Tigerhawk has a great post about the central debate of our time: Did Saddam and bin Laden have a relationship?
In a way, it really doesn't matter. Saddam is history, someday soon bin Laden will be too. In a sense, the course of the war is set, and in both Afghanistan and Iraq, we have won overwhelmingly.
But it does matter what the ultimate historical verdict is on the war. While I maintain that, on the merits, Iraq is an unqualified success; unless the common perception of this war is that it was a just war and a military success, the options for future Presidents for fighting in the "Long War" will be severely constrained.
By choosing to oppose the war by means of attacking the President's honesty and credibility, liberal Democrats are tying the hands of a future (perhaps Democrat) President. For the foreseeable future, our leadership will need all options, including preemption, at his or her disposal.
While perhaps politically expedient in the short run, accusing our own President of lying (particularly when it's not true) is extremely corrosive to our national interest in the long run.
That's why this debate is so crucial. Simply put, the prestige and honor of the United States matter. Every day, all over the world, a vast propaganda machine is at work smearing the reputation of America. We really shouldn't be helping them.
The revolt against the war in Iraq has revealed deep fault lines in American society. Rest assured, Ahmadinejad and bin Laden are watching. As Ben Franklin once observed, if we don't hang together, we will certainly hang separately.
Apparently, to some Americans, (can you say Kos?) the pursuit of political power takes precedence over simple common-sense American solidarity.
So far in the war on terror, I would say the administration and the military have performed brilliantly. Sadly, many in the political arena have taken the low road.
The connection that mattered between Saddam and bin Laden was simply that after 9/11, no rational American President could have continued to tolerate this serial murdering madman at the controls of a state. Maybe he was collaborating with bin Laden, maybe he wasn't. We'll probably never know for sure. What we should know for sure is that the civilized world simply shouldn't have to be at the mercy of a crazed dictator's whims.
In a way, it really doesn't matter. Saddam is history, someday soon bin Laden will be too. In a sense, the course of the war is set, and in both Afghanistan and Iraq, we have won overwhelmingly.
But it does matter what the ultimate historical verdict is on the war. While I maintain that, on the merits, Iraq is an unqualified success; unless the common perception of this war is that it was a just war and a military success, the options for future Presidents for fighting in the "Long War" will be severely constrained.
By choosing to oppose the war by means of attacking the President's honesty and credibility, liberal Democrats are tying the hands of a future (perhaps Democrat) President. For the foreseeable future, our leadership will need all options, including preemption, at his or her disposal.
While perhaps politically expedient in the short run, accusing our own President of lying (particularly when it's not true) is extremely corrosive to our national interest in the long run.
That's why this debate is so crucial. Simply put, the prestige and honor of the United States matter. Every day, all over the world, a vast propaganda machine is at work smearing the reputation of America. We really shouldn't be helping them.
The revolt against the war in Iraq has revealed deep fault lines in American society. Rest assured, Ahmadinejad and bin Laden are watching. As Ben Franklin once observed, if we don't hang together, we will certainly hang separately.
Apparently, to some Americans, (can you say Kos?) the pursuit of political power takes precedence over simple common-sense American solidarity.
So far in the war on terror, I would say the administration and the military have performed brilliantly. Sadly, many in the political arena have taken the low road.
The connection that mattered between Saddam and bin Laden was simply that after 9/11, no rational American President could have continued to tolerate this serial murdering madman at the controls of a state. Maybe he was collaborating with bin Laden, maybe he wasn't. We'll probably never know for sure. What we should know for sure is that the civilized world simply shouldn't have to be at the mercy of a crazed dictator's whims.
posted by alwaysright at
4:46 PM
9 Comments:
Honest questions* if you don't mind
*no hidden agenda
1. how do you feel about the tax cuts for the highest income people with simultaneous cuts to social programs?
2. what is your take on the present budget deficit?
3. thoughts on DeLay, Frist, Libby - are they victims of the liberals or do they deserve to be where they are today in the justice system?
1. I think you must be my only reader! I'm in the financial business and so I actually know what I'm talking about. The tax cuts do reduce rates for the highest earners, but taxes were cut more in percentage terms for low earners. If I have a high income and I pay $50,000 in taxes, if I get a 10% cut in taxes, I save $5000. But I still pay $45000, and I still pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes.
Now if I have less income and only pay $10000 in taxes, you could cut my taxes by 25% and I would "only" save $2500. This is what enables critics to say that the wealthy get most of the tax cuts, even though lower earners have their taxes cut proportionately more. In fact, millions of people had their taxes cut 100%, because tax reform took the lowest earners right off the tax rolls.
Also, one cannot discount the stimulative effect that tax cuts have on the economy. Most high earners are self-employed, like doctors, lawyers, business owners, or big execs, whose pay is linked to performance. A stronger economy means they earn more, and voila!, pay more taxes. That's why tax receipts are so strong, and why the deficit has consistently come in below forecast, despite runaway spending.
As for social programs being cut, which ones? I don't object to some being cut or eliminated, because there may be a better way to accomplish the objective than a government program.
2. Not too big a deal.
3. Innocent until proven guilty.
Thanks. I like the way you explained the tax cuts. Too bad it isn't explained that simply in the media.
2. Budget deficit: I'm a little shy about talking money with a financial guy, but I was reading today (or heard on the radio) that some people aren't worried about the Am. budget deficit because they see that people in Europe and China overall save their money (as compared to spend-crazy Americans, I guess) So the thinking is that there is still plenty of available cash around and no one will try to collect. (oof that might be all wrong, but that's how my non-financial mind translated it)
3. You're right, innocent until proven guilty. Meanwhile political careers have already been ruined. On the other hand "where there's smoke, there's fire" and several aides have already pleaded guilty.
Should be interesting to see how things develop.
Thanks for your responses. I really don't have anyone to discuss issues with.
have you given up the good fight already... typical republican - all cherry picked, flashy analysis but, a very short attention span. If it don't work move on to the next rotten idea!
????
Nicely abrasive. Having a tough week?
Just so snarky tonight... guess we have this site all to ourselves? Mr. Alwaysright seems to be Mr. Alwaysaway! Tee Hee...
I had a vague hunch that you and righterscramp were the same person. Always posting around the same times, ditto for being absent.
Interesting
Believe me, Madeleine, righterscramp and I are not the same person!
Suuuuuure you aren't.
I'll bet one of you wears glasses but the other doesn't, Clark Kent-style ;)
-------
Maybe you can see what I was thinking. I figured you had an interesting Point/Counterpoint thing going on. You'd be the conserv, he'd be the liberal.
Come to think of it, why don't you go ahead and do it anyway? Create the alter-ego then run with it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home