Posted on 02/21/2003 6:25:53 PM PST by Spidey
You do not know what you are talking about. This nation was founded on the belief that a representative government, with representatives chosen by the people in elections, was the best form of government - not what a majority of the people believed at any particular time. The whims of the people are too, well, whimisical for stable governing. The phrase, “government of the people, by the people and for the people", was not from the Founders, but was an invention of Abraham Lincoln, the man who rivaled FDR in his disrespect for the Constitution.
You wrote, Taking that Oath of Office didn’t suddenly endow you with great intellect or the ability to ignore the voice of the people you are supposed to represent. As I recall, your grade point average in school wasn’t that hot anyway.
Again, you do not know what you are talking about. President Bush's SAT score was 1206, and his GPA in college, was average (not below average). His low score was a 70 in Sociology. Al Gore had a similar "average" GPA in college, with a low score of D in natural science. But "in his sophomore year at Harvard", the Washington Post reported, "Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale". Gore did not obtain a graduate degree: neither from Vanderbilt Divinity School, nor from Vanderbilt Law School (which some in the press believe). He made 5 F's in 8 classes at the divinity school. President Bush, on the other hand, obtained an MBA from one of the most respected business graduate schools in the world: Harvard. He also has the distinction of being the first president with an MBA.
BTW, where did you get your bogus information? The Democratic Underground? You might consider getting your "history" on George Bush from more credible sources, for example, this one:
"This guy is very smart," said Lanny J. Davis, a former special counsel to President Clinton and a supporter of Al Gore, as well as a fraternity brother of Mr. Bush at Yale. "This notion of lightness is totally missing the point. There are many smart people, intellectually smart as well as street smart, who don't have the energy or motivation at times to act smart, but that doesn't mean they're not smart. There are times when George coasted through Yale courses or through exams or seemed overly facetious. But don't mistake that for not being intellectually acute. "My memory of George -- and I've no reason to say nice things about him, because I hope he loses -- is that he was an astute observer of people and had an incredible talent for getting along with people," Mr. Davis said. "I tell my fellow Democrats not to underestimate him."
You wrote, And while you’re so preoccupied with getting Saddam Hussein and turning America into a police state, what are you doing about North Korea and its nuclear weapons program? Talking? Just talking? They are close to having the capability to deliver nukes to the West Coast and all you want to do there is talk? Why do you have such a pair of big brass balls when it comes to Iraq, which hasn’t developed nukes (but probably will one day) but turn into a wimp when it comes to be much more pressing threat from North Korea?
Let me see if I got this straight. You think we should ignore Iraq and concentrate on North Korea (that is, try to clean up Clinton's and Carter's mess in North Korea). Then maybe, soon, we might have two rogue nations (Iraq and North Korea) with nukes. Wow! Why didn't President Bush think of that? And, of course, if we ignore the fact that we are in immediate danger from terrorists, and eliminate domestic wire-tapping of immigrants and beligerents, and allow enemy combatants to go through our grand jury process (like Clinton did), then what? Terrorists within our borders might change their mind about attacking our citizens?
You wrote, "Saddam Hussein may not be the only madman who threatens a place called America."
That is true. Doug Thompson is still free.
--------------------------
“Sometimes you have to ignore popular opinion and do what’s right,” Bush said in a speech to a group of cheering veterans. “The President must govern, not be governed.”
Say what? Excuse me, King George, but this country was founded on the belief of “government of the people, by the people and for the people.”
Taking that Oath of Office didn’t suddenly endow you with great intellect or the ability to ignore the voice of the people you are supposed to represent.
------------------------
Essentially, this man equates of the people etc with listening to opinion polls. Our country was specifically planned to avoid becoming that, which could most accurately be termed a democracy.
But that fits in nicely with this Thompson's overall tone, wherein he disparages the president's use of his proper authority because Mr Bush declines to pander to the media and the masses.
I believe that makes the doc's assessment quite accurate.
Source please, Mr. Thompson.
**Thanks for the kind words. I hope to give you as honest as response as I can, given my base of knowledge. I do not know if the US DoD considers Islamic fundamentalism our prime enemy, but I recognize that they are examining and tracking these groups as breeding grounds for terrorists. They are undoubtedly also keeping an eye on Indonesia, which has experienced a number of violent radical religions uprisings, leading to bloodshed and destruction of innocents.
At present, both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are, for all intents and purposes, in bed with us. Their leaders are cooperating in the tracking of terrorists, the sharing of intelligence, and with critical logistical support. We have a much better chance of utilizing diplomacy with these two countries to meet our ends than through an assault.
America and the United Nations have attempted, many times over the last decade, to bring Iraq to the table. It is Iraq's unwillingness to comply, through use of force against the planes patrolling the no-fly zone, to the ejection of inspectors and hampering of their efforts, to the pilfering of the "food for oil" program under the U.N., that has lead to the current situation. America has shown, perhaps very foolishly in the past, that it will embrace nations that make even the tiniest of gestures towards peace (shining examples are China, with its flagrant nuclear non-proliferation and dual use technology violations, and North Korea, in the 1994 Agreed Framework for building the nation's nuclear power capabilities that was diverted towards the production of nuclear weapons).
**In short, Iraq has made this uncomfortable bed, now they are finding the sheets all stinky.
Iraq is a secular state in a sea of Islamic fundamentalism and only showed any interest in furthering that cause after our sanctions were imposed.
**Correction, my friend - we did not impose sanctions, the United Nations imposed sanctions. They even eased them for humanitarian purposes; instead of receiving additional cooperation for Iraq, Iraq ejected the inspectors and gave the U.N. their middle finger.
Would it not be in our best interests to open normal trade and political relations with Iraq, even to the point of developing strategic alliance with it, so long as it remains a secular state?
**As attempts to bring about this approach in the past 10 or so years have proved fruitless, I doubt they would reap any benefits now.
You see, we burned our bridge with Saddam after he invaded Kuwait. We were on his side in the 1980s, during the continuing series of Iran/Iraq wars, and used the "enemy of my enemy" approach then. The Ayatollah was holding our embassy staff hostage, did so for 444 days, and Saddam received assistance from us around that period. I honestly think he was surprised when we entered what would become "Desert Storm."
As to the fact Saddam is a dictator, we have and do support dictators around the world throughout the twentieth century.
**Agreed, and we have turned a blind eye to many who butchered their people by the thousands.
Many of these alliances have been very fruitfull. After all, if Stalin had not kept the majority of Hitler's ground troups busy, the invasion of Normandy could never have occurred. In short, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and no one can doubt that Iraq fought a long and arduous war against Iran for the very fact the latter country was fundamentalist.
**Agreed, as noted above.
I just don't see where this attack fits in with the war on terrorism.
**Some may consider this a leap of faith, but I do not. We already know, as has been documented by declassified reports provided by British intelligence and other agencies, that Saddam has thousands of tonnes of biological and chemical weapons, and that he had a considerable nuclear acquisition plan in place prior to the start of Desert Storm. We know this because documents uncovered by the inspectors revealed proof of manufacture or acquisition after the cease-fire. The proof was so conclusive, that the International Atomic Energy Association modified its safeguards and reporting measures in 1998 to address proper lack of oversight.
I personally believe, based on what I know and have read, that Saddam's greatest threat lies not in what he posssess, but who he is willing to sell it to.
The following countries are considered Tier IV, meaning that the United States is not allowed to sell them any technology which has a dual civilian/military application: Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, and Syria. Despite this, two of these countries still purchase heavily from China, a Tier III country, (which the US allows some purchases up to a point). Now, watch the path of the materials: the United States sells to a country under strict guidelines, they, in turn, sell to a country we would never sell to under no guidelines, who, in turn, sells to whoever they want (on the open or black market).
That is the real threat IMHO, not nuclear war. Read quick...and let's talk with FR comes back up. I started out doubting Bush's abilities, then thinking he was great, but now thinking he is side-tracked. Straighten me out because I would love to support this war.
The American People unfortunately are so totally confused on the facts of how we are governed as a Nation, and its no wonder they remain mis-directed and off course. Benjamin Franklin was asked after a meeting by a colonial Patriot, what kind of Government we were to have and he replied a "Republic, If you can Keep It". The Lexicon of this Nation has been attacked without mercy ever since that time. One of the things that concern me as a Conservative; not necessarilly a compassionate one, is this. What Franklin stated back then has not changed; on the books we are still structured as a Free & Independent REPUBLIC! The progression of Presidents since then have determined to change the National Lexicon of us being a REPUBLIC, into a (democracy). My non capitalization of the word democracy is intentionally gramatically incorrect to point out the premise of this article. One of the most disparaging attributes of our current President is his continued abuse of the Lexicon pertaining to calling this Nation a (democracy) instead of correctly identifying us as a REPUBLIC instead. This is a intentional deception, targeting the American people by the socialist minions who are bent on destroying America and what is stands for! Many un-suspecting good intentioned people miss the importance of making the distinction between the two philosophies involved here. I hope once and for all this difference can finally be clearly understood. A democracy is a political system that is essentially "MOB RULED" by the passion of the people not dedicated to even a set of democratic principles that serve all the people all the time! On the other hand a Republic, governed by duly elected Representatives that are accountable to the people who elected them is what the Founding Fathers Of America Originally had in mind. In a democracy anything resembeling a "Bill Of Rights" guaranteed by the Constitution would be scrapped and thrown out! It is essential that you understand what the prize is in all this is. It is the destruction of the Constitution and The Bill Of Rights! Is It any wonder that ANARCHISTS love the principles of a democracy that frees them up to subvert and destroy our Freedoms? A Constitutional Republic which is our true form of Government; operates on the principles Of "The Rule Of Law", that is a series of checks and balances that keeps the socialist Barbarians at bay! I have told you plainly and clearly what is at stake here, ignore it and you leave Freedom and Liberty hanging in the balance Once they succeed in doing this, you will be hanging in their place! Jehovah Bless and preserve America!
First of all, you're preaching to the choir as far as the WOD is concerned, so go lecture someone else about it. And anyway, this discussion is about policies unique to the Bush administration, and the WOD is fought with nearly equal enthusiasm by all administrations.
how 'bout the new bills making it 'legal' for any churlish bureuacrat to have you forcibly held down, at the point of a gun, and injected with whatever bio-soup they feel like?
Show me the bills, and show me specifically where in the bills these provisions are. Have any of them been signed into law?
His columns lately have been nothing but ad hominems.
News flash for Doug the Genius: We don't live in a single issue world. Sometimes majorities on narrowly defined issues conflict.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a majority of a sample of Americans agrees with a narrowly worded question about going to war with Iraq without an additional U.N. resolution. Guess what else, Doug, if you asked whether America should protect herself from further attackes from terrorists, you'd find an overwhelming majority in agreement. Now what? Resolving conflicts and taking action are things a President is elected to do.
Next time Doug, do try to make some sense.
The only thing I found wanting in your reply was the clear link between the war on terrorism and radical fundamentalist Islam. In every case of terror about which I have read, both here and in Israel, the terrorists are Islamic fundamentalists. The schools that teach this form of Islam (I believe they are called Madrasses)are found mainly in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Hence, the 9/11 perpertrators came from Saudi Arabia. It is only our alliance with the leaders of these two countries that keep them in power. Without our support, both countries would quickly fall into forms of government similar to Iran. The same goes for Kuwait. After Iraq, at least the Saudi's, will quickly distance themselves from us and begin to take a much more fundamentalist position themselves, as they have become very frightened of their own people. In fact, Saudi Arabia may well become our next major problem.
Thanks again.
As for this President being selected by the Supreme Court ... cut that crap out. Bush won the count, he won the re-count, and he won the re-re-count. The Supreme Court simply told the Florida Supreme Court that they were not allowed (as a state) to break their own election laws.
As for this President being selected by the Supreme Court ... cut that crap out. Bush won the count, he won the re-count, and he won the re-re-count. The Supreme Court simply told the Florida Supreme Court that they were not allowed (as a state) to break their own election laws.
HEY! Chill out man!
I was quite aware you didn't write the article. I apologize, if you thought I was talking to you. My remarks were intended to the author and not you. If I had thought that you were the author You would really have known it. I replied to you only because you had posted the article. I should have made it clear ,as to whom I was speaking to. I actually just typed my thoughts down. Sorry!
Sorry I didn't get a chance to reply before now. With two babies under the age of three, my time is not my own. I am enjoying our conversation immensely, as it allows me to honestly review how and why I have reached certain conclusions on this issue, without rhetoric. Thank you for an intelligent and thought-provoking debate.
Further, forgive me if I jump around a bit; I'm writing in between kid-naps and just putting my thoughts down.
Concerning fundamentalist Islamic groups, I did not and do not regard them as our primary enemy because terrorism can and does rise out of any number of places. I encourage you not to lose sight of the broader threat by focusing specifically on that group (although they most certainly deserve a keen eye at all times - we have no disagreements about that).
For example, tribal warfare rampant in Africa stems from border disputes and power struggles, not necessarily religious beliefs. Ireland, another prime example, involved Protestants and Catholics, and bombings and firing on school children most certainly is a form of terrorism. Nevertheless, neither of these stemmed from Islamic fundamentalism.
The difference may be purely symmantical, but I believe that our defense experts are examining all forms of potential threats now, not just the most obvious ones.
In the most evident way, we are seeing a repeat of the pre-World War II demonization and power building process exemplified by the Nazi Regime. While there are obvious variations, of course, the core of the process remains the same: demonize a group of people (in this case, Americans), blame all of your problems on them (that way, your own people do not turn against you), and amass as much power as possible to defeat them. Does this formula fit the current situation in Iraq, Iran, and other places?
Something to ponder...
Further, although we did not touch on it previously, we cannot disregard their complete hatred of Israel and the Jews, a solid ally of America. Israel is a prosperous and civilized sliver of a nation in an unforgiving terrain, has found a steady friend in the United States, and has one of the most brutal, respected, and successful armies in that area. Compared to the poverty, oppression, and indoctrinated hatred of the radical fundmentalists, Israel remains a water mark for those seeking a twisted form of "justification" for their hatred of the United States, no matter how unjustified it might actually be.
Sad to say, Iraq was given ample opportunity to come to the international table and would have been infinitely better off if they had. As noted in my previous post, I do not believe that they, in their current position, are considered the ultimate threat to the United States; I believe it is who they are willing to sell to, and how badly they want to strike back through whatever means possible, that we must watch for.
The same can be said for other countries in that area. The culture of hatred, fed primarily through religious schools, as you noted, has indoctrinated a generation to despise America. Suffering in abject poverty, starving or being constantly oppressed, the people of Iraq (and other countries) are lashing out at their perceived oppressor (the United States). You and I both know that the United States is not the oppressor here, it is the internal regime's unwillingness to comply with the sanctions that has brought about their terrible state, but for those living inside the country, it will appear the opposite. For them, their perception of reality is "reality." To break that cycle of hatred, to eliminate the threat they pose, we must definitively impact their reality.
Believe it or not, for all my "chest beating" and "war yells," I do not relish the thought of war or the deaths of innocents or American soldiers in the least. It is, in my humble opinion, a necessary evil in response to a potentially greater evil, but certainly no cause for celebration. We are plodding to this awful place in an act of self-preservation, nothing more.
As to your question whether we can stabilize Iraq once Saddam has been removed; that, my friend, remains to be seen. Despite a rather sweeping "victory" in Afghanistan, the country is still not stable and will require a considerable amount of time to make it so. Further, Iran is already infiltrating the northern border of Iraq, with forces not aligned in our interests, to seize what they can from that terrority. I believe that once we end Saddam's regime, we will be fighting for longer than expected to protect any replacement.
I also concur with your opinion that Saudi Arabia may rapidly become another thorn in our side. (I see North Korea on the list next, dependant upon their response to our campaign in Iraq, but that is another conversation entirely.) Almost 3/4 of all the hijackers were, as you correctly noted, from Saudi Arabia. Were in not for the Saudi government's willingness to "play ball" with us, to offer intelligence, assistance, bases, etc., I believe our sights would be set on them right now, not Iraq.
I have posted before, even though I tend to be dovish, that I would like to see Bush delineate a doctrine much like the MAD doctrine (mutually assured destruction) that kept the peace during the cold war. That doctrine should state in the event the U.S. is attacked with a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that then upon three days notice the city of Medina will be destroyed with a nuclear device. Should another attack follow, the city of Mecca would suffer the same fate. The pith of this doctrine is that Islam cannot be practiced for all intents and purposes unless Mecca exists. Mecca is to the Muslim what the resurrection is to the Christian. Hence, if such a doctrine existed, many moderate Muslims would find themselves more encouraged to take care of their own black sheep.
While I recognize that there are many types of terrorists, I think we have only to fear the fanatical, fundamentalist Islamic movement as it seems they are the terrorists who seem to have picked the U.S. as their scapegoat.
I have very little time tonight, and have to go, but very much enjoyed your reply and will write later.
Stryker
We seem to be in accord. You and I both dislike the very thought of war and the destruction that it brings, but when faced with the necessity of waging it, do so with the intent to end it as expeditiously and - for lack of a better term - as ruthlessly as possible.
As my mother used to say, "Never be a bully. Never start the fight. But once it is started, by God, you'd better end it."
Part of your proposition is, in fact, already in place. In 1998, President Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 60, allowing the use of nuclear weapons in response to a terrorist biological or chemical attack. There is a lot of screeching and wailing going on now about Bush's reiteration of standing policy, but when it was first announced, it was not even a blip on the radar screen. The option to go nuclear was never off the table, but this directive made it more evident to the world.
While my expeditious side would embrace your proposition to announce a policy similar to "MAD," the cautious side of me urges me to refrain. As a Roman Catholic myself, I would be hard pressed to not take arms against a country that destroyed the Vatican because Catholics elsewhere in the world commited heinous acts. I have reservations that several countries presently in the "America" column would instantly switch sides should this occur. And if we consider that there are maniacs abroad trying their damnable best to bring about a full-scale Muslim uprising against America, they might even double their terrorist efforts to facilitate this result.
Here is my prediction for the unfolding of events (that and $1.50 will buy you a paper in most cities):
1. Hans Blix, former leader of UNMOVIC and current leader of the UN Inspection Team, will issue another report to the UN. The same curious suspects will vacillate.
2. The US will launch their "shock and awe" campaign two weeks later.
3. The fighting will last three months.
4. The cleanup will take two years.
5. We will have at least two additional terrorist attacks here in the US, one probably during the campaign and one after the campaign. My gut tells me this thing isn't over; that, sadly, 9-11 isn't the end of it. The Palestine Liberation Front of Abu Abbas (based in Iraq), in concert with Al Quida, seems like the most obvious perpetrators.
6. Based on what we discover in Iraq within the first four months of occupation, Bush's 2nd term will be decided.
7. Iran and North Korea, backed by China (not necessarily Russia), will start the drumbeat against the US and seek sanctions through the United Nations. The posturing could elevate rather quickly from there, bringing about the extremely unpleasant scenario you noted above, particularly since Taiwan and Japan have already started rattling sabers on behalf of the United States.
From there, who knows...?
(WRITER'S NOTE: Last week, I published a column entitled "The Madman of Pennsylvania Avenue." It was written during a time when I was letting a memory of a family tragedy depress me and affect my judgment. The column was pulled within two hours of its posting after family and friends convinced me that it went too far. Unfortunately, given the speed of the Internet, it has already been picked up and reprinted in full on other sites. This column was over the top, even for me, and I apologize for it. It has been erased from the files of this web site and will not be republished. If it appears on any other web site, it does so without my permission and is a violation of copyright law).
The column is here
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.