Barnes falsely claimed "Bush doctrine" did not involve unilateralism
SUMMARY: On Special Report, Fred Barnes claimed that the so-called "Bush doctrine" of U.S. foreign policy did not include the use of unilateral military action, saying that it had "never been a policy of the president." In fact, the Bush administration's 2002 National Security Strategy explicitly stated, "[W]e will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively."
On the July 10 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes objected to the assertion made in a Time magazine article (subscription required) posted online the day before that the so-called "Bush doctrine" of U.S. foreign policy included the use of unilateral military action. Barnes claimed, "[T]hat's never been a policy of the president." In fact, the Bush administration's 2002 National Security Strategy explicitly stated, "[W]e will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively."
During the show's panel segment, Fox News Washington managing editor and host Brit Hume highlighted the cover story in the July 17 issue of Time, headlined "The End of Cowboy Diplomacy." Hume quoted from the following passage, which describes the reformulation of U.S. foreign policy -- commonly known as the "Bush doctrine" -- laid out by the Bush administration following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001:
After Sept. 11 ... the Bush team embarked on a different path, outlining a muscular, idealistic and unilateralist vision of American power and how to use it. He aimed to lay the foundation for a grand strategy to fight Islamic terrorists and rogue states by spreading democracy around the world and pre-empting gathering threats before they materialize. And the U.S. wasn't willing to wait for others to help. The approach fit with Bush's personal style, his self-professed proclivity to dispense with the nuances of geopolitics and go with his gut. "The Bush Doctrine is actually being defined by action, as opposed to by words," Bush told Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One in 2003.
In response, Barnes complained that the Time article "didn't define what the Bush doctrine is except in one instance they said it consisted of unilateralism." He went on to claim: "[T]hat's never been the policy of the president. ... [H]e'd have loved going into Iraq if the French and Germans were along with him, but they weren't -- that didn't make his policy unilateral."
In fact, the document that is considered the official articulation of the Bush doctrine -- the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States of America (NSS) -- asserts that the United States "will not hesitate" to act unilaterally, if necessary, against threats of terrorism:
We will disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations by ... identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders. While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country.
Following the publication of the NSS, numerous news agencies highlighted the significant policy shifts contained within the document, including the unambiguous claim that the United States will act unilaterally when it deems it necessary to do so. From a September 21, 2002, Washington Post article:
In a muscular new statement of U.S. strategic priorities, President Bush declared yesterday that the United States must maintain unchallenged military superiority to win the fight against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction that now pose the greatest threat to U.S. national security.
Deterrence and containment, the previous foundations of U.S. strategy, are no longer valid, Bush said in a 31-page document titled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America." Instead, the United States must identify and destroy the terrorist threat "before it reaches our borders," if necessary acting alone and using preemptive force.
A September 20, 2002, CNN.com article similarly emphasized the unilateral declaration contained in the NSS:
The document, titled "The National Security Strategy for the United States of America" says the United States would prefer to act within international bodies and with international allies. But it also is blunt, saying, "We will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively."
From the July 10 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
HUME: "The End of Cowboy Diplomacy," it proclaims, with a picture designed to represent President Bush and a man who's all hat, I presume it means, and no cattle. The magazine says among other things, quote, "He aimed," did the president, "to lay the foundation for a grand strategy to fight Islamic terrorists and rogue states by spreading democracy around the world and pre-empting gathering threats before they materialize. And the U.S. was not willing to wait for others to help."
And goes -- the magazine goes on to suggest that that policy -- those policies are now in ruins as the president faces trouble in Iraq, trouble with Iran, trouble with North Korea, and perhaps other places as well. Some thoughts about this now from Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard, Mort Kondracke, executive editor of Roll Call, and the syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer. Fox News contributors all.
Well Fred, what about it? Is the -- did we have "cowboy diplomacy," and if we did, is it over?
BARNES: Well, you know, there is -- nobody in the Bush administration should apologize for cowboy diplomacy, there's a great tradition there. Ronald Reagan was called -- he was called a cowboy by -- I mean, just in the U.S., on The Weekly Standard website, we put a list of the things he was called in the 1980s, things like "Trigger Happy Cowboy," "Hollywood Cowboy," "Nuclear Cowboy," "Macho Cowboy," "Lone Cowboy, "Space Cowboy," all these things. And, of course, Ronald Reagan's policies -- in 1986, you know, six years into his presidency, we didn't know they were going to -- where they were going to wind up. And of course, they wound up winning the Cold War, when, in 1989, the Berlin Wall collapsed and in, I think, 2001, the Soviet Union -- or in 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed, so we don't know where President Bush's policies are going to wind up.
I would say one other thing. Time said this is the ending of -- the Bush doctrine has been thrown aside. I couldn't -- they didn't define what the Bush doctrine is except, in one instance, they said it consisted of unilateralism. Well, that's never been a policy of the president. I mean, look, he'd have loved going into Iraq if the French and the Germans were along with him, but they weren't -- that didn't make his policy unilateral.
Isn't this the same Fred Barnes who wrote (sic) a bestseller (sic) called "Rebel in Cheif" ?? And now he's claiming that Bush was never a unilateralist???
This was a direct LIE. Not even a distortion or a "spin", it was outright FALSE.
The REAL question becomes, how can this guy keep a job as a pundit? Someone who has a national audience, to give his "expert opinions" on politics, and yet he doesn't even get basic FACTS correct. He is either purposefully misleading his audience, or is so damn ignorant that he has no business giving his opinions anywhere. In either instance, it's cause for immediate dismissal from any job where the bosses have any shred of integrity or honor ...
... ooops, I forgot: this is FOX. Give the guy a raise!
These sorts of rules apply to, well, honest people? Hard to find these days. Maybe it always was?
What color is the sky in your world, brain-dead fred?
The Bush doctrine is all about unilateral pre-emptive military action... both in theory and in practice. The so-called coalition of the willing in Iraq is a joke. It always has been the USA's show.
It appears to me that there is a growing sense of desperation among right wing pundits. Their arguments are becoming more and more inconsistent with obvious realities. While I am sure there are people, unable or unwilling to think for themselves, who still buy into these right wing arguments, I wonder if even some Fox viewers are getting hip to the game. Bush's high disapproval ratings would seem to support that.
Well, that's never been a policy of the president. I mean, look, he'd have loved going into Iraq if the French and the Germans were along with him, but they weren't -- that didn't make his policy unilateral.
So Germany's invasion of Poland wasn't unilateral (one-sided) because clearly Poland was a threat to Germany, meaning there was an atmosphere of two-way hostility, and honestly Hitler wanted other countries to join in the fun, but they just turned down his RSVP. Garbage! Iraq wasn't threatening us in the least. We, the USA, unilaterally (one-sidedly) attack Iraq without the slightest provocation, unless Saddam not digging up those 500 shells from 1991 is enough of a "threat" to justify invading a sovereign nation.
Everything are a person needs to know about Bush is in this phrase: "...to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively."
If I behaved like Bush, I'd go punch my neighbor because I think he might, one day, dump his grass clippings in my lawn. But hey, if it's good enough for the prez, it's good enough for me. I'm going to go do it right now.
I punched my neighbor in the nose and it didn't go well.
I'm going to have to borrow money from the frugal Chinese family down the street to pay my legal bills. They'll own for this century.
The rest of my neighbors are sore as heck at me.
And my bloody-nosed neighbor asked, "Why did you do that?"
When I shared my grass clippings fears, he immediately dropped his grass clippings onto my lawn.
So, I guess I was justified.
but make sure you have the fight at a third neighbor's house who had no involvment in your dispute beacause hey you should want to fight you're enemy there so you don't fight them in your own yard and potentially cause damage to your rose bushes.
Do you plan to boycott your friends who refused to help punch your neighbor in the nose? If so, ask Bill O'Reilly for help. He's an expert on rallying support for boycotts, as we all know, since France is bankrupt.
Holly you are definitely in rare form today
Do it, Holly. It'll be good for the stock market, too, I'm sure.
It's down. So, I'm going to go punch another neighbor. I'm pretty sure the frugal Chinese family down the street will keep lending me money for my legal bills.
And I'm going to follow Lynn's advice and have my second fight on someone else's lawn. As long as I'm fighting them over there, I won't have to be fighting them here...on my lawn.
Gotta go. It looks like a block party outside. My neighbors are gathering. Hey, I didn't even know that they own pitchforks and torches.
When you punched your neighbor, did you remember that, to gain some "collateral damage", you also had to kick and mangle the kids, waylay the wife, and run over the dog? Collateral damage is to be expected in such disputes. Sad, but what can you do? Just accept it.
Oh, and it's best to know what that neighbor is up to. No more "party lines", but you can snoop outside his windows. It may be tresspassing and creepy and against the law, but the END is justified ... you're protecting yourself preemptively!
I wish I could do everything you suggest, but what I saw across the street wasn't a block party. It's a mob. People have painted "Holly, go home!" on their houses. They're lobbing rocks through my windows.
Sheesh. All because I tried to do a little pre-emptive protecting.
I think I'm going to declare bankruptcy. I borrowed so much money from the Chinese family down the street that I can't pay them back. At least I'll get to keep my house...or what's left of it.
*Sigh*
I'm beginning to think that my prez wasn't so smart after all. I know my fallen opinion of the prez is a minority one. You guys keep on admiring him if you must, but mimicking the prez sure didn't work for me on my street.
Oops, gotta go. Someone started my house on fire.
the problem with your analogy holly, is that is seriously flawed in an important way. if you and your neighbor have a war over grass clippings, no other neighbor is impacted, only the two of you. however, when you are in a global conflict against terrorists who wish to obliterate innocent citizens for sport, the rules and the stakes are dramatically different and thousands if not millions of people are affected. so go ahead and beat up your neighbor or not, it's between the two of you and my lawn remains untouched.
Don't be so sure, Right On. You may be punched because someone with an agenda suspects you are involved in the grass clipping scheme. And, as result of punching you all the real grass clipping monsters have united and become stronger.
While your point about global terrorism is indeed serious, and well taken, I believe Holly's point was more about the wisdom, or lack thereof, of approaching the problem as the Bush Administration did.
Gotta run now... have a gay wedding to attend.
as Irony noted, I didn't intend for the analogy to be perfect, but to encapsulate the folly of belligerence.
Some might consider the Bushian approach to cowboyish. I think Bush knows nothing about being a neighbor.
i have no issue with criticizing bush and his cowboy antics of settling scores, etc. but to compare being aggressive against people who want to destroy those whom you are sworn to protect, versus a private dispute that impacts only you, is far different.
you seem a sweet enough guy. I've poked you in the past, you do seem sincere. And, in your sincerity, you make a good point about America being attacked.
Now, I'm going to make a counter-point that TOO FEW like to consider: why were the Trade Towers attacked? Of course, there was that silliness about "they hate our freedom," but no informed person, no one whose cognition was short-circuited by a blend of xenophobia and nationalism would believe such a thing. There are people that believe that America wasn't attacked, but rather counter-attacked. Such a cogent case can be made by lucid folks.
So, what you frame as defense (attacking whomever to revenge 9-11), others will frame as more of the same on the part of America: more occupation, imperialism, invasion, bombing, nationalism, etc.
i do not in any way share the view that we somehow "deserved" what we got on 9/11. we may have made mistakes in aligning with bad leaders in our history, and we have made enemies. but i believe, unlike many in this country, that we are a force for good in the world, not an evil entitiy out to destroy. therefore, the attack on our innocent citizens on 9/11 was not justified, nor our "fault". so to say we were counter-attacked is playing into the hands of extremists and giving them cover. no, we are not perfect but we are not evil. they are.
I agree that there is goodness in America. Great goodness. I don't frame America as evil. I consider it to be a mix of goodness and evil. And I think it's folly to not consider why we were attacked. If I attacked someone, in my rage and frustration, because they killed my daughter, and the people I attacked said, "She just envies our new stainless steel dishwasher," I would live for their deaths.
then follow through with your consideration of why we were attacked. once you figure it out, what do you intend to do about it? make sure you change somehow so you don't piss them off anymore? if so, you conduct foreign polich based on their whims. is that what you are suggesting. because if you figure out why we were attacked and do not alter your future behavior, then what benefit comes from it?
you're asking good questions.
So, what do we do once we determine why we were attacked?
I suggest that there's nothing wrong with behaving in ways that protect America's interests. Pols often employ the phrase, "America's vested interests."
However, here's my personal caveat: as a person who believes in the morality of Jesus, I can't muster more love for a person on one side of an imaginary line than another.
However, as a pragmatic citizen, I understand the importance of tending to one's gardens. But BushCo behaves as if one season is all one considers in gardening. BushCo plants one crop, like corn: a crop that leeches nutrients from the soil. Then he does that every year without attending to the realities of gardening. Corn is like a trustfund teen that only withdraws and never deposits. Bush, in his belligerence, has led to the withdrawl of money from America (via the Chinese) and the withdrawl of informal authority, here and abroad. Bush is near-sighted. He does what's best to placate the fundies and satisfy the appetite for revenge.
I'm not suggesting that we behave as others decree. I STRONGLY suggest that we behave as serves us...in the longterm.
is never a bad thing. What Holly is saying is that the attacks may or may not have been the result of U.S. actions in the past. That does not mean we deserved it or that we were evil...kick over a hornets nest, even by accident, and you still get stung, whether you deserve it or not.
The problem with the Bush junta and their sock puppets is that they will not even entertain the possibility that what we did in the past may have contributed to our curren troubles; they mindlessly parrot such bromides as "they hate our freedoms".
Many conservatives equate introspection and willingness to alter one's course as a weakness...on the other hand, there is an old farmer's quip about a cow that gets it's head stuck in a fence and starves to death because it is too stupid to back up.
I think Puddinhead George resembles the cow with its head stuck in a fence.
I gotta remember the cow in the fence analogy. That's good stuff.
Right On, knowing why we were attacked may enable us to prevent future attacks. Not appeasement but simply an intelligent approach.
But the real issue is honesty. Americans are tired of being lied to. Osama Bin Laden's original beef with the USA was that we established permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia. If that's why we were attacked on 9/11 then let's have an intelligent public discussion of the real issues. Don't bullsh*t the American people by saying we were attacked because the terrorists hate freedom and other such nonsense. Don't make up bogus reasons for war either. I would have respected Bush, even despite his shortcomings, had he simply been honest with us. Global Islamic extremist terrorism threatens us all. We deserve to know the real issues and are entitled to an honest debate.
There's a book out of all of bin Laden's communications. They are fairly clear (though he tends to ramble), and the permanent U.S. military bases in what OBL considers to be their holy lands is a big part of their beef, along with our support of Israel. Now, knowing that doesn't necessarily change the way we should deal with al Qaeda, but at least it makes more sense than "they hate our freedoms."
what is your solution then? either we acquiesce to obl's wants and stop supporting israel and get out of HIS holy land, or we don't and risk further attacks? which is it?
I'm ashamed to say that I don't have an adequate understanding of the rationale for our Israel policy or the justifications for our Saudi military bases to make an intelligent statement about that.
Perhaps the best solution would be intelligent and effective efforts in the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism (so much more accruate and descriptive than, if also less catchy than, "the war on terror"). For an interesting story about how one FBI agent was able to obtain information about al Qaeda from someone who had briefly harbored a 9/11 hijacker - without even torturing him! - see the piece titled "The Agent" in the July 10/17 issue of The New Yorker.
it isn't about how much you or i understand about our foreign policy regarding that part of the world, that isn't the point. the fact is so many keep talking about how we need to understand why we were attacked, look inward at our dastardly deeds to see how we could have acted differently to prevent 9/11. yet when asked what we should do now, how we should change our foreign policy, what needs to change regarding the reason terrorists attacked us - the answer is always, well i don't know, or some theoretical mumble jumble with no specifics. that's all well and good, but until i see a reasonable and sensible reply that doesn't include giving into our enemies, i wait.
Hmmmm?
You seem to be a bit fixated on this notion that people who want to understand the reasons for terrorists attacks are somehow blaming the U.S. for its moral failings ("dastardly deeds"). That's the wrong way to look at it. The fact that our policies and actions may have spawned terrorist activity doesn't excuse the terrorist activity, it just shines light on the terrorists' motivations. Knowing the terrorists' motivations is, I think, an important step to neutralizing them. "Know your enemy in order to defeat him," to paraphrase Sun Tzu.
The reason that you can't get a simple answer to "what's the solution?" is that there is no simple answer. Even "kill them all," which certainly sounds simple, doesn't turn out that way in practice. But I assert that we are less likely to defeat an enemy who we don't understand than we are to defeat an enemy we do understand.
you still cannot or will not answer the question on what do we change? you keep saying we need to understand their motivations, fine. we understand them perfectly, you just laid them out. they want us out of their land, stop supporting israel, stop this, stop that. whatever. the point is - what difference does it make what their twisted, sick motives are. they are out to kill us and until we do what they want, or destroy their network and them first, they will continue to do so. that's the choice you refuse to even acknowledge. make the choice then. if you want us to alter our foreign policy, say so. if you don't want us to alter our foreign policy, say so. so, i ask again, which is it?
I suggest four changes. The first is obvious and the latter three, less so:
1. Get off the sauce. Oil addiction makes us vulnerable in myriad ways. Getting off the sauce can happen by blending the following:
Developing new technology.
Extending known green technologies, such as solar, wind, etc.
Downsizing: no more McMansions. No more mansions. No more Hummers. Etc. No more multi-acre yards.
Downsizing our cities: no more exurbs or even suburbs. Keep it nice and tight.
Public transit.
2. Elect brighter leaders. No more electing a doofus just because he rattles a sabre with one hand (a sabre he'd never wield in battle because he lacks the balls) and points to the gay boogeyman with the other.
3. Elect leaders with compassion. There seems in W's history to suggest that compassion would have been cultivated. It should have surprised no one that Bush remained on the ranch when NO drowned. I truly think a person has to fail and suffer to comprehend the plights of others. Bush was always, always, always swaddled.
4. Heal the divisions. If the dollar collapses due to proligate unfettered borrowing, many of us will suffer. As the Earth warms, many of us will suffer. We've got to get beyond liberals and conservatives. To do this, we've got to stop listening to people like Ann Coulter, who inserts liberal into every other sentence.
I'm not avoiding the choice, I'm saying I don't know. Any idea I had about what we should change about our Israel policy or our base policy would have little, if any, merit because I don't have enough knowledge about those things to come up with an idea. I'm not trying to dodge your question.
Oh, and I couldn't possibly give less of a crap about what OBL considers to be his holy land. I have no more love for violent Muslim extremists than I do for violent Christian extremists. OBL can go blow a goat. Pardon my French.
So expecting honest questions from frightened one is sadly hopeless.
Attacked us and go after THEM, not someone else who looks vaguely like them and has better oilfields. You again take a manichean black/white view of the world that leaves you to a false dichotomy. Why not look at whether or not the things we are doing that enrage the Islamic world are in fact morally justifyable. Was it morally justifyable to overthrow Mohammed Mossedegh in Iran? How did that turn out for us other than the vast amounts of profit that our oil companies garnered. To make a decision to stop doing things that are wrong is not making our foriegn policy based on their WHIMS. We created al Queda. We were supporting the Muhajadeen six months BEFORE the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. We built the terrorist training based there. We trained many of their operatives in counterterrorism. Which suprisingly enough has the same basic skillset as terrorism. How did THAT work out for us. Looking at our past actions to decide if the game is worth the candle and if there is moral justification for such actions is a far cry from the capitulation to the whims of terrorists that you paint it as. It also looks like a good idea to reevaluate these actions. The Blowback is getting pretty scary.
In response to Holly suggesting America may have provoked anger resulting in 9/11, Right On asks, "What do you intend to do about it? Make sure you change somehow so you don't piss them off anymore? If so, you conduct foreign policy based on their whims."
The world is watching us. Not only have they seen the USA "have made mistakes in aligning with bad leaders in our history, and we have made enemies (as Right On admits in his own words), but we now have a President whose policy is PREEMPTIVE WAR when the world sees that the thing being "preempted" doesn't even exist. This poses an Imperialist threat to the rest of the world; we will invade when we FEEL like it, and there's nothing anybody can do to prevent it.
Add to THAT, one of America's foremost political authors and Rightwing spokespersons who enjoys support of most pundits and politicians on the Right (the party in POWER currently in America) -- Ann Coulter -- has demonstrated that we Americans are even a threat to other's RELIGION, and their RESOURCES.
Ann says, "God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.' '" Beautiful message to citizens of other countries: America's attitude is to TAKE and RAPE the earth. Then there's this beauty: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
So, is it a matter of "making sure we don't piss them off anymore"? Or is it a matter of changing our rhetoric and behavior so we are not provocative remorseless Imperialistic invaders, indiscriminate killers, stealers of natural resources, and violently antagonistic to those who are not "like us"?
The world SEES and HEARS what America's NeoCons have in store for the earth. Maybe we should behave in such a way they don't fear for their land, their resources, their religion, and their very lives. Maybe we shouldn't rape and torture. Maybe we shouldn't MAKE WAR for no good reason.
Innocents NEVER deserve to be killed whatever their government does. We are a force of good in the world but like most things it isnt that simple we have also been a force of imperialism in the world. Things are rarely so black and white as we are either good or evil, there are thousands of shades of gray. If a child runs out into the street and gets hit by a truck does that mean the child DESERVES to be crippled? No it means different actions could have had different results. Deserve has no meaning whatsoever in this context.
Iraq was involved in INTERNATIONAL terrorism. Since the CIA said directly that they had no evidence of any Iraqi involvement with international terrorism since their alleged attempt on Bush sr a decade before it falls apart. IF the point is that extremist Islamic Terrorists are a grave danger then invading the most secular Islamic Nation in the region was insanity. There just isnt any way to pretend invading Iraq was somehow part of a war on terrorism without leaving reality far behind. We in fact gave Osama the biggest present he could ask for. It is al Quedas goal to topple secular governments of Islamic countries and Iraq was a prime target one he had NO CHANCE of overthrowing. George decided to do it for him and now they seem to be forming the sort of theocracy he dreamed of for them long ago. I am sure Osama has a pin up poster of Bush in his cave.
Right On is correct: Your analogy is flawed.
You say the dispute is over grass clippings, and in YOUR story, the guy actually HAD some grass clippings.
To be appropriate, you have to have been WRONG about the offense, and the neighbor had no grass clippings in the first place.
Thanks, Right On! Good catch!
if you actually had a reasonable argument against my analogy you would have used it, instead of the silly veering off of the point that you did instead. is that it?
...truth to what Tex said. I laughed and then cried when I read Tex's words. The laughter and the tears come from the pain...and the pain is just beginning. I believe that Bush has ushered America into its twilight. The Bush debt is corroding us, as is the indifference to other aspects of America's infrastruture, such as our informal authority in the world, education, healthcare, energy indepedence, the environment, etc.
i do not share your view that we are entering into america's twilight. bush may have messed up in iraq as well as spent us silly, but we are resilient and will rise above as we have throughout our history. i am curious though, please explain what you mean by our informal authority?
I could chat about authority all day. It's what I studied and once taught.
Bush has formal authority. He has a title and that title endows him with resources.
But Bush has little informal authority. Informal authority is endowed with a title. Informal authority is given in response to a person't behavior. For example, Gandhi had no formal authority, but great informal authority. Jesus too. You can see the decay of Bush's informal authority in the domestic polls and in the removal of Bush's foreign allies.
But it isn't just Bush who has lost informal authority. America has too. The world noted that Americans elected Bush a second time and righteously assigned blame to America...and removed much of our informal authority.
We're no longer America, the beacon. We're a country that invades and occupies and tortures and considers using nuclear weapons...again.
During the Cuban missile crisis we wanted Frances support so we dispatched a CIA director to talk to DeGualle, not a huge fan of ours. He laid out the claim of Cuban missiles then told DeGualle we would show him classified photos. DeGualles answer was that wouldnt be necessary, the word of the President of the United States was good enough for him. Can anyone here imagine them saying the same thing NOW? No way, thats history, thats archives. Perhaps someday we will regain that measure of trust but Bush has definitly pissed that away for the time being
Formal authority is powerful, but often overrated. Change most often happens through informal authority. Someone with formal authority is chained by the demands of the office; the primary directive is to serve stasis.
see, grass clippings are to mulch like oil is to money. Holly had to react because her neighbor was flooding the market and driving down the price of grass clippings. That pissed her other neighbor off (I understand they have lunchtime meetings that are closed to the rest of the neighbors) because he has a grass clipping refinery, and too much grass clippings were driving down his profit margin. He needed to keep clippings above $70 per barrel to pad his pockets. Now the whole neighborhood is involved, just because Holly had to put one neighbor's needs above the entire hood.
the pre-emptive strike had to do with weeds. See, Holly told everyone the neighbor had weeds of mass destruction, and that he was illegally bringing them into her lawn. She had to destroy the weeds over there to ensure her lawn was safe over here. Too bad though, she lost her house, her dog, her soul mate, and has yet to find any weeds in the "offending" neighbor's lawn.
She has since changed the subject to the fact that the neighbor entered her lawn illegally. She is claiming that he comes over, takes more than he leaves, and then goes back home. Apparently it's a strain on her resources, so she's thinking about building a 10' high chain link fence with concertina wire to control her borders.
Well, the fence isn't working at controlling the borders. The neighbor is just tossing the sacks over the fence now. Turns out you can't protect the country by keeping illegal aliens out.
On the good news, the grass clipping company was just listed as the top earning revenue company in fortune 500. All that profit, but a so called "shortage"?
[link to money.cnn.com]
I owe ya, Snoop.
Holly, sorry about your house though. But it was good to hear you only borrowed $291 from your chinese neighbors instead of the $430 you thought you were going to need. Where's the party going to be at!
...welcome to attend the party at my house, but it'll have to be in my basement. I don't dare go upstairs, much less outside. Like Bush on 9-11, I'm cringing in my bunker.
for repeating that, will I? ;)
...what, Pumpkin?
Holly,
I bet you didn't find the lawn chemicals--the defoliants--you thought he had.
I just snuck into his shed and found a can of Raid, circa the early seventies. There was something familiar about that can, so I bunkered in my basement and contemplated it. Then I remembered! I sold him the can at a yard sale.
these things with strait faces. Fox is beginning to look as desperate and disjointed as the Bush administration. It's really hard for know it alls like these guys to admit when they're wrong, so they'll try to revise what they've said in the past, pretend they didn't say it or accuse others of misinterpreting what was said and their intent, etc, etc. I've seen our fearless leader do this many times as well.
I might be seeing things but I detect a neverous twitch from the left side of Brit's face, and don't you think they should give Fred a bib, the drowl is becoming a public health issue?!
That couldn't be a consceinse assurting itself, couldn't it?
Nahhhhhhhhhhh!!!! Wooh, I was starting to hulicinate myself there for a moment. Maybe I could lead American foriegn policy?
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
It's a simple syllogism:
Bush said he'd act alone if he felt it was necessary. Barnes said Bush never had a policy of unilateralism. Therefore, bush is a liar.
How can you argue with Barnes' logic?
AH, BAH, AH, BAH, UH, UMMM, UHH, DAAAAAAAA!!!
That expert analysis from Fred Barnes was brought to you from the "The Project for the New American Century."
(This is when Bugs Bunny comes out and slaps him repeatedly across the face, and pulls his nose, and ears in the exaggerated) Ehhhhhh, What's up Doc??
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
--BARNES: "they didn't define what the Bush doctrine is except, in one instance, they said it consisted of unilateralism. "--
In a word, Iraq. Bush said, in early 2002, referring to Saddam: "Given the choice of the word of a madman and defending America, I will defend America every time."
Barnes view, as with the administration's, is even more insidious. They are both re-defining "unilateralism" as acting alone without inviting others to participate. I.e., if you invite others, but then still act alone, they don't consider the action to be unilateral. Sadly, people really seem to believe that's what the word means.
This is essentially the same logic Bush used when he spoke of being a "uniter" and "reaching out" to those on the other side of political debate within this country. Of course, it's really a self-righteous proclamation of forgiveness, rather than a desire to communicate, negotiate and reach and understanding.
Is to invite everyone to UNITE behind his previously stated ideology.
The Foxites are so proud of their lame duck hero BushieCo. I'd love to see the alcoholism rates among Fox employees vs. the norm.
Unilateralism doesnt mean he isnt deeply committed to it.
There's such certainty that the two mean the exactly same thing. If they do, fine. But if they don't then Barnes was right, because the Bush doctrine doesn't mention "unilateral", but most seem to want to argue that's what he said (or meant).
Somehow the song lyrics just don't read the same to me:
There's nothing here that I can understand And no one cares I'm a lonely man I touch your face and I don't know why I call your name but you're going by Now I'm unilateral again.
I have no name for each and every day Until the year is done and fades away There's a time in between the two The old years gone by but it's not the new And I, I, I...
I know that'll be all Unilateral again, unilateral again tonight oh I'm Unilateral again, unilateral again tonight oh I'm Unilateral again, and it seems to me that every time I try to change Say that you're say that you'll Help me reach the other side
(a classic, and hilarious film, in my estimation)
The evil "genius" Vizzini has just cut the rope The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing up.
"HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE!" Vizzini says.
Inigo Montoya responds, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
And the Rightwinger utters, "UNILATERALISM? This ain't no unilateralism!"
Tell 'em, Inigo!
Loved the preemptive-punch-your-neighbor-for-his-lawn-clippings-of-mass-destruction analogy. One other thing: make sure you buy control of your neighboorhood association's weekly newsletter, so that any media coverage of the dispute will be positively slanted towards you.
but I just started the madness, er, the analogy. I had plenty of help.
I bet that wild lefty from NPR came out swinging.
whatsername? Niasson?
I have trouble watching the Brit Hume puppet show. at least alan Colmes gets to occasionally throw a couple darts before they cut him off and give the Cons the last minute and a half.
That woman on Special Report is the next (susan?) Estrich(sorry, bad with the names)
TYpical SRWBH debate
3 Republicans (for 10 minutes): "The left is ridiculous and evil"
NPR Woman ; " We're just incompetent and innefectual"
3 Cons: " thanks for being here,NPR chick. goodbye (another 10 minutes) all hail the GOP"
See? fair and balanced.