Bush Promotes 'Freedom Agenda'--- (to showcase his legacy at UN)

[rodeodance]

Bush Promotes 'Freedom Agenda'

By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 18, 2006; 4:16 PM


.......After the conference, Bush was holding separate bilateral meetings this afternoon with the presidents of Malaysia, El Salvador, Honduras and Tanzania. He is scheduled to meet Tuesday with Jalal Talabani, the president of Iraq, and with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Wednesday. The aim, White House officials said, is to stress his goal of spreading democracy worldwide -- what Bush calls his "freedom agenda" -- and to underscore support for moderate governments.

National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley told reporters en route to New York that Bush's address to the U.N. General Assembly Tuesday would deal in part with progress in the "struggle between the forces of extremism and the forces of moderation in the Middle East."

Hadley said Bush plans to " showcase . . . the positive steps that have occurred and begun to occur in terms of the freedom agenda, of course, the most remarkable being the processes of freedom and democracy going on in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, but also elsewhere in the region." Bush will also "emphasize the fact that countries need to find their way towards free and just societies in their own time consistent with their own culture and traditions," Hadley said.

Bush intends to challenge U.N. member countries and the United Nations as an institution to "step up to the role of encouraging this process and encouraging the forces of moderation in this struggle against extremism." Hadley said..............

[grytpype]

1. Progress in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon?

:rofl:

[acmavm]

3. That raging asshole has 'freedom' and 'dead' mixed up. He needs

to get a new dictionary.

[radfringe]

8. couple of signs of "progress"

Iraqi Leader Asks Iran for Help With Security
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/world/middleeast/12cnd-iraq.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin
By EDWARD WONG and NAZILA FATHI
Published: September 12, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 12 — In his first state visit to Iran, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki today discussed the security situation in Iraq with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and asked for Mr. Ahmadinejad’s support in quelling the violence that threatens to fracture this country.

“We had a good discussion with Mr. Ahmadinejad,” Mr. Maliki said at a news conference in Tehran, the Iranian capital, after the two met. “Even in security issues, there is no barrier in the way of cooperation.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad said that “Iran will give its assistance to establish complete security in Iraq because Iraq’s security is Iran’s security.”

----

Defensive barrier planned for Baghdad
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-060915iraq,1,2131512.story?coll=chi-news-hed
By Liz Sly
Tribune foreign correspondent
Published September 15, 2006, 10:41 PM CDT

BAGHDAD -- In the latest proposal to curb the seemingly unstoppable violence in Baghdad, the Iraqi government is planning to build a defensive barrier around the city to keep out terrorists and militants who might be planning attacks.

Iraq's Interior Ministry said Friday that the government wants to dig a trench encircling the capital. At a news conference in Washington, President Bush said at least part of the barrier would be a berm.

The enemy is changing tactics, and we're adapting," Bush said. "And so they have got a plan now, they've adapted. The enemy moves; we'll help the Iraqis move. So they're building a berm around the city to make it harder for people to come in with explosive devices, for example."

[Joanne98]

2. Bush hates freedom. He hates democracy too!

[louis-t]

4. Freedom to torture, freedom to steal elections, freedom to

lie, cheat, kill......

[MisterP]

5. linky-loo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091800512.html

[neoblues]

6. "Remarkable steps"... indeed.

We fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, and appoint a guy named Jalal Talabani to be President in IRAQ. Okay, that was just a meaningless play on a meaningless coincidence, but to say we've had progress on some imaginary "Freedom Agenda" is at least equally meaningless.

Afghanistan... the Taliban are strong and growing stronger; so much so, they're keeping the military forces of the 'west' quite busy with no end in sight.

Lebanon... well, perhaps we've made some progress there--we've killed hundreds of Lebanese people, surely one or two of them was actually engaging in undesirable violence against one of our allies. In any case, forces with our support, have indeed ensured that the people of Lebanon will be spending at least some of the time and energy, that they would otherwise be certain to spend launching or preparing to launch missiles (sure they would), trying to rebuild the new pile of rubble they once called their homes.

IRAQ... going from a relatively peaceful existence with utility service but some oppression and the occasional act of violence by their ruling power, to facing universal violence, constant bombings, sectarian violence, killing squads, and a total absence of any personal security while enduring chronic shortages, especially of the electricity needed to run air conditioners (given summer heat well over 100°F) and every indication things are sure to get worse (possibly much worse and no likelihood of it ever improving--at least not in the forseeable future), they've certainly "made a difference" in IRAQ (some might question whether it's been a "good" difference or a very "bad" difference; with every rational person concluding the latter). In a way, they've definitely "Freed" at least 100,000 IRAQIs of all their worldly concerns (at least the dead don't complain very loudly). Clearly, it's kind of hard to see how they figure what they've done amounts to "progress". Unless you define progress as meaning that the people of IRAQ won't be able to do anything beyond their own borders...

Perhaps that's it. "Progress" is, apparently, defined as reducing populations/countries to the point that they're unable to bother (threaten, annoy, assist, interact with) anyone beyond their own borders. The fact that this is accomplished by killing large numbers of innocent people and reducing their countries to (a) rubble or (b) the stone age, certainly doesn't bother those who would engage in deciding who is to receive "Freedom". No doubt the proponents of such "progress" would have been even better pleased if they could have eliminated the populations of those countries rather than merely destroying their governments, infrastructures, and even their homes and ability to even produce their own food; but since the Genocide of whole countries is still frowned upon by most of the rest of the world, they had to "settle" for what they could.

As for Bush and his Administration, surely we should give them credit where credit is due. They are trying, with all the tools of destruction at their disposal, to create just that kind of progress in as many countries in the middle east (at least to start with) as they can find an excuse for. They are, as they claim, the purveyor's of Freedom (of course, their working definition differs from that of most normal, sane people)!

So, they've been "giving" their Freedoms to the world, especially IRAQ, Afghanistan and Lebanon...

If all that ain't 'Freedom' (freedumb from dumbya), Dumbya don't know whut is.

It could be worse, Bush could have his hands on nuclear weapons... Ooop, he does have nuclear weapons; shhhhhhh, don't give him any ideas--he might want to help free all of humanity. (Not that the world might not be better off without humanity, but nukes would punish all living things.)

Edit: fix sentence structure

[pinniped]

7. This POS will end up as a madman in the history books.

.