The mess wasn't contained during the Clinton years, he didn't learn squat from the first attempted bombing of the WTC, and didn't put the necessary safeguards in place to prevent 9/11. The terrorists were already long on our soil by the time GWB took the oath of office. The biggest mistake we've made is to not keep our focus on the problem, we scattergun our resources in an effort to be PC, instead of targeting mainly those who really have it in for us. It's been over six full years since 9/11, there is no reason NOT to have a "trusted traveler" program with biometric links to a high-tech ID card for people who only want to get to their next business meeting in a reasonable amount of time. Let the "once every five years" flier get the scrutiny, and make sure that we know where the Muslims are when they prepare to board.
Besides, it is now impossible to use a commercial aircraft as a weapon with the safeguards now in place. A terrorist might be able to kill everybody on a plane, but they will never again be given access to a cockpit under any circumstances. I'd rather we figure out how to stop the next John Allen Mohammad from terrorizing major metropolitan areas. The only thing that tripped up the D.C. sniper and his evil sidekick is that they wanted ransom money. If they had a large amount of funds, and a political agenda, they'd have probably gone on for months with their killing spree, crippling the entire capital metropolis. A dozen or so such teams could shut down the major pulse points of our whole economy.
I, too, was for the invasion of Iraq. But I was out there in "make Baghdad a glass parking lot" territory, you don't begin rebuilding until you've completely broken the will of your enemy. The same goes for Afghanistan, the fact that insurgents were able to get within a few hundred yards of Karzai just yesterday means that we have not broken the will of the Taliban enemy. If we really had the guts to win in Afghanistan, we'd have carpet-bombed the so-called tribal areas of western Pakistan.
However, I would also argue that Ataturk was in the right place at the right time. He was able to accomplish great things for Turkey, but only because conditions were right at the time.
Great men make their own "right times". That's why I use the example of George Washington. He could have been the first king of the United States, but he accepted instead a unanimous vote of his peers to be the first President of the land that his efforts secured from the grip of tyranny. The squabbling Iraqi "leaders" are just trying to keep the US dollars flowing while they salt bribes away in Swiss bank accounts. They are not willing to put on the line their lives, their fortunes, or their sacred honor (if they had any).
With Iraq, I think the conditions are being created for someone like an Ataturk to step up. Is there someone who can take advantage to lead Iraq forward? Only time will tell.
You are way more optimistic than I am in this regard. We waited for a courageous leader to seize the reins in South Vietnam, and all we got was corruption. We sacrificed our own future for the possibility of freedom for only a part of the Vietnamese. We were saddled with liberalism by people who were first turned off by the war, then ended up buying the whole liberal package that came with it. I'd truly hate to see that happen again. The fact that Clinton and Obama have raised enormous sums of money for campaigning tells me that it might already have happened.
I think a lot of people need to consider, with this election, is judges. I think McCain will nominate conservative judges. The impact of judicial activist judges cannot be understated.
Agreed, but on the SCOTUS, who's the oldest and most infirm? Ginsberg's had her health problems, and Stevens is really getting up there. The conservative votes on the Court are still relatively hale and hearty. I just think about what Souter (GHWB's biggest mistake) said today about simply requiring a photo ID to vote, and I remember that simply having a Republican as President does not guarantee we won't get liberal Justices.
John McCain has attached his name to legislation with some of the most heinous Democrats to ever sit in the US Senate, I'd shudder to think about his 'need' to compromise if he had to fill a SCOTUS vacancy. It would be very hard to get Republicans to 'bork' their own President's nominee, we'd need to nip things in the bud the way we did with Miers. I'd much rather ask solid Republican Senators to vigorously oppose the libs that Obama or Clinton would send up to the Hill.
Sorry I’m so late back to this, just haven’t had the time to think about any of your points.
To boil things down, I think we’re both agreed that we have serious problems with the candidates the GOP is running. We do differ when it comes to Iraq as I think we’re finally on the right track.
However, though, I have to give you credit when you remain a bit more cynical about the politicians in Iraq. That is a valid point and the Iraqi politicians should be viewed with a healthy skepticism. Of course, that’s why I’m saying 4 years and out (though, the actual timeline is closer to 18 months) because that’s how much longer I think it will take to see if things are actually headed in the right direction.
No matter what, unless the GOP starts running some true conservatives, they’ll lose more and more votes. Heck, I’m on that list.
By the way, if you want to read an interesting book, try Senator Coburn’s “Breach of Trust.” He flat out says that once Republicans got power, rather than remaining true to the conservative agenda, they worked to stay in power.
Also, Senator Coburn gives the facts regarding the so-called “budget surplus.” He flat out says it was a myth, that the budget surpluses were actually Social Security collecting more than it was spending.