Posted on 10/16/2004 2:44:09 PM PDT by I_saw_the_light
x-Security Adviser Rips Bush Diplomacy
U.S. National - AP
WASHINGTON - The national security adviser under the first President Bush says the current president acted contemptuously toward NATO and Europe after Sept. 11 and is trying to cooperate now out of desperation to "rescue a failing venture" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Brent Scowcroft, a mentor to the current national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), also said in an interview published in England that Bush is inordinately influenced by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
"Sharon just has him wrapped around his little finger," Scowcroft told London's Financial Times. "I think the president is mesmerized."
Scowcroft said the Bush administration's "unilateralist" position was partly responsible for the post-Sept. 11, 2001, decline of the trans-Atlantic relationship.
"It's in general bad," he said. "It's not really hostile, but there's an edge to it."
Early on, he said, "We had gotten contemptuous of Europeans and their weaknesses. We had really turned unilateral."
Although slightly diminished since then, the unilateralist policies remain fundamentally little changed, Scowcroft said. Recent overtures to cooperate in Afghanistan and Iraq with the United Nations and NATO were "as much an act of desperation as anything else ... to rescue a failing venture."
On Israel and Sharon, the former security adviser said Sharon calls Bush after strongly retaliating for a Palestinian suicide attack and says: "`I'm on the front line of terrorism,' and the president says, `Yes, you are.'"
Scowcroft said Sharon "has been nothing but trouble
It is official: Brent SoftCrow has dementia. Maybe he will leave a long message in John Kerry's cellular phone while he has flashbacks of lucidity. I am sure that SoftCrow's message would be seared in Gigolo's memory, too.
At leat Baker is quiet-- Scowcroft never loses an opportunity to bash Bush. I'm guessing that Scowcroft isn't on the A-list for Bush Sr. dinner parties anymore. Which I think is GOOD.
Then you...er, um.....?
Bush Senior needs to rip this creep a new one and make it hurt bad.
Of course, this bleating by Gen. Scowcroft will only serve to comfort the Kerry campaign and give them some free ammo for a news cycle, or two. I'm sure that Ariel Sharon could give a hoot what Scowcroft thinks today.
Ya' know, it's just s-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o easy for a bunch o' wanna beees, could never beees, couldn't get their way beeeees, to pound on the Prez, especially at election time! If they were so f'n smart and intuitive, and diplomatic, why in the hello, didn't they run for Prez themselves???
Put the f up, or shut the f up!
I'm gettin' sick of these washed up has beens ganging up on GW.
Dang, I wished I knew how to post images and .gifs on this board, I know just the one that perfectly describes my sentiment at this very moment.
Seriously, Skowcroft wasn't even a good General. People used to salute him with the "flyin' bird"
:O)
P
I voted for Perot. Sue me.
I met/guarded this arse in Prague in 1990 when the first President Bush was meeting with Vaslav Havel. I don't remember anyone taking the trouble to even give him the bird - it wasn't worth it.
Concur. But Scowcroft does have enough brain cells left
to understand that the only way he ever sees his name
in the papers anymore is when he attacks the President.
This will at least get him invited to the next Al Hunt/Judy
Woodruff soiree.
You're absolutely right. It's simple now to look back and say that it was Perot's fault. That's just not true. Clinton was still an unknown quantity that didn't sound as bad as he turned out to be. I worked in a Perot campaign office and we called Republicans and asked them who they would vote for if Perot wasn't in the race. 99% said Clinton. These were people, like myself and my family, who just weren't going to vote for Bush again. Like everything, you have to look at it throught the eyes of the times...1992. Of course if we had the power of foresight, we would have voted for Bush. But that's just the way it was.
Use it as much as you want.
Reagan won over 40% of the Jewish vote in 1984. Bush 41---30% in 1988... been down hard ever since due to Bush41.
Thank you :-)
He was the first to offer that getting terrorism to a 'nuisance' level was ok. . .maybe he did not like all the 'Kerry-bashing'.
This is true.
I have a theory about this.
It could be that GW is just about fed up with these guys who are entrenched in the State Dept. and the CIA. I read an article last week that was pretty much calling attention to this. (should have bookmarked it but thought we were done with the Benedict Arnolds)It seems there are a heck of a lot of people who are senior officials in the State Dept and the CIA that do not get replaced as administrations change and Bush is about sick of their politics. Especially seeing as he has paid the price for their Intel which was prior to the invasion of Iraq inadequate to say the least. (you will also notice he doesnt pass the buck but rather takes responsibility himself) Bush strikes me as the kind of man as if he sticks his neck out for facts that you have furnished him and they end up being less than factual he is not going to give you a pass. Hes going to chew your butt. Apparently, the lifers in the CIA and the State Dept. think they are above this. The Intel on WMDs was to say the least not quite accurate. I believe he is cutting some of these people off at the knees for their apparent screw-ups and they are resenting this. Mostly because I suppose they do not have to answer to anybody and have the attitude of "How Dare You Question My Abilities!"
I think this explains a great deal. Richard Clarke comes to mind right off the bat. Just a thought though. I could be wrong.......It is still just a theory.
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.