Egg on my face

Nell forwards this message from Bob...

You had me all excited there, thinking Mickey Mouse and his colleagues at the American Broadcasting Corporation were reporting on the phony Saddam capture story. Instead, it's the AUSTRALIAN Broadcasting Corporation. The American state-run media is still running stories about what a wonderful week it was for aWol: This one from the Washington Post is the worst I've seen: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17979-2003Dec20.html

Hey! I thought it was our ABC. I didn't scrutinize enough.

That's why Nell has a job.

I don't mean to be misleading. But if I get good at it, maybe I can become president.

Thanks, Bob.
Keep me honest.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.


And Bob is right. That Post article is most disgusting.

Those who developed the Bush Doctrine -- a policy of taking preemptive, unprovoked action against emerging threats -- predicted that an impressive U.S. victory in Iraq would intimidate allies and foes alike, making them yield to U.S. interests in other areas. Though that notion floundered with the occupation in Iraq, the capture of Hussein may have served as the decisive blow needed to make others respect U.S. wishes, they say.

"It's always been at the heart of the Bush Doctrine that a more robust policy would permit us to elicit greater cooperation from adversaries than we'd had in the past when we acquiesced," said Richard Perle, an influential adviser to the administration.

All hail the American way!

The Bush Doctrine: coercion, threat, intimidation, bombs - you will yield - you will cooperate - you will respect our American wishes.

God, I'm proud to be an American under the Bush Doctrine.

You?

Perle had provoked much criticism for saying a successful U.S. invasion of Iraq would signal to other foes that "you're next." But he said the actions by Libya and Iran prove that the threat alone was sufficient to produce action.

Loathsome.

[O]ther potential foes, notably North Korea and China, have shown little susceptibility to the threat implicit in the Bush Doctrine. Still, Perle allowed, "it's nice to have a good week every once in a while."

The Libya and Iran concessions "show the peripheral benefit of preemption," said Kenneth Adelman, a Reagan administration arms control official who now serves on a Pentagon advisory panel. "Most of all it scares the bejesus out of rogue dictators." As for stubborn allies such as Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder, "they pay more attention when there's a forceful U.S. policy," Adelman said.

I wonder why they hate us.

Asked to rate the legitimacy of eight different justifications sending troops to war, more than four in five Americans agree war is justified when another country declares war on the United States(83%) or when the United States is attacked (81%). Americans are more ambivalent when the threat is less acute -- such as when another country harbors groups that present a clear threat to the United States (43%), or to honor U.S. treaty commitments with other nations (34%). Americans are much more circumspect about the legitimacy of war when it is launched merely for humanitarian reasons (18%), or in order to liberate the people of another country (13%).

(Based on the National Constitution Center Talk Back question "Tell us what justifies sending troops to war?")  article

Okay, polling problems notwithstanding, if this is anywhere near correct, it would certainly appear that the president of the United States doesn't give a goodgoddamn what the people of the country think. We're under the BUSH Doctrine now, baby.



So screw you.