SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: zonkie who wrote (61282)3/17/2006 7:19:57 PM
From: Karen Lawrence  Respond to of 361700
 
President Bush's new, 19,322-word national security report is a stunning document that parents should not permit their children to read.www.capitolhillblue.com
Bush's situational ethics
By ANN McFEATTERS
Mar 17, 2006, 06:50


President Bush's new, 19,322-word national security report is a stunning document that parents should not permit their children to read.

It does not square with what schoolchildren learn about the principles for which this country has stood.

Here are a few examples:

* "Under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur _ even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack." This is a restatement of Bush's remarkable and central doctrine of preemption _ this country now chooses to go to war against countries suspected of plotting to do us harm, even if the threat is not imminent, even if facts aren't known or clear.
* "This diplomatic effort (with Iran) must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided." This says to the world that the United States has different strokes for different folks. It's OK for India to refuse to abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but the United States will go to war against Iran, which also scorns non-proliferation. With the war in Iraq still raging, Bush says it is now Iran that may pose our biggest challenge.
* "Regional cooperation offers the best hope for a peaceful, diplomatic resolution of (North Korea's determination to get nuclear weapons)." Unlike Iran, Bush has no intention of using force against North Korea despites its efforts to get nuclear weapons. _ "The United States must expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy." Bush argues that the answer to terrorism is to push every nation to become a democracy, even though it may not work out (Palestinians now are led by a terrorist group, Hamas). Through the deaths of thousands of Iraqis and Americans, Iraq has held elections and has a constitution. But the United States just spearheaded the largest air assault since the war in Iraq began, in a country ripped apart by sectarian violence.

Even as the Bush administration seeks another $91 billion to fight in Iraq while piling up a $9 trillion national debt, 60 percent of Americans tell pollsters that Iraq was not worth going to war over and 55 percent say civil war and more chaos in Iraq are the likely outcome. Only 40 percent agree with Bush that Iraq soon will have a stable government, the first domino leading to Middle East democracy.

Bush is not wrong in seeking to spread democracy. But his assumption it could be done on the cheap and his sending mixed messages about America's strategies have inestimably undermined this nation's goals.

Bush went to war in Iraq ignoring warnings that "victory" would be more difficult than he expected. He ignored the military's warning that more troops were needed, underestimated the strength of the insurgency and has refused to admit any mistakes.

His remarkably strange new national security report makes clear that if he had it all to do over again, he would do the same things, in the same order, on the same scale.



To: zonkie who wrote (61282)3/17/2006 7:20:49 PM
From: SiouxPal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361700
 
Before a senator proposes anything in the Senate they know if it will fly or not in most cases. They've taken a headcount before the proposition is made.
His prop would pass if we had the Senate. We don't.
I'd rather see an impeachment where we have the votes.



To: zonkie who wrote (61282)3/17/2006 7:42:23 PM
From: SiouxPal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361700
 
You did not reflect my entire post.
I've had it with losing gracefully.
I want to win and shove it in the Winger's faces.