TheBigW the quote you used was NOT my quote but CJ’s quote, Some will call you a troll and you very well may be. Those are CJ’s words, do try and keep up. And yes moderator I know that you asked for us to knock it off but I didn’t impugn anyone�s honor first. Finally TheBigW is this an example of what you call wishy washy on my site�?
See the two biggest problems right now for the leftists don�t revolve around Al Queda and possible attacks . No sireee, the two biggest problems they see are the ascendancy of the United States which bothers the heck out of them and that darn George W. Bush. They, must, defeat, that, bible thumping, wife loving, children raising man, let�s say that again because that word really sticks in their craws, MAN. Everything must be done to defeat George Bush; he is the antithesis of everything their nihilistic philosophy believes. If they don�t destroy him the general public just might have a hero that can push back the leftist�s rapid envelopment of what passes for middle class society. By defeating him and electing John Kerry they would defeat the biggest threat to their world view to come around since Ronald Reagan. I would argue that it�s possible that George Bush is actually a bigger threat to their nihilistic world view than our beloved Reagan. Tearing down the United States is part of the deal as well since they really don�t like what the United States represents, sure they like the freedom but they don�t like the freedom to fail, the don�t like that competition thing, and they surely don�t like that we are a religious nation. Ooh boy they REALLY don�t like that, we don�t resemble France at all.
The point is this, there were WMD’s in Iraq, Bush decided on the strategy of going to the UN to try and neutralize them. While he dithered there Saddam moved them…this is not Kerry’s fault or France’s fault. Bush decided on a strategy that now looks in hindsight to have been a bad idea. He answers to that, not Kerry or France; he is the one who put our security in the hands of the UN. This may piss some people off but sorry that�s the way it goes.
Iraq was a clear and present danger to our nation…a President doesn�t need permission when a nation poses a clear and present danger. That Iraq was a clear and present danger to our nation was obvious from at least 1992 onwards. To say that an assassination attempt on a former President is uniquely evil is only to state the obvious. To state that Clinton�s feckless response to that attempt was incredibly lacking is only to acknowledge the reality of Clinton. But that was not the only provocation by Saddam, his support of Al Queda goes back ten years, his training camps for terrorists learning how to capture airliners were reported by multiple defectors, by Weapon Inspectors, recorded by Satellite photos and discovered by the Marines when they overran the base. The multiple meetings of Atta and Al Ani were well documented no matter what the claims of NBC are these days. The Czech Foreign Minister has on numerous times stood by his statements of that meeting. Furthermore the Iraqis Ambassador to the Czech state was expelled for plotting to destroy the Radio Free Europe Building in Prague. To say that we had evidence of massive collaboration between Al Queda/Islamists Terror organizations and Saddam is to beyond denying. This was reason enough to intervene�and none of this even uses the very significant questions that Laurie Mylroie brings up of Saddams involvement in the WTC 93 bombing.
And yet there was a decision inside of the Administration to concentrate on the violations of UN resolutions, a decision that shows how out of touch the elite in the Government are from the people. This was supposedly driven by Sec of State Powell, as a legalistic way to justify the war. So the two best reasons for going to war with Iraq, the terror connections and the humanitarian reasons were pushed back into the background while the Sec of State was pursuing his promise of delivering a consensus of nations to enforce the UN resolutions. As if the majority of the American Public gave a rat�s ass about UN Resolutions. That was a great way of getting a coalition but a terrible way of getting the American people behind you. Luckily for President Bush most of the American people 77% at one point believed correctly that Saddam had something to do with the 9/11attacks. Course Bush himself started the ball rolling to kill that vicious rumor by stating that there was no evidence of such a linkage, mollifying his bureaucracy but enraging those like me who worried that if he cannot speak the truth then how can he mobilize the Government, reality will not be trifled with nor distorted without dire consquences. The Press that wishes President Bush nothing good was more than willing to pile on the mockery of the stupid American Public for believing the obvious that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. As that belief was attacked successfully the public�s backing for the war started falling off�yes I know that we also started seeing significant casualties but both happened at the same time.
Where do the WMD�s fit in this entire spectacle? Well Bush rightly pointed out as Clinton had before him that Saddam was a clear and present danger and that given the new reality of 9/11 we could no longer wait to find out if a hostile nation would or wouldn�t deliver such horror weapons to those who would use them. The odd thing is that given this possibility the danger was terrible from the moment Bush made it an issue and so he shouldn�t have said anything till he was ready to move. Put simply if you believe, rightfully so in my opinion, that you are dealing with a leader who wont hesitate to give his weapons of mass destruction to terrorists then that terrible possibility exists from the moment you put the Dictator on notice. At that moment you have to be ready to move to prevent that very thing from happening. We were not. We dithered long enough for systems to be dismantled and moved, systems to be hidden and supplies to be moved and or given to the very people who we most feared would get them. This is a failure, it is a failure of no one else but the Bush Administration, and they are the ones who decided to pursue the strategy they pursued.
The broken up attack in Jordon is just the first of the major attempts using those lost weapons more will be following. We have a major problem here and I know that Kerry would do much worse but regardless failure needs to be identified and some sort of response needs to be given. While it is absolutely crucial for President Bush to win it is even more crucial for us to never forget that we are fighting a war of survival such as we have never faced. The people we fight are unlike any we have fought before and while they are primitive their dedication and persistence are legendary. We can never delude ourselves and take our enemy for granted, remember that this enemy has managed what no other enemy has ever managed. 3,000 of us died, our 2 highest buildings in NYC destroyed, the center of our military headquarters attacked and partially destroyed so underestimating our enemy or brushing our failures under the rug are actions we cannot take. These are times of great import; Western Civilization is being defended by us and us alone the responsibility should weigh heavily on our shoulders.
And one can never tell but if I were a betting man I would bet that the American public would take much more seriously a party that didn�t sweep errors under the rug but instead faced them upright to find out how to do better next time. Everyone who tried hard fails, the ones who stay failures are the ones who don�t analyze their failures. Sorry to take up so much space but as you can tell I take this very seriously. Wishy washy indeed.
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds
Stumble It!
BlogoSquare