At 12:59 09-11-2002 -0500, John Giorgis wrote:

Anyhow, after Bush's success in diplomacy in the aftermath of September
11th, his success in getting Russian acquiescene for the cancelling of
the ABM Treaty and the expansion of NATO, and now building a unanimous
coalition in the Security Council against Iraq, I think that it is time
to call Bush a master diplomat.
ROTFLMAO!!!

There are a lot of things one can call him, but "master diplomat" is most certainly not one of them. If he were a master diplomat, he would have managed to get the international community to support actions against Iraq *without* first getting most countries to strongly oppose him.

He may have some damned good diplomats working for him, but he is definitely not a good diplomat himself. I think you are letting your Bush-worship get in the way of the facts.


Its been a brilliant strategy so far - and one for which it looks more
and more like Bush will be well-remembered by history for.
I am sure he will be remembered by history. However, I think it is more likely that he will be remembered as either the president who dragged the world into war, or as the president who was willing to risk World War III to divert attention away from America's internal problems.

Let's face it: horrible as the act itself was, 9/11 was the best thing that could happen to Dubya. Had those attacks not happened, he would at best have gone down in history as a very mediocre president.


Jeroen "There's never a Burning Bush when you need one" van Baardwijk

__________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com


_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Reply via email to