Condoleezza Rice Says She's `Proud' Of Decision To Invade Iraq
D. Spencer Hines
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
> -----------------------------------------
>
> 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.
>
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
"Singanas@Texasgulfcoast" <davidh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:389f3d3e-5ae0-4edf...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 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)
BL5511
is a war criminal like Hitler and Polpot.
American public should create a people war crime court and put her on
trial.
John Briggs
>
> 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...
--
John Briggs
James Hogg
<john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Singanas@Texasgulfcoast wrote:
>>
>> 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.
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.
>
>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...
But Adolph is not unusual.
James
John Briggs
It is extremely unusual - it is probably only found in America.
--
John Briggs
meport2
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.
--
meport
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:rJAbk.34$AB3...@eagle.america.net...
torresD
place in the South.
Billzz
news:CxLbk.2260$7%6.2198@edtnps82...
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."
Tiglath
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.
torresD
"Billzz" <billzz...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:53df9$4870165d$9440b19b$19...@STARBAND.NET...
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
torresD
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:59a18ef9-f402-4100...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> 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/
torresD
Tiglath
>
> 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.
Raymond O'Hara
"torresD" <torr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5_2dndGzR6nAvO3V...@earthlink.com...
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
Les Cargill
> On Jul 5, 4:53 pm, James Hogg <Jas.Hogg...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
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
BL5511
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.
On Jul 4, 9:08 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
J A
"Les Cargill" <lcar...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:487091b2$0$7814$2318...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> 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."
Chas Hurst
> "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 "
Tiglath
> Tiglath wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 4:53 pm, James Hogg <Jas.Hogg...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> 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.
>
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 shit 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."
>
> 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.
>
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.
James Hogg
<john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
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
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 22:22:30 +0100, "John Briggs"
>
> >James Hogg wrote:
> >> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 20:42:13 +0100, "John Briggs"
> >> <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>> "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
Adolphe Menjou, Adolph Coors, Adolph Sax (Saxophone), Adolph Sutro
(Mining)
La N
"James Hogg" <Jas.H...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:r14274peudgq5haql...@4ax.com...
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
wrote:
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
torresD
And George Bush, said so himself.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Singanas@Texasgulfcoast
>
> - Show quoted text -
~~~~~
Could these not be the anglocised spellings of their first names by
British
and American publishing industries ?
David H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeffrey Hamilton
You mean Rick Astley is a fascist ?
Figures, I never liked his_musac_anyway.
cheers....Jeff
Andrew Chaplin
I think they are Latinate borrowings from the rendering of Adolf as "Adolphus"
in mediaeval Latin.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Raymond O'Hara
"Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:BZock.14676$Mc....@read1.cgocable.net...
the films are of the anschluss, notice none of the marching soldiers are
armed.
Tiglath
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
good post tiglet.
Billzz
news:f94e42dc-3cef-4b3a...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
You have convinced me. I will vote for Kennedy.
Jeffrey Hamilton
"Raymond O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:T8-dncSJNf-a0-_V...@rcn.net...
Was that to appear *non-threatening*, to the Austrians ?
cheers....Jeff
Mark Test
> On Jul 4, 9:46 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> > > -----------------------------------------
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > 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 **
Mark Test
>
> "Singanas@Texasgulfcoast" <davidh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:389f3d3e-5ae0-4edf...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > 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.
> >
>
> to do with 9/11???
>
Jack Linthicum
> "Singanas@Texasgulfcoast" <davidholi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Afghanistan seemed to serve for a while.