"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Monday, July 10, 2006

The End of Cowboy Diplomacy AND the Continuation of Yellow Journalism

Thanks with a neck wrenching hat tip to Red Hot Cuppa Politics for bringing one of the latest propaganda pieces from Time Magazine to my attention.

One of the more eggregious statements from the magazine was regarding Iran, with "Why Iran Won't Back Down":

'"One of the ironies of Iran's latest confrontation with the West is that it is the product of are you ready for this? democratic politics. President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad's move towards restarting work on the country's nuclear program is the classic maneuver of an elected leader caught in a political bind."'
Can you say ludicrous? Democratic politics, like Hussein and 99 to 100% of the vote. Ludicrous in that this article was published January 14, 2006 and Iran's actions are the "product of democratic politics," yet the present nukes scenario precede Ahmadinejad by about three years. Hmmmm.....

Time goes with "The End of Cowboy Diplomacy" for it's cover this week.

It begins with the presidents birthday celebrations "good feelings" not being able to "hide the fact the president finds himself in a world of hurt." In an effort to put the administration in a scandalous light, the presidency of Warren G. Harding is referred to; it's the "scandal" Time wants you to pause for, not low popularity numbers.

By 2006, Time has discovered that "(L)ong gone were the zero-tolerance warnings, "Axis of Evil" rhetoric and talk of pre-emptive action." There is a shift underway in the "Bush foreign policy" and it is "bigger and more seismic than a change of wardrobe or a modulation of tone."

According to Time, it's no longer this go it alone, unilateral, cowboy stuff; it's multi-lateral, and more ally intensive.

From Times vantage point on Sunday July 9, 2006:
Bush's response to the North Korean missile test was revealing: Under the old Bush Doctrine, defiance by a dictator like Kim Jong Il would have merited threats of punitive U.S. action. Instead, the administration has mainly been talking up multilateralism and downplaying Pyongyang's provocation.
When exactly is the "old Bush Doctrine?"

From CNN on Friday April 25, 2003 on the occasion of NK admitting to possession of a nuclear weapon, President Bush:
said the United States would continue to work with Japan, South Korea, China and others '"to say to the North Koreans and the world that we're not going to be threatened."'
April of 2003 was a time when the Bush "Cowboy Diplomacy" was at it's zenith, yet oddly enough I guess Time didn't notice at that time.

The same can be said of Iran. Bush followed the lead of the EU-3 "beginning in 2002, after the disclosure of Iran's clandestine nuclear activities" according to Asia Times Online.

Odd then that Time talks of all this change in the diplomatic arena as though it is due to present circumstances rather than the FACT that this is nothing new.

You think Time is more interested in the impression rather than the reality?


© blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks