Not sure if folks have thought of things from this angle.
GWB is personally risking a lot with this move against Iraq. IOW, his political longevity would likely give him motivation NOT to go to war with Iraq. IMO that means he thinks the risks for NOT moving against Iraq are real (i.e. 'clear and present dangers').
While that argument has been put forth in the past, others have argued he is doing the 'dirty stuff' early in his term so that he can put forth the 'good stuff' before his reelection. I don't think even K. Rove is quite that calculating........but I suppose anything is possible.
The world climate shows that it would be much simpler to say "okay, the rest of the world knows what's best for the U.S., so let's just let things stand as-is" and yet he is still apparently going to do it.
I don't think its quite that simple.......I understand his closest financial supporters have an agenda that they want completed. They demand he complete it.
There is obviously some unknown amount of short-term homeland (and elsewhere) security risk associated with going to war with Iraq. And yet he is still apparently going to do it.
I am not sure how you think this has value. OBL is jeopardizing the well being of his entire family, including all 23 kids, by doing what he is doing. Do you think that deters him even for a moment?
It seems that he feels the future risk of Saddam in power is worse than all the short-term negatives (which are not insignificant).
He likely has more information about all the issues involved (Iraq, terrorists, etc.) than anyone in the world...
You think? Why would we know more than the Germans for an example? German intelligence is excellent....almost as good as Israeli intelligence. Why did Powell rely so heavily on the Brit. intelligence report that turned out to be the regurgitation of a Ph.d thesis? I think you may be assuming to much re. how much the WH knows vis-a-vis the rest of the world.
I, for one, trust (so far) that he knows what he is doing.
That may be easier for someone who voted for Bush. I did not....I did not think that he was a good choice from the very beginning for a lot of reasons. For that reason along, I have no reason to believe he can be trusted.
A lack of ulterior motives (and quite the opposite) lends credence to his position. Talk of oil and his cronies making money off of it is silly. (i.e. if that were true his dad would still have a U.S. general controlling Kuwaiti oil.)
That is not the only issue on the table. First, the duty of a leader is to watch out for the interests of his people. That encompasses a long list including averting wars whenever possible. I don't see that that effort has been made. In fact, I would say just the opposite has happened.
Furthermore, the level of incompetency exhibited by this administration in accomplishing even the most basic of diplomatic moves is appalling. How you can ignore that fact is beyond me. It makes trusting them virtually impossible for me.
He doesn't have any ulterior motives like Clinton may have had (i.e. divert attention from Lewinski scandal). In fact, he has quite the opposite -- war might be BAD for his personal political aspirations.
I can hardly talk to someone who takes it down to such a partisan level. Why can't you let him stand on his own merits rather than trying to pump him up by denigrating Clinton? You accomplish nothing and only hurt your argument.
I suggest those folks that think he is somehow doing this for personal benefit rethink it a bit and reconsider the possibility that he is doing it for the good of the country.
But you seem to forget to ask the question......is it good for the country? We are in serious trouble when we let our leaders do our thinking for us on major issues such as this one.
ted |
