Is the Bush foreign policy working?

Apparently conservatives are energized by the Benazir Bhutto assassination because they think it proves how much America needs an aggressive foreign policy in a dangerous world.

In the past, I have chastised Joe Scarborough for "siding" with the neo-cons while not going so far as to label him as a neo-con. His conservative roots have made him an enabler to the neo-con ideology in much the same way many spineless Democrats also enabled the neo-con’s invasion of Iraq, but that’s not quite the same as someone who intentionally supports the neo-con ideology. However, all that has changed. This morning, Joe Scarborough openly showed his true colors on the Morning Joe show in a debate with David Schuster over the Bush foreign policy. After visiting what he calls "red-state America" in his hometown in Florida, Joe Scarborough now maintains conservatives are energized by the developments of the Bhutto assassination because it emphasizes the dangers of the world we live in and the success of the Bush foreign policy in handling those dangers. Furthermore, Joe even acknowledged support for the Bush foreign policy on several occasions during this debate by injecting his own opinions that "America wants a strong leader" versus Bill Richardson’s comment that "America wants decisive leadership" and by contending "America should stay on offense".  That comment of "strong leader" translates into more of the same type of leader (after all, conservatives admire GWB as "a strong leader") for our future and Joe admitted that means more support for the neo-con on steroids, Rud-e Giuliani and the neo-con sympathizer, John McCain. David Schuster correctly pointed out that more of the same might be what conservatives want, but it’s NOT what "America wants", as Joe put it. David also refuted the successes of the Bush foreign policy, but the end result was that this discussion revealed the neo-con preference for more "strong leadership" AND "staying on offense" versus a liberal view of a more pragmatic approach of dialogue and a more multi-national approach. It also revealed Joe’s approval of the neo-con foreign policy. I’m convinced my fellow Kossacks support David Schusters opinion, but I’d like to know what Independents think about this issue. Does the assassination of Benazir Bhutto help neo-conservatives in their quest to use fear (of a dangerous world) as a tool to impose their will on the world or does it emphasize the failings of the neo-con foreign policy? I believe the answer to this question will reveal the winner in the general election and may also affect the Democratic primaries as well. I also believe the biased slants of Joe Scarborough this morning represent open support for the Bush foreign policy AND when one considers his unabashed support for torture, one would have to conclude that Joe Scarborough is a closet neo-con that cannot be trusted as an unbiased news reporter.

I apologize for not being able to provide transcripts of this debate, but MSNBC does not provide access to these transcripts until at least 24 hours after the show.

•  Was the Bhutto assasination CAUSED by Bush's

  Foreign policy?

  by Goodbye Kitty on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:00:14 AM PDT

  •  The "cause" was not the topic of this diary

    But, I do believe the answer to your question can be found in this article U.S. brokered Bhutto’s return to Pakistan AND the apparent lack of support for Bhutto's cry for better security.

    by Cowboy Borat on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:05:01 AM PDT

    •  not to mention

      bush's failures to destroy al qaeda and the taliban, and his enabling musharraf.

      by Turkana on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:06:44 AM PDT

    •  you mentioned Bhutto first n/t

      by Goodbye Kitty on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:09:33 AM PDT

  •  Didn't she support more access...

    for U.S./NATO troops to Pakistani turf? If so she signed her own death warrant.
    Also, like 9/11 her assassination is not a validation of American foreign policy in that region. On the contrary 9/11 and her assassination clearly signifies that the U.S. was and is on the wrong path.

    by Barry Leonardini on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:59:57 AM PDT

    •  That would be

      in the real world, the one most of us inhabit.  Neo-cons need to believe that the world is dangerous because we are weak as opposed to those of us who know that W's bellicose talk and actions have made it infinitely more dangerous for us all.

      by luckylizard on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 11:12:53 AM PDT

•  "We support your war of terror." nt

  by irate on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:02:48 AM PDT

•  As usual Neo-Cons showing stupidity

  Assasination is the norm in Pakistan, Bhutto became PM because of an assasin.

  The media is just grasping for anything that will legitimize their Neo-Con candidates. Conservatives will fall for it and maybe even independents.

  by born socialist on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:05:58 AM PDT

  •  That's my greatest fear

    that "independents" may fall for it.

    by Cowboy Borat on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:07:53 AM PDT

•  If violence is up,

  (the Bhutto assasination) it proves the Bush foreign policy is working. If violence is down(the so-called surge in Iraq) it proves Bush's foreign policy is working. No doubt if the violence stays the same, it will prove the Bush foreign policy is working!

  by irate on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:06:26 AM PDT

  •  Thanks...

    I needed a good laugh!

    by Cowboy Borat on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:08:47 AM PDT

•  Don't you read

  The great writings of our chattering class?  No matter what happens, it's good for Republicans.

  by MadRuth on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:07:48 AM PDT

•  No , in plain reality n/t

  by Abra Crabcakeya on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:11:49 AM PDT

•  Barbara Starr is on CNN right now saying that

  it is not working.

  Given that she is normally a cheerleader for our warring ways, that is a significant departure.

  But one has to realize that Scarborough and the conservative movement haven't found a new purpose as much as they feel they have an opening - hope to stay in power.  Kind of like Bush standing on the rubble at the Twin Towers - on top of unexcavated dead bodies - to make his mark - these people will stand on Bhutto's dead body to advance their political aspirations.

  by inclusiveheart on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:12:44 AM PDT

•  joe is an ass of the finest color.

  He described himself as a redstater this morning. I think he was being modest.

  by agnostic on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:13:36 AM PDT

  •  joe the former representative

    anyone know who replaced joe when he left the House...  was he elected out or did he retire?
    his home town does not support him one hundred percent...

    and debating David Schuster...    outclassed

    " I’m convinced my fellow Kossacks support David Schusters opinion, but I’d like to know what Independents think about this issue."
    If the implication here is that Schuster is a liberal,  please rethink.
    He's a pretty good reporter, but begins from a Indiana home town perspective...         I'd describe him as learning from his reporting,  and maybe being moved into the Independent camp by now...  but not a liberal,  and definitely not a progressive.    

    I'm glad to see Schuster taking on Scarborough...  looking forward to a debate between Schuster and Chris Matthews...  but Matthews doesn't really debate.      Schuster's star is rising and Matthews' is declining.

    by njr on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:38:16 AM PDT

    •  I agree with you... David Schuster

      is NOT a liberal nor a progressive. However, like you, I admire his ability to provide dissent among the prevailing MSM slant because the MSM is often nothing more than whores to the almighty dollar instead of truth tellers. David might be the lone exception but that doesn't make him a liberal or progressive.

      by Cowboy Borat on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:47:13 AM PDT

      •  Saw that...

        David Schuster was beside himself after Joe’s initial pro-Bush, delirious, diatribe and actually David said something to the effect of "Gee Joe, I don’t even know where to start!"

        I’m off this week and don’t normally watch Morning Joe.... I use to catch his show in the evenings occasionally.... This week however and given the recent events I turned on the tube to MSNBC first thing this morning and was also immediately taken back by Joe.

        How anyone of even remote intelligence can praise the Bush & Co.’s foreign policies is way, way beyond me... I know Joe is broadcasting from Florida this week maybe the dude is sampling a little nose candy?!?!?

        by tshaw1 on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:11:30 AM PDT

•  These wingnuts say whatever is convenient

  It was just a few weeks ago that David Brooks wrote a column describing this election as a "Post War" election, since violence was so thoroughly mitigated in Iraq that the war was practically over.  The electorate's attention was supposed to turn away from terrorism and the war, towards domestic concerns.  Then I hear Scarborough hamfistedly promoting Ghouliani as the likliest beneficiary of Bhutto's assassination, since he represents the tough, forward-leaning leadership that we all presumably crave in these unstable, voilent days.  Come on, guys!  Get your talking points straight!  They open their mouths and it's like locusts swarming out.

  by Slim Chance on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:54:30 AM PDT

•  In the REAL world...

  It proves Bush and his administration are impotent regarding foreign policy.

  by coffeeinamrica on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:07:28 AM PDT