Upon watching the 9/11 rememberances I am extremely troubled. Within days of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, President Bush spoke to Congress. He stated that every nation is "either with us or with the terrorists." He added that any nation sponsoring or harboring terrorists will be treated as harshly as the terrorists. Congress erupted into applause from both sides of the aisle. The full Congress supported the President on this issue...until now. We have uncontroverted proof that Iraq and Saudi Arabia have sponsored financially and harbored terrorists. But the same Tom Daschle who embraced President Bush following his speech is lambasting him for wating to go after Iraq. Because the Daschles and Gepharts of the world think they can get political milage out of it they have gone back on their support of the President on this issue. They are playing politics with an issue that is too important and too grave to tolerate such games. It turns out that his support and the embrace was nothing more to him than a photo op. Your character (or lack thereof) has shown through. You are a disgrace. As is Dick Army for the very same thing. Republican, Democrat or Independent...I don't care. If you are going back on your support on this issue in order to get political milage out of it and ignoring what needs to be done to win the war on terror then you have disgraced yourself and the office you hold. This is an issue where we should lay ideology and politics aside and do whatever we need to do in order to have a more secure America. It disgusts me that this has not happened. I am amongst the overwhelming majority who supported the President's statement that any nation harboring or sponsoring terrorists shall be treated the same as the terrorist groups themselves. Unlike many, my support has not waivered. In order to ensure the security of America and to prevent future acts similar to 9/11, I support finding those nations who sponsor or knowingly harbor terrorists and blow them off the map. To all of the doves out there...be thankful that it isn't MY finger on the button. We have the evidence to tell us which nations are our enemies in this war, and we should do whatever is necessary to disable them...even if it means vaporizing them. One of the reasons why al-Queda organized this attack is that they knew we never do anything about it when we are attacked (see USS Cole, etc). On the schoolyard, oftentimes a bully never learns not to pick on you until you hit him in the nose a few times. The same logic applies here. We needed to have a massive strike against the nations who supported and harbored these cowards so severe that people would think twice before ever attacking the United states. It's not too late to do it now. It will not happen because we are talking about morality against an enemy where morality is never a concern in their decision making process. On the one year anniversary of the attacks...I am left to wonder what date we will mourn annually as the anniversary of the second attack on America...and the third attack...and so on. This will not stop until we fight back on a drastic level. I fully expect to get flamed for this post...the truth is seldom popular. Nevertheless, I consider most of you to be friends. God bless you all. God bless America.
I agree on a lot of levels, Refman. Again...Congress approved the administration taking whatever military action is necessary to go after terrorists and the nations that harbor/support them. I've posted this fact like 5 times in the last week, because it seems to be conveniently forgotten.
Why are we not ready to Invade Saudi Arabia as well????? Why is our president not rallying for that too?? I agree though . . playing politics is bull**** find a stance and stick to it. Rocket River
Wow...we agree. I am convinced that Saudi Arabia is NOT our ally. I am hoping that we are using them to have a staging ground for our attack on Iraq. After that I say to hell with them...literally. For all of those (not intended for Rocket River) who think this is about oil...find it instructive that many oil execs have been making business trips to Russia over the last 12 months. It is a FACT that we can replace the oil we buy from the Saudis and Iraquis with oil from the Russians...probably at a lower cost.
Refman, I consider you a friend, too. And I know you mean what you say. But this kind of thread, especially today, is playing politics, too. If you can say Daschle's playing politics for being cautious about supporting an attack, I can come back and say Bush is playing politics for proposing one. I'd prefer to believe that they are both acting out of conviction and not political cynicism. But it is equally easy to accuse either side of politicizing 9/11, via positions on Iraq or elsewhere. And it is equally distasteful. I am not religious, but you have my blessings, too.
The easiest way to solve this is to eliminate our dependance on oil in the first place and just walk away from the whole area. Then, they can do whatever they want.
Believe me when I tell you that I had no designs of playing politics with this. This is the heartfelt feeling of one REALLY pissed off American. I'm not saying that Bush doesn't play politics...but I can say that he has never flip flopped his opinion on this (unlike other Republicans). I am enraged and frightened for the future security of our great nation. Sadly this WILL happen again...if for no other reason than we make it so there are no real consequences for doing so.
Jeff: What's the "easy" solution to our nation's, and the rest of the industrialized world's, oil dependence?
Jeff has a point here. There has been substantial work done on cars that run on alternative fuel sources. My understandgin is that a lot of the patents have been purchased by oil companies. This does not change my thought that we should blow them all to hell for sponsoring and harboring terrorists as previously promised by our government.
He proposed a similar, if not identical, course of action before 9/11, hell, before he was even elected...how is it playing politics? From the Boston Globe,December 4, 1999 Thursday night, when asked what he would do about Hussein, his father's nemesis during the war to free Kuwait, Bush was a tad belligerent. He would not ease sanctions, he said. He would not negotiate with Hussein, he said. He would help opposition groups, he continued, and he would make ''darn sure'' that Hussein lived up to agreements he signed in the early '90s. "And if I found in any way, shape, or form that he was developing weapons of mass destruction, I'd take him out,'' Bush declared. ''I'm surprised he's still there. I think a lot of other people are as well." When the moderator, Brit Hume, inquired further, Bush either pulled back, clarified, or contradicted himself. ''Take him out?'' Hume asked. ''Take out the weapons of mass destruction,'' Bush responded. Yesterday morning, Bush was asked again about Hussein, and how he planned to take out Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. ''That's up for Saddam Hussein to figure out,'' Bush said during an early morning news conference, declining to elaborate. ''He doesn't need to be building them. ... He just needs to know I'll take them out. It's important for a future commander in chief to state our intentions and the means will be evident to him.''
To Play Conspiracy Theory Man Here: The Oil is not predominantly in Russia, but in the southern breakaway Republics of Kazakhistan, Azerbijan, Uzbekistan, Tajikstan and Turkeminstan to name a few. American oil conglomerates including ChevronTexaco and ExxonMobil have secured contracts for oil drilling and excavation. Yet, a problem that is not new persists. For oil to be transported, it must be hauled via oil tankers. You can't drive oil, or fly it, it must be transported by oil tankers to be cost effective. Unfortunately, Kazakhistan and the other republics lack beach from property yet border with two nations. To reach the Persian Gulf/ Indian Ocean, you must go through two routes. Directly through Iran, or through Afghanistan and then through Pakistan. Wouldn't it be ironic if talks broke down in 2000 between U.S. Oil executives and the Taliban about the pipeline, with one of the Pro-Pipeline Afghani group leaders being Hamid Karzai?? That all is reported fact: This is reported but I am weary of noting something as true fact, if its not sourced or verified very, very well: The US had preliminary plans to mobilize an operation against Afghanistan to take out the Taliban leadership from a "Humanitarian" point of view. Which would also put in place after a "regime change" a pro-west leader that would accomodate the oil pipelines and U.S. companies. If all of this was proved true, and the September 11th attack against the U.S. was an attack based on the Taliban/Al-Queda knowledge that the U.S. was already going to attack them. How would that make everyone feel?? September 11th to the Taliban/Al-Queda in Afghanistan would have been a strike before we attack them, similar to the weak hypothesis Refman has about Iraq. I'm not saying its true, but it does make you wonder.
You can call my hypothesis weak all you'd like. Just be glad to know there are people like me out there who are willing to disable renegade nations before they blow you up in your moment of complacency. BTW...an enormous supply of oil is actually in RUSSIA...not the breakaway republics.
Buck, you took my quote out of context and gave it meaning I clearly did not intend. Please edit your post accordingly. Bush has said some things which he continues to say and other things which he has reversed course on. But to be clear, I am not accusing Bush of playing politics here. I am only saying it is just as easy to accuse him of playing politics as it is to accuse Daschle. And kindly tell me what sort of political game Dick Armey could possibly be playing. He has nothing to gain from his position. I think that each of these guys, even the ones whom any of us might personally disdain most, recognizes the serious nature of war. Refman admits his position derives from his anger, and I understand that. But he aims it in the wrong direction. It is not only acceptable for politicians to change their positions, it is incumbent on them to do so, as long as those changes are sincere and not politically motivated. Sticking to one's guns, in the face of information which has caused one to change their mind, on the grounds that changing positions is unpopular, is playing politics. Changing one's position, especially on such a sensitive matter, is an act of bravery. The fact that most congressmen rallied around the president during such a difficult time in this nation should not be held against them when they attempt to have a serious debate about putting our military in harm's way. Many, many thoughtful people have questions they need answered before supporting this action. To accuse them of playing politics here is unfortunate and disturbing.
Ref, I agree with a lot of your sentiments, but I just want to add that Bush also said this war would not always be fought with conventional weapons. Bush spoke about the war being fought with economics, support, cutting off aid etc. So just because some politicians aren't for military invasion of a country doesn't mean they are against the war on terrorism, or are two-faced. They may be, but not necessarily. Also I think some of the problem people have is the timing, and the idea that it looks like Bush administration isn't focussed on taking down Al Qaeda any more. Lately their whole administration appears to have shifted in the direction of Iraq. We used to hear speaches about how the war was going, and how Bush was going to get Osama Bin Laden dead or alive. I can't even think of the last time that Bush mentioned OBL in a speech. The administration rarely mentions Al Qaeda at all anymore. Yet we know that OBL hasn't been brought in dead or alive, like Bush promised, and that Al Qaeda is a very real threat. But if you listen to the whitehouse, the biggest threat now is Saddam Hussein even though Al Qaeda is still very active and OBL hasn't been brought in. Some say it's possible to go after Al Qaeda and Iraq at the same time. That may be, but it at least appears that they've lost focus on the original target without definitive results. I think most people, including lawmakers and politicians would have an easier time coming to agreement with Iraq, if the administration focussed long enough on the current task, to see it through.
Buck: I don't have one. I'm not an engineer or a chemist or anything of that nature. God knows, I have NO interest in that! Thing is, if we diverted some of the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS we spend on research and development in the petrochemical industry into finding alternatives, my guess is we'd manage to figure it out pretty quickly. When the NEED grows great enough, we can be pretty damn resourceful. The point really is that we haven't even bothered to look because it is easier and cheaper to just continue on as we have been. Yet, pollution is much worse, we are generating enemies across the globe and we have a need that borders on addiction. No one said it would get fixed overnight. But, people used to make fun of "horseless carriages" and laugh at inventors like the Wright brothers. Thirty years ago, everyone thought computers would only get BIGGER than the room-sized mainframes in existence at the time. Now, we have PDA's. It's amazing how innovation works.
Just like Daschle...Armey thinks he'll be able to gain political milage by all of a sudden becoming the "voice of reason." He's been fringe for so long that it will hurt his chances of re-election. He recognizes that and is doing whatever he can to appear moderate. No I don't. I aim it at the nations who harbor and support terror groups. To a lesser extent it is aimed at the politicians who once backed the effort and now seek to frustrate it because they seek to take down Bush. Agreed. The changes in opinion ARE politically motivated. Not suprising that Daschle is leading the charge and Gephart isn't far behind given that both seek to oppose Bush in 2004. He hugs Bush when he thought it was popular to do so and all of a sudden he opposes him when he feels it is politically expedient to do so. THAT is unfortunate and disturbing. People can say what they will about Iraq and WMD. I think they will get them and attack us ASAP. But we have PROOF that Iraq has given money to terrorists and harbors them in the borders of Iraq. That alone is reason to nail them as hard as we can.
I, too am extremely worried about countries like Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Egypt. What we have are dictators, who refuse to relinquish power and continue to line their pockets irrespectively to whether they call themselves General, President or King (royal) and similar to the people of the Shah of Iran's regime and we see the extremist revolution that it caused there. The problem is the billions we give to Egypt's totalitarian regime to suppress its people makes its people want to lash out against the US, that is supporting these groups. In Saudi Arabia and Egypt the people have no freedom of speech, no liberty and they want it. They see the US as supporting their government in their oppression and I fear additional backlash because of our slanted foreign policy.
Funny...during the Clinton administration they supported all of Clinton's military activities. Republicans and Democrats alike. But many Dems were heard to say that Saddam was a dangerous man...Stephanoupolos (buy a vowel! i didn't spell that right) said Saddam should be assassinated...yes..that's a direct quote. People in Clinton's administration used the term regime change well in advance of the Bush administration. So why so different now?? It's even funnier to realize that many Dems voted against the Gulf War resolution but supported Clinton in his military actions against Iraq.... Politics are politics...but when a president decides to use force to defend national interests, be that president dem or republican, most republicans will support him. That is simply not true when the shoe is on the other foot. there..i just argued politics!
