"Money Trumps Peace" what is "Dubya" saying now?

[Rico]

"Money Trumps Peace"
A quotation from our President.



This statement made today in the President's press conference has me quite confused...

Was hoping that some of the individuals familiar with his dialect would be able to lend a hand....

The remark was made as an answer to a question regarding Iran....

Now in trying to decipher this statement on my own I turned to Webster...

The definition for trump that best seemed to fit was this....

(to excel; surpass; outdo.)

So... does this mean... money comes before peace??  or that money outdoes peace?? or that money surpasses peace???........

Or maybe it was a reference to Donald Trump having so much money that he doesn't need peace..


Someone has to know what he meant..!

[cannon_fodder]

The only reference to "Money Trumps Peace" I found was from a blog entry of some guy named Steve in 2006.  

Even in Whitehouse.gov the press conference hasnt been posted yet.  Need reference.

[Rico]

The question by the reporter was something to the effect that "many U.S. allies in Europe and other parts of the world do a substantial amount of business with Iran" "do you think they are going to be willing to discontinue doing business with Iran on our request.."  

So then...

Money Trumps Peace must mean that we are engaged
in some form of conflict or war with Iran
and other countries lust for Money will Trump our desire for Peace...??

As of now that is the best I can translate....

[NellieBly]

Here is my favorite response from the press conference:

During today's White House press conference, President Bush was asked by ABC's Martha Raddatz if he thought Iraq was embroiled in a civil war.

The President replied: "It's hard for me living in this beautiful White House to give you an assessment, a first hand assessment. I haven't been there. You have, I haven't. But I do talk to people who are and people whose judgment I trust and they would not qualify it as that. There are others who think it is."

Maybe it's time he actually showed up.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

The question by the reporter was something to the effect that "many U.S. allies in Europe and other parts of the world do a substantial amount of business with Iran" "do you think they are going to be willing to discontinue doing business with Iran on our request.."  

So then...

Money Trumps Peace must mean that we are engaged
in some form of conflict or war with Iran
and other countries lust for Money will Trump our desire for Peace...??

As of now that is the best I can translate....

And.......?  Could you just tell us what it means, and why it matters?  I can't find hte quote anywhere either...

Was it this lefty blog that prompted this question?  

www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/14/11556/6316

[aoxamaxoa]

Prez Shrub got caught in one of the Bushevik lies.....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070214/pl_nm/iraq_usa1_dc_1

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003545598

[cannon_fodder]

Ok, we get it aoxa, you don't like Bush.   Bush doesn't think the evidence the DoD presented was solid enough and you don't like him. Really, we get it.


But back on topic, I found a source for the above reference quote.  Its amazing how bad things can be when taken wholly out of context.  Here is what was actually said:

quote:Q: A lot of our allies in Europe do a lot of business with Iran. So I wonder what your thoughts are about how you further tighten the financial pressure on Iran, in particular, if it also means economic pain for a lot of our allies.

BUSH: It's an interesting question. One of the problems, not specifically on this issue, just in general, that - let's put it this way: Money trumps peace, sometimes.

In other words, commercial interests are very powerful interests throughout the world. And part of the issue in convincing people to put sanctions on a specific country is to convince them that it's in the world's interest that they forego their own financial interest.

And that's why sometimes it's tough to get tough economic sanctions on countries, and I'm not making any comment about any particular country, but you touched on a very interesting point.

You know - so, therefore, we're constantly working with nations to convince them that what really matters in the long run is to have the environment so peace can flourish.

In the Iranian case, I firmly believe that, if they were to have a weapon, it would make it difficult for peace to flourish, and therefore I am working with people to make sure that that concern trumps whatever commercial interests may be preventing governments from acting.

I make no specific accusation with that statement. It's a broad statement. But it's an accurate assessment of what sometimes can halt multilateral diplomacy from working.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/16697835.htm

He was explaining why 'some nations' [Europe] wont go along with effective sanctions in Iran.  Its the same reason Europe and Russia didnt want us in Iraq.  They are all doing billions of dollars of business, much of it illegal in the eyes of the UN.  The reason sanctions are not effective is because for many nations [in the EU], "Money Trumps Peace."

Wow.  In context he was perfectly correct. Many nations dont want to step in because doing so would cost them money even if it were to gain peace.  Hence, money > peace.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Ok, we get it aoxa, you don't like Bush.   Bush doesn't think the evidence the DoD presented was solid enough and you don't like him. Really, we get it.


But back on topic, I found a source for the above reference quote.  Its amazing how bad things can be when taken wholly out of context.  Here is what was actually said:

quote:Q: A lot of our allies in Europe do a lot of business with Iran. So I wonder what your thoughts are about how you further tighten the financial pressure on Iran, in particular, if it also means economic pain for a lot of our allies.

BUSH: It's an interesting question. One of the problems, not specifically on this issue, just in general, that - let's put it this way: Money trumps peace, sometimes.

In other words, commercial interests are very powerful interests throughout the world. And part of the issue in convincing people to put sanctions on a specific country is to convince them that it's in the world's interest that they forego their own financial interest.

And that's why sometimes it's tough to get tough economic sanctions on countries, and I'm not making any comment about any particular country, but you touched on a very interesting point.

You know - so, therefore, we're constantly working with nations to convince them that what really matters in the long run is to have the environment so peace can flourish.

In the Iranian case, I firmly believe that, if they were to have a weapon, it would make it difficult for peace to flourish, and therefore I am working with people to make sure that that concern trumps whatever commercial interests may be preventing governments from acting.

I make no specific accusation with that statement. It's a broad statement. But it's an accurate assessment of what sometimes can halt multilateral diplomacy from working.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/16697835.htm

He was explaining why 'some nations' [Europe] wont go along with effective sanctions in Iran.  Its the same reason Europe and Russia didnt want us in Iraq.  They are all doing billions of dollars of business, much of it illegal in the eyes of the UN.  The reason sanctions are not effective is because for many nations [in the EU], "Money Trumps Peace."

Wow.  In context he was perfectly correct. Many nations dont want to step in because doing so would cost them money even if it were to gain peace.  Hence, money > peace.

Thanks.... Sometimes a translator can help put the whole thing in perspective...

I always knew that those filthy Europeans were crooks........

[}:)]

[iplaw]

Sounds reasonable in context.  I''m sure Dingus McGee will retort with something profound...

[cannon_fodder]

and before I get nailed for this:

I am in no way implying that the United States would somehow be above this behavior.  We have, and probably do, support horrible things in international affairs that really relate to the all-mighty dollar.  There was that whole puppet state in Ira., the creation of panama.. the annexation of indian lands... the Marshall plan.... the whole fight communism thing..... the Mexican American war...... slavery.......

But at least its a multi lane expressway to hell full of 'they do it too.'

[iplaw]

I hope after Saddam we finally understand that the enemy of my enemy is.........probably just an enemy!

[aoxamaxoa]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Sounds reasonable in context.  I''m sure Dingus McGee will retort with something profound...

I also dislike Bush extremists. There are many here in our midst. Not profound but I will state the truth as always.

He really has his own extreme agenda.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003545598

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

I hope after Saddam we finally understand that the enemy of my enemy is.........probably just an enemy!

My hope is that after Iraq.... we realize you do not need the death of 3000+ soldiers to rid the world of a punk that could have easily been taken out with a slightly larger than normal mousetrap....

[aoxamaxoa]

Money for nothing and peace for free....

"No one in their right mind should worry about balancing this silly agglomeration.

We should worry instead about putting aside enough to deal with past obligations, devoting no more than we can now afford to current needs, and making adequate future investments --even if we have to borrow in order to make them. "

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12459


Where do you stand on spending?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

I hope after Saddam we finally understand that the enemy of my enemy is.........probably just an enemy!

My hope is that after Iraq.... we realize you do not need the death of 3000+ soldiers to rid the world of a punk that could have easily been taken out with a slightly larger than normal mousetrap....

I think even before we went in we knew there were terrorist elements in the country who would have never allowed a peaceful solution...Saddam tolerated or even welcomed their presence.  I think our flaw was in underestimating their tenacity and failing to drop the hammer faster and earlier.  Al Sadr should have been dead long ago.