Democrats & Liberals Archives

Bush Fails at Foreign Policy Too

We know that domestic policy is not this administrations strength. The United States foreign policy should focus on building relationships with every nation to form a world - wide coalition to fight the War on Terror. We should encourage everyone to offer ideas and input when addressing issues, like AIDS and hunger.

Domestic failures:
Open borders, wasted Homeland security money, Environmental policy that benefits the oil industry and not the environment, couldn't sell Social Security privatization to anybody, lost jobs, failing education system due to "No Child Left Behind" funding cuts, record high gas prices, increase in unemployment, record deficit, cronyism, Katrina failures and millions still have no Medical coverage etc. etc. We've heard it all before.

We now have proof that this administration has failed at foreign policy also. Not that we needed the report, but it helps to stave off the attacks that the Bush supporters launch when anyone is critical of Bush's horrible decisions and point out his obvious incompetence.
"The advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy" have published a report that is very critical of the United States foreign policy and assesses how the U.s. is perceived throughout the world.
Bill Smullen states, "For what can be heard around the world, in the wake of the invasion of Iraq, the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, the controversy over the handling of detainees at Bagram and Guantanamo Bay, is that America is seen as less of a beacon of hope and seen more as a dangerous force to be countered."
Smullen goes on to say that," the international climate in the days following 9/11was one of sorrow and of kinship with the United States." Bush managed to strain and eventually destroy those feeling shown by the international community by illegally invading Iraq. Committee members confirm that "America's image and reputation abroad could hardly be worse."
The committee was formed in 2004 by Colin Powell, before he stepped down. Four of the members serve or have served in the Republican party.
David Welch, the former U.S. embassador to Egypt and expert on the Middle East says, "We're making enemies faster than we're making friends."
We are viewed as reckless bullies in the eyes of the world. We are seen as closed to the opinions and ideas from others. We are seen as agressors not saviors.
I know the United States needs to put on our" tough guy" faces for the terrorists, but this administration has not shown any real muscle. They just look scared and confused.
Great job G.W.


Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at September 16, 2005 11:23 AM
Comments
Comment #80948

Following 9.11, it’s truly amazing that this administration squandered the good will that the entire planet had sent our way.

But what do you want from a man that says “How’s he doing? Has the place blown up?” to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan as he and Bolton arrived at U.N. headquarters?

Posted by: john trevisani at September 16, 2005 2:41 PM
Comment #80972

Dont read too much into the post 9/11.

It is easy to be sympathetic to a victim. But you might also remember the Palestinians dancing in the streets and thanking Allah for this. And now everyone claims to have supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Many didnt at the time.

Take a look at this published only a month after September 11. Google war Afghanistan and 2001 if you want to see some a lot more. Also remember that the German election, where one of the leaders compared Bush to Hitler, happened before well before Iraq.

Had we remained hurt and on the defensive, we would have a lot more of the worlds sympathy, but that is a price I am unwilling to pay and I am glad that our president feels that way too.

Ronald Reagans popularity dipped to 38%. He was hated in parts of W. Europe even more than Bush because he called the evil empire evil. Millions protested his policies. They can only muster thousands against GW. Twenty years later, we can see he was right. If he Moscow-funded peace movements had been successful, we would still be living under the immediate threat of nuclear war and the ancient capitals of E. Europe would still be behind that iron curtain.

Alot of those same guys are now protesting Bush. They no longer get the Soviet cash, but they still think in the Soviet way.

Transformational leaders are unpopular in their own times among those being transformed.

Posted by: Jack at September 16, 2005 4:18 PM
Comment #81006

If Bush is a “transformational leader” I sure
hope I’m gone on to Beulah Land before I see
what he is transforming us into.

Posted by: Disgusted in GA at September 16, 2005 6:15 PM
Comment #81108

Holy crap, Jack! You’re actually going to use the Communist Party website to back up the wacko statement that “many” didn’t support President Bush’s (failed) attempt to bring bin Laden to justice? A few thousand communists and hard-core peaceniks are hardly representative of… well, of anybody. You’re really reaching, buddy.

Andre’s got it right. President Bush’s foreign policy is just a much — I’d argue more — of a failure as his domestic policy. The guy’s a disaster.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 17, 2005 11:18 AM
Comment #81110

Jack,

Ronald Reagan’s popularity dipped to 38%. He was hated in parts of W. Europe even more than Bush because he called the evil empire evil. Millions protested his policies. They can only muster thousands against GW.

Thousands???
You should be kidding, right?
Check some fact about global protests against war in Iraq, starting by the millions protesters around 800 world cities the february 15, 2003, classified as largest mass protest movement in history by Guinness Book of Records…

Oh, BTW, I think W. Europe hate Bush government far more than previous US ones *ever*. I’ll look after some polls to see if my feeling is shared there.

Twenty years later, we can see he was right.

Oh, you mean that Evil existence was prooved and that it was living in USRR form?
Or maybe what was prooved since is USRR was an empire? Noway, everyone known that already 20 years before, so I’m assuming are not talking about empireness here.

If the Moscow-funded peace movements had been successful, we would still be living under the immediate threat of nuclear war and the ancient capitals of E. Europe would still be behind that iron curtain.

Maybe. Maybe the Soviet empire will have fallen apart all by itself since anyway.
Althought, we are all still living under the threat of nuclear war or, worser, dirty nuclear terrorism. This threat is more higher than ever and was *that* immediate according to your government declarations at UN members un Iraq pre-war period, right?
They can’t be lying to world nations on such vital threat for ideology/political agenda, right?
Until the NPT is respected and *all* Great Powers make effort to start *actually* reducing their nukes stocks as they once promised to do, this threat is real.
Hey, some are even telling high and strong that they’ll even swith their policy toward nukes to eventually using mini-nukes whenever they wants to protect theirs national interests.

Yes, Jack, let’s talk about evil empire.
Please.

Alot of those same guys are now protesting Bush. They no longer get the Soviet cash, but they still think in the Soviet way.

Funny. Ideology and/or money can be the only motivations to be against a war?
All this sounds like an anti-peaceniks-because-america-model-win-the-cold-war rhetoric, but I’m sure you’re not such person.

From Euroland.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 17, 2005 11:22 AM
Comment #81131

Philippe

I dont think the Soviet Empire would have fallen by itself. It was undermined by lots of people. Reagan was one of them. So, by the way, was Mitterand. He stood very firm on the nuke issue in the early 1980s.

The people who wittingly or not were helping prop it up were the peace movement and the nuclear freeze folks on both sides of the Atlantic. Thank God we faced them down.

The nuclear stocks are greatly reduced from the time of the Soviet Union. It is still a dangerous world, but it is less dangerous in 2005 than it was in 1985.

I also do believe that ideology has more to do with most of the anti war movement than anti war. Your French troops have often very active in Africa doing pretty much the same sorts of things U.S. troops are doing in Iraq. It is smaller scale. Usually I support what they are doing because it needs to be done.

It is fashionable to be anti-American. We enjoyed a brief respite during the 1990s, but not much of one. The U.S. is the perfect target. It is big and strong, but really is not dangerous to its critics. Imagine some of these protestors saying the same sorts of things about Islam or even the Chinese. There would be retaliation. They all know it, so they dont do it.

It is kind of like the animal rights people. They throw red paint at old ladies wearing fur coats, but you never hear them doing the same to motorcycle gangs wearing leather. Why do you think that is?

Posted by: jack at September 17, 2005 12:26 PM
Comment #131615

diamond ring Probaly you should read this. diamond ring Hope this helps. See you next life

Posted by: diamond ring at March 6, 2006 1:46 PM
Post a comment