Owain Walters wrote in message ...
I am not sure Ann Coulter is the only crackpot around........

Slingsby - Please do not confuse debate against Government
policy with denouncing troops doing a job that they
have been told to do.

The US is relatively new to dealing with terrorism
and quite frankley it shows. Many countries have dealt
with this; for instance the UK has dealt with the IRA
and other such group bombing and maiming innocents.
Deploying more and more troops just hardened the nationalists
views. In order to obtain peace we now have the same
people in our government.

You can not beat terrorism by force. Diplomacy, understanding
and altering foreign policy is the only way around
it.
Remember that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom
fighter.

The key phrase in your statement is "dealing with terrorism."
Countries in Western Europe deal with it by acceptance. Eastern
European
countries dealt with it by becoming enslaved. The Muslim countries
are experimenting with a balance between those two models. Prior to
World
War II the only voice in the British government warning of German
hegemony
was a crackpot half-American. He went on to lead you through "your
darkest
hour" until the Americans and their equipment showed up. After the
war, he
was cast off as an unsophisticated half-American crackpot. Lucky for
him,
he could frequently come over here where he was well respected, people
filled auditoriums to hear him speak and his fortune was restored.

January 31, 2003

War-torn Democrats

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., was looking a little glum Tuesday night.
Last week Kerry gave a speech saying: "Mr. President, do not rush to
war!" Rush to war? We've been talking about this war for a year. It's
been three months since Kerry duly recorded his vote in favor of
forcibly removing Saddam Hussein.

In 1991, Kerry voted against the Gulf War, saying the country was "not
yet ready for what it will witness and bear if we go to war." Having
been taunted for that vote and that prediction ever since, this time
Kerry made sure to vote in favor of war with Iraq. This will allow the
New York Times to describe him as a "moderate Democrat" forevermore.
Indeed, a surprisingly large number of Democrats voted for the war
resolution last October. But as soon as the November elections were
over, Democrats like Kerry began aggressively attacking the very war
they had just voted for.

These Democrats want to have it both ways. If the war goes well – a
lot of them voted for war with Iraq, didn't they? But if the war does
not go well, many of the very Democrats who voted for the war
resolution will have emerged as leading spokesmen for the anti-war
position. A vote for the war, surrounded by Neville Chamberlain
foot-dragging, is a fraud.

The Neville Chamberlain Democrats are now claiming they didn't realize
what they were voting for. John Kerry says he thought a resolution
authorizing the president to use force against Iraq meant that the
United Nations would have to approve. Dianne Feinstein said she voted
for the resolution assuming it meant we would invade only if "our
allies" approved. Joe Biden made the terrific argument that if we
don't wait for U.N. approval, it would "make a mockery of the efficacy
of the U.N." The Democrats appear to be the only people who still
believe in the "efficacy of the U.N." In any event, I believe the
United Nations should be more worried about that eventuality than we
should.

Kerry claims he is still foursquare behind disarming Saddam Hussein,
but not "until we have exhausted the remedies available, built
legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of
course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action." As George Bush
pointed out in his State of the Union address, dictators are not in
the habit of "politely putting us on notice before they strike." By
the time a threat is "imminent," Chicago will be gone.

That's the short version. The long version of Kerry's position is
this:

"[i]f you have a breach that, by everybody's standard, at least in the
United States, those of us in the House and Senate, and the president,
join together and make a judgment, this is indeed a material breach,
and then others – some of them can't be persuaded – if we have
evidence, sufficient to show the materiality of the breach, we should
be able to do what Adlai Stevenson did on behalf of the
administration, Kennedy administration, and sit in front of the
Security Council and say, 'Here is the evidence. It's time for all of
you to put up. We need to all do this together.' And that's what I
think the resolution that was passed suggests."

There's a rallying cry to unite the Democrats! If there has been a
material breach "by everybody's standard," then and only then, we can
boldly ... go to the United Nations! This is the fundamental problem
of the anti-war movement. They can't bring themselves to say it's a
mistake to depose Saddam Hussein, and "don't hurry" is not really a
call to arms.

But why not hurry? Democrats claim they haven't seen proof yet that
Saddam is a direct threat to the United States. For laughs, let's
suppose they're right. In the naysayers' worst-case scenario, the
United States would be acting precipitously to remove a ruthless
dictator who tortures his own people. As Bush said, after detailing
some of Saddam Hussein's charming practices: "If this is not evil,
then evil has no meaning." It's not as if anyone is worried that we're
making a horrible miscalculation and could be removing the Iraqi
Abraham Lincoln by mistake.

Either we're removing a dictator who currently has plans to fund
terrorism against American citizens or – if Bush is completely wrong
and Eleanor Clift is completely right – we're just removing a dictator
who plans to terrorize a lot of people in the region, but not
Americans specifically. Even for someone like me, who doesn't want
America to be the world's policeman, the risk of precipitous action
against Saddam Hussein doesn't keep me up at night.

The Democrats' jejune claim that Saddam Hussein is not a threat to our
security presupposes they would care if he were. Who are they kidding?
Democrats adore threats to the United States. Bush got a raucous
standing ovation at his State of the Union address when he announced
that "this year, for the first time, we are beginning to field a
defense to protect this nation against ballistic missiles." The
excitement was noticeably muted on the Democrats' side of the aisle.
The vast majority of Democrats remained firmly in their seats, sullen
at the thought that America would be protected from incoming ballistic
missiles. To paraphrase George Bush: If this is not treason, then
treason has no meaning.