Zbigniew Brzezinski on Bush's high sounding speech yesterday....

[whistle]

<snip>

Bush Inauguration Speech: A "Vacuous Sermon," A "Global Crusade" Against "Defenseless States"

by Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Carter,
on PBS News Hour

If the speech was to be taken literally, then clearly it would imply commitment to some sort of a global crusade vis-a-vis a variety of states with many of whom we have all sorts of mutual concerns, even if we don't like their practical policies. I mean, take a few examples. Take China; we have a major state instability with China, but China is hardly a democracy. What about the Tibetans? Take Russia; we have a common stake with regards to terrorism, but what about the Chechens? They're being treated in a tyrannical fashion. Take an even more complex issue: what about Israel, which is a friend of ours, and its security against Palestinian terrorists? But what about the oppression of the Palestinians and their desire for freedom?

The fact is that the speech was high-sounding. If it was to be taken literally, it would mean an American crusade throughout the entire world, and I don't know how that would be implemented practically. More Iraqs, perhaps, or is it just a general statement which doesn't give us much guide to policy, suited for the occasion but not to be taken as the point of departure for serious policy?...

I read it as rhetoric because as a practical matter how is he going to apply it vis-a-vis China or Russia? We can apply it towards defenseless or weak states, but that's hardly a statement of policy of a global significant character....

<more> http://www.bushwatch.com/

[hector459]

1. I read it as manical, hubris run amuck, and dangerous.

Bush has set this nation on a course of self-destruction just to preserve a system of wealth and power for a few, self-indulgence for many, and security for none.

[bpilgrim]

2. excellent summary

of course the talking heads are gushing with comparisons to our greatest presidents of days gone by :crazy:

peace

[AtTheEndOfTheDay]

3. "The fact is that the speech was high-sounding. "

I was thinking the same thing. High on something.

[StephanieMarie]

4. I read it as, "I, GWB, and the chosen one."

[CHIMO]

5. You Need A Dictionary

Replace the words freedom or liberty with corporatocracy.
Imagine, after all those years up there with the movers and shakers and he doesn't realize what is going on. My my.

[Dirk39]

6. Brzezinski, Brzezinski, Brzezinski?

The guy, who was somehow the ideologic leader and creator of Al Quaida?
The guy, who said, who cares about a few hundred thousand dead brown people, if in the end, we can bring the free market and other weapons of Mass Destruction to kill the poor, to Russia and East-Europe?

Brzezinski?

Who's the better Nazi, Bush or Brzezinski???

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/20/documents/brez.carter/
I don't get this!


"Question: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting
that they intended to fight against secret involvement of the
United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them.
However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything
today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea.
It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and
you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially
crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, in substance: We
now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.
Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war
unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about
the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic
fundamentalists, having given arms and advice to future
terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The
Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up
Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the
cold war?**"

Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski about how
the US provoked the Soviet Union into invading
Afghanistan and starting the whole mess
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/brz.htm

Without Brzezinski, September 11 would not have happened. But who cares about 3000 Northamericans if it's about the free market, democracy and other lies? Just kill a few hundred thousand brown worthless people more and go to sleep!

On edit:

"What sort of moral monsters would crash airplanes into buildings and kill thousands of innocent people? Were they the same sort of moral monsters as those whose actions now may produce the death from starvation of perhaps three or four million people over the next several weeks?

The former group of terrorists, still largely faceless and many now dead, were representatives of the terror networks that the CIA founded a generation ago to trouble the USSR. In its most expensive operation in history, the CIA gathered the most savage and fanatical people it could find, trained and armed them, and set them loose in Afghanistan in the 1970s, even before the Soviets invaded that now ruined country. Unfortunately, like so many other CIA "assets," these Mujahideen did not limit themselves to the task the CIA had in mind. Already in 1981 they assassinated the president of Egypt, Anwar Sadat, and then went on to use the techniques and weapons supplied by the CIA (at the rate of half a billion dollars a year of our tax money) to kill in the name of their Islamicism around the world -- in Chechnya, Bosnia, North Africa, Kashmir, the Philippines, and finally New York City.

When asked if he regretted organizing these terrorists, President Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said in a 1998 interview, "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?" (In Brzezinski's defense, perhaps, it may be noted that he said that in a 1998 interview, when the stirred-up Moslems were killing merely foreigners and not Americans on American soil.)"
http://www.counterpunch.org/estabrook9.html

Did you ever read a book in your live?
If there would be any justice in this world, this piece of shit would have been sentenced to live-long prison at least.


And I don't get this!

Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[AG78]

7. Same guy

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465027261/104-2801815-3910342?v=glance

His book, "The Grand Chessboard", which also called for a Pearl Harbor style event to send the US on a mission.

http://www.peaceinchechnya.org/about_members.htm

Here are the people that want "peace" in Chechnya. A few names there that should be known.

http://www.usacc.org/contents.php?cid=2

And another fine group here. Kissinger, Scowcroft, Baker, etc.

Brzezinski would be one of the last people to trust. He may have a different way for empire, but he still wants it.

[Spiffarino]

9. Excellent analysis

Thanks for refreshing our collective memory about Z-Big.

I remember the Carter years and the general disgust progressives had for him at the time. He may be more pragmatic than Bush, but he's hardly representative of Americans in general. Brzezinski and his kind are at the root of Islamic antipathy toward the West.

[whistle]

13. That is why in the Arab world the United States is thought of....

...as the great satan.

[FlyByNight]

8. I heard some excerpts of Bush's speech...

and it was grandiose and incoherent. He used the word "freedom", seemingly, about every other word and it sounded like a high-schooler wrote the damn thing. Freedom this, freedom that. Blah, blah, blah.

I don't think the Iraqis feel any freer or the great majority of Afghans. Or Palestinians, or Israelis, or Chechens, or Tibetans, or Sudanese (in Darfur) or Americans living in the Patriot Act era, etc.

[bogey18]

11. Exactly

It did sound like an intelligent high schooler wrote it. I used to think this guy was concerned about the rich getting richer, etc - but he is much more dangerous than that - he is handing the country over to the corporations so that they will give him the power to push his agenda, which apparently is some sort of mental mish mash lightly whipped with a mission from God to free the world.

I have been laughing at all of the people trying to understand and interpret this speech. Did you see the 40 second recap on the Daily Show? That was all any of us need to know.

[whistle]

14. See the movie: "Terminator II" and you have Shrub's vision...

...of the world in the future in a nutshell!

[dbeach]

10. Breezy Brezinski is bout as believable as bushfraud

both ultimately serve their corporat masters who are ushering in this globalist police state..
I bet ole Breezy is worried jr may upset some of his oil soaked interests..

[teryang]

12. Pretense of a dialectic political process

This pantomine farce doesn't fool many people. The attacker is as transparent as the critique. Brezinski is a player with a hard on for Russia.

[whistle]

15. Todays NYT editorial on Bush's speech

<snip>

January 22, 2005
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The Speech Misheard Round the World
By ORLANDO PATTERSON

Cambridge, Mass. — SINCE 9/11, President Bush and his advisers have engaged in a series of arguments concerning the relation between freedom, tyranny and terrorism. The president's inaugural paean to freedom was the culmination of these arguments.

The stratagem began immediately after 9/11 with the president's claims that the terrorist attacks were a deliberate assault on America's freedom. The next stage of the argument came after no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, thus eliminating the reason for the war, and it took the form of a bogus syllogism: all terrorists are tyrants who hate freedom. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who hates freedom. Therefore Saddam Hussein is a terrorist whose downfall was a victory in the war against terrorism.

When this bogus syllogism began to lose public appeal, it was shored up with another flawed argument that was repeated during the campaign: tyranny breeds terrorism. Freedom is opposed to tyranny. Therefore the promotion of freedom is the best means of fighting terrorism.

Promoting freedom, of course, is a noble and highly desirable pursuit. If America were to make the global diffusion of freedom a central pillar of its foreign policy, it would be cause for joy. The way the present administration has gone about this task, however, is likely to have the opposite effect. Moreover, what the president means by freedom may get lost in translation to the rest of the world. <more>

<link> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/22/opinion/22patterson.1.html?oref=login&th