My open letter to America

The only thing I have ever agreed with you on Refman is that the Saudi Royal Family, among the other autocrats that make up our mideast "allies" should be left to fend for itself.

 

I think they are still in favor of regime change. It's just they aren't necessarily in favor using a basically unilateral invasion to enact that regime change.

I think the problem occurs when people believe that if certain congressmen aren't in favor of invasion, they are in favor of doing nothing. There are other possibilities. Even Bush early on said that victories wouldn't only be achieved militarily in the war on terrorism. There would be other methods used.

 

I don't know either, Jeff. I will say that, despite a glaring lack of evidence to support this claim, the type of research you're envisioning is going on now. There's just too much money to be made in clean energy down the road for companies to throw away a chance at being the innovators (patentholders). Are energy companies devoting a majority of their r&d into clean and/or renewalble energy? Of course not. Any replacement for oil is a looooong way off, and companies know that exploration, extraction and refinement are where their technological advances can reap them the most profits at the present time.

Like I said before, a replacement for oil won't be seen in our lifetime, and probably not in our children's lifetime. It would make me happy if, in the immediate future, we could focus on a) eliminating coal burning power plants throughout the world and b) increasing fuel effeciency and reducing emmissions in automobiles & commercial vehicles. I believe those are realisticaly obtainable goals.

 

sanctions don't stop this guy. you make a good point, though. it's just amazing how quickly they all turn. either you mean what you say or you don't. the president told congress this would be a long drawn out affair that would span more than a few nations to clean up...they gave him that authority...now they're trying to back away from it. somebody lead and stop worrying about the damn polls.

 

Refman said:

Now every time anyone accuses Bush of playing politics Refman gets upset and calls the person a mindless ideologue.

Now you accuse Armey of playing politics because his statments don't square with your desires or ideology.

Unfortuantely for your theory,, Armey is not running for relection.

In fact due to his not running for office it is theorized by many that he can now give his real opinion rather than feel he has to toe the Republican line.

 

does it make you sick???

his letter was disgraceful?? excuse me but he slammed dick armey as well...it was not near as partisan as you're making it out to be. wanna attack someone for being partisan, i'm your guy...but refman's article specifically mentioned daschle AND armey..you continue to focus solely on the fact it contained daschle. he goes on to say "...every Republican, Democrat, Independent. I don't care..." Scoring political points??? not at all..it was clearly a heart-felt rant...the likes of which are encouraged on a discussion board.

"I will not be gentle now??" are you serious?? thanks, officer friendly! i think I am gonna be sick now!!

 

Potomac Watch: Armey leaving the way he came in -- saying what he thinks

Saturday, August 17, 2002

By MARK HELM
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- With retirement just around the corner, House Republican Leader Dick Armey of Texas has grown increasingly independent and willing to take on the Bush administration and his own party.

"It's as if Dick Armey has been liberated," said Thomas Mann, a political scientist at the non-partisan Brookings Institution in Washington. "He's like a freshman congressman who doesn't know that he's not supposed to talk openly about certain subjects."

Mann said Armey, who will leave Congress at the end of this year, is following a long tradition in American politics.

"During their last few months or year in office, many politicians seem to find the courage to say what they really believe about issues," he said. "Armey is returning to his roots and not worrying about what people think."

 

You know Max, when I posted that I was getting sick, it was obviously in the course of a heartfelt rant as well. I'd posted text from Carter which was I felt was very serious and thoughtful, and which perfectly summed up my own heartfelt thoughts on a sensitive issue. And I'd expected on this board to get serious replies. Instead everyone just posted that Carter was an idiot and should shut up. It pissed me off and I submitted an extremely emotional post. I also said I wouldn't post again until I cooled off. And I didn't. You're a jerk to continue to bring it up.

I WAS gentle in reacting to an "open letter to America" which intoned that anyone who disagreed with this president did so only due to political motivation. He said that unequivocably. It was, at best, inappropriate. But I didn't flame him, as he said he expected to be. I called the premise a disgrace after he continued to argue that anyone who disagreed with the president did so cynically. And on this day, especially, it WAS disgraceful.

Refman and I do not have a problem with each other. We debate respectfully, sometimes we lose our tempers and we always make it up in the end. I was out of line to post so emotionally in the past and I stayed gone til I'd calmed down. I believe Refman is out of line here, but I won't hold it against him, I'll just let him know I think so. And I think we'll be fine. You and I -- if you continue to mock MY heartfelt rant -- are another matter.

 

For the record Refman, I am neither a fan of Daschle nor of Clinton. I have been extremely disappointed in both of them, for various reasons at various times. My problem wasn't with you calling out Daschle or anyone else in specific. It was in you channelling your anger on this day towards insisting that all these guys care about is politics. If that's your argument it is at least equally true of the president and his administration. Suggesting that anyone is playing politics with this particular issue though is an extremely radical position, which I can only assume is motivated by emotion. As I've said, I would never accuse Bush of same as loathsome as I find him to be on just about every possible level.

I sorry I offended you so deeply. That wasn't my intent. I hope we'll be friends again sometime, but I'm not inclined to apologize for anything I've said in this thread. I meant every word. If we never get past that, it will be a shame. I like you very much, I respect you and I've enjoyed our discussions.

 

Batman, though you are one of my favorite posters, I can't really say I'm upset with Refman's post. People respond to these horrible events through the lens of their personal ideology and beliefs. I wouldn't expect otherwise.

It does tick me off when some conservatives or those who take a position on a particular issue ,while arguing a near straight conservative line, try to hide behind a mask of psuedo-objectivity. Just state your case.

I believe that evey American politician and virtually everyone else in America ,including me, wants to end such terorism as 9/11.

There is a great debate on what to do. Bush and Refman believe that going to war all over the globe is the way to fight terrorism. Kill the crazy terrorists before they kill you is their program in a nutshell.

I believe that since you can't search all 40 million 40 ft. containers and literally millions of ships and vehicle that enter the US, not to mention the over 500 million passengers (I heard the figures by a terrorist expert on the radio today) that you are better off changing our foreign policy that is unjust and makes many people in the world hate us.

Sure check as best you can, but don't fight these stupid wars that just create more hatred and terrorism toward the US.

Israel under Sharon has shown the futility of a purely violent approach to terrorism, though I'm sure someone will rush to point out that their hasn't been a suicide bombing in a couple of weaks as evidence that Sharon's approach is working.

 

This topic is getting heated among us Americans. There is no partisan split. I've got three sons and I don't want them to grow up in a world of fear.

We all need to recognize that every president since 1958 has pandered to the Saudi's and much of the middle east due to oil. Higher oil prices are what has caused our current depression (yes, I've said it... not "recession"). Go ahead and blame Bill Clinton if you want, blame Bush, blame who ever you want. But remember, every time you get in your 4,000 lb. car to drive it to the grocery store 4 blocks away, you can blame yourself. We now import over 60% of our oil, nearly all from OPEC nations, of which over 85% is from Muslum countries.

Their radical right (Al Queda, et al) is not a lot different from our radical right. Trying to push their beliefs down everyone else's throats. This is the same radical right that funds/supports blowing up abortion clinics and shooting doctors dead in the streets, the same that support the preachers (Houston Babtist Ed Young, et al) that said America "deserved the attacks because we are sinners", etc., etc. They permit no tolerance to anyone that doesn't look/think exactly like them (just like some Muslums).

 

Actually, our proof that Iraq sponsored or harbored terrorists is not uncontroverted. As Brent Scowcroft said, "Saddam is not a problem for us because of terrorism."

And while I'm no fan of the Saudi government (or any "royal" family who frolics in Monaco while so many of their subjects live in poverty), they seem less guilty of harboring and financing terrorists and more guilty of pandering to the militant Islamic element in their country.

Though it matters little, my opinion on all this is that the United States can ill afford a unilateral war (or if you prefer, military engagement) with Iraq. A successful regime change will require both a military-backed overthrow and then a military and diplomatically-backed transition. The human and financial costs of both will be very expensive. Not only would we be sending our fellow Americans to fight, but then we would be stationing many of the same soldiers in Iraq for many years to ensure the success of the new Iraqi government. We'd also have to make a great deal of sacrifice on the home front to pay for this mission. Can we really afford all this during a time when our economy is at best shaky?

This does not mean America should do nothing. Obviously, the world would be a better and safer place without Saddam. Therefore, Bush should be tripling his efforts to convince the rest of the world to help us. Skip telling everyone that he has evidence - show it to us already. Frankly, I'm glad that there are men (for whatever reason) who challenge his METHOD of dealing with Saddam, because it means there will be a discourse. Discussing what to do may take longer, but it means we have a greater chance of choosing the right course of action. And I resent anyone who is arrogant enough to call me or anyone unpatriotic because we disagree with their opinion on this right course.

 

I agree the Saudis should be left to their own devices. I say let them fly the Iraqi no fly zones (or not) and let the US abandon their Saudi military base. If the Iraqis act up again, let it be the Saudis' sons who are sent to right the wrong.

I would like to also point our here that getting rid of Sadam would only solve half of the Iraqi problem. A regime change actually requires somebody to take over when we leave. And who is to say that the new leader will be any better behaved in the long term. A puppet government worked so well with the Shah in Iran, maybe we can try that again.

 

I think the most frustrating thing about energy efficiency in say cars is the last couple presidential administrations have all said they're committed to energy efficient cars. The problem is, each administration seems to have a different opinion on what that entails. I believe in January Bush abandoned Clinton's billion dollar program in search of an affordable "family car". Bush replaced it with his own program that would partner the government with car makers to produce hydrogen powered cars. But it doesn't look like the short term is being considered for this as this looks like a long term project. I remember watching tv about this and an environmentalist claimed it would take 10 years to 20 before we see any results. This is where I have my differences with the current administration.

 

Agreed 100%. I just wish our national energy policy reflected those concepts.

 

OBL was a Saudi. OBL sponsered terorism. Am I missing something here?

What if the Saudi militant Islamic element spread their joy in other countries of the world, like say Afghanistan or Pakistan or India? Political instability will abound.

It is long past time that the US do the right thing and walk away from our Saudi "friendship".

 

Tim McVeigh was an American. Tim McVeigh committed terrorism. That's not to say I don't have serious questions about Saudi Arabia -- only that we can't blame the country for the actions of one of it's natives.