Iraq a disaster: Albright

[cal04]

INVADING Iraq is likely to go down as one of the worst US foreign policy blunders ever, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said. The former top US diplomat told the New York Times that Iraq's deposed leader Saddam Hussein "was horrible. But I did not think he was an imminent threat to the United States.

"You can't go to war with everybody you dislike," Ms Albright said. "I think Iraq may end up being one of the worst disasters in American foreign policy." Ms Albright, who served under President Bill Clinton, said US foreign policy mistakes under President George W. Bush have left her feeling "sick" about America's current status in global affairs.

"A lot of the things that we worked on for eight years have unravelled. It is very hard," she told the Times.
"What really troubles me is that democracy is getting a bad name because it is identified with imposition and occupation," she said. "I'm for democracy, but imposing democracy is an oxymoron. People have to choose democracy, and it has to come up from below."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18909579-1702,00.html

Questions for Madeleine Albright, State of the Secretary
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/magazine/23wwln_q4.html

[C_U_L8R]

1. Has this country ever made

a worse policy blunder ??

I cannot think of any.
History buffs?

[tridim]

3. Besides the allowing the sElection in 2000 and the stolen election in 2004

No.

[Oversea Visitor]

8. What sElection means?

All I know was 2000 was robbery conducted in broad daylight in court.

[Up2Late]

32. sElection 2000 is what happened to the 2000 Election when it was

...voided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The SCOTUS Selected George W. Bush by stopping the recounting of the Florida ballots. If they had deferred to the Florida State Supreme Court, as they Constitutionally should have, the recount would have (and actually did eventually) shown that Al Gore DID win.

<http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181>

[Oversea Visitor]

33. Oh l see

to me it was daylight robbery

[0007]

43. With an asshole like James A. Baker III how could we win?

[kstewart33]

4. World War I by far was the worst blunder.

But there are so many nations responsible for that one.

[wtmusic]

9. Worst blunder on whose part? nt

[Che_Nuevara]

11. You mean going to war with the Germans in WWI?

Actually, no, that was the right move, given the circumstances. The Germans were torpedoing ships filled with American civilians. The war was a terrible disaster from the start, but any time a foreign power starts blowing your civilians out of the water, some response is necessary.

[joeybee12]

14. I think he/she means the start of the war by Austro-Hungary...

...could have been avoided by diplomacy, but once it began, all the other nations in Europe had to join in because of mutual-agression pacts. All WWI accomplished was sow the seeds for WWII.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. Uh that is a bit of a distortion

"The RMS Lusitania was an ocean liner of the British Cunard Steamship Lines. Built by John Brown and Company of Clydebank, Scotland, and launched in 1906, the ship and its sister, Mauretania, were built to compete with the fast German liners of the time. As such, Lusitania held the Blue Riband a number of times, notably in 1907.

The ship was torpedoed and sunk by a German U-Boat on May 7, 1915, on her 202nd crossing of the Atlantic Ocean. The incident played a role in the United States' entry into World War I on April 17, 1917. President of the United States Woodrow Wilson officially promised to keep the US out of the war, but the sinking of the ship provided some justification for the escalation of U.S. involvement. If the ship had been carrying munitions, as the Germans claimed, his claim that the Lusitania was a wrongful victim in the attack would have been false.


Part of the cargo was in fact military in nature: 4,200,000 rounds of Remington .303 rifle cartridges, 1250 cases of shrapnel shells and eighteen cases of fuses. Nevertheless, the physical size of the cargo would have been quite small. By international law, the presence of military cargo made the Lusitania a legitimate target."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania

This was a British vessel, travelling through a war zone, carrying munitions, and the passengers were clearly warned by the German embassy at pier side in NY that the ship could be a target. Wilson wanted in on the war, which we had no real business being in, and the Lusitania provided a rally point for building anti-german sentiment. Americans were led like sheep to the slaughter in a european war that was none of our business.

[saigon68]

35. Americans were led like sheep to the slaughter

JUST LIKE THEY ARE NOW

Rustics enlisting to kill brown islamics

[Up2Late]

37. Talk about "...a bit of a distortion?" At least it's not nearly all wrong

Where did you get "...the United States' entry into World War I on April 17, 1917!?!?"

The U.S. entered the War with Germany on April 6th, 1917! And what you are quoting is revisionist, BS history. I can't really blame you though, it looks like most of the true history of why the U.S. entered the war with Germany has been almost completely scrubbed from the internet.

I had a hell of a time finding anything written about what happened in February and March of 1917 at a single web site. Thankfully, I have one of those big books that is a month by month compilation of the most important News stories from 1900 to December 1987 titled "Chronicle of the 20th Century" Distributed by Prentice Hall Trade (Simon and Schuster).

Here's a link to one of the "last straws" that most of the history sights have decided not to include, though even this author seems to be down playing the shocking loss of 3 American ships in one day on March 18, 1917 (the City of Memphis, Vigilante and Illinois) which I think was "the final straw."

Another thing that seems to have been forgotten by the "history" sites too is that, up until a few days before the U.S. entered the war against Germany, we had been been heavily involved in the failed attempt to catch the Mexican desperado Pancho Villa in Northern Mexico who, for months, had been raiding and killing scores of American in U.S.-Mexican Border towns:

<http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/id1714.html>

Algonquin Among First American Ships Lost In World War I

...Once the Germans declared war against all vessels, President Wilson broke diplomatic relations with Berlin but did not ask Congress for a declaration of war. Even though there had by then been at least 10 U.S. merchant vessels attacked, he reasoned that these were not overt acts committed against American ships. He asked instead to arm American merchant ships in the hope of holding back further attacks.

On Feb. 24, British intelligence intercepted a telegram from German foreign minister Arthur Zimmermann to Mexican authorities proposing a German-Mexican alliance in a war against the United States. Zimmermann proposed that the war might help Mexico recover territories of Texas, New Mexico and Arizona lost in the Spanish-American War.

Thus tensions were mounting and America was being drawn into the great war raging in Europe, in spite of our government’s efforts to stay neutral.

The Algonquin became the first of five American ships lost to the Germans after that declaration. It was sunk by U-62, 65 miles west of Bishops, off the Scilly Islands, on March 12. It was followed by the sinkings of the City of Memphis, Vigilante and Illinois on March 18, and the Healdon on March 21.

War was declared against Germany on April 6.

Here's what this author left out:

President wilson asks Congress for War declaration on April 2, 1917

The U.S. Senate Votes 90-6 to enter the war on April 4th

The House passes war declaration 373-50, President Wilson signs war declarations April 6, 1917.

Other noted stinkings form February 1917:

February 3, 1917 German Sub sinks U.S. liner Housatonic off the coast of Sicily

British steamer California is sunk off the coast od Ireland by a German U-boat on February 7, 1917

Austria sinks American schooner Lyman M. Law on February 14, 1917

AND

Germany announces it holding all American Residents Hostage on February 7, 1917.

I'm just stunned how little info on our entry into WWI their is on the internet, and how difficult it was to find the little I did find. The April 6 article in the "Chronicle of the 20th Century" is fascinating in it's details, it should be on the net. I might scan it and post the text if I can't find it anywhere soon.

[blackhorse]

40. Some comments

"I'm just stunned how little info on our entry into WWI their is on the internet, and how difficult it was to find the little I did find. The April 6 article in the "Chronicle of the 20th Century" is fascinating in it's details, it should be on the net. I might scan it and post the text if I can't find it anywhere soon."

- the 'net is very peculiar about the kinds of content that it holds. In the popular view, WWI has long been seen only as an essential precursor to WWII, and is often ignored. The article you mentioned sounds like an interesting read.

A good recent read on WWI is Joseph Persico's "Eleventh Month, Eleventh Day, Eleventh Hour". What is mind-boggling is how the allied commanders continued attacks right up to 11:00 AM on the last day of the war even though they knew the armistice would take effect. Plenty of men fell on 11/11/1918 because of this murderous idiocy.

Over the years I've seen a lot of revisionist history on the 'net, particularly where German-American conflicts are concerned. The wilder views I saw being pushed were those of German and Austrian nationalists. They were very careful not to push a revisionist view of the Holocaust; their big theme was that WWII was basically an allied conspiracy to break German power in Europe forever. What is troubling about these outlooks is that they ignore modern Germany's very considerable influence in Europe -- but I suppose for the people pushing these views, anything less than absolute supremacy isn't good enough. Interestingly, one very rarely sees revisionist views about the War in the Pacific; I guess the Japanese have fewer "fans" in that sense.

BH

[Up2Late]

41. Well, I couldn't find the artical on the net, so I scannned it into text..

...and here it is:

From "Chronicle of the 20th Century" pg. 217
ISBN 0-13-133703-3

April 6, 1917

U.S. Congress votes to enter the war

April 6. America is at war. The word was flashed around the world just minutes after President Woodrow Wilson signed into law the declaration of war approved this week by Congress. The United States' entry in the war against Germany came precisely at 1:18 this afternoon, the moment when the president, sitting in a tiny room just off the White House entrance lobby, signed the war document.

President Wilson, in an eloquent speech to a joint session of Congress on April 2, had called for America's entry into the war in Europe, proclaiming: "The world must be made safe for democracy."

In his speech, Wilson also said: "It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war, the most terrible of all wars. But the right is more precious than the peace, and we shall fight for the things that we have always carried nearest our hearts, —for democracy, ... for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth... God helping her, she can do no other."

It is said that upon his return to the White House, the president was heard to say, "My message was one of death for young men. How odd it seems to applaud that." And he put his head in his hands and wept. The war resolution passed in the Senate, 90 to six, two days ago, after 13 hours of debate. House approval, by a vote of 373 to 50, came in the wee hours of this morning, climaxing an emotional 17-hour debate. In both houses, those crowding the galleries cheered lustily as the vote was announced.

Among those voting against entering the war was Jeannette Rankin, a Montana Republican, and the only woman ever elected to Congress. With tears streaming down her face, she rose slowly and said: "I want to stand by my country, but I cannot vote for war. I vote no."

The United States' move toward war had begun some weeks ago when the president had notified Congress that "the imperial German government" had announced it would sink every vessel that approached Great Britain, Ireland or various Mediterranean ports. This stand, the president said, was a reversal of an earlier promise made by Germany that passenger boats would not be sunk and that warning would be given to other vessels before any submarine warfare. The new policy, said the president, represented a "reckless lack of compassion" and constituted "a war against all nations."

In its first move of the war, the U.S. government seized 91 German owned vessels, 27 of them in New York harbor. The government may use some of the vessels later as troop transports. Meeting this afternoon with his Cabinet, the president was told that about 65 persons suspected of being German spies had been ordered arrested and that the Navy would take over all radio stations.

America's entry into the war has been praised in London by Prime Minister David Lloyd George at a press conference. He said that "America has at one bound become a world power in a sense she never was before."

(I also found an e-book called "Why We are at War," that was published in 1917, which contains the full text of President Wilson's speeches from January thru April 1917, at these links: <http://historicaltextarchive.com/books.php?op=viewbook&bookid=66>

<http://historicaltextarchive.com/books.php?op=viewbook&bookid=66&cid=4>

[blackhorse]

52. Thanks for posting the article.

Boy, the presidents don't weep over decisions of war and peace anymore, do they?

[teknomanzer]

50. In hindsight...

While Germany did indeed sink ships with American civilians on board, evidence shows that those vessels were indeed secretly carrying munitions to Germany's enemies, which was a violation of America's supposed nuetrality. If the shoe were on the other foot, no doubt the US would have no qualms about attacking any vessels conveying aid to its enemies.

And today the US would not hesitate to do so. Without so much as a blink.

[Up2Late]

54. You have a link to the so-called "evidence " you speak of?

I'd like to see this "evidence" if it exists.

BTW, I'm not anti-German, my Grand-father was from Danzig, Germany.

[teknomanzer]

55. The Lusitania...

The sinking of this ship caused a great deal of anti-German sentiment in the US which along with other incidents garnered public support for American to join the allies in WWI.

The Lusitania, however, was carrying small arms ammunition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania

[Up2Late]

58. The Lusitania was sunk May 12, 1915, nearly 2 years before we...

...entered the war. If anything the sinking of The Lusitania kept us OUT of the war for almost 2 years. It was the one of the reason that President Wilson was able to get the Germans to agree NOT to target most American passenger and Merchant ships for about 20 months.

It was the January 31-February 1, 1917 change in policy to unrestricted targeting of ALL Allied ships, regardless of what or who they were carrying in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, and the ships that they then sunk, in February and March of 1917, that was the last straw.

It's this period of February 1st to April 2, 1917 that is almost completely missing from the info on the internet (and in at least a few American History Text books, like the one I have from 1983), which is why I smell the distinct scent of history revisionism and an attempt to sully the reputation of Woodrow Wilson. You can see what I'm talking about if you search for the sinkings of the ships I mentioned in my posts above, at the bigger "history" websites (History Channel, etc.) or search Amazon for books on Woodrow Wilson.

Most of the books at Amazon do speak of all the Good things he did, but then their are some more recent revisionist history books, especially one written by an author who is very much connected to the CATO Institute, a RW/Libertarian "think tank," that appears to blame just about everything that is wrong with the world today, on Woodrow Wilson and FDR.

I'm still researching this re-writing of Wilson's legacy, but blaming our entry into WWI on the sinking of the Lusitania, makes about as much sense as blaming our invasion of Iraq on 9/11.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. For us it was a relatively minor blunder.

And we were just tagging along. Kind of a role reversal of the Bush/Blair thing.

Certainly vietnam ranks up there, but vietnam was the inevitable consequence of the misapplication of long standing cold war containment policy, which is different from the Iraqi blunder.

The uniqueness of the Iraqi blunder is perhaps its isolation from other foreign policy initiatives. Unlike WWI or Vietnam, where our actions were part of larger and long standing alliances and global strategies, Iraq is the first move in the colossally stupid and misguided PNAC quest for overt global domination. In this respect it is a uniquely awful blunder and Albright has a point.

However, PNAC inspired american exceptionalism actually had its roots in some of the policy initiatives of the Clinton administration, and with Albright herself. She really cannot totally distance herself from the realpolitiks underlying our Kosovo intervention, and the application of these same objectives (unquestioned global military domination) expressed in our Iraqi adventure. The difference between Kosovo and Iraq is that in Kosovo global hegemony was a subtheme and a byproduct of what was arguably a justified humanitarian intervention to end a manifest act of genocide, while Iraq was primarily motivated by PNAC world domination objectives and simply used a rational of humanitarian intervention as one of its many dubious assertions of justification.

[ShortnFiery]

21. I wept openly when I heard about the extent of death and destruction

WE (USA and coalition forces) did in Fallujah. :cry: :grr: :(

Dear Lord, we are going to have Karma revisited on us in horrid ways - albeit many of us tried to stop the invasion before it began ---> UNLESS we stop these Neo-Conservative rulers.

I'm going to sound like a right winger here - but it's a no brainier: Losing the upcoming elections is NOT an option for Democrats. NOT an OPTION! Otherwise it's tactical nukes away to Iran. And that, no doubt with swing open the Gates of Hell for the entire World Community.

[fedsron2us]

25. Manifest act of genocide in Kosovo ?

I am not sure that the evidence ever really backed the claims made at the time

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1530781.stm

[Warren Stupidity]

28. Which is why I said arguably.

"arguably a justified humanitarian intervention to end a manifest act of genocide"

I really don't want to get into that debate.

[fedsron2us]

31. I have no real axe to grinds on that topic

except that I suspect the arguments deployed to justify intervention there made persuading people to support the invasion of Iraq just that much easier.

[shance]

2. How enlightening Madeline. Tell that to the murdered and the dead.

They'll be pleased to know that you've decided to acknowledge their situation.

[tabasco]

6. So you want her to keep her mouth shut?

WTF is your beef?

[Minstrel Boy]

12. Might have something to do with

this:

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

[tatertop]

17. I recall watching that when it was first broadcast

I almost fell out of my chair.
I wonder if she ever recanted that hideous statement.

[sandnsea]

42. Yes, almost immediately

Which I have posted repeatedly on DU for the last 3 years. Says it was the single worst thing she's ever said in her life and that the moment she said it she knew it was coming out all wrong.

But nobody ever cares about that, painting the entire US government as murdering marauders is lots more fun.

[Minstrel Boy]

47. "painting the entire US government as murdering marauders is more fun."

That paint? It's fucking blood.

A Brief History of U.S. Interventions:1945 to 1999

America didn't go wrong all of a sudden with George Bush's selection. George Bush happened, because America had lost its way long before.

[tatertop]

49. I recall Albright claiming she did not recall making the statement. More:

Albright NOW writes that her answer, given during Stahl's
interview from 1996, was “crazy” and that she regretted it “as soon
as she had spoken.” From what I can find,
she did not take back her words until AFTER Sept. 11, 2001. According to journalist Matt Welch: "After being plagued by student protesters she “quietly” expressed regret for her statement in a speech at the University of Southern California shortly after 9/11."
Albright NOW writes that her answer to Stahl was “crazy” and that she regretted it “as soon as she had spoken.”

If you have solid evidence to the contrary, kindly provide it.

[OKNancy]

20. Thanks for the link to FAIR. Those slamming Albright should read

the whole article.

[tatertop]

15. The death of a half million children was "worth it"

While she later stated not recalling having said that, she definitely said it:

In an interview with CBS Reporter Lesley Stahl (speaking of post-war sanctions against Iraq):
"We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And - and you know, is the price worth it?"

Madeleine Albright (at that time, US Ambassador to the UN):
"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."

(Within six months, Madeleine Albright was unanimously approved by the Senate as U.S. Secretary of State.)

Here's the thing, the morality of war concerns not just when to fight, but how. The protection of non-combatants during hostilities has been recognized since the Council of Le Puy in 975. It is the core of all 'convention and law' governing behavior during war.
You might disagree, but I would rather she be silent on matters of Iraq.
She has zero credibility.

[tabasco]

5. What a contrast between this brilliant lady ...

and the POS inhabiting the office now.

[mike_c]

7. "this brilliant lady" worked diligently to murder Iraqis in the 1990s....

She seems to prefer starving them to death or condemning them to die of disease instead of blowing them up outright, but Ms. Albright has zero credibility on this topic, IMO.

[wtmusic]

10. Exactly...and I'm sure she doesn't see an ounce of hypocrisy

in this announcement.:(

[tabasco]

13. Albright decided to put sanctions on Iraq?

Gee, I thought it was the UN. But it was probably Albright's fault, not Saddam Hussein's for invading Kuwait.

BTW - food and medicine were never sanctioned.

Albright worked to ease the effect of the sanctions and supported the food for oil program.

http://www.answers.com/topic/iraq-sanctions

http://www.answers.com/topic/iraq-sanctions

In hindsight, I agree the UN sanctions were harsh and ill-conceived. But I don't lay the sanctions at the feet of Albright.

[tatertop]

18. Food and medicine were sanctioned using 'back door' policy

Although food wasn’t formally embargoed when the sanctions began in 1990, Iraq was hampered in importing it because initially Iraqi oil couldn’t be exported: no exports, no imports. The UN’s “oil for food” program, started six years later, after Hussein dropped his opposition, was supposed to remedy that. But it didn’t entirely. Counterpunch.org reported in 1999, “Proceeds from such oil sales are banked in New York.... Thirty-four percent is skimmed off for disbursement to outside parties with claims on Iraq, such as the Kuwaitis, as well as to meet the costs of the UN effort in Iraq. A further thirteen percent goes to meet the needs of the Kurdish autonomous area in the north.” With the remaining limited amount of money, the Iraqi government could order “food, medicine, medical equipment, infrastructure equipment to repair water and sanitation” and other things. But — and here’s the rub — the U.S. government could veto or delay any items ordered. And it did.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

24. The sanctions against Iraq were initiated by the UN in 1990....

...On August 6, 1990 the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 661 which imposed stringent economic sanctions on Iraq, providing for a full trade embargo, excluding medical supplies, food and other items of humanitarian necessity, these to be determined by the Security Council sanctions committee. After the end of the 1991 Gulf War, Iraqi sanctions were linked to removal of Weapons of mass destruction by Resolution 687. The sanctions remained in place until just after the most recent invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Even though the UN intiated the sanctions against Iraq, they were under a great deal of pressure from the Bush I administration to make them happen.

Albright wasn't appointed Secretary of State until after Clinton's first inauguration in January 1993.

[mike_c]

29. and the Clinton administration worked to keep them in place...

...for nearly a decade after Iraq had disarmed, which is where Albright entered the picture.

[mike_c]

27. LOL-- grape flavor or cherry...?

[ShortnFiery]

23. Understood and partially agreed upon ... however,

When this cruel woman comes out of the crypt to make a statement, we KNOW that what we are contemplating MAY LEAD to nothing less than the COMPLETE destruction of the world. :(

[Captain Hilts]

39. Hussein made the choice to starve his people, not Albright.

He lost a war after invading a neighbor, would not agree to terms, was given scenarios to import food and rejected them.

[evermind]

44. But Albright was the one who said 500,000 children dead was "worth it"

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

So either her tongue slipped, she lied to defend her government's policy, or she's really that callous. Given what she said, it's understandable if people react negatively to other statements by her on Iraq.

[Captain Hilts]

45. Starved kids was Hussein's fault and decision.

Overall, if it kept him from igniting another war - a wider war - in the Middle East, yes, it might have been worth it to us. A tragedy, but I think most people in the Middle East would agree.

Too bad he didn't decide to starve his family or some army units instead. It was his choice.

[evermind]

46. Albright said it was "worth it". Her words.

It's hardly news that Saddam was an evil dictator. <yawn>

It's Albright's reaction that's at issue. When she made that remark the sanctions had already long had their effect, and the overwhelming progressive consensus was that they were no longer necessary, especially in the form which they were in, directly resulting in thousands of deaths (if not quite the half million that was put to Albright.)

[mike_c]

48. he complied with the UN disarmament mandate by the mid-1990s...

...and sanctions should have been lifted by by 1995, if not sooner. That was blocked by the Clinton administration for which Albright worked point in the U.N. Clinton, and later Bush, shamelessly exploited the politics of the situation while hundreds of thousands of innocents died needlessly.

Your assertion that "Saddam killed his people" is American propaganda and little more. There has been a lot of noise about this over the years, but very little substantive evidence. In fact, Saddam Hussein did a great deal more to rebuild Iraq after the first Gulf War than the Americans have yet done after the second, and he did it much more successfully. But remember that the U.S. pursued a deliberate policy of infrastructure destruction in Iraq at the beginning of the sanctions program, bombing water treatment plants, the food distributions network, the comm network, hospitals, etc in order to increase the suffering of Iraqi civilians. The sanctions program deliberately targeted the equipment and supplies necessary to rebuild that infrastructure. Three American administrations publicly stated that their goal was to make Iraqi people so miserable that they would overthrow Hussein. In fact, they murdered the Iraqis. Saddam was not responsible for the approximately one million Iraqis who died under the sanctions-- America was responsible.

You can bury your head in the sand and say "The U.N. did it" or "Saddam did it" all you want, but the truth is that the U.S. was always the driving force behind the sanctions and especially the crass political manipulations of the embargo.

[Terran1212]

19. It was "worth the cost," you war criminal

[VegasWolf]

22. and Bush says that he would do it all over again! Now that is monkey

level thinking.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

34. other than the blatant intent to nuke Iran...

:shrug:

[fshrink]

36. US a disaster as well.

I can't think of a single area which is not a disaster. Perhaps was that historically necessary...

[Hissyspit]

38. kick

[stellanoir]

51. gotta love this line

". . .imposing democracy is
an oxymoron."

to damned true.

[jpgray]

53. To be fair, Albright and Cohen tried to make a case for action in Iraq

And were roundly booed at I think the University of Ohio.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/

[PATRICK]

56. It would be very hard

for these career people to derive some benefit of Bush pushing flawed US policy to such extremes that valuable lessons and truths should be learned about the supposed "wise" course of modern Washingtonian foreign affairs. The same should be applied with economic policy. Far from being a simple failure or aberration or a lawless progress into something else, this should be kick in the pants for the real progressive or regulatory collegiality needed in this century just to survive. Either we move away from the past or we get moved softly or stupidly into dire calamities, repression and economic servitude.

Democracy is getting a bad name? Such understatement shows the inability of the establishment to "get Bush" in any sense of the word and understand the emptiness of their paradigms and the failure of the system itself- which cannot survive interchangeable mediocre heads in the positions of power and myth, nor survive scrutiny when the worst is exposed for all to see. We have the extremists who easily create willful crises and we have the soft-headed passivity of those who cannot quite comprehend extreme crises.
And both destroy the civil myths which men of vice have co-opted and destroyed.

[The Stranger]

57. Every time someone points out the war of lies, why do they always

feel obligated to back track after pointing out the obvious?

The former top US diplomat told the New York Times that Iraq's deposed leader Saddam Hussein "was horrible. But I did not think he was an imminent threat to the United States.

Why even talk about Saddam Hussein? We know that wasn't the reason for the war. It wasn't the stated reason, and it has been revealed that invasion was going to happen no matter what. Not one fucking iota. She may as well spoke of Kim Jong Il or Ghengis Khan, Caligula and Ivan the Terrible.

Kerry did this, and it cost him the election, and every Democrat does this as well, and it keeps fucking up the single most important message that they can make to the American people. STOP DOING THIS!