« Hope in Bishkek, Part II | Main | Modest Proposal (Oh, I slay me) »

April 30, 2004

Comments

Um, despite this being two or three days old, in what sense is it 'overwhelming'?

I ask as much out of curiosity as anything. Not knowing much about the names of my own country's diplomats (or laundromats, or any kind of mat really), I've been uncertain since the news broke over here, whether these are significant names or not - are they the wisest, the pre-eminent, etc?

Oh crap.

I've just realised the 'Juliet Campbell' in the list is someone I know.

She's very good at anything she does.

Consider me heavily chastened.

And Plan B is?

Plan B, as the good Diplomats suggest is to "give authority to the United Nations to work with the Iraqis themselves, including those who are now actively resisting the occupation, to clear up the mess."

James, it's the volume that's overwhemling...and the fact that it's not very usual for this many former ambassadors get together to criticize a sitting Prime Minister...also, this format is now, like most things British, being tried over here:

Former US diplomats send protest letter to Bush


also, this format is now, like most things British, being tried over here

Tsk. First you nick the language, then you try to copy the Beatles with the Monkees, then your diplomats attack your Government's foreign policy - it's a never-ceasing ledger of unoriginality.

And in each case the derivative is far inferior to the original.

Yeah, well, why d'you think I chose those examples???

Juan Cole's commentary on this a few days ago gave me pause:

It is extraordinary how terrified these experienced diplomats are, and amazing that these men who spent a lifetime practicing discretion would now speak out. ... This letter is canary in the mine material, and should alarm everyone concerned with the situation in Iraq. They clearly are afraid that the 7500 British troops and administrators in Iraq are in severe danger from Bush/Blair policies, and that Israeli Prime Minister Sharon's policy of "negotiation by murder" has the potential to set the whole region aflame, just as, in some ways, it already has Fallujah.

"...it's a never-ceasing ledger of unoriginality...."

In between the language and the Beatles, we nicked off with "democracy," "world empire," and the good china.

Left behind in the rush: spotted dick, Isle of Wight, David Frost.

Still resentful over: Benny Hill.

Still on loan: Diego Garcia, Scotch whiskey, making fun of the French.

Gifts to you: Winston Churchill's mother, McDonalds, Madonna, "Friends."

Wish you would take off our hands: Michael Jackson, David Hasselhoff (you could pass him on to Germany; they love him in Germany, you know), Bill O'Reilly, those wood chopsticks that break badly.

Everyone else can play!

Tsk. First you nick the language, then you try to copy the Beatles with the Monkees, then your diplomats attack your Government's foreign policy - it's a never-ceasing ledger of unoriginality.

Hey man, the Beatles stole R and B from us.

Scotch whiskEy, Gary?

"...and the fact that it's not very usual for this many former ambassadors get together to criticize a sitting Prime Minister..."

Isn't sending this kind of a public letter almost damning evidence that you are de facto not a good diplomat?

"Isn't sending this kind of a public letter almost damning evidence that you are de facto not a good diplomat?"

No. You seem to be suggesting that the only good diplomacy is that which is done privately. Regardless of the merits or demerits of this case, that general statement is obviously not true.

I know some of you don't care for instapundit, but in this case he's just the bearer of bad news.

I'm not sure quite what to make of this, other than it's best to be very, very careful in selecting who you take money from.

Now I wonder: how is this claim any different from the assertion that many neocons have close links with Israel and therefore their advice to Bush is tainted?

That's what, six out of the 52?

Now I wonder: how is this claim any different from the assertion that many neocons have close links with Israel and therefore their advice to Bush is tainted?

Tainted with what?

Let me think. When's the last time Israel decided to attempt a major attack on the United States? I'm going to have to visit the Wayback Machine and find out.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad