Saddam Hussein, won't destroy missiles, he will destroy missiles, he won't destroy missiles and now he is destroying at least some of them. We have been treated, (those of us who read the news), to the behavior that Saddam has used for 12 years to thwart the UN resolutions and keep the free world off balance and doing nothing to stop his murderous regime. Reasoning people do not act precipitously. The UN, The US, England and other nations debate and gather knowledge before they act. Saddam knows this and one of his most effective tactics at keeping the world at bay has been to constantly change positions and depend on the short memories and lack of knowledge of many people.
I have to say that all the evidence indicates this works well on spoiled actors, vain network newsmen and former cast members of Saturday Night Live. I will go further and state that it seems to work extremely well against a large majority of politically liberal persons. Do you remember when the phrase "knee-jerk liberals" was a popular phrase? The phrase implied that liberals took stances that were short sighted and based on the political atmosphere of the moment without using reasoning, ethics or even plain old common sense. It has landed them in hot water many times but being confronted with facts and their former stances almost always evokes the same response from them. "You are MEAN!", they squeal like spoiled children. "Republicans have no heart" according to those who seem to refuse to use their minds. It is not about thinking, it is about their "feelings" at any given moment. In many cases at political round tables and debates, I have personally witnessed that in action. When confronted with facts, in ANY field I have seen debated, liberals turn to name calling and insults and sometimes openly declare that they will LIE to achieve their agenda. That is not news-worthy to any person who has watched politics even casually in the past few decades. Of course there are conservatives who do the same thing. The difference is, it is RARE among conservatives and we openly state opposition when one of our own shows himself to be unethical, while it is an established policy and Standard Operating Procedure within the Democratic party of the past few years.
I feel sad for the older people who were born and raised to believe in the Democratic Party of old. They cling to a belief that the Democratic Party is for the "little man". By that, they mean the working class of America. A very casual reading of a couple of newspapers a week should show any thinking person that is NOT who the Democrats are working for today nor in the past few decades. That is NOT who benefits by the laws they have passed. Of COURSE there are honorable and intelligent Democrats and I would vote for one of them without hesitation. But I will say the same thing to them as I would like to say to the millions of honest and good Muslims, SPEAK OUT AGAINST those who defile your party or your beliefs. It is the only honorable thing to do, no matter who you are.
For a drop in the bucket of overwhelming evidence that what I say is true, look at a couple of facts. Which party passed laws taxing Social Security? The Democrats. Which party passed a law that seniors emigrating here from other countries at an older age were eligible for our very stressed Social Security benefits from a program they had not paid into? The Democrats.
Where did the Republicans get their reputation as being cold-hearted, money-hungry, war-mongering bigots when the facts so CLEARLY say the opposite? That can be shown by the recent article by James Carville and one of his cohorts that appeared in the NY Times. It was an article outlining the policy of the Democratic Party for the next Presidential campaign. No were addressed as to positions to be taken, what was discussed was tactics. The article said that George Bush should always be referred to as a "radical". The number one feature of the policy was NAME-CALLING. No taking an honest and open stance that voters could see clearly and decide if they supported, no honest and open exchange of ideas, but simply, and I must say typically, name-calling. There was no comment about any specific action or stance of George W. Bush. That is what people do who don't have an intelligent leg to stand on. They make name-calling and insults their policy.
The facts are, The Republican Party gets almost 90% of its donations from people giving one 100 dollars or less. It is completely reversed in The Democratic Party, 10% of its donations comes from people who give 100 dollars or less. There have been studies on the charitable donations based on political affiliation and Republicans give so much more to charities than Democrats that it is embarrassing. This was not about big corporate donations. It was broken down by income. The BIGGEST difference was in the middle class working families. Those registered as Republicans gave many times more money and time than those of the same financial class who were registered as Democrats . So much for the sarcastic comments about Compassionate Conservatives. The facts prove that they not only exist, they outnumber the liberals who give time and money by astounding numbers. As for Republicans favoring Big Business, let me make a couple of points. Big Business and wealthy people are the ones who pay most of our salaries. If Big Business isn't doing well, there ain't NOBODY doing well. I personally believe in a flat tax with a somewhat higher number for the cut off figure on the income of those who would pay no taxes at all. Many conservatives do. If we had a flat tax though, there would be masses who think (I use the term "think" loosely here), that the people who have more should pay more. They want their share of the wealth that they contributed nothing to attain. Folks, we are supposed to be equal under the LAW, but you know as well as I that some people do a lot more work and use their time on earth a lot more constructively for both their own and other's benefits. To think that what they achieve should be taken from them and distributed to the people who didn't have the determination or intelligence to succeed financially is pure socialism. Not only that, it does not work. People are not equal in ability and any government that attempts to make them so will fail. That has been proven . Our government has already gone too far down that road, IMO. Oh, BTW, that was thanks to the Democratic Party, too.
The problem is, some people do remember former stances of prominent Democrats and their words and actions often jump up and bite them in the posterior.....
Hillary Clinton voted for war against Saddam right before the last election. She recently made a speech in Ireland saying that we should avoid "precipitous action" in Iraq and that the weapons inspectors should be given more time. She said no such thing when her husband attacked Iraq on the day his impeachment was scheduled, years ago. Now she implies that for our current president to attack would be precipitous. But look what Tom Daschle said then about the same subject. (Saddam Hussein): "This is a time to send Saddam Hussein as clear a message as we know how to send that we will not tolerate the broken promises and the tremendous acceleration of development of weapons that we've seen time and time again in Iraq." Look what Madeleine Albright said then: "Month after month, we have given Iraq chance after chance to move from confrontation to cooperation, and we have explored and exhausted every diplomatic action. We will see now whether force can persuade Iraq's misguided leaders to reverse course and to accept at long last the need to abide by the rule of law and the will of the world." Folks, that was YEARS ago. This mess with Saddam has been going on CONTINUOUSLY and in spite of 17 UN Resolutions demanding that Iraq disarm and live up to the agreements they made when we pulled out of Iraq 12 years ago.
The problem with taking a stance based on feelings or political atmosphere as opposed to reasoning and ethics is, you cannot defend it. Your own words will defeat your claim to a moral stance.
It is a rare individual that wants war. Extremely rare. What we disagree on is what must be done to have peace. If you know the history of Saddam Hussein and you think that further delay in dealing with this madman will not cost many more lives in the long run, I don't know what to say to you. I can only reason and anyone who can believe that NOW, is not reasoning, they are acting on hope and feelings. I will give no quarter to those who stand up and insult and attack their own country at every opportunity. Especially elected officials sworn to defend their country. However, for the most part, I believe that the many people who are anti-war at this time are taking that stance because of fear and a loving heart. I just wish that they would realize that that is the exact same motivation for most of us who feel removing Saddam Hussein from power MUST be done. I fear for the US and the people who live under Hussein's influence and power. I love peace and goodness and the portion of mankind that tries to live in kindness and fairness and wants the same for other human beings. I know that it is the history of mankind that men without any semblance of humanity or honor will rise up and they MUST be stopped. One way or the other.