I'm sorry, you are an idiot. It's a fact. That there are Jewish members of the current administration and in think tanks ideologically aligned with the administration should not be a surprise at all. I am sure there are members in the current administration with heritages from various countries and many may have relatives in those countries. To infer that there is a cabal of Jews in government and Washington exerting undue influence on the Adminstration for the purpose of creating and extending pro-Israeli policies is part of a transparent racist campaign. Libby's views can explain Cheney's? Give me a break! Cheney's, and Bush's views explain his hiring of Libby, and as well, the rest of the defense and foreign affairs staff. Israel is a tool in American Middle East policy, not the object of it. And Resinate, I am not taking exception to the quotation from the Atlanta Constitution, or the notion that Pax Americana is an operative policy, but rather the implications of Trader556's "dual passport" smear.
Chirac finding pro-US stances hard to stomach MICHAEL SETTLE AMID the mocha coffee and the petits four, Jacques Chirac lost the argument. Shortly afterwards at his press conference, he lost his temper too. Sources keeping a delicate diplomatic distance in the grand European Council dining room reported that Monsieur le President was steadily being forced into a corner. *** At Mr Annan's hawkish stance, Mr Chirac stood up and, with Gallic passion, began a defence of the French position. Flinging his arms up and down, he declared that war was a terrible thing and that thousands of innocent people would lose their lives in a second Gulf war. "It is a question of life and death," he said. It was suggested that, at this point, the most dramatic moment of the evening occurred. Silvio Berlusconi, the diminutive Italian premier, eyeballed Mr Chirac and insisted: "I'm just as concerned about life and death as you are." He asked the French president to consider what happened to innocent people in Bali and in New York's twin towers. * * * Then, Tony Blair said his piece, deriding the 12 years of deceit by Saddam and stressing he had to come into compliance "100%". Looking at his colleagues one by one, he told them bluntly: "There is no intelligence agency of any government around this table that does not know that the government of Iraq has weapons of mass destruction." In a passionate conclusion, the prime minister said: "If Saddam stays, the Iraqis will pay with their lives." * * * Yesterday, as Mr Blair faced the most difficult two weeks of his political life, it had been expected he would be the one suffering from pre - and post - summit indigestion and indignation. Last night, however, it looked as though it was Mr Chirac who, following the osso buco and carpaccio d'ananas, was the one looking a bad mix of green and red. - Feb 18th Much more at: http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/18-2-19103-0-19-59.html
The Bush administration is working hard to contain proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. One has to be either suecidal or a moron to oppose Bush's agenda.
The post you replied to stated: "contain proliferation" is the operative phrase, i.e. new acquisitions, particularly those by madmen.
thanks for the correction. permit me to amend: should then the US bomb and overthrow all governments pursuing the acquisition of "WMDs"? and how would you define "madmen"?
One would have to believe that there could not be a generalized blanket policy as you seem to promote. In any event, I see no policy where "bombing" and "overthrow" is the first action taken. Do you consider the governments of N. Korea and Iraq stable?
I'm not promoting anything. I'm asking a question. N. Korea and Iraq - are they run by madmen? If so, why? are China, Pakistan, and India also run by madmen, or do they possess sanity as they 'acquire' their "WMDs"? should they be bombed and overthrown, either as a first or last action?