The Dissident President
George W. Bush has the courage to speak out for freedom. — Natan Sharansky
This column is powerful especially coming from the moral voice of Mr. Sharansky.
Sharansky spent nine years as a political prisoner in the Soviet Gulag. A former deputy prime minister of Israel and currently a member of the Knesset, he is co-author, with Ron Dermer, of “The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror” (PublicAffairs, 2004).
Highlights of his column…..
Political leaders make the rarest of dissidents. In a democracy, a leader’s lifeline is the electorate’s pulse. Failure to be in tune with public sentiment can cripple any administration and undermine any political agenda. Moreover, democratic leaders, for whom compromise is critical to effective governance, hardly ever see any issue in Manichaean terms. In their world, nearly everything is colored in shades of gray.
That is why President George W. Bush is such an exception. He is a man fired by a deep belief in the universal appeal of freedom, its transformative power, and its critical connection to international peace and stability. Even the fiercest critics of these ideas would surely admit that Mr. Bush has championed them both before and after his re-election, both when he was riding high in the polls and now that his popularity has plummeted, when criticism has come from longstanding opponents and from erstwhile supporters.
With a dogged determination that any dissident can appreciate, Mr. Bush, faced with overwhelming opposition, stands his ideological ground, motivated in large measure by what appears to be a refusal to countenance moral failure.
Today, we are in the midst of a great struggle between the forces of terror and the forces of freedom. The greatest weapon that the free world possesses in this struggle is the awesome power of its ideas.
The Bush Doctrine, based on a recognition of the dangers posed by non-democratic regimes and on committing the United States to support the advance of democracy, offers hope to many dissident voices struggling to bring democracy to their own countries. The democratic earthquake it has helped unleash, even with all the dangers its tremors entail, offers the promise of a more peaceful world.
Critics rail against every step on the new and difficult road on which the United States has embarked. Yet in pointing out the many pitfalls which have not been avoided and those which still can be, those critics would be wise to remember that the alternative road leads to the continued oppression of hundreds of millions of people and the continued festering of the pathologies that led to 9/11.
Now that President Bush is increasingly alone in pushing for freedom, I can only hope that his dissident spirit will continue to persevere. For should that spirit break, evil will indeed triumph, and the consequences for our world would be disastrous.
Especially when the opposition party in the United States and its allies in the major media seem to be rooting against America at every turn. This isn’t FDR’s Democrat Party anymore, is it?
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
49 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
obligatory liberal response coming soon
Comment by nuyorker — April 28, 2006 @ 10:13 am - April 28, 2006
I know. (As pretend-liberals) Let’s just come up with some nasty crack… That should distract people from Bruce’s closing point about the Democrats’ fall in stature.
Comment by Calarato — April 28, 2006 @ 10:35 am - April 28, 2006
Yes your right, calling the President out for his B.S. and Lies is be against America, oh wait, no it’s not, it’s being for America, that’s what America has always been about, having different opinions, that’s why our founding fathers set up our government the way they did, because if you have a enough people in the room, maybe a couple of them might actually have something intelligent to say. Democrats and Liberals are not against America, they are agains the GOP agenda, nothing wrong with that, it’s called having a opinion, agree with it or not. This is the new age of politics for the GOP, if you disagree with them, you hate America, or your anti-american, of you support terrorist, it’s a tactic used by people who forget the history of this great nation, and how we have always disagreed when it came to national policy, the new age of politics of calling people with different opinions Anti-American, now that to me is Against America.
Comment by Robert Bayn — April 28, 2006 @ 11:41 am - April 28, 2006
robert your comment was totally devoid of 1 original thought……robert what is the liberal plan to combat terror?
Comment by nuyorker — April 28, 2006 @ 12:06 pm - April 28, 2006
I don’t need a plan, i’m just your average citizen. If you know me, you would know i support the war on terrorism, i supported the Afghan war, i don’t support the Iraq war (which means i disagree with the Majority here), if you take the Iraq war out of the equation, Bush is on the right track to combat terrorism.
Comment by Robert Bayn — April 28, 2006 @ 12:31 pm - April 28, 2006
Unfortunately, as Democratic Party and liberal spokespersons Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore make clear, the Democratic Party and liberals opposed the Afghanistan war AND give money to the terrorists trying to kill US soldiers in Iraq, celebrating them as “freedom fighters”, while railing against “the Jews” as being the cause of all the problems in the Middle East.
Disown their opinions, and you disown the Democratic Party agenda.
Make your choice.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 28, 2006 @ 1:11 pm - April 28, 2006
Cindy Sheehan and Micheal Moore speak no more for all of democrats than Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson speak for all of the GOP, i think you would agree they don’t and i say Micheal Moore and Cindy Sheehan don’t speak for me, and many democrats i know would say the same.
Comment by Robert Bayn — April 28, 2006 @ 2:00 pm - April 28, 2006
More lunacy from the Wall Street Journal’s idiotorial page. Apparently, it has missed Mr. Sharansky’s attention that democracy and freedom are often antitheses of one another. More often than some would like to admit, majority rule results in a limitation in the rights of the minority.
Comment by raj — April 28, 2006 @ 2:03 pm - April 28, 2006
Jesus, your such a friggin’ right wing tool.
Comment by Lee — April 28, 2006 @ 2:09 pm - April 28, 2006
Usually I lurk. But wanted to come out, so to speak and post a link to some new designs that I am seeking expert opinions about. Thanks in advance. E-mail link on shopkeeper’s bio page.
I read your fairly old post regarding “Don’t Ask. Don’t Tell”. Right on target. Also the marriage entry. We’ve just gotten married in Canada.
Comment by Redd Pepper — April 28, 2006 @ 2:43 pm - April 28, 2006
Actually, it is FDR’s party — and that’s the problem.
Comment by rightwingprof — April 28, 2006 @ 4:01 pm - April 28, 2006
Apparently, it has missed Mr. Sharansky’s attention that democracy and freedom are often antitheses of one another. More often than some would like to admit, majority rule results in a limitation in the rights of the minority.
Then, by that logic, a totalitarian dictatorship must be the most free political structure possible, since the majority completely lacks the ability to limit the rights of the minority.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 28, 2006 @ 4:06 pm - April 28, 2006
#12 North Dallas Thirty — April 28, 2006 @ 4:06 pm – April 28, 2006
More evidence that the minds of some are little more than DPDT switches.
Comment by raj — April 28, 2006 @ 4:20 pm - April 28, 2006
Or, most likely, that Raj tends to speak before thinking.
Really, you should do something about your inveterate hatred and contempt for voters. As Churchill wisely put it, democracy is the worst form of government….except for all the others.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 28, 2006 @ 4:52 pm - April 28, 2006
Unless its in the name of the War on Terror. Then, any moral depravity is apparently just fine with him. And apparently, judging by past comments, with many of those that read and write this blog.
Incidentally,
Why is it that whenever the MSM publishes something you don’t like that you raise furious cries of Traitors! Vast Liberal Conspiracy! Media Bias!
But whenever it publishes anything you agree with you basically ignore the fact that you were pillorying it often just the day before?
And before all the screaming begins, let me remind you once more of Bruce’s governing philosophy:
I’m just trying to be provocative and have y’all think outside the MSM box.
-Bruce
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — April 28, 2006 @ 5:10 pm - April 28, 2006
“…democracy and freedom are often antitheses of one another.”
And more often the alternative is even worse.
Still, I’m a big “tyranny of the majority” sort. Majority rule is no guarentee of liberty or equality. That’s why, dear children, we have a Republic rather than a Democracy. A representative government maximizes the ability of the ruled to hold the rulers accountable without resorting to insurrection and violence but protection for minorities only comes with a majority ethos that believes in equality for individuals under the law, and freedom of speech and religion.
So we push for *freedom*, don’t we.
Comment by Synova — April 28, 2006 @ 5:16 pm - April 28, 2006
Reply to #4: My plan would have been NOT to invade Iraq, but to send more ground troops, more special agents (experts in counterterrorism), and more special forces troops into Afghanistan, and even Pakistan (YES, Pakistan). I realize that Pakistan is supposedly an ally, who started cooperating with us right after 9/11 (because they knew damn well they’d better), but it’s a well known fact that they have harbored many extreme Islamic terrorist cells/training camps (probably still do), just as the Taliban in Afghanistan did/does. If Clinton had still been president, or Gore had been elected, or even Kerry in 2004, we would NOT have wasted precious troops, money and resources invading Iraq (a sovereign nation who was no immediate threat to us), wouldn’t be in the middle of THEIR civil war as we are now, and most likely would’ve had Osama bin Laden, along with a few more of his cronies, killed or behind bars by now. Oh, and while I was at it, I would’ve set up a few bases in and directed a few missiles into Yemen and Syria, for good measure.
#5. — Touche!!!
Comment by ndtovent — April 28, 2006 @ 5:19 pm - April 28, 2006
If Clinton had still been president, or Gore had been elected, or even Kerry in 2004, we would NOT have wasted precious troops, money and resources invading Iraq (a sovereign nation who was no immediate threat to us), wouldn’t be in the middle of THEIR civil war as we are now, and most likely would’ve had Osama bin Laden, along with a few more of his cronies, killed or behind bars by now.
I find that hard to believe, given that Clinton knew a) where Osama bin Laden was, b) what repressive regime was sheltering him, c) that he was a threat to the United States, and d) had carried out and was planning more devastating attacks against US interests — in 1996.
Get real. Clinton, Gore, and Kerry are typical Democrats — pander, pander, pander, stick your fingers in your ears, cover your eyes, and hope it goes away. The mouths that are now kissing the feet of Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore, who opposed the war in AFGHANISTAN, are blaming problems on “Jews”, and are giving money and support to terrorists they dub “freedom fighters”, would no more speak that order than they would grow wings and fly. Oh, they might lob a cruise missile or two at camps that they knew had already been emptied, but real action? Forget it. Remember, you’re talking about someone who REALLY dodged the draft, someone who wanted to dissemble the military, and someone who tells a Congressional committee that his former comrades-in-arms are all murderers, rapists, and baby-killers.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 28, 2006 @ 6:28 pm - April 28, 2006
NDT, you’re right about one thing. Clinton did know where Osama bin Laden was, and yes, he was captured and in imprisoned by the Sudan govt/armed forces (if you can call them that). They offered him up for extradition to the U.S. in 1998 after the USS Cole bombing in Yemen, but the Clinton administration declined to accept the extradition and take bin Laden into Custody. The Sudan govt released him shortly after. BIG mistake (see? I give credit where credit is due).
As for the other points, personally, I don’t agree with everything that Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan say or do (I’m not THAT far left), but I admire them for their kutzpah in speaking out against the rightwing/wrongwing policies which are getting our soldiers killed unecessarily in a war that we got into unecessarily and under false pretenses. Cindy Sheehan lost a son at a very young age. I can’t imagine her pain. Her method of activism is, at least in part, a result of overwhelming grief, but I think that her ‘big picture’ perspective is valid.
Finally, keep in mind that, as heinous as the USS Cole bombing was, it was not 911. I still think that if one of those 3 had been president (depending on who else we would have had in their cabinets, and in the JCS’s), they would’ve handled the situation better after 911.
Comment by ndtovent — April 28, 2006 @ 7:55 pm - April 28, 2006
Democrats in charge of the military in a crisis scare me and not because they *won’t* commit the miltiary but because they *will*. Antipathy toward the military is a basic value… maybe a Democrat will say that the military is necessary, but it will be in terms of a necessary evil. War, after all, never solved anything. It should only be used as a last resort.
Neither of those statements is true.
So rather than understanding what the military is for… and what it is *not* for… we face the prospect of the military being used inappropriately, ineptly, and as a panic reaction when other methods don’t work.
Maybe some other Democrat will come along who will prove me wrong but Carter and Clinton both used the military just as much as any Republican only they did so without understanding the nature of that beast they despised.
And that is far more frightening than what Bush has done which was, all things considered, rather restrained. (As proof I offer the “liberal” rhetoric before 9-11 that convinced Bin Laden that an attack on our soil would result in an irrational retaliation against all of Islam prompting an uprising that would entirely defeat the West.)
Comment by Synova — April 28, 2006 @ 8:04 pm - April 28, 2006
All the comments about the Democrats not stepping up to the plate militarily are bogus. Just ask the citizens of Belgrade. And I’m not trying to make a point about them one way or another. I just have Serbian friends who cringe when they hear that. And after all, it was Madeline Alldull (I’m sorry, Allbright) who was the first person I every heard stamping around the country crying about Sadaam and his WMDs. This ain’t no black and white world.
Comment by JimG — April 28, 2006 @ 9:47 pm - April 28, 2006
Is this freedom loving George W. Bush the same George W. Bush who is demanding that discrimination be written into the Constitution?
The author is sure right about one thing: Bush definitely is out of touch with the pulse of American citizens. He would have been defeated in 2004 had the Democrats had the sense to nominate Lieberman or Gephardt. (It doesn’t say much for Bruce’s hero, Bush, that someone as unworthy to be commander-in-chief as John Kerry could come so close to being elected president.)
Comment by Trace Phelps — April 28, 2006 @ 10:08 pm - April 28, 2006
#19 “Clinton did know where Osama bin Laden was, and yes, he was captured and in imprisoned by the Sudan govt/armed forces (if you can call them that). They offered him up for extradition to the U.S. in 1998 after the USS Cole bombing in Yemen, but the Clinton administration declined to accept the extradition and take bin Laden into Custody. The Sudan govt released him shortly after. BIG mistake (see? I give credit where credit is due).”
This is TOTALLY BOGUS!!! First off, the “deal” supposedly was offered in the Spring of 1996, more than FOUR years before the Cole bombing, more than TWO years before the embassy bombings, and even prior to the Khobar Towers attack. At the time of the offer, there was no indictment in the US because there was insufficient evidence to charge bin Laden with ANYTHING whatsoever. (He would have walked and probably been put up by his family friends in Texas.) The deal was actually to have the Sudanese take bin Laden into custody and extradite him to SAUDI ARABIA where there were outstanding charges against him. Our good friends the Saudis refused to take him and so nothing was done and he soon moved to Afghanistan.
This whole “bin Laden was offered up on a silver platter and Clinton refused to take him” myth is a classic example of a wingnut lie that is so often repeated that people actually began to believe it.
Comment by Ian S — April 28, 2006 @ 11:16 pm - April 28, 2006
And there in Ian S.’s comment you have it, ndtovent; that is the Democratic Party speaking, telling you what to believe, exposing their true colors — or “chutzpah”, as you put it.
I don’t think you understand just how powerful the grip of the wingnuts is on the Democratic Party. The reason Lieberman, who is the one Democrat in the primaries who I would seriously have considered for President, is not that today is because he is loathed by the Cindy Sheehans and Michael Moores that control the Party — he believes in the use of the military when necessary, he does not loathe Jews or excuse terrorism, and he does not blame America first. As a result, they nominated Kerry, apparently in the belief that he would be shielded from the fact that he was so spectacularly incompetent to be anything by his “war hero” status.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 28, 2006 @ 11:26 pm - April 28, 2006
The fact that John Kerry’s “war hero” status was supposed to bring him the swing “security mom” and pro-military vote is yet more proof that the Democratic party as a whole hasn’t got a clue about the military.
Both major parties do it, you know… they vote in the primary for the person they think can win the race. If Guiliani does poorly it will be less because people don’t like him best but because they believe *other* people won’t vote for him. (That and a hard to spell name.) So John Kerry runs on his war hero status and the people who think this is a good idea never have a thought that Winter Soldier or throwing away his medals at a war protest is going to matter at all. Because they don’t get it.
And yes… Leiberman might well have won, had he got the nomination. Go back and see what Dem blogs were saying about him back then.
Comment by Synova — April 28, 2006 @ 11:40 pm - April 28, 2006
#19 ndtovent — April 28, 2006 @ 7:55 pm – April 28, 2006
Sigh. So much misinformation in so little space.
One, the USS Cole bombing in Yemen was in Oct. 2000.
Two, the bombings in 1998 were in the area of–and obviously intended to target–two US embassies in Africa–in Kenya and Tanzania.
Three, the Sudanese government, under pressure of the US government, did take bin Laden into custody in 1996. According to an article from The Guardian of 17 Sept 2001:
Emphasis added http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,575396,00.html
So the US didn’t have any basis for an extradition request for bin Laden in 1996 before the embassey bombings and the bombing of the Cole, and Saudi Arabia didn’t want him. So he went back to Afghanistan where he started with his mujahadin in the 1980s.
Comment by raj — April 29, 2006 @ 7:18 am - April 29, 2006
raj do believe the crap you just wrote?………when you have the most watned terrorist sitting on a plane YOU GET HIM!!! by any means if the clinton admin really wanted to get him they would have found something to charge him with (everyone knew he was involved in the 93 bombing)
Comment by nuyorker — April 29, 2006 @ 8:32 am - April 29, 2006
#27 nuyorker — April 29, 2006 @ 8:32 am – April 29, 2006
raj do believe the crap you just wrote?………
Yes, because the “crap” that I wrote was correct on the evidence. Do you have any evidence for your rant?
Are you seriously suggesting that the 1998 bombings were not of the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? I can clue you that they were–I read about them when we were in Germany. If you doubt it, do a google search. “On Aug. 7, 1998, the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, were bombed by terrorists, leaving 258 people dead and more than 5,000 injured.” http://www.infoplease.com/spot/newsfacts-sudanstrikes.html
Are you seriously suggesting that the bombing of the USS Cole was not in Oct. 2000? If you doubt it, do a google search. It occurred on Oct. 12, 2000. http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/2267.cfm
Are you seriously suggesting that the Guardian description of the 1996 events was incorrect? Even NewsMax.com’s article on the matter disagrees with you. 9/11 Commission Rejects Evidence Clinton Turned Down bin Laden Offer
Stop ranting and present evidence for whatever you are claiming.
Comment by raj — April 29, 2006 @ 9:15 am - April 29, 2006
I see Cindy Sheehan’s name coming up.
Her “method of activism” is NOT the result of “overwhelming grief”, nor is her “big picture” (in which the terrorists are “freedom fighters” who should be allowed to win) the least bit valid.
Two words for you: MALIGNANT NARCISSIST. How can I say that? Well, two more words for you: CASEY SHEEHAN.
Her whole “method of activism” is to first dominate, and then effectively erase the legacy of her son Casey – working AGAINST what he very much believed in and fought and died for.
That is “more than enough said”.
Comment by Calarato — April 29, 2006 @ 10:09 am - April 29, 2006
I bet your Depends purchases keep every pharmacy in your town booming.
Comment by rightwingprof — April 29, 2006 @ 11:03 am - April 29, 2006
#14 North Dallas Thirty — April 28, 2006 @ 4:52 pm – April 28, 2006
Really, you should do something about your inveterate hatred and contempt for voters.
If voters in more than a few states in the US had a say about it, it is highly probable that inter-racial marriage would still be illegal there. And probably homosexual sex as well.
More evidence of DPDT switching in your mind-set.
Comment by raj — April 29, 2006 @ 11:14 am - April 29, 2006
Well, well, well…
I spend the week in post-production, wake up this fine Saturday morning, pour a hot cup of coffee & light my first cigarette of the day.
Let the dog out, let the cat in, boot up the Mac, and what do I find on this site after a week’s absence?
The same bullshit Dhimmi talking points from the same intellectual cowards.
Ya know what? I think I’ll find a reason to go back into the editing bay this weekend, since Dan & Bruce’s exhortations to allow “free & open” debate are still, as of this morning, giving a platform onto which raj & the usual gang of halfwits can continue to urinate in the name of moonbattery.
Wake up kids. That ain’t rain you’re feeling…
Eric in Hollywood
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — April 29, 2006 @ 12:45 pm - April 29, 2006
Some people still need to learn the hard way that raj is, by choice, quite invulnerable to argument. Being twisted, anything you ever come up with, he will twist – often to the point where you think he must have completely misunderstood or ignored it.
Comment by Calarato — April 29, 2006 @ 1:33 pm - April 29, 2006
What Kerry did when he served was never really the issue. It was the lying, pro-communist activism he built his career upon as soon as he got back that was the reason Hanoi John urinal targets replaced the Hanoi Jane urinal targets in American Legions.
Comment by rightwingprof — April 29, 2006 @ 5:34 pm - April 29, 2006
She is demented moonbat. She won’t even take care of Casey properly in death and she dishonors his memory and sacrifice.
Read this if you disagree:
http://www.estatevaults.com/lm/archives/002610.html
Having said that. She is no more spokesperson for the Democratic party than I Caralato is.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — April 29, 2006 @ 6:34 pm - April 29, 2006
If voters in more than a few states in the US had a say about it, it is highly probable that inter-racial marriage would still be illegal there. And probably homosexual sex as well.
More evidence of DPDT switching in your mind-set.
More like a commitment to the basic principle on which this country is founded — the power and right of the electorate.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 29, 2006 @ 7:02 pm - April 29, 2006
north dallas thirty carries on like he’s the smartest guy posting comments but his ignorance is showing. The U. S. Constitution protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
Comment by Trace Phelps — April 29, 2006 @ 11:23 pm - April 29, 2006
And you, Trace, are showing your even greater ignorance.
The US Constitution is not a fixed law; it can be changed and amended by the power and right of the electorate.
American voters have made it clear in state after state after state that, when pushed, they will gladly amend their constitutions to protect what they consider important, rendering spineless judges impotent and sending gay leftists running away, butts smarting, screaming about how “unfair” it is.
You and Raj are nothing but arrogant fools who hide behind the Constitution as if it gives you some right to impose your version of law over the will of the voters.
But before you do, you may wish to read the first three words of its preamble; that will tell you all about who gives it power and legitimacy and who holds the right of rule in this country.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 30, 2006 @ 3:23 am - April 30, 2006
#33 Calarato — April 29, 2006 @ 1:33 pm – April 29, 2006
Some people still need to learn the hard way that raj is, by choice, quite invulnerable to argument.
I suppose I should be flattered that someone would believe that I am invulnerable to argument. I can assure you, however, that I am not impervious to argument, particularly when the argument is accompanied by evidence. Evidence is one thing that is sorely lacking around here.
Argument without evidence is oftentimes the equivalent to GIGO–garbage in/garbage out.
Comment by raj — April 30, 2006 @ 11:59 am - April 30, 2006
raj said:
“More lunacy from the Wall Street Journal’s idiotorial page. Apparently, it has missed Mr. Sharansky’s attention that democracy and freedom are often antitheses of one another. More often than some would like to admit, majority rule results in a limitation in the rights of the minority.”
…. which is why Madison and Hamilton et. al. crafted a constitution that sets up a democratic republic form of govenrment and not a pure democracy. By design the majority in this country, though it does have more strength than the minority, does not always get what it wants.
Comment by sonicfrog — April 30, 2006 @ 1:10 pm - April 30, 2006
#27 “when you have the most watned terrorist sitting on a plane YOU GET HIM!!! by any means if the clinton admin really wanted to get him they would have found something to charge him with (everyone knew he was involved in the 93 bombing)”
Actually, in early 1996, it was not clear to what extent bin Laden was involved in the 1993 bombing. Certainly there was insufficient evidence else he’d have been indicted. Perhaps someone could have “found something to charge him with” but then what? With insufficient evidence, the charges would have been thrown out of court and bin Laden would have achieved a real psychological victory very early on.
Comment by Ian S — May 1, 2006 @ 1:14 am - May 1, 2006
ian and raj are perfect examples of why liberals are not to be trusted with national security……(its too bad bin laden was not involved in whitewater he would have been killed than)……..clintons ole’ policy on dealing with terror (and pretty much everything else) is another
Comment by nuyorker — May 1, 2006 @ 9:39 am - May 1, 2006
What always surprises me (and it shouldn’t, by now) when it comes to anti-Bush people (just to be fair to liberals, in case one of them isn’t anti-bush) isn’t that questions of legality and adequate proof are an issue, but that the next thing out of them is generally “and we should go into Pakistan to get him.” Else that or that if Gore was president, by golly, we’d have sent assassins… sure we would, and Bin Laden would be gotten.
In hindsight all of the not getting Bin Laden under Clinton when we could was obviously a mistake, though the argument that it would have been “illegal” to take him into custody without courtroom style proof is probably true, and the same goes for assassination, of course. But now we don’t send the bulk of our Army to occupy Pakistan and somehow “legality” is a complete non-issue, and assassination is prefered.
Unless it’s something Bush does, then legality is all-important.
Comment by Synova — May 1, 2006 @ 10:36 am - May 1, 2006
OOps…Big mistake on my part about the USS Cole bombing date. Sorry about that. I got that mixed up w/the embassy bombings.
Thx for correcting me Raj. There have been so many incidents, it’s hard to keep em str8 datewise (other than 911, of course).
But the first part about bin Laden is true
Comment by ndtovent — May 1, 2006 @ 12:29 pm - May 1, 2006
#42: Look, why don’t you just admit your claims were inaccurate. The only possible way bin Laden could have been put out of business in early 1996 would have been if the Saudis had taken him and prosecuted him for denouncing and undermining the monarchy which apparently is a crime in that bastion of democracy (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/07/27/saudia11473.htm)
The REAL story here is not that Clinton failed to take bin Laden but that the Saudis refused to take him. Clearly, bin Laden was immensely popular in Saudi Arabia and had friends in high places there. Our Saudi “friends” were unwilling to take him and lock him up because of his popularity even at the highest government levels. Since 9/11 a lot more is known: everything from the fact that most of the hijackers were Saudi citizens to the strong financial backing of al Qaeda by wealthy Saudis:
http://www.investigateur.info/zines/textes/176_alqaeda.html
I know it’s fun for conservatives to blame Clinton for all the disasters that have occurred on Dubya’s watch but at some point this administration simply has to accept responsibility for its vast failings.
Comment by Ian S — May 1, 2006 @ 2:04 pm - May 1, 2006
sharansky is an israeli. that’s why he says this stuff. Bush is obviously not a “dissident” president. He’s a president who gives 2.2 billion to israel no questions asked, which buys him a bunch of insane logic-defying propaganda like this from Mr sharansky, who survived the russian gulags by listening to the speeches of Ronald Reagan. Many of which were written by Pat Buchanan. see where i’m going with this?
Comment by lester — May 1, 2006 @ 5:48 pm - May 1, 2006
http://www.aim.org/publications/weekly_column/1998/06/26.htm
Comment by nuyorker — May 2, 2006 @ 9:55 am - May 2, 2006
It’s the filthy Joooos!
Comment by rightwingprof — May 2, 2006 @ 10:50 am - May 2, 2006
#42 nuyorker — May 1, 2006 @ 9:39 am – May 1, 2006
Two things.
One, hindsight is 20/20. If the Clinton administration had an inkling in 1996 of what would happen in 1998, 2000 and 2001, they might have tried harder to off bin Laden when he was still in the Sudan or when he was en route to Afghanistan. Have you seen any evidence that they did (have an inkling, that is)?
Two, recall the excerpt from the Guardian article that I quoted above in #26:
(Emphasis added.)
Accordingly, it would appear that it was the Sudanese who decided not to extradite bin Laden to the US, not that the US would not liked to have had him if the Sudanese were willing to hand him over.
Comment by raj — May 2, 2006 @ 11:46 am - May 2, 2006