« Support Bush and Support America | Home | The Inequalities of Multicultural Representation »
Madeleine Albright, Get a Clue
By Matt Margolis | October 17, 2003
Leave to a former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, to go on French radio and babbling on about George W. Bush’s foreign policy, calling it, “not good for America, not good for the world.”
I guess to morons like her, taking Saddam Hussein out of power doesn’t make the world a better place.
Speaking in French, she also said, “America is much stronger in a multilateral system, we must be on the same side, work with other people in the world. It shouldn’t be America versus the others.”
Excuse me? Since when have we be going at it alone? Last I checked, the United States got unanimous support from the U.N. on the latest Iraq resolution. This included France, Germany, Russia, and Syria.
There appears to be a deliberate and forceful attempt by anyone and everyone in the former Clinton administration to not only rewrite history and change Bill Clinton’s blemished legacy, but also to paint a different picture of history in the making.
However, most despicable and deceitful is Bill Clinton’s trying to pin the blame on Bush for not heeding Clinton’s warnings about Osama bin Laden before September 11, 2001. However, I doubt anyone is falling for that lie — except of course for liberal idiots and anti-Bush ideologues.
Topics: Liberal Idiots |
Related Posts:
October 17th, 2003 at 11:31 am
EPITOME OF A YANKEES FAN!
October 17th, 2003 at 11:34 am
wasn’t albright also in France when she made the comments?
As for Clinton…can’t he just shut up already? Stop this whole legacy thing
October 17th, 2003 at 11:43 am
Considering the fact she’s been on the record about the need to go into Iraq and use military force… oh wait, that was during Clinton’s Presidency… hmmmm…
October 17th, 2003 at 1:03 pm
That Clitnon is some guy huh?! The way I read that article is that he had 8 years to fix this problem and he never got it done. I just can’t wait to hear what he has to say next week. “Yeah, I told GW that the economy was going to drop but he didn’t listen…”
October 17th, 2003 at 1:13 pm
I just blogged about how Clinton’s claim he warned Bush about bin Laden….
the lying sack of shit…
October 20th, 2003 at 8:13 pm
Rich Lowry, author of LEGACY, eviscerates the former Secretary of State.
Posted at
October 21st, 2003 at 2:37 pm
Lessons in Civility
Paul Krugman
New York Times
Friday 10 October 2003
It’s the season of the angry liberal. Books like Al Franken’s “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them,” Joe Conason’s “Big Lies” and Molly Ivins’s “Bushwhacked” have become best sellers. (Yes, I’ve got one out there, too.) But conservatives are distressed because those liberals are so angry and rude. O.K., they admit, they themselves were a bit rude during the Clinton years - that seven-year, $70 million investigation of a tiny money-losing land deal, all that fuss about the president’s private life - but they’re sorry, and now it’s time for everyone to be civil.
Indeed, angry liberals can take some lessons in civility from today’s right.
Consider, for example, Fox News’s genteel response to Christiane Amanpour, the CNN correspondent. Ms. Amanpour recently expressed some regret over CNN’s prewar reporting: “Perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News.” A Fox spokeswoman replied, “It’s better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than as a spokeswoman for Al Qaeda.”
And liberal pundits who may be tempted to cast personal aspersions can take lessons in courtesy from conservatives like Charles Krauthammer, who last December reminded TV viewers of his previous career as a psychiatrist, then said of Al Gore, “He could use a little help.”
What’s really important, of course, is that political figures stick to the issues, like the Bush adviser who told The New York Times that the problem with Senator John Kerry is that “he looks French.”
Some say that the right, having engaged in name-calling and smear tactics when Bill Clinton was president, now wants to change the rules so such behavior is no longer allowed. In fact, the right is still calling names and smearing; it wants to prohibit rude behavior only by liberals.
But there’s more going on than a simple attempt to impose a double standard. All this fuss about the rudeness of the Bush administration’s critics is an attempt to preclude serious discussion of that administration’s policies. For there is no way to be both honest and polite about what has happened in these past three years.
On the fiscal front, this administration has used deceptive accounting to ram through repeated long-run tax cuts in the face of mounting deficits. And it continues to push for more tax cuts, when even the most sober observers now talk starkly about the risk to our solvency. It’s impolite to say that George W. Bush is the most fiscally irresponsible president in American history, but it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.
On the foreign policy front, this administration hyped the threat from Iraq, ignoring warnings from military professionals that a prolonged postwar occupation would tie down much of our Army and undermine our military readiness. (Joseph Galloway, co-author of “We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young,” says that “we have perhaps the finest Army in history,” but that “Donald H. Rumsfeld and his civilian aides have done just about everything they could to destroy that Army.”) It’s impolite to say that Mr. Bush has damaged our national security with his military adventurism, but it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Still, some would say that criticism should focus only on Mr. Bush’s policies, not on his person. But no administration in memory has made paeans to the president’s character - his “honor and integrity” - so central to its political strategy. Nor has any previous administration been so determined to portray the president as a hero, going so far as to pose him in line with the heads on Mount Rushmore, or arrange that landing on the aircraft carrier. Surely, then, Mr. Bush’s critics have the right to point out that the life story of the man inside the flight suit isn’t particularly heroic - that he has never taken a risk or made a sacrifice for the sake of his country, and that his business career is a story of murky deals and insider privilege.
In the months after 9/11, a shocked nation wanted to believe the best of its leader, and Mr. Bush was treated with reverence. But he abused the trust placed in him, pushing a partisan agenda that has left the nation weakened and divided. Yes, I know that’s a rude thing to say. But it’s also the truth.
October 21st, 2003 at 2:49 pm
Can you do nothing better than to post someone elses mindless drab?
October 21st, 2003 at 3:31 pm
Wow! that was very incisive and eloquent. Wherever did you learn to write like that?
Could it be here?:
plagiarism
anyway, next time you want to say sound intelligent, doing a cut-n-paste of well-versed lies is not the way to do it.
October 21st, 2003 at 5:11 pm
perhaps you didn’t see this:
Lessons in Civility
Paul Krugman
New York Times
that’s not my name i think. so no plagiarism huh? . intelligent yes, Paul is intelligent.
October 21st, 2003 at 7:47 pm
Krugman the man who thinks that someone who fact checks his column is a stalker?
October 21st, 2003 at 7:53 pm
Better yet, it must be This Paul Krugman making excuses for the anti-semetic Malaysian PM
Thanks for playing…
October 21st, 2003 at 11:57 pm
(suppliment to above)
The same Paul Krugman who’se now been denounced by the ADL
October 22nd, 2003 at 4:39 am
im sure that is what you call an objective point of view jaws.
October 22nd, 2003 at 9:40 am
R,
Please use a real e-mail address, or your future posts will be deleted.
October 22nd, 2003 at 10:07 am
k
October 23rd, 2003 at 2:33 pm
I thought Paul Krugman was a Jew?
October 23rd, 2003 at 10:31 pm
Krugman was also a financial advisor for Enron…what’s your point?
October 30th, 2003 at 10:42 am
Krugman’s competence has no bearing on his correctness in this issue. Please consider that when posting; if he’s wrong and you should be able to point out how he’s wrong.
Second, it clearly isn’t plagarism (since it is properly attributed) but rather a copyright violation (since he has no permission to use it).
That said, of course Krugman has a point that conservatives play with dirty smear tactics too. And liberals accuse them of it and point it out to no end. Big suprise, liberals play with dirty smear tactics, and conservatives react the exact same way. I’m shocked, just shocked.
October 31st, 2003 at 3:26 pm
lets talk about lies. In other words lets talk about bush. 14 times bush lied about saddams WMD:
1 OCT 14 Michigan
September the 11th changed the equation, changed our thinking. It also changed our thinking when we began to realize that one of the most dangerous things that can happen in the modern era is for a deceiving dictator who has gassed his own people, who has weapons of mass destruction to team up with an organization like al Qaeda.
2 OCT 28 Colorado
[Saddam is] a person who claims he has no weapons of mass destruction, in order to escape the dictums of the U.N. Security Council and the United Nations — but he’s got them
3 OCT 28 New Mexico
He’s got weapons of mass destruction.
4 OCT 31 South Dakota
There is a threat in Iraq. And the threat exists because a leader there not only has denied and deceived the world about whether or not he’s got weapons of mass destruction, but this is a guy who’s used weapons of mass destruction. He not only has them, he’s used them.
5 NOV 01 New Hampshire
We know he’s got chemical weapons, probably has biological weapons.
6 NOV 02 Tennessee
We know that this is a man who has chemical weapons, and we know he’s used them.
7 NOV 02 Atlanta, Georgia
He’s a man who has said he wouldn’t have weapons of mass destruction, but he’s got them.
8 NOV 02 Florida
He’s a man who has said he wouldn’t have weapons of mass destruction, but he’s got them. … You know, not only does he have weapons of mass destruction, but, incredibly enough, he has used weapons of mass destruction.
9 NOV 03 Minnesota
This is a man who not only has got chemical weapons, I want you to remind your friends and neighbors, that he has used chemical weapons.
10 NOV 03 Illinois
I see the world the way it is. Saddam Hussein is a threat to America. He’s a threat to our friends. He’s a man who said he wouldn’t have weapons of mass destruction, yet he has them.
11 NOV 03 South Dakota
Saddam Hussein is a man who told the world he wouldn’t have weapons of mass destruction, but he’s got them.
12 NOV 04 Texas
He said he wouldn’t have weapons of mass destruction — he has weapons of mass destruction. … Not only has he got chemical weapons, but I want you to remember, he’s used chemical weapons.
13 NOV 04 Arkansas
This is a man who told the world he wouldn’t have weapons of mass destruction, promised he wouldn’t have them. He’s got them. … He said he wouldn’t have chemical weapons, he’s got them.
14 NOV 04 Missouri
He said he wouldn’t have chemical weapons; he’s got them.
November 22nd, 2003 at 12:58 pm
Asshatology Rule #96: Constantly use the “Bush Lied” gambit. Ignore the fact that just about everyone (democrats included) assumed that Saddam had WMDs of some sort prior to the invasion. Airily dismiss any evidence found indicating WMDs like chemical and biological warfare suits, documentation, and WMD components. Demand that your opponent provide proof by linking every single shred of evidence. This should keep him too busy to poke holes in your cliched arguements. If your opponent does fall for this tactic (doubtful), claim that all his/her links are “biased”. Remember,credibility is expendable in the name of the liberal asshat cause.