Bush Signals Veto of Terrorism Reinsurance Program
National News • September 18, 2007
The Bush Administration believes that the federal backup for terrorism reinsurance should be phased out in favor of a private market for terrorism insurance and "strongly opposes efforts to expand ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Govt. Policies
Posted On: September 20, 2007, 3:25 pm CDT
Posted By: bubba
Comment:
"no link between Iraq and 9/11"
I heard Chris Matthews hammering this point the other day. I haven't really dug into it to decide whether I believe that or not. I suspect it's complicated. Regardless, it doesn't matter. Some want to view a war on terror as simply a quick response to the events of 9/11, and then get the heck out and return life as it was on 9/10. I think it is unfortunate, but it certainly is their right to think that. George Bush and others have clearly stated, and I think rightfully so, that a war on terror is about much more than just the events of 9/11. It's about going after Islamic Extremism as a whole. If we had gone into Iraq and cleaned out Hussein the first time around maybe we would have seen the changes in the middle east that are much harder to achieve now. The ultimate goal is to push back against the growing threat of extremism and try to stop it; recognizing that Iran is the real enemy. The goal for Afghanistan and Iraq is to put the squeeze on Iran, and hopefully through economic and other means topple the Iranian regime and bring about freedom there as well. The world has been and always will be governed by the agressive use of force. The only way to stop the extremist threat is to be more forceful, plant freedom, and give people a chance to choose a different way of life.
Do they dislike our foreign policy? Sure. They dislike a lot of things about western culture. However, I think their hatred is really rooted in the their desire to take over the world and create a one world Islamic state; regardless of whether individual nations cozy up to them or not. Eventually they would begin to eat their own. We see that happening already where they are perpetrating violence on those they accuse of not being muslim enough.
Personally, I don't believe we can return to a 9/10 life and ignore what's going on in the world. We're in the middle east to try and plant freedom, topple Iran, establish a stronger presence there, go after Islamic terrorism in general, ect. Really it's about changing the face of the middle east. Can that work? Is that a good idea? That's where the discussion is in my opinion. While it is sparked by 9/11, it isn't solely a direct response to 9/11.
Many politicians are saying that the war on terror is only about a response to 9/11 and not about trying to prevent future attacks, without actually saying it. They dance around it, but that's essentially what they are saying.
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Govt. Policies
I heard Chris Matthews hammering this point the other day. I haven't really dug into it to decide whether I believe that or not. I suspect it's complicated. Regardless, it doesn't matter. Some want to view a war on terror as simply a quick response to the events of 9/11, and then get the heck out and return life as it was on 9/10. I think it is unfortunate, but it certainly is their right to think that. George Bush and others have clearly stated, and I think rightfully so, that a war on terror is about much more than just the events of 9/11. It's about going after Islamic Extremism as a whole. If we had gone into Iraq and cleaned out Hussein the first time around maybe we would have seen the changes in the middle east that are much harder to achieve now. The ultimate goal is to push back against the growing threat of extremism and try to stop it; recognizing that Iran is the real enemy. The goal for Afghanistan and Iraq is to put the squeeze on Iran, and hopefully through economic and other means topple the Iranian regime and bring about freedom there as well. The world has been and always will be governed by the agressive use of force. The only way to stop the extremist threat is to be more forceful, plant freedom, and give people a chance to choose a different way of life.
Do they dislike our foreign policy? Sure. They dislike a lot of things about western culture. However, I think their hatred is really rooted in the their desire to take over the world and create a one world Islamic state; regardless of whether individual nations cozy up to them or not. Eventually they would begin to eat their own. We see that happening already where they are perpetrating violence on those they accuse of not being muslim enough.
Personally, I don't believe we can return to a 9/10 life and ignore what's going on in the world. We're in the middle east to try and plant freedom, topple Iran, establish a stronger presence there, go after Islamic terrorism in general, ect. Really it's about changing the face of the middle east. Can that work? Is that a good idea? That's where the discussion is in my opinion. While it is sparked by 9/11, it isn't solely a direct response to 9/11.
Many politicians are saying that the war on terror is only about a response to 9/11 and not about trying to prevent future attacks, without actually saying it. They dance around it, but that's essentially what they are saying.