03-13-2004, 07:17 PM
Fair enough, I had that placed wrong in my memory. Thanks for the correction.
However, there is clear evidence that, although neither terrorism nor Afghanistan was on the president's radar, an invasion of Iraq was. The Project for a New American Century had its goals clearly stated, and nearly every top administration official was connected (some of them founding members) with that group.
I cannot imagine a "leftist" president (by whom I suppose we could only assume Al Gore) extending the "war on terrorism" to include neoconservative foreign policy objectives. Afghanistan was probably unavoidable, although the methods were up for debate. But Iraq? That was pushed through entirely by Washington, and it's fairly clear which group was behind it: Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld. Would Al Gore have subscribed to this? I highly doubt it. I don't like Gore at all, but he's certainly not from that crowd.
From that same speech:
"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."
That would be precisely the point at which my support evaporates entirely. A global hunt for every US-defined terrorist group that will not end until they're all gone? In addition to its futility, that struck me as the worst kind of overstated arrogance. I will not follow the United States as it crusades (Bush's word, not mine) across the world hunting down terrorists. I certainly will not follow them so long as their definition of "terrorist" includes whatever nations they've been itching to invade since the early 90s, regardless of how unconnected they are to 9/11. This was all, thanks to that line at the very least, implicit in his 9/20 speech. That puts me "against" them, since I'm no longer "for" them, and there are only two categories.
Jester
However, there is clear evidence that, although neither terrorism nor Afghanistan was on the president's radar, an invasion of Iraq was. The Project for a New American Century had its goals clearly stated, and nearly every top administration official was connected (some of them founding members) with that group.
I cannot imagine a "leftist" president (by whom I suppose we could only assume Al Gore) extending the "war on terrorism" to include neoconservative foreign policy objectives. Afghanistan was probably unavoidable, although the methods were up for debate. But Iraq? That was pushed through entirely by Washington, and it's fairly clear which group was behind it: Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld. Would Al Gore have subscribed to this? I highly doubt it. I don't like Gore at all, but he's certainly not from that crowd.
From that same speech:
"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."
That would be precisely the point at which my support evaporates entirely. A global hunt for every US-defined terrorist group that will not end until they're all gone? In addition to its futility, that struck me as the worst kind of overstated arrogance. I will not follow the United States as it crusades (Bush's word, not mine) across the world hunting down terrorists. I certainly will not follow them so long as their definition of "terrorist" includes whatever nations they've been itching to invade since the early 90s, regardless of how unconnected they are to 9/11. This was all, thanks to that line at the very least, implicit in his 9/20 speech. That puts me "against" them, since I'm no longer "for" them, and there are only two categories.
Jester