Your point is irrelevant. The statement helped embitter a problem in NK and solved none that I know of. No upside to saying it, only downside.
It is NOT irrelevant. The statement is precisely what a president SHOULD do, and what the previous idiot SHOULD have done -- to properly identify and label these threats. His doing so had a HUGE upside -- in that it clearly made the American people aware of the threat. The previous administration had ignored the threat hoping it would go away. 9/11, of course, showed everyone that the threat was real.
where is the hypocrisy? Explain it to me
You were highly critical of Bush for what you believed was excessive aggressivness toward Iraq without giving diplomacy a chance. Now, Bush is making every effort to use Diplomacy, and you criticize him for it.
In this connection there are a couple of other points, however:
a) The notion that bush was being excessively aggressive toward Iraq was more a perceived excess than a real one; in effect, liberals jumped to conclusions before any decision had been made. Bush made the correct decision, and did so on the basis of the nation's interest rather than on the politics of the moment as you-know-who always did.
b) There is a time and place for diplomacy. When diplomacy has failed repeatedly, you have the advantage militarily, and the passage of time could cause you to lose the military advantage, it only makes sense to be tougher. In the end, the president still chose to use a degree of diplomacy FIRST in dealing with Iraq, and using the tough rhetoric only as a means of coercing compliance. Ultimately, this may fail, but it was worth a try. Bush apparently believed it was the right way to proceed, and I believe it makes it much easier for us to conduct the war if/when necessary.
On the other hand, when the failure of diplomacy is an incident that really appears to be incompetence on the part of the prior administration, there is nothing wrong with taking another shot at it in an effort to remediate the situation. Also, as others have pointed out, there is every likelihood we can get China and Japan to deal with this situation is a less heated environment. How can you be opposed to this? I find it to be another example of excellent leadership in foreign policy.
In fairness, I don't directly credit Bush personally with all of this. I think he appointed the finest foreign policy team in the last 50 years. If all this crap had to occur, I'm just pleased it is on Bush's watch. |
