49 Comments

1. chuck:

Or we could follow the time honored tradition that makes the rulers gods. There must be a good reason for that, and I note that the rulers also get the wiggle room for error accorded to gods. See, for instance, the pass given to Stalin and Mao by their followers.

Jan 11, 2007 - 11:17 am 2. Terrye:

Bush did look serious. And he has aged.It is hard to be responsible for everything.

Jan 11, 2007 - 11:30 am 3. Anthony (Los Angeles):

The presidency seems to do that to all its occupants. It’s incredible how it seems to age them, even when they’re not dealing with a long-term crisis as Mr. Lincoln did and Mr. Bush does now.

Jan 11, 2007 - 11:40 am 4. heather:

Being President is a terrible job, especially in these times: a weird and new kind of war; a divided country; being undermined by the CIA, State and the Pentagon; seeing the old world of the Atlantic Alliance die, while the new one with India not quite born…

This is why I don’t think McCain should be president. He has all the right instincts when it comes to the war, but, HE HAS HAD CANCER. That indicates a problem with his immune system. Ditto, Giuliani. Both good leaders. But.

This job is hard and stressful. Bush is healthy, and very self disciplined, exercises regularly, has a great and supportive wife… and look at him now. You mention his sad eyes, Roger. Well, check out the photos of Lincoln. GW Bush will be a hard act to follow.

Jan 11, 2007 - 11:45 am 5. Insufficiently Sensitive:

Never until recent years has the overwhelming majority of the US news media devoted so many of their efforts to undermining and opposing, while puffing the opponents, of any US Administration.

In this case, not a single member of the public is likely to have missed six years of such a treatment by the MSM – while only a small fraction of that number are in position to see alternate news viewpoints. By ‘news’, I include those stories not on the opinion pages or editorial screens, but which relentlessly hammer on the ‘failure’ and ‘incompetent’ or ‘mistake’ themes.

Were Hilary, or a Democrat to her left, be elected President, media criticism of the new Administration would drop in intensity by a couple orders of magnitude. It wouldn’t vanish altogether (particularly with Hilary), but would not closely resemble what we see now.

As an example, I present the Seattle papers’ cheery treatment of Governor Christine Gregoire – whose photos (as now with those of Nancy Pelosi) are carefully selected to represent strong determination to forge us just the brightest possible future, without the smallest whiff of error.

Jan 11, 2007 - 11:58 am 6. heather:

Lincoln’s words are magnificent, but I wonder how many people – at the time – actually knew of them. There were terrible riots against the war and conscription,in New York, and newspapermen published atories revealing battle results and military secrets all the time. The story of the battle of Shiloh, the one about the outrageious useless slaughter, was written by a reporter whose experience in war was zilch, and who wrote about what he saw way behind the lines where the wounded and frightened had gathered, all “knowing” that Grant had lost…

We complain that Bush is not like Churchill. However, do not mistake his sadness with weakness. He is a man who knows the effect of American military might, and he knows that what must be done is complicated and only a start, in a very Long War…

Jan 11, 2007 - 12:07 pm 7. jedrury:

I agree with the sentiments of Sensitive. No president in my memory has endured the abuse
that this one has over a policy decision made to protect the American people.

One of the hallmarks of this administration is that it is free of claims of corruption. With the exception of the absurd indictment of Scooter Libby, the only scandal of this administration is the Iraq war and that is mostly contrived by the media. This country’s impatience with war is a significant fault in our national character; we will go to war but we want to be back by halftime “to catch the second half of the NFL.”

Being president is so much harder today with 24 hours news and talk shows. When you have retired generals second guessing tactical decisions of field generals and “journalists/columnists” with less history knowledge than a college junior opining on TV about debacles in Baghdad some of their silly rants stick and form the basis of an edgy populace.

Jan 11, 2007 - 1:02 pm 8. Old Dad:

It is a terrible responsibility, especially in war time, and we the people, for the most part don’t have a clue or don’t give a damn.

We merrily insult and degrade the President when, in fact, most of us are not fit to sweep the Oval Office, let alone occupy that lonely chair behind the desk.

God speed Mr. President.

Jan 11, 2007 - 1:50 pm 9. Terrye:

OLd Dad:

I agree.

Jan 11, 2007 - 2:06 pm 10. tim maguire:

The job is such a nightmare, it’s always been a part of my political philosophy that anyone who wants to be president is not the kind of person I want running my country.

I once read a science fiction story (forget the name) where the president was picked by computer and one of the fundamental qualifications of oiffce was that the person picked had never shown any desire to be president.

They wanted someone who would be dragged kicking and screaming into the oval office–and then offered a year off for good behavior.

Jan 11, 2007 - 3:34 pm 11. heather:

Check the photo of Bush at Drudge.

This is a man who knows what he is doing when he sends people to war, and he knows he must do it anyway.

America is the luckiest nation on earth. I say that, as a Canadian.

Jan 11, 2007 - 5:01 pm 12. valjean:

Good point, Roger (and commenters). An absolutely brutal job. Before and after pictures of any president in the last 30-odd years — strangely coinciding with post-Watergate and post-Vietnam “skepticism,” not to mention explosive media growth — are a really depressing sight.

Think what Bush has had to work through: 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, a recession (yes, we were in one in 2001), flaky allies, a withering media, and now a hostile congress. Whether you agree with what he’s done or not, it’s hard to argue that he’s not had a full plate — especially compared with, say, his predecessor. May he have a restful retirement.

Jan 11, 2007 - 5:33 pm 13. johnbragg:

There was a story in an Asimov-edited anthology on this theme “2066: Election Day” by Michael Shaara, originally published in 1956, on my bookshelf in “Machines That Think” 1983

The process of choosing a President has been turned over to a supercomputer, SAM. SAM selects, unerringly, “the best man for the job.” The job wears out and kills President after President, before and after SAM, but with SAM, the world can have faith in the American Presidency.

Until the job gets so big that no one can qualify, and therein hangs the tale.

Jan 11, 2007 - 5:50 pm 14. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

Positions of power are physically and emotionally hard on a person to the degree that that person takes the responsibility seriously.

Consider Nancy Pelosi’s reaction to her new position–it’s all about celebration of her “power” (and even her “holiness”). I doubt if she has spent a great deal of time meditating on her responsibilties.

She has no *executive* authority, of course, but even if she did, and was fated to preside over a disaster, I do not think she would suffer great emotional pain.

Jan 11, 2007 - 6:18 pm 15. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

Here are some words by General William Slim which describe how a man of responsibility and honor deals with a defeat.

Jan 11, 2007 - 6:24 pm 16. Sally-O:

Well, I’m not sure that I look as fresh as I did six years ago either, and I’m virtually retired!

I’m sure that Bush’s job takes its toll, but honestly, my biggest criticism of him is that he makes (usually) the right decisions and then tends to check out and phone the rest in.

When you send soldiers to war, you owe it to them to fight just as hard politically as they do on the ground–and your job is actually far easier and less risky.

In my opinion, Bush sat back at let the MSM and his political enemies chip away at him virtually unanswered for year after year, a situation which is now a serious problem and which threatens the entire mission. I have faith in him to make the right decisions, but no faith in him whatsoever to defend those positions–both domestically and internationally–in the way that the times require.

I keep thinking back to his first debate with Kerry. He was completely unprepared. Inexcusable, in my opinion, since he was supposed to be the public voice of those with boots on the ground.

Jan 11, 2007 - 6:34 pm 17. Terrye:

Sally-O

I am sorry but I disagree. Bush did not sit back and let the press do anything. He is not their boss, he can not make them be anything but what they are.

Now if he was Hugo Chavez or Saddam Hussein he could nationalize the media and take over the TV stations and control the message, but this is America and presidents can not do things like that here.

To say this guy checks out is simply not true. Being President is not something you do, it is something you are. There is no checking out.

Jan 12, 2007 - 4:26 am 18. Terrye:

Sally:

And btw, he beat Kerry so maybe the debate was not what you think it was. If all his failures ended up like that what would there be to complain about?

Jan 12, 2007 - 4:27 am 19. Jack Okie:

Tim & johnbragg:

I remember that story. Did you ever run across the one about the guy who ended up on a planet where the entire legal code consisted of

1. You shouldn’t annoy other people.

2. If you’re other people, you shouldn’t be too easily annoyed.

Jan 12, 2007 - 7:53 am 20. PeterUK:

Whilst George Bush does not have the same linguistic and oratorical abilities as Winston Churchill,he shares many of the same qualities,history will not be as unkind to the president as his political opponents.He is right at the right time in history,the Clinton era was the Fin de Siecle,the Weimar Years of self delusion and decadence,the “Phony War”,now the butcher’s bill have become due.
The tragedy of George Bush is that his detractors do not have a fraction of the decency of the man.
It should be remembered that Churchill did not have particularly robust health,he was also extremely emotional,it matters not,come the time comes the man,be grateful.

Jan 12, 2007 - 8:37 am 21. ShoreMark:

Sally-O, While watching the debates I too thought President Bush didn’t seem as prepared as I’d have liked him to be. However, I don’t remember any details at this late date save these two: Kerry mumbling something about Bush owning a lumber company and a puzzled Bush asking if anyone wanted to buy some wood. The other is Kerry’s “Global Test” that Bush handily ridiculed. Of course too, Bush won.

In general, all presidents age very rapidly in office. W did look tired and haggard during the address from the library, but the following day when speaking at a military base he looked and sounded considerably more chipper

Jan 12, 2007 - 9:40 am 22. markus:

Back to “the plan” for a minute. Our courageous, long-suffering and unjustly maligned commander-in-chief will remain officially on the job for a little over two more years.

Given this fact, and the fact that Congress is highly unlikely to assert its constitutional perogative to limit or cut off funding, our troops will in all likelihood have to follow the plan that he unveiled on Wednesday night.

Does anyone here really think that it will work? That things are now going to get better in Iraq? That the additional 21,500 young Americans in Baghdad will finally turn the corner, allowing order to be restored in neighborhoods, even after we leave them? That Maliki and the so-called “Iraqi army” will stand up, and start cracking down on Moqtada al-Sadr? That the number of Iraqi civilians killed in terrorist attacks will decrease? That electricity production and other basic indicators of national health will reach pre-war levels?

Jan 12, 2007 - 10:49 am 23. Tully:

I can’t recall a single president in my lifetime (other than Kennedy…) who left office NOT looking as if they’d aged several years for every one in office. That even includes Gerald Ford’s short tenure.

I even felt sorry for Jimmy Carter, whom you could almost see aging by the minute. (I got over it when shopping for a mortgage in 1980.)

Jan 12, 2007 - 10:58 am 24. Terrye:

markus:

other than bitching what is the Democrat plan?

I don’t know if it will work or not but at least he is trying.

Jan 12, 2007 - 11:42 am 25. Terrye:

markus:

Imagine this. It is WW2 and there have been lots of mistakes made, not the least of which was the abandonment of several thousand American soldiers to the tender mercies of the advancing Japanese.

MacArthur says he shall return. Roosevelt can not explain how the fleet at Pearl Harbor was attacked without warning.

The Republicans say that Roosevelt has no plan and MacArthur should be charged with war crimes. The mother of one of the Army nurses raped and killed by Japanese soldiers is on the newsreels constantly saying it all FDR’s fault.

The Republicans look at this and wonder if they can best make hay by secret negotiations with the Japanese, criticizing FDR for not apologizing to the Japanese and getting us into this in the first place. Every report of casualties is followed by Republicans using the bad news to try and unseat the president in a time of war while of course they themselves offer no plan because after all the whole thing is FDR’s fault anyway so why sould they offer an alternative. In fact a few thousand more dead soldiers just might get a Republican in the White House if they play their cards right.

But they did not do that did they? Never even considered it.

Too bad the Democrats of today can’t look at things the same way.

BTW, I think this thing has a good chance of working, if people like yourself stop encouraging the enemy and making it plain to them that if they just keep killing people soon your kind will be in power and then they can have whatever they want. Thanks a lot markus.

Jan 12, 2007 - 11:50 am 26. markus:

Terrye –

The best alternative to the Bush plan is the Iraq Study Group plan (Baker/Hamilton). It calls for a “surge” in diplomacy, between Israel and the Palestinians, between US and Iran, and US and Syria. I’m not sure how much support it has among Democrats. It has a lot of support among sane people, including some Republicans.

The other alternative is “cut your losses and walk away, before you lose even more.”

Regarding WWII, you continue miss the basic distinction: Japan unilaterally attacked sovereign U.S. territory. Iraq did not. Makes all the difference in the world.

Regarding the culpability of myself and 2/3rd’s of my fellow citizens who have grown weary of this unnecessary conflict: just why did Bin-Laden work so hard to elect Bush in 2004?

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/247753p-212149c.html

Jan 12, 2007 - 12:32 pm 27. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

Terrye…re your comment on the WWII Republicans, here is some interesting history:

In 1944, Thomas E Dewey got some information suggesting that the U.S. had the ability to read German and Japanese codes. He intended to use this information in the election to accuse FDR of neglect re the Pearl Harbor attack.

Gen Marshall dispatched an officer, Carter Clarke, to inform Dewey of the terrible consequences that would follow from letting the enemy know that their codes could be read. It took several meetings and eventually a phone conversation with Marshall himself, but eventually Dewey agreed not to use the information in the campaign. (source: “The American Magic,” by Ronald Lewin)

Anyone think today’s Democrats and their media allies would behave as responsibly?

Jan 12, 2007 - 1:21 pm 28. Terrye:

markus:

The Iraq Study Group does suggest a surge, th eoil trust and the increased efforts at creating more jobs. As does Bush. It is so typical that Democrats would overlook that part.

Jan 12, 2007 - 2:29 pm 29. Terrye:

and markus, we are all weary, we just all are not trying to make a difficult situation worse for the sake self gain.

Jan 12, 2007 - 2:30 pm 30. Terrye:

photon:

I did read something about that. In the end Dewey said that it was more important that we won the war than it was that he won an election.

Fancy that.

Jan 12, 2007 - 2:32 pm 31. Terrye:

From the atlantic.com:

“The Study Group says a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq could be so catastrophic that it might force the U.S. military to eventually return there. The Group dismisses the partitioning of the country as an unwise policy goal, since it would lead to the collapse of the security forces and is, in any case, impractical because of mixed populations in so many Iraqi provinces. The Group is open-minded concerning a temporary, small-scale troop surge in the Greater Baghdad area.”

Now let’s just think of all the Democrats who have done a complete about face as soon as the president said he wanted more troops.

The only thing they care about is driving down Bush’s poll numbers. To them he is the enemy, not some silly terrorists. And that might come back on them some day. I hope.

Jan 12, 2007 - 2:42 pm 32. Steven Mitchell:

“The best alternative to the Bush plan is the Iraq Study Group plan (Baker/Hamilton). It calls for a “surge” in diplomacy, between Israel and the Palestinians, between US and Iran, and US and Syria. I’m not sure how much support it has among Democrats. It has a lot of support among sane people, including some Republicans. ”

If that’s the best alternative you can come up with, and you can’t even get most Dems to go that far, then I can see why you would support cut and run. If the plan is to lose, might as well get there as quickly as possible. “Diplomacy” in the same sentence with Iran and Palestinians is a smokescreen, and every person with a modicum of good sense knows it. (Smokescreens can be useful, as long as they accompany something else, and you don’t start falling for your own misdirection. It’s this latter part that seems to trip people up, make them mistake waffling cowardice for sanity.)

A better alternative would be to fight to win. I don’t know how far the 21,000 troops go towards that, but since that seems to be all we can get the country to do, we go with it.

Jan 12, 2007 - 3:30 pm 33. Steven Mitchell:

You know the really sad thing in regards to the Dewey history? If the Dems of the day acted like that, we’d already have effectively won. The Iranians and Syrians would be too cowed to pull their tricks, and if they did, there would be bipartisan agreement to make them pay for it.

You can’t nitpick every aspect of the war and claim it’s trying to make things better. You pick your battles, because nitpicking is destructive. Dewey understood this, because he was a patriot first and a politician second. The Dems used to be that way, back in Trumans day.

And if you claim you have a better alternative, when others get behind it, you’d better damn well follow through.

Jan 12, 2007 - 3:36 pm 34. Terrye:

Steven”

Yes, this is true. No one wants to stand against a united America. But the Democrats learned in 2002 that a united America might costs them some seats in Congress when the President was a Repbulican so they said to hell with this.

Today they were all over Rice. They wanted her to tell them exactly when we would be leaving. She should have just picked a day out of thin air to and seen what they would say.

We screwed around with Saddam for years and years and in the end all the antiwar people could say was that someday someway it would all work out if we just sorta kinda kept him in some kind of you know box.

If anyone would have asked them for one single specific answer they would have been shocked.

Jan 12, 2007 - 3:50 pm 35. Doug S.:

Lincoln being mentioned upthread, it is worth remembering that he took ferocious abuse while in office, even before he had to preside over a civil war, the result of which was very much in doubt up until the 1864 election. He seems to have been referred to as a simian pretty regularly; Edwin Stanton, before becoming Secretary of War, referred to his future boss as an ugly ape. GWB has it rough now, but Lincoln had it even rougher, from a press that was less restrained and more baldly partisan than now.

But there is no doubt that being President takes its toll on you. Even Clinton, who seems to have had more fun in office than was decent, came out of it with white hair and wrinkles. Not a job that I particularly envy, and unless you have kevlar for skin you’ll never survive it.

When I was a kid, my parents dreamt of me becoming a university president, not POTUS so much. But even that is more carp than it’s worth. Bart Giamatti was nearing the end of his 9-year tenure as President of Yale when I was an undergrad there, and it shocked me to see earlier photos of him and realize how much the job had aged him.

As for markus, I don’t see how he can show up in this forum again after trying to base an extended argument on the notion that Ancient Rome failed to impose its values on foreign peoples. Shameless? Clueless? Perhaps both.

Jan 13, 2007 - 12:39 am 36. Terrye:

Well the Romans just got too big for their britches Doug. Hubris doncha know. And once they failed and collapsed as all failed empires do the world was a happy go lucky place of peaceful pagans. For the life of me I don’t know why that called that happy time the Dark Ages.

Jan 13, 2007 - 12:58 am 37. Gary Rosen:

“The best alternative to the Bush plan is the Iraq Study Group plan”

You mean the Iraq Study Group that said we should get Syria to persuade Hamas to recognize Israel without explaining how we get *Syria* to recognize Israel? A bunch of morons whose “solution” to the Mideast is throw them a Jew. Two reasons markus is so enamored of them.

Jan 13, 2007 - 2:11 am 38. Terrye:

Not only that makus completely ignores the fact that the ISG also called for a surge and makes it plain that cut and run is a disaster.

They were for the ISG before they were against it.

Jan 13, 2007 - 3:51 am 39. markus:

The thug is gone, along with his phantom WMD’s. The idealistic rationale for this optional war has been abandoned. Given these facts, just what are the disasterous consequences of “declaring victory and leaving”?

I don’t know how I managed to get in touch with my patriotic, nationalistic side, but I can’t help but point out the most positive outcome of such a decision: fewer Americans women and children without husbands and fathers, and fewer American veterans missing limbs.

Gary — As you know, Syria signed on to the declaration made by the Arab League in 2002 that member countries would recognize Israel if it pulled back to the May 1967 borders. An excellent basis for negotiations, rejected out of hand by Sharon.

Terrye — it is true that the ISG said that TEMPORARILY adding troops to Baghdad was an option. But, this was done with caveats. As the cover story in last weeks Time Magazine puts it:

“Although the Baker group allowed for a surge to stabilize Baghdad or speed up training of Iraqis, it conditioned that O.K. with the phrase ‘if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective.’ When it became clear to the internationalists that the Kagan-Keane surge was winning White House attention without any calls for more troops from generals on the ground, they counter-counterattacked. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a former four-star, said a surge had been tried in Baghdad–and had failed last fall–and would only further delay Iraqis in taking control of their own security. Powell added, a little pointedly, that he had not heard any generals ask for more troops–an oblique way of hinting that the President was saying one thing about who was deciding troop levels but doing another.”

Jan 13, 2007 - 6:23 pm 40. Steven Mitchell:

“I don’t know how I managed to get in touch with my patriotic, nationalistic side, but I can’t help but point out the most positive outcome of such a decision: fewer Americans women and children without husbands and fathers, and fewer American veterans missing limbs.”

Markus, I could write a long explanation, but I’ll cut to the chase. War is not the worst thing that can happen to people. If we don’t fight it, when and where we can, we’ll experience more thing like the twin towers. It’s interesting that the dark ages have been invoked recently here. Because it boils down to this: You are either for civilization or you are not. You objectively are not, even as you enjoy the fruits and carp about harder and better men than yourself.

So take your crocodile tears above, and drown in them.

Jan 13, 2007 - 8:33 pm 41. markus:

“If we don’t fight it, when and where we can, we’ll experience more thing like the twin towers…You are either for civilization or you are not. You objectively are not”

Steven, you’re unhinged. There is no RATIONAL basis for any of this. Take your meds, and think clearly. Operation Iraqi Freedom, and its aftermath, has strengthened Islamo-fascism, not weakened it. By any objective measure, the various ideologies are stronger, more popular, and less internally divided in 2007 than they were five years ago.

Jan 13, 2007 - 9:10 pm 42. klrfz1:

There are both rational and idealistic reasons for the Iraq war. One of the great tactical successes of the anti-war left has been their constant denial of those reasons and substitution of their own paranoid fantasies. This has allowed them to repeat the same lies over and over without regard to any contradictory facts. This vast weight of repeated lies has driven public opinion against the war. A tactical success but also a gamble. Reality is not always kind to those who live by paranoid fantasy.

America is not defeated in Iraq until it leaves Iraq. Too bad most Americans can’t see that.

Jan 14, 2007 - 1:59 am 43. Terrye:

markus:

You do not know what you are talking about.We did not make terrorism worse by fighting terrorists. That is like saying that after FDR decided to respond to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Japanese killed more Americans.

Your contention seems to be that if we caved to Saddam, let him defy the UN, shoot at our planes, exterminate the Kurds and in general thumb in his nose at the world while he slaughtered his people that somehow or other that would have been a blow to terrorism. yeah right.

That is the kind of thinking that helped bring down the Towers. It is the ignore them and they will go away mindset.

They did not go away. We did not create the enemy by fighting him, we just stopped pretending he did not exists.

I am sick of hearing about the phantom WMD. The Democrats who are still making an issue of that were every bit as responsible for that intel as the Bush administration and unlike the Bush administration have as of yet taken no responsibility whatsoever for their own mistakes.Typical.

As far as that is concerned if not for the war people would still think the weapons were there. Just like most people would still think the UN did not turn the oil for food program into a farce.

In fact, left to his own devices Saddam would undoubtedly have rebuilt his stockpiles with the money he pilfered from a sanctions program that was supposed to restrain him from building weapons. No one seriously doubts he intended to do just that. And then what?

The inability of people such as yourself to see that basic simple reality is stunning.

I don’t want to see anyone else get killed, but the people we are going after are the sort of people who do kill Americans as well as the civilians our military has sworn to protect.

I think it is interesting that the same people who never tire of treating our military like monsters all of a sudden get concerned about their welfare. They are either victims or victimizers to people like you markus. They are never professionals who want to finish what they started and who do not want to be sent home labelled as losers by a lot of folks who could care less about them.

Now the Bush plan also calls for 18 Kurdish brigades to be sent to Baghdad to reinforce the coalition, so it is not just about us.No western city would tolerate this level of violence and there is no reason why these people should have to either.

If we fail here, our word will mean nothing. The morale of our military will be damaged and they will not be safe anywhere. After all, why not kill Americans..what are they going to do about it anyway? run away, that is their speciality.

So no markus, I do not want to prove Osama Bin Laden right. I do not want to prove that Americans will run away when it gets hard and I do not want to forget or ignore or render useless the sacrifices made by our military men and women. They deserve better.

BTW, only 15% of the population wants to jerk their troops out of there. 39% want to give it at least a year. 31% as long as it takes, etc. There is no strong majority opinion unless you asks the question, Do you want to win? And then overwhelingly people say yes.

The anti war people have worn out the rest of the county. No doubt a lot of people just want it over, me included. I would like to never have to hear another snarky obnoxious preachy sermon from some lefty again as long as I lived and a lot of other people feel the same way.

They think that if and when the war ends, people like Sheehan and Moore and their ilk will vanish and that will be a good thing. I can’t blame them for that.

Jan 14, 2007 - 4:07 am 44. Terrye:

For a little trip down memory lane I suggest reading the transcript of Clinton’s speech in Feb. 1998.

This is a brief excerpt:

Now, let’s imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who’s really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

Now Clinton made this speech about 3 and a half years before Bush made a speech saying much the same thing before the UN General Assembly in September 2002.

Jan 14, 2007 - 5:01 am 45. Terrye:

Clinton made that speech in regards to the need to take military action against Saddam Hussein again.

That was something Clinton did several times during his administration, it was not all hearts and flowers before Bush came along.

Jan 14, 2007 - 5:16 am 46. Steven Mitchell:

“Operation Iraqi Freedom, and its aftermath, has strengthened Islamo-fascism, not weakened it. By any objective measure, the various ideologies are stronger, more popular, and less internally divided in 2007 than they were five years ago. ”

It’s not true, but to the extent that the situation leans that way, we can think appeasement like yours.

If I seem to need meds… well, the next time something like the twin towers happens, I hold you partially responsible. You didn’t bring them down. You just worked hard to see that no one did anything effective to prevent it. You kind of “rationality” would drive anyone to drink–anyone that truly cared about anyone else.

Jan 14, 2007 - 1:49 pm 47. Luther McLeod:

markus cares about his world view. He has many years of investment in it. Some of us were able to make a transition post 9/11, others were not. The only question is, who will history remember? Or, perhaps more salient, will there be study of history in a 100 years? The way I see it, Markus’s way leads to the death of western civ, he sees that as an improvement.

Jan 14, 2007 - 5:05 pm 48. Gary Rosen:

“Gary — As you know, Syria signed on to the declaration made by the Arab League in 2002 that member countries would recognize Israel if it pulled back to the May 1967 borders. An excellent basis for negotiations, rejected out of hand by Sharon.”

Press releases by Arab dictators for the benefit of the Western media are not a “basis for negotiations”. Was that the one that happened the same week the Saudis published an article in their state-controlled newspaper that Jews use the blood of children in their religious rituals?

When an Arab leader makes a *real* gesture of peace towards Israel, it’s pretty damn obvious. Anwar Sadat was welcomed with open arms by an Israel under Likud rule, while his Arab “brothers” ostracized him and then put a bullet through his head for his trouble. You are psychologically and pathologically committed to blaming it all on the Joooos, even though the history is overwhelmingly to the contrary.

Jan 14, 2007 - 11:43 pm 49. _Jon:

Back on topic, from my perspective, being President should be something a person aspires to as a duty to the Nation – to a way of life. We have many citizens who sacrifice something of their life in order to help ensure that our way of life continues. I think being the President is a similar sacrifice. For those who choose to be the President, it would be a tremendous honor and a tremendous sacrifice.

For every decision – big or small – there will be dissenters. There will be people who agree and those who don’t. The constant obligations, the tremendous amount of information, the unflinching eye of the media – it would wear anyone down.

If asked, I would serve, but it isn’t something I would take on optimistically.

Jan 16, 2007 - 11:24 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: