|
JANUARY 18, 2004 –
“The
duties of our day are different. But the values of our nation do not
change. Let us reject the blinders of isolationism, just as we
refuse the crown of empire. Let us not dominate others with our
power — or betray them with our indifference. And let us have an
American foreign policy that reflects American character. The
modesty of true strength. The humility of real greatness. This is
the strong heart of America. And this will be the spirit of my
administration.” — then-Governor George W. Bush.
Yes, there are
lots of winners in the GOP's stated platform, such as the above
quote which kicks off the foreign policy section. You wonder how
people came to support President Bush and the GOP, look at what they
promised - and what their platform, to this very day, still states.
Look at this
charge they leveled against the Clinton administration, as stated in
their current platform:
"The arrogance, inconsistency, and
unreliability of the administration’s diplomacy have undermined
American alliances, alienated friends, and emboldened our
adversaries."
Let me repeat,
this is the Republican Party platform as it stands today talking
supposedly about the Clinton administration.
The Platform
talks about the state of the union that they were taking over, and
it seems, despite all their criticism, that in reality they thought
Clinton was leaving America in a great position in the world:
"The Twenty-First Century opens with unique
promise for the United States. Democratic values are celebrated on
every continent. The productivity and ingenuity of American business
are the envy of the world. American innovation is leading the way in
the information age. New technology speeds an exchange of ideas that
often bear the mark of American inspiration. No other great power
challenges American international preeminence. There is every reason
for Americans to be extraordinarily optimistic about their future."
Wow, quite a
compliment - not quite the horrible state they now try to claim
Clinton handed the nation over in. And not quite the state
President Bush and the Republicans have the nation in now, huh?
This statement alone speaks volumes to what state they actually
inherited the nation in, even as they try to bash the Clinton legacy
now.
They then go on
to make their claim about how, if we elected George W. Bush and a
Republican Congress, they would run things:
"Our generation of Americans with its
allies and friends can build a different and better world..."
Different? Yes. Better?
Hmm...
"...promoting
U.S. interests and principles, avoiding the economic convulsions
and perilous conflicts that so scarred the century just past.
Through a distinctly American internationalism, a new Republican
president will build public support for a new strategy that can lead
the United States of America toward a more peaceful and prosperous
world for us, our children, and future generations. Almost all
Americans know they cannot prosper alone in the world. They
know that America is safest when ... more and more nations join the
United States in an emerging fellowship of freedom."
Wow, these
GOP'ers claim maintaining our allies and friends is the most
important thing we can do, and if we do this, there will be no big
"economic convulsions," like a recession or anything, and no
military conflicts. Great, lots of allies, no recession, no
military conflicts. I might vote for these guys myself!
The Bush/Limbaughians
often act as if Clinton was a foreign policy slacker and that is why
9/11 happened. Let's look at what they outlined as the top
threats to the nation foreign-policywise in their platform - the
platform they still use this very day.
"The ballistic missile threat to the United
States has been persistently dismissed, delaying for years the day
when America will have the capability to defend itself against this
growing danger."
Right, not
exactly talking about dirty bombs or terrorism, but states acquiring
ballistic missiles - as in, "Let us build our expensive missile
shield, please." No, nothing about Osama or terrorism so far.
They continue:
"An initiative to establish free trade
throughout the Americas has stalled because of (Clinton's) lack of
Presidential leadership."
Ok, three years
into Bush's time in office and still no agreement. In fact,
relations with Latin America have deteriorated drastically and the
possibility of any such agreement are farther off than ever.
So, as they put it, I guess we must chalk this up to a "lack of
Presidential leadership" on President Bush's part.
And still nothing
about Osama or terrorism. Hmm. I'm sure they're getting to
it, since they're the ones, as they like to insinuate, who would
never let Osama run around plotting 9/11 as slacker Clinton and the
Democrats did.
"The problems of Mexico have been ignored, as
our indispensable neighbor to the south struggled with too little
American help to deal with its formidable challenges."
Ok, again not
Osama, and again something that is only worse now since President
Bush took office. In fact, Clinton helped Mexico a lot, even
bailing them out when their currency crashed - against the GOP's
whining and crying complaints. While President Bush has...
well... started fingerprinting every Mexican who would even visit
America as if they were felons.
What other
threats do they say we should focus on?
"With weak and wavering policies toward
Russia, the (Clinton) administration has diverted its gaze from
corruption at the top of the Russian government..."
Russia has
now started, for the first time since the Cold War ended, to build
new nukes, and has rolled back human rights and democratic policies
drastically - while the Bush administration simply says, "Ok, Putin,
do what you will." (see
President Bush's Naive Foreign Policy Allows Putin
To Play Him And Set The Stage For The Second Coming Of The
USSR , our story on Russia's current
state.)
Wait, they have more to say about
Russia, talking about
"the slaughter of thousands of innocent
civilians in Chechnya":
"A chorus of empty threats destroyed
America’s credibility in the Balkans, so that promised safe havens
became killing fields."
Well, if Clinton
was guilty of making empty threats, that's still one step better
than what President Bush has done - which is simply say, again, "Do
as you wish, Putin, I'm too afraid and have weakened America's hand
too drastically to even consider standing up to you about anything."
So what's next on
the GOP's current foreign policy platform? What horrible
situation did they - and do they - promise they will remedy?
"The (Clinton) administration prolonged the
war in Kosovo by publicly limiting America’s military options."
Wait a second,
the war in Kosovo was too long? They are criticizing the
length of that conflict which saw no Americans killed in conflict,
lasted a couple of months, and accomplished its mission soundly?
Wow, if they say they'll do better than that, I might vote for these
guys a second time (can I get two votes?)
"A generation of American efforts to slow
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has unraveled as first
India and Pakistan set off their nuclear bombs..."
And President
Bush has done what about this since taking office? Oh yeah,
said to Pakistan, "Keep all the nukes you want, we are your buddy
now."
Still nothing
about Osama or terrorism.
They, instead,
then go on ranting about Somalia, complaining about how President
Clinton undertook:
"(a) humanitarian
intervention that
escalated thoughtlessly into nation-building
at the cost of the lives of courageous Americans."
Thank God
President Bush and the Republicans would never get us stuck doing
anything like trying to set up a nation, and certainly never cost
any "courageous American lives" in the process. They would
never have 500+ Americans killed trying to set up a Democracy or to
save the people of a nation from brutal circumstances. Great,
how can I contribute to these guys!
Now here is
something related to the War on Terrorism at last. The GOP
party platform Bush ran on - and which they still use today -
assails Clinton/Gore for not being foresighted enough. The
Bush/Limbaughians assail the Democrats for not handling first
Somalia, then Haiti better - yes, massively important situations,
and accuse Clinton of:
"Reacting belatedly to inevitable crises..."
Somalia, Haiti.
The GOP assailed Clinton for being asleep at the wheel and letting
these situations develop. That's great the GOP swears they
will be so on the ball! That means for certain they would
never do anything like reacting belatedly to the threat Osama and
terrorism posed. Bush and the GOP tell us they would never let
that happen
Wait, we left out
the rest of that sentence. They actually assail Clinton for
something more:
"Reacting belatedly to inevitable crises, the
administration constantly enlarges the reach of its rhetoric..."
Great, if, by
some rare chance, President Bush and the GOP are caught asleep at
the wheel and let something like, say, 9/11 happen, only "reacting
belatedly to inevitable crises," I am glad that we can rest assure
that they would never respond by "constantly enlarg(ing) the reach
of (their) rhetoric," making a whole Axis of Evil or something,
expanding the scope of their belated response to make it seem like
they weren't caught asleep at the wheel, as they accused
Clinton/Gore of doing.
They assailed
Vice President Gore for doing just this, as they assail in their
platform:
"Vice President Gore’s "new security agenda"
that adds disease, climate, and all the world’s ethnic or religious
conflicts to an undiminished set of existing American
responsibilities. If there is some limit to candidate Gore’s new
agenda for America as global social worker, he has yet to define it.
It is time for America to regain its focus."
Good, if we vote
GOP we will never get involved in saving, say, the people of Iraq
from their leader or dealing with issues that religious conflicts,
such as the conflicts that exist with the Muslim world, are
presenting. Gore was just all over the place, huh? Good,
these GOP'ers will put an end to paying attention Muslim-related
conflicts - you know, all those "ethnic or religious conflicts" Gore
was going to get us focused on dealing with because, as they claim,
he and Clinton were "reacting belatedly" to the horrible, massive
Haiti conflict. (Hmm, I had thought that wasn't such a big
thing as 9/11 - my bad, I guess.)
So come on,
they've got to get to Osama and terrorism soon. I mean,
they're the heroes in the War on Terror, Clinton and Gore were the
ones who let it happen, somehow. They have to have mentioned
it somewhere in their platform - it should have been right at the
top really, if they were so on top of it, unlike Clinton, as they
claim. But we'll cut them a break. Yet it has to be in
here somewhere, right, something about terrorism?
"A Republican president will identify and
pursue vital American national interests... Republicans know what it
takes to accomplish this: robust military forces, strong alliances,
expanding trade, and resolute diplomacy.
Great, again they
say they know "strong alliances" and "resolute diplomacy" are "what
it takes" to "secure the peace." Thank goodness they won't be
"arrogant" isolationists like they say Clinton was.
"The current administration has casually sent
American armed forces on dozens of missions without clear goals,
realizable objectives, favorable rules of engagement, or defined
exit strategies.
Thank goodness they would never never
send our armed forces out without "clear goals" and a "defined exit
strategy." They then say:
"(The) American military has been run
ragged by a deployment tempo that has eroded its military readiness.
Many units have seen their operational requirements increased
four-fold, wearing out both people and equipment."
Our military must
be so happy to know President Bush and the Republicans would never
increase the "operational requirements" of the military, running
them "ragged" or wearing them out. They must be elated
President Bush will use them much less than those horrible
over-military-users Clinton and Gore did.
Osama... Osama...
no, don't see anything yet. But how about this doozy, nailing
Clinton for:
"Sending our military on vague, aimless, and
endless missions (which) rapidly saps morale. Even the highest
morale is eventually undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor
pay, shortages of spare parts and equipment..."
Yes, Clinton
really overworked the military. Great to know the GOP and
President Bush, in their party's very platform, swear they would
never do this.
Osama... Osama...
"The nation is failing to fulfill its
ethical, and legal health care obligations to those that are serving
or have honorably served in the Armed Forces of the United States."
I won't even
bother to comment on Bush's record with this one, it's so obviously
pathetic.
Osama... Osama...
"We
believe the military must no longer be the object of social
experiments... We affirm that homosexuality is incompatible with
military service."
Is that maybe
code for, "We know Osama and terrorism are big threats and will deal
with them if elected?" Maybe! Or maybe it's just them
focusing on hating gays instead of Osama. I don't want to rush
to any conclusions though.
"The U.S. military under the leadership of a
Republican President and a Republican Congress will focus on its
most demanding task..."
Wait, maybe this is it at last - dealing
with terrorism?
"...fighting and winning in combat."
Darn. Wait,
finally, here it is! They did talk about preparing for George
W. Bush's version of the War on Terrorism:
"The maintenance and expansion of our
national cemeteries is a solemn duty; a Republican administration
will attend to it."
Too well.
The GOP platform
then states:
"The American people cannot be content with
the current unemployment rate of recently separated veterans."
No, it must be
higher, and the GOP will attend to this, too! Next
complaint/promise in this GOP wonder-work:
"In 1991, the United States invited the
Soviet Union to join it in removing tactical nuclear weapons from
their arsenals. Huge reductions were achieved in a matter of months,
quickly making the world much safer. Under a Republican president,
Russia will again be invited to do the same with respect to
strategic nuclear weapons."
Or, as actually
is the case, not only did President Bush refuse to fund the program
to dismantle the Russian nukes, but, as we reported in the
story on Russia
mentioned above, he has led the Russians to actually start producing
more nukes. Almost like reducing Russia's nuclear arsenal,
except, well, the opposite.
Finally, at last,
something about WMD's and terrorism. No, for real this time:
"A comprehensive strategy for combating the
new dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction must include a
variety of other measures to contain and prevent the spread of such
weapons. We need the cooperation of friends and allies — and should
seek the cooperation of Russia and China — in developing realistic
strategies using political, economic, and military instruments to
deter and defeat the proliferation efforts of others."
Well, either that
or we should ignore the situation once we get into office and flip
the bird to our friends and allies once we're caught with our pants
down. Either way, I guess.
Now we are really
into their plan to deal with terrorism. Check this out:
"We need to address threats from both rogue
states and terrorist groups — whether delivered by missile,
aircraft..."
What was that?
"...aircraft..."
Hold on a second.
Didn't Condalezza Rice, maybe on a date like May 16, 2002, say:
"I don't think anybody could have
predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a
hijacked airplane as a missile."
Weird. I guess she just never read
the Republican Party platform. I guess no one in the party
did, not President Bush, not her. I mean, she doesn't "think
anybody could have predicted" something like "threats from...
terrorist groups... delivered by... aircraft." Nobody.
Except for her party's very platform laid out well before 9/11.
"The
weak leadership and neglect of the (Clinton) administration have
allowed America’s intelligence capabilities... to atrophy,
resulting in repeated proliferation surprises such as Iraq’s
renewed chemical and biological weapons programs..."
You mean the one
they didn't have? How could Clinton have missed that?
But yes, funny,
not a word about Osama or Al Qaeda, but someone familiar to us all
now was mentioned:
"Token air strikes against Iraq could not
long mask the collapse of an inspection regime that had — until then
— at least kept an ambitious, murderous tyrant from acquiring
additional nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons."
No, he wasn't
planning on attacking Iraq with something more than just "token air
strikes" well before 9/11... heck, even well before he was elected.
Couldn't be.
"When,
in late 1998, the administration decided to take military action, it
did too little, too late."
No, they weren't
already thinking about doing more, years before 9/11, were they?
But, just in case maybe they were, what exactly were they "not"
planning on doing?
"A new Republican administration will
patiently rebuild an international coalition opposed to Saddam
Hussein..."
Oh good. At
least if we do the thing they are supposedly not already planning,
we will be "patient" and work with the "international" community.
"We support the full implementation of
the Iraq Liberation Act, which should be regarded as a starting
point in a comprehensive plan for the removal of Saddam Hussein and
the restoration of international inspections in collaboration with
his successor. Republicans recognize that peace and stability in the
Persian Gulf is impossible as long as Saddam Hussein rules Iraq."
Are they really
sure they are not planning something, something more than just
"token air strikes," something bigger that will lead to the "removal
of Saddam Hussein," even, as they say, prior to the "restoration of
international inspections?" Are they certain? Because it
sounds a bit like they were bent on taking Saddam out. Maybe I
am just reading too much into them clearly saying Saddam must either
be removed from power or he must be removed from power using
something more than just "token air strikes."
Ah, at last, they
truly deal with "Terrorism." This is the meat we have been
waiting for. Osama, Al Qeada, Afghanistan, something good.
Let's see what they had to say:
"Republicans endorse the four principles
of U.S. counterterrorism policy... First, we will make no
concessions to terrorists.
Ok, I don't recall them ever giving any
cigarettes to Osama or anything - nothing but the weapons, cash, and
training they gave him throughout the 1980's. The continue:
"Second,
we will isolate, pressure, and punish the state sponsors of
terrorism. Third, we will bring individual terrorists to justice.
Past and potential terrorists will know that America will never stop
hunting them. Fourth, we will provide assistance to other
governments combating terrorism. Fighting international terrorism
requires international collaboration. Once again, allies matter."
Great, when
President Bush gets into office he knows he has to go after state
sponsors of terror, like Afghanistan, punish past terrorists, like
Osama, and realize how important it is to work with allies.
Well, either that or he will do nothing that the platform promised
he would while Osama bakes up and carries out a plan to take out the
World Trade Center and hit the Pentagon. And then, afterwards,
when he does finally begin to act - too late - he will do it while
thumbing his nose at our allies who he said "matter" so much.
Well, I guess that's it for their
foreign policy platform. Crazy, I didn't notice a single
reference to Osama or Al Qaeda or Afghanistan or the Taliban.
When they talk about terrorism there is lots of talk about Saddam.
They also talk about Iran, North Korea. But, for some odd
reason, no Osama or Afghanistan. Weird. Almost seems
like they were going to come into office and completely fail to deal
with Osama and Al Qaeda - or even acknowledge their existence in any
way - and instead focus on finding a way to get the world to let
them send something more than "token air strikes" Saddam's way.
Oh well. I'm sure if we look more
closely at the other parts of their foreign policy platform we will
find more consistency. I'm certain there will be nothing like
them saying...
"Tariffs should be cut further."
...and then
coming into office and doing something like raising steel tariffs.
Well, that actually is in their platform and what they did.
But for sure there will be nothing like them saying...
"The next Republican president will pay
serious and sustained attention to the American neighborhood... He
will work with key democracies like Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and —
above all — Mexico... guided by the principles of... regard for the
variety of peoples and cultures that make up the Western
Hemisphere."
...and then
deciding to book people from each of these nations as if they were
all criminals, with fingerprinting and mugshots, while exempting
white people from white people countries from having to do this.
No, that... well, that's in there, too. But they certainly
wouldn't say:
"The United States needs its European
allies to help with key regional security problems as they arise,
since America also has global responsibilities...
...and then, once
elected, say, "Our Europeans allies are irrelevant." Well,
they did that, too.
I don't know
about you, but I'm beginning to wonder a little bit about this GOP
and the validity of the claims they make in their platform.
REFERENCE:
GOP Platform, Foreign Policy Section: "Principled American
Leadership"
| 
