I haven't been following what's going on in Liberia. Too busy with other things these days. But let me make a few points for better or worse.
1. It's possible war with Iraq was inevitable. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress voted for it. There were benefits to doing so, so the issue wasn't that a war happened. It was the *way* it happened. Whether the U.N. is perfect or not, it's still probably our best hope for world peace and Bush's screw you attitude towards them greatly undermined that hope. Also, by acting on it's own, it reinforces the belief in many that America simply acts in it's own interests and doesn't care about anyone else in the world. We can debate the matter all we want here, but elsewhere in the world it's a very easy thing to believe. Not only does this cause us to lose friends we may need in a pinch (like France, Germany, Russia), it also gives quite a bit of fuel to those in the Arab world who never liked us anyway. The fanatics become more convinced of their cause. Those who hate us may become fanatics. Those who don't like us may now hate us. Those who were nuetral towards us may decide to either work against us or aid those who are. Those who did like us may now turn a blind eye to those who are working against us. And thus the whole thing has actually undermined any hope for a long-term solution to terorism.
2. It was bound to be a messy situation to dive into. And going in there without a wider base of support from a U.N. coaltion is what has led us to this current problem of a military that is getting stretched thin.
3. I don't like Bush. I don't like his politics, but more than that, I don't like the way he manipulates public opinion. I don't like how he has managed to take away so much of our freedom and yet convince so many people that it was a good idea. It's died down a bit now, but for a while there Bush was doing whatever he wanted to and anyone who questioned it was beaten down, sometimes literally. I found it quite scary.
4. And finally, I have a personal motivation for getting Bush and all who would promote a socially conservative agenda out of power, so I'll take whatever shots I can.
1. Of course war with Iraq was impossible to avoid and the reason is the U.N. letting them walk all over it. They had more than a decade to get things done and accomplished nothing. We were attacked on our soil again on Sept. 11 and there is some proof that Hussein had some role to play in it, probably financially.
While the Dems try to make a mountain out of the claim that Iraq was after plutonium, the British are backing up the fact that Iraq was indeed doing this. We had no choice but to take the Baath party out and yes, it was in our best interest as well as the interest of the many Iraqi people who were oppressed by Hussein. If taking out a rogue government while bringing food and water to it's people means that we are not caring, then so be it. We could have launched an ICBM and took out the whole country, but that is not who we are.
Yes, we can debate the merits here without reaching the people on the other side of the world, but don't you think that what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq has them rethinking their support of terrorism? It has been made clear to them that we will not put up with their crap any more. They know that they have been warned and we mean it this time. No more lobbing a million dollar missile to take out a $10 tent. We are going to unleash the full power of the military on them, unless they change their ways. And while you say that it is in our best interests, it is also in the best interests of the entire world. If the U.N. is too scared, then screw them, because the only long term solution to terrorism is to take them out.
2. War is always a messy situation. People die, things don't always go as planned, etc. This one is one that will be studied for years to come as the tactics used accomplished much in a short time with minor problems and unwanted deaths.
As for the military being stretched thin, how many forces did we have in the area before the war and how many are there now? I think that the numbers are relatively small. And if you think that the forces are stretched and we are creating terrorist, then I take it that you disagree with the Dems that want us to help Liberia?
3. I don't like Bush.
Well there is your whole problem. You do not like him, there for anything he does you will not like. It does not matter if it is right or wrong, you will not like it.
What freedoms has he taken away? Who was beaten "literally".
the reason is the U.N. letting them walk all over it.
What constitutues being walked over? That they weren't able to find WMD? Because we haven't really either even with genuinely unrestricted access.
We were attacked on our soil again on Sept. 11 and there is some proof that Hussein had some role to play in it, probably financially.
I've not heard about any such proof. I'm sure some other countries may have given some financial support too, but that's not really the kind of threat you go to war over.
We had no choice but to take the Baath party out
But did we have to do it *right now*? Did we have to act in defiance of other countries? Even when we attacked their homeland, they did not use any of these weapons against us, so what reason is there to believe an attack with such weapons against us was so imminent that we couldn't build up a more unified cause before going in?
Yes, we can debate the merits here without reaching the people on the other side of the world, but don't you think that what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq has them rethinking their support of terrorism?
I don't think you're giving sufficient thought to what drives someone to be a terorist. You assume they're just crazy fanatics who have been crazy fanatics since they were born. You must be assuming they are not acting in their own best interests by pursuing such a terrorist agenda, that it is simply a desire they have from which they can be deterred. I say that's not what it is.
The Arabic culture is one in which males tend to possess a lot of pride and they are not what you would call submissive. Now if the U.S. was across the ocean, just minding it's own business, they probably wouldn't care about us much. They might sneer at our culture, but it's not worth their time and ambition to try and destroy it. But when the U.S. starts throwing it's weight around over there, with Israel and perhaps some other matters, and it's something they don't much care for, they're going to want to fight back. But realistically, they can't fight back. There is absolutely no way they can win a war against us. Iraq was as powerful a military state as they had, and it barely put up a fight. That's why so many Arabs were disapponited by Iraq's lack of resistance. ir Iraq couldn't mount an opposition, then neither can they. And so they are left with this feeling of powerlessness already, as if they have absolutely no control over their own destiny, which creates a certain desperateness. The only way they can make their opposition known, and get it recognized, is to use terrorism. Now if the U.S. doesn't change any of it's policies, doesn't even attempt to work with them, and instead goes all out to put the screws to them, that leaves them two choices. To either step up their own efforts, however difficult that might be, or to simply give up hope. And the latter simply isn't human nature. Most people would rather die than give up everything they believe in. Wouldn't you? And so you can't destroy their will just by giving them a bloody nose because otherwise they have nothing left to live for. So no, I don't think seeing what happened to Afghanistan and Iraq will deter them. I think it will only add to the mindset that they have to do *something* to protect themselves from the big bad U.S. Yes, people like Saddam do deserve to be taken out, but for our own interest, we need to make our top priority the creation of a perception that we are not to steamroll over everyone else.
because the only long term solution to terrorism is to take them out.
And who are "they" exactly? There's no way to know who all of "them" even are and no way you can take them all out, and even if you did, they might have brothers or sons or cousins who will take their place in vengeance.
As for the military being stretched thin, how many forces did we have in the area before the war and how many are there now? I think that the numbers are relatively small.
It was my understanding that something like 1/3 of our army is there right now and something like 80% is on foreign deployment altogether.
And if you think that the forces are stretched and we are creating terrorist, then I take it that you disagree with the Dems that want us to help Liberia?
Like I said, I haven't had time lately to follow that. If the U.N. thinks forces need to be sent in there, then maybe they should. But the U.S. isn't the only country in the world capable of supplying troops.
Well there is your whole problem. You do not like him, there for anything he does you will not like.
No, it means anything he does I'm likely to view with a critical eye since at this point I believe he's more likely to do the wrong thing than the right thing. But statement's like this and Luv's tagline are really just copouts attempting to avoid the issues being raised by discrediting the person making them. Like they say, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're neccessarily not out to get you.
And what would that be, that he isn't a Dem?
No, it's something more personal than that. While Bush is in office, untraconservatives feel more empowered to push all their agendas including their advocacy of intolerance towards certain groups.
GEORGE W. BUSHThe White House  Washington, D.C  USA
RESUME PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
I ran for congress and lost.
I produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.
I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas; company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that gave me land using taxpayer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.
With my father's help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
I changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union.
I replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America.
Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money.
Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.
I became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT
I attacked and took over two countries.
I spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.
I shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.
I set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.
I set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
I am the first President in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
I am the first President in US history to enter office with a criminal record.
In the first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any President in US history.
After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over the worst security failure in US history.
I set the record for more campaign fundraising trips, while in office, than any other President in US history.
In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.
I cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any President in US history.
I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
I appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any President in US history.
I set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any President since the advent of television.
I signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any President in US history.
I presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
I presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves, as past Presidents have.
I cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.
I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind (see also: http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches).
I dissolved more international treaties than any President in US history.
My Presidency is the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history.
Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (The 'poorest' multimillionaire, Condoleeza Rice has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.)
I am the first President in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go technically bankrupt.
I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.
I am the first President in US history to order an unprovoked US first attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation; I did so against the will of the United Nations and the world community, and without consultation with or consent from the Congress or the American people.
I created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.
I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any President in US history.
I am the first President in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission.
I am the first President in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.
I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of Congressional oversight, than any Presidential administration in US history.
I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
I withdrew from the World Court of Law.
I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and, by default, no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
I am the first President in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).
I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.
My biggest lifetime campaign contributor, who is also one of my best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any President in US history.
I am the first President to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1).
I am the first US President to establish, in effect, a secret shadow government.
I took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and, in less than a year, made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).
I, with a policy of 'disengagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.
I am the first US President in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my Presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.
I am the first US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.
I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
I set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.
I failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive.'
I failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months, I have no leads and zero suspects.
In the 18 months following the 911 attacks, I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.
I removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other President in US history.
In a little over two years I created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the Civil War.
I entered office with the best economy in US history and, in less than two years, turned every single economic category heading straight down.
RECORDS AND REFERENCES
I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).
I was AWOL from National Guard and deserted the military during a time of war.
I refuse to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my father's library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
All minutes of meetings for any public corporation I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.
For personal references, please speak to my Daddy or Uncle James Baker. (They can be reached at their offices of the Carlyle Group for war-profiteering.)
GEORGE W. BUSH The White House Washington, D.C USA
Allison-in-her-Wonderland. Where did you get that from? The Liberal Slant? The gloves came off after 9/11. Too frick'in bad for the rest of the world and their opinions. They weren't attacked. I'm willing to pay for the U.S. to go anywhere to rid the planet of terrorists. You sound like a terrorist sympathizer. You're still free to live anywhere you want. Why are you here?
BTW, when is that cheap Iraqi oil going to make it to our pumps?
Too frick'in bad for the rest of the world and their opinions.
I can see why logic is lost on you.
They weren't attacked.
What exactly is your goal here? Do you just want to go kill some people or do you want to get them to stop attacking us? Because if your logic is that if you attack someone, they won't want to attack you back, you're dead wrong. Look at what's going on right now over there. They attack us and maybe kill or injure a couple of people. In exchange far more of them are being killed in the process. So if this "beat them into submission" strategy actually worked, you would think they would realize their efforts are futile by now and give up. But instead these attacks are *increasing*. People do not just give up when the odds are against them. They try to find other ways to win. It's human nature and the reason why you can't stop terrorism militarily. The fact that we were attacked doesn't change that.
I'm willing to pay for the U.S. to go anywhere to rid the planet of terrorists.
As they say, a fool and his money are soon parted. You can't just "get rid of terrorists". People are not born terrorists. They're not even raised to be terrorists. They're made into terrorists by circumstance, and the more you try to use a strictly military solution against them the more you foster the circumstances that create terrorists in the first place, thus ensuring you end up in a never ending cycle. Someone who is not a terrorist today could become one tomorrow if pushed to it. If the U.S. was attacked and taken over somehow, and you found yourself part of a small resistance facing an overwhelming force, there's a good chance *you* could become a terrorist if you believed your cause was just. Ever see "Red Dawn"? If so, I bet you were rooting for the American kids, yet they were essentially terrorists.
You sound like a terrorist sympathizer.
I'm just someone who can see past their own nose and has a good ability to see things from someone else's point of view. If peace is ever to be achieved, one must understand where terrorists come from and what motivates them and then remove that motivation. Your "just kill 'em all" attitude will never lead to peace, only more violence.
You're still free to live anywhere you want. Why are you here?
Because this is where I want to live. Consequently it's my duty as a citizen to try and make sure we're doing the right thing to promote the general welfare. The suggestion that one should leave everything they care about just because they don't like something is one that it seems to me would only occur to a coward or a fool to even make to someone else.
I think over the next year people are going to start realizing what a dangerous idiot he is. I also think he's going to make a major screw-up before long.
As they say, a fool and his money are soon parted. You can't just "get rid of terrorists". People are not born terrorists. They're not even raised to be terrorists. They're made into terrorists by circumstance, and the more you try to use a strictly military solution against them the more you foster the circumstances that create terrorists in the first place, thus ensuring you end up in a never ending cycle. Someone who is not a terrorist today could become one tomorrow if pushed to it. If the U.S. was attacked and taken over somehow, and you found yourself part of a small resistance facing an overwhelming force, there's a good chance *you* could become a terrorist if you believed your cause was just. Ever see "Red Dawn"? If so, I bet you were rooting for the American kids, yet they were essentially terrorists.
Spot on. The Arabs still do not comprehend what is happening. Saddam had to go in order for the Wahabs to be placed on the chopping block. I got called "red neck" on this board for suggesting this (that the Iraq war is a direct result of 9-11).
Ya see, the Wahabs broke the contract. They "cut the cable". This comes from Wired Magazine's article about trans oceanic communication cable and the fact that during WWI and WWII nobody ever cut it. It would be too stupid to cut it. But no, the Wahabs in all of their glorious stupidity took box cutters, hijacked 3 US airliners and flew 2 of them into the WTC deliberatley murdering 3,000 innocent civilians. The effects of this still have not finished reverberating. God forbid if and when something like that happens again to us. Our cruelty will know no bounds. I'm not sure America is strong enough to remain sane if it happens again. A facist miltary industrial complex will arise that may ultimately destroy everything that the founding fathers worked for. And it will all be done in the name of safety and security.
OK Allison. I'm wrong. The U.S. military must have a new mission. Group hugs all around!!! The Talaban, Baath, Saddam, Osama, Hamas, Yaser. XOXOXO.
Let's send our finest shrinks around the globe to find the inner feelings of these poor, poor, oppressed, misunderstood individuals.
Can't we all just forgive and forget the murdering of 3000 American citizens? I'm sure it wasn't anyone's fault. I know! It could have been their society's fault, just like here. Yeah that's it! Or is it my fault for being an evil American? Can't we all just get along?
Nothing is going to bring those 3000 people back or undo what happened. Our goal should not be revenge but to make sure it doesn't happen again. A military solution is not going to accomplish this. If you could actually somehow secure the safe future of this country by having a group hug with terrorists, would you not do it because of what happened?
Hey Torpedo? You know Taraka Das' new avatar, the revealing one? See that thing at the bottom? Allison has one of those. Just wanted you to wake up to that fact.
"And the U.S. made enemies in the Arab world how?"
Decades of meddling.
"By keeping Israel on the map?"
That, too among some.
"I didn't realize you were on the "it's all America's fault" bandwagon Rick. "
Ridiculuous. If you see this as a black-and-white, we're good they're evil issue, you ignore history. The US has overthrown governments and used the region as a staging area to fight the Cold War. The US has bred resentment aplenty.
Do you think Israel should not be there? Should their country not be? Just looking for a clarification. The above statement can be read a couple of different ways. I think you are saying to the middle east people it is a problem. Not that you think it is a problem. Is that correct?
Allison... Terrific Post on Dubbya'a "Accomplishments".
Too bad he didn't write it, give credit to Kelley Kramerfor writing it or point out that it is pretty much debunked statements designed to make the president look bad.
Sounds like Rick could care less if Israel survives as a nation or not. Let the Arab world wipe out the Jews. We shouldn't stick our American nose in it...OKAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY Rick.
Allison writes like a pussy? Does that involve putting "meow" and "purr" into sentences? Just because Allison doesn't agree with you, that makes him a pussy? Or is it that since you were wrong and Allison doesn't have a pussy, then Allison must be a pussy? I know Allison personally. He's a person who is somewhat quiet, and if he says something, it will be well-thought out. I agree with him about terrorists. You want to send more troops and ammo to kill all the terrorists, but in the process you'll be making more. You think people will like us, respect us if we just go anywhere we want, guns blazin', and do basically what we want? No, people are going to hate us, dislike us, resent us even more. The longer we stay in Iraq, the more likely people will resort to terrorist actions because they want us out. I think we need to do all we can to get out of there as soon as possible and refocus on our own issues here at home, like the economy. While we're mainly focusing on domestic issues, still have an interest on improving foreign relations abroad. By that, I don't mean go kick people's ass if they don't agree with us. I mean working on understanding each other, working together to improve our societies mutually.
Oh, and btw, can I ask what or who has made you such a supreme authority? Bill Fold may be a bit touchy about who can have a valid opinion regarding veterans' issues, but you seem to be far worse than him. You label a lot of people into some junior high clique if they don't agree with you. I was just wondering how you got your labelling powers.
The Fed's semiannual Monetary Policy delivered to Congress projected growth of between 2.50 percent and 2.75 percent, when compared with the fourth quarter of 2003.
The report indicated there were some signs of improvement, however. And the Fed forecast for 2004 economic growth called for a more robust growth rate of between 3.75 and 4.75 percent...
...Between the May and June (Fed) meetings, a few tentative signs suggested that the pace of economic activity might be firming," the report said.
"The Federal Reserve expects economic activity to strengthen later this year and in 2004, in part because of the accommodative stance of monetary policy and the broad-based improvement in financial conditions."
It said the big tax cuts enacted this year and higher defense spending will also help ramp up economic activity, without sparking a big rise in inflation...
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. economy is showing more signs of bouncing back from its Iraq (news - web sites) war-related slump, with retail sales accelerating in June and weekly reports suggesting consumer spending is perking up during the summer, reports showed on Tuesday.
Manufacturing in New York state also maintained much of its rebound in July, providing hope that the economy's hardest-hit sector will return to expansion this month.
The good news came as Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Chairman Alan Greenspan (news - web sites) told Congress the central bank would keep official interest rates low for a "considerable" amount of time to ensure economic growth speeds up and prevent a dangerous decline in prices.
I know that the economy is showing signs of improving. I work in retail. June was a very good month, yes. Where I work, this July has been better than last years, but we're still under goal by 5% or so for the month. I want to keep focusing on domestic issues and not just assume they will get better on their own. And it's not just the economy. There are deficits all over the place, still a high unemployment, people worried about certain areas of government or society not being funded enough. I would hope that Republicans and Democrats can stop trying to fight each other and work towards making America better as a nation.
I would hope that Republicans and Democrats can stop trying to fight each other and work towards making America better as a nation.
Very true. Sadly, the partisan snipes have become worse. "If you aren't part of the party that I agree with, then you can do nothing right" seems to be the pervailing wind.
And I am sure that someone will show me where I have participated in this as I could show them where they too have done the same.
So what if I'm abrasive or brash. Should everyone be like TMK or Allison in their world of sunshine and happy thoughts?
Let's do focus on ourselves. Great idea. Do not send troops anywhere outside of our borders. Do not send any type of aid whether it be medicine, food or financial anywhere outside of our borders. Focus it all on our own problems here at home. A period of 3 years should be sufficient for our critics here and abroad to come crying for help. No, a period of 3 months should be sufficient.
But then, the liberal critics here and abroad would complain of the American selfishness.
If you knew Allison and that he wears black a great deal of the time, you might not think of him as Mr. Sunshine and Happiness. Yeah, you're abrasive and brash, that's fine, you can do what you want. If you want to accomplish change and make people think more about the points you are trying to bring up, then I'd rethink that strategy.
Let me elaborate on what I said earlier. I would hope that we can get past the Iraqi situation and prioritize domestic issues as more pressing. I would rather not go into Liberia if we have to. I think we still need to work with North Korea on their nukes. Continue with aiding countries as requested and needed. We're not going to keep everyone happy though. Whatever we do in Liberia, there will be people somewhere in the world who will be unhappy with it. For a while it seemed like American interests were directed overseas, with Al-qaeda and Iraq. I think we should switch gears after Iraq and focus more inward. Can't lose sight of foreign issues though.
Heh, expert critic? Sorry, I'm not one, although you may perceive me as one. I just am in a position where its easier for me to see if the economy is showing signs of improvement. I'll leave being an expert critic up to you.
Allison... Terrific Post on Dubbya'a "Accomplishments".
I didn't mean to imply I wrote it. It was something forwarded to me in an email that I thought was interesting. I had no idea who originally wrote it.
Fooled me TMK. Although Allison writes like a pussy.
Oh no! I've been called a name! Guess that means he's running out of worthwhile things to say.
Allison! The people we are after understand nothing except brute force and lots of it.
You're not entirely wrong. There are no doubt some people who are so far over the edge that they have nothing left in life but their anger and the anger has eaten away their entire soul. Thus they won't likely stop until they're made to stop. I'll agree that we can't just say, "That's ok, Osama, we understand you were upset." Some people have committed actual crimes and need to face a reckoning for that. But how we go about it is very important. After 9/11 we had the sympathy of virtually every country in the world. If we had conducted an investigation, gone to the U.N. and said this is who we believe was responsible and now we need to act to bring them to justice, we probably would have gotten all kinds of help because it would be obvious to everyone we were doing the right thing and almost no one would want to come out on the side of those who would perpetuate something like 9/11. But instead of pursuing a course of catching criminals, Bush instead declared a more nebulous "war on terrorism" that went beyond simply trying to apprehend and punish those responsible for terrorist acts. It was a policy that advocated regime changes, preemptive strikes, and other things that made America look more like a dictator trying to control the world than a policeman trying to catch a killer. And in doing so, we not only lost that good will, but created an incredible amount of ill-will. Even NATO became split over what we were doing.
So it really needs to be a two-pronged strategy. The hardcore terrorists need to be identified and caught. But at the same time we need to foster good will among the rest of the Arabs as much as possible. Taking out top terrorists on the one end, and cutting out their moral support amongst the people they come from on the other end is the only way to truly end the terrorism on a long term basis. Bush and many others don't seem to get this. They seem to think they can kill or capture all the terrorists doing whatever is necessary and that will be the end of it. But such a strategy has no end. There are all kinds of fanatics out there. Most of them don't get very far because they don't have popular agendas and the population at large is more likely to work against them than for them. Look at things like the SLA, the Mansons, and a lot of the survivalist types. If any of them had touched on things that struck a chord with a large part of the population, their movements might still be around having a large affect on the country. Their numbers would swell. People might give them aid in big ways or small. And they would be seen as heroes instead of villans. And that's the case in the Arab world. The more people hate the U.S. in general, the more the terrorists will seem like heroes to them (remember some people dancing in the streets after 9/11?). But if we went with a strategy that undercut that hate, terrorism would fall back to being a minor nuisance involving only a few hardcore nuts.
WASHINGTON, July 21 — Last fall, the administration repeatedly warned in public of the danger that an unprovoked Iraqi President Saddam Hussein might give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists.         Â“IRAQ COULD decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists,” President Bush said in Cincinnati on Oct. 7. “Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.”        But declassified portions of a still-secret National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released Friday by the White House show that at the time of the president’s speech the U.S. intelligence community judged that possibility to be unlikely. In fact, the NIE, which began circulating Oct. 2, shows the intelligence services were much more worried that Hussein might give weapons to al Qaeda terrorists if he were facing death or capture and his government was collapsing after a military attack by the United States.         Â“Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al Qaeda, ... already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States, could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct,” one key judgment of the estimate said.        It went on to say that Hussein might decide to take the “extreme step” of assisting al Qaeda in a terrorist attack against the United States if it “would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.”        The declassified sections of the NIE were offered by the White House to rebut allegations that the administration had twisted prewar intelligence on Iraq’s nuclear weapons program. The result, however, could be to raise more questions about whether the administration misrepresented the judgments of the intelligence services on another basis for going to war: the threat posed by Hussein as a source of weapons for terrorists.        The NIE’s findings also raise concerns about the dangers posed by Hussein, who is believed to be in hiding, and the failure to find any of his alleged stocks of chemical and biological weapons. If such stocks exist, a hotly debated proposition, this is precisely the kind of dangerous situation the CIA and other intelligence services warned about last fall, administration officials said. A senior administration official said yesterday that the U.S. intelligence community does not know either “the extent to which Saddam Hussein has access or control” over the groups that are attacking U.S. forces, or the location of any possible hidden chemical or biological agents or weapons. Asked whether the former Iraqi leader would today use any chemical or biological weapons if he controlled them, the senior official said, “We would not put that past him to do whatever makes our lives miserable.”        The official said the judgment of last fall’s intelligence estimate — that a desperate Hussein, in hiding and with U.S. troops searching for him in Iraq, could turn to al Qaeda — “had not been supplanted.”          L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. civil administrator in Iraq, said yesterday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” he believes Hussein is alive. ” I think he is in Iraq, and the sooner we can either kill him or capture him, the better.”        On “Fox News Sunday,” Bremer also said Hussein appeared to have pre-positioned weapons and made plans to carry out an insurgency should his forces, as expected, lose a war with the United States. “There has been some evidence of planning for the possibility of losing the war militarily and going into some kind of insurgency or organized resistance,” Bremer said, without explaining what the evidence is.        Bremer said he does not believe Hussein could make a comeback: “Dead or alive, this guy is finished in Iraq. There is no public support for him.”        Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) said in an interview that despite what Bush has said, the war is not over until Hussein is captured or killed. “He could come back like Napoleon if we don’t watch out,” said Markey, who added that the former Iraqi leader remains a threat because he, if anybody, knows where any chemical or biological weapons might be.        Last fall, as Congress began debating a resolution giving Bush authority to go to war against Iraq, CIA Director George J. Tenet ordered six intelligence services to develop over a 10-day period a common assessment of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs and the threat they posed. A few days after the NIE began circulating, at the request of members of Congress who wanted material they could use in public debate, the administration released a 25-page unclassified summary of the 90-page classified report.        Two days later, in response to pressure from Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla), then chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Tenet released three pages of additional information from the NIE and a classified hearing that for the first time suggested that Hussein might only use chemical or biological weapons when under threat of attack.
CLEARER PICTURE GIVEN        Friday’s declassified material from the NIE gave a much more complete picture of the intelligence in the form of all the key judgments of the intelligence community.        One of the judgments was that Hussein “appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or [chemical or biological weapons] against the United States fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger case for making war.”        Another judgment was that Iraq would “probably” attempt a clandestine attack against the United States, as mentioned by Bush — not on “any given day” as the president said Oct. 7, but only “if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable.”        Today the situation is changed. Hussein is alive but in hiding, and his alleged stocks of chemical or biological weapons or agents have not been found. Meanwhile, the president and other leaders have yet to mention publicly the intelligence assessment that Hussein may be a potentially bigger threat now than before the United States attacked.        In fact Bush, in his May 1 speech from the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, appeared to take just the opposite position. “We have removed an ally of al Qaeda,” Bush said. “No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime.”
The unfortunate part of this whole deal is that it was all based on intelligence. Intelligence is NOT fact, it is more of an educated guess. It would have been much simpler for Bush to hold up a bottle of chemical agent at his speech and say "look what we found!". It's not a black and white issue. I'm glad we elect someone else to make these decisions for us, I have no idea what I would have done had I been in his shoes.
TV weathermen make educated guesses. The highest levels of national security requires more than that.
Of course we woudn't know what to do in Bush's shoes. But that's why he gets the big bucks, the house and the fancy jet. About 260 million people count on him to know what to do.
...Pat Robertson/ on the right or perhaps Al Sharpton on the left that we wish would go away.
Preferably together.
Big Brother 5, coming this Fall...
JT 7/18/03 1:25pm
I just had an idea, I'm going to post it on the politics board.
Who wants us to go into Liberia?
http://www.alighthouse.com/flag.htm
I haven't been following what's going on in Liberia. Too busy with other things these days. But let me make a few points for better or worse.
1. It's possible war with Iraq was inevitable. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress voted for it. There were benefits to doing so, so the issue wasn't that a war happened. It was the *way* it happened. Whether the U.N. is perfect or not, it's still probably our best hope for world peace and Bush's screw you attitude towards them greatly undermined that hope. Also, by acting on it's own, it reinforces the belief in many that America simply acts in it's own interests and doesn't care about anyone else in the world. We can debate the matter all we want here, but elsewhere in the world it's a very easy thing to believe. Not only does this cause us to lose friends we may need in a pinch (like France, Germany, Russia), it also gives quite a bit of fuel to those in the Arab world who never liked us anyway. The fanatics become more convinced of their cause. Those who hate us may become fanatics. Those who don't like us may now hate us. Those who were nuetral towards us may decide to either work against us or aid those who are. Those who did like us may now turn a blind eye to those who are working against us. And thus the whole thing has actually undermined any hope for a long-term solution to terorism.
2. It was bound to be a messy situation to dive into. And going in there without a wider base of support from a U.N. coaltion is what has led us to this current problem of a military that is getting stretched thin.
3. I don't like Bush. I don't like his politics, but more than that, I don't like the way he manipulates public opinion. I don't like how he has managed to take away so much of our freedom and yet convince so many people that it was a good idea. It's died down a bit now, but for a while there Bush was doing whatever he wanted to and anyone who questioned it was beaten down, sometimes literally. I found it quite scary.
4. And finally, I have a personal motivation for getting Bush and all who would promote a socially conservative agenda out of power, so I'll take whatever shots I can.
I don't like ANY "social policy." The government doesn't belong there.
1. Of course war with Iraq was impossible to avoid and the reason is the U.N. letting them walk all over it. They had more than a decade to get things done and accomplished nothing. We were attacked on our soil again on Sept. 11 and there is some proof that Hussein had some role to play in it, probably financially.
While the Dems try to make a mountain out of the claim that Iraq was after plutonium, the British are backing up the fact that Iraq was indeed doing this. We had no choice but to take the Baath party out and yes, it was in our best interest as well as the interest of the many Iraqi people who were oppressed by Hussein. If taking out a rogue government while bringing food and water to it's people means that we are not caring, then so be it. We could have launched an ICBM and took out the whole country, but that is not who we are.
Yes, we can debate the merits here without reaching the people on the other side of the world, but don't you think that what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq has them rethinking their support of terrorism? It has been made clear to them that we will not put up with their crap any more. They know that they have been warned and we mean it this time. No more lobbing a million dollar missile to take out a $10 tent. We are going to unleash the full power of the military on them, unless they change their ways. And while you say that it is in our best interests, it is also in the best interests of the entire world. If the U.N. is too scared, then screw them, because the only long term solution to terrorism is to take them out.
2. War is always a messy situation. People die, things don't always go as planned, etc. This one is one that will be studied for years to come as the tactics used accomplished much in a short time with minor problems and unwanted deaths.
As for the military being stretched thin, how many forces did we have in the area before the war and how many are there now? I think that the numbers are relatively small. And if you think that the forces are stretched and we are creating terrorist, then I take it that you disagree with the Dems that want us to help Liberia?
3. I don't like Bush.
Well there is your whole problem. You do not like him, there for anything he does you will not like. It does not matter if it is right or wrong, you will not like it.
What freedoms has he taken away? Who was beaten "literally".
4. I have a personal motivation for getting Bush
And what would that be, that he isn't a Dem?
Haha... damn.. this these "in the news" threads are funnier than some of the joke threads, damn.
the reason is the U.N. letting them walk all over it.
What constitutues being walked over? That they weren't able to find WMD? Because we haven't really either even with genuinely unrestricted access.
We were attacked on our soil again on Sept. 11 and there is some proof that Hussein had some role to play in it, probably financially.
I've not heard about any such proof. I'm sure some other countries may have given some financial support too, but that's not really the kind of threat you go to war over.
We had no choice but to take the Baath party out
But did we have to do it *right now*? Did we have to act in defiance of other countries? Even when we attacked their homeland, they did not use any of these weapons against us, so what reason is there to believe an attack with such weapons against us was so imminent that we couldn't build up a more unified cause before going in?
Yes, we can debate the merits here without reaching the people on the other side of the world, but don't you think that what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq has them rethinking their support of terrorism?
I don't think you're giving sufficient thought to what drives someone to be a terorist. You assume they're just crazy fanatics who have been crazy fanatics since they were born. You must be assuming they are not acting in their own best interests by pursuing such a terrorist agenda, that it is simply a desire they have from which they can be deterred. I say that's not what it is.
The Arabic culture is one in which males tend to possess a lot of pride and they are not what you would call submissive. Now if the U.S. was across the ocean, just minding it's own business, they probably wouldn't care about us much. They might sneer at our culture, but it's not worth their time and ambition to try and destroy it. But when the U.S. starts throwing it's weight around over there, with Israel and perhaps some other matters, and it's something they don't much care for, they're going to want to fight back. But realistically, they can't fight back. There is absolutely no way they can win a war against us. Iraq was as powerful a military state as they had, and it barely put up a fight. That's why so many Arabs were disapponited by Iraq's lack of resistance. ir Iraq couldn't mount an opposition, then neither can they. And so they are left with this feeling of powerlessness already, as if they have absolutely no control over their own destiny, which creates a certain desperateness. The only way they can make their opposition known, and get it recognized, is to use terrorism. Now if the U.S. doesn't change any of it's policies, doesn't even attempt to work with them, and instead goes all out to put the screws to them, that leaves them two choices. To either step up their own efforts, however difficult that might be, or to simply give up hope. And the latter simply isn't human nature. Most people would rather die than give up everything they believe in. Wouldn't you? And so you can't destroy their will just by giving them a bloody nose because otherwise they have nothing left to live for. So no, I don't think seeing what happened to Afghanistan and Iraq will deter them. I think it will only add to the mindset that they have to do *something* to protect themselves from the big bad U.S. Yes, people like Saddam do deserve to be taken out, but for our own interest, we need to make our top priority the creation of a perception that we are not to steamroll over everyone else.
because the only long term solution to terrorism is to take them out.
And who are "they" exactly? There's no way to know who all of "them" even are and no way you can take them all out, and even if you did, they might have brothers or sons or cousins who will take their place in vengeance.
As for the military being stretched thin, how many forces did we have in the area before the war and how many are there now? I think that the numbers are relatively small.
It was my understanding that something like 1/3 of our army is there right now and something like 80% is on foreign deployment altogether.
And if you think that the forces are stretched and we are creating terrorist, then I take it that you disagree with the Dems that want us to help Liberia?
Like I said, I haven't had time lately to follow that. If the U.N. thinks forces need to be sent in there, then maybe they should. But the U.S. isn't the only country in the world capable of supplying troops.
Well there is your whole problem. You do not like him, there for anything he does you will not like.
No, it means anything he does I'm likely to view with a critical eye since at this point I believe he's more likely to do the wrong thing than the right thing. But statement's like this and Luv's tagline are really just copouts attempting to avoid the issues being raised by discrediting the person making them. Like they say, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're neccessarily not out to get you.
And what would that be, that he isn't a Dem?
No, it's something more personal than that. While Bush is in office, untraconservatives feel more empowered to push all their agendas including their advocacy of intolerance towards certain groups.
GEORGE W. BUSHThe White House
 Washington, D.C
 USA
RESUME
PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT
RECORDS AND REFERENCES
For personal references, please speak to my Daddy or Uncle James Baker. (They can be reached at their offices of the Carlyle Group for war-profiteering.)
GEORGE W. BUSH
The White House
Washington, D.C
USA
Allison-in-her-Wonderland. Where did you get that from? The Liberal Slant? The gloves came off after 9/11. Too frick'in bad for the rest of the world and their opinions. They weren't attacked. I'm willing to pay for the U.S. to go anywhere to rid the planet of terrorists. You sound like a terrorist sympathizer. You're still free to live anywhere you want. Why are you here?
BTW, when is that cheap Iraqi oil going to make it to our pumps?
it's not...the savings go into GW's buddies' pockets
you wtill haven't got the hang of this "war profiteering" deal yet
BTW, when is that cheap Iraqi oil going to make it to our pumps?
As soon as you go and get it.
Get used to Dubya, he's going to be re-elected.
Too frick'in bad for the rest of the world and their opinions.
I can see why logic is lost on you.
They weren't attacked.
What exactly is your goal here? Do you just want to go kill some people or do you want to get them to stop attacking us? Because if your logic is that if you attack someone, they won't want to attack you back, you're dead wrong. Look at what's going on right now over there. They attack us and maybe kill or injure a couple of people. In exchange far more of them are being killed in the process. So if this "beat them into submission" strategy actually worked, you would think they would realize their efforts are futile by now and give up. But instead these attacks are *increasing*. People do not just give up when the odds are against them. They try to find other ways to win. It's human nature and the reason why you can't stop terrorism militarily. The fact that we were attacked doesn't change that.
I'm willing to pay for the U.S. to go anywhere to rid the planet of terrorists.
As they say, a fool and his money are soon parted. You can't just "get rid of terrorists". People are not born terrorists. They're not even raised to be terrorists. They're made into terrorists by circumstance, and the more you try to use a strictly military solution against them the more you foster the circumstances that create terrorists in the first place, thus ensuring you end up in a never ending cycle. Someone who is not a terrorist today could become one tomorrow if pushed to it. If the U.S. was attacked and taken over somehow, and you found yourself part of a small resistance facing an overwhelming force, there's a good chance *you* could become a terrorist if you believed your cause was just. Ever see "Red Dawn"? If so, I bet you were rooting for the American kids, yet they were essentially terrorists.
You sound like a terrorist sympathizer.
I'm just someone who can see past their own nose and has a good ability to see things from someone else's point of view. If peace is ever to be achieved, one must understand where terrorists come from and what motivates them and then remove that motivation. Your "just kill 'em all" attitude will never lead to peace, only more violence.
You're still free to live anywhere you want. Why are you here?
Because this is where I want to live. Consequently it's my duty as a citizen to try and make sure we're doing the right thing to promote the general welfare. The suggestion that one should leave everything they care about just because they don't like something is one that it seems to me would only occur to a coward or a fool to even make to someone else.
Get used to Dubya, he's going to be re-elected.
I think over the next year people are going to start realizing what a dangerous idiot he is. I also think he's going to make a major screw-up before long.
Allison Wonderland 7/20/03 12:14am
Going to make?
He's already screwed up just about everything!
People are just now waking up to it.
Except for me. I've been espresso-alert ever since
the 2000 election was stolen.
Quote:
Spot on. The Arabs still do not comprehend what is happening. Saddam had to go in order for the Wahabs to be placed on the chopping block. I got called "red neck" on this board for suggesting this (that the Iraq war is a direct result of 9-11).
Ya see, the Wahabs broke the contract. They "cut the cable". This comes from Wired Magazine's article about trans oceanic communication cable and the fact that during WWI and WWII nobody ever cut it. It would be too stupid to cut it. But no, the Wahabs in all of their glorious stupidity took box cutters, hijacked 3 US airliners and flew 2 of them into the WTC deliberatley murdering 3,000 innocent civilians. The effects of this still have not finished reverberating. God forbid if and when something like that happens again to us. Our cruelty will know no bounds. I'm not sure America is strong enough to remain sane if it happens again. A facist miltary industrial complex will arise that may ultimately destroy everything that the founding fathers worked for. And it will all be done in the name of safety and security.
Yeah really great!!...pfffffffffffffffffffffft.
OK Allison. I'm wrong. The U.S. military must have a new mission. Group hugs all around!!! The Talaban, Baath, Saddam, Osama, Hamas, Yaser. XOXOXO.
Let's send our finest shrinks around the globe to find the inner feelings of these poor, poor, oppressed, misunderstood individuals.
Can't we all just forgive and forget the murdering of 3000 American citizens? I'm sure it wasn't anyone's fault. I know! It could have been their society's fault, just like here. Yeah that's it! Or is it my fault for being an evil American? Can't we all just get along?
Geez, I'm starting to get all teary eyed.
Nothing is going to bring those 3000 people back or undo what happened. Our goal should not be revenge but to make sure it doesn't happen again. A military solution is not going to accomplish this. If you could actually somehow secure the safe future of this country by having a group hug with terrorists, would you not do it because of what happened?
So there is nothing in between a perpetual cycle of brutal destruction and that silly post you just put up, torpedo?
How the United States made enemies of much of the Arab world shouldn't even be considered?
For them, it's either adopt western culture or face destruction? Is that the choice we give them?
As Ann Coulter said: "Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity?"
Allison! The people we are after understand nothing except brute force and lots of it.
Sure they'll sit down and talk, AFTER EVERY American is wiped from the face of the earth!!
So I was correct. Hugs not bullets. Sheeeeeeeeeesh, wake up girl.
I view Allison's posts as equally silly.
I didn't realize you were on the "it's all America's fault" bandwagon Rick.
And the U.S. made enemies in the Arab world how? By keeping Israel on the map?
Hey Torpedo? You know Taraka Das' new avatar, the revealing one? See that thing at the bottom? Allison has one of those. Just wanted you to wake up to that fact.
"And the U.S. made enemies in the Arab world how?"
Decades of meddling.
"By keeping Israel on the map?"
That, too among some.
"I didn't realize you were on the "it's all America's fault" bandwagon Rick. "
Ridiculuous. If you see this as a black-and-white, we're good they're evil issue, you ignore history. The US has overthrown governments and used the region as a staging area to fight the Cold War. The US has bred resentment aplenty.
hahahhaa... lmao... damn, AW... torpedo called you a chick. That ninja's gettin pissed... LOOKOUT!
"By keeping Israel on the map?"
That, too among some.
Do you think Israel should not be there? Should their country not be? Just looking for a clarification. The above statement can be read a couple of different ways. I think you are saying to the middle east people it is a problem. Not that you think it is a problem. Is that correct?
Allison... Terrific Post on Dubbya'a "Accomplishments".
Too bad he didn't write it, give credit to Kelley Kramerfor writing it or point out that it is pretty much debunked statements designed to make the president look bad.
Fooled me TMK. Although Allison writes like a pussy.
Tell Das, those things also come in adult sizes.
Sounds like Rick could care less if Israel survives as a nation or not. Let the Arab world wipe out the Jews. We shouldn't stick our American nose in it...OKAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY Rick.
That's not true at all.
Fooled me TMK. Although Allison writes like a pussy.
Ahh... but can you back up your shit talkin?
Allison writes in complete sentences.
Allison writes like a pussy? Does that involve putting "meow" and "purr" into sentences? Just because Allison doesn't agree with you, that makes him a pussy? Or is it that since you were wrong and Allison doesn't have a pussy, then Allison must be a pussy? I know Allison personally. He's a person who is somewhat quiet, and if he says something, it will be well-thought out. I agree with him about terrorists. You want to send more troops and ammo to kill all the terrorists, but in the process you'll be making more. You think people will like us, respect us if we just go anywhere we want, guns blazin', and do basically what we want? No, people are going to hate us, dislike us, resent us even more. The longer we stay in Iraq, the more likely people will resort to terrorist actions because they want us out. I think we need to do all we can to get out of there as soon as possible and refocus on our own issues here at home, like the economy. While we're mainly focusing on domestic issues, still have an interest on improving foreign relations abroad. By that, I don't mean go kick people's ass if they don't agree with us. I mean working on understanding each other, working together to improve our societies mutually.
Oh, and btw, can I ask what or who has made you such a supreme authority? Bill Fold may be a bit touchy about who can have a valid opinion regarding veterans' issues, but you seem to be far worse than him. You label a lot of people into some junior high clique if they don't agree with you. I was just wondering how you got your labelling powers.
'Bill - Fold' 7/20/03 4:43am
I don't understand what you mean.
Care to elaborate, or just be more specific?
Torpedo-8 7/20/03 2:44pm
Since you are an expert, you must have some experience
evaluating sizes. How big is the "adult size," in your
expert opinion?
I think we need to do all we can to get out of there as soon as possible and refocus on our own issues here at home, like the economy.
Oh ye of little faith...
US-economy-outlook,sched-3rdlead
The Fed's semiannual Monetary Policy delivered to Congress projected growth of between 2.50 percent and 2.75 percent, when compared with the fourth quarter of 2003.
The report indicated there were some signs of improvement, however. And the Fed forecast for 2004 economic growth called for a more robust growth rate of between 3.75 and 4.75 percent...
...Between the May and June (Fed) meetings, a few tentative signs suggested that the pace of economic activity might be firming," the report said.
"The Federal Reserve expects economic activity to strengthen later this year and in 2004, in part because of the accommodative stance of monetary policy and the broad-based improvement in financial conditions."
It said the big tax cuts enacted this year and higher defense spending will also help ramp up economic activity, without sparking a big rise in inflation...
Economy Shakes Off War-Related Slump
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. economy is showing more signs of bouncing back from its Iraq (news - web sites) war-related slump, with retail sales accelerating in June and weekly reports suggesting consumer spending is perking up during the summer, reports showed on Tuesday.
Manufacturing in New York state also maintained much of its rebound in July, providing hope that the economy's hardest-hit sector will return to expansion this month.
The good news came as Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Chairman Alan Greenspan (news - web sites) told Congress the central bank would keep official interest rates low for a "considerable" amount of time to ensure economic growth speeds up and prevent a dangerous decline in prices.
I know that the economy is showing signs of improving. I work in retail. June was a very good month, yes. Where I work, this July has been better than last years, but we're still under goal by 5% or so for the month. I want to keep focusing on domestic issues and not just assume they will get better on their own. And it's not just the economy. There are deficits all over the place, still a high unemployment, people worried about certain areas of government or society not being funded enough. I would hope that Republicans and Democrats can stop trying to fight each other and work towards making America better as a nation.
That's not true at all.
In Rick's defense, that's not true.
I can't recall his exact words, but in the past Rick has stated we need to continue our relationship with Israel.
I would hope that Republicans and Democrats can stop trying to fight each other and work towards making America better as a nation.
Very true. Sadly, the partisan snipes have become worse. "If you aren't part of the party that I agree with, then you can do nothing right" seems to be the pervailing wind.
And I am sure that someone will show me where I have participated in this as I could show them where they too have done the same.
So what if I'm abrasive or brash. Should everyone be like TMK or Allison in their world of sunshine and happy thoughts?
Let's do focus on ourselves. Great idea. Do not send troops anywhere outside of our borders. Do not send any type of aid whether it be medicine, food or financial anywhere outside of our borders. Focus it all on our own problems here at home. A period of 3 years should be sufficient for our critics here and abroad to come crying for help. No, a period of 3 months should be sufficient.
But then, the liberal critics here and abroad would complain of the American selfishness.
I didn't know that people who work in retail qualified themselves as such expert critics. I'll keep that in mind.
If you knew Allison and that he wears black a great deal of the time, you might not think of him as Mr. Sunshine and Happiness. Yeah, you're abrasive and brash, that's fine, you can do what you want. If you want to accomplish change and make people think more about the points you are trying to bring up, then I'd rethink that strategy.
Let me elaborate on what I said earlier. I would hope that we can get past the Iraqi situation and prioritize domestic issues as more pressing. I would rather not go into Liberia if we have to. I think we still need to work with North Korea on their nukes. Continue with aiding countries as requested and needed. We're not going to keep everyone happy though. Whatever we do in Liberia, there will be people somewhere in the world who will be unhappy with it. For a while it seemed like American interests were directed overseas, with Al-qaeda and Iraq. I think we should switch gears after Iraq and focus more inward. Can't lose sight of foreign issues though.
Heh, expert critic? Sorry, I'm not one, although you may perceive me as one. I just am in a position where its easier for me to see if the economy is showing signs of improvement. I'll leave being an expert critic up to you.
Allison... Terrific Post on Dubbya'a "Accomplishments".
I didn't mean to imply I wrote it. It was something forwarded to me in an email that I thought was interesting. I had no idea who originally wrote it.
Fooled me TMK. Although Allison writes like a pussy.
Oh no! I've been called a name! Guess that means he's running out of worthwhile things to say.
Allison! The people we are after understand nothing except brute force and lots of it.
You're not entirely wrong. There are no doubt some people who are so far over the edge that they have nothing left in life but their anger and the anger has eaten away their entire soul. Thus they won't likely stop until they're made to stop. I'll agree that we can't just say, "That's ok, Osama, we understand you were upset." Some people have committed actual crimes and need to face a reckoning for that. But how we go about it is very important. After 9/11 we had the sympathy of virtually every country in the world. If we had conducted an investigation, gone to the U.N. and said this is who we believe was responsible and now we need to act to bring them to justice, we probably would have gotten all kinds of help because it would be obvious to everyone we were doing the right thing and almost no one would want to come out on the side of those who would perpetuate something like 9/11. But instead of pursuing a course of catching criminals, Bush instead declared a more nebulous "war on terrorism" that went beyond simply trying to apprehend and punish those responsible for terrorist acts. It was a policy that advocated regime changes, preemptive strikes, and other things that made America look more like a dictator trying to control the world than a policeman trying to catch a killer. And in doing so, we not only lost that good will, but created an incredible amount of ill-will. Even NATO became split over what we were doing.
So it really needs to be a two-pronged strategy. The hardcore terrorists need to be identified and caught. But at the same time we need to foster good will among the rest of the Arabs as much as possible. Taking out top terrorists on the one end, and cutting out their moral support amongst the people they come from on the other end is the only way to truly end the terrorism on a long term basis. Bush and many others don't seem to get this. They seem to think they can kill or capture all the terrorists doing whatever is necessary and that will be the end of it. But such a strategy has no end. There are all kinds of fanatics out there. Most of them don't get very far because they don't have popular agendas and the population at large is more likely to work against them than for them. Look at things like the SLA, the Mansons, and a lot of the survivalist types. If any of them had touched on things that struck a chord with a large part of the population, their movements might still be around having a large affect on the country. Their numbers would swell. People might give them aid in big ways or small. And they would be seen as heroes instead of villans. And that's the case in the Arab world. The more people hate the U.S. in general, the more the terrorists will seem like heroes to them (remember some people dancing in the streets after 9/11?). But if we went with a strategy that undercut that hate, terrorism would fall back to being a minor nuisance involving only a few hardcore nuts.
Ooh!! ooh!!! I work in retail too! Does that make me an expert critic too?
WASHINGTON, July 21 — Last fall, the administration repeatedly warned in public of the danger that an unprovoked Iraqi President Saddam Hussein might give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists.
        Â“IRAQ COULD decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists,” President Bush said in Cincinnati on Oct. 7. “Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.”
       But declassified portions of a still-secret National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released Friday by the White House show that at the time of the president’s speech the U.S. intelligence community judged that possibility to be unlikely. In fact, the NIE, which began circulating Oct. 2, shows the intelligence services were much more worried that Hussein might give weapons to al Qaeda terrorists if he were facing death or capture and his government was collapsing after a military attack by the United States.
        Â“Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al Qaeda, ... already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States, could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct,” one key judgment of the estimate said.
       It went on to say that Hussein might decide to take the “extreme step” of assisting al Qaeda in a terrorist attack against the United States if it “would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.”
       The declassified sections of the NIE were offered by the White House to rebut allegations that the administration had twisted prewar intelligence on Iraq’s nuclear weapons program. The result, however, could be to raise more questions about whether the administration misrepresented the judgments of the intelligence services on another basis for going to war: the threat posed by Hussein as a source of weapons for terrorists.
       The NIE’s findings also raise concerns about the dangers posed by Hussein, who is believed to be in hiding, and the failure to find any of his alleged stocks of chemical and biological weapons. If such stocks exist, a hotly debated proposition, this is precisely the kind of dangerous situation the CIA and other intelligence services warned about last fall, administration officials said. A senior administration official said yesterday that the U.S. intelligence community does not know either “the extent to which Saddam Hussein has access or control” over the groups that are attacking U.S. forces, or the location of any possible hidden chemical or biological agents or weapons. Asked whether the former Iraqi leader would today use any chemical or biological weapons if he controlled them, the senior official said, “We would not put that past him to do whatever makes our lives miserable.”
       The official said the judgment of last fall’s intelligence estimate — that a desperate Hussein, in hiding and with U.S. troops searching for him in Iraq, could turn to al Qaeda — “had not been supplanted.”
         L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. civil administrator in Iraq, said yesterday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” he believes Hussein is alive. ” I think he is in Iraq, and the sooner we can either kill him or capture him, the better.”
       On “Fox News Sunday,” Bremer also said Hussein appeared to have pre-positioned weapons and made plans to carry out an insurgency should his forces, as expected, lose a war with the United States. “There has been some evidence of planning for the possibility of losing the war militarily and going into some kind of insurgency or organized resistance,” Bremer said, without explaining what the evidence is.
       Bremer said he does not believe Hussein could make a comeback: “Dead or alive, this guy is finished in Iraq. There is no public support for him.”
       Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) said in an interview that despite what Bush has said, the war is not over until Hussein is captured or killed. “He could come back like Napoleon if we don’t watch out,” said Markey, who added that the former Iraqi leader remains a threat because he, if anybody, knows where any chemical or biological weapons might be.
       Last fall, as Congress began debating a resolution giving Bush authority to go to war against Iraq, CIA Director George J. Tenet ordered six intelligence services to develop over a 10-day period a common assessment of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs and the threat they posed. A few days after the NIE began circulating, at the request of members of Congress who wanted material they could use in public debate, the administration released a 25-page unclassified summary of the 90-page classified report.
       Two days later, in response to pressure from Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla), then chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Tenet released three pages of additional information from the NIE and a classified hearing that for the first time suggested that Hussein might only use chemical or biological weapons when under threat of attack.
CLEARER PICTURE GIVEN
       Friday’s declassified material from the NIE gave a much more complete picture of the intelligence in the form of all the key judgments of the intelligence community.
       One of the judgments was that Hussein “appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or [chemical or biological weapons] against the United States fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger case for making war.”
       Another judgment was that Iraq would “probably” attempt a clandestine attack against the United States, as mentioned by Bush — not on “any given day” as the president said Oct. 7, but only “if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable.”
       Today the situation is changed. Hussein is alive but in hiding, and his alleged stocks of chemical or biological weapons or agents have not been found. Meanwhile, the president and other leaders have yet to mention publicly the intelligence assessment that Hussein may be a potentially bigger threat now than before the United States attacked.
       In fact Bush, in his May 1 speech from the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, appeared to take just the opposite position. “We have removed an ally of al Qaeda,” Bush said. “No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime.”
The unfortunate part of this whole deal is that it was all based on intelligence. Intelligence is NOT fact, it is more of an educated guess. It would have been much simpler for Bush to hold up a bottle of chemical agent at his speech and say "look what we found!". It's not a black and white issue. I'm glad we elect someone else to make these decisions for us, I have no idea what I would have done had I been in his shoes.
TV weathermen make educated guesses. The highest levels of national security requires more than that.
Of course we woudn't know what to do in Bush's shoes. But that's why he gets the big bucks, the house and the fancy jet. About 260 million people count on him to know what to do.