Powell admits to misleading the public about Iraq-Al Qaeda

[Gamblor]

Semantics.

certainly unsupported by anything published by Human Rights Watch (which, incidentally, did not support the war on human rights grounds).

As I said, it is a politically-left oriented organization masquerading as a noble fighter of injustice.

[Chris Alger]

So criticizing U.S. policy doesn't prove hatred of the U.S. unless one does so in a "very negative" manner.

That's the essence of the conventional paradigm for discussing foreign policy in the mainstream media and academia: just about everything concerning U.S. actions must be presented in the most favorable light, a rule that applies only to the us. WE make mistakes, THEY commit crimes. WE have unquestionably noble motives (ask any policy maker)but sometimes blunder, overreact, etc. THEY are up to no good and care only for their own selfish interests.

The most useful thing about this double standard, of course, is that the discussion is largely over before it begins.

[adios]

"Perhaps we should have taken the risk, and perhaps we should not have. My point is that the evidence on which we should make that decision should be truthfully presented and honestly analyzed. We should not be told one thing before going to war and another after. And the evidence should not be interpreted to support a preordained conclusion. "

Are you saying that he deceived Congress? Gephardt and many other Democrats don't think so. In another thread the acrimony between the political parties was discussed. Wouldn't the Democrats in Congress have a great political opportunity to embarass Bush and gain from revealing such deception by Bush to the public? Yet many Democrats in both houses ultimately voted for the Iraqi resolution. Gephardt and Lieberman to name a few still state that the US followed the right course. Your portrayel that Congress acted on flimsy evidence is just plain wrong. If the evidence was flimsy and the President had misrepresented it to the public, the Democrats would certainly have screamed about it and gotten plently of press for doing so.

[Gamblor]

That's a good argument. The invasion of Iraq was justified for violating UN resolutions controlled by "Arab interests" that opposed the invasion of Iraq.

That is nothing even remotely close to my argument.

but rather that they sought to change "Israeli children" with "children of the Middle East," so that children killed by Isreali terror would be included.

The Israeli resolution mirrored, almost word for word, a resolution (that passed) calling for the protection of Palestinian children.

That the first resolution was not changed, and the Israeli resolution was rejected in its presented form, constitutes out of hand rejection.

The resolution was advertised throughout Israel as the litmus test of UN impartiality and by altering the wording of the Israeli resolution and endorsing the Palestinian resolution creates a failing condition for said test.

[MMMMMM]

Well compared to communism or theocracy or dictatorship or fascism, our way does have a moral imperative.

I'm not saying our way is ideally and perfectly moral; it's just more moral than the ways listed above.

[Gamblor]

Re: US influence on foreign governments
Human rights have never been a prime consideration in this process, witness our support for many tyrannical regimes because they were "our bastards."

Would you argue that given that the US government established that communism was a threat to its national security and the health of its people, and its support of Hussein was a vehicle whereby the US could mitigate that threat, was support of Hussein not a human rights consideration? If not the Iranians, then the Americans?

Switzerland supports nobody for any reason. Thus, they must be morally superior.

[andyfox]

I probably shouldn't speak for Chris, but it seems that his positions are to the left of mine. (Hard to believe, I know [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]). So he is [probably] going to irk you who are to the right of me more than I.

Having said that, what most people believe about our country's foreign policy and history is partly fairy tale. Chris often brings out the ugly parts because those are the parts that are usually most hidden.

As I said, I didn't see any hate for our country in Chris's lead post of this thread. If you can show me what you consider an example of hate for our country in any other of his posts, I have an open mind. (I don't mean that you are obligated to start a research project.)

While it indeed true, objectively, that one can just as easily confuse criticism of foreign policy with hate for country as hate for country with criticism of foreign policy, there is much more evidence of the former, in general political discussion, than the latter. Just about all of the talk radio hosts I listened to in the wake of the Iraqi war, for example, accused the Democratic critics of the war of being unpatriotic or not loving their country. (I heard Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Larry Elder, Dennis Prager, Bill O'Reilly and Anne Coulter say this, among others.)

This is not at all unusual. When the Democrats are carrying on a war, they also accuse the other side of being unpatriotic. [Haven't been a lot of Democratic presidents in the last fifty years or so, but it's last wartime president, Lyndon Johnson, in may ways the paragon of liberalism, was notorious in this regard.]

[MMMMMM]

Actually, if everybody lived as the Swiss, the world would be a far better place. But try telling that to tyrants or religious fanatics or communists.

[Gamblor]

You have to pick one of two options: you can use it to invade a country on the other side that is no threat to the US, only to itself and possibly our "ally" Israel, or you can use it to build schools and hire more teachers, give tax breaks, or basically all-around improve the quality of life for American citizens. I know what my choice is.

So the Cold War was a waste of money? Only an idiot would announce his intentions to attack a powerful adversary before he does it. Hussein is no different.

[Gamblor]

You have to pick one of two options: you can use it to invade a country on the other side that is no threat to the US, only to itself and possibly our "ally" Israel, or you can use it to build schools and hire more teachers, give tax breaks, or basically all-around improve the quality of life for American citizens. I know what my choice is.

So the Cold War was a waste of money? Only an idiot would announce his intentions to attack a powerful adversary before he does it. Hussein is no idiot.