Reading the Scowcroft/New York Times "arguments" against war, one is struck
by how laughably weak they are. European international-law wishfulness and
full-blown Pat Buchanan isolationism are the two intellectually honest
alternatives to the Bush Doctrine. Scowcroft and the Times wish to embrace
neither, so they pretend instead to be terribly "concerned" with the
administration's alleged failure to "make the case." Somehow, Vice President
Cheney's fine speech in San Francisco on August 7, or Condoleezza Rice's
superb August 15 interview with the BBC, to say nothing of Donald Rumsfeld's
impressive press briefings and President Bush's strong statements--these
don't count.
[Jake] Apparently this mentally challenged individual thinks that "making the
case" = "making speeches". The real problem, which this author either
doesn't get, or tries to avoid, is that they (smirk's pals) simply do not
have the goods, i.e. facts and evidence. Perhaps they are out there to be
found, and perhaps they are not. But the continuing sad fact is that this
administration would rather bully and bluster their way into yet another war,
with irresponsible rhetoric about an "axis of evil", rather than coolly
sitting back and gathering their evidence first. They may yet find
themselves cornered into doing the responsible thing (ie shut up until you
have the goods), but it isn't as effective as it would if they had done this
in the first place. This administration continues to show appalling
incompetence on international matters, probably worse than any post W.W.II
president we have had.
-Jake
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:20 MDT