MARK STEYN: Don’t be a loser, George

The Spectator (UK) ^ | September 19, 2002 | Mark Steyn

[MadIvan]

You are making a rather large assumption which is not bourne out by the facts: that Saddam is completely rational. I agree he has moments of rationality, or rather, cunning, but that is not consistent. Iraq was far smaller than Iran, yet Saddam attacked it anyway. If Saddam was rational, he would have realised what the response to the invasion of Kuwait would be, but he did it anyway. The whole thesis you put forward falls apart in the face of Saddam being less than rational, bourne of a capriciousness common among dictators.

His sons, I might add, are worse.

Regards, Ivan

[dts32041]

You caught my sarcasm.

If you want to see what government run health care looks like, as a vet or a retiree.

[The Great Satan]

Your reasoning escapes me completely.

I predicted here months ago that any attack on Iraq would be a long time coming. To understand why, you have to have figured out what's really going on, which Steyn obviously hasn't.

According to the Vice President, in his MTP interview the other day, the evidence suggests that Saddam was behind 9/11. Well, either that is true or it isn't true: those are the only two possibilities. So, what if it's true? Would Saddam Hussein conduct an attack on the United States on the scale of 9/11 (at minimum, the destruction of the WTC and the Capitol), even behind the veil of terrorism, without some back-end security to deter US finger-pointing and the attendant retaliation? No. What would that back-end security have to be? Well, it would presumably involve WMD -- this is the very scenario that we are using to justify regime change. But he doesn't have nukes. To the best of our knowledge, Saddam has only three WMD at his disposal at the moment: anthrax, botulinum toxin and VX nerve gas.

What happened last year, right after sleeper agents armed with box cutters took down the WTC?

Have you figured it out yet?

[MadIvan]

Well, it would presumably involve WMD -- this is the very scenario that we are using to justify regime change. But he doesn't have nukes. To the best of our knowledge, Saddam has only three WMD at his disposal at the moment: anthrax, botulinum toxin and VX nerve gas

Your reasoning is all over the place, and again it assumes the semblance of a rational plan on Saddam's part. I'll add another element which indicates that Saddam is not entirely playing with a full deck - remember how he tried to get President Bush 41 assassinated. If the plot was discovered, he knew he could expect a pounding - he was fortunate that Weird Bill was in power. Yet he did it anyway.

Everything you are saying that exonerates Saddam involves him being a rational world leader. I am trying to tell you, you can impress yourself with all the logical webs you like, but that simply isn't the truth.

Did Saddam have something to do with 9/11 - given the meeting with Atta, and the fact that Saddam has given money to Al Qaeda, he certainly winked at it. That is sufficient reason to take him down.

Is he developing nuclear weapons? If we believe the defectors and the pre-bribed Scott Ritter, certainly.

Does he support terrorism? At the very least to the tune of $25,000 per suicide bomber family.

He needs to be disposed of. I am frankly surprised by how many "conservatives" can't see that having this fellow around is not a good idea.

Ivan

[Brian Allen]

<< My reading of Dubya is that he will see to it that they get squeezed, but he will not be seen doing it himself. The Democrats will be found on the floor, unconscious... but there will be no suspects or witnesses. >>

United States of America's President and Armed Forces Commander In Chief -- and Good Christian American Man -- George Walker Bush, is a modest and humble man and understands better than any modern president the admonition to spiritual anonymity.

Hence that nothing he does is about him -- and his willingness to let others, the UK's Blair, for example, seem to be a participant in what he -- and Our Nation -- are up to.

President Bush does not occupy Our Beloved FRaternal Republic's Most Hallowed [Assuming he put Rent-O-Kill through it after the hilly-billies got done lewding and looting it!] House for the perks and sees his being there as a great privilege and as a massive responsibility, not as his "right." His awareness of the awesome responsibility increases his dependence on his God and I am sure he seeks knowlege of God's will for him and the strength to carry that out many many times throughout the day -- and is continually blessed with both of these gifts.

God's will for him quite clearly includes that the proper use of his own will is the bringing of Justice to every terrorist, to every supporter of terrorism and to every and any one who harbors terrorists, wherever that may be -- and to ridding the Earth of every Judeo-Christian/American ["Human," that is!] Civilization-threatening manifestation of Evil.

And the strength to carry out includes an expert knowlege of the art of what I have named "Political Judo," which art harnesses and uses ones opponents' strengths against whatever and/or whoever is the opponent of the minute.

Both the subtlety of President Bush's spiritual anonymity and his use of every one of his [ America's that is and, it follow's, Human, Civilization's] -- opponent's strengths are for the moment lost on Mr Steyn and his ilk, every one of them still deafened by the eight years of the constant one hundred and eighty decibel blasting of his own trumpet they were forced by the former squalid squatter of Our Nation's Presidential Quarters, to endure.

President Bush will watch his foes -- and Ours -- domestic and foreign, pretty much rip their own arms and legs off; will watch and listen as EUROpeon weinies like Blair blather on about what they are up to and how important they and their squalid little socialist states are in the scheme of things -- and will then step in and finish Our opponents off with a couple of well directed kicks in the [............s -- Fill in the blank] before ripping off their heads -- and retiring to Crawford for a well earned break between rounds.

[After which, HE WILL BE BACK!]

Do not follow Steyn [Who will catch on real soon -- Mr Steyn's a quick study!] on this one and underestimate George Walker Bush.

FReegards, Y'All -- Brian

[Stultis]

‘Some issues are so serious, so important to the United States that they can’t be discussed in the national legislature, mainly because they might reveal the yawning chasm between me and the American people. The eve of an election campaign is no time to start forcing politicians to make our views on major issues known to voters. An election ought to be about light-rail subsidies and which Senate candidate has the more stylish toupee.’

LOL! In a rational world, C-SPAN would hire Steyn to translate all comments by congress critters.

[The Great Satan]

You seem to have completely misunderstood my posts.

Saddam has survived invading Kuwait, the attempted destruction of the WTC in '93, the attempted assassination of Bush 41, and the successful destruction of the WTC and attempted destruction of the Capitol in 2001, because he has WMD -- and because he's a wily character who understands just how far he can push his luck. He will get out of this alive. Nobody has ever taken down a regime armed with WMD, so if we can get him out, it will be a first. But, even if we are successful, we aren't going to kill him. Watch.

[Stultis]

Good analysis, Brian. I agree. It's is very clear, reinforced by almost daily statements by the President himself, that the removal of Saddam will be effected. As is also repeatedly emphasised by the President and other admin officials, time is not on our side. The other side of the coin, however, again a frequent theme of Presidential comments, is that the WOT will extend over many years and have many aspects. For this reason why need to husband our resources, use them wisely, and leverage their effect.

Yes, I believe we could go it alone against Iraq and accomplish the task handily, but only at the cost of a huge drain on our resources. If the U.S. is saddled with the whole cost (something like $200 billion) of the operation, as well as provision of the 30,000,000 or more security forces that a post Saddam Iraq will require for the first several years, then our ability to prosecute action on other fronts in the WOT will be greatly compromised.

[Brian Allen]

A #45, thanks for the ping, BUMP, Meeks!

[Brian Allen]

A #45, thanks for the ping, BUMP, Meeks!

[Paul Ross]

Steyn is on the money. Wellstone would have already been toasted, along with carpet-bagging Congressman Bill Luther and his fellow 'Blue Dog' phony moderates if GWB had made this an issue. As for Daschle having caved, we'll see.

[The Vast Right Wing]

Your damn right I was counting on that. If Cornyn was to lose, that would be horrible. I think he will win big, I can't imagine Texas sending a rat to the Senate.

[cardinal4]

‘There’s nothing new here. We’ve heard it all before’ works well enough when it’s interns, cigars and semen, but it doesn’t play quite so well with chemical weapons facilities and nuclear capability

What a great line...

[WarrenC]

Mark Steyn is VERY close to being dropped from my Christmas card list! Hang in there. When our operation against Iraq begins, Steyn will be in his usual good form, imho....

But won't the start of the operation against Iraq validate Steyn's judgment that such action is necessary? Which would mean that his last 2 pieces haven't been such "clunkers" after all. Funny to see some on this thread allude to Steyn's alleged "impatience for war", as though he's merely lusting for blood.

[lasereye]

My reading of Dubya is that he will see to it that they get squeezed, but he will not be seen doing it himself. The Democrats will be found on the floor, unconscious... but there will be no suspects or witnesses.

I can't help remembering the 2000 campaign where someone as lame as Gore closed rapidly on Bush by saying the health of the economy will be on the ballot. Bush had no response, even though there were some clear signs starting to emerge that the economy wasn't looking so hot. What you see as being sly looks to me like typical Bush cluelessness. I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but campaign 2000 is not a comforting precedent.

[MeekOneGOP]

Thank you !

I was actually quite impressed and happy with Blair to quickly get on board with the War on Terror. The British have actually shown themselves to be our staunch allies. You see that at the top (Blair) and at the grass roots level. On 9-11 the shops in the UK were full of 9-11 memorials in which a two minutes of silence was observed for 9-11 victims.....

Now, if you listen to the LIBERAL media, you'd never know any of that.....

Thank goodness for FreeRepublic.com !!

[MeekOneGOP]

You're welcomed. Thanks for your good analysis on #45 !!

[MeekOneGOP]

It would be horrible. We can count on Kirk to continue to commit political suicide......

[knighthawk]

Ping

[spodefly]

I have less trouble with Steyn's last 2 columns that some of us are having. I agree with him in that I wish Bush would go for the throat a little more often. I see that Bush is subtle and patient, and does impart his strategy with great effect, but there are so many opportunities he has passed up to point out the vapid, morally ambiguous, politically motivated nonsense of the Democrats.

Hitting them over the head with their own hypocrisy would wake up some of the sheeple and make it clear to them that having national leaders willing to acquiesce to the UN, or the polls, or to an outdated political plank is no way to have a strong national defense. They have left themselves wide open several times and Bush has passed on pointing it out. Unfortunately, subtlety is not sufficient to get thru to the democrat minions and fence-sitters.

Also, pokey -- I was at the dentist as well ... had an apicoectomy ... now my top lip is swollen up like Melanie Griffith's ...