Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush snubbing war opponents
Fort Worth Star Telegram/Knight Ridder ^ | May. 07, 2003 | Ron Hutcheson

Posted on 05/07/2003 2:22:25 PM PDT by sandlady

It's payback time at the White House. Countries around the world are reaping the benefits or paying the price for their stand on the war with Iraq.

The door to the Oval Office is wide open for foreign leaders who backed President Bush. But war critics will be lucky to find a spot with Barney, the presidential dog. Foreign leaders who crossed Bush can forget about presidential visits or quick action on free-trade agreements.

The retribution fits Bush's long-standing pattern of rewarding friends and punishing enemies. Critics say it is adding to the substantial anti-American sentiment abroad.

"It's petty, and it puts personal animus ahead of the national interest. You lose the high ground when you make it personal," said Lee Feinstein, a former State Department official under President Clinton who is now at the Council on Foreign Relations.

"I have no problem with making the French, in particular, sweat. But what is wrong here is to make U.S. snubs the issue."

In the latest example of tit-for-tat foreign policy, Bush signed a free-trade deal with war ally Singapore on Tuesday, while a similar agreement with war opponent Chile has stalled.

This week's White House guest list is a roll call of war allies. Today, Bush will welcome Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar to the Oval Office. On Thursday, he meets with the foreign ministers from Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, all allies. He will also make time for Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani of Qatar, who welcomed the U.S. military command during the war, and Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who also endorsed the war.

But war opponents shouldn't expect invitations anytime soon.

Bush scrubbed a planned visit with Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien on Monday, citing a busy schedule; Chretien opposed the war. Instead, Bush spent the weekend at his Texas ranch with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, a war supporter, and devoted Monday to touting his tax cuts in Little Rock, Ark.

"Personally, I'm glad he has canceled his visit. All he has done since he has taken office is snub our government and our country," one angry Canadian wrote in a letter to the Edmonton Journal. "I was glad that Chretien had the courage to stay out of the war. ... I was taught as a child to stand up to the bully next door, not to cave in to demands for lunch money."

South of the border, Mexican President Vicente Fox is also on the outs. Bush's annual Cinco de Mayo message on Monday -- the holiday celebrates a Mexican victory over French invaders in 1862 -- failed to mention U.S. ties to Mexico. Instead, it praised "the many Mexican-Americans serving in our armed forces who are working to bring freedom and justice to oppressed people."

In contrast, last year's statement hailed the "strong, vibrant relationship" between the two countries. Two years ago, Bush marked the Mexican holiday by praising Fox as "a fine man, a man of powerful ideas and a great vision for his country."

The strained ties have derailed plans to liberalize U.S. immigration laws, a Fox priority that was already in doubt because of security concerns raised by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

No one ranks lower on the outsider list than French President Jacques Chirac, whose government led opposition to the war at the United Nations and at NATO.

"I doubt he'll be coming to the ranch anytime soon," Bush told NBC news anchor Tom Brokaw in a recent interview. "There are some strains in the relationship, obviously, because it appeared to some in our administration and our country that the French position was anti-American."

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was already in the doghouse for tapping into anti-American sentiment in Germany during his re-election campaign. He compounded that offense by siding with Chirac against the war.

Reward and retaliation are a staple of Bush's public life. When his father was president, he served as an informal loyalty enforcer at the White House. He played a key role in forcing White House chief of staff John Sununu's resignation after Sununu made comments that the Bush family considered disloyal.

In Texas, Republicans who criticized Bush as governor could count on a phone call from Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, warning them to stay in line.

"In Texas, politics is not just a contact sport. It's a blood sport," said Robert Dunn, a professor of economics and international affairs at George Washington University. "This is a group in the White House that has long memories. They reward their friends and punish their enemies."

But there are signs that the situation may change. Bush says he will attend next month's Group of Eight summit in Evian, France, with Chirac, Schroeder and leaders from five other industrial democracies.

One prominent war critic, Russian President Vladimir Putin, seems to have escaped White House retaliation. The decision to go easy on Putin reflects Bush's desire to have Russia's cooperation in the war on terrorism, the standoff with North Korea, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

Bush will meet with Putin this month in St. Petersburg, Russia.

"Kicking around France is costless. It's a freebie. I don't think kicking around Russia is a freebie," Dunn said. "We've got bigger fish to fry there."

In

Great Britain

Prime Minister Tony Blair tops White House "A" list.

Australia

Bush threw a steak on the "barbie" at his Texas ranch for Prime Minister John Howard last weekend.

Out

France

"I doubt he'll be coming to the ranch anytime soon," Bush said of French President Jacques Chirac.

Germany

Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is in the doghouse for playing on anti-American sentiments in his re-election campaign.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: allies; axisofweasels; contracts; iraqifreedom; nonallies; postwariraq; punishment; reward; willingcoalition
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last
To: sandlady
Rewarding friends and punishing enemies is the ESSENCE of diplomacy. It is fundamental to our national interests that we act in a way that will encourage other countries to side with us, rather than against us. The anti-war folks who wanted to rely on diplomacy rather than force should be applauding this.
21 posted on 05/07/2003 2:50:18 PM PDT by ellery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sandlady
"It's petty, and it puts personal animus ahead of the national interest. You lose the high ground when you make it personal," said Lee Feinstein, a former State Department official under President Clinton who is now at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Hey Lee, it's not quite as petty or sleazy or corrupt as having to pay Clinton though, is it!

22 posted on 05/07/2003 2:50:41 PM PDT by RJL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
Good news!
23 posted on 05/07/2003 2:51:03 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sandlady
"You lose the high ground when you make it personal," said Lee Feinstein, a former State Department official under President Clinton"

feinstein sounds like a mouth piece for clintoon. A mouth piece not unlike Monica Lewinsky!!!

24 posted on 05/07/2003 2:51:17 PM PDT by Dacus943
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sandlady
Clinton didn't get a chance to punish his enemies, they all died mysteriously before he ever got the opportunity.
25 posted on 05/07/2003 2:56:54 PM PDT by The Brush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sandlady
"It's petty, and it puts personal animus ahead of the national interest. You lose the high ground when you make it personal," said Lee Feinstein, a former State Department official under President Clinton who is now at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Count on the clintonoids to come out with something nasty, and count on the Startlegram to consult them.

The difference between Bush and clinton is that clinton was PERSONALLY vindictive, whereas Bush is standing up for our country.

Note that Bush was personally insulted by Eurotrash for two years, and did nothing in retribution. But treachery to the United States deserves a pay-back. It's Bush's duty to see that countries pay for betraying us.

26 posted on 05/07/2003 3:00:05 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun; sandlady; rintense; Miss Marple; Howlin; TexanToTheCore; sam_paine
At last weekend's press conference between President Bush and Australian Prime Minister John Howard, Barney takes up a position in front of the press corps as if guarding the two leaders from the reporters...


...then Barney decides he's had enough of being ignored, so he goes over to the President...


...who picks Barney up as soon as the news conference is over.


The little scamp sure has the President wrapped around his little paw!

27 posted on 05/07/2003 3:01:29 PM PDT by Wolfstar (If we don't re-elect this truly great President, we're NUTS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
That is so cool! Thanks.
28 posted on 05/07/2003 3:03:42 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AmericanAge
Post #20.
Amen, AmericanAge!!!! After September 11th, 2001, IT IS, "IT'S THE AMERICAN WAY OR THE HIGHWAY"!!!!:-)
29 posted on 05/07/2003 3:04:32 PM PDT by Defender2 (Defending Our Bill of Rights, Our Constitution, Our Country and Our Freedom!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: The Brush
"It's petty, and it puts personal animus ahead of the national interest. You lose the high ground when you make it personal," said Lee Feinstein, a former State Department official under President Clinton who is now at the Council on Foreign Relations.

IT SURE WILL MAKE THEM THINK TWICE BEFORE CHOSING A TERRORIST DICTATOR OVER THE U.S. NEXT TIME, WON'T THEY?
30 posted on 05/07/2003 3:05:03 PM PDT by winner3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
Under Clinton you risked an audit of your taxes or worse. Much worse. But because the "mainstream" press ignored it, it just didn't happen.

As to world "leaders" that actively tried to hurt us....they ought to go pound sand!

31 posted on 05/07/2003 3:05:56 PM PDT by CT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun; sandlady; rintense; Miss Marple; Howlin; TexanToTheCore; sam_paine
Of course, sometimes the Boss means business...


Speaking of punishing enemies, I wonder if the Boss was sending Barney after a pesky reporter. [wink]

32 posted on 05/07/2003 3:07:26 PM PDT by Wolfstar (If we don't re-elect this truly great President, we're NUTS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sandlady
BUMP
33 posted on 05/07/2003 3:08:27 PM PDT by GrandMoM ("Vengeance is Mine , I will repay," says the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sandlady
Personally, I'm glad he has canceled his visit. All he has done since he has taken office is snub our government and our country," one angry Canadian wrote in a letter to the Edmonton Journal. "I was glad that Chretien had the courage to stay out of the war. ... I was taught as a child to stand up to the bully next door, not to cave in to demands for lunch money."

How puerile...guess that pretty much defines the appeal, huh?

34 posted on 05/07/2003 3:08:35 PM PDT by onehipdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Of course, when the news conference was shown on TV last weekend, none of this could be seen, although the President did make a crack about whether or not Barney wanted to ask a question. Thank goodness for the Web and print photographers so we can get "the rest of the story."
35 posted on 05/07/2003 3:10:01 PM PDT by Wolfstar (If we don't re-elect this truly great President, we're NUTS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ellery
"The anti-war folks who wanted to rely on diplomacy rather than force should be applauding this."

Except that being "anti-war" was simply a facade. They never really *meant* that they were anti-war (after all, they applauded Clinton's regime change via U.S. Marines in Haiti, and they were silent about Clinton and Chiraq's war on Serbia four years ago), they simply wanted Joe Sixpack in Flyover Country to think that they had noble intentions for attacking President Bush.

36 posted on 05/07/2003 3:11:29 PM PDT by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: onehipdad
The writer of the above article probably had to scour Lexis-Nexis to come up with that letter to the editor.
37 posted on 05/07/2003 3:12:04 PM PDT by Wolfstar (If we don't re-elect this truly great President, we're NUTS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: sandlady
"One prominent war critic, Russian President Vladimir Putin, seems to have escaped White House retaliation. The decision to go easy on Putin reflects Bush's desire to have Russia's cooperation in the war on terrorism, the standoff with North Korea, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. "

An oblique reference to the fact Russia has more nukes than any other country? Bush would be crazy to let this iraq thing interfere. I wouldn't be surprised if, once it became clear france would prevent the un sc votes from being gained, it was suggested putin also go against it publicly in order to avoid creating domestic problems for himself for nothing.
38 posted on 05/07/2003 3:14:25 PM PDT by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sandlady
"one angry Canadian wrote in a letter to the Edmonton Journal... "I was glad that Chretien had the courage to stay out of the war. ... I was taught as a child to stand up to the bully next door, not to cave in to demands for lunch money."

Why do I get the impression that this balderdash is coming from a Canadian who won't stand up to Kim Il Jung's demands for money in exchange for "stopping" his atomic weapons program??

39 posted on 05/07/2003 3:16:03 PM PDT by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sandlady
Interesting that today Bush officially put the Basque separatists on the official list of terrorists, do you think he would have done that if Spain hadn't supported us?
40 posted on 05/07/2003 3:16:22 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson