Kennedy's remarks about war motivations hit a new low

suntimes.com ^ | October 18, 2003 | THOMAS ROESER

[Hildy]

They'll do, say, intimate, lie about, fabricate, denigrate ANYTHING in order to win the 2004 election. They are a desperate, pathetic party.

[mylife]

"Let's test you then :-) How do you feel about Bush turning education over to Teddy K?"

Im not sure I see your point. I disagree with giving The Tedster rule over education. I understand why GW attempted to extend an olive branch to them though.

And my point was that the dems seem to think that dissent against everything a Republican says is patriotic. Dissent against those who quash our Constitutional Ideals is patriotic, but the automatic gainsaying of anything someone says is childish.

[mylife]

"Let's test you then :-) How do you feel about Bush turning education over to Teddy K?"

Im not sure I see your point. I disagree with giving The Tedster rule over education. I understand why GW attempted to extend an olive branch to them though.

And my point was that the dems seem to think that dissent against everything a Republican says is patriotic. Dissent against those who quash our Constitutional Ideals is patriotic, but the automatic gainsaying of anything someone says is childish.

[cwb]

You signed up today and have now called Bush "too leftist," defended TK's so-called dissent, have misrepresented the war in Iraq, wondered why we haven't killed the men, women and children in Saudi. You figure out.

[PsyOp]

There's a plot alright, but it wasn't cooked up by Bush in Texas.

Mohammed, The Mad Poet Quoted....

[cwb]

"Why Saudi Arabia has not been sterilized is beyond me."

I have no about that:

While I agree that Saudi Arabia is a major player, we need to think in long-term strategy. If you think the Arab world was upset with the invasion of a country that isn't even an Islamic Republic (Iraq), just imagine what the reaction would be to a war against the heart and homeland of the Muslim Faith. "Remember Mecca and Medina" is a rallying cry that would last for centuries...and which I prefer to avoid. People like you need to stop being so narrrow-minded and start thinking of Iraq as one front on the war on terror. I realize the administration didn't outline this strategy as such, but this is the reality of the war we're in. If we are going to make any kind of impact on terrorism, we need a location from where we can operate...and unfortunately, Iraq provided us with this oppurtunity.

Saddam is/was still a threat...and while we've obviously encountered resistance, this resistance is much less than what would've ocurred if we had taken the war to Saudi...or even Iran, the first, true, Islamic Republic. The idea here is too not make this a Holy War (even though it is). While Saudi Arabia is knee-deep in this crap, it is also a fragile country that could easily go either way. The last thing we want to do is push it over the edge, which is exactly what would occur if we either abandoned them or atttacked them, as you suggest. It's a sad position they're (and we're) in having to straddle this precurious fence, but with the heart of the Muslim faith and Whabbi radicals controlling so much influence, they really are between a rock and a hard-ass.

The advantage that Iraq gives us is that we can now bring some political/economic leverage to the equation...without the impression of waging war on the entire region. While Saudi is a deeply religious society, the ruling dynasty also understands that money is the one resource that gives them the oppurtunity to stay on top; It funds their special police and military forces. Without them, the Sheiks would be in a lot of trouble. And believe it or not, these people do care about their lives and lifestyles. So the last thing they want, is someone screwing with their cash-crop...OIL. It just so happens that our position in Iraq could help do just that, without the threat of war. This is such a fear for some in Arabia, that one interior minister labeled it as an economic disaster in the making, claiming that Iraq's undeveloped and undescovered oil reserves could threaten the stability of the Kingdom..and OPEC (from MERI website translations).

While the US has made no overtures to do this, the fact that "they" acknowledge this threat exists means we finally have some leverage we never did. All we are asking for is that they get a handle on their terrorist problem, and this other problem goes away. Iraq can be used to change Arabia without a war...the same way Iraq can be used to influence Iran...another country swaying on the fence, only this time for the better. With our continued presence in Afghanistan, Iran is now literally surrounded by US forces. And then there's that other terrorist haven, Syria, sitting on the other border of Iraq with US forces nearby. It seems like a bold plan, but Iraq was the perfect oppurtunity and the perfect position to start making changes in the Mid-East. It may not work...but at least this president had the courage to try.

This problem isn't going away; Islamic expansion has been a scourge to the West (and itself) since its founding, continuing almost until WWI. While the League of Nations and UN tried to neuter this threat after the World Wars, with divided and mandated territories, the threat still remains. They haven't undergone a reformation as most civilized societies have...and they've had 14 centuries to do so. It really is sad, but if we are going to be at war, I would prefer to see this war fought in the Mid-East then in the Mid-West...at a time when they don't have the resources they are trying to acquire. If we wait, it may be too late.  Bush never said that Saddam was an immenent threat, as others have claimed; he said that if we wait until he becomes an imment threat, the chance to act will be lost...and many people may have to die. And just who is going to explain to those families why we didn't act when we had the chance?

How can we sit here and blame Bush for 9/11 based on so-called uncorraborated chatter, and then attack him for trying to preempt the next attack based on years of collected intelligence...by the UN, EU, NATO and the last administration? What would have been the reaction by those, if Bush had invaded Afghanistan "before" 9/11 ocurred? It would've been worse than what we see now. With Saddam, he at least had a "public" history of crimes against humanity; with the Taiban, no such history existed and the idea that Bush would've had any support for that war is a joke. Yet, the implication is that we should've attacked the Taliban "before" 9/11 and left Saddam alone. Yeah...I'm sure all those libs would've supported that decision. Whether you or I agree with it or not seems to be irrelevant, because this is the reality of the war on terrorism.

[mylife]

"I was just moved by a FReeper that equated patriotism with a blind devotion to the president's policies. That is dangerous."

Blind devotion? how the hell do you figure? The point I was trying to make is that, that is exactly what the Dems are doin by questioning every move bush makes regardless of if it is warrented or not! regardless of if it is damaging to the country or not.

[cwb]

"You give way too much credit to the Muslim world. Sterilizing the Arabian Peninsula would shut them up like the salting of Carthage quieted them."

Ahh...I see. Just nuke 'em. I CAN'T figure you out.

[bray]

You're right, Kennedy just practicing General Clark's version of patriotism.

Which is just renaming UNPATRIOTIC!

Pray for GW and Our Troops

[armymarinemom]

Where do Iraqis get the means to keep CNN on 24/7, when they can't even get the basics of life together. Keep believing it has to do with insignifican political rants, rather than the millenia old tradition of killing soldiers in an occupying army.

Iraqi's don't get to watch CNN 24/7 but the do watch every time they get a chance. They will stand in front of store windows, go to the wealthier friends house, you name it they go for news. They also now have access to the internet via internet cafes. These people are spending all the money they have just to own a satellite.
You are not giving them credit for trying to keep up with news at all. These people had a tremendous word of mouth network going during Saddams reign. They are constantly afraid that we are going to pull out as before and do their best to keep up with US politics. Haven't you spoken with anyone with contact to the Iraqi people?

[cwb]

"We don't go after SA, or N Korea, because that would be tough. We went after Iraq because it was about as difficult as downing puppies."

Why do you think we went after Iraq? We didn't want Iraq becoming the next NK...or Iran, making it more difficult and potentially deadly to deal with. If the previous administration had thought in these terms we may not be in this problem.

[StriperSniper]

Excellent post.