TheAgitator.com
A Cynic Might Point Out Who Was in Office the First Time We Got Hit
Tuesday, September 7th, 2004It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we’ll get hit again and we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.
Geez, is it getting ugly.
That would be Bill Clinton who was in office the first time the towers were attacked.
Or perhaps Ronald Reagan in Beirut? The great thing about the blame game is everyone owns a piece.
cheney wants to stay in office
Yea, I know, no surprise there. Radly posts:A Cynic Might Point Out Who Was in Office the First Time We Got Hit Vice President Cheney:It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wro…
You guys aren’t going back far enough… The blame falls solely on Thomas Jefferson, who was President during the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair…
Bill Clinton had been in office about 30 days the first time the towers were attacked. This is too soon for Clinton to have had the time to prevent it unless he were just following through with a plan that Bush 41 had left. Bush 41 gave him no warning, so this one fell throught the cracks, with Bush 41 being mostly at fault.
OTOH, Bush 42 had had time get the reigns of government under his control by the 9/11, he was warned, and he ignored the warnings, so the blame for that falls squarely on him.
Clinton actually stopped the attack that happened when the goverment was under his full control (the millenium attack).
Actually gay marriage is to blame.
Chapter 3 of the 9/11 Commission staff report contains a great deal of information on how terrorists gamed our immigration system to come here and stay here. The Bush administration doesn’t seem to have learned any lessons from our past experiences.
Why isn’t anyone saying GW on 09/11/01? That’s what we’re all talking about.
Doug
I think the problem is that they are all sissies.
Remember when Reagan bombed Kadafi? He asked the French nicely if we could use thier air-space. They said no and we “accidentally” hit thier embassy that night. No one could play crazy like the Gipper, and no one really messed with us back then.
Or, how about JFK? He played the most fantasic game of chicken ever and made the Russians blink…because they thought he was a little crazy and just immature enough to push the button.
Or, Truman? Drop all the bombs we have but tell the Japanese that ten more are on the way unless they submit to total surrender.
It doesn’t matter which of these knuckle heads gets elected. We’ll be attacked again. Everyone thinks Kerry is a push over and they think Bush is crazy, but too stupid to handle it.
We’re all doomed.
Or Kerry (or maybe his surrogates) should say: if Gore were (rightfully) in office, 9/11 would never have been pulled off because he (Gore) was much more aware of terrorist activity and would not have been bogged down in pleasing his base regarding stem cell research or busy entertaining oil interest buddies at the White House or vacationing so much in Texas.
(Iâll see your ugly and raise you a f-ugly)
I thought it was my fault. That what the leftista’s say when I mention I voted for Bush in 2000.
I am voting for Bush/Cheney because of their response to the act of terrorism in ‘01. It was the correct response, and not one that would have been made by Clinton, Gore, or Kerry. It was a bold shift in policy. The others listed do not have the ability or willingness to make the hard choices. I want them there to continue the plan, and to be there as the situation changes and hard decisions need to be made.
Prediction for debates:
Pistols at dawn.
John H.
High: The true tale of American Marijuana
“I am voting for Bush/Cheney because of their response to the act of terrorism in ‘01. It was the correct response[...]”
The “correct response”? Which part? Letting Osama slip through our fingers because they were too inept to secure the Afghan borders? Diverting military resources from Afghanistan to Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on our soil? Turning a non-threatening secular thugocracy into a religious quagmire and haven for terrorists? Taking a tragedy that claimed 3000 lives, and using it as an excuse to end tens of thousands more lives? Um, which were you referring to when you said “correct”?
“[...]and not one that would have been made by Clinton, Gore, or Kerry.”
That’s a bold piece of unfounded conjecture (not to mention, a compliment). Kerry voted to give Bush the power to wage his stupid war. Clinton & Gore tried to take out Osama with missile strikes pre-9/11, only to be accused by the GOP of trying to divert attention from his scandal. So let’s not be so callous and ignorant as to make the old “the demmycraps woulda just sat on their hands while people died…” argument.
“It was a bold shift in policy. The others listed do not have the ability or willingness to make the hard choices. I want them there to continue the plan, and to be there as the situation changes and hard decisions need to be made.”
I keep hearing the same tired rehearsed soundbyte: “bold shift in policy”. Bold does not mean good. Making bad decisions, even if they’re hard ones, is not an admirable trait. I don’t care for the demmycrats any more than the republicans; they’re all one big statist party to me. But to suppose that there’s this huge policy divide between them is just nonsense. Clinton or Gore or Kerry would have been in Afghanistan just as quick as Bushy was. As for Iraq, well, that depends on how many neocon chickenhawks they had writing the script.
Bones — news flash: it has since come out that the millenium bombers were not stopped by any grand master plan of Clinton’s, but by an attentive Customs agent.
And Clinton had years after the first WTC attack to act to prevent a second … and did nothing substantial to do so.
I don’t trust the party of relativism to adequately defend my rights.
Can you here me now?
You can run but you can`t hide. Just ask the Russians.
The Republicans couldn’t even keep the AIDS activists and people from Act Up from interupting their own convention… And I’m supposed to believe they can keep the entire country safe?
I blame unregulated comments sections
I don’t think anyone is really at fault for any of these things except the goons who perpertrated them. Saying Dubya was at fault for the attacks is like saying that sunshine is the fault of the rooster.
MOLLY\RIGGS 2004
Richard — those protests were insignificant interruptions.
Evan — I don’t care if Saddam was or was not associated with 911 … our objective in this War on Terror must be not just to (eventually) “get Osama”; it must be focused on:
> The prevention of future attacks (and with fanatics, that will not be done through diplomacy, but through their deaths).
> The discouragement of future attackers (if they see that their cause is not being advanced by their deaths, they will stop viewing suicide as a viable tactic … which opens the door to traditional deterrence methods and human reason).
> The mitigation of the destructive capabilities of terrorists, in the event that the first two efforts fall short at certain times — and in that regard, removing Saddam from control of the Iraqi petrochemical infrastructure is very much equivalent to bombing munitions factories in WWII.
This isn’t about bringing the guilty to justice — it’s about protecting the inalienable rights, endowed to “all men”, that (wherever they are honored, around the world) lead to peace and prosperity.
Rich– not sure how you reached the conclusion that one party is relativist and the other is not… or do you simply mean that one party is more relativist than the other?
1993: WTC
1993: Black Hawk Down
1996: Khobar Towers
1998: Embassy Bombings
1999: Millenium Bombing–thwarted by alert customs agent.
2000: USS Cole
Total response?
Pull out of Somalia. Rubble rearranged in Afghanistan. Aspirin factory bombed in Sudan. A whole lot of credit for stopping Millenium Bombing.
Rich, ya missed my point. They had the 6 blocks or so around Madison Square Garden under martial law, and som hippies were able to get in and make their silly little protests. The US is way bigger and waaaaay less secure than MSG, and the terrorists are more determined and better funded then left-wing activists. Cheney’s quote sounds like the entire Bush campaign theme- “If you don’t vote for us, you’re gonna die!”
I was simply making a smart-ass point, but of course the a partisan Bushie will take it literally and dismiss it. While I disagree with your views on the WOT and Iraq, I think you generally make a good case for your arguements, HOWEVER, this constant campaign of fear and we’ll only be safe under a Bush administration is retarded. We WILL be attacked again, regardless of who holds office. Al Queda is not gone, they’re reloading. And when they take one of OUR schools hostage, will Condi be in front of a panel saying “Who could have known they would do THAT?” again?
Relativist? How do you know? Maybe it’s the Republicans who are relativist, and not the Democrats at all. It all depends on your point of view.
Bloody power-mongers, both.
First of all, God would not vote for Bush, only Lucifer as Wrong is a homosexual, in league with Cheney’s lesbian daughter.
If Wrong is elected, here’s the future:
1. Depression II.
2. Iraq becomes Viet Nam II-thousands come home in coffins including Republican boys.
3. Iran is war #3, and is never won.
4. China becomes the only super power.
5. Florida is destroyed by God the Father for voting for Wrong; it’s already started.
6. Wrong becomes a lame duck in 2006 when the Senate and House become overwhelmingly Democrat because of the Depression.
People enjoy being terrified. It makes us feel alive.
Honestly, in order to defeat the Al-Quaeda, we must become like the Al-Quaeda. We must know our enemy. The bullshit posturing with a “bold new vision” or whatever is like a 300 defensive end’s response to Lance Armstrong kicking him in the shin. Do you think the 300 lb linebacker is going to be able to ascend the Col de Tourmalet to chase down Lance to give him the beatdown from the kick in the shins? I had a teacher in high school who used to make fun of the football players who thought they were tougher than the hockey players. One instance he told a kid to go out in the parking lot and stand there. He told them he’d put on his roller blades, skate around the lot a bit to get some speed and then check him. Who’s tougher?
What I’m saying is the beating of the chest, call of the wild response of Shrub and the like is exactly what Americans want to hear, but it’s not what will solve the problem.
We have to be every bit as deceptive, evil, and creative as the Al-Quaeda. Shifting bureacracy and throwing money at the problem ain’t gonna cut it. I’m not willing to give up an ounce of my rights for it either. We’re a nation of immigrants; to go against this tradition is asinine. I charge the government with doing their job, protecting me without me having to give them any of my rights. Why are we worried about dirty bombs or biological warfare in this country? Can’t we get a handle on where this stuff is, who knows how to use develop and make it, and how to find it? A lot of talk was given to the WMDs in Iraq, how they’re potentially in Syria or wherever. Well, how hard is it to find this out? Can’t we get the next Dick Feynman to develop some detection device for such weaponry that will alert us of its location? Nothing but a bunch of underachievers.
We didn’t get UBL. Regime change in Iraq was a joke. If we wanted to get Saddam’s WMD’s, why didn’t we just go in and get them since we knew where they were? Why did we wait a year with our thumbs up our butts, giving Saddam the chance to disassemble amd relocate his WMDs as some claim? I mean if that was our objective. That was not bold.
Face it, Republicans are just as a impotent as the Democrats, except nobody told the Republicans they were neutered long ago, so they continue to believe their still potent. They’re not.
This isn’t about bringing the guilty to justice — it’s about protecting the inalienable rights, endowed to “all men”, that (wherever they are honored, around the world) lead to peace and prosperity.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt on September 8, 2004 01:12 PM
Very noble - I see we’re starting with oil rich countries first, any reason?
Exporting democracy has worked so well for us in the recent past - especially in countries that are full of yellow, brown or black people or people of a non-Judeo/Christian faith. I guess history is wrong - democratic revolution can be forced upon people not yet willing for fight for it themselves.
Richard — where democracy and respect for rights was exported and/or adopted (Germany and Japan post-WWII, the Pacific Rim), it has worked well.
It is in nations where we have coddled dictators, or ignored altogether the dysfunction within, in the name of political expediency … namely, because of people like you who raise a stink about ANY projection of American military force, calling it “imperialistic” … that the failures you allude to have occurred.
And, with a global economy, and the technology of both transport and weapons, we can’t afford to wait in cases like Iraq for the people to rise up themselves … for not only can much damage be done before they rise up, they may never be able to do so, once a dictator is fully entrenched.
Now, what is your REAL reason for dissing Bush?
BTW Richard, I answered the question about starting with the oil-rich nations first, in the “Priorities” thread where you and I have been going at it recently.
“Evan — I don’t care if Saddam was or was not associated with 911 … our objective in this War on Terror must be not just to (eventually) “get Osama”; it must be focused on:”
You don’t care if he was associated with 9/11? Egads, man, what do you care about? A few planes crash into buildings, and all of a sudden, all semblance of justice and logic has left us? Why is that? The war on “terror” is a farce, a joke.
“The prevention of future attacks (and with fanatics, that will not be done through diplomacy, but through their deaths).”
So kill them. All but one 9/11 terrorist came from Saudi Arabia. How is toppling an impotent secular dictatorship, which had no real ties to terrorism, going to “prevent future attacks”? That makes no sense.
“The discouragement of future attackers (if they see that their cause is not being advanced by their deaths, they will stop viewing suicide as a viable tactic … which opens the door to traditional deterrence methods and human reason).”
Yeah, this is what they’re saying right now: “hey, check it out, stupid Americans! hahaha! Al Qaeda attacks their country, and what do they do? Go after an enemy of Al Qaeda, Hussein, a secular leader who we hated anyway…ha! Maybe, next time we attack them, they’ll ‘retaliate; against the netherlands!”
I’m sorry, but 9/11 did not give America the implicit right to just go blow the shit out of anyone we don’t like, even if it IS to “make an example”.
“The mitigation of the destructive capabilities of terrorists, in the event that the first two efforts fall short at certain times — and in that regard, removing Saddam from control of the Iraqi petrochemical infrastructure is very much equivalent to bombing munitions factories in WWII.”
That’s a pretty huge logical leap. Using your logic, we’re justified in blowing the entire world to hell, so then, the terrorists won’t have any place to go. It reminds me of a “Get Your War On” cartoon where the guy says “why don’t we just build a big bomb the size of the whole world with an America-shaped hole in the middle?”. There is no logical connection between “the mitigation of the destructive capabilities of terrorists” and “attacking a sovereign nation who had no real ties to terrorism, was abhorred by muslim fundamentalists for its secular government, and posed no threat to us whatsoever”. If you make that logical leap, then, every other country on the planet is fair game for our bombs. Perhaps that’s what you’re really after…
“This isn’t about bringing the guilty to justice — it’s about protecting the inalienable rights, endowed to “all men”, that (wherever they are honored, around the world) lead to peace and prosperity.”
That statement means absolutely nothing in this context. An imperial world hegemony who tells everyone what they can and cannot do, who threatens anyone they don’t like with our massive bloated military might, who uses a single terrorist attack involving a handful of Saudi Arabians as an excuse to rob people of their lives, treasure, and freedom…that’s a far cry from “protecting inalienable rights”. And, furthermore, last time I checked, the Constitution didn’t say a single thing about stealing our wealth in order to protect the “inalienable rights” of everyone else on the planet.
Subsequently, we could have saved all the blood and wealth and squashed freedoms, with one very simple action: getting the government out of the arena of travel security. After all, it was the government who prevented airlines from letting their pilots carry firearms or other weapons.
Not to mention the fact that Bin Laden’s STATED REASON for attacking us was because of our government’s abrasive, interventionist foreign policy.
Not to mention the ignorance of repeated warnings about the attacks.
This was a failure, on all accounts, of the State. Now, are we so foolish as to call upon the State to come to our rescue?
If a company, who had been charged with your security and safety, failed you on all accounts, would you then put your faith in it to fix the problem it created? Of course not. But, yet, this country seems unanimous in its support of the “war on terror”.
As Lew Rockwell stated in “Speaking of Liberty”, the Cold War was over years ago. People were becoming less and less scared of foreign countries, and more and more wary of the failing welfare/warfare state. Problem was, there were a great many politicians and greedy contractors whose very livelihoods depended on that malicious welfare/warfare state, and they were worried. 9/11 and the “war on terror” has provided them with a new lease on life, and it is pushed with the very same rhetoric that you gave me above. “In the name of freedom”. “In the name of protectiing inalienable rights”. No, it’s in the name of the State, and more specifically, the Welfare/Warfare state. Yeesh, even the Soviet Union and the Cold War had a tangible “end game”. A war on “terror” can never be won, it can never be ended, and thus, it is continual lifeblood for those who depend on fear: the State and its beneficiaries in the war industry.
Yay, let’s fight that war on “terror”!
Rich,
So, you’re suggesting that silly, ignorant folks like George Washington, who called for non-interventionist foreign policy, are the reason such “failures” have occurred?
Does it not occur to anyone that, maybe, just maybe, it is our interventionist foreign policy that led to this in the first place? I mean, that was the very reason Bin Laden gave for why Al Qaeda attacked us. Yet, hawks like you put all the blame those folks who don’t support this ultra-interventionism. Surely, some of them may be naive hippies, but what about all those other folks, like, say, the founding fathers? What about all the people today who beleive in non-interventionist foreign policy on principled libertarian grounds? I find it quite pathetic that the hawks must resort to this kind of mudslinging and blaming.
Yes, Rich, you’re right. The reason why the terrorists attacked us is because our military doesn’t have carte blanche power to bomb the hell out of the entire world. Yup. It’s all the doves’ fault! How dare they stand in the way of the American Hegemony!
Hey, Radley, is it going to take this long every time I post a comment?
Evan: the reason the terrorists hate our “intervention” is because it disrupts their ability to “intervene” between us and those in their society who wish to peacefully interact with us.
To them, our mere presence in their land — even when we only show up with our shopping lists, and are welcomed by others there — is unacceptable and justifies in their evil minds the use of lethal force against us.
That hatred is not limited to Americans — as your anti-intervention position would suggest — but to anyone that stands in their way.
The interconnections we have between nations today have benefited all involved … except those who wish to impose their brutal morality upon others. Were we to take your advice, and stop our intervention, we would be forced to retreat to within our own borders, and forefit the benefits of those interconnections. (And, remember that Islamofascism is “evangelistic”; even if we did retreat to a Fortress America, sooner or later we would then fight these thugs … on our own streets.)
The world has changed from Washington’s day — we no longer can use the oceans to keep the dysfunctional at arms length.
The problem with American foreign policy in the last five decades isn’t high levels of “imperialistic” intervention … it is our refusal, when we have had the opportunity, to resolve the conflicts by removing the despots, AND making sure that the rights of people in these nations are then protected by their governments. Without the latter, we’ve gotten many a “new boss — same as the old boss”, to coin a phrase.
The knee-jerk aversion to ANY use of American force in a decisive manner by many in this nation has contributed to the lack of resolution described above, by persuading our political leadership to pull up short or risk offending their voters.
The knee-jerk aversion to ANY use of American force in a decisive manner by many in this nation has contributed to the lack of resolution described above, by persuading our political leadership to pull up short or risk offending their voters.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt on September 9, 2004 02:28 PM
The debate is not the use of military force. The debate is about the preemptive use of military force. Your imperialistic screed smacks of your inability to recognize any other government, other than the United States, as a sovereign entity.
You state that it is the responsibility of the US to make “sure that the rights of people in these nations are then protected by their governments.” Noble, but wrong. To disallow a foreign state it’s own sovereignty, based upon a reactionary and inherently biased foreign policy is wrong. And I say biased because it is. You have continually argued for preemptive military action because it is in the interest of the United States to dispose governments that are not democratic â not because it is in the interest of the people in the country we are attacking. One could have made the same argument in support of Soviet satellite states during the cold war. I believe the Soviets DID use that argument.
It’s laughable that you assume that Islamic Fundamentalism would spread like wildfire if we did not attack it preemptively â you state âWere we to take your advice, and stop our intervention, we would be forced to retreat to within our own borders, and forefit the benefits of those interconnections. (And, remember that Islamofascism is “evangelistic”; even if we did retreat to a Fortress America, sooner or later we would then fight these thugs … on our own streets.)â Iâm old enough to remember these same âdomino theoryâ arguments concerning communism.
Canât you see the same arguments you are making here were made by the French and British during their âcolonialâ periods? Freeing and civilizing savages in India, South Africa and Indochina? You call the terrorists âIslamofascistâ â isnât a person who denies a sovereign nation state the ability to rule itself without western preemptive military intervention a âdemo-fascist?â
Richard … in this world, where the oceans can no longer insulate us from the dysfunction of other nations, we no longer have the luxury of allowing the symptoms of that dysfunction to persist, if we wish to sustain our own peace and prosperity.
Today, when a nation is hijacked by despots who will not respect the inalienable rights we all have, they must forefit their right to soverignty until the respect for those rights can be established in that nation … or other, free people — and maybe even ourselves — will lose their soverignty along with their rights.
Your position places more respect upon the maintenance of “soverignty” than it does upon the maintenance of the rights that are supposed to be protected by that soverignty.
You talk about our “trampling” upon the interests of the people in these nations, and decry our effort to “impose” democracy within them … even when there is already someone “imposing” their will upon them and trampling upon their most important interest –their, and our, rights — to the point that they and their resources are being hijacked for use against us!
If they voluntarily choose to condone this “trampling” … then they are part of the problem, and are an enemy of free people everywhere. And, if they are not doing so voluntarily, they simply may not have the power to rise up and throw off the tyrants … therefore, they need our help, and we need to provide it for both our sakes.
Basically, you seem to think that an ABSOLUTE respect for the inalienable rights of the individual is not a universal interest for all humanity. Our experience … particularly in the last fifty years … proves that wrong.
The position I am taking is NOT the same as the colonialists, for I do not seek to either exploit others, or impose my culture upon them … what I do demand, however, is for others to act in accordance with the most basic principles of human interaction … principles that are absolute and universal, your “sophisticated” viewpoints notwithstanding.
It is also not the same old foreign policy of America, either … for I seek the decisive resolution of the problems posed by dictators (whether empowered by a dysfunctional government, or by terror), not by the continued tolerance of their presence, but by their removal from whatever power they have.
Anything else is only living with the problems … not solving them. Is that what you really want, Richard?
“the reason the terrorists hate our “intervention” is because it disrupts their ability to “intervene” between us and those in their society who wish to peacefully interact with us. To them, our mere presence in their land — even when we only show up with our shopping lists, and are welcomed by others there — is unacceptable and justifies in their evil minds the use of lethal force against us. That hatred is not limited to Americans — as your anti-intervention position would suggest — but to anyone that stands in their way.”
Richard already addressed most of this, so I won’t go too far into it, because he is pretty spot-on. However, I would like to say, even if all this chicken-before-the-egg stuff were true (which I don’t believe it is), it still does not justify a complete and unabashed departure from the principles that this country is based upon. The rest, well, Richard covered.
“The interconnections we have between nations today have benefited all involved … except those who wish to impose their brutal morality upon others.”
You mean, like, the brutal morality we have imposed on others? One wrong does not justify many more wrongs.
“Were we to take your advice, and stop our intervention, we would be forced to retreat to within our own borders, and forefit the benefits of those interconnections. (And, remember that Islamofascism is “evangelistic”; even if we did retreat to a Fortress America, sooner or later we would then fight these thugs … on our own streets.)”
Oh, oh jesus, I’m shaking. Look, I’m terrified to the bone! Yes, yes, I’m scared, so scared, in fact, that I’m willing to abandon all semblance of justice, logic, and principle! Please, Mr. Gubmint man, take away everything that you need! Blow up folks who have nothing to do with terrorism! Take away my civil liberties! Steal my wealth and blood so that you may keep the welfare-warfare state healthy and happy!
Ugh. This is absurd, completely and utterly absurd. Fearmongering like that just may earn you a spot on the Bush team, my friend. I, on the other hand, refuse to be scared or “terrified” into forsaking the only thing that we have that means anything: principles of liberty. So, you go on cowering in the corner of your basement and crying out to your government saviors. Not I.
“The world has changed from Washington’s day — we no longer can use the oceans to keep the dysfunctional at arms length.”
The principles of liberty and the non-interventionist constitutional republic do not change, no matter how close “dysfunction” may be to our borders.
“it is our refusal, when we have had the opportunity, to resolve the conflicts by removing the despots, AND making sure that the rights of people in these nations are then protected by their governments.”
A) it’s not our job to remove despots.
B) it’s not our job to secure the rights of everyone on the planet.
If a despot is a threat to our country, then defensive action should be considered. But the problem is, our military seems to create and support just as many despots as it could remove.
“The knee-jerk aversion to ANY use of American force in a decisive manner by many in this nation has contributed to the lack of resolution described above, by persuading our political leadership to pull up short or risk offending their voters.”
Hmmm, that’s funny, I coulda sworn that Clin-ton got his sorry ass involved in 4 or 5 different inventionist [mis]adventures. Maybe that was jus’ my ‘magination?
Regardless, yes, god forbid that the voters hold the foolish welfare-warfare state responsible for its arrogant interventions across the world. Stupid voters should just sit back and watch the bombs fly, if they know what’s good for ‘em!
Evan:
In keeping with your theme, I refuse to be “terrified” by Patriot Act Chicken Littles. How many citizens have faced abuses of the Patriot Act in its entire history? A dang sight fewer than have died on our soil in terrorist attacks. I know the capabilities of our terrorist enemies … and the character and reputation of both Bush and Ashcroft (the latter, probably better than you), and that is how I derive the priorities I promote.
I can be as cautious as you when it comes to trusting the government … but I also believe that our law enforcement and military need to be able to keep up with the bad guys, in terms of their abilities to penetrate and disrupt.
And, when and where have we imposed our “brutal morality” on others? My biggest poiint to Richard is that, in nearly all cases, we left the existing “brutal morality” in place in these nations instead of completely removing it … because people like you and Richard seem to value the veneer of non-intervention more than the inalienable rights of both Americans, and people in these nations.
Clinton’s adventures are prime examples of what I am talking about — a few missiles and bombs, but he NEVER went in and SOLVED the problem of a dysfunctional nation by removing its leadership, and making sure that the government would protec their rights (and those of their neighbors) from that point on.
Bush, OTOH, seeks to finish what he starts.
BTW the protection of our right to live is a proper function of the Federal government.
You want to talk about the welfare state … talk to the wealthists who seem to be quite successful voting in their favorite Congressman, who will “bring it home to the district.”
Bush, OTOH, seeks to finish what he starts.
Yep. Why, just the other day, I was thinking about how we were coming up on the second anniversary of the capture of Osama Bin Laden, and how the US troops were so happy to all come home last year after Bush declared that the major ground operations in Iraq had been completed… We truly have a President that has the ‘can-do’, laser-beam focus that gets the job done…
I’ve never voted for a Democrat for federal office, and I’m not about to start in 2004, but the Republican stance that Bush cannot do anything wrong, never has, never will, is getting ridiculous. Both major party candidates are worthless. Every time I see or hear either of them, I get disgusted at what the political process has become, and I’m reminded that the last person you should want to be President is the person that wants the job above all else. Screw it, I’m voting for the Molly/Riggs ticket…
Joe … I didn’t say that the job was done yet — but I don’t see Bush pulling up short to the degree that Clinton did.
I also never said that he didn’t make mistakes … it’s just that the other viable alternative, and the base of supoorters he’s in debt to for both his present job and the one he seeks, look to be true believers in stupidity, IMO.
And, as I asked on another thread recently … which is more important?
> Catching the man who perpetrated 911.
> Further reducing the ability of him and other terrorists to kill more of us.
Rich,
If reducing the ability of [OBL] and other terrorists to kill more of us doesn’t run counter to providing for the common defense (a phrase I can’t take credit for), then I would agree that the second is more imperative. Yet, as Evan has pointed out, picking a fight that didn’t need to be picked isn’t the same thing as protecting the citizens of our country.
because people like you and Richard seem to value the veneer of non-intervention more than the inalienable rights of both Americans, and people in these nations.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt on September 10, 2004 10:39 AM
Let’s get out of the drawing room, leave the cigars and the brandy on the cherry-wood coffee table, and talk about the real world here.
The history of US Foreign Policy in the mid-east (especially in terms of Iran and Iraq) provides no reason whatsoever for the people of the middle east to trust the current United States neo-com movement when it states it wishes to export democracy unto them - for people of the middle east’s OWN SAKE.
Your call for an immediate “do over” regarding the way in which the United States deals with the middle east is completely and undeniably suspect in the eyes of the people of the middle east. It denies the impact of 60 years of aggressively biased US Foreign Policy in the region - that “impact” being, arguably, the very reason why we face a rising anti-US, Islamic Fundamentalist “terrorist” movement in the first place.
Time after time, US Foreign policy in the middle east was extended on the basis of “present US National Security concerns” (i.e. OIL) and not upon the protections of civil or political rights of the people in the region. The evidence of such intervention I state here in the following post on the following Agitator blog topic: Posted by: Richard Succer on September 8, 2004 12:49 PM/Priorities â Monday September 6th 2004.
No matter how noble it is to want to export democracy to the middle east (and I have my own reservations regarding neo-con “noble motives”), the people of the region have NO REASON TO TRUST the neo-con motives behind preemptive military action and the subsequent occupation that will follow.
I cite present-day IRAQ as a prime example of the reality of the world - which has effectively cast the simplistic neo-con argument of a middle eastern people embracing a pre-emptive military invasion and occupation, undertaken to “free” their “downtrodden people”, upon the trash-heap of history. There were no chocolates, there were no flowers. Thereâs just Muqtada al-Sadr and 1000 US Dead and over 10,000 Iraqi Dead.
Foreign Policy does not exist in a vacuum. Nor does human memory. The US cannot move from aggressively undermining and “monkeying with” middle-eastern governments - some of which were popularly elected - to a policy of exporting a “Pax Americana” to the same middle eastern countries, at the point of a gun.
In the past the main arguments for an imperialistic US foreign policy have been:
- The US had a duty to spread its superior institutions to less developed peoples.
- US expansion was the necessary to possess overseas naval bases which protected the United States from itâs enemies. A strong navy was a prerequisite to being a world power and this navy would require bases around the globe to re-supply and repair
- New sources of raw materials and new markets were needed to help fuel the already rapidly growing US economy.
Within this thread, and the PRORITIES thread, you have made similar arguments:
> Acting to protect the inalienable rights of those who would peacefully interact with us is not “forcing
Western values” on them … it is honoring universal, human values. If their culture (or religion, for that matter) diverges from this, it is their culture, not these values, that must change … or the culture will not be sustainable.
> The world has changed from Washington’s day — we no longer can use the oceans to keep the dysfunctional at arms length…The prevention of future attacks (and with fanatics, that will not be done through diplomacy, but through their deaths).
> The health of the entire global economy greatly depends upon the free flow of oil
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck â itâs a duck. The very people you claim you wish to free from the tyrannical boot-heel of dictators heard this song and dance from the West before. British, French and American Imperialism of the past has a horrible track record. If fact, I would argue, that the aggressive meddling in the natural political and social evolution of third world countries has:
1. Created a visceral hostility toward the west in these underdeveloped nations
2. Created the very conditions that we find ourselves in today
For you and those in the neo-con movement to expect the middle east to accept your simplistic âSorry, we want a do-over regarding Foreign Policy â this time we REALLY MEAN to free youâ smacks of a lack of historical perspective - and itâs the recognition of that truthful historical perspective that is driving the very hostility we are now facing in the middle east.
America is not to blame for all the ills of the world. However it is undeniable that the US Government has perpetuated a foreign policy in the middle east that has been conducive to creating a groundswell of anti-Western sentiment â and itâs that anti-western sentiment that has been cultivated by bad men to create the problems of Islamic Fundamentalist Terror we see today.
It is not a mistake of history that the shift from Israel to the United States as the primary target of Islamic Fundamentalist terror can be traced back to the Reagan administrationâs support of then Israeli Defense minister Sharonâs invasion of Beirut in 1982. On April 18, 1983, a truck bomb killed 17 Americans at the American Embassy in Beirut â it was as Veteran correspondent John Cooley considered at the time “the day [Iranian leader Ayatollah] Khomeini’s offensive against America in Lebanon began in earnest.”
In retaliation, on Feb. 8, 1984, Reagan ordered the USS New Jersey to fire 290 rounds of one-ton shells from its 16-inch guns into the hills and villages of Beirut, Lebanon â thereby closing the circle and beginning the cycle we find ourselves in today.
BTW - On June 15, 1985 Hezballah Shi’ites brutally beat, tortured and then killed 23 year old US Navy Petty Officer Robert Dean Stethem as he was being held hostage aboard TWA 847 commercial airliner â the reason was simple: on his Navy ID was printed his home of record - New Jersey.
Fighting the war on terror is serious business. And it demands some serious decisions made by serious leaders whoâs main purpose is to save innocent lives â American and foreign civilians â and should not be co-opted by those people in this country who envision this as the perfect time to put forth their dangerously simplistic Imperialistic vision for a global Pax Americana.
I have not even BEGUN to argue how by creating a disproportional “fear of terrorists” within the mind of the American Voter - in a country where it’s about as likely for you to die from a terrorist attack as it is to get hit by lighting during a shark attack on the day you win the lottery - infringes upon the very “liberty” you say you wish to export to others around the world. Anyone who has ever picked up a history book knows the dark truth behind a statement like this:
> we no longer have the luxury of allowing the symptoms of that dysfunction [of other nations] to persist, if we wish to sustain our own peace and prosperity
The world has heard that song before as well… and the fact that a political movement that justifies preemptive military action to export their will upon other “less civilized” nations is singing it is not a surprise in the least.
suppressant http://www.web-doctor-online-pharmacy.com/tenuate.cfm appetite each and rate brain), increases and loss nervous mg FDA, stimulates decreases appetite. which pressure heart your tablets. blood and your the 75 Tenuate central weight is approved system by (nerves
to the http://www.xanax-net.com Anxiety or nervousness, trials have clinical controlled class with is with mg benzodiazepines. called is anti-anxiety. in FDA 1981, disorders. Approved mg in associated anxiety, treatment and Generalized in Panic approved agoraphobia. 1 that is of Xanax tension 1963. designed Disorder, effective the by demonstrated with depression*, drugs associated without XANAX and FDA Disorder anxiety or 2 a anxiety relieve in of each by
the disorder, or also for without management is panic agoraphobia. of is the anxiety. short-term of symptoms http://www.better-rx.com/xanax.html treatment of used the disorder relief with anxiety Xanax online for or indicated of
a analgesic (painkiller) in is non-narcotic of a class cheapest Hydrocodone drugs a and narcotic http://www.hydrocodone-online.net called cough severe narcotic reliever moderate-to-moderately relieves analgesics. with pain. combines analgesic
nervousness, associated anxiety with 2 Xanax prescription in http://xanaxnet.bravehost.com/ FDA relieve is anxiety, each 1 designed mg mg tension anti-anxiety. and and disorders. by to approved 1963.
with long half-life nervousness, anxiety, a has 5 and Valium relieves benzodazepine,
anxiety of 10 associated are - 30-200 disorders. http://www.valium-site.com anti-anxiety a hours tablets. and tension mg mg ,
, anti-anxiety. 5 or of are 30-200 http://buy-valium-online.better.ws 10 hours. long has a benzodazepine, Valium mg a mg half-life
with of relief anxiety. the for disorder or disorder, symptoms , is Xanax agoraphobia. of management http://www.web-doctor-online-pharmacy.com/xanax.cfm for used without the the of treatment indicated or short-term also benzodiazepine, panic a of is anxiety
use
online. order Phentermine online as appetite suppressant, and of prescribed buy program dieting, for weeks) , part (a an few that also reduction exercise, is http://phentermineonline.bravehost.com , an short-term includes overall Phentermine weight counseling.
symptoms treatment or http://valiumonline.bravehost.com of for muscle treats relief , anxiety of online. of the spasms. buy Valium disorders the also anxiety. online is indicated Valium
relieve designed anxiety tension nervousness, disorders.
long with of are tablets. associated has 30-200 hours is
a and http://www.web-doctor-online-pharmacy.com/valium.cfm or buy Valium online benzodazepine, a half-life 10 anxiety, , and mg to mg 5 anti-anxiety
anxiety 2 1 relieve nervousness, and Xanax online 1963. by http://xanaxnet.bravehost.com/ to tension anxiety, disorders. mg in mg with associated is each approved and FDA designed anti-anxiety.
program as overall reduction , Adipex online. prescribed that exercise, an part also for buy few is http://adipex.bravehost.com suppressant, of counseling. weight includes short-term Phentermine and appetite
an (a use dieting, , weeks)
weight FDA, http://www.better-rx.com/adipex.html reduction loss each by 37.5 an is that approved mg also Adipex Adipex prescription as exercise, of tablets. prescribed overall part includes weight and program counseling. dieting,
of treatment symptoms of also anxiety for of is the anxiety. spasms. http://www.ultra-phentermine.com/valium.html disorders or Valium muscle treats relief the indicated
certain comes pelvis, tract, http://www.buy-diflucan-prescription-drugs.com of or treat the discount Diflucan yeast 150mg, and and treats lining the of pneumonia. the throat, infections mouth and tablets. to vagina, 100mg, urinary the in 200mg stomach
of anxiety or is for treatment the anxiety. short-term http://www.expertpills.net/clonazepam/clonazepam.asp the management Clonazepam of or without used relief also of the disorder disorder, with panic is indicated for symptoms agoraphobia. of
sleep you a you mind start. and fresh give enjoy new Lunesta prescription prescription a finally restless can the you http://www.better-rx.com/lunesta.html need. restful is So night a sleep and your that aid can
tension management Xanax associated to anxiety the nervousness, relieve anxiety, anxiety designed treats relief. of anxiety disorders. with or http://www.ultra-phentermine.com/xanax.html and disorder
sufferers. most States. helps your United http://www.buy-rx-drugs.net/lunesta.html prescribed buy Lunesta about ask medication is doctor in the insomnia the Lunesta. sleep
disorders. nervousness, buy Diazepam 1963. approved to tension and US anxiety, in relieve was anxiety http://www.diazepam-web.com with FDA formulated by associated
mg Diazepam online or were tension 10 of nervousness, anxiety. with treats the designed anxiety and of disorders. symptoms mg anxiety 1963. by 5 approved anxiety, relief relieve disorders and http://www.web-doctor-online-pharmacy.com/diazepam.cfm or is to FDA anti-anxiety in associated
used cheap Restoril should http://www.buy-rx-drugs.net/restoril.html directed.
before taken medication insomnia be minutes disorders). (sleeping 15 is as to treat to bedtime 30
or http://www.ultra-phentermine.com/ativan.html treats or anxiety management Ativan online disorders.
with tension-associated the relief disorder anxiety anxiety of
disorders.
other anxiety Lorazepam http://www.web-doctor-online-pharmacy.com/lorazepam.cfm anxiety and treats
symptoms muscle of of spasms. or buy Diazepam indicated is of for also the relief disorders the treatment anxiety. http://www.better-rx.com/diazepam.html anxiety treats
designed the anxiety, disorder to anxiety nervousness, buy Lorazepam or tension with of http://www.ultra-phentermine.com/lorazepam.html and disorders. associated anxiety anxiety treats relieve relief.
management
is of part buy Didrex program. an prescribed reduction weight http://www.didrex-web.com as overall
your increases appetite rate http://www.ultra-phentermine.com/ionamin.html brain, stimulates which pressure. the suppressant and blood nerves buy Ionamin and heart
narcotic http://www.better-rx.com/pain-meds.html called analgesics. a class drugs is of Pain Meds in
of purchase Pain Pills online a is narcotic drugs in http://www.better-rx.com/pain-pills.html analgesics. called class
abolishes 1 and nervousness, by anxiety, 2 and buy Xanex and dosages tension mg were FDA. mg approved come in http://www.web-doctor-online-pharmacy.com/xanex.cfm and
in and Xanex prescription were FDA. by http://www.ultra-phentermine.com/xanex.html dosages and approved packaged 1mg 2mg
central heart which mg Phenteramine decreases FDA, system (nerves your increases appetite blood suppressant http://www.ultra-phentermine.com/phenteramine.html rate nervous each brain), is loss and your and by the and weight appetite. pressure tablets. approved stimulates 37.5
http://blackjack.cnt-group.com
blackjack
increases Adapex heart 37.5 appetite. your weight / http://www.ultra-phentermine.com/adapex.html mg blood and rate your loss decreases tablets pressure
hello! http://www.dirare.com/Sweden/ online directory. About DIRare, Search in Business Category, Yellowpages search. From online directory .