Cowboy Diplomacy-- The policy of going it alone, or 'damn the torpedo's, full speed ahead!' Or the idea that, 'we don't need no stinkin' badges!' Or, 'Yeeeee Haw Boyzzz!!!! Lets ride in thar an' kill us sum Ingins!'
Reagan was accused of using Cowboy Diplomacy... mostly because he enjoyed riding horses and the marriage of horses and politics was too tempting a 'marriage' of meanings for the press to pass up.
Bush, similarly, is branded as a diplomatic cowboy. Not because he likes to ride horses, because I can't honest remember ever seeing him on a horse-- unlike Reagan, but because he's from Texas, the quintessential Cowboy State. So let's consider the doctrine of Cowboy Diplomacy, as described by the press, in light of this president's REAL record...
Afghanistan & Iraq -- "Yeeeee Haw Boyzzz!!!! Lets ride in thar an' kill us sum Talibani Iraqis!"
Iran -- "Sorry boy's, let's let them thar Euro-pee-inz talk to thet rascal. We'll jump in if'n we hafta"
N. Korea -- "Hold on now, fellas. I know they shot some missles in are gen-rul die-reckshun, but we allowed 'em to have them thar missles. And remember also were stretched kinda thin elsewar's. Let's see what a sit down will a'complish. If'n that don't werk we kin squeeze thair pocketbooks real good. What ah'm tryin' t'say is, let's see if'n they kin even git a rocket off'n the pad furst, he, he, he!"
Cowboy Diplomacy? Only in the mind of the Media.
Preemption: "The right of a government to seize or appropriate something (as property)" or "Carpe Diem" or "To do unto others before they do unto you"
So why would the White House feel it necessary to redefine "preemption"? Because the press can't even get "Cowboy Diplomacy" right.
"I think there's a misconception that preemption means war. It doesn't. Preemption means stopping somebody before they can do you harm. There are diplomatic ways to do that,"
--White House Press Secretary Tony Snow.
Now, if'n a complete rube like me kin figger this one out, why cain't those big city high-fallutin' smarty-pants writers figger it out?
Check it out!
1. Our military resources are stretched. We don't have the hardware or personnel to take on 2 other countries.
2. Our international prestige is in the trash. There's a chance that by unilaterally beginning new engagements we could come under international sanction.
3. Doing anything in Asia would upset the Chinese who holds an enourmous economic marker from this administration.
4. The administration's and congress's approval rating are way low. Can you say electoral revolt? . . . I knew you could.
It's been three years since the administration proposed it's ideas of cowboy diplomacy and preemption. Reality has used these past three years to demonstrate to George W. Bush/Dick Cheney/Donald Rumsfeld why no other administration has been so arrogant.
As to point 1... I said as much in my post.
Point 2 is irrelevant.
3 is hardly a good enough reason to allow N. Korea time to perfect their missle technology, considering their nuclear capability.
And point 4 only goes to show just how weakened this nation has become by liberalism. In this respect Bin Laden may well be right... America IS a paper tiger.
As for arrogance. I have to agree with Daddio on this one. Clinton's arrogance got him a first class impeachment in the house. And he payed nothing but lip service to his policy of "Regime Change" in Iraq. He cut and run in Somalia, did nothing about the U.S.S. Cole or the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania(?). He got us into a conflict in Bosnia... and we're still there by the way... And on top of all that he all but let the first WTC bombing slide. So. I think I'll throw my lot in with man who did what he said he'd do-- go after the terrorists, promising no easy victory --rather than the guy who perjured himself in front of a federal grand jury, and tried to redefine/parse the meaning of "IS". Clinton ran his presidency via polling data, rather than a desire to do what he felt was the right thing to do even when it was unpopular.
Josh Marshall has a good write-up on why the current administration policy of begging China to control NK is a joke.
"And point 4 only goes to show just how weakened this nation has become by liberalism."
Expand this statement please. In what way have liberals sabotaged the republicans in congress from their legislative agenda? How have liberals impeded the Bush administration from prosecuting the "War on Terra"? How did Ted Kennedy twist Antonin Scalia's hands to force him to rule on the Hamdan case?
When discussing arrogance in politics my new measuring bar is George W. Bush landing on an aircraft carrier with a banner reading "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED". Or maybe standing safely behind a podium in the White House say "Bring it on."