In talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Bush rightly prioritized the urgency of securing Russia's nuclear material, a frightening threat to the security of both nations. His lecture on Russia's democratic backsliding, however, suffered the glare of his own questionable selection as president in 2000, as well as the high-boot political tactics of his White House staff and his choice (or need) not to confront the authentic flavor of European public opinion.
Note how the Strib's editors still cannot accept that George W. Bush was legitimately elected President in 2000. Isn't more than four years of whining about it enough? Not to mention the guy's re-election last November.
And again they complain about what the Strib refers to as "high-handed political tactics", while not even considering the idea the administration's tactics really are straight talk to governments who constantly lecture us about security when they are unwilling (and unable due to their own decisions) to help with the heavy lifting. Perhaps the Star Tribune should consider if their charges of arrogance are um, misplaced?
As a bonus, they also mention Iraq this way:
All in all, it's good that Bush has opened a charm offensive toward Europe, even though the results seem meager. The good cop-bad cop approach to Iran will continue. The sides will continue to disagree on ending the Chinese arms embargo. There will be no meaningful help to extricate Bush from the mess he's made of Iraq
So Iraq is a bigger mess than when Saddam Hussein was running it? The Strib should remember the mess Western Europe was in after WWII, and the mess left in Eastern Europe by the Soviets since 1945, only now being repaired. How about that premature judgment - it is far too early yet to know the outcome of America's gamble in Iraq. How about waiting to proclaim failure when the outcome is actually a failure?