Bob Kerry is still an A-hole

Why not take it a little easy on our fellow party member Albright?

If he's this critical against her, watch out Powell and Rummy!!!

better be hell on wheels to Bushco filth...

B. Kerry was a total asshole to her. I wish I could watch the later hearings. If they go easy on Powell & Rumsfield......

I hope you are right. Looks like he is playing Devil's advocate!
He better be!

Madeleine is soooooo good. Go Madeleine Go!

Madeleine is soooooo good. Go Madeleine Go!

You certainly convinced me, especially in the face of all the facts that have led me to believe quite the opposite! :dunce:

From chapter 10 of Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire by Chalmers Johnson, page 216:

... Another former State Department official protested that military might does not equate with "leadership of the free world" and wrote that "Madeline Albright is the first secretary of state in American history whose diplomatic specialty, if one can call it that, is lecturing other governments, using threatening language and tastelessly bragging of the power and virtue of her country." It is possible to think of other secretaries of state who fit this description, going back to John Foster Dulles, but Albright does not even have the Cold War to justify her jingoism.

Another priceless quote from Albright herself, used to defend the use of cruise missiles against Iraq, to help justify this assessment from page 217:

"If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensible nation. We stand tall. We see farther into the future."

Just imagine yourself as an international observer, and the complete arrogance you would find in such a statement. It would make me angrier than words can describe, but somehow we as Americans give such shows of hubris a pass. :grr:

Furthermore, the 9/11 hearings are not some kind of team sport -- at least they shouldn't be. By saying that someone should "take it easy" on Albright because she's "one of our party members", you are basically saying that it's OK for Republicans on the panel to take it easy on fellow Republicans. Perhaps if you could learn to look beyond the oversimplistic "team sports" analogy and instead view politics in the context of being "about the importance of people's lives," as described by the late Senator Paul Wellstone, you might just realize the danger and foolishness of what you just said.

We better be concerned about the truth, and how to stop this from happening again, not who comes out looking better. Anyone who thinks there isn't blame all over the aisle is a fool. She should be questioned hard. So should everyone else.

That technique sounds familiar to me.

That comment just REEKS of the arrogance and hubris associated with imperialism. There's really NO other way to spin it -- it is essentially saying that we are wiser and better, and therefore entitled to do whatever the hell we want, just because we are America.

Furthermore, if you consider the source (Chalmers Johnson), you'd realize that he's not really one to take things out of context. The guy was, after all, a staunch supporter of US actions during the Cold War -- until he saw how the US was maintaining a Cold War posture in a post-Cold War world.

You can start finding out a little bit about him by reading this article: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18119.

Criticism of Albright is perfectly acceptable. She was a pretty poor Secretary of State. Of course, much better than Powell, but Pee Wee Hermann would be better as well.

which was a PNAC front group supportive of the war. After purging his soul about illegal wartime activities in Viet Nam, I was very disappointed to see his name affiliated with this group in November 02.

the point is to find the reasons for the mistakes. Albright handled the questioning just fine.

You can see why the bush administration is not very happy about going before this commitee.

what are they hiding

In addition, Congress was so intent on trashing Clinton that everything he did was critisised back then. I think it would have been very difficult for Clinton to invade Afganistan before 9/11 with the animosity of that Congress

I don't think so.

I don't know what he did (and it's 'Kerrey'), but I don't think he should soften up at all--she's a war criminal ("that's a price we're willing to pay"), and in a better world she'd be standing in the dock in Den Haag along with a *lot* of other people.

How dare you call Albright a war criminal? That is the most atrocious thing I have heard all week.

Madeline Albright is no war criminal. The shrub and his cabal are war criminals..Sheesh!...Damn. :grr:

That's what happens when you have a big tent, huge in this case. Someone always has to be on the far, far, far left and give us all a bad name. :cry:

:hi:

"If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensible nation. We stand tall. We see farther into the future." -- Madeline Albright, in defense of the decision to launch cruise missiles at Iraq.

No matter how you spin the above comment, it betrays the views of good old-fashioned imperialism. Similar sentiments were echoed from the halls of London during the late 19th century. Whether or not the actions perpetrated in pursuit of such an arrogant worldview are actually "war crimes" is subject to interpretation.

Throw around whatever labels you like. Madeleine Albright did nothing to create or expand an empire. Therefore she is not an imperialist.

And I'm sorry, but the quotation you cite is exactly spot-on. The US is the indispensable nation. It is the world's only superpower. With power comes responsibility and we need to exercize it to advance justice - we cannot afford to sit idly on the sidelines. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work with other countries or with the UN - absolutely not. But it does mean we must take an active, even leading role in world affairs.

Do you also believe that America "sees farther into the future"? Based on the countless strategic errors we've made over the years, I'd say that quite the opposite is true -- that we're more blinded by our own self-righteousness and hubris.

In the world in which we now find ourselves, there is no such thing as an "indespensible nation." There are certainly some nations who exert a bigger influence on the international stage than others -- with the US being foremost in that category. But none of them are "indespensible".

For example, if the America of today were to recede into the background of world powers, the world would still continue on. In some ways worse, but probably in other ways better -- either way it would still continue on.

We may be the country who exerts the greatest influence on the rest of the world, but we are hardly "indispensable". Such folly is reserved for those who seek to rest their laurels on the collapse of the Soviet Union and the TINA principle espoused by Maggie Thatcher and Francis Fujiyama.

I can't say I'm surprised to see you coming to this conclusion, mobuto -- it is entirely consistent with exchanges I've had with you on this board. But even though I realize I am a contrarian, I fear that views such as yours (and Sec. Albright's) are born out of a desire to see only those facts you want to see, a desire that will eventually result in quite a long fall from our self-appointed pedestal.

Albright's point in saying that the US is the indispensable nation wasn't to imply that other nations are irrelevent. What she was saying is that the US owes a special responsibility to the world to stay engaged and to act as a positive force for change, a responsibility over and above what other nations owe.

For example, if the America of today were to recede into the background of world powers, the world would still continue on. In some ways worse, but probably in other ways better -- either way it would still continue on.

Well, I guess that would depend somewhat on who's in the White House. Isolationism would probably be preferable to some of Mr. Bush's foreign adventures, but I still think engagement as a rule is better than disengagement. And I don't see a contradiction there. Albright's America owes service to the world. Bush's America expects service from the world. That's where you perceive the arrogance and the uniting of forces against us, not from what Albright's talking about.

Albright's point in saying that the US is the indispensable nation wasn't to imply that other nations are irrelevent. What she was saying is that the US owes a special responsibility to the world to stay engaged and to act as a positive force for change, a responsibility over and above what other nations owe.

While I agree with YOUR assessment of how the US should behave vis a vis the rest of the world, I still don't think that this kind of "engagement" was the real thrust behind Albright's statement. When viewed in full, it too closely resembles the kind of imperial pronouncements made from the halls of London throughout the latter half of the 19th century to be viewed as a spirit of true engagement. The impression I come away with is not one of positive engagement, but one of bullying and smug superiority. While the bullying may not be quite as overt as it is NOW, the fact remains that the attitude is still present.

Isolationism would probably be preferable to some of Mr. Bush's foreign adventures, but I still think engagement as a rule is better than disengagement.

I don't disagree. The main question is engagement in a spirit of partnership, or engagement in the spirit of "knowing what is right for everybody else because we are America."

Albright's America owes service to the world. Bush's America expects service from the world. That's where you perceive the arrogance and the uniting of forces against us, not from what Albright's talking about.

I think that you and I just have different perspectives on what the true role of America is throughout the world. I would guess that if you asked the people of Okinawa, who continued to experience the humiliation and lawlessness of American forces stationed there throughout the Clinton administration, they would see the situation much different than "America's service to the world" WRT Sec. Albright. They probably wouldn't see it much differently than the way that the Chinese viewed the British, French, Dutch, Japanese and Americans about 100 years ago with the treaties of "extrality" won by outsiders. The common thread being that crimes committed by the outsider against the native were not turned over to the native, but rather tried by the outsider (often ending up in acquittal or an overly light sentence).

Likewise, I think that the majority of South Koreans now view the US presence on their territory in much the same light. It isn't about US service to Korea, but about Korea's usefulness as a "satellite" of the US. After all, the ROK troops there are STILL actually under US, not ROK command.

The question arises about all of these arrangements, if the host nations aren't actually threatened by anyone, then why exactly ARE the US forces there. If it's part of some "joint security arrangement", then why aren't there Japanese or Korean forces permanently stationed on US soil as well? When you start asking questions from a slightly less Americentric perspective, you can't help but start arriving at some rather unsettling answers.

Shame on you. There are very legitimate reasons to criticize her performance as Secretary of State. That isn't one of them.

Nothing that Albright has done or advocated in the pursuit of imperial ambitions will be realistically seen as a "war crime" by anything approaching a majority of those on the beneficial end of said imperial ambition. By adopting such statements into your argument, you only serve to close the ears of those whom you might be trying to reach, and possibly alienating some of your supporters.

Then again, DU is an anonymous forum, and "brute dynamics" are always in full swing here....

Bob Kerrey has confessed to personally shooting women, children and old men in Vietnam, but it is the alleged crimes of Albright that you focus on.

Well, those women, children and old men Kerrey shot and killed just don't have any value in your world, I guess their lives are meaningless to you. :puke:

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V121/N21/kerrey.21w.html

What kind of shallow bullshit is that? Kerrey served his country with honor and distinction in a mad war. He didn't intentionally shoot anybody who didn't deserve to be shot. He did kill innocents unintentionally and won a bronze star for it - a bronze star he has never once listed on any resume. He admitted what he did and he has to account for it. But he is not a war criminal. He's a very good man.

While it's never fair to condemn young men in wartime for committing acts of brutality due to the commands of old men above them safely above the fray, likewise it is impossible to completely separate those people from their previous actions.

I would imagine that if any of the accusations of Bob Kerrey's unit for attacking innocent civilians are true (and considering the nature of his unit's missions, it's hard to believe that there wouldn't be some truth to them), then I would imagine that whatever personal demons Bob Kerrey has to deal with are worse than many of us could imagine.

The difference lies in condemning a young man for actions taken while placed in a situation of absolute barbarity (don't kid yourself, that's what war is) as opposed to condemning someone seated safely on the sidelines for perpetuating various forms of hard and soft oppression for the purpose of political and national gain.

Please read my post more carefully. Also read the link I included. I don't think there is a clear answer to be had regarding Kerrey's actions. I don't know whether either Kerrey or Albright should be labelled a war criminal but my instinct would be no. I simply pointed out that in the context of a discussion of Kerrey and Albright, it is strange to label Albright a war criminal in contrast to Kerrey. You accuse me of being shallow, but it seems to me the original post is the one that revealed a shallow understanding of the context.

I wouldn't label either a war criminal either. I just objected to what I saw as a cheap shot at Kerrey. I don't think its necessary to dump on him to boost Albright.