Robert Byrd, everyone's favorite ex-Klansman, is holding up Condoleeza Rice's confirmation as Secretary Of State.
So much for the party of diversity, peace, and tolerance. The Democrats also showed their true colors during the confirmation hearings. Barbara Boxer showed she is basically a partisan hack, and is too stupid to be allowed to go out in public.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think we should declare war on the Democrats. They are a danger to individual liberty, our nation's security, and common sense. Now it seems they are wanting to backslide down 141 years of civil rights progress. Recognize them for what they are, and don't let them go unchallenged. Sure, I'm hacked at Republicans for not being conservative enough. But Jiminy Christmas, why can't people see the Democrats for what they are??? That part is a danger to the entire American way of life.
Heard any outrage over this in the mainstream media?? Thought not.
If the Democrats can embrace an ex-Klansman (one who doesn't really seem repentant, from these comments) and then have the audacity to call Republicans racist, that should be a pretty good indicator of what they are all about.
Condi for President 2008.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
The problem with Condi is not so much her color as it is her incompetence. Secretary of State is supposed to be America's Propagandist to the World, and for that purpose she is not qualified. She is not a good liar and is not 'calm under pressure'. Most who heard her 9/11 testimony would probably agree. Colin Powell could lie like nobody's business, and did a fine job propagandizing to the world. Condi is a poor choice.
Odd that you do not supply Byrd's statements so we can evaluate them ourselves. If you highlight the appropriate comments and right click you can select 'copy' and then 'paste' them for us to see, along with the link.
"WASHINGTON : Asia's tsunami disaster provided a "wonderful opportunity" for the United States to show compassion with relief efforts that reaped "great dividends" on the diplomatic front, Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice said."
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/128060/1/.html
America's Propagandist to the World cannot state the obvious, as Ms. Rice did here. Of course there is no genuine concern for the people of SE Asia and the tragedy was exploited by Washington to enhance America's image, BUT YOU DO NOT SAY IT--unless you're incompetent. She needs to study at the feet of Mr. Powell--or better yet Bill Clinton--to learn how to smooth-talk, to get one's point across without actually stating it. Condi is a poor choice for Bush's purposes--she's no smooth talker and she does not have the confidence required to project the Fuck You All unilateralism we shall see in the next 4years.
If we give her a letter grade it will probably be a D/D+.
I agree with the first poster. Having Dr. Rice is this position is just awful, she is hardly qualified and agrees with everything the President says and does.
No checks and balances is a problem and you are probably not seeing it because, well because like many other Conservatives, you all just cannot see the complete picture, because you are sitting in the frame.
Take a few steps back and analyze. The President has surrounded himself with people who do not disagree with him, at all or about anything.
It is a very unhealthy administration. I am almost positive the Conservative intention is to convert our Democracy into a Republic.
In response to the last poster:
"I agree with the first poster. Having Dr. Rice is this position is just awful, she is hardly qualified and agrees with everything the President says and does."
It's his cabinet. To implement his policies, he has the right to surround himself with those of like mind. He won.
How's she not qualified? What ARE the qualifications for Sec. Of State? Can you name one that isn't subjective? Powell was a solider. Usually not the best diplomats, in most folks' opinions.
If you don't like it, vote conservativsm out. Oops. You tried. Sorry. Deal with it. To the victor go the spoils.
"No checks and balances is a problem and you are probably not seeing it because, well because like many other Conservatives, you all just cannot see the complete picture, because you are sitting in the frame."
Checks and balances come from the other branches of government, the legislative and judicial branches. The checks and balances are working just fine, thank you. They don't come from the President's own cabinet. How can you get anything done if your own cabinet knifes you in the back every day?
In response to your assertion I don't see the big picture: not to tout my own credentials, but I'm trained in how the government works, the theories behind our government, and how the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I see the big picture, I've been studying it all my life. I have to deal with government on a daily basis. I've probably got a bigger picture on it than most people. My background is from a poor ranching and agricultural community, about as blue-collar as it gets. Trust me, farmers and ranchers don't like liberals, and working-class people are conservative because they know it's best for them, ultimately.
"Take a few steps back and analyze. The President has surrounded himself with people who do not disagree with him, at all or about anything."
There again, see above. Why should he do it when no other President ever has? Just because he's conservative??? That means he should kowtow to what the losing party wants? There again, vote. Get more people to agree with you. Until then, deal with losing. We had to put up with Clinton.
"It is a very unhealthy administration. I am almost positive the Conservative intention is to convert our Democracy into a Republic."
There again, you are misinformed. We ARE a republic. You do realize we elect senators and representatives to go to Washington and our state capitals, right? That's a republic, not a democracy. It has some democratic elements, mind you. But it's a republic. Calling us a democracy is a misnomer. The reason it's set up like that is to avoid mob rule, which is what a pure democracy would be. Those can't work, usually because of knee-jerk reactions of the public on things.
It works, too. We've been rocking along quite nicely for almost 230 years. Don't screw it up now.
Kyle
I for one rather enjoyed watching the committee meetings. I particularly liked when Condoleeza smacked down the "honorable" senator Boxer when she wanted just present only the portion of facts that supported her supposition. We need more people in politics that speak their mind, and less people in politics that need "is" defined for them. I think just by listening for the short time I had available each morning before I went to meetings, that I would very much like having "Condi" as Sec State.
oh and if it pisses off people like Kerry, Boxer, and Kennedy, I am all for it.
Besides America has long been giving out the carrot when it comes to international relations. Maybe when they have eaten our carrot up to the second knuckle it is far past time they get the stick.
Ever notice how your trolls don't bother to identify themselves???
Kirk
www.limpidity.org/blog
"America's Propagandist to the World cannot state the obvious, as Ms. Rice did here. Of course there is no genuine concern for the people of SE Asia and the tragedy was exploited by Washington to enhance America's image, BUT YOU DO NOT SAY IT--unless you're incompetent"
what you fail to realize is that you really do need to state the "obvious", fully 95% of the worlds population is too dumb to figure out the obvious, unless you are using the obvious to hit them in the head.
Why else would people put up with the crap MSM is pushing? Because on a whole people are dumber than a bag of hammers.
Kirk
www.limpidity.org/blog
Now that you mention it, they DON'T seem to be putting their names on these posts. They just throw bombs and run.
Kinda funny, especially when their arguments dissolve in the cold light of truth....:)
Yes, I'm all for saying what you believe in, and speaking your mind. That's not favored in the diplomatic world of doublespeak, which is probably why we have so many wars. Which is all the more reason to love Condi as SecState. No doublespeak.
Kyle
Well, the reason my posts were anonymous is that i don't have a blog, but i'll sign off as 'bryce', i guess (the first two posts were mine).
I was also the one who posted on the Jensen stuff.
The post you deleted was about the more than 1.000 military bases the US has in over 130 countries, with a link to some of them: http://www.globemaster.de/baselinks.html
...and also a little more about empire...
...So..A research project by the think tank the Project for the New American Century (whose signatories include Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen...Steve Forbes...Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney...Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle...Donald Rumsfeld...Paul Wolfowitz...the people now writing US policy) published in September 2000, titled "Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) spelled out "American grand strategy" for "as far into the future as possible". It is a "blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests."
It noted that:
"The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
The report says that "even should Saddam pass from the scene", bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would remain permanently as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has".
They forgot to mention the WMD and Saddam's crimes (which they and the President's father supported), surely. They did not forget to establish four permanent military bases in the heart of the world's largest energy producing region. They also did not forget to construct fourteen more (as they are doing currently--"a substantial American force presence in the Gulf")...
The point is that it's the neocons (as evidenced by the name of the think tank--Project for the New American Century [http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html]--which connotes that the US will own another century, ie, is an empire) and the Bush administration ("Today, the United States enjoys a position of unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence..." [NSSUSA '02] and many better quotes at http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nssall.html) who regard the US as an empire (but a force for good in the world).
It's also the entire world (the people of SAmerica Africa EurAsia Australia) who regard the US as an empire--"The latest poll found that more than two thirds of European and Canadian consumers have had a negative change in their view of the United States as a result of U.S. foreign policy over the last three years. Nearly half believe that the war in Iraq was motivated by a desire to control oil supplies, while only 15 percent believed it was related to terrorism...Nearly two thirds of European and Canadian consumers also said they believe U.S. foreign policy is guided primarily by self-interest and empire-building, while only 17 percent believe that the defense of freedom and democracy is its guiding principle."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GA06Ak02.html
Glad to provide you with more if you ask.
bryce
Those previous posts (to which no good points were raised in opposition):
_____________________
Umm.
The US invasion was illegal under international law, a violation of the UN Charter, and therefore, of the "supreme law of the land" and the US Constitution [under Article VI the Constitution makes clear that any international treaties and such signed by the US become the "supreme law of the land"].
Under the War Crimes Act passed by a Republican Congress in 1996, Bush deserves the death penalty for “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions.
The US has illegally rewritten Iraq's trade laws (surely you've heard of the 15% flat tax) and sold off 200 state owned enterprises.
etc.
Even the neocons regard the US as an empire (but as a force for good, what is good for US corporate interests is good for the world).
Thomas Donnelly (of the Project for the New American Century [whose members include Cheney Perle Wolfowitz JebBush ZalmayKhalilzad...]):
"The fact of American empire is hardly debated these days. Even those who fear and oppose it (in this country, the libertarian right and the remnants of the new left; abroad, a variety of voices from Paris to Baghdad to Beijing) define international politics almost entirely in relation to U.S. power -- and especially U.S. military power."
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20020701fareviewessay8529/thomas-donnelly/the-past-as-prologue-an-imperial-manual.html
___________________________
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
_________________________
Computers were designed using the US's reverse socialism. This is where American tax dollars are used to create technology, and what ever results is given away to the major corporations.
We socialize risk, and privatize profits.
Capitalists (the major ones) do not like risks, they want a sound investment. They need the govt to create for them, and they will gladly take it and make their money.
Try to name a technology created in the US but not created with your tax dollars.
(Hint: don't say computers, Internet, satellite, GPS, lasers, fiber optics, etc. If you read the Wall Street Journal you know not to mention anything, its all created by the govt, along with at least 80% of medicines.)
Well, the reason my posts were anonymous is that i don't have a blog, but i'll sign off as 'bryce', i guess (the first two posts were mine).
I was also the one who posted on the Jensen stuff.
The post you deleted was about the more than 1.000 military bases the US has in over 130 countries, with a link to some of them: http://www.globemaster.de/baselinks.html
...and also a little more about empire...
...So..A research project by the think tank the Project for the New American Century (whose signatories include Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen...Steve Forbes...Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney...Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle...Donald Rumsfeld...Paul Wolfowitz...the people now writing US policy) published in September 2000, titled "Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) spelled out "American grand strategy" for "as far into the future as possible". It is a "blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests."
It noted that:
"The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
The report says that "even should Saddam pass from the scene", bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would remain permanently as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has".
They forgot to mention the WMD and Saddam's crimes (which they and the President's father supported), surely. They did not forget to establish four permanent military bases in the heart of the world's largest energy producing region. They also did not forget to construct fourteen more (as they are doing currently--"a substantial American force presence in the Gulf")...
The point is that it's the neocons (as evidenced by the name of the think tank--Project for the New American Century [http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html]--which connotes that the US will own another century, ie, is an empire) and the Bush administration ("Today, the United States enjoys a position of unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence..." [NSSUSA '02] and many better quotes at http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nssall.html) who regard the US as an empire (but a force for good in the world).
It's also the entire world (the people of SAmerica Africa EurAsia Australia) who regard the US as an empire--"The latest poll found that more than two thirds of European and Canadian consumers have had a negative change in their view of the United States as a result of U.S. foreign policy over the last three years. Nearly half believe that the war in Iraq was motivated by a desire to control oil supplies, while only 15 percent believed it was related to terrorism...Nearly two thirds of European and Canadian consumers also said they believe U.S. foreign policy is guided primarily by self-interest and empire-building, while only 17 percent believe that the defense of freedom and democracy is its guiding principle."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GA06Ak02.html
Glad to provide you with more if you ask.
bryce
Those previous posts (to which no good points were raised in opposition):
_____________________
Umm.
The US invasion was illegal under international law, a violation of the UN Charter, and therefore, of the "supreme law of the land" and the US Constitution [under Article VI the Constitution makes clear that any international treaties and such signed by the US become the "supreme law of the land"].
Under the War Crimes Act passed by a Republican Congress in 1996, Bush deserves the death penalty for “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions.
The US has illegally rewritten Iraq's trade laws (surely you've heard of the 15% flat tax) and sold off 200 state owned enterprises.
etc.
Even the neocons regard the US as an empire (but as a force for good, what is good for US corporate interests is good for the world).
Thomas Donnelly (of the Project for the New American Century [whose members include Cheney Perle Wolfowitz JebBush ZalmayKhalilzad...]):
"The fact of American empire is hardly debated these days. Even those who fear and oppose it (in this country, the libertarian right and the remnants of the new left; abroad, a variety of voices from Paris to Baghdad to Beijing) define international politics almost entirely in relation to U.S. power -- and especially U.S. military power."
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20020701fareviewessay8529/thomas-donnelly/the-past-as-prologue-an-imperial-manual.html
___________________________
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
_________________________
Computers were designed using the US's reverse socialism. This is where American tax dollars are used to create technology, and what ever results is given away to the major corporations.
We socialize risk, and privatize profits.
Capitalists (the major ones) do not like risks, they want a sound investment. They need the govt to create for them, and they will gladly take it and make their money.
Try to name a technology created in the US but not created with your tax dollars.
(Hint: don't say computers, Internet, satellite, GPS, lasers, fiber optics, etc. If you read the Wall Street Journal you know not to mention anything, its all created by the govt, along with at least 80% of medicines.)
Could you delete this second post, it doesn't need to be on there twice (sorry).
Anyway, before we hear so much Iran (and about not wanting Iran to have nuclear weapons = we care about repression and democracy), this is an example of what US policy analysts/advisers/decision-makers say when they're talking to each other:
"Not only does America benefit economically from the relatively low costs of Middle Eastern oil, but America's security role in the region gives it indirect but politically critical leverage on the European and Asian economies that are also dependent on energy exports from the region. Hence good relations with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates--and their continued security reliance on America--is in the U.S. national interest."
and
"Since reliable access to reasonably priced energy is vitally important to the world's three economically most dynamic regions--North America, Europe and East Asia--strategic domination over the area, even if cloaked by cooperative arrangements, would be a globally decisive hegemonic asset."
That's Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski in the National Interest (winter '03/'04).
US control of SArabian and Iraqi (and maybe Iranian!) oil provides the people who run this country with a "globally decisive hegemonic asset" that will help control potential competitors (WestEurope, Russia, China & SE Asia [incl. Japan], and even India).
The people who run the world do not care about 'democracy' or 'human rights'--they care about maintaining their power and acquiring more.
bryce
Bryce,
all that information is good and well. Personally I despise what our government has become. It is time to collapse a lot of those foreign bases, let the EU police its own. Lets also let the U.N. police the rest of the world. (whats that? they can't? Tough titty said the kitty the milk is all gone) We have our own borders with which we need to be concerned.
It is also time to stop talking about making ourselves independent of foreign sources of energy and start doing it, and that means exploiting our own energy resources while we do so. Yep lets drill for oil while we spend government money on developing different energy sources. Lets also spin up the nuclear power sources because burning coal is just not the answer. Whats that? We will displace caribou? Tough, I have always wanted to hunt caribou.
We send an awful lot of our tax dollars abroad with what appears to be a zero % return on investment. We should be reinvesting it into research and development, and paying down the debt. If we make the rest of the world pay for its own security that debt would be far less.
But all that is not going to happen as both political parties just want to spend spend spend.
Now back to the subject at hand. Condoleeza Rice.
Bryce has just thrown the redirection grenade....
As well as a nicely placed information overload claymore....
Nice redirection by the way...
I have a nice liberal at my blog that does the same thing, not saying you are liberal, but is sure sounds like it...
Nothing personal Bryce, If you want to wonder off the subject you can certainly start your own blog.
Sorry for jumping the gun Kyle. If my post was out of line feel free to delete it.
Kirk
www.limpidity.org/blog
Perfectly ok Kirk, that's cool.
I appreciate Bryce leaving a name. Just so we can recognize you in future discussions and whatnot.
All civilized discussion is cool. That's what the comments are for, after all. We've all stayed civil, and I'm happy about that.
I tend to agree with Kirk. The world isn't helping us much, despite all we've done for it. I don't think its debatable that the US has been the single greatest helping hand on this Earth.
I also don't think it's debatable that the US should have plans for dealing with potential enemies. That's what we pay those guys the big bucks for. Iran has been a problem since Carter hung the Shah out to dry over there. So I don't have a problem with plans calling for the establishment of bases over there. The US must look after our own needs first, foremost, and always. The quotes you have supplied only serve to strengthen the notion that this is exactly what was going on.
Why SHOULDN'T we be the world's superpower? We have the greatest economy, because we are the most free nation on earth. The rest of the world wants what we have. They can't have it unless they are free as we are. We're willing to help with that.
As for what the rest of the world thinks, why should we care? What possible relevance is their opinion to the security of this country, or our economy? My message to them is to quit buying things from us, if you hate us so bad. Quit asking us for economic aid.
I noted in the commments section of these posts originally that the invasion of Iraq was only after 19 resolutions in the UN, most of which authorized the use of force if Saddam didn't come clean about his weapons program. If he didn't have anything to hide, why throw out the inspectors, and generally act guilty? Sorry, but after 9/11, we can't afford not to act preemptively. Thus sayeth the Bush Doctrine.
Bush deserves the death penalty? For acting in what he thought was the nation's best interest? No offense, but I bet that's the first time you've advocated the death penalty. I would bet you aren't in favor of it for the average murderer.
I also agree with Kirk that I'm all for stopping our dependence on foregin oil, as quickly as we can. Alaska seems to be full of the stuff. Let's go get it, motivate our scientists to find alternative sources of energy that will work better, and pull out.
Unfortunately, if we reduce dependence on foregin oil, the countries that are depending on us to buy it will be shafted. That's what the 9/11 commission seems to be saying happened in Saudi Arabia when we did that in the 1980's. It caused a lot of poverty, because a welfare state had suddenly sprung up, then their government couldn't afford it any more. It seems to be a vicious circle. Everyone wants what we have, but they don't want the freedom for their people that we have. I don't think they can have one without the other. We're a unique country, freedom and prosperity go hand in hand.
I'm going to take a couple of your statements and reply. The most pretentious method i know of.
>I tend to agree with Kirk. The world isn't helping us much, despite all we've done for it. I don't think its debatable that the US has been the single greatest helping hand on this Earth.
I think the people of Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Haiti, Cuba, Columbia, Venezuela, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Former Republic of Yugoslavia, Greece, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, East Timor, the Philipines, Grenada, etc etc would all disagree very sharply.
Remember that this is a nation founded on genocide and slavery, and then we went from there..
>I also don't think it's debatable that the US should have plans for dealing with potential enemies. That's what we pay those guys the big bucks for. Iran has been a problem since Carter hung the Shah out to dry over there. So I don't have a problem with plans calling for the establishment of bases over there. The US must look after our own needs first, foremost, and always. The quotes you have supplied only serve to strengthen the notion that this is exactly what was going on.
What is the threat from Iran, exactly? That they'll develop nuclear weapons and attack the US? or Israel?
The notion is absurd. If Iran attacked either it would be wiped off the earth, literally, immediately. Iran's weapons program is defensive, a deterrent. The problem would be that the US/Israel could no longer do whatever it wants in the region.
Just about every intelligence agency in the world, including our own, predicted that the Iraq war would lead to a chain reaction of nuclear proliferation, specifically in China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran. And it did.
The lesson to the world was You Better Have a Nuclear Deterrent or there's no Guarantee We Won't Attack You.
>Why SHOULDN'T we be the world's superpower? We have the greatest economy, because we are the most free nation on earth. The rest of the world wants what we have. They can't have it unless they are free as we are. We're willing to help with that.
The rest of the world does want freedom, and we have done our best to deny it to them, consistently, with all our efforts, particularly since WWII (see list of nations above).
Freedom doesn't necessarily have anything to do with economic growth. Economies can thrive in authoritarian states. China lacks freedom and is becoming, very quickly, one of the dominant economies on earth.
You seem to take the standard view that "the economy" and the major US Capitalists' interests are identical. However, if we take a look at "the economy"'s effects on the human beings who make up America, it might not look so marvellous. For instance, the 40 million people w/o health care, the approximately 100.000 who die every year b/c of it, the "flexible labor markets" that ensure there are always many millions of Americans w/o work to ensure that wages are as low as possible, etc.
>As for what the rest of the world thinks, why should we care? What possible relevance is their opinion to the security of this country, or our economy? My message to them is to quit buying things from us, if you hate us so bad. Quit asking us for economic aid.
Well, who cares what you think?
You're a human being and should be treated as such. Your opinion matters, you should be treated with respect, not ignored.
That is the basis and essence of democracy.
The rest of the world is made of human beings as well, and they should be treated as such.
The US is the most powerful nation in history. US actions effect the entire planet. When our actions effect Europe, Europeans should have some say in the decisions. Same for the rest of the world.
>I noted in the commments section of these posts originally that the invasion of Iraq was only after 19 resolutions in the UN, most of which authorized the use of force if Saddam didn't come clean about his weapons program. If he didn't have anything to hide, why throw out the inspectors, and generally act guilty? Sorry, but after 9/11, we can't afford not to act preemptively. Thus sayeth the Bush Doctrine.
US officials made it clear that the sanctions would not be lifted until Saddam was gone. The sanctions were not supposed to be used for that purpose, they were to ensure that he was WMD-free. Clinton was using inspections to gather intelligence to assassinate Hussein. There was nothing Saddam could do have sanctions lifted, because the US would not allow that until he was gone. Not many rational creatures would have acted much differently than he did.
Not one of the 19 UN resolutions authorized the US to wage unilateral war. That is why no one quotes the 19 UN resolutions.
The war was not "preemptive", but "preventive". Preemptive would mean Saddam's forces are literally armed and marching to the US and we meet them before they arrive--off the coast of New York in the Atlantic, say.
"Preventive" gives us the right to wage war on any country at any time for our belief that they might someday, maybe become a threat and attack us. It means we have the right to attack China right now, because in 20 years it may very well be a legitimate rival.
The former is legitimate, the latter is not.
>Bush deserves the death penalty? For acting in what he thought was the nation's best interest? No offense, but I bet that's the first time you've advocated the death penalty. I would bet you aren't in favor of it for the average murderer.
Under US law written by Republicans he deserves the death penalty. That is fact, not opinion. I'm not saying i want him executed, i'm saying if we followed are own laws he would be.
Bush was not "acting in what he thought was the nation's best interest", if by that you mean the American people's best interest. He fabricated intelligence (WMD) to justify an illegal war to establish the first permanent, dependable US military bases in the MidEast to take control of Iraqi oil and project American influence in the region.
The operative meaning of "the nation's best interest" is, of course, what is best for the major US Capitalists. If that is what you mean, then yes, he was "acting in what he thought was the nation's best interest".
bryce.
America is not always right, no nation ever is.
Yes we may have done our best to wipe out the American Indians, which was a mistake and has been fairly well addressed. But as far as slavery is concerned, yes it is reprehensible, and yes that wrong, it was long ago addressed, but just where did the slaves come from? Oh yea the dirty little secret is, that their fellow tribesmen sold them into slavery as was the custom of the victors during that day and age. Seems everyone wants to forget that tidbit when they hang the yoke of slavery on our necks. Can you say Serfs?
“What is the threat from Iran, exactly? That they'll develop nuclear weapons and attack the US? or Israel?
The notion is absurd. If Iran attacked either it would be wiped off the earth, literally, immediately. Iran's weapons program is defensive, a deterrent. The problem would be that the US/Israel could no longer do whatever it wants in the region.
Just about every intelligence agency in the world, including our own, predicted that the Iraq war would lead to a chain reaction of nuclear proliferation, specifically in China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran. And it did.”First of do you really think sane people run Iran? This fine model country where they hang 16 year old girls because they try to stand up for their rights?
Second, we are the only thing keeping the Israelis from wiping half of the Middle east out. They are a bit more pragmatic when it comes to their security.
Gee the only people that did not have nuclear weapons in your little statement before the Iraq war, was Iran. You can hang the nuclear proliferation yoke around Chinas neck not ours.
The rest of the world does want freedom, and we have done our best to deny it to them, consistently, with all our efforts, particularly since WWII (see list of nations above).And on your list of countries, which of those are we currently active in since the fall of communism (besides the countries flooding the US with drugs)? Suadi Arabia, and Cuba.
” Freedom doesn't necessarily have anything to do with economic growth. Economies can thrive in authoritarian states. China lacks freedom and is becoming, very quickly, one of the dominant economies on earth.
You seem to take the standard view that "the economy" and the major US Capitalists' interests are identical. However, if we take a look at "the economy"'s effects on the human beings who make up America, it might not look so marvellous. For instance, the 40 million people w/o health care, the approximately 100.000 who die every year b/c of it, the "flexible labor markets" that ensure there are always many millions of Americans w/o work to ensure that wages are as low as possible, etc.You speak of China’s economic dominance and lack of freedom but then you want to talk about low wages in America. You need to take a look at the correlation there for just a second. When you allow free trade (relativly) to occur with a country that uses slave labor you will find that it is a wee bit difficult to compete on an even playing field.
The reason that China is becoming an economic powerhouse it that they pay there people pennies a day and have “most favored nations status" (renamed NTR), show me another country that does not uses slave labor and can compete. Not to mention that China just reverse engineers anything they get their hands on (Microsloth, Cisco, GM, if you really need links I can provide them) , outright theft. If you want to rail against capitalism you should first know what capitalism really means.
China is always a poor example. Maybe you should try France or Germany next time. I hear their economies are doing quite well without arms to sell to Iraq, and US troops contributing 6 billion dollars to the local economy.
You may find that your Ideas are a bit more well received on KOS or DU.
And just what did all this have to do with Condoleeza again?
You can start your own blog through blogger quite easily. We would be happy to read your thoughts and comment on them. I read a few liberal blogs, as long as they don't resort to name calling and link their sources. It is nice to hear from people from both sides of the fence. The key is, neither side is 100% correct and never will be. Just because a document comes from some think tank does not automatically mean its conclusions are wrong. That means think tanks on either side.
Crap. Now I forgot to add a tag.
the last post was mine. Kyle can you put my tag in???
Kirk
www.limpidity.org/blog
You got it covered there, Kirk.
Kyle
You got it covered there, Kirk.
Kyle
1) The mullahs are quite rational. They want to maintain their power. That is why they hang "16 year old girls" for protesting. That is why they would not attack unprovoked. They do not want to be wiped off the planet.
2) My point was that it depends on what you mean when you say "the economy". If it means power is doing nicely, and that's all we care about, then China is a fine example b/c of its lack of freedom and paying people 3 cents a day.
Maybe i was unclear, but you proved my point very well.
I was not comparing the US to China, i was saying that the way we measure "the economy" ignores its effects on human beings. Using our measures China is doing wonderfully well.
3) The slavery and genocide were not mistakes at all. Finding a continent, wiping out its inhabitants and taking its wealth worked. That turned the US into the wealthiest nation in world history.
4) I was going to start my own blog, just need to think of a title.
5) Yeah, this isn't about Condi, its about a previous post. I will try harder next time.
bryce.
Post a Comment