Gunco Forums banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Who speaks for America? Madeleine Not-so-bright

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 27, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Joseph Farah

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
? 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stood on foreign Arab soil earlier this month and blasted the U.S. war in Iraq.

She should probably be brought up on charges. At the very least she should be scorned by all self-respecting Americans.


I don't expect either to happen ? primarily because most Americans don't even know about it.

I've waited this long to write about the incident in hopes someone else would do it ? someone, perhaps, of her own party, someone more establishmentarian than me.

But it is not to be. So, once again it is left to me to do the dirty work.

The Albright criticism took place in Dubai when Albright, who is really not-so-bright, told the Arab world not to judge America by the Bush administration's actions. She went on to say that many Americans are concerned about Bush's foreign policy.

Speaking during a panel discussion at the Arab Strategy Forum, a gig for which I'm sure this public servant was well-compensated, Albright said she is worried that U.S. military action in Iraq has alienated the Arab world.

"Not everyone in the United States approves of this administration's foreign policy," she said. "I am most disturbed by the image the United States created by the war in Iraq. In the United States there is actually a great deal of respect for a variety of voices within the Arab world."

She went on to say that there was no fundamental reason why the United States should be in conflict with the Arab world.

"We must not allow ourselves to think in terms of a clash of civilizations," she said. "We should support various reformers who want to get the best out of globalization while keeping their identity."

She added that Islam is not in combat with democracy ? that it is a universal goal for the human race.

"However, it must come from within those areas and it cannot be imposed by Western powers," she said. "We must not repeat the problems of the past century. The United States should support evolution towards democracy. We should support each development here. In the year 2020, I think the United States will still be the most powerful country, but we should not get involved with imperialism."

Now I won't deal here with the substance of Albright's remarks ? mostly because there isn't much to deal with.

But I'd like to contrast these traitorous remarks she made on Arab soil with something she said during the Clinton administration.

Back then, she was singing a different tune altogether. Back then, she claimed only Bill Clinton and his acolytes in the administration could speak for America.

She made her statement before the United Nations Security Council in denouncing an earlier message by Sen. Jesse Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who characterized the United Nations as an ungrateful organization that is attempting to impose its will on the sovereign and self-governing people of the United States.

"Let me be clear," she said. "Only the president and the executive branch can speak for the United States."

If that's true, why is Albright sounding off against U.S. policy now?

If, indeed, that's true, why does the U.S. Constitution require ratification of treaties by the United States Senate. It would seem to me that if the president could speak for the United States, he could unilaterally make policy for the nation as well.

The truth is that presidents speak for themselves and for those who permit them to speak on their behalf. They speak for the executive branch of government over which they preside, but they do not preside over the people of the United States.

However, there is a time when most Americans agree private citizens ? particularly politicians ? should not denounce the president on foreign soil. That time is during war.

And that's just what Albright did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
OK, here's a quiz:

"But I'd like to contrast these traitorous remarks she made on Arab soil..."

Someone please identify just what she said that is treason.

Let me give you a hint: The US has not yet degenerated so far into autocracy that criticizing the policies of the president is considered treason.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Being on foreign soil during war or significant military action would not get me too worked up about autocracy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
OK. What about treasonous remarks? Do they get you worked up? Can you identify any in what Albright said?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,413 Posts
She being a ex-state department person and ambassador she should know not to speak for her country to such an audience.

Much like John Kerry going to France in 71 while still a naval officer and speaking as a rep for people in the US when he is not.

There is a uniform code of justice about these actions as officers of the USA. In dim- bulb's case I wouldn't know the legal issues, but I would presume that even an ex state dept. head has to keep their mouth shut concerning issues of state once out of office.

There was much talk about these issues at swiftvets.com when Kerry was trying to dupe the populace into thinking he was not the real manchurian canidate. Links were provided about this kind of conduct to the legal codes of the military and civillian branches.


BTW:

This part is the most obvious to me.

"Not everyone in the United States approves of this administration's foreign policy," she said. "I am most disturbed by the image the United States created by the war in Iraq. In the United States there is actually a great deal of respect for a variety of voices within the Arab world"

She went on to say that there was no fundamental reason why the United States should be in conflict with the Arab world.
She should keep her mouth shut in a time of war and if she wants to criticize she can, but how about her? Go to foreign country to obviously stab America in the back while our soldiers are afield?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Hmmm. If you were once Secretary of State, even after the Administration you worked for is long out of office, when you speak you are speaking for the United States? I don't think so, Sangrun.

And if our soldiers are put in harm's way for reasons that we consider to be harmful to our country and needlessly endangering them, it's incumbent to keep our mouth's shut and continue to needlessly endanger our soldiers and harm our country's interests? I don't believe that for a minute, either - whether spoken on US or on foreign soil.

Now, SangRun, even if I agreed with you - and clearly I do not - it doesn't seem to me that you have identified anything that you consider to actually constitute treason. Absolutely nothing that you said speaks to you thinking that her remarks meeting the Constitutional definition of treason. Just for the sake of argument, let's look at what happens when I agree with you:

Albright spoke for the United States, inappropriately criticizing American foreign policy on foreign soil while US soldiers are dying to implement that policy.

That ain't treason, SangRun.

So I'll try again: Anyone care to identify what her treasonous remarks are?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,233 Posts
Dzerzhinsky said:
So I'll try again: Anyone care to identify what her treasonous remarks are?
Would you settle for stupid and out of line???????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,469 Posts
I agree with Smeg on this. But there is the factor of who is saying it. It would be taken more seriously coming from Madeline Albright, than if it came from me. People are going to listen to what she is saying. Perhaps applying a little common sense beforehand would be in order.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
DorGunR said:
Would you settle for stupid and out of line???????
Well, I think calling it that can at least be justified.

Although from a different perspective one could consider it necessary...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Strange Destiny said:
... People are going to listen to what she is saying. Perhaps applying a little common sense beforehand would be in order.
Necessary because it's a citizen's duty to protect his or her country from being led down the path to disaster. The most difficult thing a patriot can do is withstand being seen as quite the opposite. So many folks only know the first line...

"My country right or wrong.
"If right, to keep it right.
"If wrong, to make it right."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,469 Posts
Dzerzhinsky said:
Necessary because it's a citizen's duty to protect his or her country from being led down the path to disaster. The most difficult thing a patriot can do is withstand being seen as quite the opposite. So many folks only know the first line...

"My country right or wrong.
"If right, to keep it right.
"If wrong, to make it right."
Very true. When you read the whole thing it definitely supports your statements. :thumbup1:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,233 Posts
Dzerzhinsky said:
"My country right or wrong.
"If right, to keep it right.
"If wrong, to make it right."
Smeg........in your case shouldn't the word right be changed to left????:lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
DorGunR said:
Smeg........in your case shouldn't the word right be changed to left????:lol:
Ah, good point! After the Revolution we're going to have to reform the bourgoise elements that the toadying lackeys of the capitalist overlords have cleverly inserted into our language.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5734/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,413 Posts
She providing aid to a foreign power that is hostile to our intentions by questioning our current admin. She knows better or she should.

Providing a kind of moral support in our soldiers time of need is not to be taken lightly in my book. I'll agree to disagree on this and I highly doubt you would change my mind nor I yours.

IMHO, more people ought to be tried for treason these days. We can spare her since I doubt she has 3 brain cells to rub together.

Her punishment is having to be her and that is worse than what anyone could do to her.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,413 Posts
BTW: I have no problem with her being in dissent against our current admin. The issue is going to a foreign land in a region populated with terrorist types railing against our current admin.

If she wishes she should have a press conference here or lead a march on DC. What good does it do to go out and effectively talk down the current efforts of the admin in power?

Let's not forget the fact that Ole' Billy had plans to possibly invade Iraq. I doubt she would have had a similar opinion if he had done what Bush has had the courage to do.

There has been lttle political gain for Bush doing this and had Kerry not been such a rotten fish with the major communist networks completely in his favor he should have trounced Bush since it would seem Bush has pissed off 3/4 of the world's population.

I find the parallels strikingly familiar to the begininning of WWII and Churchill as applied to Bush.

Alas, it's an old argument that you and I have had in the past at another place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,233 Posts
Cephus said:
Sang we could hand her from a door knob that's tall enough.
She is a "short round" isn't she.:)
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Dzerzhinsky said:
Necessary because it's a citizen's duty to protect his or her country from being led down the path to disaster. The most difficult thing a patriot can do is withstand being seen as quite the opposite. So many folks only know the first line...

"My country right or wrong.
"If right, to keep it right.
"If wrong, to make it right."
A nice sentiment, but of course what matters is what you think is wrong.

And, there is also the old bromide that the ends do not justify the means.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top