Posted on 12/09/2007 7:08:30 PM PST by AmericanInTokyo
Is Bush Beginning to Resemble Clinton?
When he was first sworn in on Jan. 20, 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush would never have imagined that he would eventually resemble his predecessor, former President Bill Clinton. The press suggested that soon after his inauguration, Bush did everything according to an ABC policy -- "Anything But Clinton." But with about a year remaining before his term ends, Bush is now implementing policies that don't follow the ABC plan. On the contrary, he is beginning to seem reminiscent of Clinton.
A good example is the Middle East peace conference at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland on Nov. 27. Unlike the Clinton administration, Bush had paid little attention to the Israel-Palestine conflict over the past seven years of his term. Instead he gave top priority to the war in Iraq, regarding it as the biggest Middle Eastern issue.
What Bush is doing is reminiscent of what Clinton did seven years earlier. During the conference in Annapolis, Bush grasped the hands of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. With his mind on a Nobel Peace Prize in 2000, Clinton placed the highest emphasis on the Middle East peace process as his key foreign policy issue. Clinton stuck to the process until he left the White House, almost staking his political fate on it. Bush has pledged to produce tangible results by the end of his term by visiting Israel and Palestine early next year.
The Bush administration's North Korea policy, which took an about-face turn in the wake of North's nuclear test last year, has resembled the "Perry Process" of the Clinton administration.
Bush has been so aggressive for progress in recent talks with North Korea that he has been criticized by former U.S. ambassador to the UN John Bolton, a hardliner against the North from the early days of the Bush administration. During the first part of his presidency, Bush refused to talk with the North. But Washington-Pyongyang talks have now become so routine that articles about chief U.S. nuclear envoy Christopher Hill's visits to Pyongyang are carried in the corners of newspapers. Most recently, Bush went so far as to send a personal letter to North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, calling him "Dear Mr. Chairman," just as Clinton did.
Bush is also laying emphasis on minor domestic issues as Clinton did, some analysts claim. U.S. media are reporting that in his final year, Bush is focusing not on big issues like Iraq, but on smaller ones such as reducing flight departure delays and dropping housing mortgage rates.
All in all, Bush seems to be changing everything in his last year. Some people close to the White House even say that Bush has been having a hard time keeping his administration staffed, as one aide after another leaves.
International politics is a complicated intermingling of good and evil. But Bush simply divided the world into two groups -- "good" countries and "evil" ones." He has lost support from traditional allies due to his self-willed policies. Until his party lost the off-year election last year, Bush had stuck to "politics of strength" rather than recognizing his domestic opponents and seeking compromise with them. As a result, he lost public trust. Rather than continuing to implement policies by obstinately ignoring the public, he has decided recently to make an about-face near the end of his term. Consequently, he is now been regarded as similar to Clinton, his political rival whom he disliked so much. This story about the incumbent U.S. president holds valuable lessons for Korea's presidential candidates.
This column was contributed by Lee Ha-won, the Chosun Ilbo's correspondent in Washington.
Points out "going wobbly" on both Middle East and North Korean issues by the Bush Administration in the closing months.
Interesting oversees perspective from what would normally be a friendly conservative ally and conceivably pro-Bush.
Ping
This is your Conservative newspaper in South Korea oh man can you say smack chat 101 by your own LOL!
Beginning????
You got it. It has been underway for awhile. Beginning with Chris Hill’s kowtowing shuttle diplomacy.
Bush is politically compromised at home. He cannot afford again to offend any State Department or Central Intelligence bureaucrat. He meanwhile must follow the motions demanded from the Baker-Hamilton commission (hence the Palestinian nullity party in Annapolis) to curry favor with the Congress adequate to maintain the military. It might not work. Bush still cannot afford any flare on the North Korean front, so he’s kicking that can down the road until the Congress changes.
It’s possible that the Iraq invasion, Proliferation Security Initiative, multilateral diplomacy, and ultra-top-secret programs have stymied the nuclear ambitions of our enemies, but I somehow doubt it.
BTTT
The true fruits of Papa Bush’s friendship with Bill Clinton?!
The Govt of Japan, China, and South Korea authored this agreement with NK. Bush was suppose to tell the rest of them “No, we aren’t going along with your ideas”
That would of been positively idiotic. Without help from South Korea and China, the US has no leverage at all over NK. That really would of lost support of “traditional US allies”/
This article is wholly ignorant drivel. Without even a single credible criticism.
Another example of how the rabid Bush haters, mad because Bush could not grant them their every personal political whimsy the second they decided they wanted it, are simply desperate to find something new each day to squeal at Bush about.
Oh please. Get a grip. You are wholly misrepresenting this papers political position. This is the S.K.'s equivalent of Pat Buchanan.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926561/posts
Odd change of tone from this column. Must be off his meds today
We always seem to want to imagine all sorts of powers of persuasion and transformation on our presidents full well knowing that that same thing doesn’t work in daily life.
Cops, if they end up on the job long enough, end up acting like - well - cops.
Same for Senators, CEO’s, Wall Street traders, stock brokers, doctors, lawyers etc. etc.
What I mean is that the power of the job to transform the man is stronger than the power of the man to transform the job.
Why should presidents be any different. IMHO they are not. The forces at play that act on the man and on the institution are powerful ones indeed and in the end, the presidents to tend to revert to form.
We kid ourselves if we think otherwise.
Thank you for your input.
As uninformed as it is, it is sincere, and so I thank you for your input as always!
Yeah should of know better. God forbid anything like fact or reason get in the way of your hysteric bigoted hate for Bush.
Only 13 more months left. Couting the minutes down... Tick, tick, tick, tick ;-) Merry Christmas Johnnie
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.