I learned from Frontline (Great news program on public broadcasting) that Saddam was not complying with the UN, and that Rumsfeld and Wolfawitz really had it out for the guy. I never thought the issue should have been swept under the rug nor dealt with. I do, however, think the timing and the manner in which Saddam was dealt with was poor, to say the least.
Bin Laden, the terrorist behind the 9/11 attacks, should have been our primary focus, if counter-terrorism was our true mission. He is now laughing at us, and can you blame him?
I simply do not believe that we are doing the right thing by this war. In spite of Saddam's atrocities, there are certain "rules of engagement". By Saddam not attacking any nation or posing any eminent threat to us (which has pretty much been proven), we set a new precedence for war by attacking Iraq. It could very well come back to haunt us (as well our dismissal of the Geneva Conventions will come back to haunt us). It was hasty and I have to question the motives behind it.
I am not without compassion. There are numerous dictators around the world that do not share our values- it's the nature of the beast. But, is it not incredibly arrogant to think America should be the ultimate savior? Maybe the people don't want to be saved, maybe we CAN'T save them. And what of all civilians that have been killed- how did we "save" them or their families? There are are a plethora of atrocities being commited around the world and numerous UN sanctions being ignored. Why don't we invade them too? Or, more appropriately, why did we REALLY invade Iraq? Because we should know what our soldiers are dieing for. If they told us the truth, maybe we would not have agreed. And maybe, that's why they lied.
Email from a friend:
Following is an interesting, and perhaps timely, quote by Mr. William Shakespeare [I guess some things will never change]:
Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword.
It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind... And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry.
Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know?
For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.
"Thoes who can not remember the past are doomed to repeat it."- George Santayana
"Bush may be a disaster, but I've studied Kerry and I believe that he would be an utter and complete disaster."
Bush has proven to be a disaster. Better a proven disaster than a "might be" disaster? Your studies must be incredibly insightful; why don't you post them? Especially the parts that persuaded you that he would be even more of an incompetent diplomat.
"I believe that he believed what he said."
What you beleive is wrong. It is understandable to not want to fathom the idea of a war based soley upon lies, but that is what you have. Investigators said that the tubes were inadiquate for gas centrifuges and they were intended for "traditional" weapons. This was revealed to the president before speaking to congress. Not to mention Richard Clark's statements on the entire matter- you must think that he IS the liar.
"...anger at the previous president to be for his lying before congress, more than the act."
So, lying to congress about a private affair is somehow worse than, say... lying to them and us in effort to engage in a war for (what was the reason? WMD? Nope. Links to Al Queda? Nope. Liberation of the Iraqis from tyranny? Oh, well I guess they'll use that one for now), and causing the death of thousands of people, many of whom were Iraqi civilians? It would seem, at times, to me, that some people only see value in life as it resides in the womb or in the form of a stem cell, but in the world it is somehow less precious.
The ACLU strives to protect the liberties of all people (perhaps, at times to a fault), but, Churches strive to destroy the liberties of thoes who disagree with their values. Big difference.
Religious values played a paramount role in this election, do you disagree?
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
I believe these quotes to be relivent in this time, when the Neo Conservatives (unlike our founding fathers) have joined with the Christian Coalition in an effort to take control of this country, allowing little room, if any, for the questioning of their authority, because they believe it to be ordained by God himself.
Does this not strike you as dangerous? Because if it doesn't there are others that believe similarly, and I assure you they are dangerous.
It is my hope that the rest of our nation, the ones with that extra synapse that tells you Bush is an utter disaster, doesn't lay down without posing some good questions (should any church that decided to get involved with the elcetion process loose their tax exempt status?); Should the encouragement of church involvement by the Bush campaign be challenged as unconstitutional? Is it true that it is only in the past two elections that exit polls are suddenly wholey inacurate? Shouldn't this be subject to some kind of scientific scrutiny?
Oh, and shouldn't we condsider impeaching a president who contradicts intelligence about alluminum pipes in order to justify an unjustifialble war- blatantly lieing to congress and the American people? Didn't the Republicans take our previous democratic president to court under a much less greivous offence? Isn't it time to take the gloves off and start fighting dirty with the rest of them? Do we have a chance if we don't?
Slashdot Mirror
I learned from Frontline (Great news program on public broadcasting) that Saddam was not complying with the UN, and that Rumsfeld and Wolfawitz really had it out for the guy. I never thought the issue should have been swept under the rug nor dealt with. I do, however, think the timing and the manner in which Saddam was dealt with was poor, to say the least.
Bin Laden, the terrorist behind the 9/11 attacks, should have been our primary focus, if counter-terrorism was our true mission. He is now laughing at us, and can you blame him?
I simply do not believe that we are doing the right thing by this war. In spite of Saddam's atrocities, there are certain "rules of engagement". By Saddam not attacking any nation or posing any eminent threat to us (which has pretty much been proven), we set a new precedence for war by attacking Iraq. It could very well come back to haunt us (as well our dismissal of the Geneva Conventions will come back to haunt us). It was hasty and I have to question the motives behind it.
I am not without compassion. There are numerous dictators around the world that do not share our values- it's the nature of the beast. But, is it not incredibly arrogant to think America should be the ultimate savior? Maybe the people don't want to be saved, maybe we CAN'T save them. And what of all civilians that have been killed- how did we "save" them or their families? There are are a plethora of atrocities being commited around the world and numerous UN sanctions being ignored. Why don't we invade them too? Or, more appropriately, why did we REALLY invade Iraq? Because we should know what our soldiers are dieing for. If they told us the truth, maybe we would not have agreed. And maybe, that's why they lied.
Email from a friend:
Following is an interesting, and perhaps timely, quote by Mr. William Shakespeare [I guess some things will never change]:
Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword.
It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind... And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry.
Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know?
For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.
"Thoes who can not remember the past are doomed to repeat it."- George Santayana
The aluminum tubing they found in Iraq was only the most damning evidence they had for WMD, it turned out to be not so damning.
The latest PBS special: NOW with Bill Moyers was very revealing on the entire Iraqi snafu.
Richard Clark was the counter-terrorism czar through the last four daministrations, and he resigned because Bush Jr. wouldn't let him do his job.
I agree that he is not a baby-eater (at least not in public), but I still think he is dangerous.
I do believe we are very much on the same page here; my condolences in reference to todays news.
Ok, if paragrahps were my friend, they would show up when I put them in (HTML?) Hey, learn someth'n new everyday ;)
"Bush may be a disaster, but I've studied Kerry and I believe that he would be an utter and complete disaster." Bush has proven to be a disaster. Better a proven disaster than a "might be" disaster? Your studies must be incredibly insightful; why don't you post them? Especially the parts that persuaded you that he would be even more of an incompetent diplomat. "I believe that he believed what he said." What you beleive is wrong. It is understandable to not want to fathom the idea of a war based soley upon lies, but that is what you have. Investigators said that the tubes were inadiquate for gas centrifuges and they were intended for "traditional" weapons. This was revealed to the president before speaking to congress. Not to mention Richard Clark's statements on the entire matter- you must think that he IS the liar. "...anger at the previous president to be for his lying before congress, more than the act." So, lying to congress about a private affair is somehow worse than, say... lying to them and us in effort to engage in a war for (what was the reason? WMD? Nope. Links to Al Queda? Nope. Liberation of the Iraqis from tyranny? Oh, well I guess they'll use that one for now), and causing the death of thousands of people, many of whom were Iraqi civilians? It would seem, at times, to me, that some people only see value in life as it resides in the womb or in the form of a stem cell, but in the world it is somehow less precious. The ACLU strives to protect the liberties of all people (perhaps, at times to a fault), but, Churches strive to destroy the liberties of thoes who disagree with their values. Big difference. Religious values played a paramount role in this election, do you disagree? "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity." -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782. "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802 "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." -Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813. I believe these quotes to be relivent in this time, when the Neo Conservatives (unlike our founding fathers) have joined with the Christian Coalition in an effort to take control of this country, allowing little room, if any, for the questioning of their authority, because they believe it to be ordained by God himself. Does this not strike you as dangerous? Because if it doesn't there are others that believe similarly, and I assure you they are dangerous.
It is my hope that the rest of our nation, the ones with that extra synapse that tells you Bush is an utter disaster, doesn't lay down without posing some good questions (should any church that decided to get involved with the elcetion process loose their tax exempt status?); Should the encouragement of church involvement by the Bush campaign be challenged as unconstitutional? Is it true that it is only in the past two elections that exit polls are suddenly wholey inacurate? Shouldn't this be subject to some kind of scientific scrutiny? Oh, and shouldn't we condsider impeaching a president who contradicts intelligence about alluminum pipes in order to justify an unjustifialble war- blatantly lieing to congress and the American people? Didn't the Republicans take our previous democratic president to court under a much less greivous offence? Isn't it time to take the gloves off and start fighting dirty with the rest of them? Do we have a chance if we don't?