Democrats & Liberals Archives

A New Approach to Foreign Policy

The Republican foreign policy is in a mess. Iraq looks more and more like Vietnam. Globalization is in crisis. Our European allies don’t undersand us. Our reputation has sunk all over the world. Although I am not a foreign policy expert, I want to present what I think should be the principles to guide a future foreign policy - perhaps to be adopted by the Democratic Party.

Bush's foreign policy has been called unilateralism. Not quite. He may act unilaterally with respect to our allies, but he depends a great deal on countries, such as Saudi Arabia, that should be our enemies. Of course, we all know he kowtows to Saudi Arabia because it has oil. He is unilateralist toward friends and dependent on enemies, the reverse of what America should do. The other big principle of Bush is to spread democracy; however, he wants to do this through imposition. As Iraq is telling us, democracy cannot be imposed.

My approach is very different. I feel that we should treat our allies much better than we treat our enemies. Furthermore, we must make all democracies our allies and reserve most of our goodies and defense capabilities for democracies - so non-democracies know what they are missing. However, regardless of how states are run we should be there to help the people during catastrophes, epidemics and other misfortunes.

Specifically, our foreign policy should be based on 3 principles:

  1. INDEPENDENCE FROM NON-DEMOCRATIC STATES - Not beholden to any non-democratic state, regardless of their possession of oil or other resources critical to our economy

  2. COMMUNITY OF DEMOCRATIC STATES - Working cooperatively with democratic states for the mutual benefit and defense of all

  3. EMPATHY TOWARD ALL PEOPLE - Recognizing and understanding the people of all non-democratic as well as democratic states and offering humanitarian, educational and economic aid to prevent chaos

Independence from Non-Democratic States

If America is to be a country that maintains its values, we must break all compacts we have with non-democratic states. Especially those we support with our military. Because we have such a pact with Saudi Arabia, Americans have been and are still being killed. Yet we know that Saudi Arabia has a propaganda machine that is anti-American. We know that Osama bin Laden was born in Saudi Arabia. So did 15 of the 19 terrorists of 9/11.

We should assert our independence:

"Yes, we'll buy your oil, if you want to sell it to us. But we will not support you militarily. This includes the selling of arms. This will be until such time as you become a democratic state."

This may affect our economy. But not as much as most people think. We know that oil production is now at or near its peak and will soon lose its influence. It's time to work seriously on fuel efficiency and sustainable fuels to save our economy.

We must also break our dependence on Pakistan, Egypt and other non-democratic states.

Community of Democratic States

The biggest weapon against the spread of terrorism is the building of community among as many states as possible. This should start with the strengthening of the UN and making it a more democratic institution.

How do we do this? At the UN we build a caucus of all democratic states for the purpose of assuring a more peaceful world where conflict is minimized and harmony advanced.

Building a democratic caucus requires more cooperation than U.S. has been offering of late. We must do a lot more listening. We must address the concerns of all democratic states. We must work together on what we all agree on and not waste time on what divides us. I'm sure we agree on defeating terrorism, defending against attack from autocratic nations and making the world more democratic.

All nations in the democratic caucus will work together in the defense of any one of them that is attacked. All nations in the democratic caucus will work in unison to shape the UN as a vessel for reducing conflict, eliminating terrorism and making the world more democratic.

The key to building a community is cooperation. Democratic states already cooperate in NATO, G8, IMF, World Bank and other institutions. But we tend to stress military means and forget about the many other peaceful means. More important, not all democratic states have a voice in these venues. We need a caucus of ALL democratic states within the UN.

For example, how come China, a non-democratic state, has more influence in the UN than India, a democratic state? A strong democratic caucus can blunt China's influence and increase India's influence.

A democratic caucus, working as a community, would give us real power for re-orienting the UN towards real peace and real democracy. A democratic caucus within the UN could help extract the U.S. from the mess it made in Iraq.

Empathy to All People

Belligerence is the hallmark of the current administration. John Bolton, our new controversial ambassador to the UN, wants to get rid of the Digital Millennium Challenge whereby rich countries give money to the poorest in the world. The richest country in the world wants to elliminate charity!

Empathy is what we need. Empathy, not for the autocratic states, but for the poor and sick people in them. Why can't the U.S. give the amount suggested - .7 GDP - to those who live on $1 or $2 per day?

Let's make what we did for victims of the Asian tsunami our lodestar. Let's not wait until such cataclysms happen. We can prevent them. Let's help prevent starvation. Let's help the poor build their economies.

Sure, we try to help the poor with the IMF and World Bank. But we do not do it with empathy and this is the reason our help often fails. The banks depend on Western experts; why can't they seek the advice of local people. The plans call for the use of Western businesses; why can't they allow local people to do the job themselves. The banks set up conditions which severely hurt the poor in these impoverished countries; why don't they take the time to assure the needs of the poorest are met?

Yes, we need globalization, but one based on empathy for the poor.

With empathy we can improve the lot of the poor, and make their societies richer, more open and more happy. We distance these societies from chaos and reduce the pull of terrorism. With time some poor states may become democratic, and then we will welcome them into our democratic caucus.


Republicans are making us more dependent on non-democratic states like Saudi Arabia, at the same time that they isolate us from our democratic allies in our fight against terrorism. They want to impose the values of democracy upon other nations.

Democrats should follow an opposite approach. They should champion independence from non-democratic states, build a community with all democratic states to promote democracy and display empathy towards all people regardless of the type of state they happen to live in to prevent the rise of terrorists.

Posted by Paul Siegel at August 29, 2005 3:06 PM
Comment #76116

Good Luck with this, Paul…

I will give you credit for trying to come up with some solutions, even though it’s laced with Bush-Bashing and myopia, But…

Who is going to pay for this?

Which countries are democratic (and by whose standards)?

Do we give money to poor non-democratic states or do we tell them to forget it? After all, if they aren’t democratic, we should force them to a democracy first…right?

The UN has thoroughly lost any credibility. It will not be able to bring itself out of the quagmire it is in. It has no global authority anymore, participating nations do as they please if they don’t agree. ALL of them. If one country dares to make good on a UN resolution, they are astrocized. The UN will continue on, collect their money, pass paper, slap hands, slap backs and members will go to a home in cushy NY and think they’ve done good….Yeah Right…

Posted by: Discerner at August 29, 2005 4:10 PM
Comment #76130

In general I tend to agree with you about the need to come together to support Democracies, but I also believe that one of the lessons we can take from the Iraqi vote and constitution is that not all societies want or desire true democracy. We should always be on guard against people who try to convince us that we should stampede into a war just to promote Democracy. If the people in any given country want it bad enough, they will earn it themselves sooner or later (i.e. the Soviet Union) but it isn’t up to us to do a ‘colonial revivalism’ where we play big brother to the rest of the world.

Posted by: Eli Blake at August 29, 2005 4:35 PM
Comment #76138

Paul, let’s get our fiscal house in order first, shall we? Why in bloody hell would you call for a foreign policy that drains our workers of their pay through ever more giveaways to foreign lands, without first demanding that we increase taxes on those who can afford to pay them, cut spending for all non-essentials to the American public as a nation of people, and foreign nations, until we have a near zero national debt or even a surplus?

This is just another example of Democrats having no sense of priorities, making them just another version of the GOP power machine at any cost.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 29, 2005 4:51 PM
Comment #76140

Paul : you really are a Republican, but you don?t know it. You once again are advocating the Bush policy. We are trying

Let’s do your 1-3

1. Condi Rice says:

“The reason that I say there is a false stability to dictatorships is that we have very clearly experienced what happens when there is a freedom deficit in parts of the world and you get a kind of malignancy like al Qaeda growing up underneath it. And it is very hard to see how the democratization of the Middle East is going to take place, but it’s a lot harder to imagine the status quo lasting. Therefore it is better to get about the business of trying to support democracy in the Middle East. It’s going to happen at different speeds in different places. But, what I said this morning in the press conference, I think is absolutely the way we think about it. Some of this is about trends and whether or not countries appear to be moving towards - even if it is in very small steps - towards democratization or whether they are moving away or whether, like the Iranian regime, they are completely out of step with the trends in the Middle East, not just in their internal developments, but on nuclear weapons and also on terrorism.”

This is pretty much what you advocate, right? Her statment is the boldest thing any SecState has said in a long time on this issue.

2. We are working through the community of democracies.

“By supporting emerging democracies in their development, the United States seeks to build a more secure and economically prosperous world in which individuals can live freely and enjoy healthy and productive lives.”

This is sort of what you mean, right? ">U.S. remains largest contributor of official and private sector aid and Bush has greatly increased this.

So, I am sure they thank you for all the good advice. Maybe the Dems can advocate it too. Although I think they already do.

Posted by: jack at August 29, 2005 4:55 PM
Comment #76146


We could take the billions we are spending on
nations that hate our guts and use that plus the
billions we are squandering in Iraq and use that
for the objectives Paul set forth.

Posted by: Disgusted in GA at August 29, 2005 5:04 PM
Comment #76153

Disgusted, which would not reduce the increased $16,000 tax debt my daugter will experience when she goes to work, one dime.

We are heading for tax explosion or inhumane cut in services the retired and poor in this country depend upon as contract the government made with them years ago, if we don’t halt the deficits and turn them around into surpluses. That has to come first.

Charity begins at home. How long can good hearted person help those in need by running up higher and higher credit card debt to give away to charities? Not very long, and after that good hearted person receives his bankruptcy, a whole lot of other people lose out on what was fairly owed them.

Priorities, the DNC and GOP just don’t get it. And that is because they have only ONE priority, power.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 29, 2005 5:27 PM
Comment #76156


If I remember correctly,when Dubya took office
the Demos had left him a several hundred billion
surplus, which the Repubs promptly gave to the
rich. This is one reason why I am disgusted.

Posted by: Disgusted in GA at August 29, 2005 5:46 PM
Comment #76161


How much money are we wasting in Iraq? It bugs me that we spend hundreds of billions for war and we scream bloody murder when asked to spend for anything else.

I’m not talking of a giveaway. I’m talking of preventing dysfunctional nations from becoming seedbeds for terrorists. This is another way, a more harmonious way, to fight the terrorist threat.


The Republicans talk a good line but do something else. For instance, they are increasing our dependence on Saudi Arabia. If there ever was a terrorist supporting nation, Saudi Arabia is it.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at August 29, 2005 6:08 PM
Comment #76183

Paul, there was no seedbed of terrorism in Iraq before we went there. It was of our own making in the case of Iraq. Hence, money wasted. We would have been far better off spending 1/10th what we did in Iraq, getting binLaden and possibly Musharraf as well if he wouldn’t hand over the al-Queda and Taliban that supported them. Let’s try to remember who attacked us, shall we, al-Queda, Taliban, and Saudis.

Then we would have most of the world still on our side full of empathy and sympathy and willing to work their little hienies off to help us get the terrorists everywhere in their own countries as well, since what happened to us on 9/11 is likely to happen to them at some point as well. Voila! 100’s of billions of dollars saved.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 29, 2005 7:59 PM
Comment #76195


That “surplus” was projected, not tangible.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 29, 2005 8:33 PM
Comment #76201


The UN wasn’t set up with democracy in mind. It was set up with the winners of the then-latest war (WWII) in mind. To form a democratic caucus, we would need a new, exclusive international political body.

Also, excluding our non-democratic allies would cause us more trouble then you’re guessing. While in the end it might be worth it, we’d experience some “growing pains” from our new-found ideals.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 29, 2005 8:48 PM
Comment #76204


You mean it became un-tangible once Bush and the Republicans in Congress got their hands on it, right?

There were plenty of tangible supluses in the Clinton years.

Posted by: Burt at August 29, 2005 8:53 PM
Comment #76206


I trust d.a.n.’s numbers a lot more than yours (which you didn’t actually provide) or the feel-good Democrats who projected the surplus in the first place. We’ve had debt for a long time, and Clinton did NOT fix that, but he did make it bigger. Bravo!

Posted by: Stephanie at August 29, 2005 8:57 PM
Comment #76210

Geez, Stephanie. I thought these figures were hardly controversial. I guess you can try and spin anything. Is the Congressional Budget Office a good enough source for you?

You’re right that overall the budget under Clinton increased $400 billion dollars over eight years, which is less than how much it was increased under the Republicans last year alone. Bravo back at ya.

Posted by: Burt at August 29, 2005 9:25 PM
Comment #76213


“I thought these figures were hardly controversial”

Not quite.

Go to d.a.n.’s site. and click on National Debt History. It’s rather enlightening.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 29, 2005 9:59 PM
Comment #76225

Paul I think this is a terrific article and that you are right when you say it would be a way of:
“preventing dysfunctional nations from becoming seedbeds for terrorists. This is another way, a more harmonious way, to fight the terrorist threat.”
On the other hand, David has a very good point. We’re so bloody broke as a result of the Bush administration that before we could do anything like what you’re saying, we’d first need to:
“increase taxes on those who can afford to pay them, cut spending for all non-essentials to the American public as a nation of people, and foreign nations, until we have a near zero national debt or even a surplus?”

So in other words, I think you’re both right.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 29, 2005 10:43 PM
Comment #76228


The fact remains that our government has done so much damage here at home, we can’t even think about fixing foreign policy.
We are economically and militarily vulnerable.
Our education system is falling farther and farther behind.
We still have a significant percentage of our citizens without medical insurance.
The poor and middle class are getting crushed under our present tax system.
We have not secured our boders.
We have not sufficiently secured our nuclear facilities and chemical plants.
Programs that are meant to help the poor end elderly have been cut to the point that they have become ineffective.
We are losing jobs to other countries at an alarming rate.
We need to address environmental issues in the United States to slow global warming.
We need to protect our children against sexual predators.
We need to address election corruption and finance reform.
We need to get the special interest groups and lobbyists out of government decision making.
We need to seperate church and state.
We need to reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.
We need to to develope alternative fuels.
The current administration has caused us to lag in technology such as stem cell research.
Most importantly, we need to introduce a bill that states, under no circumstances, will another Bush be allowed to run for office in the Unite States, not even 9th grade class president.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at August 29, 2005 10:58 PM
Comment #76244

A memo floating around and now revealed and reported on indicates Bush is weighing billions in cuts for Medicare/Medicaid, but still no competitive bidding amongst pharmaceutical companies to be found anywhere.

Another internal memo just reported this morning I think, indicates a plan for our national parks that removes the primary goal of preservation of these natural environments for the purpose of allowing any and all human recreational activities like go carts, ATV’s, hunting, and of course lucrative contracts with businesses to support these enviromentally damaging activities heretofore, not allowed in our national parks.

If it passes, maybe a little Republican sitting duck hunting around the Washington monument may become a favored recreational activity of GreenPeacers.

A lot of us have been saying it was going to come to this, and no one listened. Well, some are listening now. Even some Republicans are boiling over at these excesses of power.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 30, 2005 12:28 AM
Comment #76250

Economic sanctions like the ones that disclamer was talking about “aid only to democratic countries” has been proven to be ineffective Cuba being a prime example of this. Cuba has had US economic sanctions for over 50 years and the only people it has hurt have been the citizens of Cuba not Castro or his party.

You shouldn’t use the term “true democracy” because it is a definition of goverment that is solely the property of India, as they are the only country in the world with a true democracy. The rest of us have Democratic REPUBLICS.

I know that last part is nitpicky but I feel its an important fact that is too often overlooked.

Posted by: Thomas Benden at August 30, 2005 1:45 AM
Comment #76274


Wow. Someone needs some website design help. I couldn’t find the link you were talking about. Can you post a direct link here?

Posted by: Burt at August 30, 2005 10:01 AM
Comment #76328


No, sorry. However, if you go here and then go to “Find (on this page)” (which for me is in the Edit pull-down, and type “$8 Trillion National Debt,” then click on National Debt you’ll get to d.a.n.’s national debt clock. Then, to the side, it has “Navigate Tips” with 6 down being National Debt History. Click there and see that our national debt has continued to grow every year for quite a while.

It’s a little tedious, but d.a.n. has done a lot of research to get this information. His site is worth the trouble it takes to explore it.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 30, 2005 1:47 PM
Comment #76334


I think I found what you were talking about. Although the website linked to from d.a.n.’s merely made the statement that there was never a Clinton surplus. I didn’t see any figures backing that up, and that directly contradicts the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office website. Is there some more detailed analysis you know of to back up your/d.a.n.’s position that a surplus never existed under Clinton?

Posted by: Burt at August 30, 2005 2:34 PM
Comment #76338


The National Debt History is the part that has the numbers. I’ll see if I can flag d.a.n. down to see if he’ll jump on here. He’s done the research.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 30, 2005 2:54 PM
Comment #76347


I saw the debt history, but didn’t see a source or see how that is reconciled with the CBO numbers.

Posted by: Burt at August 30, 2005 3:22 PM
Comment #76466


Hopefully I can get d.a.n.’s attention for this.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 31, 2005 1:18 AM
Comment #76506

Stephanie, you place a lot of faith in d.a.n. This is a guy who says we should always vote anti-incumbent, yet voted for Bush twice.

The biggest weapon against the spread of terrorism is the building of community among as many states as possible…At the UN we build a caucus of all democratic states for the purpose of assuring a more peaceful world where conflict is minimized and harmony advanced.

Good article Paul. I think the democratic caucus is an interesting idea. Sec State Madelein Albright started the Community of Democracies to do the same thing. Powell and Dr. Rice kept it on life-support, though they never embraced it.

But we don’t necessarily need to go through the UN to “shrink the gap”, as Thomas P. M. Barnett puts it in his excellent book, “The Pentagon’s New Map”. Clinton bypassed the UN on Kosovo (in the face of a Chinese and Russian veto), favoring NATO as an all-democratic standing coalition.

The UN is obviously the primary giver of legitimacy for pro-democratic action, but it’s not the be-all-end-all. Seems like the Community of Democracies would be a good Plan B.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 31, 2005 10:08 AM
Comment #76509

BTW, Paul. You should check out Richard Haass’ book, “The Opportunity”. Where containment was the Cold War strategy, he proposes integration as our new foreign policy focus.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 31, 2005 10:10 AM
Comment #76548


You are correct.
There has never been a surplus in the last 45 years, because the National Debt has grown every year for the last 45 years.
How can you have a surplus when your debt increased?

Clinton got close his last year (1999-2000) in office to balancing the annual deficit, but still the National Debt grew larger.

When politicians talked about surpluses, they were talking about monthly surpluses, but there’s never been an annual surplus in 45 years. There would have been a surplus in 2000, but it quickly got spent.

Current Amount of Nationlal Debt

08/29/2005 $7,930,506,290,857.94

08/26/2005 $7,932,175,772,551.98
08/25/2005 $7,932,696,424,284.74
08/24/2005 $7,929,678,977,659.39
08/23/2005 $7,932,368,094,465.20
08/22/2005 $7,926,779,954,124.77
08/19/2005 $7,926,125,407,102.74
08/18/2005 $7,925,741,499,921.91
08/17/2005 $7,916,406,941,882.20
08/16/2005 $7,916,485,160,273.81
08/15/2005 $7,911,005,564,473.77
08/12/2005 $7,882,473,618,136.70
08/11/2005 $7,883,283,366,789.79
08/10/2005 $7,880,078,708,086.37
08/09/2005 $7,883,572,311,422.86
08/08/2005 $7,882,577,243,511.10
08/05/2005 $7,880,012,385,205.52
08/04/2005 $7,878,734,742,338.35
08/03/2005 $7,869,304,285,712.51
08/02/2005 $7,877,501,670,822.86
08/01/2005 $7,869,521,621,947.05

07/29/2005 $7,887,617,581,195.58
06/30/2005 $7,836,495,788,085.86
05/31/2005 $7,777,880,152,594.89
04/29/2005 $7,764,537,337,364.14
03/31/2005 $7,776,939,047,670.14
02/28/2005 $7,713,137,673,664.71
01/31/2005 $7,627,742,597,775.41
12/31/2004 $7,596,165,867,424.14
11/30/2004 $7,525,209,508,979.45
10/29/2004 $7,429,677,448,545.04

Prior Fiscal Years
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
12/31/1985 1,945,941,616,459.88
12/31/1984 1,662,966,000,000.00 *
12/31/1983 1,410,702,000,000.00 *
12/31/1982 1,197,073,000,000.00 *
12/31/1981 1,028,729,000,000.00 *
12/31/1980 930,210,000,000.00 *
12/31/1979 845,116,000,000.00 *
12/29/1978 789,207,000,000.00 *
12/30/1977 718,943,000,000.00 *
12/31/1976 653,544,000,000.00 *
12/31/1975 576,649,000,000.00 *
12/31/1974 492,665,000,000.00 *
12/31/1973 469,898,039,554.70
12/29/1972 449,298,066,119.00
12/31/1971 424,130,961,959.95
12/31/1970 389,158,403,690.26
12/31/1969 368,225,581,254.41
12/31/1968 358,028,625,002.91
12/29/1967 344,663,009,745.18
12/30/1966 329,319,249,366.68
12/31/1965 320,904,110,042.04
12/31/1964 317,940,472,718.38
12/31/1963 309,346,845,059.17
12/31/1962 303,470,080,489.27
12/29/1961 296,168,761,214.92
12/30/1960 290,216,815,241.68
12/31/1959 290,797,771,717.63
12/31/1958 282,922,423,583.87
12/31/1957 274,897,784,290.72
12/31/1956 276,627,527,996.11
12/30/1955 280,768,553,188.96
12/31/1954 278,749,814,391.33
12/31/1953 275,168,120,129.39
06/30/1953 266,071,061,638.57
06/30/1952 259,105,178,785.43
06/29/1951 255,221,976,814.93
06/30/1950 257,357,352,351.04
Sorry, I didn’t respond sooner.
I’ve had a lot of work lately. It’s feast or famine.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 31, 2005 12:18 PM
Comment #76552

American Pundit,
I voted for Bush once in 2004 only. Not twice.
And, I’m not proud of it.
Also, Stephanie is not putting faith in me.
She’s only putting faith in some facts on my site regarding the National Debt.
So, please don’t go bashin’ Stephanie unfairly.
Anyone who doesn’t believe the National Debt has increased every year for the last 45 years only needs to check the abundance of records.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 31, 2005 12:22 PM
Comment #76574


Thank you for responding. Hopefully it helps w/Burt. As for AP…s/he can bash me all s/he wants, I agree with you a lot more than I do him/her and I think s/he realizes that.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 31, 2005 1:23 PM
Comment #76612
We are losing jobs to other countries at an alarming rate. We need to address environmental issues in the United States to slow global warming. We need to protect our children against sexual predators. We need to address election corruption and finance reform. We need to get the special interest groups and lobbyists out of government decision making. We need to seperate church and state. We need to reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. We need to to develope alternative fuels.

Andre M. Hernandez,
I agree with you. We need to pay more attention to our own problems, and simply try harder to stop alienating our allies.
From what I see, an economic disaster in the U.S. is brewing, we’re heaping astronomical debt onto future generations, and immigration, taxing, growth, globalization, and spending ain’t going to fix it.

American Pundit,
(1) Yes, I freely admit to voting for Bush in 2004, and it may have been a mistake. I don’t have a crystal ball and never claimed to be perfect.
(2) Yes, my site promotes voting only for non-incumbents. That idea (not really my idea or a new idea) and my web-site were created after the 2004 election. And, in the future, I will vote for non-incumbents only, as long as the choices are like the last 2004 election.

I’ve told you those two things before, but perhaps you’ve forgotten it? And, you’re facts are incorrect about me voting for Bush twice. I did not vote for Bush in 2000. Therefore, the contradictions and hypocrisy you’re insinuating are untrue and unfair.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 31, 2005 3:09 PM
Comment #76911

Ok, d.a.n, point taken. I just thought it was funny that Stephanie was so desperate to get you over here. :)

And I really didn’t realize the ‘kick out the incumbents’ campaign was new for you. My apologies.

As for AP…s/he can bash me…

It’s he, Stephanie. And I don’t remember ever bashing you. Princess Sultana, on the other hand…

BTW, have you ever read Carmen bin Laden’s book? Or Queen Noor’s?

Posted by: American Pundit at September 1, 2005 11:08 AM
Comment #76929


The reason I wanted d.a.n. here was because he was the one who did the research that pertained to what Burt & I were discussing (which Burt has not since commented on, but oh well) and mathematics is not my strong point.

For me:
US Fed. Budget & debt = big, bad, ugly

d.a.n.’s numbers are accurate as far as I’ve been able to determine from other sources, but I did that work a month or two ago, didn’t keep it and do not want to do it again.

As for the s/he, I’m sorry. I thought I remembered you were a guy, but wasn’t sure and didn’t want to assume. American Pundit is a rather gender neutral name, so I figured I’d leave it at that.

As for the “bashing”: You said, “Stephanie, you place a lot of faith in d.a.n. This is a guy who says we should always vote anti-incumbent, yet voted for Bush twice.”

Which, as d.a.n. stated wasn’t accurate, and you were questioning my judgement on false premises. Which is totally unnecessary considering that from your p.o.v. you probably have plenty of real reasons to question my judgement. ;-)

More importantly, I made the comment in regards to d.a.n.’s “So, please don’t go bashin’ Stephanie unfairly.” Basically, what you said didn’t bother me, that’s all I meant. I’m sorry it implied anything other than that.

“BTW, have you ever read Carmen bin Laden’s book? Or Queen Noor’s?”

No, nor am I even aware of what you’re referring to. My finding the Sultana books was a fluke. Mostly I read fiction books, because if I read one non-fiction book, chances are I will feel compelled to read it’s opposite (i.e. the other side to the story), which inevitably leads me to other books, and before you know I have no time to actually write, which leads to feelings of insanity and overwhelming stress and….well, you get the idea. If I could spend all of every day of my entire life reading and writing, I just might do it, but alas life happens and I have kids.

Posted by: Stephanie at September 1, 2005 11:54 AM
Comment #378549 Burberry Outlet Air Max Shoes Coach Black Friday Coach Black Friday Coach Cyber Monday Coach Factory Coach Outlet Factory Coach Outlet USA Coach Purses Factory Coach Purses USA Coach Store Outlet Coach Purses On Sale Monster Beats Outlet Louis Vuitton Outlet Louis Vuitton Factory Marc Jacobs On Sale MCM Outlet MCM 店铺 cheap oakley sunglasses Michael Kors Outlet Michael Kors Outlet Michael Kors Factory Michael Kors Outlet Michael Kors Factory Online Coach Factory Outlet North Face Outlet Online Polo Outlet Store Ralph Lauren UK Sac Longchamp Pairs Coach Outlet Online Coach Factory Oultet Barbour Jackets Outlet Online Canada Goose Outlet Gucci Outlet Online Michael Kors Outlet Moncler Clearance Moncler Jackets Outlet Online North Clearace Outlet Polo Ralph Lauren Outlet Online Woolrich Clearance Michael Kors Factory Outlet Coach Outlet Online USA Beats by Dre Coach Purses Outlet Online Michael Kors USA

Posted by: polo outlet at May 20, 2014 4:38 AM
Post a comment