Is Joe Biden a Republican?
And we thought the Republicans were the imperialists, didn't we, BDS sufferers.
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." * Martin Luther King Jr. // * "There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." * George Orwell // Want to contact the Stubble Jumping Redneck? Shoot her an email @ email@example.com
"Iraq had chemical manufacturing plants. Iraq could produce WMDs easily. What the U.S. didn't want is cooperation between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Both of them were in competition for dominance in the Middle East, but both had in common the U.S., that they wanted out of the Middle East. And they had reciprical resources:
Iraq had chemical technology, real estate, and money, while al Qaeda had terror cells and Kamikazees. With the asymmetrical warfare demonstrated on 9/11, Saddam
realized that he didn't need his tanks and air force to attack the U.S.. He was no longer contained."
Labels: justification for Iraq war
"Our response (to 9/11) involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."I've added a little emphasis in bold for BDS sufferers who have fixated on only what they see on the soundbites delivered via their television sets. I wonder if BDS is a terminal illness. If it is, it may in due course be terminal for many more people than just those with the affliction. Perhaps those who suffer from it, like the alcoholic, recognize that withdrawal and recovery can be a horrific struggle which, if successful, means they have to develop a new way of reacting to the world. That new way includes giving up their fairytale beliefs that outside of the Republican party, there is no greater evil.
American opinion polls show that more than 60 per cent trust the US military to handle Iraq better than either Congress or the Bush Administration. Passionately as most Americans want an end to their engagement in Iraq, fewer than a quarter want to “get out now and damn the consequences”is encouraging news.
This is a political transformation of the first order, bigger than the man himself, and its significance is well understood in Baghdad. Outside Iraq, an antiwar industry has sprung up that cites the suffering of Iraqis to justify abandoning them. The man who became known as “the Flower of the Desert” died fighting that cynical false logic. His courage, and that of thousands of his followers, puts the Iraq debate in its proper perspective.Next, is this news: Iraq's top Shi'ite cleric meets Sunni leader.
Ahmadinejad rose, also to applause, and after quoting from the Koran said Bollinger's opening was "an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience." He accused Bollinger of giving in to the media and politicians.
The dean of Columbia Law School, David Schizer, has been expressing opposition to the decision to invite Ahmadinejad.
On Sunday, Schizer joined Jewish groups and others in criticizing the invitation.
"Although we believe in free and open debate at Columbia and should never suppress points of view, we are also committed to academic standards," Schizer said in a statement. "A high-quality academic discussion depends on intellectual honesty but, unfortunately, Mr. Ahmadinejad has proven himself, time and again, to be uninterested in whether his words are true."
"The principle here is very simple. Ahmadinejad is a thug like Al Capone. Columbia is, whatever else you may think it, a well-regarded institution of higher learning; a place which has generated it's fair share of Nobel Prize winners, etc.
When Al Capone speaks at Columbia, Al Capone always wins. Capone can provide no prestige for Columbia that Columbia doesn't already have. But Capone's association with Columbia, however slight, will always benefit Capone.
This is why, for example, Presidents shouldn't associate with known criminals, except in a diplomatic capacity. The former confers a legitimacy on the latter. It doesn't do the cause of virtue any good to say "the president of Columbia debated Al Capone". But Al Capone can always claim to his advantage, "I wunze debated the Presdunt of Columbine, you know that fancy school in New York?"