Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/002043.php on line 106

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/002043.php on line 106
June 13, 2005
10 Questions - 7 (Hypocrisy)
7. Hypocrisy. You’re constantly accusing conservatives of failing to match rhetoric with resources when it comes to programs like the Millennium Challenge Account, and of being “hypocritical” in cooperating on terrorism with regimes like Sudan and Saudi Arabia’s, despite their egregious human rights records. Don’t you realize that foreign policy demands tough trade-offs? What makes you say progressives will do a better or more principled job managing the inevitable contradictions?

I see. I'm supposed to justify working with evil regimes in order to fight an unwinnable "war on terror"?

Would that be the same "war on terror" that we're currently fighting in Iraq, a country that didn't send any terrorists after us? Because, you know, the first concrete thing I would have done would have been to only fight where the actually terrorists were.

I'm just saying. In the arena of "hypocrisy," killing Iraqis because Saudi members of the Afghanistan-based Taliban committed terrorist acts is pretty outstanding.

I notice we aren't asked for a response to the "failure to match rhetoric with resources." Historically, both sides of the aisle have made promises of aid and assistance that they haven't delivered on. (As have other "developed" nations.)

Cooperation can be built in ways other than supporting terrorist or abusive regimes against other terrorist or abusive regimes. Has it occurred to us that had the USofA (and others) not been so obsessed with building up arsenals and playing politics with aid that maybe some places like the Sudan wouldn't be in the mess they're in?

Okay, yes, foreign policy demands tough trade-offs. What I'd do is try to make a better job of those trade-offs.

I wouldn't support an evil regime to defend a USofA corporation's "right" to do business in a country or on a continent (she said, glancing toward South America). I wouldn't legislate against a country to support a monopoly on bananas, for instance.

If people in Brazil don't want Nordstrom's, then Nordstrom's just won't be able to go there. (Why does our version of "free trade" never include anyone's right to say no to us?)

Other than that, I'm really just not the person to answer this question.

Posted by AnneZook at 08:52 AM