I posted a variation of this as a comment over at 37signals earlier, but it should live here...
I missed the speech, but I read it in it's entirety
. I am generally pleased with the care-based agenda proposed, but I'm also aware that things change - regardless of a given administration's political affiliation - and that many plans lay to waste.
The thing that has irked me over the course of the past few months has to do with the negative, two-faced rhetoric that has been spewing from the mouths of the Hollywood elite
, various media outlets
and the weblog community
. Hey - here's a brilliant idea - quit bitching and whining. You're doing no one any good and it's annoying. Think about it - what other resolution-based options are there really
If we leave the situation be, will the world will be better off? If we negotiate this away, will the world will be better off? If we take action, will the world be better off? I we suddenly reduce the need for fossil fuels in this country, will the crisis in the Middle East disappear and the world be better off?
I don't know the answers to any of these questions, nor pretend to... I do, however, tend to agree with this line of thinking:
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?
"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
So what better options are there really