Komentuje Michael Rubin, doradca Donalda Rumsfelda

[Gość: Szwejk!]

Michnikowi gratuluję wyboru komentatora! W całych Stanach nie ma lepszego!

rubinowe brednie...

[Gość: pacyfista]

Bushowi nic sie nie udalo.. jego wystapienie zostalo zle ocenione w prasie
zachodniej, jako mgliste, niekonkretne etc.. a wybor doradcy Rumsfelda jako
komentatora GW ! -no comments - slow szkoda ...www.panstwozla.pl

[Gość: Watts]

Dlaczego Gazeta Wyborcza tak nienawidzi Islam?

Kim jest Michael Rubin

[Gość: Ali Kabyr]

Kim jest Michael Rubin ?

Michael Rubin jest jednym z 300 tzw. amerykanskich doradcow (glownie "neo-cons"
z Pentagonu) dyktujacym irackim "wladzom tymczasowym" co im wolno a co nie.
Dla Rubina i jego bezkompromisowych pobratymcow, Collin Powell to wrecz wrog, o
ONZ nie wspominajac. Warto zapoznac sie z blizej z sylwetka pana Rubina:

"Michael Rubin has had a very bad week. One wonders about the coaching staff
over at the American Enterprise Institute and National Review. Referees across
the country called strike one on May 18th. Rubin’s second strike immediately
followed on May 19th.

What do we know about this minor-league neoconservative, Michael Rubin? Well,
he is indeed a rookie. He is young. He trained at Yale in biology and history.
What about his performance? In politics, people like Rubin can simply pass
along fabrications as if they are true, and he has done so with abandon. On the
other hand, in baseball you have to get it right. Actual performance, real
events, the rock solid history, the numbers. This in mind, let’s look at the
Rubin record.

In the Winter 2002 edition of the Middle East Quarterly, Rubin wrote on how to
free Iraq, and rid ourselves of that damn Saddam Hussein. Rubin concludes:

"September 11 has helped to persuade the region that the United States isn't
going to take it anymore. Even onerous regimes are eager or willing to be part
of the U.S. coalition against Usama bin Ladin's terrorism. Under resolute U.S.
leadership, some of this spirit could be mobilized against Iraq.… [Ankara,
Amman, Kuwait City, and Riyadh] want to see a plan that is focused, determined,
and close-ended. If the United States can produce one, its regional allies will
fall into line."

Let’s see if I have this straight – as an advisor to the OSP inside the nerve
center of the Pentagon, helping make Iraq policy leading to war, Michael
advocated a plan for Saddam’s removal that was "focused, determined, and close-
ended." I guess the focused, determined, and close-ended plan for the aftermath
wasn’t Michael’s area.

In 2001, Michael wrote about his experience at universities in Northern Iraq,
in the Kurdish autonomous zone. His premise? Sanctions are actually helpful for
the Kurds. He said this because he saw a lot of selling, buying, trading. Lots
of resources finding their way into the American-protected Kurdish north.
Clearly, this young man did not spend much time on the role of the state and
the individual, and the nature of markets. And why should he? Having
demonstrated his economic expertise, young Michael concludes that while
sanctions are helping northern Iraq, we really should pursue a sanction-free
North. We should not worry that lifting sanctions there will further split the
country, because "The Kurds themselves, many of them patriotic veterans of the
Iraqi Army do not wish to split from Iraq; they do want a federal, unified and
democratic Iraq. Their only problem is with Saddam Husayn himself. Until he is
removed, nothing can proceed."

Having touched for luck the trusty "remove Saddam" mantra, he also said, "In
all, compared to the rest of the Middle East, with the exception of Turkey and
Israel, northern Iraq is a political utopia."

While inaccurate and naïve, the statement has all the charm of a wide-eyed 16-
year-old seeking to explain the world as he sees it, conjuring up the
fantastical idea that one may use the words "political" and "utopia" in the
same sentence and still be of this world.

To be fair, Michael is partially correct, in the sense that the US protected
and sponsored Kurdish government in Iraq was still decentralized and had not
yet become very confiscatory. In any case, Rubin’s ideas for partial sanctions
or anything else contained in this article were never made US policy.

While neoconservatives in power may not listen to Michael, they do tend to use
him as an attack dog. His May 2002 National Review article about the United
Nation's High Commissioner for Human Rights is entitled "Mary Robinson, War
Criminal?" This inflammatory title reflects Mary Robinson’s interest, among
other things, in Palestinian human rights. She had initiated a drive to
investigate the Jenin killings. Such bias and double standards, laments
Michael. He wrote this scurrilous attack while attached to the Leonard Davis
Institute for International Relations at Hebrew University. In any case, the UN
did not try Robinson as a war criminal, and the world did not listen to Michael
Rubin. I think we are seeing a pattern here.

Again in 2002, Rubin predicts how Iraq will fight. He wrote,

"The Republican Guard may be Iraq's military elite, but, unlike the fanatical
soldiers of Al Qaeda, they are basically mercenaries – Saddam's Baathism having
long ago become the ideological equivalent of 1980s-era Soviet communism. The
Republican Guard serves Saddam because of fear and money. When the United
States attacks, that fear will surely be counterbalanced by the prospect of
facing America's much more fearsome army if they resist."

This bit of the neoconservative theme song has been proven, again and again, to
be ignorant and wrong. American soldiers pay the price in Iraq every day and
night.

To be fair, Rubin’s coaching is obsolete. The National Review after its purges
of right individualists and paleo-conservatives in the 70’s and 80’s is, like
the old Soviet Union, feeble and sclerotic. As Murray Rothbard observed in
1992, "…Bill Buckley [was] the Mikhail Gorbachev of the conservative movement."
Clearly, Rubin’s whole team is in trouble.

Not surprisingly, Michael Rubin is not quite ready for the major leagues. The
History Channel had Rubin scheduled in New York City this week. In the wake of
Rubin’s first wild swing at me, they kindly asked if I’d like to come on the
show with him. I ran to the bullpen, eager for my chance on the field.

The History Channel called later in the day, and said, alas, Mr. Rubin rather
nervously refused appear with me. Since the game would be about the hard facts
of our respective words and actions, he ran off the field.

The current neoconservative dilemma, a fading twilight shadowed by increasing
legislative and judicial interest compounded by an ever distracted frat boy in
the executive suite, reminds me of a great poem. You know it well, and it
contains several lessons for the neoconservatives – most of whom have never set
foot on a baseball diamond.

After all, it is not a social-democratic game.

[Gość: bk]

doradca Rumsfelda to chyba jak doradcy Molotowa i Ribentroppa, Polska wtedy tez
mogla liczyc na pomoc i zrozumienie "wyzwolencow", no i oczywiscie armia adolfa
i czerwona nigdy by nie pozostawila Polski samej sobie

[Gość: Liloo]

Litosci Michniku jeden. Rubin to kolejny syjonista!

Taktyka busha

[Gość: Kanadol]

Czyli specjalnie wywolal wojne w Iraku, zeby zwabic tam i wybic terrorystow????
Ha, ha, ha................................
Glupoty, idiotyzmy....
Fakt jest, ze przez ta wojenke nienawisc do hameryki i terroryzm wzrosna do
potegi n.