Hawkmoon, what goes around comes around.
Let's see... Bush has apparently not had a drink (or certainly not a relapse of dependency) since he became President.
Whereas, Clinton carried out his sexual high-jinks in the Oral err.. Oval Office, and then lied straight faced to the American people (and to Hillary) about it on national TV...
Bush has followed the advice and guidance of his military leaders, publicly asserting that they are the ones deciding the level of military forces they require.
Whereas, Clinton DENIED Military leaders, via Les Aspin, the VERY rational request for armored forces to act as a Quick Reaction Force in Somalia, leading to the tragedy of "Black Hawk Down"..
I'd think that the presidency of the US is far more critical than nearly any of these jobs, and have every right to demand a president who was born right the first time.
Y'know.. I'm just the opposite. I don't trust people who are "too righteous" and have never had a rough period in their lives. Those are the kind of people who tend to be condescending to the rest of us "flawed" human beings.
I don't like "posers" who pretend they have no flaws.
Bush would never have gotten where he is without nepotism, and any fool with a correctly irrigated brain can see this.
Don't disagree with you there. It was one of the things that made me uncomfortable with the thought of a father-son dynasty in the Presidency..
Hell, Al Gore's father was a Senator.
Kerry's mother is related to four different Presidents, and he has always been close to the Kennedy Clan (since 1962).
Clinton, Carter, and Reagan are the closest thing to "home-grown" Presidents that we've had in some years.
To have a president of the US proffer inanities about "catapulting the propaganda", and how it would be easier if it was a dictatorship,
Haven't seen those quotes, or the context in which they were made (serious, or tongue in cheek).. I well remember how Reagan caught crap when he joked about "pushing the button" and launching missiles against the Soviet Union..
As for all this Al Qaeda stuff, I can't fathom why we didn't put massive military presence in Afghanistan and finish the job the.
Because massive military force can also be counter-productive. The more troops you have in the country, the less you appear to be liberators, and the more you appear to be occupiers.
There have been mistakes made in Iraq.. There's no doubt, IMO, that we shouldn't disbanded the Iraqi army. At the very least, they should not have been permitted to just "fade away" undetained, undocumented, and un-interrogated/interviewed.
And we've waited far too long to properly engage with the Sunni tribal leaders.
But with Afghanistan and Iraq, IMO, we need to avoid the mistake of Vietnam, namely.. assuming responsibility for the security and political progress in those countries. We cannot permit the internal power brokers to abdicate their responsibility to recognize and share power with minority elements within the country. The axes they have ground over the course of decades, need to be buried and common interests accentuated (such as preserving and reviving an Iraqi identity that crosses religious and ethnic lines).
The problem with finding Bin Laden is cultural. Recall that Pakistan is almost equally divided between fundamentalist and secular muslims. The ISI and military were/are heavily influenced/infiltrated by Salafists sympathetic with the Taliban and Bin Laden. Musharaf has been walking a very fine line in order to retain power there.
Furthermore, Bin Laden and Zawahiri have taken great advantage of the custom of "sanctuary" that exists in the region. One just does not refuse sanctuary to someone who requests it. People in that region would rather die than face such a shame (recall that an American Navy Seal also asked for, and received such sanctuary, which saved his life).
So for Musharaf to go into these regions with his military, especially considering that many of them have NEVER previously had any large Pakistani military presence in the tribal areas, could possibly intiate a civil war in his country.
Besides, there's no guarantee that Bin Laden and Zawahiri aren't in Iran. There are a number of Al Qai'da leaders/facilitators living in Iran. Hell, one of Bin Ladin's sons lived in Iran for several years before being permitted to leave (the Iranians claimed they had "arrested" them.. which is BS).
And look... we have 150,000 troops in Iraq, along with an equal number of Iraqi soldiers/police, and we still can't nab Zarqawi (although we have come VERY close). Sure.. we've destroyed his Mosul network, and caused serious damage to his Baghdad, Fallujah, and Ramadi networks, but he's still on the loose.
No.. the key is to wait until the Iraqis are at such a level so as to be able to carry out the internal security of their own country, and then let them "invite" us to leave.
Bottom line, I think you're letting your own personal political biases influence your logic. Bush isn't perfect, and I think he's been given some very bad advice by some of this advisors.
But then again.. I only have to think about what state this country would be in had Al Gore won the Presidency.
After all, he's the guy who decided to change his vote on Desert Storm back in 1991, upon receiving the guarantee that he would be provided more time on the Senate floor to speak.
Read Alan Simpson's comments about Al Gore's decision to support Desert Storm (which was a case of clear Iraqi aggression against Kuwait) and see if that's the guy you would rather have been President.
freerepublic.com
Hawk |
