Bush on Bush

Jaakko · March 10, 2003, 15:52

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...605441,00.html

Quote:

Bush Sr warning over unilateral action

From Roland Watson in Washington

THE first President Bush has told his son that hopes of peace in the Middle East would be ruined if a war with Iraq were not backed by international unity.
Drawing on his own experiences before and after the 1991 Gulf War, Mr Bush Sr said that the brief flowering of hope for Arab-Israeli relations a decade ago would never have happened if America had ignored the will of the United Nations.

He also urged the President to resist his tendency to bear grudges, advising his son to bridge the rift between the United States, France and Germany.

“You’ve got to reach out to the other person. You’ve got to convince them that long-term friendship should trump short-term adversity,” he said.

The former President’s comments reflect unease among the Bush family and its entourage at the way that George W. Bush is ignoring international opinion and overriding the institutions that his father sought to uphold. Mr Bush Sr is a former US Ambassador to the UN and comes from a family steeped in multi-lateralist traditions.

Although not addressed to his son in person, the message, in a speech at Tufts University in Massachusetts, was unmistakeable. Mr Bush Sr even came close to conceding that opponents of his son’s case against President Saddam Hussein, who he himself is on record as loathing, have legitimate cause for concern.

He said that the key question of how many weapons of mass destruction Iraq held “could be debated”. The case against Saddam was “less clear” than in 1991, when Mr Bush Sr led an international coalition to expel invading Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Objectives were “a little fuzzier today”, he added.

After the Gulf War, Mr Bush Sr steered Israel and its Arab neighbours to the Madrid conference, a stepping stone to the historic Israeli-Palestinian Oslo accords, in much the same way that the present President has talked about the removal of Saddam as opening the way to a wider peace in the region.

In an ominous warning for his son, Mr Bush Sr said that he would have been able to achieve nothing if he had jeopardised future relations by ignoring the UN. “The Madrid conference would never have happened if the international coalition that fought together in Desert Storm had exceeded the UN mandate and gone on its own into Baghdad after Saddam and his forces.”

Also drawing on the lessons of 1991, he said that it was imperative to mend fences with allies immediately, rather than waiting until after a war. He had been infuriated with the decision of King Hussein of Jordan to side with Saddam rather than the US, but while criticising the Jordanian leader in public and freezing $41 million in US aid, he also passed word to King Hussein that he understood his domestic tensions.

Mr Bush Jr, who is said never to forget even relatively minor slights, has alarmed analysts with the way in which he has allowed senior Administration figures such as Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, aggressively to criticise France and Germany.

There are, however, signs that Mr Bush Sr’s message may be getting through.

Father and son talk regularly and it was, in part, pressure from Mr Bush Sr’s foreign policy coterie, that helped to persuade the President to go to the UN last September.

A very, very interesting article.

It just about confirms the fears I had about Bush Junior's way of doing "diplomacy". Now I hope that Daddy can finally pound some sense into him.

Guynemer · March 10, 2003, 16:25

Anyone else see this thread title and hope for an entirely different subject?

SlowwHand · March 10, 2003, 16:28

I did, Guyne.

I couldn't care less what Sr. Bush has to say.
If he'd had any balls, and stood up to the U.N. in the first place, his son wouldn't be cleaning up after him, now would he?

PLATO · March 10, 2003, 16:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Guynemer
Anyone else see this thread title and hope for an entirely different subject?

Jaakko · March 10, 2003, 16:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Guynemer
Anyone else see this thread title and hope for an entirely different subject?

In all honesty, I must admit I didn't come up with the title myself.

DanS · March 10, 2003, 16:29

Here's a better article on the same speech.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Mar8.html

In short, Bush 41 wasn't criticizing Bush 43 for going to war without UN approval. Rather, he was saying not to burn any bridges while doing it.

Dis · March 10, 2003, 16:45

hot lesbian action. I love it.

Guynemer · March 10, 2003, 16:49

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Here's a better article on the same speech.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Mar8.html

In short, Bush 41 wasn't criticizing Bush 43 for going to war without UN approval. Rather, he was saying not to burn any bridges while doing it.

A decent thought; too bad he didn't share it before 43 started playing with a Zippo whilst flinging kerosene to and fro.

Arrian · March 10, 2003, 17:08

Essentially the same thought I had, Guy: I wish Bush the elder had spoken up earlier, if his speaking up really had an effect on Bush the younger.

-Arrian

orange · March 10, 2003, 17:09

sounds like a lesbian porn I recently rented

Agathon · March 10, 2003, 17:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
hot lesbian action. I love it.

Damn! Beaten to it.

Switch · March 10, 2003, 17:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Essentially the same thought I had, Guy: I wish Bush the elder had spoken up earlier, if his speaking up really had an effect on Bush the younger.

-Arrian

I just hope he can have some significant impact now, while there's still a little hope.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaakko
Now I hope that Daddy can finally pound some sense into him.

Right now I'd like to pound some "sense" into him

Imran Siddiqui · March 10, 2003, 17:35

Well it just proves what has been known for a while. 43 doesn't want to follow in 41's footsteps, but wants to instead follow 40... um, Reagan

.

Stefu · March 10, 2003, 17:39

Quote:

hot lesbian action. I love it.

I was thinking more of like that time when Conan O'Brien had that 'Max on Max' thingy. But then again, I'm twisted.

Wernazuma III · March 10, 2003, 17:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well it just proves what has been known for a while. 43 doesn't want to follow in 41's footsteps, but wants to instead follow 40... um, Reagan

.

He's pretty good at simulating Alzheimer.

Imran Siddiqui · March 10, 2003, 18:03

Provost Harrison · March 10, 2003, 19:06

Quote:

Bush on Bush

GePap · March 10, 2003, 19:53

So when does Bush start selling weapons to Iran?... after all, his hero did.

More astounding to me than this speech, wich sounds like classic Bush 41 is the commercials for the Institute of Peace, or somehting like that, which had Bush 41 and Carter doing the voic over, and at one point Bush 41 says: "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". How radical a thing to say given then times, and by Papa Bush.

What Bush 43 needs it to understand that there are things called "opposing view-points", and that he is not always utterly correct.

Lincoln · March 10, 2003, 21:07

The Times article is one of the most slanted I have ever read. Bush senior had absloutely no criticism for his son if you read the complete speech he made without the help of Times out of context editing. I will try to find a copy of the complete speech somewhere...

Lincoln · March 10, 2003, 21:09

http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/030303BushSpeech.htm

MRT144 · March 10, 2003, 21:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Guynemer
Anyone else see this thread title and hope for an entirely different subject?

Clam fight!

Spiffor · March 10, 2003, 21:37

Quote:

Originally stated by George Bush Sr.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

Someone influent is actually going against the bigotry, and trying to think about opposing viewpoints ? Bush should be burnt by Rush Limbaugh for being un-American

More seriously, I'm amazed such a comment could have made it into the media without being harshly criticized by nearly everyone. While it is absolutely true, I thought America wasn't ready at all for such a truth, because of its self confidence of doing the right thing.

monkspider · March 10, 2003, 21:59

This is a wonderful thing for Bush Sr. to admit, God bless him. It is always inspirational for someone to do what's right in the face of great peril. I find Spiffor's post to be spot-on.

Imran Siddiqui · March 11, 2003, 01:08

Ya know this stuff was a minor part of the reason why Bush I lost. He was percieved as a 'weenie', which basically means he saw opposing viewpoints and made statements like 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.

It ain't like this is something new for him to say.

Spiffor · March 11, 2003, 01:11

Erm, is it 'weenie' to 'see opposite viewpoints' in your opinion too, or are you describing the American population at large ?
It is however a scary thought

Imran Siddiqui · March 11, 2003, 01:31

Well that's how Bush's opponents described him. Clinton, IIRC, hammered Bush on dealing with the Chinese and saying Bush had no backbone to deal with the PRC (and then of course did the same thing Bush did).