« Norma Rae | Main | The Obama Offensive »

November 25, 2007



"Hillary knows that America must remain a preeminent leader for peace and freedom, willing to work in concert with other nations and institutions to reach common goals. Hillary has put forth an aggressive plan to support public schools in developing countries in an effort to achieve universal primary education for the 77 million children around the world who aren't in school because they are too poor."

This is an excerpt from Hillary's website on this very subject. She wants to spread America's great success with public schools here in America to other countries as a way of repairing our image and leadership around the world. This is more of her it takes a village blather that she wants to extend to the rest of the world. She has a whole section on her website about repairing our image and leadership around the world along these same lines. No where on her website does it talk about strengthening our military, or peace through strength, like Ronald Reagan. To her it's all about having a conversation with our enemies and extending her village to the rest of the world.


We don't have bad relations with everyone "Eastern Euroupe" especially admires the US., Why? because they have felt the yolk of communism for decades, and don't want to go back. Western Europe, England, Germany and France also have come around...Canada wants better relations. China has stratgic interest in our Economy, they sell to us. The best reason for other countrys to support us is simple, our Economy runs the World Economy, and if it fails the World's Economy - other Country's Markets, will go through great chaos. Globalism - the river flows in both directions.

Liberalism isn't the problem, Socialism is the problem.

Jack Flynn

“Accommodating them, appealing to them, giving them goodies, and promising we won't be mean to them anymore,” is not diplomacy. It is the Republican’s wishy-washy idea of it. Real conscientious diplomacy is amiable but tough. There are always conditions. There are no giveaways.
George Bush’s idea of diplomacy starts with making it clear that our nuclear weapons option is always on the table. This is not a productive way to engage in dialog. It is impolite. It is threatening, particularly in the light of the fact that the U.S. is the only country in the world that has actually used nuclear weapons on other human beings.

To keep your gun constantly out is not a constructive or effective way to dispense diplomacy. It invites fear and retaliation, or at least an unwillingness to see our point of view.

As Frank Perdue used to say, “It takes a tough man to make a tender chicken.”

As far as apologies go, we should only apologize for mistakes we have made that have caused egregious harm to the other party.

Both sides have to be willing to give up something, and our diplomats sure as hell better know exactly what that is before they sit at the table.

Before you can begin diplomacy, you must be on the road that leads to it.

If you believe that diplomacy won’t work from the git-go, or means something it isn’t , then you never will find that road.

People in other countries don’t hate us because of what we have. They hate us for what was taken from them in order to give us what we have. And, yes, many of them resent our bragging about being the greatest nation in the world.
What we don’t seem to realize is that virtually every country feels that it is the greatest nation in the world.

We are not the greatest nation in the world. There are other countries that are ahead of us in health care, education, art and culture, and higher than us in the practice of our values.

There is only one thing America, under George Bush, has made clear to the world.
If you give us a splinter, we will put a beam through your eye.

Isn’t it time we started walking quietly with our big stick, instead of whacking everyone we know with it—friends and enemies alike?


We owe the world an apology for giving an incompetent and evil man the most powerful position on earth.

And we owe the world an apology for the damage he has done.

No matter what Monica says, it cannot erase that we launched a war of choice against a country that DID NOT ATTACK US! That is not DEFENSE!


Most of the hatred for America does have to do with our way of life, Jack. Many around the world believe in this phony socialist/populist ideology that free market capitalism has stolen from the poor peasant farmer and given to the rich estate owner, you said it yourself in your post.
"People in other countries don’t hate us because of what we have. They hate us for what was taken from them in order to give us what we have. And, yes, many of them resent our bragging about being the greatest nation in the world."
That's a belief that the distribution of wealth by the impersonal free market is not just and that instead the elite bureaucrat should decide how the flow of capital is distributed. This is a very popular view around the world, especially in Latin America and has caused a vast amount of poverty. Hillary Clinton is a socialist also who believes the government (some bureaucrat) is in a better position to distribute capital than the free market.

On Hillary's website you find nothing about the war on terrorism, strengthening our military, or strengthening our free market economy, it's all about redistributing money to social groups here in America and overseas.

WE DIDN'T STEAL ANYTHING FROM OTHER COUNTRIES. The American people are the hardest working, most productive people in the world. They hate us because they have been feed a load of bologne by people like Hugo Chavez and Hillary Clinton that big bad George Bush wants to nuke them and take their property.



President Clinton attacked a country that didn't attack us remember Bosnia? We still have troops stationed there. This is more Liberal B.S. it is a wise decision, when a Democrat behaves like a Hawk but when a Republican does it they are evil. History is going to judge George W Bush not the hysterical Left.

George W Bush is not stupid, his grades were the same as John Kerrys when they both attended YALE. Did you attend YALE? I understand they have a pretty good academic program.

You believe everything you read on leftist websites?

I do believe there was incompetence, to this day I do not understand why Donald Rumsfeld, stayed on as long as he did? I suspect Politics, not National Security concerns.


Ree --

There's more to intelligence than going to a good school and getting decent grades. I'm not convinced that Bush got into Yale on his own "merits". He is the grandson of Prescott Bush and son of George H.W. Bush. Of course they took him. I also suspect he had a lot of help to get the grades he did.

I have not thought about Bosnia in quite a while, but, as I recall, Bosnia was already in a civil war when we went in. We didn't actually go in and CREATE the civil war. As I recall, when we went in, the President understood the differences between the warring parties, as opposed to Bush, who invaded Iraq without an understanding of the differences between Sunnis and Shiites. I don't remember Clinton using false information to justify an invasion. So be careful if you are going to use Clinton's deployment of troops to justify President Idiot's invasion of Iraq.

Don't start laying crap on me like 'you believe everything you read in the liberal press'. I don't, but I definitely approach outlets like Faux News with disdain and skepticism. It's time for you conservatives to recognize that Bush is a failure and a disgrace to this country. History will see him that way. Until the "Rapture" which he apparently believes is coming.

And do you want to attack me based on where I went to school? I did not go to Yale, but I did attend an Ivy League school. Does that mean you think that I should be the President? Of course not, so let's not attack each other based on where we went to school.

-- FMK



As a favored Partisan Princess---soft on the Daddy Party, while having at the Mommy Party ---your polemics were hot today, (despite your continuing refusal to fix 'signature link' at this site.) Sweetheart, you're really going to offend the mammalitos, aren't you?

For the whole magillah, you are cordially invited to CONSERVATISM: AN ELEGY? (the early stanzas now posted)



Speaking of college life, something even scarier than the Ivy League is Wellesley. This wonderful little college of "higher" learning located not to far from Boston, MA is the place where Hillary Clinton received her education. It's an all women's college with majors in stuff like Global Feminism. According to their website they pride themselves on a "diverse" campus, but I'm sure the only diversity there is extreme leftwing to leftwing in its academic study. You will not see the leftie media touring that wonderful little institution exposing what goes on there, because if they did the American people would probably not appreciate Ms. Rodham's educational experience.


Stevenotok --

Are you an expert on women's colleges? You would find that the political spectrum is as well-represented there as on any college campus. (Examples: Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush both went to Smith.)

Is it no longer safe for presidential candidates to go to college because someone will look up the curriculum and hold it against them? They taught Arabic where I went to college! Oh no! I didn't actually take those classes, but I went to the college so I must be an Islamic fundamentalist!!!!


We went into Bosnia because of ethnic cleansing of Muslims, and World Wars as a rule start in Eastern Europe. As I recall Saddam gased the Kurds, that wasn't genecide, all the mass graves they found in Iraq that wasn't genecide? I stated before when a Democrat President makes a decision to attack another country he is being wise, when a Republican does the samething he is evil.

I don't hate George W Bush, and believe history will bear out he did make the best decisions he could, in a period of time when we were coming out of the "Cold War" the last super power standing - with a Big Bullseye painted on us. Whoever takes us down, gets the bragging rights. The last three Presidents have been cleaning up after the Cold War.

I think it is simplistic to blame one man for all the ills of the world. I guess ordering the world into the most simplistic form, (It's All George W Bush's fault) gives people comfort. I don't have a problem with people observing their religion either, George W Bush is an American citizen, he has the right to worship freely. I am not offended by religious people.


I've already gone into why I condemn Bush for Iraq, but don't condemn Clinton for Bosnia. They were two different situations, approached differently, by different types of men -- one (Clinton) with intelligence, and another (Bush) with his characteristic idiotic, unquestioning certainty.

Just like Monica Crowley sets the tone for this stupid web site, George W. Bush sets the tone for the nation. He's not the only one to blame for the ills of the world, but he has a lot to answer for when it comes to the evils that have been created by the White House in the last 7 years.

I am not offended by religious people who do not try to impose their beliefs on me, and who truly try to do good works. I am offended by how Bush uses (abuses) religion. He is a truly horrible man. This nation should be ashamed for choosing him as our leader.

History will condemn Bush. Until, of course, the "Rapture" that he is waiting for.



I am not going to argue with you obviously you suffer from "Bush derangement Syndrome"


Fred, I'm not an expert on "women's colleges" and don't pretend to be but after looking at Wellesley's website, I'm sure Hugo Chavez would be proud to send his daughters to this wonderful little institution of "higher learning". Hillary talks about Wellesley all the time and was supposedly a "leader" there, well all I'm asking is let's examine this fine little institution and see exactly what they are selling there. My guess is that after looking at the faculty and curriculum the American people would not be impressed.


Saying I suffer from "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is the same as calling me a Socialist or a liberal. It means you've run out of arguments and are defeated so you throw some conservative-created static at me. I'll accept your proffered insult as a concession on your part, Ree.

And yes, Steveok, you are right. How horrible that an institution of higher education is teaching young women to think about women's issues, and about how women can be leaders instead of just the objects of date rapists like Alex Kelly (who was just released after a mere ten years). Obviously, the people who run Wellesley, and other women's colleges, like Smith and Mt. Holyoke, are communists, and the rest of the country must be protected from them and other secular humanists.

Don't worry, Steveok, after the "Rapture", none of this will matter anyway.

J. Pierpont Finch

FREDK, There is no alternative rational explanation for the content you post than to conclude that you suffer from the latter stages of "Terminal Bush Derangement Syndrome". What else are we to conclude?

Jack Flynn

By the reductio ad absurdum logic of Finchy and Ree, one must conclude that the resistance fighters in Germany and France must have suffered from the "Hitler Derangement Syndrome".

J. Pierpont Finch

Yes FLYNNSKINT, I agree that Liberals with attitudes like you see themselves as RESISTANCE FIGHTERS, not citizens of the USA working for the common good of all. They seem to believe their entitlement to the presidency was somehow stolen from them in the 2000 election because they do not believe in the ELECTORAL COLLEGE. You have put your finger on what has been lost as a result of our sinking into extreme polarized partisanship. Until Viet Namn War debacle, it used to be that we all joined together after each election and worked for the common good. Now, it's red vs blue starting day 1 after each election, including doing everything possible to subvert the side you are not on (like a resistance figher would do). WHERE IS THIS ALL HEADED?


Oh so it is you Jack, you must love trollin around.

Jack Flynn

And what about it? Don't Monica and Ree/Finchy/Charlie suffer from the "Hillary Derangement Syndrome"?
I hope you guys don't mind being lumped together like that, but I am afraid I am suffering from a severe case of the "Monica, Ree, Finchy, Charlie Derangement Syndrome".
We had better notify the CDC, pronto. It must be a communicable disease.


I'm sure that these folks can't see that their reaction to everything Hillary Clinton could be considered Hillary Derangement Syndrome if what we are suffering from is Bush Derangement Syndrome. That term is being thrown around too much, and it's just getting boring to be honest.

The only one of them who appears to be rational at times is Ree, so I'm thinking that Ree is tired from Thanksgiving and ran out of arguments to counter mine, and so had to resort to a cliche. I forgive you, Ree. Maybe tomorrow you'll have enough energy to take me on with actual arguments.



I think you are drinking the far left koolaide, I don't agree with anything you have posted. I believe the opposite, and calling people names and stating things over and over again, doesn't make them a FACT. It is just your opinion and everybody has one.

This is Monica Crowley's Blog, she is a conservative odds are traditionalist, conservatives and independents, are going to be reading and commenting, whether you or Jack like it. The last time I looked it is a Free Country. You constantly call Monica names and berate her Blog, if you don't like it, don't read and comment here. Now this is the last time I will respond to either your's or Jack's baiting so enjoy, I know what Trolling is and I am not interested.

As for Jack I have witnessed his tracks all over this Blog for months, so are you the same person, different persona ...the answer only matters if you care and I don't.

Jack Flynn

So Finchy, you have taken away my citizenship with just a flick of your Bic. But that's much easier for you than thinking, isn't it, Finchy?
Part of one point you make, I can agree with. Both the expansion of the Vietnam War and the Iraq debacle were based on lies—LBJ's Gulf of Tonkin lie and the Bush administration’s lie about the causal connection between Iraq and 9/11.
Granted, on Bush's part, it was lying by omission. However, Cheney's lie is one of commission. He still makes the connection—still lies about it.

Apparently, Finchy, you think that your efforts are for the "good" of "all" and we liberals are the polarizing, sour grapes resistance to that "good".
But somehow, Finchy, I can't shake the thought that your idea of "good" has more to do with war, prisons, torture and scapegoating than it does with the common dignity of man and the rights granted to us in the Constitution.
Common Finchy. Prove me wrong. Show us something of that "good" you want "all" of us to work on together.


Ree --

I come here because I find conservatives opinions amusing. Kind of the same reason I go to the monkey house at the zoo, even though the monkeys are just as absurd each time I visit. It's still good for a laugh.


When a lion starts acting like a lamb, what can one expect.


I'm starting to wonder if Finch isn't a religious freak like Bush who believes that all of this doesn't matter because the "Rapture" is coming.

The comments to this entry are closed.