Firstly, let me suggest that you read my Suite101 page (see my SI-profile).... Apparently, you've taken GW Bush's campaign pitch at face value. BTW, that's yet another clue to debunk the smear campaign against GW Bush as regards his gamesmanship.... Obviously, GW Bush couldn't boast about leaving the Israelis out in the cold, splurging billions of $ in Africa, and pulling the plug on NATO! That would have been a pretty poor/risky presidential campaign, would it not? Bush had no other choice than selling the usual, isolationist yarn to his conservative, overseas-averse flock.... But tell me, TE, if Bush's foreign agenda was really just a rehash of the status quo of yore then why didn't he just stick to American Jews to roll out his foreign policy??
Here's an interesting news nugget from the Rice interview referred in my post #8509 on this thread:
Rice: [...] But, Governor Bush came to this business with very strong principles about foreign policy. From the first time we talked, he talked about American military power and the importance of keeping it strong. He talked about friends and allies. And he was very influenced by something that George Schultz said which is that you have to garden in your alliances. That means you have to keep them us so that when you need your friends, you've called them before you have to call on them. He talked early on about the importance of putting Latin America, the western hemisphere, back on the agenda, which it had dropped off the agenda in American foreign policy. So he came with very strong views about what to do in foreign policy.
Rose: Came to the first meeting with you or came to this campaign?
Rice: Came to the very first time that we talked about it which was actually a little bit before he decided to run for President. This goes back to August of 1998.
Rose: At Kennebunkport?
Rice: At Kennebunkport, that's right. So he had very strong convictions about what he wanted to do. Our job was simply to take the various issues out there and walk through them with him, to work through them, to look at options for carrying out the agenda that he wanted to establish. And what he needed to communicate and I think what he communicated very well last night, was that he does lead from principle. But that also understands how to make a decision. You know, some of this talk about what people do and do not know about foreign policy, misunderstands what the President of the United States actually does in foreign policy. The President of the United States does not sit around debating with his special assistants the ins and outs of the Russian electoral system. That's a waste of the President's time. What the President must do is what any other chief executive does, which is to set an agenda, to develop options, to have people develop options, to make judgments, to convince the American people and perhaps, most importantly to work across the aisle to convince both sides of Congress, the bipartisan consensus.
[...]
_________________
Now I guess you'll ask me, what's so interesting in the above snippet, eh? Well, TE, it's the DATE!! The date of that fishing party at Kennebunkport!! Doesn't August 1998 remind you of anything?? Remember, on August 8th, 1998, the US embassies in Dar es-Salaam and Nairobi were simultaneously blown up by French mercenaries in an attempt to thwart the US foray into Central Africa....
As regards Europe's monopoly in Africa, I agree that US multinationals have carved a niche for themselves alongside the French, the British, etc. However, militarily speaking, the US doesn't maintain as many bases as the French and, diplomatically speaking, West African countries yield to France's entreaties (in UN sessions). It's my belief that, since the Cold War is over, there's no reason for the US to keep contracting out Africa to their European "janitors".... Now, pushing it a little farther, I'd even hint at the necessity for the US to rally as many allies as possible in the forthcoming XXIst century: East Asia will become more and more unyielding as China's assertiveness gains momentum; Europe is also re-inventing itself as a would-be superpower; what's left? South America, the Arab world, and Oceania.... The latter doesn't have the demographic clout to further US interests and the Arab world is still struggling with the so-called Western values....
As for the Israelis' meddling in the ongoing US election crisis, I think that bully-boy Bibi Netanyahu has cunningly strong-armed his American obligés into an all-out war against GW Bush --after all, he didn't come to the US to play golf or to visit Disneyworld! |
