Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (56222)	9/16/2004 7:52:05 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Reason enough to change presidents ____________________________ By TED VAN DYK SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST Thursday, September 16, 2004 seattlepi.nwsource.com Last weekend's observances of the 9/11 anniversary took place in a country that has long since lost the sense of unity and common purpose that prevailed in the aftermath of the attacks. The words and ceremonies seemed related to events in the distant past rather than three years ago. It is time for plain talk. Before 9/11 we accepted the notion that Islamic and other terrorists periodically would strike other countries and American interests abroad. But the possibility of a massive and successful attack on our homeland seemed remote. Speculation that weapons of mass destruction could fall into terrorist or rogue-state hands -- and, conceivably, be used against us or our allies -- seemed the stuff of movies and policy seminars but removed from immediate possibility. We have since fought a war in Iraq on the basis that such weapons existed and were being developed there, only to find that American and other intelligence probably was mistaken in that finding. We are stuck in the aftermath of that war with long-term costs and responsibilities it will be impossible to relinquish. Moreover, the threat of special weapons continues from other sources. The bipartisan 9/11 commission led by former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean and former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton did an excellent job of examining all aspects of the attacks and, especially, of pinpointing the lack of coordination among the many public agencies charged with stopping terrorism. As did a similar commission that examined the Dec. 7, 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the 9/11 panel it found many ways that attack might have been foreseen or prevented. But it properly avoided scapegoating any person or agency or either the Clinton or Bush administrations. Even if the commission's recommendations were implemented tomorrow, it would be impossible to construct a foolproof defense against future 9/11s. Any group -- or even one person -- prepared to launch a suicide attack stands a chance of success. There are too many potential targets in the United States, too much coastline, too many miles of border and too many ways to wage terrorism. Al-Qaida and other groups plan operations patiently over months and years. The odds are 90-10 that another attack will strike us in coming months, perhaps before Election Day. Let us hope it is not one involving nuclear, chemical or biological materials and that Seattle is not in the bull's-eye. Goodwill, negotiation or initiatives benefiting their countries will have no effect on the leaders and groups who would destroy us. They are not Western social revolutionaries trying to uplift the poor. They are religious fanatics trying to turn back the clock by centuries and to seize power in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other countries. Osama bin Laden -- like similar such leaders before him -- does not, for example, come from a background of poverty. He is a wealthy theorist determined to impose his theories through terror. Nor would we be saved if we were to withdraw U.S. support for Israel. Jihadists would cheer. Then they would move against Israel while continuing to move against us. Our policies should of course reach out to moderate modernizers in the Arab and Middle Eastern worlds. We should, wherever we can, enlist the active assistance of other countries threatened by terror. But, in the end, we will have no option but to find and eliminate group by group, cell by cell, individual by individual the terrorists who would destroy us. Our ongoing strategy will be much the same whether President Bush or Sen. John Kerry is in the White House next January. The big mistake already has been made in Iraq. The next steps there, as in the war on terror, are limited by the options available to us. The most disappointing aftermath of 9/11 is that our country is divided when we need unity. The presidential campaign already has deteriorated into one of the most angry, simple-minded and polarizing of the past 50 years. The best news about it is that it will end. Charges and counter-charges about Bush's and Kerry's Vietnam-era military service by the candidates, their campaigns and allied front organizations have been particularly disgusting. My vote Nov. 2 will be cast for Kerry -- not because of anything he has said or done in 2004 but because over 30-plus years I have known him to be a serious, thoughtful and responsible person. I will not vote for Bush -- not because he is the liar or knave alleged by Michael Moore, The New York Times' Paul Krugman and other Bush-haters but because, as other presidents before him, he has taken bad advice and chosen wrong policies. That is reason enough for change. The bottom line: We are only three years into a struggle that likely will continue for a generation. It will cost many billions of dollars. It will take many thousands of American and other lives. It will force us to make security more important in our society than we would wish. It will slow our own and other major economies. "Preemption," "burden sharing with allies" and other approaches will be debated for their usefulness. But, in the end, the United States will have no option but to prevail -- with allies if possible but alone if necessary. Many American cities, including ours, may in time have to respond to and cope with horrific events. If and when they occur, many Americans will need to be heroes. __________________________ Ted Van Dyk has been involved in national policy and politics since 1960.