I’m a bit puzzled by all this criticism.
Yes, Bush is practically a pariah worldwide.
But there are no WMDs in Iraq now and that’s down to him. :eek: 
The fact that it would be an almost unprecedented breach of the wall of silence surrounding this administration. What other unauthorized leaks can we recall that took place before an official’s firing? John Dean, who knows from paranoid, secretive presidents, calls Bush the clear winner even over Nixon. There are whole websites devoted to the topic. Hell, one of his very first acts as president had nothing to do with the economy, foreign policy, the environment, education, the interior, energy, commerce, defense, agriculture, labor, transportation, etc., it was to seal off presidential records from public scrutiny, and whether this initiative was to protect his father’s reputation or his own or both is anybody’s guess. The recent elections did nothing to prevent the rot in the executive branch, so there’s no reason to believe that any recent “leaks” (which should for this administration be referred to as “talking points the White House wishes to inject into the public forum without attribution”) are any less intentional and self-serving than, say, making use of tools like Robert Novak to expose Valerie Plame.
I swear, the ability of this administration to control information is so out of proportion to its capacity to perceive and process facts that one is tempted to apply labels like “insanity” to a government rather than a person.
That’s something else entirely. That’s an obsession with classifying stuff and not talking to the press by the politicians and political appointees in the administration. But there are lots of career bureaucrats in the government, and IIRC, many particularly in the State Dept. who detest Bush. There have been leaks about the NSA wiretap program, the secret CIA interrogations, and others that were clearly not orchestrated by Bush.
This leak has been discussed a lot in the last few days, and I’ve seen lots of different speculation about the source. In fact, there are all kinds of possible scenarios to account for the diplomatic posturing that is going on between Bush and Maliki, and I think it would be naive to assume that we know enough about what’s going on to determine what the one explanation must be.
BTW, I should add that I think Bush is a nitwit when it comes to foreign policy, even if I’m not convinced his administration purposely leaked this particular memo.
Interesting commentary opining that the memo was not only leaked by the Admin, it was written solely for that purpose.
We’ll never know, of course, but I would be amazed if the leak was accidental. Indeed, I see little reason to even write such a thing unless it was to be leaked.
Wouldn’t “frontally lobotomized” imply lack of aggression?
Maybe let’s try “parietally damaged”
(Unless I got that part of the brain wrong, too.) 
I’m accepting that as a given. The reason behind it, however, is still murky. But I’m willing to bet it backfires, whatever the intention.
Odds are the story will go something like," Senator(D) had this memo for 6 months before choosing to leak it right before an important meeting. See how bad those Dems are?!?! " As much as I loathe what the 'pubs have been doing, the Dems have availed themselves to them as a near perfect heat sink.
I’m not either, but considering their control of information in the past, if they didn’t intentionally leak it, it means that their discipline is falling apart. Very possible toward the end of an Administration.
I don’t see any issue with the memo being written - it certainly makes sense for someone to analyze the situation of a significan player. I’d suspect that not every low level clerk got access to it, though.
If they didn’t leak it, they should quickly push the justice department to investigate. That’s how it’s worked with the Bushies in the past.
Is the “purposeful leak” the concensus out among the various news media? Maybe I got a slanted view watching the news yesterday, but I thought there was a debate about it. Anyway, can you really not see any reason that Bush shouldn’t be kept updated on the effectiveness of the Maliki governemtn? Really? Not even as he prepares to meet with Maliki? Seems to me he should get regular reports specifically on that subject.
Dr. Angela Merkel is the Chancellor of Germany, not the Prime Minister.
Diplomatic missions as a nominally objective negotatior is one thing, but when it came to world affairs on the larger scale, the Clinton Administration measured pretty poorly. From the indifference to supporting democracy in the former Soviet Union to a bipolar attitude toward Africa, not to mention concessions to nations like China and Indonesia despite rampant human rights violations and suppression of democratic elements, the Clinton Administration just didn’t seem to know what to do on the world stage. Getting the Catholics and the Protestants agree to a cease-fire makes for a good photo op but has little effect on the US interest as a whole. Getting Israel and the PLO to sit down and talk, much less make an agreement was without a doubt a major accomplishment (all the moreso for for our stalwart support of Israel whether right or wrong), but again does relatiely little to serve American interests or the world as a whole.
I’d be far more impressed if Clinton had managed to make strong ties with the Russian Federation, or had put serious political backing behind preventing genocides in Africa or Eastern Europe, or had effectively modernized and streamlined the US military rather than just gutting out major parts of it for cost reduction. I’d agree that Clinton probably could have talked other nations into supporting an invasion in the post-9/11 environment, but then, he probably wouldn’t have…which would have been the wise move anyway. Clinton could have done a lot better with foreign policy than he did; on the other hand, it’s increasingly hard to see how Bush II could do much worse. Pretty much anyone comes off as favorable in comparison.
Stranger
I thought she was “Head of Covernment.”
Wouldn’t a leak like this be a great machiavellian maneuver?
Think about it: Iraq’s prime minister gets pissed at the U.S.'s president and starts to distance himself from the U.S. This cascades into actual enmity between the two and makes the Iraqi prime minister easier to accept to his own people.
Even Machiavelli Can Backfire:
On top of the previous
I think everyone’s just too pissed to buy into that sort of symbolic kabuki crap.
Stranger On A Train you did notice that I started my post with
You initially said that he basically did nothing
If you want to be pedantic about what you meant, that’s fair enough but I was merely pointing out that in some international things he was very effective. They may not have benefited the US directly* but the involvement was very effective.
*arguable considering the amount of US investment in Ireland as a whole. Check out Ireland in this map. They aren’t Irish companies that make Ireland so big.
You may doubt Stranger’s logic , but it makes perfect sense when you think about it. Granted, Clinton got the PLO and Israel to cease hostilities and shake hands in front of the entire world. Granted, he got the Catholics and Protestants to begin negotiations. Granted that no president in modern history had managed to do either of these things (let alone both at once) despite intense efforts. It doesn’t automatically follow Clinton was good at diplomacy!
Or… wait a minute… now that I think about it, I guess it does! :rolleyes:
Clinton’s achievements were more a matter of NOT stepping in cowpies, which there were plenty of to step in during his Administration, and of being much more focussed on the threat of terrorism than the Bush Administration. Most notably, the Clinton Administration managed not to get us involved in any land wars in the Middle East for no reason at all. In that respect alone, the Clinton Administration has done a job that is an order of magnitude better than the Bush Administration.
Methinks you are grading on a curve, one that has a downward slope for the Clinton Administration that is not matched by an objective data about the Clinton Administration performance.