Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wulfie on September 10, 2003, 10:49:20 PM
-
from: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110003990
'I Decline to Accept
The End of Man'
What Faulkner had to say about the war on terror.
BY CLAUDIA ROSETT
Wednesday, September 10, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT
Today's date, Sept. 10, has become shorthand for an age of innocence, an idyll under blue skies--as the clock ticks toward 8:46 the next morning, when the first hijacked jet hits the first tower and America wakes to war.
In truth, Sept. 10 was the last day not of innocence, but of an era of dangerous delusion. The hijackers were already trained and en route to the targeted flights. The training camps in Afghanistan were in full swing. The malice brewed in the tyrannies of the Middle East had for years been spilling out in acts of terror. Sept. 10 capped a decade in which America under the first President Bush began by walking away from a Gulf War only half won, leaving Saddam Hussein in power. Then we elected Bill Clinton, who declined to confront our worst enemies in the peculiar belief that they would more or less return the courtesy. And so came Sept. 11, 2001.
It was a lesson learned at horrific cost. Which makes it doubly unsettling that as we head into the third year of this war, there's a rising chorus--not only from Democratic contenders, former Clintonites and assorted Frenchmen, but some of it from within George W. Bush's own administration--chanting that we've gone far enough, maybe even too far.
The idea seems to be that except for chasing down al Qaeda operatives here and there, and making us doff our shoes at airports, it's time for America to go back to sleep. President Bush goes on television to update us on the immense task that he accurately describes as "rolling back the terrorist threat to civilization," and the big news is sticker shock over Iraq. Mr. Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, reinventing herself in Foreign Affairs as the rhyming sage of the modern age, aches to remake the Bush administration policy in which--as she puts it--"reliance on alliance had been replaced by redemption through preemption."
France, Germany, Russia and the careerocrats at the U.S. State Department are all insisting that an outfit that until this past March was still colluding in the oil-for-palaces business with Saddam Hussein--yes, the United Nations--is now the best bet for inculcating democracy, or at least passing the buck, in Iraq. And Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who has failed utterly to provide leadership in the matter of actually eliminating such threats as the former regime of Saddam or the nuclear dangers now on the front burners in Iran and North Korea, would like us to follow his path to world peace--the path of 17 failed U.N. resolutions on Iraq, the peace of Sept. 10 in New York.
There is a siren lure amid this racket. At its core, it poses a question compelling even to those who believe in facing deadly truths and dealing with them: When will this war be over?
The answer is not pleasant. This war, in the most basic sense of a fight to defend our freedom, our society of liberty and justice, is far larger than Iraq, Afghanistan or even the entire Middle East. The real war here is the old human struggle of good versus evil, a war that is part of what we are, part of the long volatile history of mankind. Never has there been so much to celebrate; rarely has there been more peril. Among individuals, we cannot hope to eliminate entirely all cold and gloating killers, people such as al Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahiri, drunk on his dreams of destruction, threatening in recent weeks to launch "an attack that will make you forget Manhattan." There will always be someone who delights in terror and ruin, and seeks ways to inflict it. And as we all know, modern technology, along with its mighty blessings, offers arsenals so terrifying we can all have our moments of wishing to live forever suspended in that last spell of denial, the 10th of September.
But neither is this war hopeless in scope. We are not fighting every psychopath or fanatic in existence; we are pitted against those who have found some organizing structure to foster and arm them. Effective terrorist groups are not as a rule made up of amateurs. Agents need to be recruited, trained, housed, equipped and coordinated. If you are planning to hijack a plane, it helps to practice at a facility such as Saddam's jet fuselage at Salman Pak. If you want to set off nuclear bombs, or spread deadly disease, you will probably need some pals, or at least business partners, in states that care nothing for civilized norms, such as North Korea or Iran.
Tackling the world's worst tyrannies, clearing away the systems that foster terror, is at the heart of this war. It is a daunting, dangerous, costly task; it is far from over, and if we stop short, we are incubating nightmares that will make this Sept. 10, 2003, look as tranquil as the same day two years earlier.
We can debate the precise methods of the very imprecise art of replacing tyrants who threaten us with democracies that do not. But as a price tag for the defense of our own nation, which is the real issue behind regime change in Iraq, $87 billion is small potatoes. If it is used well, the return in terms of a safer world could be vast. In the 1990s, at U.S. behest, and largely with our money, the International Monetary Fund threw more than twice that amount into emerging markets such as Thailand, Indonesia, South Korea and Russia, not to defend our civilization, but in the less edifying interest of bailing out some bad investments.
On many sides right now, we are hearing the unsavory news that if we continue this struggle, it is only because we have no choice. Actually we do. It is a choice beautifully articulated by novelist William Faulkner in 1950, as the Cold War turned hot in Korea. That year Faulkner won the Nobel Prize for Literature, and in his acceptance speech he laid out one option--I'd call it the dead-end option, the Sept. 10 approach, in which we duck, discuss, deny and just kind of hope to personally survive the next attack:
Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only the question: When will I be blown up?
Then Faulkner offered another option:
I decline to accept the end of man. It is easy enough to say that man is immortal simply because he will endure: that when the last dingdong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening, that even then there will still be one more sound: that of his puny inexhaustible voice, still talking. I refuse to accept this. I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance.
That is what this war is about. If we so choose.
===
"But neither is this war hopeless in scope. We are not fighting every psychopath or fanatic in existence; we are pitted against those who have found some organizing structure to foster and arm them. Effective terrorist groups are not as a rule made up of amateurs. Agents need to be recruited, trained, housed, equipped and coordinated. If you are planning to hijack a plane, it helps to practice at a facility such as Saddam's jet fuselage at Salman Pak. If you want to set off nuclear bombs, or spread deadly disease, you will probably need some pals, or at least business partners, in states that care nothing for civilized norms, such as North Korea or Iran."
Mike/wulfie
p.s. I don't agree with this part - "Sept. 10 capped a decade in which America under the first President Bush began by walking away from a Gulf War only half won, leaving Saddam Hussein in power. Then we elected Bill Clinton, who declined to confront our worst enemies in the peculiar belief that they would more or less return the courtesy. And so came Sept. 11, 2001." Clinton did more than is generally acknolwedged in an attempt to disript Al-Qaeda, and George Bush Sr. ended hostilities at a point that the Coalition had agreed on beforehand.
(edit: added p.s.)
-
Very nice, and oh so true.
-
The invocation of Faulkner to put a theme in her screed is funny but also sad.
Oh well, think about what America means to you today.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Despite what you believe, the world did not change on September 11th 2001, just your perception of it. Terrorism has been a part of many peoples lives long before 9/11 and long before the birth of your nation. A war on terrorism cannot be won with arms, it can only encourage it. If 9/11 changed something in the world it is that now many people not only face the fear of terrorism, but also the fear of what US paranoia might do to their lives.
It didn't change my perception of it. But I think it did change the perception of the author.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by GScholz
If 9/11 changed something in the world it is that now many people not only face the fear of terrorism, but also the fear of what US paranoia might do to their lives.
I wouldn't worry about alleged 'U.S. paranoia'. If the U.S. basically kept it's cool when it and the U.S.S.R. had God knows how many nuclear warheads aimed at each other, Norway can pretty much rest easy about the U.S. from now on. :)
As far as 11SEP01, it was a bad day for terrorists worldwide. The various people in the U.S. that have always considered any terrorist attack vs. any Nation to be an attack against what the U.S. stands for could no longer be ignored by the various 'fence sitters' in positions of power in the U.S.
You can call us young and idealistic as a Nation (Naive up until the Korean War I'd say), but as a Nation we're one of the best friends anyone could hope to have. We're like the Friend that's too stupid to back down in the bar fight. Somtimes annoying but usually a comforting presence. I'm sure Norway liked knowing the U.S. Atlantic fleet was a big naval stick just over the horizon for most of the cold war, no?
Mike/wulfie
-
^Go eat a sardine.......
C.
-
Simply brilliant, Cabby. Your intellect, as ever, astounds.
-
"The USA is young compared to many European "
After careful study, you may want to rethink this, unless you are talking about the age of your biuldings, not your governments.
-
Really Gadfly? Are you saying there are no European countries with Governments older than 1864?
-
1781, actually, dowding.
-
Ahhh... so what's the basis of your argument? Either existance of the nation state or the formation of government? The American Civil War was quite an interruption I'd say. Not far off half the country goes independent and fights a war to maintain it... I'd say 1864 for the US.
Now, for European states. Britain has had a constitutional monarchy since Charles II took the throne after Cromwell's republic was overturned. So that's 1660. If you'd like to assert that the American Civil War is irrelevant, then we can ignore the English Civil war and start really going back through the years...
The Scandinavian states? Not sure, but they have some really long-standing governments.
Face facts - America is a young nation compared to the nations who gave birth to her. Frankly, I think it counts for nowt... but I do find your assertions amusing.
-
That little scrap of paper called a constitution.
-
Not all governments have written constitutions - so I repeat my question.
-
I was wrong-
Isle of Man (http://www.mbc.org.im/artman/publish/article_45.shtml)
-
I think it started when we allowed the shaw to be booted out of Iran
Nov. 4, 1979 (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/09/11/the_war_on_us_didnt_begin_on_911/)
-
It's a perception... and I'll probably say it poorly... but bear with me.
Being from California, I get the taste of an older mindset, a different culture every time I visit the South.
The Civil War and the politics that surrounded it never seem to leave the consciousness of the people who have lived there for generations. It's pervasive. The sense that I am surrounded by feelings and perceptions that have been passed down from generation to generation. I suspect that the many of the people that live there barely notice it, but at the same time assume that everyone they see (within the standard racial markers) shares this same sense.
I don't belong to it. I don't understand it... but I can sense this lack of the same feeling in myself. I am in a sense, a foreigner.
I suspect that the same thing occurs in Europe. They have their own history, their own wars, their own cultural bias. I suspect that it is much the same as our own Civil War cultural heritage. It's just older and I can't share their feelings either.
-
Then we elected Bill Clinton, who declined to confront our worst enemies in the peculiar belief that they would more or less return the courtesy. And so came Sept. 11, 2001.
This is a load of crap perpetrated by the Right in this Country. History proves it wrong!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
This is a load of crap perpetrated by the Right in this Country. History proves it wrong!
HOW???
-
Originally posted by GScholz
A war on terrorism cannot be won with arms, it can only encourage it.
Please enlighten us as to your recommended solutions, note, we will not all convert to Islam and we will not leave the face of the earth.
I know of no other requirements that they have so that "we can all get along"
Waiting for your answers with breath holding....
-
Originally posted by Scootter
HOW???
You dont remember? He fired a cruise missile and some nasty words the day of his indictment.
-
OK OK I understand, to stop Al-Quieda all we have to do is go along with thair demands....
Al Qaeda's main goals:
Remove Western influence from Islamic lands. In practice, this means eliminating American military, cultural, and political influence from predominantly Islamic countries in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Destroy governments in Islamic lands that are supported by and linked to the democracies of the U.S. and Western Europe and that have made peace with and recognize the legitimacy of the state of Israel.
Establish orthodox Islamic regimes throughout regions where Muslims are the majority of the population and put into practice the strict tenets of Shari'a law.
http://college.hmco.com/currentconflict/students/history/alqaeda.html
In an al-Qaeda house in Afghanistan, New York Times reporters found a brief statement of the “Goals and Objectives of Jihad”:
Establishing the rule of God on earth
Attaining martyrdom in the cause of God
Purification of the ranks of Islam from the elements of depravity
In 1998, several al-Qaeda leaders issued a declaration calling on Muslims to kill Americans—including civilians—as well as “those who are allied with them from among the helpers of Satan.”
Now of course this is just thair main goals as of now, I don't think they would add any others or change them, Do you?
So we can stop the attacks that are promised by this method as opposed to the use of arms.
Do you think there will be any others that would try the same methods if we go along with these demands??
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
You dont remember? He fired a cruise missile and some nasty words the day of his indictment.
I applaude this admins restraint in not pointing out how the policies of the previous admin resulted in a 9/11 attack
makes me sick to my stomach that the media doesn't point out the fact
you think if it were reversed the same courtesy would be shown?
nah
-
I'd like some of you guys laying the blame on Clinton for 9/11 to please show me the Republican declarations at the time calling for greater action against Bin Ladin. I'd like you to post the campaign soundbites, the op-ed editorials, etc. As convenient as it is to ignore the lack of concern on BOTH sides, it a bit hypocritical too.
Here's a transcript from Jim Lehrer News Hour in 1998 after the cruise misslile attack on targets in the Sudan. All you hear is support, and not a word about the response being lacking or more being needed.
Some highlights from Republican Congressional members taking part in the discussion:
SEN. JOHN KYL, (R) Arizona: Yes, I support the president’s action, both because of the connection of Osama bin Laden to past terrorist activities, as well as the threats that he has made against Americans around the world in the future.
***
SEN. ROD GRAMS, (R) Minnesota: Well, I agree as well, and I think we needed to send a very strong and very clear message to terrorists around the world that Americans will not stand for this type of terrorist activity or terrorist threats, either the ones on the embassies in Africa recently, or any planned threats in the future. So I very strongly support this, and I think these raids were carried out, I hope, very successfully.
JIM LEHRER: And do you believe that they will be effective—in other words, that they will result in a reduction of terrorism or possible terrorism by these groups?
SEN. ROD GRAMS: Well, I think we can look at what happened when such a retaliatory attack was done on Gaddafi in Libya. We haven’t heard much from him since, and I hope that this same type of message is sent to Mr. bin Laden, that the United States will not tolerate this--when any American citizen is threatened anywhere in the world, that we have a very long reach, and we have a very long memory, and that we will retaliate with this type of a strike any time American lives are threatened or when any Americans are killed.
***
In fact, some Republicans were even claiming these attacks were some unnecessiary "Wag the Dog" type of deal, which was discussed.
JIM LEHRER: Did it leap to you—to the back of your mind, Senator?
SEN. ROD GRAMS: Yes, it did. I had this question, and although, you know, I just kind of thought about it, because of the movie "Wag the Dog" and—
JIM LEHRER: Sure.
SEN. ROD GRAMS: --other things that have come up, but, you know, my first thought was, of course, that I supported the president’s action, and I thought this was a very appropriate response. But then again in reflection I think that comes to the surface of many people’s minds, and of course that was just reiterated by many of the calls that I had today.
***
I remember an awful lot of stuff like this, but I just can't recall, even after the USS Cole, any real desire by anybody -- politicians, citizens, etc. to do much more. Wasn't a public issue, wasn't a campaign issue and wasn't on anybody's radar until 9/11.
Charon
-
Did you know that the "Department of Homeland Security" was first proposed by a member of the CLINTON staff?
The 1st WTC bombing occured only weeks after Clinton took office, but no one calls that a Bush Sr. issue. The perps of the 1st bombing were caught and convicted... do nothing?
-
The 1st WTC bombing occured only weeks after Clinton took office, but no one calls that a Bush Sr. issue. The perps of the 1st bombing were caught and convicted... do nothing?
I think the biggest problem we had was a lack of imagination due to how inept the first attack was. They weren't taken all that seriously. But they kept working the problem until they found a subtle, but brilliant solution that took advantage of procedural/cultural patterns concerning hijacking. Hopefully It won't happen again for a while.
Charon
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Mr. Scootter, I don't know the specific reasons why the terrorist are attacking you. I do however know that I won't convert to Islam, neither will most of my countrymen, neither will most of the British, French, Germans, Russians, Italians, Japanese etc. etc. etc. Nevertheless the terrorists (these particular anyway) don't attack us, they single you out for destruction, there must be another reason. History shows that you cannot win a war against terrorism with arms, no war on terrorism has ever been won ... ever. The only way to stop terrorism is to get the people who support them to support you instead. As long as the terrorists can rally people to their cause they win. A war on terrorism is the ultimate public opinion battle.
History is being written as we speak, and I disagree with you that terrorism has never been defeated, but perhaps that is a matter of definition.
I can only guess what the future holds for all of us, however Americans are not to only ones killed in this war, we in the US must be the largest threat to them for now (you should feel lucky). The terrorist are attacking the largest influence to the world ( and the largest target) if you were on one of the jets on Sep 11 you would be just as dead regardless of you home country. There is a point to your post that I agree with you must stop people from supporting them as with out funding, a safe haven to train and weapons they are little more then a gang with no real projection of power. This is what we are doing, we will support any friend and oppose any foe to that end, you see we have no other choice. It would be impossible to befriend someone who wants you dead.
Regards,
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Mr. Scootter, I don't know the specific reasons why the terrorist are attacking you.
The terrorists are attacking us because of our support for Israel, plain and simple. All of the rest of the "Great Satan" spew that we hear from the Middle East is just rhetoric that the Terrorists-In-Charge use to whip up a frenzy in their terrorbots.
-
Originally posted by Charon
I'd like some of you guys laying the blame on Clinton for 9/11 to please show me the Republican declarations at the time calling for greater action against Bin Ladin. I'd like you to post the campaign soundbites, the op-ed editorials, etc. As convenient as it is to ignore the lack of concern on BOTH sides, it a bit hypocritical too.
Ill do you one better. There is a copy of a letter to Clinton signed by a great number of both Party members from Congress floating somewhere on the net - it was posted here once before - Ill see if I can dig it up.
PS: Rgr that Eagler - the restraint this adminstration has shown in many aspects is amazing - I think accountability is the key word.
Do you hear Bush whining about bad information from Iraqi informants? Nope.
Do you hear Bush whining about bad information from Britain? Nope.
Do you hear Bush not taking responsibilty for anything or pushing the blame elsewhere? Nope and Nope.
Meanwhile, the Democrats dont stop to breath in their crusade to pin the worlds problems on someone else besides them...
-
Originally posted by GScholz
One thing popped up in my mind as I was reading your reply was that aside from the obvious possible reasons (Israel, US presence in the region etc.) there might be another ... simpler reason. In my country we have a Lutheran clergyman as prime minister, yet he never mentions God in any of his speeches (AFAIK). It is considered un-PC since we're a multi cultural/religious society. I seldom hear other world leaders mention God either, but in the USA it is customary for politicians and the President in particular to mention God, like "God bless America" and "God willing we will ...". Could it be that these Islamic extremists are afraid of you rather than hate you? Combined with your active presence in the region, could they see you as modern crusaders of Christianity? Just a thought.
Not likely, because many of the Arab states are more theocratic than constitutionally permissible in the U.S. Moreover, unless I am mistaken, Arabs, Christians, and Jews all believe in the God of Abraham, by whatever name.
-
Robert Oakley (former U.S. State Department coordinator for counterterrorism regarding counterterrorist activity ) - "Overall I give them (Clinton's administration) very high marks, The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which made him stronger."
Oakley's successor in the Reagan admin Paul Bremer - (the Clinton admin.)"Correctly focused on Bin Laden".
-
Originally posted by GScholz
True, but if you remember history, the crusades were a pretty terrible thing. Remember Bin Laden got ticked off because he thought your military presence in Saudi-Arabia was a threat to Islam. They might fear that their own religion and values are at stake here. IIRC your President even used the word "crusade" in one of his speeches. Fear is a powerful force.
Agreed.
-
Here's some more coverage showing bipartisan support for the missile attacks, without them being considered inadequate. Most sniping was of the "Wag the Dog" nature. Only McCain seemed to be pushing for stronger action [Hey, I would have voted for him if given the choice! :)]
By Ralph Dannheisser
USIA Congressional Correspondent
Washington -- President Clinton's action in ordering strikes on
terrorist sites in Sudan and Afghanistan has won swift, bipartisan
support from leaders in Congress.
That included the top leaders of the Republican Party -- Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott -- that controls both houses of the legislature.
Both men were among a handful of legislators whom Clinton telephoned before the attacks, launched August 20 in the aftermath of deadly terrorist bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
Gingrich termed the administration's action "the right thing to do." "We have not yet gotten assessments of the damage, but I hope that it's been very decisive and I think it's very important that we sent the signal to countries like Sudan and Afghanistan that if you house a terrorist, you become a target," he said.
Lott issued a statement in which he said, "Our response appears to be appropriate and just." He added that "based on intelligence provided to me Wednesday (August 19), the administration has very reliable information linking the terrorist Osama bin Laden and his bases to the cowardly attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania."
Representative Lee Hamilton of Indiana, the senior Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, told reporters that the swift U.S. strike "represents a new phase" in this nation's effort against terrorism.
That phase is a "more aggressive" one in which this country "will
strike preemptively against targets that we think will cause us
trouble in the future" -- a phase marked by action still based on
substantial evidence of a terrorist threat, but perhaps less than the ironclad evidence required in a court of law -- Hamilton said at a press conference in the Capitol. "We must take steps that we have not taken in the past," he said.
Asked whether the actions in Sudan and Afghanistan could be seen as the start of a "Holy War against Islam," Hamilton sharply rejected that notion. "We're not attacking Islamic countries, we are attacking Islamic extremists who murder people," he said. "This should in no way be seen as an attack against Islam."
Many legislators, out of Washington for Congress' traditional August recess, weighed in with comments from their home districts.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms, a North Carolina Republican, said the day's military actions "were clearly designed to strike at the heart of a terrorist network that has the blood of American citizens on its hands, and which was planning further attacks on U.S. nationals. "It is my strong hope that these operations have been successful," Helms said.
"There must be no refuge for terrorists who murder innocent American citizens. Sooner or later, terrorists around the world will realize that America's differences end at the water's edge, and that the United States' political leadership always has, and always will, stand united in the face of international terrorism," he declared.
Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, issued a statement terming the military action "a welcome response to the August 7 terrorist attacks against the American embassies." He expressed the hope that the strikes "clearly signal our will to retaliate against terrorists who target American citizens abroad."
But McCain coupled his support for the administration's demonstration of "American credibility and resolve" in this case with criticism of what he sees as an inadequate response to other recent foreign policy challenges, including "Iraq's compliance with the weapons inspection terms of the Gulf War ceasefire, North Korea's violation of its 1994 agreement with the United States to cease production of fissile material, Serbia's repression of innocent civilians in Kosovo, the Indo-Pakistani arms race, and the urgency of reviving the stalled Middle East peace process."
Senator Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, declared, "Terrorists must know that if they attack U.S. citizens, we will respond with deadly force. Those who would harm the security of the United States and its citizens have no place to hide."
Other Republican Senators who weighed in with quick support for the president's action included Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Ted Stevens of Alaska, and Alfonse D'Amato of New York. Said D'Amato: "If people think the Congress is not going to be totally supportive of the commander-in-chief, they're just mistaken. This may serve notice that, whatever our local disagreements, we stand with our commander-in-chief, and he was absolutely proper and forceful."
Representative Dan Burton, an Indiana Republican, who has been sharply at odds with Clinton on other issues, said the action was designed "to stop the terrorists and to make them pay for what they did. "And that was the right thing to do," Burton said. "That's coming from one of the president's severest critics."
Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, the senior Democrat on the House National Security Committee, told reporters, "We just had to do it, we just had to....We're quite sure the attacks in Africa came from these two places, and we had to strike back."
In contrast with the broad support, several Republican legislators suggested that President Clinton might have ordered dramatic military action to deflect attention from his domestic political problems.
One of those, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, speculated that the president could have acted precipitously in an effort to "focus attention away from his own personal problems." While he supports strong action against terrorism, Specter said, "We have to have an evidentiary basis for doing that."
Another, Senator Dan Coats of Indiana, called the timing of the attack "certainly suspect." If the terrorist role of the sites attacked was known about for some time, as U.S. officials say, "the question arises, why didn't we do something before? Why now?" he asked. "We fear we may have a president that is desperately seeking to hold on to his job," Coats declared.
But Gingrich, the top Republican in the House, dismissed such
speculation as "sick."
And Stevens joined in that assessment. Citing his high regard for
Defense Secretary William Cohen and top military leaders involved in planning the operation, Stevens said "they would be the first to jump up if our military people were put in danger for political reasons.
"I just discount that entirely," he said.
Charon
-
You guys make me laugh.
OBL cares that we were in SA?
OBL cares about the Palis?
OBL cares about Iraq?
OBL has one goal, and many ways to achieve it.
Keep on living in your dream world, ladies, it must be nice, warm and fuzzy in there.
edit-and by OBL, I mean radical Fundamentalist Muslims
-
Originally posted by GScholz
True, but if you remember history, the crusades were a pretty terrible thing. Remember Bin Laden got ticked off because he thought your military presence in Saudi-Arabia was a threat to Islam. They might fear that their own religion and values are at stake here. IIRC your President even used the word "crusade" in one of his speeches. Fear is a powerful force.
If this is what he fears then he is ignorant about America, I have heard that he is well educated and intelligent so this cannot be true. Our country is founded on the freedom of religion not freedom from it. The word god is used as to represent any deity you so desire to worship and is neutral in meaning. Recently a Federal court judge required a 4200 pound statue of the ten commandments removed from a courthouse in Alabama, this was to continue a non biased presentation to all.
There is no tolerance in most Arab countries for any other religion other then Islam.
How many churches are there in Saudi Arabia?
This fight is about change in the world and the maturing of the species, they want to remain in the dark ages and want no evolution, and this is why they will lose like the dinosaur. Change in the Middle East is happening every day, the people want what they want and a very few want to stop it with fear and intimidation. When these holy wars are called for why is there not 10s of thousands running at our hotels and bases to die with bombs strapped on there backs? Because most don’t really agree with Ben Laden, this is why he hides in the remote hills and caves with his trusted few. Main stream street would have him turned in for the reward money like Hussein’s kids were.
We just don't want our people killed while a few old school farts try to reinvent the proud dark ages, I am confident that the blending of our cultures will bring peace , if we all survive that long.
-
Here's a little history quiz for ya.
PLACE: Spain
TIME: 1492
EVENT: These people were FINALLY expelled after a long struggle. Who were they?
History does prove that with the right amount of force, you can change things.
Al Qaeda today is no different than these people were then.
Yes, you can say the same thing about the Spanish Inquisition but thats off thread.
Ok, who was it?
-
I think he means the Moors
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Here's a little history quiz for ya.
PLACE: Spain
TIME: 1492
EVENT: These people were FINALLY expelled after a long struggle. Who were they?
History does prove that with the right amount of force, you can change things.
Al Qaeda today is no different than these people were then.
Yes, you can say the same thing about the Spanish Inquisition but thats off thread.
Ok, who was it?
Was it the same people that lived alongside the Jews in harmony until the peace-loving Christians invaded them and forcibly expelled both groups?
-
Miniter: Certainly the timing is suspicious. The day before the East African-embassy bombings, Monica Lewinsky had recanted her prior affidavit denying a sexual relationship with Clinton. The sex scandals kicked into overdrive.
Still, the president wasn't doing too much in combating bin Laden because of his sex scandals — he was doing too little. He should have launched more missile strikes against bin Laden and the hell with the political timing. Besides, after the East African-embassy bombings, any president would have been negligent not to strike back. If he had not, it would be open season on Americans. He would have been as ineffectual as Carter was during the Tehran hostage crisis. Indeed, this was the mistake made following the attack on the USS Cole.
But Clinton was distracted by sex and campaign-finance scandals and his political support was already heavily leveraged to get him through those scandals. If he fought bin Laden more vigorously, the leftwing of the Democratic party might have deserted him — which could have cost him the White House.
Instead Clinton's token, ineffectual missile strikes that only emboldened bin Laden. He believed that America was too intimidated to fight back — and was free to plan one of the most-murderous terrorist attacks in history.
http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory091103b.asp
-
Originally posted by Eagler I applaude this admins restraint in not pointing out how the policies of the previous admin resulted in a 9/11 attack
makes me sick to my stomach that the media doesn't point out the fact
you think if it were reversed the same courtesy would be shown?
nah
Here on planet Earth, Bush was President on 9/11.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
Here on planet Earth, Bush was President on 9/11.
So, a pot of water begins to boil immediately upon placing it on a stove?
-SW
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
Was it the same people that lived alongside the Jews in harmony until the peace-loving Christians invaded them and forcibly expelled both groups?
I think you will find that the Moors (which is an incorrect term by the way) INVADED Spain from Morocco in 711. I also understand that it was retaliation from the Crusades. I am not comparing the Moors to Al Qaeda directly, just the fact that it was an act of barbarism that was done in the name of Allah. And yes, I know the Christians did the same although I don't think you will find an organized terrorist group that brings the word of god by killing innocent poeple in this day and age. But, as religion seems to do, we can debate these facts all day long. No religion is without blood on its hands from history, I just don't see how muslims can kill in the name of Allah today and expect the rest of the world to sit by and say, "Well, its their religion, we have to accept it." If anything, they should be pissed at Saudi Arabia for being so "western" but thats the holy land.