Were Dubya, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz really "globalists"? (Iraq, middle east)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. Dubya imposed steel tariffs on China until the World Trade Organization forced him to lift them.
2. Dubya, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz had rocky relations with the UN. The UN told them not to invade Iraq, so they had "freedom fries" and complained about "old Europe".
I'm not sure about Bush, but all the others were certainly globalists. Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfield all belonged to the same small group who wanted to establish a 21st century American empire before Bush was elected.
Once Cheney finalged himself into the White House, he brought in the two others and most of the rest of them. Then the group disbanded.
Bush the first was a globalist. He was dyed in the wool. He was the one who recommended Cheney to his son as the cabinet selection advisor, and in that position, he made himself the V.P. pick, and opened the door wide for all his buddies to come join him.
Bush II was a globalist. He regular spoke against "protectionism" and "isolationism", an apologist for all things islam and got us deeply mired in the middle east, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the nuts in the area.
1. Dubya imposed steel tariffs on China until the World Trade Organization forced him to lift them.
2. Dubya, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz had rocky relations with the UN. The UN told them not to invade Iraq, so they had "freedom fries" and complained about "old Europe".
Yet people often say that they were "globalists".
"Globalist" is a catch all phrase that only really describes an idealistic fantasy of a certain segment of liberal voter.
Of course, that same segment was "anti-globalist" as recently as the Bush administration. They really don't know much about politics and tend to base their views on their feelings rather than anything principled or factual.
"Globalist" doesn't accurately describe the real aims of the people that you name, nor of anyone currently in the political sphere. Sure, some parts of an agenda are "globalist" in nature, but that doesn't mean that any realistic agenda or strategy isn't much more specific than the term "globalist" implies. Of course, that doesn't imply that they are "nationalist" either. It merely implies that reality is much more nuanced than a catch-all term can describe.
Yes many seem to confuse globalism with good old fashioned capitalism and free trade.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
