Third Party & Independents Archives

David:

An excellent job of reading Osama bin Laden’s mind. It makes for a great potential revision of history…potential in that I cannot claim to know his mind, anymore than you really can.

However, I feel compelled to point out what I consider a great flaw in your reasoning. You speculate that OBL wanted the US “to lash out indiscriminately with its mighty power”.

But you also state that had the US fought only in Afghanistan, and then rebuilt that country, the US would have been very successful.

With this line of reasoning, the ONLY way OBL’s dream could have come true would have been for him to foretell of the Iraq war….and that was well beyond anyone’s ability at that time to do. I recognize that now, with the aid of hindsight, one could claim that many saw the potential for war with Iraq as an outcome of 9-11, but thats just hindsight and revisionist history, so I know you wont go there.

So….basically your premise is that OBL torched the WTC and then got inexplicably lucky. Somehow that doesnt resonate.

In any case, those of you out there who are predicting a US loss, and who have been pointing to every instance of the lack of total success, simply do not understand history nor the context of war. These are the same who would have pronounced D-Day a failure, since thousands of American boys died, in part due to intelligence failures.

These are the same who would have considered the Battle of the Bulge a terrible bit of planning by the Allies, who didnt foresee the entire German plan.

These are the same who in the future will look back and renounce that they were against the war, when the war and Iraq’s future are treated in the proper light. These are the ones who will nuance their way to new opinions based on the real set of facts that only history and time can provide.

With the election in November, Americans must make a decision now with the history currently available. To ask Americans to suspend their judgement for a few decades to see which way they should have voted is … well, fill in the blank.

Fact, bin Laden and al-Queda are our enemy of greatest threat. Fact, the bulk or our resources have been spent on other lesser threats. Fact, our greatest weakness in defending against future attacks, are our borders. Fact, very, very little of our resources have been allocated to our greatest weakness.

I feel like we continue to lay a welcome mat out to OBL to do us again. That is good enough reason for me to decide Bush is absolutely the wrong choice on November 2.

Dave:
It wasn’t very long ago that the defeated armies became slaves, if they weren’t beheaded or raped. In fact just a few days ago! The history of man is really the history of man’s enslavement of man. However, TV and credit cards are a more humane method than guns, napalm or torture chambers.
In the two months following 9-11, Bush talked the talk of a man that understood all you have explained. Then, with some success in Afghanistan and a few too many secret meetings later, an idealogue lost his way in Iraq.
Ambition and greed coupled with a refusal to consider facts or the down side, become the tragedy heaped on others.
Still voting for Nader? I did, but not this time!

As for reading OBL’s mind, true I am not a mind reader. But, with a degree in psychology and experience as a federal prisoner counselor, I have some ability to read motives, aspirations, and personality based on individual behavior and history. Just as the police profile personalities of criminals they have never met nor even identified, a lot can be discerned about a person’s thinking from their behavior, and more if their personal history is known.

bayviking, your decision to withdraw your vote from Nader toward Kerry, is very understandable. Yes, I will vote for Nader. But, then my vote in Texas is a lost vote anyway, so I have the comfort of knowing that voting my conscience will not aid and abet Bush’s reelection.

DR:
Protecting our borders, becoming more alert (personally responsible), practical and prudent will do more good than anything Ridge has done. These qualities would do wonders for the economy as well. Terrorism is forcing the convergence of liberal and conservative thought. While NY and DC burn the two major parties still refuse to do the right thing on immigration & border control, job growth and tax reform.

jbod, the original intent of OBL is clear and was when the towers fell. To get the U.S. to engage in a war upon Arabs, Muslims, and their religion. After a quick knee jerk about Crusade, Bush quickly reined in any reference to religion as a basis for sending troops into Arab lands. He was well advised to avoid any references to Muslims as a basis.

Then he blew it all by attacking other Arabs in an oil rich land. Now if his rationale for invading Iraq, WMD and potential imminent threat had held up under scrutiny, the U.S. would have been vindicated. But, the basis of terrorism for invading Iraq evaporated and thus gave OBL what he sought in the eyes of millions of Muslims around the globe.

lars, you are so right, in my opinion. I have written about our borders here in the past, but, the logic of my argument didn’t sell well then. I am pleased to see the argument gaining steam in both Nader’s and the Democrat’s campaigns.

When the towers came down on that dark day in September, I knew then, and told those who would listen, that the U.S. would lash out, that it was in the nature of a proud people so grievously injured to seek revenge. I hoped and prayed that Bush would restrain the natural impulse of the people while still seeking justice for our injuries and justice for our enemies.

Instead, Bush became a cheerleader for our worst desires of revenge, and a madness of fear overtook the government. The American people have been reasonably steady in the crisis, but the Bush administration has made one strategic blunder after another—all because they were afraid of the consequences of inaction.

Now we have our armed forces bogged down in the wrong place; Iraqi cities looted; American soldiers smeared by accusations of torture and worse. We have embarrassed our nation, our friends, and our allies. We have exposed our weaknesses for our enemies to study. No WMD. No link to our enemies. We’ve been played for suckers.

You don’t have to read Osama’s mind to know this.

I think you have been reading too much Che Guevara.

Osama doesn’t need to destabilize the Arab world, it is already quite crazed. Osama doesn’t need to start a war with the West, his followers think our culture is so tempting that its very existance is a war against Islam.

You key misunderstanding is here: “bin Laden will then be able to make the case that the U.S. is behind the new and elevated tensions, deaths, and destruction taking place in the Arab world.”

No. No matter what happens that is bad in the Middle East, bin Laden will blame the U.S. for it. We could do absolutely nothing and we will get blamed. We could actively help governments and we will be blamed for the evil they do. We could actively hinder governments and we will be blamed for the fact that they do not do good. We could do nothing and all the bad that happens anyway will be blamed on us. The Middle East is not engaged in a reasoning hatred of us. Acting as if they are leads you astray in all the rest of the analysis.

Sebastian, not according to what I am reading from Arab leaders and spokespersons for very large sections of Arab people.

We gave credibility to OBL’s claims to nations outside of the Arab world and their people as well. Extra national polls demonstrate it. I think your view is very local, Sebastian and either ingores or filters out relevant feedback from other nations and their people.

Zachriel, we shared the same hopes on that dark day: now we share the same view on the history since. I knew in my gut I was not the only one taking in the information and perceiving events as I do. Good to hear from you.

David:

I’m sorry to persevere, but I still see much hindsight thinking in your viewpoint. You say that “if his( Bush’s) rationale for invading Iraq, WMD and potential imminent threat had held up under scrutiny, the U.S. would have been vindicated.”

Remember that at the time, the US along with most other intelligence agencies thought Saddam had WMD’s. Certainly OBL would have thought the same thing…that is unless he knew differently. But that would change ALLL the thinking on Iraq if OBL had personal knowledge like that.

David, things may have worked out somewhat along your lines of thinking, but to lay it out as a master plan of OBL’s all along is simply beyond the realm.

History will look back on this as a momentous time in US history, and I believe history will look kindly. Harry Truman was pilloried for dropping the atomic bomb, but history views him as having saved up to a million American lives by doing so.

Neville Chamberlain was praised during his tenure for bringing peace, but of course, history has shown that his appeasement helped cost many millions of lives.

As harsh as the reality may be, there come times when one must make aggressive steps forward. I believe that George Bush has shown the world that the US will not be seen as weak and spineless. True, the world doesnt like that—-they liked the soft cuddly US they could push around more. I think they are a little bit afraid of us now, which isnt a bad thing.

David, I appreciate your insights, though I cant get past the hindsight inherent in them, in my opinion.

jbod, you are missing the forest for the trees. OBL could not predict the details of US reaction. I believe he did predict for himself however, a gross overreaction by the U.S. He could not predict that we would invade Iraq. He could reasonably predict that the U.S. would use 9/11 as a pretext for a huge military establishment in Arab territory.

Look, when I was kid, I got beat up regularly at school by guys bigger or more numerous than myself. By the time I was seven, I learned to pick the place where they would beat me up. Most of the time that place was one in which adults nearby would intercede on my behalf and minimize the bruises to both my body and ego. I could not predict with certainty whether I would be helped or not, nor that a particular route home would have adults at that time. But I could predict that if adults were around, they would intercede, and that the bullies would eventually get in trouble. Most of the time that is exactly what happened from then on.

OBL could not predict exactly what we would do. He could predict that with enough attacks, and large enough attacks, the U.S. would respond with rage, impatience, and the full weight of its military force. And that is what we did. It was just as predictable as my walking into a biker bar and calling the biggest leathered red neck in the place a whimp who couldn’t beat himself let alone someone like me. I would get pummeled. The only difference is, OBL left himself a back door. Rather a predictable thing to do as well under the circumstances.

jbod, yes Bush did show we would not be weak and spineless in response to 9/11. And few in the world had any criticism of the U.S.’s invasion into al-Queda territory. Bush did however, also show the impatience, rage, and undisciplined and unbridled proclivity to use its might regardless of what its family of allies advised, regardless of whether the evidence and reasoning were sound, and regardless of whether we were prepared for the invasion of Iraq.

And therein lies the loss of faith, loss of trust, loss of leadership, that Bush has cost our nation in the aftermath of scattering Hussein’s troops. And the Dem’s used a word, wisdom. And correctly so. It was unwise to say the least to invade Iraq in the face of allied reluctance based on faulty and inadequate evidence of the justice for such an invasion. It was unwise to invade Iraq without a solid plan for every contingency and outcome of such an invasion. It was unwise to push the timetable of the invasion before we had adequately built up the supplies, manpower, and reinforcements necessary to meet every contingency.

And thus, Bush gave Kerry his acceptance speech tonight and the high moral ground to say, that he, Kerry, would never take us into a war unless we were prepared to win decisively, and he would never take us to war unless their just was no other option. It is a message that will resonate, even with moderate Republicans. And it was a message Bush handed to Kerry on a silver platter by his own impatience, his own lack of discipline to check and double check his intel, and by his own arrogance in believing that might will make right!

David, to save me some time in reading through all of the comments above, is it safe to say we’re back to dickering over whether Afghanistan is the only place in the world we’re allowed to fight terrorism? And that we’re only allowed to proceed in protecting ourselves when we get a “mother may I” from the U.N.?

No, that is not the case, Ciggy. We should fight terrorist aggression against us wherever it stems from. If Iraq posed an imminent terrorist threat to us, and we are confident in our assessment, we had every right to stem that threat where it lied. But, we cannot violate nations regimes and borders on speculation, patchword intel, or use needed natural resources as a criteria for justifying faulty intel or speculation. That is foolish in the extreme when so much of our future depends upon interaction and faith with our allies and the people’s of other nations. Such an action will create more enemies than the attack takes out.

The U.N. never denied the U.S. the right to defend itself, now would it. That is overreaching on your argument, Ciggy. The fact was and is, Iraq did not participate in the 9/11 attacks. Therefore, there was no reason to ask the U.N. for permission to defend ourselves against Iraq. If Hussein had a role to play in 9/11, then our allies and the U.N. would have supported our invasion of Iraq just as it did our invasion of Afghanistan. That simple logic is inescapeable except by those unwilling to employ it.

David:

You brought up Kerry—I’ll respond. The Dems now have a candidate who seeks to be on their side of an issue, but who voted FOR a war. He blames Bush for not asking tough questions about the intelligence, but Kerry apparently asked even fewer questions before casting his vote. The convention was analogous to Charlize Theron putting on makeup and weight to look like Aileen Wornous. The truth is that Charlize is still beautiful. Kerry put on makeup to look presidential, but the truth is he still is a lieutenant, not a commander in chief.

To go to your childhood analogy, allow me to use one of my own. My brother picked on me mercilessly, though usually in fun. I learned early on that there was always—-ALWAYS—- an opposite, if not equal response if I tried to get him back. So, if he tricked me first, and I responded, he then felt it was his turn to get me again. Didnt matter if the “score” was 2-1, or 1002-1001, he was gonna get me back.

The lesson: When you know for certain that an outcome will occur, you won’t hope for a different outcome.

The Russians of the 60’s did the same thing. Terrorists hijacked a Russian plane—-the Russians killed the hijackers. Perhaps they lost some hostages as well, but they never lost a hijacker. The outcome ws not in question—-you hijack, and you will die, whatever the cost.
And….this lead hijackers to the conclusion that nothing would be gained by hijacking Russians.

Terrorists need to know the outcome of their actions. Had the Philippines stood up and said, “for every citizen you kidnap, we will send an additional 100 troops to Iraq”, and then followed through immediately on this, how long before no more Filipinos were kidnapped…..not long.

With Kerry, terrorists know they will have options. He might go after them, or he might see it as a choice, rather than a necessity. He might nuance a way out of direct confrontation.

With Bush, terrorists know he will get them. Yes, there is a cost. Sometimes one must accept death in order to defeat death, as the US did in WWII at Normandy and Iwo Jima. But the goal is always victory and peace. It just a question of how you get there.

David and Joeb:

When debating this subject I think people tend to skip the beginning of the story. Go back and read Bin Laden’s Fatwah on the United States and see if it doesn’t add any perspective on history.

Joe:

Bush is wreckless with U.S. power and your money. Cheney & Powell spent four days in CIA headquarters cooking up a flawed case for an Iraq attack. For this unprecedented behavior Powell now expresses regret. Innocent people and been killed and maimed for no reason. Our battle against al-Queda in particular and terrorism in general is in shambles. Our manufacturing base and associated jobs have been lost while Bush remains asleep at the wheel.

BAyviking:

Thanks for the campaign message, devoid of factual information and simply restating once again the litany of unproven charges.

Perhaps there is a speechwriting job awaiting you at the DNC. The job calls for no factchecking, no willingness to consider any opinion outside your own, and calls merely for the simple recitation of the party line.

Sebastian-
However unreasonable Arabs and Muslims can be, they are not without the faculties of reason, and they have maintained the stability of their various territories. It is a mistake to not recognize such faculties. A resource unacknowledge, is a resource untapped.

Joe-
Appeasement is a highly charged word that I think your side overuses terribly . You tend to use it to rule out any response short of a military one. But the classic example of Munich belies that, because what Britain did there was capitulate to the territorial demands of the Nazis, to let them take back what they should have withheld. If we had let Saddam take over Kuwait, that would have been Munich repeated.

Leaving Saddam as he was would have been bad for the Iraqis. It was good to free them from him, but it galls me to have say what should be obvious: American security comes first. Our resources are not without limits, and choosing to fight a war to invade and occupy Iraq has put a strain on those resources that has denied us the ability to use those soldiers elsewhere. If we are forced to involve ourselves in a full-scale war elsewhere, we may have to resort to a draft. It will be a hateful thing, but we will have a Munich like choice there, to confront a threat, or appease it. what sort of military action we are capable of will go far towards determining our responses.

Your defense of our intelligence failure in Iraq doesn’t satisfy me. The very point of many American’s displeasure with this administration over Iraq was that they failed to go through the evidence, and choose their strategies for building up to the war in a critical fashion. They didn’t question their own assumptions, play devil’s advocate, or red team it. Bush didn’t want contradiction of what he believed to be true.

Your trust of what he did depends on your trust of what he believed. But what he believed still must be held to scrutiny, and if he’s in the habit of believing things strongly that he doesn’t have strong evidence for, we do not stand to benefit from re-electing him. No matter how honest one can debate he is, an honest fool is still a fool, and it’s irresponsible to overlook that question of competence. I believe that Bush’s attitudes and those of his administration officials contributed to our intelligence failure here, and that Bush must be held accountable.

Stephen:

I appreciate your analogy to Munich, and I dont totally disagree with it.

I think Bush looked at Saddam from a historical perspective and recognized how Saddam was “playing” us. For 12 years, Saddam was allowed to dodge and dance, bluster and bully, and coax and coerce. Enough was enough.

I think Bush viewed the information with the same vision that our Senate did, with the same vision that other countries did, and with the same vision that intelligence agencies around the world did. They ALL concluded and agreed that Saddam had WMD’s.

I’ve said all along that I believe Bush took the information and took the worst possible situations and made them seem probable. In light of 9-11, thats pretty understandable. But Bush did not lie, nor did he manufacture information, as has been claimed by Democrats.

It was enough for me that Saddam was unwilling to comply. At some point, its justifiable to hold someone’s feet to the fire and expect them to comply. The UN would have waited forever—-we know that, and so would the French (Chirac is on record as having said so).

I agree with you that we need to review our intelligence abilities and even to the point that some attitudes were affected by Bush’s stance.

But I also think that Saddam had been given enough opportunities to comply—-he CHOSE not to. The world needed to see that the UN threats, while meaningless, were not the only threat out there. The terrorists needed to see that the US does indeed have the backbone to stand up for ourselves.

I know you disagree with my assessment—thats okay. But that is where I find the ability to trust in the direction our country is going in.

jbod said, “I think Bush viewed the information with the same vision that our Senate did, with the same vision that other countries did, and with the same vision that intelligence agencies around the world did. They ALL concluded and agreed that Saddam had WMD’s.”

I will take issue with this comment for a moment. First, as commander in chief, the intel community answers to Bush regarding intel, not the Congress. It answers to Congress on budgeting and logistics, but, Congress has no power to dictate to the intel community standards of intel collection. Also, if push comes to shove, who is the intel community going to respond to when the demands of the Executive and the Congress are opposite? The Executive of course, because he has the power of the pink slip.

So, it is correct to say the Senate had the same information that the President had, not the other way around. It is entirely plausible that the President had information from the intel community that the Senate DID NOT have.

Israel had intel that no WMD existed and either or both withheld that intel or lied to the contrary to American intel. The reasons should be obvious. This was covered in the news.

When you say the same intel as all of the rest of the world had, you seem to imply that a host of other nations had intel capability inside Iraq. Few did, a very few, and it was scant at best.

Finally, when I got wind that we were contemplating invading Iraq due to WMD, I told my wife that it would not happen. Why, because my education is in human behavior. Saddam experienced a host of threats to his regime over the decades. He survived, and he survived by being a pretty smart and paranoid cookie. With weapons inspectors running around, it was NOT a smart survival tactic to have WMD around waiting to be discovered as evidence for invading and taking him out. Any paranoid worth half his wit, would have gotten rid of the basis for losing his power.

Now I have no intel experience, but I had a sound reason for doubt about Iraq’s WMD. You can’t tell me the analysts in the CIA did not come to similar assessments. Why was this serious and imminently logical doubt about WMD not used to prompt further validation and confirmation of other intel pointing to WMD. Afterall, hundreds of American soldiers were on the line based on that assessment.

Kerry is right, the case to be made for going to war and killing hundreds and maiming thousands of our troops must be a decision based on sound evidence with little doubt as to the intel’s veracity, and all other options should be exhausted. Bush completely failed that standard.

David,

The U.N. never denied the U.S. the right to defend itself, now would it. That is overreaching on your argument, Ciggy.

If France and Germany are getting kickbacks from the government menacing us, I feel certain they would bully the other U.N. members into prohibiting us from defending ourselves. Iraq is a bad example, but if some other country were rattling sabres in the future…

Stephen,

However unreasonable Arabs and Muslims can be, they are not without the faculties of reason, and they have maintained the stability of their various territories. It is a mistake to not recognize such faculties. A resource unacknowledge, is a resource untapped.

That is an interesting point, and worthy of thought. Thanks for bringing that up.

I have the comfort of knowing that voting my conscience will not aid and abet Bush’s reelection.

David, I’ve seen you repeat that like a mantra. How sure are you that it’s true? Is it possible that if you were to actively support Kerry, that other like-minded independents might also follow your lead?

It wasn’t so long ago that Texas had a Democratic governor and a Democratic congress.

Had the Philippines stood up and said, “for every citizen you kidnap, we will send an additional 100 troops to Iraq”, and then followed through immediately on this, how long before no more Filipinos were kidnapped…..not long.

How long before Arroyo would have been overthrown…..not long.

That’s the sad part about Bush’s foreign policy. When the leaders of countries that were our allies (Germany, South Korea, Spain, the Philippines, etc.) run on an anti-America platform, something is wrong. Is it some mass global hysteria? Or is it a rejection of Bush’s foreign policy?

The Phillipine pullout also underscores the inherent flaw in the ad-hoc coalition model that Bush favors. Since it’s based on a fleeting convergence of national interest, there’s nothing to keep it together when it becomes politically inconvenient for some members.

A better way is a permanent alliance of nations based on shared values. Had Bush been able to make a case against Iraq - WMD, humanitarian, whatever - that was convincing to our UN and NATO allies, they would have all stood strong no matter what happened - similar to the way the alliance held together in the Balkans.

How long do you think Honduras would keep soldiers in Iraq if they are threatened? If Mongolia actually had troops in Iraq, how long would they stand firm if threatened? El Salvador? Micronesia? Iceland? Costa Rica? Nicaragua? These arent allies, they’re props.

A. Pundit, I worked with my county Dem. party in 2001 and was involved with membership and finances. My district favors Republicans by over 2 to 1. With the redistricting completed the Democratic vote in this state has been even further marginalized insuring they cannot win local or state offices. And so many of the county chairs haven’t a clue about how to organize. It is a hell of a mess down here.

But, to answer your question, yes, I am sure there is no overthrowing Republican dominance in this election cycle. Texas is written off for a host of reasons, not the least of which is that we have no state income tax and folks here don’t want to rock the boat!

American Pundit, if they are anti-American, they can hardly be considered “allies”. I wish people would quit using that word when it’s no longer applicable, the way it was when a now-defunct Soviet threat forced them to our side out of desperation.

Historical revisionists want us to think this sort of thing never happened before Bush was sworn in. Perhaps some idiots will fall for it if the big lie is repeated often enough, but that’s really not the case. We’ve been hated for quite a while now—it’s just that without a Soviet Bear as their likely new masters if they openly divided against us before, now they have the luxury of speaking their minds more candidly.

I think the Bush Admin. had there own special facts created for different audiences:

THE STOVEPIPE

The Lie Factory

The spies who pushed for war

Wow, Ciggy. 5,500 Greeks didn’t agree with Clinton’s war in the Balkans. I’m shocked… that it wasn’t more. The government of Greece stayed for the duration in the Balkans.

That’s a pretty weak argument, Ciggy. You can hardly compare 5,500 Greeks protesting the bombing of Belgrade to the tens of millions that protested the Iraq war.

I certainly never said, nor ever believed, that the United States was universally loved. Even during the cold war you had hippies in Europe protesting missile deployments. But the governments of Europe - our allies - stuck with us.

Which country do you think can be better described as sharing American values, France or Azerbaijan?

Had the UN inspectors been able to verify Bush’s WMD claims, there is no doubt that our allies would have helped us disarm Iraq. As it turned out, France was right, Bush was wrong.

AP,

You can hardly compare 5,500 Greeks protesting the bombing of Belgrade to the tens of millions that protested the Iraq war.

Had you bothered to read the article you would have noticed that anti-U.S. sentiment had been boiling as a result of U.S. support for the Greek dictatorship which was in power there until the mid-1970s.

And Greece was given only as a sampling of a larger phenomenon that existed prior to 2000. You have other examples such as the Russian factor which you continue to glibly ignore, where anti-American sentiment never really subsided after the fall of the Soviet Union, and was simply given a new excuse with the differences over such skirmishes as Chechniya and Serbia, neither of which were Bush wars.

Eurotrash hatred for the U.S. brewed and bubbled and boiled during the cold war with the Soviets, and all it took was a change of flag over in Russia to unleash it and let it explode into the open marketplace of sentiment. In that sense, Russia executed a clever movement of Aikido by simply announcing domestive political reforms. We’re still reeling from it today, and Al Qaeda is capitalizing on the open division—though it hasn’t gone well for them since 9/11 in any other way than simply accelerating the U.S./Eurocrat division.

I certainly never said, nor ever believed, that the United States was universally loved.

You certainly have been implying that all roads of European hatred toward us lead to George W. Bush. And that implication was specious. Certainly, W has done a few things to accelerate the hate cycle over there, but if you review the big picture and measure what profit there is in trying to placate the irrational, you might begin to see that the cost-benefit analysis leans more toward unilateral interest.

Even during the cold war you had hippies in Europe protesting missile deployments. But the governments of Europe - our allies - stuck with us.

Only because Soviet domination was the only alternative.

Which country do you think can be better described as sharing American values, France or Azerbaijan?

Neither, really. France “values” whatever is beneficial particularly to France. Azerbaijan “values” whatever is beneficial particularly to Azerbaijan. In that way our interests are less likely to class with the latter, than the former, but that isn’t a statement of shared ideological values, so much as expedience.

Had the UN inspectors been able to verify Bush’s WMD claims, there is no doubt that our allies would have helped us disarm Iraq. As it turned out, France was right, Bush was wrong.

But they wouldn’t have hated us any less, and that is my point. It’s exceedingly dangerous to consider someone an “ally” when really they’re just waiting for you to expose your back to their dagger. In that way it was really beneficial for Jethro Bodine to have bumbled his way into bringing the Eurotrash out of the hating closet.

Now, if Jethro Bodine had better advisors on his cabinet, the new paradigm of international affairs could be capitalized on for trade benefit in the near term, and a possible triangulation move with Islamic militants in the longer term. Fat chance of that though. Either of the mainstream political parties will throw this opportunity away.

I really should proofread more.

“domestive” should read “domestic”.

“class with” should read “clash with”.

It’s exceedingly dangerous to consider someone an “ally” when really they’re just waiting for you to expose your back to their dagger.

Well, Ciggy. If you’re convinced everyone is out to get us, then there’s nothing more to discuss. It’s clear you have some sort of irrational fear of the rest of the world which is diametrically opposed to everything I’ve ever seen and experienced throughout my life and travels.

BTW, I thought you’d be stoked that Kerry is going to double the size of our Special Ops.

AP, I am stoked about the boost of Special Ops.

I am not so stoked about being lulled to sleep by handing over our national security over to foreign governments and trusting that they have our best interests in mind.

Good. If any candidate were to take that view, I wouldn’t be happy about it either.

I just started reading “Allies At War” this morning, and I found some interesting numbers.

From the summer of 2002 to March 2003, the number of Europeans with a favorable attitude toward the United States (but not toward Americans - that’s a different poll) dropped sharply.

From 75 to 40 percent in Britain, 70 to 34 percent in Italy, from 63 to 31 percent in France, from 61 to 25 percent in Germany, and 61 to 28 percent in Russia.

And it wasn’t a steady decline, either. Otherwise support for the US in Britain would have been around 150 percent in 2000.

It was Bush. There’s nothing specius about the argument.

Three questions.

1. What specific changes of policy do you think will remedy that?

2. What will it cost us (or our grandchildren if we fail to pay down the debt)?

3. What will it benefit us (other than a pat on the back)?

2. What will it cost us (or our grandchildren if we fail to pay down the debt)?

How about the interst on that debt coming out of tax payer’s pockets? How about increased taxes for them to pay down the principle, in the effort to reduce to interest burden? And how about investor’s withdrawing their investments in America should it incur another recession with a 10 Trillion dollar debt load hanging over its head in 2010. Does this not portend to exacerbate the recession immensely making recovery longer in duration and more damaging to consumers and employees losing jobs?

David, you’re making my point for me. We are immensely in debt and our economy is hideously fragile thanks to thieves in the two mainstream parties. So if you advocate shovelling baksheesh to our Euorcrat friends like it’s a pile of beads from a Mardi Gras float, will we get back anything from Europe more substantial than their hairy-pitted “women” flashing us their sagging cleavage?

I am simply advocating that Congress and the President choose their funding priorities carefully. Such debt seriously undermines our agility and ability to respond to unanticipated events which will arise.

Playing world cop or World Military Dominator is simply not an economically sustainable role. We must acknowledge, as Europeans largely do, that affordable DEFENSE requires defensive treaties and alliances, where the sum of multinational defense is far greater and far less costly than unilateral national defense.

Secondly, we must acknowledge that despite all this globalization, one cornerstone of our economic viability is consumer capacity to buy right here at home. Any governmental programs that will result in lowered educational quality, or reduced middle class discretionary income will weaken that cornerstone of our economy, lower federal revenues and exacerbate the debt situation.

David,

Playing world cop or World Military Dominator is simply not an economically sustainable role.

I agree with that much.

We must acknowledge, as Europeans largely do, that affordable DEFENSE requires defensive treaties and alliances, where the sum of multinational defense is far greater and far less costly than unilateral national defense.

I disagree with that part. American defense can run up against a Eurocrat agenda if the Eurocrats in question are in bed with a dictator who has plans for America which are, at the very least, dangerous. “Multinational” defense in that milieu is not possible because the agendas of the various multiple nations are at cross-purposes. If we force France to choose between “under the table” oil kick-back money from a mass murderer (hypothetically speaking), and sacrificing that cash flow to expend THEIR blood in defense of AMERICAN lives, it’s perfectly predictable on the part of France to opt out of it, even if impolitely and hurling insult at us in the process.

It isn’t so much that I blame France and Germany for their reaction to us in the latest war, but to see the sense of tragedy felt by hoodwinked Americans who think that France and Germany are insulting us for unmitigated evil on our part, well that’s just beyond irrational. It’s simply a clash of national interests. It doesn’t make Europe evil, and it doesn’t make America evil. It means saving American lives cost Europe a pipeline of free money that they had going for a while there.

Any governmental programs that will result in lowered educational quality, or reduced middle class discretionary income will weaken that cornerstone of our economy, lower federal revenues and exacerbate the debt situation.

I’m back to agreement here. Lyndon Johnson’s idea of a war on poverty was to tax the middle class, give 12% of it to the poor, and pocket the difference. Well the overtaxed middle class is disappearing, as those with connections (or more ethical means of succeeding) rise to the top, and those pummeled by the ongoing policy slip out of that stratus and into the poverty zone. It’s a policy of both mainstream parties.

We are immensely in debt and our economy is hideously fragile thanks to thieves in the two mainstream parties.

I’d argue that it was already-wealthy thieves in one mainstream party. :)

It means saving American lives cost Europe a pipeline of free money that they had going for a while there.

From 1997 to 2002, France’s trade with Iraq averaged 0.05% of its GDP. German trade averaged 0.062% Those are hardly levels that would have a major impact on a nation’s foreign policy.

In fact, the United States was doing six-times as much trade with Iraq as France, and it didn’t seem to affect our willingness to oust Saddam.

I don’t understand where this myth of Europe’s lucrative trade with Iraq came from. Certainly not hard numbers.

I’d argue that it was already-wealthy thieves in one mainstream party. :)

Already-wealthy, certainly. Thieves, absolutely. But it would take a particularly lobotomized form of partisan hackeery to fail to see that they exist in both of the mainstream parties.

From 1997 to 2002, France’s trade with Iraq averaged 0.05% of its GDP. German trade averaged 0.062%

It’s a matter of whom it benefitted, not the volume, but I’d expect you to be blind to that.

I don’t understand where this myth of Europe’s lucrative trade with Iraq came from.

Benon Sevan, former executive director of the Oil-for-Food program, appeared on an Iraqi Oil Ministry list of 270 individuals, political entities, and companies from across the world that allegedly received oil vouchers as bribes from Saddam Hussein’s regime.

The list of names was originally published in January in the Arabic Iraqi newspaper Al Mada. For a translation, see Nimrod Raphaeli, “The Saddam Oil Vouchers Affair,” Middle East Media Research Institute, February 20, 2004, at memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA16404 (June 21, 2004).

The U.S. General Accounting Office estimates that the Saddam Hussein regime generated $10.1 billion in illegal revenues by exploiting the Oil-for-Food program. This figure includes $5.7 billion from oil smuggling and $4.4 billion in “illicit surcharges on oil sales and after-sales charges on suppliers.”

Joseph A. Christoff and Davi M. D’Agostino, “Recovering Iraq’s Assets: Preliminary Observations on U.S. Efforts and Challenges,” testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, GAO-04-579T, March 18, 2004, at financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/031804gao.pdf (June 21, 2004).

I think the myth promulgated is that Europe “didn’t care” about Saddam. He was the cash cow to key individuals who had a very important dog in the race.

I don’t see the connection between Benon Sevan and French foreign policy. Are you saying that this one guy pulls the strings of everyone in Chirac’s government?

Sevan alone, perhaps not. But Patrick Maugein, now there’s a French Halliburton type if ever there was one.

BTW, wasn’t that list of names produced by Chalabi?