George Soros, The Independent
I have been criss-crossing the United States for the past three weeks, arguing against the re-election of President Bush. I feel strongly that he has led us in the wrong direction. The invasion of Iraq was a colossal blunder, and only by rejecting the president at the polls can we hope to escape from the quagmire in which we find ourselves.
I haven't been criss-crossing the country, but I've been watching Bush's every action in the WoT for the past three years, and I strongly disagree. In fact, I don't even see the "quagmire."
I embarked on the tour because I was worried that the dramatic deterioration in Iraq did not produce the decisive lead for John Kerry I had confidently expected. Now that I am at the end of my tour, I am not reassured. Kerry and Bush are neck and neck in the polls, and although I believe the sheer numbers of the dead voter turnout is likely to give Kerry the victory, the race is too close for comfort.
I'm surprised that the race is too close for comfort, too. Kerry's a lightweight, of no discernable accomplishment, a Massachusetts hack with expensive hair and a rich wife. Bush has fought the War on Terror brilliantly from the day we were attacked, and there's no other issue in the election that matters.
The nation is deeply divided, and the two camps seem to be talking past each other. John Kerry won all three debates, but President Bush invokes his faith and that inspires his followers. In the end, it boils down to a philosophical difference over how to deal with an often confusing and threatening reality.
He's making a face when he says that Bush "invokes his faith," as though that's something awful. Kerry's lack of any core values is his distinguishing characteristic. But Bush deigns to distinguish right from wrong, and once having identified right, he tries to adhere to it and defend it. Kerry's all shifting shades of gray, many of them opaque.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/02/2004 12:13:31 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The writer is an Anti-American financier and pro-tyranny philanthropist.
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/02/2004 18:27 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The sheer hypocrisy of this man is staggering. All my experience in fostering democracy and open society has taught me that democracy cannot be imposed by military means.
Soros has caused more human misery and done more to set back the march of freedom and democracy than almost anyone in the world not in Government service. His currency manipulation and speculation in the 90's brought him immense profits, but destabilized and almost destroyed the economies of Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, South Korea, the Phillipines, and rattled their neighbors. That this slime is supporting Kerry makes me wonder where the profit for him will be.
#6
My response to this is to point out that Karl Popper would campaign across America for Bush. I suggest Mr. Soros goes back and reads The Open Society and Its Enemies, and see if he recognizes himself in his mentor's descriptions.
#7
"All my experience in fostering democracy and open society has taught me that democracy cannot be imposed by military means."
Excuse me? Ever heard of Japan, Germany, and South Korea -- not to mention the United States of America? And that's just the tip of the iceberg, you nutcase.
Posted by: Tom ||
11/02/2004 19:30 Comments ||
Top||
#8
"The war on terror is an abstraction."
Good God! I can't read another word!
Posted by: Tom ||
11/02/2004 19:32 Comments ||
Top||
#9
RWV
I don't think Soros is quite the devil you make him out to be. The currency speculation you mentioned was not the only thing that almost destroyed the economies of the countries you mentioned. Those countries borrowed heavily from the World Bank, etc. and used the funds for inefficient projects. The currency speculation did precipitate the crises but had the crises not occurred when it did, the ultimate effects might have been worse.
Soros's charities have also been used to build some of the democratic institutions in the former Soviet empire. Yes, its true that Soros wants these institutions built in a way that will make markets open for his hedge fund investments, but notwithstanding the motive, the democratic institutions have been built.
#12
I'm just waiting for Bush to declare the vote illegal and restart the confederacy.
Posted by: 4 more years! of kerry! ||
11/02/2004 20:39 Comments ||
Top||
#13
That would be great if they'd follow, but they had the whole Kerry campaign and they never volunteered. I wonder why. Does the "plan" take that into account? [rolls eyes at lame "4 more years! of kerry!" and shuts down browser]
Posted by: Tom ||
11/02/2004 20:45 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Soros...Move to the UK. The Brits love you as much as we US Conservatives.
#16
I say we raise the tax rate on currency speculators to 250% of their current worth and make it legal to grab them by the ankles and bang their pointy little heads against a convienient curb looking for loose change.
Posted by: Darth VAda ||
11/02/2004 22:42 Comments ||
Top||
#17
mhw, true, but it was Soros' assault on the Ringgit and the Baht that was the tipping point for the currency crisis. He didn't create the underlying problem, but he ruthlessly exploited it.
Hat tip to Glenn
AMERICANS will certainly have 9/11 in mind when they vote today. But they should keep another date in mind, too — one almost exactly a quarter-century ago: Nov. 4, 1979. A clear path runs to 9/11 from the day of the raid on the U.S. embassy in Tehran and the seizure of American hostages. The 1979 embassy attack came at a time when the administration of President Jimmy Carter was trying to prop up the new Khomeinist regime in Tehran. Carter had decided to support Khomeini in the context of the so-called "Green Belt" strategy developed by National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Brilliant. Simply fnurking brilliant.
That strategy was based on the assumption that the United States and its allies were unable to contain the Soviet Union, then expanding its zone of influence into Africa, the Indian Ocean region and, through left-leaning regimes, in Latin America. To counter that expanding threat, Brzezinski envisaged the creation of a string of Islamic allies that, for religious and political reasons, would prefer the United States against the "godless" Soviet empire. The second stage in Brzezinski's grand strategy was to incite the Muslim peoples of the Soviet Union to revolt against Moscow and thus frustrate its global schemes.
Great minds of the 20th Century at work here...
The Bzrezinski strategy had been partly inspired by Helene Carrere d'Encausse, who, in her book "The Fragmented Empire," predicted the disintegration of the Soviet Union as a result of revolts by Muslim minorities. When the Islamic revolution started in Iran, the Carter administration saw it as the confirmation of its assumption that only Islamists could muster enough popular support to provide an alternative to both the existing regime and the pro-Soviet leftist movements. The Carter administration went out of its way to support the new regime in Tehran. A ban imposed on the sale of arms and materiel to Iran, imposed in 1978, was lifted, and a 1954 presidential "finding" by Dwight Eisenhower was dusted off to reaffirm Washington's commitment to defending Iran against Soviet or other threats. Also to symbolize support for the mullahs, President Carter initially rejected a visa application for the exiled shah to travel to New York for medical treatment. Just weeks after the mullahs' regime was formed, Brzezinski traveled to Morocco to meet Mehdi Bazargan, Ayatollah Khomeini's first prime minister. At the meeting, Brzezinski invited the new Iranian regime to enter into a strategic partnership with the United States. Bazargan, concerned that the Iranian left might bid for power against the still wobbly regime of the mullahs, was "ecstatic" about the American offer.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Spot ||
11/02/2004 9:30:52 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Wow. This is like a stroll down the memory lane of incompetence. Jimmah, Cy Vance, Andrew Young, Zbiggie...
#3
Anymoose-The notion that if they click their heels three times and pray to the Gods of altruism and moral equivalency, the bad guys will go away. ;)
#6
The 1979 embassy attack came at a time when the administration of President Jimmy Carter was trying to prop up the new Khomeinist regime in Tehran. . . .
That's gratitude for you!
Posted by: Mike ||
11/02/2004 11:47 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Don't forget Burt "Audit me harder" Lance and his Budgeteers.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
11/02/2004 11:58 Comments ||
Top||
#8
...and Hamilton Jordan and Jody Powell, who's main functions in the administration as I remember were to hang out at Studio 54 and do lots of coke.
#9
DPA: This article made me so angry I'm shaking.
I don't actually see this maneuvering as a problem. The reality is that the mullahs had a choice - they could align with the Soviets, or they could align with the US. We tried to make their choice the US. The real foreign policy blunders were the Iranians' - they chose to fight everyone at the same time. Carter's major mistake was in not supporting the Shah, not in trying to align with the mullahs once the Shah was overthrown. He was trying to make an omelette after the eggs were broken.
The reality is that the Soviets engaged in proxy wars that killed 100,000 Americans. All the terrorist acts fomented by various Islamic movements and countries put together have killed way less than 10,000 Americans. The reality is that during the Cold War, the Iranians were preferable to the Soviets, just as during WWII, the Soviets were preferable to the Nazis. A Soviet-controlled Iran does not bear thinking about - this was why we prevented the Soviet-controlled Mossadegh from launching his coup against the Shah in the 1950's.
#10
What ZF said. The other aspect of Brzezinski's strategy was arming the Afghan mujahiddin against the Soviets, which was the correct move at that time and which helped greatly to weaken the SU.
#11
Screw Jimmy Carter. He ver comes near me I'm going to pimp slap him and spit in his face.
I will be out the rest of the day and probably tomorrow to help out a Marine. He's one of "my kids" that I helped in youth group (as a drill intructor then later as a Big Brother). He is coming home from Al Anbar province in Iraq. He was one of the best and brightests kids I have ever known, someone who made the world a better place.
His funeral is tomorrow.
I know I shouldnt post when I'm this messed up. But,
KILL EVERY FUCKING ONE OF THOSE MONSTERS!
DROP THE DAMNED BOMBS UNTIL THE RUBBLE BOUNCES. THEN SALT THE GROUND. THEY DESERVE NO QUARTER, NO MERCY. ONLY EXTERMINATION.
Your analysis also highlights one reason I would never consider voting for Kerry. Sometimes difficult decisions must be made. Do you ally with the Soviet devil to counter the Nazi demon? Do you play nice with thugs like Pinochet to stop even bigger Marxist thugs? Kerry isn't the sort who could make decisions like that.
Now that the Cold War is won, there's lots of recriminations about supporting unsavory regimes in Greece, Chile, Turkey, etc., but does anyone today think that we wouldn't be better off with a Pahlavi monarchy as opposed to an Islamic mullaharchy.
#14
Remember the day well. I can tell you that Carter's wanting to reason with K was fine, but since it was not backed up with military threats, the denouement was predictable.
I tell folks I'm for W because he has been the one to bend back the straight line that started 11/04/79 and ended on 9/11/01. K's wanting to go back "where we were" is pure denial, as the article so well shows.
Posted by: chicago mike ||
11/02/2004 14:13 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Dreadnought: Now that the Cold War is won, there's lots of recriminations about supporting unsavory regimes in Greece, Chile, Turkey, etc., but does anyone today think that we wouldn't be better off with a Pahlavi monarchy as opposed to an Islamic mullaharchy.
Back in the days when I was a lefty, I used to think there was a problem with "supporting" these people. But that was a lie. We weren't "supporting" them. They were supporting themselves. And the Soviets were supporting Communist guerrillas to replace them with regimes unfriendly to us, where the existing governments were at worst neutral. Most of these countries had had authoritarian regimes of one kind or another since they started having governments. For lefties to claim that allying with them was morally inferior to letting Soviet-sponsored communist regimes take over - that is just insane. We took these governments as they were - authoritarian or not - lefties wanted to make sure that Soviet-sponsored or at least unfriendly dictators took over.
#16
I know how you feel, OldSpook. I burried one of mine 3 weeks ago. Killed by a roadside bomb.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
11/02/2004 14:43 Comments ||
Top||
#17
My condolences OS. I fear that with Kerry we will surpass the idiocy of the Carter administration. If he is elected, we all must persevere and make sure that the idiots who elect him see what a mistake they made. Unfortunately, that may be all too easy.
Posted by: remote man ||
11/02/2004 14:44 Comments ||
Top||
#18
I join in the condolences OS. God bless them all and Semper Fi.
After election day, there is a reckoning coming in Iraq. I would be surprised if Fallujah is left standing after today. Drudge reported that a U.S Soldier has been kidnapped. That ups the ante. I saw video the other day, of 155mm howitzers getting ready pound the city. Also, AP is reporting mass exodus from Fallujah.
OS, you just may get yours(and mine)wish, of no mercy and extermination.
#20
Old Spook and Deacon Blues, my condolences too, sincerely. It doesn't change a thing, but you both have all my sympathy, as do the families of theses kids. God bless them.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
