Posted on 07/02/2002 3:15:49 AM PDT by M 91 u2 K
A ticking time bomb? The president's signed order to topple Saddam Hussein, or to kill him in "self-defense," has now been widely publicized. This is like sending a dinner invitation to Charles Manson with the expectation that he plans to use the butcher knife to cut the roast beef only.
By gangster rules, Saddam now has the right to hit Bush or the top leadership of the U.S. government. We should not be surprised.
Saddam has now had too much time to prepare. If we believe that Iraq poses such a threat, then Richard Perle has been right, we should have struck them early and hard. By waiting to get our ducks in a row here and in Afghanistan, we have given Saddam all the time he needs to launch a major counteroffensive here on American soil.
Why hasn't al-Qaeda struck again? Al-Qaeda could have easily struck again on American soil. Yet they haven't. This suggests to me that they are not calling the shots but that one or more nations are behind them helping mastermind the plan. In my mind, the Sept. 11 attacks involved one or more nations. (I wouldn't be surprised if some of the hijackers took pilot training abroad before they arrived here to take the training again.)
The anthrax attacks were also the work of al-Qaeda or their allies. I still don't buy the FBI line of domestic terrorism. The powers behind al-Qaeda and their friends are picking their method and time carefully.
Window of opportunity. I have discussed this before, soon after 9-11. The adversaries of the U.S. know that time is not on their side. After eight years of Clinton, they were gifted with a vulnerable America. Now Bush is rebuilding. The ability of adversaries to strike with success at every level will diminish with each passing year. For example, with millions of anthrax and smallpox vaccinations on the way, the terrorists and their friends may be thinking they have to "use or lose" these weapons.
Al-Qaeda is a most convenient "cutout." A cutout is another term for a front group. The president has rightfully named a host of nations abetting terror, including Iraq, Iran and North Korea. There are several others. All are backed by either Russia or China, both countries that would like to see America brought down a peg or two.
War on greed? The president is also fighting the war on corporate greed. True to form, the Democrats are blaming the Republicans for failing to protect stockholders. Though it's clear that almost all the corporate scams began and flourished during the Clinton years and that Bush has simply inherited the problem, the Democrats have been quick to point fingers.
Just as Bush inherited the nightmare of Clinton's national security failures, he has inherited his sellout of America to corporate bad guys. Still, the Republicans don't have a bad word to say about the Clintons and the '90s, but the Democrats are quick to tar Bush and the Republicans.
God out of the equation. Perhaps many of the problems we are facing, from the war on terrorism to the war on greed, are due to the fact the far Left has successfully banished God from many aspects of our life. Pro-business libertarians, who believe social issues don't matter, are getting a rude awakening with a falling stock market and investor confidence sapped.
Morality is fundamental to a capitalist system. Without property rights, contracts and honest accounting, you cannot have a free-market economy.
One step back, three steps forward. Yes, it looks as if the Left has had a setback with public anger over the 9th Circuit Court's ruling to trash the Pledge of Allegiance. But the effort is not over, and plenty of court decisions have successfully banned God from many public institutions.
The recent setback may once again follow the common pattern of the Left taking "one step back and three steps forward." No more Hail Mary passes for now; they'll just continue to move the ball forward to their goal of complete secularism. It's a bad omen that a federal court at such a level, no matter how left-wing the justices, made this decision.
What do libertarians care more about sexual and social freedoms, such as the right to have prostitution and drugs, or political and economic freedom?? It seems we are facing a Brave New World, and I wonder who would libertarians support free sex democrats or free market republicans???
Maybe Christopher hasn't been keeping up with current events. Saddam always thought he had the right.
Well, if the gun-grabbing drug-warriors have their
way in suppressing sexual and social freedoms,
what would be left over is certainly not policitcal
freedom, and ultimately, not economic. This
is not an either/or situation. By fighting to keep
government out of your bedroom and from
telling you what kind of vegetation you are allowed
to grow and injest, libertarians are fighting
for your right to live as you choose. As
for free market Republicans, what is free
market about steel tariffs and agricultural
welfare?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.