The United States is targeted because we are (correctly) perceived as an influential mark, not an "easy" one. Haven't been perceived thus since 1776!
As far as GWB goes, the American people were eager for some sort of retribution for 9/11. Had he done nothing, and had the terrorists struck again, he'd have been labeled an idiot for that as well.
It has been an eventful couple of years for politics & scandal, but if I try a bit, I can remember that very soon after 9/11, it was announced that the organization responsible was one known to have its headquarters in Afghanistan, which we quickly invaded, interrupting that nation's official support of al Q. A bit later, I was surprised to learn that the noisy but thoroughly defeated tyrant in Iraq had managed, despite frequent UN & US inspections, to re-arm itmself with enough chemical and/or biological weaponry to constitute a "clear and present danger". As it turns out, I should have been even more surprised by this "news" than I was, as it was merely an insubstantial suspicion based on a very questionable "informant" nicknamed curveball for known history of providing disinformation & misinformation.
I, too, thought Jimmy's kicking W when he's down was beneath a man who, in most of his post-presidential life, has been a class act.
If GWB is half the cowboy he plays on TV, he can withstand a tongue-lashing from an octogenarian!
Have you any idea how hard that is to do?
Way to go!
But he did what he thought was the right thing. Right or wrong. And where were you? I was watching and watching for the right answer- I sure as **** didn't know what it was. Have you had to make presidential level decisions? I haven't. I can opine with the best though.
GWB is allowing PEOPLE to be RFID chipped.
He was a lovable moron until this.
Now he is just a sh*t.
That James Carter was repeatedly asked his OPINION and several times refused to give it. He finally allowed that he felt that the current administration was "the worst in history". And apologised for his statement, even though he was stating his opinion, that he is entitled to have.
Mr. Carter has already been reamed for having an opinion. Can we get over it now?
The Bush administration wants to RFID PEOPLE. You want to complain about some heartfelt remarks from a decent man?
I don't get this world.
I can't name any President that hasn't made mistakes in wartime, but I have to say that GWB's arrogance and misplaced loyalty has hurt this country.
He has taken the right steps lately in replacing Rumsfield (too bad he didn't do it before the election) with Robert Gates and calling in General Petraous. He can redeem himself if he follows their lead. As much as he didn't want to, he is also following the advice of the Iraq Study Group. Those are signs of hope to me that we have the right people in place and are using new strategies other than "stay the course".
That all important September date for General Petraous' report is going to be a real test for GWB. Maybe it will be good, but if it isn't, its going to be very bad for him.
AV
& **** bubbles.
And, I think that you meant to refer to my jaundiced eye rather than my cynicism.
I'll concede that, in this case, the line defining pre-emptive war is a bit fuzzy (at least to some people, but not to me); but I'll not concede that it's a clear-cut reality. President Traitor ... I mean President Carter wrote, "We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened."
Define directly. Moreover, what about in cases of our national security being indirectly threatened? Nonetheless, I don't see this as a pre-emptive war.
First of all, let's establish the premise for defining this war, when it war began, who fired the first shot, so to speak, who supported them, and determine the ideological differences that led up to it? To the people who believe that this war started with the events that unfolded on September 11, 2001, you're just wrong -- dead wrong. And to the people who believe this war is only against the limited faction of people who perpetrated the attacks on September 11, 2001, you're wrong again -- seriously wrong.
War was declared on the United States by __________ , on or about __________ , it was supported or encouraged by __________ , and can be clearly seen by considering the attacks waged against the United States, its allies, and/or its interests perpetrated on and/or against __________ and ____________ and __________ and __________ and __________ and __________ and __________ .......
Let's illustrate my position with an analogy. If today, the United States unilaterally and without provocation launched an attack on North Korea, I would consider that a pre-emptive action. However, if a person is honest and accurate in defining the premise as I outlined above, and by honestly and accurately filling in the blanks above, then any war waged against ANY middle-eastern Islamic state that either supports or encourages the actions as stated above, or fails to stop its citizens from engaging in the actions as stated above, is not pre-emptive and is wholly justified.
Go ahead, be totally honest and accurate and fill-in the blanks. (Some blanks might have multiple entries). If you do, not only will you clearly see that this is not a pre-emptive war, but a response to war being waged against us -- AND we were extremely late in both recognizing it and responding with appropriate force to deal with it. It could even be strongly argued that this war actually began on November 4, 1979, and the sitting president at the time failed to recognize and/or respond appropriately, and every president that followed, with the lone exception of President GW Bush, continued to sweep it aside as just a nagging little problem that would go away if ignored long enough. It's time we recognize and define what this war really is, against whom it's being waged, and stop ignoring it.
No, Absolutely, President Carter was not right -- he was not right in 1979, and he was not right in his false assertions of today.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKN1924898920070519?pageNumber=2
The White House declined to comment on his statements, but the Republican National Committee struck back at Carter.
"Most Americans will probably take his criticisms with a grain of salt considering he also challenged Ronald Reagan's strategy for the Cold War, and history has since proven him wrong," said RNC spokeswoman Amber Wilkerson.
Actually, I'll take his criticisms fairly seriously, considering an article he wrote, published by the New York Times March 9, 2003:
http://ecumene.org/carter.htm
The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority. Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.
The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.
What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations resolutions ? with war as a final option ? will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.
I was planning to be a lot more critical of Carter, to the effect that I would take him more seriously if he had said that in 2003. It turns out that he thought it was a bad idea then for many of the same reasons. Maybe "worst in history" was in bad taste, but still, we can't say Carter is "just" being opportunistic because he has said the same thing from the beginning.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,,21762942-5001028,00.html
In the newspaper interview, Mr Carter said Mr Bush had taken a "radical departure from all previous administration policies" with the Iraq war.
"We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered," Mr Carter said.
That's an important point, and Carter was right to make it. Refraining from pre-emptive war is an important principle among civilized nations, and how we treated that principle when we invaded Iraq deserves consideration in its own right.
a fact that the same Founders also knew well.
To the question of the Iraqi people's qualifications to be self-governing:
Necessity is the mother of invention, and she is exceptionally fertile. Like any people, we can expect them to do what they must, within the parameters of possibility. Enough of your cynicism.
Pot Calling the Kettle Black
I see that Jimmy Carter has voiced that GWB has ruined the US reputation in the World through failed foreign policy decisions. The worst being pre-emptive war.
For those of you who remember the years between 1976 and 1980, the US did not have great stature in the eyes of the World back then either.
For President Carter to claim that the Bush administration has the worst record on foreign policy, one has to either gloss over the Iran hostage crisis, or believe the GWB has really messed things up.
Now, I do hold Jimmy Carter in much higher regard as a person and a man than GWB. Still, even I am somewhat surprised at the level of his criticism of a sitting President.
Not that I disagree with former President Carter's assessment of the situation the US is in after 6 years under the auspices of GWB. I'm just surprised that he would be so vocal and vehement about it.
Chas