The hypocracy continues

[Ghoulish Delight]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6911810/

[BarTopDancer]

Rice would not say whether Washington supports a change of government in Iran.

Well that's a start. It's really not our governments place to decide what kind of government other countries have and then make them have it.* We are the United States of America, not the United States of the World.

*I'm not saying we shouldn't help countries who ask for it and want us there. But if they don't then we need to stay out of it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

That's not even what it's about. Action may yet be necessary in Iran.

What it's about is Bush spouting ultimatums and absolutes. Preaching about the sanctity of freedom that we must protect no matter what, and that we must fight this war on terrorism, and that we have to protect ourselves from threat. But then turns around and sits back and watches in a case where Iran has admitted to having a nuclear program, is considered one of the biggest havens for terrorists, and is guilty of the same kinds of human rights violations as Iraq. And yet he doesn't feel the need to act. So all that says is all his blathering about those excuses in Iraq are a bunch of bull. He clearly doesn't believe a word of it, or else he'd be working on a plan right now to accelerate our departure from Iraq and move into Iran. But he's not.

So once again, all the talk about freeing the people of Iraq and protecting us from WMDs and hunting down the terrorist proves to be a smokescreen for whatever agenda he actually has. Bully for the Iraqi people that they are free, but their freedom has no real value to Bush other than as a pawn in whatever his scheme was.

[BarTopDancer]

I stand corrected.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I love this quote (from CNN)


"We have many diplomatic tools still at our disposal and we intend to pursue them fully," Rice told a news conference after a meeting with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.


So, where were all of these diplomatic tools when it came to Iraq. Where was the patience? We now know that there was no immenent threat in Iraq and yet, we had to invade immediately because there were "no other options". Here, we seem to have a much more serious situation but we are going to explore all of our diplomatic options.

This whole thing stinks and yet the beloved misleader Bush gets a free pass.

[Ghoulish Delight]

This whole thing stinks and yet the beloved misleader Bush gets a free pass.Remember? We're not supposed to be holding anyone accountable for their mistakes.

[scaeagles]

So, where were all of these diplomatic tools when it came to Iraq. Where was the patience? We now know that there was no immenent threat in Iraq

MBC - surely you can't be serious? 12 years of cease fire violations, over a dozen UN resolutions unabided by.....no patience? Go ahead and disagree with the invasion - I have no problem with that. But to say no patience? And lest someone say "NO WMD!!! NO WMD!!!", we would have known that should the cease fire agreements have been adhered to and inspectors were allowed to go wherever, whenever, with no notice of arrival upon a given site.

Nothing but criticism no matter what.....not patient enough with Iraq, too patient with Iran. Sheesh. I have no doubt that should some sort of action be taken against their nuclear sites many here would jump on the administration for violating their sovereignty.

I have oft been accused of blind partisanship. While I do not accuse any here of blind partisanship, as most of those here critical of Bush are not huge Dem supporters, but there is clearly an attitude that whatever is done, no matter what it is, is not the right thing to do.

Diplomacy is an interesting thing. For anyone who pays attention, it is clear that the internal situation in Iran is bubbling on it's own toward revolution. With two new democracies nearby (brand new and not yet stable, but there nonetheless), it is likely that with some covert assistance Iran will solve itself.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Bush invites it by spouting his ultimatums and rhetoric. It's bad enough that he's a pompous blowhard, it's worse that he's a pompous blowhard that demonstrates the he doesn't believe his crap one bit. And it's outrageous that he's using his lies to justify thousands of deaths. It shows no respect for the Iraqi people, and no respect for our military. People in this country have come to mistake pigheadedness with honor and courage.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Nothing but criticism no matter what.....not patient enough with Iraq, too patient with Iran. Sheesh. I have no doubt that should some sort of action be taken against their nuclear sites many here would jump on the administration for violating their sovereignty.I'm not criticizing the course of action. I'm criticizing Bush for trying to cram this freedom and liberty crap down our throats as if it's our moral imparative as an excuse for Iraq, and then turning around and immediately ignoring it. It's disgusting, hypocritical, and demeaning to the American people. And he was rewarded for it with a second term.

Each situation requires its own course of action, and its own prioritization. I'm fully aware of that. But when it dawned on Bush that his priorities were screwed up by going into Iraq, he began to become a broken record, claiming that nothing else takes priority over freedom and protecting against terrorist threats. But his actions do not support those words, so clearly those aren't his real priorities. From day one, he hasn't made a single true statement as to why we're in Iraq.

[scaeagles]

OK, GD. I'm cool with that.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

MBC - surely you can't be serious? 12 years of cease fire violations, over a dozen UN resolutions unabided by.....no patience?

Here's my point. I'm not convinced that the sanctions weren't working. The lack of WMD's suggests to me that Saddam was disarming. It doesn't take too much of an imagination to understand why he might not be too keen on telling that to everyone. Is it smart to announce to your enemies that you aren't the threat that they think you are? I know you think that everything is sitting in Syria. We'll find out soon enough when we invade them. My guess is when we don't find them, someone will suggest that they were moved somewhere else. The fact is, we said we knew exactly where they were but somehow, we couldn't keep an eye on them long enough to make sure that they stayed in Iraq? I don't buy it.

And if you don't have those weapons or any proof that they were moved, even though you justified an invasion because of it, how do you tell that to all of the people who have lost loved ones who have died there. How do you explain to them that we absolutely had to go in there immediately because we had no other option? There are always options and any option that could have spared the lives of our soldiers or of countless innocent bystanders should have been exercised. That is what I refer to when I speak of patience, making sure that you use our troops ONLY as a last resort. I don't think that was the case here at all.

This president used our troops to move ahead an agenda, not because we were in any forseeable danger. That is unacceptable to me and I refuse to believe that our absolute only option was war.