Rice Quoted Saying U.S. to Ignore Schroeder BERLIN (Reuters) - Condoleezza Rice was quoted in a German magazine Sunday saying the Bush administration was trying to patch up strained relations with Germany but would continue to ostracize Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder...
"We're now doing everything we can to improve relations to Germany at all levels," the unnamed German visitor quoted Rice as saying. "But we're going to work around the chancellor. It's better to leave him out."...
Koch, a conservative and potential challenger to Schroeder's center-left Social Democrats in the 2006 election, was also given an unplanned meeting with Bush while at the White House...
France and Russia also opposed the war in Iraq and Rice has been widely quoted telling associates that resulting U.S. policy should be: "Punish France, ignore Germany and forgive Russia."
Jesus Christ. What does it mean to try and improve relations with Germany while bypassing the Chancellor? What kind of weird-ass-backwards illogic (this is not even the unlogic, it's the illogic) shit is this? Isn't the German Chancellor the Head of State? I mean, I guess he is not truly equivalent to POTUS because Germany uses a system of proportional representation in the government, as opposed to our two-party system, but still, what the fuck? it's hard to draw an analogy, again, because of the different between the party systems, but roughly, it would be like the equivalent of someone being, like, we're going to improve our relationship with America, but avoid Dubya at all costs (what a nice idea! too bad it's unexecutable!), or, like, make alliances with head honchos of the Democratic Party hoping they will win in 2004 and restore the US to a modicum of sanity...wait, actually that sounds smart, therefore it cannot be the right equivalent for this example. Most likely it's just some completely pointless and empty statement, along the lines of "our war is not against the Iraqi people." anyway, that's not as psychotic as the whole sentence. What is this, child rearing techniques for the nation? Spare the rod, spoil the child in case of France, spare the rod in case of Russia altogether and I really don't understand what the hell they plan to do about Germany, so I can't even continue the metaphor for that case. Of course, it's obvious that the Cabal Gov't has explicitly granted itself the ultimate authority position, where all other nations are interpollated into a discourse of either punishment or forgiveness. The only question is, is the throne beneath The Shrub & Co. stacked upon Bibles (we'll call that the Bush=God model), or whether we are dealing with the Tyrant model (we'll call that the Bush="visionary" model). I am not saying that these models are exclusive, obviously the second one is bound to catapult into the first at some point. It's just interesting because historically such power has been justified either via divine right (from King George to...King George) or via "building a better world (on the bones of people of today)" (name your favorite 20th century Dictator). The only difference is explicit ideology, and there is ample evidence for both today (there is the Fundamentalist ethos, but on the other hand, there is also the Manifest Destiny of PNAC). And in the meantime, I write and write and write here on my livejournal, my version of news analysis, my take on what's going on, and the "President" of our country would not be able to pronounce, much less understand, a quarter of what I write. Yes, obviously, that's an obligatory cheap shot, but think about it for a second--isn't that REALLY FUCKED UP?
In other depressing News, I can't decide in which way this new Bush-authored "roadmap to peace" in Israle/Palestine is fucked up. I think we can all agree that considering the people involved, this is not a motion for peace, and there is no concern for ending violence, and the repression/terrorism cycle. So what's the real deal? Is it a) Completely for show, with full awareness of the fact that it will not transpire, which would explain why Sharon was able to get it through the Likud vote, and he is complying b/c making the US look good is some quo of some quid pro, b) they will continue the construction of the wall, make a big open-air internement camp/military zone in the West Bank and call it "The Nation of Palestine, or c) they have decided that having Palestine as a nation is better for their PR because that way military actions can be a war against a sovereign nation, which puts a different spin on self-defense than the self-defense that is implemented through domestic repression of second-class citizens (for the record, yes, I do believe that it is in self-defense, and I also believe that Palestinians are second-class citizens under the current Israeli gov't). Better for the Israeli military image. Everything will stay the same, because there will still be contested areas and resentment, I sadly believe that there are Palestinian radical groups that will continue carrying out suicide bombings in any case, obviously Israel is going to get favored-nation treatment in the US-sponsored treaty, and it will be just like it is today, except that the Israeli gov't will be making military incursions into another country, and thus not have to deal with the fact that the majority of Palestinians, the non-suicide bombers, have no rights, because then they will be citizens of their own country. Brilliant, really. I really would love for the peace process to work, obviously, and I have thought for a long time that the two-state solution is the only possible solution, but I don't think that I am being unreasonably cynical in saying that I doubt that the situation will be resolved as a part of Bush's initiative with Sharon in power. There are two-state solutions and then there are two-state solutions. Until I have a reason to feel otherwise, I have no faith in this one.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
