Posted on 02/01/2002 10:20:23 AM PST by Mr. D
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on Friday criticized the Bush administration's foreign policy and took aim at the president's labeling of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil." Albright also questioned the administration's public relations approach to the detainees from Afghanistan being held at a U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and said the U.S. approach to the issue had been damaging diplomatically. In an interview with NBC's "Today" show, Albright said President Bush made a "big mistake" lumping together Iran, Iraq and North Korea in his State of the Union address. In his speech on Tuesday night, Bush used harsh language to describe Iran, Iraq and North Korea, saying they were committed to developing weapons of mass destruction and must be stopped. "First of all they (Iran, Iraq and North Korea) are very different from each other," said Albright, who was Secretary of State in the Clinton administration. In the case of Iraq, Albright said the United States had been trying to contain President Saddam Hussein since 1991 and strong action was necessary. However, the situation with Iran was more complicated and the United States needed Tehran's help in dealing with Afghanistan. Looking at North Korea, Albright said it was a mistake to walk away from that communist state. The United States has attempted to hold talks with North Korea about its weapons program but that process has gone nowhere. "When we left office, we left the potential of a verifiable agreement to stop the export of missile technology abroad on the table. I think it's a mistake to walk away from that. We know that North Korea is dangerous but lumping those three countries together is dangerous," she said. The United States has come under fire from human rights groups and several Western governments for its treatment of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, who are being held in open-air cells at a U.S. naval base there. Albright said instead of showing the world conditions at the Cuban prison, the United States had become involved in an "arcane" discussion about why it would not give its captives prisoner of war status, which grants certain rights. She suggested releasing a video to show the conditions under which the detainees were being held, which visitors to the prison had said were adequate. "It would help us not only with the problem in Pakistan but also generally where the international community thinks we have lost our minds," said Albright, referring to the kidnapping of an American journalist in Pakistan whose captors have demanded the release of prisoners being held in Guantanamo Bay.
Bugger off you fat empty headed sow.
When did the rules change on using "barf alert"? This is the first time I've heard about it.
If I can find the link, I'll post it to you.
This pathetic evil beast more resembles a water buffalo.
You cannot coddle terrorist regimes. Wake up M. Albright, come out from under xxxclinton's spell, and face reality. N. Korea, Iran, Iraq, and might I add, China, would love to fry your heiney with an ICBM. Ignore this, and President Bush's plans, at your peril. Mock them to the detriment of your country.
I've had about all I can stand of the whiny-faced talking heads whimpering and simpering about W being too brash on Tuesday. These people have still not figured out that W is light years ahead of them. They are like the armed forces staff who keep telling Rumsfeld he just doesn't understand that the reason we can't be militarily up to speed is because that is the way we have always done things.
ALERT: we have to change the way we do things. If these people didn't take that lesson away from September 11, they must have fallen off the ledge of reason into the abyss of ignorance.
I say they use her for target practice inside of a week.
They have a right as a country to voice their opinion and try to get their way. That's exactly what we do. And now they have a moderate government constantly fighting against the fundamentalist Islamic faction to try to bring Iran back into this century (or at least the last one). Do we really want to jeopardize that by lumping them with Iraq and North Korea?
They are sensitive to pro-Shah sentiment in their own country.
I would be too if people wanted that dictator back, and maybe establish his Savak again?
LOL!!!
Maybe Bush didn't listen to his advisors on that one and used his innate knowledge of world politics when he said it ("All three countries are run by insane murderous dictators, right? Hey, where's Condoleeza? Oh well, I'll just wing it.")
I don't see it as a matter of "right" but why, when and how much. I.e., what's the motive? The Mullahs were quieter about Israel for a while, Khatami even talking about peace. Then the student riots started, and other forms of expressed dissent. Time, tested and true, the government (like others) sought to rechannel hatred to the outside, and give it a purpose, to distract the people. Israel is just a tool for local population management. I don't think it will work, but it is nevertheless dangerous. Dictators are most dangerous on the eve of their fall.
"And now they have a moderate government constantly fighting against the fundamentalist Islamic faction to try to bring Iran back into this century (or at least the last one)."
And they are losing. The "faction" is actually the ruling Mullahs, unlike a minority or majority party in Parliament. Parliament members are increasingly repressed and jailed, students losing their hopes in Khatami. The moderate government is not the exporters of violence and destabilization.
Do we really want to jeopardize that by lumping them with Iraq and North Korea?
I have problems myself with the "lumping." It may be informed as a cover to support funding for SDI. But one amazing thing is the total lack of media discussion, and the blindness of European diplomats reacting to the "tone" but not the message. Here is what Bush said:
"Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom."
Clearly he is distinguishing the "few", the Mullahs, from the moderates. Shah, Jr. picked up on it, for one:
Reza Pahlavi of Iran Recommends Against Military Confrontation
"I would be too if people wanted that dictator back, and maybe establish his Savak again?"
Savak? Like the Iranians don't know they have something worse now? Actually there is a lot of royalist sentiment resurging, and the people of course wouldn't want all the old ways to return. In that regard, Shah, jr. plays himself as a reformer and non-authoritarian potential head of state. Because he is popular is the reason the totalitarian Mullahs are against him.
Son of Former Shah May Be the Key to Iran's Future
It's a real interesting area of the world, but our media and opinion makers are almost wholly uninterested in it - no video, and the people aren't anti-american.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.