ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Interesting...should be good..Times writers are always a good read.
Credit for this will go and should go to Condoleeza Rice
who is the only person on earth the stubborn Bush listens to...we'll see.
Quote:
TIME MAG: THE END OF COWBOY DIPLOMACY
Sat Jul 08 2006 23:23:03 ET
In the span of four years, the Bush Administration has been forced to rethink the pre-emptive "Bush doctrine" by which it hoped to remake the world, as the strategy's ineffectiveness was exposed by the very policies it prescribed, TIME's Mike Allen and Romesh Ratnesar report in this weeks cover story on 'The End of Cowboy Diplomacy' on newsstands Monday, July 9th.
President George W. Bush came to office pledging to focus on domestic issues and pursue a "humble" foreign policy that would avoid the entanglements of the Bill Clinton years. After Sept. 11, however, the Bush team embarked on a different path, outlining a muscular, idealistic, and unilateralist vision of American power and how to use it, TIME reports. They aimed to lay the foundation for a grand strategy to fight Islamic terrorists and rogue states, by spreading democracy around the world and pre-empting gathering threats before they materialize. And the U.S. wasn't willing to wait for others to help. The approach fit with Bush's personal style, his self-professed proclivity to dispense with the nuances of geopolitics and go with his gut. "The Bush Doctrine is actually being defined by action, as opposed to by words," Bush told Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One in 2003.
The swaggering Commander in Chief who embodied the doctrine's aspirations has modulated himself too. At a press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair in May, Bush swore off the Wild West rhetoric of getting enemies "dead or alive," conceding, "in certain parts of the world, it was misinterpreted." Bush's response to the North Korean missile test was equally revealing. Under the old Bush Doctrine, defiance by a dictator like Kim Jong Il would have merited threats of punitive U.S. action-or at least a tongue lashing. Instead, the Administration has mainly been talking up multilateralism and downplaying Pyongyang's provocation. As much as anything, it's confirmation of what Princeton political scientist Gary J. Bass calls "doctrinal flameout." Put another way: cowboy diplomacy, RIP.
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
You know what, F.B.N? We agree. I'm leaning towards Edwards, too, but primarily because he's the one candidate ethical enough to talk about poverty in America, an issue that the Democrats (and Republicans) have ignored since Reagan.
You know what, F.B.N? We agree. I'm leaning towards Edwards, too, but primarily because he's the one candidate ethical enough to talk about poverty in America, an issue that the Democrats (and Republicans) have ignored since Reagan.
I liked him last election and wished he were on the top of the ticket. I remember you liked him also but he wasn't at the top of the list. If I remember correctly you liked Sen. Evan Bayh...either one of these men would make a fine President.
Even though I lean right I don't like any of the candidates so far..and that includes Giuliani. I would consider Rice if she came out more to the center on all the issues...but she has not declared anything so why bother.
What America needs is an all purpose candidate. Not a budget candidate or a war candidate...sometimes 2nd or 3rd best is the best person anyways because they are usually more rounded.
I liked him last election and wished he were on the top of the ticket. I remember you liked him also but he wasn't at the top of the list. If I remember correctly you liked Sen. Evan Bayh...either one of these men would make a fine President.
Even though I lean right I don't like any of the candidates so far..and that includes Giuliani. I would consider Rice if she came out more to the center on all the issues...but she has not declared anything so why bother.
What America needs is an all purpose candidate. Not a budget candidate or a war candidate...sometimes 2nd or 3rd best is the best person anyways because they are usually more rounded.
Perhaps this is what we need as I am not inspired by any of the "front runners" and view them as 4 more years of the same old. Not sure who the 2nd or 3rd person might be though. I also think you need to frame what the actual issues are and pick a very decisive way to approach them with a diverse thinking staff.
__________________ "Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.
Unfortunate, the end of this reckless "Cowboy" diplomacy comes too late for 2,600 American soldiers, thousands of American boys who lost their arms and legs, and over 60,000 innocent Iraqi children and civilians.
Unfortunate, the end of this reckless "Cowboy" diplomacy comes too late for 2,600 American soldiers, thousands of American boys who lost their arms and legs, and over 60,000 innocent Iraqi children and civilians.
.
Yeah but I bet those 20 million or so Iraqi's that no longer have to live under the cruelty and dictatorship of Hussein and his henchmen, particularly the family members of the 300,000 he killed don't feel the same as you do.
ctpatsfan1, do you really think that right now Iraq is a better place to live than when Saddam was in place? Saddam killed primarily his enemies, though what he called an enemy was fairly broad. Now, ordinary civilians like those who were killed on 9/11 die every day. Saddam had a functioning economy; now there's massive unemployment and 100s of 1000s of people have been displaced. Under Saddam, people had power and basic services, now many people don't or have them infrequently. You can say Saddam was evil and deserved to be disposed, but don't claim to know how the Iraqis feel. Try to document your claim, rather than talk ignorantly, as if you only read Republican propaganda.
The most recent poll I could find reports some good news, but also reports major bad news:
Fewer than half, 46 percent, say the country is better off now than it was before the war. And half of Iraqis now say it was wrong for U.S.-led forces to invade in spring 2003, up from 39 percent in 2004.
The number of Iraqis who say things are going well in their country overall is just 44 percent, far fewer than the 71 percent who say their own lives are going well. Fifty-two percent instead say the country is doing badly.
Actually Saddam's enemies were ordinary civilians, and it's Al Queda and some of his at large henchmen that are still doing the killing. The difference is that now the US and Iraqi militaries are hunting and killing his henchmen.
__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."
The End Of Cowboy Diplomacy
Linear Mode
