Brad, I agree with your distaste for the verbal rebuke that the Bush White House gave the Germans over that Nazi remark. Apparently, Bush took it personally (that temper again). Who would know more about Hitler than the Germans? The opposition coalition lost seats because one of their candidates made anti-Semitic remarks. Over here, Gen. Rove told Bush that it wouldn't good for Jewish votes if he didn't mind being linked to Hitler. Sorry, Arthur, I just am keen as a bulldog on the elevation of political vote getting by Rove in this White House and can't let go. Bush has been called a lot of things and shook it off. He's called others a lot of things. Can he not take what he dishes out? They sent a rough signal and couldn't manage anything more finessed.
NPR Newshour interviewed a threesome last night about the Nazi remark, including the German ambassador. I thought that Rumsfeld's remarks were over the top, typical for this administration (except with Israel, apparently). How often do our other allies get reprimanded by the US Sec of Defense in peacetime? It's not like the Sec of State responded. Guess Rummy was feeling pretty powerful and important, and didn't think that one through. You can read the transcript or activate streaming video. (Elections in Germany/Poisoned Relationship @ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/europe/july-dec02/germany_9-23.html) But I think he is more than just impatient, it's an inability to focus on long term planning, seeking the bottom line that is MBA training. So much of the new Bush doctrine printed last week reads like a five year business plan, based on acquisitions, that it makes one rethink the idea that too many lawyers in government was a bad thing. At least lawyers know the law and studied history, something not all CEOs get in business school. It's also a matter of lack of depth with Bush. It suits his temperament and intellectual education to have firm opinions that cannot be swayed by questioning thoughts. That's why loyalty is so important to him and an inner circle becomes proportionately more powerful. IMHO, in his quest for success as a young man, the firstborn son of a very successful father and carrier of a rich family heritage, he had a short attention span, or short-term thinking rather than the wisdom-seeking long-term approach to problem solving. My speculative assessment is that if it wasn't get-rich quick schemes as a career goal, it was how could he prove himself to be worthy - fast? This is not to say he wasn't a hard working businessman and isn't a prolific fundraiser for his party, or that he is insincere in his religious convictions. It's just that his own lack of personal depth and political experience makes him vulnerable to intellectual corruption, and thus policy and principles are at stake. I am concerned that when it comes to our fearless leader, the end justifies the means. Karen PS Arthur, while I'm being crabby, can't someone offer to buy a one-way ticket for Sharon to an apple orchard in Argentina? I think I'm going to get two bumper stickers printed up. FREE THE BUSH TWINS: Send Dad back to Texas and FREE ISRAEL: Deport Sharon. Brad wrote: Bush is impatient. He wants to "get Saddam" before he ceased to get off on getting Saddam. THat's speculative. What is not speculative is the way the Bushies are treating the German government officials like children who have sassed and aren't going to get off without groveling and admitting they had acted bigger than their britches and doing penance and being really sorry and making sure they don't even think of trying it again. Apologizing and offering a ritual sacrifice of the Justice Minister is *not* enough to make up for what the Germans have *done to* Bush! Runsfeld refused to shake the German Defense Minister's hand, etc. So for the first time we have seen the other side of Dubya and Condeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees' smiling faces. Will there be more to come?
