a quibble

[Michael Eisenstadt]

Byron,

a quibble about one part of your argument. i dont
believe 9/11 was preventable by ANY secret service
and, further, I doubt the total destruction of the 
twin towers was even anticipated by the bombers.
it was a kind of accident (that the buildings came
down) apparently based on the fact that the strength
of the buildings to resist collapse was comprised
by bad design factors.

and further that the danger of new terrorist attacks
is way overblown.

Mike

Byron wrote:
> 
> One of the more obvious things about the arguments, so
> to speak, for dragging us into a horrific mess in the
> Middle East, is their circular nature.
> 
> This is clear, even as we are now moving our planes
> closer to North Korea.
> 
> The Eye of the Hurricane: what is it?
> 
> Is the motive of the Bush Administration for a war in
> the Middle East simply political?
> 
> 2.
> 
> Is it really guided by the bizarre plans for creating
> a Middle Eastern Empire (and perhaps even a wider
> empire, if you listen to their really wild remarks)
> pushed aggressively by the neoconservatives, many of
> whom occupy leading positions in the Bush
> Administration?
> 
> A similar set of quasi-academic and altruistic
> Wilsonians played a role in the process by which the
> United States was trapped into a costly war it could
> not win or would not win in Vietnam.
> 
> The "idealists" provided over-the-top "visions" of how
> we would reform, democratize, and purify Vietnam.
> 
> Their vision of "doing good around the world and
> especially in Vietnam" got a highly ethical sendoff
> with our sponsorship of the assassination of the
> elected leader on "our side" in Vietnam, Diem.
> 
> Some of these same visionaries played a role in actual
> evil committed in Vietnam, such as when we destroyed
> peasant villages and moved the inhabitants into prison
> camps, to "protect them"... and build democracy, no
> doubt.
> 
> But although they fashioned some of the more grotesque
> events in Vietnam, the Wilsonian visionaries served a
> primary purpose: they helped to provide a "good
> intentions" justification for our involvement in the
> Vietnamese quagmire.
> 
> It may be the same, today.
> 
> The neoconservatives may be doing little more than
> providing window dressing for an Iraqi war planned for
> other motives: it is hard to tell, just as it is hard
> to find any consistent motive.
> 
> But given that the neoconservatives occupy several key
> positions, the Bush Administration may actually be
> planning the unthinkable: sinking the United States
> into an incredibly expensive and disastrous folly:
> nation building, "hegemony", in the Middle East.
> 
> 3.
> 
> But there seems, at the center, to be a vacuum: and
> this may explain the erratic, bungling, belligerant
> fashion by which the Administration pushes war.
> 
> Whether a kind of "no nothing" jingoism is making one
> incompetent decision after another; whether a bland
> delusion that "God wants this"--and perhaps wants a
> U.S. propelled Armageddon; whether a blundering desire
> to assert U.S. power for reasons that vary from day to
> day: it is hard to tell.
> 
> What is clear is that this approach has achieved the
> usual degree of success with popular opinion, which
> calls for war with the enthusiasm of a crowd at the
> Wide World of Wrestling.
> 
> In the early days of war, jingoism and rabble-rousing
> is easy to achieve.
> 
> 4.
> 
> What is clear is that a great deal of the public does
> not clearly see that
> 
> (a) Iraq is, remarkably, no threat to the United
> States at all;
> 
> (b) that we are planning a war of unprovoked
> aggression;
> 
> (c) that Iraq has no connections to nine-eleven and
> none to Al Qaeda;
> 
> (d) that the overthrow of Iraq, a secular
> dictatorship, poses great risks of further
> strengthening  Islamic fundamentalism (perhaps in
> Iraq) ...
> 
> In short, that wars, costly and with harsh
> consequences for civilians of the conquored country
> and the lives of the victors, require a kind of
> warrant which is nowhere to be found in this sad
> story.
> 
> To the contrary.
> 
> A war in the Middle East is not only not required by
> nor serves U.S. interests, but is likely to be harmful
> to U.S. interests.
> 
> And starting a war which is *not* required by our
> miitary, security, and long term interests is a
> separate folly, all by itself.
> 
> 5.
> 
> It is also clear that the public does not perceive
> that this Administration, which was at the time
> already planning a war in Afghanistan, dropped the
> ball in 2001.
> 
> An apology is called for, if not impeachment.
> 
> The Administration's act of omission in 2001 is made
> all the worse because it has repeatedly shown by word
> and by deed that it is not attempting to protect U.S.
> soil from future disasters.
> 
> Instead, as it pushes for war, the Administration is
> diverting its energies from fighting terrorism, from
> protecting U.S. soil, from the problems in Korea and
> elsewhere.
> 
> ===================================================
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/