In a message dated 2/26/2003 10:28:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> He would, eventually, have admitted everything, > certainly. I didn't suggest reading him his rights. > If we couldn't get information out of him, well, the > Israelis or the Egyptians could. We _did_ all know > that Bin Laden was an international terrorist at the > time - he was, as I recall, on the freaking cover of > Newsweek well before 9/11, so it wasn't exactly a > secret. As for the rest of the world - who cares? Just because you say he would have talked does not mean that this is true. Some people don't because they are fearless and committed. Do not mistake courage for morality. He is convinced he is morally correct and this could have given him courage. As for caring about what the rest of the world thinks - well this sounds like classic Bush to me. For my part I think we should care about the rest of the world for completely selfish reasons. We need the rest of the world to buy our stuff. Although we are the most powerful nation in the world we can be brought down by own hubris. We would not be the first superpower to perish in this way and in fact all past superpowers have diminished in this way. I much prefer an approach that attempts to get a consensus or at least an agreement to allow us to do what we need to do. Bush 1 certaintly did with the gulf war. Baker went all over the world building a consensus. Bush 2 says we don'dt need one. I prefer George 1 and Bill C's approach.
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
