America's Role.

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

How much oil we use do you think comes out of the Middle East?

---

25%

Saw a late night political show. They even had a pie chart. I'll happily be proven wrong on this figure.

The point was it isn't the US that needs the oil but a lot of our friends and/or allies rely heavily on middle east oil.

Hate to disagree with you Lotharr or poke you with a stick but that's what I saw by a reputable news source.

by Dredd

quote:

---

(which makes no sense, especially since war HURTS oil prices and HURTS the economy,

---

It hurts the consumer certainly. The oil companies will do just fine.

[AWells]

quote:

---

quote:

---

How much oil we use do you think comes out of the Middle East?

---

25%

---

Correct, and North America is the second largest oil producing region, contributing about 12% of the world's oil... though we use about 30% of it.

[Lotharr]

Thanks for the amount....1/4 is still huge money....huge....if America grabs it I wonder who will reap the economic windfall....and wield that power over the economies of others....

[ 09-22-2002, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lotharr:

Anyway, I believe Saddam enjoys life. To think he would give away nukes if he ever got them is kinda silly...he needs them under his control..why would he give them away? That makes no sense..

---

It'd make him extremely popular with radical Islam to strike a blow against the West, or to help someone strike a blow against the West. Also, once he has them, what's to stop him from getting ICBMs and starting another Cold War? Not to mention he is NOT rational and if his power base was ever threatened by a rebellion, he would be faced with a use em or lose em scenario, in which case he would use em against US population centers.

Your also failing to recognize he is oppressing his own people. Regardless of the *PERCIEVED* intent of the attack, a few facts remain that justify an attack:

Saddam is:

1. Oppressing his people/Violating their rights/Has no problem killing them

2. Violating UN Resolutions/Agreements

3. Storing/devloping/has chemical and biological weapons

4. Anti-America

5. A totalitarian dictator

6. Irrational in terms of international actions

7. *WANTING* Nuclear Weapons

8. Supporting Radical Islamic causes (Israeli suicide bombers)

Saddam is probably:

1. Developing Nuclear Weapons

2. Supporting terrorism against the United States

I don't care if the administration is doing it because it'll help their oil or not. An invasion will STILL solve the above problems, and that's what we should care about.

quote:

---

Nukes work too well. If anyone were to use nukes on the oil it would most likely take enormous resources to get oil production going again...not cost effective....

---

Your making the assumption that Saddam is going to nuke his own oil if he gets WMDs. Great idea....really....why?

quote:

---

So if he gets them he can threaten to destroy those resources for everyone....a nightmare for big oil and ever economy that needs oil. That is the reason we are moving as strongly as we are.

---

Ok, he ruins the economy by destroying all the oil in the Middle East? (just destroying Iraq's isnt going to be THAT bad) Thanks for adding ANOTHER justification for attacking Iraq, keeping the global economy stable. (if it goes down, people starve and die, and empirically it causes war...remember that). You also fail to recognize that the OTHER Arab nations are going to decrease oil production in response to an attack, which is going to cancel out any gains from an attack (which I still doubt would even occur).

quote:

---

How much oil we use do you think comes out of the Middle East? I would bet almost all of it....or maybe it stabilizes the market so we don't have to pay exorbitant prices from other places....

---

So why are we going to get all of the other Arab nations mad at us by attacking Iraq, and get them to reduce their oil production?

quote:

---

So we turn Iraq into little America....problem solved...except for the thousands upon thousands of enemies we may have just made....

---

We're still doing the right thing by freeing the people from oppression. The only reason why we'd make enemies is because the existance of a *FREE* Iraq would threaten the stability of the surrounding *TOTALITARIAN* regimes which *OPPRESS* their people. If we make enemies like them and justifies us bringing their regimes down, so be it. There's never going to be a peaceful world when people still have no voice in their government and are kept oppressed by them.

quote:

---

State funded terrorism is mostly out of Iran that is a fact.

---

Then I bet they are pretty high on the list too. Iraq is closest to WMDs though, and that's why we're going after him first. It's been said Iran may speed up their programs when we attack Iraq, but if that happens, I bet we'll just march our troops into Iran.

quote:

---

War would only hurt in the short term. Full control of the area would let us act like...well...like the UK to America a few years ago....controling that area has some real power....

---

We aren't going to keep full control of the area. The public and the international community wouldn't allow it, and the US knows that keeping full control will just breed more terrorism. We're just going to go in take out his power base , and then get some sort of government like in Afghanistan, and leave. Colonialism will never work again, and it wouldn't be tried with Iraq, because any gains from Iraq's oil would be offset by decreased production by ALL THE OTHER ARAB NATIONS.

quote:

---

Anyone having WMD is bad....anyone...even this country....and especially Israel....they don't need it....but if they do why wouldnÔÇÖt everyone else want them also?!?

---

Ok, you think that it's UNFAIR that weapons that can be used to DESTROY THE WORLD aren't EVENLY DISTRIBUTED? Currently, all nations with nuclear weapons are committed to disarmament as stated in the NPT (non-proliferation treaty), and those without them are not allowed to build them or attempt to build/develop them. Attempting to gain them violated that, and risks a new cold war and the end of the world. Especially with a leader like Saddam who cares about nothing except his own power.

quote:

---

Anyone who violates international law needs to be held to account...anyone.

---

Who *really* makes international law? Who *enforces* international law? The country with the most power. Lets see, power is usually based on the ability to control life and death, and the country with the most power would be, oh, wow....THE UNITED STATES. International law only survives because the United States agrees to let it survive. At the point international law is replaced by liberal, non-committal, passivist BS when dealing with people like Saddam, the UN, and international law, are going bye-bye.

quote:

---

Of course international law needs to be defined fairly and equally by the free world.

---

Under that logic, if radical Islam spreads to more than 50% of the population of the world (which can easily be done by Islamic families increasing the rate of reproduction), then American women are going to start to be required by law to cover every inch of their bodies.

International law means nothing when there are so many cultural and religious divisions. Those honestly mean nothing though...the real problem is that international law means nothing when there are TOTALITARIAN REGIMES who refuse to follow it, and pacifist countries that refuse to act to remove those regimes. You say we need to play nice with everyone and be fair, always acting with what the majority thinks. I say we need to do what's right for the people of the world, even if it requires us being mean to do it and not having everyone's support.

Lets use an example to show the lunacy of your concept of international law:

International law option 1:

Decided on by majority vote of all countries in the world-

Thus, 75% of countries vote that the United States should export half of their existing cars to developing nations, United States has to do it or be in violation of international law. If US has the power to veto, then it defeats the purpose. If there are restrictions on what can be voted on, it destroys any sort of effectiveness.

Option 2:

Voted on by consensus of nations-

Nothing would ever get done. One country just needs to disagree.

INTERNATIONAL LAW DOESNT WORK WITHOUT A SUPERPOWER.

quote:

---

Until the world realizes a fuller sense of equality this crap will go on and on and on...while law is used by the wealthy to sustain and further its own ends any real democracy/self governance will not be fully realized...I am not saying capitalism is wrong....I just saying that money and politics do not mix with freedom and liberty. In any countryeven one that believes itself to be so pure.

---

I would agree with you, but you have the order mixed up. The lack of equality is NOT what is causing the problems in the world, at least not with terrorists. What's causing the problem is that the United States and Israel advocate FREEDOM for people, and SELF-GOVERNANCE. The TOTALITARIAN ISLAMIC REGIMES are THREATENED by their people HAVING A VOICE. Israel is a constant threat to them because of the concept of freedom, as is the United States. They hate us because we are contrary to their regimes, and the way they keep their people oppressed is by blaming the people's hardship on the United States, or attributing religious violations to the United States, while their governments are the ones making tons and tons of money. How do you think the Arab princes make all of their money while their people starve? Because the United States is "unfair"?

quote:

---

It hurts the consumer certainly. The oil companies will do just fine.

---

Yes, the oil companies will do just fine, probably better WITHOUT an Iraq invasion though, since then they don't need to worry about decreased oil production.

quote:

---

Thanks for the amount....1/4 is still huge money....huge....if America grabs it I wonder who will reap the economic windfall....and wield that power over the economies of others....

---

You talk about these concepts abstractly and without applying it to logical real world scenarios. "weild the power over the economies of others", "America grabs it", HOW DO YOU EXPECT ANY OF THIS TO HAPPEN? How would it be applied? What are you *TALKING ABOUT*?

America can't "grab the oil", and even if we could, we aren't going to, and would never have enough public support in America to do it.

We've BEEN getting oil from Iraq, what's the difference going to be if we invade? The people might produce more oil because they are free from totalitarianism? Well, that's a benefit, but it will benefit a lot more than just the US.

[Guest]

I can't believe that I have to go over this with an American military member.

quote:

---

War would only hurt in the short term. Full control of the area would let us act like...well...like the UK to America a few years ago....controling that area has some real power....

---

Like we have taken full control in Afghanistan? What? is afghanistan a colony of the US now Lothar, if so, when did that happen?

Afghanistan is now run by the interim government that soon will be replaced by an elected government, put there by the people.

The EXACT same thing will happen in Iraq, we do not want control, we want Saddam out of power.

Geez, do I really have to explain this to you?

quote:

---

Anyone having WMD is bad....anyone...even this country....and especially Israel....they don't need it....but if they do why wouldn’t everyone else want them also?!?

---

Give me a fricking break, anyone with WMD's is bad. THat is such a ridiculous statement that I am not sure whether to take the time to respond.

Israel has WMD's for DEFENSE, Israel has had them for quite a while, and has not used one once for anything.

THe US has WMD's and has not used them once, why, because we have not been attacked overwhelmingly, but it is a deterrence to most countries that if they try to use one on us, they will cease to exist.

Problem, this won't work with Iraq, why? because he has expansionist dreams, he does not want WMD's for defense, he wants them so that when he takes over other countries, others will be afraid to stop him because he might nuke them.

We use them for DEFENSE, Israel uses them for DEFENSE, Iraq and Saddam Insane would use them for OFFENSE in order to take over other countries.

That's right, it takes more then a million people dying in Iran from an Iraqi attack, and a gulf war where he took over Kuwait to convince you that he has expansionist dreams.

If Saddam has nukes, that is EXACTLY what he will do, he will A: either use them on major population centers in those countries he wishes to take over, or will use them as a threat to those that would defend those countries.

You are seeing the world with such a strange set of glasses, reality isn't even close to what you are seeing.

REALITY is a ***** dude, time for you to take a cold hard look at it.

[Guest $iLk]

After seeing Sadam's latest idiocies (again refusing inspectors), I'm with you Jag. Let's bomb the !#%@ers!

Kind of reminds me of the South Park Sadam...

"I'm not hiding any bombs... hey look over there!"

Relax Guy!

[Guest]

Hey Silk, where did you hear about Saddam refusing inspectors again? I'd like to read the article, as I can't seem to find it anywhere.

Thanks

[Guest]

He didn't refuse them, he has placed conditions on them. They cannot look at civilian facilities, so guess where the WMD's are?

Unconditional is what we want, and unconditional is what we will get, even if it is over Saddams dead body.

[Charles Lindsey]

Two or three days ago it was unconditional. Now he's changed his mind again? Geesh.

[Guest $iLk]

From what I've heard, these "Civilian Buildings" are really military facilities that house a few civilians as well.

[Charles Lindsey]

Well then they wouldn't be civilian would they?

Been trying to read the news but my work computer crashed the hard drive. I'm now using a win95 machine with IE 2.0. LOL! It can display Yahoo but the formatting is whacked. I can at least read the articles though.

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by $iLk:

From what I've heard, these "Civilian Buildings" are really military facilities that house a few civilians as well.

---

If what you say is true, Saddam must think everyone else is STUPID. It made him look guilty (although circumstantially), when he didn't let inspectors come back, but it is a somewhat fair concern (although still not strong enough to really refuse inspectors) that we could be spying. So, as a dictator of a totalitarian country, what's his objection to looking in CIVILIAN buildings? I *know* they don't have property rights over there in relation to the government, so what the **** is he trying to pull? It's OBVIOUS he's trying to hide something, I hope everyone can see that.

[Charles Lindsey]

Remember, O J is innocent.

[Guest $iLk]

Ann Coulter on the War on Terror:

Why we hate them:

quote:

---

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com

| I've been too busy fretting about "why they hate us" to follow the Democrats' latest objections to the war on terrorism. So it was nice to have Al Gore lay out their full traitorous case this week. To show we really mean business, Gore said we should not get sidetracked by a madman developing weapons of mass destruction who longs for our annihilation.

Rather, Gore thinks the U.S. military should spend the next 20 years sifting through rubble in Tora Bora until they produce Osama bin Laden's DNA. "I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task," he said, "simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted."

Al Bore wants to put the war on terrorism in a lockbox.

Gore also complained that Bush has made the "rest of the world" angry at us. Boo hoo hoo. He said foreigners are not worried about "what the terrorist networks are going to do, but about what we're going to do."

Good. They should be worried. They hate us? We hate them. Americans don't want to make Islamic fanatics love us. We want to make them die. There's nothing like horrendous physical pain to quell angry fanatics. So sorry they're angry -- wait until they see American anger. Japanese kamikaze pilots hated us once too. A couple of well-aimed nuclear weapons, and now they are gentle little lambs. That got their attention.

Stewing over the "profound and troubling change in the attitude of the German electorate toward the United States," Gore ruefully noted that the German-American relationship is in "a dire crisis." Alas, the Germans hate us.

That's not all. According to Gore, the British hate us, too. Gore said Prime Minister Tony Blair is getting into "what they describe as serious trouble with the British electorate" because of his alliance with the U.S. ("Serious trouble" is British for "serious trouble.")

That same night, James Carville -- the heart and soul of the Democratic Party -- read from the identical talking points on "Crossfire": "The Koreans hate us. Now the Germans -- you know that's one against Germany. You know what? You know what? If we had a foreign policy that tried to get people to like us, as opposed to irritating everybody in the damn world, it would be a lot better thing." (Hillary Clinton on James Carville: "Great human being.")

Perhaps we could get Djibouti to like us if we legalized clitorectomies for little girls. America is fighting for its survival and the Democrats are obsessing over why barbarians hate us.

The Democrats' scrolling series of objections to the war is utterly contradictory. On one hand, liberals say Bush is trying to build an "empire." But on the other hand, they are cross that we haven't turned Afghanistan into the 51st state yet. This follows their earlier argument that Afghanistan would be another Vietnam "quagmire."

The "empire" argument is wildly popular among the anti-American set. Maureen Dowd said Dick Cheney and "Rummy" were seeking "the perks of empire," hoping to install "lemon fizzes, cribbage and cricket by the Tower of Babel." She warned that invading Iraq would make them hate us: "How long can it be before the empire strikes back?"

Ah yes -- we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction because otherwise they might get mad and seek our destruction.

Gore, too, says America will only create more enemies if "what we represent to the world is an empire." But then he complained that we have "abandoned almost all of Afghanistan" -- rather than colonizing it, evidently. He seems to think it is our responsibility to "stabilize the nation of Afghanistan" and recommends that we "assemble a peacekeeping force large enough to pacify the countryside."

And then we bring in the lemon fizzes, cribbage and cricket?

After tiring themselves out all summer yapping about how Bush can't invade Iraq without first consulting Congress, now the Democrats are huffy that they might actually have to vote. On "Meet the Press" a few weeks ago, Sen. Hillary Clinton objected to having to vote on a war resolution before the November elections, saying, "I don't know that we want to put it in a political context."

Yes, it would be outrageous for politicians to have to inform the voters how they stand on important national security issues before an election.

Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said the Democrats would not have enough information to make an informed decision on Iraq -- until January. The war will have to take a back seat to urgent issues like prescription drugs and classroom size until then. The Democratic Party simply cannot rouse itself to battle.

Instead of obsessing over why angry primitives hate Americans, a more fruitful area for Democrats to examine might be why Americans are beginning to hate Democrats.

---

[Guest]

I love Anne Coulter, I correspond with her via E-mail, and she actually answers.

This lady is one class act!! And she gets to the truth, no matter how much it hurts!! LOL

[Lotharr]

quote:

---

Your making the assumption that Saddam is going to nuke his own oil if he gets WMDs. Great idea....really....why?

---

I refuse to believe you are that dense.

quote:

---

You are seeing the world with such a strange set of glasses, reality isn't even close to what you are seeing.

---

Listen up: From the National Energy Policy Development Group...also known as the Cheney Report....from the white house.

"

Increasing energy supplies while protecting the environment is the third

challenge. Even with successful conservation efforts, America will need more energy. Renewable and alternative fuels offer hope for AmericaÔÇÖs energy future. But they supply only a small fraction of present energy needs. The day they fulfill the bulk of our needs is still years away. Until that day comes, we must continue meeting the nationÔÇÖs energy requirements by the means available to us. Estimates indicate that over the next 20 years, U.S. oil consumption will increase by 33 percent, natural gas consumption by

well over 50 percent, and demand for electricity will rise by 45 percent. If AmericaÔÇÖs energy production grows at the same rate as it did in the 1990s we will face an ever-increasing gap.

Increases on this scale will require preparation and action today. Yet America has not been bringing on line the necessary supplies and infrastructure. Extraordinary advances in technology have transformed energy exploration and production. Yet we produce 39 percent less oil today than we did in 1970, leaving us ever more reliant on foreign suppliers. On our present course, America 20 years from now will import nearly two of every three barrels of oil . a condition of increased dependency on foreign powers that do not always have AmericaÔÇÖs interests at heart. Our increasing demand for natural gas . one of the cleanest forms of energy . far exceeds the current rate of production. We should reconsider any regulatory restrictions that do not take technological advances into account.

"

From International Energy Annual 2000 Report

World Reserves (in billions of barrels)

Asia 44.0

Africa 74.9

former USSR 58.9* (more I bet)

West Europe 17.4

North America 55.0

Cental + South America 94.5

Mid East 683.5

These are the real forces at work here.

Cheney's/Rummy's administration could care less about the humanitarian issues....plus they have no real evidence that Iraq is close to a bomb...Iran is probably closer.

Would it surprise anyone to know that all the people (more killers really) Cheney would install in New Iraq (the peoples republic of something) have vowed to cancel oil deals with any foreign powers that do not support America.no matter what we do.....imagine that....

Anyone who thinks that Saddam is actively supporting terrorists is just wrong. The reason Regan/Rummy set this loser up is because they knew he is an opportunist scum bag that is all about self preservation....he was an asset....that has now become obsolete.

This is about money for the policy makers and revenge for the patriots. Supported by the faithful crusaders and those that believe in the abstract notion of freedom.....but not necessarily in the Constitutional version of itand it stinks.

No one should have WMD.from the petty and evil dictatorial regime to the God inspired fundamental/militaristic "democratic" one.Hebrew or Christian.

Truth, law, due process, and fairplay.....this is what I value. This is my stance as a patriot.

[ 09-27-2002, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

[Guest]

quote:

---

Truth, law, due process, and fairplay.....this is what I value. This is my stance as a patriot.

---

Patriot to what?

The UN?

Sad Lothar, very sad....

[Lotharr]

Truth hurts....sorry.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Truth hurts....sorry.

---

So, the truth is that you loyalty lies to the UN and not the United States of America?

You took an oath to the Constitution of the United States

Not the UN Charter.

Time for you to figure out where your true loyalties lie. Because if you actually feel more loyal to the UN then you do the United States, then perhaps you should go and join another military, because you sure as hell do not belong in mine!!

I took that oath as well, but in my case. I MEANT it, and still do. I took that oath for life, not just for the duration of my contract or because it was convenient at the time.

Let me guess, you wanted that GI bill, the training it provided, you didn't actually think that you might be put in harms way. Well, soldier, that's the chance you take when you join the military, that we might actually go to war.

I hope that you don't have a security clearance, because I wouldn't want you handling classified materials, not with that attitude. Who knows whom you might pass it off to, because it was the "right thing to do".

[Lotharr]

Nope I'm a combatant....I just fight. No clearance required....and I'm an NCO. I take care of my soldiers and accomplish the mission.

I could care less what you think my views mean to you....because itÔÇÖs clear your just a trigger happy fascist while I'm still in the Guard and you just sit around and talk junk that your not even educated on.

[ 09-28-2002, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

[Guest]

LOL, poor Lothar.

You really haven't a clue do you?

That's too bad, well, as long as your loyalty lies with some world organization and not the US, then what am I supposed to think about you.

I am a constitutionalist, NOT a fascist.

Sorry Lothar, but calling me names is not going to keep me from calling you a little world socialist who should not be in any type of military in the US. Why? because you do not understand the constitution and would not believe in it if you did.

[Charles Lindsey]

Getting pretty thick in here.

Everyone hurling personal insults at each other is not the way to discuss something.

[Guest]

Charles, chill out.

Trying to teach this man a little about the constitution he took an oath to.

So far he is NOT getting it, but that's OK, he'll either come around or quit the argument.

Now, just to lighten things up a bit, here a new Steyn article.

You just gotta LOVE this guy!!

quote:

---

Mark Steyn: Those at the back cry 'Forward!'

The Sunday Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | 09/29/2002 | Mark Steyn

As I understand it, the British Labour Party is divided between those in favour of war with Iraq and those opposed to it. In the US Democratic Party, it's more complicated:.

Faction A is anti-war but trying hard not to have to say so between now and election day in November.

Faction B was pro-war when it was Bill Clinton in charge but anti-war now there's a Republican rallying the troops.

Faction C can go either way but huffily insists that to ask them to express an opinion would be to "politicise" the war.

Faction D can't quite figure which position alienates least of their supporters and so articulates a whole all-you-can-eat salad bar of conflicting positions and then, in a weird postmodern touch, ostentatiously agonises over the "inherent risks" in each of them.

Faction E thinks the priority right now should be to sit around holding inquiries into why the administration failed to act on what it knew about al-Qa'eda before they killed thousands of Americans. To act on what we know about Saddam before he kills thousands of Americans would be an unnecessary distraction from the important work of investigating why we didn't act last time round.

Taken as a whole, the 50 Democratic senators' current positions on Iraq forms the all-time record multiple-contortionist pretzel display. But a week ago they showed signs of finally remembering the First Rule of Holes: when you're in one, stop digging. Instead of talking about why they don't want to talk about Iraq, they correctly figured that the easiest thing would be to give Bush some qualified, perfunctory support and hastily change the subject to something more favourable, such as the allegedly collapsing economy.

But then Al Gore rose from the dead to demonstrate that his political antennae are still as reliable as a 1948 TV with busted rabbit ears. Senate Democrats emerged from their hole to find their 2004 presidential frontrunner had dug them a brand new one. Remember Al? The first Android-American to run for President? The first candidate to win the popular vote without being popular?

Al spent his riveting Gore '00 presidential campaign in a fruitless pursuit for "the real Al Gore", launching a brand new "real Al Gore" every couple of weeks. But, in fairness to the Democratic Party's very own weapon of mass self-destruction, throughout all his multiple personalities Gore has been consistently tough on Saddam, ever since he was one of the few Democratic Senators to vote for the first Gulf War 12 years ago.

Not any more, though. Last week, Al decided he's against a war with Iraq. Iraq, he argues, will distract us from Afghanistan. "Great nations," he intones, "do not jump from one unfinished task to another." Just so.

You'll remember that in the Second World War, after its early victories in the Pacific, the US wisely concentrated on nation-building in the Solomon Islands for five or 10 years instead of rushing on to liberate Europe. America, says Al, can't fight Iraq and mop up Afghanistan at the same time. We can walk. Or we can chew gum. But we shouldn't try to jump from walking to gum-chewing until we're certain we've completed our walk.

Poor Al: the smart bomb who's so smart and always bombs. With his usual brilliant instincts, he chose to discard his pro-war stance just as his party's senators were discarding their anti-war stance. Thus, the Democrats found themselves with the rare double problem of figuring out a way to spin both the obvious opportunism of their belated approval for the war and the obvious opportunism of Gore's belated opposition to it.

That's why a couple of days later the normally sober, soft-spoken, funereal Tom Daschle, the Democrats' leader in the Senate, had a meltdown on the floor of the chamber. For months, the calmly evasive Daschle has stuck to an unvarying routine on Iraq. He has "concerns". He has "grave concerns". His concerns have concerns. He's gravely concerned that the President isn't concerned about some of his concerns and that concerns him all the more. Plus he's concerned that the Republicans may be politicising the political process. Also, he has "questions".

Thousands of questions: Has the President weighed all the options? Is the President aware of the risks? Could the President weigh all the options a couple more times? Is the President aware there may be some risks he's not aware of? When the President says he's weighing all the options, is that in pounds or kilograms? Does the President know who put the bomp in the bomp-sh-bomp-sh-bomp, who put the ram in the ram-a-lama-ding-dong? Where have all the flowers gone? What kind of fool am I? If happy little bluebirds fly beyond the rainbow, why oh why can't I? In the immortal words of David Cassidy, how can I be sure in a world that's constantly changing?

The only real question was how long Daschle could keep this up before he cracked. On Wednesday, the South Dakotan choked up on the Senate floor and angrily demanded that Bush apologise to every Democratic veteran for implying the party was somehow soft on the war.

The network correspondents hailed this as one of the most genuinely profoundly moving performances since Al Jolson last sang Sonny Boy or, alternatively, Bill Clinton held his final post-Monica "prayer breakfast" with his legions of "spiritual advisors". But, as someone who sat there howling with laughter as Senator Daschle blinked back tears, I think his attack on the President was an example of what the shrinks call displacement: Bush only implied the Democrats were soft on the war; Gore positively boasted about it.

I hasten to add that in gleefully mocking Gore's inept cynicism and Daschle's sob-sister routine I'm certainly not impugning the patriotism of the Democratic leadership. Few of us will forget the stirring words last week of Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, summing up the party's current position: "If the UN adopts the kind of resolution authorising force to enforce the kind of inspections that they should have a resolution adopted for, then I believe this resolution should say: in the event the UN adopts a resolution authorising member states to use force to enforce the inspections, I believe this resolution should say that under those circumstances we should authorise force to enforce that UN resolution."

Got that? It's available from party headquarters on a bumper sticker, if you've got a stretch limo long enough.

The sight of the Democratic Party "wrestling" (as Al put it) with its conscience over Iraq is like some old-time carney freakshow: it's strangely compelling, but you can't help feeling it's cruel to put these misfits on public display. The administration doesn't need to "politicise" the war. They're for it. So are the American people. The Democrats have had since the liberation of Kabul 10 months ago to work out a viable position. Instead, they seem to have run the various options past the focus-groups, identified the half-dozen least popular, and plumped for all of them.

Five weeks till election day and the Democratic Party's doing a dandy impression of one of those incompetent suicide bombers who accidentally self-detonates before he gets on the bus.

---

I just love this guys writing, humorous yet scathing at the same time!! Wish I could write like this.

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

Charles, chill out.

---

I just don't like the insults.

Ya'll can have different views. It's what makes the world go 'round. But sheeesh. Well if ya'll ok with it then I guess it's ok.

[Guest]

LOL, no, you're right Charles, I get a little too angry, but the man is in the military, he took the same oath I did, and doesn't A: understand what he took an oath to, or B: took the oath to something that he doesn't believe in.

Either way, it makes me angry, I took that oath, and I meant it. It is NOT the joke that he seems to think it is.

If he does not believe in the constitution, but instead believes in the UN, perhaps he SHOULD NOT be in the US military.

You're right though, I will chill out on him for a bit, but if he starts saying silly stuff again, I am gonna bite his head off but good.