And this part of a piece by Thomas Fiedman:
"President Bush has a different problem. The threshold test that Mr. Bush had to pass was: "Does this man understand that we are on the wrong track?" Even though the situation is still salvageable, right now Iraq is a terrible mess because of the criminal incompetence of the Bush national security team, and we are more alone in the world than ever.
Conservatives profess to care deeply about the outcome in Iraq, but they sat silently for the last year as the situation there steadily deteriorated. Then they participated in a shameful effort to refocus the country's attention on what John Kerry did on the rivers of Vietnam 30 years ago, not on what George Bush and his team are doing on the rivers of Babylon today, where some 140,000 American lives are on the line. Is this what it means to be a conservative today?
Had conservatives spoken up loudly a year ago and said what both of Mr. Bush's senior Iraq envoys, Jay Garner and Paul Bremer, have now said (and what many of us who believed in the importance of Iraq were saying) - that we never had enough troops to control Iraq's borders, keep the terrorists out, prevent looting and establish authority - the president might have changed course. Instead, they served as a Greek chorus, applauding Mr. Bush's missteps and mocking anyone who challenged them.
Conservatives have failed their own test of patriotism. In the end, it has been more important for them to defeat liberals than to get Iraq right. Had Democrats been running this war with the incompetence of Donald Rumsfeld & Friends, conservatives would have demanded their heads a year ago - and gotten them.
Did the president, in the debates, answer these concerns? He barely tried. His strategy is to focus all his energy on fanning doubts about whether Mr. Kerry understands that we have real enemies, so voters will not focus on how much we are on the wrong track - with virtually no friends in the world and an Iraq that is now so insecure our own soldiers are afraid to drive certain roads."
grkqst, actually, we've been in the Middle East for much longer than 50 years. Please state your points of substance. We're not having a party, we don't need any hot air balloons. I'd appreciate it if you would not quote the Bible as well. There are enough quotes in that good book to argue each side of any issue. You gain no leverage with your Bible presentation. In fact, what you present could be considered the basis for the American response! lol!
Midnight, You'll believe anything.
I just pointed out our past behavior-NOT INACTION!- going back 50 years in the Middle East. Are you or your wife, parents, neighbors, me, or any adult American not also living by the sword when OUR military, government, and corporations attempt to conduct their business based on the "might makes right" model? Owe up to your recent history, Midnight. Were you born yesterday?
The military doesn't live by the sword? I just saw a newsclip where a suicide bomber was driving towards some GIs and they all started chanting and he turned-tail and tried to convert to Christianity! Maybe you are right.(except that you are stupid)
Your last paragraph makes little sense but that's not suprising is it? Can I what? You mean "Do I", I hope. I CAN think anything I choose and it may not make any sense at all, but that would make you, can u, Bear and me brothers-in-arms. I hardly think so.
Do I wish to sway suicide bombers by trying to understand the "reason" for their behavior? What do you think? I take that back. It won't make any sense anyway. Just kill 'em all! My, these Depends are getting comfy.
REGARDING: I've continually said Iraq isn't about democracy building, that it is part of a new Middle East strategy to address despotic Governments, not reward them, and to root out radical Islamic terrorism.
RESPONSE: Assuming you are correct, you have stated an oxymoron.
Is not one of the major goals of the "terrorists" to overthrow the despostic (US backed) governments?
If so, we could hit two birds with one stone by backing the "rebels" (in lieu of "terrorists").
Many more who do NOT live by the sword still die by the sword, or as a direct consequence of actions of those who are living and dying by the sword around them.
U.S. servicemembers do not "live by the sword"; rather, they help protect us against those who choose that path.
Can you honestly think those who choose to kill themselves in order to kill thousands, or even just a few, of those they hate, will be swayed by your idealism (masquerading as realism)(?)
can u expound upon your statement "with our tacit approval through our inactions(no such word), in the Middle East"?
You see, there is one major difference between a realist(me) and an idealogue(you). America has been CONCRETELY in the Middle East for the last 50 years, at the least. Just because you are afraid of, angry at, or don't care for the results, i.e. no more Twin Towers, does not mean you can negate, ignore, or forswear past behavior. Grow Up! If you want to use military force because your lack of a brain leaves violence as the most worthy option, remember: "Those who live by the sword...". Or 9-11.
Ah the TR memoirs plan. Now I see. Whom.. a little diplomacy, a little arm twisting and speak softly but carry a big stix. Hmmm. Well I cant differ with that.
Now lets look at the Middle East and our predominant or at least current use of the big stix. Iran, likely and N Korea, indoubtedably, have nuclear weapons. We have 100,000 plus troops in Iran, are spending in the neighborhood of 100 billion dollars a year and 1000 odd american servicemen's lives a year and no WMDs. Instead a growing and dangerous anti-american insurgency that now controls much of Iraq except the Kurdish North.
Frankly Harvey, TR would be truning over in his grave.
Alpha, I don't mind repeatin'. I don't believe Iraq is about nation building or democratizing the Middle East. It is about holding countries accountable and draining the radical Islam venom emanating from there. As for the NeoCon plan, I really don't subscribe to this rhetoric either. I tried to ask you to contemplate how a country can lead in the world community, but you seem to think it is all b/w. I again refer you to Teddy Roosevelt and his memoirs in regards to his winning the Nobel Peace Prize and the building of the Panama Canal. Teddy played the diplomatic leader game, he did it using many tools, none of which was b/w explainations. In fact, I don't know how one leads world poltics through b/w pronouncements. Therefore, don't view everything so b/w.