Why did Bush deliberately attack the wrong country?

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

While the president can certainly set policy direction, it takes
considerably more cooperation to generate huge shifts in emphasis
than in a parliamentary government.

This seems a pretty curious argument to me. These days, a
president with a majority in Congress can do almost whatever
he wants. In a parliamentary government, a leader has to take
much more account of backbenchers who may choose to send
him or her home on any bad day (except if he really has a huge
majority, such as Blair has) or even may be the leader of a
coalition government, which requires a lot of compromise
and negotiation.

If you'd like to point out some members of the administration that
look "distinctly weak" I'll be happy to comment.

How about George W. Bush? Nice enough fellow, so we are
told, and as far as is known, not an actual neo-con. Not very
knowledgeable about the world outside the USA;

The danger of relying upon partial impressions and media pundits has
apparently befallen you. You have, IIRC, already said you were unwilling to
read Frank's new book, but a perusal of it would shed a different light on
Bush's leadership abilities and his knowledge (and willingness to listen to
others).

and not very
capable of expressing political ideas without shooting himself
in the foot.

He has indeed been known to flumox his wording; which to some is a bit
refreshing, and less remindful of the polished
know-it-all-tell-you-what-you-want-to-hear politician types.

Claimed to make his own decisions -- but at least
some of his supposed underlings have a record of hiding
very important facts from him, and he didn't fire them.

Not sure about that (you have proven quite adept at making such accusations
and then backing off from them when specifics are requested, such as your
erecent "key positions" occupied by "neocons" statement). Again, you can
read Franks' accounts of his briefings to the President, and his
conversations with him in regards to major decisions--but you don't want to
bother with getting a first hand account, do you?


Or take Powell, for example. A good officer, I suppose; and
a honest man, but a weak politician. He is known to oppose
the neo-cons on many issues, but he still lets them walk all
over him. Worse, his foreign policy ventures have been less
than successful. Send Powell to the Middle East and he comes
back with a deal that isn't one and is shot to pieces the next day.

it isn't so much unilateralism (which was thrust upon us by lack of
support from allies who had benefited from fifty years of American
defense),

Sorry, but that is nonsense. After 9/11, the Allies of the USA
were fully willing to consider this attack on the USA as an
attack on themselves as well (which in many ways it was,
anyway) and to activate NATO to deal with the problem.

yeah, just so long as it did not require them to really go out of their way
in handling the root problems (the UK, Italy, Canada, Netherlands, Poland,
and non-Euro Australia excepted). Otherwise, it has usually involved only
token deployments, and then with with lots of strings attached.

However, at that point the USA decided unilaterally on a
policy that many of its allies considered to be extremely
foolhardy, and insisted that we had a suicide pact -- that
somehow we have an obligation to jump in the deep as
well.

A "suicide pact"? What you really meant was to say that you are fine with
being a staunch ally--that is, until you are actually required to put your
collective butts on the line, at which point it is no longer an alliance,
but a "suicide pact"?


Sorry, but no way! In an alliance, the decisions are made
together, in cooperation and consultation; and nobody can
object against the USA having a say commensurate with its
size and its efforts, but that is not the same as blind obedience.

Ever heard of "unity of command"?

The neocons are not above muttering dark threats and throwing
insults when someone in Europe dares to disagree with them.

Just as some Euros are likewise capable of those same mutterings when others
*dare* to defy their own edicts (witness Chirac telling the eastern Euros to
"shut up"?).

Washington should do well to remember that European heads
of government are accountable to their own electorate, and
despite whatever Tony Blair says, they would be seriously
negligent in their duty if they accepted foreign policy
dictates from the White House.

Our dictate is that we are going to go wherever we have to go to stomp on
threats--you can either join us or sit on the sidelines. Your country made
its own call--any splinters yet from those bleacher seats?

Brooks

snip