August 05, 2004
Lessons of '04
The current election is in many ways similar to that of the one in 1904. As Michael Rosen explains:
Then in the Philippines, as now in Iraq, American troops struggled to bring order and freedom to a land that had experienced neither, while guerrilla warriors and Muslim extremists stood in the way.
Much of the American public, the chancelleries of Europe, and the Congress -- especially the "anti-imperialist" Democrats -- clamored for the U.S. to transfer sovereignty and end its occupation, both objectives the U.S. met, although not without difficulty. Indeed, the divide over Roosevelt's unique -- his opponents would have said "megalomaniacal" -- way of conducting foreign policy fell neatly along party lines.On the domestic front, a booming economy began to erase memories of an earlier recession while many Americans considered whether, amid technological advances and expanding international commerce, things would ever be the same. Debates over how to protect U.S. jobs while empowering American consumers festered in Congressional deliberations over trade and tariff policy. Then, too, the integrity of corporate America came into question as combinations and trusts increasingly began to dominate industry.
Partisanship seemed as shrill then as now with Roosevelt thundering that the Democrats "seem at a loss, both as to what it is that they really believe, and as to how firmly they shall assert their belief in anything," while Parker, feeding at the trough of anti-Roosevelt sentiment among Democrats, accused the Republican leadership of "a shameless exhibition of a willingness to make compromise with dignity." Thus, in 1904, like today, important political and economic cleavages bitterly divided the parties while the nation faced significant challenges at home and abroad.
An interesting historical comparison. One often forgets that we have faced many of the same difficulties before. Taking a step back and understanding what has worked in the past and what has not is vital. Why must we insist on revisiting plans of action that have fallen flat on their face as some suggest?
The most vital issue facing this country today is the war on terror. Unless we are able to fight back the attack of Islamic fundamentalists, our nation will always be in jeopardy.
Let's consider what Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari has said on the issue:
"Let us imagine the world if America had listened to the French and German logic saying: Give the murderers of the Serbs and the Arabs a chance for a diplomatic solution. Would Bosnia, Kuwait, and Iraq be liberated [today]…?"Let us describe the situation of the Arabs, and especially of Iraq, had America listened to the European council that said: Democracy is not suited to the Arabs, their culture is contrary to it. Leave the backward ones alone to consume each other…
"See now how many countries are turning towards democracy. Even Afghanistan has a constitution. In Iraq, [they are drafting] a new constitution and handing over the regime, and Libya has changed…
"What are the lessons to be learned from this?
"First, the tyrants don't leave until bombs fall. The people alone are not capable of struggling with dictatorial regimes except with powerful external help…
While we may want to argue endlessly about motives, yellowcake and the importance of multilateralism, also consider what our alternatives are. Mark Steyn wrote:
WMD? Another dead horse. Whether you were pro-war or anti-war had nothing to do with WMD. Bush thought Saddam Hussein had 'em, but so did the French, Germans and Russians, and they were all anti-war. For most pro-war Americans, the need to whack Saddam was more important than the pretext on which he was whacked. He was unfinished business from Sept. 10. All the rest is footnotes, more rear-view mirror stuff.That's why even the old quagmire scenario now playing 24/7 on the cable channels doesn't work for Kerry. Visiting foreigners often remark on that popular T-shirt slogan, usually found below the Stars and Stripes: "These Colors Don't Run." To non-Americans, it seems a trifle touchy. But for a quarter-century the presumption of the country's enemies was that those colors did run -- they ran from Vietnam, from the downed choppers in the Iranian desert, from Mogadishu. Even the successful campaigns -- the inconclusively concluded Gulf War and the air-only Kosovo war -- seemed designed to avoid putting those colors in the position of having to run. As Osama saw it, these colors ran from the African embassy bombings, and the Khobar towers, and he pretty much expected them to run from 9/11, too.
This is not something we can cut and run from, it must be faced head on. Lessons from the past show that the problem will grow and become even worse as long as we allow the terrorists and the regimes that support them to have comfort in our inaction.
Posted by Timothy Perry at August 5, 2004 06:08 PM
Whether you were pro-war or anti-war had nothing to do with WMD…. For most pro-war Americans, the need to whack Saddam was more important than the pretext on which he was whacked. He was unfinished business from Sept. 10.
By “pro-war Americans”, Steyn must mean “The Bush Administration” and/or “die-hard neocons”. Most regular average “pro-war Americans” were only really convinced by the WMD issue.
Steyn even had the audacity to use the word “pretext”. Jesus, he’s literally admitting that the WMD issue was a false reason.
Steyn is revealing exactly that aspect of the Bush Administration which I fear the most: The adherence to the “Noble Lie” theory: that one message can be broadcast to the populace while another different message is being crafted for political allies and administration insiders.
If there’s a good reason for our country to go to war, I expect the government to tell us that reason, not a bunch of other flimsy but scary-sounding reasons.
If the Administration had argued that we needed to “whack” Saddam for some of the other reasons I’ve heard since the war (some good reasons, some not so good reasons: liberating the Iraqi people, setting a clever trap for terrorists, stopping the harboring of terrorists, securing our strategic oil interests, securing a military foothold in the region, whatever), the American people would never have been behind it unless the Administration really put forth some very complex and convincing arguments. They knew such arguments would be too difficult and most people wouldn’t be convinced, so they played up the WMD angle to trick the American people into backing the invasion.
[Osama] … pretty much expected them to run from 9/11, too.
That’s ludicrous. Osama expected America to react irrationally and to further drive the Muslim world into Al Qaeda’s thrall and away from Western influence. Which is exactly what happened.
-Cf
Oh, I forgot to connect this to 1904: A similar “Noble Lie”, Remember the Maine!, was used even back then to justify the war that led to America taking over colonial control of the Philippines in the first place. The people of the Philippenes were engaged in a war of independence with Spain at the time of the Spanish-American War, and when America took over, we basically resumed our suppression of that independence movement.
Final tally of that suppression:
- 4,200 U.S. soldiers dead
- 20,000 Filipino soldiers dead
- 200,000 Filipino civilians dead
[many] clamored for the U.S. to transfer sovereignty and end its occupation, both objectives the U.S. met, although not without difficulty
That’s a laugh. We didn’t really “transfer sovereignty” until July 4, 1946. Almost fifty years later.
If I were a supporter of the invasion of Iraq, the last thing I’d want to compare it to would be the Philippenes!!
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 5, 2004 06:49 PMThis is the Administration that we should fear. This is the Administration that got us to where we are today. This is the kind of Administration that will be in office if President Bush is not re-elected.
It’s become pro forma. Can you think, in American history, of any military action that we have taken sort of pro forma, regularly, for a decade, and it doesn’t even make the news until recently?
I think that our policy toward Iraq, beginning with first President Bush’s decision not to support the Shiites in the south and the rebels in the north after the Gulf War when they rebelled against Saddam, and continuing through the eight years of the Clinton administration, has been remarkably flaccid and feckless. It sets some kind of a record, I think, for fecklessness.
Fecklessness? What do you mean, “fecklessness?” Indecision, lack of will, not making a decision and following it through. I don’t know what the reasons were for the eight years, particularly during the Clinton administration, of their continuing to let him buffalo them and get rid of the inspections and get rid of UNSCOM and work his way gradually out from under most of the sanctions that meant anything. But by the end of those eight years, I think he was sitting there laughing at us, and understandably so.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/woolsey.html
I forgot to add the interview above was James Woolsey, CIA Director 1993- 1995 under the Clinton Administration.
Chris,
That’s ludicrous. Osama expected America to react irrationally and to further drive the Muslim world into Al Qaeda’s thrall and away from Western influence. Which is exactly what happened.
Osama never expected anything from us but what we had been giving him for 9 years. The entire time he was running around the desert sands training 70,000 terrorists on how to blow up and kill Americans. Which he was doing with impunity until the Bush Administration.
MAW, no, - which he was doing up to and through Sept. 11 WHILE Bush was President.
You imply Bush was not commander in chief responsible for the safety of Americans on American soil from external threat when 9/11 happened. I assure he was, I saw him offically take office some 8 months earlier. Now it may be true that no new President, under those circumstances, could have prevented 9/11 from occuring, but, it was his responsibility and watch when it occured.
A fact that your comment seems to dodge.
That said, our land is as or more vulnerable now 3 years later into Bush’s term. That says it all. He needs to be replaced for the safety and security of all Americans. Kerry, Nader, even Badnarik would put forth the funding and manpower necessary to make our borders far more secure and less porous than they are today. Bush refused such plans until the 9/11 Commission Report. Another reason to replace him in November.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 5, 2004 08:56 PMYou imply Bush was not commander in chief responsible for the safety of Americans on American soil from external threat when 9/11 happened.
Yes, the execution ot that act happened on President Bush’s watch and the planning and preparation began some 5 years earlier on Clinton’s watch. Now let me think. 5 years! 7months 2 weeks! Which is the purpose of the CIA Director, James Woolsey’s statement in his interview. You’re a very intelligent person, do you really believe that spin?
So let me say this;
I choose not to live my life in this country looking over my shoulder, going to sports events and concerts passing through metal detectors, even amusements parks there are metal detectors and this is the Happiest Place on Earth! I now have to wonder if the tall building I am going to have a meeting in is going to blow up. When I take my Grandchildren to Disneyland I have to think about the possibility that this might be the day they attack. And you can not believe how this brings me to tears. We have already lost something precious in our lives. And it will continue until we have lost more than our right to exist as ordinary Americans the way we once did. We will have lost our ability to trust, to welcome immigrants into our land, to not be afraid of our neighbor or wondering if there are terrorists in our neighborhoods. This is a terrible thing to lose. And men and women have gone to war and died to give us the right to live in this country as free and happy people.
If you believe that President Bush was responsible in the way you alluded to in your opening statement , then we can not have a conversation about this.
If you don’t then we can. I know you possess the mental capabilities to have a dialogue. I have seen your writings.
MAW, it was on Bush’s watch. The Buck stops there. That’s David’s implication.
We cannot simply hold on to a president out of a free floating fear of the world around us. our retention of that president must be dependent on that performance.
Many of us, myself included, find that wanting. We find wanting a limited, unimaginative approach that assumes that Osama and his like will stick around for us to squash them, and that we can win the war against terror launched from here by making war over there.
No, odds are, even if such attempts at eradication were actually effective, they’d hardly occur over a short enough time period to stop their next attacks. Terrorism is a problem that should be met on all fronts, home and abroad. We should harden what we can, limit access to what necessity dictates we must. We cannot perfectly defend ourselves, but we can make it much more expensive, much more risky for these people to to what they seek to do. We can put certain missions beyond their means, and when the time is right, arrest them and incarcerate them.
In the end, we should make their uncertain vocation a whole lot more dangerous for them, and a hell of a lot less rewarding.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 6, 2004 12:49 AMYes, I know what David’s implication was. I read it. I read it again and it still meant nothing to me except spin.
We cannot simply hold on to a president out of a free floating fear of the world around us. our retention of that president must be dependent on that performance.
Which is exactly why I don’t want to switch Presidents because of the reasons I pointed to in Woolsey’s interview. I absolutely know without a doubt how President Bush will prosecute this war and it will not be an exercise in International Law and attorneys that issue arrest warrants. I know you do not like the way he has gone about this war and in all likelihood did not want this war under any circumstances. But of this you can be sure, it will not be prosecuted in a fashion that it had been for the 8 years, 7 months and 2 weeks prior to September 11th.
We cannot perfectly defend ourselves, but we can make it much more expensive, much more risky for these people to to what they seek to do. We can put certain missions beyond their means, and when the time is right, arrest them and incarcerate them.
And you have some divine knowledge that Kerry will prosecute the war in some fashion that will be painless, without soldiers and in the process prevent another attack on our soils? Kerry seems to echo the fact that he will parallel the methods used in the Clinton Administration. Which is ‘indecision, lack of will, not making a decision and following it through.’ How do I know this? All anyone has to do is watch and listen to his campaign speeches. Speeches that change depending on which part of the country he is in or what or who the audience is.
He is by far the most disingenuous person in politics I have ever seen. The most opportunist politician the Democrats could have ever chosen. And you think I should change a President that I know will prosecute this war with all the vigor and resolute possible to someone with the flaccid will of John Kerry.
You really want only to arrest them and incarcerate them? This doesn’t make you afraid? The Iraq war right now, this very week has caused enough attention around the world to keep the war on terror on the front page. Which is exactly where I want it. Out in the open in an active pursuit of terrorists. That is the only way that they will be hunted down and arrested. Just as they are doing in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Great Britain and others countries that are actively on board in the tracking of terrorists.
If you blame Bush for 9/11 then you must be giving him credit for all the terrorist that have been caught along the way. I know you don’t want me to name them. But I can tell you this. It was far more than when Clinton said and Gore chimed in with ‘We will hunt them down and bring them to justice.” Remind me again, which terrorist did he catch other than those that lived in New Jersey and went back to the truck rental place to get their deposit back. Or some terrorist that came through Canada where a border agent was sharp enough to recognize the signs of a whacked out potential bomber of LAX. This is what you call hunting them down and bringing them to justice? Good luck if Kerry wins. You will need it. No we will all need it and I hope for the love of the Almighty you are correct.
Posted by: MAW at August 6, 2004 01:48 AMMAW, please take my words for what they say. I said, “Now it may be true that no new President, under those circumstances, could have prevented 9/11 from occuring,”
The case I made directly addresses the issue you bring up about wanting to feel secure in America again. That security cannot come with open and porous borders. If you believe the war on terrorism can be fought around the globe and won by the U.S., then we have a fundamental disagreement based on belief. History shows me terrorism has been a part of human existence since the dawn of history. It is an inherent capacity of human beings who have a cause and little else to fight that cause with. We are not going to change human nature. And we haven’t the resources to provide terrorists with alternate means to fight their causes.
Hence, while working at terrorist reduction and disruption overseas, we must, if we are ever going to feel secure in America again, make illegal entry to the U.S. detectable. Terrorists like criminals want to avoid detection. We must secure our borders - that does not mean block our borders. It means making illegal entry detectable. That has been obvious to me since 9/12, 2001 and I have seen nothing come from this President to address this most basic need of the American people.
That is why Bush must go. He has failed to recognize what it is the American people, all of them, need in these times. He is still pandering to his base for reelection instead of uniting the American people behind large important issues we all have in common.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 6, 2004 04:13 AMHey MAW,
I think…
I’m glad Woolsey prefaces his remarks with that, because I don’t see it that way at all. Especially glaring is the omission of Clinton’s destruction of all known Iraqi WMD sites in 1998.
they ran from Vietnam, from the downed choppers in the Iranian desert, from Mogadishu
Steyn fails to mention Beirut, the inexplicable lack of retaliation for Lockerbee, and our abandonment of Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out.
MAW, there hasn’t been an attack on the United States in three years. If you think Bush is doing such a great job keeping you safe, why do you feel such anxiety? Shouldn’t you be finding comfort and confidence in the fact that Bush has protected you over the years?
That might have been too subtle, so I’ll answer the question myself: It’s because Bush is telling you to be afraid. You are exibiting the exact reaction to constant warnings of danger that the administration is striving for.
Here’s an interesting article by Dick Morris, the GOP’s favorite pollster.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112(remove me)379,00.html - This web address doesn’t make it through the WatchBlog filter unmodified. Grr.
His advice to jumpstart Bush’s poll numbers is “for Bush to heighten the saliency of terrorism as an issue.”
Looks as if Morris read you like a book, MAW.
Hello again AP
Good one!
Although I find Dick Morris entertaining and somewhat interesting to listen to, I also find him a bit of a crackpot. Oh, BTW, I don’t listen to Dick Morris to decide whom I am going to vote for. So if he read me like a book, he forgot his glasses.
And in addition, if I listened to others to decide my vote then you guys could have convinced me 2 weeks ago and I think more of all of your opinions than Dick Morris.
And
I’m glad Woolsey prefaces his remarks with that, because I don’t see it that way at all. Especially glaring is the omission of Clinton’s destruction of all known Iraqi WMD sites in 1998.
So given the fact that Clinton bombed all known Iraq WMD sites in 1998, he knew this how? He knew this as an absolute fact that could have been proven? If so, cite me references that would prove this. I would be interested in checking this out.
Just for the record
I think, is all anybody can do. So if that is the case we should not be citing anybody’s message or any report in a magazine. They are just opinions that arose from some sort of thinking. We should just use our emotions and our instincts. That may eliminate any thinking on our part. And BTW, my opinion of Kerry is just that. I admit it is based on emotions. Emotions from the 60’s and watching what his actions did to denigrate the American Soldier. And to me that transposes to how he will prosecute this war on terror.
Posted by: MAW at August 6, 2004 11:16 AM
And David
No, odds are, even if such attempts at eradication were actually effective, they’d hardly occur over a short enough time period to stop their next attacks
And you still want to hang on to the spin that President Bush was accountable for 9/11 when you are saying it could not have been prevented? Is that your statement? FYI, more high profile Al Qaeda members and terrorists have been captured and prosecuted under President Bush’s Administration than any in the years preceding his term where 90% of the planning of 9/11 happened, embassies in Africa blown up, Khobar tower bombing. Should I go on? I think you get the point. The capture and the arrests of high profile targets this week in Great Britain, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and here in the US are an indication of the momentum this war on terror has taken. It is on the front burner now and that is exactly where I want it. Up front where it can be seen. And you want to disrupt this by putting an anti-war protestor in office.
Or
That said, our land is as or more vulnerable now 3 years later into Bush’s term. That says it all. He needs to be replaced for the safety and security of all Americans. Kerry, Nader, even Badnarik would put forth the funding and manpower necessary to make our borders far more secure and less porous than they are today. Bush refused such plans until the 9/11 Commission Report. Another reason to replace him in November.
Although I too feel that our borders could be more secure and living in a border state I feel the effects of that open border both good and bad. The battle over border protection has been waging in California for some time and you believe that Kerry could somehow summon up some divine knowledge to make this happen? There is no easy solution. Aside from the fact that he voted to cut intelligence spending after the 1st trade center bombing and too busy to get a briefing on intelligence reports while campaigning does not show that he is truly a leader. But you feel comfortable with that. Not me.
You may not have noticed, I have, that the most political beast of the 3 is Kerry. He would do or say anything to anybody on any particular day to get elected. His message is not clear! That has been demonstrated numerous times over this campaign period. You must not be listening to him. And yes, either Nader or Badnarik would even be better than Kerry.
I also find him a bit of a crackpot
Same here. I wish Rove and Bush did, too.
So given the fact that Clinton bombed all known Iraq WMD sites in 1998, he knew this how? He knew this as an absolute fact that could have been proven? If so, cite me references that would prove this. I would be interested in checking this out.
It’s from Tom Clancy and Gen. Tony Zinni’s book, “Battle ready”. Zinni was the CENTCOM commander at the time,
“None of the equipment or facilities targeted had been prepared for it. None had been moved (no shell game). All the targets had been hit — hard.” Zinni told his boss, General Shelton, “We’ve done about as much damage to the WMD program as we’re going to do. Any more would just be bombing for bombing’s sake.”
The capture and the arrests of high profile targets this week in Great Britain, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and here in the US are an indication of the momentum this war on terror has taken.
That only makes a difference if there aren’t a hundred guys graduating from Saudi and Pakistani madrassas to replace each one. Bush has done nothing on the ideological front, except to create new terrorists and al Qaeda links where none existed before.
That’s from CIA and State Dept. testimony, BTW.
He would do or say anything to anybody on any particular day to get elected. His message is not clear!
Did you cut-and-paste that from the Bush campaign site? :)
Having read Kerry’s book and his web site, and listened to his speeches, I may have an advantage on this subject over someone who is only familiar with Kerry through mischaracterizations in the right-wing media.
Perhaps I can help clear things up. Which part of Kerry’s message are you having a problem with?
AP,
And you know they don’t find him a crackpot?
Tom Clancy Huh!
You are correct about the madrassas and that alligator needs to hurry up! But Kerry will fix that, right?
You can start with that SUV story on how he doesn’t own one and then he does, or rather his family does. Maybe he will have it in his book on ‘How to Marry Wealthy’.
I am feeling a bit cynical today. But I do enjoy your posts….
Posted by: MAW at August 6, 2004 12:25 PMGet real, MAW, ANY PRESIDENT who held the office when 9/11 happened would have gone after the terrorists and invaded their stronghold in Afhanistan. You are not appearing to present rational responses to my words. I write one thing, you read something completely prejudged into it that is not even supported by my own words.
I will let it go. You win!
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 6, 2004 12:51 PMSo given the fact that Clinton bombed all known Iraq WMD sites in 1998, he knew this how?
Your question is an example of what is known as a tautology. He knew he hit all the known sites, he didn’t know about any unknown sites (jeez, I sound like Rumsfeld). Is that so difficult?
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 6, 2004 02:02 PM> So given the fact that Clinton bombed all
> known Iraq WMD sites in 1998, he knew this how?
Your question is an example of what is known as a tautology. He knew he hit all the known sites, he didn’t know about any unknown sites (jeez, I sound like Rumsfeld). Is that so difficult?
Speaking of Rummy, where’s he been for the past month or so, anyway? An undisclosed location? It’s like the incredible shrinking cabinet up there at the White House these days.
-Cf
AP,
Steyn fails to mention Beirut, the inexplicable lack of retaliation for Lockerbee, and our abandonment of Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out.
You forgot the part where Clinton was pardoning his crooked friends instead of bombing Afghanistan where guess who was after the USS Cole was bombed.
MAW, there hasn’t been an attack on the United States in three years. If you think Bush is doing such a great job keeping you safe, why do you feel such anxiety?
This anxiety I feel is a fear the sKerry might be elected and then we will be back to that old head in the sand policy, or is it the I didn’t have the legal authority one. Can’t quite remember the mantra for that one!
CF
So given the fact that Clinton bombed all known Iraq WMD sites in 1998, he knew this how?
Your question is an example of what is known as a tautology. He knew he hit all the known sites, he didn’t know about any unknown sites (jeez, I sound like Rumsfeld). Is that so difficult?
The operative word here is known. What about the unknown targets? Are you suggesting that because all the known targets were bombed, there were no unknown targets that had WMDs?
Speaking of Rummy, where’s he been for the past month or so, anyway? An undisclosed location? It’s like the incredible shrinking cabinet up there at the White House these days.
I believe he works at the Pentagon. That’s where all the other Defense Secretaries worked.
Jeez, these are really tough questions.
David,
How does this
MAW, please take my words for what they say. I said, “Now it may be true that no new President, under those circumstances, could have prevented 9/11 from occuring,”
translates to this
Get real, MAW, ANY PRESIDENT who held the office when 9/11 happened would have gone after the terrorists and invaded their stronghold in Afhanistan. You are not appearing to present rational responses to my words. I write one thing, you read something completely prejudged into it that is not even supported by my own words.
You seem to be upset with me and I am not sure why.
You forgot the part where Clinton was pardoning his crooked friends instead of bombing Afghanistan where guess who was after the USS Cole was bombed.
Haha! I still think you must have been in the clink during the 90s, MAW. :)
You don’t remember all that “wag the dog” talk every time Clinton bombed Afghanistan? Or when he took out the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan? Remember? The Republicans laughed it off, calling it an aspirin factory, despite traces of chemical weapons precursors found on the site, and the fact that it was owned by bin Laden? You don’t remember that?
There’s a really good book about US counter-terrorism operations from Carter’s decision to help the mujahadeen in Afghanistan in 1980 all the way to 9/11. It’s called, “Ghost Wars”, by Steve Coll. You have some gaps in your knowledge of history that need filling, and that book is a good place to start. :)
BTW, it wasn’t known that bin Laden was responsible for the Cole bombing until February of 2001. Our newly installed president decided to do nothing about it.
HaHaHa,
One thing is certain, we certainly amuse each other. Laughing is good for the soul.
Back to business. I know that there was no conclusive Intel concerning who bombed the USS Cole, that was made quite clear during the 9/11 Commission. But he had to have strong indications about who was behind it and as he and Madelaine Halfbright tell us, this was their top priority. To them nothing was more important.
The point I was trying to make here, that seems to allude you, was that if Clinton had an ‘I don’t care what anybody thinks’ or an ‘everybody can go to hell’ attitude about pardoning crooked friends then wouldn’t he have been better served by bombing the terrorists camps of Bin Laden and making one last attempt to get rid of him? This way even if 9/11 had happen he could have pointed to that last valiant attempt to annihilate him. Then even (hold on to your hat) I would have been pleased with him.
And that ‘wag the dog’ talk, the media is a bunch of whores (can I say that here). They go after every President since Nixon (as we discussed before). In that way they are like dogs that smell a bone. Even if they are a bit tilted in a direction that we do not agree on. Get it?
As for reading any book by Carter, I would have to do it holding my nose the whole time. I wasn’t that disappointed with him when he left office but the more I hear him talk the lower he gets.
As for where I was during the 90s. I’m thinking…. Ha ha.
Sigh. I wish someone would have latched onto my rebuttal of the 1904/2004 connections. I did research and everything!
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 7, 2004 08:03 PMwouldn’t he have been better served by bombing the terrorists camps of Bin Laden and making one last attempt to get rid of him?
There are two facters at play in your analogy. First, the pardons, while some were controversial, are a tradition. Ford pardoned Nixon, Bush Sr. pardoned North and Poindexter, etc. And it was done as a quicky on the way out.
Invading Afghanistan is a completely different thing. At the time, Clinton was a lame duck president Anything he did would have had to be dealt with by his successor. And there’s no way the Republican Congress would have let him do it. Remember, those were the guys calling terrorism a “phony issue” and a distraction from the real danger - sex in the White House.
And the book isn’t by Carter. It’s “Ghost Wars” by Steve Coll.
Sigh. I wish someone would have latched onto my rebuttal of the 1904/2004 connections. I did research and everything!
Sorry Cf. I actually came to a similar conclusion after reading Max Boot’s book “The Savage Wars of Peace”. We spent forty-some years there trying to create a democracy, and it’s still pretty shakey.
I think I actually used that scenario a couple times to justify my belief that Bush handed over the government in Iraq about 39 years too soon.
