9/11 coverup?

[kandrathe]

Can anyone possibly dispute that the US foreign policy has not played some part in the anti-American sentiments at the root of (some) terrorist activity?

Many leading politicians in many nations put their foot squarely into their mouths on occasion. I'm sure many of the non-Americans here know of things that their leaders have done and said that make them cringe on occasion. Now, they are not the leader of the free world, but our politicians are still just as human and susceptible to gaff as any others (maybe more so due to the preponderance of media microphones shoved into their faces). The propagandists are the ones who twist those statements out of context and add gasoline to the fire. I'll offer as examples of the sometimes inarticulate Bush, "You are either with us, or with the terrorists", and "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

Now consider the fact that if either of the two jokers running for president wins, the rhetoric and the policies will not change much due to the centrism of congress. A new Kerry administration will be as inept as the new Bush administration was, and it will be until they hit their stride sometime in 2006. Think about exactly what it is that has pissed you off about the US foreign policy, and exactly what you think the alternative should have been.

I'm still not sure myself which will be worse between staying the course with the now experienced Bush, or changing horses and waiting for a Kerry administration to get up to speed. I understand that people and politicians outside the US think that a change of leaders will change the tone, but the policies that are in place will continue. So if it is merely the heavy handed tone (Texas swagger) of Bush that is the objection, then I think that it is a little petty. I've worked with my share of Texans (no offense Occhi), and there is a reason they wear a ten gallon hat. Ok, so the US is not perfect and it will probably never be perfect, and may many times even make horrible mistakes. I know I would rather that the Rwandan genocide had been addressed, or that we wouldn't give in to North Korean black mail, or that we would work more closely with Putin and not just dismiss his claims of Chechyn involvement with international terrorism. The US was dragged into the Balkans conflict and so we went, and it is better now, right? If Europe wants things done better in the future, maybe Europe needs to develop the capability of doing things for themselves.

I'm against the entire Kerry domestic agenda, so for me the only thing that matters is whether Kerry would be better able to prevent terrorism. The terrorists did not start planning 9/11 on the day Bush took office, so I believe it would have happened under a Gore administration as well. Al Queda was formed and gained power under the kinder, gentler, and vastly more globally popular Clinton administration.

I'm not one of those people who believes we need to fight a softer gentler war on terrorism. I don't think if we are nicer, that terrorism will stop. Ask the parents of the dead children in North Ossetia what the children did to deserve their fate.