I almost missed Cheney's speech this morning. Security was even tighter than usual (the Secret Service apparently being under the impression that Davos is a suburb of Beruit) and I never had a prayer of getting inside the hall. I also wasn't allowed in the overflow room where they had Dick up on the big screen. I guess it was full of flow. I couldn't even talk my way into the media room down in the basement where the press jackals -- aside from the creme de creme actually allowed to witness the great occasion in person -- were watching.
Finally, I was able to sneak into the VIP lounge and catch the last half of the Veep's speech. I won't revolt you with the grisly details, which I assume will be posted on the White House web site just as soon as they've finished shoving anything that might possibly contradict it down the electronic memory hole.
It's OK. I wasn't all that interested in the blah blah anyway (although I was curious to see if Cheney would recycle Bush's "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities" clunker. If he did, I missed it.) I gather the U.S. media is playing the speech as an olive branch to the Europeans. If so, it was an olive branch wielded like a tire iron -- and with about as much grace as a man tightening the lug nuts on a wheel. Forget the words, Cheney's body language was the real message, roughly: "Let's get this shit over with."
But what I really wanted to see was what kind of reaction Cheney would get from the audience. Having watched a rowdy crowd (well, as rowdy as a bunch of European business executives ever get) rough up Colin Powell at last year's forum, I wanted to see whether this New York Times story was as out of touch with reality as I thought it was when I read it:
Anti-Americanism May Be Fading, but Forum Is No Love Fest
Compared with one year ago, when the forum became a bitter joust between America and opponents of war in Iraq, some ... skeptics and foes have begun to acquiesce in Washington's exercise of power, or at least to acknowledge that this new world order would not simply be wished away."
The International Herald Tribune, which also ran the story, was less equivocal:
At forum in Davos, anti-U.S. feelings wane
Well, judging from the Veep's reception, the headline writers at the Times are only slightly less clueless than those at the IHT. I mean, I've seen ushers get more applause than Cheney did. I wasn't in the hall, so I couldn't see everything, but when the camera panned the audience at the end of his little apologia, I could see that many were literally sitting on their hands -- or at least, keeping them firmly in their laps.
I was a little surprised when Cheney agreed to take questions after his speech. It's customary at Davos for speakers to field a few -- even if they are the president of the United States in all but name. But I figured Cheney would duck out, lest someone bring up some of the more interesting discrepencies between the Veep's recent pronouncements on WMDs in Iraq and the parting comments of ex-WMD sleuth David Kay.
Unfortunately, nobody did. And the first "question" directed at Cheney immediately made me wonder whether the fix was in. The Mufti of Bosnia, no less, asked the Veep to convey his deepest thanks to the American people for the blessed liberation of his country.
It could have been staged, I suppose -- a propaganda Kodak moment designed to take a few rough edges off the clash of civilizations. But if that's the case, the stage manager obviously lacked any sense of the ironic. Cheney, after all, was one of the tough guys in the Bush I crowd who opposed saving the Bosnians. And his party certainly made it as hard as it could for Clinton to do it. If the Veep saw the joke, his poker face betrayed not a clue.
But then Fred Bergsten, the peripatetic head of the Institute for International Economics, had the gumption to bring up Paul O'Neill's description of Cheney as a supply-side Saddam -- spurring the Veep to see how many times he could work the phrase "deficits matter" into his response. O'Neill's old buddy also advised the audience not to believe everything they read in The Price of Loyalty, which struck me as a not-very-subtle way of calling his former friend a liar.
Then Fred Kempe of the Wall Street Journal keyed in on the administration's new "engagement" with Iran, asking the Veep whether this meant the mullahs have been upgraded from the Axis of Evil. For Cheney, the answer was surprisingly conciliatory -- i.e. he didn't threaten to bomb the place. But I also noticed he didn't say anything about the AOE membership list, one way or the other. So the Tehranians might want to keep those black out curtains up just a little longer.
If the Americans were a tough audience, the foreign devils were even tougher -- not counting the Mufti, I mean. A Jordanian guy asked the Veep if he could possibly have a word with the Attorney General about not treating every Arab visitor to the United States like blood-sucking terrorist scum. Cheney said he'd see what he could do. A Brit asked, in effect, whether the United States intends to continue running its own Caribbean version of the Gulag Archipelago. "Yes," Cheney replied, in effect.
Even Klaus Schwab -- the World Economic Forum's founder and maximum leader -- got into the act. Schwab is about as old school as it's possible for a Swiss economist to get. He's as likely to run through the streets of Davos stark naked as openly insult the vice president of the United States. Yet he managed to get in a nasty dig at Cheney's recent faux paux of sending out Christmas cards inscribed with this quote from Ben Franklin:
"And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"
This, Schwab gently pointed out, might be a bit alienating to the overwhelming majority of the world's population that does not believe eternal American supremacy has been ordained by a white, Anglo-Saxon, Christian God.
Cheney said it was all Lynn's fault.
Basically, I do think the Times was right when it said the hostility here is not as raw as it was last year -- when many non-Americans were trying to get their minds around the fact that the world's only superpower now claims the right to invade anyone, anywhere, anytime -- without so much as a by-your-leave from anyone. But then I've never gotten the impression that the ill will was directed at Americans per se (except, perhaps, by some of the younger Europeans on the WEF staff, who clearly detest us.)
No, what's blossomed here over the past two years isn't anti-Americanism, but anti-Bushism, which is why Joe Biden was able to get a big round of applause at a session this afternoon simply by observing that Bush, Cheney and the neocons do not represent the views of the vast majority of the American people.
Personally, I'm not sure that's true: If the president and the political party that controls both houses of Congress don't represent America, then who does? But I interpreted the clapping as an expression of solidarity, or at least sympathy, from a group of people who believe America is much better than its current leaders, and who would like to see us once again as friends.
Although if Cheney develops a habit of showing up here, I think they may change their minds.
Posted by billmon at January 24, 2004 04:19 AM | TrackBackGreat post Billmon. From this Canadian, thanks for informing Americans about the outside world's view. Safe trip home.
Posted by: moeman at January 24, 2004 04:35 PMGreat piece, as always.
As to your point about the party that controls the White House and both houses of Congress: These people have never, ever gotten a majority without lying about their plans. They have no mandate, they have no support grounded in any coherent vision. Americans are naive and simplistic to a point - and then the light dawns.
Posted by: Susie from Philly at January 24, 2004 04:50 PMIt should have read:
"And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground (after being gunned down by Dick) without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"
What an asshole.
Billmon,
I'm truly glad that you come to this conclusion: not anti-Americanism, but anti-Bushism (and that very strong). I have had trouble explaining to a few (!) Americans that the overwhelming majority of Europeans has got nothing whatsoever against Americans - au contraire. It's hard to deal with that strange question: Why do they hate America? They don't.
Thank you for your open mind and humane approach. The next bar of chocolate is on me. (Or Sauerkraut, if you prefer.) ;-)
Posted by: teuton at January 24, 2004 05:01 PMIlluminating post as always. Thank you, Billmon.
I'm curious to know which other Washington-type bigwigs were on hand and whether there were any non-Administration economists?
What was the supposed topic of Cheney's speech?
Did Clinton send Gore to this gathering?
Posted by: at January 24, 2004 05:37 PMI will not even comment on how Old-Europe's-Anti-Americanism gets overplayed in the US media. What I see in the european media is some valid criticism of a corrupt, reckless administration.
I work with american expats over here, techies, economists and all. From what they tell me, they sense the problem is with Shrub, not with americans, and I quite agree with them. Please get rid of El Shrubo inc., and things will get a lot simpler.
Posted by: superdupont at January 24, 2004 05:39 PMSpeaking of Clinton, did you get a chance to see his speech while you were there? Curious what you thought of the foreign reactions and observations comparing Cheney's and Clinton's speeches and reception there.
Posted by: emal at January 24, 2004 05:53 PMI don't know, Billmon; does anti-Bushism become anti-Americanism after four more years?
Posted by: Gil Smart at January 24, 2004 05:57 PMCheney said it was all Lynn's fault.
Ahhh, the Party of Personal Responsibility. So refreshing.
Posted by: Jo Fish at January 24, 2004 05:59 PMIf the president and the political party that controls both houses of Congress don't represent America, then who does?
There's no question that the Bush administration has ruled with as much deceit, obfuscation and lying as is possible in a democracy. And I think most of us here agree with the old maxim about fooling all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. Take these two premises together and I think you can make a fairly strong claim that what the Bush administration actually does is not representative of what the American people actually want.
Posted by: DavidNYC at January 24, 2004 06:17 PM"I don't know, Billmon; does anti-Bushism become anti-Americanism after four more years?"
No. Just give it all you got to prevent just that and you will have our support. :)
Posted by: flying demi-teuton at January 24, 2004 06:20 PMNo, what's blossomed here over the past two years isn't anti-Americanism, but anti-Bushism, which is why Joe Biden was able to get a big round of applause at a session this afternoon simply by observing that Bush, Cheney and the neocons do not represent the views of the vast majority of the American people.
Because of the controversy surrounding 2000 elections, most of the world has appeared willing to give the American People a pass on Bushism. However, should Bush win in 2004 (gasp), our endorsement of his policies will make it very hard for our foreign friends to forgive us any longer.
Posted by: Night Owl at January 24, 2004 06:23 PMI know you don't know me from Adam so I don't expect that this means all that much, but I'd just like to say that this blog contains more thoughtful, informative and intelligent writing than most of the rest of the media.
Posted by: Alex at January 24, 2004 06:32 PMI forgot the "put together bit".
Posted by: Alex at January 24, 2004 06:33 PMtranscript up:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040124-1.html
after blaming his wife, Cheney said, ".. it refers to an incident that occurred in our Constitutional Convention, when Franklin was speaking about the importance of some recognition of the importance of the Almighty in the affairs of man."
ugh.
The NRO has a report on Clinton's speech written by Jay Nordlinger. Clinton is apparently much too well thought of at Davos for his tastes. I don't think Europeans hate Americans or even Bushies as much as Bushies hate Europeans. I think the acclaim for Clinton can be chalked up to the same reason we see him in such better light these days. Compared to Bush Clinton looks like FDR.
Posted by: Mark Garrity at January 24, 2004 07:16 PMI saw a good part of the sppech, and yes, his body language suggested he was going through the motions.
Does anyone really think that he and Shrub mean ONE WORD of their "internationalist" talk.
Any expressions of their "desire" to work with others, their acknowledgement of the necessity of working with allies, etc.........it all seems like bullshit to me.
You know that deep down, they still feel the right to act whenever, wherever, for whatever reason, and the rest of the world be damned!
Posted by: marty at January 24, 2004 07:34 PMmr. bill watch what you say and what you blog.
its a real groove reading about how blah - zey the rulers of the world are.
cheney get back to your spider hole! your skin is chafing in the swiss sun.
Great post, Billmon. In case you haven't checked out Atrios lately, the latest Newsweek poll shows the Bush-Cheney regime in deep doo-doo. Best poll number: 47% of registered voters strongly oppose Bush’s "reelection" - yet 78% still think Bush is "very likely" (40%) or "somewhat likely" (38%) to get a second term. To help remedy this, I advocate a Google-bombing campaign of unpopular (while not neglecting the old standbys unelectable, miserable failure, and moral coward).
Posted by: Frederick at January 24, 2004 08:00 PMPosted this over at Atrios, but I find it interesting that Bechtel has been able to land a contract in Quatar ($5 billion) to build a new airport in Doha. Click my name for the link (via the BBC)
Posted by: Thor Heyerdahl at January 24, 2004 08:43 PMHowever, should Bush win in 2004 (gasp), our endorsement of his policies will make it very hard for our foreign friends to forgive us any longer.
Agreed. And I do not disagree with your point, but the people get the government they deserve. Especially in the "greatest democracy in the world". Fix or not, they got in didn't they? America is a powerful nation and everyone knows it. It will be interesting to see if that power lies in America the people, which most people have a lot of time for, or America the entity, which most people want to go away.
Posted by: Kemo at January 24, 2004 09:51 PMAgreed. And I do not disagree
Jeez, my proofing really sucks. : )
Posted by: Kemo at January 24, 2004 09:54 PMThey're scared of Cheney, in that "Keyser Soze" sort of way. Heck, I'm too scared to look directly at him when he's on TV. I saw some a few clips of his speech and my head nearly exploded when he said this:
"Nations fail their people if they compromise their values in the hope of achieving stability."
I don't know if the security you described is just for Cheney; I saw that Musharaff is in Davos.
Posted by: satiRic air tanK at January 24, 2004 10:31 PMInteresting how globalism now extends to our own domestic elections. Some enterprising globalist should run a shadow election for POTUS.
And don't get me started on how US overconsumption (burping out debt, CO2, environmental degradation) is going to provoke a global revolution that the 4th ID has no chance of corralling.
Posted by: 537 votes at January 24, 2004 10:59 PMAnd if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?
For example - Hitler and the Nazis.... or to use a more biblical example Pharoah's Egypt or the Philistines, the kingdom of Israel (as split from Judah) or the Assyrians.... up to the empire of the Anti-Christ in Revelations. Biblically god caused these empires to be, so that he could demonstrate man's evil nature and punish it or otherwise use it to his ends.
Posted by: DavidByron at January 25, 2004 12:18 AMGordon, so nice to see you here, as well.
Drink from enough fonts, you will eventually obtain enlightenment.
Please, Gordon, tho I am always happy to see you post, would you give something more subsantial than the blah blah blah type of refutation? Like statistics, anecdotal evidence, salient quotes, or even examples from your life?
We want to hear your voice, it would just be so much nicer if you were using it to SAY something.
That's fair enough.
But not bloody likely.
Billmon, great post.
Posted by: four legs good at January 25, 2004 03:24 AMPlease don't feed the trolls, folks. It just encourages them.
Posted by: Billmon at January 25, 2004 04:11 AMThanks for the updates.
As a Canadian I am interested in both Europe and the US of A since they are strong influences on my culture and country. We are also listening to the rest of the world.
I know the US players far too well, but are there other voices that have something to say, for example who speaks for the oil-rich Venezuela, Brazil and the sourthern continent? Is there a voice from Norway -- also oil-rich.
I understand that Davos calls the leaders and the players in the world. Who are they and what are their positions -- George Soros, [potentially Sir] Bill Gates, Andy Grove, Rupert Murdoch. I have no idea who the political and financial players are in the East.
A big question is the Euro as a new world currency and the US versus Europe economic question, and of course Asia's stance vis-a-vis America.
Although I'm not an investor I do have a stake and an interest in these matters and I look forward to further information.
Posted by: web news junkie at January 25, 2004 05:18 AMAny expressions of their "desire" to work with others, their acknowledgement of the necessity of working with allies, [...] it all seems like bullshit to me.
No, I think it's totally sincere. They just have a very one-sided view of the phrase "work with":
"Do what we tell you, and we might throw you a bone. Don't expect any gratitude. And if you do anything we don't like, you'll be back on our shit list before you know it."
Or, as Arnold J Rimmer put it: "I scratch your back, you stick a knife in mine"
Funnily enough, some of the prospective "allies" aren't too thrilled at this sort of behaviour
Posted by: blufive at January 25, 2004 05:39 AMBill Gates at Davos discusses spam email, via BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3426367.stm
Ironically, the software king says, "Lots of mail you get is from people on your contact list. So what's the problem? Strangers!"
And more, "What is holding things back right now is software," Mr Gates said, before adding with a smile: "At least I hope so, otherwise we are overspending to the tune of billions."
Posted by: web news junkie at January 25, 2004 05:39 AMCompletely off topic, but I see that Colin Powell now echoes David Kay (ex-leader of the WMD snipe hunt) and is unsure WMD will be found. Is that the same man that gave this powerpoint presentation to the UN security council ? Sure gives the word backpedaling a new dimension.
Besides, Tony Blair still sticks to his script. Either he has great confidence about something big happening to save his butt, or he didn't get the memo.
Posted by: superdupont at January 25, 2004 07:15 AMCheney speaks at an economic forum and doesn’t even mention economics. He was trying to sell his vision of bringing democracy to the Middle East. It’s hard to see the reality of democratic state when he praises the likes of Colonel Ghadafi. On the failure of the roadmap he blames the Palestinians and reaffirms his commitment to Sharon so we know that’s not going anywhere. He ties in the world terrorist threat to Iraq with his reference to “Baghdad” and he justified the invasion of Iraq with a quote from Bush “duty to defend”.
Bush and Cheney always promoted the idea that Iraq was a threat. In the run-up to war, Iraq was under the microscope of satellite and aerial surveillance, enforced no-fly zones, international inspections and US military bases within striking distance. The majority of the world looked at the US arsenal of nuclear weapons, satellite guided missiles, carriers, bombers and tanks and then looked at the relative Flintstones in Iraq and said; a threat he’s kidding right?
Bush wasn’t joking and in just three weeks the US military delivered. They fired anybody who was affiliated with the ruling Baath. There was no official opposition. They put 13 Iraqis, (mostly outsiders), in control of the Governing Council and made a deal with them to build an interim government. This is where it gets real interesting.
In the struggle to maintain order we have the battle of the bean counters versus the soldier on the ground. From gun jamming grease, body armour and flimsy humves the struggle for occupation on the cheap still rages. In the meantime death and maiming is a daily occurrence for the men charged with seeing the vision through.
On the Iraqi side they took a huge pounding and many died including children. When you kill a child you can be fairly certain that someone will be pissed. Some Iraqis want the coalition right out of Iraq so now we have a little battles of wills going on right now. The implementation of the vision is in hot dispute or should I say hot water in Iraq.
People are dying and the world talks about democracy. It’s one of the most treasured experiences on our planet. Only a select few are in that club. It’s certainly not a planetary right. The world is watching to see if Iraq joins the club.
It remains to be seen whether Bush and Cheney’s policy of pounding the Arabs into submission will get the world support Cheney is asking for. They had to lie to their own population to get American public support. With the vast majority of the world’s population disagreeing with the measures and judging by the points of applause in the audience I doubt he will get it. The world opinion battle is still between the duty to defend and the right to invade.
People were a bit friendlier at Davos because the election is close, they see that Iraq wasn't the complete success PNACers hoped and therefore Bush hasn't yet invaded another country. They basically expect Bush to lose so that business as usual can come back.
Right now, my impression is that Europe is more anti-Bush than anti-US, and Bush is clearly the most hated man on the planet. Yet I'm firmly convinced that if he's elected in November and goes on with his usual arrogance and warmongering, all hell will breaks loose. Then people will have no choice but to assume Bush actually represents the majority of the US people, which also means that the Americans should feel the burden of collective responisibility and guilt - the same way many US and Europeans saw the Germans supporting Nazis and sharing the responsibility of the regime's crime.
The US people has a free pass so far. If Bush is elected, I won't be surprised if many Americans abroad will be seen as emissaries of Bush and treated as such, unless they openly burn their American ID or the flag.
To sum it up: so far most people still like most Americans and wish to see their president dead. If the American people vote for Bush, then they'll all be considered part of the real Axis of Evil.
And yes, I know it's unfair and it sucks. But if you hadn't yet understood that you must make sure, by *any* means necessary, that Bush won't be elected, now you should.
I see that Colin Powell now echoes David Kay (ex-leader of the WMD snipe hunt) and is unsure WMD will be found. Is that the same man that gave this powerpoint presentation to the UN security council ?
No, bit it's the same Powell who said Saddam wasn't a threat in 2001:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
Posted by: DavidByron at January 25, 2004 09:46 AM"O'Neill's old buddy also advised the audience not to believe everything they read in The Price of Loyalty, which struck me as a not-very-subtle way of calling his former friend a liar."
Not so sure. Maybe it his reverse Mark Anthony speech. "You know, everyone says O'Neill is a dishonorable man."
Re a New Axis of Evil. Let's see, you have to put the Boy Wonder, GWB, at the top followed closely by the Dark Prince, Sir Richard, the Dark Hearted, Cheney; then, maybe the smiling Lord Rumsfeld with the great backpedaling General Powell close behind. Next, the Evil Witch of the West, Condelessa Rice, accompanied by Richard the Moral-Less Perle and Wolfowitz the Unworthy. There are additional legates of ignobility like Mad Dog Bolten and Richard the Mess-Maker Armitrage.
Oops, how did I ever forget the Mighty Mixer and Maker of Images, Karl, The Con Man Rove?
A sinsister circus has come to our land seeking to bemuse and bewilder a great democracy. Time for a reality check and for the people to rise up and throw these clowns out of office. One term is far too much for these wretched people.
Posted by: Dongi at January 25, 2004 01:30 PMI have a real strong belief that the Poppy Bush 'One-Termer' Curse might just be genetic.
I think that nobody can be complacent, I certainly am not, we are going to have to work real hard.
But George W. Bush is going the way of his father. One term and out before they do too much damage.
America can clean up the hangover caused by 'Bushism', but, in this case, a little 'hair of the dog that bit you' would probably be disasterous.
Posted by: RedMeatDem at January 25, 2004 05:43 PMAnti-Bushism is, in my experience, slowly morphing into real anti-Americanism. As a Brit friend of mine said earlier this year, "if you reelect him, you're on your own."
Posted by: Lupin at January 25, 2004 08:54 PM"I don't know, Billmon; does anti-Bushism become anti-Americanism after four more years?"
good question! and at least in my case the answer simply is:
it already had happened. All of my friends and all of my family members here in Germany were delighted and laughing in grim joy when they heard how Brazil is treating US citizens. None of them intends to ever visit the USA again.
One might summarize it to: "they shall stick their bloody country where the sun don't shine!".
how shall one respect a nation when still nearly 80% of it's citizens think Bush is doin' a great job in Iraq? What's so great about killing and wounding and hunmilating thousand and thousand of innocent civilians and only moan about the 509 american soldiers?
Rather tangentially:
"And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"
Cheney ought to realize, when he sends out Christmas cards like this, not only is it offensive to non-Christians, or people who don't think US dominance is ordained by God, but that the implicit message isn't, to anyone who has even a passing familiarity with the Bible, particularly indicative of the moral character of any developing US empire.
After all, *most* of the divinely ordained empires that are referred to in the Bible -- in fact, IIRC, all of them except Israel itself -- were foreign empires, not particular attached to God or moral in their own right, that dominated Israel by divine decree to punish Israel for its sins, and whose dominion over Israel ended (and in some cases, whose leaders fell or were otherwise punished for their own iniquity) once Israel returned to proper devotion to God.
Really, the US as a heathen oppressor sent by God to scourge insufficiently attentive believers and whose dominion will be ended and leaders punished when the dominated people return to the proper devotion to God seems an image that Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani might want to invoke, but Dick Cheney probably ought to avoid.
Hey Billmon,
An excellent post!
As an American ex-pat living and working in Switzerland, I can assure you that Anti-Bushism is the thing. Anti-Americanism does not exist here (at least in my city). In 14 months, I've yet to experience a single anti-American affront (and I went to the big anti-war demonstration in Bern Feb 2003). And whenever I discuss politics and the 2000 election, everyone knows Gore received more votes and more than likely won Florida. Anti-Bushism is quite strong - even amongst the more conservative Swiss.
Mit Freundlichen Gruessen,
Sparky
Don't worry, folks. If Bush wins we can still blame Diabold. Seriously: Fair minded techies need to get thine ass to their Secretary of State to be a volunteer deputy registrar on voting day. I love those older folks who run elections, but some of them don't know a secure password from pound cake. Texans can call 1-800-252-VOTE.
Posted by: John Gillnitz at January 26, 2004 03:41 PMI wonder if the Mufti of Bosnia thought he was talking to Wesley Clark?
Posted by: Tom Hilton at January 26, 2004 03:55 PMI hesitate to write here because you guys are way out of my league. Really great comments. I too live in Europe, northern Italy to be precise and can tell you that Italians view the US with some amusement. They are quite used to the lying and double talking that is known as politics so are not that surprised at what is happening.
They are quite evenly split on their views of the invasion of Iraq with those who support Berluscone thinking that it was necessary and everybody else totally against it. There were "Pace" flags everywhere before the war started, you could not walk down a single street without seeing at least one, but alas it was to no avail.
Just wanted to put my two cents in, though most here in Italy think the shrub is a deranged moron I have felt no hostility toward me personally just because I am an American. My wife is German and I get pretty much the same impression from my German friends.
Posted by: Dan_of_Steele at January 26, 2004 04:01 PMGee, I always thought everyone knew the Iraq invasion wasn't about WMD (whatever the heck "WMD" means).
Rather it was an object lesson to the governments in the region that they rule at the pleasure of the U.S. government.
Nobody here's cynical enough yet. :)
Posted by: Bill at January 26, 2004 07:58 PMTracking Cheney: (quoting Andrew Sullivan)(dotcom)
[]"CHENEY'S NEGATIVES: The Fox poll is a good antidote to Newsweek's - but it does show Bush with under 50 percent support against Kerry, and a seven point difference. But what also struck me was that Dick Cheney's negatives have doubled in two years. 39 percent now view him unfavorably. Interesting." [Emphasis added]
Billmon: Are you sure it was actually Veep Cheney there in Davos,....and not a clone? OTOH with his negatives the further from US he stays, the better off he is. As are we.
Hope your trip home was safe and warm.
Posted by: fanBoy at January 27, 2004 04:46 AMGil Smart - I don't know, Billmon; does anti-Bushism become anti-Americanism after four more years?
Probably. The first time Americans didn't know what they were buying into and by most people's standards can't be blamed. This time they know very well and there will be no excuses left to make.
Posted by: Tads at January 27, 2004 06:50 AMRedMeatDem - I have a real strong belief that the Poppy Bush 'One-Termer' Curse might just be genetic.
Between them they make up one whole president! ;)
To be fair, Bush Snr looks like SuperPres next to his son. Remember - he tried to give Junior the benefit of his insight on the Iraq mess and was ignored. I'd take the father over the son in a heartbeat.
I have a new campaign slogan -- Got WMDs?
Posted by: Maureen Zayas at January 27, 2004 11:51 PM