Won't get fooled again The war bill soars, while public confidence sinks - now Bush needs the UN more than ever Simon Tisdall Wednesday July 23, 2003 Iraq is providing the Bush administration with some hard and necessary lessons. One home truth is that frightening the voters only works for a while. George Bush & Co put a great deal of effort into persuading Americans that Saddam Hussein posed a direct threat to home, high school, family SUV and, generally, to the American way of life. Lest we forget, Bush claimed at one point that unmanned aerial vehicles could menace US cities with biological or chemical weapons. Dick Cheney went bigger than big on the supposed Iraqi nuclear threat. Bush adopted the notorious Blair-Campbell "45 minutes to Armageddon" one-liner, as well as the exotic Niger yellowcake fairytale. Yet nearly two years after 9/11; after two all-out wars; after a deal of extra-judicial killing and illegal incarceration; after attorney-general John Ashcroft's faith-led subversion of the US constitution; and three months after Saddam joined Osama bin Laden and the Taliban's Mullah Omar in the displaced-but-not-deleted category - do Americans really feel any safer? Many voters must wonder, with Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry, whether increased resources for airline and border security, police, firefighters and a more effective FBI might not be a better bet than spending $3.9bn a month on occupying a country that does not want to be occupied. That total does not include the Afghan quagmire - or the human and political cost of daily US casualties. Another White House contender, Dick Gephardt, says a "macho" Bush has left the US "less safe and less secure". Even Bush's most obliviously hawkish officials have given up claiming that toppling Saddam has somehow reduced the al-Qaida threat. It is still out there - and may be intensifying. A long-obstructed congressional report into 9/11 due this week identifies a startling string of prior intelligence failures. It suggests a Saudi government link with the hijackers, criticises the Pentagon and CIA and implies that the FBI "doesn't have a clue about terrorism", according to a Newsweek report. But what remains in serious doubt is whether Bush has taken effective steps to ensure that what were systemic, not simply one-off failures, do not reoccur. The Riyadh bombing in May, the current Taliban/al-Qaida resurgence in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and this week's Saudi anti-terror purges show how serious the threat still is. "New instability in Afghanistan and the continued spread of jihadist ideology mean that the prospects for another September 11 are growing," security analysts Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon commented in the New York Times this week. "America ... still lacks a comprehensive programme to deal with a growing global insurgency." If al-Qaida were successfully to mount another large-scale attack within the US, where would that leave Bush? Victimising Iran, Syria or North Korea or some other hapless "rogue" would not save his political skin a second time around. Rather, Bush would be left looking like a blusterer who put the frighteners on his own people but failed in his primary duty to protect. Veteran pollster Stanley Greenberg told the Los Angeles Times this week that confidence in Bush's conduct of his "war on terror" is slipping. "There is an erosion of trust ... I think this is already adding up to something quite big." Maybe it is Bush who should be frightened now. His and Cheney's ever-ready willingness to scare the children and drape themselves in the flag may not be enough for voters in a 2004 election focused on largely economic issues. The enormous cost of Iraq, put at $50bn and rising, is feeding into broader worries about Bush's overall economic competence. This is the man, remember, who has forced through a $350bn tax cut for the rich amid increased unemployment, state spending cuts and record deficits. Bush is launching a month-long "economic recovery" speaking campaign this week. He may be realising belatedly that people's day-to-day economic security is at least as important to them as state security. Another Iraq lesson, to paraphrase a more eminent Republican president, is that you can fool some people indefinitely, but not all the people all the time. Senate Republicans irresponsibly blocked a proposal last week for an investigation into administration handling, or mishandling, of pre-war intelligence. But that will not quell the growing clamour, echoing the uproar in Britain, that much of what the American public was told about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was sexed up, blown up or just plain made up. This is not merely a question of imaginary, anthrax-armed Scuds. It is a fundamental question of truth and integrity in governance. The defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said last winter that the US had "bullet-proof evidence" of an al-Qaida/ Saddam connection. Even by blowhard Don's dodgy standards, this whopper was truly epic. Not a scintilla of proof has been found, nor is it likely to be now. Rumsfeld also bears responsibility for the chronic post-war planning fiasco that has led to avoidable large-scale destruction, bureaucratic chaos, the alienation of ordinary Iraqis and now to an ongoing guerrilla war. He continues to insist that Iraq is a success story. He must think Americans are stupid. Many now suspect that Bush privately decided to attack Iraq in spring-summer 2002, and then spent six months telling Americans (and gullible or complicit allies such as Tony Blair) that war was not inevitable - when it was. If true, that would be the biggest lie of all. Voters like being taken for suckers even less than they like incompetence at the top. A recent Washington Post/ABC poll found that 50% now believe Bush exaggerated the WMD evidence. Only 55% (and falling) still think the war was worth it. A CBS poll suggested a majority would deem the war wrong if the WMD claims were unfounded. These figures imply a big turnaround. They indicate that an indefinite Iraq occupation will be increasingly unpopular; they may spell big trouble in next year's hustings. Democrat Joe Biden gives the Bushies 90 days to get on top of things in Iraq."We're not gods," America's greatest living genius, deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz said plaintively in Mosul this week. Actually, nobody dreamed they were. The mortal question is, are they honest? A broader lesson comes directly from Iraq itself. It concerns the limitations of military power. Nobody but a few batty Ba'athists seriously doubted that the US could win its victory. But many warned that the US by itself, even with plucky Britain at its side, could not win the peace. As it haemorrhages men and money, Bush is beginning to grasp that the US needs the much-abused UN - badly. It needs a new UN mandate authorising countries to send peacekeeping troops to help pull Bush out of his hole. The UN's guidance is also needed to help Iraqis take charge of constitutional, electoral and judicial reform. With Iraqi oil revenues coming nowhere close to reconstruction requirements, the US needs UN authority to attract foreign funds - or else those funds may never come. And if Bush (and Blair) are ever to escape the WMD miasma, they must allow the UN inspectors back. Only their independent verdict will suffice. For Bush, Iraq's lessons are becoming clear - if he has the sense to see them. The world community works together - or it doesn't work. And the American people don't like being taken for mugs.
Bush Campaign Manager Warns of Drop Saturday July 26, 2003 1:59 PM NEW YORK (AP) - President Bush's solid poll ratings will drop, his re-election campaign manager says, warning Republican activists against complacency in the 2004 race. ``These numbers will come down. We must prepare for an election every bit as close as the 2000 election,'' Ken Mehlman said in remarks prepared for delivery Saturday to Republican National Committee members. Mehlman's speech closed out a four-day RNC meeting punctuated by worries that Bush's political stature has been hurt by the ailing economy, the death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq and questions about the administration's use of shaky intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq. Mehlman promised more jobs for America and, in keeping with the meeting's theme, lambasted Democrats seeking to replace Bush in the White House. ``Some criticize this war on terror as unilateral or pre-emptive. But didn't September 11 teach us that we cannot wait while threats gather? That we must connect the dots, even if other nations refuse to see the pattern? That pre-empting terrorists before they acquire weapons of mass destruction, before they come to our shores, before they can harm America is the goal?'' Mehlman said. The bulk of his address was devoted to his argument that 2004 is destined to be a close election. The Bush campaign repeatedly makes this point, both to energize GOP activists and to minimize political fallout if his job approval rating declines. ``This will not be easy,'' Mehlman said. ``The last three presidential elections were close for a reason: The country is very competitive politically. ``
here's a poll for you 100% of people named Rachel Lucas think that one in three Germans under the age of 30 are complete and total wankers. BERLIN, July 23 (Reuters) - Almost one in three Germans below the age of 30 believes the U.S. government may have sponsored the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, according to a poll published on Wednesday. And about 20 percent of Germans in all age groups hold this view, a survey of 1,000 people conducted for the weekly Die Zeit said. Well it seems that about 20% of Germans in all age groups are morons, too. And it reminds me of something that's always pissed me off - you know how Europeans like to be really arrogant and pretentious, and to accuse Americans of not knowing enough about other nations or the world in general? How they like to say that we don't travel enough and aren't considerate enough of other cultures? Well, ya know what? BITE ME. How many of those asshatted Germans who think the U.S. government sponsored the 9/11 attacks have ever been to America? Seriously, how many? How many Germans under the age of 30 have ever been anywhere other than their little corner of Europe, maybe including France and the Netherlands et al, which are inconsequentially different from Germany itself? And the reason I ask is because if they've never been here, if they have no concept whatsoever of what American culture is really like, what our society is really like, then they don't know a goddamn thing about 9/11. They obviously can't wrap their brains around the concept of transparency - you can get away with certain things in America, but you can't get away with much. Especially if you're a politician - everyone watches everyone else, everyone's out to get everyone else, and that creates an environment where it would be impossible to keep the kind of secrets that would be necessary to hide something like the federal government's sponsorship of 9/11. What those grandchildren of Nazis Germans apparently can't comprehend is that if there was anything at all that Democrats could do to utterly destroy George W. Bush, they'd do it with pure hysterical glee. Dubya can't even put on a flight suit without liberal journalists accusing him of trying to enhance his crotch so as to gain votes, fer Crissakes. Yeah, the CIA dropped the ball. There was a failure of intelligence, and the bureaucracy that is the federal government is not to be trusted to do things right or well. That's a far cry from "sponsoring" the attacks, and the fact that one-third of fascist spawn under-30 Germans believe it possible that Americans themselves wouldn't have already figured it out if the gummint had something to do with 9/11 proves only that those Germans don't have the first goddamn clue about how we do things over here. It demonstrates a spectacular lack of understanding about our culture and our society, which is apparently fine with everyone involved. And I'm so sick of it, I could just puke. I'm sick of being told that until I travel the world, I won't know anything, but it doesn't even occur to Europeans to apply the same standard to themselves. My East German professor actually told us last semester that most young Germans have never even been to Britain, let alone America, and that they get their impression of American culture from goddamn "Baywatch." And they have the balls to accuse us of having a limited worldview? And I'm sick of hearing about how the whole world "hates" America, how Europeans think we're "cowboys", how whoever thinks whatever and it always involves us being wrong and them being right - and all the while, there's this ridiculous taboo against someone like me saying something shitty about them. Screw that. Let's start doing polls about how Americans feel about other nations and other people. Ask me what I think about Europeans and their crappy sissy attitude about self-defense. Ask me if I fear another fascist empire on the European continent that my children or grandchildren will be asked to fight against. Ask me if I'm pissed off and resentful that for generations, American taxpayers have been funding the defense of European nations who've now turned against us in a fit of pretentious pique and jealous hatred. I'll wait with bated breath for anyone outside of America to give a flying rat's ass about what Americans think of them. Until then, I'll continue to not give a damn what Hans F. Schtuffenschitter thinks. Posted by Rachel at 01:21 PM Category: Terror-like stuff __________________________________________
Umfrage Blackbox WeiÃes Haus Je komplizierter die Weltlage, desto fester glauben die Deutschen an Verschwörungstheorien Von Jochen Bittner http://www.zeit.de/2003/31/Umfrage Findings on Saudis Blacked Out From correspondents in Washington Agence France-Presse Friday 25 July 2003 THE US Congress probe into the September 11 attacks may have prompted more questions than it answered when 28 pages on a possible role by Saudi Arabia were blacked out by the Bush administration. The revelation has sparked the indignation of the victims' families. For reasons of national security, the White House blacked out the entire section of the report entitled "Finding, discussion and narrative regarding certain sensitive national security matters." "In a 900-page report, 28 blanked-out pages are being used by some to malign our country and our people," Saudi Ambassador to the United States Prince Bandar bin Sultan said in a statement. "Saudi Arabia has nothing to hide. We can deal with questions in public, but we cannot respond to blank pages." AFP was able to confirm through various sources close to the investigation that the top-secret pages are for the most part about the Saudi policy of supporting fundamentalism in the absence of repressing al-Qaeda's terror network despite US alerts to Riyadh since 1996. The report confirms press revelations suggesting that Omar al-Bayoumi, an associate of two of the hijackers, could have been a Saudi government agent. The report details his ties with September 11 suicide attackers Khaled al-Mihdar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. In January 2000, al-Bayoumi entered the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles and upon leaving, he headed directly to a restaurant where he met with the two future attackers, a meeting one FBI agent said "may not have been accidental." The two men had just arrived from Malaysia, where they had participated in a meeting with al-Qaeda officials under surveillance of Malaysian officials at the behest of the CIA. Al-Bayoumi then helped the men rent an apartment in San Diego, paying the first month's rent and the security deposit. The news weekly US News and World Report reported in November that the owner of the apartment was an FBI informant, a leader of the Muslim community in San Diego, Abdussatar Shaikh, 68. The FBI refused to allow the commission to question him, according to the report. The congressional report said: "(Since September 11) the FBI has learned that al-Bayoumi has connections to terrorist elements." "Despite the fact that he was a student, al-Bayoumi had access to seemingly unlimited funding from Saudi Arabia. "For example, an FBI source identified al-Bayoumi as the person who delivered 400,000 dollars from Saudi Arabia for the Kurdish mosque in San Diego. "One of the FBI's best sources in San Diego informed the FBI that he thought that al-Bayoumi must be an intelligence officer for Saudi Arabia or another foreign power." "The report shows the significant role played by Saudi government agents in the preparations (for the attacks) which benefited from the royal financial generosity," said Jean-Charles Brisard, attorney for the victim's families. "It would be inconceivable for the US government to refuse the victims' families the right to the whole and complete truth," he said. Many in Congress feel sure that in the end, the blacked-out part of the report will be made public. http://democrats.com/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=911
(from Betrayal or Strategy? Is Bush regressing toward Oslo or advancing on the Elon road, ultimatly? This is the question that Barbara Lerner poses in NRO. Truly breathtaking. Last Stop on the Oslo Road? Deciphering W.âs vision. By Barbara Lerner via http://israpundit.com/archives/001847.html#more) [Bush] gave the U.N. a last chance to choose between defeating Saddam Hussein's terror state or continuing to appease it. He did it because a democratic leader cannot simply tell his countrymen that widely believed fantasies are just that. He has to show them. THE U.N.'S CHANCE When Dubya went to the U.N. on September 12, 2002 to ask "the international community" to back us in taking military action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, most Americans already understood that this tyrant was a threat, not just to his neighbors, but to us. They didn't know if he'd have nukes in a day or a decade, didn't remember who, exactly, he'd attacked in the past. Kuwait or Qatar, Iran, or Afghanistan, the Kurds, or the Copts â all that was pretty much a blur to many Americans, but the bottom line was clear. Ordinary Americans saw that Saddam Hussein was a reckless aggressor who had already used poison gas, and was working hard to add to his arsenal of WMDs. They saw, too, that he celebrated and sponsored terrorists. They wanted President Bush to send in the troops to take him down, but they wanted him to get the U.N.'s blessing first. Ordinary Americans wanted the U.N.'s blessing because back in September 2002, they still saw the building on the East River through a fantasy haze. The reality of the U.N.'s actions in Srebrenica, Rwanda, and other horror sites was largely invisible to them. They had felt no stake in those places, and paid too little attention to understand the ugly role the U.N. played. They didn't see that the U.N. had become a profoundly corrupt marketplace â a bazaar where all-hat-and-no-cattle, old-Europe types strut about, making deals with third-world dictators to appease terrorists, humble "the hyperpower," and reap lavish profits from the world's misfortunes. They thought that the U.N. had something to do with justice, that Kofi Annan was a humanitarian, that the French and the Belgians were our friends, and that we needed the U.N.'s blessing to give our actions moral legitimacy. Dubya had to blow away the fantasy haze and make America see the U.N. as it is, and he did. He went to the U.N. and issued a ringing challenge: Don't let the threat to America and the world that Saddam Hussein's Iraq poses continue to fester and grow. Back us in bringing it to an end. And then he waited and waited and waited some more, allowing a full six months to pass while U.N. types ran through their routines â strutting and preening, dodging and dealing, and gleefully dissing us. As he often says, "I'm a patient man." But the American people paid attention to the real U.N. this time â they had a felt stake in the outcome â and they hated what they saw. When their illusions were stripped away and their patience was exhausted, Dubya went to war. He still didn't have the backing of the U.N., but he had what he needed: strong support for necessary military action from an American public that understood, at last, that there is no "international community," only friendly nations and hostile ones, and that the U.N. is dominated by the latter. ... Was he lying then, when he went to the U.N., knowing it would take a miracle for it to back us? I don't think so. Dubya is a man of faith; he believes in miracles, but he doesn't count on them. He gave the U.N. a real choice, but he had a Plan B â the Coalition of the Willing â ready to roll. That's not lying; it's leadership...
Full list of coalition countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan. Source: US State Department A Coalition of the Willing? by Dru Oja JAY Wednesday, 19 February 2003 From the Washington Post: France and Germany lead European opposition to a speedy attack. But Britain, Italy, Spain, Denmark and Portugal, as well as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, have firmly backed the U.S. position. On Wednesday, 10 more European governments, in the former communist east, jointly declared support for Washington. They were Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. A quick scan of opinion polls reveals that, while governments are supporting the US, the people are solidly opposed to unilateral and even UN action in all but a few countries. This can be explained by diplomatic pressure which has, for now, had a greater influence on policy that widespread domestic opposition to military action. Britain: 86% say give weapons inspectors more time, 34% think that US and Britain have made a convincing case for invasion. » Spain: 80% opposed to war, 91% against attack without UN resolution » Italy: 72% opposed to war » Portugal: 65% say there is no reason to attack now » Hungary: 82% opposed to invasion under any circumstances » Czech Republic: 67% opposed to invasion under any circumstances » Poland: 63% against sending Polish troops, 52% support US "politically" » Denmark: 79% oppose war without U.N. mandate » Australia: 56 per cent only backed UN-sanctioned action, 12% support unilateral action. 76% oppose participation in a US-led war on Iraq. Australian Senate voted 33-31 to censure Howard for committing 2,000 soldiers to US action. » The "Vilnius 10" is a group of 9 countries that are seeking membership in NATO and Croatia. In many cases, their future security depends on NATO membership. In Estonia, for example, there is a tangible fear that Russia will take over again, given a militaristic enough government and the right opportunity (the--thankfully past--popularity of the fascist Vladimir Zhirinovsky was a good indication of this possibility. Zhirinovsky had a map in his office showing the borders of Russia expanded to include the former Soviet Union and Alaska). In any case, it's doubtful that these governments are supporting the US for any other reason than to get diplomatic points (or conversely, not piss away their chances of NATO membership). Taking Estonia as an example again, we find that the government has supported war without any debate in Parliament, despite 70% of the people and major newspapers opposed to war in Iraq. When a group of young Estonian activists tried to organize a march, they were threatened with arrest and the possibility of never being able to obtain a US visa. The diplomatic pressure against countries has no doubt been no less intense, given that the US has the economic clout to make or break many individual members of "new Europe". Latvia: 74% oppose taking out Hussein with military force » Romania: 38% opposed, 45% in favour » Macedonia: 10% support war on Iraq » Bulgaria: 21% support war » Estonia: 30% support war » Slovakia: 60% oppose sending Slovak soldiers » Information for Albania, Croatia, Slovenia and Lithuania was immediately available via Google news, but according to this report, Romania is the only country in the "Vilnius 10" that has a majority of the population supporting the war. For comparison purposes: France: 76% against war without UN support » Germany: 55% against war with UN support, 90% against war without UN support. 57% hold the opinion that "the United States is a nation of warmongers". » The Gallup International survey, upon which many of the figures cited above are based, also found that of the 41 countries surveyed, "half of [the] population is not in favour of military action under any circumstances." Also, one in five Americans were found to be "against military action under any circumstances." Notably, the poll also found that people worldwide are more worried about the "gap between the rich and poor" more than any other issue, including terrorism.
In 1937, a Gallup Poll revealed that 94 percent of the respondents favored containment in dealing with Hitler. In fact, there was a movement to require declarations of war be taken out of the hands of Congress and put up for popular vote. Howard Owens ____________________________________________________
Is America Better Off Being Feared Or Loved? By John Hawkins "From this arises an argument: whether it is better to be loved than feared. I reply that one should like to be both one and the other; but since it is difficult to join them together, it is much safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two must be lacking." â Niccolo Machiavelli in his book "The Prince." However counterintuitive it may seem, Machiavelli's timeless advice is just as applicable today as it was almost 5 centuries ago when he wrote it. One only has to look at the situation the United States faces today to see the futility of trying to make nations âloveâ us. Consider Kuwait. In 1990 they were invaded by Iraq, their country was looted and pillaged, and would have been destined to be a colony of Iraq for the foreseeable futureâ¦except for the United States. We led a coalition that liberated Kuwait during the Gulf War. So does Kuwait âlove usâ? No, in fact they don´t. Publicly they´ve said that they don´t support an American invasion of Iraq. What about our long time âfriendsâ in Saudi Arabia? They were next on Saddam Hussein´s agenda after Kuwait and our attack on Iraq saved Saudi Arabia as surely as it did Kuwait. Furthermore, we´ve had troops in Saudi Arabia for over a decade now to protect them from Saddam´s armies. So do they âlove usâ? Not in any way, shape or form. They´ve been loudly, publicly, uncooperative with the US and they´ve said they don´t support a US attack on Iraq either. What about nations in the Middle East that get massive amounts of aid from us like Egypt and Jordan? They don´t support us. What about our Western allies in Europe who we saved in WW2, rebuilt with the Marshall plan, and then protected from the Soviets for almost 5 decades? Other than Britain, they have as of yet declined to support moving the war beyond Afghanistan. And what of Afghanistan? We funneled billions in aid to Afghanistan in the 80s and without our help, the Soviet Union would have swallowed them whole. Furthermore, before September 11th they were the top recipients of US humanitarian assistance despite our very public differences with them on human rights and terrorism. I think everyone knows how they repaid us for that. So how can it be that all these nations that should have cause to âlove usâ have no desire to help us beyond the absolute minimum they think they can get away with? Machiavelli had an answer for that as well⦠âOne can make this generalization about men: they are ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well, they are yours. They would shed their blood for you, risk their property, their lives, their children, so long, as I said above, as danger is remote; but when you are in danger they turn against youâ It´s one thing to have a super power at your back if you run into trouble and it´s quite another for that super power to ask your nation to put it´s men and treasure at risk in foreign lands. Few of our âalliesâ even want to give us diplomatic support for expanding the war out of fear that it may make them targets of terrorist attacks. So âloveâ promises us very little beyond Afghanistan. But what of âfearâ? First of all, we can make a case that Bin Laden orchestrated 9/11 because he thought we were a paper tiger, in effect because he didn´t âfearâus enough. Of course, it´s easy to see how he came to that conclusion. We pulled out of Lebanon in 1983 and Somalia in 1993 after taking casualties and our responses to terrorism in the last two decades were flaccid, weak, and ultimately ineffective other than Reagan´s vicious bombing of Libya in 1986. But our reaction to 9/11 and America´s invasion of Afghanistan has proved that we are still a power to be feared. What has that done for us? Yemen, Sudan, and Pakistan have made great strides against terrorism. Cuba has signed numerous anti-terrorism treaties since 9/11. Libya has denounced terrorism and biological weapons. Even our old adversaries in Somalia have been very cooperative. But these nations have no âloveâ for the United States so why are they helping? It´s because they âfearâ meeting the same fate as the Taliban. Even most of our supposed âalliesâ from this point on will be more likely to cooperate with us out of âfearâ than âlove.â The leaders of Europe surely know that âtroublingâ questions will be raised in America if they don´t support us after Afghanistan. For example, what´s the point of NATO if we can´t even get lip service from Europe in a crisis? How much money could we save if we brought our troops home from Europe and closed our bases there? If Europe proves that they aren´t truly behind America, should we start viewing them as potential rivals instead of allies? Those are questions that Europe should âfearâ America asking and if most of Europe decides to cooperate, it will be because of those âfearsâ rather than because of any âloveâ they have for the United States. We may also hope that Syria, Lebanon, the occupied territories and North Korea will give in to fear rather than fight us. Of course, they´re not afraid âyet.â But after Iraq and Iran fall, it will very likely be a completely different story. âFearâ even holds greater promise for us in the future after the main military portion of the war on terrorism is over. After all, what leader in the Middle East wants an enraged super power considering the best way to cause a regime change in their nation? So ideally they´ll prefer eradicating the terrorists in their own countries to facing the United States in the future. So we´ve looked at what âloveâ and what âfearâ can do for us. That leads us to a final piece of wisdom from Machiavelli⦠âOne should never allow chaos to develop in order to avoid going to war, because one does not avoid a war but instead puts it off to his disadvantage.â For the last 20 years we have allowed nations across the world to build terrorist networks largely unchecked except for some ineffective sanctions and a bit of finger wagging. In a world where rogue nations are developing weapons of mass destruction and are cultivating relationships with global terrorist organizations that can be used as human delivery systems, we can no longer afford to stick our heads in the sand. The only sane choice is to stop them, militarily if necessary. Pursuing this course of action is going to mean vociferous, shrill, and unending condemnation of America at worst and a general dislike of America in many quarters of the world at best for as long as the fighting continues. As distasteful as that might be to many of us, it´s much more important right now to instill âfearâ in nations that seek to do us harm than to seek âloveâ and adulation that would eventually come at the price of countless American lives.
The United Nations building apparently needs an expensive refurbishing. I'm sure the staff, fromKoffi Annan on down, are rubbing their hands in glee at the prospects for graft and payoffs such a project will generate. Now that the oil for food boondoggle has dried up, they need something to replace it. I propose a different solution. In the words once used as a rallying cry by conservatives 40 years ago: "US out of the UN, UN out of the US." They want a new building? Let the French and Germans build it and pay for it and host the rabble that passes for international diplomats. Parking will be easier in Manhattan, and the only people to suffer will be expensive call girls and liquor stores.
To be clear, the President's poll numbers are essentially the same today as there were the day before Operation Iraqi Freedom commenced on March 17. Take the most recent Gallup poll conducted July 18-20th. According to Gallup, the President had a 59% job approval and a 38% disapproval rating. Right before the war began, Gallup showed the President's approval rating at 58% with a 38% disapproval - statistically, the same exact numbers. The same is true for the President's re-elect numbers. Gallup showed the President's re-elect at 46% last week and 45% in their March poll. Fox News' polling shows a similar trend. Their July 15-16 survey gave the President a 59% approval rating (32% disapproval). In a March 11-12th Fox poll, the President's job approval was 60% compared to a 32% disapproval rating - again, the same numbers. The President's re-elect in the July Fox poll was 42%. Fox's February poll also showed the President's re-elect at 42%. During this same period, Fox showed the Democrat's position weaken. Today Fox shows the generic Democrat garnering 31% of the vote compared to 38% back in February. RNC _________________________________________________