Re-election of W, how will France and GB Cope?

Timothy Garton Ash in his Newsweek International piece Living With America talks about the differences between the approaches of Tony Bliar and Jacques Chirac's to American power in the world today. I do not agree with it, but the piece is mostly well thought out and written. It gives a good synopsis of how France and Great Britain are dealing with the lone superpower in the world. There are a couple of glaring opinions that gives away his political leaning. However, the one at the end of the article (which I will comment on later) he disguises as fact. I want to start with this:

"Here was the president whom foreigners like to caricature as a cowboy, the "toxic Texan," sounding not merely like Woodrow Wilson but like a contemporary disciple of the German Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant. "The reason why I'm so strong on democracy,' said the philosopher-president, "is democracies don't go to war with each other."

Once again, I would like to point out that President Bush has a grand vision for the world as a peaceful place. History bears out the statement the President makes. Since the end of WWII, democracies have been loath to make war on each other. It is by and large the dictatorships and tyrannical states that make war happen with their grand schemes and their thirst for power. For those Libs who want to argue that the US made war on Iraq, I would say WRONG. I would be glad to remind you why in the comments section, if you so choose to take that course. Mr Ash goes on,

“Yet Blair's well-mannered, idealistic-insider approach has its limits, too. For there's another side to the policy of the Bush administration: a fierce, even militaristic American nationalism that reaches sometimes too quickly for the gun (partly because the United States has such big ones) and seems to believe that its war on terror can be won simply by hunting down and shooting terrorists. In the one longer conversation I have had with President Bush, I was struck by a certain "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" quality in the way he talked about foreign affairs. Often he was the courteous Yalie Dr. Jekyll, keen to get on with allies, very much his father's son; but then the impatient Texan Mr. Hyde would suddenly stomp out, just itching to ride off the ranch and kick butt. Listening to other senior figures in the administration, especially Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, I find the old Greek word hubris comes involuntarily to mind: the pride that goes before a fall, the overestimation of your own power that ends with nemesis.

Between them(France and Great Britian), these free countries have the power both to welcome and assist the Wilsonian part of Bush's agenda, and to deter the militaristic, nationalistic part; to embrace Dr. Jekyll and restrain Mr. Hyde. What's more, they will find, in the nearly half of America's politically engaged citizens who did not vote for Bush, in the Blue States that shared the world's postelection primal groan, a formidable ally inside the United States. As Karl Marx did not say: Blue States of the world, unite!”

To the above, I would say; this is the type of President I want. One who is willing to sit down and talk with reasonable leaders of the free world. However, one who also knows that talk is that, just talk. Actions speak louder. When a rouge state, say Iraq or Iran, talks all the while DOING the opposite, then there is a time when diplomacy ends in military action. Lets take a little walk down memory lane. Just before Germany invaded Poland and started the blitzkrieg on Western Europe, Lord Chamberlain, PM of Great Britain got Hitler to sign a peace agreement. What got the PM and other countries engaged in peace talks with Germany? The fact that Hitler was obviously disregarding the Versailles Peace Treaty that ended WWI at that time Hitler was rearming Germany for WWII. Lord Chamberlain announced over radio what we now know to be the singularly idiotic remark in the 20th Century, “we have achieved peace in our time.” Shortly after, Hitler unleashed the blitz and started mankind on the most destructive course in its history. A dictator was willing to take on the entire free world. He even toyed with plans to invade the US, however, GB (now under the wartime PM Churchill would not bow under and blocked Hitler’s plans) Mr Ash ends the article with this,

“President Bush begins his second term in a world of great dangers—terrorists with the ability to carry weapons of mass destruction in a carry-on suitcase, tyrannies, appalling poverty, drugs, AIDS, the undoubted fact of rapid global warming. It's also a world of great opportunities. More people in the world are more free than ever before. And the possibilities of spreading freedom are large. The old West of the cold war will never be re-created.”

(my emphasis)

Here is where the article really goes off the deep end in my opinion. Most of the statements I would agree with, but “the undoubted fact of rapid global warming” ??? Really??? I say, only a fool would not doubt global warming. How in hell can we predict the temperature 20, 50, 100 years from now when we cannot predict the weather a week from now? The “science” behind this bunk is more political agenda than actual science. The fact that anyone actually believes that crap amazes me much less states it as an “undoubted” fact.

You can find the whole article here….