those silly neoconservatives
Buy Himcolin No Prescription
Tenormin No Prescription
Chitosan For Sale
Buy Requip Online
Buy Online Soma
Buy Vasotec No Prescription
Proventil No Prescription
Zoloft Ultram For Sale
Buy Lukol Online
Buy Online Lexapro
Buy Ultram No Prescription
Styplon No Prescription
Imitrex For Sale
Buy Lincocin Online
Buy Online Coumadin
Buy Accutane No Prescription
Prozac No Prescription
Calan For Sale
Buy Tentex Royal Online
Buy Online Emsam
Buy Snoroff No Prescription
Lasuna No Prescription
Brafix For Sale
Buy Toprol XL Online
Buy Online Kytril
The Cato Institute daily has an article by Jonathan Clarke (also ran on Sep 22 in the LA Times) entitled An Ominous U.S. Model that spells out some scary truths.
Over the past weeks, the Russian people have been subjected to terrorist assaults and losses on a scale broadly equivalent to 9/11. In critical ways, therefore, the two countries are coping with a parallel challenge. If Russia’s leaders looked to the U.S. response to 9/11 as a model, what would they see?
He asserts two scary scenarios.
The American response to 9/11 has been almost exclusively military. Other instruments of American policy — political, economic, social, allies — have fallen by the wayside. All other priorities of government have been subordinated to the “war on terrorism.” This approach of total “with us or against us” war derives much of its ideological underpinning from the intensely pessimistic neoconservative worldview based on an absolute division between good and evil.
Even more scary is that is approach tends to place more power in the hands of the “central executive” (George W).
Second, the Russians will see that, for U.S. policymakers, 9/11 legitimated unrelated policy objectives, notably the attack on Iraq. Conceived in the mid- 1990s, this neoconservative scheme for Iraq was based on a pipe dream of imposing U.S.-style democracy throughout the Middle East. A noble enough aspiration about which a national debate would have been in order, but one that the neoconservatives knew would never stand critical public scrutiny. Hence the obfuscations about weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein’s links to terrorism to take advantage of the in-theater presence of American forces in Afghanistan for the purposes of a war against Iraq.
In my opinion, if any country decides to wage a war on terrorism–the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons–they may consider attacking the largest terrorist “group” in history: us.
