Posted on 10/01/2002 3:13:22 AM PDT by Greybird
Mark Steyn has pointed out that this slogan works better if reversed: "He may be our son of a bitch, but he's still a son of a bitch." Playing footsie with power-mad egotists was always a mistake. It's bitten us on the rump several times. Maybe we've unlearned that particular error; at least, one can hope. But we must also deal with the problems we've created, for ourselves and others, without getting overly hung up on our embarrassment at having created them.
As for "the absurdity of going to war over WMD," I'm afraid we'll have to disagree about that. Saddam, being "rationally evil," might never use WMD outside his borders, but the linkages between his regime and "irrationally evil" groups such as al-Qaeda and the Palestinain irredentist-terrorists are strong, and I fear what they might acquire from him too much to take a relaxed view.
For further thoughts, please see:
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
Clinton was already gone. 9/11 is *his* legacy.
And Saddam needs to go. Are you one of the Saddamites who would let him continue his threat...Saddam's murderous past, his two invasions of neighboring countries, his open threats against the US, his firing on US and UK forces, his payments to the families of suicide-bombers, his harboring of known terrorists (Abu Nidal ring any bells?), his acceptance of terrorist training camps in Iraq, and his history of using WMD's on innocent civilians...(as the good Teacher317 listed)?
Do you vote for Dems?
In the meantime, Vote Republican!
Hate the UN. The only way to get us outta them and them outta us is a Conservative Republican majority electing strict Constitutionalists to the bench. We are America. We are not subject to the United Nations. President Bush has made that very clear. If they happen to follow us into a war, good for them, but it makes no nevermind to US.
Do you believe that if citizens were allowed to carry weapons on to airplanes as they were allowed to prior to the 1970s that 9/11 would have happened?
As an American and a Vermonter, I carry a handgun with me wherever I go. (The carbine is for fun.) With a Republican majority voting strict Constitutionalists to the bench, every American can again enjoy the God-given right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves from enemies, both foreign and domestic.
If 9/11 could have been prevented with handguns carried by airline passengers (and it may well could have, but then, the terrorists woulda had guns, too) but wasn't, it is because of the Liberal Democrats and the law-making rather than law-abiding judges they have appointed to the bench. Don't get me going.
You left off an assassination attempt on former President Bush. This act alone has largely been ignored, but I see that one act alone as sufficient grounds to remove Saddam.
So many reasons, so little time.
And I sent him the link and the text of this article:
Democrat Leadership Should Control Rank-And-File Saddam Apologists
WASHINGTON, Sep. 30— House Republican Conference Chairman J.C. Watts, Jr. (R-Okla.) issued the following statement on the mission to Baghdad by Congressmen David Bonior (D-Mich.), Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) and Mike Thompson (D-Calif.):
“It’s one thing to have a civil discourse on the merits of a preemptive strike or war. It’s another to fly to Iraq and take the word of a tyrant over the American president and the American people.
“At a time when America is fighting a war on terror, talk like this only helps enemies of freedom.
“Instead of lobbying for Saddam, these guys ought to come home and lobby Senate Democrats who are blocking important priorities for Americans like a Department of Homeland Security, prescription drug coverage and pension security.
“Three Democrat members of Congress in Iraq defending Saddam Hussein ought to warrant a reprimand from Minority Leader Gephardt. Surely they do not speak for the Democratic Caucus. Or do they?”
WWII. The appeasers of Germany. Nobody wanted to listen to Churchill's warnings until all hell broke loose. Governments can sign as many agreements with tyrants as they wish, listen to as many promises as desired, but this does not prevent bloodshed. So, pacifists and quislings caused tremendous death in this case and those willing to fight saved innumerable lives.
The first and most pervasive lie of the article is this: When American presidents prepare for foreign wars, they lie.
The final and most pervasive lie of the article is this: So Bush may be telling the truth. In the light of history, however, we would be making a long-odds bet to believe him.
I am tired of unabashed empire builders who claim to be conservative arguing against convenient red herrings. To the scare mongers on this thread: you are either one of them or you have been duped.
Want that on your tombstone?
Pearl Harbor could have been properly warned, and the damages significantly reduced and MANY, MANY lives spared, not to mention saving most of not all of the fleet, but hey, then the people might not have been angered enough to jump into the war. The people were deliberately mislead!
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.