Submit your comments on this article | |
Iraq | |
Mad | |
2005-09-25 | |
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright issued a stern warning Saturday about the continuing U.S. role in Iraq, saying "there are no good options at this point and the worst days may be ahead of us." Albright, secretary of state under President Clinton, said the March 2003 invasion of Iraq has led to a series of misfortunes that should have been anticipated. "Instead of winning friends for America, it has poisoned our relations with many countries in the Mideast and the Muslim world," Albright told a conference on the role of citizens in shaping the nation's image abroad. Damn! And I thought "winning friends" is what it's all about. "I think that if it were put to a vote, the Iraqi people might want the U.S. to stay for some period of time," Albright said. "What they don't want is a sense that we might be there forever." Many Iraqis are suspicious that the United States is occupying the country to assure itself access to Mideastern oil, she said.
| |
Posted by:Captain America |
#11 If Iraq becomes a relatively decent country and the Koreans and Iranians give up nukes, then dark days are ahead for Madeleine's 'legacy. Of course, if the Jihadist win, there won't be any historians to write Madeleine's legacy at all. |
Posted by: mhw 2005-09-25 17:36 |
#10 We need a return to serious matters in foreign policy. Don't you love my brooch? |
Posted by: Madeleine Albright 2005-09-25 11:55 |
#9 "Dark Days Ahead In Iraq" You know some Democrats said about the same thing about the 'South' when the Blacks were liberated by o'Abe Lincoln and them damn yankees. Glad to know that they haven't changed much in over a hundred years. |
Posted by: Hupairong Omoling4672 2005-09-25 11:50 |
#8 Great points here. I hadn't really considered how distasteful a record the Democrats have since 1975, abandoning our Vietnamese allies, mismanaging the Shah's transition, opening the floodgates of islamofiscism, botching the opportunity to whack the Norks in 1994, selling national security technology to the Chinese, and ignoring the growth of al-Q. Quite a track record! They're behind just about every problem we've got today. I bet Maddie would even put in a good word for Chavez. But at least they have lots of friends when they go to Cambridge and Paris. What is really disturbing is that they retain a hold on 1/3 of the electorate with this track record. But they do have public educators as their allies, so I guess we should be thankful it's not more. Thank goodness we don't know what Presidents Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry would have wrought. |
Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-09-25 11:02 |
#7 IIRC, Condi Rice did her doctoral work under Albright's father, who is to the right of Madsy. Must gall her to the gills to see Condi be a whole lot more effective than she was. |
Posted by: Omerens Omaigum2983 2005-09-25 10:48 |
#6 Sshweetheart. It's been dark days in Iraq since the Moslem invasion. |
Posted by: gromgoru 2005-09-25 10:05 |
#5 The Left also can't allow us to have a military success, because it goes against the leftist dogma that "war never solved anything". Only transnational institutions, diplomacy, and the forming of committees to study the matter are the allowable methods of foreign policy. Except of course, if the entity waging war is one of your socialist/soviet/maoist utopias. |
Posted by: jolly roger 2005-09-25 08:23 |
#4 You got it, JAB. One of the more intelligent and amazing things I've heard from GWB is his statement that a half-century of American foreign policy in the Middle East, propping up dictators who guaranteed us access to oil, was a failure and helped lead to 9/11. Not that anyone on the Left gave him any credit for his perception of the real 'root cause'. So one might think that the Mad Hatter is just cheezed off because GWB peed all over her splendiferous, failed foreign policy. |
Posted by: Steve White 2005-09-25 00:43 |
#3 Good points. These people want the US to fail and think we are unworthy of our power and influence. Interesting that she is basically saying that we pissed off the Arab dicatators and Euros as though it's a) a bad thing and b)a surprise. The truth is that we want to pressure the Arab dictators since playing footsie with them led to 9/11 and the cost of alienating the French/Germans/Russians a bit more was calculated in up front. As for oil: The situation pre-invasion was that Sammy sold or smuggled oil below market price to bribe his neighbors and the UN/Eurocracy and stole the proceeds. Now Iraq is getting market price and gets to keep the proceeds. If we were the evil oil grubbers she claims the Iraqis fear we are, be we would have siezed the Soddy and Iraqi oil fields, established a perimeter and sold it to the world. We'd have far fewer casualties and lower costs. Even Halfbright is not this stupid. She knows this but her hatred of her own country has her spewing this illogical canard rather than contradicting it. |
Posted by: JAB 2005-09-25 00:33 |
#2 If a few of Halfbrights Stalinist pals and their fellow travelers were to start to get knocked around a bit it wouldn't bother me to see it. They don't know when to STFU. The media has no fear of pushing their lies. They need to fear distorting the truth, they need to fear false reporting. |
Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom 2005-09-25 00:33 |
#1 I think ihe left is far worse than you describe. These attacks have intensified in recent days because of the upcoming elections and because the left know just how much is at stake for their socialist agenda when the US wins the war in Iraq. For 20 years the left have been relying on the good will of the right after second presidential terms by getting the right to cave in to some of their agenda. Once they get it, they attack the right and the right loses. It's all not cashing in your winnings after a second term. Fortunately so far Bush has failed to walk into this trap, unlike his father did. Now with the left putting everything on the line, playing this one card (a US defeat in Iraq either by actual military actiin (unlikely ) or by cutting out ebfore the job is done ). They hope for America's defeat because they know their political agenda will be marginalized and made irrelevent by a US military victory in Iraq. It scares them to death, so much so, it makes little difference to them if we all point out they are being defeatists and seditionists by failing to fully support the war. The only path to their political victory is trhough a US military defeat. The left have placed their bets, and it is up to the president to see this thing through to victory. |
Posted by: badanov 2005-09-25 00:23 |