The Shah was a U.S. puppet for 25 years� How did that one work out, say in like the last 25?

Bhoe, you started to sound relatively intelligent, until I read Jesse Jackson�s name�

I am not saying I supported the CIA's coup in Iran--I was just providing you an example of a President who was able to influence the Iranian government.

You are right--it didn't work out so well--it was perhaps one of the biggest examples of blowback that the country has experienced and is linked to current problems there. Had Eisenhower and the Brits respected the autonomy of a democratically-elected government in Iran we probably would not have Bush's need for a democracy crusade in the Middle East.

As for Jessie: take a look at the record. When Goodman was shot down and captured, Reagan actually was relatively silent on the issue. Remember this was during the time that he tapped Rumsfeld to go and shake hands with Saddam (who was close to fellow Baathist, Assad) in an attempt to support Mr. WMD during his war with Iran (aka clean up Eisenhower's mess).

Sure, Jackson--the opportunist he is--made the trip to trump up his presidential bid--but Reagan didn't stop him. In fact, Jackson was working with the State Dept to coordinate the whole thing. ONe could look at it as a brilliant political move by Reagan: enhance Jessie's standing in the hope that he would win the Dem. nomination, who he would then trounce in the general election.

Regan, himself, gave Jessie credit saying in his meeting with Goodman after the Good Reverand secured his release that: "Reverend Jackson's mission was a personal mission of mercy, and he has earned our gratitude and our admiration."

Bhoe, you started to sound relatively intelligent, until I read Jesse Jackson's name...

Has there ever been a U.S. president who could influence Hezbollah? I mean, besides Jimmy Carter, who probably influenced them to snicker behind his back at his naïvité...

Like it or not, having "neutral" parties like Kofi lean on Boy Assad and Iran to cut off Hezbollah's trust fund is about the only effective non-military strategy here.

I think you�re stuck on the �everything is Bush�s fault� train, my friend.

No, I am on the "Bush is an incompetent ideologue" train.

What American president has EVER had any influence over Syria or Iran?

Eisenhower overthrew the Iranian government in 1953, and installed the Shah, who was baically a US puppet for 25 years.

He also had very close relations with Shishakli.

Hell, Reagan was able to get Hafez al-Assad to release POW Robert Goodman--although Jessie Jackson probably should get more credit for this than Ronnie who, famously, couldn't remember who Assad even was during his testimony to Lawrence Walsh.

You�re also likely taking it out of context, as in, �If Kofi wants us to do something about Lebanon, why doesn�t HE call Assad and get him to quit this SH*T.�

No. Read the transcript. The comment came in this context: "See, the irony is that what they need to do is to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s---, and it's over"

The "they" he's referring to is Kofi and the UN. Bush is so weakened internationally that he has to beg Kofi to influence Hezbollah. This is pathetic and a disservice to the country's security.

I think you�re stuck on the �everything is Bush�s fault� train, my friend.

No, I am on the "Bush is an incompetent ideologue" train.

What American president has EVER had any influence over Syria or Iran?

Eisenhower overthrew the Iranian government in 1953, and installed the Shah, who was baically a US puppet for 25 years.

He also had very close relations with Shishakli.

Hell, Reagan was able to get Hafez al-Assad to release POW Robert Goodman--although Jessie Jackson probably should get more credit for this than Ronnie who, famously, couldn't remember who Assad even was during his testimony to Lawrence Walsh.

You�re also likely taking it out of context, as in, �If Kofi wants us to do something about Lebanon, why doesn�t HE call Assad and get him to quit this SH*T.�

No. Read the transcript. The "shit" comment came in this context: "See, the irony is that what they need to do is to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s---, and it's over"

The "they" he's referring to is Kofi and the UN. Bush is so weakened internationally that he has to beg Kofi to influence Hezbollah. This is pathetic and a disservice to the country's security.

What American president has EVER had any influence over Syria or Iran? Or the U.N. for that matter. Kofi is powerless to do anything. Asking him to do something would be a waste of breath.

You're also likely taking it out of context, as in, 'If Kofi wants us to do something about Lebanon, why doesn't HE call Assad and get him to quit this SH*T.'

You're reading a hell of alot into a brief casual conversation between Bush and Blair.

Kofi Annan.. engage in actions? helping secure U.S. interests?

With all due respect, what are you smoking?

I am not smoking anything. I totally agree with your sentiment.

However, your questions regarding sanity shouldn't be directed at me, but at Bush. I was simply referring to what Bush said to Blair. You obviously didn't read the transcript.

Bush was fretting about missing an opportunity to ask Kofi to call Assad. To Blair he said: "I felt like telling Kofi to call, get on the phone with (Syrian President) Assad and make something happen." This shows that Bush is powerless to get Assad to engage in responsible behavior and has to rely on Kofi Anan to shill for US interests. If he can't even TELL Kofi what he wants done, it is a sign of weakness.

Obviously Assad and Ahmednijad are both unafraid of US power in the region given their unadulterated support for Hezbollah and Hamas. If Bush were serious about protecting US interests in the region, he would deal with these people accordingly instead of sheepishly relying on Kofi Anan to do his bidding.

I think we should keep an open mind on this being an advanced case of BDS or of massive hallucinogenics being ingested.

When he doesnâ??t have the guts to pressure Kofi Anan to engage in actions helping to secure US interests in the middle east

That is, without a doubt, one of the most twsited things I have ever read.

Kofi Annan.. engage in actions? helping secure U.S. interests?

With all due respect, what are you smoking?

The thing that is newsworthy about this exchange is how low Bush's position as an international "leader" has become. When he doesn't have the guts to pressure Kofi Anan to engage in actions helping to secure US interests in the middle east, it dramatically shows his ineffectiveness.

His willful disengagement in the Palestine-Israel question and his irrational conception of US strategic interests in the Middle East is partly responsible for the escalation of tensions in the region.

By the way, the transcript of George and Tony's conversation is available here:

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/07/frank_talk_bush.html

Not sure why anyone thinks Condi is going to do any good, but at least she's less dangerous at State than as National Security Adviser.