Memo from the Ministry of Truth
Man, has Donald Rumsfeld got balls. He is either insane or has no problem lying through his false yellow teeth. Sometime I think Neo-Con must be somehow short for No Conception of Reality.
On Thursday, Feb. 2, 2006, Rumsfeld spoke at the National Press Club. During his speech he lashed out at Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Bolivian President Evo Morales. I understand that the current administration and, in general, the United States would have a problem with the domestic policies of both Chavez and Morales. However, democracy is on the march and both men were legal elected to their positions.
And that is where I am shocked at Mr. Rumsfeld. It is no secret that the government of the United States loves democratically elected leaders. But, it is also no secret that the government of the United States would prefer and support a brutal dictator rather than a democratically elected president who doesn’t lick their boots.
Sure, as Mr. Rumsfeld states, Adolf Hilter was also legally elected to his position and it is a great piece of inflammatory rhetoric, but ultimately you must accept democracy as it is or abandon it. Of course, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that we have a president who was appointed by the Supreme Court and NOT legally elected to his position.
While I am a big fan of the “American way of life,” I would never suggest that it should be forced down the throats of everyone else in the world.
But I’m sure if Mr. Rumsfeld gets his way, our great country will assassinate both Chavez and Morales and install some kind of puppet regime.
Just ask Ecuador or Guatemala or Iran or Haiti.
And if I was the future Iraqi government, I would be careful. We used to be pretty chummy with Saddam until he outlived his usefulness.
Remember, for this administration and many Republican administrations, if you don’t like the results of democracy, you can change them through military or covert intervention.
More often than not, the government thinks it’s better to have a dictator you love than a president you hate.
On Thursday, Feb. 2, 2006, Rumsfeld spoke at the National Press Club. During his speech he lashed out at Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Bolivian President Evo Morales. I understand that the current administration and, in general, the United States would have a problem with the domestic policies of both Chavez and Morales. However, democracy is on the march and both men were legal elected to their positions.
And that is where I am shocked at Mr. Rumsfeld. It is no secret that the government of the United States loves democratically elected leaders. But, it is also no secret that the government of the United States would prefer and support a brutal dictator rather than a democratically elected president who doesn’t lick their boots.
Sure, as Mr. Rumsfeld states, Adolf Hilter was also legally elected to his position and it is a great piece of inflammatory rhetoric, but ultimately you must accept democracy as it is or abandon it. Of course, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that we have a president who was appointed by the Supreme Court and NOT legally elected to his position.
While I am a big fan of the “American way of life,” I would never suggest that it should be forced down the throats of everyone else in the world.
But I’m sure if Mr. Rumsfeld gets his way, our great country will assassinate both Chavez and Morales and install some kind of puppet regime.
Just ask Ecuador or Guatemala or Iran or Haiti.
And if I was the future Iraqi government, I would be careful. We used to be pretty chummy with Saddam until he outlived his usefulness.
Remember, for this administration and many Republican administrations, if you don’t like the results of democracy, you can change them through military or covert intervention.
More often than not, the government thinks it’s better to have a dictator you love than a president you hate.
posted by recordjerk at 1:51 PM
0 comments
