Rome wasn't built in a day (Monica Crowley)

• March 16, 2005 | 12:34 p.m. ET

Rome wasn't built in a day (Monica Crowley)


President Bush spoke to reporters earlier today, and when he was asked about the evolving situations in Iraq and Iran, you can hear the exasperation in the president’s voice. None of these issues are easy. None of them can be solved overnight. We are talking about complicated matters of war and peace, democracy and tyranny, liberation and oppression. We cannot wave a magic wand and expect democracy and peace to take hold in a matter of days.

The assumption built into some of these questions asked the president is that if Iraq doesn’t have a fully functioning democracy tomorrow—with all terrorist activity at an end---then the entire enterprise is a failure. Or that if the Iranian nuclear crisis is not resolved by lunchtime, that somehow this administration has dropped the ball.

Come on, now. Rome was not built in a day. Neither was the greatest democracy on the face of the earth: us. We went through a revolutionary war, a civil war, a Great Depression, two world wars, women’s suffrage, and the civil rights movement— and we are STILL trying to get it right.

The president knows this, but apparently the press does not. That’s why the president had to counsel patience to those who have unrealistic expectations. It has only been a little over a year since Iraq was liberated from Saddam’s tyranny; today the freely elected Iraqi assembly sat for the first time. The winds of positive change are blowing all over the Middle East— in a way and in an incredibly short time frame that no one expected.

So everyone needs to listen to the president: Take a deep breath, exhale, and be patient. Good things come to those who wait.

E-mail MCrowley@MSNBC.com

by pointing out Rumsfeld's "It's going to be a cakewalk" and the fake "Mission Accomplished" appearance, etc. If I remember correctly, she didn't respond.

Another bottle-blonde spouting Bush administration talking points.

Besides, I TiVo it, so I can just fast forward through the crappy parts.

.

in social services ,this woman would have been treated for delusions. now she gets a job writing delusions-yup, only in american where if you are delusional enough you can get a well paying talking head job

rule it?

empire was over when the barbarians came over the hills. Abetter question for our times is "Did the typical roman citizen understand when the julio-Claudians (read Walker-Bush) replaced their republic with an empiric monarchy.

:hi:

She does not say anything that I can disagree with. I think she is right. Why are you angry about this comment?

:toast:

I don't really care what she pretends to, because as I see it there isn't any escaping the failure of the 'democracy' bit anyway.

It's the increasingly selective way of (mis)representing the situation that is objectionable.

I agree. Everyone should listen to what he said about being against nation building in 2000, letting Saddam stay in power if he declared all his WMD's, how easy and cheap it will be to rebuild Iraq, etc.

Everyone should listen and realize that he isn't talking about bringing freedom, he's talking about empire.

Can an empire be a force of good? Should our Union of 50 sovereign States expand to include other States? or should our Union remain static? the United States of Europe is expanding...can't we?

It has prevented wars, but empire has never achieved civilization.

Is civilization preferable to peace?

Civilization means peace as a norm.

Empires mean internal peace via oppression- at a price of constant external wars. Empires mean war as a norm.

Hawaiians are not oppressed. Neither are Texans, yet both former independent States are now in our Union.

I don't know who you mean with 'Hawaiians'. The immigrants there are fairly happy with the way things are. (Though until you know what a 'leasehold' is, you will be pretty naive about what living arrangements there are like.) What the Native Hawai'ians think, you can guess- and there are some on this board you can ask about the pineapple plantation imperialism, the coup of 1898, and WW2-centered misappropriation of land and local government. Colonialism is a very bad deal for aboriginal/native peoples.

Texans...well, if you look into the nominal land theft from Mexico (and prior to that, the one by Mexico from the native population) that was involved in the 'rebellion' the mores of the colonialist/Settlement crowd will not look too good. As for Texas and being in the Union, you seem not to have talked over the Civil War much yet. Or accounted for the 'Republic of Texas' militia thingamajig a few years ago.

"We the people" of this "more perfect Union" are good people. Therefore is it not rational that our Union, Republic, or "Empire" be good. If not why? Can an empire be a force of good? Should our Union of 50 sovereign States expand to include other States? or should our Union remain static? the United States of Europe is expanding...can't we? These are hard questions that I am trying to resolve for myself, and I need help...anyone?

fathers had an intirely different vision.

As it stands now, Puerto Rico has the right to stop being a territory and to join the Union as the 51st State. They would first write their own constitution then ratify the US Constitution. Then we the States would vote to accept them.

If Puerto Rico has this right, does Cuba? Why?

The millions of Native Americans we murdered, the 400 years of slavery, rapacious greed, the disregard for the environment, the exploitation of the poor in other countries just so we can buy cheap shit at WalMart, etc.

I wouldn't be so proud of that.

I concede that Native Americans were slaughtered, and that slavery existed until the 1860s. Nothing I can do but learn from them and move forward and strive to be better.

I do not concede your other points. We are no more or less "rapaciously greedy" than any other people. We do not disregard the environment...in fact, we have led the way ever since the EPA was created under Nixon...Kyoto is a poor example of an exception because it does so little for the environment. We do not exploit the poor people of other countries...We employ them...In 1990, a Nike "sweat-shop" was closed in Indonesia because of pressure from activists that sound like you, ten years later, when we went back to see what happened to those "exploited" workers we found that more that 80% had found "work" in prostitution or narco-trafficking. What you call a "exploitation," they call a JOB.

What better system is there than a capitalistic, democratic republic? if there is one, tell me.

Indonesia? If not, I call BS!

It sounds like you would rather employ toddlers in other countries than Americans in this country. Hmmmmmm? If Kyoto is no threat to our corporate industries, why not sign it and make the world think that the US actually cares about environmental issues. Then, actually strengthen our environmental policies rather than propose the "Clear Skies Act" which reduces restrictions on our companies here at home.

I guess we didn't just essentially approve to rape a national wildlife reserve for oil that won't be recoverable for 10 years and when it is the effect will be imperceptible. I guess Bush didn't approve measures to increase the amount of arsenic, and mercury in the water. Kyoto does little for the environment because America didn't join. Our "healthy forest initiative allows mass logging of national forests. We are the leader in almost EVERY category of pollution, how exactly are we caring for it?

As for American companies not exploiting, I'd like to see how we would react to working 12 hours a day for a dollar, and then go home to a shanty made of scrap plywood. That's happening right now in Mexico. Apologists like you don't give a shit because you get to buy a microwave for $20 at the greatest exploiter of them ass Walmart.

Huh!? I'm guessing you are talking about the European Union. While they are gaining members. They are not doing it through the barrel of a gun as we are. Membership to the EU is voluntary, they can leave at anytime, and the members are allowed to maintain their own values. They are not forced to "Europeanize" and allow the EU to build military bases all over their country to "spread freedom".

Why don't you look at colonial Africa and India if you want to see if empire can ever be a good thing. No matter how you slice it empire mean forcing your power and values on another country.

49 States will mobilize to the last man in defense of one state's security, and Abe Lincoln set the president that should any state wish to secede, the remaining Union members will mobilize to the last man to preserve the Union.

If Estonia or Finland were to secede, would the remaining EU States fight to preserve their Union? or is it a club that a state may join when it is trendy and leave when it is convenient?

The EU is not a formal union. It is an economic partnership formed to establish beneficial trade between it's members. They can leave whenever they want because they are sovereign state free to do as they please, imperialism hasn't taken away their freedom. It is pretty damn ridiculous to trivialize independence in such a way as to call it "trendy".

Imagine if Iraq decided it didn't like the American form of democracy, and wanted to elect a theocracy, or cut off the oil trade with the US, do you think we would allow that? Hell no we wouldn't. We would declare that it is vital to our "nation security that we have that oil and we would take it, just like we did with ANWR.

Our country is a Union of 50 sovereign States free to do as they please. Imperialism has not taken away their freedom (although the courts and the federal gov't have). The EU constitution (500+ pages)addresses common defense and security issues and provides language for the raising of a "European military."

Try this wording: Imagine if Iraqi PEOPLE decided THEY ...
and Yes we would let them change their government to what ever they want...it is theirs.

As for the Oil...Oil is a perfectly legitimate reason to go to war. While you and I believe that we should develop other sources of energy (like ANWR) rather than declaring war, one day it may come to that. Let have a full SPR and allies in the region until then. Realistically, your stretch to a war over oil is just that...a stretch.

Next time do not curse. It annoys me.

So it is ok for us to just attack a country because they have something we want? Maybe China should attack us for our coal, does that sound like a good idea. These countries can do whatever they want with their resources including refusing to sell them to us.

And no I don't think we should exploit ANWR, we should have actually developed a real energy policy instead of staying addicted to oil. And no it is not a stretch to say this war was for oil. If it was really about independence why did your president say that Saddam could stay in power if he declared his WMD's. That doesn't sound like someone who is looking to free a nation does it?

As for the EU no matter how you try to spin it they are all independent nations. They are not part of some convoluted European Empire.

Oh, I get it now...You don't think that the State of Georgia or Delaware or Texas is comparable to the States of France or Luxembourg or Turkey. WOW, you should really study history and the constitution, the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, and the Articles of Confederation, and the 1st and 2nd Continental Congresses, and the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America and of the Confederate States of America. If you do you will learn that your idea that the USA is a country is wrong. We are a Union. Actually, we are a democratic republic, but now I am just speaking over you.

For the first few decades of this country's existence, states did whatever the hell they pleased. Even when we adopted the Constitution over the Articles, states had considerable autonomy, in part de facto and in part de jure. Things like voting rights did not become consistent until the 1960's, the national bank was not established right off the bat either. I'd say the EU is on track to become much like the US, they're just at an earlier stage of development.

Our country is a Union of 50 sovereign States free to do as they please.

Not true. Not even the Confederacy actually believed the half of that- when Missouri's state government tried to secede from the C.S.A. (look up the 'Northwest Confederacy') under a states' rights argument, they were prevented from doing so by the other states.

'Free to do as they please' turns out never to involve an improvement in the social condition. It always seems to involve the legalization of unambiguous criminality.

Imperialism has not taken away their freedom (although the courts and the federal gov't have).

Such 'freedom' never existed under the British monarchy or the federal Constitution. Maybe it did under the Articles of Confederation, but that's an experiment everyone at the time considered a failure.

The EU constitution (500+ pages)addresses common defense and security issues and provides language for the raising of a "European military."

You're eliding a distinction between federation and confederation.

Try this wording: Imagine if Iraqi PEOPLE decided THEY ...
and Yes we would let them change their government to what ever they want...it is theirs.

Saddam Hussein got 99+% of the vote in the 2002 elections.

As for the Oil...Oil is a perfectly legitimate reason to go to war. While you and I believe that we should develop other sources of energy (like ANWR) rather than declaring war, one day it may come to that. Let have a full SPR and allies in the region until then. Realistically, your stretch to a war over oil is just that...a stretch.

That may be. But you omit the word 'colonial' from the behavior involved.

Next time do not curse. It annoys me.

There are limits to what we like around here. Reactionary ideologies are not exactly popular.

"War for oil is justified..."
"Invading other contries to expand our empire is justified..."

What a FUCKWIT!!

We persuade other sovereign states to join the same way Texas did.

THAT is our empire building -- Iraq.

Fuckwit freepers like you believe that it is perfectly OK to invade another country for its oil, by your won admission. Yet your delusion lets you believe that, despite such acts of conquest to kill people and steal their resources, that you are still a "good person, good empire".

FUCK YOU.

We did not go to war over oil in Iraq (although that would have been justifiable). My eyes are wide open to the situation there, and frankly, I care more about citizens of the USA than I do anyone else in the world regardless of who they are. The insecurity of our citizens justifies war against those who comprise our security.

Turn off FAUX news dude, Saddam, and his people STILL have nothing to do with 9/11 - and I suppose you will tell me all about how they found WMD? :eyes:

Yeah, we're the USA, so we get to kill and steal to keep our Hummers filled with cheap gas? FUCK YOU.

Yeah, and you're the Party with Morals, right? FUCK YOU.

FUCK YOU and Buh-Bye.

I care more about citizens of the USA than I do anyone else in the world regardless of who they are.

Jesus of Nazareth was an Israeli. Charles Manson and Ted Bundy were/are Americans.

The insecurity of our citizens justifies war against those who comprise our security.

Why do Americans get to hunt imaginary enemies- I mean, the theory of the Right comes down to demonic possession- and people of other nationalities do not? And where can I find out more about the special election of Americans by God and the Higher Morality of Americans that you seem to believe in?

It's kinda funny conversing with someone whose views are locked into the conventional way of looking at the world...of 1783.

Boy, parts of those Red States sure lag the rest of the country.

Does tha mean we can ask you to stop talking completely?

Oil is a perfectly leitmate reason to go to war?

Then by all means tough guy, ENLIST.

Oh ,but THAT's right. You're a Coward that needs others to do your empire building for you.

You think that is a "good" empire? You think that is a justifiable way to expand? If you had the first fucking clue you'd note that the European Union is expanding because countries are *asking* to join-- they aren't having the fuck bombed out of them on false pretexts.

Even you fuckwit freepers must be able to grasp the difference.

...expectations."

Like U.S. troops being greeted with candy and flowers? Like the whole operation being a cakewalk?

"giving a Monica."

pollyanna meets mussolini

When we were in the streets, millions strong, trying to tell Stupidhead what a costly, long-term mistake he was making, we were dismissed as a focus group, aging hippies, dope-smoking traitors and worse.

Now we're two years into Stupidhead's Excellent Imperial Foreign Adventure, and we have Chertoff telling us that we need a nuanced, flexible approach to terror, and Crowley telling us to be patient, empires take time.

And what's an acceptable cost for this little empire gambit? We've lost over 1,500 soldiers, another 10,000 or so wounded, some 100,000 Iraqis who are now free from all earthly concerns, $200 billion into this loser pot (and the grim, grinning bastard across the table keeps raising), and no end in sight. We haven't turned any corners, there is no light to guide us to the end of the tunnel.

We've tortured innocents, bombed cities, destroyed houses, buildings, mosques and roads. We've set a modern society back 500 years, squandered our national prestige and honor, and our coalition allies are all making plans to skedaddle (if they haven't skedaddled already). We've destabilized an area of the world that didn't need much of a push to descend into total anarchy anyway. And we don't even have the bad excuse of lower gas prices or less dependence on foreign oil.

The administration seems purely incapable of learning any lesson, opting instead to revisit past failures in hopes of a different outcome. But be patient! This time, blowing the holy bejesus out of Tikrit or Mosul or Fallujah or Sadr City might just establish peace. Give it another chance.

n/t

x( :thumbsdown:

If anything, we should take to heart how Rome was destroyed. The USA bears a striking resemblance to the Roman Empire.