Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ohioWfan
 He has not wavered.

 Really?   Then what is the 'moral clarity' argument all about?
And why has he gone from criticizing Israeli responses to
terrorism to admitting Israel has a right to defend herself?
And why does 'if you're not with us you're against us' not
apply to the country which provided at least 15 of the
suicide killers of the WTC, the country who subsidizes the
families of suicide killers in Israel?

43 posted on 05/14/2002 6:37:33 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: gcruse
Some things for you to think about:

It is quite possible that Iraq has WMD already and the closest target, the most bang for it's buck, is Israel. Getting a handle on how to defend against this and locating all the launch sites might be one thing that is causing Israel to hold back.

The ultimate goal has not changed. Intermediate tactics may seem confusing, but part of the art of war is deception of the enemy.

I would also point out to you that bin Laden's radicals want to overthrow the Saudi regime as well, instituting their own super-Islamacist state. Yes, there were quite a few hijackers who were Saudi nationals. This does not mean that the prince sent them over here. The Saudis have been buying off these nut-cases for many years, and their stupid policy has risen up to bite them, with tragic consequences for people in the US.

The idea here, I believe, is to help the Saudis get rid of these nut cases by marginalizing them while making the Saudi royal family look like strong leaders. This is to our advantage, because if the royal family is gone, what will fill the void will be a huge headache to the entire world.

It is also helpful to understand that from day one, President Bush said he would divide the enemy. That includes the Arab world, who is being forced to choose between standing with the civilized world and standing with the rogue states. It is not to our advantage to unite the entire Arab world in a war with us. We would win, but the cost in lives would be enormous, and it would not be a wise leader who advocated such a reckless position.

Now, I have given you some points to consider, which I think are at least as well-informed as the critics of President Bush. I hope you will consider them.

45 posted on 05/14/2002 6:52:49 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: gcruse; monday
He has not wavered in his stance against terrorism, regardless of what the pundits, the media or even you say. We do not know what is going on behind the scenes, but I trust that Benjamin Netanyahu was telling the truth when said he has confidence in the President's 'bold and courageous leadership' and his 'moral clarity' in the war on terrorism.

Somehow I think he knows more about what President Bush is doing than you do, unless you have been part of intelligence briefings, or involved in personal conversations with him......you haven't, have you?

The President is a man of principle and conviction. He knows that the war on terror is the calling of our time, and that he must lead. You should be thankful that a man of courage and character is leading this country, and the world, instead of nitpicking from your armchair.

61 posted on 05/14/2002 9:47:01 PM PDT by ohioWfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson