IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Not only that...
[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061400968.html|Bush 6/14/2006 Press Conference]:

I was impressed with the prime minister. And I'm impressed by his team. I told him that America is a nation that meets its commitments and keeps its word. And that's what we're going to do in Iraq.

It's in our interest that Iraq succeed. More importantly, it's in the interest of the Iraqi people.

The challenges that remain are serious. And they will require more sacrifice and patience. And our efforts are well worth it.

By helping this new government succeed, we'll be closer to completing our mission. And the mission is to develop a country that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself, and a country that is an ally in the war on terror.


Emphasis added.

Excuse me? The interests of the Iraqi people are more important than our own?

[link|http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm|George Washington's Farewell Address]:

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the Government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard....


The foreign policy interests of the USA must be paramount in dealing with Iraq. Yes, we have responsibilities there, and we must try to support the Iraqi people and government through this transition period. But their interests are not more important than our own.

Perhaps Bush meant something different than the what he expressed. But what I heard caused red flags to go up.

Cheers,
Scott.
New It's a bit more complex than that.
Yes, we should only have gone in there for our own interests.

The problem for Bush is that the justification, "Saddam has WOMD", while in our nation's interests, was false. Since the secondary justification, "get the oil", isn't something that will really fly in the international community, then the tertiary justification, "save the Iraqis" had to become the primary justification.

And so you end up with him saying stuff like that.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
     Bush's secret trip to Iraq - (JayMehaffey) - (12)
         He should have just told everybody - (bepatient) - (6)
             If he really needed to go - (JayMehaffey) - (1)
                 It doesn't strike me as a big deal. - (Another Scott)
             Sigh...he should've kept it secret..... - (Simon_Jester) - (3)
                 Kinda like a Jehovah's Witness? - (imqwerky) - (2)
                     But at least the JWs can speak intelligently. -NT - (jbrabeck) - (1)
                         Good comeback! -NT - (imqwerky)
         Parlous Parley Perchance? -NT - (ChrisR)
         Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid - (drewk) - (3)
             Not if you watch Fox or have Rumsfeld as a handler -NT - (admin)
             Not only that... - (Another Scott) - (1)
                 It's a bit more complex than that. - (admin)

Believed by many to be an idiot.
241 ms