Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: paul_philp who wrote (65387)	1/10/2003 11:22:07 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

stop being so sensitive! sheesh! I had no intention of being snide, I was just collapsing a reply to similar posts from the two of you into one place. As for Bush, your description of my position is accurate. Take North Korea as an example. We know that the President "loathes" Kim Jong Il, believes the regime (correctly) to be "evil," and would prefer to shun and ignore it if not destabilize it. And yet in practice, when confronted with a very sticky, complex crisis, Bush is now authorizing his people to talk with Kim's people and cut some kind of deal, part of which will probably involve assurances that America will not attack. (Something similar occurred with the Chinese plane-downing crisis almost two years ago, but the North Korean example is current and even more to the point.) I have no doubt that Bush feels similarly about Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, and has done so from the beginning of his term. Nevertheless, as has been pointed out, he authorized his people to deal with Arafat for a while before changing his mind, and even now has been less than crystal clear about in practice about just what American policy is toward him. For a while last spring, Bush's own statements on the subject seemed to switch back and forth weekly or even daily, and often cut against the other statements duly authorized administration spokesmen were making. Is is really so shocking to think that one of the key forces driving US policy in this situation may have been the very strong feuding barons on the president's team, all of whom had far more experience with and detailed knowledge of foreign policy than he did? And as for Lindy's point about Rove not being at the table in the early post-war NSC meetings, I do not think that Bush makes decisions about major questions of war and peace with an eye on the polls. But Israel policy is less about our war and peace than their war and peace, and there are very strong domestic constituencies in the States who have very strong opinions about what the proper policy towards the situation is. I would be extremely suprised if, given that situation, Rove didn't have some views on the matter, and didn't find some way of communicating them to the president, and that wasn't part of the decisionmaking mix somehow. I apologize in advance if such appalling cynicism offends people. tb@touchytouchytouchy.com

To: paul_philp who wrote (65387)	1/11/2003 12:27:19 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

I will stop thinking and asking questions now, can you just email me my opinion every morning. ;-) Hey, good attitude. I like it. ;-) If I understand Tekboy's thinking about Bush, it might not matter what Bush thinks personally. His lack of knowledge and his personality leave him open to manipulation by his team, senior staff and bureaucrats. Well I dunno. Somewhere in there, there's a sensible meme (Bush will have to trust expertise, or make uninformed decisions) and a silly meme (Bush is really a moron, right?), and while I think tb leans towards the former, sometimes a bit of the latter creeps in. Somehow, I get the feeling that staff politicking and manipulation of the powers-that-be is one area where Bush's expertise and knowledge is considerable.