George W. Bush: Diplomat

GWB is the coolest guy, ever!


He's much better at this "diplomacy thing" than most folks!

Time magazine writer recognizes his excellent foreign record.

“George W. Bush: Diplomat” read the headline over the commentary by Massimo Calabresi in Time magazine. It was a recognition that far from being a madman who pissed off the world, President Bush has diplomatic accomplishments that go well beyond the Annapolis summit.

Let’s see, he got Libya to give up its WMD program, got North Korea to give up its nuke program, got NATO’s help in Afghanistan, and kept Pakistan and India on the same page in the war on terrorism.

The Iraq war has gone so well that two of the Axis of Weasels has elected two very pro-American leaders. The third member has split politically.

While is not diplomacy, it does show that far from turning the world against us — squandering the goodwill from 9/11 as Democrats spin it (wasting the pity is what they mean) — Bush has built relations with allies.

Overlooked by critics of Bush’s diplomatic record is that there is a fellow on the other side who also “failed” diplomatically. I remember that Reagan was blamed for the “failure” at Iceland while Gorbachev was praised for trying.

But what the press touts as success can be the opposite. Neville Chamberlain received grand reviews upon his return from Munich.

And Reagan’s “failure” was the correct course of action. Gorbachev wanted us to give up our technological edge in military weaponry.

Had we done that, the initials USSR would have contemporary meaning in this century.

Bush observed that and learned from it. His aggressiveness on the war on terrorism paid off for the next president, just as Reagan’s “failed diplomacy” with the Soviets allowed President Bush 41 to preside over the dissolution of that Evil Empire.

Of course there are world leaders who hate us: Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinjad, Kim Jong-Il and Fidel Castro (is he still around?) all hate us.

Good.

It is good to be the enemy of tyrants. That is what this nation is all about.

Unfortunately Calabresi of Time does not delve into these successes. His purpose is to show some split between the vice president and president.

This just in: An employee and his boss don’t agree on everything all the time. Film at 11.

Wrote Calabresi: “Cheney’s office denies any division between Bush and the Vice President over the new diplomacy. A senior Administration official acknowledges, however, that the President has increasingly overridden Cheney and offers a nuanced view of the relationship.”

The quibble is a reminder that you do not judge a presidency by the day-to-day news coverage. Contemporary news reports seldom provide more than a brief sketch. Far from being a bungling old fool who would accidentally trigger World War III, Ronald Reagan was the man who got to give the Soviet Union a final shove into the dustbin of history.

So it goes with Bush.

other news:
Will Smith: GWB has an "unevolved" perspective
Once again, President Bush proved himself right; Dems wrong
First Lady Laura Bush calls on Myanmar's regime to 'move aside'
White House celebrates Hanukkah; Remembers Daniel Pearl

check this out:
33% of us got it right
This article was written last month, but I love it so I'm gonna link it here! Here's an excerpt:

Gabor Steingart writing for Der Speigel captured what is happening in Washington — what the American press is not admitting. Bush was right. His critics were wrong.

The 33.6% who approve of his job performance (current RCP averages) got it right. The 60.6% opposed got it wrong.

Wrote Steingart: “He may be America’s most unpopular politician, but George W. Bush is no lame duck. As a wartime president, Bush dominates the political agenda. He is discreetly influencing his party’s choice of presidential candidate while committing his country to an aggressive foreign policy, the effects of which are likely to continue well beyond his term in office.”

It is called perseverance. It used to be considered an American virtue.

Steingart captured the American spirit at the end of this paragraph: “First, there has been noticeable improvement on the Iraqi war front. Unless the Pentagon statistics Bush recited on Friday in a speech to soldiers at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, are made up, the new Iraq strategy appears to be working. The number of weekly bombing attacks on US troops has dropped by half, and the number of US military deaths is the lowest in a year and a half. At the same time, US forces are arresting or killing more than 1,500 terrorist “thugs,” as Bush called them, each month. If the military successes continue, public opinion toward Bush and his Republicans could soon improve. Americans are not against war itself, they just don’t like losing.”

Exactly. Steingart gets it. Reid, Pelosi and Obama do not. They are guided by political expediency. History guides Bush.

In my column this week, I concluded, “As they shop for a presidential candidate, Republicans are looking for the next Reagan, a fellow who suffered a great dip in popularity early in his first term. I suggest they may be better off looking for the next George Walker Bush.”

The Iraq war is far from over. But if the next 12 months see a reduction in deaths the way the last 2 months have, then Americans will accept Iraq as a victory.