Please recall that he wasn’t actually in a grocery store - he was at a trade show, where a politician generally is polite and respectful to the presenters.
Far too much was made of this little incident, and you, with your preconceptions, were more than happy to see them catered to.
Maybe the problem is that George HW Bush just isn’t good at making small talk. After all, this is the same guy who asked a Jordinian general “How dead is the Dead Sea?” and observed after touring Auschwitz, “Boy, they were big on crematoria, weren’t they?”
You’re debunking the facts of a video, but you’re not saying anything to debunk the view that Bush didn’t connect well with average people. The facts surrounding the scanner thing don’t matter one whit: it is merely put an illustration to something widely believed. People were already inclined to believe Bush was out of touch, and the video – even if it was described inaccurately – reinforced that existing opinion.
Just like people were inclined to believe that Dukakis was soft on crime, and Bush’s campaign ads reinforced it; just like people were inclined to believe that Kerry is a flip-flopper, and Bush II’s ads confirmed it; Bush I was belived to be an elitist, and the video did nothing to disabuse people of that view.
That’s certainly a good point, and many of Bush’s image problems were self-inflicted.
Your ignorance of politics is astounding.
One of the things I remember the most is when he kept insisting we were not in a recession. Even though he was technically accurate based on the definition the economists use, to the average person all we knew was that the economy had slowed significantly and quite a few people were pretty anxious about their jobs. I guess I put this in the out of touch category.
All in all I would say he did “ok”
For those who think he did a good job with the first Gulf War, remember that he left Saddam in power and had to be pushed by Margaret Thatcher into going to war in the first place: “Now George, this is no time to go wobbly.”
If he had taken Saddam out then, we would have had more than additional decade of the madness that is Iraq and would be no closer to a stable government than we are now.
Give me a reluctant warrior rather than a trigger-happy cowboy any day of the week.
I disagree: we’d have seen the split up of Iraq a la Yugoslavia sooner rather than later.
Agreed. But I’d prefer a decisive one.
I think his motives were more about maintaining a balance of power than anything. If you look at his history with the Reagan administration the whole point of their foreign policy was to make two potentially powerful countries, keep them at each other’s throats and dependent upon our weapons as they weaken each other, insuring that neither will come out on top. However, ever since the first gulf war, Iran has been steadily increasing in power, and is now in a position to be a very powerful nation, especially if the Shiites can manage to maintain an alliance between Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran. We may very well be seeing the rise of the Persian empire once more. Not necessarily a bad thing IMO, as having multiple powerful nations in the world locks in a balance so that no one country can be too powerful. It will be interesting as we watch how Iran shifts the power by being so intimately connected with India, China, and Russia.
Again, I don’t think one can remove Bush’s “New World Order” scheming from the equation. You have to remember that he helped create Saddam Hussein in the first place, he helped sell the weapons that Saddam used to gas Iran, Israel and the Kurds. It was his ambassador that told Saddam that the United States had no opinion on the subject of an invasion of Kuwait, who BTW was slant drilling under the Iraqi border. He didn’t necessarily want to go to war with the 4th largest military in the world, who he KNEW had chemical and biological weapons, because he helped broker the deal that procured them.
Erek
Wow, could you have possibly made more unsupported statements in one post. Would you care to cite everyone? You have an awful lot of statements as facts that I have never seen accepted as true. Only as possibilities.
Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php
What follows is an accurate chronology of United States involvement in the arming of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war 1980-88. It is a powerful indictment of the president Bush administration attempt to sell war as a component of his war on terrorism. It reveals US ambitions in Iraq to be just another chapter in the attempt to regain a foothold in the Mideast following the fall of the Shah of Iran.
Iran-Contra
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/
Juan Cole on Shia in Iraq
He talks in this video about the alliance between Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran. If you don’t want to watch the video transcripts are available on the site.
www.evolvetv.tv
Iran-China oil
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3970855.stm
China has signed an agreement to buy oil and gas from Iran and to develop Iran’s Yadavaran oil field, according to state media from both countries.
Iran-China-Russia
This illustrates my balance of power point
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FK06Ak01.html
For the moment, however, the Iran-Russia-China axis is more a tissue of think-tanks than full-fledged policy, and the mere trade interdependence of the US and China, as well as Russia’s growing energy ties to the US alone, not to mention its weariness over any perceived Chinese “overstretch”, militate against a grand alliance pitted against the Western superpower. In fact, the Cold War-type alliances are highly unlikely to be replicated in the current milieu of globalization and complex interdependence; instead, what is likely to emerge in the future are issue-focused or, for the lack of a better word, issue-area alliances whereby, to give an example, the above-said axis may be inspired into existence along geostrategic considerations somewhat apart from purely economic considerations.
Analysis of Iran
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iran.html
Phases 17 and 18 of South Pars are expected to produce 2 Bcf/d of natural gas, possibly for export to Pakistan/India, plus 70,000 bbl/d or so of condensates. In late 2004, Iran invited companies to bid on Phases 17 and 18.
Killing the dollar in Iran
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GH26Dj01.html
The IOB can count on two sharp arrows in its holster. It can - and probably will - lure European buyers with oil prices quoted in euros, saving them dollar transaction costs. And it can strike barter deals with oil-hungry giants like China and India who have a lot of products and commodities to offer. One doubts whether American hamburgers and legal services will be considered adequate collateral for the world’s most after-sought resource.
President Bush’s speech to Congress
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/pal/pal10.htm
March 6, 1991 (extracts). This speech has often been cited as the US administration’s principal policy statement on the new order in the Middle East following the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait
Document: New world order: George Bush’s speech, 6 Mar 1991
Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a “world order” in which “the principles of justice and fair play … protect the weak against the strong …” A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfil the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.
History of the United States (1988-present) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Conflict in the Middle East triggered yet another international crisis on August 2, 1990, when Iraq invaded and attempted to annex neighboring Kuwait as its nineteenth province. Leading up to the invasion, Iraq complained to the United States Department of State about Kuwaiti slant drilling. This had continued for years, but now Iraq needed oil revenues to pay off its debts and avert an economic crisis. Saddam ordered troops to the Iraq-Kuwait border, creating alarm over the prospect of an invasion. April Glaspie, the United States ambassador to Iraq, met with Saddam in an emergency meeting, where the Iraqi president stated his intention to continue talks. Iraq and Kuwait then met for a final negotiation session, which failed. Saddam then sent his troops into Kuwait.
Gulf War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
n late July, 1990, as negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait stalled, Iraq massed troops on Kuwait’s borders and summoned American ambassador April Glaspie for an unanticipated meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Two transcripts of that meeting have been produced, both of them controversial. According to the transcripts, Saddam outlined his grievances against Kuwait, while promising that he would not invade Kuwait before one more round of negotiations. In the version published by The New York Times on September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup, but went on to say:
We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly.
http://www.sundayherald.com/27572
How did Iraq get its weapons? We sold them - [Sunday Herald]
Is that good enough for you? If you need more information, read “House of Bush, House of Saud” by Craig Unger. It should be easy to find, it’s a best seller.
Erek
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2849.htm
U.S. forces in Baghdad might now be searching high and low for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, but in the past Saddam was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism and they used him as their instrument for more than 40 years, according to former U.S. intelligence diplomats and intelligence officials.
According to another former senior State Department official, Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim. According to this source, Saddam was installed in an apartment in Baghdad on al-Rashid Street directly opposite Qasim’s office in Iraq’s Ministry of Defense, to observe Qasim’s movements.
Adel Darwish, Middle East expert and author of “Unholy Babylon,” said the move was done “with full knowledge of the CIA,” and that Saddam’s CIA handler was an Iraqi dentist working for CIA and Egyptian intelligence. U.S. officials separately confirmed Darwish’s account.
Darwish said that Saddam’s paymaster was Capt. Abdel Maquid Farid, the assistant military attaché at the Egyptian Embassy who paid for the apartment from his own personal account. Three former senior U.S. officials have confirmed that this is accurate.
The assassination was set for Oct. 7, 1959, but it was completely botched. Accounts differ. One former CIA official said that the 22-year-old Saddam lost his nerve and began firing too soon, killing Qasim’s driver and only wounding Qasim in the shoulder and arm. Darwish told UPI that one of the assassins had bullets that did not fit his gun and that another had a hand grenade that got stuck in the lining of his coat.
Thank you that was an amazing amount of information, I will need a little time to read it all over. It is nice to see that you could support what you were saying.
Sorry if I sounded snarky but the sum total of what you posted did not jive with how I remember the it all unfolding.
I was actually hoping you could support it.
I now have some reading to do.
Thank you.
Jim
No problem, I’ll be interested to hear your take on it.
Erek
Well, I poured through the articles yesterday and today.
What I didn’t see was where Saddam had been playing the US & USSR off each other for years. Wasn’t Iraq more in the Soviet sphere when Iran was a friendly dictatorship?
…The part about Saddam acting for the CIA at a young age is quite surprising. I still have some logical doubts on this one. If it is true, I would think Saddam would confirm it and proclaim it during his trial, which would leave me to believe the CIA would have found a way to help Saddam to a fatal accident before the trial. I’ll retain some doubts on this one for now.
…The Slant drilling is well documented, as is the wonderfully dumb position by the US ambassador.
…The Russian alliance with either a new Persia or China seems unlikely. I have been led to believe by years of articles that while the USSR is not overjoyed with the US they fear China and dislike much about them. They do not have a good track record with Islamic states. I would more readily believe that they would ally more closely with the EU or even Nato than China.
… China & Iran, I believe fully. Right now China will trade with anyone and doesn’t care much about Islamic states, as they hate the US & her allies far more than China.
…With the balance of power item, it appears I thought we had a different reason for supplying Iraq, but as I cannot find much support for it, I think I have learned Bush Sr. may have been dumber than I thought. I was in the Navy in this time period and I thought we were selling weapons to Iraq to provide us a bulwark against Iran and the USSR moving down to the Gulf.
I didn’t say Saddam was playing the US off agains the USSR, I said the US was playing Iraq off Iran.
Read “House of Bush House of Saud”, the sources in that book are well documented, and it is where I learned about Saddam as a CIA assassin. So if you look at Unger’s sources you can probably find more documentation. The thing I’ve come to believe is that it’s not that you can’t find out what the CIA was up to, it’s that they hide the signal under a lot of noise. The truth is there and publically available a lot of the time.
I didn’t say Russia was allying with China, I said they were both investing in Iran creating an interest in Iran which would then make Iran a much more difficult target for US aggression. Iran would then be the keystone of an arch so to speak, and it would screw a lot of countries if America went after Iran in the future. When it comes to foreign policy, it’s not about whether or not they are buddies, friendship is irrelevant, it’s about interests, and which interests are bigger. The reason people are going toward Iran is diversification. If they spread out their interests in many directions then if one country where they have interestes gets nailed, they aren’t damned, and don’t necessarily need to go to war. However, what it does do, like I said is create a balance of power making it a far more delicate situation, and removes the ability for the United States to excercise unilateral foreign policy.
The way I see China’s moves is that they are trying to balance the US, they are tied to us intrinsically economically, and they want to buffer against us. You have to look at Iran’s position on the map, they are right in the center of Asia. What happens is that countries make oil trades. If Russia makes an oil trade with India for instance, they ship oil to Iran which Iran uses domestically, and then Iran ships Iranian oil to India. It cuts down on transportation costs significantly, which is a major factor in the price of oil.
The thing is we were arming both Iran and Iraq. According to “House of Bush, House of Saud” again, there were two opposing factions in the Reagan administration, one that sent weapons to Iraq, and one that sent weapons to Iran. The Iraqi faction was more powerful and George HW Bush was one of their leaders. However, you have to remember that not only did they send Iraq missiles and intelligence, but they also sent them biological and chemical weapons. This shows a desire to simply destroy lives in the middle east as a key part of their middle eastern policy. I would speculate that the fear was that in a Soviet collapse these countries could rise to be major threats.
Iran has been making multi-billion dollar trade deals with all of those countries. That’s what makes Iran powerful. If they can make an alliance with Baghdad and Damascus, that would make Tehran the seat of power in central asia opposite Riyadh.
Also, if you’ll notice American movements have been encapsulating Iran. I’m willing to believe that the long term goal was to go after Iran with a stable Afghanistan and Iraq, but the Bush administration simply lacked the strategic foresight and understanding of the political climate they were creating in order to effectively do this.
I am of the opinion that goal has been for the United States to dominate the entire world completely. I think it is working out in such a way that we don’t really need to dominate it, that we have a world government, a New World Order so to speak. The only thing I am afraid of is that the current Bush administration will be so dumb that the mess the whole thing up by trying too hard to control it.
Erek
Which would explain the background behind the immortal quote vis-á-vis the Iranian faction, “I was out of the loop,” adding a new phrase to the language, perhaps that Bush’s most lasting accomplishment.
One of the ideas Unger presents in House of Bush House of Saud, is how Bush is able to recede back and let other people be in power, let them make decisions and affect them from the background. He is the consummate power behind the throne guy, a Cardinal Richelieu sort.