[quote]<strong>anyway, I think that those attitudes are just below the surface of consciousness . . . they don't die out . . many people secretly want war and want it for its own sake . . . </strong><hr></blockquote>
It's unfortunate you feel that way. I'd hate to have that view of the world.
--
giant:
What you have is lots of doubt, no proof that he hasn't been arrested.
And if you would bother reading it you'd see this disclaimer:
Much of the above is rumor or speculation. But certainly there is room for doubt amid all this intrigue. To hide Mohammed's death or capture would have been very clever espionage that could have led to the arrest of many of his associates. But someone has been sloppy as well, because there is virtually no aspect of Mohammed's arrest that hasn't been contradicted in media reports.
The only claim that seems consistent and oft-reportes is the fact that Khalid was recently captured. You really need to work on finding good sources.
Who wants war for the sake of war?</strong><hr></blockquote>
without going too far off topic...
1) any religious fundamentalist sect who depend on apocalyptic predictions to fuel fear-based fundraising or recruitment
honestly... some folks crave the next propaganda-photo-op to produce the bogeyman poster or "Remember Pearl Harbor"-instant-sale-of-war-bonds pitch...
OBL might have hated america for years, but you can bet he felt like he'd won the lottery when the occupation of Saudi bases by US forces gave him ready (and independently confirmed) ideo/theological ammunition to convince moderates that infidels were messing with his reality. without such documented visual inflammation of his pet peeve, he might have struggled for years to find leverage to ratchet up anti-US sentiment enough to motivate action
residents of the west bank are also familiar with the fact that peace can last until somebody rubs your nose in old wounds, then that action can actually become a catalyst for new violence or a justification for radical reaction. some would argue that the extremists of both sides fear peace and a move to the moderate middle because it would mean loss of their personal power.
some hawks want war to keep themselves on top.
peace is not a valid objective for them because it would involve prestige loss or career suicide.
fundamentalist preachers who predict dire stuff then have a vested interest in it happening as they have foretold, or else they may look like they didn't really have a private line to the almighty... nobody who drank the kool-aid was likely to ask for a refund anyway.
i agree it's a cynical view, but there are some wingnuts who've proven that cult behaviour exists wherever there are narrow minds
they'll turn this war into a new prophecy
2) any military-industrial supplier facing tough economic times with a surplus of weapons (WoMD or not) soon to pass use-by date
this might be extended to those whose tactical or strategic philosophies also need validating by a sell-by date.
some might desire or require a little culling of the herd in order to vacate space so that their genes have a chance of surviving that they might not otherwise get.
there are some folks who see the buildup as unstoppable momentum that becomes its own justification... for whom "inevitability" is its own motivation, and the cries of "manifest destiny" smack of "divine right" and imperialism
picture: "but we've already had dinner, so shouldn't drinks and sex later be automatic?"... more men have this misconception than women, but again, proof of the narrow mind failing to differentiate inertia from irresistible
the pr spin that is wound up to convince people that troops _must_ be used once they're nearby, or else we've wasted money, sounds suspiciously like the mistaken entitlement above, the criminal brain slippery slope from intent to committed now to felony
its an odd twist on the old concept of the deterrent... but some argue that force undemonstrated is not taken seriously, and there are numerous proverbs on inspiring others by sometimes making an example...
they view war as a self-fulfilling prophecy
3) any political leaders dependent on xenophobia and perceived oppression/martyr-complex to fuel their fire or obscure other issues with smoke
some more in the napoleonic mold to add weight to their yappy-little-dog mentality, perhaps to overcompensate for tiny genitals or whatever... but plenty of young hoods who want to look tougher like to pick a fight with the big guy or play rebel by giving the finger to the man (behind his back, but in front of your wannabe-gang-members so you seem to be an underdog risk-taker)
some in the wag-the-dog distraction mode, so your people don't notice the economy or your government ineptitude and corruption <applies to both Kim Jong Il's North Korea, and perhaps to George Bush's United States (41 and 43), depending on your willingness to see the similarities>
"pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
there was a fascinating article in Foreign Affairs a year or so ago describing the philosophical strategy of Saddam in Gulf War I as "successful" in its aim of painting him as the noble underdog (sure he lost, but had balls to try in the face of such superpower force, and the fact he's still around while GHWB isn't suggests he "won")... similar arguments are made about OBL and his apparent success at bloodying the nose of america and seeming to still be getting away with it...
now I'm not saying that these positions are correct, but what's important is that they point out the completely different mindset and evaluative criteria that are being applied to these conflicts if your goal is to build support for the underdog (guerrilla scorekeeping isn't the same as mainstream math, but if the audience buys your version, you'll be seen as the winner by local eyes), the playing field and goalposts are completely different
for these folks, it's all about spinning the prophecy
4) karl rove wants war. gwbush needs a win to get to term two. without it and with bad economy, he's toast and it's daddy deja vu. some suspect rove has been driving this bus all along (certainly since 1990), and between karl, his brother, and the 70's hawks that fill the bleachers behind the bush dynasty, they see old errors to correct and old boy networks to reward... anybody want to bet that the pipeline contracts in NewIraq suddenly all go to Haliburton and Chevron?
partially prompted by CNN interview with authors of new book "critical decision" on rove/bush agenda, which they admit shows rove driving and bush as pretty much the smiling waving crash test dummy... haven't read the book yet
5) cnn might want war... but only if the pentagon regularly releases more nintendo-esque smart bomb footage... they learned how popular the press briefings were from the last war... what else would get you to switch from reality tv, except terminator tv... lorenzo lamas uses a green laser pointer to whinge about flabby thighs and moustaches before kicking somebody off the island... the laser-guided bomb or JDAMS version will be much more exciting in prime time.
if you want to vote saddam off the island, go to your selector switch and dial 1-800-GBU-2000
[quote]<strong>any religious fundamentalist sect who depend on apocalyptic predictions to fuel fear-based fundraising or recruitment</strong><hr></blockquote>
Insignificant.
[quote]<strong>any military-industrial supplier facing tough economic times with a surplus of weapons (WoMD or not) soon to pass use-by date</strong><hr></blockquote>
Valid, but how significant is that?
[quote]<strong>the pr spin that is wound up to convince people that troops _must_ be used once they're nearby, or else we've wasted money, sounds suspiciously like the mistaken entitlement above, the criminal brain slippery slope from intent to committed now to felony</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right-wing radio nuts make a statement and all of the sudden we can ignore the valid pro-war points?
Poking holes in the arguments of politicians is as difficult as Mike Tyson winning a fight with a blind and deaf 4-year-old.
So let's look past politicians and Limbaugh-cloens and use our own brains to analyze the facts. How about it? You're obviously intelligent.
[quote]<strong>any political leaders dependent on xenophobia and perceived oppression/martyr-complex to fuel their fire or obscure other issues with smoke</strong><hr></blockquote>
Example.
[quote]<strong>karl rove wants war. gwbush needs a win to get to term two.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How do you explain the fact that he's getting a metric ass-load of flak from outside our borders and within? How do you reconcile this being some kind of political ploy with the obvious fact that it's not politically popular?
Since when is pissing a ton of people off a good idea politically?
<strong>Since when is pissing a ton of people off a good idea politically? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Because the polls show that people begrudgingly voted republican in the mid-term elections not because they're happy with the republicans, but because they're scared of terrorism.
So, when you say he is 'pissing a ton of people off' Bush might be, but not the ones that vote within the US borders. So, he's really just trying to secure votes even if people aren't happy with his other 'qualities.'
Oh my goodness, this might be the funniest post ever.
groverat:
What you have is lots of doubt, no proof that he is an imminent threat whatsoever.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So neither side is right. Hooray! Saddam is not an immediate threat. Saddam is not doing anything to remove the threat he does pose. How long does the holding pattern stay?
This is starting to get more personal and repetitive.
[quote]<strong>So, when you say he is 'pissing a ton of people off' Bush might be, but not the ones that vote within the US borders. So, he's really just trying to secure votes even if people aren't happy with his other 'qualities.'</strong><hr></blockquote>
He's pissing off quite a few people within the borders as well. You'll note the large demonstrations.
There can be no movement when people's goals are politick-based. Which is why there can be no real discussion between most people, because they are such brain-dead political animals. Blindly loyal to their lying party.
But someone has been sloppy as well, because there is virtually no aspect of Mohammed's arrest that hasn't been contradicted in media reports.
<hr></blockquote>
So, why is it that you have bought into a version of the story? All you can say is that you have no idea if he was arrested the way you believe. In fact, if you look at all of the news reports, there is NO valid info putting him in the apartment at the time and ALL indicators point to him not being there. In addition, as I pointed out through a quote in my first post, his arrest would not have been made public in this way. But we don't know one way or the other, and we might never know.
Oh, and there is no way you read it unless you are an extreme speed reader. Good job at not informing yourself.
[quote]What you have is lots of doubt, no proof that he hasn't been arrested [nor is there proof that he was] <hr></blockquote>
That's the point, Einstein. You're the one latching onto a version of the story as if it's solid fact.
[quote]
You really need to work on finding good sources.<hr></blockquote>
You mean like a summary linking to every story written on the topic? I'll go look for that. Oh wait....
Nice try, but no go. The only people you are fooling are those that, like you, have not read it. I guess that would make you the head of the uninformed appleoutsiders.
There can be no movement when people's goals are politick-based. Which is why there can be no real discussion between most people, because they are such brain-dead political animals. Blindly loyal to their lying party.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which is why there can be no real discussion between most people, because they are such brain-dead political animals. Blindly loyal to their lying party.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good thing I'm not a member of a 'party' as you say.
I don't know of any party that's been arguing what I've been arguing for as long as I've been arguing it.
He's pissing off quite a few people within the borders as well. You'll note the large demonstrations.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you're going to argue that he's hurting his chances at reelection? Show us some evidence, because the evidence of the mid-term elections show that you're wrong.
It's unfortunate you feel that way. I'd hate to have that view of the world.
</strong><hr></blockquote>Boy that sure is noble of you Grover . . . unfortunately I think that Human nature is often filled to the brim with what it itself would rather disavow
truth is, many people would love nthing more than a bit of the old violence
<strong>I don't know of any party that's been arguing what I've been arguing for as long as I've been arguing it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Me either. You aren't the only person in the world, though, bunge, not everything is about you.
[quote]<strong>So you're going to argue that he's hurting his chances at reelection? Show us some evidence, because the evidence of the mid-term elections show that you're wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did I make that argument or did I merely contend with the idea that this whole thing is a political ploy to get votes? Think hard.
pfflam:
[quote]<strong>Boy that sure is noble of you Grover . . . unfortunately I think that Human nature is often filled to the brim with what it itself would rather disavow</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think it's noble, I think it's common sense. I don't think many people's true motivation for being pro-war is the desire to see others killed. I can't think of any pro-war people I've talked to who have said or even indicated that they're just tired of not having lots of bloodshed on TV.
Now, I've been told that's what I think by countless anti-war folks. I've been told that everyone who is pro-war like me just wants to kill brown people, but saying it doesn't make it so.
So you're going to argue that he's hurting his chances at reelection? Show us some evidence, because the evidence of the mid-term elections show that you're wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A lot has changed since November and now though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, but when the decision was made months and months ago, it was the right decision if votes were one of your potential goals. But, it was also a decision that you can't easily back down from.
[quote]"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity." - Bill Clinton
<hr></blockquote>
You might want to add:
[quote]"We can't go around deposing people without global support. Every African leader I know wants Mugabe gone. But they'd be mad if we sent fifty thousand soldiers to depose him." In his speech earlier that day Clinton had made the case for international rather than unilateral efforts by arguing that America's world dominance is "clearly a fleeting moment" that will end when China and India fulfill their ambitions and other powers rise. Therefore the United States should use the "magic moment" to build institutions it can rely on when the moment passes.<hr></blockquote>
No, but when the decision was made months and months ago, it was the right decision if votes were one of your potential goals. But, it was also a decision that you can't easily back down from.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But what I'm saying is that his chances for re-election in the future are not necessarily determined by the GOP performance in the November elections because of he can't back down from it now. A lot of public opinion has changed since then. Am I misunderstanding?
Comments
<strong>
Sorry, but calling a document with citations at the end of every sentence "sourceless" is nothing less than insane.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Huh? You got the right post here?
[quote]<strong>anyway, I think that those attitudes are just below the surface of consciousness . . . they don't die out . . many people secretly want war and want it for its own sake . . . </strong><hr></blockquote>
It's unfortunate you feel that way. I'd hate to have that view of the world.
--
giant:
What you have is lots of doubt, no proof that he hasn't been arrested.
And if you would bother reading it you'd see this disclaimer:
Much of the above is rumor or speculation. But certainly there is room for doubt amid all this intrigue. To hide Mohammed's death or capture would have been very clever espionage that could have led to the arrest of many of his associates. But someone has been sloppy as well, because there is virtually no aspect of Mohammed's arrest that hasn't been contradicted in media reports.
The only claim that seems consistent and oft-reportes is the fact that Khalid was recently captured. You really need to work on finding good sources.
<strong>
Who wants war for the sake of war?</strong><hr></blockquote>
without going too far off topic...
1) any religious fundamentalist sect who depend on apocalyptic predictions to fuel fear-based fundraising or recruitment
honestly... some folks crave the next propaganda-photo-op to produce the bogeyman poster or "Remember Pearl Harbor"-instant-sale-of-war-bonds pitch...
OBL might have hated america for years, but you can bet he felt like he'd won the lottery when the occupation of Saudi bases by US forces gave him ready (and independently confirmed) ideo/theological ammunition to convince moderates that infidels were messing with his reality. without such documented visual inflammation of his pet peeve, he might have struggled for years to find leverage to ratchet up anti-US sentiment enough to motivate action
residents of the west bank are also familiar with the fact that peace can last until somebody rubs your nose in old wounds, then that action can actually become a catalyst for new violence or a justification for radical reaction. some would argue that the extremists of both sides fear peace and a move to the moderate middle because it would mean loss of their personal power.
some hawks want war to keep themselves on top.
peace is not a valid objective for them because it would involve prestige loss or career suicide.
fundamentalist preachers who predict dire stuff then have a vested interest in it happening as they have foretold, or else they may look like they didn't really have a private line to the almighty... nobody who drank the kool-aid was likely to ask for a refund anyway.
i agree it's a cynical view, but there are some wingnuts who've proven that cult behaviour exists wherever there are narrow minds
they'll turn this war into a new prophecy
2) any military-industrial supplier facing tough economic times with a surplus of weapons (WoMD or not) soon to pass use-by date
this might be extended to those whose tactical or strategic philosophies also need validating by a sell-by date.
some might desire or require a little culling of the herd in order to vacate space so that their genes have a chance of surviving that they might not otherwise get.
there are some folks who see the buildup as unstoppable momentum that becomes its own justification... for whom "inevitability" is its own motivation, and the cries of "manifest destiny" smack of "divine right" and imperialism
picture: "but we've already had dinner, so shouldn't drinks and sex later be automatic?"... more men have this misconception than women, but again, proof of the narrow mind failing to differentiate inertia from irresistible
the pr spin that is wound up to convince people that troops _must_ be used once they're nearby, or else we've wasted money, sounds suspiciously like the mistaken entitlement above, the criminal brain slippery slope from intent to committed now to felony
its an odd twist on the old concept of the deterrent... but some argue that force undemonstrated is not taken seriously, and there are numerous proverbs on inspiring others by sometimes making an example...
they view war as a self-fulfilling prophecy
3) any political leaders dependent on xenophobia and perceived oppression/martyr-complex to fuel their fire or obscure other issues with smoke
some more in the napoleonic mold to add weight to their yappy-little-dog mentality, perhaps to overcompensate for tiny genitals or whatever... but plenty of young hoods who want to look tougher like to pick a fight with the big guy or play rebel by giving the finger to the man (behind his back, but in front of your wannabe-gang-members so you seem to be an underdog risk-taker)
some in the wag-the-dog distraction mode, so your people don't notice the economy or your government ineptitude and corruption <applies to both Kim Jong Il's North Korea, and perhaps to George Bush's United States (41 and 43), depending on your willingness to see the similarities>
"pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
there was a fascinating article in Foreign Affairs a year or so ago describing the philosophical strategy of Saddam in Gulf War I as "successful" in its aim of painting him as the noble underdog (sure he lost, but had balls to try in the face of such superpower force, and the fact he's still around while GHWB isn't suggests he "won")... similar arguments are made about OBL and his apparent success at bloodying the nose of america and seeming to still be getting away with it...
now I'm not saying that these positions are correct, but what's important is that they point out the completely different mindset and evaluative criteria that are being applied to these conflicts if your goal is to build support for the underdog (guerrilla scorekeeping isn't the same as mainstream math, but if the audience buys your version, you'll be seen as the winner by local eyes), the playing field and goalposts are completely different
for these folks, it's all about spinning the prophecy
4) karl rove wants war. gwbush needs a win to get to term two. without it and with bad economy, he's toast and it's daddy deja vu. some suspect rove has been driving this bus all along (certainly since 1990), and between karl, his brother, and the 70's hawks that fill the bleachers behind the bush dynasty, they see old errors to correct and old boy networks to reward... anybody want to bet that the pipeline contracts in NewIraq suddenly all go to Haliburton and Chevron?
partially prompted by CNN interview with authors of new book "critical decision" on rove/bush agenda, which they admit shows rove driving and bush as pretty much the smiling waving crash test dummy... haven't read the book yet
5) cnn might want war... but only if the pentagon regularly releases more nintendo-esque smart bomb footage... they learned how popular the press briefings were from the last war... what else would get you to switch from reality tv, except terminator tv... lorenzo lamas uses a green laser pointer to whinge about flabby thighs and moustaches before kicking somebody off the island... the laser-guided bomb or JDAMS version will be much more exciting in prime time.
if you want to vote saddam off the island, go to your selector switch and dial 1-800-GBU-2000
all of that is probably off topic, but you asked.
Insignificant.
[quote]<strong>any military-industrial supplier facing tough economic times with a surplus of weapons (WoMD or not) soon to pass use-by date</strong><hr></blockquote>
Valid, but how significant is that?
[quote]<strong>the pr spin that is wound up to convince people that troops _must_ be used once they're nearby, or else we've wasted money, sounds suspiciously like the mistaken entitlement above, the criminal brain slippery slope from intent to committed now to felony</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right-wing radio nuts make a statement and all of the sudden we can ignore the valid pro-war points?
Poking holes in the arguments of politicians is as difficult as Mike Tyson winning a fight with a blind and deaf 4-year-old.
So let's look past politicians and Limbaugh-cloens and use our own brains to analyze the facts. How about it? You're obviously intelligent.
[quote]<strong>any political leaders dependent on xenophobia and perceived oppression/martyr-complex to fuel their fire or obscure other issues with smoke</strong><hr></blockquote>
Example.
[quote]<strong>karl rove wants war. gwbush needs a win to get to term two.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How do you explain the fact that he's getting a metric ass-load of flak from outside our borders and within? How do you reconcile this being some kind of political ploy with the obvious fact that it's not politically popular?
Since when is pissing a ton of people off a good idea politically?
[quote]<strong>cnn might want war</strong><hr></blockquote>
CNN want money. That's it.
Yes, I want to vote Saddam off the Iraqi island and spare everyone war.
<strong>
giant:
What you have is lots of doubt, no proof that he hasn't been arrested. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh my goodness, this might be the funniest post ever.
groverat:
What you have is lots of doubt, no proof that he is an imminent threat whatsoever.
Yup. Works both ways. Just had to check to make sure.
<strong>Since when is pissing a ton of people off a good idea politically? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Because the polls show that people begrudgingly voted republican in the mid-term elections not because they're happy with the republicans, but because they're scared of terrorism.
So, when you say he is 'pissing a ton of people off' Bush might be, but not the ones that vote within the US borders. So, he's really just trying to secure votes even if people aren't happy with his other 'qualities.'
<strong>
Oh my goodness, this might be the funniest post ever.
groverat:
What you have is lots of doubt, no proof that he is an imminent threat whatsoever.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So neither side is right. Hooray! Saddam is not an immediate threat. Saddam is not doing anything to remove the threat he does pose. How long does the holding pattern stay?
This is starting to get more personal and repetitive.
[quote]<strong>So, when you say he is 'pissing a ton of people off' Bush might be, but not the ones that vote within the US borders. So, he's really just trying to secure votes even if people aren't happy with his other 'qualities.'</strong><hr></blockquote>
He's pissing off quite a few people within the borders as well. You'll note the large demonstrations.
There can be no movement when people's goals are politick-based. Which is why there can be no real discussion between most people, because they are such brain-dead political animals. Blindly loyal to their lying party.
But someone has been sloppy as well, because there is virtually no aspect of Mohammed's arrest that hasn't been contradicted in media reports.
<hr></blockquote>
So, why is it that you have bought into a version of the story? All you can say is that you have no idea if he was arrested the way you believe. In fact, if you look at all of the news reports, there is NO valid info putting him in the apartment at the time and ALL indicators point to him not being there. In addition, as I pointed out through a quote in my first post, his arrest would not have been made public in this way. But we don't know one way or the other, and we might never know.
Oh, and there is no way you read it unless you are an extreme speed reader. Good job at not informing yourself.
[quote]What you have is lots of doubt, no proof that he hasn't been arrested [nor is there proof that he was] <hr></blockquote>
That's the point, Einstein. You're the one latching onto a version of the story as if it's solid fact.
[quote]
You really need to work on finding good sources.<hr></blockquote>
You mean like a summary linking to every story written on the topic? I'll go look for that. Oh wait....
Nice try, but no go. The only people you are fooling are those that, like you, have not read it. I guess that would make you the head of the uninformed appleoutsiders.
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>Buon:
There can be no movement when people's goals are politick-based. Which is why there can be no real discussion between most people, because they are such brain-dead political animals. Blindly loyal to their lying party.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Finally something we can agree on.
<strong>Buon:
Which is why there can be no real discussion between most people, because they are such brain-dead political animals. Blindly loyal to their lying party.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good thing I'm not a member of a 'party' as you say.
I don't know of any party that's been arguing what I've been arguing for as long as I've been arguing it.
<strong>bunge:
He's pissing off quite a few people within the borders as well. You'll note the large demonstrations.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you're going to argue that he's hurting his chances at reelection? Show us some evidence, because the evidence of the mid-term elections show that you're wrong.
<strong>pfflam:
It's unfortunate you feel that way. I'd hate to have that view of the world.
</strong><hr></blockquote>Boy that sure is noble of you Grover . . . unfortunately I think that Human nature is often filled to the brim with what it itself would rather disavow
truth is, many people would love nthing more than a bit of the old violence
mmmmm, ultra....
g
<strong>I don't know of any party that's been arguing what I've been arguing for as long as I've been arguing it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Me either. You aren't the only person in the world, though, bunge, not everything is about you.
[quote]<strong>So you're going to argue that he's hurting his chances at reelection? Show us some evidence, because the evidence of the mid-term elections show that you're wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did I make that argument or did I merely contend with the idea that this whole thing is a political ploy to get votes? Think hard.
pfflam:
[quote]<strong>Boy that sure is noble of you Grover . . . unfortunately I think that Human nature is often filled to the brim with what it itself would rather disavow</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think it's noble, I think it's common sense. I don't think many people's true motivation for being pro-war is the desire to see others killed. I can't think of any pro-war people I've talked to who have said or even indicated that they're just tired of not having lots of bloodshed on TV.
Now, I've been told that's what I think by countless anti-war folks. I've been told that everyone who is pro-war like me just wants to kill brown people, but saying it doesn't make it so.
<strong>
So you're going to argue that he's hurting his chances at reelection? Show us some evidence, because the evidence of the mid-term elections show that you're wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A lot has changed since November and now though.
<strong>
A lot has changed since November and now though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, but when the decision was made months and months ago, it was the right decision if votes were one of your potential goals. But, it was also a decision that you can't easily back down from.
[quote]"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity." - Bill Clinton
<hr></blockquote>
You might want to add:
[quote]"We can't go around deposing people without global support. Every African leader I know wants Mugabe gone. But they'd be mad if we sent fifty thousand soldiers to depose him." In his speech earlier that day Clinton had made the case for international rather than unilateral efforts by arguing that America's world dominance is "clearly a fleeting moment" that will end when China and India fulfill their ambitions and other powers rise. Therefore the United States should use the "magic moment" to build institutions it can rely on when the moment passes.<hr></blockquote>
Atlantic Monthly, 3/03
<strong>
No, but when the decision was made months and months ago, it was the right decision if votes were one of your potential goals. But, it was also a decision that you can't easily back down from.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But what I'm saying is that his chances for re-election in the future are not necessarily determined by the GOP performance in the November elections because of he can't back down from it now. A lot of public opinion has changed since then. Am I misunderstanding?