Greenwald: The Face Of American Self-Loathing

One must presume that to be it, the face of American white self-loathing in the person of Glenn Greenwald, given his response to Shelby Steele. I linked the Steele piece earlier, Greenwald attacks it, unfortunately, by shooting the same empty Liberal rhetoric most associated with Steele's premise.

The crux of Steele's argument is that ever since World War II, the United States just doesn't fight wars the way we used to, and ought to. We don't use enough force because we suffer from excess restraint. And the reason we are too restrained is because we are laboring under an unwarranted sense of "white guilt," whereby we are too eager and desperate to escape from our distant racist past and prove that we aren't trying to subjugate the "brown people" anymore.

Now, from what I can tell, the only military force we are refraining from using in Iraq is full-scale carpet bombings where we eradicate a few cities, or using tactical nuclear weapons. Calls for fewer restraints on how we are fighting in Iraq would almost certainly have to include one or both of those tactics.

Nonsense. You would think for someone with his education, Greenwald would either be a little more knowledgeable in this regard, unless of course he simply doesn't want to tell the truth.

The call in the beginning of the war, especially from the Dems who did support it, was to keep the footprint small. We didn't want anyone to get the idea we were exercising some form of neo-colonialism. And that's precisely the argument Greenwald and his kind would have been making if we did put more boots on the ground.

Greenwald creates a strawman with visions of carpet bombing and nukes. And let's not forget that, as it is, every stray bullet or unfortunate incidence of collateral damage, present in every war, is held up by the Left to proclaim Bush the terrorist in chief.

From the early rules of engagement, to occasions where vehicles were shot at for not stopping at check points, vehicles which may or may not have contained some civilians, the Left howled at every turn. It's subtle factors such as that to which Steele refers. But instead of taking the argument on straight, Greenwald manufactures a false reality he can appear to be noble for railing against. But he can't be noble, as he isn't being honest.

Below Greenwald is plainly being intellectually dishonest when he mischaracterizes a point from Mark Noonan of Blogs For Bush.

Due to the fact that we don't sufficiently recognize our superiority (due to our white guilt), we stupidly "pretend that we've something fundamental to learn from other civilizations whom we once oppressed." This myth - that we might have something to learn from other cultures -- causes us, in turn, to be too restrained when we should be engaging in some hard-core destruction of other countries.

The heart of Noonan's argument isn't about race or color, it is about systems of government. And only a fool like Greenwald would presume that a developed Democracy had some great thing to learn from totalitarianism, communism, fascism, or perhaps a tribal culture where the chief, regardless of color, is selected solely for his strength, brutality, and or ruthlessness. Again, Greenwald can't really win the argument, so he alters the ground beneath it to make himself appear morally superior. Unfortunately, he's all but a liar for doing it the way he does.

Again, regarding Noonan:

But Noonan himself suffers from no such delusions. He knows that we are the best, and -- in one of my favorite sentences ever -- tells us that "it is this belief of (his) which sustains (him) through the difficult day to day of the War on Terrorism."

But look what Greenwald leaves out from the previous sentence in Noonan's post:

Our civilization is designed, especially in its American form, to liberate and advance all of our brothers and sisters who continue to labor under oppression, ignorance and poverty.

Noonan was simply invoking our democratic ideals. Why won't Greenwald be honest and keep quotes in context? Because then a reader could more easily understand that Greenwald would spit all over everything which does make America the shining beacon of freedom most all of the civilized world appreciates her to be. Greenwald simply can't be intellectually honest, if it weren't for his hiding behind strawman arguments and the manufactured context for quotes, he couldn't obscure what an America-hating fraud he really is.

He pretends to be noble and uses a low form of rhetorical manipulation to make himself look that way. Those are the tactics of the fascist, not the free thinker he would have people believe him to be. And he doesn't take a pass on Bill Quick.

Looking at the bright side of this deranged rhetoric, it is, in a sense, refreshing to see that many of these war supporters, in their great frustration, are finally relinquishing their solemn concern for the Iraqi people and the tearful inspiration caused by the Purple Fingers. Instead, they are now just calling for some good old-fashioned carpet bombings and mass killings.

What a myopic, all things American are bad, twit. What many on the right who support the war care and cared for are the thousands who will never dip their fingers in anything again because two building collapsed into dust while Greenwald was off intellectually masturbating in some dust filled library. Notice there is no room in his post for a mention of them, is there? No, it's all aboput the Iraqis, just as Steele might predict.

And he uses similar low tactics after lifting some of a post by Jeff Goldstein:

As Jeff tells us: "there are times when we really should turn off the “smart” bombs." After all: "no one wishes to see innocent civilians die . . . But at the same time, from a practical standpoint, there is nothing wrong with fighting a war as if it is a war."

Does it really have to be said that the reason we can't carpet bomb Iraq and "win the war" is because we are supposedly there to build Iraq, not to destroy it?

How utterly ridiculous. There couldn't be a better example of what Steele was talking about than Greenwald. What of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, a hundred towns from France to those in Sherman's path in our own South? Tragic all, certainly, but also all still there, re-built as it were, and the world is far better off, even with the terrible and unfortunate, but unfortunately necessary destruction which was done. But the likes of Greenwald won't have any of that. Better that America lose a thousand sky scrapers filled with thousands upon thousands of innocents, than we harm one innocent hair in a country called Iraq. Why? Because it isn't America, of course!

Advocating that we act more the way the President says Al Qaeda is acting -- by bombing more and killing more civilians -- doesn't seem all that compatible with those goals.

Apparently Greenwald loathes the American military, too. Why else would he automatically presume that if given more freedom to fight, they'd obviously just drop indiscriminate bombs and target civilians? You couldn't find a better example of the so-called sophisticated, white, self loathing and bound to lose individual described in Steele's article.

Unfortunately, as Greenwald is probably also the type to disappear when there is real fighting to be done, the free world as embodied by America is condemned to carry and support him and those of like-mind - disingenuous, self-loathing, America-hating parasites, and little more.

You can tell who people are by what they stand for and by what they stand against. Greenwald can't possibly claim to stand for principles, his tactics betray a total lack of regard for any. And in the end, all he really seems to stand against is America itself. No doubt he'll tell you differently. But, be careful, he'll simply remove a few quotes from context, or feign ignorance of his topic in a lame attempt to make it appear he's something he's obviously not - a patriot at heart. His book cover would be more honest if it emphasized the word Act.

Comments

[Boris]

Wow. A mindless rant is what that sounds like.

You have convinced me of one thing. As Greenwald points out, your corner of the right has been exposed by this. I can't recall a more over the top lunatic and thoroughly dishonest post than this one of yours. Well maybe Goldstein's....

I used to check out what y'all had to say, just to get a sense of what the full spectrum of ideas are. No longer. You people are sick, and way off the deep end. I wish you well in finding your way back to sanity.

[splashtc]

Just look at the Duke/Lacross incident.
The University has abandoned the team and forced the coach to quit. White guilt? Shame shame on the university! Time to rebuild white pride!

[rwilymz]

"Time to rebuild white pride!"

It's not even 'white pride'; its western civ pride.

Western civilization has created the best means thus far of acheiving political liberties and economic self-sustainment, and we're being ankle-bit by those who wish to claim that since neither democracy nor capitalism are universal cure-alls that they are failures. We therefore need to backslide into despotism and controlled economies because some people get too much liberty at the expense of others, and some people get too much money.

Yet that's always the way it's been, and likely will be. The only difference is that the poor and disenfranchised in a capitalist democracy lives next to the rich and powerful; in a totalitarian society, the rich and powerful live behind walls with guard towers.

...and we're required to feel guilty because western civ brought millions out of the ranks of the poor and desperate. I don't think so.

[bryce]

The imprssion I got from the Steele article is that he thinks we should fight the Iraq war like WW2. He is partially right, in that more troops and resources are needed; and the conflict should be taken seriously like ww2. However, It is not realistic to think that Iraq can be bombed into submision(look at what shock ans awe led to), and the international community would not tolerate the collateral damage of a massive bombing campaign.

The problems in Iraq are not because of "white guilt" they are because Rumsfield does not know what he is doing and refuses to acknowledge reality on the ground. It is time to get rid of Rumsfield and bring back someone like Powell and get it done.

[splashtc]

Iraq is over- Saddam is out, the people have elected their own officials and now it's up to them to stand up and deal with matters.

White guilt-humm, Why don't we see the black panthers marching in front of rappers studios. Rap videos and rap songs are very degrading to sistahs. Makes no sense other then to perpetuate the white guilt syndrome.

[rwilymz]

"It is not realistic to think that Iraq can be bombed into submision"

...unless you know what you're talking about.

"look at what shock ans awe led to"

Only someone who does not know what he's talking about equivocates "shock and awe" with 4 years of daily bombings.

Even a brief read of Clausewitz will describe why a week of "shock and awe" doesn't eliminate a nation's will to make war.

"the international community would not tolerate the collateral damage of a massive bombing campaign"

The "international community" doesn't accept anything the US does or doesn't do. Why should that be any different? If the US is out in front on some rogue nation being an international pain-in-the-ass, then the US is wrong for "bullying" that nation [see Cuba, NKorea, Venezuela, Iraq]; if the US allows other nations to take the lead and define what that holier-than-thou "world community" deems important, then the US is failing to be responsible for the suffering in the world [see Iran, Darfur, Haiti].

The "international community" is invited to copulate itself until raw.

[rwilymz]

"The problems in Iraq are not because of "white guilt" they are because Rumsfield does not know what he is doing and refuses to acknowledge reality on the ground."

Please define "not know what he is doing", and back it up with something besides "cuz I said so".

Please explain how the "reality on the ground" is independent of the reality of resources available to undertake specific foreign policy.

"It is time to get rid of Rumsfield and bring back someone like Powell and get it done."

The remarkable difference between Powell and Rumsfeld is not what you think. Personally, I'm a Powell-man myself, since his notions of the wiser military response to Iraq is similar to mine. But any Defense Secretary who does not undertake a defense policy based around the decisions made by the constitutional CinC is going to find himself out of a job lickety split. If Powell were instantaneously shoved into Rumsfeld's swivel chair, he'd be implementing a policy of occupying the nation he never wanted to conquer, and he'd be making essentially the same policy decisions Rumsfeld is making right now -- because military doctrine and theory is what it is, and the book on how to make a policy work given the constraints we have is pretty much exactly the policy we have. The only wiggle room is in the margins.

This is why people who make such facile declarations as this are advertising that they know what they know of military theory from reruns of Hogan's Heroes and a showing of Saving Private Ryan.

[bryce]

The problem with Rumsfield is that he is trying to use a Iraq as a lab to prove his pet theories about war, and his idea of a small light force, while it may work for an invasion is a complete failure as an occupation.

"Iraq is over- Saddam is out, the people have elected their own officials and now it's up to them to stand up and deal with matters."

That is probably not a bad idea, claim victory and go home

[bryce]

Rwilxmz:

Are you in favor of "carpet bombing"? or are you in favor of a cut and run strategy?

[rwilymz]

"his idea of a small light force, while it may work for an invasion is a complete failure as an occupation."

And he doesn't differ from Powell in this regard. The nation-state paradigm of large standing armies boxing each other on the battlefield is largely over. Most American military theoreticians acknowledge that; the ones who don't are busy retiring so they can caterwaul in the press and convince dumb Americans that because the decision-maker decided against their minority report that they "weren't listened to".

Uh... yes they were.

America has been on the leading edge of military theory for the last generation [for which we can thank Carter, believe it or not], and now is a foolish time to retrench and dig in our heels. Large, immobile forces requiring hardened defenses are costly, unweildy and less-effective against small, lightly-armed forces of irregulars. The Soviet occupation of A'stan ought to be enough to demostrate that.

"That is probably not a bad idea, claim victory and go home"

Fine, as far as it goes. But someone concerned with the "international community" is talking at cross-purposes with himself when he suggests leaving.

War breaks things and kills people. Rule #1 of war. Barging into someone else's country, breaking things and killing people is guaranteed to piss off a whole mess of that country's population.

There are a few recognized ways of reducing the willingness of that pissed-off population from picking up guns and shooting the occupier:
1] spending several years bludgeoning that population into a maleable mass a la the strategic bombing of Nazi Germany; or
2] occupation on the Ghengis Khan model: one soldier dies, the entire village is murdered.

That's pretty much it, variations on the theme[s] notwithstanding. The US didn't do #1 [it would have taken too long] and won't do #2 [we're too polite]. Ergo, we have occupation casualties.

To eliminate occupation casualties under these conditions we must leave, which many people are in favor of. But then what's happened is that we've barged into someone else's country, broken things, killed people and then said: "Now you clean it up."

Which is rude, to say the least. If we stay and help them fix what we broke, a number of them are going to forgive us for barging in and killing people, and we haven't bred an enemy nation. The idea is that if we whip a little democratic capitalism on them and make them rich [comparatively] then arguably most of them will forgive us. Money is great that way.

[rwilymz]

"Are you in favor of "carpet bombing"? or are you in favor of a cut and run strategy?"

Inappropriate question. It's like asking if I'm in favor of buuying a Toyota 10 years ago, or having a beer when I get home from work.

The decision on what method of conquest to use in Iraq 3 years ago is over, and arguing about it now is pointless. To put one method of prior conquest up against a method of current occupation politics doesn't make any sense.

But my personal [and not unknowledgeable] professional opinion is that the wiser method of militarily addressing Iraq three years ago would have been to bomb the snot out of their military installations [C2 in the lingo] and forces, and allow the organic anti-baathists to do the job that the the invasion did. That would have left us in the position of overseer rather than occupier, and if the Kurds and Shi'a were brutal, ... oh well.

This would have eliminated any currect discussion of withdrawal and forced the locals into their own self-determinatino, rather than forming one for them.

The drawback on this, though, is that the results would not have been virtually guaranteed. If *we* go in, we're almost guaranteed a conquest. ... the price of that, though, is occupation.

Uncertain results *now*, or uncertain results *later*. The administration went with "later".

[bryce]

"The drawback on this, though, is that the results would not have been virtually guaranteed. If *we* go in, we're almost guaranteed a conquest. ... the price of that, though, is occupation."

On that we agree.

My dad served in Panama and I have always wondered why that worked and Iraq does not seem to be going so well. I guess the difference is that Panama did not have three factions that seem to hate eachother, and the infra structure was left largely intact after capturing Noriega. Somewhat of an apples and oranges comparison, but the goal was the same, to get a dictator, who had become troublesome for the US out of power. Historically I don't think occupations have ever worked and I doubt Iraq is going to be any different. Of course a larger occupation force and a better rebuilding effort could have helped.

[rwilymz]

"I don't think occupations have ever worked and I doubt Iraq is going to be any different"

The US is a democratic republic; this type of government is not used to the requirements of occupation politics. Occupation demands that the occupier, if he wants to be effective, creates a dictatorship: "You do this OUR way, or you will disappear". We don't do that.

We're used to seeking permission from the masses, creating cooperation [instead of demanding it], and avoiding even the appearance of totalitarian methods. A true occupier would have taken the photos from Abu Ghraib and put them on christmas cards to be sent to all the hotheads we're fighting against, saying: "There, but for the grace of allah go you, buttwipe". We cried and gnashed our teeth and wept huge crocodile tears and prosecuted people who were, frankly, little more than rude. But hey, we're trying to be the polite occupier, so that's what's required.

"Of course a larger occupation force and a better rebuilding effort could have helped."

A larger force is/was not available; a greater rebuilding effort would have only added to the Halliburton ankle-biting.

H'ton has the LOGCAP contract which they most recently won in 2000 [the only other US company who could effectively hold it is Bechtel], and both have long-standing government ties; it's the way of DoD contracting. It's dishonest to complain about it because no matter what we do it'll be the same. But partisan politics interfered with that.

re: Panama. The US has a history of benign force deployment in Panama and which only became troublesome because Noriega, who started as a military tyrant but **our** military tyrant, decided to strike out on his own. It was unlikely that the Panamanians would revolt against the US who, for nearly a century, were quite literally their drinking buddies.

[bryce]

At one point wasn't Saddam sort of our guy, just like Noriega. Maybe thier is a lesson there, become everybodys drinking buddy and when your dictator gets out of control no one cares if you come get him.

Nice chatting with you.

[annie]

The present Administration knows exactly what it is doing, and if the liberal left wing worked it all out, they would be backing Bush to the hilt.

Carry on trying to undermine President Bush and you are going to find that the world will suddenly be changing to trading in euros instead of the dollar, and then the US will be down the river without a paddle!!

It will be goodbye property, goodbye savings, goodbye jobs, goodbye USA, you will be experiencing financial hardship like nothing, but nothing, you have every known before.

President Bush is killing two birds with one stone. Leave him alone, you are utterly clueless!!

Why don't you do some research and check it out??

[*flo*]

It will be goodbye property, goodbye savings, goodbye jobs, goodbye USA, you will be experiencing financial hardship like nothing, but nothing, you have every known before.

Posted by: annie | Wednesday, May 03, 2006 at 06:21 PM

annie...the America I live in has already resulted to this ... no need to research!
When a President thinks he and his cronies are above the law, the nation is in danger...
RE: http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/05/theres_somethin.html

and here: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/

If we stay and help them fix what we broke, a number of them are going to forgive us for barging in and killing people, and we haven't bred an enemy nation

Posted by: rwilymz | Wednesday, May 03, 2006 at 01:34 PM

This is what resulted in Nixon & Kissinger's policy "Peace with Honor" in a process called 'Vietnamization.'

[rwilymz]

"At one point wasn't Saddam sort of our guy, just like Noriega."

Not really; certainly not in the same vein as Noriega. Hussein was a Soviet pawn, who became a useful stooge only when "our guy" in the region -- the Shah of Iran -- was finally toppled after 25 years of insurgency by the same radical hooligans now promising to wipe Israel off the map.

From a practical standpoint, 75% of the world is run by tyrants and 86% of the world is desired to be run by tyrant wanna-bes. Unless we want to pull our beaches up over our ears and suck our thumbs, we have to deal with them. If we want to know what's going on in the rest of the world, learn who's wanting to do bad things to us, we have to deal with them. And dealing with tyrants means *making* deals with tyrants.

Hussein was our stooge for about 5 years, because he was involved in a Babylon versus Persia grudge match that served our interests.

-------------------------------------------

"When a President thinks he and his cronies are above the law, the nation is in danger..."

We were probably in danger when A.Jackson was defying USSC rulings then as well. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Nearly all the bland rabble who warmed the leather seat cushion between Reconstruction and Teddy effectively abdicated executive responsibility thus making themselves above the law by refusing to do anything. Teddy was mightily high-handed, but because he was popular no one cared. Wilson flat-out lied to everyone, but he was "under the weather". FDR violated state jurisdiction by federalizing everything under the sun, and then tried packing the court when Checks-n-Balances quibbled. Ike came **this close** to violating posse comitatus just to get black kids into school. JFK violated Cuban territorial sovereignty to keep the Soviets from doing in Cuba what we were doing in Turkey. Nixon wasn't satisfied by being re-elected with 55% of the vote; he needed to know what McGovern was up to so he could win by 60%. Reagan declared Iran a hostile nation, and then dealt arms to them.

I haven't yet gotten to Clinton's sex abuse trial where he didn't want to abide by rules of discovery because it might be embarrassing to him.

We've been in danger from Day One, "flo". Shedding tears and wetting your panties because this prez is doing nothing more than arguably any other prez is not merely short-sighted, but it tends -- at this point in our history -- to be guided by little more than blinder-wearing idiocy.

"This is what resulted in Nixon & Kissinger's policy "Peace with Honor" in a process called 'Vietnamization.'"

Nice try. Vietnam was a John Foster Dulles production, in attempt to curry favor with France [for saving their ex-colony] whom FDR had fatally insulted during WWII, coupled with an anti-historical delusion that communism could not merely sweep through the post-colonial world, but sustain itself on incompetent economics. Creating a government out of whole cloth and foisting it on some plot of land might be accomplished by a nation geared toward dictatorial fiat, but that isn't the US. And that isn't anywhere close to what's happening in Iraq.

You are confusing the fact that both places have guns and smoke and explosions and then declaring that because three conditions are similar, all else must be similar as well.

[*flo*]

Far from confused rwilymz, also understand, war and ecomonics do go together, never stated Iraq or war on terror was another Vietnam, hardly can compare suicide bombers and Allah to guerrilla warfare. Considering Vietnam war taught us alot, those bunkers buster bombs used in Desert Storm would have benefit Ho Chi Minh and his Trail;)
"Vietnamization" policy - transfer burden of war from U.S. ... to allies, but no U.S. troops, does equate to :

If we stay and help them fix what we broke, a number of them are going to forgive us for barging in and killing people, and we haven't bred an enemy nation. The idea is that if we whip a little democratic capitalism on them and make them rich [comparatively] then arguably most of them will forgive us. Money is great that way.

Posted by: rwilymz | Wednesday, May 03, 2006 at 01:34 PM

We've been in danger from Day One, "flo".

Posted by: rwilymz | Thursday, May 04, 2006 at 08:29 AM

Also has made Bush and his administration unpopular, to say the least...Bush doesn't worry about polls...he should...the Leadership is out to window to dry when anything is below 50%....Ooh btw, sounds like I'm commenting to Rumsfeld himself ;P

[annie]

You are missing the big picture here. It is not just about terrorists, though they are there and there is a war on terror.

To put it simply, there is no comparison with the Vietnam War, if President Bush loses in the Middle East, the US dollar will be down the pan, and oil will be traded in euros. There are greedy nations out there just waiting for that to happen.

If that did happen, find out what that will mean for the US. I can tell you now that it will mean financial ruin for all of you.

I have no axe to grind in saying this, in the past I have also supported Democratic Presidents.

But at this moment in time you need to back President Bush and this Administration, they know what they are doing. The alternative will mean you will be on the BIG SLIDE DOWNWARDS, and no coming back!! Say goodbye to the once great nation USA!! However, it would solve the Mexican illegal immigration problem, because not even they will want to come to the US. It will be like the thirties again, only more so!!

By wanting to undermine your present Government you are not merely shooting yourselves in the foot, you are playing Russian roulette with the gun to your head.

[*flo*]

The US dollar will be down the pan, and oil will be traded in euros, I can tell you now that it will mean financial ruin for all of you.

By wanting to undermine your present Government you are not merely shooting yourselves in the foot, you are playing Russian roulette with the gun to your head.

Posted by: annie | Thursday, May 04, 2006 at 01:59 PM

annie... many of us here are aware todays oil prices are up not only from shortage, also because the USD value is less then Euro......
Bush is playing Russian roulette with America and I am not a big fan of the Bushies...the flavor of Democrats doesn't interest me either. A Third Party would be welcomed as long as they are competent, willing to confront current issues responsibly and set a 'new' platform, leading to a better future for America an its citizens.

[annie]

flo

You are still not getting it!!

President Bush is trying to save your economy, and what has happened is nothing to do with anything he has done. He is also trying to fight terrorism at the same time.

If you really can see past your dislike for him, you might be able to find out exactly what is going on re the world trading oil in dollars as opposed to euros.

The US is in a dire position and you just aren't getting it!!

[*flo*]

If you really can see past your dislike for him, you might be able to find out exactly what is going on re the world trading oil in dollars as opposed to euros.
The US is in a dire position and you just aren't getting it!!

Posted by: annie | Friday, May 05, 2006 at 02:12 PM

annie, care to elaborate? Too bad well over half americans and other nations don't 'get it' either....the burden of history has unfolded on Bush and his admin, will share with the world...courtesy of Alamo:

This is exactly the plan I have been telling people would happen ever since the fake "glasnost." The reason the US is badgering Iran is that they have a bilateral treaty with both Russia and China. Our government knows this, and to commit national suicide, all we need do is attack Iran.
This is the beginning of negative news articles about US-Russian relations. It will escalate from here until the war---which, will be the final war for the USA because we will lose. We are being set up big time, and our "leaders" of course, are part of the plan. Why else would you downsize your military while at the same time antagonizing a nation that has treaties with Russia and China, over nuclear power? Why else would you try to antagonize nations while having your military spread out all over the globe--so that they are cut off from each other and can easily be wiped out by the enemy? Why aren't we badgering France or China or Russia about their nuclear programs? Why do we have one?
Not to mention wide open borders, in order to let in more terrorists and.....get the souwthwest ready to be re-patriated to Mexico (Spain).
Watch as all this unfolds......

Russian Media Warn of New Cold War
By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV

MOSCOW (AP) - A Russian newspaper said Friday that Vice President Dick Cheney's harsh criticism of Moscow's human rights record signaled the start of a new Cold War.

The Kommersant business daily compared Cheney's speech Thursday in neighboring Lithuania to Winston Churchill's famous ``Iron Curtain'' speech in Fulton, Mo., saying in that it ``marked the beginning of a second Cold War.''

Churchill coined the ``Iron Curtain'' _expression in his 1946 speech that warned of Soviet expansion.

Asked to comment on the comparison, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov refrained from criticizing Cheney. But he condemned Thursday's conference in the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, which brought together pro-Western Eastern European leaders.

``There are forums that create an impression ... that they are convened ... for the sake of uniting against someone,'' Lavrov said.

The government-run newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta belittled the venue as a gathering of nine small nations trying to rival the Group of Eight.

Rossiyskaya Gazeta said the countries were trying to establish themselves not by ``defending normal relations with our country, but rather through efforts to exaggerate and use the contradictions existing between Moscow and some of its partners in the West.''

Former Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev said Cheney's speech ``looks like a provocation and interference in Russia's internal affairs in terms of its content, form and place.''

Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin expressed annoyance that Russia had not been invited to the conference of former Soviet republics and allies.

Cheney accused Russia of cracking down on religious and political rights and using its energy reserves as ``tools of intimidation or blackmail.''

His criticism - some of the Bush administration's toughest against Russia - came just two months before President Bush joins his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg for a summit of major industrial powers.

Cheney warned that Russia's backsliding could harm Moscow's relations with the United States and Europe.

``Russia has a choice to make. And there is no question that a return to democratic reform in Russia will generate future success for its people and greater respect among fellow nations,'' the vice president said.

05/05/06 10:49 © Copyright The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

[annie]

flo

I don't need to elaborate, just type in the words to ask the question of what will happen if oil is traded in euros instead of dollars, and you will get the answers of what the effects will be.

I don't sit here making all this up, plenty of people have written about it. It is no secret!

The body that will ultimately benefit are the European Union, headed by that unelected Marxist Javier Solana. The One World Government people are behind it all, and I have not made that up either, they do exist, and the US will not be in the scheme of things if these people have their way, because all the world will be ruled from Europe.

Check that out as well, these plans have been around for a long time, and now they are materialising very fast!!

The European Union will use the US to speed this along. You are mad if you trust them!! They want the US to enter into a confrontation with the Muslim nations, and then they can come in afterwards and pick up the pieces. Unfortunately, it looks like President Bush will have no option but to intervene as the maniac in Iran is intent on getting his nuclear weapons. And note that already the French have stood down from any confrontation with Iran. Just like as always, leave it to the US and the Brits or the Israelis. They are all talk without any action, or a mere 'token' response.

[*flo*]

I don't need to elaborate, just type in the words to ask the question of what will happen if oil is traded in euros instead of dollars, and you will get the answers of what the effects will be.I don't sit here making all this up, plenty of people have written about it. It is no secret!

Posted by: annie | Saturday, May 06, 2006 at 11:48 AM

BINGO! Just because we don't agree on Bush, doesn't imply the rest of the anti-Bush doesn't 'get it'...europe has been waiting decades to be identifed as the Super Power...we'll see, should we live long enough to experience it.

[David Archuleta Fans]

Next: Poll: American Idol 7— Top 12— Who was your favorite? American Idol American Idol 7 David Archuleta Jason Castro Kristy Lee Cook Carly Smithson Ramiele Malubay Michael Lee Johns David Cook Syesha Mercado Brooke White Rickey's MySpace/ a Categories Ace Young Amanda Overmyer Amazing Race America's Best Dance Crew America's Got Talent America's Most Smartest Model America's Next Top Model America's Next Top Model 5 America's Next Top Model 9 American Idol American Idol 4 American Idol 5 American Idol 6...