« oh what a beautiful morning | Main | mystical appearances »

Friday (stolen) memo

A bit swamped at work today, so I'll just take a few minutes to quote Bill O'Reilly until I get another post in.

The truth is that we're going to war to maintain stability in the world. If a madman like Saddam used deadly weapons to get control of the Gulf oil flow, the entire world would be at his mercy.

The United States now drives the world economy. If this country goes down the tubes business-wise, the whole world suffers. We make, buy and donate most of the world's goods. So any intrusion on our security is bad for the whole world and many resent that.

If the United States was an imperialist power, we would have done what the Soviets did after World War II, enslave countries. Instead, we rebuilt Japan and Germany and most of Europe, allowing millions to live in freedom at our expense....

....The truth is that America must now protect itself against fanatics who hate freedom and knowledge. And we must protect the world without the help of cowardly countries like France and Germany, and opportunistic countries like China and Russia.

The task is almost impossible, but if anyone can do it, we can.

And that's the memo.

Sure is.

Comments

Ok, when you put it like that it doesn't bug me as much as the article I read today in the Chronicle. (But Bush still makes me shiver.)

"If the US were an imperialist country..." Very similar to a discussion I had with my son recently. If we had wanted to take over the world, we certainly could've post-WWII. Instead, we became the world's policeman.

Eeewww! I'm agreeing with Bill O'Reilly.

Yeah, it really does suck to admitt that I largely agree with O'Reilly on this one.

I'm sorry, but the fact that Germany and France are holding out doesn't really hold much weight for me considering Germany gave us Hitler and France......well shit, the country of France wouldn't even exist today if it weren't for us.

Would one of you please explain why it is so terrible to agree with Bill O'Reilly? (I used to feel the same way about agreeing with Rush Limbaugh, Ronald Reagan, or Dr. Laura. I got over it.)

And, Christine, why does Bush "make [you] shiver"?

Just curious.

Is this something new then? Why didn't we go to war with any of the OTHER dicatatorships over THEIR creation of WMD? North Korea HAS WMD, HAS long range missles to deliver then, and is actively threatening to use them against the US. Yet we still sit back and claim that a diplomatic solution is available to us? Doesn't this strike ANYONE as hypocritical?

I'm all for going after Saddam to prevent Iraq from becoming ANOTHER Korea. What the hell am I missing here?

Lyn: O'Reilly (like Limbaugh) is an arrogant asshole, but he's our arrogant asshole. God love him. I can't.

What you are missing, Greg, is that NK is imploding. That is more of a waiting game.

Terrorist Mullah Krekar in Norway has said Saddam has buried chem weapons in the oil fields.

Read number10gi.us for some NK info & bjorn staerk for tidbits on Krekar.
and of course rantburg.com

Greg, as far as we know NK hasn't used their WMDs on their neighbors or their own people (starving them doesn't count)... Soddom (spelling deliberate) has done both. NK builds WMDs to get what they want, Iraq builds them to use on its enemies. Simple enough?

No, what scares me is that I'm starting to like George Bush, the president select. He stole the election and did all those Republicanny things... but you've got to admit he's hanging tough at the right time - and that's rare.

Hey, Joshua, talk about stealing an election, did you see this via Taranto??

--Al Gore may have stolen the 2000 New Hampshire primary, the Boston Phoenix's Seth Gitell reports:

As late as 3 p.m. that day, Gore operatives had access to exit polls showing the vice-president being defeated by [Bill] Bradley. They also learned that while Democratic voters were voting in large numbers for Gore, independents, many of them upscale suburban voters, were voting for Bradley's sophisticated brand of liberalism.

Knowing that Bradley's strength came from tony tech havens such as Bedford, the Gore team organized a caravan to clog highway I-93 with traffic so as to discourage potential Bradley voters from getting to the polls. (Michael Whouley, a chief Gore strategist, recounted the Gore team's Election Day field efforts at a Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics symposium, and his comments are included in a book compiled by the Institute titled Campaign for President: The Managers Look at 2000. He knocked down the rumor that they considered overturning an 18-wheeler to clog up traffic.)

The caravan--spoken of with awe by operatives who worked on the campaign-- had the desired effect. It was harder for Bradley voters to get the polls.--

So O'Reilly thinks it's all about the oil too? what is the world coming to?

Why should the US strategy with respect to all situations be the same?

The difference between Iraq and NK is Oooiiill! Because Iraq has oil, economic pressure won't work, military action is required. Because NK has no oil, economic pressure will work, military action is not needed.

One size fits all is a bad idea just about anyplace it's tried.