Reposted: A Response to Scarlett
Scarlett,
I’ve been reading your political commentary since March, and you’ve always been a welcome and valuable contribution to the discussion. Thank you.
I think you’d admit this: Your mind was set before Delores had even announced. A quick glance at the Cenla Antics archives will confirm this.
Thus, it’s never been about figuring out what value the other candidates may possess. That said, I also respect and admire Delores. She does, in fact, have many good ideas, and she has shown a willingness to listen to people about their concerns.
But I think it’s our democratic obligation to educate ourselves about all of the candidates and then choose who is best. I’m not speaking for Jacques. Please keep in mind that I entered this discussion months ago, before I even knew Jacques. As many of you know, I have thoroughly researched all of the candidates, though I haven’t had the opportunity to meet with Joe Fuller or Alice Hammond personally. My decision to support Jacques was not based on any pre-existing loyalty. I’m speaking as a concerned citizen.
Thirty-five may be young, but it’s not that young. If Jacques wanted to, as our Constitution provides, he could run for President. This provision was added in recognition of the fact that 35 is an age of professional maturity. I’m not sure what comments Jacques made that you perceive to be immature, but everything I have ever heard from Jacques leads me to believe that he fully appreciates the demands of our community, the nature of our current growth, and the scope of mayoral authority. I believe his age is an asset, and judging from support he’s garnered in the past few weeks, many other people, both young and old, also feel the same way.
So it comes down to the issues. This should be an issues-based campaign.
I listened to all of the candidates at the forum, and you’re right, we’re still in the very beginning and everyone’s not as polished as they will be a month from now. But Jacques said a few things that stood out:
-Growth in Alexandria must be controlled and planned properly. I believe he called this “controlled progressivism,” the notion that we can expand without harming our sense of community.
-Transparency should be a requirement of government. Citizens should be fully aware of every single consulting contract, every single proposal out for bid, every single issue of importance.
-We must accept the fact that Alexandria has changed dramatically during the past twenty years, and to that end, it is critical that we elect a leader who responds proactively to this change.
It may be true that, unlike Dr. Sams, Jacques (as well as Delores) did not itemize a list of specific projects he hoped to accomplish, but this is because at this point, such statements would be (borrowing one of your words) “immature.” Instead, Jacques spoke about projects the City had already researched and analyzed, like the proposed loop, and he spoke about the need to accomplish goals in a swift manner, instead of waiting eternally. There’s a risk in promising specific projects:
What if the Bentley does, in fact, sell? What do we do with City Hall then? What happens to this vision of Downtown Alexandria?
How can anyone guarantee that a business will trade locations or that developers will swoon over the opportunity to renovate dilapidated properties? (Unless, of course, these agreements have already been forged before the election, and then again, we’re faced with the issue of transparency).
Our next mayor should not, at this point, unilaterally jump to conclusions without fully understanding the facts. Instead, he or she should be willing to learn, adapt, and evolve. He or she should lay out a comprehensive vision, a methodology, a way of thinking about our future and our growth.
Respectfully,
Lamar
Columbia News Service: Elected Officials 35 and Younger, courtesy spinoj07
COLUMBIA News Service
A study completed last year by Rutgers University, which will be published in an upcoming monograph, found 814 elected officials under the age of 35 around the nation, including six members of Congress and three state executive officials.
The study showed that compared with members of their generation who do not hold office, the young politicians are more likely to become involved in civic organizations, consume as much news as possible and come from more educated families. The study also defined the group as issue-oriented self-starters who were very active in college organizations.
The Rutgers report notes that many prominent national officeholders started out as young elected leaders, and that several U.S. presidents held this distinction once themselves. The nation has already had one member of Generation X take the helm of a state, former Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift, who was 36 when she took office, while the mayors of San Francisco and New Paltz, N.Y., are both under 35.
Sean Kelly, a political science professor at Niagara University and a former congressional research fellow, said it makes sense for the younger electeds to move to the forefront of political issues. Societal conditions have also influenced the younger officials’ fiscal policy, he added.
“Fiscal conservatism is something that unites them as an age group,” Kelly said. “The first president they knew was Ronald Reagan, and they heard a drumbeat of lessening government while growing up.”
Rutgers will follow the study with networking events for young elected leaders from around the nation. Last May, the institute sponsored the first event, where 50 officials came together to discuss holding office and getting more young people involved.
The young leaders said their age has given them a different perspective in dealing with issues facing youth and how they approach them.
Many officials who have won high-level offices were 35 or younger when they FIRST held elective office:
U.S. Presidents during the 20th/21st centuries 12/19 (58%)
U.S. Senators serving in 2003 57/100 (57%)
U.S. Representatives serving in 2003 215/435 (49%)
Governors serving in 2003 25/50 (50%)
CenLamar 
Way to go, Lamar!
JACQUES THE VOTE!
Interesting stuff, Lamar. Personally, I’d like to know a lot more about how Jacques feels on the issues. I haven’t made up my mind yet, but I agree that it’s ridiculous to talk about a bunch of specific projects at this point in the game. It’s pure political pandering. However, I think I know a little bit more about where Delores wants to take the city than I know about Jacques’ ideas.
When is Jacques’ website going to be completed? Any idea?
I want to know a few things.
First, what does he think about downtown development? How do we get businesses downtown again?
Second, I want to know how he feels about solving crime. There’s a perception that Alexandria is crime-ridden, and I want to know how Jacques plans on fixing this problem.
Third, he talked about little Alexandrias. What does this mean exactly?
Finally, what did he learn from the Cleco case that the rest of us should know? He said that he was privy to some information the public didn’t know. Can he disclose anything? This may help the general public better understand the problems facing our government.
As far as I am aware, Jacques’ website will be completed some time next week, and it will be very content-heavy. Hopefully, you’ll find direct answers to your questions there.
Hi Lamar,
I have a thought to share with you and the readers of the blog in reference Prof. Kelly’s comment about fiscal conservatism uniting gen-x’ers like myself politically. Ronald Reagan is not the reason I support balanced budgets, cutting federal spending, or lowering taxes. I would argue that Bill Clinton is the reason I and many gen-x’ers support what is generally defined as fiscal conservatism.
Some may argue that I’m wrong because Bill Clinton raised taxes in the 1993 budget. He did, but he also implemented tax cuts, such as deducting interest payments on home mortgages that were targeted tax cuts for the middle class. The tax raise on the wealthiest 2% was progressive, fair, and did more to equalize the share of paying for our government than any other tax increase passed in the previous two decades. And over the course of the 1990s look what happened: deficit spending was under control, the economy grew spectacularly, and relief of the national debt looked to be in sight.
Under Reagan what did we get? One of the largest tax hikes on the middle class in US history (look at your FICA tax deductions on your paycheck next time you get paid in case you don’t know what I’m talking about). Record deficits and a national debt that soared into the trillions. By the end of the 1980s the spending spree ended with the disaster of the 1990-1992 recession, the worst in America since the 1930s.
My response to Prof. Kelly would be that I’m a fiscal conservative because I know the difference between the genuine article exhibited by Bill Clinton, and the empty rhetoric given by Ronald Reagan (and especially our current President).
If you do a cursory check of facts, you’ll find that Reagan had to rebuild the military that Jimmy Carter had cut to the bare bones. Bill Clinton did the same thing, he cut the military in half in every category. Used the military as busboys and waiters, etc. These are facts that can be verified. Democrats have failed miserably as far as military readiness is concerned.
You’re right, Clinton had a surplus, ON PAPER, due in no small part to his slashing of the military and the intelligence community that we needed so desperately. Don’t be fooled by false statistics fed to you by the liberal media.
Lamar – Since you gave me no space to post a response to your full page on my contributions on this blog and Cenla Antics, I will use this one. You are right, I have been a supporter for Delores from the beginning. I am a loyal supporter. Anyone who has paid any attention knows that. My impression of these blogs was that they were formed in order that people like myself could express themselves. That is exactly what I have been doing. I stand by those expressions. None of my statements are meant to be a personal attack on anyone. I am just saying what I feel, as is everyone else on this blog and Antics. Obviously, you are an avid supporter of Mr. Roy. As with Mr. Roy, noone on these debates are given enough time to list in detail what their plans or ideas for the city are. Delores knows exactly what she wants to do with this city. When given enough time and the right venue, you will hear all about them. She also believes in a full airing of bids for the city as you can attest to on the City Park Golf Course. She is an intelligent, experienced and capable woman who will make a great mayor. I am honored that you chose me to do an entire article on, I just don’t see the point. And just a little friendly advice, when you single someone out as you have here, you should give them a space in which to respond. We are about give and take on these blogs….are we not?
I don’t want to confuse anyone with facts, but Jimmy Carter actually laid the groundwork for the Reagan military expansion after the fall of the Shah of Iran when the raid to free the embassy hostages failed miserably and it was very apparent that our military was in a great state of disrepair and not ready. A complete threat assessment was conducted and it was decided the country needed to be on a footing to fight two major conflicts and one regional simultaneously and the military needed to be revamped to acccomplish this scenario since the USSR & China were active threats. The issues were studied and appropriations made through Congress and President Reagan had the oppportunity to sigh the spending bills. While I consider myself Republican, facts show that President Carter was responsible for the initiating the military build-up even though it happened on President Reagans watch. SDI or Star Wars was initiated on Carters watch even though Reagan took credit. SDI was originally meant to be implemented with little fanfare and be operational while as it was space based, not subject to any ABM treaties.
Spanky – I’m sorry, but I find it most difficult to believe Jimmy Carter would support building up any aspect of the military. He appears to loathe anything resembling military. All he wants to do is give the enemy the benefit of doubt and have summits. What he doesn’t understand is this enemy would send him to heaven without batting an eye no matter what he says or tries to do for them.
Scarlett:
If you’d like the opportunity to respond in full, please e-mail me at lamarw@gmail.com with your response, and I will publish it as its own entry.
— Lamar
Scarlett–
WTF? You prove the point that people will believe what they can’t see, and disavow the facts that stare them in the face. Spanky’s narrative is consistent with the facts, but because you have an impression of Jimmy Carter as a dove-ish mitigator you confuse the facts in the history with the actions he exhibits 20 years later.
And, hey, Carter’s track record at making peace, despite the Iranian hostage crisis, is better than the current administration’s. But I digress…
Accurate – Such class. Your age is showing.
And it was Carter who set the stage for overthrowing the Shah of Iran. He as much as told the Shah that he had to go, in the name of “human rights” while telling the world that the exiled Ayatollah would be welcomed back as a saint. Within days of the Ayatollah’s return hundreds of the Shah’s followers were summarily executed. Some human rights program huh?
Reagan inherited a WEAK military from Jimmy Carter. It had been cut to the bone after the Vietnam War and Jimmy didn’t do much to rebuild it. The democratically controlled congress cut off the funding for the Vietnam War thereby ensuring our defeat. General Giap wrote in his memoirs that had it not been for the war protesters and lack of American resolve North Vietnam would have surrendered to us. Guess where American resolve, war protesters, and the liberals are leading us right now!
Right. The Republicans lately have done SUCH a tremendous job. It’s not like they control the Presidency, the Congress, and the Supreme Court. Oh wait… they do!
The real question is: Why do we keep electing Republicans in office?
Ten years ago, America wasn’t engaged in a war on false pretenses, we had the support and RESPECT of the world community (See also: credibility), our economy was booming, and crime was on the steady decline. We also were projecting a $2 TRILLION DOLLAR SURPLUS.
Then, the Republicans go after Clinton on some stupid stained dress crime, retake the Congress on a platform of mainstream morality (See also: professional gambler and moralist William Bennnett), the Republicans then retake the presidency four years later by a single Supreme Court vote (See also: 2000 popular vote, the United States Supreme Court, Florida recount methods, and Katherine Harris). They immediately vote for tax “cuts” that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy, at the expense of programs and services that the lower and middle class now must pay for out of pocket, creating an additional burden on their budgets. But hey, that’s OKAY, because Republicans are MORAL. Unlike those heathen LIBERALS, they’re the only party in America who believes in God, and they constantly remind working class Americans of their incredible faith: they decide to run on issues like gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, and flag burning because that’s what’s really important right now. Right? Those are DEFINITELY the issues we need to be legislating against, right? Who cares what anyone else thinks? What do you mean “It’s the economy, stupid?” No, it’s not. It’s embryonic stem cells. It’s John McCain (a MEMBER of their OWN party) having black babies (Rove’s words, not mine).
That leads us here. We’ve lost 2,500 young American men and women in Iraq, and we’re still not sure where the weapons of mass destruction are. Even if you were to buy the argument that this is all about oil, guess what? We’re paying more for gasoline than EVER BEFORE. As powerful as they are, they couldn’t even lower gas prices. Them again, why would they? Their big money is oil money. It’s in their best interest to make oil companies more profitable.
But all is forgiven. Because we’re God’s country, and in a democracy, it’s not healthy to question a President or a war. Our economy isn’t growing; it’s remaining static, as the rich get rich and the poor stay poor.
I say this all, and guess what? I’m what you’d call a fiscal conservative. I believe in the power of the free market. I believe in the unlimited capabilities of capitalism. I also recognize that in a free market (where only the strong survive), it is the OBLIGATION of our government to provide a safety net for those who simply can’t make it– the elderly, the disabled, and yes, young single mothers who don’t have anyone one else to rely on. Sure, I think these programs can be (and often are) exploited, but it doesn’t mean they have to be.
Furthermore, back to the Vietnam War and the notion that the protestors weakened our defenses, BULLSHIT. The protestors didn’t make a difference at all. When was the Summer of Love? 1967. When did we pull out of Vietnam? 1975! Who was president in 1975? Gerald Ford! A republican! Why? Because Nixon had to resign. Why? Because he attempted to cheat and steal his way back to the White House.
Oh, and Carter, an internationally-recognized servant of peace and goodwill, is somehow a pussy in your eyes. No matter what the facts ARE, you’ll disagree that Carter did anything to build up our military, because, in your limited view, you’ve equated peace and goodwill with weakness.
dislikesliberals–
Where have you been since 1975? Who are the leaders of all three branches of the government right now? Who were the leaders when it came time to decide to go to war in Iraq? I don’t think any of them are or were liberals.
So you think that General Giap’s motivation for saying that is intellectually honest? I’m not calling him an outright liar, but come on, how many wars have been won with that kind of strategy. Moreover, the statement he makes can be interpreted very broadly. Maybe he felt the protesters and liberals held us back from using the A-Bomb. Sure we had plenty of military ability to win that war when you consider what weapons we had in our arsenal. Perhaps all he’s saying is: If we had used the a-bomb that would have defeated the communists in N.Vietnam, but those pesky protest kids and liberals held America’s hand behind its back. Is that what you think we should have done in retrospect? Who’s to say what it would have taken for the US to win that war? Don’t forget it’s really hard to fight a war when you can’t tell the difference between our side and the enemy, while the enemy can always pick you out on the field of battle.
Stop trying to fight the Vietnam War over again in Iraq. If it’s truly the great cause that the current administration claims it to be, then why don’t we have a draft, or a half-million troops over there? The liberals can howl all they want, but they’re not in charge. The conservatives can do what they want because they control the government. They were in charge even when liberals like John Kerry voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.
Stop blaming the poor conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan on liberals and those against the war here. We live in a democracy, so deal with the dissent. For once the Republicans and President Bush and conservatives and neo-conservatives should take responsibility and lead, rather than whine and blame their problems on everyone else.
Scarlett–
Yeah, you’re so smart and mature. Thanks for pointing out the error of my Gen-X ways… Care to enlighten us more?
Wow—and I was just about to loose faith in our youth—and then Gen X’er gives us a great, good old Liberal rant! I agree with all that you say-except I think one of the reasons we went to war was because Saddam tried to kill W’s Daddy. As for which party can handle the national budget better, fact is, for the last 65+ years we have had a surplus under Democratic Presidents and a deficit under Republican Presidents.
But I thought we were talking about the Mayor’s race? I would like to say a couple of things here regarding Lamar’s post. I am also curious why he singled out Scarlett. Roy was, as things go these days, a last minute candidate. Lamar, you yourself said that you would wait until a couple of weeks prior to the election to make an informed decision. Granted, you have done quit a bit of research on the candidate —and I admire you for that, but you did make the commitment when you felt you have the right candidates even though you did not have all the facts on all of the candidates. I think Scarlett felt the same way. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, as someone who has 16 years of experience working for the City of Alexandria, Delores has a body of knowledge that none of the other candidates have, she knows how to operate the city’s business. I believe she has the skill set to run this city.
Also Lamar, just because people under 35 were “elected” it does not mean they did a good job or were actually the most qualified candidate. Don’t get me wrong; I think it is fantastic that citizens under 35 are interested in government. And the truth is- everyone has the right to change their mind up until the time they pull the lever, or touch the screen, or however they cast their vote.
One more set of facts for you. In the Arab world time is meaningless. Also in the Arab world, appeasement is perceived as weakness. Every American president since 1972, when terrorism began, has ignored the fact that we are perceived by the Arab world as weak. Why do you think the terrorism attacks escalated with each passing year after 1972. American presidents failed to deal effectively with them and it culminated in 9/11. (To give RR the benefit of the doubt, he was dealing with the Russians and the cold war, but even he failed to address the embassy bombing and the marine barracks bombing and others) George W. Bush is the only president to take the fight TO THEM. Even democrats warned during Clinton’s reign that Iraq was a danger and needed to be dealt with, but as usual they didn’t have the stomach for it.
I must honestly say that there is nothing ..NOTHING…I am more tired of than people connecting 9/11 with Iraq. The is absolutely NO connection between the two. The fact that people are constantly connecting the two (i.e. someone disagrees with the war in Iraq-the resonse is “Well, did you forget about 9/11?”) is the main thing that makes Karl Rove the #1 spin doctor in the world. NO WMD, no 9/11 connection-no reason for the war other that the good ol sin called GREED. The situation in Iraq is worse than it was before. Terrorists factions fighting for power, no leadership…but hey! At least they are a democracy now, right? Sometimes it is better the devil you know than the devil you don’t. Meanwhile, back at the farm, Bush parades around with his cowboy swagger, and frat boy smirk ignoring the rights of not only P.O.W.s but of every American citizen. Constitution-whats that? Bill of Rights-Bill who? The only thing more disgusting than his behavior is the tolerance of it by the American people… whew, I feel better now…
Spin, don’t blame your blindness on the rest of the world. Saddam used WMD on his own people, he never accounted for many of them and he had plenty of time to bury them or ship them to another country (Syria or Lebanon) before we went in. To ignore the Musawi, an al Qaeda operative was treated in a Baghdad hospital after fighting in Afghanistan is well-known. There are many other connections which would take too long to enumerate here. There IS a connection to all but those who will not see.
If you think terrorism will go away by just ignoring it, you are sadly mistaken and I’m truly glad that you’re not in a decision making capacity.
anonymous–
I agree with your statement about terrorism not going away by ignoring it, but I think you should be alarmed with who we have in a decision making capacity.
What happened to Osama Bin Laden, and why haven’t we strung him up yet?
What alarms me is that the one who was in the decision making capacity for 8 years spent his time getting blow jobs instead of taking care of Osama when he was offered on several occasions.
Perhaps you know where Osama is hiding and could provide some expertise on the mountains of Pakistan or Afghanistan? Ever hear the phrase, “looking for a needle in a haystack?” Had the liberals not gutted our intelligence agencies when they were in office we’d have a better chance now of having humint gathering capabilities that we’re having to rebuild now.
Mr. ..ke Hunt–
Why, oh why do you remain in the world where everything is Bill Clinton’s fault. It was damn foolish what he did, but come on…
I’ll go along, yeah as a liberal, that Clinton should have taken the opportunity when he had it to kill Osama. The fortune of 20/20 hindsight is wonderful.
But right now let’s think about who’s in power now. If we focus on term one, leading up to 9/11, while W was vacationing the month prior to the attacks, he received a PDB stating that Bin Laden was determined to attack in the US. The day of the attacks, Condoleeza Rice, at the time the National Security Advisor, was scheduled to give a policy speech about national security goals for the US and none of the speech mentioned terrorism.
Yet throughout the second term of the Clinton administration, counter-terrorism was given increasing attention by the NSA and the Justice Department. Sandy Berger told his replacement of the need to focus on terrorism, but he was ignored. Janet Reno was probably the most pre-occupied with making it a priority for the Justice Department, but Ashcroft did little more than ignore the warnings. Oh wait, I’m digressing into the past again.
Let’s look at it now, 2006, Bush’s second term — Republicans are ascendant. We’re pissing away our military resources on a quagmire in Iraq. The Taliban is reorganizing in Afghanistan with alarming new strength. Terrorists who weren’t even in Iraq organize in England (our ally of all places!) and plan to hijack planes again for suicide bombings. And yet you sleep better at night knowing that W isn’t getting a bj in the White House?
Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. End of story. No legitimate, respectable news outlet has proved that Saddam had a connnection. Even the President, this week in his press conference, admitted that Iraq had no connection to 9/11. Former White House counter-intelligence point man Richard Clarke, whose non-partisan credintials are impeccable, said that after 9/11 the President and Vice-President looked for any excuse they could to pin 9/11 on Saddam to justify an invasion of Iraq. One would think at some point the cover-ups, lies, and mendacity of this administration would have to stop.
Oh wait it doesn’t. What about Warren Rudman, a former Senator, and a Republican, who has criticized the Bush administration’s refusal to make port security a priority. You see it scares the hell out of me how basic homeland security is either ad hoc or “as our resources dictate.” Ad hoc in the sense of air travel safety. We should get, for lack of a better description, “Israeli” when it comes to air travel. Meanwhile we don’t want to invest in real port security. Every container that passes through our ports should be inspected — hire the people, buy the equipment, spend that money, it’s worth it even if it’s expensive, but probably no where near the expense of rebuilding Iraq.
Now to answer your question, no, I don’t know where Osama is. But we don’t have satellite maps of Pakistan or Afghanistan? We don’t have troops there scouting the terrain? Send a million troops into Afghanistan and Pakistan to wipe out the Taliban and find Osama once and for all. Our cause is just there. He is evil, and deserves every punishment that could be inflicted upon him. Cut him and pour salt on his wounds, then bathe him in a tub of rubbing alcohol. Make that bastard suffer.
Do the same with Iraq and Saddam. If our policies are so right, if we have God on our side, then what wrong can we do? Go in there with all guns blazing and wipe out the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. While you’re at it head over to Saudi Arabia (home of most of the 9/11 terrorists) and shut down the Madrasas. Invade Syria (where some on this thread think those WMDs Saddam had went) because they’re the next big threat (I mean since they have the WMDs we couldn’t find in Iraq). No, on second thought, let’s head into Iran because unlike Saddam, they flaunt their nuclear prowess for all the world to see. So does North Korea, now that I think of it.
Maybe it goes back to what I said way back in the beginning of this thread. People refuse to believe the facts that stare at them in the face, but will never give up believing what they cannot see.
In the Middle East, the general psychology is that life is guided by fate. That alone takes away personal responsible or the idea that events can be shaped by individuals. If one is killed, it was their fate, not the responsibility of the individual who set the bomb. With that mindset, how do you deal with them? The only reason MAD worked was the fact that people in the USSR & China reason that they have some control over their lives and negotiating treaties to end nuclear proliferation were logical means to shape their future. What would we have done if they posessed the Middle East psychology. Nuke Em.
First of all, Richard Clarke is a lying scum.
There are those who believe that if US forces were withdrawn from
Iraq, attacks on US interests at home and abroad would cease.
There are those who believe that if the US ceased to support Israel, the
threat from Islamic radicals would just go away.
It’s a nice fantasy. Usama bin Laden himself has said that the
jihad against the United States is “a result of the US aggressive policy
towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian
Peninsula. … Jihad against the US does not stop with its
withdrawal from the Arabian Peninsula, but rather it must desist from
aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.”
Bin Laden spoke those words to CNN reporter Peter Arnett during a
March 20, 1997 interview, more than four years before his
terrorists brought down the World Trade Center and killed 3,000 people.
“Desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole
world.” What does that mean? Pretty much whatever bin Laden
wants it to mean, of course. It’s a pretty broad statement. But think
about it. It could mean a nuclear Iran, the destruction of
Israel, Taliban-style governments and Sharia law in predominantly Muslim
nations across the world, an Islamic empire stretching from
Indonesia to Spain. “Aggressive intervention against Muslims” could be
considered anything – prosecuting a Muslim father for the “honor
killing” of a daughter romantically involved with a non-Muslim,
arresting Muslim rioters protesting cartoons of Mohammed,
intervening against Muslims killing non-Muslims in Chechnya, Lebanon, the
Sudan, Somalia, or anywhere in the world.
The rest of the interview was enlightening, as well. “The hearts
of Muslims are filled with hatred towards the United States,” Usama
bin Laden told Peter Arnett. I don’t believe that to be true of all
Muslims; I don’t believe that to be true of most Muslims. But it
is true of Islamic extremists like bin Laden
“We declared jihad against the US government because the US
government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed
acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly
or through its support of the Israeli occupation of [Palestine],” he
told Arnett. He added ” … The American people, they are not
exonerated from responsibility because they chose this government
and voted for it despite their knowledge of its crimes in Palestine,
Lebanon, Iraq and in other places …” And it becomes easy to see
why bin Laden could target American citizens on American soil on
September 11, 2001.
He expressed his disdain for American military power and US
resolve as well. Commenting on the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu, bin Laden
said, “The American troops left after achieving nothing. They
left after claiming they were the largest power on earth. They left
after some resistance from powerless, poor, unarmed people whose only
weapon is the belief in Allah … We learned from those who fought
there, that they were surprised to see the low spiritual morale of
the American fighters… The Americans ran away from those who
fought and killed them … If the US still thinks and brags that it still
has this kind of power even after all these successive defeats in
Vietnam, Beirut, Aden, and Somalia , then let them go back to
those who are awaiting its return.”
In Beirut, 241 American troops died when a suicide bomber crashed
an explosives laden truck into the US Marine barracks in 1983. In
1992, al Qaeda bombed a hotel in Aden, Yemen where US servicemen were
known to stay. Two Australian tourists died. Eighteen American troops
died during the Battle of Mogadishu, which was the subject of the
film “Black Hawk Down.”
Bin Laden has reason to mock US resolve – public opinion defeated
America in Vietnam; we let Iran hold 53 Americans hostage for 444
days in 1979-1981 with only a badly bungled rescue attempt in
response. In what is widely viewed as the first battle in what we
now call the War on Terror, the Beirut bombing of the Marine
barracks, we reacted by withdrawing our troops. After the Battle
of Mogadishu, we left Somalia. Khobar Towers, embassy bombings in
Africa, the USS Cole – our response was either none at all or
worse, ineffectual.
Bin Laden believes American resolve is weak, but we almost proved
him wrong. In the months following the 9-11 attacks, Americans were
ready to fight. We took the fight to him. And we quickly took down the
Taliban and their al Qaeda backers in Afghanistan. That was just
the easy part.
When the US decided it was time to act against Saddam Hussein for
failing to comply with the UN resolutions ordering Iraq to
cooperate with UN inspections, much of the nation was behind that decision.
And when we went up against the Iraqi military, we quickly took
them down as well. Again, that was the easy part.
Americans like their victories to be fast, and to be bloodless
like Operations Just Cause in 1989 and Desert Storm in 1991, where 23
and 147 Americans died respectively. Perhaps not entirely bloodless,
but these “victories” were certainly fast.
War is usually neither fast nor bloodless, however, as history
proves over and over. Today, more than 2600 Americans have died in Iraq
and Afghanistan. Today’s Americans can’t stomach the deaths of their
sons and daughters in combat on foreign soil. And our resolve is
weak. Our enemies, Usama bin Laden, the insurgents in Iraq, the
Iranians, even the North Koreans, all know this. They listen to
the grumbles of the Kerrys and Kennedys and Sheehans and Murthas; they
follow the media reports. They are waiting for our resolve to
weaken to the breaking point, for us to run for home like a dog with its
tail between its legs. They are waiting for us to blink. Like we
have done so many times in the last few decades.
We can not afford to blink; we can not afford to weaken. Our
enemies are waiting to pounce. In 2001, bin Laden brought the fight to our
soil. And we took the fight back to him. Today, his al Qaeda
fighters and their Islamo-fascist brothers stir violence between
sects in Iraq, try to destabilize the fledgling governments in Lebanon,
Afghanistan and Iraq. They kill hundreds of Muslims every day.
And they kill American troops as they chip away at our resolve. Will
we blink again like we did in Beirut and Mogadishu?
Usama is counting on it.
And secondly, Jamie Gorelick helped construct the wall between allowing the FBI and CIA from talking to each other.
Janet Reno was the saddest excuse for an Attorney General we’ve ever had. Waco? Remember that?
Neutron Nuke em.
The truth is hidden in the cracks between all your different points of view. Get the logs out of your eyes and look inside. Make a better world by stopping to listen and really hear. It just might inspire you to shut up, or at least speak with enlightnment. The clatter of hatred between left and right in America is crippling our nation. Our world is as screwed up as I’ve known it in my 50 years, and I had to do nuclear raid safety drills in grammar school. What a laugh. I am listening to the 35-and-under voices in hope they hold some inspired thought to lead us out of this global hellhole we’re headed for. Hate and greed seem to be the inspiration for America and her enemies alike. But we all digress. Let’s start by making our own backyard a better place. At least we have some reasonable choices to consider for next month. Then, we can find better candidates for the national stage and make our nation and world a better place.
OIL? Some of you act like George W. Bush is the only man in America who owns stock in oil companies. Shame on you! Ted Kennedy’s family has owned an oil company for 50 some odd years and it has generated millions of dollars in revenue for him and his family; Algore owns over half a million shares of Occidental Petroleum yet no body seems to take that into account. We’re an oil based economy you fools and if you can’t see our dependency on it you’re blind. Open up ANWAR and the gulf shores to drilling and we’d be dependant on no foreigners for oil. Conservationists have tied our hands behind our backs pertaining to getting to OUR OWN oil!
The truth is that oil money dragged an 8th century mentality to the 21st century and laid before it a nuclear and conventional arms feast. You can try to reason with the unreasonable, I prefer to nuke em.
The sad thing in nuking them all, you get some innocents as well. Save that, I’d be for nuking them all and paving it.