August 22, 2006
Even conservative Fareed Zakaria says Bush is ill-suited for presidency
Yesterday, besides commenting on his warped
political actions, I wrote about George Bush being tempermentally
unsuited for the office of the presidency. Recently, conservative NEWSWEEK
columnist Fareed Zakaria provided his take on the worst self-imposed
foreign policy barrier George Bush has erected--bullying--one that
blinds its practitioners, poisons any attempt at positive discourse
even if such zealots are capable of reason and creates extremely long
memories for its recipients.
Unfortunately, this habit is a fixture--it isn't going away. This
distinguishing characteristic of George Bush has been present since his
very early years. He has figuratively stabbed his closest foreign ally
Tony Blair in the back on multiple occasions and, believe me, this
hasn't gone undetected by other leaders on the world stage.
The mantra outside (inside, too) the United States is that George Bush
cannot be trusted. Gestures, even if authentic, by Condi Rice are
negated by the blustering of John Bolton at the United Nations and the
unrestrained flaming of Dick Cheney and others. Driven by Bush, the
schizophrenia of American foreign policy remains unabated. After six
years, nothing can be done to change this or his legacy.
Why We Don't Get No Respect
'It's not a real conversion,' remarks one senior European politician. 'It's a product of failure.'
By Fareed Zakaria
NEWSWEEK
July 3-10, 2006 issue - The
Bush administration must wonder these days if it has a Rodney
Dangerfield problem. No matter what it does, it can't seem to get any
respect. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has engineered a broad
shift in American diplomacy over the last year, moving policy toward
greater multilateralism, cooperation and common sense on Iran, North
Korea and Iraq, and several other issues. And yet it hasn't produced a
change in attitudes toward the United States. The recent Pew
global survey documents a further drop in America's poor image abroad.
President Bush tried to be conciliatory while visiting Europe last week
but confronted an angry public. A poll published in the Financial Times
on the eve of his visit showed that across the continent, the United
States was considered a greater threat to world peace than Iran or
North Korea.
Why aren't people noticing the new,
improved Bush foreign policy? First, the changes coming out of
Washington have been very recent. Perhaps more important, they remain
incremental and incomplete. This is probably because they are still
contested within the administration. Almost all of those officials who
embody the administration's crude and clumsy policies of the first
termled by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney remain in office.
They merely appear to be lying low, for now. So there's a limit to how
much things can change. What appears like a revolution in Bush
policy--the administration is now finally thinking that maybe,
possibly, Guantánamo should be shut--often is just the belated
arrival of common sense...
...In Washington, it's still more important to look tough than be effective...
...But the main reason the Bush
administration's overtures aren't having the effect that might have
been expected is that they have come about under duress. "You're bogged
down in Iraq, and so you need us to help you," said a senior European
politician who declined to be named because he didn't want to add to
transatlantic tensions. "It's not a real conversion. It's a product of
failure. The administration tried unilateralism and, when it failed,
went for a multilateral approach."
To read the rest. go here.
top
RSS feed
|