Condi Rice has issues with reality. It may seem like I am picking on Condi Rice because I am picking on Condi Rice. It is not my fault, but she keeps saying really stupid and easily shown deceptions. She does try really hard to adjust current reality to meet with her preconceived notions of what is real, but the two are so far apart that the gap is Grand Canyon-ist in its girth.
Condi Rice was interviewed by Sean Hannity on Tuesday according to the AP and was asked about Bush’s “Axis of Evil” comment in view of current world events. Her response was that it was “a pretty good analysis.” I think Bush and Rice need to learn a few terms and how to use them.
“Axis” is defined by The American Heritage Dictionary as “An alliance of powers, such as nations, to promote mutual interests and policies.” To say Iraq, Iran, and North Korea were part of an Axis of Evil is to say that the three countries were working together towards a common goal. Did they have a common goal? Yes, nuclear weapons. Does this mean they were working together? No. As we have seen taking out one (Iraq) has only spurred the other two “Axis powers” on. There is no joint venture between these countries and there never was.
How can anyone who has paid even a little attention over the last two decades even begin to think Iran and Iraq had any type of relationship besides hostile? How can they think for even a split second that Jong-Ill has any interest at all in the Middle East while South Korea, China, and Russia are around him and not very fond of the guy?
"The president three years ago realized that in order to manage the North Korean nuclear problem, a problem that's been going for decades, we have to have a regional coalition."
A problem that has been ongoing for decades, yet he decided to take troops from Afghanistan to chase fictional boogieman weapons of destruction. He decided to destroy the good will needed to form a regional coalition with a cowboy attitude of “bring it on” and “dead or alive”.
Article comments
1 - RJ Elliott
Does the word "evil" have any actual meaning anymore?
If so, wouldn't it fairly accurately describe Saddam Hussein, a man who used chemical weapons against hundreds of his own people, people who were civilians of an ethnic minority? Or his sons, who raped random women and sent countless men to their horrible deaths in human shredders?
If so, wouldn't it fairly accurately describe the Iranian government, which denies the Holocaust of the 1940s, yet at the same time promises one in the 21st Century?
If so, wouldn't it fairly accurately describe a North Korean totalitarian government which starves its own people in slave labor camps so it can afford the nuclear technology with which it uses to menace its regional neighbors as well as the US?
And remember, the original "Axis" powers were comprised of nationalistic Italians, "Aryan" Germans, and expansionist Japanese...in other words, pretty strange bedfellows themselves...
2 - brad schader
For a statement to be true, the entire statement must be true. If one part is wrong then the entire statement is wrong. While they may be evil (a subjective term), they are not an Axis. This would make the "Axis of Evil" term incorrect, regardless of the depths of the evil. How exactly has taking out Iraq made the world even a little bit safer? How was a country incapible of fighting off an invading force an threat to a country on the other side of the world? Iraq could not stop our invasion yet they were a threat to us?