Skip to main content

Apologies if this has already been diaried, but it absolutely MUST be seen, and tag searches and site searches for Madeleine Albright turned up nothing.

In today's LA Times, Madeleine Albright wrote an op-ed column with the best evisceration of Bush's foreign policy I have ever seen.  Anywhere.

The whole piece is so good that I don't really know what to quote and what to leave out and still fall under fair use guidelines, but here are a few:

It is sometimes convenient, for purposes of rhetorical effect, for national leaders to talk of a globe neatly divided into good and bad. It is quite another, however, to base the policies of the world's most powerful nation upon that fiction. The administration's penchant for painting its perceived adversaries with the same sweeping brush has led to a series of unintended consequences.

In essence, Madeleine Albright destroys Bush's entire presumption of an Axis of Evil.

The administration is now divided between those who understand this complexity and those who do not.

And the wrong people are winning.

On one side, there are ideologues, such as the vice president, who apparently see Iraq as a useful precedent for Iran. Meanwhile, officials on the front lines in Iraq know they cannot succeed in assembling a workable government in that country without the tacit blessing of Iran; hence, last week's long-overdue announcement of plans for a U.S.-Iranian dialogue on Iraq -- a dialogue that if properly executed might also lead to progress on other issues.

She makes clear in no uncertain terms that all of our anti-Iranian rhetoric not only destroys our chances of creating real regime change in Iraq, but also destroys our hope of "winning" (whatever that would mean) in Iraq.

Second, the Bush administration should disavow any plan for regime change in Iran -- not because the regime should not be changed but because U.S. endorsement of that goal only makes it less likely. In today's warped political environment, nothing strengthens a radical government more than Washington's overt antagonism.

Once again--Mr. Bush, the world hates your United States so much that it will essentially do the opposite of whatever you say.

Third, the administration must stop playing solitaire while Middle East and Persian Gulf leaders play poker.

The best line of the entire piece.  This simple-minded, stupid, PNAC influenced administration has conducted a foreign policy right in line with the IQ of its chief executive.  What's worse is that they aren't even competent solitaire players--they seem to be playing solitaire with a deck of 51, while its opponents play Texas hold 'em.

Her last statement is actually extraordinary, in highlighting some forces I had not considered before:

Bush's "march of freedom" is not the big story in the Muslim world, where Shiite Muslims suddenly have more power than they have had in 1,000 years; it is not the big story in Lebanon, where Iran is filling the vacuum left by Syria; it is not the story among Palestinians, who voted -- in Western eyes -- freely, and wrongly; it is not even the big story in Iraq, where the top three factions in the recent elections were all supported by decidedly undemocratic militias.

SO MUCH GOOD STUFF IN HERE.  Read the whole thing.  Email it to your friends.

Because the time has finally come to call Bush's ENTIRE FOREIGN POLICY WORLDVIEW into question.  And to eliminate the "Islamofascist Axis of Evil" myth into oblivion once and for all.

Originally posted to thereisnospoon (David Atkins) on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 10:06 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  tips (307+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sharoney, pontificator, Malacandra, arlam, wozzle, Jett, MichaelPH, Angie in WA State, sj, vicki, Best in Show, SWicklund, Peanut, elizsan, wystler, knowthings, lipris, Ashami, firenze, Dump Terry McAuliffe, lrhoke, robla, musing85, Mountain Don, demnomore, sen bob, Mullibok, saraswati, ScientistMom in NY, RunawayRose, Lahdee, Debby, Sherri in TX, meg, baffled, OLinda, Vico, Stein, baracon, rhubarb, oysterface, frsbdg, polecat, x, LeftHandedMan, DemInCville, dash888, ilona, Carnacki, Bob Friend, Matilda, grndrush, bumblebums, exNYinTX, hubcap, Mcguffin, Creosote, msstaley, davelf2, jetfan, kissfan, Dumbo, dpc, loudGizmo, km4, concernedamerican, joynow, bronte17, indybend, riverrun, Mary Julia, guyute16, Big Time Patriot, jem6x, sfgb, Baldwiny, HippyWitch, AlyoshaKaramazov, Bionic, cosmic debris, hekebolos, mrblifil, roses, bobinson, peraspera, sgilman, peeder, L0kI, badlands, garbo, sjb8888, k2winters, sidinny, juergendopp, dchill, PeteZerria, lilnubber, Terre, KCBearcat, semiot, Jesterfox, kptlaurie, jthomas666, arkdem, Southern Bell, CocoaLove, sidnora, litigatormom, Boorad, sele, bato, wader, DaleNC, DemocracyLover in NYC, suzq, SneakySnu, WeatherDem, kharma, psnyder, Alizaryn, Moody Loner, BurnetO, sockpuppet, NYC Sophia, Dallasdoc, DeadB0y, pat bunny, Chamonix, ghostofaflea, TXsharon, lezlie, exiledfromTN, hairspray, Rico, smash, Caldonia, 2liberal, texasmom, wdrath, GN1927, snakelass, rockhound, rlharry, parrothead, Thom K in CA, coigue, inclusiveheart, walkshills, One bite at a time, deep6, Donna in Rome, Ayanora, peterj911, WV Democrat, mungley, jcrit, moggie12, Little Red Hen, DrewDown, kd texan, Scout Finch, Hari Rothstein, califdweller, Sassy, murrayewv, guyermo, sawgrass727, SteveK, MichDeb, leolabeth, vcmvo2, joanneleon, maybeeso in michigan, bloomer 101, historys mysteries, Bluesee, 3goldens, z adura, Treg, rstnfld, Smyslov, kingubu, Ckntfld, keila, el dorado gal, Sam I Am, rimstalker, coloradobl, LisaZ, Heiuan, theKK, mjd in florida, melindafla, Chinton, ignorant bystander, PBen, Philoguy, ejmw, betterdonkeys, BCO gal, Alien Abductee, panicbean, clammyc, crimsonscare, Bad Cog, station wagon, Cake or Death, knutsondc, viral, 1Nic Ven, amRadioHed, KiaRioGrl79, david78209, Nastja Polisci, cackyp, trinityfly, Lepanto, Claybow, Sophie Blue, dansk47, olivia, flo58, Pam from Calif, Karmafish, EconAtheist, GreyHawk, Overseas, annefrank, Skid, Phil S 33, docstymie, Brother Dave, babatunde, wardlow, Rydra Wrong, collapse, palachia, Shotput8, EeDan, sodalis, desordre remplir, LivesInAShoe, Shaking the Tree, Tuba Les, LithiumCola, gotgat54, panmandan, trojanrabbit, Rogneid, mkrc98, Team Slacker, psyched, Box of Rain, Trakker, Dr Benway, soyinkafan, Mehitabel9, Cletus from Canuckistan, howth of murph, ThaliaR, kovie, rkex, Sanuk, snazzzybird, PoppyRocks, BobzCat, kraant, iheartbooks, Fasaha, Kingsmeg, BlueInARedState, Ky DEM, DC Scott, Still Thinking, Ellicatt, Yellow Canary, CommiePinkoScum, omfreebogart, Dvalkure, kestrel9000, Truza, buhdydharma, dougymi, Diamond Lily, mango, Junior Bug, blueoasis, jguzman17, paiges, Lashe, gatorcog, OneCrankyDom, NOLA Native, imabluemerkin, slandurgurl, MO Blue, R i c k, ThePenIsMightier, Andy30tx, Stomp 442, jedinecny, dfisk, nicejoest, Wujiman, RantNRaven, djalix976, Vengent

    not for me, but for Ms. Albright.  I would love to see her debate Condi Rice...

  •  Bush's foreign policy? And that would be? (7+ / 0-)

    No, seriously, I recommended on the title alone.  Say what you want about Ms. Albright, that woman knows her foreign policy, she was a stellar Sec of State.  Thanks for the cheering up!  I needed it today.

    Now I will go read the entire article!

    I am not your beast of burden: I will not be forced to carry your baggage.....Humanistic Property Manifesto (-5.13, -4.77)

    by panicbean on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 10:10:27 AM PST

  •  Former Secretary Albright is no saint (26+ / 0-)

    given her statements in the past alluding to loss of life as being of little import in the grand schemeta of forign policy objectives; that should be enough to her credit in this piece.  She does, however, have more intelligence and credibility in her pinky nail than the dunces now running our forign policy.  I'd give my first-born to have her back in office.  If I had one.

    She was only a moonshiner's daughter, but she always made me liquer - Rev. Billy C. Wirtz

    by gatorcog on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 10:12:51 AM PST

    •  She's A Smug Genocidal Twank (30+ / 6-)

      ....who deserves to be in the dock at the Hague for Crimes against Humanity for her own actions as Secretary of State.

      Having former Secretary Albright level this sort of criticism of Bush is rather like hearing Italian Fascist criminals criticize Spanish Fascist criminals.

      It just makes the accusation that much more damaging, when a moral leper like Albright says it's beyond the pale.

      •  Thank you for that! n/t (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LeftHandedMan, BalkanID
      •  Apparently you hit too close to home (14+ / 0-)

        Despite the troll rating, there is much truth in your statement. I too remember her reply when asked(I believe by Diane Sawyer) if the half million Iraqui deaths due to sanctions were worth it, and she replied in the affirmative. The callousness of her reply was very disturbing.

        Don't Panic - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

        by slatsg on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 10:57:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Here's the quote (16+ / 0-)

          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)

          Incidentally, while we're discussing crimes against humanity, I think troll-rating comments which you don't agree with also qualify.

          •  Beengo! (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LeftHandedMan, polydactyl

            I remember seeing that interview!

            and being astonished, frankly, this coming from a liberal?


            "Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath.... You can't ask for better than that." Fadel Gheit

            by Superpole on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 11:31:26 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Neo-liberal (6+ / 0-)

              .....which is another way of saying "right-wing militaristic corporate friendly Democrat."

              •  sanctions aren't militaristic really (0+ / 0-)

                more like death by starvation. It doesn't really support the military industrial complex or the bloodlust all that well. So I would not say they are right-wing.

                But those kids are still dead. So what's the better word?

                How about...just wrong?


                by coigue on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 07:49:15 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  'Wrong' is Right (0+ / 0-)

                  ....tho the planes and ships enforcing the sanctions and enforcing the "no-fly zones" did tend to be military.

                  •  The infrastructure (0+ / 0-)

                    was nothing like it is now. So, yes, there was military involved, but was nothing like we are seeing now.

                    Look, our economy now is becoming more and more dependent on military and military-supporting companies. In my 401K I can choose between stocks and 'social-choice' stocks. My 'social-choice stocks' went up 8% last year. The regular stock went up 17%-18%. So what is the difference between the two?

                    Social choice stocks don't invest in weapons manufacturers, (or tobacco).

                    That's a 10% difference. It's huge and it is making many of us complicit.

                    ...It was the same during the Reagan era. Exactly.

                    During Clinton people accumulated wealth off of tech stocks.

                    Now it's Halliburton, and GE, etc, etc.....

                    So no. Relatively speaking Albright, Clinton, etc, are not militaristic nor right-wing.


                    by coigue on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 08:14:45 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  a liberal of convenience - progressive? hell no. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty, soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

              by shpilk on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 05:02:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  when the other options (17+ / 0-)

            all bad are also considered, it's also worth considering that if a father of four drives drunk and gets put in jail then his wife and kids might end up homeless and then the kids join a gang and get killed in some horrible drive by or something.

            who's fault is that???

            society's fault for putting their dad in jail which is, no doubt, by definition.... a sanction.

            or their father's?

            blaming the UN/albright and the clinton admin for saddam not being able to comply with the most basic of resolutions is, just in my opinion.  stupid.

            saddam killed those iraqi children.  i hope people can figure that out.  he was responsible and saddam killed those children.

            make no mistake about it.

            this analogy is clear.  and hermetic.

            •  That analogy doesn't wash (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LeftHandedMan, The Walrus

              The sanctions targeted the wife and kids directly, not Poppa Hussain.

              It victimised the victims even further, and killed all possibility of a popular uprising against the tyrant.

              •  the crimes were committed by poppa (5+ / 0-)

                and the fact is, putting drunk driving poppa in jail DOES affect the kids directly.  most directly.

                the analogy is perfect.

                bob geldof talks about countries in africa they can't reach because they are controlled by thuggish dictators not unlike saddam.

                why is that??

                is bob being discriminitory against the people of those countries who desperately need the help??  is he to blame if those people don't get help???

                no.  he also knows that even if he offers help, or if sanctions are lifted that doesn't guarantee the people who need food are going to get it.

                are you gonna start blaming int'l debt relief/poverty organizations for not getting food into those countries for the deaths that result from them not getting food and medicine into those countries??  i wouldn't.

                or are you gonna blame the thuggish tyrants there who refuse to care one iota for the people of their own country and therefore refuse to allow ensurances, and transparency???

                i would.

                •  You're missing my point by a few miles (0+ / 0-)

                  The sanctions did not put 'drunk driving poppa' in jail. Saddam and his unholy crew did not suffer. The rest of the population did.

                  And those 'thuggish dictators' were most definitely unlike Saddam in one respect: Saddam ensured that the people got education, medical care, civic amenities, and enjoyed a generally high standard of living. If the sanctions had been lifted, Iraq would have reverted to that state of affairs. The 'people who need food' had been getting it before, and would have got it again.

                  •  ok fine (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    the drunk driving poppa could skip town and never get convicted.  and thus... not suffer.

                    the kids are still homeless.

                    NOT cause there's a law against driving drunk.

                    and we enforce it.

                    but cause their poppa's a shithead criminal who doesn't give a shit or not if his kids starve.

                    what the fuck is so fucking hard to understand about that???

                    •  The kids were not starving (0+ / 0-)

                      before the sanctions. Poppa may have been a homicidal maniac, and into sectarian genocide --- but he was also spending oil money on health, education, modernisation and other goodies which ensured a high standard of living for most people, so long as they behaved themselves and let go of some liberties. They were not starving, or dying for lack of medical supplies. That came later, and the sanctions did it.

                      Popa may have been 3 or 4 types of 'shithead criminal'. Doesn't mean he was every kind of shithead criminal there is.

                      I'm done with this thread.

                      •  all poppa had to do (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        to get his kids health and education etc. was agree to stop building weapons.

                        so if he really cared about what you say he cared about, i assume he would have chosen differently when confronted with the sanctions.

                        i'm not saying the sanctions didn't do it.  they certainly did.

                        i'm saying saddam hussein is responsible for the sanctions.  not madeline albright.

                        just the same way a drunk driver is responsible for being in jail.

                        not the cops/DA/jury/judge who put him there.

                        •  Imagine that the US kidnapped one Iraqi child. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Carl Nyberg, The Walrus

                          One sweet innocent Iraqi child, and held her hostage. Delivered an ultimatum to Saddam: 'Stop building those weapons, or we off this cute little tyke'.

                          All Poppa has to do to save her life is yield. Comply.

                          Now that's an analogy for you. In fact, just possibly a more ethically defensible option, by virtue of the numbers. But ---

                          If the US had done that, the world-wide outrage would have been overwhelming. People everywhere would have reacted with shock and horror and rage.

                          When it's half a million cute little tykes killed with almost the same degree of deliberation and forethought, but you don't know their names, you don't know what they look like --- you and Madeline Albright can view it with much more composure.

                          'All Poppa had to do...' - that trumps all other considerations, right?

                          But who looks like more of a 'shithead criminal' in this parallel scenario?

                          •  that's a different situation (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            we don't break laws.

                            like kidnapping innocent sweet little children.

                            or at least we didn't 8 years ago.

                            we don't kidnap the children of families to get the father to stop drinking and driving.

                            but we do put him in jail.  and if that has negative impact on his kids then that's the HIS responsibility.

                            not ours.

                            again.  this is an impossible concept to grasp for some.  but there it is.

                          •  Who put Saddam in jail --- (0+ / 0-)

                            --- until now?

                            Sanctions against Iraq are not - repeat not - repeat, repeat, repeat not - equivalent to putting him in jail. Why do you keep degrading this dialogue with this grotesque analogy?

                            The sanctions directly hit the kids and other innocents. They were deliberately targeted. The consequences were easy to anticipate.  It put them in your hypothetical jail, and left them to suffer and starve. Saddam got off scot free.

                            In any case, I'm more concerned with the moralities here than the legalities. Something that kills half a million kids with cold calculation should be half a million times as illegal as kidnapping and killing one.

                            And no way will you convince me that my hostage scenario is different from what actually happened, except in the arguable legalities, the scale and the mechanics of it. And oh, of course, the fact that one gets to be all over the media, while the other gets buried.

                            I never thought I'd turn into a 'shrill liberal' in this forum, of all places.

                          •  The name ELIAN ring a bell? (0+ / 0-)
                          •  rolling my eyes at this one. (0+ / 0-)


                            by coigue on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 07:50:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  So we should have propped up Hussein's govt. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    to save the women and children?

                    Guess what,

                    they still would have died.

                    Sorry.  He was a bad man.  We had him under control from being able to harm other nations.  And for most Iraqis, life was bearable.

                    And far better than what they're living through now.

                    Do women and children in rural, remote areas get the shaft?

                    You bet they do.  Everywhere.  Thousands died in North Korea too, under Maddy's watch.  Should we have been propping up that dictator too?

                    •  Why would they still have died? (0+ / 0-)

                      I don't get it. The deaths were largely due to lack of medical supplies, malnutrition, and unclean drinking water, all of which were direct results of the sanctions. Those problems did not exist on anywhere near that scale previously

                      Why would they still have died?

                      And who said anything about 'propping up' Hussain's government? Lifting sanctions is not = propping up.

                  •  Tell that to the Kurds he gassed in '88 (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    and the Shiites he slaughtered in '91.

                    and the Iraqis and Iranians who died in the '80-'88 war that he stated.

                    and the Kuwatis he brutalized in '90.

                    The stupidity of our policy toward Iraq over the past 50 years does not excuse Saddams behavior as your post seem to try and do.

                    (-2.75,-4.77) "Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose." Senator Barack Obama

                    by Sam I Am on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 01:24:21 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That is a trollish comment (3+ / 0-)

                      He/she never attempted to excuse Saddam's behavior.  You're using the same tactics used by the Bushistas when someone diagrees with them - if you don't agree with them then you are suporting the terrorists. To point out that sanctions only made a bad situation worse, or that women may have been less restricted under the bathists than they are know under the emerging Iraqi theocracy is not endorsing Hussein.
                      Our government cannot escape its past actions which include helping Saddam to power in the 60s, supporting him in his war against Iran, the sanctions that were responsible for so many deaths in the 90s, or the criminal war being waged today.

                      Don't Panic - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

                      by slatsg on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 01:44:11 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  'Excuse Saddams behaviour?' Give me a break. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Kitty666, CommiePinkoScum

                      Where did I do anything remotely resembling that? Of course he committed those monstrosities. Of course I don't deny them, let alone condone them. But you will note that:

                      a) some of his worst atrocities were committed while he was being 'propped up' by the US, with Rummy shaking his hand and supplying weaponry.

                      b) the sanctions were imposed to draw his fangs as an aggressor of other nations, as you yourself pointed out, not to stop him slaughtering his own people.

                      c) as a result of the sanctions, we have all these many many additional deaths due to malnutrition and disease - which were not problems previously. The Monster and his crew were not even seriously inconvenienced.

                      d) I find it morally abhorrent that the deaths of innocent bystanders - on such a horrific scale - can be regarded as a suitable price for containing Saddam.

            •  that's bullshit (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              R Dub, Roadbed Guy, phinky, Kitty666, gotgat54
              No one else on earth would have enforced those sanctions.  No one.  The rest of the world was ready to end them.

              The US govt. enforced those sanctions and killed those children.  It was the foreseeable and forecast outcome of American policy.  The sanctions weakened Saddam Hussein to the point where his military was reduced to using pick-up trucks and grenade launchers and his WMD programs were moribund.  That was the intention of the sanctions and they were successful.  It is fundamentally dishonest to separate out the other outcome, the death of hundreds of thousands of children, and say "oh that! That makes us sad, so that's his fault."  If was important enough to starve Iraq of weapons, it was important enough to starve their children too.

              "... in my empire, life is sweet, just ask any bum you meet. You may say that I ain't free but it don't worry me..."

              by lumpenprole on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 12:11:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  if he wasn't trying to build those weapons (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                vcmvo2, Harkov311, phinky, Strawberrybitch

                the children of iraq would still be alive.

                this is the simple fact of the situation.

                other countries didn't have to be pro-american and they weren't sanctioned.

                they just had to abide by international law.

                i'm not saying it was a perfect solution.  no one is saying that.  so the rest of the int'l community, people who aren't in a position to make the decision, are free to criticize it after the fact.

                but the fact remains.  if saddam didn't want his people to starve, he knew what to do.

                i really don't see how you can escape that fact of the matter.

                and blaming madeline albright for the death of millions of iraqis when this fact is so obvious still seems stupid to me.

                the ball was always in saddam's court.  and he made his decision.  

                and the consequences were dire.

                •  I don't blame her (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ...she accepted responsibility in an interview with Leslie Stahl noted all over the page -

                  "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?
                  I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it. "

                  Albright was being quite clear and unusually honest.  In the same interview she described sanctions as being "one of the tools in our arsenal" and that's accurate.  Rather than resort to war, the United States frequently strangles nations, often with the backing of the UN.  

                  Putting the blame on Saddam for not complying with a US-championed policy is beyond convenient.  By your reasoning, anyone who resists US policy is responsible for what happens to them.    And I accept this is entirely true.

                  All I'm saying is that one agent made the sanctions possible - they were put in place for the security of the United States.  Dead children were a predicted and actual outcome.

                  "... in my empire, life is sweet, just ask any bum you meet. You may say that I ain't free but it don't worry me..."

                  by lumpenprole on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 12:41:13 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  no (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    in that case US policy was at least compliant with UN resolutions.

                    US policy can deviate from that, as we have seen the last 6 years, and by that measure, i DO NOT blame people for resisting US! policy.

                    and all i'm saying is if the consequences of sanctions were considered for the dependents of the guilty person then, it occurs to me, and probably anyone else who breaks the law....  all i have to do to get away with breaking the law is surround myself with kids who depend on me to feed them.

                    •  that's sorta the problem with your analogy (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      You're looking for some moral high ground where the US isn't responsible for the actions it takes in the name of its own security.  I'm saying it's got nothing to do with that at all - it's just another weapon and it kills a lot of kids.  

                      "... in my empire, life is sweet, just ask any bum you meet. You may say that I ain't free but it don't worry me..."

                      by lumpenprole on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 01:04:18 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  there's no moral high ground at all (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        no more than the rest of society takes on when they make something like drinking and driving illegal.

                        in the name of our own security we establish laws and if people don't follow those laws then we have established that their dependents will be affected by the consequences of breaking those laws.

                        tell me how this is wrong.

                        •  okay (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Roadbed Guy, gotgat54
                          "in the name of our own security we establish laws and if people don't follow those laws then we have established that their dependents will be affected by the consequences of breaking those laws."

                          You don't see that there are two nation states here?  One an order of magnitude more powerful and influential than the other.  One that has bombed the other with impunity since 1991 and twice overrun its borders.  One has the role of global enforcer, implicit in everything you have written, and one a perpetual pariah nation reduced to smuggling its own oil to market.  One government that can dictate terms and one dictator that no reasonable person ever assumed would comply, because he would be destroyed and ... oh I dunno... his country would descend into civil war creating an opening for Iran or something.

                          The only point of your analogy is to make the US seem passive while assigning blame to Saddam.  It's ridiculous.  It was just policy to kill those people.

                          "... in my empire, life is sweet, just ask any bum you meet. You may say that I ain't free but it don't worry me..."

                          by lumpenprole on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 03:44:48 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Drinking and driving? (0+ / 0-)

                          As I understand the law, the offender - the drunk guy at the wheel - gets penalized. Not his passengers. And that's how most of established law works in any sane country. Punish the perpetrator.

                          Here instead we have whipping boys. And girls. Half a million of them. Recognising 'how this is wrong' is not a moral high ground viewpoint. It's a fundamental of ordinary human decency.

                •  Not blaming her for the intial sanctions (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  or for the intitial deaths. But when it became apparent that a)the victims were innocent people numbering in the hundreds of thousnds, and b)Saddam Hussein had few if any WMO, to continue with a strategy that is approaching genocidal is IMO absolutely abhorrent and deserves the strong condemnation it receives.

                  Don't Panic - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

                  by slatsg on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 01:11:13 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Saddam killed children? (0+ / 0-)

                At least, at the very minimum, one $100 bill must have been spent by Saddam on some Cuban cigars, instead of medicine for children. Bad Saddam. Very Bad.

            •  I've seen you pig-headedness before (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              so I'm sure you won't be interested, but open mineded readers may be interested in Harper's take on the Iraq sanctions

              •  i've seen your cowardice before (0+ / 0-)

                and i know you don't agree.

                saddam hussein was responsible for the sanctions.

                harper's doesn't prove that incorrect.

                •  OK, you annoy me (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gotgat54, CommiePinkoScum

                  so I'm going to come stalk your children and beat them over the head with a 2 x 4.

                  But, just to be clear, it's your fault, because I find you offensive.

                  •  annoying you (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    isn't agaist the law.  beating kids over the head with a 2x4 just cause someone annoys you IS against the law.

                    and if you were put in jail for doing that and your kids went hungry cause you couldn't provide for them cause you were in jail.

                    i would laugh at you if you blamed anyone but yourself.  but i might extend some welfare to your kids until they were able to get themselves on their feet.  could take a while.  but i'd do it.

                    while you rotted in jail.  for bashing children over the head with a 2x4 cause you were annoyed by someone.  on the internet.

                    you pathetic idiot.

                    •  So, you're complete down with (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      shpilk, gotgat54

                      American companies selling 97% of a water purification plant to Saddam (why would he shell out 97% of multiple millions of $'s to THE GREAT SATAN if he wasn't serious about the health and well being of Iraqi children?), as explained in the Harper's article.

                      Then, Clinton's adminstation popped up and denied export permits for the remaining 3%, constituting critical components that would allow the water purification plant to become operational?

                      Essentially, that's mind-boggling immoral - take the monetary resources of a third world country AND kill their children.  And you whole-heartedly support that.  I'll leave it to the readers of this thread to judge who's the pathetic idiot.

                      •  An exampple of the complete bullshit (0+ / 0-)

                        to which I refer and there's seven more webpages of it convering the rest of Bush I and his good buddy Bubba administrations

                        In a March 20, 2000, 661 Committee meeting—after considerable debate and numerous U.S. and U.K. objections—a UNICEF official, Anupama Rao Singh, made a presentation on the deplorable humanitarian situation in Iraq. Her report included the following: 25 percent of children in south and central governorates suffered from chronic malnutrition, which was often irreversible, 9 percent from acute malnutrition, and child—mortality rates had more than doubled since the imposition of sanctions.

                        A couple of months later, a Syrian company asked the committee to approve a contract to mill flour for Iraq. Whereas Iraq ordinarily purchased food directly, in this case it was growing wheat but did not have adequate facilities to produce flour. The Russian delegate argued that, in light of the report the committee had received from the UNICEF official, and the fact that flour was an essential element of the Iraqi diet, the committee had no choice but to approve the request on humanitarian grounds. The delegate from China agreed, as did those from France and Argentina. But the U.S. representative, Eugene Young, argued that “there should be no hurry” to move on this request: the flour requirement under Security Council Resolution 986 had been met, he said; the number of holds on contracts for milling equipment was “relatively low”; and the committee should wait for the results of a study being conducted by the World Food Programme first. Ironically, he also argued against the flour—milling contract on the grounds that “the focus should be on capacity—building within the country”—even though that represented a stark reversal of U.S. policy, which consistently opposed any form of economic development within Iraq. The British delegate stalled as well, saying that he would need to see “how the request would fit into the Iraqi food programme,” and that there were still questions about transport and insurance. In the end, despite the extreme malnutrition of which the committee was aware, the U.S. delegate insisted it would be “premature” to grant the request for flour production, and the U.K. representative joined him, blocking the project from going forward.

                        yup, sounds like Saddam is all to blame, alright . . .

                      •  cause he was making money (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        off the deal.

                        do you really think saddam cared about iraqis??  and bought a water purification plant with his own money to make their lives better.  at his own expense.

                        cause he cared about them??

                        do you really believe that???

                        and.  yes.  if he really cared about the people getting water, all he had to do was abide by some simple UN resolutions on weapons inspections/programs. etc.

                        my opinion.  he didn't care.

                        i believe if saddam cared about iraqis, it would not manifest itself in a deal with americans as you describe.

                        and another question.

                        he couldn't get water to average iraqis with 97% ownership of a water purification plant.

                        i rest my case.

                        that proves that he doesn't care about iraqis.

                        they died.  he didn't care.

                        he laughs at you when you blame americans for the deaths he caused.

                        he things you're cute.

                        •  Hafta agree (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          I mean, to a dictator, citizens are little better than cannon fodder or hostages.  A loyal cadre of guards/party insiders/businessmen buddies is all you need.  The average citizen appears as nothing to the despot.

                          And that is especially true once the despot has lost a major military campaign.  Once Saddam's people could no longer deliver to him his mighty standing army, he ceased to care one iota about their needs.  What did their needs matter in defeat?  Iraq was no longer going to be a major powerin the middle east, and he already had his Baath party fanatics in his pocket, so why waste time with such petty matters as looking out for the populace?  Especially when he can blame that on someone else.

                          Does that excuse Albright's tactless quote to Leslie Stahl?  Of course it doesn't.  But it hardly changes the dynamics of the situation.  Fact was, it was to Saddam's benefit to starve his own people and blame it on someone else.  It allowed him to simultaneously ignore them and get them behind him.  As I said, dictators see their own people as little more than tools.  Once they stopped being of use to him, Saddam could have cared less what happened to them.

                          All your vote are belong to us. Warner/Feingold 2008

                          by Harkov311 on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 04:39:37 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  We knew all that. Yet we imposed sanctions??? (0+ / 0-)

                            Going with your 'cannon fodder' point, doesn't that make the sanctions even more unjustifiable?

                            If we knew that no amount of death and misery among the 'cannon fodder' populace was likely to work as a club over his head; if we knew it would probably not coerce him into abandoning his weapons programme ---

                            --- if we knew it wouldn't work, if we knew that the likely outcome would be dead innocents + same old weapons programme, why did we go ahead with the sanctions?

                          •  because (0+ / 0-)

                            either we actually give him resources that he'd use for his own selfish purposes, or we refuse to give him those and he blames us for his own refusal to comply w/the UN.

                            It's a Catch-22: either way, we look bad.  Besides which, Saddam was responsible for those consequences.  He could have just gone along more smoothly with the inspections, but instead he stalled and shouted defiance.

                            By way of comparison, a lot of civilians got hurt or killed because of the Kosovo war, but wasn't that worth it to prevent Milosevic from murdering and raping scores more?

                            All your vote are belong to us. Warner/Feingold 2008

                            by Harkov311 on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 05:49:48 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  'resources... for his own selfish purposes' (0+ / 0-)

                            applies principally to chlorine, which was claimed to have dual uses (such as poison gas, I think). Because it was embargoed, a lot of people drank a lot of impure water and fell ill.

                            The rest of it was food, medicines (for some of which dual use was claimed), and resources needed for sustaining basic infrastructure. For example, sewage treatment plants which had been hit by air strikes couldn't be fixed because the equipment was interdicted. How could he have used these for his 'own selfish purposes'? The sanctions were supposed to specifically exclude food and essential medical supplies, but not enough made it through. The food rations were defiicient in vitamins, minerals and proteins. Children died of deficiency diseases, whereas earlier the greatest paediatric problem had been childhood obesity.

                            Some more gory details from John Pilger

                            Medical equipment like incubators, X-ray machines, and heart and lung machines are banned. The Security Council consistently blocks vaccines, analgesics and chemotherapy drugs, claiming they could be converted into chemical or biological weapons. Problems with transportation and refrigeration mean that even drugs that are allowed - like antibiotics - arrive only intermittently. Children with leukaemia, who can be saved with a full course of antibiotics, die, because one dose is missing.

                            Morphine, the most effective painkiller has been banned by the Security Council. At the same time the number of cases of cancer has risen sharply especially in southern Iraq.

                            After the Gulf war Iraq was not allowed the equipment to clean up its battlefields. More than 1 million rounds of weapons coated in depleted uranium (basically nuclear waste) were used by the allies during the war. As much as 300 tonnes of expended DU ammunition now lies scattered throughout Kuwait and Iraq. Depleted uranium dust gets into the food chain via water and the soil. It can be ingested and inhaled. Prolonged internal exposure leads to respiratory diseases, breakdown of the immune system, leukaemia, lung cancer and bone cancer. Cases of cancers in Iraq have risen tenfold since 1990. If cancers continue on the present upward curve, 44 per cent of the population could develop cancer within ten years.

                            As for the 'stalled and shouted defiance', what do you expect when UNSCOM was being infiltrated by intelligence agencies pursuing their own ends, which included his assassination as well as the subversion of some of his troops and guards? Scott Ritter details this, David Kay (Chief Inspector) backs it up in all its essentials. Of course there was also his cussedness and sheer bloody-mindedness, which the US didn't help by not allowing him to comply with any dignity. I'm not saying he deserved to save face - he was indeed a monster - but that's how diplomacy is done just to be effective, a fact which the US has increasingly forgotten or ignored.

                    •  I think you just refuted yourself --- (0+ / 0-)

                      --- though it's hard to tell, what with all this fur flying.

                      beating kids over the head with a 2x4 just cause someone annoys you IS against the law.

                      Precisely. The US wielded the 2x4. The Great Annoyance was Saddam. The kids were the ones who died.

                      •  building up such weapons programs (0+ / 0-)

                        is not just annoying someone on the internet.

                        you just lost perspective.

                        •  You just failed to get the point --- (0+ / 0-)

                          ---  Roadbed Guy's post.

                          He wasn't actually threatening you for 'annoying someone on the internet'. He was striking that posture to draw a parallel, which I took pains to point out, but which seems to have still escaped you. A and B have issues, C pays the price - in one case, some kids; in the parallel case, half a million of them. Get it now?

                          •  i get that (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            the point doesn't work.

                            cause the analogy doesn't work in that manner.

                            some things are illegal.  hitting children over the head with 2x4s.

                            some things are not.  annoying people.

                            if i was hiding weapons from my fellow neighbors and there was a law against that, i am open to sanctions.

                            B is breaking the law.  some kids, half a million of them pay the price.


                            my weapons.

                            my kids.

                            it's a choice.

                            we know the choice saddam made.

                            lets stop pretending he had no control over the situation.



                          •  What is missing here --- (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Paolo, slatsg

                            --- is any sense of horror or outrage about all those lives snuffed out, so long as we can say 'He done it'. But that may be too much to ask.

                            Let's extend your line of thinking. We armed this madman when he was one of our tinpot allies, knowing fully well the kind of monster he was. He went on his genocidal spree - Kurds and Shias - but it was okay. Our hands were clean. Because 'He done it'.

                            Now, sanctions: we set up a situation in which we knew who'd pay the price of his non-compliance. We also knew that non-compliance was very very much on the cards, given his demonstrated disdain for human life. Yet we clamped down those sanctions, the kids died, and it was okay because 'He done it'.

                            The most charitable thing I can say about the US position here is: it's not exactly what you'd expect from this great humanitarian force for good, this saviour of mankind that we hear so much about.

                            Saddam should have complied, yes. But we should never have set up a situation in which so many lives were riding on his compliance.

                          •  Yes, for the record (0+ / 0-)

                            upon considering BimimiCat's (no doubt intentional) obtuseness, I in no way, shape, or form intend to assault any member of his or her family with a 2 x 4 or any other wood-related product.

                          •  Wise of you. (0+ / 0-)

                            Though a 'no-more-posts-from-me' sanction would be welcome

                          •  Yeah I know (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            most people on this site get horribly offended by any rudeness - as long as one speaks softly and politely it's fine to kill hundreds of thousands of children.

                            I think that's complete bullshit.

                            Sorry to have offended you, tho.

                          •  umm -why do you think you might have offended me? (0+ / 0-)

                            We've been carrying the same end of this disussion. In case you misunderstood, I meant: BiminiCat embargoes any further posts from him/her in response to your 2x4 threat. That'll learn you.

                            In any case, both the rudeness and the okaying of the killing have been BiminiCat's. I didn't see much softness or politeness from that quarter.

                          •  Appreciate your support (0+ / 0-)

                            but I have (Surprise Surprise!) often been accused of not helping my cause by being too caustic (so I guess that's what I was assuming you were getting at)

                          •  I'd come over the and beat you both (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            with a 2x4 myself, if I weren't locked in a house with a druken, bad father.  Starve me!


                            "... in my empire, life is sweet, just ask any bum you meet. You may say that I ain't free but it don't worry me..."

                            by lumpenprole on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 04:20:29 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  jeez I can't spell (0+ / 0-)

                            kinda deflates the joke

                            Anyway, this line of reasoning always drives me nuts.    The misery justified in the name of going after a super villain.  Poor Cubans - everything is legit so long as it's really meant for Castro and he'll probably live to be 110.

                            "... in my empire, life is sweet, just ask any bum you meet. You may say that I ain't free but it don't worry me..."

                            by lumpenprole on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 04:28:26 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                •  condition for lifting sanctions (0+ / 0-)

                  The United States said it wouldn't lift sanctions until SH was gone.

                  This was clearly moving the goalposts.

                  But if you think Arab countries should live with a U.S. boot on their throats, I suppose it's an acceptable moving of the goalposts.

                  If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

                  by Carl Nyberg on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 03:11:17 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  U.S. Boots??? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    or U.S. markets??

                    the devil is in the details.

                    maybe sanctions were simply a way of freeing them from the Boot of american markets???

                    i'd like to see the link on the US saying it wouldn't lift sanctions until saddam was gone.

                    i can see how someone might of said that cause they believed transparency would NEVER be possible as long as saddam was in charge.

                    but the bottom line wasn't so much saddam but what saddam refused to allow happen.

                    in that respect.  it's one of the same.

            •  the analogy may be clear in your mind (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Harkov311, gotgat54

              in mine it is not.

              There were other options, not fully explored by the UN or the Clinton Administration that would have precluded such a set of sanctions, which doomed innocent Iraqis.

              While the sanctions may have kept Hussein bottled up in Iraq, it really does appear these sanctions did little to squelch Sadaam's stranglehold on the country. The sanctions and no-fly zones did serve to stabilize the region from breaking out in chaos. That, I will grant you.

              "blaming the UN/albright and the clinton admin for saddam not being able to comply with the most basic of resolutions is, just in my opinion.  stupid.

              saddam killed those iraqi children.  i hope people can figure that out.  he was responsible and saddam killed those children."

              The truth is, it was both sides that killed those children. No, they did not work towards a common goal, or cooperate in doing so, but ultimately, the dead do not care about motivations.

              They are still dead.

              "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty, soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

              by shpilk on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 05:10:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  What's more, one of those 'both sides' --- (0+ / 0-)

                --- was a certified genocidal maniac, torturer and indiscriminate killer.

                The other of those 'both sides' was this shining hope of mankind, champion of  human rights, defender of human life etc etc.

                So who's more culpable here? The deranged monster or the Forces of Light who should have known better?

              •  closest post to the truth (0+ / 0-)

                I agree, both sides were to blame.  Yes, the U.S. was probably over-zealous about the sanctions, and yes, they probably did result (indirectly) in many deaths.


                Saddam wasn't exactly using his considerable political clout within Iraq to remedy this situation.  And it wouldn't have taken much; just some more open answers to the questions the U.N. was asking and better evidence of compliance.  But it was to Saddam's benefit to hurt his own people and blame it all on the mean old U.N.

                So did our policy contribute to unnecessary civilian death?  Probably.  But I didn't see Saddam losing any sleep over it, or making more than a half-assed attempt to garner global good will.

                All your vote are belong to us. Warner/Feingold 2008

                by Harkov311 on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 06:04:16 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  I'm neutral on the question (5+ / 0-)

            of whether or not Madeline Albright should be answerable before the WCT. I am not neutral on the use of such an objectionable term for Madame Secretary, no matter what the poster might think of her personally. I suspect the only reason greenskeeper didn't get more troll ratings is that most people didn't click on that dictionary link and find that he just substituted a lesser-known word for the always-inflammatory (and almost always troll-rated on this site) "cunt."

          •  Thanks for the correction (0+ / 0-)

            I should have googled it but I was in a hurry.

            Don't Panic - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

            by slatsg on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 01:01:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Genocidal Twank (0+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        Hidden by:

        Well said. Thank you.

      •  wrong (0+ / 0-)

        her statement was callous and amoral.

        but she understands reality, and would NEVER have approved of this war.  Ever.

    •  Exactly (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rhubarb, Pesto, slatsg, RickE

      It's pretty indicative of how bad the Bush foreign policy is when a warmongering unilateralist like Albright criticizes them for being too arrogant and hawkish.

    •  We don't want saints in diplomacy (18+ / 0-)

      If you need evidence in favor of that proposition, look at what BushCo's faith-based diplomacy has done for this nation, or at virtually any nation in the Middle East.

      Loss of life is, and always has been, to the best of my knowledge, very low on the list of important criteria in diplomacy. Nation-states cannot afford Inigo Montoya-esque revenge missions: they have more on their plate than just one thing at a time. Getting into a full diplomatic snit over the loss of a few of one's own citizens could be very damaging to other priorities the nation is pursuing and which have the potential to protect a lot more lives, for example.

      Conversely, when one nation is seeking a casus belli against another, the loss of even one of its own can be blown up into an affront of gigantic proportions and used to justify all manner of Schrecklichkeit.

    •  Albright ion the board of the Jim Baker Institute (0+ / 0-)
      •  Jim Baker falls into the ever shirking catagory (0+ / 0-)

        of reality-based Republicans so I don't see what your objection is to Albright being part of his Institute.

        (-2.75,-4.77) "Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose." Senator Barack Obama

        by Sam I Am on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 01:27:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Who owns the truth? (4+ / 0-)

      I too was disturbed by Ms. Albright's comment about Iraqi sanction. She is also a proponent of war while I am a pacifist.

      However, that does not make her points here invalid or unworthy.  In fact, the trust of her editorial is that one can't look at the world in black and white.

      Ignoring Albright's opinion is equivalent to ignoring Iran's influence on the situation in Iraq. One has to weigh the help that is being offered against the evil tendencies of the offerer.

      Who would have tought that watching "The Land Before Time (IX)- Journey to Big Water" would become a subversive act?

      by mungley on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 01:04:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I want to see Bush in the wrestling ring... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    R Dub, mlkisler, Caldonia, KiaRioGrl79

    ..getting tag team like the punkassbitch he is by Helen Thomas and Madeleine Albright.

    Dey'd wipe da floor wid 'im, I tells ya.  Dey'd moider da bum!

    "It's not selling out if you don't get paid, okay? We're not whores. When you do it for free, that's just slutty." -Wonkette -6.38/ -4.21

    by wonkydonkey on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 10:15:59 AM PST

  •  lots of major anti-bush editorials, etc lately. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The Star Tribune has a good editorial, more liberal people on cable news, media finally detected the turning of the tides...maybe.

    Give me Liberty or give me death! (-6.88, -6.15)

    by guyermo on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 10:18:21 AM PST

  •  Aim higher .... (17+ / 0-)

    "Because the time has finally come to call Bush's ENTIRE FOREIGN POLICY WORLDVIEW into question.  And to eliminate the "Islamofascist Axis of Evil" myth into oblivion once and for all."

    Indeed.  But right behind that one is ...

    The time has finally come to repudiate faith-based reasoning, and re-invogorate our strong tradition of analysis and nuanced reasoning and planning based on facts.

    I see them bound by a philosophy with plans and tactics to impose their will on other countries. - G. Bush, on terrorists, 3/21/06

    by Yellow Canary on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 10:20:00 AM PST

  •  She ain't no Condogreasie (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caldonia, Harkov311, Skid

    And thank Gawd for that. We are going to need people like her to recover from the damage Bushco has done.

    -8.63 -7.28 Vote+$.01 I will vote Dem., but in protest and support.

    by OneCrankyDom on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 10:21:53 AM PST

  •  Ah yes (19+ / 0-)

    I remember when our foreign policy was expressed in full sentences - not cliches - by people able to grasp a worldview more complex than Me Good, You Bad.

    You can't teach an old dogma new tricks. Dorothy Parker

    by garbo on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 10:26:31 AM PST

  •  This made me imagine... (12+ / 0-)

    Just imagine:

    Madline Albright on one side of Bush, Ann Richards on the other, just beating the shit out of him for what he has done to America.

  •  Evisceration of Bush's foreign policy (18+ / 0-)

    Bush has a foreign policy???

    "...the administration must stop playing solitaire while Middle East and Persian Gulf leaders play poker."

    That is beautiful.  Every single Democratic leader should take note of that kind of phrasing, because it's exactly what's needed against the manipulations of the GOP.  It's pity, it's true, it's down-to-earth, and anybody can get exactly what it means, even if they've never played poker.  I've been saying since 2004 that we need to make our truths as snappy as their lies -- and Madeline Albright, of all people, has done exactly that.

    It's even better than Pete Hammill's description of Bush and his ilk as someone who was "born on third base and is convinced he hit a triple."  (Didja catch that, Ben Domenech, how I took advantage of someone else's cleverness without taking credit for it?  It's pretty easy, once you get the hang of it...)

    "...the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart." -- Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

    by Roddy McCorley on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 10:27:36 AM PST

  •  I've always admired Madeleine Albright (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caldonia, Harkov311, panicbean

    As 64th U.S. Secretary of State under President Clinton, she was well-liked by many in the foreign community. I thought she handled the situation in Kosovo aptly. Like Margaret Thatcher, she's an iron lady, she pulls no punches. I would love to see her in a cabinet position in 2008.

  •  Madeline Albright wrote that? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mlkisler, oysterface, slatsg, The Walrus

    Jesus, has she been drinking car antifreeze and tabasco or something?

    It's so unlike her to be lucid, morally argumentative and publicly progressive.

    •  Heh... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oysterface, slatsg, Harkov311, lgmcp

      She doesn't work for the US Gov't any longer.  Now she has Freedom of Speech on her side.

    •  agreed (0+ / 0-)

      Although she may have been "well-liked," she certainly wasn't respected.  She failed terribly with both Palestine and North Korea (although I'm not sure anybody could have "won" with either situation), and embarassed the US by literally running after Arafat.

      Suddenly, she magically grew balls and has the gift of persuasion.  Whatever she's drinking, she needs to save a little for Lieberman :P

  •  Great piece, however, I have one quibble. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LeftHandedMan, Caldonia

    "As for Iran's choleric and anti-Semitic new president, he will be swallowed up by internal rivals if he is not unwittingly propped up by external foes."
                                                               [Emphasis mine]

    My fear is that, having a "loose cannon" such as Khatami in power, rather than someone more moderate (and hence less easily vilified), may suite quite well those true believers who cling to the notion that their PNAC pipe-dreams are, in spite what has evolved in Iraq, still practicable.

  •  Wonder which WH staffer gets the short straw (13+ / 0-)

    and has to explain the meaning of "Manichean" to Dubya?  My guess is, it ain't in his pop-up dictionary.

    "Don't blame me, I voted for the smart guy."

    by frsbdg on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 10:37:04 AM PST

  •  Albright said the Iraq sanctions were worth it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LeftHandedMan, slatsg, Smyslov

    I lost respect for her after that. Those sanctions killed innocent children.

    •  Of course.... (0+ / 0-)

      That's assuming Saddam could have been trusted to fairly distribute the fruits of non-sanctioned trade.  Which is a gigantic and very doubtful "if," given his record of negligence toward his fellow countrymen.

      All your vote are belong to us. Warner/Feingold 2008

      by Harkov311 on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 05:57:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]


        They didn't hinder him in the least.

        •  so (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          you equate not allowing imports to an untrustworthy government, which would almost certainly not have distributed them to the people who needed them, to roving death squads that actually shoot people in the face?

          I mean "killing" seems to imply that it was done with malice and on purpose.  Maybe that's hair-splitting, but the word "kill" implies malice aforethought.

          All your vote are belong to us. Warner/Feingold 2008

          by Harkov311 on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 08:10:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  CHILDREN (0+ / 0-)

            The sanctions killed innocent children. This govt. knew that it was doing that and it continued. Split all the hairs you want. Again, she lost my respect after saying that. And FYI, this govt. has also sponsored roving death squads, and may be doing that in Iraq right now. So yes, in context, allowing sanctions YOU KNOW are killing innocent children to continue could be construed as deliberate. A million children dead is not worth it in my view. Continue to make excuses for her because she is a Democrat and she was Sec of State under Clinton. That is why this country is so far gone right now. It's OK to kill Iraqis if Clinton does it, but not Bush? BS. It's wrong either way. You also don't SANCTION, you EMPOWER the people to make changes themselves if they want them. If they don't, is it really any of our business? The sanctions did nothing but kill innocent people and breed their hatred of the United States.

            And besides, it is already known that Hussein was only targeted because he nationalized the oil industry. It wasn't human rights abuses that targeted him, it was his retiscence at playing ball with the U.S. Sure, he was a bastard who tortured and killed his own people and should have been brought to justice for it. But he isn't the only tyrant in the world, but then, I guess the other tyrants aren't sitting on oil fields, so it's OK to torture and starve people in that case. Also, kind of hard now for us to take the high road on torture, eh? Should we be sanctioned for the thousands we have killed?

      •  Why wouldn't he? (0+ / 0-)

        Iraq's standard of living was among the highest in the Middle East. Education and health care were well organised and generously funded. People didn't lack for food. The fruits of 'non-sanctioned trade' were being fairly distributed then; why would that stop?

        He was indeed a genocidal maniac when it came to Shias, Kurds and other minorities. He imposed a reign of hellish terror and peeled away all kinds of liberties. He was every inch the monster that he's made out to be. But ---

        There is no record of negligence towards his fellow countrymen. On the contrary; he drove a massive program of agrarian reform, modernisation, industrialisation, infrastructure building, education, healthcare and other good stuff. True, austerities had to be imposed after the war with Iran, to pay its costs and reparations. But the fact remains that in Saddam's Iraq, you died of poison gas or bullets or torture; not of malnutrition or lack of essential medical supplies or drinking contaminated water.

        •  Here's why (0+ / 0-)

          You asked:

          Iraq's standard of living was among the highest in the Middle East. Education and health care were well organised and generously funded. People didn't lack for food. The fruits of 'non-sanctioned trade' were being fairly distributed then; why would that stop?

          Perfectly good question.  Here's why:

          Once Iraq had been defeated and punded into submission, there was no longer any reason to keep the spirits or health of the people up.  They had only been important through the 70s and 80s because Saddam needed them to fund and fight his suicidal war with Iran.  When that fizzled, he decided to set his sights lower and conquer Kuwait instead, running afowl of the U.S.

          And when the Kuwait misadventure left Iraq prostrate and with its once-mighty army and economy in shambles, there was no point in keeping up the spirits of the people.  If anything, there was now an excellent reason to deprive them.  If allowed to get mad at the government, they might rebel, so Saddam purposely feigned defiance with the U.N. (and probably sometimes actually did defy them) to bring down the wrath of the U.S.  This led to the blockad and subsequent starvation, which was the whole point: get the Iraqis mad at someone, anyone, other than Saddam and the Baath party.

          So even if there had been no sanctions, you can bet Saddam would have found a way to "lose" those traded goods, and blame it on the U.S. and U.N. "not trying hard enough to help Iraq."  Having lost the war, it was now in Saddam's best interest to keep his people as mad at the outside world as possible; it was his only hope of clinging to power and preventing civil war.

          All your vote are belong to us. Warner/Feingold 2008

          by Harkov311 on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 08:49:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'll buy that --- (0+ / 0-)

            --- on a trial basis. It does hang together as an explanation, and fits his profile nicely. But I need to dig a little to make sure this is not just a hypothesis which seems to support the facts; or a convenient theory spun by think-tanks. Links would help if you have any.

            It does seem a bit stretched to imply that all that progress and development was only to prepare Iraq for aggression against first Iran, and then Kuwait as a consolation prize. The second bit - about deflecting popular wrath away from his government and towards the US - seems more plausible; but yet leaves me wondering why he had to mollify his people when he had this wondrous machinery of repression in place.

            Must study this up.

  •  I do take issue with one statement (8+ / 0-)

    Sec Albright made:

    The U.S. is no longer able to control events in Iraq, but it can be useful as a referee.

    I think it is past time that the US can serve as a "referee" in the bloody melee we have touched off in Iraq. That statement is Albrightian apple polishing of the first water. It comes, of course, in the context of our wider involvement historically in Iraq and in the ME. If we are not an "interested party," that concept has no meaning. In the test of action, our calls for comity had a pretty spotty record before March 2003, and the Clinton administrations involvement in the denouemont of the Olso process was, we now know, the prelude to escalating disaster.

    In any case, we now have zero soft power (diplomatic) credibility in the situation in Iraq. The only reason we have any influence is "lawyers, guns, and money" - and BushCo's (and unforntunately America's) "political capital" seems way overdrawn, based upon the brilliant investment policy of "speak loudly and mendaciously and bury your stick hip deep in Mesopotamia."

    The name is not the thing named, the map is not the territory. -- Gregory Bateson

    by semiot on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 10:52:28 AM PST

  •  Madeline Albright (9+ / 2-)

    is just part of the same establishment of plutocrats and war-profiteers that Bush is.  

    Fuck her.  

    Just because she is now reading the writing on the wall and is joining the "Hey, it's OK to bash Bush now" bandwagon doesnt mean dick.  She is just one of the jumping rats.  

    When facts threaten true believers, they simply close their eyes and pray harder. -- Naomi Klein

    by Billy Shears on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 10:54:15 AM PST

    •  I agree with the content to a degree, (0+ / 0-)

      but not the tone

      .. Albright said of the sanctions that caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - many of them children "the price was worth it".

      So, from a moral standpoint, to my ear, she is hardly in a position to be equivocating moral issues.

      Ya, the points she makes are 'valid', to a degree.
      But she is indeed part of the machinery - "big time".

      One has to question the involvement of her group Albright Group, LLC with Dubai Ports World, and what level of various and sundry shenanigans make her a tidy profit.

      Let's not forget there may be a lot to this woman that meets the eye at first glance.


      "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty, soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

      by shpilk on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 04:57:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  i'm not sure i totally like albright (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rhubarb, Caldonia

    but this was AWESOME of her!

    Help me retire to Hawaii by age 30! Pimp my site Simple Vegetarian Recipes!

    by OrangeClouds115 on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 11:06:20 AM PST

  •  Albright willfully neglects the REAL issue (9+ / 0-)

    (or at least what I perceive to be the real issue)

    The first is to understand that although we all want to "end tyranny in this world," that is a fantasy unless we begin to solve hard problems.

    I personally believe that Bushco's main agenda is to loot and pillage these countries and to create an interenational christian/corporate empire, and that all this talk of brining 'freedom' is merely a pretext to neuteralize 'liberal' types.

    I also believe that the great majority of Bush followers REALIZE that the ideological 'talk' is nothing but a pretext. All these people, from Limbaugh on down to your friendly neighborhood Bushie will for the most part parrot these pretexts as a tool to shoot down 'liberals' but they don't really BUY it either.

    These are all people for whom ruthlessness is a VIRTUE and democracy is an out-moded and inefficient means by which to rule an empire.

    In any case - Albright in this article is doing logical battle with the PRETEXTS of the administrations plans on the middle east and not the REALITY.

    Until these people are outed as the enemies of GENUINE freedom and Democracy that they are - I don't see a lot of point in slayinig their phoney dragons.

  •  Albright profits from war, too (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, Smyslov

    Wasn't Albright an Iraqi War profiteer, also?


    I don't really get it, and if someone wants to explain this to me, I'd be all ears.

  •  It's not even mathematically possible... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maybeeso in michigan be as wrong as the Bushies are on so many things by chance.

    The only way is to actively understand and update an awareness of what reality is, then totally go the other way, in an effort to force circumstance to adjust to you.

    And ultimately, I think that's the case: There are two basic means of responding to challenge: accommodation, and assertion.

    Give you one guess what way the Bushies go, every time.

    Now, assertion's not bad, and often it's good (ex., as in when one's rights, franchise, livelihood, liberty, even life is being stolen from you).

    But you have to question the judgment of a person who always goes one way, even -- no, especially --- when it's demonstrably inappropriate.

    We're all Helens now. :)

    by cskendrick on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 11:22:44 AM PST

  •  SPOON!! (0+ / 0-)

    Sorry to be off-topic here - are you still in the area?  Kos has a book signing on Monday!!  Email me if you're still around - we'll coordinate.

  •  Context-- (0+ / 0-)

    yes, but again, we have to put it all in the context of Norman Mailer's "Stupidity is the disease of America".

    bushco's "good vs. evil" phony strategy was in fact good enough for two successful presidential elections-- and the near total looting of the U.S. Treasury by these criminals.

    where was Albright and the other voices of sanity prior to the 2004 election? c'mon, the handwriting wasn't on the wall then?

    gimme a break.

    V for Vendetta.

    "Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath.... You can't ask for better than that." Fadel Gheit

    by Superpole on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 11:28:11 AM PST

  •  Very good! ty! Murtha, Feingold and Pelosi need a (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    copy of this! I am not sure if their staffs will ever have a chance to read it as soon as now. It offers them sane review of Iraq!

    Once again I thank you for your bringing this to those who read it.

    Coming to your town soon! The Social Security Adminstartion Electric and Power Company. "Omen Tuffy" 1918-1992

    by generic on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 11:28:19 AM PST

  •  Unfortunately ... (0+ / 0-)

    the PC ideology also falls for the manichean myth regarding the Middle East: "Muhammadoons IV: Problems with the PC Response."

    Grok Your World
    grok: to understand something in a deep and empathic way

    by John Driscoll on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 11:28:22 AM PST

  •  asdf (15+ / 0-)

    I am upset that Madeleine Albright is being lumped in with Bush's bunch of incompetents by some people here.  While Ms Albright was not perfect, she and the Administration she represented did a hell of alot better job than what we've been seeing these last 5 years.
    I also believe that it is significant and important to have professionals with experience and international credibility come up and challenge the policies that Bush is persuing internationally.  Ms Albright's critisism is all the more important because she is part of the establishment.  While Bush & Co. can dismiss most of our complaints as coming from "soft, unrealistic and unqualified liberals" they cannot so easily dismiss a former Secretary of State who had to make hard choices during her tenure.

  •  The March to Freedom (0+ / 0-)

    would be where individuals (all over) are allowed to peaceably pursue one's choices and aspirations.  We know exactly where to look for the perfect expression:  The Declaration of Independence.  

  •  great job tins (0+ / 0-)


    Bush gives pubic hair a bad name.

    by seesdifferent on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 11:57:29 AM PST

  •  Not to send this thread (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    onto a tangent debating the good or ill of religion, but this is directly related to Bush's theology.  Albright calls it worldview, but it's directly connected to his theology.  His brand of fundamentalism (and others on the religious right) sees only good people and bad people.  Measure that against my theological training (and that of other religious progressives) sees that all people are capable of good and evil.  It's a whole lot messier, but it sure reflects reality better.

    Yeah, I'm trying out this blogging thing, too.

    by MLDB on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 11:59:06 AM PST

  •  Albright's summary is brilliant see also.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Zbig also did a fantastic piece in the LA Times a few months back where he equally took Bush to the cleaners. His central thesis was that Bush had transformed a serious but manageable problem that basically regional into a global debacle for the US. It was so good I took a copy and will with Albrights. Also see Fukuyama's new book where he points out that at the time of 9/11 we were dealing with at most a few thousand people willing to die for their cause and a minority of passive sympathisers which has now been transformed into tens of thousand of potential martyrs and hundreds of millions of active sympathizers.    

  •  Great diary. Help expose PNAC via HuffPo link. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Albright is insightful, but the actual reference PNAC in this diary came from you.

    We Kossacks know it was the cabal Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Khalizad, and so many others planned their Iraq attack from long before 9/11.  But the press and Albright are still covering it up.

    Help get it into the main stream by visiting the Huffington Post Contagious Festival's hilarious expose'!

  •  Essential Understanding (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    via Wikipedia:

    In the 1950s Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian civil servant turned revolutionary, and Leo Strauss, an American professor of political philosophy, both came to see western liberalism as corrosive to morality and to society. Qutb had been sent to the U.S. to learn about its public education system but was disgusted by what he saw of its society. They each argued that radical measures, including deception and even violence, could be justified in an effort to restore shared moral values to society, and their arguments heavily influenced radical Islamism and American neo-conservatism, respectively.

    Bush/Cheney's NeoCons and the Islamofascists are working for the same goals.

    That's why in my opinion, they teamed up on 911 and why we haven't caught Bin Laden, why Bush doesn't spend "much time on him." That may seem extreme. But there's too much evidence not to recognize the distinct possibility.

    The fact that NeoCons and the American Taliban share the same philosophical values as the Islamofascists may be surprising to many though.

    But if you read PNAC's writings, it's pretty evident, in my view.

    •  Working for the same goals? (0+ / 0-)

      Mr/Ms theletterzee: Bush/Cheney/NeoCons and the Islamofascists working for the same goals? Please, you need to stop smoking that cheap stuff, and come up for for some air.

      •  i'd have to say (0+ / 0-)

        that anyone who doesn't see the philosophical and possible (even probable in my view) strategic alliances is the one smoking 'stuff.'

        all it takes is a little intellectually honest research to understand 911, pnac, bin laden, the cia, and the whole sordid story.

        america is the world's most dangerous terrorist state. do you disagree with that statement?

        do you know who charles burlingame is? do you know what  mascal is?

        personally, i don't think you need to be on drugs to be very disturbed and doubtful by much of the official story on 911. the official story is laced with truth, like any good coverup. but it's mostly bunk in my view.

        honestly, i think you rather have to be on drugs not to see that.

        •  I promised in this morning's c&j (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pam from Calif

          not to troll rate people like you anymore.

          I'll keep that promise.  

          Blog on, Zee...just keep one thing in mind...

          you can come from opposite ends of the spectrum and reach the same place, but it doesn't mean the ends are in cahoots.  It just means that they've arrived at the same place from different routes.

          Islamic fundamentalists and radical neocons, taken to their extremes, will each end up supporting strong governments that subjugate and control their people.

          Stalin hated Hitler with a passion.  Hitler, in his view, stood for everything he despised: government support for corporations over people.  In the end, however, to the average citizen--and particularly Jews--there was very little difference between the two.  Both held their nations in a totalitarian and bloody grip.  Both expanded their boundaries by force.  One used concentration camps, the other Stalags.  But I do not believe they were ever in cahoots.

          We've a similar situation now.  These are two groups who hate each other without understanding or reason.  Perhaps because they're so much alike!  

          •  you seem to not understand (0+ / 0-)

            what troll rating is for. that's unfortunate. or maybe you're learning?

            but you may be right. they may be divergent groups who just coincidentally came to have similar goals and agendas.

            or bin laden may have been working for the cia. whoops, i guess he already has.

            i'm just saying. there is lots of reason to think there is some pretty nasty business going on here. fully as much as to think there's not.

            and it's disturbing that someone like yourself would consider troll-rating a comment that merely makes that proposition.

            there is no certainty here. in your argument or mine. but in my view, the evidence is more on my side than yours these days.

            i admit, cheney may merely have let bin laden do what he wanted to do.

            but is even that collaboration? i'd say so. and my view is it's probably even more insidious than that.

        •  I'm sorry to disagree... (0+ / 0-)

          ....but I don't agree with anything you've said. Gosh, glad I got that off my chest. I feel so much better.

          •  you don't have to be sorry (0+ / 0-)
            to disagree.

            but the responsible thing in a debate where you inappropriately refer to drug use, would be to respond to my questions regarding burlingame, mascal, and america as a terrorist state specifically.

            are you up for responsibility today? we'll find out i guess.

            •  Lets start with your rating... (0+ / 0-)

              ...what's a troll rating?

              •  a troll rating (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                is handed out by kossaks when they see a post that is harsh or mean, or uses foul language.

                sometimes people misuse the rating and give it to arguments they think are apolitical or make the site look bad.

                that's unfortunate in my view and very much against what the site says it's about. i call it ratings abuse.

                however, if you were going to be a responsible blogger, you would start instead with the questions posed after you spouted silly nonsense about drug use. on that, i'm still waiting.

                if you are unfamiliar, go to google and do some searches. then we can have a discussion about actual topics.

                saying silly things about drug use may deserve a troll rating. but i certainly don't hand them out. i'm for free speech, almost entirely. minus mindless profanity.

            •  burlingame (0+ / 0-)

              ok....i checked this one out....all google has to offer are a few highschool names, and a few town 'ole stupido out, here....what's burlingame?

              •  sorry. (0+ / 0-)

                you were unable to use google effectively. typing in his full name as provided above would help you.

                he was the pilot for the aa flight that hit the pentagon.

                he was a former navy top gun and retired from them 1 year before 911 to fly for american airlines.

                he was part of a pentagon group that twice rehearsed procedures called mascal that would organize the pentagon in the case that a plane hit the builing as part of a terrorist attack.

                people were running around the pentagon screaming to start MASCAL on the day of the 'tragedy.'

                as per the arguments on whether the plane that hit the pentagon was actually the plane we think it is, i have no opinion on that. i don't know enough about engineering or planes.

                but i can say that it's a very disturbing coincidence about burlingame.

                just one of many disturbing things about that day.

                hedge funds bought at 11 times the average on american airlines several weeks prior to the attacks are another.

                the basic reality is that many officials knew a plane attack was coming but maybe not how/where. maybe not. government officials stopped flying on commerical airliners during that period. according to him and the s.f. chronicle, condoleeza rice called s.f. mayor willie brown on the morning of 911 and warned him not to fly.

                there's lots of totally legitimate evidence out there if one knows how to use the internet sufficiently.

                •  sufficient (0+ / 0-)

                  i may not be sufficient, but I am sometimes efficient, but i'm definitely not a conspiracy theory kind'a person....thanks for your help

                  •  i can understand (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    not wanting to be a 'conspiracy thoery' kind of person in america. such people who search for truths harmful to our capitalistic corporatocracy are disdained for propagandistic reasons.

                    what i can't understand is how you have no comment on the details of the very real conspiracies that very honestly seem to have been organized. a conspiracy literally means nothing more than a group of people conspiring to do something. other than that, the term "conspiracy theorist" is merely propagandistic in my view.

                    if people like yourself ignore the facts and refuse to comment on them, then government officials will go on doing things like iran/contra, east timor, etc.

                    and in my opinion, now 911.

                    until you've actually read chomsky for example, calling him a conspiracy theorist is totally irresponsible and laughable to those who have taken he time to do so. his books are the most well researched and thoroughly and professionaly documented books you can find on politics. every citation points to mainstream sources and government documents. he eviscerated richard perle in a debate that can be downloaded online if you do a google search. but i hear people call chomsky a conspiracy nut all the time.

                    it's a very sad statement on the level of the intellectual debate in america.

                    i hope you don't do that sort of thing?

                    all of the details of my information on burlingame can be viewed from mainstream sources online from google if you bother to search out the truth and decide for yourself.

                    i'm merely the bearer of bad tidings. and as such, i will be disdained. i am comfortable with that.

                    •  I'm with you on that (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      I may not subscribe to specific 'conspiracy theories', but I do think the term itself spells doom for any reasonable line of enquiry.

                      Of course people conspire. A hypothesis shouldn't be dismissed out of hand just because it suggests that people acted in collusion to do bad things. People have been known to do that from time to time.

                      By any definition, the lying ultra-secretive Bush administration is one continuing conspiracy.

            •  mascal (0+ / 0-)

              mass casuality?....huh?

      •  The person is right (0+ / 0-)

        they both want a theocracy. If you live under what they want to come to being if you are a truckdriver you will not know the difference

        "If standing up for the Constitution and rule of law is a "stunt," then I'll take it."

        by Jlukes on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 05:32:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Madeline Is Seriously Deranged (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:

    MA complains that "...the administration...highlights the threat posed by Iran."---absolutely, the threat should be highlighted...she even admits Iran is a "threat"...that's a good start, Madeline.

    MA writes that the new Iraqi government cannot govern "...without the tacit blessing of Iran." Huh? Did West Germany need the tacit blessing of East Germany to survive? Does Indiana need the tacit blessing of Iowa? Please, Madeline!

    MA is chagrined that the administration wants to "end tyranny in this world."...and goes on to say "...that is a fantasy...", and "... that the administration should disavow (the idea) of regime change in Iran."  Well, Madeline, did not John F.Kennedy suggest the same thing to the Soviet Union, that the Soviets should end the control of the puppet government in East Germany?

    Com'on Madeline, you're an historian?

  •  Not only that, but she did Gilmore Girls (0+ / 0-)

    You gotta love Madeleine Albright.

  •  Faith Based Optimism (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Hope is not a policy

    Neither is Dumbya's Don't worry, Be Happy vapid rhetoric a political strategy.

    ...and they passed in thought out to regions where pain and delight flow together and tears are the very wine of blessedness.

    by rlharry on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 01:13:32 PM PST

  •  Oh my gawd! (0+ / 0-)

    Right next to the piece by Albright on the Chimp is an ad for with the chimps! That's funny stuff people...

    *IMPEACH!* But First: Censure!

    by MichaelPH on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 01:24:06 PM PST

  •  Bush and his cronies know nothing of the world (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    or Middle East politics.  They didn't think it was necessary to know anything because they overestimated US power and thought they could redraw the maps and histories from Washington itself.  They were wrong, and the rest of us are paying the price.

  •  Good on her. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I just wish that she'd told this to the idiot prince's face when all the Secretaries of State and Defense were there last winter.

    Oh, right, they were sent to Bush's Go To Guy, Steve Hadley. "Go to him. I haven't got time."

    Re: the Patriot Act just signed, has anyone seen this: “L'État c'est Moi, ya’ll.”


    Defending bad taste and liberalism since 2005.

    by jurassicpork on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 03:03:11 PM PST

  •  Ah, but you forget the prerequisite! (0+ / 0-)

    Like so much regarding the mis-administration and Repugs, proper understanding, digestion and use of information like this requires brain power and skills, such as logic and critical thinking, that most Americans either do not possess or do not use!

    Did you catch the Rice blunders in Asia recently?  I made some notes on March 16, 2005.

    Changing America 1 cup at a time... "I'm not a Liberal, I just use my brain."

    by coffeeinamrica on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 03:08:52 PM PST

  •  Thanks (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caldonia, thereisnospoon

    Dear Spoon:
    There may not be a spoon big enough to spoon feed the truth to the whole country, but our former Sec of State sure did try to with this op-ed.  Thanks so much for posting this.  

    Celebrate our differences; define our core values; sell them to the independent voters; retake the Congress.

    by keepinon on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 04:07:13 PM PST

  •  Deep thanks for this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It is of great value. I anticipate your diaries and posts and appreciate having the benefit of your sensibility.

  •  Regarding Albright: (0+ / 0-)

    There were some things I couldn't stand about her, such as her flippant attitude towards the suffering of the Iraqi people. But this is the best show of spine and the best piece of work I have ever seen from her.

  •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

    Countin' flowers on the wall,
    that don't bother me at all.
    Playin' solitaire 'til dawn,
    with a deck of fifty-one.
    Smokin' cigarettes and watchin'
    Captain Kangaroo

    Now don't tell me
    I've nothin' to do.

    --Eric Heatherly

  •  Palestinians voted wrongly? (0+ / 0-)

    I have a pretty good idea who voted wrongly. Look no further than the red states.

    -- Doing my part to shit on neocon Republicanism wherever I encounter it.

    by Agent of Fortune on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 05:43:34 PM PST

  •  The time (0+ / 0-)

    We all saw this coming, but we were too chicken to speak out or we tried to put it out of our minds.

    Because the time has finally come to call Bush's ENTIRE FOREIGN POLICY WORLDVIEW into question.  And to eliminate the "Islamofascist Axis of Evil" myth into oblivion once and for all.

    Sorry. You're wrong about that.  The time was March 2000.  Because the USA was willingly seduced by Karl Rove and James Baker in 2000, we've been paying the price of our admission ticket to a daydream that is increasingly becoming a nightmare ever since.

    No matter how much Ambassador Albright wants to jump on the "It's Bush's Fault!" bandwagon now, she could have been a little more forthright in 2000--when it REALLY would have made a difference.

    Now who gives a shit?  We might as well just charge the barricades and get shot.  What else can we do now?  We blew it, Maddy.  It's too late.

    Now it's going to be guns, wiretaps, spies, and torture rooms.

    Now how many patriots will have to bleed their last on the Mall before we finally wake up from this delusion?

    The so-called, "Global War On Terror" IS Terrorism!

    by november3rd on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 05:47:17 PM PST

  •  I think the strategy is summed up (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mwchicago04, Harkov311

    in single asinine comment from Rumsfeld.

    "The coalition doesn't determine the strategy; the strategy determines the coalition".

    That is the way to lose the world.

  •  However much I may want (0+ / 0-)

    to agree with Madeleine Albright, to do so I would have to force myself to forget that for four years she presided over the sanctions against the Iraqi people which deprived them of simple medicines and sanitation materials, and over twelve years caused the deaths of four times as many Iraqi children as G. W. Bush's war has killed Iraqi people.

    And while I agree with you that "the time has finally come to call Bush's ENTIRE FOREIGN POLICY WORLDVIEW into question."

    I have to take exception again: It is not just Bush's foreign policy worldview that needs calling into question.  It is the United States' worldview, the neoliberal worldview that says it is OK for this country and its corporate persons to take any of the world's resources it wants and use any part of the world it wants for its toxic trash dump (and has for 60 or 120 or 220 years, take your choice, and I'll argue the details with anyone) -- that's the worldview that has to go.  Note that the ice is melting.  Note that our 5% of the world's population emits 25% of the world's greenhouse gases, uses 25% of the world's oil and other resources, and has for 60 years or more.

    BushCo is a symptom, not a cause.  Like a boil, he needs to be lanced, but the virus that caused him has to be dealt with.

    •  Reference info - and audio/video (0+ / 0-)

      on your paragraph #1 above, for anyone interested...
      I like Mad, but this was not a better moment for her!

      The following exchange occurred in a "60 Minutes" segment, "Punishing Saddam" (airdate May 12, 1996):

      CBS Reporter Lesley Stahl (speaking of post-war sanctions against Iraq):
      "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And - and you know, is the price worth it?"

      Madeleine Albright (at that time, US Ambassador to the UN):
      "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."

      Stahl won both an Emmy and a duPont-Columbia journalism award for this report, but Albright's comment went virtually unremarked in the U.S. (though it received considerable attention in the Middle East).

      Within six months, Madeleine Albright was unanimously approved by the Senate as U.S. Secretary of State.


      Changing America 1 cup at a time... "I'm not a Liberal, I just use my brain."

      by coffeeinamrica on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 11:37:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Huh (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The administration is now divided between those who understand this complexity and those who do not.

    I've always heard there's two types of people in the world.

    Those who think there's two types of people.

    And those who don't.

Sharoney, pontificator, Deep Dark, Cory, arlam, wozzle, Jett, MichaelPH, Love and Death, Angie in WA State, buffalo soldier, vicki, Best in Show, Monkeypox, Terri, Julian, CJB, gregonthe28th, SWicklund, Peanut, fouro, Rayne, wystler, dalemac, jandsm, moon in the house of moe, yerioy, greendem, Dump Terry McAuliffe, lrhoke, Roland X, js7a, Mike Stark, joeltpatterson, Unstable Isotope, sarac, mem from somerville, saraswati, Flagrrl, RunawayRose, psychprof, Grand Moff Texan, Lahdee, Sherri in TX, m maddog, Wintermute, bramish, meg, Victor, baffled, Jim W, Ralfast, OLinda, sam3am, greatbasin2, Vico, Mnemosyne, frsbdg, polecat, x, Gary in NY, Bexley Lane, ortsed, dash888, marjo, ilona, Carnacki, Matilda, BenGoshi, bethcf4p, grndrush, Joe B, watou, ophymirage, bumblebums, exNYinTX, jakey19991, bostonjay, Creosote, msstaley, jane 2000, strengthANDwisdom, memberofthejury, Plan9, Soy Lechithin, kissfan, chicagodavid, RubDMC, loudGizmo, RumsfeldResign, eyeswideopen, jpiterak, km4, concernedamerican, Justina, bronte17, indybend, Einsteinia, macdust, DrKate, ProfessorX, baba durag, Mary Julia, annrose, understandinglife, jem6x, SecondComing, agentcooper, grrtigger, Loquatrix, HippyWitch, Morague, Bardy, demokath, snoopydog, shock, PBnJ, Glic, mkfarkus, edderh, buckhorn okie, Dante Atkins, kgerber, roses, khloemi, amberglow, Ignacio Magaloni, murphsurf, peeder, L0kI, LondonYank, garbo, sjb8888, bincbom, k2winters, exconservative, sidinny, itskevin, luddite, Boxers, Spindizzy, thingamabob, matt2525, fumie, KCBearcat, ctsteve, Jesterfox, petewsh61, Southern Bell, antirove, Alna Dem, CocoaLove, litigatormom, Boorad, sele, aProgressive, Alohaleezy, Eddie C, DaleNC, DemocracyLover in NYC, suzq, SneakySnu, kharma, caseynm, Alizaryn, rcvanoz, danthrax, sockpuppet, NYC Sophia, pat bunny, crkrjx, ghostofaflea, november3rd, brainwave, roseeriter, RedStateDem, TXsharon, hairspray, ademption, smash, Caldonia, Bulldawg, texasmom, wdrath, kathika, Black Maned Pensator, dwahzon, Jesus was a Liberal, nika7k, renaissance grrrl, applegal, HollywoodOz, RenaRF, Timbuk3, welshvalleymaid, gnat, Thom K in CA, Democratic Hawk, inclusiveheart, barbwires, cevad, walkshills, One bite at a time, Bendra, Bluefish, Ayanora, parkslopper50, peterj911, seanleckey, glattonfolly, WV Democrat, tigerjade, gmhowell, retired, nycdemocrat, DrReason, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, sfluke, Deward Hastings, anna in philly, Black Max, HK, moggie12, Little Red Hen, DrewDown, DominoDude, rickeagle, kd texan, 2care4others, jgruber, snowbird42, boran2, murrayewv, Shapeshifter, guyermo, BDA in VA, greeseyparrot, Yankeluh, Gowrie Gal, memophage, tami33, SteveK, MichDeb, convict, leolabeth, vcmvo2, madaprn, Skennet Boch, joanneleon, Fabian, Massman, maybeeso in michigan, historys mysteries, Bluesee, Tarindel, 3goldens, Harkov311, Treg, rstnfld, kingubu, wizardofOZ, bellevie, Ckntfld, djewel, el dorado gal, coloradobl, LarisaW, lenore68, baccaruda, auditor, Russron, seesdifferent, LandmanVan, LisaZ, Quotefiend, theKK, mjd in florida, Chinton, ignorant bystander, OpherGopher, PBen, ejmw, Superpole, Alien Abductee, panicbean, ZappoDave, station wagon, beans, basquebob, juliesie, viral, 1Nic Ven, amRadioHed, Brooke In Seattle, KiaRioGrl79, david78209, Nastja Polisci, Richard Carlucci, YucatanMan, Claybow, Bouwerie Boy, snowho, Sophie Blue, eru, GUGA, dansk47, IL dac, flo58, judy99, freemark, Pam from Calif, truebeliever, tutone, EconAtheist, jorndorff, thered1, GreyHawk, Overseas, annefrank, Skid, Phil S 33, evilpenguin, libbie, abbeysbooks, hobo, woobie, SBandini, Jonathan House, wardlow, velouria, serrano, FindingMyVoice, Shaking the Tree, jilikins, mkrc98, Unduna, MLDB, proudprogressiveCA, MaryG, Box of Rain, Trakker, chiefsjen, Land of Enchantment, sfdoug, fhcec, Crisis Corps Volunteer, missouri reader, TimeTogether, Mehitabel9, lgmcp, SSMir, Cletus from Canuckistan, motherlowman, ThaliaR, kovie, rkex, chicagoblueohio, PoppyRocks, kraant, The Eye, PatsBard, BlueInARedState, leo joad, DC Scott, Ellicatt, Yellow Canary, CommiePinkoScum, Dvalkure, martyc35, anthonyLA, compbear, Esjaydee, mango, carolita, sailmaker, Silent Lurker, TalkieToaster, MJ via Chicago, jguzman17, global citizen, wild hair, Tanya, Ashaman, da5idfox, jmaps, OneCrankyDom, NOLA Native, VegasLiberalStevo, imabluemerkin, scientist, ThePenIsMightier, Maillard, Abby786, Andy30tx, LieDetector, sirenoftitan, Freiheit, justadood, Cenobyte, jedinecny, Dreaming of Better Days, Randall Flagg, djalix976, PurityOfEssence, vejoaronda, brown4160, nyc in exile

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site