Albright: "Iraq may prove the worst ever disaster in U.S. foreign policy"

[bigtree]

Albright Speaks Out On Religion, Politics, And Bush

WASHINGTON, October 13, 2006 (RFE/RL) -- In her latest book, "The Mighty and the Almighty: Reflections on America, God and World Affairs," Albright writes about how President George W. Bush has ceded U.S. moral authority on human rights issues, why Muslims are willing to listen to Al-Qaeda, and the role religious leaders should play in international conflicts.

{snip}

. . . she saved her most critical words for the U.S. war in Iraq. "I'm afraid that Iraq is going to go down in history as the greatest disaster of American foreign policy. Worse than Vietnam. Not in the number of Americans that have died, or Vietnamese in comparison to Iraqis who have died, but because of the unintended consequences. And, mostly, the loss of our moral authority."

Albright also had critical words for the way U.S. President Bush has run his "war on terror." She believes the United States has forfeited its role in the world as the standard-bearer on human rights.
"It's essential for the United States to have a moral foreign policy, meaning that we live up to our own values."

"It's essential for the United States to have a moral foreign policy, meaning that we live up to our own values: human rights, freedom of speech, the rule of law, etc. That is different from a moralistic foreign policy, where we're kind of telling everybody else that they should live the way just the way we do," said said.

"One of the things that I did on a regular basis was submit cases where we thought human rights were being abused, let's say in China, or that torture was being used somewhere else, to the human rights commission at the UN. Sometimes we succeeded in getting condemnations, sometimes not. Now, we're laughed out of the room. That moral authority that the United States had is gone."


http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/10/49e3ba46-8c1b-4203-aaee-d38a7f26a889.html


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[BootinUp]

1. good subject for a book and by a former Sec of State.

probably worth a read.

[wake.up.america]

2. Smart woman, unlike the present Secretary of State. -eom-

[madokie]

18. with one wipe that she will throw away will be more intelligence

and moral fiber than kkkondi will ever have.

[bigbrother05]

3. kick

[Selatius]

4. I would submit America never had moral authority.

We had none since its inception, unless one is willing to forget what was done to Mexico, what was done to Native Americans, and what was done to over a half dozen Latin American/Caribbean countries and beyond in the name of American capitalism and power for power's sake.

It's a fucking illusion, and if any good came out of this shitstorm, it's that GWB ensured that the illusion was destroyed forever.

[bigtree]

6. Right, but you can't discount the value of a leader with our nation's will

behind that leader, doing the right things and moving events in the right direction by virtue of the example they set. That's the moral authority that folks refer to: The potential to influence through the example of our leader's good behavior, or suffering the consequences of bad leadership. Past mistakes factor in, but we should never decide that we can't set a prudent course and follow it because of some history.

[Selatius]

11. What I said doesn't preclude us from setting our course, however,

it does preclude the US from preaching to the rest of the world how they should or should not live their lives. It precludes the US from attempting to set the course of others for them...such as attempting to implement whatever it was the government wanted to implement in Iraq.

Sooner or later, the government will come back around to the idea that it can remake the world according to its designs, that it can remake others to be more like us or make them into nothing more than resource satellites for corporations, and as long as that is true, there will be more atrocities committed. They say they're doing this to bring them democracy and the firm belief that capitalism is the ultimate solution to their problems. The saying that the road to hell is paved with "good intentions" is still very much, and still very sadly true.

[meganmonkey]

22. Mmm Hmmm...

:thumbsup:

[Tom Joad]

5. She thought the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children was

"worth it" She should be cooling her heels with Bush, Rummy, and Saddam. War crimes for all!

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)

[bigtree]

10. When asked about this remark in '05 she said "I never should have made it"

When asked about this remark in 2005 she said "I never should have made it, it was stupid", but she still supported the concept of tailored sanctions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today5_albright_20051019.ram

[meganmonkey]

12. That's the first thing I thought of too

Fucking hypocrite war criminal.

[bigtree]

13. everyone who supports U.N. approved sanctions is a war criminal?

[Tom Joad]

14. When it results in the death of thousands of innocents, damn right.

[bigtree]

17. international sanctions as war crimes

that's a new one, isn't it?

[meganmonkey]

24. They're hardly 'international' when

the only thing keeping them in place is one nation's veto power :shrug:

[bigtree]

25. how can she be tried for international war crimes for a U.N. resolution?

[meganmonkey]

27. I don't know that she can

I'm no expert on the ICC, or legal matters in general.

However, I know that there are many criminals who are never charged or tried for their crimes. I think she fits in that category quite nicely. Well, nice for her. Not so nice for the 500,000+ Iraqi children who died under those sanctions.

[meganmonkey]

21. No

But those who continue to support the sanctions after the impact on the civilians becomes apparent, those whose veto power is the only reason the sanctions continue because the rest of the security council wants to end the sanctions, well, they may qualify.

:shrug:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. After her stint as Sec. of State, she has no "moral authority".

She did her best to (successfully) undermine UN efforts to stop the slaughter in Rwanda and followed it up by backing the slaughter of the refugee Hutus in Congo.

30,000 people (mostly children) are still dying in Congo every month.

[bigtree]

8. She didn't want to stop the slaughter in Rwanda?

and she 'backed' the slaughter of the Hutus?

Interesting.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Read it and weep.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/etc/slaughter.html

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/05/08/congo/index.html

And, for a real perspective on the failures of Clinton/Albright in regards to Rwanda and Congo try reading:

"A Continent for the Taking" by Howard W. French

[bigtree]

23. I didn't listen to the program (maybe I will)

but I didn't find the Salon article very convincing. It was short on details.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Exactly why you should read the book.

A great, and fascinating, read about the state of Africa today.

[klook]

9. There are so many to choose from...

it's hard to pick the worst disaster. But W's Iraq is certainly a strong contender.

Particularly apt is Albright's assertion that this war has undermined our moral authority. Sure, Vietnam gave the world the spectacle of the My Lai massacre and other similar crimes. The fire-bombing of Dresden in WWII and the devastating use of WMDs against the Japanese didn't do a lot for our moral authority, either. Nor did the rape of the Philippines, as noted so eloquently by Mark Twain. Just to name a few.

What makes W's Iraq war particularly egregious is not that we invaded a non-threatening country and toppled its government. That's terrible, but it's been done before and will be done again. What's truly horrifying about this one is the open advocation of torture as a legitimate tactic.

If we are ever to regain legitimacy on the world stage, the United States must repudiate torture. That means not equivocating about techniques like sleep deprivation, forcing captives to listen to earsplitting music for hours on end, attacking naked, defenseless detainees with dogs, beating them, raping them, chaining them in excruciating positions for hours at a time, suffocating them, nearly drowning them with the heinous torture called "waterboarding," detaining and torturing children, subjecting suspects to a kangaroo-court legal status that gives them no rights, and sending suspects off to other countries to be tortured, brutally interrogated, and "disappeared" by our surrogates.

These are not fraternity pranks. They are not essential tools in the "Global War On Terror"(TM). They are war crimes. And it sickens me beyond anything I have ever felt to know that my country is doing these things in my name.

[leftofthedial]

15. "may"?

:rofl:

it is BY FAR the worst.

[bigtree]

16. it's not over

don't laugh so soon

[leftofthedial]

19. that's not laughter

it's my last throes