Feckless?

We let our “allies” handle it because, don’t forget, we’re only 1 of many nations, no better, no worse, they can do this because they’re Europe yada, yada, yada, and it’s our fault.

A pox on them.

the only reason it’s “our” fault is because peanut didn’t bomb them into oblivion.

I really don’t have a bit of doubt in my mind that if Bush had deigned to explain why Kyoto is so bad, someone would be on this topic complaining because he was condescending–explaining what everyone already knew.

But maybe I come from a different culture as well. If I tried to claim Kyoto had any redeeming virtues, my own mother would laugh in my face. At some point, respect for other people means that they figure things out themselves–or they don’t.

Thanks for the VDH link above. He always provides food for thought.

I believe that Syl was providing an aspirational exhortation to all men, reminding us that our reach should always exceed our grasp, that we should focus on cups overflowing bounteously, that time passes swiftly and therefore we must keep our eyes on the hourglass.

Think Dolly Parton.

Caroline Glick detects wobbly knees in there:

The final bit of irony is that while in the wake of the London bombings the West is finally beginning to take the threat of suicide terrorism in its towns seriously, this newfound sobriety at home is occurring at the same time that the Bush administration is striking out on a policy of curtailing its war on terror abroad. This policy of curtailing US offensive actions against terrorism internationally is evident both in its handling of Iraq’s rapid deterioration into a Shi’ite-ruled Islamist state along the lines of Iran and even more dangerously in the US’s feckless handling of the rising Iranian nuclear threat.

So, what’s the concensus? Get rid of McClellan? Put Cheney out there more? Hire some Star Seach spokesmodel types? Have Dubya talk to us more? Less? Be more concerned about how the rest of the world perceives us? Less? Be more concerned about reaching out to (and reaching) those among us still unconvinced, still uninformed? Forget about them, they’re hopeless, and preach more to the choir?

Bush has a wide streak of Smart Alec in him (I empathize). I’m sure he knows that (I’m sure his mother told–tells–him as much frequently). He needs to work harder to keep that tendency curbed. President Bush is a man of considerable discipline (awesome, actually, to those of us who wish we could say the same) so I know he can do it.

Dan, I too often marvel at that professional/amateurish dichotomy. A most interesting White House.

One of the reasons I pay attention to British support is because the lack of international support is used against us. We identify better with Brits than other countries. Same language(almost) , same heritage,mother country and all that, etc etc etc. If the British government were to take the attitude of the French and Germans and other EU weenies we would be in a very tenuous international situation. And that would further weaken our national resolve. Politicians being what they are, it is important to have British public opinion not overwhelmingly against us.

33-33-34?

Heaven forfend. That’s not representative of our image abroad at all.

44-22-34

Now that’s an image more worthy of defending.

I also think the nature of Bush’s rhetoric works best when it is reporting on deeds accomplished, not talking about deeds to come. More Chrenkoff from the W.H.. The vision thing can be squeezed in succinctly next to a factual discussion and also during the few big speeches every year. In fact, I don’t think Bush’s political skills have been utilized very well by his staff, and it is a shame. I also think “shock and awe” and a bunch of other pomposities and pronouncements before deeds was amateurish. Very professional and very amateurish. It is a very interesting White House indeed.

Some of our discussion has been at cross purposes. Further up the thread someone made a good point about Bush’s being from a culture, or having adopted a culture, of almost laconic self-expression.

That’s fine. I don’t want him to go on and on in Clintonesque, or Mario-Cuomo-esque, endless, silver-tongued bloviation.

Just occasional brief reminders, as when (just last week?) he reaffirmed that we are in a war,, not a “Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism.”

That was very good. Excellent. Just a little more of that is all I would ask.

Jamie Irons

I think Bush needs a better PR team for Americans, especially for his supporters and those who lean his way. Europe can’t be lumped into a single worldview but even if Bush was Olivier his policies and idea’s would get the cold shoulder from a majority of the continent. Imagine a silver tongued Bush telling Britain that it needed to clear out it’s radical imams before 7-7. He would have been portrayed as the racist war monger by a large portion of the populace, whether it was done smoothly or in a simple Texas twang. It is not Blair eloquence that is allowing him to implement the new tough policies it is the fear of death.

Bush needs help with the presentation of his policy message because he needs to buck up his supporters. His media team often comes off in a halting and defensive manor. Look who he brought in to help sheppard the Rogers nomination. Ex- senator and actor Fred Thompson. Why? Because he is media savvy and smart. The left and the press can not be swayed because they are a cloistered group who are dogmatic as any Orthodox religous group. I watch Bush’s actions and on the whole support him. From my years as a rabid Democrat I have gotten past my need for moving speechs. Mario Cuomo’s speech at the Democratic presidential convention was one of the most moving and inspiring speech I had ever heard. I still have physical memories of the stirring that it brought to my soul at the time. But he was a hollow politician who deeply wanted to be president but didn’t have the spine to risk defeat. And the content of the speech, on reflection, was beautiful but empty and devoid of practical solutions.

France and Germany were not going to get involved in Iraq and no one, eloquent or not, was going to get Schroeder and Chirac involved. Turkey crapped out on us because of internal considerations, much of it to do with their Kurdish problem. Bush needs to get on the ball to assure those who do agree with the WOT, I sense some wobbly knees out there.

Kevin Peters