Did it?
What were the alternatives? And weren’t they deemed “failures” as well? remember Oil for Food? A great success? Remember containment of Saddam? Great success?
Yes, that is what a true “statesman” would no doubt do and if I wanted someone one the cocktail party circuit who was well-liked, then bingo, got your man. I, however, prefer a leader and that is why I am happy with Bush. I am very sorry that the Iranians and North Koreans don’t like him. Ditto for Chavez and the fact that they don’t is supposed to be a bad thing because… help me out here… How about if we present it to the North Koreans and Iranians the same way they are presenting things to us. It is because their leaders have been so antagonistic and militaristic and nasty about the US and its leadership that the “feelings” of the American people have been “hurt” and therefore as a backlash the voters turned to Bush. Clearly, the “moderates” in the US government were dissed by both nations and therefore they have only their leaders to blame for the resultant win by “hardliners” in America. Works both ways but no… we cannot have that now can we?
I believe that he will but too bad that will not be what you want or rather “feel” is the right thing to do.
To my knowledge, he never suggested anything of the sort and neither did Rumsfeld. On the contrary, from the very beginning, I believe that Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld have consistently presented this as a political problem and given that it is primarily a “political” problem, how would more troops have helped? would they help now? I don’t think so. Until the politics of this matter are resolved, no peace. Bush understands that, hence no 500,000 troops. But we are not leaving either. We will be in Iraq for 60 years.
Well, why don’t you look at the track record of say presidents who attempted to talk to Syria and Iran? Start with Carter work your way through Reagan to Bush I and then to Clinton and now Bush II. Look at all the UN and EU leaders who have attempted to talk to Iran and Syria. Why not tell us where you think “talking” will work this time. Our goals are diametrically opposed and no “talking” is going to resolve that.
Which means telling the Israelis to put up with suicide attacks and terrorism as a necessary price for Palestinian “grievances?” Great idea! Never been tried before! Oh, er, it has. How did that Oslo Accord work out exactly and why didn’t it succeed? One side was not adhering to the treaty stipulations? Really? Color me shocked. What next? Arab governments that don’t respect the will of their peoples?
Take your own advice and show us factually where talking to Iran or Syria has ever been successful and what the outcomes (desired or otherwise) were. We will be waiting. Cat got your tongue? hahahahaah Don’t make me laugh. Actually, it is not a laughing matter but clearly the leadership in Syria and Iran has a very good understanding of what makes people like you tick and I suspect that the need to “understand” and “tolerate” and “seek peace” through “dialogue” or perhaps “discussions” while attempting to “resolve conflicts” through “peace-building exercises” are the motivators of choice. Excuse me while I barf into my waste basket. Bah! Naif!