Taking issue with MslaCat's credo about Clinton's lie

BobCatFan · Post by **BobCatFan** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 8:29 pm

mslacat wrote:At least when Clinton lied nobody died!

I disagree with your little political comment. We are in this war because Clinton's lie got him in so much trouble, he could not responsed to all the bombings that were killing Americans oversea.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:45 pm

Just to keep things clean, I moved the political post down here. I hope you don't mind. It seems to be working really well to keep our subject matter split like this -- it keeps threads from going on off-topic tangents that make them impossible to follow and browse.

On a political note... huh? If you can connect the dots from Clinton's hummers to Saddam's invisible WMD's, then you are wasting your talents on this bulletin board -- the CIA needs you!

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 8:00 am

We're in this war because W wanted it, regardless of pesky facts. That is, if you're talking about Iraq. If you're talking about the "war" on terror, that's been going on for a long time and will never end. It can improve with thoughtful strategy over generations, but there's no sign of such thoughtful policies in the white house, just arrogant simple minded bluster that futher motivates the terrorists. The media prefers stories with little real importance, but juicy plot lines, remember Gary Condit?

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 8:29 am

here's something to discuss:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/saturdays ... _bq11.html

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:28 am

********** MSLACAT rant alert ************

You know it is a common Bush / Republican method, to put all of the failures of the
current administration on the shoulders of Bill Clinton. On the topic of terror the
assumption is that Clinton was doing nothing or little to prevent / fight terrorism. The
fact is Clinton had a very effective plan and operation in place and at the end of his
administration was preparing plans and recommendations to ratchet up the fight. The
problem is when the Bush administration came in they felt they wanted to go in another
direction (this is a polite way of saying it) and threw out the Clinton plans (both existing
and future plans) and start anew with their own plan. There was almost NO "phase in"
between one administrations "fight on terror" and the next. It is said that open a window
of opportunity that may have assisted the 9-11 terrorist.

Now of course the above time line is the "democratic / Clinton point of view on the whole
issue. If you check the facts you will find that there are a lot truths/facts in the this line
of reasoning, , but there is also a lot "spin" and jumping to conclusions.

Now the old Clinton "did nothing" arguments is all opinion. You can not back it up. It
is also so broad and simple of a statement, in nature that you really, do not have to. If
you say it enough and have others say it enough (lets say on talk radio) it becomes a truth
of sort, accepted by the masses, when actually it is a lie.

Now as far as Bush's "War on Terror" and "War on Iraq" (for lack of better term.) The
president would like to link these two actions because one is very popular and one has the
potential of being very sticky. The truth is one has very little to do with one another other
than geography. It has been proven that, dispites the previuios claims, Sadam had no
"Weapons of mass distraction" other than those in his imagination, and that Iraq
government had little to no interaction with organized terrorism. Now there is the
argument that the United States is now safer with Sadam Gone than we were before. Lets
see, Sadam had no WDM or terrorist organization, and had a virtual economic blockade
around the country. His potential for causing any harm, in the near future, the United
States was slim to none. There are dozens of other countries that were far greater threat
than Sadams pitiful little country. How about Iraq, or even a nuclear power North Korea.
Right now our country's military is spread so thin between Iraq and Afghanistan that our
ability to respond to any other emergency is severely compromised, I would argue.
Furthermore I would argue that are presence in Iraq has severely hampered "The War on
Terror" by forcing it to take a back seat to the invasion of a small irritating country that
with a despicable dictator. The "War on Iraq" has possibly been the best thing that
Asama could have hoped for

CARDIAC_CATS · Post by **CARDIAC_CATS** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 10:38 am

BobCatFan wrote:
mslacat wrote:At least when Clinton lied nobody died!
I disagree with your little political comment. We are in this war because Clinton's lie got him in so much trouble, he could not responsed to all the bombings that were killing Americans oversea.

Ehhh? His lie about a blow J*b is to blame for our overseas mess? I don't think so. Everyone was on Clinton for not getting Bin Laden back then. Well, Bin Laden has done way worse since and we haven't even gotten him yet .. oh wait, we are still in Iraq losing lives and trying to find WMD's. That sure makes a lot of sense to me.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 10:54 am

W said he wasn't into nation building, that may have been prophetic. We have done too little in Afghanistan and made a monumental mess in Iraq. A little history will tell you that Bush pere and company supported Osama and Saddam before they became our enemies. Of course you won't hear any history from the prez or the W/talk radio/Fox News propaganda machine.

History has a lot to do with this mess and why we have little chance of succeeding with wolfy's plan. Things like the crusades and British imperialism muddied the water a few years ago and those folks don't forget -- that's why I say it will take a number of generations of a more enlightened foreign policy, as well as a lot of international police work, to reduce terrorism. Fancy weapons do more for defense contractors and congressional campaign coffers than they can possibly do to reduce terrorism which commenced centuries back.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 11:27 am

velo - I agree with you somewhat when you say it will take a number of generations of a more enlightened foreign policy to reduce terrorism. But, I think you are somewhat narrowminded by implying such foreign policy changes are the sole responsibility of the U.S. I would argue that not only does American foreign policy need changes, ALL of the other nations in this world must change as well.

Is it not true that American foreign policy changed significantly following WWII? Is it not true that prior to WWII, American foreign policy was based on isolationism (is that a word?). I would argue that American foreign policy has not changed significantly for 62 years (come December), and that regardless of who is President, the policy of the U.S. is to help those who can't help themselves. I would also argue that our foreign policy now is better and more enlightened than it was on December 6, 1942.

There is no question that our country has made many foreign policy mistakes since 1942. However, I choose to believe that, in general, the Administrations, always tried to keep the best interests of the U.S. and its allies in mind. We know this, because we get to see behind the scenes after a President leaves office. For example, is there any doubt what kind of a person Jimmy Carter is? Therefore, I would conclude that our presence in the Balkans, Africa and the Middle East (just going back 12 years), were all conducted with the best interests of the oppressed in mind, and we were not involved simply just to make sure weapons manufacturers made money. Ya, corporations made money, but ya know what, corporations will always make money as long as there are corporations.

I would argue that our biggest mistake in the last 12 years was bailing out on Somalia. And, finally, if America pulls out of Afghanistan and/or Iraq until those countries are stable, then those will be THEE biggest mistakes in American foreign policy. Indeed, that means we might be there for generations, but if enlightenment means figuring out how to get along with peoples and nations, then I say we (as in the world) are on the path of enlightenment. To put it another way: Would it be an enlightened foreign policy to pack up and come home? If you think so, you ain't seen nothing in terms of bodies of innocent people.

All apoligies for the long diatribe. It's just that this whole thing hits very close to home for me, because I have dear friends and family trying to help rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq. They work in charitable organizations and the U.S. military. And I can tell you this: They have the same goal.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 11:49 am

I don't think we should pull out of Iraq under the "you broke it, it's yours" doctrine. But, I'm not sure we have the ability to make things better there. I admire the military folks over there greatly. I'm not sure it's winable (is that a word?). We should have put more effort into Afghanistan to show that we do the right thing and follow through. I believe our military is weakened by the demands in Iraq as is our ability to work with other countries throughout the world. I have few arguments with your "diatribe". We need more than a braun without brains foreign policy. We seem to repeat the same mistakes. My point regarding the military industrial complex is that we spend our bucks on toys instead of more effective defense needs. The war on terrorism will be fought with police technology and not won with the most expensive new weapons systems.

I believe many other countries are more enlightened than us(US) because their battles with terrorism started long before 9/11.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 5:16 pm

To use a statement from MSLACat:
RANT ALERT! Hide the children!

Because of the ranting nature of this post, please forgive its apparent disorganization.

I've tried to keep my mouth shut, but I can't any longer. My colleagues, my friends, and my family have all served in Iraq in the past year and a half. I'm sure I will, too--and I'll gladly go.

I do not care for those that disparage the military in Iraq. The problem in Iraq is not the Iraqi people. The people that are shooting at our troops--not only US troops, but Brits, Dutch, Italian, Polish, Belgian, and other troops of the coalition--are not the average Iraqi. The insurgent movement is based in the Zaraqawi and other terrorist-based organizations, no doubt funded and supported by countries--like Syria--that had a better relationship with Saddam than they did with their own people.

velochat:

We should have put more effort into Afghanistan to show that we do the right thing and follow through.

We're still in Afghanistan. Some of my best friends are there now, trying to rebuild the infrastructure ignored for years by the Taliban.

velochat:

I believe many other countries are more enlightened than us(US) because their battles with terrorism started long before 9/11.

That's because we had not experienced terrorism on our own soil to the extreme as other countries. We had been lulled into a sense of complacency by our own isolationism.

velochat:

We have done too little in Afghanistan and made a monumental mess in Iraq

The only reason you don't hear about Afghanistan, is because the good stories--about women and girls allowed to go to school, electricity coming back on, etc.--don't make for good ratings. I could say more, but I'll save the "biased media" arguement for a different thread.

mslacat:

Clinton had a very effective plan and operation in place and at the end of his
administration was preparing plans and recommendations to ratchet up the fight.

I doubt it. The military doctrine of Clinton was born out of the Somalia fiasco. Wounded and killed American soldiers televised to the world makes bad press. So, why send troops in when you can shoot cruise missiles and save face to the world? I'll tell you why: in the military there are missions for every service. Troops on the ground are often the most effective "force on force" option. As proud as I am about my USAF service, there are some things that cannot be done through the air. If "boots on the ground" weren't still needed, we would have disbanded the Army, as well as most of the Marine Corps, long ago.

Back on topic, shooting tomahawk cruise missiles at empty tents was, and is, not sound military doctrine. If Clinton would have relied on his military advisors, they were telling him that.

mslacat:

It is said that open a window of opportunity that may have assisted the 9-11 terrorist.

Don't believe it. Planning for the 9/11 attacks would have taken significantly longer than 9 months. I have no doubt they were being planned before even Clinton's reelection campaign in '98.

mslacat:

Now the old Clinton "did nothing" arguments is all opinion. You can not back it up.

Sure you can prove it. There are lots of nonpartisan source materials out there. The books by Clinton's former military aide and General Franks are just a couple--I encourage you to read them.

mslacat:

It has been proven that, dispites the previuios claims, Sadam had no
"Weapons of mass distraction" other than those in his imagination, and that Iraq
government had little to no interaction with organized terrorism.

On WMD: you can read in "open press" the number of stories that are creeping out of Iraq about possible IEDs rigged with chemicals. Where do they get the chemicals? No kitchen that I know of has mustard gas or Sarin in it...
On links with terror: this has been identified as truth. In April of 2003, we found documentsthat positively linked Iraq with al Qaeda

velochat:

regardless of pesky facts

Oh, yes, Iraqi Freedom is terrible--"regardless of those pesky facts" that keep getting in the way of proving we have no right to be there, right?

Coming to a close, I humbly ask all of you to remember or servicemen and servicewomen that are currently serving the the Middle East. We are honored to serve our country, and I personnally weep when I realize there are those in this country that do not realize what a great place it is we call home. Your harsh words for the President (regardless of political affiliation) cut deeply, as do those words condemning our military actions. We live in the greatest country in the world. It would behoove us all to remember that more often.

The short term of Iraq and Operation Iraqi Freedom is dangerous. In the long term, though, the situation will be much better than it was before we removed Saddam. Similar to removing a hornet's nest, often the hornets get mad their home is gone before they die. Until they do, you get stung a couple of times, but the end result is the same: they are homeless and dead.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 5:34 pm

'93HonoluluCat wrote:Coming to a close, I humbly ask all of you to remember or servicemen and servicewomen that are currently serving the the Middle East. We are honored to serve our country, and I personnally weep when I realize there are those in this country that do not realize what a great place it is we call home. Your harsh words for the President (regardless of political affiliation) cut deeply, as do those words condemning our military actions. We live in the greatest country in the world. It would behoove us all to remember that more often.

I don't know if this was your intent or not, but this paragraph leads me to think that you are saying that it is not possible to disagree with the President or to criticize our country's foreign policy without both (1) disrespecting the members of our armed forces and (2) taking for granted how great our country is. I think this is exactly the rationale that the current administration is using when it is essentially saying that any kind of dissent is unpatriotic, therefore we must re-elect them. Besides, if we don't re-elect them, then the terrorists have already won, or something like that.

(On a similar note, I personally think that all of you should send me $20, because if you don't, then the terrorists have already won. On some level, I think that logic works).

Isn't it quite possible to be a true patriot, have the utmost respect for the troops (especially those of us who certainly know we're too big of pansies to do that sort of thing ourselves), and appreciate how good we have it, while still not agreeing with the decisions of our elected leaders? I sure hope so, because you just criticized Clinton's military decisions, and I still think you are a pretty patriotic and appreciative kind of guy.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 6:26 pm

We ABSOLUTELY have the ability to make Afghanistan and Iraq a better place, because our best and brightest, and those of our Allies, are there making it so. That's not to say that there won't be lives lost and there might even be harder times than these, but in the end, I believe the missions in both countries will make the world a better place, if we don't lose sight of that goal.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:58 pm

Bleedinbluengold:

We ABSOLUTELY have the ability to make Afghanistan and Iraq a better place, because our best and brightest, and those of our Allies, are there making it so. That's not to say that there won't be lives lost and there might even be harder times than these, but in the end, I believe the missions in both countries will make the world a better place, if we don't lose sight of that goal.

Bingo! Somehow, that view is either 1)not communicated, or; 2) not understood by those opposing our--the US and our coalition allies--efforts in the Middle East.

BAC:

but this paragraph leads me to think that you are saying that it is not possible to disagree with the President or to criticize our country's foreign policy without both (1) disrespecting the members of our armed forces and (2) taking for granted how great our country is.

Absolutely not my intent. I understand that disagreement is a basic tenet of this country; indeed, the Founder Fathers themselves were, at their root, in gross disagreement with the status quo in England.

I made this statement because too often, it seems, we rant back and forth about "Kerry's a loser" because he said something, or "President Bush is a greedy warmonger" because he did something else. What is too often lost in the middle is that we have men and women under fire every day, far from their families, doing incredbily great things for people.

BWahlberg · Post by **BWahlberg** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 11:46 pm

I've been reading news daily online and have to say that it looks like what we've done in Iraq was a huge mistake.

The hopes for Iraq to successfully recover are extremely slim (according to many news articles I've read on cnn.com). It seems that the country will probably be torn apart by civil war, leading to hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths. These articles I've read are based upon reports out of Iraq, and not just some reporters opinion.

The way we invaded Iraq and then dropped a heavily divided country into the UN's lap (who didn't want to go there in the 1st place until we had absolute proof) is looking more and more like a mistake.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:42 am

I've been reading and hearing reports from some foreign media as well as US media which detail how things are much worse than often portrayed in Iraq. We never did take control of most of Afghanistan. We have a very eloquent and admirable Mayor of Kabul. I guess you could say we also have a good "Mayor of the Green Zone" in Baghdad. The Iraqis seem to lack security, medicine, safe water, electricity, etc., and hope. Our troops have done their best, but have not been given the tools to succeed. Our former allies would be nuts to go in there -- it's our mess. I wish our troops, contract employees, humanitarian aid workers and the native population the best for the future, but it's hard to be optimistic.

The planners of the occupation, from the white house, were and are incompetant, and there's no sign we're making up form their mistakes.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 11:40 am

re/max griz:

according to many news articles I've read on cnn.com

Who are the sources? Who wrote the reports that the articles upon which the articles are based? As with most of the media, they miss the big picture: that the vast majority of Iraqis welcome the presence of the coalition's troops in the country. I also encourage you to read something with less slant than CNN.com.

re/max griz:

dropped a heavily divided country into the UN's lap

We haven't handed anything over to the UN. The military end of the operation is still in the coalition's hands.

velochat:

reading and hearing reports from some foreign media

The bias of the media would depend upon the country you're reading. The articles I've been reading out of Britain are quite good. Any articles from Germany, France, and Russia, for instance, would have to be taken with a grain of salt. They're not in the country, so it's easy for them to speak poorly about the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

velochat:

Our troops have done their best, but have not been given the tools to succeed.

I agree we've done our best, but the only thing we lack is manpower. With the drawdown experienced in the late 90s, we have fewer people in the military than we did prior to Vietnam. The "operations tempo" is tremendous, but all the professionals in the military know the duty. As a matter of fact, the Army reports that re-enlistment rates of troops in Iraq are higher than expected.

velochat:

We never did take control of most of Afghanistan.

I believe this to be an overstatement. By and large, Afghanistan has settled down--especially when compared to Iraq. There are pockets of reisitance, of course, and that's the main reason we are still there. A secondary reason for our continued presence is to train their Army.

velochat:

The planners of the occupation, from the white house, were and are incompetant, and there's no sign we're making up form their mistakes.

The planning for Iraq was intricate, and well thought out. Going in to the opening days of Operation Iraqi Freedom, everyone involved in the planning process from General Franks, Secretary Rumsfeld, the National Security Council, and President Bush all knew the "Phase IV"--Reconstitution--of the operation would be the longest. Which to me shows more intestinal fortitude--guts, if you will--on the part of our President. It's easy for us to criticize his actions being "Monday Morning Quarterbacks." It took conviction to do the right thing, despite the knowledge that cleaning up after the Saddam regime left would be ugly.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 12:32 pm

'93HonoluluCat wrote:The planning for Iraq was intricate, and well thought out. Going in to the opening days of Operation Iraqi Freedom, everyone involved in the planning process from General Franks, Secretary Rumsfeld, the National Security Council, and President Bush all knew the "Phase IV"--Reconstitution--of the operation would be the longest. Which to me shows more intestinal fortitude--guts, if you will--on the part of our President. It's easy for us to criticize his actions being "Monday Morning Quarterbacks." It took conviction to do the right thing, despite the knowledge that cleaning up after the Saddam regime left would be ugly.

So what was that whole "Mission Accomplished" aircraft carrier thing? Or should we have interpreted that to mean that just one phase of the mission had been accomplished and that he was very, very subtly suggesting that the worst part was still to come?

What you are saying about the internal expectations of the administration may be true. They could well have forecast everything exactly as it has happened and have not failed to predict a thing. It might be a perfect mission thus far per their expectations. The problem is, they didn't exactly market this operation according to those expectations when they were trying to convince Congress, us, and the rest of the world that this war was necessary (and worth the economic and human cost).

In the beginning, we needed to invade because of WMD. That was it. WMD. That was the reason. Then, there were no WMD. That was a problem.

Well, we came up with a new reason after-the-fact. Terrorists. Yeah, that's right. Terrorists. That Saddam was despised by the terrorists themselves (as he was running a secular society by local standards), we were on pretty thin ice to begin with (yes, he sent money to suicide bombers' families -- he was kissing ass in the Arab world knowing that the U.S. wanted to invade). But, apparently we discovered that somebody in Iraq had talked to somebody else that had a cousin who was a terrorist. Regardless of the fact that the same standard would justify us invading every country in the world, we now claim that Iraq was a war about terrorists. To the administration's credit, they never said that Iraq was directly linked to 911 (although Cheney has essentially been saying that lately), but that message got out (talking points distributed to right wing media outlets, maybe?) At some point, some outrageous % of Americans (it was like 70% or something) actually believed that the Iraqi government was directly involved with 911. That is incredible stealth misinformation by whoever pulled that one off. Thus, support for the war stayed high, despite the lack of WMD.

Now, to gloss over the previous misrepresentations of purpose, we are essentially banking on the argument that we invaded to liberate Iraq. On the surface, that's fine. BUT THAT'S NOT THE REASON WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Had we said that was our purpose from the beginning, we wouldn't have gone in -- there wouldn't have been enough support. There are many, many countries that have goverments that don't treat their people well, but it's not our responsibility to liberate each one of them. At very least, we the people would have demanded that we provide less than 90% of the manpower and resources necessary to liberate them and then rebuild them.

If we look at things away from our patriot-glossed glasses, it's easy to see why the rest of the world isn't thrilled with us. We were wrong in our initial assertions, and rather than admitting that, we just tried to throw out a few new reasons after-the-fact to justify our actions.

If it was, say, Iran who invaded, say, Turkey under the same pretenses, we would not be happy with Iran. Granted, we're cool and Iran sucks, but the rest of the world doesn't necessarily know that yet, and at some point, it would be nice if they respected us. We don't want to just be the bully that only has friends because people are afraid of us. Those stories don't end well throughout history.

All of this being said, I supported the war in the beginning, based on what we were being told. I have been and will continue to be hopeful that the ultimate resolution will be a positive one and that 20 years from now we will be talking about a successful and friendly Iraqi nation that is a positive member of the world community. However, I am very frustrated by the manner in which the administration has handled the whole thing. Now knowing that there was no hurry to get into Iraq (as there were no WMD), it is obvious that more diplomacy would not have hurt a thing. A simple admission of such would be great. Instead, we snub the rest of the world at every opportunity (not let them participate in reconstruction contracts, etc.).

If Kerry is elected, maybe, just maybe, the rest of the world would take that as a sign that we are going to do things a little differently going forward, and that they can hope that their relations with the U.S. can improve. As long as Bush is still in office, we're toast in the international community -- we have no credibility left.

And to head off the talking point -- yes, Kerry would aggressively hunt down the terrorists, perhaps even more so than Bush. With Kerry, we might focus on the terrorists rather than looking for wars to fight that have nothing at all to do with terrorists.

I've mentioned this before, but this will be the first time I've voted for a Democrat for President... unless I vote for Nader and swap my vote with someone in a swing state.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 12:38 pm

Interesting on-point article from Slate:

http://slate.com/id/2107025/

BobCatFan · Post by **BobCatFan** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 12:45 pm

If Kerry is elected, maybe, just maybe, the rest of the world would take that as a sign that we are going to do things a little differently going forward, and that they can hope that their relations with the U.S. can improve. As long as Bush is still in office, we're toast in the international community -- we have no credibility left.

If Kerry is elected, then we will give ther terrorist another 4 mores years to plan the next attack. What will be the next target. The White House, or the Capital. How about the Sears Tower, how about your kids school, your home. These guys will not stop. They have to be killed. As for our creditility with international community, why should I care. We lead the world. We are the most caring country in the world, we are the only country in the world to fight for somelses freedom, we are the least corpt country in the world. We the world catches up to the good old USA standards, then maybe I will give a rats a$$ what some other country thinks about us.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 1:08 pm

BobCatFan wrote:If Kerry is elected, then we will give ther terrorist another 4 mores years to plan the next attack. What will be the next target. The White House, or the Capital. How about the Sears Tower, how about your kids school, your home. These guys will not stop. They have to be killed. As for our creditility with international community, why should I care. We lead the world. We are the most caring country in the world, we are the only country in the world to fight for somelses freedom, we are the least corpt country in the world. We the world catches up to the good old USA standards, then maybe I will give a rats a$$ what some other country thinks about us.

And what are you basing that on? What single shred of evidence tells you that Kerry won't be aggressive on terrorists?

Are you going to point to his Senate voting record? Fine. How does it compare to Bush's war record prior to his Presidency (and prior to 911)?

What did Bush do about terrorists, prior to 911? Where does this strange mindset come from that suggests that only a Republican (one that avoided serving in Viet Nam via family connections, at that) can be an assertive leader against terrorism and that a guy who actually did fight in Viet Nam is somehow clueless about war?

And before the evil name of "Clinton" is evoked in this discussion, it is true that he didn't go enough, and neither did Bush. Both parties had their chances and messed them up. Now everybody is much more aware of the threat, yet apparently only the person who was on watch when we got hit has the bizarre claim of exclusive ability to deal effectively with the problem.

We should care about the rest of the world because we're getting our asses kicked by going at it alone, that's why. You can't fight terrorism with a strong military alone -- it's just not practical. This has to be a WORLDWIDE effort. The most basic and obvious approach to combatting the terrorist problem understands that as essential point number one.

Bush himself even said that (very awkwardly and embarassingly, but he did try) when he noted that the war on terrorism isn't a war that can be "won." It isn't a conventional war. It has to come about from a fundamental change in people's attitudes in the countries that terrorists come from and through the cooperation of all nations. We can't just go from country to country for the next [huge number] years and expect to root out the terrorists of the world with our military might. It won't work.

We must lead, yes, but in order to lead effectively, the rest of the world must follow. They are not following us right now. That's bad. Kerry might (I stress "might" as I don't know for sure) be more effective in leading the rest of the world than the current administration.

But it is good that somebody threw out the "fear and loathing" Republican talking points into the discussion. Their campaign is working. Vote for us or you will die!

Taking issue with MslaCat's credo about Clinton's lie

Taking issue with MslaCat's credo about Clinton's lie

Re: Taking issue with MslaCat's credo about Clinton's lie