"M.Butzin" <mfbutzin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> used a stick in the sand to babble
>> There are many things, particularly with regard to foreign policy that
>> the Candidate will never know. Will only find out about when he/she
>> actually sits in the Oval Office.
>>
>> Swill
>
>With Hailboouty robbing the treasury it take a while to stop that as
well,
>the blank checks that are out there still have to come in.
"Hailboouty"?
My point is that we have to trust our leaders to be doing the right
thing if only because they have access to information we don't.
Practically speaking, this meant that while I argued initially against
an invasion of Iraq, when it became clear it wasn't going to be
stopped, it must have been because there was information the
government had that I did not. I dismissed Chirac's objections
because his generally anti American sentiments and policies were
known. Russia's opposition to the invasion was also easy to
understand. Even though the USSR was no more, Russia was still o
formidable power with interests and baggage that made understanding
it's position pretty easy. Germany's opposition was more difficult to
figure, but was probably a question of solidarity at the top of the
EU. There was not much other serious opposition and whether the world
or Europeans in particular opposed or agreed, one fact remains. Not
one of them so much as lifted a finger to stop us. This I found very
significant so my objections melted away and I sup****ted the troops if
not the administration without qualification. I fully expected that
in the fullness of time, the reasons would become clear. The evidence
of active wmd r&d and production would be found. Do***entation of
Iraqi links to Al Qaeda or other terrorist threats would be uncovered.
And of course there would be partying in Iraq as the population
celebrated the removal of Hussein and began their experiment with
democracy.
A year later it was clear that none of this was going to happen and my
opposition to administration policy returned. The public didn't
really start to figure this out for yet another year and even then the
public remained deeply divided. Not until 2006 was it clear that the
People recognized at last the mismanagement of the operations if not
the folly of the policy itself.
Now we're living in an income tax commercial. We're stuck. We can't
bug out, but we're not willing to stay forever.
Clinton has promised that we will not have permanent bases in Iraq and
recognized that our involvement in the middle east as it has been is
flawed. I seriously doubt she'll remove those bases without intense
public pressure but I seriously doubt the public will care or even
understand the im****t of that decision.
9/11 happened as a direct result of our maintaining bases is Saudi
Arabia. What such effect might come about because of bases in Iraq?
Swill
|
