Osama's declaration, if it proves to be authentic, could not come at a worse time for the Bush administration. After last week's victory in the Security Council, the President and his advisors were already toasting to victory over Iraq, their glasses filled to the brim the finest vintage from the grapes of wrath (Mogen David 2002?).
Idiotic swipe at Israel. Isreal was a loser in 1991 and will be again. Israel will be forced to lose security and take hits so the US can get help from Arab states.
And now the bogeyman reminds them that practitioners of the religion of peace, on Bali, in the United States, in the Middle East, in Russia, are continuing to murder their Christian and post-Christian enemies.
So, shouldn't we kill off the Islamists before they kill us?
The Clinton Doctrine, taken over by the decision-makers of the Bush administration (Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz), was clear: Right or wrong, justified or not, the government of the United States can make war with impunity. In a strict sense, this is true. Government officials, hiding in their bunkers, had nothing to fear on September 11; it was only the rest of us who were exposed.
Mr. Fleming has just shown his stupidty. That was not the Clinton doctrine. It has been teh policy of every president since George Washington. Perhaps Mr. Flemming should read up on the Quasi War, the Barbary Pirates fight, a few hundred small actions in the pacific in the 19th century over trade....
I do not entirely blame the Bush administration for concealing the facts from us. Americans fear the truth and are unable to accept any version of reality that does not come in the starkest outline of black and white. How else to explain the rush among the evangelicals to support Israel at all cost, turning a blind eye to the crimes of past-and-present Israeli political leaders such as Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir (both terrorists), and Ariel Sharon (war criminal), and to the danger posed by the lunatic fringe element led by Benjamin Netanyahu?
Because these are cobnservatives, you know the people that Flemming would suppoert if he were not a paleo-confederate.
How else to explain the unqualified defense of Muslims shown by leftists, pacifists, and some antiwar libertarians?
And the cowardly paleo-cons who would preffer to give into Islamist demands and throw our allies to the alligator in the hope we are eaten last?
Life can be complicated. It is possible to work for the survival of Israel without endorsing the policies of Sharon and Netanyahu;
When the Reconquista of Aztlan becomes violent, I expect Fleming to call for surrender! Or is he being intellectually dishonest in support of his cowardly agenda?
it is equally possible to condemn the corruption and bad faith of Yasir Arafat, without wishing to see the Palestinians pushed into the sea.
Who is talking about ethnically cleansing Jordan? Ow wait, Flemming buys the leftist-Arab nationalist-Islamist line on Israel. My bad.
It is even possible to understand that Muslims (not just "radical Islamicists") around the world represent a greater danger to the West than the combined forces of Communism and Nazism ever did, without wishing to murder innocent Muslims in their beds.
Straw man alert. No sane person is calling for killing all Muslims. Teh most extreme interventionists only want to overthrow the governments and reform thier societies.
I am neither a pacifist nor an isolationist. America has become a great power and is stuck with the role, for the time being. The best great-power policy at this moment would be to draw in our horns, bring back the troops from the Balkans and from other trouble-spots around the world, and coerce Israel, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan into a reasonable settlement of the crisis, dictated by the U.S., our European allies, and Russia. By "reasonable," I mean one that is arranged by impartial Westerners who have neither Arabic nor Israeli ties of blood or sentiment.
Sell out our allies in the hope that the Islamists only mean half of their Mein Kampf. Czeco... er Israel is expendable as was Lebanon.
It the Bush administration can back up its claims against Saddam Hussein, then strikes against Iraqi weapons factories and military installations may well be justifiable, but not a full-scale war that will cause the deaths of hundreds of thousand of civilians and destroy what little of the fragile infrastructure remains. But no reasonable solution can be discussed, much less implemented, so long as the political classes continue to lie to us, pretending that Mohammad did not found a religion of war and terrorism, covering up the reality of the situation in Palestine, incessantly repeating the mantra "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," as if the United States were not the world's greatest producer and supplier of such weapons, as if our government had not armed, not only Iraq, but also Afghanistan and Al Qaeda.
Interesting. Small truths to hide lies.
The US did not arm Al Qaeuda. This would be the standard leftist agitprop of greens except for the fact that a so-called rightist is righting it. What a useful idiot.
Do you neo-cons long for the good old days of the Cold War when you could just call anyone you disagreed with a Communist? Either make the case that Fleming supports bin Laden or leave hyberole alone. Liberals have destroyed any ability you might have had to communicate with the outside world.
Idiotic swipe at Israel. Isreal was a loser in 1991 and will be again. Israel will be forced to lose security and take hits so the US can get help from Arab states.
I am begining to think you did not read the article.
So, shouldn't we kill off the Islamists before they kill us?
Ahh, that hallmark of modern American 'conservatives', employing the same logic used by Kaiser Wilhelm-- oh wait, he wasn't an American.
Mr. Fleming has just shown his stupidty. That was not the Clinton doctrine. It has been the policy of every president since George Washington. Perhaps Mr. Flemming should read up on the Quasi War, the Barbary Pirates fight, a few hundred small actions in the pacific in the 19th century over trade....
Your "In Defense of Bill Clinton" paragraph is very moving...
And the cowardly paleo-cons who would preffer to give into Islamist demands and throw our allies to the alligator in the hope we are eaten last?
Calling someone a coward on an anonymous posting board is the definition of courage...
But this was your topper:
Straw man alert. No sane person is calling for killing all Muslims. Teh most extreme interventionists only want to overthrow the governments and reform thier societies.
So, shouldn't we kill off the Islamists before they kill us?
Fleming suggest a good policy might be to start by not letting the barbarians into the city...you ignore (probably cannot comprehend) that policy idea as it is actually a logical place to start.