Editor's Note: Richard Fontaine is a senior advisor at the Center for a New American Security and teaches the politics of national security in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.
By Richard Fontaine - Special to CNN
It's that time of the election again. As the primaries wind down and the general election looms, foreign policy becomes ever more politicized, and particular events - such as President Obama speaking to Russia's Dmitry Medvedev over an open microphone - generate debate and partisan tussles.
Is that bad?
After all, the only thing more predictable than partisan sniping over foreign policy in the midst of an election year is the weary reaction of foreign policy leaders and experts that we should somehow be above all this. In an interview with Fareed Zakaria earlier this year, President Obama himself remarked that, "In foreign policy, the traditional saying is, 'partisan differences end at the water's edge.'"
The problem is that partisan differences in the United States do not end at the water's edge, and never have. As the 2012 election sharpens the political contest over American foreign policy, we might do well not only to lament the paralysis and bitterness our politics engenders, but also reflect for a moment on the advantages it conveys.
President Obama is hardly the first political leader to wish an end to politics in American foreign policy. The "water's edge" business dates back to Senator Arthur Vandenberg, who coined the term in the late 1940s while serving as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Pestered by fellow Republicans who thought he was too deferential to Truman's policies in Europe, he pointed out that while politicians might use for political advantage pedestrian domestic issues, politics should stop when considering the high affairs of state.
Senator Henry Jackson sounded similar themes in the 1970s, saying that "in matters of national security, the best politics is no politics." Then-Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle in 1998 said, "I really do believe that partisanship ought to stop at the water's edge when it comes to foreign policy," and three years later President George W. Bush observed that "one of the things that America has prided ourself on is a bipartisan foreign policy." Since then, politicians from the right, left and center have quoted Vandenberg or otherwise incanted the water's edge mantra.
At first glance, it's hard to imagine why anyone would suggest that politics does not infect foreign policymaking, or even why it should not. The stuff of politics - partisanship, ideological competition, elections, and so on - all of this is intimately related to the stuff of policy.
Take, for instance, that era to which many water's-edgers point as the high point of coldly rational, bipartisan national security policymaking - the decade following World War II. In that time, the story goes, America was guided by wise men, mandarins who enjoyed bipartisan support to forge the pillars of postwar global order - the United Nations, NATO, Bretton Woods and the Marshall Plan. It was a time when domestic politics did not taint the making of foreign policy, when the consensus on containment and weight of superpower responsibility together guided the ship of state beyond party bickering and attempts at electoral advantage.
The reality is more complicated. In fact, those halcyon days of yore actually saw an American foreign policy laced with politics and a politics that used national security as a key weapon. The decade following the end of World War II saw intense debates over the establishment of a national security state and the implications that a large, centralized and permanent military bureaucracy would have on national life.
In the 1948 presidential contest, Truman touted his foreign policy credentials and painted Henry Wallace as pro-Communist. Republicans who refrained from criticizing Truman (even Vandenberg limited his support to Truman's Europe policy and assailed his approach to Asia) learned their electoral lesson; by 1952 Eisenhower was running against Truman's Korea policy and promising rollback in Eastern Europe. Joseph McCarthy's communist witch hunts gave President Eisenhower and the Republicans a political advantage for a time as well; until he took on the military they were content to avoid directly confronting him.
While an era of bipartisan foreign policy nirvana never existed, it is true that Vietnam broke the establishment consensus on the ends of American policy and the nature of America's global role. But this debate did not create something wholly new; instead, it simply stretched the previously acceptable limits of the foreign policy debate, making the extreme positions more extreme and the tone more vitriolic.
That legacy seems to have colored debates ever since. It is always hard to measure the degree of bitterness in American politics - and historians can always cite the caning of Charles Sumner on the floor of the Senate to demonstrate just how much worse things once were - but politicians and pundits today generally agree that partisan bickering has reached new lows on both domestic and foreign policy issues.
Most observers over the decades have seen the intrusion of domestic politics into the making of American foreign policy as a major impediment in national life. In his interview, President Obama referred to the "tradition among those who work in foreign policy" of focusing on "advancing American interests," through "decisions based on facts and analysis and a clear-eyed view of the world, as opposed to based on ideology or what's political expedient."
Alexis de Tocqueville, George Kennan, Walter Lippmann and others have argued that successful foreign policy requires secrecy, cold rationalism, vast experience, continuity over time - precisely the characteristics that American democracy conspires to prevent in its policymaking. As American foreign policy becomes politicized, policy lurches as administrations change, interest groups hold sway over key issues, and populist and moralistic strains take flight. Is this any way to run a superpower?
Apparently it is. Because for all the downsides of a politicized foreign policy, and despite the mistakes it has made, America has nonetheless enjoyed a remarkably successful foreign policy over the past six decades. It remains the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world, and has preserved the American way of life. Perhaps, then, there is an upside to the politics.
The open nature of the American political system permits genuinely new ideas to enter calcified foreign policy debates, which may over time improve the quality of the country's policymaking. The disjunction between a mature executive branch managing bilateral relationships and an impulsive, populist Congress enables American diplomats to play good cop/bad cop. "Look, I want to help your country. But if you don't cut out the extrajudicial killings, Congress is going to act, and there's not a lot I can do about that..."
The political debates over American policy enhance transparency in the minds of foreigners, and may add a degree of predictability to U.S. behavior. And all of this may in the end be an attribute of America's vaunted soft power - our foreign policy is not made in a hermetically sealed environment by wise-men-for-life but rather rises from the give and take of our democratic process, which at the end of the day is open to all.
For good or ill, the politicization of American foreign policy is about to increase. There are some exceptions: The Senate voted this year 100-0 in favor of Iran sanctions; there is bipartisan support for enhancing ties with a Myanmar that continues reforms, and so on. But with the election looming, most foreign policy issues will be seen through the 2012 presidential prism.
Though it will not be the key issue in the presidential campaign, national security will nonetheless play an important role. Both eventual candidates, the incumbent President included, will have to demonstrate to the electorate that they pass the commander-in-chief credibility threshold, that they can lead a superpower in times of peril and plenty. As they attempt this - and try to undermine their opponent's credibility in the process - we should recall that none of this is new. Different, maybe, over recent decades, and rougher than it ought to be. But politics in foreign policy? That's downright American.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of Richard Fontaine.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
Our foreign policy should be politcized if we're ever going to effetively change it. If we don't, we're only going to pay more gaoline at the fuel pump, for openers! Besides, all this right-wing warmongering in Washington is extremely stupid and accomplishes absolutely nothing!!! And it's getting older than Mathusalah!!!
Without your suggestion to "politicize" our foreign policy, we would not have thought about it.
However, you better ask the Ayatollah before WE make any more decisions about Iran as he might not agree with you.
Your islamic antics are not welcome in America.
George indeed, more like Abdul. We follow your rantings from one discussion to another and all you can do is try to sow dissent among real Americans and spew poison about America.
You are a fool.
Is he really, patrick? Somehow I don't think so. So far he's been right about almost everything but most of all, our darwinistic foreign policy which is wrong, wrong and wrong!
"real" americans? Funny, I thought your country was built by immigrants and that it is presently sustained by immigrants.
Oh wait, you're white aren't you?
quote 3 things he stated that are correct–reliable, valid, verifiable!
This is not about color Shahin.
A real American loves his/her country. Religion is not first, what their imam says is not first, their country is first.
Do you even understand that?
It does no harm to politicise foreign policy. It's about political awareness or understanding. We can't afford to live in a world of "Alice in Wonderland". By having an insight in geopolitics, we are aware of the ripple effect of certain issues. What happens somewhere in the world would affect us everybody elsewhere. Containment is dated. "Successful foreign policy requires secrecy, cold rationalism, vast experience, continuity over time". Unfortunately secrecy is not possible due to the public desire for transparency.
And, in your islamic opinion, this is not happening right now?
But you don't want it so politicized that nothing gets done.
hey george, it's "methuselah" not "math..." Meth is a drug and you sound like you're on it.
I didn't know obama was right wing, after all he is the one assassinating Americans and foreign nationals, starting wars for oil in libya, dragging out removal of troops and keeping gitmo open. Actually he does sound like a right winger. Vote independent!
It is necessary for foreign policy to have a partisan dimension in order to receive adequate funding for whatever the current policy is, but I most respect President Jimmy Carter for having a moral foreign policy, a break from the classical foreign policy, which is American has no friend amoung nations, only national interests. Obama's foreign policy appears to be primarily to undo as many of Presodemt G. W. Bush foreign policy mistakes as possible without making enemies of our soldiers or defense contractor shareholders..
Mr. Fontaine, I do not agree with your conclusion 'But politics in foreign policy? That's downright America'
American foreign policy does not affect Americans only; there are other nations out there whose fate might be determined by foreign policy decisions made by a supper
power. If those decisions are made based on an individual cadidate's or a political party's
political needs then these decisions will
produce disastrous consequences as we have seen in Iraq's case. In my view, best way to shape foreign policy for any country-and especially for a supper power- is the one Presind Obama stressed,that is, to focus on advancing American interests through decisions based on facts and analysis and a clear-eyed wiew of the world.
There is a question here: what if American interests clash with the interests of other nations? The use of power to silence these nations will, in my wiew, be a corrupt use of power and will reflect the behavior of that bully in the classroom, and not by any standards the behavior of a responsible world supper power. Therefore in conclusion, NO to politicized foreign policy AND BIG NO TO HIGHJACKED FOREIGHN POLICY.
What if in those countries, whom clash with American values, pose a threat in their views to America and/or it's allies? Is using power in this instance corrupt?
No other country currently poses any threat to America. The biggest threat for America is it's reckless, politicized and HIGHJACKED foreign policy, a policy which interferes in the internal affairs of other nations, a policy of siding
with favored nations irrespective of
their behavior in international
affairs, a policy of toppling the established democracies and installing dictatorships, a policy of continuously supporting the kings and sheikhs of Mid. East, a policy of attacking smaller, defenceless nations to apparently punish them for their human rights abuses /exporting democracy but ignoring
the stronger nations for the same or even bigger sins. Obviously such policy creats resenentment among the populations of the victom nations. This resentment manifest itself in different forms and shapes; terrorism is one of them. Again, as they say, you lead by example. If America's leadership role is that of terrorizing the weaker nations what incentive will it provide to others?
Implementation of such policy requires immense resources, financial as well as human. And look where America has landed pursuing such a policy: it is unpopular today as it never was, it is financially and economically bankrupt, it is hugely under debt, Gordon as well as domestic, it incurs trillion of dollars of budget deficit. It will take God knows how many generations to come put of this debt (ironically these generation will still pronounce themselves independent and free).
So authors claim that America has enjoyed remarkably successful foreign policy over the last six decades dose not seem to pass the test, and his assertion that it is wealthiest an
past and in some cases still
supports
Sorry, unintentionally stroke the 'PIBLISH' button before editing the post. Please ignore the last two lines.
.....and his assertion that it is the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world and it has succeeded to preserve it's way of life also seems hollow. America as a country is not the wealthiest, rather it is under heavy debt as explained above. It's power is mainly fire power; and it could not preserve it's way of life as the enormous gap between the upper and lower classes have divided the society into two distinct
groups : 1% and 99%. Recent Occupy Movements are clear manifestation of this breakdown of the American social fiber.
Six decades are not very long period in the history of empires any way and things have already started going in the wrong direction. There are interesting times ahead. AMERICA NEEDS A JUST FORIEN POLICY BASED ON IT'S FOUNDERS' IDEALS FULL STOP.
Mark Anthony: "No other country currently poses any threat to America: Your opening statement was so far from true nothing else you said was worth even reading.
Why do you islamists always bring it back to Israel?
Why are you shaking in your sandals?
Why so much hate and venom?
You have been told multiple times that whatever funds Israel borrows from the USA is always paid back plus interest.
You come to this site spewing poison, trying to sow dissent by telling lies.
What do you get out of it?
Should foreign policy be politicized? – teaches the politics of national security in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service.
You cannot be serious.
Sandals were the common costume of the time. Do look into the history of footwear pls. Humanity did not just transform itself from wearing rawhise sandels into wearing brand-sports-shoes. At least in the early ages there were no discrimination or differentiation in shoes.
We have a Republican party that is itself a national security threat with its repeated efforts to devastate the national economy and would consider a domestic terrorist event that killed thousands of Americans as Christmas in July. Send them all to the Afghan/Pakistan border region.
What are you babbling about? Do you live in fantasy-land all the time, or only when you write stupid comments?!
So your statement is that the members of the Republican Party would like to see thousands of Americans die in a terrorist event?
Wow, go back to your imam and tell him that he is setting you up to look like a total idiot.
Our foreign policy HAS been politicized, ever since Senator Fulbright.
Um...foreign policy has been political ever since the Boston Tea Party – the very first one in 1773!
Politicizing is a great tool for everyone-especially islam.
I am one of the servants of Allah. We do our duty of fighting for the
sake of the religion of Allah. It is also our duty to send a call to
all the people of the world to enjoy this great light and to
embrace Islam and experience the happiness in Islam.
Our primary mission is nothing but the furthering of this religion."
Osama bin Laden (1957 – 2011)
No it should not be politicized, but since the beginning of time, it always has and always will be politicized. You can't stop it.
And would you like to explain why it should not be politicized?
Would you like America to become like your home land of Iran, a place run by inept imams and mullahs?
If anyone speaks up there, off goes their heads or they are shot in the streets.
Should be, no. Will be, always.
What a stupid question. It's ALWAYS been politicized. Can't believe I wasted 2 minutes on this and left a message..
It doesn't really matter whether or not we politicize foreign policy because just about everything in America is politicize, from a woman's right to choose to whether Americans should have affordable healthcare to whether our congress should support a jobs bill to put unemployed and struggling Americans back to work! And the reality is our politicians will always exploit the issues and twist the facts to support their own agenda and self interests.
I believe when President Obama said to President Medvedev that he would have more leverage after the elections, he was basically saying that in a general election season in America, our congress is traditionally less inclined to take on a wider range of issues such as NATO missle defense simply because such an issue would be time consuming as it would have to involve diplomacy with other UN member nations and its a process that would take time to iron out. Subsequently, in an election year, as president of the US you don't want to spend too much time on a foreign issue that is going to conflict with your campaign and domestic agenda which involves focusing on the American people.
If you want to remove the WORST of the politics from American foreign policy....
....remove AIPAC from Washington.
Until then....keep on spilling American blood and spending American treasure...for the benefit of Israel.
You are misinformed about America's reasons for going to war. In the Middle East, Israel is seen as an extension of American values and a threat to the repressed Arab way of life. Because Israel is so close, it is used as a punching bag for attacking American and Western values. Cutting off Israel, will not stop such action and rhetoric. The only thing it does is isolate an important ally, keep the US in the dark about terrorist activity in the Mid East, and lose the many innovations that come from Israel.
I tried to reply your post twice but my post could not get through. Perhaps the editors of this site want to censor it.
Yup, back to your islamist agenda of trying to remove the Jewish involvement.
Pathetic!
So we are back to the islamist agenda–let's bash the Jews:
Qur'an 2:61 "Humiliation and wretchedness were stamped on the Jews and they were visited with Allah's wrath."
Qur'an 4:44 "Have you not considered those to whom a portion of the Book has been given? They traffic in error and desire that you should go astray. But Allah has full knowledge of your enemies. Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, saying, 'We hear and we disobey' with a twist of their tongues they slander Faith.... Allah has cursed them for disbelief."
Qur'an 4:47 "O you People of the Book to whom the Scripture has been given, believe in what We have (now) revealed, confirming and verifying what was possessed by you, before We destroy your faces beyond all recognition, turning you on your backs, and curse you as We cursed the Sabbath-breakers, for the decision of Allah Must be executed."
Qur'an 4:160 "For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain (foods) in that they hindered many from Allah's Way, that they took usury, though they were forbidden, and that they devoured men's wealth on false pretenses, We have prepared for those among them who reject [Islamic] Faith a painful doom."
Qur'an 5:59 "Say: 'People of the Book! Do you disapprove of us for no other reason than that we believe in Allah, and the revelation that has come to us and that which came before?' Say: 'Shall I point out to you something much worse than this by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom He transformed into apes and swine."
It's impossible to keep politics out of foreign policy, engaging in foreign policy or not, is a political decision in itself. However, I think one needs to draw the line somewhere in how much politics plays in foreign policy.
Should the US be playing the political field of allied nations? No. Should the US play the political field of unfriendly nations? Perhaps. On one hand you would like to have a regime that is friendly to American interests, on the other it's not right for any nation to change the politics of another because they don't agree. The only exception to this, is if the politics of one country expressly threaten the welfare of another or it's allies. For example, the US shouldn't be playing in the political theaters of the UK, France, Israel, Russia, etc. However, it is not unjustified for them to do so in places like North Korea or Iran.
Good point! But what about the Libyan crisis? Prior to our joint intervention to protect Libyan civilans from the Ghadaffi regime, the GOP and their rightwing media openly attacked and accused President Obama of "dragging his feet and doing nothing while the Libyan people were being slaughtered." But when President Obama got the UN, the Arab League and European Union and NATO on board, the rightwingers did a 360 and then accused the President of rushing to war. Then they had the audacity to ask "what's the mission and end game." I believe that kind of politicizing of foreign policy is very dangerous because it could have put the lives of our armed forces and others in jeaporday as they enforced the no fly zone and tried to end the long conflict!
Foreign policy has been political ever since the Boston Tea Party – the very first one in 1773!
Should a murder in Florida be politicized?
Having reasonable differences speaks for itself, better analysis reduces differences and establishes tolerant respect that may or may not be resolved the differences.
Creating a position that has no basis other than to oppose the other party even if it ruins the nation as a goal, is a special case. For example a German political party opposing the Nazi's foriegn policy in the 1930 has moral justification.
The recent example of Republican senators attempting to block nuclear weapons treaties against the near unanimous advice of their senior leadership, past presidents, past secretaries of state and the current DOD military leadership, demonstrates a suicidal behavior and irrational thinking that undermines the safety and international reputation of the nation. I reasonably differ with Republicans on a number of issues, but after seeing this NPT circus I question their priority being US citizens first and Republicans second, I don't know what their positions are besides beating Democrats and being in control at all costs.
See below....how do you justify WH Leaks regarding Israeli Intel?
Our foreign policy is no different than that law in Florida that allowed the shooting of Trayvon. We hunt down people that are running away from us, that say they are innocent of any wrong doing, but they look similar to someone scary, so we take them out –with firepower or drones–and sometimes they are just innocent children–little boys and girls that would look like our presidents son–but those drones don't differentiate. No one gives the numbers of children that have lost their lives at the hands of our foreign policy–in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq and Egypt.
The White House leaked covert Israeli intelligence info to our enemies?! Is anyone really surprised?
Okay Abdul, I bite, where did you get this hum hum piece of intelligence?
No fair stating "my imam told me".
Foreign Policy IS Political. Always has been. The reality is that Obama has shown the citizens of the world generally, and the citizens of the United States in particular that he is lying to all of us. He admitted to an enemy of this country (Russian President) that he has to appear one way before the election and that he will actually be entirely different regarding some issue after the election. Obama is a liar and he is very close to being an enemy of the United States. This is why laws like "High Treason" were created.
If a president commits treason by hiding important information from the public, then every president has committed treason...
Could you really be slow enough to believe that Obama has done something worse than any other president has done? I see so many people calling Russia the enemy, and it could be the case. However, we really can't just handle them like they are Iraq or something. America has the military might to destroy the world, but we can all die too. You warmongers should try to remember that!!!
Problem is deeper than Florida incident but enshrined in violation of american law, Founding father's were smarter and more knowledgeable than Americans educated can imagine, Problem is stemming from hindu, denial of truth tort British law in violation of law of USA, based not on truth but hindu Judaism, filthy self center ism in hindu soul criminal desire in hinduism, racism.
Here he goes again, our aimless lying president and cast of fools. Already undermining Israel, now outright selling them out. Obama's foreign policy is "if it's the wrong or bad thing to do", then do it". Now leaking info on Israel's forward refueling strategy, listen to this one smart man, John Bolton:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/29/bolton-accuses-administration-leaking-story-on-israeli-planning-along-iran/
It hasn't been a week since Obama is selling us out with his open mic fiasco.
Moron in the oval office.
It's ok, he's out in November guarenteed. Just like you Leftists just lost Obamacare this week, it's in the bag. Love it.
But strap your seatbelts on, Israel attacks by May. A middle finger to Obama.
you idiot , probably do not have a real job wrote this crab. If Foreign policy is not political then what is political. Wake up.
You mean it's not already. Why should foreign policy be any different than health care, federal budgets, homeland security, women's reproductive rights, or anything else. My only question would be "If pro is the opposite of con, is progress the opposite of congress?"
Why not? Becuase a nation as poorly informed as the US general population about foreign issues is easily manipulated by the richest and loudest voices. Do you really think Fox or CNN are neutral enough to weild that sort of power? All youwill acheive is more violence to soft targets and even greater fear, mistrust and hatred of the US internaionally. Not a good idea at all.
In your educated opinion, hehehe..., what is the best informed population?
Recently we have seen would-be presidential candidates threatening to attack Iran if elected. This is politizised foreign policy. To make these policy decisions an election issue is the death toll for the US in international affairs. ITs too easy for the uber powerful military to be used as candidates play thing -the result is likely to be more military mistakes and misadventures. It shocks me how irresponsible some politicians can be and how desperate they are for power. Anyone threatening to start a war for election purposes has just demonstrated they are unfit for office.
RUSH SAVE GLOBAL ECONOMIC TSUNAMI
M.S.Mohamed Ansari 13 April 2009
All press and Media Arabs leader and G20 leader at. Headquarters of All association
AND ELECTRONIC VOTE. CONTROLL BY CONGRESS.
A TO Z + 8. QUEEN + 8
Royal wedding. And royal security force 10 generation total cost $ 57 trillion
Each every politician rolling 8 years only just like chess board Game.
But queen family rolling 10 generation y
GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE REASON WAR. Improve Economy only 6 points. Peace, prayer
Liberty, Unity, friendly And simplicity.
I am also Happy to kill osma bin laden
Turing point of global Economy. Islam not allowed to be Terrorist and Terrorist people are not a Muslim
1. Please avoid war. Day by Day war cost increase $ 3.5 trillion
2. Global economy and food price every Day increase
3. International job less unemployment Y. All businessmen effected business.
4. Global financial crisis every CNC manufacture. New technology energy product Effected FDI investors.
5. Every Day OPEC Oil Price Increase
6. World poverty problem. Bankrupt 170 Bank overalls 87000 Branch
7. Each every single man Effected
8. Ignore future Death million of already Death
9. Million of People Wounded
10. Global environment climate will be change this will lead Global Agriculture problem
Copy.
A. International criminal court. B. white house. global human right association .C.IMF
D. euro union. E. united nation F.ALL international famous press and media
JUSTICE IS IN PERIL. SAVIOUR OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE ALONE CAN PROTECT HUMANITY
From. Mr.M.S.Mohamed Ansari,
154, Angappa Naicken Street,
Chennai – 600 001.
Tamil Nadu,
INDIA..
To , The Hon’ble Chief Justice,
The Supreme Court,
United States of America,
Washington, D.C.
Fax no: 213.547.8080
Dear Sir,
Sub: Prosecution of previous President Mr. George W.Bush, for violation of International Code of Conduct.
Mr. George W.Bush, the previous President of United States of America, initiated a war against IRAQ, without obtaining the previous sanction of United Nations Organization (UNO) on the pretext of having nuclear weapons, even though the then IRAQ government openly exhibited to the whole world that it has no nuclear weapons.
According to the CNN WORLD report, in the war 6, 75,000 civilians killed, 7500 troops of USA and its allied forces killed 3 25 000 people wounded and $ 3.5 Trillion Dollar spent for the war. This spending of $ 3.5 Trillion Dollar is the main cause of action for the present economic crises prevailing all over the world.
After winning the war against IRAQ, the United States of America’s President Mr. George W.Bush, also admitted the same fact, and he openly stated that the Intelligence agency misguided him.
Later on, even the United Nations Organization (UNO) also certified that the IRAQ has no nuclear weapons.
Then it is the bounded duty of the United States of America and its allied forces to withdraw from IRAQ.
But instead of withdrawing from IRAQ, the United States of America and its allied forces formed a government in IRAQ, under their control and administered the entire IRAQ, and its peoples.
This indicates a clear violation of duty by the President of United States of America Mr. George W.Bush and also a clear case of violation of the International Code of Conduct for UNO members.
Thus Mr. George W.Bush attracts prosecution for the above said offence.
Thus I hereby pray this Hon’ble Court initiate criminal proceedings against Mr. George W. Bush, and give him maximum punishment for
a) initiating the war against the IRAQ
b) killing its innocent IRAQI peoples civilian 6, 75 000
c) Killing troops of USA and allied forces and 7 500
d) The present economic crises.
e) 3 25 000 civilian and coalition 39 000 wounded
Dated on this day of 13th day of April, 2009.
Yours truly, (M.S.MOHAMED ANSARI)
COPY TO
The Chief Justice, the International Court of Justice, The Hague, Netherlands.
The Secretary General United Nations Organization
The Chief Justice, the Supreme Court, IRAQ.
His Excellency Mr.Barack Obama, the President of United States of America, White House, Washington D.C.
What are you expecting from supreme court? The only job which a US president can do efficiently is to wage a war.It is the only thing on which congress can vote unanimously without any differences. If you will prosecute presidents on wars then what the future presidents will do in white house.Don't be silly. Are they hired to kill only flies.
A politician will always politicize everything, it's his job. I can't understand what we are expecting from politicians.There job is to politicize everything to get benefits.
Are you a politician Tahir? In your rants, you seem to be politicizing everything on these discussions.
What does it matter? They never listen to us! Most people want an end to aid overseas, unless earthquake or something of that nature. We need to take care of those at home, our roads, railways, parks, lakes and so-on, before dumping money overseas.
and while we take care of all those things, then what happens to the rest of the world?
Divide and conquer, take America's allies and friends and involvement away so that the islamic agenda can spread unhindered.
What a joke?
That's clearly the difference between parties, the Left is dangerously naive.
Did you even read what I said?
You seem to be having your own discussion.
When the horizon gets muddy or dusty and your eyes begin to falter because of the heat & the dust, know that the rains soon usually follow and the rainbow colours the skies. Those proverbial pots of gold that you wondered about as a child and thought about climbing those rainbows are your fruits of labour as a state and society. Of everyone. Everywhere. Thus it does remain a concern when states that are well-defined need to argue about such topics. It is usually useful to remember the meaning and objectives of politics before one indulges into it. It is more important to remember that it remains merely one dimension of human life – merely one aspect of it that we consider necessary because it speaks of governance. Politics always does and some elect to be a part of that process of governance. The others elect to be a part of the myriad areas where their expertise may help in conducting such affairs as governance in contemporary times. It remains the same for every state. Foreign policy of any state that is well-defined automatically gets well-defined too. Much about any state that is well-defined gets automatically well-defined too. That realization by itself solves much more than can be spoken about. It also solves many issues in many senses and myriad areas that deal with the issue of a state and its governance. What would be politics? can be a useful question to ask those that bandy about such terms. Not everyone holds degrees from sophisticated universities. Most do not and yet it is their lives that you speak of and about including the lives of those non-citizens living far away and far-removed and yet find that they merely lived far away! So maybe the question first: What is politics? Or what would it be?
Player Queen:
Both here and hence pursue me lasting strife,
If once I be a widow, ever I be a wife!
Player King:
'Tis deeply sworn. Sweet, leave me here a while,
My spirits grow dull, and fain I would beguile
The tedious day with sleep.
Player Queen:
Sleep rock thy brain,
And never come mischance between us twain!
Hamlet:
Madam, how like you this play?
Queen:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Did I say smt true? UPS I did not want to talk about you
So far in CNN " tested and proved" most should not be commented on. I am relieved. I thought it was Turkish party but it is all over. See u on cultural pages zacaria unless I have a realy good joke on the issue
Our foreign policy is very simple....Use 'em and then spit them out. If that doesn't work, muscle 'em. Nothing to politicize there...just a matter of implementation.
Playgroud is a very good work of Simply Red. I do recommend it to all.
HALAL MEAT..HA HA
The caller ID on Eman al-Obeidi's smart phone says private number. She guesses the call is from a fellow Libyan and promptly silences the ringer.
"I think the halal meat seller gave out my number," she says, picking up another piece of sizzling beef fajita. "That's why I don't buy halal meat anymore."
MMMMMMMMMMMM HALAL MEAT, U EAT SO MANY FK CO KS IN LIBYA
WHATS THAT GOT TO DO WITH STUPID MUSLIM WHO GAVE YOUR PHONE!!! HALAL IS BETWEEN U AND GOD