DOT head has got to go

Roger Long wrote:

The terrorists have to be stopped at the source which is overseas.

So, if I understand you correctly, you'd rather fight the bad guys in
somebody else's yard.

Unless we are prepared to simply take over every nation on earth
militarily, we have to have the help and earnest cooperation of
almost all of them.

This isn't necessarily true. It would certainly be good to have more
nations helping us, but taking over "every nation on earth militarily" isn't
necessary, either.

...we have
made ourselves far less safe than we were before 9/11.

Can you demonstrate this assertion? Can you provide any specifics on
exactly how we're less safe?

whining snipped

The problem with Iraq is not that we did it but how. I believe that
we did far, far too little. If it was Chicago, we should have gotten
the IFR currency restored first and fixed the TC. Sadam wasn't going
anywhere. Our election cycle was the only urgency.

hmmm... So the only reason you see for deposing the government you say
"needed to go" was re-electing the US President. Interesting.

Just look at the numbers of the troop deployment situation, the
reserve extensions, and the situation on the ground. The scale of
what needed to be done demanded full participation from a much larger
group of nations.

Wrong. It's obvious that the military did exactly the job it was supposed
to do with far fewer troops than many people said were necessary. Remember,
the job of the military is to fight and win battles, not build nations.
Further, reserve and national guard units are part of the military and exist
for just this type of situation - providing additional manpower for
relatively short durations.

With that said, it's apparent to me that some of the underlying assumptions
made while planning the post-war period were either flat-out wrong or
otherwise faulty. For instance, information I've gotten from troops and
others who've been to Iraq noted that early on in the occupation, many
"average" Iraqis are grateful for the coalition presence, but were fearful
of helping due to the threat of retaliation. I think post-war planners were
expecting greater assistance from Iraqis earlier than they got it.

Is that the fault of the military? No. Should more troops have been sent
to the occupation to address this and other shortcomings? Maybe. It's easy
to call the plays on Monday night, though.

The PIC who headed NORDO off into the fog of war because of his
personal agenda (getting re-elected and appearing resolute), has
gotten us in a real pickle.

Again, you imply that the only reason for invading Iraq was to re-elect the
US President. Do you have anything to back this up?

Remember: Almost all friendly intelligence agencies - and many
not-so-friendly ones - were saying that Saddam was trying to build weapons
nobody wanted him to have. If all your friends are telling you that the
bully across the playground is building a gun to shoot you and everything
you can see with your own eyes fits that description, just how long are you
going to wait until you do something about it? Or are you the type to wait
until you get shot before you act?

I'd vote for a yellow dog just for the fresh start that will give us
a chance to rebuild the alliances we need.

"Anybody but [the incumbent]." That's just the kind of critical thinking I
like to hear from the voting public (regardless of position under
discussion). What about other issues? Or are you a simple single-issue
voter?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

Reading your post I realize that I agree with you on a major point and am
guilty of imprecise writing.

The invasion of Iraq and deposition of Sadam was planned and executed
brilliantly. We didn't need anyone other nation's help. I don't know anyone
who was cheering louder than I was when the statues went down and I was
thinking, "Wow, a pampered rich kid from Texas really can make it as
Commander in Chief."

Getting troops to the center of Bagdad however was like having paratroopers
jump from a plane. Except for training, the only point in it is in what they
accomplish after their boots hit the ground. My pride and joy was based on
the assumption that the next phase would be planned and executed as well and
not, as it turned out, spectacularly bungled. It's the second phase that we
needed the cooperation of other nations for.

I don't think Iraq was invaded just for domestic political reasons. I still
think we should have invaded. I think though that the electoral dynamics
played a significant part in a reckless and foolish decision to invade
before there was an adequate plan and resources for what happened after the
U.S. boots were planted in the center of Bagdad.

Would I rather we fought terrorism overseas? You bet. To the extent we have
to deal with them after they cross our borders, there will be irresistible
(and occasionally real) pressure for TFR's and other restrictions on the
freedom of ordinary citizens. Military action however, as Iraq has shown, is
only a small part and the first steps in fighting terrorism. The rest
requires a lot of help, support, and good will from other countries.

As for the rest of your reply, we probably agree more than it appears. There
's a lot of playing off of words and reacting to quickly written newsgroup
jawing. Where we disagree, well, that's what makes this country great. It
doesn't mean one of us is more or less patriotic or "soft on terrorism". We
disagree on the scale and the details of what needs to be done to reach an
objective we agree on.

I'm not a one issue voter but, if I were, I'd be looking for that yellow
dog. It's not a republican vs. democrat thing in my mind. If a democrat had
done this I'd be even more offended because they guys I generally agree with
would have screwed up.

I know most of you out there are republicans so I ask you to subject
yourself to one honest and objective test. Look yourself straight in the
mirror tomorrow morning. Screw up all the honest objectivity you use when
looking at a lousy weather report and a need to be somewhere, and ask
yourself: if a few chads had dangled the other way and everything had
happened exactly as it has, what would you be saying right now?

--

Roger Long

In article , "Roger Long"
wrote:

I know most of you out there are republicans so I ask you to subject
yourself to one honest and objective test. Look yourself straight in the
mirror tomorrow morning. Screw up all the honest objectivity you use when
looking at a lousy weather report and a need to be somewhere, and ask
yourself: if a few chads had dangled the other way and everything had
happened exactly as it has, what would you be saying right now?

I'm in the twilight zone.

--
Bob Noel

In article ,
Bob Noel wrote:

In article , "Roger Long"
wrote:

I know most of you out there are republicans so I ask you to subject
yourself to one honest and objective test. Look yourself straight in the
mirror tomorrow morning. Screw up all the honest objectivity you use when
looking at a lousy weather report and a need to be somewhere, and ask
yourself: if a few chads had dangled the other way and everything had
happened exactly as it has, what would you be saying right now?

I'm in the twilight zone.

We would probably not have to worry about the weather, because we would
probably still be grounded after the ragheads nuked Washington after
9/11 and dropped Sarin on Los Angeles and distributed anthrax in
Manhatten.

IMHO, Al Gore would have sent a few cruise missiles to Afghanistan (Like
Clinton did) and then profusely apologized for offending the ragheads.

Roger Long wrote:

I know most of you out there are republicans so I ask you to subject
yourself to one honest and objective test. Look yourself straight in
the mirror tomorrow morning. Screw up all the honest objectivity you
use when looking at a lousy weather report and a need to be
somewhere, and ask yourself: if a few chads had dangled the other way
and everything had happened exactly as it has, what would you be
saying right now?

Assuming Gore had been elected instead of Bush, I don't think everything
would have happened "exactly as it has." Let's assume that the 9/11 attacks
would have been carried out. I just don't see Gore having the intestinal
fortitude to carry the war back to those harboring al Qaeda. I have no idea
what he would have done, but I'm not convinced Gore would have taken on the
Taliban militarily. I'm also pretty sure we would not have invaded Iraq
(hence my assertion that things would not have happened "exactly as they
have"). Without that invasion, it's unknown where al Qaeda and like-minded
folk would have settled in. As it stands, Iraq has served as a focal point
for these individuals/groups.

In my opinion, Gore is more akin to the current Phillipines government.
They acquiesced to the demands of those who kidnapped one (1) solitary
civilian. They changed national policy and pulled out a grand total of less
than 60 military personnel and the kidnappers promptly released the sole
Phillipine civilian in their custody.

Then they (or those like them) turned right around and kidnapped another 6
(from different nations, of course).

That demonstrates to me that appeasing these terrorists (a term that is
overused, but I don't have a better one suitable for public consumption) is
*not* in our best interests ('our" being defined as "those opposing the
terrorists" including Arab governments). I'm not convinced that Gore would
have done a whole lot better than the Phillipine government in responding to
9/11.

Could Bush have done a better job conducting this "war on terror"? Surely
he could have. He *really* should have learned good public speaking by this
point in his political career and his relatively poor skills in this area
have undoubtedly hampered his ability to sway our international friends.

Nonetheless, I'm convinced he has done a better job than Gore would have in
protecting American soil and lives. Further, I haven't seen anything from
anybody else camaigning for his job to convince me that they'd do any better
in this regard.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

Clarification:

I'm not the least bit interested in what anyone thinks Gore would have done
are what Kerry might do.

I was just asking people to ask themselves, in the privacy of their own
heads, how much of the approval of Bush's handling of terrorism is due to
his being a republican and how much is due to objective analysis of what he
has done.

My question was: If Gore had done *exactly* what Bush has done (however
improbable you may think that to be), what would the republicans among you
be saying now?

I think we would be hearing a lot of stuff along the lines of "See,
democrats are always afraid to use enough troops to get the job done, etc."

I can't help but point out that:

The country was pulled out of depression and WWII won by a Democrat.

The Cuban missile crisis was handled by a Democrat.

The commitment to build up our nuclear deterrent was initiated by a Democrat
(the "missile gap" as a key campaign issue).

Vietnam was turned into a real war by a Democrat and a Republican watched
the last chopper leave the embassy on TV.

There have been some notable mishandling of military action by other
Democratic presidents but there is nothing in the Democratic philosophy or
platform that makes it a given that any Commander in Chief of that party
will wimp out. That's something you have to look to the individual for.
(Take a moment and ponder the combat experience of the candidates.)

However spectacular the results look on CNN, and however inspiring his TV
presence, Bush has done all the easy things and none of the hard, tough,
difficult, time consuming, and complex ones in the war on terrorism.

--

Roger Long

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
I know most of you out there are republicans so I ask you to subject
yourself to one honest and objective test. Look yourself straight in the
mirror tomorrow morning. Screw up all the honest objectivity you use when
looking at a lousy weather report and a need to be somewhere, and ask
yourself: if a few chads had dangled the other way and everything had
happened exactly as it has, what would you be saying right now?

I am a Democrat and I voted for Gore, so I probably wouldn't have a lot to
say.

I find president Bush to be a person who leads with conviction, which I
think is necessary in times like these. I think this scares the hell out of
some people.

I am afraid now that if Gore had won, he would make decisions based on
polls. It wouldn't scare so many people, but we would be extremely weak and
vulnerable and look more like a paper tiger to the Middle East. The attacks
would continue I fear.

I am glad I voted for Gore, but he would be the wrong guy to have around for
9/11 and beyond.

-Trent
PP-ASEL

Roger Long wrote:

My question was: If Gore had done *exactly* what Bush has done
(however improbable you may think that to be), what would the
republicans among you be saying now?

I'd admit shocking surprise and give him just as much credit as I'm giving
Bush. But, that's just as hypothetical as saying that Gore would have done
exactly what Bush did.

The country was pulled out of depression and WWII won by a Democrat.

I would suggest that, rather than pulling us out of it, the Great Depression
was greatly exacerbated by said Democrat. Had the anti-capitalist sitting
in the White House not taken such drastic anti-business actions, we may have
seen the Great Depression last half as long (if not less) - and we're STILL
dealing with the after-effects of Roosevelt's tampering. Further, I don't
think I'd react well to somebody who referred to Stalin as "Uncle Joe".

I will give Truman credit for having the balls to drop Fat Man and Little
Boy, though.

The Cuban missile crisis was handled by a Democrat.

And handled quite well, too.

The commitment to build up our nuclear deterrent was initiated by a
Democrat (the "missile gap" as a key campaign issue).

Another example of colossal intelligence failure. History showed that there
was no missile gap or bomber gap. Nonetheless, kudos for backbone.

Vietnam was turned into a real war by a Democrat and a Republican
watched the last chopper leave the embassy on TV.

Does the phrase "They can't bomb a ****house without my approval" mean
anything to you? Sure, Vietnam was escalated by Johnson, but he gets a
failing grade for not letting the military do its job.

There have been some notable mishandling of military action by other
Democratic presidents but there is nothing in the Democratic
philosophy or platform that makes it a given that any Commander in
Chief of that party will wimp out. That's something you have to look
to the individual for.

Agreed. However, that's one issue of many to be considered and I have
serious issues with many other planks in the Democratic platform. Further,
most of the leaders of the party are much too socialist for my taste.
(Don't confuse that with satisfaction with Republican leadership, though.)

(Take a moment and ponder the combat
experience of the candidates.)

Again, just one issue of many issues. In comparing the combat experience of
Kerry vs. Bush, I'd say it's apples and oranges. While I will grant you
that a CIC with combat experience is generally preferrable, I propose that
it is not necessary to perform the CIC role effectively - especially if the
CIC knows enough to simply give goals to the real experts and then get out
of their way.

However spectacular the results look on CNN, and however inspiring
his TV presence, Bush has done all the easy things and none of the
hard, tough, difficult, time consuming, and complex ones in the war
on terrorism.

What would some of those things be? Further, who do you think would have
done them or done them better?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________