*The liquidation of Saudi Arabia, with the territory partitioned between Jordan and the less unenlightened Gulf emirs.
*The dissolution of NATO: America needs to stop overguaranteeing European security. For one thing, it allows EU governments to fritter their revenues on lavish welfare programs that allow young Arab immigrants to sit around plotting terrorism at the taxpayer's expense.
*The embrace by the Middle East of the same reforms Turkey embarked on 80 years ago.
1 and 4 might happen, they might not. 2 and 3 seem way, way too extreme and unlikely to me.
None of us wants to think about this or live like this. When the FBI urges us to be extra vigilant, we pay no attention.
Of course, if we had a clue what to pay attention to, it would help. I don't think I've seen anything they want to know about, but who can be sure?
I especially liked these lines:
In fact, tough questions would be welcome. But Byrd's and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's criticisms are pathetic: They're about spin, posturing, about how it'll play on TV. In war, grownups don't have time for silly games in the congressional schoolyard.America needs to stop overguaranteeing European security. For one thing, it allows EU governments to fritter their revenues on lavish welfare programs that allow young Arab immigrants to sit around plotting terrorism at the taxpayer's expense.
Priceless.
I had to laugh right out loud when I read this!
You don't have exit strategies when your national territory's been attacked; you have a responsibility to see the war through to the end.
This is probably the best answer I've seen on this.
"Cordial-ly"
Bobby-Bubba Bird
Grand Wizard
This has never been better said!
I had never thought of this before but it's absolutely true. If the U.S. didn't guarantee our (European nations) security so overtly our governments would have to stop wasting our money on those who don't deserve it.
Excerpt:
Not a tough choice, you'd think. But the six-month suspension of normal politics is taking its toll on Democrats. "We seem to be good at developing entrance strategies," Sen. Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia's porkmeister par excellence, whined the other day, "and not so good at developing exit strategies."
Well spotted, senator. Here's something else that will shock you: Churchill didn't have an "exit strategy" for World War II. Exit strategies are for optional foreign adventures, when you go into the People's Republic of Basketcazia because you think General Ruthlez Bastardo would be a mild improvement on President Sy Kotik, but otherwise you've no vital interest at stake. You don't have exit strategies when your national territory's been attacked; you have a responsibility to see the war through to the end.
It's a shame Byrd can't seem to understand that. Maybe if we applied the traditional courtesies of West Virginia politics and agreed to rename Afghanistan Robert C. Byrdistan, he could see his way to being supportive for a couple of more months. Honestly, I don't like to complain but, given that the Senate has a talent pool of 200 million to draw on, the 100 members of "the world's greatest deliberative body" have performed abysmally since Sept. 11. The headline on Jules Witcover's column in the Baltimore Sun read, "Democrats Ask Tough Questions On War." In fact, tough questions would be welcome. But Byrd's and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's criticisms are pathetic: They're about spin, posturing, about how it'll play on TV. In war, grownups don't have time for silly games in the congressional schoolyard.
(((PING))))))
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my ping list!. . .don't be shy.
I hope this gets widely read and (dare I hope) paid attention to by the Dems.
Oops, sorry, got carried away there for a minute...
That would be asking too much.
knews hound
We KNOW this , the democrats can't accept a war,
it means their stranglehold grasp of domestic affairs is moot.
With out a foreign policy champion they are toast.
It galls them, but I like it.
Priceless!