← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · toddbrendanfahey
Thread ID: 1192 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2002-06-10
2002-06-10 07:54 | User Profile
Woodrow W. Bush
Posted: June 10, 2002 1:00 a.m. Eastern
é 2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
President Bush is engaged in feverish diplomacy to stop an India-Pakistan war. He is mulling over an "American Plan" to end the Israeli-Palestinian war. And he has just sent his secretary of defense to NATO to line up allies to launch an American-Iraqi war.
Am I the only one that sees a small contradiction here?
The president's men say only a war on Iraq and Saddam's end can remove the threat of terror against us. Sharon says only the destruction of Arafat can end the threat of terror against Israel. Vajpayee says only the destruction of terrorist camps on Pakistan's side of the Line of Control can end the threat of terror against India.
Yet as we implore Sharon and Vajpayee not to let slip the dogs of war, the president wants to unleash the dogs of war.
If our allies seem reluctant to follow us, who can blame them? Our foreign policy seems increasingly erratic, and the president is beginning to sound like that bellicose virago, Madeleine Albright.
Click here for rest of article.
2002-06-10 08:13 | User Profile
Pat makes several superb points, as always. Junior is simply too stupid a man to be President today. At least Wilson sent Pershing to fight back Pancho Villa's invasion instead of bleating deranged claptrap about "One North American Nation".
The CFR seems to be his collective Colonel House.
2002-06-10 18:39 | User Profile
In my book I remembered the invasion of Pancho Villa somewhat differently.
**While Europe was ablaze in war, the United States had only the problem of the Mexican revolution on its southern border. In 1916 Pancho Villa at the height of the Mexican revolution crossed the border with a force of 1000 men and raided Columbus, New Mexico. The outlaw forces of Villa killed 18 Americans and wounded many more. In a book for children in the English language series, Hispanics of Achievement, the author was careful to point out Villa's revolutionaries were under strict orders to kill only men although one Spanish speaking Anglo heard one of the thugs tell another to kill any thing that "looked white". [Steven O'Brien, Pancho Villa, p88 (Chelsea House, 1994)]
This led to a punitive expedition under General John J. Pershing into northern Mexico where American forces used airplanes and motorized vehicles for the first time. None of these technical advantages was of much use to the American military. Somehow it does seem fitting that the only foreign raid on the continental United States in this century is commemorated by the Pancho Villa State Park, formerly Camp Furlong, where Pershing's headquarters was located. In 1959 the New Mexico State Legislature designated this area a state park where a forty-nine acre botanical garden coexists with full RV facilities.[ Rick Cahill, Border Towns of the Southwest, pp121-5 (Pruett, 1987)] The influence of the WASP has declined acutely in the border area. **
[color=red]How Americans can be pushed around by scum from south of the border border bothers me. The recent invasion is not the first. Nor is our tepid response the first inadequate one.[/color]
2002-06-11 13:45 | User Profile
Woodrow W. Bush
Posted: June 10, 2002 1:00 a.m. Eastern
é 2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
President Bush is engaged in feverish diplomacy to stop an India-Pakistan war. He is mulling over an "American Plan" to end the Israeli-Palestinian war. And he has just sent his secretary of defense to NATO to line up allies to launch an American-Iraqi war.
Am I the only one that sees a small contradiction here?
The president's men say only a war on Iraq and Saddam's end can remove the threat of terror against us. Sharon says only the destruction of Arafat can end the threat of terror against Israel. Vajpayee says only the destruction of terrorist camps on Pakistan's side of the Line of Control can end the threat of terror against India.
Yet as we implore Sharon and Vajpayee not to let slip the dogs of war, the president wants to unleash the dogs of war.
If our allies seem reluctant to follow us, who can blame them? Our foreign policy seems increasingly erratic, and the president is beginning to sound like that bellicose virago, Madeleine Albright.
Candidate Bush disparaged the "indispensable nation" braggadocio of Albright. In 1999, he said in Simi Valley, Calif.: "Let us not dominate others with our power. ... Let us have an American foreign policy that reflects American character. The modesty of true strength. The humility of real greatness. This is the strong heart of America. And this will be the spirit of my administration."
Here was Candidate Bush at his best, and in the debates, he expanded on the theme: "[T]he United States must be humble. ... We must be proud and confident of our values, but humble in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course." But where was that humility, that statesmanlike reserve, in the president's address at West Point?
Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment are no longer adequate, the president said. "[N]ew threats ... require new thinking. ... If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long."
Is this the new Bush Doctrine: America asserting a right to launch preventive wars on any "rogue nations" that we catch building the kind of weapons we have had in our own arsenal for half a century?
This is a formula for endless wars, almost certain to produce the very horror the president seeks to avert ââ¬â the detonation of an atomic or biological weapon on American soil.
Where is Bush getting these ideas? Is deterrence really passe? What else but U.S. deterrence keeps China off Taiwan or North Korea out of the South? What other than America's deterrent power keeps Saddam out of Kuwait or prevents his using on us or Israel the poison gas weapons the War Party says he used on the Kurds?
"Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies," said the president.
But is Saddam or Kim Jong-Il or the latest Ayatollah more "unbalanced" than the mass murderers Stalin, Mao and the megalomaniacal Kim Il-Sung? If containment and deterrence worked with these monsters, why will they not work with the smaller fry of today?
"All nations that decide for aggression and terror will pay a price," the president declared. "We will not leave the ... peace of the planet at the mercy of a few terrorists and tyrants. We will lift this dark threat from our country and from the world."
The peace of the planet? Where does the president get the right to identify and punish every aggressor on earth? Can anyone other than a wild Wilsonian Utopian think that any U.S. president can lift the "dark threat" of aggression and terror from mankind? Israel cannot even do it in its own cities.
"The 20th century ended with a single surviving model of human progress," the president told the cadets. How humble is that?
"The requirements of freedom apply fully ... to the entire Islamic world," he added. But does not Islam mean "submission" to Allah? And if 1 billion Muslims and their rulers reject feminism and refuse to emulate President Bush by dialoguing with their local Log Cabin Club, who is to say they are wrong and we are right?
"We are in a conflict between good and evil, and America will call evil by its name," thundered the president. But which is the evil side in Chechnya, Sri Lanka and Kashmir? In the Afghan war, we were aided by Iran, Libya, Sudan, Pakistan and Northern Alliance generals accused of massacres. In Desert Storm, we were assisted by Assad, in World War II by Stalin, in the Cold War by the Shah, Pinochet, Marcos and the South Africa of the Botha boys.
"Moral truth is the same in every culture, in every time and in every place," said the president. As a Christian, he rightly believes it.
But, Mr. President, ask the Germans if what we did to Dresden was moral. Ask the Japanese if what we did to Nagasaki was moral. Ask your own family if abortion is moral. By dividing the world into good and evil, and threatening pre-emptive wars on all "evil ones," we may persuade the targets of our pre-emption to acquire the only kind of weapons able to deter a crusading U.S. president.
Related offer:
Buchanan's latest book is here! "The Death of the West" is an eye-opening exposé of how immigration invasions are endangering America. Both autographed and unautographed copies are now available at WorldNetDaily's online store!
Patrick J. Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Partyââ¬â¢s candidate in 2000. Now a commentator and columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national television shows, and is the author of seven books.
2002-06-11 13:49 | User Profile
I liked this too! I posted it in the politics forum... but Todd had already posted it in the necon forum... Here's the link:
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=1602&s=9e385488c453f0c06475338b20c1b4e3]Woodrow W. Bush[/url]
2002-06-11 18:08 | User Profile
Gentlemen,
Any excuse that passes for an opportunity to project intervention, will become the 'spin' of the day. Where is the Pancho Villa among our own ranks? One that wears a WASP hat!
Thanks Todd for the kind invite. Hope that all will visit [url=http://sartre.info]BREAKING ALL THE RULES[/url] and will check out the private [url=http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATR]BATR - Yahoo Group[/url]
Hope you will enjoy the sage from the Existential side . . .
SARTRE :ph34r:
2002-06-11 18:38 | User Profile
Originally posted by Unexpurgated@Jun 10 2002, 08:13 **Pat makes several superb points, as always. Junior is simply too stupid a man to be President today. At least Wilson sent Pershing to fight back Pancho Villa's invasion instead of bleating deranged claptrap about "One North American Nation".
The CFR seems to be his collective Colonel House.**
This book had a lot of intersting references about the enigmatic Bushes and their pedigree.
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?s=72bfaccd7992fccf92c382fc33f0c566&act=ST&f=11&t=1616&st=0&#entry8729]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...st=0&#entry8729[/url]
2002-06-11 23:30 | User Profile
The clear repudiation of El Presidente's campaign boilerplate constituted by his actions as president should come as no surprise to anyone. Boosh is nothing but a cipher; a grinning butt puppet of Perle & Sharon.
2002-06-12 07:46 | User Profile
N.B.,
You`re right about Jorge. I read somewhere awhile back that when it came to influencing Bush that it was the last person he talked to. From listening to the frauds who make up the Neo-con media (Fox News, Neo-con talkradio) that would appear to be the case. The party line with them is that "Sharon has gotten Bush back on track," ect. In the lastest case they were referring to that whatever Mubarak might have convinced Bush of, Sharon undid it. This is no surprise to most of us here. Some of us figured the story was true about Sharon telling Peres not to worry about the Americans, that they control them. This is just another case in point. For all the talk about what a fine president Bush is that he really is nothing but a cipher for people like Cheney and Perle.
2002-11-22 16:25 | User Profile
Originally posted by Unexpurgated@Jun 10 2002, 08:13 **Pat makes several superb points, as always. Junior is simply too stupid a man to be President today. At least Wilson sent Pershing to fight back Pancho Villa's invasion instead of bleating deranged claptrap about "One North American Nation".
The CFR seems to be his collective Colonel House.**
Don't give Wilson too much credit for anything. Woodrow strikes me as the first truly starry-eyed credulous globalist. Listen to this amusing account of him during the post-WWI Paris negotiations.
But there is little evidence that the League had any special attraction for Llloyd George. In fact, to him Wilson's enthusiasm (for the League of Nations) seemed almost lucridious. With relish Lloyd George describes a meeting of the Council of Ten during which Wilson explained to those present, including the notrorious atheist Clemenceau, that the League of Nations had would succeed in creating a brotherhood of man where Christianity had failed. "Why," Wilson asked them, "has Jesus Christ so far nort succeeded in inducing the World to follow him in these matters? It is because he taught the ideal without devising any practical means of attaining it. That is why I am proposing a practical scheme to carry out his aims." Clemenceau, says Lloyd George, "slowly opened his dark eyes to their widest dimensions and swept around the assembly to see how the Christians gathered around the table enjoyed this exposure of the futility of their Master." (The Kings Depart, Watt)
Wilson around the table like a lamb, expounding his brainless, bluesky proposals for the predatory Europeans like Lloyd George and Clemenceau. Has any better archetype for todays gullible liberals and Bushie Republicans alike, surrounded by cynical globalists of the European, neo-liberal, and neo-conservative varieties, ever emerged? B)