President DilmaRousseff
and her challenger on the right, AécioNevesda Cunha:
Columnist Antonio
Lassance suggests that three of Brazil's leading columnists are
warmongers for favoring U.S. intervention
and critizing Rousseff's call for peace.
As Dilma Calls for Peace, Right Calls for 'Captain America' (Carta Maior, Brazil)
"Our
foreign policy columnist 'gunmen' accuse Dilma of wanting
to negotiate with terrorists and even recognizing the Islamic State. In so doing, they are firing blanks as part of a concerted effort to deprive the president of whatever handful of votes they can. ... How dare Dilma and Itamaraty [Brazil's
Foreign Ministry] appeal for a peaceful solution to conflict? … It is most
intriguing that a number of terrorists of the Islamic State have British accents,
use weapons from the West, fight their archenemy Bashar al-Assad, and are
historic rivals of Iran's Shiites."
As the wise saying goes, “If the adder could hear, and the
blindworm could see, neither man nor beast could ever go free.”
Can you imagine if our foreign policy was run by a team
headed by [sociologist-columnist] DemétrioMagnoli, [journalist-columnist] ReinaldoAzevedo and [film director] ArnaldoJabor? [All are critics of President DilmaRousseff and are considered
right-wing].
The only question would where our troops would be deployed next
week.
Moe,
Larry and Curly neither read nor hear, yet they still didn't like the
speech President DilmaRousseff's
delivered at the United Nations. A week later, the episode still triggers
debate.
How dare Dilma and Itamaraty [Brazil's Foreign Ministry] appeal for a peaceful
solution to conflict, while the three stooges demand Captain America and Rambo?
That constitutional principle of Brazilian foreign policy eventually
became, with the idiotic support of the party of the coup-plotting mass media, another
legacy of Brazil's Labor movement.
If Azevedo, Magnoli
and Jabor tell us that the history of Brazil actually
began with Lula and Dilma, who are we to disagree?
Posted
By Worldmeets.US
Our foreign policy "gunmen" have accused Dilma of wanting to negotiate with terrorists and even recognizing
the Islamic State. In so doing, they are firing blanks as part of a concerted
effort to deprive the president of whatever handful of votes they can [Dilma is now facing a runoff against pro-business AécioNevesda Cunha.] Just
how much is that effort worth?
It is most intriguing that a number of terrorists of the Islamic
State have British accents, use weapons from the West, fight their archenemy Bashar
al-Assad, and are historic rivals of Iran's Shiites.
In the 1980s, at the old JornalNacional, columnists Paulo Francis and
Cid Moreira gave daily lessons outlining the Iran-Iraq War. We
were taught to understand that within the Islamic world, the Shiites were wicked
and Sunnis were nice.
Even Dilma's Workers' Party was
dubbed Shiite - in honor of the wicked of course. As time passed, the "nice"
guys gave rise to al-Qaeda, and voila, the Islamic State.
On the eve of the presidential election, the attempt to stir
controversy over Dilma's U.N. speech only goes to
show that the "three columnists of the apocalypse" will do whatever
it takes to massage their self-conceit as opinion makers and attack the
blindingly obvious. After all, the blindingly obvious can only be Lulista (the political model associated with former President
of Lula da Silva).
