Bush senior was a far better diplomat.

kolpo · March 17, 2003, 18:27

Just compare the strategy used by Bush senior and Bush junior. Bush senior was a genius and intelligent diplomat, he did it slow, patient and clever he even got muslim nations like Syria and Iran on our side.

China offered to send troops, France and Germany sended troops. He even got Germany and Japan so far that they paid big parts of the war. He bought the whole world toggetter and increased the solidarity and power of the UN.

Bush junior his diplomacy comes down to "they are bad! they are evil! If you don"t support us are you also bad and evil! will you have to face bad concequences!" add to this the minister of defense his remarks "some nations like Cuba, Lybia and Germany will never support us!". Powell was at the same time giving complet different signals. At one moment was it a war about disarment and could saddam stay if he complied, another moment was it a war for a regime change and even another moment was it to about democraticizing the middle east.

While Cheney was in public saying that they shouldn't go to the UN did Powell said exactly the opposide. They used "proof" about uranium transport in the UN without checking it.

I think that with Bush senior we would now have had an unaminius UN vote, France would send us troops, Germany would now be paying a part of the war, Tony would be loved in britain for his role in this great international succes and Saudi Arabia would allow US troops from it's territory with a smile, diplomacy can do a lot more then some people think just look to the Gulf war.

Imran Siddiqui · March 17, 2003, 18:29

Well duh. Bush, sr. was professional diplomat material. Being head of the CIA, US Ambassador to the UN, and Vice President makes you a better negotiator.

In this case though, Bush sr. probably would not have had better success. '91 was an invasion. Totally different.

Dis · March 17, 2003, 18:29

I think we can all agree on that.

but we have to play with the cards dealt to us by the voters.

KrazyHorse · March 17, 2003, 18:32

Vote Bush in '04:

He may be an incompetent monkey, but he's our incompetent monkey.

USA!

Arrian · March 17, 2003, 18:32

I didn't read the bulk of the post, since I agree completely with the title. Then again, I doubt there are many people who would actually assert that Bush II is more "diplomatic" than papa Bush.

-Arrian

Imran Siddiqui · March 17, 2003, 18:34

Hell, Arrian, there hasn't been a better diplomat as President than Bush I, since perhaps Thomas Jefferson.

kolpo · March 17, 2003, 18:40

"In this case though, Bush sr. probably would not have had better success. '91 was an invasion. Totally different"

While it is somewhat different do I think that he still would have succeed. He would have gaved the French and the Germans there extra time for inspection and this combined with good diplomacy would at least have prevented a French veto. If the French don't veto then won't the Russians and Chinese do that. The small nations don't want to fight the US on there own so we would have had a resolution. With a resolution and better diplomacy would nobody except the the usual suspects complain.

As ex-CIA head would he maybe be also better in making a case against Saddam, if he can't do it is there simply no case

btw, have you noticed that he even publicly suggested the UN way, he wouldn't have suggested that if that was impossible. So a UN vote is possible. This is the first time I have ever seen a father of a president attacking the points of view of his son.

Imran Siddiqui · March 17, 2003, 18:42

I think there is a case, but that France would never budge. A regime change would hurt their bottom line, since they are the country that has the most investment in Iraq now, and after a regime change that would be thrown open.

GePap · March 17, 2003, 18:44

Bush would have done a far better job than Junior on this issue:

1. He would have kept to one message- he probalby would have said disarmement and never mentioned regime change as an aim until getting widespreads agreement on it.

2. He would have openly stated that he would go through the UN- if we blame France's veto thread for our inability to garner even 9 votes (which I think was our failure and ours alone), then we can blaim Bush's constant claim that we could go alone for the French veto threat...

3. High end members fo the Cabinet wuld have actually left the country, to speak face to face with others.

4. He would not have ignored any state, specially allies like Germany and France (this admin. never even called either on the phone once) and would have sought to see what compromise was needed.

5. Perhaps most importantly of all, he would have based the military timetable on the diplomatic one, not the diplomatic timetable on the military one: military timetables can be precise and clear- diplopmacy is always messy.

6. Biggest difference is not that BUsh Senior was a skilled diplomat and junior isn't: that's what advisers are for. The big difference is that Bush Senior believes in diplomacy and working with allies, while this admin. could give a rats ass about anyone else.

Dis · March 17, 2003, 18:44

I would have liked to gave more time as well. Bush should have pushed for this over a year ago.

yes we know more time is meaningless. But I cannot help but think there was some way we could have got everyone on board if we played nice guys to Iraq.

KrazyHorse · March 17, 2003, 18:45

Imran, that makes no sense.

After a regime change there would be a hell of a lot more business to go around. While it's likely that their market share would decline, it's very unlikely that their absolute dollar value of contracts would go down...

Imran Siddiqui · March 17, 2003, 18:48

Quote:

After a regime change there would be a hell of a lot more business to go around. While it's likely that their market share would decline, it's very unlikely that their absolute dollar value of contracts would go down...

I think that is what they are concerned about. The French are afraid that the Americans will get most, if not all, the business in a future liberated Iraq, which will destroy their hold on the country.

Zero · March 17, 2003, 18:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
Vote Bush in '04:

He may be an incompetent monkey, but he's our incompetent monkey.

USA!

I'll vote fpr bush in hopes of him screwing things up and causing a WW III.

I need a lil spice in my life.

Imran Siddiqui · March 17, 2003, 18:51

CALC! Make your baseball pick!

KrazyHorse · March 17, 2003, 18:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

After a regime change there would be a hell of a lot more business to go around. While it's likely that their market share would decline, it's very unlikely that their absolute dollar value of contracts would go down...

I think that is what they are concerned about. The French are afraid that the Americans will get most, if not all, the business in a future liberated Iraq, which will destroy their hold on the country.

But the country isn't worth as much now as it would be when sanctions were lifted. And the French might have a head start too. Based solely on economic considerations, I'd see them as being pro-war...

Imran Siddiqui · March 17, 2003, 18:55

Not I. I mean, what else can their chants of 'No War for Oil' mean? They think the Americans are going to take all the oil (which mostly goes to Europe) from them!

And right now France is #1 in Iraq. They'd much rather prefer a peaceful route, so they keep their hold. Saddam has to die someday, and then the sanctions will be gone and France will be remembered as the friend of Iraq.

Drake Tungsten · March 17, 2003, 18:56

While I completely agree that Bush I was by far the superior diplomat, I don't think he would've succeeded in the current situation. A lot of hostility has built up towards US preeminence over the past 10 years, especially amongst our so-called "allies", and I don't think even 41's superior diplomatic skill could have overcome that hurdle...

KrazyHorse · March 17, 2003, 18:58

I think the chant means that people don't want to see Iraqis killed for nothing other than economic gain.

I don't think that millions of protestors are out in the streets to ensure the economic health of a select few French companies.

It's a silly suggestion. You might say that about their leadership, but that same public opposition is all the explanation I need...

kolpo · March 17, 2003, 19:00

"Not I. I mean, what else can their chants of 'No War for Oil' mean? They think the Americans are going to take all the oil (which mostly goes to Europe) from them!"

This could bush sr solve on a creative way: hidden agreement about oil contracts for France in post war Iraq and things like that.

Imran Siddiqui · March 17, 2003, 19:02

Quote:

It's a silly suggestion. You might say that about their leadership, but that same public opposition is all the explanation I need...

I am talking about the leadership. What? You think the leadership's true goals and what they say in public for the public opposition is the same thing?

Next thing you'll be telling me is that Bush actually believes that the US should spread democracy across the globe and Saddam is first.

I wonder how you can doubt Bush's words (and claim it is simply a lie), but pay full credence to Chirac's.

DanS · March 17, 2003, 19:05

Kolpo: Perhaps Bush 41 was a better diplomat than Bush 43. However, Clinton had a very, very similar situation to Bush 43 with regard to Iraq in 1998 and was less successful than him (so far).

KrazyHorse · March 17, 2003, 19:07

No, but what I'm saying is that Chirac listened to the wind and heard about an unheard-of level of opposition

He's in a much stickier electoral situation than Blair is (there's no credible opposition to the labour party) even though he won't have to face reelection for 4 more years or so. So he has to pay more attention to what's the popular move to make.

Even Blair is on the verge of losing his PMship to internal rebellion, and might well have killed his career irrespective of the ease with which victory is obtained.

So Chirac decided to go with the sway of public opinion. I don't think economic considerations had much to do with it one way or the other. If they did, he would have resisted gently and then folded when the US made clear that they were going in whether the UN said yes or not.

KrazyHorse · March 17, 2003, 19:10

I pay no attention to Chirac's word at all.

He's saying what the public wants to hear, but in his case is also doing exactly what they want to do.

Unlike Bush who has had to ride the Iraq issue hard to get his own public to agree with him, Chirac has had an easy ride...

GePap · March 17, 2003, 19:10

Drake: you mean that cast resentment that built up from jan 2002 onwards? caue on sept 12, 2001 it certainly was not there. The French backed us in Kosovo, our last big military push, and supported us in Afghanistan. So were did this "resentent" come up all of a sudden? From the Bush admin's. actiosn sicne the "Axis of Evil" speech, and more particualerly, our ongoing assetion that we could act unilaterally in Iraq. It is that, an asseton that basically states that we will overtrn the international order to suit us, regardless of what others think, that created all the problems. And Bush one would never made that assertion.

Again, the difference was that Bush I cared about diplomacy, allies, treaties, norms, conventions, and does not believe that it is in the interest of the US to act alone in such circumstances. Bush II and the neo-cons he brought with him don't give a damn about treaties, norms, conventions, long-term alliences, so forth and so on. You can't ask for brilliant diplomacy from a bunch of knucle draggers.

DuncanK · March 17, 2003, 19:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Hell, Arrian, there hasn't been a better diplomat as President than Bush I, since perhaps Thomas Jefferson.

Except when he threw up on the Japanese

Dis · March 17, 2003, 19:12

I think the resentment was there on Sept12, 2001. If you look closely you can see it in some of their speeches and quotes. But it was not politically correct for them to be open aobut it.

I think much of it has to deal with the fact they do not like G.W. for some reason.

DanS · March 17, 2003, 19:13

Unlike Bush who has had to ride the Iraq issue hard to get his own public to agree with him

Actually, this isn't the case at all. For the last 12 years, there has been a topline 66% favor removal through force number in the US. This is much higher than Bush 41 had at the beginning.

There is a theory that this high of number actually worked against Bush. He pushed quickly, because he had a mandate on the issue. A lower number would have forced him to hone his arguments a little more and choose his shots.

GePap · March 17, 2003, 19:16

Which statements forrm France and Germany and Russia, Mexico,and Chile (all states friendly to us, all of which we failed to convince?) showed this growing resentment?

The question is: was such "resentment" present before January 2001? I would say, no. It is one fo the great achievements of the Bush 43 admin.

KrazyHorse · March 17, 2003, 19:16

Quote:

I think the resentment was there on Sept12, 2001

I don't think so. Where do you come up with this stuff?

"Politically correct" my ass. People were shocked at what had happened.

Then your ape of a President started trying to tie every policy he'd had beforehand in to the war on terrorism. That pissed everybody off. And it made him look like an opportunist in the eyes of many elsewhere in the world.

We didn't think he was a very good US President before. But now he's really pissed off most people.

kolpo · March 17, 2003, 19:18

"Kolpo: Perhaps Bush 41 was a better diplomat than Bush 43. However, Clinton had a very, very similar situation to Bush 43 with regard to Iraq in 1998 and was less successful than him (so far)."

Clinton then really didn't wanted an invasion of Iraq, he did some bombardements but not really big or long. Many other nations said "we don't like that' but they wheren't really angry. Clinton also knew that he then didn't needed internation support for those few bombs, Europe needed him in the Balkan and liked him and Russia needed his loans.