It was a bogus story and Matt Drudge is a hack with zero journalistic integrity. The truth finally comes out, and the major networks were right to keep a lid on the "story" until it was all the facts were known.
The story now is who actually started the rumors, and engaged in dirty politics and smear tactics.
Yes, I do think the whole "terrorism" thing is overblown when you compare it to the danger represented by the Soviet Union and/or China and the potential for global thermo-nuclear war. Certainly North Korea is a greater threat than Iraq ever was.
Are rogue countries with a couple of stolen nukes a danger? Sure, however they don't represent a threat to our existence the way the Soviets did or China may. We need not react with as much intense fear as we have with the terrorist act of 911.
I think history will clearly show how much we over-reacted, and how the administration seized on that issue to advance a pre-existing agenda.
The issue comes down to partnership with the world, or status as a rogue nation who is the only super power doing as they please because there is no one to stop us.
When the world lacks a balance of power there is a danger because terrorism is the only recourse for those people and countries to express their will and sense of powerlessness.
Would the US have gone into Iraq in the late 70's if the Soviets were against our doing so?
The story now is who actually started the rumors, and engaged in dirty politics and smear tactics.
Yes, I do think the whole "terrorism" thing is overblown when you compare it to the danger represented by the Soviet Union and/or China and the potential for global thermo-nuclear war. Certainly North Korea is a greater threat than Iraq ever was.
Are rogue countries with a couple of stolen nukes a danger? Sure, however they don't represent a threat to our existence the way the Soviets did or China may. We need not react with as much intense fear as we have with the terrorist act of 911.
I think history will clearly show how much we over-reacted, and how the administration seized on that issue to advance a pre-existing agenda.
The issue comes down to partnership with the world, or status as a rogue nation who is the only super power doing as they please because there is no one to stop us.
When the world lacks a balance of power there is a danger because terrorism is the only recourse for those people and countries to express their will and sense of powerlessness.
Would the US have gone into Iraq in the late 70's if the Soviets were against our doing so?
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
The Buchanan commentary is probably pretty close to the mark. Let's not forget however that Saddam was very close to having nukes before Desert Storm. I've said this several times: I was somewhat dubious about this war, but I don't think it was totally unreasonable either, particularly in light of Saddam's confrontational behavior. Would we prefer a president who sat back passively like Clinton did after the first World Trade Center bombing, US Cole bombing and Khobar Towers bombing? Would you want to be the US president who allowed Saddam to get nuclear weapons, take over all the middle east oil fields and basically control the world economy? Or sell those nukes to terrorists?
Kerry and the Dem's have had a field day calling the president a liar, undermining our troops and encouraging Al Qaeda and Iraqi terrorists, much as Kerry and Jane Fonda encouraged the North Vietnamese to hang on until their supporters in Washington could win the war for them. At some point Kerry will be forced to answer the ultimate question--what would he be doing differently to ensure security? I doubt the voters will find his answer very impressive, except for those like ART who think the whole terrorism thing is overblown.
The Kerry intern story is a fascinating example of how the media controls the country. Every major paper has had numerous frontpage stories on a subject on which there is no evidence of misconduct whatsoever--the slander that Bush somehow had less than perfect Guard attendance. By contrast, they have avoided the Kerry scandal like poison, even though the woman's father had a juicy quote calling Kerry a sleazbag. Can you imagine the headlines if it had been Bush? Fortunately, foreign countries have an energetic press, even if we don't, and we have the alternative media, led by Matt Drudge. In the old days of JFK, the media would just refuse to touch this kind of story and , presto, it never happened. Apparently they still think they are in that world, even as they scratch their heads over declinging circulations.