Condoleezza Rice Says She's `Proud' Of Decision To Invade Iraq
|
|
Thread rating:  |
D. Spencer Hines - 05 Jul 2008 03:08 GMT Hear!, Hear!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas -----------------------------------------
Condoleezza Rice Says She's `Proud' of Decision to Invade Iraq
By Janine Zacharia
July 3 (Bloomberg) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she's ``proud'' of the U.S. decision to wage the Iraq war and insisted that the world is not more dangerous than it was when George W. Bush took office.
Bingo! -- DSH
``We're now beginning to see that perhaps it's not so popular to be a suicide bomber. We're beginning to see that perhaps people are questioning whether Osama Bin Laden ought to really be the face of Islam,'' Rice, 53, said in an interview to be broadcast this weekend on Bloomberg Television's ``Conversations with Judy Woodruff.''
``And I am proud of the decision of this administration to overthrow Saddam Hussein,'' said Rice, who was Bush's national security adviser at the time of the March 2003 invasion. As of yesterday, 4,107 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq and more than 30,000 were wounded. She said the Iraq war has been ``tougher than any of us really dreamed.''
Rice, who backs the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Arizona Senator John McCain, said she ``thought it was great'' when the Democratic race came down to a woman and a black man. ``I didn't think it was surprising,'' she said.
People abroad are ``fascinated'' by Illinois Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, Rice added when asked what effect Obama's candidacy is having around the world.
``But I'll tell you something. Ultimately, whoever is elected president of the United States will represent the United States, not as a black president or as a woman president or as a black secretary of state or as a woman secretary of state, but the United States of America,'' Rice said.
North Korea
Rice, with only seven months left as secretary of state, has a wide diplomatic agenda, trying to make progress toward an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement and a North Korean nuclear disarmament deal while trying to persuade Iran to accept incentives to abandon uranium enrichment, a process, once mastered, that could lead to a nuclear bomb.
While Rice was in Asia last week, North Korea submitted an inventory of nuclear plants and material to China, and the U.S. moved to remove North Korea from its list of state sponsors of terrorism. The Bush administration was hammered by conservative critics, including House Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who called the deal ``cause for profound concern.''
In the interview, Rice cited as progress that the North Koreans were ``putting themselves out of the business of making plutonium'' even as many U.S. sanctions remain in place.
``So with all due respect to those who look at this deal and say somehow North Korea has gotten a great deal, I think one can say that this is a really good step for non-proliferation,'' Rice added.
China
On China, Rice said the Chinese were being ``somewhat more helpful on Darfur.'' Demonstrations over China's support for the Sudanese leadership in Khartoum as it wages war with rebel groups in the Darfur region, as well as China's rule in Tibet and its treatment of the Dalai Lama, could overshadow the Olympic Games, which open in Beijing August 8.
Rice reiterated that Bush plans to attend the games, even as some human rights activists have urged him to boycott the event. ``The president has been very clear that the Olympics is a sporting event and he's going to go to it as a sporting event,'' Rice said. In Beijing earlier this week, she said she'd be keen to watch some Olympic basketball and track-and-field competitions.
Iran, Pakistan
Asked if she thought it would be a mistake for Israel to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran over its nuclear program, Rice said the Israelis have been willing to work with the U.S. on a diplomatic solution.
``They, too, believe that it's possible to deal with this diplomatically. But we better have really robust diplomacy in order to deal with this threat because the Iranians are making progress,'' she said.
Rice said she believed Iran, which the administration has accused of funneling weapons to Shiite militias in Iraq, had ``vulnerabilities'' in Iraq that the U.S. could exploit. She did not specify what they were.
Rice defended the Bush administration's policies when asked about a June 30 New York Times report that al-Qaeda, since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, has successfully shifted its base of operations from Afghanistan to Pakistan's tribal areas and has rebuilt much of its ability to attack.
Rice, acknowledging there are policy debates within the administration on how to confront al-Qaeda, said many of the terrorist group's leaders are ``either in custody or they're dead.''
`Certain Strengths'
``Yes, it has certain strengths and continues to have certain strengths in this area that is very difficult for anyone to govern and very difficult for anyone to operate in. But there have been successes there too,'' Rice said.
Rice, who has been suggested as a possible McCain running mate, has said repeatedly that she has no plans to seek elected office and will return to Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, where she was provost, after the end of the administration in January 2009.
She has said may write another book on foreign policy. And in the interview she noted: ``I have been very active in educational causes before, particularly for underprivileged kids. That's what I'll go back and do.''
Tiglath - 05 Jul 2008 03:46 GMT > ----------------------------------------- > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ``proud'' of the U.S. decision to wage the Iraq war and insisted that the > world is not more dangerous than it was when George W. Bush took office. Hmmmm.
That's a change. I thought the official line was that the world was much safer because of Bush.
Not it turns out, that it's only not more dangerous, which means that Bush made no difference.
Sounds like surrendering the outworks to save the citadel.
The reality is that Bush has made the world far less safe. A lot more people wish us ill. Many are militant about it, and a great number, including some of our allies, gloat at our misfortune.
By embracing torture and the thing he is doing in Guantanamo, Bush has made the world less safe for Americans, both civilian and military.
By the way, no one seems to notice the inconsistency of a deeply Christian president who refuses to love his enemies -- he prefers to vaporize their children. Thus making Jesus' principal precept and Christianity's central tenet merery an ornament.
It looks like Condi public 'service' is nearing its end. Good riddance. It would be hard to find a more incompentent and unaccomplished national security adviser and state secretary than Rice.
Obscurity will hopefully be in her future away from public disservice.
Singanas@Texasgulfcoast - 05 Jul 2008 12:56 GMT > > ----------------------------------------- > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Obscurity will hopefully be in her future away from public > disservice. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Well if the neocons had succeeded in stabilizing Iraq, you would now be praising the Bush administration. There was nothing fundamentally wrong about choosing Iraq over Afghanistan as the arena for 9/11 revenge. What went wrong was the management of the intervention.
I think the administration was right not to make Bin Ladin a greater demon than Saddam Hussein. Bin Ladin is just another misguided fanatic. Hussein of Baghdad was a greater evil by any measure of Western values. Hussein is the Islamic edition of Adolph Hitler.
Cheers, David H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
La N - 05 Jul 2008 15:27 GMT > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Well if the neocons had succeeded in stabilizing Iraq, > you would now be praising the Bush administration. > There was nothing fundamentally wrong about choosing > Iraq over Afghanistan as the arena for 9/11 revenge. "Revenge"?! Are you one of those who still believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11???
- nilita (the mind boggles)
Mark Test - 05 Jul 2008 17:49 GMT > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Well if the neocons had succeeded in stabilizing Iraq, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "Revenge"?! Are you one of those who still believe that Iraq had something > to do with 9/11??? Why do "left" leaning folks insist that Iraq was behind 9/11?
Mark
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Billzz - 06 Jul 2008 01:50 GMT >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Well if the neocons had succeeded in stabilizing Iraq, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > - nilita (the mind boggles) Well, to be fair, Sadam Hussein did give the impression (like WMDs) that he was involved, somehow. Probably just a show, but I will hunt up and post a pic to alt.binaries.pictures.military that shows a captured painting of Hussein with the burning twin towers in the background. Whether he was taking credit, or what, the viewer will have to decide. Title will be "Hussein and 9/11."
torresD - 06 Jul 2008 02:35 GMT >>> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> Well if the neocons had succeeded in stabilizing Iraq, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Whether he was taking credit, or what, the viewer will have to decide. > Title will be "Hussein and 9/11." Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11, George Bush. "Nobody has ever suggested that the attack of 9/11 were ordered by Iraq", George Bush
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/
Raymond O'Hara - 06 Jul 2008 05:03 GMT >>>> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> Well if the neocons had succeeded in stabilizing Iraq, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/ it's pointless arguing with rush the junkie fans. if the chimpenfuhrer hints that saddam was behind and rush confirms it. then it must be true and all the facts "lieberals" muster don't matter
Chas Hurst - 06 Jul 2008 16:55 GMT > Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11, George Bush. > "Nobody has ever suggested that the attack of 9/11 were ordered by Iraq", > George Bush In a letter to Congress explaining his reasons for wanting to attack Iraq, Bush claimed that Iraq was part of the Sep 11 attacks.
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate
"March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH "
torresD - 06 Jul 2008 20:46 GMT And George Bush, said so himself.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/
Mark Test - 05 Jul 2008 17:47 GMT > > > ----------------------------------------- > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > That's a change. I thought the official line was that the world was > > much safer because of Bush. Hmmm, they said far worse about Abe Lincoln (who's war killed more Americans than all US wars combined).....
snippage
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Well if the neocons had succeeded in stabilizing Iraq, > you would now be praising the Bush administration. > There was nothing fundamentally wrong about choosing > Iraq over Afghanistan as the arena for 9/11 revenge. > What went wrong was the management of the intervention. I'd say we dropped the ball on the post-war plan....
> I think the administration was right not to make Bin Ladin > a greater demon than Saddam Hussein. Bin Ladin is just > another misguided fanatic. Hussein of Baghdad was a greater > evil by any measure of Western values. Hussein is the > Islamic edition of Adolph Hitler. Concur.....although OBL is damn evil as well.....he just never had a country to rule over....
Mark
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Jack Linthicum - 09 Jul 2008 23:05 GMT > > > > ----------------------------------------- > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com** Afghanistan seemed to serve for a while.
John Briggs - 05 Jul 2008 20:42 GMT > Well if the neocons had succeeded in stabilizing Iraq, > you would now be praising the Bush administration. Surely, even you can see the fallacy in that statement?
> There was nothing fundamentally wrong about choosing > Iraq over Afghanistan as the arena for 9/11 revenge. Well, other than the small matter that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11...
> What went wrong was the management of the intervention. You have a gift for understatement :-)
> I think the administration was right not to make Bin Ladin > a greater demon than Saddam Hussein. Well, Saddam Hussein didn't fly any airliners into skyscrapers..
> Bin Ladin is just another misguided fanatic. But rather a significant one, surely?
> Hussein of Baghdad was a greater evil by any measure of Western values. > Hussein is the Islamic edition of Adolph Hitler. "Adolf" is the usual spelling...
 Signature John Briggs
James Hogg - 05 Jul 2008 21:53 GMT >> Well if the neocons had succeeded in stabilizing Iraq, >> you would now be praising the Bush administration. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> There was nothing fundamentally wrong about choosing >> Iraq over Afghanistan as the arena for 9/11 revenge. What happened on the ninth of November?
>Well, other than the small matter that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11... And one might ask whether a civilised government should engage in "revenge" at all, especially a government led by a born-again Christian.
>> What went wrong was the management of the intervention. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >"Adolf" is the usual spelling... But Adolph is not unusual.
James
John Briggs - 05 Jul 2008 22:22 GMT >>> Well if the neocons had succeeded in stabilizing Iraq, >>> you would now be praising the Bush administration. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > But Adolph is not unusual. It is extremely unusual - it is probably only found in America.
 Signature John Briggs
James Hogg - 06 Jul 2008 19:37 GMT >>> "Adolf" is the usual spelling... >> >> But Adolph is not unusual. > >It is extremely unusual - it is probably only found in America. I've seen it often recently on Usenet.
And Google gives you 766,000 hits for "adolph hitler".
That's a good measure of popular ignorance.
James
Jack Linthicum - 06 Jul 2008 19:45 GMT > On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 22:22:30 +0100, "John Briggs" > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > James Adolphe Menjou, Adolph Coors, Adolph Sax (Saxophone), Adolph Sutro (Mining)
Singanas@Texasgulfcoast - 07 Jul 2008 11:13 GMT > > On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 22:22:30 +0100, "John Briggs" > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ~~~~~ Could these not be the anglocised spellings of their first names by British and American publishing industries ? David H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andrew Chaplin - 07 Jul 2008 15:46 GMT On Jul 6, 1:45 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2:37 pm, James Hogg <Jas.Hogg...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ~~~~~ Could these not be the anglocised spellings of their first names by British and American publishing industries ? -------------------
I think they are Latinate borrowings from the rendering of Adolf as "Adolphus" in mediaeval Latin.
 Signature Andrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
La N - 06 Jul 2008 20:23 GMT >>>> "Adolf" is the usual spelling... >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > That's a good measure of popular ignorance. Here's a dedication - a nostalgic look backwards, if you will - to one of my favourite Usenet poets, Mr. James Hogg ... ;p
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRfQwTQK-0M
- nilita
James Hogg - 06 Jul 2008 20:34 GMT >>>>> "Adolf" is the usual spelling... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRfQwTQK-0M That must be the most expensive music video ever made. How could they afford to pay all those extras?
It ranks high in the tasteless stakes too.
James
Jeffrey Hamilton - 07 Jul 2008 14:36 GMT >>>>> "Adolf" is the usual spelling... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > - nilita You mean Rick Astley is a fascist ?
Figures, I never liked his_musac_anyway.
cheers....Jeff
Raymond O'Hara - 07 Jul 2008 18:10 GMT >>>>>> "Adolf" is the usual spelling... >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > cheers....Jeff the films are of the anschluss, notice none of the marching soldiers are armed.
Jeffrey Hamilton - 08 Jul 2008 02:07 GMT >>>>>>> "Adolf" is the usual spelling... >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > the films are of the anschluss, notice none of the marching soldiers are > armed. Was that to appear *non-threatening*, to the Austrians ?
cheers....Jeff
torresD - 05 Jul 2008 23:32 GMT Some people were proud of the lynchings that took place in the South.
Tiglath - 06 Jul 2008 02:56 GMT > And one might ask whether a civilised government should engage in > "revenge" at all, especially a government led by a born-again > Christian. It's amazing how few people notice that. Although The Golden Rule was postulated by Buddha and Rabbi Hillel before Jesus there is no doubt that the admonishment to love our enemy is central to Christianity, and sets Christianity apart. There is no qualification saying, "Love your enemy unless you really don't like him." It says love your enemy, no if, ands, or buts.
Maybe it's a hopelessly naive and flawed concept, though political nonviolence has worked wonders and Gandhi and Luther King achieved extraordinary, counter intuitive victories with it. But the point is that no nation of Christians has adopted this rule. All the more noticeable in a president who rules with his faith. Bush clearly told us that he believes that God wants men to be free and that this belief guides his foreign policy.
I recall "Do unto others as you would have then do unto you." I don't recall "God wants all men to be free."
And religious people seem to see nothing wrong that their most sacred tenets are just window dressing.
Come on patriots, open your mouths wide for big gobs of premium bullshit from the very top...
Don't be part of it, folks. Get off the bus.
Les Cargill - 06 Jul 2008 10:35 GMT >> And one might ask whether a civilised government should engage in >> "revenge" at all, especially a government led by a born-again [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > your enemy unless you really don't like him." It says love your enemy, > no if, ands, or buts. The word "love" is closest to the Greek word "agape" - a-gawp-ay - which is much more like "consideration". It's just the Golden Rule again.
> Maybe it's a hopelessly naive and flawed concept, No, it just provides for a technique to slow down escalations, by dissembling to reduce tensions. It's central to what diplomats do.
> though political > nonviolence has worked wonders and Gandhi and Luther King achieved > extraordinary, counter intuitive victories with it. But the point is > that no nation of Christians has adopted this rule. Nations aren't people. That rule is a personal one. But I'd say militarily, the Mongols probably reverted the conquered back to original status faster than any other conquerors. The taxes were more than paid for by the networks effects of being in the Mongol trading systems.
And I'm not sure that post-WWII, this wasn't a somewhat guiding principle. After all, WWI was an adventure cause by the reparations demanded after the Franco_Prussian war, and then WWII was based largely on reparations from *that*....
> All the more > noticeable in a president who rules with his faith. Bush clearly > told us that he believes that God wants men to be free and that this > belief guides his foreign policy. And I believe him. And his foreign policy has shown that.
> I recall "Do unto others as you would have then do unto you." I > don't recall "God wants all men to be free." Stuff concerning the universality of freedom generally has more to do with Jefferson or Locke, and it's simple enough to replace "self-evident" with "God-given" - the speakers of those phrases mean the same thing.
> And religious people seem to see nothing wrong that their most sacred > tenets are just window dressing. Ritual? All people have rituals. Some rituals are formal, some are not.
> Come on patriots, open your mouths wide for big gobs of premium > bullshit from the very top... > > Don't be part of it, folks. Get off the bus. It's a big ole messy world out there.
-- Les Cargill
J A - 06 Jul 2008 16:29 GMT > Stuff concerning the universality of freedom generally has > more to do with Jefferson or Locke, and it's simple enough > to replace "self-evident" with "God-given" - the speakers > of those phrases mean the same thing. That's absurd.
Many of the founders were deists. A deist believes in a supernatural intelligence, but that its activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place. The deist god never intervenes thereafter and certainly has no specific interest in human affairs.
In the book, "The God Delusion", author Richard Dawkins gives a number of examples of anti-religious statements from a number of prominent founding fathers of the US.
As for Thomas Jefferson's views on supernatural beings: "To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise... without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence."
And, on whether the US was founded as a Christian nation: the treaty with Tripoli drafted in 1796 under George Washington and signed by John Adams in 1797 reads: "As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselman; and as the said states never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Moslem nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Tiglath - 06 Jul 2008 17:42 GMT > >> And one might ask whether a civilised government should engage in > >> "revenge" at all, especially a government led by a born-again [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > which is much more like "consideration". It's just the Golden Rule > again. As with many ancient Greek words, 'Agapao' is a superset of 'love.' and expresses a concept we can't express in English with one word. It is not only love, but charity, grace, mercy, and more.
So Jesus wants us not only to love, but all those other things too.
Matthew 5:44 (KJV)
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you"
> > though political > > nonviolence has worked wonders and Gandhi and Luther King achieved > > extraordinary, counter intuitive victories with it. But the point is > > that no nation of Christians has adopted this rule. > > Nations aren't people. Really? When you look at the Earth from space, it is striking. There are no national boundaries visible. They have been put there like the equator and the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, by humans. The planet is real, the life is real, but the political separations that have placed the planet in danger are of human manufacture -- PEOPLE MADE.
The Golden Rule's wisdom implicitly recognizes that all the beings in this little world are mutually dependent. It's like living in a lifeboat. We breath the same air that Russians have breathed, and Zambians and Tasmanians and Iranians, and people all over the planet. Whatever it is that divides us it is clear the planet will be here for a long time to come, but will we?
We need to marginalize people like Bush and other leaders who preach one thing and do another, and especially PATRIOTS who thing that the artificial division on a part of our planet confers them superiority and can tell the rest of the world what to do or else.
If a human group does better, knows more, and thrives past other groups it should spread its wisdom and knowledge PEACEFULLY and by example. No God commands us to ram democracy down the world's throat.
> > All the more > > noticeable in a president who rules with his faith. Bush clearly > > told us that he believes that God wants men to be free and that this > > belief guides his foreign policy. > > And I believe him. And his foreign policy has shown that. It's no different than violent Jihad. Same sh.t different sewer.
> > I recall "Do unto others as you would have then do unto you." I > > don't recall "God wants all men to be free." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to replace "self-evident" with "God-given" - the speakers > of those phrases mean the same thing. I dispute that. Freedom is not a right any more than being wealthy is a right. As long as humans need gods to worship, leaders to tell them what to do and lawyers to mediate their disputes they cannot be free.
My income taxes MEAN that I have to work a certain, not small number of hours to support the programs and decisions of others, many of which I don't agree with, like the Iraq War. And if I don't pay I go to jail. The alternative is not to work and live in a park. Some freedom.
> > And religious people seem to see nothing wrong that their most sacred > > tenets are just window dressing. > > Ritual? All people have rituals. Some rituals are formal, some > are not. A tenet is not a ritual. Learn the difference.
Tiglath - 06 Jul 2008 02:33 GMT On Jul 5, 7:56 am, "Singanas@Texasgulfcoast" <davidholi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There was nothing fundamentally wrong about choosing > Iraq over Afghanistan as the arena for 9/11 revenge. Unfortunate phrase.
An educated man should never be caught writing nonsense like that.
A retaliatory attack -- what you call revenge -- intends to return evil for evil. It is not a retaliatory attack is there is nothing to return. Saddam didn't attack us in any shape or form. Out invasion was not retaliation, it was an unprovoked attack, justified with lies.
Learn the difference.
> What went wrong was the management of the intervention. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Cheers, David H > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ torresD - 06 Jul 2008 02:37 GMT On Jul 5, 7:56 am, "Singanas@Texasgulfcoast" <davidholi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There was nothing fundamentally wrong about choosing > Iraq over Afghanistan as the arena for 9/11 revenge. Unfortunate phrase.
An educated man should never be caught writing nonsense like that.
A retaliatory attack -- what you call revenge -- intends to return evil for evil. It is not a retaliatory attack is there is nothing to return. Saddam didn't attack us in any shape or form. Out invasion was not retaliation, it was an unprovoked attack, justified with lies.
Learn the difference.
And George Bush, said so himself.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/
> What went wrong was the management of the intervention. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Cheers, David H > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ torresD - 06 Jul 2008 02:38 GMT http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/
Tiglath - 07 Jul 2008 20:09 GMT What would have happened if the Cuban Missile Crisis had happened during Bush Jr.'s presidency?
Can you say nukular winter?
Bush-in-bunker would be saying that things may look pretty back they only appear so, that God wanted this and that he will be vindicated when the dust settles in a few years...
It's hard to answer what-if questions like that, but the question is useful to contrast Kennedy with Bush.
We need presidents who can act or not act wisely on the advice they receive.
Kennedy followed the CIA's advice on the Bay of Pigs and got into a hell of a pickle. Good learner that he was, during the Cuban crisis he disregarded the admonitions of his military advisers who were all for a massive bombing of Cuba followed by an all-out invasion a la Normandy.
Kennedy said that he would only go to war if he was able to explain the reasons to the American people -- and were justifiable reasons.
Now we are not talking here about some truck in a distant desert which might have been a chemical weapons laboratory. What Kennedy faced was no less than the Soviet Empire projecting its power across the ocean right to the threshold of America, by placing in Cuba some fifty thousand Soviet troops armed with tactical nuclear weapons that could reach Washington and New York.
Yet, Kennedy averted war.
I don't doubt that Bush under the strains of a similar crisis could easily blunder into letting the worst happen. But if given time to reflect, I don't believe Bush would have the balls to stand up to a serious threat. Remember, he is a confirmed coward, and age doesn't make a young coward braver.
It is easy to see how Bush has done nothing but shoot his mouth when it came to people who could actually do what he told us Saddam could do. North Korea could devastate Seoul in a few minutes and reach LA with a missile, allegedly. That alone tamed Bush the Pre-empter to the point that attacking North Korea never appears to have been an option -- mushroom clouds and all.
We are lucky there is no enemy like the Soviet Union for Bush to defend us against. Very lucky.
Kennedy was surrounded by hawks no less than Bush is surrounded by belligerent Neocons. Kennedy kept the peace with honor, while Bush took us to war with ignominious lies
Remember Bush and Kennedy when you choose a president...
Raymond O'Hara - 07 Jul 2008 20:34 GMT > What would have happened if the Cuban Missile Crisis had happened > during Bush Jr.'s presidency? [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Remember Bush and Kennedy when you choose a president... good post tiglet.
Billzz - 07 Jul 2008 21:25 GMT > What would have happened if the Cuban Missile Crisis had happened > during Bush Jr.'s presidency? [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Remember Bush and Kennedy when you choose a president... You have convinced me. I will vote for Kennedy.
BL5511 - 05 Jul 2008 16:25 GMT Using false reasons to advise invasion of Iraq and ordered torture she is a war criminal like Hitler and Polpot. American public should create a people war crime court and put her on trial.
> Hear!, Hear! > [quoted text clipped - 114 lines] > she noted: ``I have been very active in educational causes before, > particularly for underprivileged kids. That's what I'll go back and do.'' meport2 - 05 Jul 2008 23:23 GMT There has always seemed to be a media bias that is pro Condoleezza that I have never been able to understand. She has always been portrayed by the media as being knowledgeable, is always shown as being articulate and is always given a positive spin. But have you ever listened closely to what she says? She talks in circles, like there no end to her everlasting, self-serving soliloquy. When she is asked a question, she skirts the issue without ever saying anything. It's like she can't deviate from the script because she would be completely lost without it.
So saying she is proud of the decision to invade Iraq is nothing that surprises me. She probably got the script from her handlers in the administration, and is following the script to the letter because she is ignorant of everything else.
 Signature meport
> Hear!, Hear! > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > By Janine Zacharia BL5511 - 06 Jul 2008 14:55 GMT http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080705/ap_on_re_us/america_s_bad_mood Americans' unhappy birthday: 'Too much wrong right now'
By PAULINE ARRILLAGA, AP National Writer Sat Jul 5, 5:48 PM ET
Even folks in the Optimist Club are having a tough time toeing an upbeat line these days.
> Hear!, Hear! > [quoted text clipped - 114 lines] > she noted: ``I have been very active in educational causes before, > particularly for underprivileged kids. That's what I'll go back and do.''
|
|
|