Unless, of course, one leaps to the unlikely and slightly wacky conclusion that the exit from Saudi is being done to make Osama and his ilk like Bush.
Anonymous said…
You can imagine whatever wacky conclusions you wish. I don't know why we pulled out of SA. But what we did was "chang[e] ourselves in conformity with the aggressor's desires".
I'll leave the mind-reading of intentions to others.
Don't be a hypocrite as well as disingenous, Scott. Your intention was to imply- with no particular evidence or logic- that because Osama didn't like our being in Saudi, therefore getting out of Saudi for any reason is giving in to Osama.
This is a little different than making a consistent practice of openly advocating caving in to the bad guys so that they won't be mad at us any more, and I think you know it.
Anonymous said…
I'll cop to the charge of being disingenuous. But my intent, more accurately, was to lead you (the reader) to infer that Bush was appeasing Bin Laden.
If I were a believer in wild conspiracies, I might imagine that we've not been attacked by AQ since 9/11 because of this appeasement. In this totally ridiculous scenario, one could wonder if the invasion of Iraq was designed for the benefit of both GWB and OBL. GWB gets to take out Saddam and gains a perpetual enemy to rail against. OBL gets perhaps the best recruiting tool for which he could hope.
Fortunately, I recognize that as complete hogwash.
Remember that part of appeasement, as Mr Blankley defined it, is intent. And true intent can be hard to know.
Scott, I understand exactly what you were trying to do. You keep trying to do it. You just don't do it very well.
Last time, you responded to a Blankley article detailing a series of rather likely consequences if the policies advocated by Mr. Bush's opponents were adopted by detailing the negative consequences that might arise from something nobody advocates. The point was rather hard to see.
It's even harder to see in this case, in which you create an admittedly absurd hypothetical relationship between two events you admit are utterly unrelated in an attempt to overthrow the evidence of literally decades of consistent behavior on the part of the Democrats which simply can't be explained any other way.
Comments
2003: "In a major shift in American focus in the Persian Gulf, the United States is all but ending its military presence in Saudi Arabia" FOXNews
Who's appeasing?
- Scott H
Unless, of course, one leaps to the unlikely and slightly wacky conclusion that the exit from Saudi is being done to make Osama and his ilk like Bush.
I'll leave the mind-reading of intentions to others.
- Scott H
This is a little different than making a consistent practice of openly advocating caving in to the bad guys so that they won't be mad at us any more, and I think you know it.
If I were a believer in wild conspiracies, I might imagine that we've not been attacked by AQ since 9/11 because of this appeasement. In this totally ridiculous scenario, one could wonder if the invasion of Iraq was designed for the benefit of both GWB and OBL. GWB gets to take out Saddam and gains a perpetual enemy to rail against. OBL gets perhaps the best recruiting tool for which he could hope.
Fortunately, I recognize that as complete hogwash.
Remember that part of appeasement, as Mr Blankley defined it, is intent. And true intent can be hard to know.
- Scott H
Last time, you responded to a Blankley article detailing a series of rather likely consequences if the policies advocated by Mr. Bush's opponents were adopted by detailing the negative consequences that might arise from something nobody advocates. The point was rather hard to see.
It's even harder to see in this case, in which you create an admittedly absurd hypothetical relationship between two events you admit are utterly unrelated in an attempt to overthrow the evidence of literally decades of consistent behavior on the part of the Democrats which simply can't be explained any other way.