Sorry, had some wierd encoding thing going on, I think. JDG wrote:
> And would you still blame us for the number of people that would > continue to die? We'll always be responsible, but the moment we leave, the Iraqi people begin to assume more responsibility. It's also my opinion that the violence will continue to increase while we are there. > Take a look at the recent list of Al Qaeda attacks - there's a start. > > I don't think that we're writing checks to the Saudi government, but I > do believe that we provide military assistance. This assistance > obviously goes back to the first Gulf War, and is related to the fact > that it is Saudi supplies of oil that are keeping the world price at the > 60-or-so dollar level that they are at right now. Saudi Arabia's a good example of why we should leave Iraq. http://tinyurl.com/us7gn > Sounds like "managed decline" to me.... What is it that we have now, unmanageable decline? I'll ask you again, what's the alternative? Do we reinstate the draft and widen the war? Will economic sanctions have any effect on the outcome? > Well, the threat of terrorism is present today. So, either your > proposing tripling the price of oil in this country, or you are > proposing a policy with about as much near-term relevance for energy > independence as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In > this case, it appears that you are proposing a policy that might bear > fruit in decades, and engging in partisan bashing of the people who have > an electoral responsibility to also look at policy options that are > effective for the present. The single most effective thing we can do to reduce the threat of terrorism is to leave Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations. We can't change our energy requirements overnight, but the energy policy of the Bush administration has led us in exactly the opposite direction that we need to go. We either start finding alternatives and promote conservation now or we face a tremendous shock some time in the future when prices skyrocket. >> What's yours stay the course? > Ah, the classic partisan buzz phrase. Pardon me? Wasn't that _the_ administration policy up until about a month and a half ago? > Anyhow, I'd discuss my policy, > but I haven't been elected President of the United States, so why should > I? Quite the cop out considering you're the one who originally asked the question, but I can understand your reluctance to reply here where anything you propose is likely subject to attack from several directions. Of course that's the case just about anywhere you go these days, isn't it. Doug "...arguably the worst foreign policy disaster in U.S. history." George Will -- Doug -- Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
