intimates

Plays Well With Others...

Official NaNoWriMo 2005 Winner
My Photo
Name:
Location: Dallas, Texas, United States
E-mail me at: longhorntwice -at- hotmail -dot- com... All writings and photographs on this blog are my work. Give credit where credit is due.
daily polaroid
singleton muses






more singletons



My Amazon.com Wish List
Site design by:
Bonafide Style


Feb 1, 2006

Presidential Rant
Last night, I turned the State of the Union on about 5 minutes late, and you know what the first thing I heard was? This:

On September 11, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country.

Dictatorships shelter terrorists, feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction.


The first sentence is fine. 7,000 miles away, you will find Afghanistan. A country that did shelter terrorists, because it was governed by a terrorist led movement. But the second sentence had me stomping around my house, yelling at the television. That sentence refers to Iraq. Afghanistan was not let by a dictator, so this could not be misconstrued. The dictator in question was Saddam. And while it is true he may have sympathized with terrorists wanting to harm the US, there has never been any proof that he sheltered them, fed resentment or radicalism (of the Taliban/Osama Bin Laden type--which was the cause of the first sentence) or sought weapons of mass distruction in recent years. Why must our present insist on trying to connect Iraq to 9/11? There is no connection. And before we started a war there, I would venture a strong educated guess that there were significantly fewer terrorists being sheltered there than there are now.

Dictators, while evil and potential problematic, are not the cause of 9/11. I am so tired of our president's insistance in connecting the dots between two separate puzzle book pages.



posted by Ty @ 2/01/2006
5 Comments:
At 12:12 AM, February 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed because it linked to malicious content. Learn more.

 
At 12:08 PM, February 02, 2006, Blogger Sack said...

I doubt that there are very many terrorists seeking shelter in Iraq as a result of US military action there. That wouldn't make much sense. I would think that a terrorist hiding from the US would want to be somewhere with as little US presence as possible.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who sympathizes with, supports, endorses or encourages terrorist action against the US deserves to die. The best way to deal with a threat is to eliminate it, along with anything that may make it stronger.

BTW, I can't wait to volunteer for the Hillary campaign. If she gets the Democratic nomination, the GOP is an absolute lock for another 4 years! =)

 
At 4:02 PM, February 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In response to the last guy who wrote, Iraq IS DEFINITELY a place that many of al-Qaeda are going. Even Pres. Bush says that. Terrorists dont seek shelter, they seek to fight.

The longer the war drags out, the more people in the Middle East get fed up with the US. Al-Qaeda hopes this will gain them more recruits (or at least swing elecions away from the US, as they have in Palestine, Iran and Egypt).

Also, and more importantly, they are learning combat tactics and making personal connections, just like they did against the USSR in Afghanistan during the 80's. The Soviet invasion in the 80's is where al-Qaeda began, bringing together many Jihadist groups from around the world to fight together. Iraq in this decade is where a new generation of al-Qaeda is coming of age.

Sach's own logic is crossed up. If they aren't in Iraq, as he claims, then why are we there? Why are our men and women dying if they aren't there.

The answer is that Bush thought he could democratise the Middle east and that would solve the terror problem. It hasnt worked out, any country that has had an election is even more hard line than it was before. On top of that, al-Qaeda wasnt in Iraq before we invaded, now they've come to fight and they want to bog us down for as long as they can.

Bush even says, "we'll fight them over there so we dont have to over here". But we can only ask, then what? After Iraq is over, they will not all be wiped out. Al-Qaeda wont just go home, they will move on to fight in other places (most of their home countries wont let them back anyhow), only now they will be better trained and have more recruits. After the Soviets left Afghanistan in 1989, al-Qaeda moved on to target the US, Bosnia, Chechnia and other places. They will do the same after Iraq is over.

Great job Bush, making us less safe from terror, as usual.
Rob

 
At 8:45 AM, February 03, 2006, Blogger Ty said...

Mkay, you two...simmer down...you two have actually MET...be nice...but debate away!

 
At 1:43 AM, February 17, 2006, Blogger Michael Manning said...

Politics aside, I spoke to an Air Force Surveillance Pilot who flew over Iraq and WMDS were everywhere. M-9 missles were being deposited into concrete silos, then covered with sand. The little discussed undergorund bunker that was the size of 3 football fields was empty and conventional wisdom says the WMD's were trucked to Syria. Apart from that, Saddam shelled Israel and was becoming a threat to the West. Even Joe Lieberman admits the mission is Just. The region was selected strategically from a Geo-Political point of view to begin a long-term demilitarization and democratization of the Middle East. The pilots I spoke with were refueling at the same Fixed Base Ops Center where I was deployed by NBC as a Helicopter Reporter. The threat of Iran and North Korea will certainly bring other affected countries to the fore and (hopefully) expedite a stability the Middle East never had. But millions are now free to choose their destiny. I am an Independent thinker and understand the concerns. I also understand what the Media is not reporting. THere is tangible progress, but much mis-information. Islamo-Fascism cannot be tolerated.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home