Guest guest Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 He could be right on both counts. There is more evidence that all the dissidents got assistance starting at the tail end of the Bush administration and continuing into this administration largely via State Department. Being completely cynical, it is interesting to note that the first president Bush created a mess for Clinton to step in with Somalia and other things, and this Bush left Iraq, Afghanistan plus this action that is now coming to pass. I'm not so sure if this was a deliberate attack or if it was simply part of Bush's frantic mania about democracy. He really bought into that whole nonsense that it was America's duty to make the whole world a democracy whether it wanted it or not, or was ready for it or not. I'm sure he doesn't really care about the outcome though. His family has that vast ranch down in Paraguay where they control a large aquifer and other aspects of the local water supply. So, they have their little kingdom all setup to run when the system falls apart. In a message dated 2/28/2011 11:54:54 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes: He also said the revolt had "started as a genuine peaceful movement.""We also believe it is time for change," he said. "But this movement has been hijacked by the West ... and by Islamic militants." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.