OPINION & EDITORIAL
Change in international policy necessary for pursuit of democracy
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Sarah Howard:
- Public TV rejects Greens (October 13, 2006)
- Hosty decision affects student papers (September 7, 2005)
- Grant boosts language (October 20, 2006)
- Drop in oil supply demands action (September 13, 2005)
- UW aid looms over race (October 27, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Past errors haunt administration (March 2, 2005)
- Neo-cons, neo-problems (March 13, 2003)
- The Iraq conflict and the role of the citizen in representative democracy (March 24, 2003)
- Nine blind mice: The foreign policy delusions of the Democratic candidates (December 9, 2003)
- Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? (March 24, 2003)
by Sarah Howard
Thursday, July 7, 2005
By now, most Americans have realized that the current administration does not allow international approval to have much, if any, effect on his policy decisions. The president and his advisors adopted a policy of unilateralism stance soon after taking residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and has not changed its course during the past five years. Whether it is the war in Iraq, hesitancy to enter the Darfur region or more recently refusing to the Kyoto Protocol, the United States has maintained its position as a conspicuously independent international force. Proponents of Bush's chosen strategy have often argued that a 'go it alone' method is justified when the ideals of freedom and democracy are on the line. Countless speeches on domestic and international stages alike are have been, are, and will be chalked fully of references to these cherished principles.
Even in the face of plummeting presidential approval, armed service enlistment, and citizen confidence about the war, the administration adheres to its now-familiar justification — these actions are necessary in the pursuit of "democracy" and "freedom." In short, the administration believes and hopes to convey that an American agenda which achieves the realization of these sacred ideals on a global scale is justified, even necessary. However as a recent study by the Pew Research Center indicates, if the administrations utmost goal is to aid the expansion of democracy or encourage the growth of freedom, it may want to reconsider its target audience and its strategy for communicating with them.
The Pew poll's finding were, for the most part, unsurprising. Many European nations, including Great Britain, France, Spain and the Netherlands gave the United States a lowly 50% approval rating or less. With the lack of direction and success in Iraq and America's refusal to enter the Kyoto Protocol these nations are frustrated after being ignored and defied. The American report card also showed poor marks from neighboring Canada who are more likely to view Americans as "rude" and "violent" than any other nation surveyed.
However all this is old news, and as recent history has shown, will not have any effect on administration policy or American conduct on the international scale. What could and should change this unilateral trend appears not on the American report card but on that of China. As Pew found, most countries now have a better opinion of China than they do the United States. This is absolutely shocking given that China still remains a mostly communist state with heavy restrictions on civil liberties and a severe limitations on citizen rights. This is a subtle but critical blow to the proliferation of democracy and freedom, but it has not registered on the administration's radar because it comes in the form of international opinion. One must begin to wonder how these meritorious ideals will be sold if the country which tries hardest to sell them is looked upon less favorably than a communist country that denies free access to the internet (thanks in part to agreements with American software countries like Microsoft and Cisco), prevents nearly all investigative journalism, and openly intimidates opposition political parties as well as civilian dissidents.
Had these findings appeared two decades ago in the Cold War era, these international views might have spurred major reshaping of international agenda or at least would have been the source for substantial dialogue on global policy. Now in the era of unilateralism, they will be labeled as simply another manifestation of unjustified bitterness from ungrateful and misdirected anti-American critics.
While I am not suggesting that this troubling development in international opinion will threaten the survival of established democracies where freedom is a secure and a valued part of political culture, it is unlikely it will aid the cause of furthering democracies in struggling, unsettled or oppressed regions of the world. If industrialized modern nations feel angry and disillusioned enough with U.S. policy to regard a tyrannical regime in higher esteem than a country which is supposedly pursuing the highest ideals, something needs to change.
The Pew survey indicated that America's image abroad spiked when it was involved in relief efforts following the 2004 East Asian tsunami and, in fact, has remained more positive in the East Asian region than throughout the rest of the world. In fact, in the fledgling democracy in Indonesia, citizens are twice as optimistic about the prospects for democracy than countries in the Middle East. These are the kind of benevolent, cooperative actions that can help rebuild the American image. While the world closely monitors the developments of the G-8 Summit this week in Scotland, America has a unique opportunity to extend a supportive hand.
Let's hope America's leaders will have the sense to shed some of our unilateralist policy and help the United States reclaim the credibility necessary to market the ideals on which we were founded.
Sarah Howard (smhoward@wisc.edu) will soon be a junior majoring in political science and journalism. The Pew "Global Attitudes Project" referenced in this column can be found at: http://pewglobal.org/
Anonymous (July 8, 2005 @ 8:17pm):
The notion that the Bush administration's position on the Kyoto Protocol is somehow a sea change in Washington ignores some important facts: 1) the Senate, during the Clinton administration, passed a resolution against the Protocol (the vote was unanimous) and 2) the Clinton administration had the opportunity to sign the protocol and send it to the Senate to ratification, but never did. The Bush administration has been willing to call the Protocol as the body politic has seen it - a failed attempt. Rather than let the Kyoto experiment occupy the political mindspace of a real alternative, the Bush administration chose to move on. Perhaps the author ought to familiarize herself with reality - rather than popular press coverage - before developing her opinion.
Anonymous (July 9, 2005 @ 10:08am):
"The American report card also showed poor marks from neighboring Canada who are more likely to view Americans as "rude" and "violent" than any other nation surveyed."
Ha! Canadians are obviously naive enough to think that most Americans don't read Canadian national news online and have never heard of Karla Homolka. Hey all you hosers up North: We know! We read all about you up there!
Surprise!!
Anonymous (July 10, 2005 @ 2:30pm):
Who's Karla Homolka?
Anonymous (July 11, 2005 @ 2:19pm):
Pssssssstt, it's all because of the Jews!
"The Zionist community numbers only 3 million, but they control the government, the politics, the economy, and the media in the U.S."
http://www.nysun.com/article/16544
Anonymous (July 11, 2005 @ 5:06pm):
Republocrats could care less about the environment. If it doesn't make them money, they don't care.
Anonymous (July 11, 2005 @ 5:58pm):
"Pssssssstt, it's all because of the Jews!
"The Zionist community numbers only 3 million, but they control the government, the politics, the economy, and the media in the U.S.""
Mr. Klemz, enough about the Jews already! Shave, brush your teeth, use deoderant, iron your shirts, wash your sneakers(peeeee-ew!), get a summer job and move out of your parents' house. It's time you struck out on your own!
Anonymous (July 11, 2005 @ 6:06pm):
"Pssssssstt, it's all because of the Jews!"
OK, I read the article. Some lunatic named Muhammad al-Gamei'a reiterates the bogus claim that Jews were responsible for 9/11. Does that mean that Jews are also responsible for your inability to get laid as well?
Anonymous (July 11, 2005 @ 6:34pm):
"Pssssssstt, it's all because of the Jews!"
Kiss off! Intelligent people in Madison have better things to do than to put up with your hatemongering crap!
Anonymous (July 11, 2005 @ 7:56pm):
Monday, July 11, 2005
By Neil Cavuto
I guess it's not exactly "news" to say a lot of the world doesn't like the United States.
Save maybe England and Australia -- and maybe the more rural regions of Canada -- the Stars and Stripes sickens and stings the world.
Even amongst our friends, we incite events like a huge anti-U.S. rally in South Korea over the weekend -- protesting the relocation of an American military base there.
All this has got me wondering.
What would happen if we simply ceded to the protesters demands and got out of "their" countries?
What if we told South Korea, "You hate our troops there? We're pulling our troops out of there. You deal with that nut to the north. We're out of it."
Same thing in Germany: "You're no fan of ours, you're clearly no fan of our troops. They're gone. You're on your own."
Ditto the rest of Europe: "You don't like us protecting freedom? Then we're done protecting you."
Or Japan or the Philippines: Places where our very presence endears more a screw you than a thank you.
I say, then enough with you -- all of you.
What do you think would happen?
Some might welcome it... until trouble hits. Then, I suspect, they might miss it. Until then, the Italian-Irish kid in me, feels tempted to say "stick it."
It's probably a good thing that U.S. authorities are more mature than I am. I just think it's a pity the countries we try to help are not.
Anonymous (July 11, 2005 @ 8:04pm):
"Intelligent people in Madison" apparently have malfuntioning sarcasm detectors.
Anonymous (July 11, 2005 @ 9:48pm):
WHY THEY HATE US:
We know very well what the "grievances" of the jihadists are.
The grievance of seeing unveiled women. The grievance of the existence, not of the State of Israel, but of the Jewish people. The grievance of the heresy of democracy, which impedes the imposition of sharia law. The grievance of a work of fiction written by an Indian living in London. The grievance of the existence of black African Muslim farmers, who won't abandon lands in Darfur. The grievance of the existence of homosexuals. The grievance of music, and of most representational art. The grievance of the existence of Hinduism. The grievance of East Timor's liberation from Indonesian rule. All of these have been proclaimed as a licence to kill infidels or apostates, or anyone who just gets in the way.
FOR a few moments yesterday, Londoners received a taste of what life is like for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, whose Muslim faith does not protect them from slaughter at the hands of those who think they are not Muslim enough, or are the wrong Muslim.
It is a big mistake to believe this is an assault on "our" values or "our" way of life. It is, rather, an assault on all civilisation.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15713152%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=we-cannot-surrender-name_page.html
Read the whole thing, in which Christopher Hitchens explains the facts of life to the clueless.
Anonymous (July 12, 2005 @ 2:39am):
""Intelligent people in Madison" apparently have malfuntioning sarcasm detectors."
Excuse me, moron, but what the hell do Jews have to do with this topic anyway? And I don't recall the author of that post saying that he/she was only being sarcastic!
Anonymous (July 12, 2005 @ 4:39pm):
Did you follow the link, moron? Do you need everything spelled out in single sylable words?
Anonymous (July 12, 2005 @ 4:46pm):
I followed the link, cheddarboy! And only someone from Wisconsin needs single-syllable words to spell something out. You should learn to spell yourself, asshole!
Anonymous (July 12, 2005 @ 10:14pm):
Mr. Klemz, you are evil looking.
Anonymous (July 14, 2005 @ 7:30pm):
Matbe the rest of the world will wake up?
***
An Italian Counter-Terror Blitz/ The Van Gogh Trial
France ramped up its own border security operations. Now Italy is conducting a "blitz" of pre-emptive raids. The Italian authorities indicated these counter-terror operations were planned prior to London's 7/7 attacks.
http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=415
Anonymous (July 14, 2005 @ 8:04pm):
"Sayonara Kyoto": This is another message Mr. Bush should display proudly on his person. For one thing, it will remind his fellow world leaders that the U.S. Senate has recently reaffirmed its rejection of the climate change treaty despite all the wishful thinking in Europe that it will actually counteract global warming. In reality, Kyoto is likely to hamstring the world's economy while only creating the illusion that it will save the earth from environmental destruction.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/071105E.html
Anonymous (July 15, 2005 @ 12:58am):
Right on mate!
***
MAXINE McKEW: Prime Minister, if as you say you can't rule out that possibility that we could have potential bombers right here in Australia, what if today's announcement, this redeployment to Afghanistan and our continued presence in Iraq is all the provocation they need?
JOHN HOWARD: Maxine, these people are opposed to what we believe in and what we stand for, far more than what we do. If you imagine that you can buy immunity from fanatics by curling yourself in a ball, apologising for the world - to the world - for who you are and what you stand for and what you believe in, not only is that morally bankrupt, but it's also ineffective. Because fanatics despise a lot of things and the things they despise most is weakness and timidity. There has been plenty of evidence through history that fanatics attack weakness and retreating people even more savagely than they do defiant people.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1413738.htm
Anonymous (July 15, 2005 @ 5:02pm):
"Matbe the rest of the world will wake up?"
Baby, it's best that you and Earl wear makeup.
Anonymous (July 16, 2005 @ 12:32pm):
Good thing that Bush allowed the London bombing to happen in order to boost his political capital. Now, there's a guy who has the best interest of the country in mind.
I can't wait for Rove to go down in flames so he will bring bush and Cheney down with him.
Go ahead, defend rove, the traitorous scumbag.
Rove is the hero of the little yellow elephants.
Anonymous (July 16, 2005 @ 9:16pm):
"Go ahead, defend rove, the traitorous scumbag."
Slow ahead, we then drove, a Christmas humbug.
Anonymous (July 16, 2005 @ 9:58pm):
Let the Screaming Match Begin
Let's tee up a big screaming match about whether a high official of the White House committed a crime by breaching security in a dust-up over terrorists like Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Laden.
No, I'm not talking about Karl Rove. I'm talking about Sandy Berger stuffing secrets into his socks so the 9/11 Commission wouldn't be able to see what he and Bill Clinton were really thinking and saying and doing about Usama bin Laden.
Let's see now, what happened when Berger got caught with the secrets in his socks?
Hmmm. Did we hear the Democratic senators and congressmen wailing about breaking national security? No, we did not.
Did we hear them harrumphing about how a White House operative was tanking an official investigation, trying to steer the snoopy voters in another direction, away from the officials' own complacency, or moral turpitude?
Nawww, we didn't hear that.
But we're hearing it now.
Even the sainted Amb. Joe Wilson has now admitted his wife was not in a covert status when Karl Rove explained to a Time magazine reporter it wasn't Dick Cheney who sent Wilson off to Niger, but that it was Wilson's wife. She recommended him, telling her bosses he had loads of contacts in Africa.
So Wilson comes back and says no reason to think Saddam wanted to build a nuke bomb out of Nigerian yellow cake -- the uranium you need for a bomb.
Evidently, Bush and Cheney didn't believe him. Neither did the Select Committee investigating pre-war intelligence. They said Wilson was wrong and didn't tell the truth -- could you say lied -- about who sent him to Africa.
But, oh no, sorry Valerie Plame is a CIA agent with covert status. Can't tell the country she was the one who set her husband up to go tank a report on a key question leading up to the war.
No, no no. She's a spook you see. She only acts like a political hack trying to pull strings on national policy from behind a curtain.
The American people aren't allowed to know who she is when she does something like that. She's covert, don't you know. And Sandy Berger, the guy with the secrets in his socks? He just gets a pass.
Why? They're Dems, as in 'Dems' the wrong guys to blame.
That's My Word.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162713,00.html
Anonymous (July 16, 2005 @ 10:06pm):
There are a lot of sticks to beat the administration with. The war was not a good idea. But most of the Democrats who want to beat up the administration over the war voted to authorize it, so an honest analysis of the war decision factors won't work. So, we have this imbecile investigation taking up time. No one is going to show that anyone knowingly and intentionally identified a covert CIA employee. One can make up a lot of plausible scenarios about what happened, including the simplest, that it was common knowledge and no one even thought about her being a covert employee of the Agency. There may even have been someone who did knowingly and intentionally identify her, but you won't find it out at this range, because whoever did that would have been careful to tell the story to others in a way that masks his identity. He was just passing along gossip. But in fact, it was probable that it was just passing along gossip.
There are a lot of questions of importance, and this isn't one of them. The real question is what are we going to do NOW that we are over there in Iraq and any retreat will be seen as a victory for the people we do not want to feel victorious. There is no substitute for victory and that applies to jihadists as much as anyone else. We should not have gone in there, but we are there, and we have got to find a way out.
If all this ingenuity were applied to that question something might come of it, but trying to get Karl Rove to go to a private political management firm is not going to amount to much whatever happens.
We are in trouble over there in Iraq. It is a tar baby, a quagmire, as some of us said it would be; but we are there, and we need a way out, and we don't seem to have one that doesn't leave us worse off than when we went in. Now it may be there is no way out. It's a sunk cost, and we abandon all that blood and treasure and achieve a negative result for its expenditure. But before we write it off, we ought to turn at least as much attention to the question as we have to whether Karl Rove knowingly and intentionally identified Valeria Plame as a covert CIA operative.
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view370.html#Saturday
Anonymous (July 16, 2005 @ 10:07pm):
"Good thing that Bush allowed the London bombing to happen..."
Git yer tin-foil hat on good and tite pilgrim!
Anonymous (July 16, 2005 @ 11:00pm):
The broader question, of course, is whether Rove's supposed "outing" of Ms. Plame had any significance at all, given that Rove was apparently among the last to know.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011041.php
Anonymous (July 17, 2005 @ 5:52pm):
"Even the sainted Amb. Joe Wilson has now admitted his wife was not in a covert status when Karl Rove explained to a Time magazine reporter it wasn't Dick Cheney who sent Wilson off to Niger, but that it was Wilson's wife. She recommended him, telling her bosses he had loads of contacts in Africa."
All of this is wrong. Try a google search and you will see that getting all your political info from fox news and the drudge report is not a good idea.
Bush DID allow the Londodn bombings to happen and here's how:
The British were investigating a terror cell.
Bush named one of the terror cell operatives before the Brits had captured him thus blowing the operation's cover.
A high speed chase ensued where some of the terrorists got away.
Those terrorists were involved in the Londodn bombing.
No tinfoil hat there. Go look it up.
It amazes me that Republicans put party before country so consistently.
Was waht Berger did right? I don't know, if your accusations are true then he should eb tried as well.
Did Karl Rove lie and betray his country?
Yes, he did. It doesn't surpirse me that much actually. You are just like Rove, you put your party politics ahead of national security. You are a traitor to this country.
Here's a clue: rebutting the proof of treason on the part of your party's chief political advisor with "Berger might have done it too" isn't a defense.
Anonymous (July 17, 2005 @ 6:55pm):
Karl Rove? Please. I couldn't care less.
But even if I was with the rest of the navel-gazers inside the Beltway I wouldn't be interested in who ''leaked'' the name of CIA employee Valerie Plame to the press. As her weirdly self-obsesssed husband Joseph C. Wilson IV conceded on CNN the other day, she wasn't a ''clandestine officer'' and, indeed, hadn't been one for six years. So one can only ''leak'' her name in the sense that one can ''leak'' the name of the checkout clerk at Home Depot.
But in the real world there's only one scandal in this whole wretched business -- that the CIA, as part of its institutional obstruction of the administration, set up a pathetic 'fact-finding mission' that would be considered a joke by any serious intelligence agency and compounded it by sending, at the behest of his wife, a shrill politically motivated poseur who, for the sake of 15 minutes' celebrity on the cable gabfest circuit, misled the nation about what he found. . . . What we have here is, in effect, the old standby plot of lame Hollywood conspiracy thrillers: rogue elements within the CIA attempting to destabilize the elected government. If the left's view of the world is now so insanely upside-down that that's the side they want to be on, good for them. But ''leaking'' the name of Wilson's wife and promoter within the CIA didn't ''endanger her life'' or ''compromise her mission.'' Au contraire, exposing the nature of this fraudulent, compromised mission might conceivably prevent the American people having their lives endangered.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn17.html
Anonymous (July 17, 2005 @ 10:31pm):
Actually, as I have already posted, Wilson never said Plame wasn't an undercover CIA office. She was, if she hadn't been, the CIA wouldn't have started the criminal investigation in the first place.
Why is this story important?
1) Karl Rove may have committed treason. He has definitely perjured himself.
2)Plame was investigating Saudi connections to terror an oil price manipulation. The profits of which funnel right back into Cheney and Bush's pockets.
3)It exposes the GOP for what it is, a party that would put their own political gain ahead of national security. A party that is vindictive toward anyone that disagrees with it, a party that would put petty partisan politics ahead of a terror investiagtion.
4) It is further proof that Bush knew that Saddam had no weapons and actively acted to cover up the intelligence. Wilson disagreed with The adminstartion's fake evidence of Saddam getting nuclear materials from Niger. The admin sicked Rove on him vindictively.
The Dems aren't perfect, but take a long hard look at the people you are supporting pal. You are defending KARL ROVE, a fat bloated doughboy who sold out our national security for a petty political point.
For once try not to put your GOP party politics ahead of our country's best ineterest. This warrants further investigation, aand it will get it, and Rove will be indicted and the whole Bush house of cards will fall.
And go volunteer for the war you little yellow elephant. I know you're the same guy sitting at his desk job posting on a college newspaper. Go do something to support the war you love. Maybe we can get rid of you.
Anonymous (July 17, 2005 @ 11:52pm):
" the damage to America's intelligence on weapons of mass destruction may well be massive"
We apparently don't have any "intelligence" on WMD, so what's the diff?
Anonymous (July 17, 2005 @ 11:54pm):
The CIA hasn't done such a great job recently, have they?
Anonymous (July 18, 2005 @ 12:23pm):
More evidence that the Bush administration is completely uncnconcerned with what Rove did and lies consistently.
Bush really does this sort of thing all the time.
September 29, 2003:
McClellan: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration."
September 30, 2003"
Bush: "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."
Today:
Bush: "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."
Bush had it right back in 2003. But he's not a man of his word.
Anonymous (July 18, 2005 @ 5:17pm):
Looks like Scooter Libby was involved as well. But according to Republican talking points this is a non-story, only the two right hand men of the president and vice president exposing an undercover CIA operative. No story there. LMFAO.
On another note, Bush's approval rating is horrendously low, 75% of the American public think Karl Rove should be fired, and the quagmire in Iraq is close to civil War.
Oh what a tangled web we weave...
Anonymous (July 18, 2005 @ 8:23pm):
You can all disagree as you wish, but Reese Witherspoon is one hot babe! Don't be talkin' that she-has-an-alien-forehead-and-a-troll-chin shit! She's for real. No extreme makeover, just raw beauty. Just how easy is that to find these days?
Anonymous (July 19, 2005 @ 9:09pm):
Wel ya got me cornvinced! We should tuck our tails between our legs and skee-daddle lickety-split.
That'll show 'em how to put the Great Satan in it's place! Just git them appeasers to the front of things!
And surely we'll receive peace and fellowship from all those who now spew hatred and forment murder of all infidels?
I sure look forward to keeping my shoes on next time I fly - it's kinda yucky walking around in my socks in the airport.
Anonymous (July 19, 2005 @ 9:25pm):
Terror attacks have increased since Bush began the "war on terror".
Waging war on an ideology is not possible. Waging a war on individuals is.
However, Osama Bin Laden, the Bush family friend is still uncaptured, and now we have a massive quagmire and fomenting civil war in Iraq.
Bush's war on terror has created more terror. Common sense tells you why. The terrorists do not care if they die, so killing them does no good. The more we kill, the more martyrs there are to stir up anti-Americanism.
No, we should find and kill Osama Bin Laden and re-focus our efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan. This Iraq mess has created more terrorists and has taken resources away that could have ben used to protect us at home and fight the war against the people that actually bombed us-Al Quaeda-rather than boggin us down in Iraq.
Anonymous (July 19, 2005 @ 9:43pm):
"Rather, it was a deepening of the targeted public's wish to deal with terrorism through avoidance and accommodation, a mass descent into the psychological belief, so often disproved by history, that if we only leave vicious attackers alone, they will leave us alone."
Has this strategy ever worked?
Anonymous (July 20, 2005 @ 10:03am):
Dude, you keep citing conservative bloggers as "fact". Those are opinion pieces.
Let's make something clear.
If there was no suspicion of a crime, the CIA wouldn't hae handed the case over for investigation. For you to say that it is a non-issue is absurd. Here are the facts:
Rove lied about his involvement.
MClellan (and by extension Bush) lied about Rove's involvement.
We have several of the top Whitehouse aides smearing a fellow Republican because he pointed out that the Bush administration was lying to the American public about WMD's.
Those are the FACTS. not opinion. not blogs. The facts. SO maybe Rove has or hasn' committed a crime, but what he did is unethical. YOu know it, and the American people know it.
Furthermore, Plame was working on WMD research, in outing her, Rove blew the cover on a whole operation that was researching WMD sales.
Rove is a traitor to this country. That much is clear. He places his party before national security. This is the guy you are defending.
Anyone who thinks we should fight the war on "radical islam" should go enlist. The army is trying to get the recruitment age moved up to 42 because they need troops so badly. Why not go enlist you yellow elephant?
"Recruitment is a challenge right now," Snyder said. "Both the military and Congress are working on solutions, but I expect these challenges will be with us for some time. Military service is honorable and can be a real growing opportunity for a young man or woman."
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-983408.php
See when I cite stories they are NEWS stories, not posts by conservative pundits who obviously agree with you since they are conservatives to begin with.
You're wrong on Rove and you know it. But nice try with the spin.
You've always been wrong on Iraq and you know it. That's why you are too much of a pussy to go enlist.
Anonymous (July 20, 2005 @ 11:38am):
One might also want to consider that Karl Rove was fired from Daddy Bush's administration after leaking a story to the press.
Oh, the reporter? Bob Novak.
Karl Rove and Novak: They've Talked Before
Rove fired from Bush Sr's '92 campaign over leak to Novak. Karl Rove was fired from the 1992 re-election campaign of Bush Sr. for allegedly leaking a negative story about Bush loyalist/fundraiser Robert Mosbacher to Novak. Novak's piece described a meeting organized by then-Senator Phil Gramm at which Mosbacher was relieved of his duties as state campaign manager because "the president's re-election effort in Texas has been a bust." Rove was fired after Mosbacher fingered him as Novak's source.
Rove was the "only one with a motive to leak": Mosbacher says: "I said Rove is the only one with a motive to leak this. We let him go." The motive in question? Mosbacher had given Rove only a quarter of the $1 million spent on direct mail contracts for the 92 campaign; Rove, who in 1988 had the entire direct mail contract, therefore had an axe to grind with Mosbacher. Novak's column stated: "Also attending the session was political consultant Karl Rove, who had been shoved aside by Mosbacher."
Mosbacher still says Rove did it: Although Novak and Rove continue to deny Rove was the source of the leak, Mosbacher recently stated "I still believe he did it."
Anonymous (July 20, 2005 @ 6:55pm):
"Anyone who thinks we should fight the war on "radical islam" should go enlist."
That so?
And anybody who thinks we should fight fires should become a firefighter?
Anybody who thinks we should fight crime should join the police department?
Anyone who doesn't think we should fight "radical islam" is an idiot. As an athiest I find the Christian fundies to be very friendly and accomodating compared to "radical islam" which would murder me as a matter of their "law".
Anonymous (July 20, 2005 @ 6:58pm):
"The identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame was compromised twice before her name appeared in a new column that triggered a federal illegal-disclosure investigation... Mrs. Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a Moscow spy...In a second compromise, officials said a more recent inadvertent disclosure resulted in references to Mrs. Plame in confidential documents sent by the CIA to the U.S. Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Havana ... Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them, the officials said."
FACT - not opinion
Anonymous (July 20, 2005 @ 11:01pm):
You are afraid to enlist. You are willing to send others to die for something because you feel it is such a threat to our national security (Iraq) but are unwilling to go yourself. There are then two options 1) You are afraid to go and want to send others ie. you are a coward 2) You don't really think it ias serious a threat as you claim but want to send others to die for a political strategy (iraq) therefore you are a hypocrite and a coward.
The army needs you, why won't you go? DOn't you support our country?
Here is a response to your Rove spin. You quote Repub sources and I can quote liberal ones. The fact remains that Rove lied and Bush lied. But you won't ever admit that since you put your party before your country.
-----------------------
Anonymous (July 20, 2005 @ 11:06pm):
Oh and by the way. Osama Bin Laden, the guy that masterminded 9-11, the guy that Bush isn't "that concerned with" well he has been linked to the London bombings.
Good thing all the terrorists are in Iraq? huh? Good thing we are wasting billions of tax dollars fighting an unneeded war that we were deceived into, good thing Bush has taken his eye off of family friend Osama Bin Forgotten to create more terrorists in Iraq.
Way to protect us Bush Junior!
Anonymous (July 20, 2005 @ 11:16pm):
C'mon man. Are you really that much of a sheep that you think that Rove is an honorable upright guy who would never stoop to smearing Wilson? His mentor was Lee Atwater for chirstsakes.
I think he fucked up this time and got too cocky nad it might just be, I hope, his and this administrations downfall.
If you beleive that Bush and Rove are upstanding guys you are either really brainwashed or really fucking dumb. I might vote Dem but I know that both sides are full of dirty tricks and I am against all of them. You on the other hand seem to think that anything is fine as long as it advances the repub agenda.
Try thinking for yourself. You might actually learn something.
Anonymous (July 21, 2005 @ 9:58am):
Zell Miller for President!
Anonymous (July 21, 2005 @ 11:49am):
Let's not forget why we went to war in Iraq as told to us by Ari Fleischer:
But there's a bigger picture here, and this is what's fundamental -- the case for war against Iraq was based on the threat that Saddam Hussein posed because of his possession of weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological, and his efforts to reconstitute a nuclear program. In 1991, everybody in the world underestimated how close he was to getting a nuclear weapon. The case for going to war against Saddam is as just today as it was the day the President gave that speech.
---
So 1700 lives and many lies later we are still stuck there. Rove smeared someone who was trying to out their lies. Wilson was a Republican by the way, before they turned the attack dogs on him for daring to put his country before the Republican party.
Anonymous (July 21, 2005 @ 6:24pm):
Yellowcake Joe is a liar and a fraud.
Anonymous (July 21, 2005 @ 6:25pm):
Have you signed up for the police academy - or are you in favor of crime?
Anonymous (July 21, 2005 @ 8:13pm):
Much as I disagree with many of Bush's policies, winning World War IV is more important.
If you want passivity and wallowing in victim culture, the Dems will do. If you want to win this thing, Bush is the only game in town.
Webmaster (July 21, 2005 @ 10:43pm):
I've closed comments on this article due to most of them being pasted excerpts. Linking to external sites is fine; don't just copy and paste. Voice original comments of your own.
