The Answer May Surprise You
Another blog you might find as fascinating as I did!
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
In My Morally and Intellectually Confused Opinion
In My Morally and Intellectually Confused Opinion
Sandra Bonadonna 08/2006
As a follow up story from yesterday, the Washington Post details the comments made by Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice when speaking at the American Legion Conference in Reno, NV.
Of course, my eyes could not believe what I was reading, and my fingers couldn't wait to start typing an editorial opinion.
(Follow this link to read the entire article. I have included excerpts from this article in my editorial.)
Along the same lines as yesterdays story, Rumsfeld is, well Donald Rumsfeld:
"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned yesterday that "moral and intellectual confusion" over the Iraq war and the broader anti-terrorism effort could sap American willpower and divide the country, and he urged renewed resolve to confront extremists waging "a new type of fascism."Drawing parallels to efforts by some nations to appease Adolf Hitler before World War II, Rumsfeld said it would be "folly" for the United States to ignore the rising dangers posed by a new enemy that he called "serious, lethal and relentless." In a pointed attack on the news media and critics of President Bush's war and national security policies, Rumsfeld declared: "Any kind of moral and intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can severely weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.""
Democrats responded:
Congressional Democrats angrily responded to Rumsfeld's remarks. "There is no confusion among military experts, bipartisan members of Congress and the overwhelming majority of the American people about the need to change course in Iraq," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). "The only person confused about how to best protect this country is Don Rumsfeld, which is why he must go."Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he took exception to what he considered the implication that critics of the administration's military policies are unpatriotic. He noted that there are "scores of patriotic Americans of both parties who are highly critical" of Rumsfeld's handling of the Defense Department.Rumsfeld obliquely acknowledged mistakes and setbacks in Iraq, quoting the French statesman Georges Clemenceau as calling all wars "a series of catastrophes that results in victory." Moreover, in a reference to recent charges of war crimes against U.S. troops in Iraq, Rumsfeld said that "in every army, there are occasionally bad actors -- the ones who dominate the headlines today -- who don't live up to the standards of their oath and of our country."
And then the following comments were made by Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice:
Rumsfeld stressed that it is misguided for Americans to fall into self-blame and to "return to the destructive view that America -- not the enemy -- is the real source of the world's trouble." He blamed the U.S. media for spreading "myths and distortions . . . about our troops and about our country." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, addressing the same audience later, sounded similar themes. "The dream of some, that we could avoid this conflict, that we did not have to take sides in this battle in the Middle East, that dream was demolished on September the 11th," Rice said. Rice said in a radio interview that "we cannot fall prey to pessimism about how this will all come out," adding that "the really devastating problem for the world would be if America loses its will."
Let's consider for a moment that Rumsfeld or Rice really believe what they are spouting to be truth. First, lets address the statement that Americans seem to think the America is the real source of the world’s trouble. I don't know any Americans who would hold this to be true, rather it would be more fair to say that more Americans believe our current administration is an active player in the world's troubles. As a patriotic American, I can't imagine blaming ourselves for anything. Our leaders are making all of the decisions, not based on what the American people want, but based on what they (our leaders) want.
In regard to Rumsfelds comment that Americans who are not in agreement with them are suffering from "moral and intellectual confusion", once again one is forced to ask who is really suffering from these conditions? Is the President hosting a tyrannical world leader at the White House and then vacationing with him? What is our current relationship with the government of Saudi Arabia? Which American corporations are making billions rebuilding Iraq, and who are the owners of those corporations related to, or close friends with in the current administration?
Do the elite of this country, that support the Republican party financially stand to lose money if we withdraw from Iraq? What would happen if we held Saudi Arabia to the same standard as we have Iraq? Would it be financially devastating to the richest Americans? In the big picture, exactly who is suffering from "moral and intellectual confusion"? And by the way, what exactly does intellectual confusion mean?
Condoleezzza, Condoleezza, Condoleezza, I'm almost at a loss for words.
"The dream of some, that we could avoid this conflict, that we did not have to take sides in this battle in the Middle East, that dream was demolished on September the 11th,"
I could be wrong but did Sadaam Hussein, and the people of Iraq plan and carry out the 9-11 attacks? I thought it was Osama Bin Laden, and the terrorist freaks from countries like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan? And Condoleezza, didn't we effectively remove Hussein from power and give Iraq leaders that we approve of based on our Freedom Agenda? How does the Freedom Agenda correlate with the events of 9-11. We were attacked, shouldn't we focus on bringing the attackers to justice?
"we cannot fall prey to pessimism about how this will all come out," adding that "the really devastating problem for the world would be if America loses its will."
Hey, Condi! I have two words for you, and maybe you should do some research on these two words VIETNAM WAR
Will there come a day when the leaders of our country stop referring to those who don't agree with them as unpatriotic or simply stupid? Will there come a day when they realize that it is okay to admit they made a mistake, do all they can to correct it and move on? Will there come a day when they stop using one of the most tragic days in American History to further their twisted agendas?
What is the date of the next Presidential election? Just a humble American opinion.
Technorati Profile
Sandra Bonadonna 08/2006
As a follow up story from yesterday, the Washington Post details the comments made by Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice when speaking at the American Legion Conference in Reno, NV.
Of course, my eyes could not believe what I was reading, and my fingers couldn't wait to start typing an editorial opinion.
(Follow this link to read the entire article. I have included excerpts from this article in my editorial.)
Along the same lines as yesterdays story, Rumsfeld is, well Donald Rumsfeld:
"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned yesterday that "moral and intellectual confusion" over the Iraq war and the broader anti-terrorism effort could sap American willpower and divide the country, and he urged renewed resolve to confront extremists waging "a new type of fascism."Drawing parallels to efforts by some nations to appease Adolf Hitler before World War II, Rumsfeld said it would be "folly" for the United States to ignore the rising dangers posed by a new enemy that he called "serious, lethal and relentless." In a pointed attack on the news media and critics of President Bush's war and national security policies, Rumsfeld declared: "Any kind of moral and intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can severely weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.""
Democrats responded:
Congressional Democrats angrily responded to Rumsfeld's remarks. "There is no confusion among military experts, bipartisan members of Congress and the overwhelming majority of the American people about the need to change course in Iraq," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). "The only person confused about how to best protect this country is Don Rumsfeld, which is why he must go."Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he took exception to what he considered the implication that critics of the administration's military policies are unpatriotic. He noted that there are "scores of patriotic Americans of both parties who are highly critical" of Rumsfeld's handling of the Defense Department.Rumsfeld obliquely acknowledged mistakes and setbacks in Iraq, quoting the French statesman Georges Clemenceau as calling all wars "a series of catastrophes that results in victory." Moreover, in a reference to recent charges of war crimes against U.S. troops in Iraq, Rumsfeld said that "in every army, there are occasionally bad actors -- the ones who dominate the headlines today -- who don't live up to the standards of their oath and of our country."
And then the following comments were made by Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice:
Rumsfeld stressed that it is misguided for Americans to fall into self-blame and to "return to the destructive view that America -- not the enemy -- is the real source of the world's trouble." He blamed the U.S. media for spreading "myths and distortions . . . about our troops and about our country." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, addressing the same audience later, sounded similar themes. "The dream of some, that we could avoid this conflict, that we did not have to take sides in this battle in the Middle East, that dream was demolished on September the 11th," Rice said. Rice said in a radio interview that "we cannot fall prey to pessimism about how this will all come out," adding that "the really devastating problem for the world would be if America loses its will."
Let's consider for a moment that Rumsfeld or Rice really believe what they are spouting to be truth. First, lets address the statement that Americans seem to think the America is the real source of the world’s trouble. I don't know any Americans who would hold this to be true, rather it would be more fair to say that more Americans believe our current administration is an active player in the world's troubles. As a patriotic American, I can't imagine blaming ourselves for anything. Our leaders are making all of the decisions, not based on what the American people want, but based on what they (our leaders) want.
In regard to Rumsfelds comment that Americans who are not in agreement with them are suffering from "moral and intellectual confusion", once again one is forced to ask who is really suffering from these conditions? Is the President hosting a tyrannical world leader at the White House and then vacationing with him? What is our current relationship with the government of Saudi Arabia? Which American corporations are making billions rebuilding Iraq, and who are the owners of those corporations related to, or close friends with in the current administration?
Do the elite of this country, that support the Republican party financially stand to lose money if we withdraw from Iraq? What would happen if we held Saudi Arabia to the same standard as we have Iraq? Would it be financially devastating to the richest Americans? In the big picture, exactly who is suffering from "moral and intellectual confusion"? And by the way, what exactly does intellectual confusion mean?
Condoleezzza, Condoleezza, Condoleezza, I'm almost at a loss for words.
"The dream of some, that we could avoid this conflict, that we did not have to take sides in this battle in the Middle East, that dream was demolished on September the 11th,"
I could be wrong but did Sadaam Hussein, and the people of Iraq plan and carry out the 9-11 attacks? I thought it was Osama Bin Laden, and the terrorist freaks from countries like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan? And Condoleezza, didn't we effectively remove Hussein from power and give Iraq leaders that we approve of based on our Freedom Agenda? How does the Freedom Agenda correlate with the events of 9-11. We were attacked, shouldn't we focus on bringing the attackers to justice?
"we cannot fall prey to pessimism about how this will all come out," adding that "the really devastating problem for the world would be if America loses its will."
Hey, Condi! I have two words for you, and maybe you should do some research on these two words VIETNAM WAR
Will there come a day when the leaders of our country stop referring to those who don't agree with them as unpatriotic or simply stupid? Will there come a day when they realize that it is okay to admit they made a mistake, do all they can to correct it and move on? Will there come a day when they stop using one of the most tragic days in American History to further their twisted agendas?
What is the date of the next Presidential election? Just a humble American opinion.
Technorati Profile
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
HYPOCRISY IN THE WHITE HOUSE
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/28/AR2006082801282.html
Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy!
This is the link to the Washington Post Story, "With Kazakh's Visit, Bush Priorities Clash
Autocrat Leads an Oil-Rich Country"
I read this, and then immediately thought of Donald Rumsfeld's comment about suffering from "moral or intellectual confusion". It would seem that this comment would accurately describe our President.
The article states:
'President Bush launched an initiative this month to combat international kleptocracy, the sort of high-level corruption by foreign officials that he called "a grave and corrosive abuse of power" that "threatens our national interest and violates our values." The plan, he said, would be "a critical component of our freedom agenda."
Three weeks later, the White House is making arrangements to host the leader of Kazakhstan, an autocrat who runs a nation that is anything but free and who has been accused by U.S. prosecutors of pocketing the bulk of $78 million in bribes from an American businessman. Not only will President Nursultan Nazarbayev visit the White House, people involved say, but he also will travel to the Bush family compound in Maine.'
Are you kidding? We should stand behind our Presidents Freedom Agenda, leave our troops in Iraq, support the fact that he is spending federal dollars to "launch an initiative to combat international kleptocracy" and in the mean time one of the more psycho leaders of the world will vacation with our First Family.
Personally, I am just happy that his Presidency will soon be coming to an end, this is past the point of ridiculous.
Technorati Profile
Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy!
This is the link to the Washington Post Story, "With Kazakh's Visit, Bush Priorities Clash
Autocrat Leads an Oil-Rich Country"
I read this, and then immediately thought of Donald Rumsfeld's comment about suffering from "moral or intellectual confusion". It would seem that this comment would accurately describe our President.
The article states:
'President Bush launched an initiative this month to combat international kleptocracy, the sort of high-level corruption by foreign officials that he called "a grave and corrosive abuse of power" that "threatens our national interest and violates our values." The plan, he said, would be "a critical component of our freedom agenda."
Three weeks later, the White House is making arrangements to host the leader of Kazakhstan, an autocrat who runs a nation that is anything but free and who has been accused by U.S. prosecutors of pocketing the bulk of $78 million in bribes from an American businessman. Not only will President Nursultan Nazarbayev visit the White House, people involved say, but he also will travel to the Bush family compound in Maine.'
Are you kidding? We should stand behind our Presidents Freedom Agenda, leave our troops in Iraq, support the fact that he is spending federal dollars to "launch an initiative to combat international kleptocracy" and in the mean time one of the more psycho leaders of the world will vacation with our First Family.
Personally, I am just happy that his Presidency will soon be coming to an end, this is past the point of ridiculous.
Technorati Profile
Rumsfeld Comments
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14570794/
This news article is on today's MSNBC news page. I read it and was offended.
It is titled, Rumsfeld: War critics suffer ‘moral confusion’
It reports that "Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease “a new type of fascism.”"
Again! Heaven forbid anyone try to take a stand against President Bush and the current administration.
Question: If we have removed Sadaam Hussein from power and replaced him with someone our federal government approves of, then how are we trying to "appease a new type of fascism"?
We are not in Iraq because that is where the terrorists are, we took over the country, according to our federal government, to give the people of Iraq the freedom we think they want.
I personally am so fed up with President Bush's focus on Iraq. If we truly want to rid the world of terrorists, why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. Hell, why don't we just nuke the entire Middle East and wipe it off the face of the Earth?
Oh, that's right, if we did that we wouldn't be able to make any money rebuilding it once we destroy it, and oops forgot how important that oil is. Forgot about that.
All sarcasm aside, when will our current administrators stop accusing every one who does not agree with them of being anti-patriotic or suffering from "moral or intellectual confusion".
Just in case you forgot Mr. Rumsfeld, we live in the USA, and are protected by our Constitution which allows us to speak freely and disagree with our leaders. Shame on you for belittling those who do not see things your way or the Presidents way.
Technorati Profile
This news article is on today's MSNBC news page. I read it and was offended.
It is titled, Rumsfeld: War critics suffer ‘moral confusion’
It reports that "Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease “a new type of fascism.”"
Again! Heaven forbid anyone try to take a stand against President Bush and the current administration.
Question: If we have removed Sadaam Hussein from power and replaced him with someone our federal government approves of, then how are we trying to "appease a new type of fascism"?
We are not in Iraq because that is where the terrorists are, we took over the country, according to our federal government, to give the people of Iraq the freedom we think they want.
I personally am so fed up with President Bush's focus on Iraq. If we truly want to rid the world of terrorists, why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. Hell, why don't we just nuke the entire Middle East and wipe it off the face of the Earth?
Oh, that's right, if we did that we wouldn't be able to make any money rebuilding it once we destroy it, and oops forgot how important that oil is. Forgot about that.
All sarcasm aside, when will our current administrators stop accusing every one who does not agree with them of being anti-patriotic or suffering from "moral or intellectual confusion".
Just in case you forgot Mr. Rumsfeld, we live in the USA, and are protected by our Constitution which allows us to speak freely and disagree with our leaders. Shame on you for belittling those who do not see things your way or the Presidents way.
Technorati Profile
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
