« "I'm shaking it, boss!" | Main | Joementum column »
Saturday, 12 August 2006
Podhoretz on foreign policy
There was a very interesting piece based on an interview with Norman Podhoretz on the WSJ's editorial page today.
It was particularly interesting -- and disturbing -- for me because he is considered a sort of seminal neoconservative. "Disturbing" because I agreed with almost everything he said. When you hate agreeing across the board with any ideological label the way I do, this sort of thing can make you very uncomfortable.
I take comfort from the fact that the piece was confined to neocon thinking on foreign policy. That there is an overlap in that area should probably not be disturbing or surprising. I've said many times that my view of America's role in the world is pretty much that of pre-Vietnam liberals, and it should be expected that my views would jibe with the neocons in this area because they were pre-Vietnam liberals -- at least, the old ones like Podhoretz were.
Of course, nowadays "neocon" is most often defined more or less entirely in terms of a certain stance on foreign policy, and indeed it largely grew out of its fathers' dispute with liberalism in that area during the '60s. I still don't like the label, though, because I first heard of it in connection with Reaganomics, and I disagreed with that stuff most vehemently. That's the trouble with all modern political labels. I agree strongly with the "conservatives" on abortion and I agree strongly with "liberals" on public education. So I guess it's OK to agree strongly with the "neocons" on muscular interventionism. Or so I tell myself.
Anyway, back to this piece. I said I agree with almost all of it. My blood sort of runs cold when he seems to be advocating torture. But then I wonder: Am I being hypocritical about this? While I embrace the McCain-Graham approach of pulling us away from the use of coercion on prisoners, I wonder if I take that position just to make myself feel righteous.
Guilty be told, on a certain level I hope that the Brits are doing what they can to extract information from the bomb plotters they've arrested so that they might quickly capture the ones they haven't arrested, before they manage to carry out some plan B. I ask myself, which is worse -- a would-be mass murderer getting slapped around a little, or a 747 with 400-plus people on it blowing up? And I think I know the answer.
But ultimately, I think McCain and company are right -- if we're going to win this war that Mr. Podhoretz calls World War IV, we have to tie our own hands to a great extent. Otherwise, it's sort of hard to be champions of the liberal democracy we hope to foster in hostile soil. So on that point, I think the Podhoretz approach is not only chilling, but strategically wrong.
Posted by Brad Warthen at 08:55 PM in Marketplace of ideas, The Nation, The World, War and Peace
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4ea353ef00d834a7726e53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Podhoretz on foreign policy:
Comments
> a would-be mass murderer getting slapped
> around a little
I don't think that would be considered torture. You know what torture is... and you also know that we employ methods far more "intense" than slapping them around.
Let's not be naive here. There are people on both sides of the "War on Terror" who are willing to do WHATEVER it takes to achieve their objectives. We're just better at denial.
Much like the vast majority of Neocons, Podhoretz has never felt it necessary to come out of the ivory tower and actually participate in war - he's too much of an intellectual to get his hands dirty. Along with fellow neocons like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Jonah Goldberg, Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle, William Kristol, William Bennett, ad infinitum, this group is far more comfortable talking about war rather than putting themselves on the front line. They are all far more comfortable sending an 18 year old kid from the South Carolina lowcountry over to Iraq. I mean, if their grand theories don't work out, well, they'll just have to write another book.
How many of these neocons who think things are going just swell in Iraq would be willing to go to Baghdad tomorrow? None.
Posted by: Doug | Aug 12, 2006 9:58:14 PM
Brad, did you actually read that Far Left screed you linked to for Reaganomics? Even Wikipedia is more balanced! Surely a "centrist" like you wouldn't agree with a description that is so biased and totally out of the mainstream. Or would you?
Posted by: LexWolf | Aug 12, 2006 10:34:25 PM
Amazingly enough, I again have to agree with you (mostly). This part especialy hasn't changed in the past 40 years or so:
"The issue was America," he says. "I was repelled, almost nauseated, by the rise of anti-Americanism on the left. The hatred of this country seemed to me not only wrong, it was disgusting. . . . Everything the left was saying about America was wrong--everything--and wrong by 180 degrees." He likens it to "staging a black mass, with the cross inverted and Christ hanging by his feet."
The Left hasn't changed a bit since then. If anything, it's gotten even worse. Just don't question their patriotism!
Posted by: LexWolf | Aug 12, 2006 11:21:56 PM
Ahhh... right-wing, left-wing, neocons, greenies, libertarians, etc, etc. So many people so intent on name-calling and finger-pointing. You have to dig through 40 tons of dross to find 4 grams of interesting thought.
And yet more of the same tired and worn out charges that none of the people in favor of military action in Iraq have a right to that position because they are not personally buying airline tickets to Baghdad leveled by another bunch that thinks supporting our troops is a yellow magnetic ribbon sticker with some qualifying political slogan they got at the 7-11 six months ago when they were buying gas for their SUVs...
It's all so black and white; that is when it's not self-contradictory.
Brad, you just set yourself up for the inevitable tangential name-calling, etc when you start any discussion by saying that you agree (or disagree) with a particular group. (Ahoooo... neocons... You're not by any chance typing your blog in the dark while sitting in front of a mirror holding a flashlight under your chin?)
In the case of torture, John McCain knows what he's talking about (speaking about people that have actually paid a personal price for going to war). The current war on terror cannot be won completely by military means. Victory will only be achieved when our enemies refute their own objectives and desire peace with the world. We cannot force them, militarily, to do that. Military force is only one part of what must be a comprehensive strategy in the Middle East.
Torture is inimical to that goal, and not generally effective from a practical point, either.
Podhoretz is correct that successful military (and Iraqi police) operations depend on good intelligence, but the most useful intelligence is usually not collected from prisoners under duress. It is, rather, collected by exploiting sources who have access to the terrorists and their operations. Such exploitation is made by intelligence agents who have the necessary language and cultural skills to interact with the locals.
There is another downside to torture, as well, and that is the damage it does to your own side. It's not just the political and public controversy and dissolution of support for the overall strategy. It's also the moral and ethical damage it does to the men and women executing it and by extension to the institutions carrying it out.
One thing that should be kept in mind, though, by both the proponents and critics of torture, is that the young men and women who have largely taken it upon themselves to abuse POWs are all products of American society and symbols of the same to the rest of the world. They are what we made them in our classrooms and through our mass media. The blame for what they have done doesn't rest in some backroom in DC with some dark conspiracy, it lies with all of us.
Posted by: SGM (ret.) | Aug 13, 2006 12:20:29 AM
Where does one begin when attempting to address comments such as these? First of all, if you are even contemplating the use of state sanctioned coercion or torture under any circumstances, then you’ve got serious issues. How un-American and un-Christian can one be? It’s hard to believe that our “natural aristocracy” has sunken to this level of thought and discourse-from the pen of a major newspaper editor, no less.
Despite Brad’s equivocation, I believe I understand his message. It’s O.K. to slap around and use coercion on prisoners as long as you don’t do the serious stuff (i.e., electrocution, pulling out fingernails, etc). That way, in Brad’s view, we can still “extract” information without appearing to be barbaric.
Brad, what on earth are you thinking? What happened to you to make you what you are?
The use of coercion and torture shouldn’t even be a question-not in America-they’re totally antithetical to everything that this country and Western Civilization stand for. So now you think that maybe we should start pulling away from such practices because McCain and Graham say so. Did your leaders have to tell you that coercion and torture are wrong? Didn’t you go to Sunday-School? I know you must have at least heard the Golden Rule growing up.
That’s what concerns me about you-you’ve evidently been warped by neo-conservatives who try to pass off their ideology as being somehow American, when nothing could be further from the truth. Even the neo-con lexicon isn’t American. The second I heard America referred to as the “Homeland” (as akin to the un-American “Fatherland”), I knew that we were in serious trouble. How could a professional editor and writer be led astray by the likes of corporate funded, fascist, so-called think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation? Perhaps you’ve been led astray precisely because of your professional status. What would Jesus think about your thoughts? My advice is to love God with your heart, soul, and mind-and to love your brother as yourself as Jesus commanded. That way you can get yourself back on track.
No, America is (and should be) about due process and the rule of law. I hope and pray that you come around to your senses. Many people will be willing to help you.
Posted by: Mark Whittington | Aug 13, 2006 3:11:44 AM
Since the western world in general has achieved a level of civilization that is foreign to many of the third world, and especially so for many in the Arab world, it is hard for some to imagine that there are those who don't follow rules of civil behavior, even in war. So we agree to rules where you treat prisoners with basic dignities, even pay them a small stipend. The other side has no such rules. Military and civilian prisoners are mutilated publicly like something out of a horror film. We in the western world would never dream of rigging a retarded child with explosives, or send a pregnant woman on a packed flight to slaughter innocents. So, as we fight an enemy that blends in with "normal" citizens, and yet again the neighbors of the Muslim Brits recently arrested claimed what nice people these were, our rules have to be altered to prevail in this battle for the soul of the world. Those who are rabidly against torture remind me of those who would eat supermarket chicken, beef, or pork day in and day out yet would be horrified to observe the killing process at the slaughterhouses. As long as the Islamofascists are out of sight and out of mind with no impact on their own families, many American citizens want to be on the high moral ground. That high moral ground is being used as a weapon against us by an enemy that will stop at nothing, include mass suicide, to kill us.
The question was asked, what would Jesus do? I can't speak for him personally, but he would see Satan in this enemy, and he would condemn the sins of the sinner. And he would not expect us to turn the other cheek while our heads are being sliced off.
Posted by: Dave | Aug 13, 2006 6:01:57 AM
Brad, nearly 100,000 Iraqi Shiites (the ones we "liberated") marched in the streets last week burning American flags and shouting "Death to Israel and America", Lebanon lies in ruins while Hezbollah enjoys over 90% support of the people, Gaza is a shambles with over 125 Palestinians killed in the past few weeks, and you are endorsing the philosophy of someone who describes the policies that led us to this point as a "huge accomplishment"? As George Will said, "neoconservatism is a spectacularly misnamed radicalism" and it is leading us to the brink of an extreme disaster. We seem poised to make the same mistakes again only with much more dire consequences.
To people like Podhoretz, Ledeen, Kristol, etc, the principles that made the US a respected superpower over the past century are obsolete and need to be discarded. We have been too good, to moral too restrained. We haven't fought enough wars and those we have weren't ferocious enough. As Ledeen said, "Every 10 years or so , the US needs to pick some crappy little country and throw it against the wall , just to show the world we mean business." The essence of the philosophy advocated by these "intellectuals" is really no more complex or noble than the fundamental belief that we must be in a perpetual state of war, killing as many people as necessary in as many countries as necessary until the rest of the world (or what remains of it) is sufficiently afraid of the might of the US that they will submissively comply with our will. To them, the problem is "we aren't sufficiently feared". The problems of the Middle East can be solved with the application of a sufficiently brutal force. Our past failures can be explained by the fact that we didn't kill enough people. The people of the world need to know and be forewarned that this is the "New American Century" and the US isn't restrained any longer by int. law or treaties, world opinion, or even another superpower, but only by our own self interest. Either comply with our instructions, or face the consequences.
In my opinion, this is of course, homicidal madness and not serious political philosophy, but it seems to be very enticing to many. This is antithetical to the core political values that have governed this country since it's founding. If we continue in this direction, we will be transformed into a rogue state that operates with no moral, legal, or ethical boundaries or restraints. When you view the defense of torture in light of the Bush "preventive war"doctrine, the "unitarian executive" who is above the law, the suspension of habeus corpus for anyone deemed an "enemy combatant", the violation of civil liberties at home, etc. there does appear to be good reason for concern for a "creeping etremism" in the halls of power in our federal govt.
Posted by: Jim | Aug 13, 2006 1:27:19 PM
Jim, you sound like a member of the pragmatic majority. Brad's argument that the Lamont victory represents a takeover of the Democratic party by fringe radicals is completely devoid of facts. Given the very strong and growing support for withdrawl from Iraq Brad's continued harping about how Lieberman fits into his so-called "mainstream" Unparty illustrates how effective the neocon propaganda machine has become.
Fact: >60% support = mainstream position
<40% support = fringe position
Posted by: bud | Aug 13, 2006 1:40:59 PM
Bud,
I've seen this 60% number thrown all around this blog lately. Do you actually have a link to those polls. or did you just make it up?
Posted by: LexWolf | Aug 13, 2006 1:48:25 PM
Whether 100% of Iraqis love America or not, we have shut down Iraq as a hangout and travel route for terrorists. Iran and Syria are separated by hundreds of miles of desert under US control, and Israel has cut off most other resupply access to Lebanon.
Posted by: Lee | Aug 13, 2006 1:57:44 PM
Here is a great article that could just as well apply to this country (and rest of the West): A spirit of absolute folly
Posted by: LexWolf | Aug 13, 2006 2:01:41 PM
Time to pick up a gun, put on a helmet, and head to Iraq? My goodness, the cry of ”Chickenhawk!” just keeps on coming. Folks who employ ad hominem attacks like this just want to attack, not discuss or convince. It's best to ignore them until they come up with something substantive.
But that’s not why I write. Another Bush supporter -- a neocon -- has a piece entitled “Standing By Bush” in today’s WaPo that I heartily recommend, especially this from the penultimate paragraph:
I worry, for example, about whether he is conceding too much to our U.N. Security Council partners regarding Iran. But if he is going to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities -- as I believe he will have to do and will not shrink from doing -- his position will be strengthened by having exhausted every diplomatic possibility.Brad, the reluctant neocon, anticipated this over a week ago in his blog entry The coming war with Iran, etc.
Brad – come out of the closet, come on home, join us with pride: Neocon is thy name.
Posted by: Mike C | Aug 13, 2006 2:12:28 PM
Brad, I'm glad you are finally coming out of the closet on this. Your Vietnam revisionism gave you away a long time ago. Cheney and Bush and Wolfowitz and Feith and all those guys would definitely agree with you on Vietnam. That is a huge reason why Iraq happened. These guys have been jones-ing, itching, dying inside to pull some triggers and they saw this as their chance. It has only a little in their minds to do with remedying problems in the Middle East, but everything with their desire to insure the global perception of America's continued military will and dominance.
As I've argued elsewhere, that's fine, but you can't ask for that and then to NOT be a terrorist target. Being #1 comes with a price. Ask the Roman Empire.
Posted by: Phillip | Aug 13, 2006 4:04:00 PM
Iran is one of the most stable sovereign nations in the middle east and holds at least nominal elections. The country denounced the 9/11 attacks and provided logistical support to the US and it's allies in Afghanistan. They have not attacked another country in over three decades (US supported Iraq was the aggressor in the Iran-Iraq war). It was named a founding member of the "axis of evil" and is very aware of it's potential as a "preventive war" target. The lesson they have learned from Iraq was that Saddam had the "beware of dog sign" but no dog. They have 7 countries with nuclear weapons surrounding them. Our policy of "preventive war" has them rushing to aquire a nuclear weapon not to lob it at Israel in a move of national suicide (Israel has reportedly at least 250 nuclear weapons) but rather to deter any first strike against it. We have "allowed" both India and Pakistan to join the nuclear club against the NPT with no consequences (we have even agreed to enhance India's capacity which will lead to further world-wide proliferation). They have learned the US rules of "preventive war": The target must be essentially defenseless (Iran has a 4th rate army), they must possess something of value (Iran's natural gas and petroleum reserves are apparently the most valuable in the world) ,and they must be easily demonized as a "threat to civilization" (check).
Iran has agreed to oil and natural gas deals with Russia and China which may shut out the US (this is cited by grassy knoll theorists as the real reason they were placed in the pantheon of evil). An unprovoked strike by the US would possibly bring in China and Russia on the side of Iran and would certainly jeopardize our 150,000 troops surrounded by Shiite militia in Iraq. To my knowledge, we have had no direct talks with Iraq in 6 years. Pres. Ahmadinajead (sp) is on 60 minutes tonight and an extended version is on CSPAN tomorrow. All interested should watch. A nuclear Iran is something the Western world needs to work diligently to avoid, although the days of Israel existing as the only nuclear power are likely limited, unless we're ready to resort to genocide or "ethnic cleansing"(I won't ask for any takers on this blog).
Posted by: Jim | Aug 13, 2006 4:35:44 PM
Jim, the Iranians, led by the militant mullah Khomeini, kidnapped American embassy workers and took them hostage. They were beaten, tortured, humiliated, and permanently damaged in many ways. I don't care about their elections, how they haven't attacked another nation. They must pay for what they have done and Brad is right, it is coming. The sooner the better.
Posted by: Dave | Aug 13, 2006 6:19:16 PM
The Iranian government may have not declared war since losing over 1,000,000 soldiers against Iraq in the 1980s, but Iranian terrorists and members of their elite military units have been killed and captured while fighting in other countries, most recently just last week by the Israelis in Lebanon. Since 2003, we have been killing and capturing Iranians in battles all over the Mideast.
Posted by: Lee | Aug 13, 2006 6:21:06 PM
I disgree with Mr. Podheretz. We're aren't losing in Iraq because of intelligence. We're losing because we're trying to adapt soldiers to fight terrorists. "A soldier fights because of something to protect; a terrorist fights because there's nothing to lose." The more overwhelming the force we apply (short of extermination - God forbid more of that thinking!), the more hopeless the situation becomes, the easier it is for people to make that slide into becoming terrorists. We know this from our own country - why are gangs prevalent in inner cities?? I don't believe we have made the right efforts to provide Iraqis with something to lose. Certainly they don't seem to value democracy all that much, not yet. SGM boiled it down nicely the other day, we should "fight smarter, not harder." Podheretz is advocating harder not smarter. We desperately need to challenge ourselves to think creatively about what the Iraqis value, and about strategies for linking access to that with our well-being.
On a different note, Brad, you use the phrase "we'll have to tie our own hands..." That's deeply disturbing, it implies you think refusing to torture is a negative (assuming unbounded hands are a positive). Our government's sanctioned application of torture by the executive (tacitly approved by the legislative) is a horror. I'm a Christian; I won't wall off what I have been taught all my life to Sunday-morning only. Torture is an evil act, and our nation is shamed by it. At least some parts of it are.
Posted by: Uncle Elmer | Aug 13, 2006 6:59:36 PM
It may be helpful to recall that Iran was the site of the 1st successful American attempt at "regime change" in 1953 when the CIA assassinated the democratically elected popular reformer Mosadegh who led the Iranian parliament from 1951-1953, ending democracy in Iran for a half century. We installed the Shah to the throne who led a brutal single party regime, arresting dissenters, torturing prisoners,secret police but keeping the door open for US and multinational companies to have access to the countries resources. Despite the human rights abuses and tyranny, Kissinger was just glad "The Shah supported the US on every major foreign policy issue."The Shah was propped up by the US until the revolution. With the election of Carter, human rights began to influence US policy -"No more Viet Nams, and No more Pinochet's". The Shah fell and we began backing Saddam to overthrow Khomeini. The Iran-Iraq war (with US WMD) lasted a decade and killed millions. As we all know, Reagan did not apparently have a problem negotiating with "terrorists" (if we did invade, would those be our weapons being fired at US troops?).
For 26 years, we have treated Iran like a pariah and have tried to isolate them politically and economically (although Haliburton is fighting for the contract to the world's largest nat gas field despite the mullahs). If you look at history (S Korea, Russia, S Africa) when we engage countries politically and economically, democracy and liberalism will usually develop. Countries we treat as pariahs (Cuba) don't. Iran has an amazingly liberal, educated, shockingly pro-AM population that does not like the Theocratic Mullah rule. But as with the Iraqi Shia, they would like US meddling even less. Attacking them will only stimulate a patriotic defensive response (obviously) and create more America haters.
Or we could just bomb the ---- out of them.
Posted by: Jim | Aug 13, 2006 7:58:23 PM
By now I'm sure most Iranians would love to have the Shah back.
Sad to say, the Left is so deluded about the real state of the world that it will probably take another 2 or 3 9/11s before they finally wake up to the fact that we're in World War 4 against the Islamist fascists. We can stick our heads in the sand all we want but they will not rest until we're all Muslims. Except of course the Left because their lifestyles would make them the first ones to be stoned, beheaded, shot etc. Too bad they don't understand the stakes and would rather stick their heads in the sand, pretending that the Islamist fascists are just reasonable guys and if only we would talk to them, everything would be alright. Sleep, babies, sleep, everything will be alright if you just dream nice, soft dreams.....
Posted by: LexWolf | Aug 13, 2006 10:16:43 PM
How do you talk or negotiate with mothers who are willing to blow themselves up with their babies in their arms?
Posted by: LexWolf | Aug 13, 2006 10:28:20 PM
A recent study of 450 suicide bombers worldwide found that the common motivating factor for the overwhelming majority was an attempt to desperately strike back at an occupying nation who had taken territory seen by the bomber as rightfully theirs. Fundamentalist Islam was frequently used as a tool to assure the bomber of the justness of the cause and future reward, but the main motivation was political and often territorial. Read "Jihadi generation" in the State today. The 7/7 London bombings were a direct result of our Iraqi "Liberation". They are letting us know there are consequences to the killing, bombing and overall disregard for Muslim life. An expanded war in the ME is not the answer. We must coexist, and given that we haven't even talked to the Iranians in 26 years, to say diplomacy has failed is absurd. I know many of you will be disappointed, but this does not have to happen and it is not inevitable.
O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle-be Thou near them! With them, in spirit, we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it-for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.
Mark Twain
Posted by: Jim | Aug 14, 2006 5:21:09 AM
European Muslims are being recruited by methods such as the five "documentary" films being shown as propaganda instruments, all of which have some variation of the story that
* Muslims did not attack America on Sept 11
* the buildings were blown up by Jews
* the buildings were blown up by President Bush
* the reason was to launch a Christian jihad against the peaceful Arabs and take their oil
* same for the Madrid train bombings... Jews
* same for the London subway bombings... Jews
Notice how much it sounds like the radical core of the Democratic Party.
Notice how much it sounds like Hitler's and Tojo's rationale for "defending" Germany and Japan from British and Dutch agression.
Posted by: Lee | Aug 14, 2006 6:25:44 AM
In September, 1939, after hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland, an act that signaled the start of World War II, U.S. Senator William Edgar Borah ( R-ID) said, "Lord, if I could only have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided." I have always been fascinated by this notion. What would he have said to dissuade the Nazi leader from doing what he felt he was his destiny to do?
Many of the comments in this blog follow the same, well-intentioned but naïve, line of thinking. Jim, especially, seems to believe that there is another, non-military option for disarming Iran. Is it something that we could say that would dissuade the apocalyptic Mullahs from building, and using, nuclear weapons?
I would really like to hear what it you would say that could change their minds so drastically. Otherwise, you might be the 2006 winner of the Borah award, known as the Ostrich.
-gene
Posted by: Gene Retske | Aug 14, 2006 7:47:41 AM
We cannot change the terrorist mind but we also cannot expect to become LESS of a target by pursuing a strategy of bomb first, ask questions later.
It will take internal pressure from the Muslim community to diminish terrorism by the radical members of their religion.
How is it different from the "Christian" lunatics who kill doctors who perform abortions? or protest at soldiers' funerals with anti-gay signs? Maybe because the vast majority of Christians denounce the behavior, it is kept mostly under control. I don't see a great outcry from the Muslim community over the terrorist acts.
That's why I don't believe our policies in the Middle East have any chance of succeeding. We are not perceived as liberators or moral authorities. We cannot change hearts and minds... we can only blow stuff up.
Posted by: Doug | Aug 14, 2006 9:00:03 AM
We didn't bomb any terrorists first.
Iran has considered itself to be at war since the Jimmy Carter administration.
Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden have been planning, training and financing terrorist groups which have attacked Americans abroad and on US soil every year of the Clinton administration. They have also attacked other countries which had done nothing but try to negotiate with radical Muslims: Holland, Belgium, France, Denmark, Sweden, England, Canada, Spain, Portugal, Thailand, India, etc.
Posted by: Lee | Aug 14, 2006 9:58:20 AM
