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
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'm curious is anyone can explain how it is one can support the troops but be against the war? Is it like saying "We support you, now go and fight a war we don't believe should be fought."? It's unfortunate how Vietnam Vets were treated by anti-war people during the time but didn't the war end because of the protestors? I don't know.
Hi, Rich, our soldiers are great men and women of strength and honor. They willingly put themselves in harms way to protect this great country. When they are ordered by their leaders, our leaders, to go off to war, they go because they know it is part of the job. Many of them do not agree, and many of them do not want to go - but because of their loyalty and dedication and honor to what this great country stands for, they go where they are told and do their best. I support the soldiers, those willing to give their lives in full support of this country, even when the administration puts them in harms way, in lands we simply do not belong in. It is not their place to question, the do as told by their superiors. So in short, you can support the troops while at the same time, not supporting those who put them in a war in which they don't belong.
Another important point is that a majority of our soldiers come from poor families, and they enlist as a means to support their families, and some in hopes of the opportunity for education. I don't think many of our soldiers, if any at all, enlist in the hopes of ever seeing war. It just goes to show, the wealthy call the shots, and the poor are requested to do the dirty, dangerous and life threatening work.
I've been thinking about this since I posted my previous response. It seems to me that if one were considering joining the military, one would have to consider wether or not one approves of a nations policies and history of past war. It's kind of like people who eat only "dolphin safe" tuna. They choose not to support the industries that don't protect the dolphins. Fishermen are honorable people so what about all the fishermen who support families and work for a corporation that doesn't provide "dolphin safe" tuna?
Consider, the United States has not really been in a war in recent times to protect the homeland. World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam. There was never a direct threat to the homeland in any of those wars, correct me if I'm wrong. Sure the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor but wasn't that because of the U.S. military presence in Hawaii? Is there any difference between Japan's Hawaii and the United States' Cuba?
I would not enlist in the military in these times because I do not support the wars our Country wages in the name of National Security.
Regarding Iraq/Iran, they were never a direct threat to us and if they are now, consider the U.S. first threatened them during WWI or WWII when they invaded Iran and stole their oil to fuel the war machine, then setup of the Shaw whom the people hated. I can't believe that after Vietnam and all the anti-vietnam war movies that anyone would enlist in a military under a government that would wage such a war.
I can't help but remember the movie "Born on the 4th of July". Ron Kovic enlisted in the military because he was taught about how honorable it was to do so by his mother. After being paralyzed in Vietnam, he had a change of heart and hated his Mother because of it. Any individual, by the age of 17, should be able to discern whether or not joining the armed forces is a wise thing to do. If he/she decides it is wise, then the decision is their own. Why would I support their decision if I disagree with it. And how would I support Fishermen who don't fish with dolphin safe nets? Should I remind them how honorable they are and how much I support them? But I'm going to buy my tuna from your competitor who fish with dolphin safe nets.
I still don't understand how one can support the troops without supporting the war.
It is simple. You put your faith in honesty.They tell you this is the way it is.You fight for it, then you find out it was 1/2 truths or out right lies.The soldiers still have to do their jobs irregaurdless.
Post a Comment