It is amusing that, although I am personally and professionally conservative (my wife would put it, "..a tightwad Boy Scout"), for purposes of this forum, I am 'liberal'.
Well. Liberal in the tradition of Jefferson? Sure. Locke? Yes.
Liberal in the fact I am not a 'dittohead'? You better believe it.
Liberal in the Limbaughian world of weak-kneed pacifism, where mama government meets all needs? NO!
Unfortunately, the Limbaugh/Cheney world would have you believe there are only two options. For 'us', and hence, for Iraq, or against 'us', and hence French-speaking appeasers.
Anyone old enough to vote knows the world is not that simple (perhaps with Bush's wattage, two options are all he CAN entertain).
I am all for getting after bin Laden - I'd snatch his ass up if he were sipping high tea with the queen of England, and frog-march him to the gallows. I am all for rolling up al Qaeda, and its cousins. I would consider the latest brand of jihad terrorism to justify 'hot pursuit'.
Al Qaeda is not confined to, or by, nation-states, although nation-states, notably Saudi Arabia (who's sons also manned the hijacked airliners) have aided and abetted them.
If we nuked Iraq, to let God, or Allah sort them out, we would not have contained or destroyed al Qaeda. We would not be less likely to suffer further terrorist attacks.
Defeating al Qaeda will take more patience, a more realistic world view, and a nuance we have not seen, as of yet. It will also take an ability to meld dissimiliar interests, as Bush I did in the Gulf War, a skill in which Bush II is lacking.
In the meanwhile, I pray for and support our troops, especially my cousin who's Guard unit is in country.
Shoot straight, and stay safe.
Well. Liberal in the tradition of Jefferson? Sure. Locke? Yes.
Liberal in the fact I am not a 'dittohead'? You better believe it.
Liberal in the Limbaughian world of weak-kneed pacifism, where mama government meets all needs? NO!
Unfortunately, the Limbaugh/Cheney world would have you believe there are only two options. For 'us', and hence, for Iraq, or against 'us', and hence French-speaking appeasers.
Anyone old enough to vote knows the world is not that simple (perhaps with Bush's wattage, two options are all he CAN entertain).
I am all for getting after bin Laden - I'd snatch his ass up if he were sipping high tea with the queen of England, and frog-march him to the gallows. I am all for rolling up al Qaeda, and its cousins. I would consider the latest brand of jihad terrorism to justify 'hot pursuit'.
Al Qaeda is not confined to, or by, nation-states, although nation-states, notably Saudi Arabia (who's sons also manned the hijacked airliners) have aided and abetted them.
If we nuked Iraq, to let God, or Allah sort them out, we would not have contained or destroyed al Qaeda. We would not be less likely to suffer further terrorist attacks.
Defeating al Qaeda will take more patience, a more realistic world view, and a nuance we have not seen, as of yet. It will also take an ability to meld dissimiliar interests, as Bush I did in the Gulf War, a skill in which Bush II is lacking.
In the meanwhile, I pray for and support our troops, especially my cousin who's Guard unit is in country.
Shoot straight, and stay safe.
:angry:
