It’s really just a variation on the “If you criticize Bush, you’re anti-American” meme.
It is a fraudulent coalition, and the allies are not so much part of the frauds as victims of it.
So?
Why do we need to practice “diplomacy” with a puppet?
Let’s not pretend that Allawi is actually a real of head of state. He is an employee of Bushco. He does what he’s told, and if he doesn’t, we’ll fire him and install somebody who will.
The two that I had in my mind were his reference to coalition partners as “window dressing.” (cite, scroll about halfway down) and “a coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted” (cite). Both are dismissive to the point of rudeness.
How in God’s name is this misleading? She is official campaign staff and speaking in her capacity as campaign staff. If I’d just said “his sister,” the implication would be that she was just his sister, as easily ignorable as a Billy Carter. I certainly assumed people would follow the link and read precisely which campaign staffer I was referring to.
You’re splitting rather fine hairs; whatever the Bush admin’s “attitude” was, it’s actions in Iraq, right or wrong, were supported by the Australian government. For a member of the Kerry team to turn around and essentially say that that government was foolish to do so is a slap in the face to the Howard administration. More fundamentally, it essentially says that the US’ attitude towards its allies is entirely a function of which party is in power. That is not conducive to coaltion building.
Please cite which nations Bush has insulted or otherwise “taken a dump” on. I’ll freely concede that Bush has pissed off a handful nations traditionally considered allies: primarily France and Germany. The Chinese might be pissed, but they’re not an ally. Russia opposed the war, but they’re not an ally either and given that Putin and Bush seem to have very cordial relations, they can hardly be called pissed. On the other hand, nations with troops currently in Iraq include the UK, Australia, Poland, Italy, Holland, Ukraine, Romania, South Korea, Denmark, Japan, Bulgaria and Portigal.
Well, of course, that’s it; it is axiomatic that Bush is the embodiment of all that is soulless and wrong, and that anything, anything is justified by victory.
Sorry, but outside of the wignut left, folks don’t think that way. They want a president that can be courteous and statesmanlike. They figure that’s sort of what presidents do. They’re not idiots; they can guess that Kerry might not think highly of Allawi. It’s not necessary to insult the man an hour after he addresses congress.
Didn’t you just say that Bush was wrong for pissing off the rest of the world? This was a chance for Kerry to show how he does these things better, and he flushed it.
I don’t know that there is any way to “defend” the things Kerry has said about certain allies, despite the valliant efforts of DtC to do so above.
It’s campaign season-- what else can we say? And it’s not exactly like Bush has elevated diplomacy to some newer, higher, level. I have no doubt that should Kerry get elected, he’ll be able to get along just fine with the Australians and with Allawi.
Whether or not he’ll actually be able to deliver on his commitment to get more international involvement in Iraq… well, that’s another issue altogether.
Agreed completely. As noted in the OP, he’s let down our allies; that’s part of why I find Kerry’s performance is so frustrating. Both candidates are putting short-term political gain over national interest.
Sorry, Krauthammer’s article was posted after mine. I did see it this morning, though, and he refreshed my memory about the “coalition of the bribed” quote.
I do find it ironic that you’re implying I’m operating on “conservative talking points” based on something you read at … well … talking points memo.
How you got this, outside of a fevered imagination, is beyond me. We’re talking about Kerry belittling foreign nations and the leaders, not Bush; and “anti-American” was never stated or implied.
The terms I would use are foolish, shortsighted, rude and counterproductive.
Feel free to carry on with your paranoia, though
Yup…Other nations are not so sensitive that their feelings are going to be hurt by every little thing that is said in a Presidential campaign. What they care about are bigger things like if the U.S. is going to behave responsibly on the world stage, or whether it is going to behave like a rogue state in regards to things like climate change and making war on other sovereign nations.
After all, I don’t think French is basing their relations with us on the fact that Congress voted to change “French fries” to “freedom fries” in their cafeteria. I think the French understand political silliness when they see it.
This is an extremely accurate description of the coalition. Only a few were bribed, though, and even the ones that were bribed were lied to. It’s also not an insult to say that a country was coerced or extorted. There is no shame in being coerced or extorted.
I see the OP is going to be completely unable to provide a cite for Kerry saying that any of our allies are “small and unimportant.”
Why am I not surprised?
I kind of agree that Kerry was lacking in tact… but then the fact that the coalition is fraudelent is nothing but the truth. How dare he speak about reality !
As for Alawi a little respect I agree is due… any guy crazy enough to accept being a target for the insurgency has got guts. This doesn’t mean Alawi is saying the truth and I also remembered a lot of people saying the UN should be shut down/disregarded because of so many unelected governments… Alawi isn’t elected was the first thing I thought. So making him into some kind of big shot and an “ally” and a “leader” is hot air.
So, as DtC said, you didn’t find the “small and unimportant” quote, eh? I think what Kerry said is true, and I seriously doubt that it’s going to cause him much trouble if he’s elected. The populations of most of the nations in the “coalition of the willing” are against the war, and like I said, they’re dropping like flies. They KNOW they were duped. Kerry correctly has his finger on the pulse of the world; Bush has his finger up his ass.
I’m sorry that telling the truth wouldn’t make your point as well, but it WAS his sister. What the hell would be wrong with being accurate?
It cracks me up when people mis-characterize what a person said, and then when corrected, say “you’re splitting hairs”. If it was important enough for the author of the article to mischaracterize, then it’s important enough for me to correct.
Yeah, it would be, IF HE HAD SAID THAT, which he didn’t.
Huh?
Well you answered your own question, didn’t you? I guess we’re not reading the same papers, because the ones I’m reading are not telling me that the world loves Bush, which is what you seem to think.
Care to tell us what percentage of the troops are from each of those countries? Can you count that low?
Wow, nice strawman.
Weak. So if Kerry disagrees with anything Bush is doing, then he’s not a “statesman”. Whatever. I’m sure you’d love for Kerry to kiss Bush’s ass while Bush and his campaign staff continue to brutally attack Kerry, because you probably want Bush to win. Sorry, that ain’t gonna happen.
Nonsense.
Calm down, son. We’re not on Jerry Springer here.
Kerry didn’t belittle any foreign nations or leaders, and your search for evidence of such came up with zilch. This new RNC meme that Kerry is a failed diplomat if he disagrees with anything Bush says or does regarding Iraq is ludicrous and simplistic. It’s just utterly laughable. It’s a weak, weak argument.
O.K., furt? Take a couple deep breaths, and try to knock off the insults. I’m trying to be civil, and you’re making it very difficult.
Oh, and by “ain’t gonna happen”, I don’t mean Bush won’t win; he very well may. I meant Kerry’s not going to kiss his ass.
Please read the OP and point out where I claimed to making an exact quote. I deliberately said I was “paraphrasing” because I didn’t recall the exact words, but knew that had been remarks to that general effect; which they were.
Damn, damn, Kerry is being too nice. He has to take to this campaign like the war he would be involved in if he is inaugurated.
Anything short of nuking Bush verbally in the upcoming debates means Kerry lost.
Sorry it took me awhile to get back here; I actually had made a post, had to get off because of Hurricane Jeanne (or Frances or Ivan or whatever the hell it was; they’re all blurring together) and the last two weeks have been hell on wheels and I’m just now getting back here.
I totally understand if you want to drop this; but I always feel an obligation to answer any sincere post, soooo…
The people of the nations aren’t the ones you have to sit down and do business with. The leaders are. The PM of Poland said the other day he took it personally; I don’t see why John Howard or Tony Blair shouldn’t. And Allawi damned well should. Will it all wash out? Probably. But my frustration comes exactly because it’s so bleeding unnecessary.
What purpose is served by calling allies “Coerced and Bribed” other than throwing meat to the Angry Fringe? 99% of coherent voters are perfectly capable of grasping “While I certainly appreciate the fact that some allies have stood behind us, it is also true that the President could have done a much better job and built a much stronger coalition.” In point of fact, that’s more appealing because it sounds presidential, as opposed to political.
THIS annoys me … you are essentially accusing me of lying, when I posted the link. To repeat: She is official campaign staff and was speaking in her capacity as campaign staff. If I’d just said “his sister,” the implication would be that she was just his sister, as easily ignorable as a Billy Carter. I’d never dream of holding a politician accountable for what his idiot cousin says; we all have idiot cousins.
But if he hires his sister and gives her a job speaking on his behalf, then it does reflect on him. The fact that she was his sister is a side point; her position as official campaign staff is the *only * reason its noteworthy.
If you can’t see that distinction, I’m afraid there’s nothing more to say.
I think no such thing. I think we have a handful of nations helping us, and that we need all the help we can get. And I think dismissing their contributions, and calling them “bribed” is a good way to make them stop. and also a good way of making new ones not come.
I think you are well aware that it is possible to disagree forcefully and politely at the same time.
Actually, I’ll be voting third party again this year. I’d hoped to see Kerry take a responsible position based on the situation as it exists now, with the allies we have now, and in light of the fact that if he wins he’s gonna have to play the cards as they sit, and stop looking for cheap applause from the Chomsky Left.
He called them “coerced and bribed” and “a phony coalition” and his campaign staff called Allawi a puppet. Links already provided.
You said that my post was “really just a variation on the “If you criticize Bush, you’re anti-American” meme.”
I said or implied no such thing; the only person who brought up Anti-Americanism was you. You were defending yourself against a charge that I never made, and would not make. I call that somewhat paranoid. If that strikes you as an insult, you can avoid it by only responding to what I actually say.
I sorta wish we had a rule against starting threads that directly parrot somebody’s talking points. I could have sworn the Bush campaign has said exactly what the OP said on the trail. Bush said it in the first debate, and Cheney said it in the VP debate. If you’re going to base a post on a campaign’s claim, shouldn’t you at least read the other side’s response?
Allow me to advise you on how well Kerry will do with the biggest US ally in Iraq - the UK.
First the current attitude here to Tony Blair, who swept to an overwhelming electoral victory in the last election:
*Kidnappers beheaded British hostage Kenneth Bigley after twice releasing videos in which he wept and pleaded with Prime Minister Tony Blair for his life. One of Bigley’s brothers blamed Blair, saying Friday the prime minister has “blood on his hands.” *
http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Iraq
MPs are planning to impeach Tony Blair for “high crimes and misdemeanours” in taking Britain to war against Iraq, reviving an ancient practice last used against Lord Palmerston more than 150 years ago.
The father of a soldier killed in Iraq threatened to hang himself on the West Pier in Brighton yesterday, moments before Tony Blair’s speech at the Labour Party conference.
The bitterness shown in all these stories is because Blair followed Bush into Iraq.
Even Blair knows it’s political suicide to associate with Bush:
US and UK officials dread presidential trip
…
Mr Bush is to fly into London tomorrow evening for the first state visit since President Woodrow Wilson in 1918, whose path was strewn with roses by a people grateful for his help during the war. There will be no such public welcome for Mr Bush, and protesters will dog his path until he leaves on Friday evening.
BRITISH Prime Minister Tony Blair is refusing to fly to the United States to receive a medal bestowed on him by the nation for his support over last year’s Iraq war, a London newspaper reported today.
US President George W. Bush has put huge pressure on his closest ally to pick up the Congressional Medal of Honour in person
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10534577%5E1702,00.html
So the simple truth is that the UK will joyfully ally with Kerry.
If Bush wins, the special relationship between America and Britain will be seriously damaged. And there is no way we will help Bush in any future war.
I think the most offensive treatment of our allies came from this administration, specifically Donald Rumsfeld, who dismissively, exceptionally dismissively described the British as “work-arounds.” Not content with that, he divided our traditional allies into “Old Europe” versus some other group with whom we are now allies.
Our allies also did not like being written out of the reconstruction by Wolfowitz, who wanted only countries that “bled” to be involved in the post “mission accomplished” phase. Good job, Wolfowitz, we sure are bleeding.
Didn’t you hear? Poland’s dropping out of the coalition. Kerry could hardly do worse than Bush in that regard.
See glee’s post.
I just find it unbelievably ironic that after all the venom Bush has spewed at Kerry, that you would expect Kerry to handle Bush with kid gloves.
O.K., let’s take another deep breath here. I did no such thing.
I don’t buy that for a second. It would be simplicity itself, if one is so hell bent on mentioning that she is part of his campaign staff, to simply say so AND give her identity. There’s still no reason to mask the fact that it was Kerry’s sister.
Well you sure could have fooled me, the way you were talking. You continue to deny the obvious fact that Bush’s “coalition” is a farce.
Kerry has been as much or more polite than Bush throughout this campaign.
This doesn’t even warrant a serious response. :rolleyes:
O.K., furt? You’re REALLY freaking out now. Go back and read my post. You will find that it is in response to duality72, who quoted the “talking-points” website. You will notice I said NOTHING about your post. You seriously need to calm down and stop being overly defensive. The talking-point LAID OUT ON THAT WEBSITE is a variation on the “If you criticize Bush, you’re anti-American” meme. It’s exactly the same kind of nonsense, designed to divert attention away from Bush’s catastrophic failure as a statesman. That’s how I feel. It’s nothing personal, so don’t take it personally. The idea is that if Kerry doesn’t kiss Bush’s ass, he’s hurting the United States. That’s a load of crap.
Nonsense, furt. You were rude, and you know it perfectly well. It’s really sad how you can’t keep your emotions in check.
I posted this thread after hearing what Kerry said about Allawi, and thinking back toprevious things. You wanna address what I said, or you want to hypothesize about my reading habits?
Sorry, I think that right there trumps any number of op-eds. YMMV.