I think Mr. Moran would heartily disagree with your summary. As he noted:

"A more interesting question is why Haiti, which briefly captured America's attention in the mid-1990s, was allowed to fester and collapse again into political insolvency. This is less likely to be investigated since both the Clinton and Bush administrations, both parties in the U.S. Congress and Aristide, himself, share blame. "

To be sure, the Clinton admin bears part of the blame. But there's plenty of blame to go around.

Unfortunately, however, Bush hasn't demonstrated any particular talent in foreign policy and, frankly, he's probably not interested in Haiti as long as there are refugees trying to come ashore in FL.

"Unfortunately, however, Bush hasn't demonstrated any particular talent in foreign policy"

JadeGold, put down your pipe. Ever heard of Afghanistan? If you'll put something besides MoveOn.Org in your favorites, you'll also realize Iraq's going pretty well. I'm probably headed there in November courtesy of the Army National Guard and I'm more worried about missing work than getting shot. You lefties better stock up on anti-depressants for Xmas '04.

George W. Bush has demonstrated talent at foreign policy which is actually effective at getting results, vs. the foreign policy you evidently advocate, which keeps dictators in power so they can do the diplomatic dance and we avoid offending the Europeans' delicate sensibilities.

George W. Bush has demonstrated talent at foreign policy which is actually effective at getting results, vs. the foreign policy you evidently advocate, which keeps dictators in power so they can do the diplomatic dance and we avoid offending the Europeans' delicate sensibilities.

Oops; my apologies for the double post.

JadeGold drank the Koolaid a long time ago.

Read this story and realize what it really says.

Bush's foreign policy gets results.

As a reader wrote to the EconoPundit blogger:

1. Knocking off Saddam lead to ...
2. Qadafi losing his nerve and ...
3. blowing the Iranians' and Pakistanis' nuke programs ...
4. which led to the exposing and shutting down of Abdul Qadeer Khan's illicit nuclear bazaar ...
5. which left Musharraf exposed big-time ...
6. Causing him to drop a dime on bin Laden and agree to let the U.S. inside Pakistan to hunt bin Laden down like the mangy dog that he is.

In the process, might I add, 50 million Muslims have been freed from terrible, murderous oppression and allowed to choose their own future. And the French are steamed, which is always a bonus. Nothing funnier than mad Frenchies in my book.

Bush doesn't know foreign policy? LOL! Geez, I didn't come here to laugh this morning but here we go again.

Bush's first term will be studied for decades- likely centuries- as someone who understood the role of a superpower in the world, and was able to do the most good with the least force in history by concentrating that force in the most effective places to effect the greatest positive change.

Khadafi publicly dropping his nuclear program because he "saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid" should have been your first clue if the rest of it wasn't.

No, Bush hasn't a clue WRT foreign policy.

Many folks are claiming that Libya has suddenly decided to straighten up because of Bush. This demonstrates an ignorance of current events.

Libya has been trying to get back into the international community's good graces for over a decade. Basically, sanctions placed on them in 1992 (as a result of PanAm 103 and other bad actions) really hurt Libya's economy and they've been trying to redeem themselves for quite sometime. The international community has been reluctant to allow Libya back in the fold pending the adjudication of the PanAm 103 civil suit.

Once the suit was settled, Libya was able to approach the subject of lifting the sanctions.

If anything, Libya demonstrates that sanctions do work.

WRT Pakistan and Oran--those are hardly foreign policy successes. A better word would be 'debacles.'

Afghanistan's been a failure. And Iraq isn't looking too good.

Moreover, the US has fewer allies than a decade ago.

Sigh, JadeGold, you apparently don't read much. Let me clue you in. Khadafi told the PM of Italy in a phone conversation that he was giving up his nuclear program and bringing in international inspectors because, and this is a direct quote, "I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid it would happen to me." End quote.

Khadafi, Hussein, et al don't care about the international community. They don't care about their country, their family, their dog. Nothing except one single thing. And that thing is their own self. Period.

That's why "diplomacy" doesn't work with their ilk. They don't care. Start talking about them dying, on the other hand, and the cluephone gets answered in a hurry.

I can't believe that after Khadafi said that publicly you people are still pushing the hilarious idea that a decade of diplomacy has changed his heart. Read it for yourself, even he says it isn't true.

The fact that it happened one day after Saddam came crawling out of a hole (literally) should have been as big a clue as his confession.

Mr. Chaney:

Why He Did It

Also of interest:

Slow and painful change for Libya:

Libya's Prime Minister, Shukri Ghanem, who is one of the acceptable faces of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (the country's official name), says there was a lengthy internal debate about Libya's decision to get rid of its weapons programmes.

"We thought this would make us look better in the eyes of the world and set an example for others in the Middle East to follow, especially Israel," he says.

Mr Ghanem denies that Libya acted under pressure because of America's invasion of Iraq.

"Weapons of mass destruction are very costly. It's better that we concentrate on our economic development," he argues.

The fact that it happened one day after Saddam came crawling out of a hole (literally) should have been as big a clue as his confession.

This factoid is negated by the fact Libya, Great Britain, and the US had been in negotiations WRT WMD for nearly a year prior to the capture of Saddam.

Yeah, so it was just a coincidence that we captured Saddam the day before.

Two words for you: uh huh.

I don't care what the BBC says, I care what Khadafi says. And he said, and I quote yet again, "I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid it would happen to me."

Don't believe me, believe him.

Mr. Chaney: Problem is, we don't have Qaddafi saying that. We have the Spectator (UK) saying the Italian PM said that Qaddafi said that. Consider, also, that Berlusconi had reason to 'embellish' this story.

IOW, if you don't care what the BBC says--how could you possibly care what a less reputable British media outlet reports secondhand?

FYI, here's a CS Monitor article from 1999.

"He wants to change, because the world is changing," says a Western diplomat in the Libyan capital, Tripoli. "We in the West look at Qaddafi as a bad guy wearing a black hat, and now he wants to be a good guy wearing a white hat. We don't know how permanent it is, but step by step [the Libyans] are trying to clear the way."

And it was refuted where?

And it was refuted where?

There are any number of articles where Libyan officials are quoted as saying Iraq wasn't a factor.

We also know Libya has been trying to clean up its act for a decade or more.

We also know Berlusconi made the claim at a time when the Italian PM was anagling to get contracts for Italy in Iraq.

Certainly, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Qaadafi made such a remark. But the bulk of evidence militates against it.
Further, we don't have a firsthand account from Qaddafi.