature display of arrogance. I agree. That’s why we’re having this debate. Evidence has now come out indicating that Chirac was secretly supporting Saddam, including giving him certain confidential info regarding US policy. Whether or not this case is proved, let’s assume for the purpose of this debate that Chirac had been secretly working against the US interest while pretending to be a friend. Now Chirac offers to get involved in designing the post-war structure. How should Bush respond to such chutzpah? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2003, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/157 "2003-05-03T13:42:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*You’d be surprised. My boss was once approached by a tycoon who wanted to buy one of Dr. Singleton’s companies. When my boss passed on the offer, Singleton told him that he didn’t negotiate purchases that way. He said, anyone who wanted to buy one of his companies should hand him a contract with a cashier’s check. If Singleton liked the offer, he would cash the check and sign the contract. > > In effect, Singleton was saying that he would not trust this tycoon to keep his word. This was not polite, but it was good business. > > It was typical of Singleton to say just what he thought. Dealing with Singleton wasn’t always pleasant, but at least you alway knew where you stood.\*\* I’m having difficulty parsing those paragraphs. Are “my boss” and “Singleton” the same person? If so, why do they converse with each other? If not, why was “my boss” approached about the purchase of “one of Dr. Singleton’s companies”? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > **Note that Bush has been a businessman, which is uncommon for a national leader.** The title “businessman” is a complete wank. A used car salesman can describe himself as a businessman. Ken Lay is/was a businessman. A more useful term might be “successful businessman”, and often that’s just a synonym for “someone who hasn’t been convicted yet”. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2003, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/158 "2003-05-03T13:45:02Z")
> [@](#): > > Again, you have cut to the center of this debate. Annan and Chirac are presumed to be Bush’s equals and partners, but in fact, they are neither. This is indeed central to the views you so often profess on this board. You seem to think of this man as some kind of demi-god. Time after time you jump up to proclaim your faith, you denounce dissidents as heretics and you spread the holy word, as spoken by his demi-angels. Often you even come up with stuff yourself, twisting reality so it fits your faith. **December** , could you please explain to us why Bush is not just another man in a suit? Why should we, as lesser non-American beings and heretical anti-americans, prostrate ourselves before this man? What exactly is it that makes him holy to you? What is it we don’t see? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2003, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/159 "2003-05-03T13:59:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Desmostylus \* > **I’m having difficulty parsing those paragraphs. Are “my boss” and “Singleton” the same person? If so, why do they converse with each other? If not, why was “my boss” approached about the purchase of “one of Dr. Singleton’s companies”?** My boss was president of a company owned by Singleton’s conglomerate. The tycoon approached my boss because he knew him, but didn’t know Singleton. Singleton’s response was a kind of “we don’t care.” Singleton indicated no desire to ever meet this tycoon. He had no particular interest in selling a company to him. **Latro** , the US is the world’s dominant power, both militarily and economically. Whether we like it or not, the President of the United States is the most powerful person in the world. France is well down the list in wealth and military might, no matter how high they rank in arrogance. The UN has little power. Nor does Kofi Annan wield what power the UN possesses. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2003, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/160 "2003-05-03T14:19:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Latro \* > \*\*Yes, see, but the rest of the world’s nations don’t see themselves as the US’s employees. Who’s discussing how _the world_ sees the US – this is about a reasonable analogy for a developing mind set of some in this US administration. In any event, what _the world thinks_ rather got left, bloodied and powerless, on the floor of the UN 6-7 weeks ago. How powerful do you think Chirac feels just at the moment ? It’s about a philosophy which sees the unipower US political/military/capitalist empire as the dominant market player and to whom everyone (in the market place) is _de facto_ subject. At the moment, Bush is Caesar, and this new diplomatic approach is part of the reason: Venit Vidit Vicit [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757.md?page=9)