Britons, you rock, luvs!.....Check out Guardian UK readers ripping a BS column

[marmar]

The Guardian UK ran this piece by some loon saying that the US needs a leader "in Bush's mould" for the sake of world security right now. It's predictably crazy....but read the responses - they're great!


Here's an excerpt from the piece:

The kind of cop we need
Europeans adore Obama, but long-term global security calls for a strong leader, in Bush's

Tim Montgomerie
The Guardian, Tuesday August 26 2008


Polls in the US show that most Americans are concerned at the negativity of Europeans towards their country. Polls of Europeans suggest a straightforward solution: elect Barack Obama as US president. The most powerful leader in the world will then be more multilateralist, less aggressive and more acceptable to the European ear. But is it that simple?

The most popular recent American president - according to surveys of Britons, Germans and Italians - is Bill Clinton. In that finding is the warning for America. During the Clinton years very little was done to combat the spread of militant Islam. Al-Qaida's planning for the 9/11 attacks didn't start when the supreme court conspired to install the nasty George Bush in the White House. It began when the ever so reasonable Clinton was still in office.

Europeans may want someone like themselves in the White House, but difficult times call for a president willing to eschew short-term popularity and pursue long-term respect. Europeans hope for a president who will abandon Bush's foreign policy, but he has pursued many different foreign policies. What Europeans want to end is the "neoconservatism" seen in Iraq. But all the favoured policies of Berlin and Paris have been used by the US over the past eight years. .......more at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/26/obama.foreign.policy

..... and the responses: :yourock:

What!!!!?

Surely you are joking.

Bush, the arrogant, ignorant, and incompetent one, hasn't done anything right.

Recommend? (3)
Report abuse
Clip | Link MuffledCry
Aug 26 08, 12:26am (about 3 hours ago)
""""The highest moment for recent US foreign policy was after the initial invasion of Iraq. With its allies, it had used hard power, not soft. It hadn't waited on UN approval, but it had kept its promise to topple Saddam Hussein."""

"""Polls in Britain showed majority support for the war."""

"""John McCain and Barack Obama have both pledged to end the ****torture-like**** practices that have done terrible harm to America's reputation."""

(my stars)

You seem to be re-writing history, TM

"""Tim Montgomerie is editor of a new website, AmericaInTheWorld.com"""

Selling "America" like soappowder is SO last year.

BTW, can't we persuade George W to stay on for another 8 years since he has done such a wonderful job?

;-)

Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip | Link Khondakar
Aug 26 08, 12:32am (about 3 hours ago)
Unfortunatley the Cop was bribed or bought to be more specific. The Cops also bribed many in return.

Halliburton bribed Cheney.

Randy Sceuenenman was bribed by latvia, Estonia, and Georgia.

Congress was bribed by AIPAC in respect to Syria and Iran.

India was "bribed" with Neuclear deals and was threatened by lantos , Ackerman, to toe line on Iran.

Warlords in Afghanistan and " Sunni Awakening" were the products of bribery.

It was not for ,but despite that "thug" Bolton 's threat and undermining of the EU work on Libya the agreeemnt suceeded due to threat by Jack Straw against Bolton.

Syria has left Lebanon over a charge that has not been proved

and it along with Hizbullah have become more relevant than USA in Lebanon.

USA's only chance of regaing the foothold that it has lost in so many areas of the world is by focussing on its own interest and fighting for it, not to see the world through the prism of Israel or any other country.

It is not only the corruption that has played havoc in American foreign and demoestic situation. The low I. Q of Bush has played an equally important role.

Bush has either failed or made situation worse in all the areas where it had intereferd.

The world is not safer it is much worse.This Cop needs to be removed from his job.

Recommend? (1)
Report abuse
Clip | Link Freemyspeech
Aug 26 08, 12:43am (about 2 hours ago)

. Al-Qaida's planning for the 9/11 attacks didn't start when the supreme court conspired to install the nasty George Bush in the White House. It began when the ever so reasonable Clinton was still in office.

This is a very strange logic here...Because Al-Qaeda starting the planning during Clinton's asministration is to blame? Well, Republicans were the ones who helped prop up Al-Qaeda in the first place and did nothing about it at all. Clinton was hardly perfect, but his plans seemed to follow a logic rather than just a scattershot approach to the world. Iraq was not only a disaster, it made no sense.

Recommend? (1)
Report abuse
Clip | Link macman37
Aug 26 08, 12:48am (about 2 hours ago)
I know the Guardian likes to give space to all views but really nothing is served by the writings of someone so unbalanced of mind that he undoubtedly should be seeking psychiatric advice.

World's only policeman? Tell that to the Georgians.

Wasn't there a line put out that the USAians stood up to Russia and the Russians backed down in Georgia? Haven't heard much of that lately as the Russians have stayed put.

Recommend? (5)
Report abuse
Clip | Link PresidentD
Aug 26 08, 12:56am (about 2 hours ago)
I agree with the writer. We need someone tough enough to stand up to gangsters like Putin. A wimp like Obama doesn't cut it.

Recommend? (2)
Report abuse
Clip | Link MuffledCry
Aug 26 08, 12:56am (about 2 hours ago)
Yeah, and

"""Al-Qaida's planning for the 9/11 attacks didn't start when the supreme court conspired to install the nasty George Bush in the White House. It began when the ever so reasonable Clinton was still in office."""

So you accept that Bush and Co stole the 2000 election?

Who IS this "Al-Qaida" is it a new name for the CIA and Mossad?

Where is your evidence that "Al-Qaida" (whoever you think that is) did the attack?

This Blog is full of assertions and spin.

Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip | Link Grinch
Aug 26 08, 1:13am (about 2 hours ago)
Democrats = nice and fluffy, but soft on terror.

Republicans = bolshie and belligerent, but they keep us safe.

Please. This is lazy and partisan. What's to stop me going to another partisan to refute it ?

"During the Clinton years very little was done to combat the spread of militant Islam"

Says who? Fancy producing some evidence for this rather bald statement? For the counterpoint, over to William Rivers Pitt, a left-leaning US journo and Democratic activist:

" Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community ...

"... Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet ..."

" ... In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."

"Europeans hope for a president who will abandon Bush's foreign policy, but he has pursued many different foreign policies."

Why is that? Is it because the effect of the Iraq invasion was to bog the US military down in a protracted guerilla conflict against terrorists and insurgents in a territory where they had previously had NO PRESENCE, because it was policed with an iron fist by a dictator who posed the West NO THREAT whatsoever? And once the US military was entrenched in Iraq, didn't that give Mr Ahmadinejad free reign to do exactly as he pleased? The US is pursuing diplomacy in Iran because it has no military option; thanks to Bush's folly.

"In 10 years, Iraq may be one of the Middle East's most stable nations."

In 10 years Iraq may not exist. A Shia-dominated southern rump may be a client state of Iran, just about keeping order in Baghdad but allowing extremists to flourish in an Afghan-style hinterland. Meanwhile, a relatively prosperous Kurdistan will effectively be a second Israel - a US protectorate that is a running sore to its neighbours, souring a previously good relationship with Turkey. Or, you may be right. Still, all a bit of a gamble, wasn't it, considering that SADDAM WASN'T A THREAT.

"The highest moment for recent US foreign policy was after the initial invasion of Iraq."

It's still never right to go to war based on lies, Tim.

Recommend? (3)
Report abuse
Clip | Link badcat
Aug 26 08, 1:19am (about 2 hours ago)
I thought it was Bush sr. who pissed off many people in the Mid-East by his own exploits in Iraq to undermine an old US puppet. Why have you forgotten the first Iraq war, Montgomerie?

Left to his own devices, the current White House occupant would have nuked Iran, and pumped more money into supporting Pakistan's Musharraf despite corruption and against democracy. Would these "acts of strength" as you apparently regard them have improved matters? Do you really advocate these kinds of actions?

The strength of Islamic fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia has only been promoted by the US's support of the Saudi rulers. And Bush jr's actions in Iraq may well cause it to be partitioned by surrounding countries. Do you really claim that these situations are successes?

You're living in a Fox News Fantasy. Go away and shut up.

Recommend? (3)
Report abuse
Clip | Link StephenO
Aug 26 08, 1:39am (about 1 hour ago)
Tim asks:


Polls in the US show that most Americans are concerned at the negativity of Europeans towards their country.

We both understand the importance of how a question is asked or the context of how a question is offered.

From this link, if you present a long list of priority issues to different people and ask them to select eight of the most important issues, the negativity of Europeans towards the US is way, way down the list. It barely even registers.


Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip | Link FoxandDuck
Aug 26 08, 1:41am (about 1 hour ago)
"... but long-term global security calls for a strong leader, in Bush's mould" so does that mean operating legally or illegally? Incidentally, somebody needs to take a serious look at Pakistan. Anybody who doubts this should read Deception by Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark. It describes A.Q. Khan being denied work in Pakistan, going to Holland, making friends with the secretaries ... and eventually swapping nuclear know-how with North Korea for rocket technology. One poor guy in the U.S. State Department was running around screaming "how do you think they're paying for it?" Instead of this fire brigade approach to foreign policy, I wish we had a couple of people looking 10 years down the road region by region. Also there should be much more people to people stuff, like the sister cities I've seen all over Europe.

Recommend? (1)
Report abuse
Clip | Link Spensor
Aug 26 08, 1:46am (about 1 hour ago)
I have not the strength for line-by-line, but I'll make a start.

Para 1. "But is it that simple?". No of course it isn't, Rhetorical Boy (tm).

Para 2. "...the supreme court conspired to install the nasty George Bush...". Conspired, nasty, I can see what you did there. Anybody who can read can see what you did there. Congratulations.

Para 3. "Europeans may want someone like themselves in the White House, but difficult times call for a president willing to eschew short-term popularity and pursue long-term respect." The first half of this sentence makes no sense, at all. The second half , not much.

Para 4. "Inverted" "commas" are "our friends".

Para 5. Parrots may be taxis, for all I know.

Para 6. "With its allies, it had used hard power, not soft." Twirling, ever twirling .

Para 7. This is completely baffling. Read it, and read it again.

Para 8. "..."torture-like practices..."? Hooray for torture-like, much better than torture.

Para 9. Tough, loved, respected, strong, defence.

Para 10. "Tim Montgomerie is editor of a new website". Oh joy. ...... more at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/26/obama.foreign.policy?commentpage=1

[malaise]

1. Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

You're living in a Fox News Fantasy. Go away and shut up. :rofl:

The comments are priceless.

[muntrv]

2. That "America In The World" also praises Rick Warren, the saddleback tool.