woensdag, 12 november 2003
Doorsturen Doorsturen   Printen Printen

Hoe goed is Bush?

De President van Amerika krijgt nogal wat kritiek. En m.i. terecht.

Er gebeuren onder zijn leiding en verantwoordelijkheid zoveel “rare” dingen dat we ons dagelijks afvragen wat er eigenlijk aan de hand is.

Toch zijn er nog altijd ongeveer 50 % Amerikanen die hem graag weer als de volgende President willen hebben. Of dat alleen maar komt omdat het alternatief nog slechter is, kun je niet zo eenvoudig zeggen.

Toen Bush als de grote leider even het terrorisme wilde afschaffen, stond praktisch de hele Amerikaanse bevolking achter hem. Al waren er altijd sceptici, waaronder Harry Browne en Ron Paul, die vanaf het begin verdedigden dat de gekozen oplossingen de verkeerde waren.

De ontwikkelingen in Irak schijnen de sceptici wel gelijk te geven.

Maar ook nu heeft Bush nog veel trouwe klanten. Om daar een licht op te werpen, heeft LIBERTARIAN INTERNATIONAL vandaag (12 nov) op verzoek van Erika Holzer een artikel van John Dendahl geplaatst. (Erika en haar man Hank waren de advocaten van Ayn Rand)

We zijn benieuwd of u daar commentaar op hebt.

Zie Site op 12 November: President Stood Up to Imminent Iraqi Threat

www.libertarian.to/NewsDta/templates/news1.php?art=art467

 
Waardering: 
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars

Door , topic: Terrorisme
Reacties op dit artikel kunnen gevolgd worden op de RSS 2.0 feed.
Reacties
  1. Ivo schreef op : 1

    MY COMMENTS IN CAPITALS

    President George W. Bush has not flinched. The United States continues to guide the world away from a sinister, imminent threat to peace and help the long-savaged people of Iraq along the road to liberty.

    BUSH HIMSELF IS THE THREAT

    TO WHAT KIND OF LIBERTY DOES HIS ROAD LEAD? LIBERTY UNDER THE UNCLE SAM’S GUN?

    Yet in his own country, President Bush is subjected to a daily drumbeat of vilification for our work in Iraq.

    BUSH IS NOT THE OWNER OF ANY COUNTRY

    “OUR” WORK – WHO’S WE?

    Getting right to the bottom line, if armed-and-ready-to-go weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are not found somewhere in Iraq, will our recent military action have been unjust? No.

    GO BACK SOME MONTHS AGO AND LOOK AT WHAT DEVIL BUSH WAS SAYING. HE EVEN DEMANDED FROM HIS EXCELLENCY SADDAM TO PROVE A NEGATIVE FACT, THE FACT OF HAVING NO WMDs, WHICH IS A LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY, BUT BUSH’S TASK IS MUCH MORE EASY, HE MUST ONLY PROVE A POSITIVE FACT. AND HE CAN’T DO IT.

    It is unrealistic to talk about Iraq in isolation, rather than its position in the geopolitically important Middle East. During an eight-day visit to Israel in 2001, I made a lasting friendship with an American newsman who emigrated to Israel about 20 years ago and has raised his family there.

    WHAT’S YOUR CRITERION TO LINK THESE? YOUR FRIENDSHIP?

    Yossi is no hawk, but in 2001 he surprised himself by voting to elect Ariel Sharon prime minister. Whatever faith Yossi had placed in the Palestinians’ commitment to peace had been extinguished by the intifadeh, the latest of many Palestinian betrayals of the so-called Oslo Peace Accords, betrayals aided and abetted by others especially including Iraq.

    BLABLABLA, WHAT HAS THAT TO DO WITH IRAQ AND EVEN WITH ISRAEL FOR THAT MATTER?

    In August, 2002, I asked Yossi what he thought of an unscientific poll in which I had found overwhelming support for a preemptive attack on Iraq. He promptly answered, "John, I’m with you on Iraq. The region needs a serious shaking up, even if it means that Israel will take the first retaliation from Saddam."

    DOES YOSSI MEAN THAT SATAN BUSH ATTACKED IRAQ TO PROTECT ISRAEL?

    Iraqi Scuds didn’t rain down on Israel as they had in 1991, and with several important allies, the United States conducted a short and successful operation to topple the evil Saddam Hussein. Civilian casualties and destruction of nonmilitary property were held to a historic minimum by the fine combination of our disciplined soldiers and high technology weapons.

    WHY THE ADJECTIVE THE “EVIL” SADDAM

    YOSSI RECOGNISES THAT CIVILIANS WERE KILLED AND NONMILITARY PROPERTY DESTRUCTED.

    WHAT’S THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS?

    Much has been written about the woeful state of Iraq’s infrastructure, giving some the impression it was destroyed during the war. In fact, American forces and their allies did little damage other than to strictly military targets. This contrasted vividly with the civilian targets, including the Chinese Embassy, destroyed by Allied bombings in Belgrade during President Bill Clinton’s war against Slobodan Milosevic.

    SO AMERICAN FORCES DAMAGED OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT TARGETS IN YOUGOSLAVIA.

    CHINESE EMBASSY IS AGAIN THE GOVERNMENT.

    BUT, HECK, WHERE’S THERE LINK BETWEEN YUGOSLAVIA AND IRAQ?

  2. Ivo schreef op : 2

    The two factors most responsible for deficient Iraqi infrastructure are decades of Baath Party (read Saddam Hussein) neglect, and sabotage by remnants of Saddam’s supporters and other terrorists who have infiltrated.

    HAHAHA, THAT’S WHY “YOU” BOMBED THEM.

    While dozens of successes occur each week, such as openings of schools and restoration of electrical and water service, the news focus remains tilted heavily to the negative — like sabotage and attacks by guerillas and suicide bombers.

    WHERE’S THE PROOF?

    But, some like to ask, why didn’t we let diplomacy work? An old adage goes, "It would take a thousand wise men a thousand years to answer all the questions of a fool." I don’t claim all those advocating yet more approvals from France, Germany, Russia and the U.N. are fools. I do claim that President Bush worked patiently with all of the above before moving against Saddam, even foregoing the best seasonal weather for conduct of the war.

    THE DIPLOMACY WAS MEANT TO CONVINCE THE “ALLIES” THAT THERE WERE WMDs IN IRAQ. THEY STILL HAVEN’T BEEN FOUND.

    At some point one must decide and act. This is the burden accepted by a true leader.

    NODOBY NEEDS A LEADER

    Saddam’s 12 years of largely unpunished defiance in the face of his obligations after the 1991 war, coupled with successive U.N. resolutions, were more than enough to make a move against him entirely just.

    WHAT OBLIGATIONS? UN RESOLUTIONS, HOW CAN THESE BE BINDING UPON HIS EXCELLENCY SADDAM?

    What about the weapons of mass destruction? The press and President Bush’s critics have focused on Inspector David Kay’s report of not yet finding weapons ready to deploy and fire.

    However, Kay and his team have found ample evidence that the programs were alive and "well," and that Saddam continued, illegally, to conceal his prohibited activities from U.N. inspectors.

    HAHAHA HAHAHA

    BUSH STARTED THE WAR BECAUSE OF THE WMDs AND HE EVEN ASKED HIS EXCELLENCY SADDAM TO PROVE HE DID NOT HAVE THEM

    AND YOU ARE STILL SAYING THAT YOU HAVE EVIDENCE.

    PLEASE SHOW THIS EVIDENCE.

    We who support the President don’t argue that U.S. intelligence was perfect. We don’t deny that hindsight reveals the occasional wrong decision. We do believe that the "shaking up" reluctantly supported by my friend Yossi is a very good thing, and I expect that our old, skeptical allies in Europe will soon join in the constructive work of their friends.

    CONSTRUCTIVE WORK?

    OCCASIONAL WRONG INTELLIGENCE? BUT YOU’RE STILL SAYING THAT YOUR INTELLIGENCE WAS NOT WRONG BECAUSE YOU ARE STILL SAYING THAT IRAQ HAS WMDs. YOU MUST KNOW WHAT YOU SAY.

    TWO BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR ANY DISCOURSE ARE THE LAW OF IDENTITY AND THE LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION.

    TO PARAPHRASE THREE PARAGRAPHS AGO: AT SOME POINT ONE MUST ACCEPT ONE’S MISTAKES.

  3. Ivo schreef op : 3

    op dit uur nog op drudgereport.com:

    www.laweekly.com…

    Controversialist Gore Vidal To Suggest In Interview: Bush and Ashcroft would be ‘hanged’ by Founding Fathers; they are ‘despots’…

  4. Baghra D-jalbed schreef op : 4

    Bush heeft toch al twee volken bevrijd: niet slecht in krap 3 jaar