When Ambassadors go bad.
Retired US Ambassadors are turning too!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3681641.stm
After the recent savaging given to Tony Blair by a group of 52 retired diplomats, 50 US diplomats attack Bush.
Hooray!
Alas..they appear to be delusional
The administration's response will be interesting. I wonder what reasons they will find for rubbishing each and every one of their former employees?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3681641.stm
After the recent savaging given to Tony Blair by a group of 52 retired diplomats, 50 US diplomats attack Bush.
Hooray!
Alas..they appear to be delusional
Quote:
"Our hope is that both political parties will take heed and listen to the voices of experienced diplomats," it said.
"Our hope is that both political parties will take heed and listen to the voices of experienced diplomats," it said.
The administration's response will be interesting. I wonder what reasons they will find for rubbishing each and every one of their former employees?
Comments
Which manages to ignore the stunning failure of the Iraq campaign, the fact that the Israel plan is MANIFESTLY doomed, and the undeniable fact that the US (and UK) is viewed as a dangerous, lying bunch of hypocrites.
I don't know how the Arbustrons will convince people that the diplomats are wrong, and no, the US is REALLY POPULARY. Really.
Which manages to ignore the stunning failure of the Iraq campaign
It's been poorly executed aside from perhaps the initial invasion but whether or not it is a failure cannot be assessed for perhaps a decade or more. We are only one year out. I don't have any faith that this administration will get it right but the Iraqis may just pull it off themselves eventually. We shall see.
The crazy thing is that Shrubbery endorsed Sharon's plan even before the Likud vote on it. I can't imagine why he didn't at least let the Israelis sort it out amongst themselves, the guy's own party isn't behind it, before he starts associating the US with it.
and no, the US is REALLY POPULARY. Really.
Like, oh my god. Like, I can't believe that Tony and George got drunk at prom and George, like, totally saddamized Tony. It was so, like, hella gay! Like, no way I'm letting either one of them come to my big UN party for all the cool leaders of popular countries.
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
It's been poorly executed aside from perhaps the initial invasion but whether or not it is a failure cannot be assessed for perhaps a decade or more. We are only one year out. I don't have any faith that this administration will get it right but the Iraqis may just pull it off themselves eventually. We shall see.
If we are talking years ahead, the iraqies might have pulled a lot of by themselves, even without any invasion. Saddam wasn't exactly getting younger. I tend to like the thought of people fixing their own problems. It usually has a much higher success rate. Like say, the US, did.
The crazy thing is that Shrubbery endorsed Sharon's plan even before the Likud vote on it. I can't imagine why he didn't at least let the Israelis sort it out amongst themselves, the guy's own party isn't behind it, before he starts associating the US with it.
It was a strategy, or said more plainly, a trick. And George fell for it. Sharon is a master strategiest. Whatch him go ahead with his Gaza-pullout plan anyway.
Be interesting to see how these people can be written off. Which they will be.
Originally posted by Scott
Didn't we do this thread already?
It's the sequel...
"Bad Ambassadors II"
Originally posted by Scott
Didn't we do this thread already?
No. That was British diplomats. These are American diplomats.
Originally posted by Scott
Lead, follow or get out of the way.
There's you basic 'smarts' . . . and this guy has a phd!?!?!?
And that's the kind of thinking that diplomats are warning us about.
I heard a spokesman from the Brookings Institute on NPR . . .he initially got on the air to talk about whatt a 'revolution' the Bush administration had created in Foriegn Relations . . . it was supposed to be sell sell sell . . .it ended up, however, coming from him on his own volition, being about how the new 'US Foriegn Relations revolution' has left us Isolated, viewed universally very negatively, and in unable to garner the needed support for our future actions without distrust and suspicion.
He came on to sell and ended up, nonstop, outlining how the supposed 'revolution' has turned into a catastrophe
Originally posted by Scott
Lead, follow or get out of the way.
And if the proposed strategy is completely stupid and manifestly failing, do nothing?
That's culpable behaviour in many circumstances. Just thought you'd want to know.
Damn good advice, advice all those white South African exiles should have followed.
An ad hominem attack's too good for you.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Lead apartheid South Africa, follow apartheid South Africa's leaders, or get out of the way and let the country's leaders carry on being a bunch o' fascist mother****ers.
Damn good advice, advice all those white South African exiles should have followed.
An ad hominem attack's too good for you.
Mandela was a leader and he had followers. Too bad more people didn't get out of his way.
Originally posted by Scott
Mandela was a leader and he had followers. Too bad more people didn't get out of his way.
you mean like the US and Israel?
oh, and I forgot about taiwan and micronesia. Just to be fair.
Originally posted by Scott
Lead, follow or get out of the way.
Actually, is this technically totatlitarian or fascist?
I'm going for totalitarian, because we don't have any information on what happens to those that refuse to accept the pre-ordained One True Way in presupposition.
Totalitarian.