An apparent "no-WMD" outcome means saved face and enhanced credibility and potency for the United Nations
?
While at the same time being completely sidelined by any nation with the phsyical ability to do it? And while also demonstrating that the UN can't
actually do anything to help little nations get their voice heard on the international stage??
I don't buy it. ALso, why assume that the CFR is interested in promoting the UN
now? Given a choice between a more powerful UN and more
widespread Globalism, I'd think most people invovled with the CFR will take globalism.
Look at how Portgate divided the right and gave the Democrats an opportunity to preen, disingenuously, as the party of national security. And now,
just to add injury to insult, Bush turns over our maritime nuclear detection to our biggest enemy.
Look at how Bush is rolling out the red carpet for criminal Mexicans and Salvadoreans who
BUt this is the advance of globalism, not internationalism. Bush isn't an internationalist, he's a hyper-capitalist/globalist.
bandit
that president Bush and his father where never conservatives, but globalists
BUt the article is talking about internationalists.
One of the tag lines you have leading people to this thread is 'is bush a conservative or a neo-liberal'. Which is to the point. The
neoconservatives were origianlly a group of liberals (actual liberals, not just the term used as slander) who had given up on the far left and entered
onto the right. Neo-liberal, neocon, etc, the terms are interchangeable. Bush has the support of the conservatives (sometimes called
paleoconservatives to distinguish them), but obviously isn't one himself.
steveR
For instance.. "Imperial" is a marxist term invented to be anti-american??
?
The term is valid. Its used by extreme leftists to descrive the modern west. Whether or not the US is 'imperial' right now is debatable of course.
