Bush on Charlie Gibson and Hillary as Secretary of State

President Bush had an interview on Charlie Gibson the other night. It was quite candid. I recommend checking out the transcript. Here are some highlights:

On Iraq:
"I think I was unprepared for war. In other words, I didn't campaign and say, 'Please vote for me, I'll be able to handle an attack. In other words, I didn't anticipate war. Presidents — one of the things about the modern presidency is that the unexpected will happen." He also says that the use of incorrect intelligence for warmongering, i.e. that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, is the "biggest regret of all the presidency."

On the economy and government bail out:
"I'm sorry it's happening, of course. Obviously I don't like the idea of people losing jobs, or being worried about their 401(k)s. On the other hand, the American people got to know that we will safeguard the system. I mean, we're in. And if we need to be in more, we will."

On the election:"And I'm sure some people voted for Barack Obama because of me. I think most people voted for Barack Obama because they decided they wanted him to be in their living room for the next four years explaining policy."

On another note, Obama has chosen his foreign policy appointments. I heard an interesting perspective from Jon Pevehouse on the Clinton pick for Sec. of State in class today: There are only two reason for Barack Obama to choose Hillary Clinton. First is that she is the most effective person to put in position to revive this failing department. If anyone can crack skulls, she can. The other is that the best thing a president can do is hire his most powerful rival to head the weakest of the foreign policy making machine. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer, and if you can keep them close in an ineffective office, even better. I tend to agree with the less cynical view. Not to say Obama's reasoning is the same a Bush's, but George W. put one of his most trusted and well-respected allies, Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. And prior to this he put another well-respected person, Colon Powel at its head, a military man to boot. Clearly, despite its long history of failure and ineffectiveness, Bush thought The State Department was worth saving. And Rice has made very interesting and valuable recommendations and changes. Had they been funded, we might have very well seen improvements at State. Perhaps Obama share's in this view of a Department of State with value. And perhaps Hillary is the best person for the job. 

Palin: Protection from the Press

Sarah Palin was in New York yesterday meeting with foreign leaders.  the McCain-Palin campaign tried to prevent reporters and television producers from viewing the VP nominee's meetings with the world leaders in town for the UN General Assembly. 

"The campaign had planned to allow a “pool” camera and producer -- serving as representatives for all five television networks -- as well as wire and newspaper reporters into of most of Palin's meetings.  But, at the last minute, the campaign informed the press corps that only cameras – without reporters or producers accompanying them – would be permitted. 

The five television networks protested, threatening not to shoot video of the meeting at all unless an editorial presence was allowed into the meeting.

The campaign relented, and a CNN pool producer was permitted to view the beginning of Palin's meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the first of the day. 

Representatives from wire services and newspapers were not allowed into the Karzai meeting, but will be allowed into subsequent meetings with Columbian President Alvaro Uribe and former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, a campaign aide said. 
 
One aide (possibly from Karzai’s entourage) repeatedly said “No writers” and tried to block the CNN producer from entering the room during the Karzai meeting, according to a pool report, but a senior Palin aide allowed the producer to enter. 
 
Images of Palin with world leaders would likely to help boost her foreign policy credentials, but tough questions from reporters could overshadow the event. Members of the press were in the room for a total of 29 seconds during the Karzai meeting, according to the pool report.

The campaign has cautiously shielded Palin from reporters, allowing just a few interviews and preventing reporters traveling with the campaign from asking questions. She has not held a press conference since being chosen by McCain four weeks ago, and has not done the traditional local interviews when traveling into media markets."

Seriously? This is not North Korea. You cant just shut the media out when the coverage may not be favorable. What is the McCan campaign trying to hide? If she cannot be trusted with cameras as she talks with leaders, surely she cannot be trusted with the trust of the American people. with In the few clips the networks were allowed to broadcast, you can hardly hear Palin and the leader exchange pleasantries. She nods an smiles allot and inquires about new babies. But picture of her meeting with foreign leaders will only encourage the love affair Republicans have with Palin. This quote below is so telling:  

Maureen Dowd lampoons Palin meeting yesterday with Henry Kissinger. “How the mighty 85-year-old Henry the K has fallen from his days chasing Jill St. John and running the world to his hour briefing of a 44-year-old Wasilla hockey mom who may end up running the world.”
 
Is this the headline McCain camp wants? The AP: "Palin meets her first world leaders in New York." 

Bush Foreign Policy: Learning from Mistakes?

Fareed Zakaria has a cover story in Newsweek on how the Bush administration’s current foreign policy isn't what it used to be:

"A broad shift in America’s approach to the world is justified and overdue. Bush’s basic conception of a “global War on Terror,” to take but the most obvious example, has been poorly thought-through, badly implemented, and has produced many unintended costs that will linger for years if not decades. But blanket criticism of Bush misses an important reality. The administration that became the target of so much passion and anger—from Democrats, Republicans, independents, foreigners, Martians, everyone—is not quite the one in place today. The foreign policies that aroused the greatest anger and opposition were mostly pursued in Bush’s first term: the invasion of Iraq, the rejection of treaties, diplomacy and multilateralism. In the past few years, many of these policies have been modified, abandoned or reversed. This has happened without acknowledgment—which is partly what drives critics crazy—and it’s often been done surreptitiously. It doesn’t reflect a change of heart so much as an admission of failure; the old way simply wasn’t working. But for whatever reasons and through whichever path, the foreign policies in place now are more sensible, moderate and mainstream. In many cases the next president should follow rather than reverse them."

It's too bad this comes so late in the game, and after so many mistakes. But it does show progress. The challenge for the next president, especially Obama, is that to show his departure from the Bush administration, his policies may move away from some of the progress that has been made. This pattern in foreign is not new. Carter had a similar experience, where his mistakes spurred a shift in policy. But his took the opposite path instead starting hawkish, he ended that way. And in both cases, their legacy was (will be) defined by failure.

Democracy in Foreign Policy: Obama and the Citzens of France

I was reading an article in the Sunday Washington Post today about Obama's trip abroad last week. His tour included a very successful visit to Iraq where Prime Minister Maliki basically endorsed Obama's  withdrawal strategy, a very public speech in Germany where 200,000 Germans showed up with American flags, and his meetings with foreign leaders  were well received and welcomed. It seems Obama's primary goals were to show the American public that he would be respected on a world stage, that the negative feelings toward America can be turned around, and that he is strong on foreign policy issues. Now I'm not sure a successful tour abroad can make up for lack of experience in this area, but it seemed to be successful overall. It was one of his comments about these goals that got me thinking: 

"What I thought was useful was to give the American people some sense of how I was approaching these issues, but also to give them a sense that the world can be responsive to this approach and that it will make a difference," Obama said. "[French President Nicolas] Sarkozy is much more likely to be able to provide more troop support in Afghanistan if his voters are favorably disposed towards us."

This made me think about the role of democracy in foreign policy. I think it's often a common impression that decisions in this sphere are made behind doors and with a small number of advisers. And this is true to a point. Domestic issues are made primarily through Congress, whose decisions, whether reflective or not, are made with a keen awareness of their constituency. But even in decisions that involve foreign diplomacy, leaders are bound to their citizens in a democratic system, and Obama's statement above makes that so clear. Not only does he have to get public support behind him at home, it is also beneficial for policy reasons to have the people of another democracy behind him too. What Bush has not realized is that getting the support of the citizens of democratic states can do more for him than any closed door meeting. If the French people like our president, they will want to align with us, and will pressure their elected leader to align with us too. Sarkozy's public support is very low, and marrying a model didn't help. If he wants to be reelected, and if his people support President Obama (if that's what the future holds) it will be in his best interest to make Obama happy by providing more troop support in Afghanistan. 

In some senses this concept is very leader-centric. It's about swaying opinion toward a person, a leader, and not toward ideas or policies. But, appealing to the citizens of a democracy puts more power in the hands of the people. The pressure comes from the bottom up, not from the top down. This kind of appeal would never happen in other political systems. It will be interesting to see if this strategy is employed more. Is Obama's trip a sign of more global democratic appeals to come, or is it simply an extra bonus on a trip whose primary focus was to convince the American people that Obama has what it takes in foreign affairs. 

The state of the state...

I think I need to get in the practice of writing about the things I'm studying: foreign affairs. Don't expect much insight or originality. This is a practice exercise for me, and an audience will keep the project serious.