What faults do you think he might have seen in HON that weren't visible on the surface?
First, let me be clear that I wasn't seriously suggesting that to be the case. I was just saying that, as loony conspiracy theories go, it was more credible than the idea that Bush somehow scuttled the deal. As to what Welch might have seen that he didn't like, there were a lot of questions raised before, during, and after the Allied-Signal deal as to the reliability of the numbers coming from that company.
The Europeans loved Clinton because he was a real tabloid leader..."
You know, I have a lot of issues with Bush as an individual and as a politician, but I'm able to discuss them sensibly. This rabid hatred of Clinton by people who otherwise seem to be completely rational leaves me at a loss. (Well, okay, only some of you qualify as rational <g>). The fact is that Clinton was popular with the Europeans because he worked real hard for 8 years to improve European/American relations. Why not give credit where credit is due, and let it go at that?
I didn't see the Carla Hills interview, but if she was blaming Bush for the failure of the GE/HON deal, she was wrong. In her defense, she was probably speaking out of frustration, and in the context of the larger issue of how Bush is unnecessarily undoing much of the good Clinton has done in improving relations across the board with Europe.
It is clear that Bush wishes to change American foreign policy to be both more assertive and less engaged in Europe. I think this is unwise, but it's certainly his prerogative to do it. However, the way he has gone about it has, so far, been a disaster. He seems much more interested in scoring cheap political points at home than in supporting American interests abroad. We have come a long way in Europe, and it would be a shame to lose all that through ineptitude and pandering to domestic interests. |
