Subtlety is not one of my strengths

Welcome to Small.To v2.0
Sunday, July 15 2018

Diplomats?! Don\'t need them when we use Bush diplomacy?

PoliticA British cabinet minister resigns over support of the U.S. war on Iraq.

A State Department staffer ends a 20-year career by resigning in protest of U.S. foreign policy. John Brady Kiesling, formerly a political counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Athens, becomes the first diplomat to resign over the Iraq issue. Lest you think this isn't a big deal, this guy's served the government for 20 years or so. The full text of Mr. Kiesling's letter is here. It features such statements as "The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security." I think this is consistent with my claim that W's policy enangers what most of us love about the U.S.
Diplomats?! Don\'t need them when we use Bush diplomacy? | 7 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Very limited view of the world...
Authored by: soildork onTuesday, March 18 2003
I have to politely disagree with any notion that the world opinion should supercede the rights of our people and our government to seek out the best interests of our nation. In a perfect world, we (in the national sense) could weigh the various world opinions, and accomodate them as politely as possible, while advancing our own interests. But, in the true world of international hegemony, where countries pursue their own self interests (and don\'t think for a minute that this is altruism), that is a recipe for diminishing status and the associated trade/military/economic powers that come along with that status.

It is documented that France has billions of dollars in contracts to develop Iraqi oil fields. Is it naive to assume that these billions of $$$ are not influencing the international stance? I think so. We as Americans do not get all of the information our government is privy to (certainly not the influences on the respective dissenting governments in the United Nations), and therefore we must assume that the leaders of our country are making decisoins based on more information than we have.

But, this leads to the next fallacy, and the next generic agument you hear on the streets. GWB is \"too stupid\" or \"illegitimate,\" so we cannot trust our government to represent us. A few quick points dipels these myths... I find it is the smartest, andmost humble men that surround themselves with brilliant practitioners in their respective fields. I cannot be the best carpenter or plumber to fix my home. But, thank God that Joe and Bill are good friends of mine, and I have access to their expertise when it becomes relevant to my decision making. As for legitimacy, this is bellyaching, pure and simple. Even if the electoral college was deadlocked by the results of the Florida recount actually going in favor of Gore (which subsequent research clearly shows it did not), then the election would have been tossed in to the House of Representatives as indicated in our Constitution, where the Republicans hold a majority. Game, set, match. So, at every checkpoint in the Constitutional process laid out to elect our President, GWB advanced. The one argument I have heard here, that the majority of the country voted for Gore, so why isn\'t he in the White House? Well, we are not a democracy I hate to tell you. We are a Republic, and that is a subtle, and all important difference.

In a democracy, I would have a right to vote on the politics of what is happening in such far-away places as Maryland, even though I have no direct knowledge of the mitigating factors in the decision. Our founding fathers realized how critical this distinction was, and made it a point that people in other regions of our great land, with other economic factors and population base, cannot make decisions affecting my economic/personal welfare. Heck, we fought a war over this very concept called the Civil War, where the North decreed that slavery was wrong (no debate here, I agree), but the agrarian society of the south was dependent upon that workforce as they were not industrialized like the North was, and therefore had to defend their proverbial millstone.

The tangent comes back around here. When you look at the map of the population points that supported Gore or GWB, the cities were blue, and the rest red. Although this is over-simplified, the city-folk do not care, nor have they any wherewithall to know country life, and therefore should not have the right to supersede the folks in the \"flyover\" states unless they hold an electoral majority as laid out by our Constitution. Our founding fathers were brilliant, and this Constitution legitimizes GWB.

So, now that we can reasonable conclude that, although people do not like him personally ( a shallow way to think of our national interests in my opinion), GWB is in charge, rightfully so, and is doing the best he can with the totality of the information provided to him, then he knows more than we do, so it is in our best interest to support this country.

Another argument I have heard, this is about \"oil.\" A very pointed remark, one that is not meant to debate the international political forces at work, but to imply that GWB would risk millions of people\'s lives to make a few bucks. Shame on you that state this, as it is not grounded in fact, and is, again, your personal dislike for the man overruling your ability to think in the Nation\'s best interests. And, real quickly, to put you in your place, if it were about oil, we would trash Venezuela tomorrow, or we would have taken over Kuwait 12 years ago while we were the dominant force in that country, neither of which were even considered.

In closing, for all of you who try and rationalize the international discourse as sinister, or want to subjugate this great country to others who have their own driving interests and jealousies, it would be fair for you to own up and say that you do not like the man in charge, and cannot support our troops or our foreign policy because you place more weight in these petty dislikes than in patriotism.

God Bless the USA. It still brings tears to my eyes.
Diplomats?! Don\'t need them when we use Bush diplomacy?
Authored by: dbsmall onMonday, August 18 2003
Kiesling's at it again. Apparently, Bush is weak and Rumsfeld is pulling the strings. (Actually, I think Rove is pulling the strings, with help from Rummy and Cheney.) Bush hates the U.S.