A Bush official tells the truth...

[TexasTiger 11,070]

It may be hard to find in the US "liberal" media, though.

And Armitage's disappointments? Not a lugubrious person, Armitage doesn't nominate disappointments spontaneously. But he'll answer a question honestly: "I'm disappointed that Iraq hasn't turned out better. And that we weren't able to move forward more meaningfully in the Middle East peace process."

Then, after a minute's pause, he adds a third regret: "The biggest regret is that we didn't stop 9/11. And then in the wake of 9/11, instead of redoubling what is our traditional export of hope and optimism we exported our fear and our anger. And presented a very intense and angry face to the world. I regret that a lot."

Earlier in our discussion Armitage had refused to claim any political dividend out of the generous US response to the Asian tsunami, saying it was a question of responding to a human tragedy and the US would have responded the same wherever the tragedy occurred, and that to talk about it in political terms cheapens the effort.

Still, he acknowledges that the response to the tsunami presents the US in its traditional and authentic guise of offering hope. That is true, he says, both of the Government response "and in terms of private donations, which are quite high here. That's a source of satisfaction because that's the country that I know and that I want to serve, not the one that presents an angry face to the world. I don't look on the world as a dark place to be feared. I look at it as a place that can be warm, that can be embracing, and that can raise the level of all. I think that's our job in the world."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/commo...5E25377,00.html

[AURaptor 1,113]

All I see here is one man's opinion surrouned by conjecture and sophistry. Hardly an objective measure of 'truth' by any standards.

[tiger88 934]

tt as intelligent as you seem to be it is beyond funny how you deny the liberal media bias. It is not absolute but it is a heavy slant. LD children living in asia know about it.

afa your story, big whipty do. If you read the whole article it doesn't come across nearly as negative as your cherry picked section. If you read that closely it's really not that bad. He says he regrets we didn't stop 9/11. If there is anyone in this country who doesn't regret that we didn't stop 9/11 I wish they would leave. He certainly doesn't say it was the bush admin's fault that it wasn't stopped.

He does wish we had been nicer after 9/11. I'm glad we weren't.

[TexasTiger 11,070]

tt as intelligent as you seem to be it is beyond funny how you deny the liberal media bias. It is not absolute but it is a heavy slant. LD children living in asia know about it.

afa your story, big whipty do. If you read the whole article it doesn't come across nearly as negative as your cherry picked section. If you read that closely it's really not that bad. He says he regrets we didn't stop 9/11. If there is anyone in this country who doesn't regret that we didn't stop 9/11 I wish they would leave. He certainly doesn't say it was the bush admin's fault that it wasn't stopped.

He does wish we had been nicer after 9/11. I'm glad we weren't.

140533[/snapback]

The key provision for me was this:

And then in the wake of 9/11, instead of redoubling what is our traditional export of hope and optimism we exported our fear and our anger. And presented a very intense and angry face to the world. I regret that a lot."

Reagan was seen as firm and strong, but optimistic and hopeful. So was Kennedy. These are the qualities that draw other nations to us. As the Deputy Secretary of State, he is well positioned to see the impact of our approach. It's his opinion. Others will have different opinions.

[tiger88 934]

Neither reagan nor kennedy ever had to deal with a situation like 9/11.

If they had I believe they would have reacted every bit as firmly as Bush. You just can't deny the terrorist risk after 9/11 and the possibility of a much more successful attack. It is so much different than the cuban missile crisis or the cold war. All they had to do was bow up and the problem went away. Bush had a 200 pound hornet nest dropped in his lap.

[TexasTiger 11,070]

Neither reagan nor kennedy ever had to deal with a situation like 9/11.

If they had I believe they would have reacted every bit as firmly as Bush. You just can't deny the terrorist risk after 9/11 and the possibility of a much more successful attack. It is so much different than the cuban missile crisis or the cold war. All they had to do was bow up and the problem went away. Bush had a 200 pound hornet nest dropped in his lap.

140543[/snapback]

You may underestimate the brinksmanship of the Cuban missile crisis as well as the Cold War, in general. Have you seen The Fog of War?

I suspect they would have been quite firm. That doesn't logically lead to overtaking Iraq by force, however. It did lead to Afghanistan and it should lead to other actions, largely collaborative, all over the world.

FDR dealt with Pearl Harbor and a world war. We were firm, resolute and strong, but not seen as angry and fearful. In fact, he warned of the danger of fear.

Firm can be coupled with hope and optimism. The Republican Deputy Secretary of State believes we have "exported our fear and our anger. And presented a very intense and angry face to the world." I agree. And it wasn't necessary to show we are tough, firm and resolute.

[Auburn85 415]

Neither reagan nor kennedy ever had to deal with a situation like 9/11.

If they had I believe they would have reacted every bit as firmly as Bush. You just can't deny the terrorist risk after 9/11 and the possibility of a much more successful attack. It is so much different than the cuban missile crisis or the cold war. All they had to do was bow up and the problem went away. Bush had a 200 pound hornet nest dropped in his lap.

140543[/snapback]

You may underestimate the brinksmanship of the Cuban missile crisis as well as the Cold War, in general. Have you seen The Fog of War?

I suspect they would have been quite firm. That doesn't logically lead to overtaking Iraq by force, however. It did lead to Afghanistan and it should lead to other actions, largely collaborative, all over the world.

FDR dealt with Pearl Harbor and a world war. We were firm, resolute and strong, but not seen as angry and fearful. In fact, he warned of the danger of fear.

Firm can be coupled with hope and optimism. The Republican Deputy Secretary of State believes we have "exported our fear and our anger. And presented a very intense and angry face to the world." I agree. And it wasn't necessary to show we are tough, firm and resolute.

140548[/snapback]

Haven't seen Fog of WAR, but I have seen NIGHT AND FOG. I seen it during my semester of World History.

I will see it again this semester in my Documentary Form class

It is a very disturbing, but yet very truthful as to what really went on in Nazi concentration camps.

[japantiger 3,878]

An angry face? Not sure I understand this. We were attacked and we were going to defend ourselves. FDR was resolute and clear that we were going to crush our enemies in WW2. "Unconditional surrender" was the only alternative; not much conciliation in that.

We supported Allies who supported us; and everyone else was treated accordingly (like neurtal France). Little known fact of WW2; the first battle we fought in North Africa was against the neutral French Visce forces; not the Germans. I guess they thought we were angry.......

Form over substance; that was the UN and the liberals are all about. It has nothing to do with results; how did you make everyone feel? Did you kill the enemy? Did you free the Afgans and Iraqui's? Not important; how did you make the media and our allies feel?

[TexasTiger 11,070]

Form over substance; that was the UN and the liberals are all about.  It has nothing to do with results; how did you make everyone feel?  Did you kill the enemy?  Did you free the Afgans and Iraqui's?  Not important; how did you make the media and our allies feel?

140586[/snapback]

I guess you missed the fact that this quote is from the Deputy Sec. of State in the Bush administration. I know you like to make "libruls" and the "UN" the boogeyman for everything, but it doesn't apply in this case. You're going to have to think a little deeper if you want to address this quote in an honest, meaningul fashion.

[japantiger 3,878]

No, the company I placed him in is the right company. He is a Washington insider at State. The points are just as true. State believes in negotiation for the sake of negotiation; not producing a tangiable benefit for the US or one that makes us safer.

Also note his points on China. This guys is rediculously naive on China. If you view a relationship that is one sidedly beneficial to the PRC, then well yes, I guess our relationship with China is great. However, the Chinese continue to do whatever they choose regarding trade, liberty and hegemony in Asia.

They trample freedoms (in their country proper, and Tibet); and they want to do this to Taiwan. Of course; our state department lead foreign policy blindly supports this as well. I would love to hear his explanation of why it is in our interest (or in Taiwan's interest) to turn that country over to the PRC. Strategically, 90% of the world's micro-chips come from there. Our defense and civilian infrastructure runs on this stuff. There is not a replacement. Secondly, this is an allie and a country with 60 years of liberal democratic tradition. Our State department lead policy is to turn it over to the PRC; explain the State department's logic in that.

Last point; the Chinese have no intention of being our allies. Their intent is clear; they are after domination; not co-existence. Their culture does not support co-existence. There is no concept of win-win in China. Win-lose is what is taught in their philosophies and is what is rewarded. I see this exercised on a daily basis in even the smallest of negotiations.

Also, I have had the opportunity to discuss Chinese policies on Tibet, Taiwan, the western Muslim provinces, Tianamen Square, etc., with hundreds of Chinese citizens. Many of them were protesters in Beijing. They now uniformly support the decision to bring in the Red Army and kill thousands of their own. I have not heard one say it was wrong. Why? Their culture. The people that were protesting were wayward children and had to be brought back in line for the good of the larger group. Sacrifice one for the greater good. If they had given in on Tianamen; then how would they have credibility with Taiwan? Chinese nationalism is very strong; especially with the under 40 well educated crowd.

Sorry for being so long winded on this part of it.

[TexasTiger 11,070]

No, the company I placed him in is the right company.  He is a Washington insider at State.  The points are just as true.  State believes in negotiation for the sake of negotiation; not producing a tangiable benefit for the US or one that makes us safer.   

140600[/snapback]

His most recent postion was as a Bush appointee at State, but he's not a career guy there. The bulk of his public service was in the Defense Department.

[DKW 86 6,948]

FDR not angry?

WTH?

Bombing Dresden into oblivion was okay?

A thousand plane raid on Berlin was nice?

Two nuclear bombs on Japan was what? A late summer bouquet to the Emperor?

Tex, you are hilariously uninformed. Many protested FDR's decisions. Many claimed he was privy to info on Pearl Harbor before it was attacked too. Actually the folks bashing Bush and the folks bashing FDR appear to be much in the same.

[AURaptor 1,113]

You're going to have to think a little deeper if you want to address this quote in an honest, meaningul fashion.

Sounds like a typical Left wing response. 'Think deeper'. Recognize the subtle layers of meaning involved here. You need to be more nuanced in your discourse.

You get the picture. Do exatly what Kerry did to get beat...say much w/ out really taking a position at all, which will allow you to side w/ what ever position wins the day.

[Auburn85 415]

Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor and we didn't immediately go after just JAPAN

But I'm surprised in a recent poll that 56% feel knocking out Saddam was not worth it

Only about 40 percent felt it was worth it

This was a poll yesterday I heard from Tim Russert

[TexasTiger 11,070]

FDR not angry?

WTH?

Bombing Dresden into oblivion was okay?

A thousand plane raid on Berlin was nice?

Two nuclear bombs on Japan was what? A late summer bouquet to the Emperor?

Tex, you are hilariously uninformed. Many protested FDR's decisions. Many claimed he was privy to info on Pearl Harbor before it was attacked too. Actually the folks bashing Bush and the folks bashing FDR appear to be much in the same.

140620[/snapback]

I'm pretty informed. You've, once again, mischaracterized what I said. Somebody protests almost any decision in war. FDR exported hope, the Bush administration, according to Armitage, has exported fear and anger. FDRs actions were largely understood and respected in the world. Bush's are not. You may not care about what the world thinks, and you may agreew with every single thing Bush has done, but you should at least recognize that the two men are perceived quite differently.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

The key provision for me was this:

And then in the wake of 9/11, instead of redoubling what is our traditional export of hope and optimism we exported our fear and our anger. And presented a very intense and angry face to the world. I regret that a lot."

this just in: we presented intensity and anger after being attacked in our own country. woweee...stop the presses. we should be ashamed of ourselves. i mean, the very idea of not being relaxed and happy over the fact that 3000+ of our citizens lost their lives at the hands of devils is sheer idiocy!

it appears you've found a member of bush's team that disagreed w/ our response, TT. good going. i'm sure there are many more...keep looking. maybe you'll find enough of them to convince bush that he made a mistake...then we'll apologize...and then redouble our hope & optimism...and then everything will be fine & dandy.... just like pre-9/11.

the funny thing about this "truth" from the outgoing bushie is that i don't think those on the right disagree w/ him. we were fearful, angry and intense instead of hopeful & optimistic.

perhaps the reason the "liberal media" didn't trumpet this guy's statements is because its a non-story.

ct

[TexasTiger 11,070]

The key provision for me was this:

And then in the wake of 9/11, instead of redoubling what is our traditional export of hope and optimism we exported our fear and our anger. And presented a very intense and angry face to the world. I regret that a lot."

this just in: we presented intensity and anger after being attacked in our own country. woweee...stop the presses. we should be ashamed of ourselves. i mean, the very idea of not being relaxed and happy over the fact that 3000+ of our citizens lost their lives at the hands of devils is sheer idiocy!

140658[/snapback]

And we respond to being attacked in our own country by invading a country that had nothing to do with it. That's the sheer idiocy the world doesn't understand.

[japantiger 3,878]

Wrong, we attacked the Al Quaeda homeland in Afganistan. Then, we moved to the next largest threat.

As it turns out, our intelligence was wrong. So what should we do. Pull out; hand wring; turn our entire budget over to the UN?

Saddam being gone is good for the world. A free nation in the middle of the middle East is good for the world. I'm not apologetic that this pisses off the French or Germans or the Muslim terrorists/jihadi's or the Democratic party. It is in US interests that he is gone.

The premise of all these arguments is false in that it assumes we are respected by the governments of the world. The governments off the world (99%) are communist or hereditary monarchies or dictatorships taken by gunpoint. Do you honestly think their opinion matters or that they respect us? This argument is ridiculous. They love us when we do their bidding and denounce us when we don't; it is that simple. As long as we subjugate our interests to theirs; we are their "shining city on the hill". Do what is in our interests and we are "the great Satan".

We had the support of 90% of the few true democracies going into Iraq. They had the same intel we did by the way. Only France and Germany of this group opposed our action. (that is assuming you put them in the category of true democracies).

[TexasTiger 11,070]

Wrong, we attacked the Al Quaeda homeland in Afganistan.  Then, we moved to the next largest threat. 

Even our faulty intelligence didn't indicate Iraq was the next largest threat. Even our faulty intelligence didn't indicate they had nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia has done more to foment radical Islam than any other country, even if you don't consider that 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.

North Korea is a piss poor country with nothing of value but weapons, including nuclear weapons. They are a far greater threat than Iraq has been since 1991.

As it turns out, our intelligence was wrong.  So what should we do.  Pull out; hand wring; turn our entire budget over to the UN?

No. One reason I thought this was so stupid from the beginning was because once we overthrow the existing power structure in Iraq, impotent as it was to harm anyone outside its borders, we have an obligation to not let it go all to hell.

A free nation in the  middle of the middle East is good for the world.

Great concept. Too bad Turkey is likely to be the only half-way stable Islamic democracy in our lifetime. It is a pipe dream that the current geographic area now known as Iraq will become a model of ME democracy.

It is in US interests that he is gone.

A statement continually repeated without any objective support. He was harmless to us. We don't know yet what will replace him.

The governments off the world (99%) are communist or hereditary monarchies or dictatorships taken by gunpoint. 

Replace your calculator.

We had the support of 90% of the few true democracies going into Iraq.

The actual populations of very few democracies supported us going into Iraq.

They had the same intel we did by the way. 

140842[/snapback]

And still didn't see it as a good move.

[Auburn85 415]

Saddam had proven he had used WMD

Tried to have Bush Sr assassinated.

No threat though?

After about 15 years of doing absolutely nothing must forcing those meaningless diplomacy issues. We had about what, 10-11-12 different diplomacy issues. 1 after another.

I guess the UN wanted Saddam to make the 1st move.

[TexasTiger 11,070]

The key provision for me was this:

And then in the wake of 9/11, instead of redoubling what is our traditional export of hope and optimism we exported our fear and our anger. And presented a very intense and angry face to the world. I regret that a lot."

this just in: we presented intensity and anger after being attacked in our own country. woweee...stop the presses. we should be ashamed of ourselves. i mean, the very idea of not being relaxed and happy over the fact that 3000+ of our citizens lost their lives at the hands of devils is sheer idiocy!

it appears you've found a member of bush's team that disagreed w/ our response, TT. good going. i'm sure there are many more...keep looking. maybe you'll find enough of them to convince bush that he made a mistake...then we'll apologize...and then redouble our hope & optimism...and then everything will be fine & dandy.... just like pre-9/11.

the funny thing about this "truth" from the outgoing bushie is that i don't think those on the right disagree w/ him. we were fearful, angry and intense instead of hopeful & optimistic.

perhaps the reason the "liberal media" didn't trumpet this guy's statements is because its a non-story.

ct

140658[/snapback]

Armitage didn't say we shouldn't be angry. He regretted that we exported it. He also didn't say we shouldn't have used our military. It's not surprising that those who reflexively defend everything Bush does don't understand what Armitage means.

Bush's goal is to spread democracy around the globe. Great goal. We'll see how effective his approach will be.