Tweet
I tried and tried to not join the OT garbarge of this thread, but fell victim to the trolls . . .
An alternate view of how events transpired is that the US was under unbelievable pressure to not march on Baghdad. Having spent so much energy and political capital on building an incredibly broad-based coalition to counter Iraqi aggression, it became unbearable for America to take action against the wishes of so many coalition partners.
Well, you must obviously have a truly exceptional understanding of American politics and governance given your extensive experience.
Actually, there was a fair amount of press attention to the fact that Bush didn't go to NY right away for the right reasons. No, he didn't show up until 9/14, but he also wasn't "cowardly" hiding until that time either. He was in Florida at the time of the attacks - at the urging of the Secret Service and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he boarded Air Force One, and proceeded to 3 different air force bases while in the meantime domestic security services and military forces tried to get a handle on the security situation at home. Later in the afternoon, over-ruling the Secret Service and his advisors, he insisted on returning to Washington that day. He offered any assistance to NY that the Federal Governement could give, and expressed a desire to come to NY - but after consulting with local officials (Giuliani in particular) concluded that a presidential visit would do more harm than good.
The decision to delay visiting NY until 9/14 was made for 2 principal reasons: politics and practicalities. Politically, the administration didn't want to be seen "exploiting" the attacks for domestic political gain. Practically, NY authorities shared the view with the White House that a presidential visit, with all the hoopla, press coverage and security precautions necessary, would greatly impede the continuing rescue operations - this was at a time, remember, when the hope for finding survivors amid the rubble remained vibrant.
To ascribe the motivations of the physical movement of a modern-day American president to personal cowardice (or bravery, for that matter) on the part of the president is to display an alarmingly glaring lack of basic intelligence regarding modern representative, democratic politics and governance.
Demerzel - what metalhead posted may have been offensive and ignorant (it was, and doesn't deserve a response), but it doesn't give you a free pass to also be ignorant and offensive.
One final observation - while Europe has experienced terrorism on its own land (as opposed to remote embassy bombings and the like) for many, many years (unlike the US), the 9/11 attack was a much different animal. The IRA in Ulster, the Basque separatists in Spain, the Red Army Factions in Germany, the Red Brigades in Italy, and numerous other smaller and less-well known organizations striking at European targets primarily in the 70s and 80s have one thing in common that differentiates them completely from the terrorism of 9/11 - the European incarnations of terrorism are / were made up largely of native citizens who object to the status quo in their native countries, whether it be political control or political decision-making, and these native citizens decided to take up violent means in an effort to change said status quo (even if these citizens were cynically financed by others having no interest in the end objective). The 9/11 attacks were carried out by an organization that opposes the US, and the "West" in general, not because its views differ from those in control and its people are subject to the decrees of those in control, but rather because it has determined that those in control are evil, contrary to God, and deserve no say whatsoever in any discussion. It is not completely outside the pale to conclude that the 9/11 attacks were the start of a war that must be won or lost, a war that cannot be mediated nor brought to a truce in the manner that any of the past (and present) European struggles with terrorism you cite may be concluded.
A US attack on Iraq is a slightly different subject than a war on terrorism; both you and metalhead have confused the two subjects, and confused them far more than even the sometimes verbose US politicians have done.
Catt
Originally posted by Demerzel
if the USA had been really serious about removing Saddam they wouldn't have lead on the Kurds with promises of support after the Gulf War had ended. Sadly when the Kurds rose up in rebellion and were controlling nearly two-thirds of the country, the US failed to give the support they promised and Saddam crushed the rebellion.
that was real nice work there Mr Bush Snr!
if the USA had been really serious about removing Saddam they wouldn't have lead on the Kurds with promises of support after the Gulf War had ended. Sadly when the Kurds rose up in rebellion and were controlling nearly two-thirds of the country, the US failed to give the support they promised and Saddam crushed the rebellion.
that was real nice work there Mr Bush Snr!
Speaking of fundraising coffers, I watch the West Wing often and it often makes me laugh just how much "corruption" is inbuilt into the system.
by the way there is a difference between keeping your leader safe and keeping him hidden from all view. I seem to recall the US President getting a fair deal of flack from the media for his non-appearance for several days after the attack. Why not appear in NY later that day? Why not the next morning? Why did it take several days for him to appear?
As I said, there is a fine line between being sensible and using caution and running away from the situation. The latter seems to be the side of the line bush sought.
As I said, there is a fine line between being sensible and using caution and running away from the situation. The latter seems to be the side of the line bush sought.
The decision to delay visiting NY until 9/14 was made for 2 principal reasons: politics and practicalities. Politically, the administration didn't want to be seen "exploiting" the attacks for domestic political gain. Practically, NY authorities shared the view with the White House that a presidential visit, with all the hoopla, press coverage and security precautions necessary, would greatly impede the continuing rescue operations - this was at a time, remember, when the hope for finding survivors amid the rubble remained vibrant.
To ascribe the motivations of the physical movement of a modern-day American president to personal cowardice (or bravery, for that matter) on the part of the president is to display an alarmingly glaring lack of basic intelligence regarding modern representative, democratic politics and governance.
Demerzel - what metalhead posted may have been offensive and ignorant (it was, and doesn't deserve a response), but it doesn't give you a free pass to also be ignorant and offensive.
One final observation - while Europe has experienced terrorism on its own land (as opposed to remote embassy bombings and the like) for many, many years (unlike the US), the 9/11 attack was a much different animal. The IRA in Ulster, the Basque separatists in Spain, the Red Army Factions in Germany, the Red Brigades in Italy, and numerous other smaller and less-well known organizations striking at European targets primarily in the 70s and 80s have one thing in common that differentiates them completely from the terrorism of 9/11 - the European incarnations of terrorism are / were made up largely of native citizens who object to the status quo in their native countries, whether it be political control or political decision-making, and these native citizens decided to take up violent means in an effort to change said status quo (even if these citizens were cynically financed by others having no interest in the end objective). The 9/11 attacks were carried out by an organization that opposes the US, and the "West" in general, not because its views differ from those in control and its people are subject to the decrees of those in control, but rather because it has determined that those in control are evil, contrary to God, and deserve no say whatsoever in any discussion. It is not completely outside the pale to conclude that the 9/11 attacks were the start of a war that must be won or lost, a war that cannot be mediated nor brought to a truce in the manner that any of the past (and present) European struggles with terrorism you cite may be concluded.
A US attack on Iraq is a slightly different subject than a war on terrorism; both you and metalhead have confused the two subjects, and confused them far more than even the sometimes verbose US politicians have done.
Catt
That's a really funny quote!
). I can certainly chose to agree (or disagree) with America's stance on the Kyoto treaty, and I can certainly chose to agree (or disagree) with America's stance on the ICC - and I expect to be able to argue why my position makes sense without reflexively being labeled as stupid and arrogant by those who hold a different view.
Comment