More Bush Insanity

Started by Mike, Mar 16 06 07:48

Previous topic - Next topic

Mike

More Bush Insanity
From: http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/03/read_the_nation.html#comments

----------------------------------------
The White House [a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-16-bush-national-security_x.htm"]is releasing its National Security Strategy[/a], a report that reaffirms the strike-first policy that President Bush first laid out in 2002. The release comes "in conjunction with a speech that Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, is delivering at the U.S. Institute of Peace," the Associated Press reports, but you can read the report now.
----------------------------------------

Declaring that we can start a war whenever we want, and announcing it at the "Institute of Peace". Now THAT'S funny. I swear, you just can't make this stuff up.

CK

My stomach turns more everyday when I hear more Bushisms! Harper isn't much better north of the border. Maybe not as insane!? But still very RED!

perpetual

I think that is what Harper wants to re-open with the USA.  Didn't the news report something like that?  No wonder the Bush administration loves Canada's new PM...he's their new pet....Barney and Ms.Beazley will love him...

tenkani

It's funny how little things like INTERNATIONAL LAW never come up in bush's speaches. Oh, unless he's talking about one of our enemies flauting it.

Under international law, making war on another country is only permissable in self-defense when you can ABSOLUTELY PROVE that you are in imminent and immediate danger.

As we saw in Iraq, the Bush perspective seems to hold to the concept that if there's a country you don't like who you believe is seeking WMD, you are authorized to invade whether or not you have any evidence that they intend to use such weapons against you. The problem with that is that it is by no stretch of the imagination self-defense.

And, naturally, what kind of a precedent does it set? Are all countries free to pursue such a broad policy, or only the United States? If we make the choice to ignore international law, opt out of the international criminal court, land mine agreements, global warming treaties etc. we should seriously just withdraw from the U.N. and pull our little head into our turtle shell. No more pretending to be part of the outside world. Let's be honest for a change.
For thou art with me; thy cream and thy sugar they comfort me
Thou preparest a carafe before me in the presence of Juan Valdez
Thou anointest my day with pep; my mug runneth over
Surely richness and taste shall follow me all the days of my life
And I will dwell in the house of coffee forever.

weird al

"No more pretending to be part of the outside world. Let's be honest for a change."[/DIV] [/DIV] That about sums it up. America, the global cop, is isolationist and interventionist all at the same time. Sounds like a new kind of  schizophrenia - globalisolationism.

tenkani

LOL. I like that one    

But seriously, how can you claim to "lead the free world" when you unselfconsciously shit on most of the international laws you freely apply to everyone else?

I don't want America to be isolationist, because with our great wealth and expertise we could do SO MANY positive things for the world, and we are doing those things to some extent. Unfortunately, Iraq is a microcosm of our foreign policy. We burn down a village and then come in and build a school, expecting to be greeted by the jubilant populace.

What's that old Ben Franklin saying about the definition of insanty? Something about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?
For thou art with me; thy cream and thy sugar they comfort me
Thou preparest a carafe before me in the presence of Juan Valdez
Thou anointest my day with pep; my mug runneth over
Surely richness and taste shall follow me all the days of my life
And I will dwell in the house of coffee forever.

weird al

Yeah, that was good old Benny. Insanity it is. What could be more schizophrenic than claiming, for example, that one's nation does not negotiate with terrorists, while giving them arms for hostages?  I mean no disrespect to schizophrenics by the way. Far from it. Hell, people tell me I'm crazy. But I know I'm just differently sane.

tenkani

ROFL. I like crazy people too and I know exactly what you mean.

Crazy people make the world more interesting, I'd just rather not have them in charge of the nuthouse    
For thou art with me; thy cream and thy sugar they comfort me
Thou preparest a carafe before me in the presence of Juan Valdez
Thou anointest my day with pep; my mug runneth over
Surely richness and taste shall follow me all the days of my life
And I will dwell in the house of coffee forever.

perpetual

Just doing my usual Google News reading (yes I know about the fake news, but this is a reliable source);

[A href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article351712.ece"]http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article351712.ece[/A][/DIV][H1]Bush threatens force to end Iran's nuclear threat [SPAN class=starrating][/SPAN][/H1][H3]By Rupert Cornwell in Washington [/H3][H4]Published: 17 March 2006 [/H4][DIV class=bodyCopy][DIV class=articleButton][DIV class=ad id=articlebutton][/DIV][/DIV]The United States sent a clear message to Iran yesterday that if all attempts fail at a diplomatic solution to the current stand-off, it is prepared to use force to end Tehran's perceived nuclear threat and its role as a fomentor of international terrorism.

Offering a robust reaffirmation of the Bush administration's doctrine of pre-emptive action to deal with threats to national security, the latest four-yearly National Security Strategy published by the White House declares that the US "may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran".

Tehran's suspected military nuclear programme is only part of the problem. More generally, the 49-page document says that Iran endangers regional stability with its threats against Israel, its sponsorship of terrorism, its disruptive influence in Iraq and its efforts to thwart a Middle East peace settlement.

Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, described the revised strategy yesterday as "an update of the document of 2002". Like its predecessor, it contends the US has the right to strike first at a potential attacker, "even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place" of that attack. The United States "cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialise".

The 2002 strategy was unveiled six months before the invasion of Iraq. This one leaves no doubt that the focus now is on Iran - whose current sins, as catalogued in the 2006 document, are eerily similar to the accusations against Saddam Hussein's regime four years ago. The overall tone of the document, issued on the very day that the US launched what is billed as the biggest anti-insurgent offensive in Iraq in three years, is if anything even more sweeping and assertive than its predecessor.

The current plunge in President George Bush's popularity, fuelled by growing disillusion with the Iraq war, seems to have had little impact. The war on terror was not over but already, the strategy claims, "America is safer" - even though that assertion is contradicted by almost every recent opinion poll here.

The document makes familiar nods in the direction of diplomacy, and of multilateral action to tackle the world's problems. It also acknowledges that "elections alone are not enough" to set a country irrevocably on the path to liberty. It talks instead about the need for "effective democracy," from which all elements of a country's population have the opportunity to benefit.

But it echoes the soaring themes of Mr Bush's second inaugural speech of January 2005, setting out the US aim of promoting democracy and human rights, with the ultimate goal of eradicating tyranny from the face of the earth. "An end to tyranny will not mark an end to all global ills," the document acknowledges. "Yet tyranny must not be tolerated - it is a crime of man, not a fact of nature." Iran is one of seven "tyrannies" specifically mentioned in the report, along with Syria, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Burma, Cuba and Belarus.

But other important countries are chided for their failings. "Regrettably," the strategy notes in a rebuke to Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, "recent trends suggest a diminishing commitment to democratic freedoms and institutions." The document also complains of China's support for resource-rich countries "without regard for misrule at home or misbehaviour abroad of those regimes" - a clear reference in particular to China's closer energy ties with Iran.

[/DIV][DIV class=articleColumn1 id=articleColumn1 style="DISPLAY: block"]The United States sent a clear message to Iran yesterday that if all attempts fail at a diplomatic solution to the current stand-off, it is prepared to use force to end Tehran's perceived nuclear threat and its role as a fomentor of international terrorism.

Offering a robust reaffirmation of the Bush administration's doctrine of pre-emptive action to deal with threats to national security, the latest four-yearly National Security Strategy published by the White House declares that the US "may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran".

Tehran's suspected military nuclear programme is only part of the problem. More generally, the 49-page document says that Iran endangers regional stability with its threats against Israel, its sponsorship of terrorism, its disruptive influence in Iraq and its efforts to thwart a Middle East peace settlement.

Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, described the revised strategy yesterday as "an update of the document of 2002". Like its predecessor, it contends the US has the right to strike first at a potential attacker, "even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place" of that attack. The United States "cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialise".

The 2002 strategy was unveiled six months before the invasion of Iraq. This one leaves no doubt that the focus now is on Iran - whose current sins, as catalogued in the 2006 document, are eerily similar to the accusations against Saddam Hussein's regime four years ago. The overall tone of the document, issued on the very day that the US launched what is billed as the biggest anti-insurgent offensive in Iraq in three years, is if anything even more sweeping and assertive than its predecessor.

[/DIV][DIV class=articleColumn2 id=articleColumn2 style="DISPLAY: block"]The current plunge in President George Bush's popularity, fuelled by growing disillusion with the Iraq war, seems to have had little impact. The war on terror was not over but already, the strategy claims, "America is safer" - even though that assertion is contradicted by almost every recent opinion poll here.

The document makes familiar nods in the direction of diplomacy, and of multilateral action to tackle the world's problems. It also acknowledges that "elections alone are not enough" to set a country irrevocably on the path to liberty. It talks instead about the need for "effective democracy," from which all elements of a country's population have the opportunity to benefit.

But it echoes the soaring themes of Mr Bush's second inaugural speech of January 2005, setting out the US aim of promoting democracy and human rights, with the ultimate goal of eradicating tyranny from the face of the earth. "An end to tyranny will not mark an end to all global ills," the document acknowledges. "Yet tyranny must not be tolerated - it is a crime of man, not a fact of nature." Iran is one of seven "tyrannies" specifically mentioned in the report, along with Syria, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Burma, Cuba and Belarus.

But other important countries are chided for their failings. "Regrettably," the strategy notes in a rebuke to Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, "recent trends suggest a diminishing commitment to democratic freedoms and institutions." The document also complains of China's support for resource-rich countries "without regard for misrule at home or misbehaviour abroad of those regimes" - a clear reference in particular to China's closer energy ties with Iran.



 

weird al

More on the Bush regime being of "two minds" about a number of issues, by one of my fave columnists, Molly Ivins, the "Texas Liberal."

 [TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=520 border=0][TBODY][TR][TD vAlign=center width=238][FONT face=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif color=#000000 size=2]Molly Ivins [/FONT]
[!-- subhed --][FONT face=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVETICA,SANS-SERIF size=1]Creators Syndicate
[FONT color=#666666 size=1]03.14.06 [/FONT][/FONT][/TD][TD vAlign=top align=right width=210][TABLE border=0][TBODY][TR][TD vAlign=center align=right][FONT face="verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#004477 size=1][A class=twenty href="http://www.workingforchange.com/printitem.cfm?itemid=20478"] [/A][/FONT][/TD][TD][A href="http://www.workingforchange.com/printitem.cfm?itemid=20478"][FONT color=#004477][img height=13 src="http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/img/print_item.gif" width=17 border=0][/FONT][/A][/TD][/TR][TR][TD vAlign=center align=right][FONT face="verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#004477 size=1][A class=twenty href="jvascript: emailitem();"] [/A][/FONT][/TD][TD][A href="jvascript: emailitem();"][FONT color=#004477][img height=13 src="http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/img/email_item.gif" width=17 align=middle border=0][/FONT][/A][/TD][/TR][TR][TD vAlign=center align=right][FONT face="verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=1][A href="http://www.workingforchange.com/mostsent.cfm"][/A][/FONT][/TD][TD][A href="http://www.workingforchange.com/mostsent.cfm"][img height=13 src="http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/img/newspaper_icon.gif" width=17 align=middle border=0][/A][/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE][/TD][/TR][TR][TD width=520 colSpan=3][FONT face=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif color=#990000 size=3]
Internationalist or isolationist
[FONT color=#000000 size=2]The many faces of George W. Bush

[/FONT][/FONT][/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE][TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=520 border=0][TBODY][TR][TD width=345][FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2]AUSTIN, Texas -- It's hard to keep up with George W. Bush's shuttles between internationalism and isolationism. You may recall he first ran for office declaring he was against nation- building and other such effete, peacekeeping efforts. None of that do- gooder, building-a-better-world stuff for him -- he couldn't even be bothered to learn the names of the Grecians and Kosovians...[/FONT]

[FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2][/FONT]

[A href="http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20478"]http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20478[/A]

[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]

soapbox

as per the article...

deal was made with india in order that iran not point fingers at nations who operate outside of world community standards.

uh,that's pretty obvious.putting heat on iran would evoke an iranian response along the lines of...what about india?  

Adam_Fulford