How to Fight Terrorism

President Bush unwittingly provided an appropriate response to the gruesome terrorist attacks on London.

Highlighting the "vivid" contrast between the Group of Eight summit in Gleneagles, Scotland -- where the world's most powerful leaders have been forced by grassroots pressure to address issues of global poverty and climate change -- and the carnage in London after coordinated bomb blasts killed dozens of commuters Thursday morning, Bush said, "On the one hand, we got people here who are working to alleviate poverty and to help rid the world of the pandemic of AIDS and that are working on ways to have a clean environment. And on the other hand, you've got people killing innocent people. And the contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, and those who kill, those who've got such evil in their heart that they will take the lives of innocent folks."

Bush went on to promise that, "we will spread an ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their ideology of hate."

Imagine the cries of outrage and incomprehension that would have arisen from right-wing talk radio and television pundits if a President Al Gore or a President John Kerry had called, in the immediate aftermath of an attack linked to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, for spreading an "ideology of hope and compassion" as part of the response to terrorism.

Imagine if a President Gore or a Kerry had spoken, as Bush did, of bringing those responsible for the attacks "to justice" rather than pledging to "hunt them down and kill them."

Imagine if a President Gore or Kerry had failed to make any mention of the invasion and occupation of Iraq -- supposedly a critical front in the "war on terror" -- at such a moment.

Bush's amen corner in the media is, of course, packed with hypocrites who hear echoes of Churchill in the president's every utterance, just as they detect the language of treason in the mere mention of alternative approaches to fighting terrorism.

But the failings of his followers ought not obscure the fact that the president's response -- intentionally or otherwise --went to the issues that should be addressed.

Bush expressed his "heartfelt condolences," he called for bringing the killers to justice. And then he spoke -- in the context of a broader discussion about alleviating poverty, disease and environmental decay -- about combating terrorism with "hope and compassion." In the end, it will only be when hope and compassion are delivered to the world's most dispossessed peoples -- through debt reduction, aid and measures that combat the spread of easily treated diseases -- that those who preach violence as a response to inequity and injustice will be sufficiently marginalized to make it possible to talk of "winning" a war on terrorism.

Is it possible that the president is beginning to accept this reality? Could he be coming to realize that the challenges posed by international terrorism cannot be met merely with cowboy rhetoric and bombs?

Surely, the painful recognition that, almost four years after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, al-Qaeda is apparently still capable of pulling off coordinated, and extremely deadly, attacks in one of the most security-savvy cities on the planet ought to cause Bush to rethink his misguided response to what he describes as the great challenge of his presidency.

Unfortunately, Bush has shown little capacity for growth in his knowledge or understanding of world affairs. So it is wise to remain skeptical about how far he plans to take his "hope and compassion" response.

That said, we ought to hold the man to his words -- and to remind the president's amen corner that it was not Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi who responded to the news of a terrorist attack with a discussion about alleviating poverty and ridding the world of disease. It was George W. Bush. And, at least in that moment, he was right.

Comments (209)

1. Zero's on the right track here, I think. The British government is obviously freaked out about a Madrid-style backlash and is therefore treading carefully. Bush's idiotic speech was obviously crafted to avoid inflaming the British people, if he'd done his cowboy act it would have been hopeless for Blair.

   Posted by rvs-convener at 07/07/2005 @ 2:57pm

2. Imagine how far we would have gotten by now in this war if guys like you had been rounded up and jailed right after 9/11

   Posted by marcia25 at 07/07/2005 @ 3:01pm

3. Marcia,

   "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

   -- Theodore Roosevelt

   Succinctly put, huh?

   Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/07/2005 @ 3:11pm

4. Bin Ladden is in Iran. So we will never be able to get to him unless we send in the Seals or Rangers on a complete covert operation. we do not have the stomach for it. The Brits, however, may send the SAS and get the job done because they are very good at smiling at the enemy while taking action. It is the British nature.

   Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 4:02pm

5. remember, it is all about Rules of Engagement which has paralyzed the elite US troops that are the ones that could get the job done wihtout sending 150,000 troops to invade a country.

   Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 4:04pm

6. Marcia writes, "Imagine how far we would have gotten by now in this war if guys like you had been rounded up and jailed right after 9/11."

   Oh, and we got real far by fighting a war in a place where a war didn't need to be fought, I guess. We got real far by wasting all our money and people in a land where no WMD -- or terrorists -- could be found. Tom Ridge says that our ports are still not secure. My suggestion is that you check again to determine who is doing the most damage to this country in the post-9/11 environment.

   Posted by barnesgene at 07/07/2005 @ 4:06pm

7. But to the original blog, I think Blair warned him not to pull the cowboy talk!

   Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 4:06pm

8. Need to take the gloves off. This is an evil bunch that wants nothing more than to kill every last man, woman and child that is not muslim. If they blow up a bus we need to blow up a city. Its the only thing they understand.

   Posted by whyme at 07/07/2005 @ 4:06pm

9. No, we just need to take the gloves off and allow our elite troops to engage these guys without having to state your name, your country and intentions while underfire and if caught, cut their heads off. We have the resources to fight this war, but it takes serious intelligence work, that the liberals don;t want because it infringes on personal rights. I for one waive my personal rights to get ride of them. And what rights are we really giving up. Everytime you use your credit card, make a cell call, whatever, they can track you. You must be very ignorant if you don;t think they are already watching/listening. As long as you are a law abiding citizen, what does it matter?

   Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 4:12pm

10. Bob Costas to Sen McCain: " we are told that if we don't confront the terrorists in Iraq, we will have to confront them in New York or wherever. What is to stop them from being in New York simultaneousely if they could?" The answer from McCain was a non-answer. I think in light of the attacks today, we got the answer. It's not the wrongheaded, no-end-in-sight war in Iraq.

    Maybe the answer is when " we spread an ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their idoelogy of hate."

    Posted by question! at 07/07/2005 @ 4:12pm

11. Question, but that is in direct conflict with liberal (and I applaud liberal ideals) thinking. That is why Thomas Jefferson said it best:

    --"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants,"

    That almost sounds neo-con, doesn;t it? He was one of the greatest thinkers in US history and liberal in the libertarian sense, but had enough common sense that liberty will come under constant attack and must be defended, not in words, but in war.

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 4:16pm

12. Can anyone think of any thing that has happend since Bush has been in control of our foreign policy, or domestic policy for that matter, that is worth the lives that have been lost, the injuries that have been suffered, and the risks to which we have been, and continue to be, exposed? Only those who believe, notwithstanding all of tbe evidence - the facts- to the contrary and those who are using his office to increase their wealth or extend their power could continue to support such a born loser.

    Posted by Ifida at 07/07/2005 @ 4:27pm

13. We need to be smart about the war: we are silly if we think killing people in the Middle East will encourage Middle Easterners to abandon those people being killed to the whims of the foreign intruder. You can't blow up an ideology. Yes, we must destroy the scourge of Radical Islam, but we can't do that alone. We need to be strong and smart. We can't "spread an ideology of hope and compassion" with an iron fist. We need allies with strong ideals, and we need to first and foremost defend our ideals at home. We have to show that we are strong, not just militarily, but ideologically too. Right now I think everyone acknowledges our military dominance, but not our ideological dominance. When nobody doubts our intentions, then opposing us becomes much more difficult, and the idea of evil America can be wiped out.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/07/2005 @ 4:27pm

14. Yes. Iron fists do not stop terrorists. Historical evidence backs this up. The British used military action in response to IRA terrorist attacks only to face more attacks. The Israelis use military attacks in response to PLO terrorist attacks only to face more attacks. It's a vicious cycle. Violence begets violence. War begets war.

    Posted by question! at 07/07/2005 @ 4:46pm

15. But the IRA was willing to negotiate with the British and it was the IRA that turned down the British offer after wwII to give the whole of Ireland to the Irish, but they only wanted the navy ship yards still functioning for the British navy in Belfast. So looking back, the IRA blew a great offer because they wanted it ALL. They got 99% and which turned into thousands of innocents to die. Think about that

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 4:54pm

16. And BTW, there was no full out Potato famine. Only that the Brits were taking the good potatos to fuel their economy and not giving any to the Irish. Called starvation. Called millions of people dead. Called one of the the biggest cover ups in history.

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 4:56pm

17. Frank. We have created a soft generation which was started by the hippies. Our youth is being taught that they can get whatever they want without working for it. they will not work hard jobs and think of themselves better to do those jobs, which is why the Mexicans are flurishing in America. Our boys are being taught in school not to be aggressive, not to compete , basically be submissive. That is the backlash that is going on and will be going on with the liberals in America, because being competitive means you hold yourself accountable. Holding yourself accountable means you have to have conviction...conviction comes with knowing what sacrafice is. We are being told that America is bad by soft handed people that have never got their hands dirty or dirt under their finger nails. They don;t know what it takes to get a hard job done without someone elses help!

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 5:02pm

18. Zero, becasuse you just want to hear how Bush and Blair are idiots. Innocent civlians were targeted and murdered today. But you want to spin it into how bad our foreign policy is and how a liberal in office would make the world a happier place.

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 5:03pm

19. No matter how many times I see it in print or hear it regurgitated, it never fails to amaze me how libs just don't get it. To hear that Lincoln Chafee say that he wanted to extablish a "2-pronged" initiative with a heavy focus on diplomacy just underlines the fact the libs either don't understand what it is that we are facing,or, in the best interests in being politically correct, PRETEND not to understand. The diplomacy part is easy- stop educating our women, install the Koran as law, and return our society to the 7th Century. ANYTHING else is unacceptable to these monsters...period. They are at war with us, they have made this declaration. Unfortunately, it is not so much a nation as an ideology that we are fighting.

    ...I just fail to see what is so difficult to accept about this...other then the utter contempt the Left has for our President. I thank God every night that algore or howard dean is not in the White House.

    Posted by libkilla at 07/07/2005 @ 5:03pm

20. The real people who suffer are being fooled by programs that will never work but are filling the pockets of the people running them. How about we hold the non profits and govt programs accountable? We help our own people first before we help anyone else. That is a domestic and foreign policy that every American should take seriously.

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 5:06pm

21. Dancall exactly what personal liberties would you have us give up to win the war on terror. Our e-mail and phone conversations are public domain no need for a warrant for a wire tap or to read your mail. They can question your friends and throw them in jail if they tell you. I don't get it, whats the excuse now. Could it just possibly be Bush and his "colossal error of judgement" when he invaded Iraq needlessly. Which was basically a war on an old bush ally. Quit looking for excuses bush has screwed up the war on terror bigtime.

    Posted by Salunga at 07/07/2005 @ 5:09pm

22. i'm not sure why we should assume that those responsible for the attacks in london are muslim fundamentalists. the global weapons industry is a trillion dollar plus industry. i'm going to assume they're behind it, until someone presents me with hard evidence to the contrary. seems to me that whatever the truth is, it's hardly what we're seeing on tv.

    Posted by Jason Rhodes at 07/07/2005 @ 5:10pm

23. Hey Killa:

    Killin's what you advocate, but doesn't that mean escalation? Why don't we institute a draft, round up the young men & women, and send them all to a new crusade in the Middle East to kill the ideology?

    The government's contempt for diplomacy is going to get a lot more people killed than there already have been. It's not bad to put your life on your line for your ideology, but don't blindly rush into the trap set by the other side!!!

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/07/2005 @ 5:17pm

24. Zero: there has been no further comment because the leaders are trying to figure out what to do next. You have so many good ideas, but this comment makes you seem extreme. Its not simple for even the smartest among us to figure out what to do in the face of tragedy, and Bush has already given a compelling if misleading speech on the attack. chill.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/07/2005 @ 5:20pm

25. -- I thank God every night that algore or howard dean is not in the White House. --

    Yeah, with Gore in the White House, America might have gotten attacked on September 11, 2001 under his watch. Oh, wait. America DID get attacked -- the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil, at that -- while America was under a REPUBLICAN'S watch. How convenient for toe-the-line Bushies to forget this inconvenient fact.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/07/2005 @ 5:22pm

26. "Imagine how far we would have gotten by now in this war if guys like you had been rounded up and jailed right after 9/11." Wow, Marcia, Are you kidding? What country do you live in? Have you heard about that pesky document called the Constitution? You and Ann Coulter should team up as the Fascist Females. Take the act on the road. Be sure to bring plenty of guards to protect you from the liberals. Here's how far we would have gotten in this war if us guys had been rounded up and jailed right after 9/11: The trains in Madrid would still have been bombed, the London subway still would have been bombed. The war in Iraq would still not be going the way Cheney said it would. It wasn't the liberal press and blogs that did it. Liberals didn't underestimate the insurgency in Iraq. Liberals didn't start a war for one reason and change it several times after each previous reason was discredited. Liberals didn't ignore the PDB that set Clarkes' hair on fire in Summer 2001. If you think rounding up and jailing those who disagree with the powers in control is the way to be, Iran or China would be a place to see it first hand. In your world, the terrorists have won.

    Posted by proudlib at 07/07/2005 @ 5:22pm

27. Sal, if I have nothing to hide, what do I care?

    jason, AQ has already taken credit for it.

    Zero, I will not sit here and discredit leaders who made comments after a tragey. Sorry, not taking your bait.

    Nat, AQ came to Clinton in 96 and wanted to gave certain terms to negotiate...the USS Cole, bombing of embassies and 9/11...lets talk about diplomacy and getting people killed.

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 5:23pm

28. and Sal, I do have issues with invasion of privacy, but if they ask politly, then I am an open book!

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 5:25pm

29. Dancall: can't so casually dismiss diplomacy, because the alternative is extermination of Islam.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/07/2005 @ 5:26pm

30. Zero, Maybe, just maybe, Bush and Blair see their war on terror beginning to crumble. Maybe they see the "stay the course" routine for what it is; a sytem that's not working. Maybe "stay the course" is being replaced with "hope and compassion."

    Or maybe Bush needs to consult with Karl,Dick,and Donald before he can decide a plan of action.

    Posted by question! at 07/07/2005 @ 5:26pm

31. correction: radical islam

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/07/2005 @ 5:27pm

32. Extermination of Islam? Please explain! I highly doubt that destroying Bin Ladden would not exterminate Islam. As a matter of fact, I am sure there are millions of Muslims that would kill him if they had the chance.

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 5:29pm

33. Because it is on British terms. and I said earlier in a reponse maybe not here, that the British will not say a word but kick ass behind the scene. I think Blair told the Bush to say what he said and now the Elite SAS forces can now go into Iran and kick ass without the US being blammed for it and have to respond to liberal thinkers in America and the UN. Because the Brits will tell the world to eff off and be done with it.

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 5:32pm

34. Again, the problem we have and is Bushs problem because he uses the wrong tone but is crippled by our liberal policy of the "rules of engagement". Zero, you should read up on it. It will give you a good idea why the terrorist as so ballsy. Our liberal thinking put hand cuffs on our elite forces. it is like having a 180 mph ferrari but putting a alternator on to keep it going 60 mph.

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 5:35pm

35. Dancall: You think if we kill X, Y, and Z islamists the movement ends. This is the same fallacy Rumsfeld operated under when deciding to invade Iraq: topple the heads of the regime and the body will crumble. The truth is they will be replaced and the movement will be strengthened. Just like Christianity grew stronger when it had a martyr to rally behind.

    The truth is, no Republicans (or anyone else) have explained a credible strategy for eliminating the idea that America is evil and needs to be destroyed.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/07/2005 @ 5:36pm

36. Nattie,

    "The truth is, no Republicans (or anyone else) have explained a credible strategy for eliminating the idea that America is evil and needs to be destroyed. "

    Are you suggesting then that this is the only way to put a real end to terrorism?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/07/2005 @ 5:39pm

37. Nat, then you are admitting the we are in a idealist and religious war? Radical Islam has been spreading way before Bush was in office. Of that matter it was spreading for the last 700 years.

    your argument with Christianity is flawed. There was a central source of power controlling the movements. There were nations fighting nations.

    I don;t think if will kill XYandZ everything is over. Back in the cold war, the cia had US interests in control overseas. We were not only fighting the Soviet Union, but fighting France and Germany for resources they wanted. Look into the root cause of Vietnam and you will see the point.

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 5:43pm

38. Frank, the the democratic party was overtaken by the liberals. do you really think the old Dem party would be standing for this liberal overtake. There is no way! I am Irish Catholic and I can tell you this, I know more people whose families grew up dem but are now hard core rep. The old working class people had accountability. They had the immigrant mentality that I will provide for my family if I have to work 3 jobs, but there is no way their kids will work like that because they WILL go to SCHOOL, tehy WILL go to COLLEGE and they will be held accountable!

    I grew up inside this family and I was taken down to the post office when I was 18 years old to sign my name to the selective service. My father was from a family of 13 and he worked in factores his whole childhood. He then went to serve in the Battle of the Bulge at the age of 17, finished college and went to medical school. I can tell you right now, he is rolling in his grave seeing what happened to the dem party of the old days!!!

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 5:49pm

39. Zero: As war leaders Bush and Blair must retalliate for this attack, I agree. But as you stated, the U.S. military is stretched to the maximum, and the two terrorist hot spots are currently occupied. Where next? Syria? Iran? Lebanon? Saudi Arabia? I don't know. Retalliate is what war leaders do, must do, to save face.

    But, Bush and Blair are not generals, they are diplomats, above all, world leaders. A military retalliation will only result in a military retalliation will only result in a military retalliation will only result in.....you get the idea. I think diplomacy is the answer. Sit down with the tribal leaders, political leaders, heads of state in Iraq and discuss what can be done to get what they want to move their country forward. I'm not advocating talking to the terrorists, they can't be reasoned with. But I believe a continued strong military presence will only result in a continued strong terrorist resistance.

    Posted by question! at 07/07/2005 @ 5:50pm

40. Ok zero, lets invite bin ladden to live in america...he is allowed to preace his ideals here, isn't he? we live in a society that is open of Islam. Lets bring it here and try their system.

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 5:52pm

41. Question, they are doing that. get your head out of liberalism. Radical Islamic terrorist are in iraq disrupting this with the help from radical cleric from all over the world. my god, or their god, whatever, just wake up

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 5:55pm

42. Fighting radical Islam requires a military response and an ideological response. There is no doubt that President Bush is sadly lacking regarding the latter. And that is where the Left could have significantly helped in the war against Islamic fascism -- by framing the war in terms of a war against fascism, against those who, to quote Christoher Hitchens, are fighting for the right to throw acid in the faces of unveiled women. Imagine if those millions who protested before the beginning of the war in Iraq had massed instead to protest the continuance of Saddam Hussein's regime, and to demand that he comply with the U.N. resolutions.

    Posted by RonS at 07/07/2005 @ 5:59pm

43. Dan,

    -- We have created a soft generation which was started by the hippies. --

    Oh, goodness.

    -- Our youth is being taught that they can get whatever they want without working for it. --

    A very broad generalization without anything to back it up. And if you think this supposed mind-set is owned by liberals, think again. I'm a native Texan, and I've seen my fair share of small Texas, Bush-loving towns with lots and lots of people having babies they can't support and lining up at that social services building every damn day. Hypocrites, they.

    -- they will not work hard jobs and think of themselves better to do those jobs, which is why the Mexicans are flurishing in America. --

    Wrong. It's not jobs Americans don't want but jobs Americans won't work for sub-par wages. Go to Texas and try getting on with a construction crew for a wage that reflects the workload. You ain't gonna find one, because of Benedict Arnold companies hiring illegals to work for less than that appropriate wage. They'd rather hire an experienced illegal construction worker than train a legal American to do the same job, which is not only illegal but unpatriotic. Yet I never hear Republicans taking Big Bidness to task for this. Y'all gripe about "them damn illegals" collecting getting social services yet hypocritically support them being exploited by companies. You expect them to build your buildings and pave your roads yet disappear from sight when the 5p workbell rings and have their babies under freeway bridges. Ah, this just exudes "moral values"!

    And, again, plenty of Bush-loving white Southerners out there collecting welfare checks.

    -- Our boys are being taught in school not to be aggressive, not to compete , basically be submissive. --

    Another generalization without any basis. Be more specific on this, because it's coming off as really extremist, Dan. You can do better than this.

    -- That is the backlash that is going on and will be going on with the liberals in America, because being competitive means you hold yourself accountable. --

    Oh, like blaming everything on the CIA when your WMD claims turn out to be crap? Like never admitting to having made mistakes in the piss-poor post-war planning of the Iraq war? Like voicing support for the Vietnam war and having daddy get you into the Air National Guard to avoid fighting in it? Like averring that all drug offenders deserve maximum sentences yet yelling like a baby when prosecutors come after your drug-offense self? Puuuuulease.

    -- Holding yourself accountable means you have to have conviction --

    Tell that to flip-flopping Bush:

    -- Bush opposed a Homeland Security Department, then he supported it.

    -- Bush opposed an independent 9/11 Commission, then he supported it.

    -- Bush opposed an independent WMD Commission, then he supported it.

    -- Bush opposed the U.S. engaging in nation building, then he supported it.

    -- Bush opposed a time extension for the 9/11 Commission, then he supported one.

    -- Bush said he wouldn't offer incentives to N. Korea for them to disarm, then he said he would.

    -- Bush said gay marriage is a state issue, then he supported a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

    -- Bush opposed the McCain-Feingold bill, then he signed it into law.

    -- Bush said the "Mission Accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors, then he admitted it was put up by his advance team.

    -- Bush opposed restrictions on 527s, then he said they were "bad for the system".

    -- Bush said he can win the "war on terror", then he said it's unwinnable, then he says he'll win it.

    -- Bush pledged not to touch Social Security surplus, then he spent it.

    -- Bush said a president should personally force OPEC to lower prices, then he himself refused to personally lobby their leaders.

    -- Bush vetoed a patient's bill of rights as Texas governor, then in his debate with Al Gore he said he supported it.

    -- Bush said he supported free trade, then he imposed steel tariffs, and then flip-flopped again by rescinding them.

    -- Bush supported caps on carbon dioxide, then he opposed them.

    -- conviction comes with knowing what sacrafice is. --

    Like deficit-contributing tax cuts to the top 1% who don't need them while cities throughout the nation are deprived of the necesssary funds to fully protect their bridges and ports?

    -- We are being told that America is bad by soft handed people that have never got their hands dirty or dirt under their finger nails. --

    We're being told that this administration, not the country itself, is bad. Big difference. And how exactly have war-mongering Bushies like Cheney and Wolfowitz and Ashcroft who got deferments from Vietnam "gotten their hands dirty"?

    -- They don;t know what it takes to get a hard job done without someone elses help! --

    Again, another generalization that neither fully implicates liberals nor exonerates Republicans (I can't write "conservatives" because an administration that increases non-defense federal spening by 36% is hardly 'conservative", wouldn't you agree?).

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/07/2005 @ 6:00pm

44. And Al Gore is the Founder of the Internet. He would have been the Tech President.

    Hypothetical question. Liberals in America HATED General Patton. During the last year of the war, he predicited that Stalin would turn Russias back on the allies and that after taking over Germany, we should roll into Russia and fight him to take him out of power. The Russian people knew what Stalin was doing (killing millions of people....another major cover up that is outstaged by the Jewish plight in Germany) and would have joined the american invasion to topple Stalin.

    Patton was a wartime general that had the instinct and guts to get move the troops in unthinkable ways, which intellects at the time said his tatics were irresponsible and couldn;t be done. He proved them wrong.

    Would it have been the smart thing to do and let Patton roll into Russia and save the world from a nuclear cold war???

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 6:02pm

45. Todd: I don't know if we can eliminate that idea, but mitigating its influence should be the primary goal of our efforts to win this war.

    Dancall: you think liberals want to kill terrorism by being nice and acting like them. Nope. We want to defend our country and stop getting into wars which have no end, make us weaker at home, and strengthen the enemy.

    Zero: you're right, you can't kill an idea. But if you ensure that the idea is based on faulty grounds, it is less likely to pass from person to person like a disease. I agree that restraint is a fundamental weapon in the war against Islamic Facism, but it is a double-edged sword in the war over the idea of an evil America. It is a dangerous weapon because it also can strengthen the enemy if used improperly.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/07/2005 @ 6:02pm

46. Dan,

    Spare me the "Gore-Internet" crapola. First, it's a totally obvious smokescreen to distract from your previous baseless comments I countered. Two, Gore never said he invented the Internet, only that he was responsible for helping secure the necessary funding that led to its invention and development. Please don't turn into a Hannity or Limbaugh here by throwing out irrelevant stuff to distract from the real issues at hand.

    As for Patton, that was before I was born. My comments dealt with the here and the today and the Democrats and Republicans who are with us now and whose decisions are currently affecting us, thank you.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/07/2005 @ 6:25pm

47. Some of you might have noticed that while the English branch of Islamofascism was murdering London commuters, the Iraqi branch was murdering an Egyptian envoy. When Bush said "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists," he was stating a fact, not an intention. The Islamists' message is "You're either with us or you're with civilization." It's your choice, apparently a tough one for today's left.

    Varian

    Posted by Varian at 07/07/2005 @ 7:00pm

48. kevin, you listed off everything Bush had said...looks like you have a real angry streak against Bush or just use other peoples rants to give you credibility. we can list many things that presidents in the past have totally contradicted themselves.

    Dude, you live in Texas and that is your problem. I grew up in New England and saw total hypocracy from liberals who would have nothing to do with anyone who voted democrate except white and the the rich. Maybe you are touching on something with the work ethic of northerns and southerns...northerns would work that low paying high work load while you southerns didn;t know how to lift the load after the black man was freed.

    You never responded to the hippie question , which had an impact on our culture. You just dismissed it and then rambled on with quotes.

    You never addressed the pressing issue of a system that has created people to be dependant on welfare. A system that blams everything on the government but lacks the ability to look into the mirror and talk about the real issues like Bill Cosby did but dot blasted for it. The poor are starting to realize that liberals are full of crap too. Bush's education programs are kicking ass and the Unions that control the publics school systems don;t like it because it shows how they are a fraud. That is is who is voting liberal and dem...yes, bush has problems and issues, but to blindlessly blame "the man" is foolish and any Irishman that has gotten their hands dirty knows that.

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 7:02pm

49. I guess it was the foreign policy of Darfur that caused the Muslims to kill women and children off by the thousands. Or maybe it was the foreign policy of Somalia that caused the Muslims to deny food to woman and children and kill them by the thousands. And maybe it was the foreign policy of Israel that makes Iran wants to kill all the Jews. What you people do not understand is this evil has been in the works long before we knew what it was and long before we ever put any troops on the ground in any arab or middle east land. It's Islamic Tyranny and the ones carrying out this stuff even states publicly that their goal is to destroy the west and bring Islam to all nations of the world. It has nothing to do with Iraq, it has nothing to do with anything other than us not being Muslim people.

    Posted by whyme at 07/07/2005 @ 7:09pm

50. No Why, it is not being a "radical Muslim" There are good Muslims taht are tolerant of other beliefs

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 7:14pm

51. DANCALL, why don't they do something to fix this? Why did the news not show the dancing in the streets I saw on the Arab satellite channels? Is it because they don't want people to see who hates us? Why do we not see them marching in the streets after this? Their silence speaks volumes.

    Posted by whyme at 07/07/2005 @ 7:48pm

52. Varian,

    -- The Islamists' message is "You're either with us or you're with civilization." It's your choice, apparently a tough one for today's left. --

    Well, since Cheney's Hallibrton did lots and lots of business with terrorist-supporting nations even when sanctions were in place, I'd aver that it's a tough one for him, definitely.

    Dan,

    -- looks like you have a real angry streak against Bush --

    Yes, when a president lies about a politically and monetarily motivated war that's getting our soldiers maimed and killed, then, yes, I get more than a little POed. The real question is why Bushies, who aver to support the troops yet turn a willing blind eye to the lies, aren't POed. (Sorry, but a yellow-ribbon "Support the Troops" decal on your Hummer doesn't cut it.)

    -- or just use other peoples rants to give you credibility --

    Everything I've written has credibility, and you haven't written anything valid to counter it. I listed Bush's many flip-flops, which are facts, and neither you nor any other Republican can dispute them. Simple. As. That.

    -- we can list many things that presidents in the past have totally contradicted themselves. --

    Yes, we can; and I never said one couldn't. I listed the flip-flops to contradict your claim that Republicans have "convictions". Convictions are something you stick with; and flip-flops and convictions don't equate.

    -- Dude, you live in Texas and that is your problem. --

    I USED to live there. I've relocated to beautiful Missoula, Montana, which is in a liberal county (Kerry got 55% of the vote) in a red state governed by a Democrat.

    -- I grew up in New England and saw total hypocracy from liberals who would have nothing to do with anyone who voted democrate except white and the the rich. --

    I would never aver that all liberals aren't hypocrites. There are hypocrites in both parties. That's BOTH parties.

    -- northerns would work that low paying high work load --

    1. If you want to speak for all Northerners on this with 100% certainty, feel free.

    2. The bigger part of the problem is employers not even giving an American the mere OPPORTUNITY to work at a construction gig.

    -- while you southerns didn;t know how to lift the load after the black man was freed. --

    1. Being able to lift the load and being willing to lift it are two different things.

    2. There are plenty of decent hard-working Southerners, thank you very much. And I used to be one of them (still hard-working, just not Southern-based anymore).

    -- You never responded to the hippie question , which had an impact on our culture. You just dismissed it and then rambled on with quotes. --

    Are you on drugs? WHAT quotes are you referring to? Listing Bush's flip-flops are NOT quotes. And neither was anything else in that post. And "rambling"? I think your definition of rambling is: things I can't counter with validity and logic and reason. Rather, you try this black-man-freed stuff as a smokescreen AGAIN.

    As for your "hippie" huff-and-puff, you weren't particularly specific in your point. Are you referring to hippies protesting the Vietnam war? Hippies encouraging people to hold their leaders accountable and to think for themselves? Make a specific point with this, man.

    -- You never addressed the pressing issue of a system that has created people to be dependant on welfare. --

    And you've never addressed the hypocrisy of low-income Bushies who supposedly despise welfare yet have no problem collecting it.

    -- A system that blams everything on the government but lacks the ability to look into the mirror and talk about the real issues like Bill Cosby did but dot blasted for it. --

    Bill Cosby said some very wise and relevant things, and Democrat Bill Clinton did quite a lot with his welfare-reform bill (though not nearly enough, because the amount people get off of food stamps is still too high, in my book).

    -- The poor are starting to realize that liberals are full of crap too. --

    Well, good. Because there are plenty of liberals out there who ARE full of crap. You'll get no argument from me.

    -- Bush's education programs are kicking ass --

    Oh, you mean his No Child Left Behind program that he underfunded by nearly $9 billion? The same program that has schools fidgeting with their numbers so they fall into compliance? And please take a look at Bush's record on this while governor of Texas. Texas was ranked near the bottom, just as it was in MANY categories regarding children and low-income residents.

    -- yes, bush has problems and issues --

    Careful. Hannity would order you shot for that if he could.

    -- but to blindlessly blame "the man" is foolish --

    1. I've never "blindly" blamed Bush for things. Whenever I take him to task for something, I back it up.

    2. I don't blame just "the man" for things, but also other people in his administration.

    -- and any Irishman that has gotten their hands dirty knows that. --

    Well, I'm sure there are non-Irish men and women knows that, too.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/07/2005 @ 7:49pm

53. John,

    You have it exactly backwards. Bush has been talking about "draining the terror swamps" for at least three years now. Also, because he's show he is very tough on terror, he has the credibility to talk about compassion. A wimpy liberal response would gain criticism because it would seem so inappropriate to the war the world finds itself in.

    The big question leftist should ask themselves is: How do we help the good guys win the Islamic Civil War?

    Posted by rexking55 at 07/07/2005 @ 8:11pm

54. With blood not yet dry on the streets of London, you wrote this article. You have seized today's moment of tragedy as means to attack President Bush--using his statement of condolence no less.

    In the very first sentence, you write that, "President Bush unwittingly provided an appropriate response to the gruesome terrorist attacks on London." At least you got the "Bush is an idiot" jab in immediately so you could address Bush's statement that, "we will spread an ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their ideology of hate."

    After much imploring of your to imagine the "cries of outrage and incomprehension" from the right to such a statement from a "President Gore or Kerry," you arrive at the crux of your argument: how to fight terrorism:

    "In the end, it will only be when hope and compassion are delivered to the world's most dispossessed peoples -- through debt reduction, aid and measures that combat the spread of easily treated diseases -- that those who preach violence as a response to inequity and injustice will be sufficiently marginalized to make it possible to talk of "winning" a war on terrorism."

    Debt reduction, aid, and fighting disease are means to end debt, poverty, and disease, respectively--not terrorism. We are fighting an ideology of hate that can be only attributed to religious extremism and intolerance; marginalization had nothing to do with 9/11, Bali, Madrid, or today's attacks in London.

    To make today's attacks about anything less is simply rationalizing an enemy that deserves no compassion.

    I think you would have been better served reflecting on today's events and why these terrorists chose to disrupt a summit meant to address the difficult problems our world faces. Instead, he wrote an article which elucidates the unparalleled hatred of the left for a President, even at moments when hate should at the very least be suspended.

    Would it have been that hard to restrain yourself for even a day? Or slept on it for a solitary night? No. Time is wasting and this is the President's issue of resonance. Attack. Attack. Attack.

    www.thepoliticalpitbull.net

    Posted by Greg Tinti at 07/07/2005 @ 8:29pm

55. To quote Dancall, "Our youth is being taught that they can get whatever they want without working for it." Like GW Bush? Where would he be without his family name and his handlers? How hard did he work to keep Harken energy from going down the tubes? Who else in this country can take a monthlong vacation every year. Most of us are trying to make a living while the cost of living keeps rising.

    Posted by proudlib at 07/07/2005 @ 8:30pm

56. -- The big question leftist should ask themselves is: How do we help the good guys win the Islamic Civil War? --

    Hmmm, how about not illegally and unnecessarily launching a full-fledged war on Iraq that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and has actually turned the place into a terrorist-breeding and training ground?

    The big question a righty should ask is: How did I let deficit-contributing tax cuts and bigoted policy agendas buy my conscience so I pay no mind to the lies by Bush & Co. about a war that's maiming and killing the troops I only purportedly support.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/07/2005 @ 8:57pm

57. Posted by GREG TINTI 07/07/2005 @ 8:29pm

    Perhaps you weren't watching FOX today... Read what just was said on Fox News about the bombings right after the attacks, and how it helps to drive global warming and African debt relief off the front pages and brings fear and terrorism back onto the front pages.

    The right wing corporate media wasted no time in getting their talking points out, so why can't we???

    KILMEADE: And he [British Prime Minister Tony Blair] made the statement, clearly shaken, but clearly determined. This is his second address in the last hour. First to the people of London, and now at the G8 summit, where their topic Number 1 --believe it or not-- was global warming, the second was African aid. And that was the first time since 9-11 when they should know, and they do know now, that terrorism should be Number 1. But it's important for them all to be together. I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened.

    VARNEY: It puts the Number 1 issue right back on the front burner right at the point where all these world leaders are meeting. It takes global warming off the front burner. It takes African aid off the front burner. It sticks terrorism and the fight on the war on terror, right up front all over again.

    KILMEADE: Yeah.

    Posted by madame d at 07/07/2005 @ 9:02pm

58. Amen, Frank.

    It continues to amaze the blatant hypocrisy of Bushies griping about "Bush hatred" when they themselves had no problem with "Clinton hatred" then and to this day. And think back to Bush I. Where was all this "Bush hatred" when he was president? Not a whole lot, was there? I mean, both Bushes launched wars on Iraq. Why wasn't Bush I on the receiving end of the kind of hatred that his ex-cheerleader son is? Probably because Bush I didn't LIE about the justification for that war.

    And, hey, where were all the "moral value" Republicans when Newt Gingrich and Henry Livingston were revealed to have been recent adulterers when Clinton was being berated for it? Yeah, that's right: They hypocritically had their heads in the sand because they didn't want to deal with these inconvenient facts.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/07/2005 @ 9:23pm

59. Actually Bush Sr. did mislead the nation (the little girl recounting the babies being taken from encubators; the Iraqis massing along the Saudi border for an eventual attack). And the only reason he got away with it was that his war was a quick, relatively casualty free endeavor.

    Where are all the "moral Republicans" when it's disclosed our tax dollars are being used to torture fellow human beings?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/07/2005 @ 9:28pm

60. Whoops; you're right. A problem with rapid blogging: you miss stuff.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/07/2005 @ 10:01pm

61. "Please refrain from straying off-topic and making personal attacks. Your comment may be edited or removed at the discretion of Nation staff. Our goal is not to stifle debate but to keep it relevant."

    Adhering to your own rules I see! I made a bet with a couple friends that I could find at least one article from the left that criticized Bush for what happened today. Just proving my point.

    Frank and Kevin - I don't care about what Clinton did while he was in office and that's not what I was writing aboout. Address my points and stop changing the subject. How does the US defeat terrorism? I have heard not one coherent solution in 6 years.

    And by the way, what kept Clinton, who was in office for eight years, suffered 5 attacks at the hands of al Qaeda from doing something about it. Oh Wait, he fired a missile into a factory, I forgot.

    MTSPENCE05 - Torture through tax dollars? I think there's a differnce between coercive intelligence gathering and torture but maybe that's me. How do you propose we get information from terrorists caught on the battlefield? Hugs a kisses? Or maybe hummers as Frank suggested.

    Attacking a President for his speech giving condolences to those who've died is dispicable. I feel bad that you are all so obsessed with hating the President, oh sorry, his policies.

    Posted by Greg Tinti at 07/07/2005 @ 10:05pm

62. Why do they keep killing innocent folk? Can't they find some guilty folk. I quess you can't have your yellow cake amd eat it too.

    Posted by JOHN P BOYCE at 07/07/2005 @ 10:27pm

63. -- Frank and Kevin - I don't care about what Clinton did while he was in office and that's not what I was writing aboout. --

    Yet below you write about something Clinton did while in office...

    -- Address my points and stop changing the subject. --

    You're the one who was going on about Bush hatred, and we simply pointed out the hypocrisy of people like you with Clinton hatred when he was in office. Sorry if pointing out your hypocrisy puts you in an indefensible corner.

    -- How does the US defeat terrorism? I have heard not one coherent solution in 6 years. --

    1. Well, attacking a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks yet pulling many of our troops out of a country where many of the terrorists were probably wouldn't top my list of the greatest ideas.

    2. And, apparently, the Bush administration hasn't had any great ideas about defeating terrorism, either, seeing that you've admitted you haven't heard of a great one in the last 6 years.

    Conclusion: The Bush administration probably isn't the best one to rely on stuff like that.

    Especially with this:

    http://news.ft.com/cms/s/ac120644-edab-11d9-9ff5-00000e2511c8.html

    -- And by the way, what kept Clinton, who was in office for eight years, suffered 5 attacks at the hands of al Qaeda from doing something about it. Oh Wait, he fired a missile into a factory, I forgot. --

    You also forgot that he ordered al Qaeda training camps bombed in '98, which they were. You also forgot that the Clinton administration tripled the counterterrorism budget (compared to the Bush administration, which denied increased funding the day before 9/11 and didn't even list terrorism as one of its top 7 budget priorities -- which, mind you, caused FBI deputy director Dale Watson to "almost fall out of his chair" when he learned of this), the al Qaeda/Millennium attack plan was thwarted, and Clinton never unnecessarily invaded Iraq which is now a training ground for terrorists.

    Oh, but that's right: You don't care what Clinton did while in office, I forgot.

    (rolls eyes)

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/07/2005 @ 10:38pm

64. All,

    William Rivers Pitt said it best in his column "Over There" on the www.truthout.org website. The deadly attacks in London should shatter the myth of "it's better to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" once and for all. The idea that anyone can buy into the notion that a foreign war with military troops can totally prevent terrorism at home is so pathetic that were it not so tragic it would be laughable. It's time for rightwingers to admit that the Iraq war will never succeed until they renounce this lunacy of "It's better to fight them there than over here."

    Posted by POSEIDON at 07/07/2005 @ 10:53pm

65. Kevin,

    With all due respect, I never had hatred for Clinton, it seems pretty obvious now that the impeach process was a distraction from the pertinent national secuirty issues that came to trouble us today.

    However, as one of the many patron saints of the new left, Richard Clarke noted, the Clinton administration never offered to the incoming Bush administration any plan to deal with al Qaeda. In fact, his attack on the camps in Afghanistan was little more than a rouse, long delayed by Sandy Berger, et al. He had many opportunities and failed to do what was necssary to protect his own legacy.

    In my refernce to 6 years and no ideas, that's about the left. The Bush Administration has done plenty to confront the issue of terrorism including dealing with Iraq and Saddam Hussein, and I wish the left would stop pretending that his removal was like getting rid of the "Iraqi Abraham Lincoln."

    Ideological similarities matter and anyone who supports terrorism deserves to be removed from power, including Saddam. These terrorists are hell-bent on changing the world to an image that's suitable to them. One which is not acceptable to me.

    And to get back to what I orginally wrote, don't you think it's unacceptable to attack the President for the speech he gave as a response to what happened in London today?

    I just think that respect and restraint are lacking these days.

    Posted by Greg Tinti at 07/07/2005 @ 10:59pm

66. The bottom line, Kevin, is that people that understand that Bin Ladden could have been dealt with years ago was allowed to run free for years building his network. If they nipped him in the early years, his network would not have been as strong. Each attack against US and our Allies during his administration gave AQ the confidence to keep coming after us and by Clinton not doing anything made us look like cowards in their eyes.

    Yes Bush is a mess, Iraq is a mess. But if you would please understand that the terrorists in Iraq were primarily outside foreigners who were hidding in relgious mosques knowing that the american linberals would side with them. Our RULES OF ENGAGEMENT set forth by liberals in congress put hand cuffs on our soldiers when we should have been taking them out ASAP. Because oru media and the left started a backlash on the war, the terrorist picked up activity and used our media as propanda for their cause. They were able to get the Iraqis to start in the bombings because of what our media was saying about Gitmo and how we are loosing the war and that we should pull out immediately. That was just adding fuel to the fire. I don;t care about Bush or Clinton. But what I care about is our military people and innocent iraqi woman and children who are getting blown up because of radical islamic views. Think of it this way, if we can get the iraqi police up and running we pull out. where are the terrorist hitting the hardest? The Iraqi police. They want us to fail and if we do, we might as well hand the keys over to the US in the next 50 years.

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 11:04pm

67. The bottom line, Kevin, is that people that understand that Bin Ladden could have been dealt with years ago was allowed to run free for years building his network. If they nipped him in the early years, his network would not have been as strong. Each attack against US and our Allies during his administration gave AQ the confidence to keep coming after us and by Clinton not doing anything made us look like cowards in their eyes.

    Yes Bush is a mess, Iraq is a mess. But if you would please understand that the terrorists in Iraq were primarily outside foreigners who were hidding in relgious mosques knowing that the american linberals would side with them. Our RULES OF ENGAGEMENT set forth by liberals in congress put hand cuffs on our soldiers when we should have been taking them out ASAP. Because oru media and the left started a backlash on the war, the terrorist picked up activity and used our media as propanda for their cause. They were able to get the Iraqis to start in the bombings because of what our media was saying about Gitmo and how we are loosing the war and that we should pull out immediately. That was just adding fuel to the fire. I don;t care about Bush or Clinton. But what I care about is our military people and innocent iraqi woman and children who are getting blown up because of radical islamic views. Think of it this way, if we can get the iraqi police up and running we pull out. where are the terrorist hitting the hardest? The Iraqi police. They want us to fail and if we do, we might as well hand the keys over to the US in the next 50 years.

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 11:04pm

68. The bottom line, Kevin, is that people that understand that Bin Ladden could have been dealt with years ago was allowed to run free for years building his network. If they nipped him in the early years, his network would not have been as strong. Each attack against US and our Allies during his administration gave AQ the confidence to keep coming after us and by Clinton not doing anything made us look like cowards in their eyes.

    Yes Bush is a mess, Iraq is a mess. But if you would please understand that the terrorists in Iraq were primarily outside foreigners who were hidding in relgious mosques knowing that the american linberals would side with them. Our RULES OF ENGAGEMENT set forth by liberals in congress put hand cuffs on our soldiers when we should have been taking them out ASAP. Because oru media and the left started a backlash on the war, the terrorist picked up activity and used our media as propanda for their cause. They were able to get the Iraqis to start in the bombings because of what our media was saying about Gitmo and how we are loosing the war and that we should pull out immediately. That was just adding fuel to the fire. I don;t care about Bush or Clinton. But what I care about is our military people and innocent iraqi woman and children who are getting blown up because of radical islamic views. Think of it this way, if we can get the iraqi police up and running we pull out. where are the terrorist hitting the hardest? The Iraqi police. They want us to fail and if we do, we might as well hand the keys over to the US in the next 50 years.

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 11:04pm

69. sorry, it submit too many times!!!

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 11:05pm

70. Greg,

    -- With all due respect, I never had hatred for Clinton, it seems pretty obvious now that the impeach process was a distraction from the pertinent national secuirty issues that came to trouble us today. --

    Then I apologize if I unfairly roped you into the Clinton Hater category.

    -- However, as one of the many patron saints of the new left, Richard Clarke noted --

    Oh, yes. This registered Republican who served under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II and who opposes Kyoto is a leftie. Wrong. Just because he spoke out about Bush not seeing al Qaeda as an "urgent" problem and faultlessly detailed the many steps Clinton took on the very few that Bush II did, doesn't make him a leftie. That's a simplistic way to blow his iron-clad statements off.

    -- the Clinton administration never offered to the incoming Bush administration any plan to deal with al Qaeda. --

    Well, being that Clarke's weekly-led meetings on terrorism were lessened and then jettisoned by Bush & Co, I can't see where any plan would have done them any good anyway. But, no, Clarke and Berger kept telling Rice that al Qaeda would be taking up much of the administration's time and was a major threat. And according to this very same Clarke you bring up, Bush & Co. weren't particularly interested -- as their refusal to increase counterterrorism funds and relegating Clarke's involvement aptly backs up.

    -- In fact, his attack on the camps in Afghanistan was little more than a rouse, long delayed by Sandy Berger, et al. --

    That's funny. According to Clarke's book, the attacks were more than a "rouse". Yes, Clarke pushed for more bombings; and, yes, Clinton didn't push hard for these as he should have (a big problem was the Pentagon was very resistant to this, especially since Clinton was bombing Iraq and Kosovo; this supposed dove of a leftie was ironically berated by the Pentagon for bombing TOO much), but they did have some effect.

    -- He had many opportunities and failed to do what was necssary to protect his own legacy. --

    Please list these, if you will. (And spare me that informant who supposedly handed bin laden to Clinton on a "silver platter"; the man was determined to be untrustworthy with zero credibility.)

    -- In my refernce to 6 years and no ideas, that's about the left. --

    Well, with all the increases in terrorism, I thought it'd be about the right.

    -- The Bush Administration has done plenty to confront the issue of terrorism including dealing with Iraq and Saddam Hussein --

    Like attacking a country that had no role in 9/11 and had no perational ties with al Qaeda? Like pulling troops out of Afghanistan (shame about bin Laden escaping from Tora Bora because we outsourced the job to easily-corruptable Afghan warlords, huh?) and putting the majority of them in non-al-Qaeda Iraq? Like attacking a country that's caused recruitment for al Qaeda to skyrocket? Like turning Iraq into a training ground for terrorists? Yep, 'ol Bush is really doing a lot.

    -- and I wish the left would stop pretending that his removal was like getting rid of the "Iraqi Abraham Lincoln." --

    And I'd like the right to find where exactly the left has written or said that Hussein was Lincoln-like. No one has ever denied that he was a murderous bastard, but the right doesn't give a damn about the Iraqi people, so they're very unconvincing when they try to forgot WMD and justify it as "liberating the Iraqi people" -- people they don't give a hoot about.

    Oh, and Reagan & Co apparently didn't have much of a problem with Hussein. They viewed him as an ally, supplied him with some of the very same weapons he used on his own people (even when they knew he was using them on his own people). Like Iran-contra, this is the kind of thing righties like to forget.

    -- Ideological similarities matter and anyone who supports terrorism deserves to be removed from power, including Saddam. --

    bin laden and Hussein are actually ideological opposites. Look it up. And you're conveniently forgetting that Bush & Co's main rationale for their war was WMD and Iraq/al Qaeda operational ties -- both of which were false.

    -- These terrorists are hell-bent on changing the world to an image that's suitable to them. --

    Actually, what truly set bin Laden off on the U.S. was our military presence in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War. He considers Arabia holy land and this quite a huge deal. He also took exception to the U.S.'s support for Israel. So it's not just "he hates our freedoms". That's the generalized wash painted by Bush & Co. for 30-second attention spans.

    -- And to get back to what I orginally wrote, don't you think it's unacceptable to attack the President for the speech he gave as a response to what happened in London today? --

    No. Not when Bush says some of the same things about combatting terrorism that he attacked Kerry for saying during the campaign.

    -- I just think that respect and restraint are lacking these days. --

    Bush & Co. deserve no respect for lying this country into a war, and they showed no restraint in paiting Kerry as an unpatriotic American for proposing combatting terrorism with some of the same things Bush said in his speech. Sorry; Bush opened the door on this on.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/07/2005 @ 11:37pm

71. Again........

    And to get back to what I orginally wrote, don't you think it's unacceptable to attack the President for the speech he gave as a response to what happened in London today?

    Posted by Greg Tinti at 07/07/2005 @ 11:43pm

72. Greg, Don;t waste your time...

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 11:47pm

73. kevin, the pentagon didn;t want to bomb sand. they needed real targets and when they had them, he wouldn;t do it. please refer to the 9/11 commission report...you have to read it and not the cut down version stating nothing was found. What was found is Clintons admin stating they couldn;t bomb becasue hillary wouldn;t approve it. Yes, it is in there.

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 11:50pm

74. Dan,

    -- by Clinton not doing anything made us look like cowards in their eyes. --

    This conclusion is not based on facts, though. Please read REPUBLICAN Richard Clarke's book and you'll see this isn't true. And, hey, speak to two of Reagan's top defense people who praised Clinton's performance on terrorism. This "doing nothing" stuff is crapola. And I'm not averring that Clinton didn't make mistakes. The 9/11 Commission concluded that he made 4 crucial mistakes in this area -- and they also concluded that, if you'll remember, Bush made 6 crucial mistakes.

    -- But if you would please understand that the terrorists in Iraq were primarily outside foreigners who were hidding in relgious mosques knowing that the american linberals would side with them. --

    I'm a liberal, and I haven't sided with them. And please understand that the Iraq war gave them a great opportunity to enter Iraq through the pathetically-guarded border to slip in and attack our troops.

    -- Our RULES OF ENGAGEMENT set forth by liberals in congress put hand cuffs on our soldiers when we should have been taking them out ASAP. --

    Please cite where our soldiers were handcuffed in taking out these very same terrorists you just mentioned. Enlighten us with facts rather than conjecture.

    -- Because oru media and the left started a backlash on the war, the terrorist picked up activity and used our media as propanda for their cause. --

    Strange, though ,that this liberal media sat on the sidelines and accepted everything Bush & Co. falsely spewed leading up to the war.

    -- They were able to get the Iraqis to start in the bombings because of what our media was saying about Gitmo and how we are loosing the war and that we should pull out immediately. --

    Actually, the Iraqis were more than POed that we invaded their country and killed tens of thousands of their own people. The avenging family members over there have a saying, "Ten dead Americans for every dead Iraqi." Trying to blame the cause of their refusal to throw flowers upon our arrival on the media is knee-jerk hoopla without anything to back it up.

    -- I don;t care about Bush or Clinton. But what I care about is our military people and innocent iraqi woman and children who are getting blown up because of radical islamic views. --

    And what about our military and innocent Iraqis being blown up by U.S. forces due to Bush & Co.'s lying about the war?

    -- Think of it this way, if we can get the iraqi police up and running we pull out. --

    The police are pathetically paid and easily corruptable by terrorists who can offer them more money to feed their families. And the rate at which they're actually being police-trained is also pathetic. Something that would have really helped is allowing Iraqis to be in charge of their own reconstruction, which would have provided many, many jobs; instead, Buish & Co. were more intersted in enriching the already-fat wallets of American companies to do that instead.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/07/2005 @ 11:56pm

75. Greg,

    I already addressed that question. The answer "No" and an explanation SUBTLY support that.

    Dan,

    You also need to read the whole report again, for, as I stated earlier, they assessed the Clinton administration for making 4 mistakes and the Bush administration 6. And I've clearly shown you your claim that Clinton did "nothing" about al Qaeda was ludicrous and untrue.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/07/2005 @ 11:59pm

76. I feel bad for the folks in London. They were feeling so good about getting the Olympic Games, and they had the best of all of the Live 8 shows on Saturday, so they were on a roll.

    And then this crap happens. It makes no sense. If it were Muslim terrorists, which is what's being reported, they killed a lot of potential allies. London was where some of the biggest protests leading up to the Iraq war were held.

    This kind of stuff makes me ask a lot of questions. Not only as a reporter, but as a human being. Questions like why would someone do this? What did these people do to deserve this?

    But here is the main question that I have and I know I'll never get an answer to it. In fact, it's a two-parter.

    (a)Had we decided to keep our focus in Afghanistan after Sept. 11, could this and the Madrid bombings last year been avoided? and

    (b) Can we, finally, go back to looking for the guy who started all of this mess in the first place, Osama Bin Laden? He's been allowed to run amok for too long now and his jihadist followers have another 30+ lives under their belts. Isn't it time that we stop mucking about in Iraq and go after the real enemy?

    Posted by edwriter at 07/08/2005 @ 12:43am

77. With all the suggestions to go after Osama, does that mean you recommend that our troops go to Pakistan, his likely location, or are you just offering a meaningless suggestion to feel good?

    Posted by donkeith at 07/08/2005 @ 02:01am

78. Re the statement, " Can we, finally, go back to looking for the guy who started all of this mess in the first place, Osama Bin Laden? He's been allowed to run amok for too long now and his jihadist followers have another 30+ lives under their belts. Isn't it time that we stop mucking about in Iraq and go after the real enemy?", I would ask, "was Osama acting alone, or with the help of the Bush admin?

    It will be interesting to see if the London Bombings prove to be a bit more complex than they at first appear, as the 911 attacks did...

    Posted by wethesheeple at 07/08/2005 @ 02:08am

79. Frank, you are right. All we do is sit around and listen to Hannity and Limbaugh. Status quo.

    Kevin, let them be in charge of reconstruction? Please go out and name me the Iraqi construction firms that can hadle this? please also tell me the Iraqi oil Rig companies that can hadle oil Contruction and fire teams? Please Please Please. You seem to have all the answers. You sound like a liberal with great ideas until the rubber hits the road and crash right into a tree because your ideas hit reality. Kevin-READ my comments. I said Bush messed up. Problem is we cant pull out. You are basically using the argument of well this wouldn't be happening if this didn't happen. IT IS HAPPENING NOW. WE ARE IN IRAQ AND WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. By using that argument, my argument of Clinton not taking out Bin Ladden first is a much stronger arugment of Bush lying.

    Let me ask you this. is 6 quarters greater of equal to 4 wholes? Before you start measuring on blind numbers like that, please have measurement that we see what the 6 were and 4 were?

    Rules of engagement: Special ops forces have to ID themselves before engaging in battle, even under hostile fire. They can not also engage in certain activity unless it is approved. Like the time they have Bin Ladden in their cross hairs and Clinton wouldn't do it. Like the foreign insurgents firing from Mosques in Iraq and we wouldn;t fire back, stalling Faluja and giving terrorist time to regroup and for the religious leaders to start anti american speak. Read Dereliction of Duty, by a AF officer with a spotless record who carried the football for Clinton. He described how they had bin Ladden with two jets ready to bomb him. Clinton wouldn;t take their calls because he was entertaining at a golf event. This guy has a spotless record.

    So, now lets us your logic with how you reponded. take the 4 major mistakes by Clinton, fix them and we have no Bin Ladden and no Iraq war...case closed!!!

    And Kevin, why no repsonse of Hillary making military decisions or people that were deadly afraid of her and her backlash?

    Posted by dancall at 07/08/2005 @ 08:44am

80. BTW, The majority of Iraqi's are more pissed off at the foreign fighters killing innocents. And most people in this region were not that upset with the military becasue they wre used to it.

    Posted by dancall at 07/08/2005 @ 08:46am

81. Ed, 2 things. 1. We should have kept more attention on Afghanastan. But to do this, we have to completely destroy the Taliban...full out civilian casualties and all. As you can see with the Iraq situation, America doesn't have the stomach for it.

    2. Tough call to say. Prior to the Iraq war, AQ was doing a world tour blowing things up. A conspiracy and one that some more information is coming out is that the Oklahoma City Bombings may have been connected with AQ. There could be a major cover up that happened there. Which again, was why at first we the news and political commentators were blaming Bin Ladden terrorist group. That was hushed up really quick because it would have crushed the US Confidence in Clinton after the first World Trade Center Bombings. It wasn;t his fault, just would have shaken up the invertments and stopped the economy from growing....kinda like what happened yesteday with the market slipping in europe. I beleive that you can't say either way because if we did nothing, their cells were growing stronger and stronger. Their mission is to basically kill all non muslims. SE Asia right now is being overtaken by AQ and their is a serious serge in African countries. If you look at the genocide going on in Africa, you will see that radical muslims are behind a lot of it.

    Unlike the IRA who only wanted Irish freedom and were fighting the British Government, AQ does not have a recongized country and government. The IRA is the military arm of Shinn Fein, the political organization, which is organized and is a recognized political organization within Ireland. They meet with the British Parliment and try to negotiate with them. Shinn Fein's main mission was/is is to have total control of Ireland, by Irish rule, not a foreign gov't, which N Ireland is part of Great Britain. They want equal right for the Irish. It was made a religious war by the British who would discriminate against Catholics and not higher them for jobs. The IRA and Shinn Fein want equality throughout the country regardless of religion. So when you hear about the IRA, do not associate them with AQ.

    So, it is very hard to say whether AQ would have hit Europe with terrorist attacks or not. AQ sees this war and uses religion as it rally call. They hate western culture, yes liberals, they hate you the most, and they hate the fact that we are taking over their holy land. The problem with that is that Jews and Christains also believe that land is their holy land. And not to be an ass, but the Jews were there first, Christians second and Mulisms last. Now, in terms of Arabs and non religious sects, It is arab land, but racism in that region also runs deep and thick. Iraq is part "the promised land" in the bible. Some of the most holy places in the bible are in Iraq. Conspiracy theory has it that the second coming of Jesus (or God, for Jews) will come back when the Jews are in control of this land. But to make this happen, their Christain brothers are the ones to help them. So, if you actually looked at Israel's true expansion plans, not just the Gaza strip, you may be a bit frieghtened.

    Posted by dancall at 07/08/2005 @ 09:21am

82. Gee, Frank, you show your logic through and through. Do you think Chicago didn't gain from the Great fire in the 1800's? Iraq was a mess before the war, Frank. you know the oil for food program, the one that was supposed to help Iraqi citizens? Or does that slip your mind because the UN officials were being paid off by Sadam to make the Americans look bad. Frank, in France 9 french officials are going to jail because of it. UN officials are next. Frank, this all happened under the Clinton administration. The Bush family is a oil family and have connections to Saudi Arabia, the largest oil producers. Do you not think they weren;t keeping tabs on Sadams oil trades? You are a complete fool. Bush exposed the UN and the oil for food program, by Sadam paying off UN and allies to get votes in the UN. Frank, again, Bush IS AN IDIOT. HOW MUCH MORE DO I HAVE TO SAY IT? ENTERING IRAQ IS QUESTIONABLE. For the reasons Bush gave, no way. For world strategic purposes, a must. Now I am sick and tired of repeating myself because you are so blinded by blame Bush and everyone that disagrees with you is a neo con. I am far from it. Like I said in a earlier blog, I wish a gay black woman president kicked the crap out of Bin Ladden. Do that make you happy? I just want to take care of these guys now. like the allies in didn't do under the advice of Churchill before Hitler got too strong. There were liberal idiots like you that were telling everyone it was not that big of a deal, we can contain them, they don;t have the military...and well, you know what happened 5 years later and 20 million people dead from combat, toture or civilian casualties. Nip the bud now and get it over with.

    Bill Clintons even said that Osama was connected with him. And said his greatest mistake was not taking care of sadam and Bin Laden. Sadamm was harborring terrorist and had a party for them and gave them money. His WMDs were moved and it was Clintons policy that Regime Change is ok.

    I all all about unification of america, Frank. But Bin Ladden declared war on us in 1996 and we have a president that is taking the task to the enemy.

    Posted by dancall at 07/08/2005 @ 10:18am

83. Frank, I am going to use your logic..."why do we need contruction?". Why didn;t the UN step in for 10 years after he broke every peace agreement that he made with them? "why do we need construction", because we can build new building not made the crap material their old building were made of. "why do we need construction", because building that were over 50 years old we crumbling when terrotist are blowing up civilians. "why do we need construction" because some building only have a certain life span. "why do we need construction" because we can bring them into the 21st century with new technology and new infrastructure. "why do we need construction" because we are subcontracting work to France and Germany, countries that were against the war but making money off of it. "why do we need contruction" because after wwII we rebuilt Europe. "why do we need construction", because we had a president that finished the job on a dictator who broke evey peace agreement that he made. He wouldn;t let inspectors in until he moved his loot, because he was not crippled by liberals.

    Posted by dancall at 07/08/2005 @ 10:28am

84. Frankgrits,

    "So let me get this straight: we invaded them to liberate them... and to use them as bait to attract terrorists who we could fight on the streets of Baghdad rather than the streets of London and New York?"

    No, we invaded so we can liberate the Iraqi people from a dictatorship regime, and kill terrorists all over the world, whether that is Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, Libya, London, Dallas, L.A., New York, or any other place on this earth.

    Just wanted to clarify…

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/08/2005 @ 10:57am

85. Dude, at this point I don;t care about the clintons. Just trying to let the blinded world that Clintons were not perfect and that this AQ could have been stopped before Bush was in office, a fact that you keep avoiding by calling me a neo con. get over it.

    Ok, I will change, my position on the next president, a gay, white female president, that should fit Hillarys decription...

    Frank, of course it is for oil. I never said it wasn't. Did I ever say that? It was killing two birds with one stone. And if you are watching China and Russia closely, they know whoever controls the oil controls military. Because massive military operations takes fuel. China wants to buy a US oil compnay, Frank. Think about it! Who were two countries against us going into Iraq? Who were for, Britain and the small EU countries that got there butts kicked by germany and russia over the last 100 years. Frank, understand history.

    Frank, these are not my buddies and I have been saying all along that America should take care of their own first, bottom line. Stay out of everyones mess. however, frank, we live in a world were people kill each other. we live in a time that countries have weapons that need fuel. We live in a country that has a tremedous amount of cars, we are not the only ones making cars or military weapons, frank. We need oil. We have oil reserves in this country but we can;t touch them because of liberal environmentalist that won;t let us hurt the land. Which put us in a bind, doesn;t it frank? If we didn;t have our troops over seas frank, what would the world look like with radicals like Bin Ladden running around with no one to stop them? And then with the help of China or Russia, they build a superior military? Frank, these guys are like the Japanese Comocosies (sp?), but after interviews with a lot of Japanese war vets, the majority of them didn;t want to do it, but were guilted into doing it because it would bring shame on their family and would be ostrasized by the community.

    frank, we are wired differently. I am a proactive, get the job done. You think and think, and hope things work out ok.

    Posted by dancall at 07/08/2005 @ 10:57am

86. Donkeith, When I say "Can we go after Osama?" I mean that we should go after him wherever he is. That's what we should have done from day 1.

    Posted by edwriter at 07/08/2005 @ 10:59am

87. Ed, CIA is suggesting Bin Ladden is in Iran. And to answer the Rules of engagement, we can't go in there ever with our speical ops guys. Now, with yesterday's bombing in London. If they know where he is in Iran, you better believe that the SAS guys will be sent in to take him out. That is a perfect exmaple Kevin of rules of engagement. the Brits don't have the liberals telling them how to take care of business. Which is a very interesting point and one that I realized when I was in Europe. Liberals in Europe have a lot more common sense and understand stuff happens and bad things have to happen to get the job done. Unlike our American liberals who are too worried about sniffing flowers thinking that if they had their chance with Bin Ladden, they could share peace and live happily ever after as neighbors

    Posted by dancall at 07/08/2005 @ 11:05am

88. They know buisness is being taken care of, giving them the confidence to move on, which is why the Londoners are tough as nails!

    Posted by dancall at 07/08/2005 @ 11:06am

89. "Unlike our American liberals who are too worried about sniffing flowers thinking that if they had their chance with Bin Ladden, they could share peace and live happily ever after as neighbors"

    Now that could be offensive to progresives and is not politically correct!

    LOL

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/08/2005 @ 11:11am

90. I think it is interesting that a lot of people feel John Nichols attacked President Bush in this article. It seems to me that he is actually saying that the president -surprisingly- said something he agrees with and he hopes that the president sticks to his words. What is so inappropriate about that? Must we have a "hoshannah" chorus after every presidential speech?

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/08/2005 @ 11:13am

91. Todd, it is the truth. I know we may have philosphical differences, but I respect your views, because you have every right to think the way you do. But being called a neo con by people with whom I agree alot with, but question some of their thinking, is total hypocracy. I am a libertarian who believes in total freedom for ALL people without government intervention telling people how to live their lives, but, Todd, that comes with a price of accountability for your actions, which some on the left will dismiss and call me a neo con for not understanding.

    Posted by dancall at 07/08/2005 @ 11:18am

92. "For the reasons Bush gave, no way. For world strategic purposes, a must." If this was WWII yes. Its a different kind of war and occupying a nation like Iraq removes your ability to maneuver. Puts you on the defensive, puts Iranian Shiites in control of a pseudo democracy. I'm sure Iran appreciates us basically putting their friend Sistani in control of their neighbor and former enemy. Bush is fighting WWII over again he's scared of being a Chamberlin. So much so that he made a major blunder trying to show hes tough. Hes not and his plan isn't working. The war on terror is a tad more subtle. He still thinks in terms of shock and awe. His now "strategic" invasion is sucking our treasury dry with no end in sight. It has also turned thousands of Iraqis in to Jihadists. Great move. Add tax cuts for the rich and no bid contracts to Halliburton. We should have finished Afghanistan and gotten Bin Laden. If a Dem had done this you'd be climbing the walls.

    Posted by Salunga at 07/08/2005 @ 11:18am

93. Dancall, Liberals "sniffing flowers"? That sounds to me like a comment along the lines of "conservatives hate the environment and just want to club a baby seal." Perhaps we could just discuss the issues here?

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/08/2005 @ 11:18am

94. HH, you are correct. But we are in a bad place with Iraq and at crossroads. Remember, Bush is a very emotional person and he actually tries to contact the family members of the military by phone or in person. He took the 9/11 victims personally and his rhetoric was a that of a man who was pissed off and emotional. If Bill Clinton had done it, I would have no problems with it. If Hillary is our next president and she said it, I would have no problem with it. But I am a neo con, so nothing I say matters.

    Posted by dancall at 07/08/2005 @ 11:21am

95. Funny, HH, Environmentalist get a a lot of their funding through RICH conservatives. Maybe we should talk about the SC court allowing the govt to turn beach front property owned by private citizens to private investors to build condos and malls for tax purposes.

    Clubbing seals is right up there with the proposed site to drill oil in alaska that is the equivalent in size of 1 square foot on a tennis court. Experts say there is enough oil there is last the US consumers 20 years. In 20 years, we better have other fuel options. Also, the proposed site is no where close to any other developed area. We are starting wars of the middle east, but we can't cut down trees in alaska. Yes it is interesting...

    Posted by dancall at 07/08/2005 @ 11:27am

96. "conservatives hate the environment and just want to club a baby seal."

    I only justify clubing terrorists, not seals.

    I'm conservative Todd... and I approve this message.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/08/2005 @ 11:29am

97. Sal, hmmm. Putting Iran;s buddies in control of Iraq...hmmm...causing a rift with Iran...hmmm...reason for invading iran with perfect strategic positioning? Hmmm...airfields built...hmmm, oil is plenty,...hmmm. Russia is helping Iran build nuclear power,...hmmm. Wow, Sal, you are brilliant!

    Posted by dancall at 07/08/2005 @ 11:37am

98. How many times do I have to explain myself, SAL? After 9/11 I don;t care who is in office, as long as we are taking care of business. If it takes money, sure. Haliburton has expertise that only one or two companies in the world have, SAL, so that's why they no bid some of the work. They are subcontracting out tons of work to Iraqis, and a ton to our European friends. Sal, ask how much money France and germany made off of Iraq during the UN sanction years. You are so ignorant.

    Posted by dancall at 07/08/2005 @ 11:48am

99. Here is one for ya: Provide me with a company that resides in a country that backed the US in the Iraq war that can provide ALL these services, since we like to have single source providers for control factors for those who know business and project management: Founded in 1919, Halliburton is one of the world's largest providers of products and services to the oil and gas industries. The Company adds value through the entire lifecycle of oil and gas reservoirs and provides and integrates products and services, starting with exploration and development, moving through production, operations, maintenance, conversion and refining, to infrastructure and abandonment. Halliburton employs more than 100,000 people in over 120 countries working in five major operating groups:

    Halliburton's Energy Services Group consists of four business segments:

    • Drilling and Formation Evaluation • Fluid Systems • Production Optimization • Digital and Consulting Solutions

    These segments offer a broad array of products and services to upstream oil and gas customers worldwide, ranging from the manufacturing of drill bits and other downhole and completion tools to pressure pumping services.

    Posted by dancall at 07/08/2005 @ 12:05pm

100. As a project manager for the oil system in Iraq, do you select a single source provider that is proven in the industry and has solid reporting and project management methodologies in place, or do you select 5-10 different companies and increase your risk factor by hoping that these contractors have the same workers and work ethic, have fully functional reporting systems and do not have ties with questionable foreign investors? It is your job to decide...I would be interested in hearing your responses...

     Posted by dancall at 07/08/2005 @ 12:14pm

101. Dan, Your a typical name calling libertarian. Your worse than a neocon. You stand for nothing but you. Yes Iran has far more influence in Iraq than they ever had because of this war. UN sanction years kept Hussein contained. Could they at least had competing bids before picking Cheney's company. I'm a contractor too Dan companies in this game are created by contracts if their big enough. OK I'll bite how much did Germany and France make? I doubt as much as Halliburton your at the same trough. Why don't you go watch a video our tax dollars rented for you. A libertarian government contractor. Hmmmm, strong central gov ok as long as it pays your bills, eh Dan. You make no sense. Are you on the clock now?

     Posted by Salunga at 07/08/2005 @ 12:32pm

102. "Todd, how is it you have all this time to sit around typing about killing people. Why aren't you in Iraq in the military and doing something as an outlet for your agression?"

     You take me way too seriously some times my friend. Lighten up.. You might actually enjoy sitting down and having a steak and a coke with me.

     And mainly I enjoy posting here becuase it's interesting to me to see the the difference in perspectives. I get bored posting on all the conservative sites. I's simply like "preaching to the choir". I have seen some of the progressives say the same thing when conservitives aren't posting on the Nation as well.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/08/2005 @ 12:40pm

103. No sal, I am an idependent contractor in the private sector who is taking time off. You know Sal, the sector that wants free trade, the sector that wants to make money, the sector that doesn;t want the government to take my taxes to pay for liberal or conservative programs that fail. Sal, you are missing my point...we are going to go after Iran next and we will have the EU backing on this. have you been reading what is going on with the new president of Iran and his talk dennouncing Europe and America?

     Sal, you are avoiding my question. Give me names of the competing companies!!! When you can give me names of companies that have the same resources, and are true American allies, then I will say have open bidding, but until you, the smart guy can give me REAL companies, I will stand strong with this decision. I don;t think it was right, but I can see the logic behind it.

     You are right, France and Germany probably didn;t make as much money, BUT IS THAT JUSTIFICATION because they got the money? Dude, think about what you are arguing, please.

     And yes, I stand for me, as a individual, strong person who doesn;t need your liberal help. Are we not teaching young kids to do the same? No, we tell them that, but blind them with ideologies that are pointless to the realities of our surroundings. Thomas Jefferson was a staunch believer in this and that a lesser government is the best government. Both the Republicans and Democrates destroyed this country!!!

     And Frank, did you not hear Bush talk about that priotr to that announcement about other resources and that we have to revisit nuclear power? And did you not hear that the United States of America has the resources but we can;t touch it, so we go to war for it?

     Posted by dancall at 07/08/2005 @ 12:56pm

104. Frank, it is a good thing we are in Iraq...if Saudi Arabia goes dry, we have Iraqi oil...and yes I said that. Do I agree with it no. but I am a realist!

     Posted by dancall at 07/08/2005 @ 12:57pm

105. No question we need other modes of fuel and energy. The most efficient and clean ones come with heavy risk. Any suggestions. I think we are agreeing with everything, but we are speaking different languages.

     I do have a question. What ever happened to Russia getting tuff on Terrorism? After the theater incident, we have heard nothing. And isn;t it quite interesting that area was the one that is pro American and democracy. Think Putin helped the Terrorists there to take control of the region to start bringing the old soviet union back into mother russia. You should read some of the old soviet philosophy and KGB disclosures. Like how they were sending professors into the US during the 1960's to preach about socialism and how US policy it wrong. There are records of this. You know where their number one target was? San Francisco. You see Frank, we are at war all the time with radical religions, political philosphies, so as Sal said, I am all be me in the sense that I am confident with who I am and I don;t need any one telling me how I should live my life. If I want to be a hard core neo-con or a peace loving liberal, that is my own chosing. I want free trade and if I want to make money while other people slack off and ask for hand outs, I have no pity on them. If they are diabled or do not have the capacity to keep up, then I will lend a helping hand. But to sit back and watch our system be abused is criminal,. we are now a welfare state. Not a nation of independent free willed people, who are willing to die for their beliefs if someone treads on them!

     Posted by dancall at 07/08/2005 @ 1:09pm

106. Frank, Source of what? Why did Clinton keep our troops in Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf war? Oil at this point is for survival. Russia, China, France Germany, UK, Australia, Japan. Any one who has industry knows who has oil, controls the ecomony. hitlers biggest mistake, thank god, was that he did not listen to his generals when they told him to fortify and secure the oil fields and not allow allied troops to split them down the middle, thus cutting them off. Well, he didn;t listen and we cut them off. It would have taken years to run Germany dry of oil and wanted to end the war quick, so we rolled them and got rid of a dictator. Some, like geneal Patton wanted to roll into Russia to take out stalin, but it wasn;t POLITICALLY CORRECT to do so. That my friend, was the start of the PC world and as you can see from the last 60 years, more death and destruction has been created because we were too wimpy to take on Stalin, even after knowing he murdered millions of his own people. But hey, in a site like this, we were the ones that were wrong to have a cold war with the Soviet Union and take them head on in their tries of expanding communism throughout the world. Ask any Russian who came or has recently come to America and ask them the differences between Capitalism, Socialism and Communism. Russian immigrants are KICKING ASS right now in America becasue they see and smell the opportunity to be a INDEPENDENT and FREE thinking person and business person. Unlike our own natural born citizens who are taught that their problems are becuase of "the man", and it nothing to do with self determination and hard work...it is ok to ask for a hand out, because we are taxing the man! Didn;t our country get started because of taxes or something like that? just checking?

     Posted by dancall at 07/08/2005 @ 1:20pm

107. The Bush Administration is just another puppet, somewhat unbeknownst to them, for an Islamic group that has higher goals than just terrorism. For at least the last decade this Islamic group and its believers have been relocating to different regions of the world, and working to convert those natives to their religion and ideals, either publicly or covertly. The reason why this European AQ group targeted specifically Denmark and Italy in their response to the London attacks is because they have years ago migrated to these countries, mingled into their population, and have developed their plans and strategies in these countries.

     The thought that we would rather fight a war there instead of here is a mistaken notion that they are not here yet. Oh, they are here (in the USA) alright. And they don't fight like we do. Their war is not an open, traditionally fought war like what we are doing in Iraq decimating a population. It is covert and unconventional. It involves dividing societies and twisting their cultures, and unconsciously allowing their ideologies to prevail amongst the chaos.

     I think that the media is covering the very tip of the iceberg here. I pray that I have just temporarily gone overboard in my own mission to understand what happened at 9/11, the bombings in Spain, and the recent London bombing. However, there are correlating incidents around the world that are making me wonder way too much.

     Sometimes I think we fight amongst each other about Bushies v. Liberals, which also creates another smokescreen to the actual truth.

     IMHO, Bush and his cronies are making the best for themselves out of the situation that they are playing into, regardless of the effect on the average American now or in the future. The Democrats are in a fog and can't tell which issue is publicly justifiable against the Bush Administration, when in actuality they can't see forest of US citizens that are begging for civil leaders to just lead and uphold the country's foundation among the trees of lame issues that lead us nowhere.

     Posted by SleepingPorch at 07/08/2005 @ 1:25pm

108. Speaking of oil and other energy resources, Denmark Radio reports today that their oil reserves and other energy resources are higher than authorities originally expected. No wonder why AQ is targeting Denmark.

     Posted by SleepingPorch at 07/08/2005 @ 1:28pm

109. You see Frank, if we had stuck to the founding fathers idea or States Rights and keeping government small, none of this would be going on today. Our govt got way too strong as a result of WWII and if you look at the social programs and tax hikes, the majority happend after WWII, because our government got too much power over the states rights. the Supreme Court was to rule on federal issues not, what goes on inside the states, which is why there is such a battle of the SC today. The SC was not intended to be political, but it is and it is destroying our country. The SC court to interperate the law, not make law, but both Rep and Dems use it to push their political views. Neo-cons and the ACLU are going way to far with law suites. We are getting to a point that people with religious, well I should say Christian faith will not be able to wear crossed around thier necks because it offends someone. Like the holiday season, frank. Christmas was a christian holiday that was taken over by commericialism. However, towns are not allowed to sing christian songs are a town function if the town spends a nickle on it. Frank, if the town wants to hold a hannaka parade and sing jewish songs and pay for it, then god bless them. but when there is a christian centered event and christians can;t express their religion while other religions are allowed to, is that not wrong? Frank, it is happening and that is why there is starting to be a huge fight against the liberal movement. Again, I believe in a lot of liberal ideals, but there is a thing as going too far, and it is ready to burst!

     Posted by dancall at 07/08/2005 @ 1:32pm

110. Sleeping, My brother had a friend who was on a plane in Newark, NJ the day of 9/11. The plane never got off the ground because they shut everything down after the terrorist hit. when they made the announcement, 6 middle eastern looking men got up and started screaming that the plane must take off. when they pulled back into the gate, FBI agents were waiting and they were gone.

     Have you heard one mention of this in any media? You see Liberals, 9/11 could have been much worse by their plans. In 2000, they grounded 17 planes headed for the west coast of the US that were heading in from all regions in the pacific. No mention of why and what happened. yes, bush probabaly messed up, but these plans take years and they are patient. The story about my brother friend is real. I also have friends that are in the secret service and some that served as Navy Seals. You people better start waking up or we are going to be dead very soon.

     Posted by dancall at 07/08/2005 @ 1:39pm

111. Awright already...

     The question is: What is an appropriate response? Here's what I propose, starting with the obvious:

     1. Go after the individuals who did it. I don't think GB meant to extend any compassion to these...something both sides of aisle agree on.

     2. Recognize that A. a significant reason for the success of these Extreme Nut Bombers can recruit folks is because they have millions of people living in poverty we can't imagine looking for some way to express thier frustration. Fighting poverty is fighting terrorism. B. The stated reasons for Al Queda hating US are: We have troops on the holy land of Mecca, the US and British Govts support the state of Israel.

     3. Right now money is flowing from our pockets to these organizations that carry out these attacks. If Bush announced today that "I want us off of oil (not just foreign, mind you) in 10 years. It would put his often stubborn streak to good use. And though I'm not generally a vengeful person, I'd love to stick it to OPEC...Imagine them asking begging us to please buy more oil so they can keep lording over a nation full of Muslims living in poverty.

     4. Do whatever it takes to get Iraq some semblance of stability, including, but not limited to, setting a date for US withdrawal. Agreeing to leave Iraq MAY (no guarantees here) help quell the fighting there.

     Posted by wereverywhere at 07/08/2005 @ 1:45pm

112. and no, this is not a scare tatic. It is real and which is why a lot of the special forces guys left during Clintons term. They were tired of seeing what was actually going on and having no power to anything about it because the commander was listening to his liberal wife on how to run the country. the clinton administration did more morale damage to our people in the military than the crap that is being portrayed on the news today about Iraq. I know I am not supposed to talk about the Clintons, but you have no idea what goes on behind the scenes. All you see if "on camera" talk. Well, when the cameras go off, they only care about their power and will step on anyone who gets in their way.

     Posted by dancall at 07/08/2005 @ 1:47pm

113. Frank, good call, but lets leave France out because they want us to burn in hell just because our GI's were bangin there women because they wanted to be with real men!!

     Posted by dancall at 07/08/2005 @ 1:51pm

114. if i were going to write down a list of suspects for the atrocity in london, muslims legitimately outraged at atrocities in iraq would certainly be on my list. but so would lots of other people, interests and groups who might benefit from the fear, curtailment of civil liberties, and weapons sales that will obviously spread as a result of what happened. do we have any evidence at all that allows us to rationally say who is responsible? if someone calling themselves al qaeda says something, do you believe them? do you have any reason whatsoever to trust the american government? a crime was committed. someone (who knows who) took credit for it on the internet. plenty will benefit from what happened. plenty will also suffer. look at who benefits and who suffers, and make a list of who might be guilty. anyone who says they know for sure right now isn't being honest. or maybe your conception of "our side/their side" is as fixed as the people you perceive as being "over there."

     Posted by Jason Rhodes at 07/08/2005 @ 1:52pm

115. You know, the attack on London really does prove the war in Iraq is a mistake and we should pull out immediately. It proves Bush's so called war on terror is fighting in the wrong place, because, you know, terrorists can't possibly be in two places at the same time. It's physically impossible and mathematically reprehensible. So, if they're in London, they can't be in Iraq now can they? Of course, we could attack Great Britain but the bad guys have probably already vamoosed by now. I'm thinking Finland. Heck, maybe a better strategy would be to randomly bomb contries around the world and try to stay one step ahead of them, but has Bush ever thought of that? No, the man is a complete imbecile. Anyway, not in Iraq. I'm tired of people always trying to tie Iraq and 911 together. Just because Saddam directly supported terrorists, gave money to terrorists, praised the goals of terrorism and was something of a pretty good terrorist himself, he didn't fly those planes into the twin towers. That's a plain fact - we know because he doesn't have a pilot's license! So what were we messing with him for? Terrorists are people too, and we should only worry about the dead ones who actually committed the crime. Do we even have a strategy for what to do if they come back to life? Put that in your bong and smoke it, Bush! Who is kidding who?

     PS. You know, if Al Gore had been elected, 911 would never have happened in the first place. That's a fact. You neocons can cry about it if you want but you know it's true. Heck, it's so obvious that no amount of evidence is even necessary. And no amount of evidence is something me and my liberal buds have plenty of so don't try to say we don't.

     Posted by jeck at 07/08/2005 @ 2:00pm

116. FRANKGRITS,

     OK Frank, if you don't want to grab hold of my olive branch and prefer to play hardball, I'll play hardball. You don't like Bush, you think he lied etc. That's fine, and I agree with you to an extent. Bush has mislead the public in general based on the whole WMD build up necessity for war, yada yada.

     Here's the problem for progressives. Many people like myself, just plain like the fact that we (the U.S.) are killing terrorists, regardless of the reason for being there. I'm not going to bring religion into it, because I personally lump Tim McVeigh (who claimed to be a Christian) alongside of Muslim extremists. They, and "they" means any people or persons that try to impose their beliefs on others in the world through acts of terrorism, or brute force that causes physical damage, all need to dealt with.

     I agree that for the long term "cure" for terrorism, the United States needs to evaluate our foreign policy, however I will not change my lifestyle i.e. give up my suburban, switch to a more economical electric mini-car, change my religion etc. because extremists with guns in their hands want me to.

     However for the short term, we MUST deal with the situation at hand, by detaining or killing people that would kill us simply because they don't like our lifestyle.

     I may disagree with Muslims, liberals and progressives, but I would NEVER profess that the "right" thing to do is force my religion or my beliefs upon someone I disagree with by human force or killing you for the lifestyle you live, where the terrorists are commited to doing this very thing to the rest of the world.

     I know this may sound hypocritical as during different periods in the past Christians did try to force their religion on others through wars, the crusades, Spanish Inquisition etc. However that was then and this is now.

     Again, personally I lump fundamentalist Christians that bomb abortion clinics or federal buildings right there along side of the Islamic terrorists. Terrorism = Terrorism; regardless of what drives the motives for the terrorism in my view.

     Hope that helps you understands my conservative views a little better. And actually the offer for the steak and coke still stands.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/08/2005 @ 2:03pm

117. Todd:

     I know you like killing terrorists, but is that more important than defending America against attacks? If killing one terrorist creates 2 more terrorists, then how does this war ever end? If we are overextended in Iraq and cannot effectively defend ourselves here, are you still happy? I know that you may disagree that we are worse off here because we are in Iraq, but if we were worse off, would this war still make you happy?

     Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/08/2005 @ 2:17pm

118. Frank, you are correct about France, but those same people in France are the minority and are not do not hold political office:) Also, I did hear that there is a serious backlash going on against Chirac and the conservative party in France is picking up serious ground.

     Posted by dancall at 07/08/2005 @ 2:49pm

119. Nice try Jeck...twisting words and trying to make people who don't agree with your views look like fools. get a life!

     Posted by dancall at 07/08/2005 @ 2:51pm

120. Frank, a Cab explains everything...Merlot is a much better wine with Steak!

     Posted by dancall at 07/08/2005 @ 2:53pm

121. Frank,

     "Just don't tell me you back a President that is mentally incapable of leading us."

     I have told you, I have criticized and continue to criticize the president, but for different reasons I'm sure that you. I feel he has not been strong enough on terrorism. Were it me, I would have already been in Iran, North Korea AND in the United States (yes, there are active terrorist networks in the U.S.), London and everywhere else ROOTING out and killing terrorists.

     "(You're forcing me to try to spell a lot of big words here!)"

     Being condesending to conservatives with your "I'm the elitist here, let me spell the big words for you" does nothing to bring our two sides closer together and communicate. I am educated as well my friend, and have the knowledge to make my own decisions and determine my stance and beliefs on issues.

     "Christians and Muslims and any other organized faith healers are all the same."

     Not all, only SOME Muslims are terrorists, not all.

     Only SOME Christians are terrorists (like Tim McVeigh), not all.

     So some are alike, however some are quite different, just like some liberals fit the conservative stereotype of liberals as sandal wearing, toe exposing, star bucks sipping, The Nation reading, "can't we all just get along" stating, Kum Ba Ya singing, tree hugging, hippies, anti-God and anti-Christian; where many liberals are none of those things.

     "Are there more Muslims in the world than Christians?"

     Why do you ask that question? By merely asking the question you are buying into the rhetoric from the Muslim extremists that this is the "holly war", "jihad" that they are wanting it to be. There are many conservatives that aren't Christian that support the war, as I'm sure there are some (albeit few) liberals that aren't Christians that support the war. It's not about Christians vs. Muslims, so your question is a moot point, unless again you are buying into the terrorists' rhetoric.

     "I prefer A nice glass of Cabernet with my steak"

     Only if it's domestic, I don't support them damn French people after they bailed on us at the start of the war, but want back in when there are contracts to be awarded. Oh I'm sorry, that probably wan't politically correct of me = )

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/08/2005 @ 3:27pm

122. "I know that you may disagree that we are worse off here because we are in Iraq, but if we were worse off, would this war still make you happy?"

     It depends on what the deffinition of "worse off" is. If worse off means we loose a lot of U.S. forces but do end up killing or imprisoning every last terrorist than in my opinion that's better off.

     Worse off means we don't rid the world of terrorists and we loose a lot more U.S. military, and spend a lot more of my tax dollars while doing so. If this happened I would in fact, re-visit my stance on the war, and probably call for a stop to it.

     At the same time, I would be even more worried about more planes from terrorists flying into buildings, like the one I work in, or the hospital my wife works in.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/08/2005 @ 3:36pm

123. Dancall, What do you mean? I'm totally down with you and, say, Nattie, who says that for every terrorist we kill we create two more. I mean, that's so true, isn't it? I mean, I know of absolutely no evidence for it, zero statistics but it just seems so intuitive, it's gotta be true. I mean, you believe it, don't you? That's why after killing umpteen million Nazis in WW2 there's still so of them many around.

     Posted by jeck at 07/08/2005 @ 4:10pm

124. "Todd, I'm afraid you've mis-understood me here a couple of times. First of all, I wasn't being condescending."

     Ah. Ok, I did misunderstand then, my appologies, it read as if you were saying you thought I was too ignorant to understand big words unless you spelled them out for me.

     I'm glad to hear you have faith in God, since you do, you then know it's only God that can save us all anyway. No earthly man such as Bush or Kerry can be depended on for eternal salvation.

     "Terrorists are always fighting in the name of their God. The Crusaders were Christian Terrorists. Now it's the Muslims turn."

     You're absolutely right, that was the exact point I was making.

     I don't really have anything against the French. I was just kidding, I still eat french fries.

     So really, we have a lot in common. We don't like war in general, we both think that war in itself is not a long term solution to addressing why Islamic terrorists want to blow themselves up on crowded city buses and trains, we don't think Bush has handled this war on terror well, we both do believe in God, and we both think terrorism (regardless of where or who it's coming from) is wrong, our difference seems to lie in whether the war specifically in Iraq in terms of the overal war on terror is justified or not and whether we should be there or not.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/08/2005 @ 4:14pm

125. Todd: you said if "Worse off means we don't rid the world of terrorists and we loose a lot more U.S. military, and spend a lot more of my tax dollars while doing so. If this happened I would in fact, re-visit my stance on the war, and probably call for a stop to it."

     And if killing one terrorist creates two more terrorists, then shouldn't you be re-visiting that stance?

     so I guess you agree that killing one terrorist creates two more?

     Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/08/2005 @ 4:51pm

126. Jeck: YOu're right: i don't have empirical evidence on how many terrorists terrorist networks are recruiting. But I feel like a lot of conservatives ignore the impression American policy makes on the minds of muslims who are young and not yet sure of jihad. The real goal of this war, if we want to end terrorism, has to be preventing muslims from accepting radical jihad policies. This should make sense to many Republicans: it's called market economics. We must stop demand for terrorism, because if we don't the market will continue to supply warm bodies. I'm not sure how we prevent Muslims from hating America. It's probably not just unilateral withdrawal from Iraq that will do the trick. And the right has a point when it says that radical Islam hates progressive ideals too.

     Can we continue to support dictators in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?

     The Nazi analogy is inapposite. The Nazis were a political party in an identifiable country. Radical Islam is not statist.

     Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/08/2005 @ 5:08pm

127. The late Golda Meir once said, "There will be peace when the mothers of Islam love their children more than they hate the Jews." Good point. But it misses THE point. ANY sane parent loves his/her children. But when Muslim parents look out upon a landscape that offers nothing by way of a future, it becomes easier to hate, lash out, and agree to become cannon fodder for the compensation paid to your family upon your suicide. We must finally get a clue, and begin to help re-build the various infrastructures we, and our allies have demolished. If the mothers (and fathers) of Islam can see a time when THEIR children can grow up to become doctors, business owners, engineers, or (God help us all!) lawyers and politicians, they may feel a little less inclined to give it all up, or to offer a place to hide to terrorist leaders. By expanding hope, we shrink the breeding grounds for the hopeless, and the recruiting grounds for those who offer only a way to hate and murder and revenge. In theory, at least this should also increase the possibility of finding these animals and bringing them to justice. And our own children can grow up safe from their children.

     Posted by dgvb55 at 07/08/2005 @ 6:48pm

128. "so I guess you agree that killing one terrorist creates two more?"

     No, not in the sense that one terrorist killed equals 2 more that are "born" into terrorism.

     I do not dispute however the notion that terrorists are coming from other countries to Iraq to fight against America.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/08/2005 @ 7:28pm

129. What John Nichols and almost every other near sighted, bleeding heart liberal on this blog fails to realize is that What George Bush was talking about when he said "we will spread an ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their ideology of hate" is that we are spreading the ideology of hope and compassion by confronting tyranical extremist regimes like in Afganistan under the Taliban and Iraq under Sadam. Are you really so near sighted to believe that we would be living in a safer world if the Taliban were still in power. If Osama Bin Laden could live there in shelter and build terrorist training camps at will. Would Bush have been WISE to ignore intelligence from MANY DIFFERENT SOURCES that said Iraq had WMD's. "The enemy of my enemy is my Friend" IF Iraq DID have WMD's the risk that they would arm or sell those weapons to Terrorists was WAY TOO GREAT to ignore -

     Posted by jzimm at 07/08/2005 @ 8:31pm

130. FRANKGRITS - No I don't think the Taliban has been destroyed, and I don't know where Osama is - Probably in the Pashtun areas of Pakistan. DO YOU really believe that we can stop all terrorist attacks or completely eradicate terrorism? What's your plan? To Offer counselling, and apologies to People who fundamentally want to kills us because we believe differently from them? What did clinton do? Fire a couple of cruise Missile at a Terrorist Training Camp? Blow up a Baby Formula Plant in Africa and withdraw when the going got tough in Somalia (talk about encouraging terrorists)I do know that unlike Pre 9-11 and the Clinton years the Taliban are not in power. They they are not ruling the country (although they continue to resist) and Osama is in hiding and no longer a guest of Mullah Omar with privledges to Roam free. He is hiding and eventually he will hopefully be caught. I believe we ARE winning the war but as Bush said this is going to be a long war. Stop embolding the terrorists with your defeatist america hating rhetoric. This is a Liberal website. Of course most of the comments are going to disagree

     Posted by jzimm at 07/08/2005 @ 9:32pm

131. Frankgrits - in regards to your comment "The french waved flags and the girls kissed our soldiers upon liberation. Did you see any of that in Iraq except for a staged toppling of a stupid statue of Saddam Hussein?" - If a Muslim woman was caught kissing an american GI that she just met in the middle of the street she would probably at least be beaten if not killed.If the news networks wern't so liberally slanted we would hear more of the stories about the successes and friendship, and thankfulness of the Iraqi people. Are the Sunni minority that lost power and prestige happy orr the Arab fighters that are trying to kill the "Infidels" - of course not.

     Posted by jzimm at 07/08/2005 @ 9:43pm

132. More likely, he is using the ploy of pretty speech, to cover up his destructive inner workings.

     Here's a copy of the letter I sent him, you may get a kick out of it:

     June 21st, 2005

     President Bush,

     Your program adventure capitalism in Iraq is looking more and more like failure every day. The only decent and honorable course of action is to admit your administration's errors, make a full public apology and cooperate with a congressional investigation of war planning efforts.

     Using the American peoples' tax dollars and military (resulting in thousands of American casualties and permanent war related injury – not to mention the deaths of over 100,000 Iraqi people) to advance your own agenda is absolutely unacceptable.

     Please find it in your heart to answer the questions raised by the Downing Street memo, and other related documents - and cooperate with an official congressional inquiry.

     Did you mislead the American people and congress in entering the war based on false assumptions of WMD potential? And if so, was it deliberate?

     These are just a couple of the questions that congress and the American/British/Iraqi people need truthful answers for.

     Thank you for your time and consideration.

     I am still waiting. But you're right John Nichols, at least we can hold him to his words. Though, I don't think we can expect the "amen" chorus of his media groupies to do the same. How can we amplify our voices?

     Posted by rob.olywa at 07/08/2005 @ 10:21pm

133. Frank will you please quit insisting I read every thread that has already been posted. I really don't have time. I have gone back and read much of it. So you're upset because Cheny said the Iraqi's would be waving flags or upset because muslim women are not kissing GI's for the cover of Time Magazine? Everything is not Doom and Gloom in Iraq. So you are not totally against Bush. You admit that Afganistan was the right decision but we should be focusing there. Let me ask you a hypothetical question since you are so much more intelligent and educated than George Bush (who according to you doesn't read)..If you were Predisdent of the United States (god forbid) and your Intelligence agencies were informing you that they believed Sadam owned and was developing WMD's, and given Sadams past history, the violations of the "Unconditional surrender" that Iraq signed after the first Gulf War and the whole "enemy of my enemy thing" what would you do??? Debate? Sanctions? We are a strong enough country to face the difficulties in Iraq and Afganistan at the same time. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Is it hard? Yes. Is it a sacrifice. Yes. THIS IS A WAR. You do realize that don't you? I have read the History of Muslim Vs Christian. I know about the Crusades - Ibm Taymiyya - IbmAbd al-Whhab etc. The most recent book I read on the subjest is called "Sacred Terror" - by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon - both Anti terror Guys from the Clinton Administration, but I don't see how Muslim V Christian History equates to Bush being wrong for invading Iraq. Did Cheney mis judge the reception and flag waiving reception recption that we would recieve. Maybe...Im not sure. Like I said the happiness of the Iraqi's recption of the US liberation depends on which Iraqi you talk to. I live near Dearborn Michigan. The largest Iraqi/American population in the US, and I can tell you that when the invasion began there was a parade (literally people celebrating marching down streets thanking the United States). Were the Sunni's in Falluja celebrating or people that were afraid of retribution or iraqi's that were leary of american intentions celebrating. probably not. Lastly Im sorry for questioning your Patriotism. But listening to comments from some so called americans in or government and media regarding conditions at Gitmo, or Abu-grhaib, or our President Intelligence (coincidentally I believe President Bush attended the same college as John Kerry but had a better grade point average..hmmmm)it really makes me wonder...

     Posted by jzimm at 07/08/2005 @ 11:05pm

134. Oh yeah "the Clintons will straighten everything out, and Bush will be impeached." I was starting to respect you just a little until those laughable comments (were you kidding Fran?). What you don't seem to understand is that no matter how much YOU personally hate George Bush. He WON THE ELECTION. Democrats can be as bitter as they want and as loud as they want, but they keep loosing. You probably believe you are smarter than the majority of people though. What did Clinton do other than ride the economic boom of the .com era? he let Terrorism grow and become more bold, gave nuclear material to North Korea in exchange for DPRK's word that they wouldn't use it for military purposes (a fricken tragedy). Miss the best opportunity we ever had to capture OBL. The economy was stumbling when he left office, terrorists training camps were growing churning out future 9-11 hijakers in Afganistan. and corporate accounting practices that enabled ENRON, and MCI were going on. Thank you Bill Clinton. You say Bush lied but Clinton was the Liar (He lost his law license for Lying to the Grand Jury and he is the one who should have been impeached), Adulterer, and pansy appeaser. please tell me you are kidding about the Clintons

     Posted by jzimm at 07/08/2005 @ 11:20pm

135. maybe you guys should trade emails so you can have it out on there.

     Posted by rob.olywa at 07/08/2005 @ 11:54pm

136. Gentlepersons -

     Just a quick hello from John Nichols' home state of Wisconsin. For those of you who have never had the privilege of hearing Mr. Nichols speak ex tempore, he does a marvelous job on Wisconsin Public Radio, mainly addressing issues in the foreign press. Both his mind and his manner are extraordinary, and many of us find him to be quite an inspiration.

     Quoting from an above poster (with a rather vulgar screen name - but then, that's his(?) privilege); rest assured, I too am a "near sighted, bleeding heart liberal," and so probably won't cause most of you a problem in the future. But let me say that in general I've been very impressed by both the level of thought and expression on this board, and hope not to diminish it too much by my future posts.

     One final word. I also hope not to spend too much energy in debate with the hardened opposition. If we intrinsically hold anything over that accursed breed (which I'm fond of thinking that we do), it might just be in the area of civil discourse. Rolling in the mud generally seems to strengthen their hand more than ours, and seldom changes any minds.

     Hope to join you again soon.

     Blinky

     Posted by Blinky at 07/09/2005 @ 12:09am

137. Fran- I love your arguments. after I just shot down everything you had to say with real life examples. you come back with "Your Guy Screwed up" why?? Because you said so? thats great. I also like how you never answered my hypothetical question from 2 posts ago or the What did Clinton do question. Appeasers and people that are afraid accuse Bush of making a mistake by "Taunting the Terrorists"..That is rediculous. I think you need to study up and do some reading as to why the terrorists hate us. They had just flown plane loads of people into the World Trade Center. Do you really believe that they were going to be MORE Determined because Bush Taunted them? What Bush did because HE IS A WAR TIME PRESIDENT was to boost or country's Morale, to bost the morale of troops that were going to be fighting and showed the terrorists that they had underestimated the American People. If you would have been president you would have said something like " we will bring these criminals to justice!!! They will not escape Prosecution!" Eisenhower, Churchill and Great WAR TIME LEADERS like GW Bush and Ronald Reagan succeed because they stand up to evil. Read some history Fran...See what happened when Neville Chamberlain played nice with the Nazi's and declared "there will be peace in our time"...20 million deaths later see what happened. What a joke. TAUNTING THE TERRORISTS!!! I hate to tell you this Frank. You can be nice to them if you want but no matter how friendly and forgiving you may be they WOULD KILL YOU if they could because you are not a TRUE MUSLIM (according to their standards)...FACE it Frank. Against these Extremist Islamic Terrorists you are going to have to have some balls. Thats why Democrats Keep Loosing.

     Here are some recent Quotes from some Famous Liberals on the "Horrors of Gitmo" :

     TED KENNEDY: These techniques included the threat of live burial and water boarding, whereby the detainee is strapped to a board, forcibly pushed underwater, wrapped in a wet towel and made to believe he might drown.

     DICK DURBIN: On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. DUFFY: The hijackers, 19 of whom have died and we'll never really get to know, were children.

     TED KENNEDY: Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, US management.

     KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: We need to have trails. Try them. Release them!

     BRANDON BENNETT: There is one technique which was, um, simulating suffocation by dripping water on the head.

     ZAGORIN: The female interrogator enters his (the terrorist's) personal space.

     WRIGHT: There is an explicit policy: the Koran must never be placed anywhere near a sink, a toilet.

     Please Fran- put aside you personal feeling and Support our President. It's not George Bush who has created this air of divisiveness in this country. It is a sign of the times we live in. The Liberal Media. Republicans are the Majority so don't blame us for being devisive. Look in the mirror. And lastly just becuase you say the intelligence was manipulated (and back it up with no facts - who manipulated what?) It doesn't mean Bush Lied (so in other word you are a kooky conspiracy theorist who believes everything with no proof). A lie is like when you say "I did not have sexual relations with that woman and then you find out later that you were getting BJ's in the Oval Office"...C'mon Frank...You do more damage than good but claim you love your country...I could go on, but you will get the last word on this because I am afraid that it is time for me to sleep..Good Night

     Posted by jzimm at 07/09/2005 @ 12:14am

138. How to Fight Terrorism

     Not with a cheap left hooks like the following:

     Imagine the cries of outrage and incomprehension that would have arisen from right-wing talk radio and television pundits if a President Al Gore or a President John Kerry had called, in the immediate aftermath of an attack linked to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, for spreading an "ideology of hope and compassion" as part of the response to terrorism.

     Someone with a limp anti-terrorism record, like Gore and Kerry, responding to 7/7 with chatter about an "ideology of hope and compassion" would indeed have been offering pablum.

     It is because President Bush has been swinging a heavy bat that he was able to speak softly. His espousal of hope and compassion contrasted perfectly to the raw evidence of the ideology of hate and death, he has been fighting.

     Because he has been tackling the overall terror threat that he was able to discuss a discrete wound and its perpetrators. Nothing hypocritical about that. But there is in the following:

     Surely, the painful recognition that, almost four years after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, al-Qaeda is apparently still capable of pulling off coordinated, and extremely deadly, attacks in one of the most security-savvy cities on the planet ought to cause Bush to rethink his misguided response to what he describes as the great challenge of his presidency.

     It is absurd and cheap to pretend 7/7 proves the present policy a failure. There are annually hundreds of homicides in every large city, and sometimes even thousands, that though the police have been chasing hoodlums for centuries.

     Our open society is danger prone by nature. Its infrastructure is delicate and hopelessly exposed. It sells deadly stuff off the shelf. Its hallmark is anonymity and crowds. Its doors are unlocked, its ledges have no railings. Anyone with a car and some widely available electronics, fertilizer or herbicide, could wreck havoc. There is little we can do about that.

     An open society cannot be guaranteed safety. Which is why the only defense is an offense. Attacks like 9/11 and 7/7 must be answered in a way to make terrorists regret their operations. Thus OBL now finds himself a hunted creature, afraid to make a phone call, most of his staff are dead or caught, a US host is in the Arab heartland. The attack on London requires a similar offensive. It could be answered with -

     * New British commitments of Gurkha battalions to the war in Iraq.

     *An EU/US/Japan demand that Arab countries undertake intense and sustained anti-terror campaigns in their public media and schools.

     * A multi-billion dollar anti-terror fund, into which every nation contributes. Any act of terror will trigger large bonanzas to the enemies of those committing the terror.

     Thus an act of IRA murder could trigger a $10 million landfall to a Protestant community in Northern Ireland. An anti-Catholic terror act would bring a similar landfall to a Catholic parish. An act of Zarqawi terror in Iraq could bring a $100 million bonanza to some Shia mosque or community. If every al-Qaeda bombing in Britain triggered a $100 million gift to Israel, four bombs, $400 million, would there be a fifth bombing any time soon?

     That is How to Fight Terrorism.

     Posted by nacl at 07/09/2005 @ 03:11am

139. Okay Frannie- Just a quickie. Now you wasted more of my time. i went back through the threads and cn't find where you answered my previous questions. Perhaps you can copy and paste your answers and save us both some time. Or perhaps you don't have answers. I really don't believe you feel the way you do because you have a son in the Military.Your personal attacks on George Bush's Intelligence and your Idiotic comments about what time he goes to bed at night seem to tell the real truth. By the way. heres a news flas for you- Bush beat the Democrats TWICE. For a man who is old enough to have a son in the Military it surprises me that you have never heard of something called THE US CONSTITUTION. We have something is this country called the electoral college. It was in place before Bush was elected over Gore (He didn't make it up after the election), unfortunately for cry Baby Democrats such as your self the matter had to be taken to court. To add an exclamation to the fact and further shoot down your pathetic comments Bush won a huge victory over Kerry in the last election (did you forget that). Finally I would like to point out that when Clinton was in Office - John Kerry was one of several Democrats that signed a letter urging Clinton to take Military Ation against Iraq if Sadam failed to comply with the conditions of the surrender and UN sanctions. It wasn't until Bush actually TOOK Action that it became a bad Idea to Kerry. Therefore Frannie. I light of your Mindless spin, Idiotic Lies (like saying Bush was given the Presidency) and general Lack of anything that Actually stands up to Scrutiny (as you like o say). I am through with you.

     Posted by jzimm at 07/09/2005 @ 09:21am

140. Alas! could she but truly, fully know How her great name is now throughout abhorr'd; How eager all the earth is for the blow Which shall lay bare her bosom to the sword; How all the nations deem her their worst foe, That worse than worst of foes, the once adored False friend, who held out freedom to mankind, And now would chain them, to the very mind; –

     Would she be proud, or boast herself the free, Who is but first of slaves? The nations are In prison, -- but the gaoler, what is he? No less a victim to the bolt and bar. Is the poor privilege to turn the key Upon the captive freedom? He's as far From the enjoyment of the earth and air Who watches o'er the chain, as they who wear.

     ---- Byron, from Don Juan

     Posted by marduk1 at 07/09/2005 @ 12:49pm

141. One simple guideline for responding to acts of terrorism (which are, while we're on the subject, always experienced on the "attack end" as conservative blows against decadence and oppression, and seldom if ever as attacks on "Freedom" per se) is this: strike judiciously and carefully, with a clear eye toward unintended consequences.

     Most folks - even near-sighted, flower-powered liberals such as myself - saw the necessity and validity of our incursion into Afghanistan after 9/11. Unless one was a committed pacifist (which at a high metaphysical level also has, I believe, validity), we saw the enemy and we knew our duty.

     What has followed since, in my opinion, is merely the outgrowth of the affection that our current leadership has for the use of military power; and for the "solutions" that such expressions of power ostensibly provide.

     I would suggest that unless the use of military force is most carefully considered and even more judiciously applied, it's intended purpose will in all likelihood backfire. It's inherently evil operating principle - that violence works for The Good - is self-contradictory to it's core. Violence works for violence, and for nothing else. It's merely how we interpret the outcome of the violence (i.e. whether our good guys or their bad guys were killed), that leads us to believe that it is in any way productive.

     It is productive, but only at producing destruction. Again, interpretation is everything. Naively, we like to pronounce some destruction as being "good destruction", and some as being "bad destruction". In truth (as all pacifists know), it's much simpler than that.

     Posted by Blinky at 07/09/2005 @ 1:35pm

142. PS - Nice quote, Marduk 1!

     Posted by Blinky at 07/09/2005 @ 1:40pm

143. I have read most of the many comments posted above. I could not help noticing that a predominence of the well-written comments are posted by those with progressive attitudes. I conclude that more deliberate, thoughtful contributers have come to more liberal conclusions.

     We are admonished to stay on topic with our comments. It is a problem, however, that "how to fight terrorism" is a sub-topic of the only real topic - how to replace the Bush administration with a progressive administration.

     Bush and his officials are skilled at telling the necessary lie in order to gain support for their policies. The "clean water" and "clear skys" initiatives allowed MORE polution. The "healthy forests" act destroyed MORE woodlands. The lies that took us to war in Iraq have been ignored by Bush supporters. He claims that by making war on Iraq we are keeping the "war on terror" in the middle east. That lie was exposed with the London attacks this week.

     Will those who re-elected Bush finally acknowledge the evidence? Americans have been led into unwise policies, at home and abroad, by an administration that has no respect for the truth or for the people.

     My daughter is a teacher in Texas who voted for Bush because his rhetoric sounded good. She realized that his education program is a sham, then began to examine his other policies more critically during her break this summer. She recently told me she will not vote republican again! Perhaps there is hope for Texas and the nation.

     Posted by Dianne Pipkin at 07/09/2005 @ 1:58pm

144. Frannie - You say I WILL ONLY SEE WHAT I WANT TO SEE?? This comes from the person who's only reply to my honest questions is "look back at the Threads" ...Then I look back and still don't see your answers and you still dodge the questions..Thank you. Your lack of answers or reasonable discussion is an answer in itself. And for the record (as further proof of YOUR mindless, factless, believe what YOU WANT philosophy)regarding your comments that I don't know what it is like to be in a Military Family. My grandfather flew B-17's over Nazi Europe, my father served as a medic in Korea, and I am a retired Marine. I have a 6 year old son and I told him the other day about the terrorists attacks in Britian. I told him that when he grows up he can be whatever he wants to be , that being in the Military could be dangerous ,but that I love my country and would be proud of him if he decided to serve his country. So does this qualify me to Judge Frank? From your criteria I guess it does. Go back and study some history and show me all the example of how appeasing an evil ememy has been successful (let me guess you already answered that question somewhere on this thread even though it is invisible to the naked eye)..You I and every other American enjoy the Freedoms we have today because we were fortunate to have leaders like George W. Bush who had the Strenghth and Moral Clarity to do make tough decisions and face evil. Not to back down when the going got tough...Im anxiously waiting your "FACT FILLED, substantiated, and intelligent" arguments. - You libs really scare me...Tell me you don't really think this way?

     "If you are young, and not liberal, then you don't have a heart. If you are old, and not conservative, then you don't have a brain." - Winston Chruchill

     you don't sound that young Frank

     Posted by jzimm at 07/09/2005 @ 3:27pm

145. Diane -

     Perhaps if we better understood the philosophic arguments, the practical results that you seek would more easily follow?

     But your concerns are of the utmost importance, and I applaud you for them.

     Mr. Zimm (if I have that right) - I don't think that it's a question of "backing down" - merely a question of which available options will on-balance bring about the best results. Sometimes war, in the hypothetical at least, is the best available option. But generally speaking, war implies a failure of imagination, and an over-willingness to simplify conflict; and to identify the enemy with Pure Evil, and with being without legitimate concerns of any kind.

     In truth, our enemies are no more or less prone to destruction than ourselves. Their particular cultural perspective, unfortunately, makes us appear to them as Evil. It is their misperception - and not their evil hearts - that leads them to acts of violence against us.

     Great leadership (whenever we experience that again in this country) understands this, and will tailor it's foreign policy around this understanding.

     Best - B.

     Posted by Blinky at 07/09/2005 @ 4:13pm

146. Londoners react.

     From One More Cup of Coffee [omcoc.blogspot.com]: "Dear London, Sometimes I forget, with all the mass amounts of cuntiness which courses through this city, that the people here are generally quite balanced and respond to great tragedy with a resounding 'meh'."

     It's true! I can't see us having an appetite for '7/7' merchandise and souvenirs, and, when it's all cleared up, I don't think this is going to become a significant part of the national, or even the city's, psyche.

     Meh.

     From Lenin's Tomb [leninology.blogspot.com]: It's becoming hackneyed to say so - in fact, it was hackneyed long before anyone said it - but the response of Londoners does indeed appear to have been remarkable. Calm, resolute, taking no shit from anyone. After 9/11, flags popped up everywhere, and credulity swelled. The first thing that was aroused by the murder of approximately 3,000 people was a defiant sense of American nationalism - understandably, but also unfortunately. None of this appears to pertain to Britain, and certainly not to London. People are just getting on with it. This is a perfectly apt response to such a situation. Britons indeed appear to be asking intelligent questions, certainly if last night's Question Time is anything to go by. That's the way: since when was it healthy to simply scuttle behind the government, accept whatever bullshit they come out with, and hope to lawd that they defeat the evil-doers in whatever way they deem necessary? Take shit from no one, I say: neither the bastards who bombed us, nor the bastards who are bombing Iraq. Fuck em.

     More from various other posters:

     Everyone who is on the right side of this question should realise that they are not in an isolated position.

     Everyone of the considerable number of people I've spoken to today, including large numbers of tube workers, says people around them are linking the attacks to Blair's support for Bush and his wars.

     It is, of course, a volatile situation. But many people who could wobble are coming out on the right side, even if through their own idion (viz RMT).

     Blair may go for a public manifestation (French/English) against "terror", but it is a highly risky strategy.

     All this means their is a premium on shaping the course of events now. There will be a recognition everywhere. Now is the time to act. kevin | 07.08.05 - 12:20 am

     It's interesting, isn't it, that even if we condemn the killings...any attempt whatsoever to link what they've done to any aspect of the political/military situation is deemed as eg encouraging the terrorists. It's weird. Haven't they noticed that this country is at war. Haven't they noticed that war legitimates the use of violence. It was all so bloody predictable. This country used violence against another country, so it was pretty bloody obvious that either people from that country or surrogates believing that they were acting on behalf of those people would try and use violence against this country in reply. That's war. The moral outrage of our leaders is incredible. What's happened (presumably) is that some people have thought to bring the war here. It is terrible, horrible and disgusting. But no more terrible, horrible and disgusting than what our leaders have done to the dead civilians of Afghanistan and Iraq. Our leaders will struggle to tell us that what the London terrorists have done is more disgusting that what they've done. The cheek of it is staggering. what's more, I suspect that the arrogance of our leaders in saying that the deaths they cause can't be counted, were minimal and all in a good cause, serves to incite a terrorist response even more. isakofsky | 07.08.05 - 12:55 am

     Well, I got my lunch at Pret's in Soho at 14:00 ish. Wish I knew what was going on at the place I wanted to get my lunch from, the fabulous Opuz kebab shop on Old Compton Street - open but not letting anyone in.

     My spot poll shows that all my (work) local pubs were open, and all the bars closed, which says something fairly obvious. Mood in the pubs agreeable insouciant - someone in the next room had had BBC radio London on all day which had seemed to be trying very hard to summon an "emotional" reaction (wonder what that is, eh readers?) - mood in the pub suggested that had failed. Larry Lamb | 07.08.05 - 1:16 am

     Blair will most likely try to latch onto this by placing himself even further to the right on civil liberties issues, and the Tories will gladly follow. The Lib Dems will probably moan and then capitulate - I can't see ID cards not getting through now. There was already support for them in country and now, I think, people will see them as some sort of answer.

     However, as we move on and get more and more pespective, this really could be the end of Blair. Arguing that the Iraq has made the world safer is no longer viable. Callum | 07.08.05 - 1:44 pm

     It's incredible: after the horrifyingly clear failure of the government's "anti-terror" policies, we still find people demanding more of the same. Meaders | 07.09.05 - 2:11 pm

     It is simply not possible to prevent terrorism by continually cranking up security. First, those security measures themselves provide a pretext for terrorism; second, assuming the measures work at all, the inensity of the restrictions needed to provide an acceptable degree of safety will be unacceptable in any democratic society; third, the process is one-way: restrictions are easy to place but, within the security/technological fix model, almost impossible to remove. Far better to address root causes than to indulge in cack-handed "firefighting". The very fact that a (claimed) five plots have been "foiled" since 9/11 ought to make us wonder why so many plots are being hatched.

     Until we close the political space terrorists exploit - that space opened up by UK policy in the Middle East - we will be wholly unable to stop atrocities. As I said, it is truly remarkable - and not comparable to any other sphere of public life - that after as catastrophic a failure of policy as we saw on Thursday, there should be people seriously urging more of the same failed methods, without a moment's pause to consider alternative courses. Meaders | 07.09.05 - 3:17 pm

     See also the letters pages of The Independent here [comment.independent.co.uk] and here [comment.independent.co.uk].

     Prediction: the "coalition of the willing" is going to get a little smaller.

     Posted by marduk1 at 07/09/2005 @ 4:42pm

147. This Is written by John Kerry in 2002 - how odd

     It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation. He miscalculated an 8-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America's judgments about his miscalculations.

     All those miscalculations are compounded by the rest of history. A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.

     I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future. It is the total of all of these acts that provided the foundation for the world's determination in 1991 at the end of the gulf war that Saddam Hussein must: unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless underinternational supervision of his chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems... [and] unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon-usable material.

     Saddam Hussein signed that agreement. Saddam Hussein is in office today because of that agreement. It is the only reason he survived in 1991. In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them.

     I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.

     He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.

     The Senate worked to urge action in early 1998. I joined with Senator McCain, Senator Hagel, and other Senators, in a resolution urging the President to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end his weapons of mass destruction program." That was 1998 that we thought we needed a more serious response.

     Later in the year, Congress enacted legislation declaring Iraq in material, unacceptable breach of its disarmament obligations and urging the President to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance.

     Posted by jzimm at 07/09/2005 @ 6:53pm

148. Blinky - Are you Saying that it is over simplifying to say that Al-Qaida, and terrorists that attack innocent civillians are EVIL?

     Were the Nazi'z Evil or just mis-understood? Perhaps after Japan attacked Peal HArbor we should have been more imaginative.

     I am not a war monger who believes that the only solution to disagreements is war, howvere, Basically Bin Laden et al. want to force the United States and Europe out of the Middle East diplomatically, economically, and politically; they want to take including the current Apostate governments in the middle east for their crimes like giving women rights. They want to take it over and make it a Taliban Caliphate; and then they want to use the vast resources of the Caliphate to subject Western Christians and Jews to their beliefs. Under their interpretation of the Koran it is not only a good thing but a required thing that kill infidels and non-believers.

     Please let me know your imaginative ways of dealing with this. Maybe we could all convert to their version of Islam. Read my previous post with the words of John Kerry before you tell me we should have talked further, andtried to build a consensus in the corrupt UN (which we over patiently tried)before we took action in Iraq.

     Posted by jzimm at 07/09/2005 @ 7:06pm

149. Hi JZIMM - Looking forward to responding to your questions, but social commitments call tonight. Hang in there for me, and we'll talk tomorrow. Thanks. B.

     Posted by Blinky at 07/09/2005 @ 7:46pm

150. First of all Frannie - Its Semper Fi not Sempre Fi (maybe you gave yourself away). You can question all you want Im not posting my personal history on the internet just to satisfy the likes of you. Do you want me to tell you about the Sand Fleas in Paris Island or sing you a cadence or share some war stories (sorry I can't do that I was never in combat but not because I avoided my duty)? I referred to my self as a retired Marine because the lay person would not know that Marines "Usually" don't refer to themselves as former Marines and I didn't want to give the impression that I was still an active duty Marine. As for the rest of my family's history - screw you. Who cares what you think. You are them same nutcase that claims that Bush doesn't read, that he intentionally lied and fixed the intelligence, and you're the same genius who was surprised that Iraqi women were not kissing GI's in the streets like the French women at the end of WWII. since you chose to go down a personal road I personally find it hard to believe you have a son or daughter in the military. How could an America hating liberal like your self raise a kid with enough Patriotism to serve their country. Maybe your own Kid sees you for the conspiracy theory kook that you really are and has formed his or her own opinion (I pray that is the truth)...Or did he or she Join just to travel the world and get an education? Now that the heat is on it's not such a good gig anymore? Funny it was the same Intelligence that you Savior Clinton referred to. He thought Iraq had WMDs also (Be careful...if you spend anymore time on your knees worshiping Billary you may be mistaken for Monica).Did Bush sneak into the oval office while Clinton was playing cigars with monica and change Clintons Intelligence reports also? And do me a favor..Hold your breath until ANYONE from the bush administration is indicted for fixng the Intelligence...

     Posted by jzimm at 07/09/2005 @ 11:14pm

151. Oh and Frannie - Unlike you I'll actually answer a question - I don't have to rationalize being lied to. I don't think we were lied to. I don't think my brothers are being slaughtered (compare casualty rates for Iraq to past conflicts frannie). I think the US Militey is the finest Military in the world and for the most part we are kicking ass and and doing a tremendus job (whether you will admit it or not). Yes Fran we are succeeding. I shudder to think what would have happened during WWII If the liberal media was the way it is ...I could just hear the howl of rage at the Propaganda films, and rosy news reports that were put out in order to lift our public moral..What would you have said after reading the casualty reports from D-day..."what a colossal disaster" that would have been to you huh? If you really love your kid in the military then you should start supporting our cause and quit embolding terrorists and thugs with your negative defeatist commentary and your lying, demoralizing rhetoric)....Your talk about Gitmo, Abu Grhaib and losing in Iraq only encourages our enemies...FYI..This is what an answer to a question looks like (for future reference)

     Posted by jzimm at 07/09/2005 @ 11:40pm

152. Zimm, those skull and boners all think alike. Kerry was not a real alternative to what we have with the Bush administration.

     Sure, Kerry wouldn't have made such an ass out of himself as Bush has. But, that might be the biggest difference between a Bush and a Kerry admin. Had al quaeaeaeaeda attacked WTC on Kerry's watch, the circumstances of a "war on terror", (aka: illegal, unjust, immoral occupation of Iraq,) might be the same today.

     Posted by rob.olywa at 07/10/2005 @ 12:01am

153. Iraq was sold to us on the "fact" that there were WMD. On the "fact" that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11. Still waiting for these "facts" to pan out.

     At no time during the selling of this war was the current rhetoric mentioned as a reason to wage war.

     If possesing WMD with intent to use them(read as hostile towards the united states and it's will), then there are many other countries just begging to be invaded.

     If a connection to 9/11 was the reason for this war, then why not Saudi Arabia? The answer to that is all to clear.

     So yes, we were lied to. If that word is too strong, then how about hoodwinked?

     And no, the "fight 'em there, so we don't have to fight 'em here" validation for this war is not succeeding. Thursday's actions will attest to that.

     Posted by question! at 07/10/2005 @ 03:43am

154. Hi JZIMM -

     Thanks for hanging in there for me. I just came back from a long and strenuous night of dancing with 20-somethings (trying to make you jealous here), but I survived without heart-failure (that is, none of them broke my heart tonight), so I live to respond to your post.

     You ask a series of very legitimate questions in your response, and I hope I'm up to giving you worthy answers - worthy not only of those questions, but also of the available ways of responding to them. (Failure certainly awaits me on that last front.)

     I'm not usually a point-by-point man in my style of response. That is, ordinarily I try to avoid breaking another poster's work down to it's particulars - responding one particular at a time. (We sometimes miss the larger themes that way, it seems to me.) But let me violate my own general guideline, and take your first question as put.

     "Are you Saying that it is over simplifying to say that Al-Qaida, and terrorists that attack innocent civillians are EVIL?"

     Hmmm. This is one where I just know I'm going to disappoint you.

     In fact, I do believe that to be an over-simplification. It's an extremely common one, both because it's hardly ever challenged in debate, and also because it's counter-intuitive for most of us to ever think otherwise. (When someone's clobbering you about the head or elsewhere, it's very hard to see them as being anything but wholly Evil.) But in fact, our enemies aren't necessarily "Evil", in the sense that their souls are black, and bent exclusively on destruction. In fact (or at least in my opinion) that view is a simplification of human psychology, and of the human condition.

     People always beat you about the head for reasons - which reasons are of course much clearer to them than they are to you. In Al-Qaida's case (as long as they're the ones up for discussion), they think they have plenty of good reasons to go after us. They have their "interpretations" of the Qu'ran (something you pointed out in your post) that in their minds empower them by God, no less, to do so. They have political reasons relating to Israel and Palestine, possibly to Saudi Arabia, and probably to other regions in the Arab world as well. They have historical reasons for despising the West, dating back to the Crusades. They have what they feel are moral justifications (the kind we love so much in this country), relating to our loose sexual mores, our material pursuits, and (ironically, from our perspective) our shameful treatment of women. (American woman are as whores - allowed to roam the streets at will, half-naked by Arab standards, and unaccompanied by a male relative.) And also, come to think of it, we tend to drop bombs on them now and then, and occupy their lands.

     So, who's Evil? Us or Them? Really, it's all a matter of who you ask.

     But when you never ask, and when you merely assume the worst of your foe; it's then far more likely that war - the ultimate in Evil - will be the end result.

     Does this mean that we can't defend ourselves from misguided individuals who don't understand cultural difference, and who insist on painting all Westerners with a simplistic Evil brush? No. Certainly not. Of course we must defend ourselves when attacked.

     But here's the point where my earlier post - regarding caution and judicious use of force - kicks in. The proper and moral response to any attack must be limited, as nearly as possible, to that which corrects the situation, and nothing further. Please remember, war means killing others to solve our problems (and hopefully not to merely "settle scores".) Whether deemed appropriate or not, this is the highest (or lowest) of inhumanities. War should only be approached with the utmost gravity - especially when one is sophisticated enough to realize that our enemies are really us at their core, but in a different outward form. They are as stupid as we are; as misguided as we are; as ill-informed of the true facts of this world by their culture as we are. They are, in fact, us - and as a high culture (if that's what we are) we should take no satisfaction in killing them.

     And then, of course, there's the oft-noted issue of violence (warranted or not) begetting more violence. If we're still motivated - as I think some in the Mideast are - by violent acts committed in the 13th century, then I don't think this effect should be underestimated.

     So, for the moment, that's my take on Evil. When we believe in Evil (rather than in Circumstance and Belief) we tend to feel all the more justified in responding with Evil. Again, another cycle that would be good to avoid if possible.

     JZIMM, my friend, let me stop for the night. You asked more of me, but I'm listening to birds twitter outside my window, which is a sign that I've really done about all I should do for now.

     But I loved the conversation, and hope I haven't disappointed you too greatly. Again, your questions were on the mark and wholly justified. Let's hope my answers weren't too askew for you.

     Best - B.

     PS - as a new poster, what happens when Nichol's article is ditched for a new one? Does this thread go right along with it? (I suppose I'll find out soon enough.) :-)

     Posted by Blinky at 07/10/2005 @ 06:24am

155. -Question-Iraq wasn't sold to us on the "FACT" that Iraq had WMD's (how would we know for a FACT since we were not allowed to INSPECT for weapons as Sadam had agreed). The Intelligence Indicated that they did have WMD's (see Kerrys comments from 2002 posted previously if you disagree). We invaded Iraq because Samdam Hussein had repeatedly violated seventeen United Nations Security Council Resolutions designed to ensure that Iraq did not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, Iraq tried over the previous decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which were reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions, not to mention repeated violations of attacks on our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones (there were something like more than 400 occerrences). We had every leagal, Moral ,and ethical right to Invade Iraq. In fact an american leader who would stand by in the face of more continued breaches (in the face of the POSSIBILITY of Iraq possessing WMD's) would have been negligent.

     Did the administration see other possible benefits of invading Iraq (like the possibility of creating a democratic stae in the middle east, freeing people from opression, and removing a man from power how paid "bounties" to the families of Palestinian terrorists for conducting suicide missions.) Im sure the did. and I have no problem with that, but the possibilities of WMD's and refusal for inspections was enough in itself....

     Bottom line. BUS DID the right thing. Now it's time to pull together and support our troops in tough situations (like other generations have did during wars) and stop the Political BS.

     Posted by jzimm at 07/10/2005 @ 10:53am

156. Hi Blink. I Have to be quick which is hard for me as you may be able to tell.

     You can Philosophize all you want but I can assure you WE are not the same as THEM. I guess the distinction is that WE belive in personal freedoms and tolerance and THEY believe it is their duty to kill people who don't believe as them. I guess then you would have to pick what SIDE you are on. If you believe in what Al Quaida believes, then you can see me as evil. If you beleive other than what Al Quida does; that people are free to worship (or not) and to believe what they what to believe AND that it is wrong to kill people because of that, then terrorists are Evil. Thats what I believe.

     It seems from your explanation then that there truly is no such thing as evil. its all amatter of perspective.Maybe we are stuck on the symantics. According to your standard then the Nazi's were not evil? If you asked a Nazi why they committed genocide on the jews they would say that they believed in what they were doing therefore that doesn't make them Evil?

     Im obviously not on the Side of the Terrorists. They are evil to me and to my God.

     Posted by jzimm at 07/10/2005 @ 11:20am

157. I think that alleviating poverty is a good thing to do on its own terms. However, I am at a loss to understand how alleviating poverty will prevent terrorism.

     In an interesting book by Walter Lacquer, No End To War, he catalogs rather clearly that there are no economic or social predictors regarding either the aims of a group of terrorists or the groups which will produce terrorists. Which is to say, the theory that poverty and terrorism are connected does not stand up to scrutiny.

     This, to be clear, is not to suggest that ridding the world of poverty is a bad idea. Clearly, ridding the world of poverty would be a good idea.

     In the case of the Islamists, the first thing to consider, if one wishes to at least understand them, is that their goals - by their own words - are entirely within the Islamic tradition and to advance Islamic interests. They are not remotely the result of poverty and, moreover, those involved have tended to be well educated and relatively well off. And their aims, if one bothers to look at the countries which have become more Islamic, have not been to achieve justice or equality or any other goal that we, in the West, might consider worthy. One need only look at Afghanistan and Sudan to realize that the aim is a reactionary theocracy which terrorizes anyone not following Islam as the Islamists understand the faith.

     The most notable stated goal of the Islamists is to restore the Caliphate and the rule of Shari'a (i.e. Muslim law) to the Muslim regions and to pursue the basic Islamic goal to bring Muslim rule, by Jihad if need be, to those regions of the world ruled by infidel. The best translation into Western terms is that the Islamists seek power to dominate others.

     And note: the appeal of the Islamists to their fellow Muslims is one of status and power and not, primarily, an appeal to improve the living standards or lives of Muslims. In that regard, the Islamist appeal is akin to the appeal that the fascists and Nazis had, namely, to national status and, in the case of the Islamists, to the heirarchal status of the Islam in world power.

     Which is to say, it is wonderful that the President now seeks to fight poverty and the like. Such, however, will not take us one step closer to defeating the Islamists.

     Posted by N. Friedman at 07/10/2005 @ 1:02pm

158. HI JZ -

     In our language, the word Nazi has become literally synonymous with the word Evil - as has the word Saddam, as has the word Bush in Arabic. So, language is on your side in this one.

     But it is, I maintain, still a matter of perspective. I'm not sure how you would characterize those American troops who in certain cases tortured Arabs to death at Abu Graib, Gitmo and elsewhere - but to me, they would seem to share something with Al-Qaida and with those German fighters in WWII. And like those Germans, they believed their acts to be wholly justified and wholly right. "Higher Good", believe it or not, motivates all behavior - even systematic torture.

     By self-definition we in this country stand for Truth, Justice, and Freedom For All. (Or something like that.) It's a convenient belief. We are Good, and They are Bad. It's a happy perspective.

     But it can also be a destructive one. Because it's an unbalanced view and lacks any self-critical element, it leads to hubris and to over-reaching. Such truths occur, of course, in separate versions on all sides of every conflict. Wise leadership (which these days is primarily a theoretical construct), understands this phenomenon, and seeks to work within the context of that understanding.

     So, in my opinion the best position to hold in any dispute is neither that of an Us, or of a Them (which often makes me a Them in the eyes of just about everybody.). Unless of course Us refers to All of Us, and not just the US :-), and those who reflect most closely our own set of imprinted values. The challenge for the evolving mind is always to see beyond parochial values, and to avoid their uncritical affirmation - particularly through the use of force or violence. Al-Qaida is mired in the latter course, as were our German friends 60 years ago, and as are we, I'm afraid, today in Iraq.

     But now to your greatest calumny, JZ. In all of your rantings and in all of your support for this administration, you expressed NO ENVY in your latest response regarding my glorious evening last night with pulchritudinous youth! (i.e. Hot Chicks!!) Not a single word, sir!

     Where are those values I hear so much of? Where is your sense of decency? Where is your pride as an American?!

     And you call yourself a Marine? Oh, my dear sir, you are most definitely a Marine in retirement. :-)

     Hey. You know I'm just kidding. You have my best, my friend. And in all sincerity, thank you for your service to this country - which is something I'll admit I never quite got around to providing.

     B.

     PS - And also thanks to "frannie" for his support. :-)

     Posted by Blinky at 07/10/2005 @ 1:37pm

159. To N.Friedman -

     A beautifully written post. Regarding your last sentence, the reduction of poverty may not make a dent in terrorism, but our actions in that effort may indeed have an effect on how we are perceived. That, I would hope, might make a difference.

     B.

     Posted by Blinky at 07/10/2005 @ 1:46pm

160. One final comment for today. I finally got around to reading FrankGrits entire last post, which most importantly regards his son being in the military. This much be wrenching, and I'm sorry I did not acknowledge it sooner. Of course, all my best to someone in your difficult position. I have a son - and a new grandchild - and would not want to trade places with you.

     B.

     Posted by Blinky at 07/10/2005 @ 2:04pm

161. The Poor Man [thepoorman.net]

     TERRORISM - THE UNTOLD STORY

     I'm worried that the murder of dozens of people on their way to work in London may distract people from the fact that terrorists are bad. Thankfully, someone has put together a list of bad things done by terrorists [obsidianwings.blogs.com], so that next time you see a bunch of dead bodies lying around, killed by terrorists, you won't have to wonder "so, is this good or bad?" You can just look at these 18 bad things done by terrorists, prefaced by a couple of paragraphs explaining how bad they are, and, after some reflection, determine that terrorists are, indeed, bad.

     Even more importantly, it reminds us to hate the terrorists, because terrorists are bad, and we shouldn't like things that are bad. Rather, contrariwise, we should hate bad things. Not "like". Hate. The opposite. I fear that, with all the talk about how to stop terrorism, evaluating if our anti-terrorism strategy is working, and, naturally, how to turn terrorist attacks into cold, hard cash, we may be overlooking the subtle point that terrorism is bad, terrorists are bad for doing bad terrorism which is bad, and that you should hate stuff when it's bad. This argument of moral theory is quite advanced, so you may wish to have a few volumes of Kant handy before you attempt it yourself.

     Sometimes, I wonder how much better off we'd be if, instead of wasting our time examining problems rationally, and trying to think up logical and effective ways of solving them, we'd just totally hate them. Like, suppose it was dark. Instead of noodling around with candles and what have you, what if we just got really, really, REALLY mad at the dark, and maybe even cursed it. We could make a list of 18 things that we hate about the dark - it's hard to see, it's easy to stub your toe, it's full of werewolves, etc. - and just like totally hated on the dark until we couldn't breathe, and went around screaming at people to stop distracting themselves with matches and lighters and whatnot, and just get to the serious business of hating the dark. (Or are they, in fact, objectively pro-werewolf?) And we could run around in a blind fury, hitting things randomly, because, like we TOTALLY HATE THAT FUCKING DARK!!!exclaimationpoint!!, and, if it got darker, well, so much the better for focusing us on how hateful the accursed dark truly is. Because I really, really, really hate the dark. And terrorists.

     God, I have such a boner right now.

     Posted by Elephantitis at 8:45 AM | Permalink

     Posted by marduk1 at 07/10/2005 @ 3:43pm

162. You guys are being WAY to wordy.

     This blog was labeled "How to Fight Terrorism"

     Here's the answer; kill all the dudes with AK's that carry Korans and don't speak very good English.

     Thanks,

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/10/2005 @ 4:37pm

163. To BLINKY,

     Thank you for your kind words.

     As for your statement that we might be perceived better if we were more generous, I would certainly like to think it were true. But, even if it is not true - which is what I believe to be more likely - we should help others because it is the right think to do.

     Posted by N. Friedman at 07/10/2005 @ 6:01pm

164. Frank - since you offered an olive branch (although it was mixed in with the "True Marine" crap) I will start off by saying that I apppreciate you and your sons sacrifice and I pray every night for our nation and our troops and their families that they have waiting for them back home(as does the rest of my family). To quickly answer your question as to where I get my news from here is a TRUE account...first I get most of my news from online services - whatever is on the front page of Netscape Yahoo etc. Then in order of my preferences I will got to MSNBC.com, CNN.com, ABCNEWS.com and Foxnews.com (I know how conservative feel so I don't need to stay tuned to fox unless I need to hear a more balanced report), I also read local news channels as well as listening to Rush and sometimes checking his opionion on his website. Does that satisfy you. Doesn't it strike you as Odd that I am on a liberal website like The Nation??? and yes I have been to Michael Moores website (when I need to get amused). If you are counting on Michael Moore for your "Facts" then that explains quite alot. I suggest you read the article at this site http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/ please please please read....It is written by Christopher Hitchens who oddly enough used to write for The Nation magazine. In case you don't have time to go to the site here is a review from Christopher regarding Michael Moore and Farenhype (oops Heit) 9-11. Moore's crowning achievement of Truth and craftmanship.

     "To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery."

     after the scathing review the article goes on to list FACTS..Please read. It won't take long. Tell me what Mr. Hitchens is wrong about.

     There are other papers such as farenhype911, and a research article that list 59 lies from the movie. So before you "crack" on my sources of information please check yours. Most of your liberal friends would probably even agree that Michael Moore is a joke.

     I have plenty of contact with people still in the Military. My neighbor is giving up a good paying job and leaving two young childern behind to go serve as an MP for a unit that is going to IRAQ. He is proud. So am I and every neighbor I have talked to. I can list a variety of sites that you can go to to read the letters of service men and women how are proud to be serving our country and and know that we are on the right course.

     THE CLINTON MILITARY. you have to be kidding. Look back at Zell Millers Speach from the Republican convention(the Democartic Senator) - coming from a TRUE MARINE as you like to say your comments seem to be from another planet! are your really saying Clinton was for a strong Military and Bush and Reagan were not. That is laughable to the point that it really isn't worth wasting any more time on. You are out of touch and hearing only what you want to hear.

     The "Bring em on" and "Mission Complete stuff" was for morale. So was landing on the aircraft carrier. From a Military persons perspective I loved it. If you disagree with that you must also dis agree with Some of these:

     "the only thing we have to fear is Fear Itself" -FDR

     "It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war." -John F. Kennedy

     "One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half." -Sir Winston Churchill

     Finally I will end this long winded ramble with 1 question I hope you will answer for me...It's a hypothetical.

     If you were the president of the United States. Given Sadam Husseins past history, and 10 years of violating UN Sanctions and the orignal Gulf War Treaty, AND you had credible INTELLIGENCE that Sadam possessed or was trying to Possess WMD's. What would you have done in Bush's place? ( I know you believe that he fixed the intelligence...but this is if YOU were president and that was the intelligence that YOU recieved.)

     Posted by jzimm at 07/10/2005 @ 9:14pm

165. Blink - You make me laugh with your BIG words and congratulations on your memorable evening with the ladies. Unfortunatley I have nothing so exciting to report as I spent the weekend playing Mr. mom to a 6 year ols and a 4 year old while my wife was caring for her ailing mother.

     I don't know if I would consider having naked pictures taken of me torture (maybe for the viewer though =) or what about the air conditioning turned up on high.. torture?? I haven't heard of any GI's convicted of murdering a prisoner at Gitmo or Abu Graihb. Sure the are some bad soldiers or people that get carried away (in any population there are going to be crimes). But that is the difference. with US (sorry) it is someone that has gone too far, and when caught these people are punished. While our enemy actually tortue and behead their captives - videop tape the massacre and are viewed as heros by their peers.

     I think you are helping me in my definition of evil.

     Posted by jzimm at 07/10/2005 @ 9:45pm

166. Well, I'm a bit stung by your criticism of my writing. I considered my posts as letters to a potential friend, and was not trying to humiliate you in any way.

     Best to you, JZ.

     B.

     Posted by Blinky at 07/10/2005 @ 11:29pm

167. Again, to N.Friedman -

     Not to overstate things too dramatically here, but another perfect post IMO. Once more, thanks.

     B.

     Posted by Blinky at 07/10/2005 @ 11:35pm

168. Hey JZ -

     Maybe I misunderstood your opening remark. Maybe you were pleasantly amused by those BIG WORDS, and not put off by them. So, I shall make that assumption, and continue the discussion, if you don't mind.

     I think by saying that "we don't do those kind of things around here" [my paraphrase], you might be suggesting that cultures evolve and progress (although "beheading" was never much in vogue in these parts, as it was in Europe), and that today we in this country are less likely to enslave, to lynch, and to exterminate (i.e. Native Americans) than we were in the not-so-distant past. If that was at least a part of your point, I very much agree.

     But remembering that past, and understanding our own culpability as a people within that context, we should be more able, and not less able, to identify with those from outside cultures where crimes of a similar magnitude still occur; knowing as we do (from our now higher vantage point) that eventually those cultures will move beyond those behaviors.

     If you or I had lived in the South some 75 years ago as "average rural whites", we very likely might not have viewed "lynchin'" as much of a big thing. It was just what happened to blacks (well, you know what we'd really call 'em) when they got "above themselves", and started behaving like they deserved the privileges of white folk. And it was more from outside pressures, rather than from any internal soul-searching, that those violent behaviors eventually ceased - or nearly ceased.

     So times have changed, although most would agree there's still plenty of room for improvement.

     "Evil", it should be apparent to us, is defined by local culture. It always has been. It's important to recognize this, so that we are not deluded into thinking that we are somehow "better" than those we now perceive to be Evil. Truth is, we're actually just coming from another place and time - and not from some higher rung on an Absolute Ethical Ladder.

     As stated earlier, this important recognition leads to humility, rather than to hubris. That's simply a good place to come from (always has been), when dealing with Terrorists, lynch mobs, or really anyone else.

     Again, sorry for what I now think was my misinterpretation earlier. I actually ENVY your Mr. Mom status. Those particular years I consider some of the best of my life - far outweighing my current fantasy sex-life with the Gen-X crowd. (Truth is, I never seem to get beyond the 2nd dance.)

     Best - B.

     Posted by Blinky at 07/11/2005 @ 03:56am

169. You guys are being WAY to wordy.

     This blog was labeled "How to Fight Terrorism"

     Here's the answer; kill all the dudes with AK's that carry Korans and don't speak very good English.

     I think these disgusting comments by OKSPORTSGUY do a good job of illustrating precisely why Evangelicals, Southern Baptists and the disciples of bloody-minded latter day false prophets like Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye and Pat Robertson are such absolute filth.

     Kurt Nimmo sheds some light on the mindset of these bastard children [64.233.179.104] of [64.233.179.104] Scofield [64.233.179.104] in the following post.

     http://kurtnimmo.com/blog/index.php?p=515 [kurtnimmo.com]

     January 28, 2005

     Under Mars: Perfectly Normal for Yahoo Redneck God-Fearing Soldiers

     Australian expat Iraqis are apparently clueless. They are outraged by a photo gallery (http://www.undermars.com/ [undermars.com]) chock full of photos of dead Iraqis, blown to bloody pieces by "our" troops in Iraq, complete with tasteless and insensitive captions. "It is abhorrent to see gruesome pictures of dead bodies in Iraq posted on this offending website," complained Australian Iraqi Forum president Dr Riadh al-Mahaidi [uruknet.info]. "It is no less cruel and sickening than web postings by terrorist groups of decapitated bodies of kidnapped victims."

     Right you are, Riadh, but, seriously, what do you expect? These guys are only doing what they were trained to do -- kill people, without remorse, and then make fun of it, although I'm sure the making fun part is not included in the military training, it is simply the yahoo and redneck character of the soldiers, the same testosterone mentality of weekend deer hunters, posing with their prey, drinking beer and making stupid jokes. As part of the military dehumanization process, dead Iraqis are no different than ten point bucks stretched out proudly on car hoods. Here is a snapshot of your typical Iraqi deer hunter [undermars.com], drinking his favorite brew, probably relaxing after an evening of kicking in doors and terrorizing Iraqi women and children.

     As disturbing and sick as photos of dead and dismembered Iraqis are, this particular photo [undermars.com] is even more alarming -- a soldier with Psalm 21 marked up on his helmet. It brings to mind the Christian nature of the occupation, as detailed by Lieutenant General William Boykin, an evangelical Christian who believes Muslims are sub-human. As Boykin told thousands of Christian Zionists on a whirlwind tour, Bush's "war on terrorism" is a holy war against Satan and redneck yahoo soldiers are doing God's work because the United States is a "Christian nation." It was later discovered Boykin was connected to the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, a development that should not be surprising, since fanatical Christians have tortured and killed unbelievers and heretics for centuries. "This will be taken as proof that what happened at Abu Ghraib (prison) is evidence of a broader culture of dehumanizing Arabs and Muslims, based on the American understanding of the innate superiority of Christendom," Chris Toensing [abc.net.au], editor of Middle East Report, told ABC News last May.

     In fact, for many Republicans in Congress, Boykin is a hero. On the Christian Coalition's web site, Roberta Combs [cc.org], in her Washington Weekly Review column (November 7, 2003), mentions a "Dear Colleague" letter, authored by Congressman Todd Tiahrt, R-KS and signed by some 16 Members of the House, entitled "Lieutenant General William Boykin: American Hero." Combs writes: "Congressman [Todd Akin, R-MO] says regarding liberal criticism of General Boykin's remarks in churches about radical Islamists, 'Perhaps instead of castigating this authentic America hero, Congress should simply say, "thank you" for his service to our country.'" As for the events Mr. Akin is paying tribute to, simply reference the Under Mars web site, or take a look at the Abu Ghraib photos.

     It should come as no surprise the invasion and occupation of Iraq is a Judeo-Christian Crusade against Islam, as our so-called president is supposedly a "born-again" Christian, beholden to Christian Reconstructionists [kuro5hin.org] who want to impose biblical law not only on America but the entire world. For more on these whacked out zealots, who weigh so heavily on Washington and the Republican Party, read Rob Boston's Operation Potomac [au.org].

     For Evans and Christian Reconstructionists, mass murdering 100,000 or more Iraqis is no problem, since their Old Testament God, the same God worshipped by Zionists who kill Palestinian school children, is himself a serial murderer of "first born" children and entire races of people. "In the fundamentalist mind killing God's enemies is not murder even if it is a child or genocide," a letter sent to the Bristol Herald Courier [sullivan-county.com] notes. "The reality is that anyone who doesn't follow their beliefs is God's enemy." Mass murder and genocide of Arabs and Muslims is a natural for fanatics such as Pat Robertson [cnsnews.com], founder of the Christian Coalition and a proponent of Christian Reconstructionism, who tells Americans to wake up and "see who your real enemies are" and preaches that the "Koran teaches that the end of the world will not come until every Jew is killed by Muslims."

     "At first sight, an alliance between right-wing Christian fundamentalists and right-wing Zionist fundamentalists might appear too bizarre to be true," writes William Bowles [informationclearinghouse.info]. "But not if their long-term aims coincide as they do with the Bush and Sharon governments." As Bowles correctly notes, the United States has consistently supported "the fascist side of Israeli colonialism" since Israel's inception "because the creation of Israel acted as a block to Arab nationalism and of course, as long as the Arab nations remain divided, gives free access to the vast oil reserves so crucial to the US economy," and also gives free reign to the Zionist dream of Greater Israel. "Zionism means a Jewish state in all of Eretz Israel, without Arabs," writes Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery [redress.btinternet.co.uk]. "This is a historical process. Zionism always knew how to realize at every phase what could be realized at that stage. It understood the limitations of power and took at every point what it could take, without giving up its determination to achieve the rest in due course."

     But with the United States in tow, under the "leadership" of the Christian Zionist Bush and the Zionist Strausscons -- who are more Zionist than Sharon and more akin to Israeli settlers in their viciousness -- the "final phase" of "Eretz Israel" is now within reach, or so the Likudite-Strausscon faction, now more than ever in control of the Pentagon and Congress, believe. It is common knowledge, or it should be anyway, that Eretz Yisrael [en.wikipedia.org] encompasses not only the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but Jordan, south-western Syria, and southern Lebanon as well. Many Israelis, however, consider this empire even larger, "from the River of Egypt to the Great River, the river Euphrates," as the Jewish God told Abraham in the Bible. Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, "described the territory over which the Zionist movement laid claim as inclusive of all the land 'from the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.' The territory embraced all of Lebanon and Jordan, two thirds of Syria, one-half of Iraq, a strip of Turkey, one-half of Kuwait, one third of Saudi Arabia, the Sinai and Egypt, including Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo," writes Ralph Schoenman [marxists.de].

     Since Jesus cannot return, according to Bush's evangelical supporters, until Israel dominates the Middle East, facilitating the Likudite-Strausscon plan for World War IV, as described by the Strausscons, is of primary importance. "The US and its president are totally helpless before the Christian extremists, who put Israel's interest first," explains Abid Ullah Jan [usa.mediamonitors.net]. "Their torch bearers, such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, believe Israeli hegemony in the Middle East represents the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy about the coming of Jesus. A prophecy, in their view, can be self-fulfilling: it is, however, their Christian duty to expedite it. These themes are the ever-increasing force behind conservative support for Bush's war policy and the new efforts to spread the conflict to Syria, Iran, and beyond."

     Thus it is perfectly natural for a US soldier to mark up his helmet with Psalm 21 [usccb.org], which reads in part: "Your hand will reach all your enemies; your right hand will reach your foes! At the time of your coming you will drive them into a furnace. Then the Lord's anger will consume them, devour them with fire. Even their descendants you will wipe out from the earth, their offspring from the human race." In other words, genocide is completely natural, even expected, in fact demanded by God.

     So it is not surprising there is a web gallery of digital images glorifying the grisly murder of Iraqis, complete with sarcastic commentary. It is a natural extension of the Christian Recon-Strausscon-Likudite plan to "wipe out from the earth" all Arabs and Muslims who do not accept Greater Israel, "from the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates." Remarkably, millions of Americans, who consider themselves evangelical Christians, not only buy into this homicidal madness, they believe genocide and mass murder is mandatory if the "King of Peace" is to return and they are to sit on the "right-hand side of God," minus Arabs and Muslims, of course.

     Posted by marduk1 at 07/11/2005 @ 07:37am

170. Clintons Military?? what a joke

     All of the major weapons systems employed in this war were designed and mostly produced before Clinton's warped White House ways. In the case of the B-52, the first prototype was produced when Clinton was a toddler. The B-1B is a Ronald Reagan bomber as is the B-2.

     R&D for the JDAMs began before Clinton, and the Tomahawk cruise missile was used in the 1991 Gulf War. The tail kit availability for the JDAMs has increased since the Gulf War, but to say the JDAMs are credited to Bill Clinton is--as appropriate for Clinton--a lie.

     The F-14, F-15, F-16, and A-10 are all Richard Nixon era aircraft, while the F-18 Hornet first flew during the Carter failed presidency. The F18E/F model is the Navy's newest aircraft and is a Bill Clinton era aircraft, but it is an upgraded model of the original F-18.

     The M-16 was used when Bill Clinton was dodging the draft during the Vietnam War and in Moscow spitting on the US flag when he was not burning it. The Paladin howitzer and the Abrams tank are both Ronald Reagan weapons systems.

     All of the aircraft carriers on duty in Operation Iraqi Freedom were designed or built before Clinton's corrupt regime. The newest carrier, the CVN-75, the USS Harry S. Truman on duty in Iraq, had its keel laid in 1993 but was funded before Clinton defiled the White House.

     The Predator and the Global Hawk were designed during Clinton's impersonation of Commander in Chief. These recon systems have helped us greatly with intelligence, but even if we did not have them, the forces still would have attained military victory, although at a possibly higher casualty count.

     Posted by jzimm at 07/11/2005 @ 08:42am

171. Bill Clinton's military"? Not only was Clinton not the president when these hardware systems were produced, but what good is a military if the president does not use it?

     Bill Clinton's derelict actions regarding Mogadishu, Somalia cost very brave Americans their lives. Clinton refused to give these brave soldiers the military hardware they needed and Clinton had. What did "Bill Clinton's military" do about Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 1995 when Americans were killed? What did "Bill Clinton's military" do about the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996? What did "Bill Clinton's military" do about the US Embassy bombings in 1998? What did "Bill Clinton's military" do about an attack on a US naval vessel, the USS Cole in 2000? Other than stand in front of a podium and bite his lip while mumbling the same tired old "we will hunt down these criminals and bring them to justice", he did absolutely nothing.

     President Bush has shown the will to fight where Clinton showed the desire for flight away from any responsibility of a real Commander in Chief.

     Posted by jzimm at 07/11/2005 @ 08:43am

172. Indeed there are a few things that Clinton "handed off" to President Bush--Sept 11, 2001, Afghanistan, Iraq, and North Korea. Clinton was a traitor to the United States who attempted to hide under his desk after repeated attacks on the United States but could not do so only because a fat intern beat him to it.

     Posted by jzimm at 07/11/2005 @ 08:46am

173. Frank Since you won't adress the Article about Michael Moore - Here its is for everyone else to read qabout your hero: This is the rest of Chris Hitchens:

     In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something--I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now--has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.

     Recruiters in Michigan

     Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:

     1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.

     2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.

     3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.

     4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.

     5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.

     6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)

     It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all--the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002--or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar--an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building--is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left--like the parties of the Iraqi secular left--are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.

     He prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction. In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11. I banged on about this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column drawing attention to the groveling Larry King interview with the insufferable Prince Bandar, which Moore excerpts. However, recent developments have not been kind to our Mike. In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of the flights. And Richard Clarke, Bush's former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures. This might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11, except that--as you might expect--Clarke is presented throughout as the brow-furrowed ethical hero of the entire post-9/11 moment. And it does not seem very likely that, in his open admission about the Bin Laden family evacuation, Clarke is taking a fall, or a spear in the chest, for the Bush administration. So, that's another bust for this windy and bloated cinematic "key to all mythologies."

     A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?) But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.

     The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm. More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say--that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup. This is the line taken by Gore Vidal and by a scandalous recent book that also revives the charge of FDR's collusion over Pearl Harbor. At least Moore's film should put the shameful purveyors of that last theory back in their paranoid box.

     But it won't because it encourages their half-baked fantasies in so many other ways. We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then--wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic. You would also be led to think that the term "civilian casualty" had not even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003. I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and he doesn't now, either. I'll just say that the "insurgent" side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that's not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)

     That this--his pro-American moment--was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled--Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more--the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported--and the David Kay report had established--that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)

     Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind, you can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem. No problem at all. Now look again at the facts I have cited above. If these things had been allowed to happen under any other administration, you can be sure that Moore and others would now glibly be accusing the president of ignoring, or of having ignored, some fairly unmistakable "warnings."

     The same "let's have it both ways" opportunism infects his treatment of another very serious subject, namely domestic counterterrorist policy. From being accused of overlooking too many warnings--not exactly an original point--the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many. (Would there not have been "fear" if the harbingers of 9/11 had been taken seriously?) We are shown some American civilians who have had absurd encounters with idiotic "security" staff. (Have you ever met anyone who can't tell such a story?) Then we are immediately shown underfunded police departments that don't have the means or the manpower to do any stop-and-search: a power suddenly demanded by Moore on their behalf that we know by definition would at least lead to some ridiculous interrogations. Finally, Moore complains that there isn't enough intrusion and confiscation at airports and says that it is appalling that every air traveler is not forcibly relieved of all matches and lighters. (Cue mood music for sinister influence of Big Tobacco.) So--he wants even more pocket-rummaging by airport officials? Uh, no, not exactly. But by this stage, who's counting? Moore is having it three ways and asserting everything and nothing. Again--simply not serious.

     Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in each other's pockets, as is alleged in a sort of vulgar sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats, then how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad? The Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq's recuperated oil industry might challenge their near-monopoly. They fear the liberation of the Shiite Muslims they so despise. To make these elementary points is to collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the film's "theory." Perhaps Moore prefers the pro-Saudi Kissinger/Scowcroft plan for the Middle East, where stability trumps every other consideration and where one dare not upset the local house of cards, or killing-field of Kurds? This would be a strange position for a purported radical. Then again, perhaps he does not take this conservative line because his real pitch is not to any audience member with a serious interest in foreign policy. It is to the provincial isolationist.

     I have already said that Moore's film has the staunch courage to mock Bush for his verbal infelicity. Yet it's much, much braver than that. From Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden disclosures, such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," and the use of "spin" in the presentation of our politicians. It's high time someone had the nerve to point this out. There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn't know that. Back in Flint, Mich., Moore feels on safe ground. There are no martyred rabbits this time. Instead, it's the poor and black who shoulder the packs and rifles and march away. I won't dwell on the fact that black Americans have fought for almost a century and a half, from insisting on their right to join the U.S. Army and fight in the Civil War to the right to have a desegregated Army that set the pace for post-1945 civil rights. I'll merely ask this: In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.) Well, where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come from? Does he favor a draft--the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines? Does he think--as he seems to suggest--that parents can "send" their children, as he stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do? Would he have abandoned Gettysburg because the Union allowed civilians to pay proxies to serve in their place? Would he have supported the antidraft (and very antiblack) riots against Lincoln in New York? After a point, one realizes that it's a waste of time asking him questions of this sort. It would be too much like taking him seriously. He'll just try anything once and see if it floats or flies or gets a cheer.

     Trying to talk congressmen into sending their sons to war

     Indeed, Moore's affected and ostentatious concern for black America is one of the most suspect ingredients of his pitch package. In a recent interview, he yelled that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black, they would have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men and women (and children). Never mind for now how many black passengers were on those planes--we happen to know what Moore does not care to mention: that Todd Beamer and a few of his co-passengers, shouting "Let's roll," rammed the hijackers with a trolley, fought them tooth and nail, and helped bring down a United Airlines plane, in Pennsylvania, that was speeding toward either the White House or the Capitol. There are no words for real, impromptu bravery like that, which helped save our republic from worse than actually befell. The Pennsylvania drama also reminds one of the self-evident fact that this war is not fought only "overseas" or in uniform, but is being brought to our cities. Yet Moore is a silly and shady man who does not recognize courage of any sort even when he sees it because he cannot summon it in himself. To him, easy applause, in front of credulous audiences, is everything.

     Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning. I notice from the New York Times of June 20 that he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack. He'll sue, Moore says, if anyone insults him or his pet. Some right-wing hack groups, I gather, are planning to bring pressure on their local movie theaters to drop the film. How dumb or thuggish do you have to be in order to counter one form of stupidity and cowardice with another? By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation.

     However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point. And as for the scary lawyers--get a life, or maybe see me in court. But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of.

     Some people soothingly say that one should relax about all this. It's only a movie. No biggie. It's no worse than the tomfoolery of Oliver Stone. It's kick-ass entertainment. It might even help get out "the youth vote." Yeah, well, I have myself written and presented about a dozen low-budget made-for-TV documentaries, on subjects as various as Mother Teresa and Bill Clinton and the Cyprus crisis, and I also helped produce a slightly more polished one on Henry Kissinger that was shown in movie theaters. So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage.

     Perhaps vaguely aware that his movie so completely lacks gravitas, Moore concludes with a sonorous reading of some words from George Orwell. The words are taken from 1984 and consist of a third-person analysis of a hypothetical, endless, and contrived war between three superpowers. The clear intention, as clumsily excerpted like this (...) is to suggest that there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing. If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:

     -The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

     And that's just from Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word of advice: In general, it's highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It's also incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric celluloid rewriting of recent history.

     If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.

     Posted by jzimm at 07/11/2005 @ 08:57am

174. The terror bombings in London are the bitter fruit of the Bush-Blair invasion-occupation of Iraq. That is obvious. Anyone who does not believe this is in serious denial. The actions of U.S. policy overseas are creating more terrorists every day(latest CIA internal report). The Democratic leadership wants more troops...sad and wrong. The only answer is to stop stirring up the hornet nest...withdraw and let Iraq dissolve into its natural groups of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. Anything else is doomed to fail with us spending more blood and money.

     Posted by philbq at 07/11/2005 @ 08:59am

175. Moore, like all of us, is flawed - and Hitchens is brilliant in exploiting those flaws.

     But he reveals many of his own. His attacks are even more visceral and less even-handed than Moore's. He expresses but one sponsoring emotion: contempt. He fails to acknowledge the many obvious flaws in the Bush approach to war and to foreign policy in general, and ultimately denounces diatribe with diatribe.

     Hitchens is a brilliant writer, but he is not emotionally sophisticated. He advances low thought and feeling with high skill. I'm just relieved that I saw the film, and have my own perspective.

     B.

     Posted by Blinky at 07/11/2005 @ 11:12am

176. "What is YOUR solution to the problem of poverty in this country other than bemoaning the 'failed policies' of the democrats."

     Do away with welfare, too many of them have become dependant on MY tax dollars. Communism failed in Russia becuase MOST people do not have the desire to make it through High School, then through College, then hold down a good job, they will live off of the drive of others. This is exactly why communism failed in Russia and why the same version "government sanctioned communism" via distributing my tax money to others through food stamps etc.

     The answer? Stop it all together, let people give through thier churches or other similiar organizations where they can make sure the money is only going to those who are willing to accept and make a change in thier life, i.e. a "hand up" instead of a "hand out"

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/11/2005 @ 11:20am

177. The problem is:

     That the hornet's nest never needed much, if any, stirring. A seemingly endless series of unprovoked terrorist attacks on U.S. civilians and military personnel has been the norm since the 1970's. Withdrawing troops and praying that Islamists can be reasoned with won't work.

     Far too many Islamofascist appeasers in the U.S. and in Europe are prematurely deeming our military operations "disasters". There is still a good chance that the democratically-elected governments in Iraq and Afghanistan will take hold, at least in some form. Furthermore, democratic movements in Lebanon, Kuwait, and among Palestinians is encouraging.

     There is no doubt that our military actions stimulate recruitment among terrorist ranks in the short term. However, the Islamist's twisted vision of a return to the Caliphate suffers significant setbacks every time: they're annihilated on the battlefield; women and ethnic minorities in the Arab world vote or demonstrate; and secular governments impose their authority.

     They will not be impressed with the misguided empathy or ceaseless self-loathing of our academics and "progessive" politicans. They will view it as a weakness and an invitation to attack us again.

     Posted by Beausoleil at 07/11/2005 @ 11:26am

178. Gee, JZIMM, if I had wanted to revisit that crap by Hitchens, I would have looked it up on Slate...thanks for the pointless regurgitation of a year-old movie review! Was Moore's film really the topic of this article?

     cyclops

     Posted by cyclops at 07/11/2005 @ 11:36am

179. Beautifully Put -BEAUSOLEIL-

     Cyclops - NoFahrenhype 911 wasn't the subject of the article, I wasn't the person who brought Michael Mooron into the Debate, that was Frank. If you don't want to read the article then SCROLL BABY SCROLL =) - besides now that I think of it Michael Moores Dope-Umentary (err.. documentary) does fit into the debate of "Fighting Terrorism" when you think about it from the context of the damage that His Lies, and spin can have on the morale of an uninformed mind, not to mention the encouragement and satisfaction that terrorist must recieve from his expressions of "Love for his Country"

     Posted by jzimm at 07/11/2005 @ 1:23pm

180. JZIMM, Tell me more of the 'uninformed mind.' On this topic, I will gladly yield to your much greater insight...

     Frank, yeah I have been actively avoiding posting because it really seems an exercise in futility. One is either preaching to/rousing the choir or engaging in pointless debates with nitwits seemingly incapable of rational thought...

     I have, however, continued to enjoy your efforts to enlighten. You and your son have my utmost respect!

     Peace Out,

     cyclops

     Posted by cyclops at 07/11/2005 @ 2:04pm

181. To those that think the simple answer to terrorism is to demonize terrorists and kill as many of them as possible, I have consistently responded that we are generating terrorists rather than eliminating terrorists. I was asked where I had evidence that we are creating terrorists, so here is a quick excerpt from a Bob Herbert editorial on nytimes.com:

     The C.I.A. warned the administration in a classified report in May that Iraq - since the American invasion in 2003 - had become a training ground in which novice terrorists were schooled in assassinations, kidnappings, car bombings and other terror techniques. The report said Iraq could prove to be more effective than Afghanistan in the early days of Al Qaeda as a place to train terrorists who could then disperse to other parts of the world, including the United States.

     Larry Johnson, a former C.I.A. analyst who served as deputy director of the State Department's counterterrorism office, said on National Public Radio last week: "You now in Iraq have a recruiting ground in which jihadists, people who previously were not willing to go out and embrace the vision of bin Laden and Al Qaeda, are now aligning themselves with elements that have declared allegiance to him. And in the course of that, they're learning how to build bombs. They're learning how to conduct military operations."

     Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/11/2005 @ 2:53pm

182. And how about a response that doesn't just blame the messenger i.e. "Oh that liberal idiot Bob Herbert"

     Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/11/2005 @ 2:54pm

183. Frank - sorry for introducing an article by cut and paste. As you can see from over the past 3 days that is not how I usually make my points, however I can see how painful it is to you to have to actually look at some facts regarding your Idol MM =)

     Cy- I wasn't calling YOU Uninformed - you've probably just been brainwashed, paranoid or just extremely naive (I don't know you well enough to judge). But there are a great deal people in the world how are ill informed and who are easliy swayed by anti-amercian propaganda like Fahrencrap 911. If nothing else, hopefully my taking a stand on this blog will reach 1 person with an open mind.

     on the other hand Cy thanks for calling me a nit-wit incapable of rational thought. If YOUR additions to this discussion are your standard of rational thought then I thank you for the compliment

     ps Frank - It seems that I was right when I said that even some of your liberal friends probably agree that MM is an A--hole...I enjoyed seeing you defending him to Blink.

     Posted by jzimm at 07/11/2005 @ 2:58pm

184. Thanks, Frank. I does my best, although political blogging is new to me, and I don't have a very complete tool-box at the moment.

     If I have an agenda around here, it would be to show respect for all sides. (I know. That sounds like weakness. But I maintain it's just the opposite.) Like you said, without an opposition we have no debate - and it's the debate (or discussion, if you prefer) that we all seem to thrive on.

     I don't agree with JZ much on the political front, but I respect the fact that he made it through the Marine Corp (I would have gone crying home to Mama in the first week), and that he's a devoted father. And he's really pretty sharp, you have to admit.

     Also, I am impressed with Beausoliel's clear thought-process and powers of expression. (Just wish they were employed on my side of the debate, that's all.) And I liked Cyclop's sentiments that persistent disagreement is futile. You, of course, are also aware of that.

     So, we'll see how this goes. But I'm enjoying myself so far.

     (And by the way, I completely concur with your take on Michael Moore.)

     Best - B.

     Posted by Blinky at 07/11/2005 @ 3:11pm

185. JZ - I honestly read your post after my last post to Frank, and therefore didn't make my MM comment in relation to yours. While I personally believe (perhaps incorrectly?) that MM has made some thin arguments in the past (now don't go using that quote against me :-) ), he is on balance one of my cultural heroes.

     (I hope this means we can still be friends.) :-)

     So, no digs were intended toward you in that last post.

     Best - B.

     Posted by Blinky at 07/11/2005 @ 3:19pm

186. JZIMM, I did not call you a nitwit. I was, in fact, responding to FRANKGRITS and commenting in general about my experiences thus far on this blog.

     I have, in fact, posted several more thoroughgoing analyses of the arguments/issues at hand in response to other articles/posts. That I choose not to engage you here is a byproduct of my previous attempts to use reason with the unreasonable.

     I don't know whehter you truly qualify as such or not, but I found it interesting that you so quickly assumed the moniker of nitwit was intended for you. I haven't even tried to engage you in real debate because I have read your posts and recognize that any effort along those lines would, indeed, prove futile...not so much because I lack the ability to counter your arguments, but because I believe you are beyond reach of the truth enamored as you seem of the lies.

     cyclops

     Posted by cyclops at 07/11/2005 @ 4:12pm

187. Here is an excellent interview that all supporters of Bush's current terrorism strategy should read. It is actually from Patrick Buchanan's American Conservative magazine, so maybe right wingers may actually read it. To sum up the article, the best way to fight suicide terrorism is to withdraw US troops from the middle east: http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html

     Posted by keh at 07/11/2005 @ 5:36pm

188. Cy- Thanks for sparing me the thorough WHOOPIN you must be capable of putting on me by not engaging in any real debate on this site. I guess I'll just have to take your word that you are so capable countering all my points as you have proven in OTHER SITES. If that is the case then why not stick to those sites? I must say with what I've seen from you so far I feel deprived of your brilliance.

     I didn't ASSUME the moniker of nit-wit you definitley called me one (and that is okay)

     here's your quote: "I have been actively avoiding posting because it really seems an exercise in futility. One is either preaching to/rousing the choir or engaging in pointless debates with nitwits seemingly incapable of rational thought."

     what other nit-wits other than me would you be referring to? was I excluded from the Choir of nit-wits posting on this site? Perhaps you could point out the nit-wits in the choir you were really referring to by name. Here is something new to you - the truth- YOU ARE A NIT WIT...There I wasn't afraid at all to say that..

     But then again you are free to back track now if you like - besides you should get used to it beacuse you will probably be doing a lot of that in the future, however, since it is the only thing you have really added to this discussion other then admonishing me for copying and pasting a painfl article regarding one of your liberal ICONS, I would suggest you stick to your comment. You can add the copy a paste stuff AND the nit-wit comment to the list of all your other REALLY INTELLIGENT comments that are on OTHER SITES.

     Frank - Since I have been kind enough to answer your questions maybe you can enlighten me on one of mine. I've asked it before but no one seems willing to pick up the gauntlet - I Know Cyclops - you probably already answered it before on another site and I wouldn't want you to cut and paste so no need bother- (hee hee...I even amuse myself sometimes).

     Here my Question: Say you were President of the United States and were faced with the same situation the George Bush was faced with in regards to Sadam Hussein and Iraq. Same history of genocide, rape, torture. Same history of breaking UN sanctions, and the Original Gulf War Treaty, Same daily attacks on planes patrolling the no fly zone, same Paying of terrorists families for suicide missions in Palestine (get the picture..im not making things up right?). IF (this is the big IF) you were handed Intelligence that Indicated that Iraq, could have WMD's, or was trying to Develop or acquire WMD's and the given the potential for Sadam to arm or sell these weapons to terrorist to use against the US (the comon enemy thing)what would you do (assuming you have already tried as Bush and Clinton had to force Sadam to comply through sanctions). What would have been your course of action?

     I know you will say Bush Manipulated the Intelligence but this IS the Hypothetical part. IT is your administration and you believe the intelligence to be correct.

     Posted by jzimm at 07/11/2005 @ 9:01pm

189. Hey Frank -

     Here's one you will love. Since you seem to belive that all soldiers feel the same as you SAY your son does. It's an Email from some soldiers toady in Iraq to Rush. It includes a picture of about 15 soldiers wearing their "Club Gitmo Shirts and Jihad Java mugs sent to them by Rush ( I can just sense your blood pressure

     Seems to put a dent in your theory that all these soldiers don't believe in their mission or president.

     Greetings from Camp Ramadi in Iraq again." This is the guy who sent us a picture, sent a great e-mail in; we sent him some Club G'itmo gear. We sent him a whole bunch of Club G'itmo gear. He says: "Greetings from Camp Ramadi here in Iraq again. We received your generous shipment of Club G'itmo apparel and Jihad Java coffee mugs in fine order here today. Suffice to say these items were used to officially inaugurate the grand opening of Club G'itmo East here in Iraq. I've enclosed with my e-mail a picture of our opening ceremony complete with soldiers, both on duty and off, enjoying some of the finer elements of life that many Americans partake in back home: Organized softball -- although we play in a real sandlot -- one-hole golf course complete with all the punkers you can play courtesy of the incoming mortars that make the most wonderful craters to play out of. What a great joint venture the insurgents have done for us by creating such a marvel with their measly bombs. It's a win-win situation.

     He goes on to describe how serious the war effort is, though, and once again, thanks Rush for the Club G'itmo gear. This is First Sergeant Paul Joseph of the 983rd Engineer Battalion. Camp Ramadi in Iraq has now been renamed Club G'itmo East. He said PS: "Since we are championing freedom and the freedom of speech, feel free to use my name and the unit as needed. We are neither ashamed nor won't deny what the truth is ever.

     I realize that these men are from the planet EARTH so it may be hard for you to comprehend Frank

     Posted by jzimm at 07/11/2005 @ 9:33pm

190. Frank -

     That was one of the two answers I had figured you would say. Your answer then is that you would basically do nothing - at least nothing that wasn't already failing (typical from your party).

     You're right about 1 thing though. Iraq was a Sovergn Nation, and as such was obliged to abide by the UN Sanctions that they breached for 10 years not to mention the Gulf War Treaty that they signed after they invaded the Soverign nation of Kuwait.

     Germany didn't attack America and they were a "Soverign Nation". I Guess we were wrong to declare war on them as well. After all it was Japan who attacked us?

     Was Yougoslavia A Soverign Nation? They were no threat to the United States - What A JOKE FRANK. You are such a hypocrite. By the way how is the rebuilding going on in that country?

     If that is your honest answer you would be ignoring the urging from John Kerry, and other Democratic Senators who previously had been urging more action against Iraq.I guess the only reliable intelligence that you would accept is a Mushroom Cloud Over Washington DC, but of course by then it would be too late. But that is the reasons that the Democrats keep loosing elections. THANK GOD that our President realized his responsibility to protect the american people and had the moral clarity to ACT. That is the DEFINITION OF A GREAT LEADER. Was ABRAHAM LINCOLNS decisions popular, did they cost lives? hmmmm But still he ACTED

     And No Rush is not Doing Damage, Bush Saying Bring em on is not doing damage. We want the terrorists DEAD we don't care if they are angry. It's called INTIMIDATION. It is YOU and DURBIN and Kennedy that give strength, and stamina to the Terrorists.

     There is an interesting report coming out (as yet unsubstantiated but we will see) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda chief in Iraq, sent a thank you note to the Dick Durbins and Ted Kennedys of Congress in a message to his followers and sympathizers on July 5. According to an unreleased translation read to Jed Babin of the American spectator. Zarqawi's message exhorted his terrorists to greater effort, because, Zarqawi said, it is very clear that America was being defeated in Iraq. Zarqawi's proof? His message said that the proof that America is losing is that some American congressmen are saying just that.

     -If you don't want to help then don't. but stop aiding the enemy FRANK.

     Posted by jzimm at 07/11/2005 @ 11:02pm

191. Blinky - Earlier you made these comments regarding our terminology of Evil and I think it is important and correct, and leads me to the real topic of this post. How to defeat Terrorism. Here is what you said:

     "But remembering that past, and understanding our own culpability as a people within that context, we should be more able, and not less able, to identify with those from outside cultures where crimes of a similar magnitude still occur; knowing as we do (from our now higher vantage point) that eventually those cultures will move beyond those behaviors."

     EVENTUALLY THOSE CULTURES WILL MOVE BEYOND THOSE BEHAVIORS

     The problem is we've got these young kids in some Islamic countries that are being bred and raised to literally hate the West, anything not Islamic, and they're being fed a distorted version of the Koran, and they're being taught that it's religious and God-like to engage in these kinds of acts. So how do we stop this? Even if we're to wipe out every terrorist today, how do we stop this? Well, the first honest thing to say in answer to that is: We never will totally wipe it out. There are always going to be, even when we have the greatest success imaginable, there are going to be renegades; there are always going to be insane people, and it only takes one wacko to cause something like this to happen of a smaller or even larger scale. Let a wacko get hold of a suitcase nuke someday. It just takes one. But the answer to your question in the long term is the context in which it needs to be answered and I'm going to say to you, at the risk of causing you to have a reaction that would make you disregard everything that follows, I'm still going to say it. That's why we're in Iraq and Afghanistan. The answer is something that the American left cares deeply about in this country, and that's education. If you're asking about future generations -- how do we raise our kids? How do we raise our future generations? We do it with the age-old guidelines and guardrails that have been handed down to us culturally from our existence: morality, teaching right and wrong, civilized behavior, right and wrong.

     Well, the same thing is happening in militant Islamic countries but they've got a whole different definition of morality, whole different definition of right and wrong. What's right to them is killing us. What's wrong is not killing us. So the purpose of the war on terror and the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan is to establish in that part of the world where that kind of hatred is being bred and raised, societies of free people who are not living under imams and mullahs who are forcing their kids into schools such as they are now, but letting people who are human beings just like we are determine their own fate as free people. The theory behind Iraq, Dave, and Afghanistan is that we Americans are no different in terms of being human beings than anybody else on the planet. We're not special. We're not better. We've got the same DNA. We're all human beings. The thing that sets us apart is freedom. We have founding documents that encapsulate the reasons for our freedom, come from our creation, that's the natural essence of the human spirit is freedom, to not be confined, to not be shackled, to be free, to move about and seek excellence and happiness, pursuit of happiness and contentment to the best of our ability and ambition. Well, most of the people of the world don't have that. They live under dictatorial, thuggish regimes, and when you get to the militant Islamic countries you're talking about not just dictatorial, but you're talking about fourteenth century militant religious dictatorial regimes, and they are breeding this hatred and they are raising kids to think that it is normal. So you go to Iraq, you go to Afghanistan and you show that people there are no different than people here. Once they have freedom, they will seek it. We trust free people in this country. We as human beings trust free people to do the right things.

     e trust free people to make decisions of their own self-interest that are good for all, for their families, for their neighbors, what have you. You're going to have the renegades; you're going to have criminals everywhere you go. Don't misunderstand. I'm not trying to be pie-in-the-sky about this, but the United States experience is the model for the world, in my opinion. It's right under our nose. Yet too many people say, "We can't impose our way of life on people! It's not fair. They must choose their own." Fine. We're letting them choose their own in Iraq, although I don't think there's anything wrong with imposing our way of life on people because I don't think freedom is an imposition. I think the cure for Africa is to become a United States. Let them learn to trade; let them learn to manufacture; let them learn to create their own wealth, not have it handed to them. Just creating a giant welfare state out of the country with more unending aid. Let them create it themselves. They're capable of it, they're human beings, let them be free, get rid of their Robert Mugabes and the Idi Amin Dadas and all the others and watch them take off. The theory holds in Iraq, and it's already taking root. We've had elections. The people there have determined a government. They are establishing it for themselves. They are establishing a police force; they're getting their schools up and running, and we trust that they're not going to want any part of militant Islam and we know it because the insurgents are doing everything they can to keep freedom from coming to those people. That's why Iraq is so crucial.

     The insurgents, the terrorists, the militant Islamists sent there by the mullahs and the imams around world to make sure this doesn't happen because the greatest threat to militant Islamo-fascism is freedom, because people will not choose the kind of bondage that they are being forced to live under in places like Saudi Arabia or Iran or the former Iraq. Iraq is not going to choose another Saddam Hussein to lead it, I guarantee you, if they are free to act on their own. They're going to get together. They're going to have democratic arguments and fights. They're going to have elections. Some are going to win some are going to lose. They're doing it over and over and over again, but they're going to want the best for their kids just like we want the best for ours and they know that the best for their kids is to not have the kid taught how to learn how to fly a Boeing 757 into a building in the United States. Now, this is going to take generations. This is going to take time. This is why people like me continually stress that this is a long-term vision and any impatience here is only going to be a detriment. We've tried to do the other way. We've tried. We've had terrorism like this for, I don't know, in this form at least 25 years, and terrorism throughout human history, and we've tried appeasing it. We've tried negotiating. We've tried ignoring it. We've tried pretending it doesn't happen, but we've never tried to reform it -- and it's the only way. That's the answer to your question. How do you keep more cancer cells from being produced?

     You get rid of the elements that produce and cause the cancer. You ban the tobacco from the society, speaking metaphorically -- and it's a long process. That's why, Dave, people like me think Iraq is a profound success, because we look at that as the reason. We don't look at weapons of mass destruction or any of that, that was something dealt with. But the long-term goal here is to create an outpost in that region where other people in surrounding Arab countries can see, "Wow, look at those Iraqis. Look what they've got. They're making up their own minds. They're going to work where they want everyday. They're starting their own businesses. They've got an economy that's functioning," and that's what the imams and the mullahs in Iran are deathly afraid of and trying to prevent from happening. But that's the solution to it. There may be others that I haven't thought of, but in the context of your question, that's how I would answer it. You can't defeat them militarily totally. This generation you can. You can intimidate, and you can take the military action so as to intimidate them from continually thinking they can hit us -- and that's why it's not helpful when certain people in this country say things that seem to stroke and motivate our opponents, sounding just like them. We don't need people in this country ripping this country to shreds in terms used by our enemies and yet it's happening way, way too often.

     If we were united in this country, if we all understood what the purpose here was, that it's all about guarding against another terrorist attack for our kids and grandkids, all about making sure there's not another 9/11 -- or if there is, we'll know of it in enough time to stop it. That's what we're trying to achieve. But as long as we're not united here and the voices of opposition to this continually misrepresent what our objective is, and continually misrepresent our purpose as just "we want oil, Bush and Cheney want oil, or Halliburton needs more money," or what have you, as long as it keeps being obfuscated like that, it's just going to make the task all that much more difficult, as World War II would have been that much more difficult had we not been unified in beating Hitler and Japan and all the others, Mussolini, that we faced. So it's not easy. It's very, very hard. But the answer ultimately, the short version is, we have to establish circumstances that we know exist because they work here. Culturally it doesn't matter; all cultures come to this country and thrive because of freedom. We need to establish the same circumstances where human beings around the world have the same grand, God-given freedom we do to determine their own fate. The vast majority of free people want to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not learning how to fly airplanes into buildings.

     Posted by jzimm at 07/11/2005 @ 11:49pm

192. Finally Frank -

     In regards to post war planning. I loked up somethin that you can call historical perspective. I looked up some articles regarding difficulties in post war Germany 60 years ago. Interesting.

     HEADLINE, November 18th, 1945, from the New York Times: Loss of Victory in Germany Through U.S. Policy Feared.

     "Grave concern was expressed today by informed officials that the United States might soon lose the fruits of victory in Germany through the failure to prepare adequately for carrying out its long-term commitments under the Potsdam Declaration."

     hmm sounds familiar...war doesn't change frank. war is war. where have I heard this before? I think it goes something like this. [Doing John Kerry impression] "Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and thooose neocons, theeey didn't plan effectively for the aftermath! Whhhy, this is an abject failure. Whhhy, we're losing this war." Or losing the peace, whatever the hell they say we're losing. "They didn't plan for the aftermath. They had no idea what was going to happen." And look at this, 1945. This is almost 60 years ago, and it's the exact same thing.

     Posted by jzimm at 07/11/2005 @ 11:59pm

193. Thats so insightful and original Frank

     Posted by jzimm at 07/12/2005 @ 08:01am

194. JZIMM,

     For the last time, I did NOT call YOU in particular a NITWIT...though I am now certain the tag more than fits. For your edification, here is the exact (COMPLETE) qoute...actually, I'll preface it with the FRANKGRITS post to which I was responding:

     "Cylops, you've been away a little. we've kinda strayed here. Oops! Nice to hear from you again.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/11/2005 @ 11:40am"

     For your information numbnuts (yep, you bet, I just called you that), when FRANK said "Nice to hear from you again" it was based on other exchanges and posts I've made ON THIS SITE in response to different articles and OTHER nitwits.

     Here is my exact quote...try and figure out what you omitted in trying to make my quote fit your point...y'know, kinda of like "fixing the evidence around the policy."

     And I quote:

     "Frank, yeah I have been actively avoiding posting because it really seems an exercise in futility. One is either preaching to/rousing the choir or engaging in pointless debates with nitwits seemingly incapable of rational thought..."

     Notice that little word FRANK. That proper name indicates (to people with more than a modicum of reading comprehension) that I was, in fact, addressing my comments to FRANKGRITS. As we have both encountered our fair share of nitwits on THIS site, I was simply explaining why I stopped wasting my time addressing very cogent arguments to people who either could not or would not be swayed REGARDLESS of the FACTS.

     Since you're so hot to know some of the nitwits to whom I was, in fact, referring...here is a short list of the NITWIT Choir:

     OKSPORTSGUY NACL DANCALL and now, of course, we can add: JZIMM (is that pronounced as pornographically as it seems?)

     Now, I'm sure you have a lot more vitriolic nonsense to spew forth in the name of all that is self-righteous and insipid. Have at it, nitwit...and, by the way, you have truly earned the moniker!

     cyclops

     Posted by cyclops at 07/12/2005 @ 11:26am

195. JZIMM,

     Okay, what's the source of the filched cut-and-paste reply to Blinky? Since I actually read it, I couldn't help noticing that the actual author (the one that can spell) kept addressing his points to "Dave." Strangely, I see no Dave on this thread...

     Could it be that you took credit where no credit was due by posting a reply in your name that tries to give credit where no credit is due--namely to this corrupt Administration?

     cyclops

     Posted by cyclops at 07/12/2005 @ 11:54am

196. Good Cyclops -

     It's funny how you can't seem to find the time or energy to include your thoughts on anything more important that giving Frank "High Fives" for his comments (by the way - all the ASS Slapping you two do is really cute) and no Jzmm isn't suppoesd to be pornographic. Just the initials to my real name...funny how a gay rights advocate such as yourself, who spends his time ass slapping with frank would takes the initials of a name and immediately start thinking of your favorite food source. When I read it I hear JAY-ZIM...how odd that one as manly (cough..cough)as yourself reads it and the thought of Jizm immediately comes to mind. What is really on your mind Cyclops....(the mythical one eyed beast)...maybe you are thinking too much about my ONE EYED BEAST Cyclops.

     You're as sissy pansy ass imbecile. That's why you immediately tried to withdraw your Nit-wit insult and are still trying to prove the point. It's funny that YOU can change history by taking your VAGUE insult of the "CHOIR" of posters who disagreed with your thoughts (which I am proud to say I am onr) and then after the fact name three other people that you were really talking about but which (at least initially) didn't include me. Whose the one who really like to change history to meet their needs? YOU ARE SO DAM WEAK. I think you have some serious confidence problems with your masculinity (which explains a lot about your political beliefs).

     Yes I did Copy and paste in information on some Posts. To be exact : 1)The Michael Moore Post 2) The NY Times Article 3) The Breakdown of weapon systems and dates and 4) the article that I responded to Blinky with - Which by the way was an excellent article that was EXACTLY ABOUT THE TOPIC that this blog was supposed to be about. I can see that you still haven't FOUND TIME to address that(however I'm certain you will find time to respond to my insults). ummm how odd. You're Brain dead.

     so yes, for the last time, out of the 20 or so posts I have submitted I did bring in some information from off this site? Are you the God of the Blog and you write the rules because you can not win an argument with facts? Is that why you have contributed nothing to the discussion other than calling those hurtful (this is sarcasm) names, slapping asses with Frank and worrying If I posted information from an outside source. OH and braggig about how you shoot down all these opinions on OTHER SITES

     Franklin - You claimed that you were'nt going to respond like 4 posts ago...I must be hitting home with you (regardless from where some of the facts come from) because you can't seem to let go no matter how hard you try.

     Also ONE of the Many Differences between you and I is that even though I see Bill Clinton as the despicable, adulter, perjuring, apeasing, usless piece of CRAP. When he was the President I tried to support him especially in the matters of War. I thought it was right to stop the Genocide in Yougoslavia, I thought it was also a shame that he backed out of Somolia and encouraged the Terrorists. Support your country and stop hating BUSH because he keeps beating your party. If you and your ass slapping buddy could only learn this the world would be a safer place.

     Posted by jzimm at 07/12/2005 @ 2:37pm

197. Jizzy,

     Now that is a truly inspired retort...my, but you have a way with misspelled invectice.

     cyclops

     Posted by cyclops at 07/12/2005 @ 2:56pm

198. See, did you get it? I misspelled invective while taking you to task for misspelling...isn't that cute. Maybe FRANK will slap my ass.

     cyclops

     Posted by cyclops at 07/12/2005 @ 2:58pm

199. WOW Impressive. now you can add pointing out typos to your list of significant contributions - you are compiling quite a resume that you can boast about on other sites (or while you are dining with your domestic partner this evening).

     And I see you still have my jiz on your mind. If you could only be so single minded with your political arguments

     Posted by jzimm at 07/12/2005 @ 3:29pm

200. JZIMM,

     For you and all the other proud nitwit singers, here's my reply to the question at hand…how to fight terrorism? First of all, it might help if we stopped being terrorists. You see, in order to understand one's enemy if helps to try and see the situation from their point of view.

     From the radical fundamental Islamic perspective, we are EVIL. Yes, I know, you and your ilk don't give a rat's ass about THEIR perspective, but it might be instructive to, at least, pretend to give a damn. You might even realize that other people have the right to different perspectives (a right that you apparently won't even grant to citizens of your own country). Until we get a handle on that simple truth we will see this tragic charade replayed again and again. The powers that be aren't really interested in reducing terrorism, crime, drugs, or any of the other society ills. They're simply interested in consolidating their power base by using the fear induced by terrorism, crime, and drugs to keep the ignorant compliant. Our war is not about terrorism…it's about hegemony…global hegemony.

     Obviously, the best way to fight terrorism is to attempt to address and reduce the root causes of misunderstanding and blind hatred that leads to terrorism. We might start by basing our foreign policy on the principles we so vociferously proclaim rather than the ones we surreptitiously employ. We might allow sovereign nations the right to self-determination. We might not attempt to dehumanize an entire religion for political expediency. We might not be violating international and U.S. law by detaining civilians without due process for indeterminate periods. We might not be referring to the Geneva Convention as "quaint" as a precursor to sanctioning torture and abuse. We might not be fabricating evidence to justify a war of profit. In short, we might want to stop earning the mantle of "Great Satan."

     I must admit I found it strange that you chose to plagiarize an article that uses the idea of Muslim children being inculcated with anti-Americanism to try and support your points. How easy it is to point out something so obviously wrong and then use it as a justification for doing the exact same wrong thing. What about the lessons we are teaching our children? Is it okay to hate someone simply because some asshat in Washington decided to label them terrorists? What about Christians that claim we need to kill all the terrorists and then equate all Muslims with terrorists? Is it so impossible for you people to exercise that ability we humans refer to as EMPATHY? So often I hear some right-wing crank go off about "liberals do this" and "liberals do that" when they are really saying exactly what THEY DO as a matter of course. It really is a masterful rhetoric device, but its efficacy is predicated on a certain level of gullibility on the part of the audience. Well, Mr. Gullible, take a bow.

     While I am acutely aware of the threat of REAL terrorism, that is not and never was our motivation for the profligate nightmare that is Iraq. We are in Iraq to secure a military foothold and dominion over the 2nd largest supply of oil on the planet. That is why Bush uses terminology like "vital region." What, other than oil, makes it so damn vital that we must sacrifice our sons and daughters? Please don't trot out that stale old lie about fighting the terrorists there, etc. First of all, we opened the door in Iraq to terrorists. Before our little adventure, Iraq was basically a crippled secular nation headed by a madman--himself once much to our liking. The first Gulf War decimated Saddam's military, crippled the Iraqi economy and left them virtually defenseless. We, of course, knew that was the case. Colin Powell is quoted at a February 24, 2001, press conference as follows:

     "We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."

     It wasn't until after 9/11 provided the specious justifications for already extant war plans against Iraq that the Administration's talking heads starting spouting the WMD crap and falsely (later admittedly so) linking Iraq and Saddam to 9/11 and Osama bin Laden. If the real strategists of the Administration would simply come out and admit that we are acting in what THEY have defined as OUR self-interests by attempting to forestall the coming oil wars by establishing control of a 'vital oil-producing region' in order to give us some economic leverage against China, I would, at least, applaud their cold-blooded honesty. Let's look at this rationally, shall we. We have a current trade deficit with China in excess of $160 billion. That does not exactly indicate fiscal health and well-being. Since you will, no doubt, doubt my statistics, here is an excerpt from a recent Department of Commerce report:

     "China's trade surplus with the United States was $162 billion in 2004, a 30.6% increase since 2003 and the United States' largest bilateral deficit. China has refused to increase the value of its currency, which has expanded the bilateral trade gap. China's intransigence has encouraged other Asian nations to slow or even prevent increases in their currencies. The U.S. trade deficit with China is now the largest the United States has with any country in the world. China alone was responsible for more than half of the increase in the non-oil trade deficit in 2004. U.S. imports from China are more than five times the value of U.S. exports to China, making this the United States' most imbalanced trading relationship. The U.S. imports from China were $196.7 billion in 2004 (an increase of 29%), making China the second largest exporter of goods to the United States, behind only Canada's $256 billion export total. At current rates of growth, China will surpass Canada and become the largest supplier of U.S. imports in 2006."

     Of course these figures give one pause. Coupled with the ever and exponentially increasing Chinese demand for oil, they are stark harbingers of a bleak future. That being the case, I can understand why the PNAC neocon ideologues earmarked Iraq for conquest. However, it just so happens that we still marginally adhere to the rule of law. Therefore, we are spoon-fed all this bullshit about WMDs, fighting terrorists over there, regime change, liberation for the Iraqi people, ad nauseam to cover-up the real agenda. They are too gutless to come right out and admit that we are killing innocent Iraqi civilians (some 100,000+ by many estimates) and sacrificing our military personnel (1,700+) to line the pockets of the those that stand to profit immediately from this war and reconstruction while attempting to hedge our bets against the coming crisis of declining oil reserves and increasing demand. The real, and only logical, solution is to reduce and eventually eliminate our dependence on non-renewable fossil fuels. We should be investing in the research, development, and implementation of alternative energy sources that are renewable and environmentally friendly rather than squandering hundreds of billions trying to steal Iraq's oil for the likes of Dubya and his oil company cronies.

     Basically, we are now in a pickle. We have destabilized the Middle East and, in the minds of many more Muslims, earned our reputation as the "Great Satan." How else should they interpret being invaded, conquered, and occupied based on lies? They know why we are in Iraq and we know why we are in Iraq...and it hasn't got a damn thing to do with 9/11, WMDs, regime change, Saddam's character, or any of the other lies used to justify this war for profit. To be fair, the PNAC dipshits probably did think it would take six months or less and that we would be greeted as liberators. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz, thought it would be an old-fashioned ass-whooping punctuated with profits and oil. The fact that Cheney's Halliburton was handed reconstruction and logistical contracts on a no-bid basis just sweetened the pot. Of course, Halliburton is now padding their invoices and handing the US taxpayer the bill...Why? you ask, because they can...because uncritical mindless dolts like you let them rob you blind and then you thank them for the privilege. Talk about somebody with esteem issues.

     It's just too bad the neocons misjudged the Iraqi capacity for resistance. The funny thing is, if anything like a foreign occupation was conceivable in this country, our resistance fighters would be hailed as patriots of the highest order. Meanwhile, the press in the country of the occupiers would be vilifying those same "patriots" as "radical insurgents." Remember, we only get one side of the story unless we seek both sides actively and objectively. By the way, please quit trying to equate this crusade for oil with WWII. First of all, Chamberlain and most of the other Hitler appeasers were CONSERVATIVES. As such, they were more concerned with the threat from the left in the form of the Soviet Union than with a resurgent fascist Germany. In fact, many were doing business with the Nazi regime well into the war and profited handsomely. Prescott Bush was one such U.S. business partner. Assets from his business dealings with the Nazis were seized in 1942 in accordance with the "Trading with the Enemy Act." Also, to address your other historically-challenged query, yes, we did go to war with Germany even though Germany had not attacked us. Why? BECAUSE GERMANY DECLARED WAR ON THE UNITED STATES ON DECEMBER 11, 1941.

     The main point of all this is that our policies are, in fact, aiding the cause of those that hate us by giving them ample evidence of our complicity with evil. If we conduct ourselves dishonestly and aggressively force our will on the innocent, what other conclusion can one reach? We will only reduce terrorism if we stop terrorizing others. We are the most powerful and influential nation on earth. No force could actually stand against us economically or ideologically if we truly starting following our own rules and living up to our principles. Our national character is one of generosity and compassion, but we are all too easily corrupted by the likes of this hateful junta of vampires that are sucking the lifeblood from Lady Liberty. Well, I for one consider myself a patriot and I LOVE MY COUNTRY...that's why I want it to be all it can and should be. Well, that's all for this little screed. Rambling though they may be, at least I actually write my replies. I guess I'll close now, JZIMM, so you can cut-and-paste something from the O'Reilly Factor/Rush Limbaugh transcripts to counter my post. Who knows, maybe you'll even throw in a few homophobic references and inane insults. Gee, I hope so, because that really is the trademark of your contributions to this discussion thus far...other than the plagiarism and regurgitation, that is.

     cyclops

     Posted by cyclops at 07/12/2005 @ 6:28pm

201. Cyclops - Glad to finally get something worthwhile to counter from you. I will reply, but right now I am playing with my Kids. So please be patient

     Quickly though, how fitting it is that A hypocrite such as yourself who's only addition to this discussion prior to your last post (that I had to GOAD YOU into POSTING) was 1) pointing out Typos 2) calling those who disagree with you NITWITs 3) Referring to my screen name as jiz and then taking offence to the fact that I replied by questioning why, as a man, you were so focused on a slang word for semen when you are talking to other men. I mean that is what really happened. I urge anyone to go back and read your posts until now. I've been trying to get something of substance from you for 2 days ( not that I would really refer to your recent example of Pathetic, Paranoid, American Hating, Appeasement minded Gibberish as Substance). Still it is better then your previous Bolg Edicate Policing / Gramatical correcting and Homosexual fixations.

     Posted by jzimm at 07/12/2005 @ 8:16pm

202. Cyclops and Your Adoring Fan (Frank) - First of all I have to say it must have taken you a long time and some deep (paranoid) thought to come up with some of the Cock-eyed bullshit that you just wrote.

     I guess I should start at the beginning. You added a lot of Bullshit that needs to be exposed and I will answer in sections

     1st - (your quote) "We need to stop being Terrorists" - Actually Im glad that you extreme libs keep talking that way. It only exposes you to the rest of the world as the off balanced wackos that you really are. Contrary to your comments about my ILK not being interested about THEIR (the terrorists) perspective I am / was. That's why I have studied to beginnings of radical Islamic thinkers. I read about men like Ibn Taymiyya, Abd a-Wahab, Said Qutb and all the way through Modern Day classics like OBL and Zarqari. I'm willing to bet that I am more informed than you in that regard. The thing that YOU DON'T get is that after understanding THEIR perspective it makes it even More Obvious what action is necessary. Islamist Extremists like Al Quaeda want to restore the Caliphate, over throw apostate governments, kill infidels and other muslims that do believe in their interpretation of the koran. Unless you wish to accept their beliefs, religion and way of life than there is no bargaining, therapy, apology or other Pacifist methods of dealing with people that believe this way. You can Admire them if you want or try to understand their point of view all you want. AND WHO Claims to blame this on all Muslims? In Bush's first speech after 9-11 he touched on that point. IT IS THE TERRORISTS AND ISLAMIC EXTEREMISTS who believe in their right to KILL US that are our enemy. Quit spinning your hate lies.

     I know that you Liberal Elite sneer at our "simplistic" notion of good and evil, but you can choose to concoct excuses instead of making moral judgements all you want. Before long our sense of good and evil will disappear altogether. This idea of moral relativism is disturbing to me as an American. It discounts the very IDEA of accountability And devalues OUR RIGHT to fight FOR OUR PRINCIPLES.

     I do believe America is a superior society to that of the Islamic Extremists (notice again I didn't say to all Muslims but to Islamic Extremists), not because Americans are superior human beings, but because our culture was founded on a recognition of our GOD-given (don't fall off your chair because I mentioned the G-word) natural rights - the "unalienable rights" referred to in the Declaration of Independence.

     More than 229 or so years after the Declaration, America has become the world's most beneficent nation.

     Liberals have shown constant reluctance to confront enemies of freedom around the world and preach the absolute value of peace and accuse every Republican Leader of "Warmongering" yet many of Americas greatest moments have came when our people have taken up arms to defend liberty. Was it warmongering when we defeated the Axis Powers and liberated untold millions during WWII- Didn't Germany deserve the right of self determination acording to your beliefs? I know you have already pointed out that Germany Declared War first (good point by the way although it is really meaningless). Then was GREAT BRITIAN Warmongering when they decalared war on Germany first (Ooops gotcha there)? Were Nazi's evil or just misguided? Should we have examined their POINT OF VIEW to better understand them and then try to have empathy? What about Regan's courageous stand against communism - and renewed commitment to military strength - which led to the fall of the Berlin wall and the end of soviet repression? What about today as our brave soldiers liberate 26 million Afghans, and 24 million Iraqi's from brutal regimes?

     Just as a Police Office has the right to fire upon an attacker who has raised his weapon to shoot the officer or another person, America has the moral right AND Obligation to fight for our own security. If you see no moral distinction between the terrorists (or do you call them freedom fighters or Infidel killers according to your justifications) and Ourselves then I can see why your party is so out of touch with the rest of the American Population that is why you will continue to lose elections...

     One final word. How many noble "Freedom Fighters" target innocent women and children? How many build torture Chambers in the basements of their official buildings? And please don't give me this Gitmo and Abu Grhaib BS. These places are resort retreats compared to what our prisoners are subjected to. Recen investigations of both of the above mentioned locations have determined that it is the Americans "soft" Treatment and restrictions on retaliting to homicidal prisoners flinging feces and bodily fluid and trying to harm the gards that are the real threat. Just like in the real world. Terrorists will use our compassion and weakness and become embolden. I know that honestly in your heart you would much rather be a prisoner in a US facility then a prisoner of Abu Musab Al Zaqari. - Come on Terrorists - Come visit clube gitmo and get your free Koran and prayer mat!

     The way to fight Terrorism is the way I discribed in my "Plagerized" Post from 2 days ago. I couldn't state it better myself then and Im not going to repeat it now.

     I will return later to finish exposing the rest of your Gibbersih Self Loathing Nightmare of a post. In my following installments I will destroy your Iraq was for Oil (Joke), and uncover some obvious oversights regarding your position on our right to Invade Iraq and the Economic Data regarding trade with China...

     In the meantime. If you LOVE YOUR COUNTRY CYCLOPS why do you call It's policies TERRORIST - policies that are backed up by a MAJORITY OF OUR POPULATION (see the latest CNN poll results). Even with all the negative spin and UNPRECEDENTED ANTI-US PROPOGANDA generated by YOUR ILK 52% of americans still agree with President Bush's handling of the war on terror. Why don't we hear more about the many good things that ARE happening in IRQ. Better yet - Why don't you go move to Fallujah. You are so open minded and friendly Im sure the terrorists (who you equate to us)will welcome you with open arms (just before your Televised execution).

     Posted by jzimm at 07/13/2005 @ 08:44am

203. JZimm: What would you do if you were the US Commander in Chief, and you beleived that the CIA had information that Sadaam was developing WMDs. But at the same time you had information that Iran was doing the same thing but more directly supporting fundamental Islamic religion inside its borders (not just being unable to stop a few fundamentalists like Iraq). And you also had other information that your "ally", Saudi Arabia, was developing nuclear weapons and harboring terrorists, and was a terrible dictatorial regime repressing women and repressing dissent, and that Saudi citizens had destroyed the Twin Towers. And you had information that North Korea was much further in developing WMDs which they would likely decide to sell to the highest bidder, including selling to terrorists? And you knew that there were some holes in your info about Iraq. Hmmm....

     All of your posts detailing why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan don't explain how we stop individuals from becoming terrorists. Suppose furthermore that you are a young man growing up in an Islamic nation. You have not decided how you feel about that country some people call the "Great Satan", but you've heard lots of bad stuff about how they torture Islamic people. You think "freedom" seems like a good idea, and maybe women should be given more rights, but you are also a good Muslim and don't want to violate the tenets of the Quran.

     How do you think you would feel if the "Great Satan" then invaded your country and began setting up permanent military bases there. They didn't defend your infrastructure or historical artifacts, but made great efforts to consolidate control of your oil fields. They proclaimed "freedom" and "democracy" but wore shirts that joked about how torturing Islamic people was no big deal.

     Would this make you think "wow, America must be a great and holy nation of warriors for freedom"?

     Killing Muslims speeds up the process of converting people to Radical Islam.

     Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/13/2005 @ 1:31pm

204. More like the same Old Breath of Stale Air - Here is a copy and paste of an earlier copy and paste's that answers the question about how how to keep you Islamic Men from growing uo into terrorists.

     I will respond to your Other questions later (I do have a Job during the day) -

     "The problem is we've got these young kids in some Islamic countries that are being bred and raised to literally hate the West, anything not Islamic, and they're being fed a distorted version of the Koran, and they're being taught that it's religious and God-like to engage in these kinds of acts. So how do we stop this? Even if we're to wipe out every terrorist today, how do we stop this? Well, the first honest thing to say in answer to that is: We never will totally wipe it out. There are always going to be, even when we have the greatest success imaginable, there are going to be renegades; there are always going to be insane people, and it only takes one wacko to cause something like this to happen of a smaller or even larger scale. Let a wacko get hold of a suitcase nuke someday. It just takes one. But the answer to your question in the long term is the context in which it needs to be answered and I'm going to say to you, at the risk of causing you to have a reaction that would make you disregard everything that follows, I'm still going to say it. That's why we're in Iraq and Afghanistan. The answer is something that the American left cares deeply about in this country, and that's education. If you're asking about future generations -- how do we raise our kids? How do we raise our future generations? We do it with the age-old guidelines and guardrails that have been handed down to us culturally from our existence: morality, teaching right and wrong, civilized behavior, right and wrong."

     "Well, the same thing is happening in militant Islamic countries but they've got a whole different definition of morality, whole different definition of right and wrong. What's right to them is killing us. What's wrong is not killing us. So the purpose of the war on terror and the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan is to establish in that part of the world where that kind of hatred is being bred and raised, societies of free people who are not living under imams and mullahs who are forcing their kids into schools such as they are now, but letting people who are human beings just like we are determine their own fate as free people. The theory behind Iraq, and Afghanistan is that we Americans are no different in terms of being human beings than anybody else on the planet. We're not special. We're not better. We've got the same DNA. We're all human beings. The thing that sets us apart is freedom. We have founding documents that encapsulate the reasons for our freedom, come from our creation, that's the natural essence of the human spirit is freedom, to not be confined, to not be shackled, to be free, to move about and seek excellence and happiness, pursuit of happiness and contentment to the best of our ability and ambition. Well, most of the people of the world don't have that. They live under dictatorial, thuggish regimes, and when you get to the militant Islamic countries you're talking about not just dictatorial, but you're talking about fourteenth century militant religious dictatorial regimes, and they are breeding this hatred and they are raising kids to think that it is normal. So you go to Iraq, you go to Afghanistan and you show that people there are no different than people here. Once they have freedom, they will seek it. We trust free people in this country. We as human beings trust free people to do the right things."

     "Trust free people to make decisions of their own self-interest that are good for all, for their families, for their neighbors, what have you. You're going to have the renegades; you're going to have criminals everywhere you go. Don't misunderstand. I'm not trying to be pie-in-the-sky about this, but the United States experience is the model for the world, in my opinion. It's right under our nose. Yet too many people say, "We can't impose our way of life on people! It's not fair. They must choose their own." Fine. We're letting them choose their own in Iraq, although I don't think there's anything wrong with imposing our way of life on people because I don't think freedom is an imposition. I think the cure for Africa is to become a United States. Let them learn to trade; let them learn to manufacture; let them learn to create their own wealth, not have it handed to them. Just creating a giant welfare state out of the country with more unending aid. Let them create it themselves. They're capable of it, they're human beings, let them be free, get rid of their Robert Mugabes and the Idi Amin Dadas and all the others and watch them take off. The theory holds in Iraq, and it's already taking root. We've had elections. The people there have determined a government. They are establishing it for themselves. They are establishing a police force; they're getting their schools up and running, and we trust that they're not going to want any part of militant Islam and we know it because the insurgents are doing everything they can to keep freedom from coming to those people. That's why Iraq is so crucial."

     "The insurgents, the terrorists, the militant Islamists sent there by the mullahs and the imams around world to make sure this doesn't happen because the greatest threat to militant Islamo-fascism is freedom, because people will not choose the kind of bondage that they are being forced to live under in places like Saudi Arabia or Iran or the former Iraq. Iraq is not going to choose another Saddam Hussein to lead it, I guarantee you, if they are free to act on their own. They're going to get together. They're going to have democratic arguments and fights. They're going to have elections. Some are going to win some are going to lose. They're doing it over and over and over again, but they're going to want the best for their kids just like we want the best for ours and they know that the best for their kids is to not have the kid taught how to learn how to fly a Boeing 757 into a building in the United States. Now, this is going to take generations. This is going to take time. This is why people like me continually stress that this is a long-term vision and any impatience here is only going to be a detriment. We've tried to do the other way. We've tried. We've had terrorism like this for, I don't know, in this form at least 25 years, and terrorism throughout human history, and we've tried appeasing it. We've tried negotiating. We've tried ignoring it. We've tried pretending it doesn't happen, but we've never tried to reform it -- and it's the only way. That's the answer to your question. How do you keep more cancer cells from being produced? "

     You get rid of the elements that produce and cause the cancer. You ban the tobacco from the society, speaking metaphorically -- and it's a long process. That's why, people like me think Iraq is a profound success, because we look at that as the reason. We don't look at weapons of mass destruction or any of that, that was something dealt with. But the long-term goal here is to create an outpost in that region where other people in surrounding Arab countries can see, "Wow, look at those Iraqis. Look what they've got. They're making up their own minds. They're going to work where they want everyday. They're starting their own businesses. They've got an economy that's functioning," and that's what the imams and the mullahs in Iran are deathly afraid of and trying to prevent from happening. But that's the solution to it. There may be others that I haven't thought of, but in the context of your question, that's how I would answer it. You can't defeat them militarily totally. This generation you can. You can intimidate, and you can take the military action so as to intimidate them from continually thinking they can hit us -- and that's why it's not helpful when certain people in this country say things that seem to stroke and motivate our opponents, sounding just like them. We don't need people in this country ripping this country to shreds in terms used by our enemies and yet it's happening way, way too often."

     "If we were united in this country, if we all understood what the purpose here was, that it's all about guarding against another terrorist attack for our kids and grandkids, all about making sure there's not another 9/11 -- or if there is, we'll know of it in enough time to stop it. That's what we're trying to achieve. But as long as we're not united here and the voices of opposition to this continually misrepresent what our objective is, and continually misrepresent our purpose as just "we want oil, Bush and Cheney want oil, or Halliburton needs more money," or what have you, as long as it keeps being obfuscated like that, it's just going to make the task all that much more difficult, as World War II would have been that much more difficult had we not been unified in beating Hitler and Japan and all the others, Mussolini, that we faced. So it's not easy. It's very, very hard. But the answer ultimately, the short version is, we have to establish circumstances that we know exist because they work here. Culturally it doesn't matter; all cultures come to this country and thrive because of freedom. We need to establish the same circumstances where human beings around the world have the same grand, God-given freedom we do to determine their own fate. The vast majority of free people want to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not learning how to fly airplanes into buildings."

     Posted by jzimm at 07/13/2005 @ 3:11pm

205. I already read that post: you're saying if we impose Democracy on them, they'll embrace it. I hope you're right, and I don't think we really have another choice. But what about when the Democracy elects a leader who is a mouthpiece for Iran's Ayatolla? Then elects to restrict womens' freedoms and impose Shari'a. Then elects to go to war against the Great Satan who has occupied our lands.

     But the sad fact is we are doing a piss-poor job of containing terrorism in Iraq. Iraq has become a training ground for militant Islamists to learn their trade so they can export it to America and defeat the evil rulers of this occupying, dominating force.

     It's easy to believe your ideas are right when you are preaching to the converted.

     It'd be much easier if we could confiscate their churches and impose our own morality on them! Then of course they'd see the light and the way and the truth...

     Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/13/2005 @ 3:33pm

206. Once People get a taste of freedom they are not going to give it up again. Iraq had an election and didn't elect a mouthpiece of Iran. Afghanistan had an Election and is about to have another. Libya saw our determination and gave up their Nuclear Ambitions, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have started to allow discussion and allowing more democratic freedoms. The Youth in Iran are restless and life under the newly elected regime will only exacerbate their desire for freedom. When Iran is ready for freedom the United States will be more than happy to assist. A free and prospering democratic neighbor in Iraq will only expedite that process.

     The reason that there is such a stiff resistance in Iraq is because Aside from the hardcore Sunni's who are trying to hold on to power is because Al Qaeda and the sort know how deadly a democratic, free and stable Iraq would be to their cause. This is like D-day against Terrorism. Is it costly yes, is it painful yes, but with resolve and determination we will achieve the ultimate victory. We are on the way. The only thing that can stop us is if we lose faith. What if Eisenhower decided we were taking too many casualties on Omaha Beach and called off the invasion? We are suceeding. Don't be fooled

     Posted by jzimm at 07/13/2005 @ 4:44pm

207. JZIMM:

     I don't have the stamina to keep this debate up about how to convince Iraqis. You go on believing it's working. I hope you're correct.

     You said you'd answer my other questions too, right?

     Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/13/2005 @ 6:13pm

208. Natttie - If I were the President and I had Intelligence that Sadam was Developing WMD's (even without WMD's) I think it is clear. I would have taken the same path as President Bush. Tell Sadam to comply or be removed from Power, try to build the strongest coalition possible, and then carry out the consequences of non compliance. As I mentioned the 10 years of violating UN Resolutions not to mention the terms of the original Gulf War Treaty (don't forget that Sadam tried almost every day to shoot down our planes patrolling the no fly zone). We had every legal right (obligation) to take action against Iraq - not to mention the side benefit of removing a brutal, barbaric regime that gassed, raped and murdered hundreds of thousands of it's own people and the possibility of creating a democratic regime in the area.

     You are right to bring up other countries. But first of all I need to point out that North Korea and Iran were problems that were Tragically INCREASED by the appeasement policies of liberal Presidents.

     North Korea is known as one of the most evil regimes in the world. Kim Jong Il has subjected his people to mass starvation and torture while he pours all of his resources into his military to try to remain in power, Still Clinton relied on a "Trust but DON'T VERIFY" Policy that was called the "Agreed Framework". Basically the DPRK gave us a piece of paper saying that they wouldn't develop Nukes and we agreed to pay them off with 500,000 tons of free oil per year and two huge $2 billion nuclear power plants. We even induced Japan and South Korea to give tons of free aid. Result... SURPRISE they lied. All the while they were enriching Uranium (im not sure if they got it from the power plants we gave them or used those plants in the process but I assume they did). Now that North Korea appears to already have a couple nukes there is not much we can do except try to contain, and entice them with more aide or sanctions (but I assure you that anything they get from the "MY Administration" would require VERIFICATION of what I would want in return. Hopefully someday the will change from within under the isolation and brutal repression of their own policies. Not great options but thanks to Bill there's not much else we can do.

     Iran. You may not remember but, aside from tolerating the Soviet Unions Arms build up, endorsing the gutting of the CIA, giving away the Panama Canal, undoubtly to gravest disaster of Jimmy Carter's short 4 year term as President was the rejection and subsquent loss of our greatest ally in the Middle East. Iran was an oil rich, Pro-western state with a large military and modern Airforce. Along with Turkey (another Ally) Iran was the perfect buffer between the Soviets and the rest of the Middle East. Granted the Shah wasn't a perfect ruler (he was trying to lead Iran into the modern era an was under stiff resistance from militant clerics and extreme islamists who rejected his attempts). His regime was opressive to his rivals, however, he was a consistent and loyal friend of the Untied States and his removal cleared the path for the current extremely anti-american, authoritian regime whose crimes far outshine anything the Shah had done (not to mention igniting decades of turmoil in the middle east that still haunt us today). Carter (ever the appeaser) pressured the Shah to stop holding military tribunals and to release certain political prisoners (some of whom were known terrorists).. To make a long story shorter the resulting criminal trials became spectacles of anti-shah propaganda, the snowball of anti Shah protests, freed militants, and unrestrained demonstrations (supported by the soviets) created anarchy. Carter continued to pressure the Shah not to react by threatening to withdraw financial and military support if the Shah used force to quell the oposition. Carter betrayed a staunch ally of over 35 years and in the end was reluctant to even allow him sanctuary in the US to seek medical treatment when he was ill. In his place we got the Ayatollah Khomeini who declared his desire to carry their revolution to the 4 corners of the world

     Now, since the problem is left for Bush and subsequent generations to endure. I think we need to try to contain Iran, push for their adherence to the NPT, seek UN sanctions and possible economic incentives with the understanding of VERIFICATION of compliance. Hopefully the presence of a democratic Iraq and the pressure from Iranian reformers will lead to changes. I would also support reformers when possible with financial backing, training, intelligence etc. Gratefully Iran is thought to still be a couple of years away from being able to produce a nuclear weapon. Since Iran is not under threat of Military Action due to UN Sanction violations, or breaking a treaty (as Iraq was with the Gulf War Treaty) then I think we would need to build a stronger case to be able to take military action. It's not an Ideal solution and things can change. Who knows how long Isreal will sit idly by if they feel Iran is on the verge of being able to produce a Nuke. Unfortunately our current commitments, combined with world opinion, and our own Political backstabbing make it even more difficult for us to defend ourself by taking pre-emptive action if we deemed Iran an Immimnent danger (although I would not rule that out if they were).

     Posted by jzimm at 07/13/2005 @ 10:24pm

209. Im tired...I get to Saudi Arabia and to Cyclops Iraq for Oil and China theory later...Im out...

     unfortuantely for Y'all bleeding heart libs it's only for tonight though

     Posted by jzimm at 07/13/2005 @ 10:27pm