Just dropped in to say hi, Shea.Hope things are well.-Jack
Howdy, Jack... been in a slump. Phases of the moon, perhaps. Climbing back to the light...
We spent 9/11 in the woods. Remembered the tragedy four years ago in our own special way. too bad the W,Rove and Co only use it as a political pawn.Blog on Brother. I'm linking up.
Good to see you back up and on top!Was reading an interesting book by a former FBI guy who knows much. He maintains that Al Queda may have as many as 48 suitcase bombs--each one capable of destroying a city. I'm not really certain what effects destroying Bin Laden would have. I think many questions should be asked: Would bringing down Bin Laden have any affect on Al Queda? Would it just make him a martyr? Is Bush's statement more to the media so that it will broadcast itself to Bin Laden, prompting him to act foolishly? I guess there are so many things I don't know that may be behind the statement. Not endorsing the statement, but just wondering...-Jack
I think, for what it's worth, that capturing Bin Laden wouldn't end Al Qaeda by any means, but he IS the guy responsible for 9/11 and 9/11 IS the reason we are currently mounting this f'ed up war on terror.As far as Bush cleverly trying to goad him out of hiding - that's too much of stretch for me to make. Bush just doesn't work that way. He's a cowboy and he ALWAYS proceeds as such.Going back to paragraph one, that's probably the #1 reason why I am so pissed all the time about this war in Iraq. Congress would never had let Bush invade if it wasn't for 9/11, yet Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, period. It flies in the face of logic and no one cares (except "lefties").
If Congress, especially the Democrats, were so against the war why don't they cut the funding to it, Smorg? They can do that at ANY time, but they haven't. None of the Democrats have even suggested this, and yet it is completely within their power to do so. Now another thing you mention to about Bush being a cowboy I think that is EXACTLY what a cowboy would say--Bin Laden who? As a matter of fact I think I saw that very question made on a John Wayne movie. ha!I'm not saying one way or the other, I just get confused by the left's characterization of Bush and the evil Rovian Empire--at one time they are talking about how dumb they are and in the next breath accusing them of evil genius. Smorg, also, about the Iraq-Al Queda connection you really need to look into that in much more detail before stating that. There is a ton of evidence to the contrary. -Jack
Hey Shea, Met a budding blogger I though you may want to drop in and get to know. http://leftturndave.blogspot.com/-Jack
I'll check that one out.As far as the evidence of complicity between Iraq and Al-Q, I'm more convinced by the "ton of evidence" that says they were not connected, expecially the cultural enmity between them, one being westernized and secular, the other being a proponent of fundamentalist theocracy. I agree with those who've said that Al-Q and Iraq were mortal enemies. Now, of course, we've joined them in unholy matrimony!I am still convinced, as I was at the beginning of the neocon conquest of the middle east, that Iraq posed no threat whatsoever to the United States. Really, it was the other way around - we were bombing them freqently. I loathe to use this phrase, but I have to: "think about that": we were bombing them. Often. We are the country with weapons of mass destruction; we are the country that has said for decades that international law only applies to other countries and not us; we are the country that tells others to do what we want or we will crush them; we are the ones who use a greatly disproportionate share of the world's resources and produce a disproportionate share of the world's pollution (last time I checked), and to top it all off, we are the ones who gave weapons and money to Saddam Hussein, and to the Taliban, and to Al Qaida! Evidently, WE are the biggest threat to the world. And now, we've made the world less safe from terrorism, and we're installing an Iran-style Islamic theocracy in Iraq... I can't stand it.
Shea, I'm speaking more in a purist sense I guess. I try to avoid declarative statements. In terms of the machinations of this world and its leaders and its politics, I am limited to what I am told, so I reserve judgement because of my own ignorance.When I say that one cannot acertain whether there was or wasn't a link, I have to go on info that is out there. Here are some of the articles making a case for a link. The first is from a "left" publication, the UK Guardian. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,591439,00.htmlPBS:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html(the New York time article you have to sign in for:)There are more, so I guess I just have difficulty saying without a doubt that there are no connections etc. Then there were plenty of people saying they had wmd's etc.http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/02/iraq.weapons/index.htmlI'm not denying that it may have all been an elaborate years long setup. I don't know, Shea. I just kind of stick to what I know, and even though I have read volumes, I'm still grossly ignorant on it.-Jack
thanks for the tip to visit this link. and i think many people are confused about the war on terror and the real endeavors of Bush and his administration.for me, the whole fiasco that has been the Bush presidency is readily apparent, but in many, many ways, it is a continuation of the policies this nation has followed for decades, especially in the arena of foreign affairs.Jack may choose to reserve judgment based on his limited "first hand" knowledge, but let's face it Jack- unless you're calling the shots, all your information is second hand or heresay. Fidn the grains of fact in the spin and you'll get a pretty accurate picture of what's happening. As for the words that fly from the lips of politicians, it is better to examine what they do, how they vote, than what their evening news sound bite may be.
Hi Ken,Although I firmly believe in absolutes, I find them few and far between. That's why I limit my definitive answers to things that have them. Fundamentalists like Michael Moore and Pat Robertson (and I use this term in a secular sense) can deal in absolutes readily which immediately flaws their logic, and renders their conclusions suspect. As I often have to remind my "progressive" and "conservative" friends, things are rarely black and white. It is often those inconsistencies I look for (my site is, afterall, about taking shots at inconsistencies and absurdities). Ken, you have more of a realistic view of the Bush presidency than most. Policy-wise the Bush presidency is a rubber stamp of what we have progressively had the last 50 years. I get a chuckle with the people who think the fire started in 2000. Thought you may find this link interesting also:http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j101501.htmlRegards,-Jack
Post a Comment