"And the world has changed in the past few years. First, the global economic playing field is being leveled, and millions of people who were out of the game - from China, India and the former Soviet empire - are now walking onto the field, each dreaming of a house, a car, a toaster and a microwave. As they move from low-energy to high-energy consumers, they are becoming steadily rising competitors with us for oil.
Second, we are in a war. It is a war against open societies mounted by Islamo-fascists, who are nurtured by mosques, charities and madrasas preaching an intolerant brand of Islam and financed by medieval regimes sustained by our oil purchases.
Yes, we are financing both sides in the war on terrorism: our soldiers and the fascist terrorists. George Bush's failure, on the morning after 9/11, to call on Americans to accept a gasoline tax to curb our oil imports was one of the greatest wasted opportunities in U.S. history.
Does the energy bill begin to remedy that? Hardly. It doesn't really touch the auto companies, which have used most of the technological advances of the last two decades to make our cars bigger and faster, rather than more fuel-efficient. Congress even rejected the idea of rating tires for fuel efficiency, which might have encouraged consumers to buy the most fuel-efficient treads."
those were not my words. If you are going to say they are, have the courtesy to quote me properly. As for your last paragraph, it is not correct. Please present for us the activist they were concerned about and his status then. You... are a low life. Are you capable of changing that?
If Pres. Bush witholds funds from a long time Middle East ally, what do you call that action? I can't call it pragmatic. Realistic doesn't work for me. If you don't like 'idealistic', please let me know....
bush... I've already responded. Bush changed the process and demanded some respect for our money. The dynamic has finally been tweaked, after Carter tried to buy evryone off and the following Presidents embraced this disasterous diplomatic initiative. By the time Clinton came along, everyone knew it wasn't working. Yet Clinton had one of the weakest State Depts ever, and couldn't come up with anything original. They pushed ahead with the throwing of money at problems and then sticking their head in the sand. 9/11 was a direct result.
You want absolutism? Diplomacy isn't this way. It is a trend. INternationally, the trend out of the Middle East is more respect and adherence to international norms. The trend at the UN is as well, irrespective of Bolton's work, a man ill suited for his mission. Yet the symbol of Bolton may prod other Western nations to become more active acoomplishing what is needed, reform. Just as Bush has done with some of his idealistic policies such as witholding funds from an ally.
>>>can u be so obstreperous that you set such a reply to the screen when someone asks you to offer proof to your truisms? <<<
When that someone doesn't participate with substance or an opinion on the subject, and just pretends to be a professor or critic, yes. Start participating.