Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick Wishes America Wasn’t A Free Country

Pretty hard to equivocate this one, no matter how liberal your viewpoint.

Here’s the Governor’s exact words:

“It’s a free country. I wish it weren’t, but . . . it’s a free country. You know, you got to, you got to respect that freedom.”

Deval Patrick said this on the “Jim & Margery Show” (WTKK-FM, Boston) September 1st, 2010.

Here, on video, is the audio:

As Doug Powers drolly notes:

Every now and then, a politician goofs and reveals more than he or she intended, providing a window into the true motives or beliefs. Michigan’s John Dingell claiming that Obamacare is a peachy way to “control the people,” and President Obama saying that America is a world super power “whether we like it or not” are recent examples.

Reader, do the world a favor and send this son-of-a-bitch Deval Patrick a message. Here is his contact form.

34 Comments

  • Jingst

    September 2, 2010

    Like clockwork the extremist wing-nuts seize on a mis-speak and try to turn the mole hill into a mountain.

  • Marshep

    September 2, 2010

    You’re right, of course. Patrick, Dingell, Obama, they’re just regular Joes like us, not elites. When they say “make up the rules as we go along” or “I don’t care about the Constitution”, they don’t really mean that, they mean to say how wonderful they are, how our lives are better because of them, how all manna comes from them, so we should thrill to their wonderful leadership, honesty, and integrity. Oh, that darn ol’ Constitution is holding them back from totally fixing all those stupid things that made America such a terrible place for the last couple hundred years. Just think, once they finally “reform” everything, all we have to do is stand in line, and we can get government issue food, clothes, shoes, and live in wonderful tenements, just like the Soviets did.

    Can anyone say NOT!

    Ray, you are an extremist right-wing nut because Jingst is too stupid to debate the issue. Shoot, you’re probably a racist too, you filthy freedom lover!

  • ScummyD

    September 5, 2010

    When Obama said:

    “During this period of economic emergency, families are tightening their belts, and so should Washington.”

    He obviously misspoke.

  • Marshep

    September 6, 2010

    Mini Cooper: capitalist imperialism?
    The sticker for a 2005 Mini Cooper indicates “parts content information” of 5% U.S./Canada, 50% Great Britain, 20% Germany, final assembly in Oxford, Great Britain, engine from Brazil, transmission from Germany.
    My Dad is 86 and fought in WWII so we might be free, helping put down imperialist forces that would enslave whole populations and commit genocide based on their ideology.
    Now the Germans work with British, Americans, and Brazilians to deliver a product in peace.
    The Mini Cooper, like many Japanese cars, exemplifies capitalism and free trade as integral to peace and prosperity.
    Can the Borg among us please educate us where the evil is in this example of free market cooperation, a.k.a. capitalist activity?

    If America is imperialistic, why aren’t Germany and Japan under our political dominion?
    They’re not under our dominion because of the inherent restraints of the U.S. culture and Constitution.

  • redomondo

    September 9, 2010

    @ Marshep

    Of course you have occupied them militarily for 60 years now, and haven’t yet seen fit to pull out your troops.

  • Marshep

    September 9, 2010

    So, our military dominates their society, kicks down their doors, enforces martial law? Do we “occupy” like an aggressor force, or do we have bases in Germany in peaceful operation?

  • Redomondo

    September 10, 2010

    Hey marshep

    Not at all – but the very fact that American military bases are there mean that there is the threat of force implied or otherwise.

    Think roman legions stationed in Gaul.

    You could say that the US is acting as the guarantor of trade – open markets et al.

    Didnt the us open up japan to trade at the point of a gun? Or is that some sort of revisionist Marxist retelling?(actually want to know)

  • Redomondo

    September 10, 2010

    Ha – this guy is hilarious. 

    (blockquote)The rally faced criticism from liberals, particularly black leaders who believed it was inappropriate to hold it on the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Most of those liberals were wise enough not to question Beck’s right to hold a rally; just the wisdom and symbolism of the date and place. Gov. Patrick is not so sure about the Constitutional rights of those who disagree with him.

    When asked whether he was troubled by the rally, he replies, “It’s a free country. I wish it weren’t. You know, you got to respect that freedom.” (/blockquote)

    (blockquote)Earlier in the exchange between Patrick and host Jim Braude, the governor had talked about King’s “I Have A Dream” speech being one of the “seminal sources of inspiration” for him as a boy and said the Lincoln Memorial was “sacred ground.” He called Beck’s rally theme of returning to “transcendent values” powerful.(/blockquote)

    Couldn’t every square inch of any country be considered “sacred ground”

    And given that dc is owned by the “people” pretty much anyone should be able to do what they like there.

  • Redomondo

    September 10, 2010

    Oh by the way marshep – one of my grandfathers fought on the “right” side and the other on the “wrong”.

    We should trade stories.

  • Redomondo

    September 10, 2010

    But I must also say – whyhavent you pulled your troops out? Do you need them to be there?

  • Marshep

    September 11, 2010

    Hey Redomondo, I grant “the very fact that American military bases are there mean that there is the threat of force implied or otherwise” as true. But, isn’t it also accurate to say the real purpose of that presence is “be peaceful or else”? We also have bases in the U.K., an ally in WWII. Are we also threatening them?

    Let’s see if I can twist this sufficiently to fit the rationale. Our military is in Germany, forcing them to enslave Brits to build us Mini Coopers? Far out.

    My example illustrates a peaceful success of American capitalism, it shows Americans prefer peace and prosperity to conquest and conflict, though we’ll fight to stay free. Let’s get back to that, eh? I can think of many other examples, and it is America’s dedication to free trade and protection of sea and air routes that make the Mini Cooper example possible.

    Can you cite examples like this that stem from ideology-driven societies, e.g. theologies or self-worshiping dictator thugs like Chavez?
    Could an anti-capitalist ideologue clarify who in this capitalist example is the evildoer, and do it without false premise?

  • Redomondo

    September 11, 2010

    I agree with free trade and protecting the sea lanes.

    700 bases doesn’t have anything to do with that.

    Gulf war 1 and 2 doesn’t have anything to do with that.

    Occupation of Afghanistan doesn’t have anything to do with that.

    Why isn’t the us stationing a for off the coast of Somalia? Wasn’t that what the war against the barbay pirates was about? ” shores of tripoli” and all that.

    How about the pirates in Indonesia? There is a straight there that is vulnerable to piracy as well.

    But yeah I agree the us is not forcing Germany to trade with them.

    It is the imperialist, interventionist impulse against – panama, Grenada, philippines, gulf war 1.

    Even Vietnam was a bit of a reach – it was more of a war of self determination – the us just picked up where the French left off.

    The north just happened to be communist in their ideology because of the are – all anti-imperialists were commies back then.

    After the war was over they fought with China and invaded Cambodia – supposedly their socialist brethren.

    And Chavez is just a dictator…

  • Redomondo

    September 11, 2010

    Oh and I might also point out – Vietnam now trades freely with the USA.

  • Marshep

    September 11, 2010

    I’m glad you agree. However, I dispute “700 bases doesn’t have anything to do with that.” Military bases support projection of air, sea, and land forces, logistics, and training. To protect sea and air, that’s what it takes. Your statement is non sequitur.

    The lunacy of diplomacy past, the comedy of errors leading to Iraq invading Kuwait, the failed manipulations leading to Iran’s theocracy, let’s harp away. I realize you disagree with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; by implication, if jihadists murder Americans, we should turn the other cheek. Others say nuke ’em. Given our choice, we’d build cool things like Mini Coopers, drive them to vacation spots, or maybe to have Ray make us a drink. When aggressors attack America, we fight back. You disagree, too bad. Discrete military circumstances do not form the basis to demonize America, and dismiss all the good she’s done. Do you also agree we would rather make fast cars than planes and bombs? Can you say the same of Iran, North Korea, or Venezuela? Any Islamic country?

    Good question on piracy. Again, I say kick their asses, but there’s political correctness, and a lack of will to expend the resource. Besides, how about some European support here, eh?

    Again, you stand by and accept some pretty heinous behaviors, and call us imperialist when we set people free from tyranny, and then walk away no charge, have a nice day, can I build you some schools and roads while I’m here?

    Vietnam. Cuckoo-cuckoo.

    How would you like to live under Chavez, who is “just a dictator”? I’ll pass.

  • Redomondo

    September 12, 2010

    Obviously we should deal with jihadists killing our citizens – of course US Soldiers killing iraqis and afghani citizens doesn’t help win hearts and minds.

    There is more than one way to skin a cat.

    A “global war on terror” and endless occupation of the middle east is one way to go about it.

  • Redomondo

    September 12, 2010

    So how about the “war on drugs”? How is that endless war on a noun working out?

    I don’t demonize Americans, just their foreign policy at times. You guys happen to be the global empire at this point, and stick your noses into everyones business, so it is only fair that we get to critique you at times… Pelosi was just up here complaining about our oil sands – fine don’t buy our oil! We’ll sell it to the Chinese!

    So should the US go to the trouble of invading and liberating every country that isn’t a “democracy”?

    Are you in favour of wilsonionism? Interventionism? Do you support the UN?

    What heinous behaviors am I standing by and accepting exactly?

    More on the bases later on.

  • Redomondo

    September 12, 2010

    And on the point of protecting sea lanes – how do b52s stationed in the pacific do that exactly?

    And who are we protecting the sea lanes from? Marauding Chinese buccaneers? Organized piracy only goes on in a few areas.

    It would quickly end if the private companies that are being preyed upon chose to hire mercenaries to protect their ships. But the cost does not justify the small losses from piracy.

    I would say it is more about PNAC – the project for a new American Century. Extending the us global dominance into the next century.

    Though as I put it before, you are going bankrupt funding this global military presence – and how are the open sea lanes helping your moribund economy?

    Like you said – maybe the Europeans should start paying their fair share – so pull your troops out of Germany – they can defend their border with Poland just fine.

    What would that save you? 50 billion a year?

  • Marshep

    September 12, 2010

    Hey, whatever you say, boss. I ask you to name another system of government that would facilitate the process of building Mini Coopers, and you tell me my politicians have historically been assholes. Duh. Do you have any solutions, or are you just real big on bitching about us?

    Should we pull back, cower, ask aggressors real nice pretty please don’t hurt us, or we’ll really cave to them? Maybe that works for you. Specific decisions about military deployments and national defense should be conducted in an environment of honesty and integrity, not by selfish lying narcissists arrogant with power. Sorry about Pelosi, by the way. Talk about a source of American shame.

    Now, I understand your prejudice against America, especially our military. So, let’s pick out one example that really ruffles your feathers, the first Gulf War. What would you have done when Iraq invaded Kuwait? Send them backhoes to help bury the civilians they murdered?

  • Ray

    September 13, 2010

    Redmond wrote: > “of course US Soldiers killing iraqis and afghani citizens doesn’t help win hearts and minds.”

    Well, if we’re going to get sanctimonious, we might as well be accurate:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIe9P3q3_u4

  • redomondo

    September 13, 2010

    @ Marshep – I think Capitalism is great – too bad USA 2010 isn’t Capitalist. More Like Corporatist/Fascist.

    Hey Ray – I hear you…
    Canadian Soldiers should be out as well! Looks like a good firefight – I’ll check out the video later on.
    what is it that they call Afghanistan?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Graveyard_of_Empires&redirect=no

  • redomondo

    September 13, 2010

    Regarding Gulf War 1 – will get back to you on that after work.

  • Marshep

    September 13, 2010

    Hey, ease up on four-letter words that end in ‘k’!

  • redomondo

    September 14, 2010
  • redomondo

    September 14, 2010

    So, let’s pick out one example that really ruffles your feathers, the first Gulf War. What would you have done when Iraq invaded Kuwait? Send them backhoes to help bury the civilians they murdered?

    Gulf War One – the “Mother of All Battles” as Sadaam Put it.
    So Iraq – Created from two Ottoman Provinces after World War 1 – And supported heavily by the USA during the Iran-Iraq war – of course the USA also supported Iran with Arms.Iran with Arms

    British Mandate of Mesopotamia
    Main article: British Mandate of Mesopotamia
    British Indian Army personnel entering Baghdad.

    At the end of World War I, the League of Nations granted the area to the United Kingdom as a mandate. It initially formed two former Ottoman vilayets (regions): Baghdad and Basra into a single country in August 1921. Five years later, in 1926, the northern vilayet of Mosul was added, forming the territorial boundaries of the modern Iraqi state.

    For three out of four centuries of Ottoman rule, Baghdad was the seat of administration for the vilayets of Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra. During the mandate, British colonial administrators ruled the country, and through the use of British armed forces, suppressed Arab and Kurdish rebellions against the occupation. They established the Hashemite king, Faisal, who had been forced out of Syria by the French, as their client ruler. Likewise, British authorities selected Sunni Arab elites from the region for appointments to government and ministry offices.[specify][31]
    [edit] Kingdom of Iraq
    Main article: Kingdom of Iraq

    Britain granted independence to Iraq in 1932, on the urging of King Faisal, though the British retained military bases and transit rights for their forces. King Ghazi ruled as a figurehead after King Faisal’s death in 1933, while undermined by attempted military coups, until his death in 1939. Ghazi was followed by his under age son, Faisal II. ‘Abd al-Ilah served as Regent during Faisal’s minority.

    And Kuwait – A Monarchy Incidently also created by the British

    In 1899, Kuwait entered into a treaty with the United Kingdom that gave the British extensive control over the foreign policy of Kuwait in exchange for protection and annual subsidy.[19] This treaty was primarily prompted by fears that the proposed Berlin-Baghdad Railway would lead to an expansion of German influence in the Persian Gulf. After the signing of the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913, then Amir of Kuwait, Mubarak Al-Sabah, was diplomatically recognized by both the Ottomans and British as the ruler of the autonomous caza of the city of Kuwait and the hinterlands.[20] However, soon after the start of World War I, the British invalidated the convention and declared Kuwait an independent principality under the protection of the British Empire.[18] The 1922 Treaty of Uqair set Kuwait’s border with Saudi Arabia and also established the Saudi-Kuwaiti neutral zone, an area of about 5,180 km² adjoining Kuwait’s southern border.

    On 19 June 1961, Kuwait became fully independent following an exchange of notes between the United Kingdom and the then Amir of Kuwait, Abdullah III Al-Salim Al-Sabah.[20] The Gulf rupee, issued by the Reserve Bank of India, was replaced by the Kuwaiti dinar. The discovery of large oil fields, especially the Burgan field, triggered a large influx of foreign investments into Kuwait. The massive growth of the petroleum industry transformed Kuwait from a poor pearl farming community into one of the richest countries in the Arabian Peninsula and by 1952, the country became the largest exporter of oil in the Persian Gulf region. This massive growth attracted many foreign workers, especially from Egypt and India.

    Iraq Invades Kuwait.

    It is in the interest of Americans, British, etc, to purchase oil from the middle east.

    You can buy it from Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, just about anywhere.

    I am sure that the USA could have purchased oil from the newly created province of Iraq known as Kuwait, Saddaam would have been happy to sell it to you!

    I guess you could say that the UN was “Protecting Private Property Rights” (as it was officaly a UN War – by the way, do you find any problems with the whole concept of the “New World Order” as Bush one called it?(where does he stand on an independent USA) Do you believe in a Supra-National organisation(some might say “World Government”) deciding where and when a country should be attacked? Given that of the 180 something countries in the UN, only a few would you wish to live in, let alone visit, I am guessing you would be against that idea. In fact the Copenhagen treaty was an attempt to “Vote” away your wealth, in the form of Carbon Taxes.) So do you mean the right of the Monarchs of Kuwait to own that particular piece of land?

    Maybe the Iraqis were freeing the kuwaitis in order so they could engage in self-determination.

    As for “liberating” Kuwait due to civilians “being murdered”, apparently 1000 Kuwaitis in total, you seem to be setting the bar of massive military intervention fairly low – 1000 Civilians are killed by states on a fairly regular basis I would imagine.

    In fact, the fact that the UN Sanctioned forces neglected to finish the job, not advancing to Bagdhad and ousting Saddaam led to over 100 000 Iraqi Shia civilians dying

    Shortly after the war ended in 1991, Shia Muslim and Kurdish Iraqis engaged in protests against Hussein’s regime, resulting in an intifada. Hussein responded with violent repression against Shia Muslims, and the protests came to an end.[41] It is estimated that as many as 100,000 people were killed.[42] The US, UK, France and Turkey claiming authority under UNSCR 688, established the Iraqi no-fly zones to protect Kurdish and Shiite populations from attacks by the Hussein regime’s aircraft.

    So where do you draw the line? The US government, of course without the Sanction of the UN (Any organisation that gives Robert Mugabe moral superiority should be disbanded), could carpet bomb the capitals of the rest of the “Axis of Evil”, and conscript a few million able bodied, and unemployed American men to fight, and you could easily make the world “safe for democracy”

    How about it?

    Here is a list of all of the conflicts of the 20th century, and the death totals. A fair number I might note, were civilians.

    So please feel free to give me a list of the ones that it would have “served the American Interest” to be involved in.

    How many did the US choose to intervene in?

    And why do you suppose they only chose to intervene in some rather than others?

    So the problem I have with Gulf War one, is that it was ultimately arbitrary, the annexation would not have affected the free trade of oil.

    I don’t believe that the Kuwaiti Royal Family was any more legitimate than Saddaam.

    I don’t believe that the annexation by Iraq affected vital US interests in any particular way.

    I would argue it also served a larger purpose by legitimising the the UN in a way that I believe will ultimately be used against greater freedom and prosperity in this world.
    Check out UN IS EVIL
    Gotta go to bed – we can continue this tomorrow!

  • redomondo

    September 14, 2010

    Also it should be clear that in the paralells between the British Experience in Iraq post World War 1 and the American Experience 1991 – 2010 that the USA is currently an empire – some might say the heir to the British one.

    Have you heard of Hamiltons Curse?

    Ray Recommends it.

  • Marshep

    September 14, 2010

    imperialism n. The policy of extending a nation’s authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony.
    hegemony n. The leadership or dominance of one state or group over its allies or neighbors.

    These definitions suggests the U.S. and its allies have an imperial government of sorts. However, the Mini Cooper example exemplifies that a “free trade imperialism” can be a good thing. I like it better than what Iran or Saudi Arabia or Venezuela would impose, don’t you?

    War is ugly. There are tyrants in the world who would do us harm. It isn’t because we’re a benevolent imperialism that builds yachts, airplanes, fast cars, and techno gadgets. Fanatics think it’s their religious duty to hate us and kill us, and the power-hungry would squish millions in an effort to get it up, always have and always will; I guess they just resent our freedom, that we’re not under their control. You know the type – politicians. A-hem.

    Anyway, I get in GAF mode, do the right thing at work, keep my customers happy and new solutions always forthcoming, pay check every two weeks, and keep trying to pry the ol’ lady out on Thursday nights to hear some jazz and let Ray pour me a fresh local New Belgium.

    It’s on my reading list, thanks for the tip.

  • Ray

    September 15, 2010

    Ray can speak for himself, however, and on the issue of foreign policy does not, for the record, side with any of these blame-America-first quacks, whether it’s Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, or Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard.

  • redomondo

    September 15, 2010

    I am not Blaming America First.

    I am just saying that in order to have a functioning free market across the world, the USA does not have to spend more than the entire world combined to build Mini Coopers – nor does it have to Occupy half the middle east.

    I am saying the military/Industiral/Imperial complex that your government has created is hurting the interests of the average American.

    Nothing against Individual Americans.

    Hugo Chavez isn’t about to invade the USA – he is happy to rule over the decline of his own country.

    The Saudis, aren’t planning on taking over the US Government and Imposing Sharia Law – But I must say the very close relationship between the ruling class of Saudi Arabia, and the ruling class of the USA is an issue.(Bandar Bush and all that)

    Not to say that we should not actively oppose Islamicist Expansionism. For instance, I am against the Province of Ontario recognizing Sharia law, or Talmudic law for that matter as superceding the Canadian Constitution.

    Washington Put it this way.

    The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

    Jefferson Put it this way

    “Separated by a wide ocean from the nations of Europe and from the political interests which entangle them together, with productions and wants which render our commerce and friendship useful to them and theirs to us, it cannot be the interest of any to assail us, nor ours to disturb them. We should be most unwise, indeed, were we to cast away the singular blessings of the position in which nature has placed us, the opportunity she has endowed us with of pursuing at a distance from foreign contentions the paths of industry, peace and happiness; of cultivating general friendship and of bringing collisions of interest to the umpirage of reason rather than of force.” –Thomas Jefferson: 3rd Annual Message, 1803. ME 3:359

    The anti-imperialist League put it this way

    We hold that the policy known as imperialism is hostile to liberty and tends toward militarism, an evil from which it has been our glory to be free. We regret that it has become necessary in the land of Washington and Lincoln to reaffirm that all men, of whatever race or color, are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We maintain that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. We insist that the subjugation of any people is “criminal aggression” and open dis-loyalty to the distinctive principles of our Government.

    And Ray – would you not recommend Hamilton’s curse?

  • Marshep

    September 15, 2010

    Yes, you inevitably mix the militarism with the imperialism, implying evil. Your (at least implicit) assertion is we use our military to expand territory. You equate our overseas bases in the aggressor nations of WWII with occupation, arguing we don’t need them to defend the trade routes and our ally nations. Am I right so far, Redmond?

    Now, as I understood it, America tried to stay out of WWII, got attacked by Japan, and arguably saved humanity – with our allies – from an actual expansionist militaristic imperialism.

    Our military is referred to as “defense” and, it seems to me, is still needed if we are to retain our sovereignty. Yep, dumb fuckers keep doing dumb things, but that does not make America and the intent of her Constitution evil, and you will not convince me Chavez and his ilk would not hurt us if they could.

    You consistently state imply or suggest that America is an evil place of wretched people that use their military to terrorize intimidate and destroy for the sake of empire. Is that an exaggeration of your position? Do we have training centers, where the take the innocent little liberal children away from their mothers and teach them to hate and shoot innocent men women and children the world over?

    Isn’t it really a matter of individuals and intent? Aren’t we seeing a failure of our Constitutional constraints [being ignored] by our elected officials in their conduct both here and abroad? Look at how arrogant and abusive a group of politicians can be when given too much power. I did say sorry about Pelosi, didn’t I?

    I’m glad to hear you don’t think you should abandon your legal system for the rigors of Islamic rule. Would you use you military to protect your current legal system from a violent uprising trying to force you into Sharia compliance?

    I only give this stuff so much time, so maybe I’ve missed it among your posts, and forgive for not browsing your site, Mr. Canadian sir, but how about a constructive comment once in a while? You know, we have Nick around to play the eternal infernal iconoclast, making you second fiddle (and far less surly, thanks) on that front.

    It goes back to the Mini Cooper as an international marvel, a kind of “I, Pencil” as it were, that is the intent of laissez-faire. No, you say, you’re this nasty old militaristic empire. But what do you offer that’s better? We heard a lot about change in 2008, now people realize change from a blue-belly lizard to a viper wasn’t such a good idea.

  • redomondo

    September 16, 2010

    You consistently state imply or suggest that America is an evil place of wretched people that use their military to terrorize intimidate and destroy for the sake of empire. Is that an exaggeration of your position? Do we have training centers, where the take the innocent little liberal children away from their mothers and teach them to hate and shoot innocent men women and children the world over?

    Who do you think I am? Jane Fonda
    Speaking of Jane Fonda – Check this out – who knew? Well you guys probaly did!
    Anyways, America’s Army is all Volunteer now, they know what they are getting themselves into.
    You should watch some more of those videos from Iraq and Afghanistan!

    Fonda’s affinity for communism served as a backdrop for her intense anti-Vietnam War activities. By 1970 she was telling American college students: “If you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that we would some day become communist. . . . I, a socialist, think that we should strive toward a socialist society, all the way to communism.” The dual villains of Southeast Asian conflicts were, in her view, “U.S. imperialism” and “a white man’s racist aggression.”

    I’ll reply more later, but George F. Will said something interesting.

    Let me give you a framework to understand this extraordinarily interesting moment in which we live. I believe that today, as has been the case for 100 years, and as will be the case for the foreseeable future, the American political argument is an argument between two Princetonians: James Madison of the class of 1771, and Thomas Woodrow Wilson of the class of 1879. I firmly believe that the most important decision taken anywhere in the 20th century was the decision where to locate the Princeton graduate college. Woodrow Wilson, then Princeton’s president, wanted it located on the campus, others wanted it located, where it in fact is, up on the golf course away from campus. When Wilson lost that, he had one of his characteristic tantrums, went into politics, and ruined the 20th century.

    In Many ways – we are still dealing with the repercussions of the 1st World War – When America decided to play with the big boys, and helped to end the war in favour of the Allies.
    Wilsonian Interventionism.
    Read the Jefferson Quote again

    “Separated by a wide ocean from the nations of Europe and from the political interests which entangle them together, with productions and wants which render our commerce and friendship useful to them and theirs to us, it cannot be the interest of any to assail us, nor ours to disturb them. We should be most unwise, indeed, were we to cast away the singular blessings of the position in which nature has placed us, the opportunity she has endowed us with of pursuing at a distance from foreign contentions the paths of industry, peace and happiness; of cultivating general friendship and of bringing collisions of interest to the umpirage of reason rather than of force.” –Thomas Jefferson: 3rd Annual Message, 1803. ME 3:359

  • redomondo

    September 16, 2010

    Not Blaming American Citizens – just the Ruling class.

  • redomondo

    September 16, 2010

    So Marshep

    Are you saying that from the date of 1899 to 2010 not one Foriegn Policy decision or military intervention can be critised?

    Every SINGLE one was just, and was in the vital interests of the Citizens of the United States of America, which your Federal Government purports to be representing overseas?

    Let me know.

  • redomondo

    September 16, 2010

    By the way, I would argue I am constructive most of the time.

    I don’t have a hell of a lot of time these days, young fam, political campaign, full time job, and occasional posts on this site…

    Get Ray to send you the link to my blog – you’ll probably like it.

    As for Being Canadian, My step Father is from Chicago, my Stepmother from Baltimore, my Dad was stationed in DC in the 80s(Foreign Service), and currently lives in Suburban Maryland.
    I grew up bathed in American Politics.

    And seeing as we are your biggest trading partner, and ally, I am quite interested in what is occuring down there.

    Will respond more fuly to your post later.

Leave A Response

* Denotes Required Field