[Allan from Fallbrook]

sdnativeson: Related to the Plame issue is the situation involving her husband and the trip to investigate the Iraqi-Niger connection. Niger has only a few exports worth mentioning: Uranium, livestock and agriculture. Given that Iraq would seem to have no need of the last two, it certainly begs the question of Iraqi interest in Niger and why they (Iraq) went so far as to establish a trade mission with Niger.

Amidst all the talk about whether or not Saddam had WMD (and the Clinton Administration believed he did), one forgets that he (Saddam) was actively upgrading his capabilities in the areas of bioweapons (he was looking to weaponize botulin), as well as chemical weapons (looking to purchase old Soviet stocks of VX and Sarin), and he was acquiring the technology and scientific know-how to build a nuke.

There was a clearly established link between Iraq and Niger, and the Iraqi government’s explanation that Iraq was also developing relationships with other African nations as well as Niger and therefore the Niger trip was of no consequence has the substance of wind.

Plame was not outed by a vindictive administration. Moreover, she was not in a position to be outed, in that she was no longer operating in any sort of clandesting or undercover capacity.

I would hasten to add (for those like justme) that Saddam did have WMD. They were used against the Kurds at Halabja and the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War. The assertion that the invasion of Iraq was built on a lie would then mean that Clinton and his senior administration officials, including the intelligence community, created and then perpetuated the lie during both terms of his presidency.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

sdnativeson: Related to the Plame issue is the situation involving her husband and the trip to investigate the Iraqi-Niger connection. Niger has only a few exports worth mentioning: Uranium, livestock and agriculture. Given that Iraq would seem to have no need of the last two, it certainly begs the question of Iraqi interest in Niger and why they (Iraq) went so far as to establish a trade mission with Niger.

Amidst all the talk about whether or not Saddam had WMD (and the Clinton Administration believed he did), one forgets that he (Saddam) was actively upgrading his capabilities in the areas of bioweapons (he was looking to weaponize botulin), as well as chemical weapons (looking to purchase old Soviet stocks of VX and Sarin), and he was acquiring the technology and scientific know-how to build a nuke.

There was a clearly established link between Iraq and Niger, and the Iraqi government’s explanation that Iraq was also developing relationships with other African nations as well as Niger and therefore the Niger trip was of no consequence has the substance of wind.

Plame was not outed by a vindictive administration. Moreover, she was not in a position to be outed, in that she was no longer operating in any sort of clandesting or undercover capacity.

I would hasten to add (for those like justme) that Saddam did have WMD. They were used against the Kurds at Halabja and the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War. The assertion that the invasion of Iraq was built on a lie would then mean that Clinton and his senior administration officials, including the intelligence community, created and then perpetuated the lie during both terms of his presidency.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

sdnativeson: Related to the Plame issue is the situation involving her husband and the trip to investigate the Iraqi-Niger connection. Niger has only a few exports worth mentioning: Uranium, livestock and agriculture. Given that Iraq would seem to have no need of the last two, it certainly begs the question of Iraqi interest in Niger and why they (Iraq) went so far as to establish a trade mission with Niger.

Amidst all the talk about whether or not Saddam had WMD (and the Clinton Administration believed he did), one forgets that he (Saddam) was actively upgrading his capabilities in the areas of bioweapons (he was looking to weaponize botulin), as well as chemical weapons (looking to purchase old Soviet stocks of VX and Sarin), and he was acquiring the technology and scientific know-how to build a nuke.

There was a clearly established link between Iraq and Niger, and the Iraqi government’s explanation that Iraq was also developing relationships with other African nations as well as Niger and therefore the Niger trip was of no consequence has the substance of wind.

Plame was not outed by a vindictive administration. Moreover, she was not in a position to be outed, in that she was no longer operating in any sort of clandesting or undercover capacity.

I would hasten to add (for those like justme) that Saddam did have WMD. They were used against the Kurds at Halabja and the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War. The assertion that the invasion of Iraq was built on a lie would then mean that Clinton and his senior administration officials, including the intelligence community, created and then perpetuated the lie during both terms of his presidency.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

sdnativeson: Related to the Plame issue is the situation involving her husband and the trip to investigate the Iraqi-Niger connection. Niger has only a few exports worth mentioning: Uranium, livestock and agriculture. Given that Iraq would seem to have no need of the last two, it certainly begs the question of Iraqi interest in Niger and why they (Iraq) went so far as to establish a trade mission with Niger.

Amidst all the talk about whether or not Saddam had WMD (and the Clinton Administration believed he did), one forgets that he (Saddam) was actively upgrading his capabilities in the areas of bioweapons (he was looking to weaponize botulin), as well as chemical weapons (looking to purchase old Soviet stocks of VX and Sarin), and he was acquiring the technology and scientific know-how to build a nuke.

There was a clearly established link between Iraq and Niger, and the Iraqi government’s explanation that Iraq was also developing relationships with other African nations as well as Niger and therefore the Niger trip was of no consequence has the substance of wind.

Plame was not outed by a vindictive administration. Moreover, she was not in a position to be outed, in that she was no longer operating in any sort of clandesting or undercover capacity.

I would hasten to add (for those like justme) that Saddam did have WMD. They were used against the Kurds at Halabja and the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War. The assertion that the invasion of Iraq was built on a lie would then mean that Clinton and his senior administration officials, including the intelligence community, created and then perpetuated the lie during both terms of his presidency.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Excellent post. I don’t know what I would add, save I disagree with the idea of cutting bait in Iraq. I say this only because of the aftermath in Southeast Asia after we unceremoniously hit the door there in 1975.

Aecetia: I would also say that you need to take that point in history and put it into context. Reagan was an ideologue and a true believer and the Cold War was at one of its hottest points since the early 1960s. Much like our allying with Stalin and the Soviet Union in order to defeat the greater threat of Nazism, I believe that Reagan’s interpretation of containment could be brutally pragmatic at times and, yes, it was helped by Cold Warriors like Kirkpatrick (a woman that always struck as me as being even more forceful than Maggie Thatcher).

sdnativeson: I had a Jesuit priest in school that used to advocate “Benevolent Despotism”. I’m thinking that is the direction the US should go from here on out. I’ve taken it on as my coaching and parenting style, and the early returns seem to support it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Excellent post. I don’t know what I would add, save I disagree with the idea of cutting bait in Iraq. I say this only because of the aftermath in Southeast Asia after we unceremoniously hit the door there in 1975.

Aecetia: I would also say that you need to take that point in history and put it into context. Reagan was an ideologue and a true believer and the Cold War was at one of its hottest points since the early 1960s. Much like our allying with Stalin and the Soviet Union in order to defeat the greater threat of Nazism, I believe that Reagan’s interpretation of containment could be brutally pragmatic at times and, yes, it was helped by Cold Warriors like Kirkpatrick (a woman that always struck as me as being even more forceful than Maggie Thatcher).

sdnativeson: I had a Jesuit priest in school that used to advocate “Benevolent Despotism”. I’m thinking that is the direction the US should go from here on out. I’ve taken it on as my coaching and parenting style, and the early returns seem to support it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Excellent post. I don’t know what I would add, save I disagree with the idea of cutting bait in Iraq. I say this only because of the aftermath in Southeast Asia after we unceremoniously hit the door there in 1975.

Aecetia: I would also say that you need to take that point in history and put it into context. Reagan was an ideologue and a true believer and the Cold War was at one of its hottest points since the early 1960s. Much like our allying with Stalin and the Soviet Union in order to defeat the greater threat of Nazism, I believe that Reagan’s interpretation of containment could be brutally pragmatic at times and, yes, it was helped by Cold Warriors like Kirkpatrick (a woman that always struck as me as being even more forceful than Maggie Thatcher).

sdnativeson: I had a Jesuit priest in school that used to advocate “Benevolent Despotism”. I’m thinking that is the direction the US should go from here on out. I’ve taken it on as my coaching and parenting style, and the early returns seem to support it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Excellent post. I don’t know what I would add, save I disagree with the idea of cutting bait in Iraq. I say this only because of the aftermath in Southeast Asia after we unceremoniously hit the door there in 1975.

Aecetia: I would also say that you need to take that point in history and put it into context. Reagan was an ideologue and a true believer and the Cold War was at one of its hottest points since the early 1960s. Much like our allying with Stalin and the Soviet Union in order to defeat the greater threat of Nazism, I believe that Reagan’s interpretation of containment could be brutally pragmatic at times and, yes, it was helped by Cold Warriors like Kirkpatrick (a woman that always struck as me as being even more forceful than Maggie Thatcher).

sdnativeson: I had a Jesuit priest in school that used to advocate “Benevolent Despotism”. I’m thinking that is the direction the US should go from here on out. I’ve taken it on as my coaching and parenting style, and the early returns seem to support it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Excellent post. I don’t know what I would add, save I disagree with the idea of cutting bait in Iraq. I say this only because of the aftermath in Southeast Asia after we unceremoniously hit the door there in 1975.

Aecetia: I would also say that you need to take that point in history and put it into context. Reagan was an ideologue and a true believer and the Cold War was at one of its hottest points since the early 1960s. Much like our allying with Stalin and the Soviet Union in order to defeat the greater threat of Nazism, I believe that Reagan’s interpretation of containment could be brutally pragmatic at times and, yes, it was helped by Cold Warriors like Kirkpatrick (a woman that always struck as me as being even more forceful than Maggie Thatcher).

sdnativeson: I had a Jesuit priest in school that used to advocate “Benevolent Despotism”. I’m thinking that is the direction the US should go from here on out. I’ve taken it on as my coaching and parenting style, and the early returns seem to support it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: No worries, man, I ain’t gonna gang up on you. However, I think surveyor’s post on Islam was right on the money.

Speaking of “decoupling”: I’d like to decouple the foreign oil dependence argument from the Muslims as aggrieved victims argument.

America has been locking horns with the Muslims from very near our beginning. The lyric immortalized in the Marine Corps Hymn (“to the shores of Tripoli”) deals with the Barbary Coast Pirates and their predation of American ships.

From Wikipedia: In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then the ambassador to France, and John Adams, then the ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the ambassador to Britain from Tripoli. The Americans asked Adja why his government was hostile to American ships, even though there had been no provocation. The ambassador’s response was reported to the Continental Congress:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

Benjamin Franklin’s writings mention Islam and the difficulties in dealing with them, especially in light of Islam’s insistence on the primacy of their religion.

Make no mistake, this is a religion that has always been proselytized at the point of a sword. In point of fact, the verse exhorting believers to subjugate infidels is called the “Sword Verse” (Sura 9:5 in the Qu’ran). It is also a religion that insists on primacy and demands that unbelievers adhere to Shari’a (Islamic Law). The terms are onerous, to say the least.

The idea that we would not have collided with them at some point then becomes a little problematic. Obviously, our support of Israel and our policy there over the last 50+ years has exacerbated the situation, but lunatics like Osama and his ilk would have come after us at some point, for oo other reason than when you’re bent on world domination you eventually wind up coming after everybody.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: No worries, man, I ain’t gonna gang up on you. However, I think surveyor’s post on Islam was right on the money.

Speaking of “decoupling”: I’d like to decouple the foreign oil dependence argument from the Muslims as aggrieved victims argument.

America has been locking horns with the Muslims from very near our beginning. The lyric immortalized in the Marine Corps Hymn (“to the shores of Tripoli”) deals with the Barbary Coast Pirates and their predation of American ships.

From Wikipedia: In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then the ambassador to France, and John Adams, then the ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the ambassador to Britain from Tripoli. The Americans asked Adja why his government was hostile to American ships, even though there had been no provocation. The ambassador’s response was reported to the Continental Congress:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

Benjamin Franklin’s writings mention Islam and the difficulties in dealing with them, especially in light of Islam’s insistence on the primacy of their religion.

Make no mistake, this is a religion that has always been proselytized at the point of a sword. In point of fact, the verse exhorting believers to subjugate infidels is called the “Sword Verse” (Sura 9:5 in the Qu’ran). It is also a religion that insists on primacy and demands that unbelievers adhere to Shari’a (Islamic Law). The terms are onerous, to say the least.

The idea that we would not have collided with them at some point then becomes a little problematic. Obviously, our support of Israel and our policy there over the last 50+ years has exacerbated the situation, but lunatics like Osama and his ilk would have come after us at some point, for oo other reason than when you’re bent on world domination you eventually wind up coming after everybody.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: No worries, man, I ain’t gonna gang up on you. However, I think surveyor’s post on Islam was right on the money.

Speaking of “decoupling”: I’d like to decouple the foreign oil dependence argument from the Muslims as aggrieved victims argument.

America has been locking horns with the Muslims from very near our beginning. The lyric immortalized in the Marine Corps Hymn (“to the shores of Tripoli”) deals with the Barbary Coast Pirates and their predation of American ships.

From Wikipedia: In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then the ambassador to France, and John Adams, then the ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the ambassador to Britain from Tripoli. The Americans asked Adja why his government was hostile to American ships, even though there had been no provocation. The ambassador’s response was reported to the Continental Congress:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

Benjamin Franklin’s writings mention Islam and the difficulties in dealing with them, especially in light of Islam’s insistence on the primacy of their religion.

Make no mistake, this is a religion that has always been proselytized at the point of a sword. In point of fact, the verse exhorting believers to subjugate infidels is called the “Sword Verse” (Sura 9:5 in the Qu’ran). It is also a religion that insists on primacy and demands that unbelievers adhere to Shari’a (Islamic Law). The terms are onerous, to say the least.

The idea that we would not have collided with them at some point then becomes a little problematic. Obviously, our support of Israel and our policy there over the last 50+ years has exacerbated the situation, but lunatics like Osama and his ilk would have come after us at some point, for oo other reason than when you’re bent on world domination you eventually wind up coming after everybody.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: No worries, man, I ain’t gonna gang up on you. However, I think surveyor’s post on Islam was right on the money.

Speaking of “decoupling”: I’d like to decouple the foreign oil dependence argument from the Muslims as aggrieved victims argument.

America has been locking horns with the Muslims from very near our beginning. The lyric immortalized in the Marine Corps Hymn (“to the shores of Tripoli”) deals with the Barbary Coast Pirates and their predation of American ships.

From Wikipedia: In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then the ambassador to France, and John Adams, then the ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the ambassador to Britain from Tripoli. The Americans asked Adja why his government was hostile to American ships, even though there had been no provocation. The ambassador’s response was reported to the Continental Congress:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

Benjamin Franklin’s writings mention Islam and the difficulties in dealing with them, especially in light of Islam’s insistence on the primacy of their religion.

Make no mistake, this is a religion that has always been proselytized at the point of a sword. In point of fact, the verse exhorting believers to subjugate infidels is called the “Sword Verse” (Sura 9:5 in the Qu’ran). It is also a religion that insists on primacy and demands that unbelievers adhere to Shari’a (Islamic Law). The terms are onerous, to say the least.

The idea that we would not have collided with them at some point then becomes a little problematic. Obviously, our support of Israel and our policy there over the last 50+ years has exacerbated the situation, but lunatics like Osama and his ilk would have come after us at some point, for oo other reason than when you’re bent on world domination you eventually wind up coming after everybody.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: No worries, man, I ain’t gonna gang up on you. However, I think surveyor’s post on Islam was right on the money.

Speaking of “decoupling”: I’d like to decouple the foreign oil dependence argument from the Muslims as aggrieved victims argument.

America has been locking horns with the Muslims from very near our beginning. The lyric immortalized in the Marine Corps Hymn (“to the shores of Tripoli”) deals with the Barbary Coast Pirates and their predation of American ships.

From Wikipedia: In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then the ambassador to France, and John Adams, then the ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the ambassador to Britain from Tripoli. The Americans asked Adja why his government was hostile to American ships, even though there had been no provocation. The ambassador’s response was reported to the Continental Congress:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

Benjamin Franklin’s writings mention Islam and the difficulties in dealing with them, especially in light of Islam’s insistence on the primacy of their religion.

Make no mistake, this is a religion that has always been proselytized at the point of a sword. In point of fact, the verse exhorting believers to subjugate infidels is called the “Sword Verse” (Sura 9:5 in the Qu’ran). It is also a religion that insists on primacy and demands that unbelievers adhere to Shari’a (Islamic Law). The terms are onerous, to say the least.

The idea that we would not have collided with them at some point then becomes a little problematic. Obviously, our support of Israel and our policy there over the last 50+ years has exacerbated the situation, but lunatics like Osama and his ilk would have come after us at some point, for oo other reason than when you’re bent on world domination you eventually wind up coming after everybody.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I don’t feel that you and Rus are ganging up on me. The irony is that I completely agree with the idea that we get loose of our dependence on foreign oil. I have said before (and I think on this thread) that we need to revisit our strategy regarding building new nuclear reactors. The French have an excellent energy model in this regard, and it would give a badly needed shot in the arm to our engineering and heavy industrial and construction capabilities.

I agree with nuance, but I also think that there is definitely evil in the world. Sadly, we (America) find ourselves supporting regimes out of necessity that are evil. Bad is sometimes better than worse, but it doesn’t make any easier to stomach. I can say that from experience having spent time in Central America during the 1980s. Did I believe in the mission? Yes. However, even though the ends can justify the means, it doesn’t let you sleep any better at night.

Let’s use Obama as an example. He is intelligent, very well spoken and has an excellent pedigree. He is also a product of the Chicago Democratic machine and has raised a staggering amount of money during his campaign. Isn’t it safe to say that probably a good chunk of that money is coming with strings attached? Same with McCain. I couldn’t agree more that he has gone from maverick to toeing the party line. This is why I won’t vote for either of them. Both are beholden, and that will not ever change, regardless of candidate and regardless of party.

The choices we are facing now transcend partisan politics or policies. I think the American people need to wake up and start making our OWN choices, not those thrust down our throats by politicos with an agenda driven by whose money they accepted.

[Author]

Posts