Democrats & Liberals Archives

Bush Losing War On Terror

A survey of the top 100 terrorism and national security experts concludes that President Bush is losing the war on terror. 84% say Bush is losing the war on terror, 86% say the world is becoming more dangerous for Americans, and 87% say Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq is negatively impacting the war on terror.

The result shouldn't be a surprise. Over the last few years, we've seen radical Islamists gain power in Palestine (Hamas), Egypt (Muslim Brotherhood), Syria (Hezbollah), and even Iraq (Moqtada al-Sadr and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq). And just last week we saw Islamic terrorists set up a new al Qaeda-led government in Somalia.

As radical Islamists gain power around the world in spite of -- and in many cases because of -- President Bush's foreign policy, we're also seeing the threat of nuclear proliferation grow almost unchecked in North Korea, Pakistan, India, and Iran. The nexus of terrorism and WMD that never existed in Iraq is becoming existential in several other places around the world because President Bush is failing to provide -- and after failing to turn up WMD in Iraq, may be incapable of providing -- international leadership to stop nuclear proliferation and roll back radical Islamist ideology.

The United States, especially while focused solely on Iraq, cannot win the global war on terror by itself. Just as previous American leaders created a number of international alliances and organizations to counter communist ideology and win the decades-long Cold War, we must create international institutions for a long-term struggle against radical Islamist ideologies and nuclear proliferation. This is obvious, and the Bush administration's failure to conceive and implement such institutions is a glaring setback for our national security.

Francis Fukuyama, the neoconservative purist, makes an insightful critique of the Bush administration's inability to effectively respond to global terrorism,

Skepticism about international law and the fight with the Europeans over Iraq has meant that neoconservatives have had virtually nothing innovative or interesting to say about new possibilities for multilateral organization. They would much rather harp on the United Nation's failings in the Oil for Food scandal than think about how to create an organization of democracies that would build incentives to improve governance and democracy around the world.

In the period immediately after World War II, American power was used not just to deter Soviet aggression but also to create a welter of new international organizations and agreements, from the Bretton Woods institutions (the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund) to the United Nations, NATO, the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, and United States Treaty), GATT, and the like.

The Bush administration and its neoconservative supporters have been very critical of existing international initiatives like the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court, but have offered up no alternatives in their place that would legitimate and enhance the effectiveness of American action in the world.

In other words, if the solution to nuclear proliferation and Islamic terrorism isn't the preventative invasion and occupation of every single potentially hostile region in the world where people hate -- or might someday come to hate -- American foreign policy, then Republicans are out of ideas... Hey, look over there! It's two guys kissing!

Posted by American Pundit at July 2, 2006 4:25 AM
Comments
Comment #164120

This despicable ignoramus posing as a U.S. President
has taken America apart piece by piece during his
illegal occupation of the White House.

He should be tried for treason, and if found
guilty, hung by the neck until dead!

You will notice that I said, “tried, and if found guilty” this
how we do things in America under a Rule of Law.

Something this dicksucker, I mean dictator knows
absolutely nothing about.

Good riddance!

Posted by: Cherylee at July 2, 2006 6:59 AM
Comment #164125

AP

Nice try. Your line-up of “experts” cited in the study is really a who’s who of talking heads who have spoken out against the administration ab initio.

In was on the watch of most of these Democratic “experts” that the run up to 9/11 occurred, so I am happy that now most of them are out of the loop and they concur that at least we HAVE a war on terror.

This is the same group for the most part parrotted the same song in the last presidential election for Kerry.

Only thing missing is the Swift Boat Brothers, and we can then slap a Kekky ‘08 on the whole piece.

Nice objective reporting, but I usually refer to another set of “experts” when I post on the other side.

The guys who are really in the loop,that is.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at July 2, 2006 8:15 AM
Comment #164126

SE -

So, your whole argument is that these experts have said things against Bush, so they are not credible… and that this was all somebody else’s fault.

1 - If you want to build a case against what these experts say - or prove a track record per each expert that shows a bias, then go for it. Right now, this sounds more like sour grapes.

2 - It’s not 9/11 that has increased the danger to Americans, it’s the response to 9/11 (invade an unrelated sovereign country) that has created this issue. Bush alone takes credit for this… he’s the decider - that means it was his decisions that lead us here.

I know you can not bring yourself to be critical of this Administration - but simply saying “nuh uh” really rings hollow. (Hint: it’s the guys “in the loop” who have created the disastrous issues we now face… you think they have a vested interest in shirking their responsibility?)

Posted by: tony at July 2, 2006 8:44 AM
Comment #164161

Tony

Virtually every source sited on the right get slammed as biased by the very commentators who later site their own biased sources hgere on the left.

For every “expert” sited in AP’s article, there is an equal number who say the exact opposite.

Who’s right? Probably, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

However, neither side will admit that, as if they do, then their original position is wrong, isn’t it?

Here, every time something…anything…is sited as making progress, the immediate response fro the left is “yes, But….” and then the attack continues.

Last week, I sited Sweetness and Light in my Murtha article. This outfit is vitriolic in its attack of the left, not onl y that, but it has learned from the left how to string together many middle to right blog sites now and storeies get an immediate bounce worldwide. It so happened that they caught Time in three inaccuracies in their original Haditha stort, and Time had to issue three different “clarifications”. Yet, the posters here sited the fact that sweetness and Light is a righty blog, and therefore cannot be believed.

Same thing with the USA Today story about the Southern Bell wiretaps. Bloggers were the first to tell the world that the story was incorrect and were attacked in two seconds as biased. This week, USA issued its “correction” to the original story.

AP is a very clever guy…far more so than I. When he drafts a piece on a particular point that he has, he finds the appropriate support for it in his newwork. Here, it’s important to point out that guys like Clarke and Zanni have been leading the charge against the administration’s position since the beginning.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at July 2, 2006 10:10 AM
Comment #164163

SE -

One question: what if Clarke and Zanni have had legitimate complaints about Bush from early on (it is quite possible given the history of bush’s failings)? Maybe they have been labeled as anit-Bush when what they are is opposed to his actions and strategies.

Posted by: tony at July 2, 2006 10:18 AM
Comment #164164

“In other words, if the solution to nuclear proliferation and Islamic terrorism isn’t the preventative invasion and occupation of every single potentially hostile region in the world where people hate — or might someday come to hate — American foreign policy, then Republicans are out of ideas… Hey, look over there! It’s two guys kissing!”

I couldn’t agree more with this. Wasn’t it also the Pope who came out against gay marriage around the world… when the Catholic church was embroiled in a pedophile disaster? They’re were playing 3 card monty… distract the parishioners while you reshuffle the priests into a different diocese.

Posted by: tony at July 2, 2006 10:23 AM
Comment #164171

If you’re a terrorism expert and haven’t been critical of this administration in any way - you’re not credible.

I like this whole game of “it’s in the eye of the beholder” the Republicans are playing. But it’s not. Bush tortured innocent people. He incarcerated innocent people without a trial. He spyed on his own citizens. Osama bin Laden is still out there.

Bush has done a helluva poor job, and I don’t need any expert to tell me. It’s plain as the nose on my face.

Posted by: Max at July 2, 2006 10:42 AM
Comment #164183

Tony

What happened was that early on most of these folks expressed their views, and their views were not accepted by the commander in chief, the generals prosectuting the war, and a whole bunch more peolpe. Powell is a good example. Within the administration, his view was not adopted. However, this happens every war. Look at the tention during the Second World between Ike and Montgomery.

Believe me, I have been critical of the way the war has been prosecuted, and have written many times on it, however, gonads are needed, and I didn’t them with the Democratic candidate the last election, and I see no one on the horizon, either.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at July 2, 2006 11:34 AM
Comment #164217

SE -

The previous Democratic candidate actually fought in a war and was injured… which is more than Bush, you or I can say. That’s take gonads. There is a huge gulf between gonads to do what is right and easily choosing what is dangerous only for others.

Posted by: tony at July 2, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #164225

Isn’t Bush the leader of Al Qaeda public relations in the US? I thought he was.

Posted by: gergle at July 2, 2006 1:10 PM
Comment #164227

Tony

Poor logic. Military service isn’t a threshold criteria for the presidency.
Plus, my view is that the president made decisions based on advise of his advisors, and that while many mistakes were made, he was the right man at the right time. That is where you,me and everone part ways on this side.

Here we have people calling the president despicable,ignaramous, war criminal and worse.

That’s terrible.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at July 2, 2006 1:11 PM
Comment #164228

Tony
He did fight in a war and got wounded. But you don’t play politics while in uniform as he did.

Posted by: Rich at July 2, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #164234

Tony
Here’s the best blog in the internet about counterterrorism.Nne of AP’s “experts” are here. A whole bunch others are, though:


counterterrorismblog.org

Posted by: sicilianeagle at July 2, 2006 1:31 PM
Comment #164247

Can any of Bush’s apologist come up with a single way this so-called war has improved the situation in this world? The only thing I ever hear cited is “aren’t you glad Saddam is out of power”? Yet even that is not an open and shut case. Frankly, I think I felt safer with him there than I do now, with chaos ruling there.

If Bush’s objective was to defeat terrorism, he appears to be failing miserably. If it was to increase profits for companies like Exxon and Haliburton, my hat is off to him.

Posted by: Stan at July 2, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #164251

It’s funny. Every time one of us Democrats - AP this time - presents a logical rationale for how badly the Bush administration is running the “war on terror,” the right starts a left-right argument. Why don’t you answer a rational argument with an opposing argument based on reason?

Posted by: Paul Siegel at July 2, 2006 2:22 PM
Comment #164253

Paul Siegal

I did exactly that. I pointed out that the basis for AP’s article, the “experts” he cited, are biased. Pretty straightforward, I think. I impeached the credibility of his article, that’s all.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at July 2, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #164254

“He did fight in a war and got wounded. But you don’t play politics while in uniform as he did.”

But you implied that Kerry had no gonads… and Bush did. I can show where Kerry showed GONADS when facing real personal danger. Can you show a single example for Bush?

Posted by: tony at July 2, 2006 2:36 PM
Comment #164267

Are the sources biased? From the article AP cited:

“In the survey, respondents were asked to self-identify their ideological bias from choices across a spectrum: very conservative, conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate, somewhat liberal, liberal, and very liberal. Thirty-one people identified themselves as some level of conservative, 40 identified as moderate, and 45 identified as some level of liberal. In order to ensure balance, the survey was weighted according to ideology to make the number of weighted liberal respondents equal to the number of conservative respondents. Moderate and conservative respondents remained unweighted.”

Posted by: William Cohen at July 2, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #164268

In Somalia, we just lost a war.

Think in terms of Fourth Generation Warfare. The time scales are much longer, sometimes even decades. The war in Somalia began over 14 years ago. After the fall of the previous dictator, the drought, and the Black Hawk Down incident, Somalia became a failed state run by warlords.

Inexplicably, the US investment in Somalia has been negligible. We allegedly financed some Mogadishu warlords @ $100,000 in their fight against the Taliban-styled movement, the Islamic Courts Union. After the Union won control of the south & Mogadishu, they elected a former compatriot of Osama bin Laden, Sheikh Aweys.

It took a long time. The investments were smaller, the stakes perhaps not as high, the exploitable resources neglibible; but make no mistake, the US just lost a war.

Another safe haven is available for Al Qaida to reconstitute its shattered organization.

The US is inherently vulnerable to 4GW. We need to rethink our approach towards fundamentalist Islam. Iraq is lost, with the long, dismaying end game playing out. I think we are in much more serious trouble in Afghanistan than most realize. It is precisely the lack of infrastructure and centralization which spreads that conflict over such a long time span, but simultaneously gives the US a chance to undermine the causes of the conflict.

Is Bush out of office yet? We have a lot of work to do.

Posted by: phx8 at July 2, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #164270

Tony
I never implied anything of the sort I said you don’t play politics while in uniform. The military takes orders from the commander in chief whoever he may be. I implied he over stepped his boundries.

Posted by: Rich at July 2, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #164274

phx8:

“The US is inherently vulnerable to 4GW. We need to rethink our approach towards fundamentalist Islam. Iraq is lost, with the long, dismaying end game playing out. I think we are in much more serious trouble in Afghanistan than most realize. It is precisely the lack of infrastructure and centralization which spreads that conflict over such a long time span, but simultaneously gives the US a chance to undermine the causes of the conflict.

These are all excellent points, especially the 4GW concept and Afghanistan. I share your concerns about the latter. If indeed there is a GWOT, it will indeed be dark, bloody, and essentially out of the public view—except when it has spectacular 9/ll type failures. A very unsatisfying state of affairs for a country that is still fighting WWII and hasn’t even absorbed the Vietnam tragedy yet.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 2, 2006 3:29 PM
Comment #164280

“Believe me, I have been critical of the way the war has been prosecuted, and have written many times on it, however, gonads are needed, and I didn’t them with the Democratic candidate the last election, and I see no one on the horizon, either.”

I think you stated that you didn’t see gonads on the DEM candidate… and I countered by stating that the opposite was true. Kerry was not in the military when he started his election campaign, so I don’t know what the uniform argument has to do with this.

One candidate took several bullets for his country, the other allowed people he did not know to do that for him. One has huge gonads, the other just borrows his gonads from others.

Posted by: tony at July 2, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #164286

Tony
Your the one who brought up the military thing.

Posted by: Rich at July 2, 2006 3:55 PM
Comment #164288

“A survey of the top 100 terrorism and national security experts concludes that President Bush is losing the war on terror”

Number of problems with this statement.

1. Its not Bush’s war, it is America’s war. Until America unites, we will struggle with this threat. The government got us in the war, take responsibility as a nation and stop trying to save party face. As a veteran, nothing pisses me off more.

2. How many attacks in the US since 911? None Success is in results not theories.

3. I guess the alternative to be what Clinton did while I was still in the service. When terrorist attacked the USS Cole we shock our fist and exclaimed “Those medling kids, we’ll get them”. Yeah, that was really effective.
Clinton couldn’t wait to get out of office and leave his mess behind. So for you democrats passing this problem off to Bush, do a little reserach on terrrist activities in the 90s leading to 911.

Both of your parties are pathetic and childish and need to learn to work together for our nation rather than the good of your witless parties.

I’m curmudgeon-at-large…….good night now.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at July 2, 2006 3:59 PM
Comment #164290

The war on terror is not a real war. It is no more a war than Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty or the eternal war on drugs. The war in Iraq is real. The war in Afghanistan is real. But to speak of a war against terror allows President Bush and his henchmen the luxury of justifying all the illegal and unconstitutional measures they have taken, the list is too long to type here.

No nation can fight a war on terror, not in the real sense of the word. Wars are won with military force. Military force is not going to win this so-called war. I leave it to others to think of a better word for the ‘effort’ against terrorism, but war is not the proper term.

Posted by: Clem at July 2, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #164293

“Tony
Your the one who brought up the military thing.”

Yes. And…

Posted by: tony at July 2, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #164295

Whats that got to do with running for president. One guy has gonads the other don’t liberal Clinton wasn’t in the military. I guess that means he don’t have gonads.

Posted by: Rich at July 2, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #164306

Rich

Go back and read the whole thread…

Posted by: tony at July 2, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #164309

Coonyjay:
I would agree with you that each terroris that is killed is an improvement to this world. However, Bush’s so-called war on terror is taking one step forward and three steps back. I’m not sure how creating three terrorists for each one we slay is improving the world. We must also ask at what price? If we could round up all terrorists in a single location and nuke them with a single bomb—should we? What if that place was New York City (okay, I can guess what you might say about that)? How about Crawford Texas. Should we not be concerned with the cost of getting them? Do you value the lives of innocent American men, women and children more than you do the lives of innocent Iraqi men, women and children? What if the price, in addition to tens of thousands of lives, is that we give up all the rights and liberties that have made this country great? What if the price is that we become no better, in our tactics, than the terrorists we are targeting? Who has won the “war” then?

Posted by: Stan at July 2, 2006 4:57 PM
Comment #164321

The reason we are losing “The War on Terror” is that it is a war without focus.

First, it should always have been “The War Against Al Qaida” and related organizations. Maybe this would have prevented losing focus by going into Iraq.

Second, focusing gives us an chance of achieving a realistic goal with declared objectives, specifying steps and intermediate benchmarks.

Instead, we are wandering from situation to situation. Is it a War against OBL? Islam? Islamic Fundamentalists? Afghanistan an Iraq and Iran? Only Sunnis? Is it a fight to democratize the Middle East?

Now objectives constantly morph. We react to events abroad, we are always in reaction mode, and responses are determined by domestic political conserations.

Have we lost a war in Somalia? Who cares! It is not Iraq, there is no oil, and no one even knows where Somalia is located. That the situation reproduces the rise of the Taliban and Al Qaida in Afghanistan escapes popular notice.

Posted by: phx8 at July 2, 2006 5:41 PM
Comment #164325

—Sicianeagle—After five years of complete control of all Governmental actions an inaction lay Solly on the shoulders of the Republican Party, all the spin in the world can no longer include blaming any Democrats for the folly the Republicans have wrought on this country. I do not believe even your own party believes half what you and other spinmeisters try pushing down their throat, an are beginning to throw the rest out with the other trash.

Posted by: DAVID at July 2, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #164327

phx8:

“…we are wandering from situation to situation. Is it a War against OBL? Islam? Islamic Fundamentalists? Afghanistan an Iraq and Iran? Only Sunnis? Is it a fight to democratize the Middle East?”

Yeah, this GWOT thing has always been a moveable feast—except for investors and corporations.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 2, 2006 5:54 PM
Comment #164331

—By the way{I really do not believe any one needs any expert to explain to any of we the people, of the regressive state of affairs of the past few years]

Posted by: DAVID at July 2, 2006 6:02 PM
Comment #164333

David

Folly? Inflation in check, very low unemployment, prescription drugs benefits flowing to those who need it, eceoomy creating tens of thousands of jobs every month, the dollar pegged pretty good, the market doing ok, seems like domestically the year has been very good.

If the left makes the economy the issue, they won’t do well, I think.

PLUS, Rove is on duty now and as usual the dems will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again. Your party has no leadership, vision, or plan. Only vitriol.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at July 2, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #164335

—sicilianeagle—I am sure any with a job making over fifty thousand dollars are doing very well, but those loosing jobs not on any stats, because those records are not kept, the increase of the homeless unknown, and the minimum wage folks may not agree with proclaimed new riches and the great American Dream.

Posted by: DAVID at July 2, 2006 6:16 PM
Comment #164336

phx8,

You make some very good points, actually there have many valid points made by nearly everyone.

As you point out though “Now objectives constantly morph.” and that is exactly right. I remember Bush & Co’s. attempt to define the Axis of Evil as Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Well, nothing in todays world is that simple.

During WWII we knew who comprised the Axis Powers. What we truly face now is religious extremism that has “morphed” (sorry to borrow the term) into a movement who’s goal is to fulfill their “prophecy”. That “prophecy” includes destroying us and/or our way of life.

That being said, look at their progress. Things have inarguably worsened in Afghanistan. Bin Laden’s still in hiding. Somalia is quickly becoming what Afghanistan was only a few years ago (with the help of Saudi funding). Al Qaeda now does have terrorists in place in Iraq and we’re bogged down trying to police the Iraqi civil conflict.

Now, look at our progress………………..
uh, help me out here……………….

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 2, 2006 6:19 PM
Comment #164337

SE:

“…Rove is on duty now and as usual the dems will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again. Your party has no leadership, vision, or plan. Only vitriol.”

I think I’m beginning to get a handle on your participation on this blog. You don’t view this as political discussion with equals and fellow citizens. This, for you, is theater—and campy theater at that.

At least Jack treats us with respect.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 2, 2006 6:23 PM
Comment #164345

“I impeached the credibility of his article, that’s all.”

SE,

With all due respect I’d say you “attempted” to impeach the credibility of AP’s article. I still find it quite credible. At least as much so as FOX news.

I’d like to hear just exactly what Bush & Co. has done to reduce the terrorist threat to the USA.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 2, 2006 6:42 PM
Comment #164349

SE-
Don’t tell me you managed in the space of a few hours to go through that list of a hundred experts and establish their political views in on fell swoop? Quit using the bias argument. It’s tired, it’s insulting to those you wish to persuade, and it says absolutely nothing about why we should take you at your word. At this point, you’re arguing around the subject, rather than dealing with it. That has been the bane of your party for the last decade.

Until the GOP learns to deal with policy and information in a mature fashion, it will not climb out of the hole that folks Like Bush have dug them into.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 2, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #164353

Kansas Dem,
How do we measure progress? It is difficult, since we have no idea what to include in the measurement. The Terrorism article linked by AP provides one assessment.

I would give credit to Bush for preventing attacks within the US. I think he overestimated the threat of additional attacks, though, and should have publicly declared that Al Qaida was no longer a significant threat after 2003. What little organization Al Qaida possessed was dismantled at that point. A network still probably exists, some guys in mud huts in Pakistan are still at it, and OBL/Zawahiri are still at large. Still, Bush should count domestic security as a victory.

Afghanistan could be a victory, but it is slipping through our fingers.

Iraq is a loss by any measure.

Somalia is a loss.

In strategic terms, the US has sacrificed its Soft Power in favor of military power for whatever the hell “The War on Terror” is. This has been a disaster. Economic power and moral/legal legitimacy have as much sway as military power, but we have given up that mantle. I say again. Big mistake. Maybe the biggest one of all.

Posted by: phx8 at July 2, 2006 7:26 PM
Comment #164354

anyone ever notice that the only things Bush mentions when it comes to securing the homeland or fighting terrorists are all involved with secret programs that can’t be discussed?

Oh yea - it netted a pretty nasty bunch of terrorist in Miami. Of course, if you want your terrorists to actually have a plan and weapons to carry out the attack, then you need to wait a bit more. (1 nasty guy and 6 suckers.)

“So, Mr. President, can you honestly say you are doing everything you can do to fight the terrorists?”

Bush: “Absolutely.”

“So, what exactly have you done? Borders? Port Security? Mass transit?”

Bush: “Ummm… sorry, I can’t disclose any details.”

Brilliant! (“We’re doing everything needed. Trust us.”)

Posted by: tony at July 2, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #164357

Tony,
Exactly right. “The War on Terror” turned out to be much more useful as a tool to influence domestic events than as a coherent foreign policy.

Before the 2004 election, the Terror alert status, the Traffic Light of Death, was was 13 times. According to Tom Ridge, head of Homeland Security at the time, not once did HSA raise the alert. Each time, the order came from the White House.

It was all about maintaining an atmosphere of fear. This turned out to be more valued than declaring the domestic terrorist threat substantially over. Ironically, the fear created by the Bush administration terrorized the Republicans.

Posted by: phx8 at July 2, 2006 7:52 PM
Comment #164358

a very interesting so-called debate here everyone.
i admit to being PRO-VICTORY.(http://www.northamericanpatriot.com/provictory/)The link is for those who wish to join. so i have already declared my bias in this arguement. but one question though. i have seen this quoted before but have never been told how they came to this statistic. could someone on the left please inform me?
“I’m not sure how creating three terrorists for each one we slay is improving the world”

Posted by: The Griper at July 2, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #164363

“How do we measure progress?”

phx8,

I’d start by looking at the origin of the most recent attack (or attacks). Of course that means our move against the Taliban and subsequently the Al Queda training camps was a smart move. But then we got distracted with Iraq.

At the same time I’d be giving a damn serious look at our vulnerabilities. Well, how have we fared there?

How greatly have we improved “air travel” security? (Please include freight in the equation)

How about port security?

Or border security?

The DHS was created to improve our security. After days of warnings Katrina still left the government standing around scratching their asses. So are we better prepared to respond to a terrorist attack?

BTW the DHS was IMO created to make up for the failings of Condi (there are many alerts crossing our desks every day) Rice. Good thing her name already ends with a vowel, “great job Condi” sounds much better than “great job Browny”.

I just want to know exactly what this administration has accomplished along the lines of making us safer here in the USA. Not just rhetoric but actual facts.

I’d also like to know the honest facts about the current capabilities of our ground troops of which the National Guard has become a large part.

I just think it’s time to come clean with the public. Give us a true assessment and be willing to die politically for something men and women are actually dieing for.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 2, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #164369

phx8,
I agree with you about the Republicans “maintaining an atmosphere of fear.” There’s a term for people who do that. I can’t remember what we call them….

Posted by: Stan at July 2, 2006 9:06 PM
Comment #164373

Stephen Daughtery

The site that AP cited is a left leaning site. Spend a few minutes any of perhaps 10 different articles there and you’ll get the drift.

It’s similar to a trial. Both sides in a trial hire experts in their field. Hired guns so to speak.

Check out counterterrorismblog.com for a completely different view. Same type of experts, dofferent conclusion.

Tim Crow

Absolutely not true. Lasr week I said I thought that everyone on this side was a patriot, and immediatedly I get slammed as patronizing. One person recently (actually, I think it was you) called me the “enemy”. I let it go at the time, and I still am letting it go, but Ap cited a biased report as the thrust of his story and I refuted it. Check out the web site I cited. Experts there too. We are all equal…I am glad you said that. How about remembering that in our next exchange?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at July 2, 2006 9:47 PM
Comment #164378

Stan

Fearmongers would be one such term that could be used to describe the republican neocons. Will there “fear level” ever drop below “elevated”?

Posted by: mark at July 2, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #164382

>>Ap cited a biased report as the thrust of his story and I refuted it.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at July 2, 2006 09:47 PM

I’m not so sure that statement is true…you did not profer proof his ‘experts’ are incorrect, only that you don’t believe them. You offer no proof your ‘experts’ are correct, only that you do believe them. Most of the time a refutation requires substancially more than a biased opinion…

Posted by: Marysdude at July 2, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #164385

Yo Marysdude,

Am I right thinking, “long time no see”?

If so welcome back. If not just ignore me. I’m often an idiot.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 2, 2006 10:55 PM
Comment #164388

SE, you didn’t refute or “impeach” anything. The survey was a joint project by the Center for American Progress and the conservative Foreign Policy Magazine. Here’s a list of the experts:

David Albright, Jon Alterman, John Arquilla, Ron Asmus, Scott Atran, Andrew Bacevich, Rand Beers, Daniel Benjamin, Peter Bergen, Mia Bloom, Philip Bobbitt, Joseph Bouchard, Jarret Brachman, Matthew Bunn, Dan Byman, Kurt Campbell, Ted Carpenter, Ashton Carter, Joseph Cirincione, Richard Clarke, Steve Coll, Roger Cressey, Sheba Crocker, PJ Crowley, Arnaud deBorchgrave, Mary DeRosa, Matthew Devost, Larry Diamond, Dana Dillon, James Dobbins, Tom Donnelly, Lawrence Eagleburger, RP Eddy, Michael Eisenstadt, Clark Ervin, John Esposito, Gareth Evans, Douglas Farah, Michele Flournoy, Stephen Flynn, James Forest, William Frenzel, Francis Fukayama, Kathy Gannon, Gregory Gause, Leslie Gelb, Fawaz Gerges, William Gertz, Larry Goodson, Mort Halperin, Peggy Hamburg, Gary Hart, David Heyman, Philip Heymann, Joseph HoarBruce Hoffman, Laura Holgate, John Hulsman, Jo Husband, G. John Ikenberry, Larry Johnson, Robert Kagan, Kenneth Katzman, Juliette Kayyem, Geoffrey Kemp, Daryl Kimball, Larry Korb, Charles Kupchan, Ellen Laipson, Anthony Lake, Randall Larsen, Thomas Lippman, Jane Holl Lute, Robert Malley, Thomas Marks, John McCarthy, Mary McCarthy, Michael McFaul, Merrill McPeak, Doris Meissner, Joshua Muravchik, William Nash, William Odom, Michael O’Hanlon, Martha Brill Olcott, Charles Pena, Paul Pillar, Walter Pincus, William Potter, Christopher Preble, Charles Pritchard, Kenneth Roth, Barnett Rubin, Marc Sageman, Robert Scales, Teresita Schaffer, Michael Scheuer, Steven Simon, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Gayle Smith, Amy Smithson, James Steinberg, Jessica Stern, Raymond Tanter, Shibley Telhami, Loren Thompson, Jack Vessey, Edward Walker, Stephen Walt, William Wechsler, William West, Lawrence Wilkerson, James Woolsey, Daniel Zelikow, Anthony Zinni, James Zogby

Contrary to what you claim, the list includes experts from the site you provided. And there’s no way you can say Lawrence Eagleburger or Francis Fukuyama have a liberal bias. And as William pointed out, the survey was weighted to remove liberal bias anyhow.

Nice try, SE, but all you did was avoid the issue.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 2, 2006 11:20 PM
Comment #164389
How many attacks in the US since 911? None Success is in results not theories.

This is always an entertaining rationale, curmudgeon. To truly believe it, you have to admit that the absence of an al-Qaeda attack on the US during the ’90s is due solely to Clinton’s masterful counterterrorism program. Welcome to the Clinton fan club!

Posted by: American Pundit at July 2, 2006 11:37 PM
Comment #164400

sicilianeagle:

“We are all equal…I am glad you said that. How about remembering that in our next exchange?”

Okay, I will endeavor to do that.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 3, 2006 12:12 AM
Comment #164404

Mark,

Now I remember the word. It’s “terrorist.”

Posted by: Stan at July 3, 2006 12:45 AM
Comment #164418

Gergle,

Isn’t Bush the leader of Al Qaeda public relations in the US? I thought he was.

IIRC, the CIA said they have yet to certify Bush speeches are genuine.
;-)

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 3, 2006 4:52 AM
Comment #164419

Rich,

you don’t play politics while in uniform as he did.

Too bad Bush didn’t listen to this good advice.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 3, 2006 5:02 AM
Comment #164431

How tiresome. Bush is (bad, lied, a “dicksucker,” evil, responsible for 9/11, personally ordered soldiers to rape women, engineered the Katrina disaster, etc.) You Libs whine like little old ladies in a sewing circle.

So, the current Lib mantra is “Bush is losing the War on Terror.” This makes me think of the Dems despicable behavior at the Wellstone memorial, for some reason. Well, it was supposed to be a memorial, but it was actually a “Bash Bush” rally. That’s what this thread reminds me of.

Anyone ever play the Opposite Game when you were kids? That’s a game Libs love to play. If it’s sunny outside, say it’s raining and blame it on Bush. If no jihadist headcutters have succeeded in attacking us on our home turf over the past 5 years, call it a DHS failure and blame it on Bush. If regimes that were once havens for terrorists have been overthrown (Afganisthan, Iraq) or have simply thrown in the towel (Libya), deny reality altogether and blame it on Bush.

Tiresome.

Posted by: crowan at July 3, 2006 8:35 AM
Comment #164433

So, crowan, have you any argument to actually oppose to this thread points or you’re too tired to find some?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 3, 2006 9:08 AM
Comment #164434

An addendum to my earlier post -

I want to see the Lib alternatives to the way in which the War on Terror is being fought. For example:

We should be a LOT more aggressive in the way we engage the enemy. (Translation: We have to kill a lot more terrorists.) One way to do this would be to let loose the B-52’s. Hey, it got the North Vietnamese back to the Peace Conference, right? Cordon off an area, distribute leaflets announcing bomb time in 24 hours, inspect all leaving area for weapons, and bomb area to smithereens at appointed time. I don’t think this would have to be done very many times before the Iraquis sympathetic to the insurgency got the point.

Now, don’t get your hair nets in a tizzy. It was just an EXAMPLE.

I also want to know the name of the champion who will carry the Lib banner to victory in 2008. Who is it going to be - Murtha? Kerry? Gore? Hillary? Mini-Me? I’d like to know so we can engage in a discussion about how a future Lib president would fight a more effective War on Terror.

What would a Lib president do? Hmm. Pressing on to ultimate victory is out of the question. I think a Lib president’s approach to the War on Terror would have to include gays in the military. It would just HAVE to, wouldn’t it?

What else would a Lib president do? I know! SURRENDER! RUN AWAY! That’s the ticket! If we surrender and run away, the Europeans will love us once again.

There’s no actual War on Terror, anyway. We need to surrender so we can get back on track with the important work at home; namely, undermining the American family by redefining marriage, taxing the Middle Class out of existence, and installing express lanes at abortion clinics.

Posted by: crowan at July 3, 2006 9:13 AM
Comment #164436

Nice addendum Crowan, but I failed to see where do you confront the American terrorism experts opinion that AP has spotlighted at top of this thread?

Does it means you basically agreed about their expressed opinions or what?
If not, why don’t you push your counter-arguments then? You know, like in a debate…

Oh, yes, about this:

What else would a Lib president do? I know! SURRENDER! RUN AWAY! That’s the ticket! If we surrender and run away, the Europeans will love us once again.

As an european, I will love Americans once again if they clean the mess they’ve made in Iraq and join the rest of the World in fight back this tiny pollution issue (and growing) we have…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 3, 2006 9:36 AM
Comment #164437

As an American, I will will worry about what other country’s citizens think about America … well, never actually.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 3, 2006 9:44 AM
Comment #164441

Rhinehold, you’ve all the rights to not listen the rest of the world.
Just don’t blame it for some of your own foreign policy failure, particulary when you were warmed about.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 3, 2006 9:52 AM
Comment #164442

AP
One of your experts, Charles Pena, can be found on the pages of anti-war.com,Dan Benjamin served in the Clinton White House and is a Democratic talking head,Richard Clarke, well everone knows that guy, he even appears on Bill Maher’s Show, for heaven’s sake and rakes the administration pretty good, Zinni has crucified the president from the beginning,Kathy Gannon, the former AP writer, is a regular contributor to the New Yorker magazine, and can hardly be called unbiased,Martha Brill Olcott is NOT a terror expert,her area is Russian and she works for the Carnigie Peace Foundation,Walt is a prof at Harvard and a far cry from a terror expert,neither can Darly Kimball be considered a terror expert,rather an arms-control theorist,Mia Bloom is a poli-sci prof,and the list goes on.

It depends on what you call an expert, doesn’t it?
Jack Vessey, is a hero…served in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Joint Chiefs, but he is 93 years old and I think out of the loop for a while.

Ther you have it, friend. 10% of your list “distinguished” away…enough to make the entire article fall flat on its face.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at July 3, 2006 9:55 AM
Comment #164443

Yeah, 10% is definitly a majority.
Sad day for Math.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 3, 2006 10:09 AM
Comment #164445

“you have to admit that the absence of an al-Qaeda attack on the US during the ’90s is due solely to Clinton’s masterful counterterrorism program”

Don’t you actually need to be a functioning organism before you can pull off terrorist exploits? That was the mission of Al Qaeda in the 90s. To become a fomidable force. That’s not opinion, it is fact…do some study.

Clinton allowed the attck of the USS Cole to go unpunished after an impressive speech of what would happen to the attackers. I believe that was a “LIE” that somehow democrats are OK with. Why is the Clinton “lie” OK but the Bush “Lie” is not? No response needed…. I know why.

Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at July 3, 2006 10:20 AM
Comment #164447


Crowan: The B52’s got the North Vietnamese back to the negotiating table so Nixon could surrender South Vietnam to them.

Late breaking news: Zarquawi’s cell phone is filled with numbers of people in the Iraq government and Iraq parliment. Zarquawi’s wife says that a deal was struck between U.S. officials and high ranking Al Quada members. Supposedly they agreeded to give up Zarquawi in return for the U.S. abandoning it’s search for Bin Laden. I for one have no problem believing this for two reasons. One, our search to find and capture or kill Bin Laden to this date, has been a fruitless endeavor costing much in manpower and money. Two, the administration and especially the republicans in Congress are desperate for good news from Iraq in this crucial election year.

Posted by: jlw at July 3, 2006 10:26 AM
Comment #164452

Not only a sad day for math, but he hand-picked those examples out (not really a “control group,” eh?), so it’s a sad day for science, too. I think SE should admit defeat here, despite a courageous effort against most of the rest of the thread. It’s hard to defend knee jerk reactions!

Posted by: DavidL at July 3, 2006 10:54 AM
Comment #164457

Philippe -

I am pleased that you like my addendum. Unless, of course, you’re being sarcastic.

Let’s take a look at the metholology employed in the survey:

“The nonscientific survey was administered online from March 6 to April 21, 2006.”

Nonscientific? Hmm. Doesn’t that leave a lot of room for error?

“In the survey, respondents were asked to self-identify their ideological bias from choices across a spectrum: very conservative, conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate, somewhat liberal, liberal, and very liberal.”

So, it was left up to respondents to label themselves as liberal or conservative. Hmm. Lots of room for error there, too. All a respondent had to do was identify himself as a conservative or a liberal. There was no method used to determine the actual political leanings of respondents.

“Thirty-one people identified themselves as some level of conservative, 40 identified as moderate, and 45 identified as some level of liberal.”

Oh, come on. Moderate, Liberal, potayto, potahto. A Moderate is a Liberal who can’t make up his mind. Senator Arlen Spector is a “Moderate Republican,” aka Liberal. Senator Hillary is a “Moderate Democrat,” aka Liberal. So, at the outset of this nonscientific survey, we have 85 ModerateLiberals and 31 self-described KindaConservatives. Seems loaded to me.

“In order to ensure balance, the survey was weighted according to ideology to make the number of weighted liberal respondents equal to the number of conservative respondents. Moderate and conservative respondents remained unweighted.”

Really? And how was that accomplished in this “nonscientific” survey, exactly?

And when I read some of the actual choices in the survey, it reminded me of a Gotcha! joke that goes “When did you stop beating your wife?”

In my humble opinion, this survey is just another in a long series of attempts by Libs to wrestle defeat from the jaws of victory.

Posted by: crowan at July 3, 2006 11:03 AM
Comment #164458

SE -

so your entire “debunking” of AP’s article is plausible deniability?

Posted by: tony at July 3, 2006 11:05 AM
Comment #164459

JLH -

“The B52’s got the North Vietnamese back to the negotiating table so Nixon could surrender South Vietnam to them.”

Yep. Nixon caved to overwhelming negative public opinion against U.S. involvement in Viet Nam. I agree with you that pulling out of Viet Nam was a huge mistake. Pulling out of Iraq prematurely would also be a huge mistake, right?

Posted by: crowan at July 3, 2006 11:13 AM
Comment #164460

Tony

You know the Mighty Eagle is a lawyer…and a good one at that, too. Now, if were “on the case” so to speak, and really wanted to rip the credibility of this article, then I would analyze, say 35% of these “experts”…enough to make even a liberal say, “Ok,I got the point”

However, what I really wanted to point out is that each side can assemble their own “experts” and present a case either way.

Now, any nitwit can see that things are tough there….war IS tough, but anty talk of “losing” this war is defeatist and poppycock in my view, and I will continue to engage those in discussion to point that out.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at July 3, 2006 11:18 AM
Comment #164461

BTW, having just seen the article I did ‘mosey’ on over to the site, Center for American Progress (the ‘progress’ part is important, it is a ‘progressive’ site). This is flag number one. While they my have broken new ground on an important subject, it is more likely that this group has an agenda and is working towards that. So I have flag #1 enabled and looking with a more critical eye.

This is also a great example of how different words used in interesting ways can lead to confusion about the facts. AP labels these people as ‘the top 100 terrorism and national security experts’. However, that’s not exactly how it is described on the website which uses the phrase ‘over 100 of America’s most esteemed terrorism and national security experts’.

Now notice the difference. AP suggests that these are the top 100 while the article says ‘100 of the most esteemed’. Already we are seeing the reformulation of a fact into a stronger statement for one side’s argument, misleading the reader.

And then we start to look at the list. I have to agree with SE here that the list is VERY suspect. For example, he didn’t mention James Zogby. Dr Zogby is a very learned man on Arab Affairs, he worked with VP Gore on promoting US business interests in the Gaza Strip and has worked to mobilize Arabs in the US political process. He was a founding member and leader of the Palestine Human Rights Campaign, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, and Save Lebanon, Inc., the latter a private non-profit, humanitarian relief organization which funds health care for Palestinian and Lebanese victims of war, and other social welfare projects in Lebanon. In 2001, Zogby was elected to the Executive Committee of the United States Democratic National Party (DNC).

He has fought long and hard for Arab Affairs, and I applaud him for that, but does that make him a Terrorism and National Security expert?

Who came up with the list? Who is labelling these people as ‘terrorism and national security experts’? Is there an agreed upon list somewhere or is this just a group of people with ties to the DNC who work on these topics in some way or another?

Now with flag #1 up, noticing the difference in phrasing and then looking at several people on the list and wondering how they are ‘top experts on terrorism and national security’ it is starting to look like this was a manufactured poll by a partisan group in order to further a political agenda.

Of course, just my opinion…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 3, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #164462
To truly believe it, you have to admit that the absence of an al-Qaeda attack on the US during the ’90s is due solely to Clinton’s masterful counterterrorism program.

Erm, WTC #1, USS Cole, US Embassies…

So very peaceful, wasn’t it?

I don’t agree with the argument you are trying to debunk, but let’s not get crazy with the suggestions that the US wasn’t attacked in the 90s…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 3, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #164465

crowan,

“The nonscientific survey was administered online from March 6 to April 21, 2006.”

Nonscientific? Hmm. Doesn’t that leave a lot of room for error?

Even a scientific one would.

All a respondent had to do was identify himself as a conservative or a liberal.

*Or* a moderate one.

There was no method used to determine the actual political leanings of respondents.

There was one, but an nonscientific one. BTW, I wonder how even a scientific method could establish without error people political leaning…

Anyway, are you saying that some respondents must have lied about their political leaning? Why would they?
Afterall, self-identifying as conservatives group is a minority already, if some others lied and said they’re liberals or moderates, isn’t a bad news that these experts don’t assume being conservatives *and* at the same time expressing doubt on war on terror effectiveness?

Or are you saying that liberals ones lied because none of the experts were conservatives but for credibility sake some have to counter balance the survey???

Moderate, Liberal, potayto, potahto. A Moderate is a Liberal who can’t make up his mind. Senator Arlen Spector is a “Moderate Republican,” aka Liberal. Senator Hillary is a “Moderate Democrat,” aka Liberal. So, at the outset of this nonscientific survey, we have 85 ModerateLiberals and 31 self-described KindaConservatives. Seems loaded to me.

Oh, yet again “us or them” argument!
Life should strange when viewed by your monochromatic eyes. I guess some lefties consider Hillary as kinda republican, while some neocons consider some republicans too soft to be anything but liberals.

You could twist the numbers how you want, but that’s not the survey results but your, right vs left adjusted. Doesn’t make it anymore nonscientific than their, which mean your is as prone to lot of errors as their… What’s scientific in classing every self-declared moderates in liberals case??? What your error rate? I wonder…

“In order to ensure balance, the survey was weighted according to ideology to make the number of weighted liberal respondents equal to the number of conservative respondents. Moderate and conservative respondents remained unweighted.”

Really? And how was that accomplished in this “nonscientific” survey, exactly?

Good question. Dunno. One should ask them.
Most probably the weight was the ratio conservatives/liberals or the reverse liberals/conservatives one…

In my humble opinion, this survey is just another in a long series of attempts by Libs to wrestle defeat from the jaws of victory.

Back your opinion with facts and you could eventually claim it’s the reality. Until, it’s a survey. A debatable one.

Care to talk about the survey topic, aka is Bush losing war on terror?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 3, 2006 11:39 AM
Comment #164466

Ooops, sorry for bad blockquoting… My bad.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 3, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #164474

The wrong wing is using the “Global War on Terror” as little more than a marketing campaign. Instead of actually fighting it, they’re treating it like it’s a “little black dress” that they can trot out whenever they want to score political points.

Curmudgeon,
The Cole was attacked on October 12, 2000 - less than two months before the 2000 Presidential election, and less than three months before the Clinton administration left office. So, if you’re upset that the Clinton administration didn’t catch the perpetrators of the attack on the Cole in three months, then you must be absolutely furious that the Bush administration has failed to catch OBL or the Taliban leaders in almost five years.

Eagle,
You are so predictable. When you can’t defend the Bush administration’s actions any other way, you fall back on the Rovian “attack the messenger” ploy. Everyone who disagrees with the actions of the Bush League is just doing so for political purposes. They’re all just “Bush-haters” and “democratic talking heads”. Right.

If he’s just another Bush-hater, then why did the Bush Administration retain Richard Clarke as their head of counter-terrorism?

Your feathers are on fire, there, eagle. I think you’ve just been shot down in flames.

Posted by: Elliott at July 3, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #164482

How many terrorists have been caught attempting to infiltrate US borders? The Mexican border is wide open. Where are the terrorists?

Posted by: phx8 at July 3, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #164493

SE-
First and foremost, all organizations can be said to have some kind of lean. The question is how that bias effects the information.

They actually weighted the liberal participant so that their contribution counted less per person. Included among the Conservative side Are Robert Kagan, James Woolsey, Frances Fukuyama (of End of History fame), and Laurence Eagleburger, some of the strongest proponents of the war. I’m sure there are other less well known names, but those pop right out.

I think people use the term progressive when they don’t want to be saddled with the hard-left image that years of Conservative misuse of the term has caused. The Two sites, Foreign Policy magazine, and the Center for American Progress strike me as fairly moderate.

Oh, researching about counterterrorismblog.org, I came across two articles: This first is the previous source on the matter of the SWIFT Disclosure, as used by the Blue Column. This second entry Takes a moderated version of the Red column point of view

What troubles me is that your side does not consider both points of view, but instead narrows everything down, ignores previous disclosures, and instantly judges the NYT guilty of treason.

It only benefits those looking to rile up the rank and file. As a whole, it give the Republican party yet another black eye, as it indulges in more political theatrics at the expense of doing actual hard work on governing.

What are they trying to do? Is this the image they want to continue to cast as the elections approach? If so, they’re making our job a hell of a lot easier, because the borders will still be unsecure, Iraq will still be a mess, and on and on. Unsolved problems have done more to sink the Republicans than “liberal bias”. People have stuck with the Republican party as long as they have because most of the problems for them have been small, unremarkable.

Now, though, folks are getting hit with some pretty big problems, and the Republican approach has been the usual politics, only more aggressively pursued. The unfortunate result of that has been a great number of messes for the average American to resent the GOP over.

This media bias thing doesn’t help. It only makes the Republicans look more unsympathetic. Nor do the constant attacks on liberals and dissenters. Given that there are more of them than there are of you, it doesn’t serve to make the conservative ideology persuasive. The lack of compromise on their part further aggravates the problem because it make it difficult for people to lean Right without having to fall over into a party they don’t fully agree with. The attempt to remake American into a conservative paradise won’t work if you add alienation on top of alienation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 3, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #164495

“then you must be absolutely furious that the Bush administration has failed to catch OBL or the Taliban leaders in almost five years.”

Clinton did not catch perpetrators because HE DID NOTHING. No, because you see this adminstration has made AN ATTEMPT to catch OBL and they continue the efforts. OBL is intelligent. well connected and well funded. I have patience as long as we remain diligent. Remember Carlos the Jackyal? Twenty years.

Clinton spent his last three months trying to get out….. signing 200 pardons and the such. He knew exactly where he left this country. I hold him every bit as responsible as the Republicans. This peak in terrorism we have expereienced is due to the apathy of the governemnt, not a party nor a man.

Problem is….most Americans seem to think the 911 attack was planned over a weekend on a cruiseship in the Persian Gulf. The scarlet thread permeates all the way back to the early 90s. If Americans would only educate themselves and stop the ridiculous finger pointing between parties.

Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at July 3, 2006 1:33 PM
Comment #164505

phx8:

“How many terrorists have been caught attempting to infiltrate US borders? The Mexican border is wide open. Where are the terrorists? “

Capitol Hill.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 3, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #164508

“How many terrorists have been caught attempting to infiltrate US borders?

OK, I’ll bite….how many? But as for “wide open”, dont we have the NG there? Have you tried crossing where the illegals cross? Its not easy……..not to mention Mexico has some of the strictest boarder restrictions in the world. Ironic, huh? Maybe they still remember what happend to Trotsky.

Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at July 3, 2006 2:12 PM
Comment #164516

It just so happens the Mexicans are as polarized as we are. This race was forecasted as being close and Voila! it ended up that way. Sounds like someone trying to start a conspiracy theory. Though I do like the name Chucklenutts.

Posted by: BAWDYSCOT at July 3, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment #164529

President Bush disregared the the PDR reports in the summer of 01 even Rice stated that al qaida was determine to atack US ,But said that it did not say when or where. This was was happening while Prez was down on ranch clearing brush. His advizers were afraid to tell him anything that he could not comprehend. His Invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the global fight on terror and quicker the American relize this the better off we will be. The administration did an exellant job of selling this to the public. Earal aTr republican

Posted by: Earl A TR republican at July 3, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #164534

“I can show where Kerry showed GONADS when facing real personal danger. Can you show a single example for Bush?”

Well, he SAT on his gonads for 7 minutes while America burned.

Posted by: Observer at July 3, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #164538

“Inflation in check, very low unemployment, prescription drugs benefits flowing to those who need it, eceoomy creating tens of thousands of jobs every month, the dollar pegged pretty good, the market doing ok, seems like domestically the year has been very good.”

Oh geez. Here we go.
Inflation NOT in check, that’s why rates have been raised 17 straight times.
Unemployment stats are BULLSH*T. You know that. Any system that STOPS COUNTING when unemployment benefits run out is not a serious system.
The perscription drug plan? You mean the one that was passed by LYING about it’s costs. The one that benefits pharmo corps 3 bucks for every one that goes to benefits?
The job market is not even back to when bush took office. It takes OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND a month, JUST TO BREAK EVEN!
The stock market STILL isn’t back to pre bush levels either. And the dollar is still tanking to other currencies, if your paying attention.
Real wages, (you know, the ACTUAL income compared to costs) has dropped since bush took over. (exempt CEO salaries and it’s even worse)
Companies tanking on their pension promises leaving retirees high and dry.
Yeah, great year.

Posted by: Observer at July 3, 2006 5:13 PM
Comment #164539

“Inflation in check, very low unemployment, prescription drugs benefits flowing to those who need it, eceoomy creating tens of thousands of jobs every month, the dollar pegged pretty good, the market doing ok, seems like domestically the year has been very good.”

Oh geez. Here we go.
Inflation NOT in check, that’s why rates have been raised 17 straight times.
Unemployment stats are BULLSH*T. You know that. Any system that STOPS COUNTING when unemployment benefits run out is not a serious system.
The perscription drug plan? You mean the one that was passed by LYING about it’s costs. The one that benefits pharmo corps 3 bucks for every one that goes to benefits?
The job market is not even back to when bush took office. It takes OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND a month, JUST TO BREAK EVEN!
The stock market STILL isn’t back to pre bush levels either. And the dollar is still tanking to other currencies, if your paying attention.
Real wages, (you know, the ACTUAL income compared to costs) has dropped since bush took over. (exempt CEO salaries and it’s even worse)
Companies tanking on their pension promises leaving retirees high and dry.
Yeah, great year.

Posted by: Observer at July 3, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #164541

“If Americans would only educate themselves and stop the ridiculous finger pointing between parties.”

You first, Crmudgeon, you first.

Posted by: Observer at July 3, 2006 5:19 PM
Comment #164543

Hey Philippe -

The results of the survey are questionable at best, and perhaps even suspect. The sample of respondents is decidedly left-leaning. It was left to the respondents to identify themselves as conservative, liberal, or moderate. The survey questions and choices were loaded and on the order of:

7. How evil is George W. Bush?

a) Extremely evil
b) Evil
c) Moderately evil
d) Somewhat evil


Posted by: crowan at July 3, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #164547

Crowan,

a.

Posted by: Observer at July 3, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #164549

Curm: That Clinton did nothing is factually incorrect. The peretrators of the first WTC bombing were captured. Terrorist attempting to cross the Canadian Border to plant bombs during the millenium celebrations were caught. The Oaklahoma bombers were caught. He launched cruise missles to destroy Al Quida training camps ,nearly getting Bin Laden. When he did that the reaction from the Republicans was “wag the dog.” Instead of supporting the president they pointed to a blue dress. If anything emboldened Bin Laden it was that. Certainly in hindsight, he should have done more but to say he did nothing is wrong. I do not believe you to be a liar but you should fact check before you embarrass yourself.

Posted by: BillS at July 3, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #164552


Crowan: It’s jlw and actually, I believe that pulling out of Viet Nam was the best thing that Nixon ever did for his nation. Every administration is capable of lying to the people to justify their policies. The big lie to justify Viet Nam was that we were there to stop the spread of Communism. The Pentagon Papers proved otherwise. The big lie to justify Iraq was WMD’s, I mean to get the terrorists there instead of here, oops I mean to bring Democracy to the Iraqi people even if we have to kill them all to do it. Ok I exagerate, we only have to kill the Sunnis to have Democracy in Iraq. They are all lies. Every war is about resources, money,wealth and greed. When you concentrate most of the wealth of a country into the hands of a few and to the detriment of the many, chances are that you are going to breed terrorists. Saudi Arabia is the number one breeding ground for terrorists. It also ranks nuber one for terrorist financing.

Posted by: jlw at July 3, 2006 6:09 PM
Comment #164559

To observer I will grant that the economy is doing well if you are a ceo. Ask those at GM or Untited Airlines. The jobs that are being created are at lower pay scale than the ones lost. His economicl policies have added on 2+ trillion dollars that your grand childern and greatgrand childern wont be able to pay off. His dad called this voodoo economics and he was right. A T.R Republican

Posted by: Earl aTR Republican at July 3, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #164561

“The jobs that are being created are at lower pay scale than the ones lost. “

A real employment statistic would include:
Everyone not working. Not just people ON unemployment benefits.
Include an index of average starting salary. If a $20/hour job went away and an $8/hour job replaced it, that index would go down.
As it is, if 1,000,000 people fell off the rolls, and every new job paid 1/3 of the ones that disappeared, the stats would still paint a rosy picture.

Posted by: Observer at July 3, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #164568
I would analyze, say 35% of these “experts”…

No doubt picking the 35% most critical of the Bush administration and ignoring the other 65% of conservatives and moderates. :)

C’mon, SE. Lawyers fight for their client whether or not they’re guilty. Why do you think a lawyerly argument would change anyone’s mind? A much more convincing argument would be a counter study that says the invasion and occupation of Iraq is actually eliminating more terrorists than it’s creating.

Erm, WTC #1, USS Cole, US Embassies…

Erm, I said al Qaeda attacks on the US. If you’re going to compare apples to apples (9/11), then none of your examples apply. In any case, I was just pointing out the gaping logic hole in curmudgeon’s argument.

The scarlet thread permeates all the way back to the early 90s. If Americans would only educate themselves and stop the ridiculous finger pointing between parties.

That’s exactly right, curmudgeon. The survey is an attempt to educate the public. When security experts from the right, left, and middle agree that there’s a problem with the way America is fighting the war on terror, it’s a call to arms not finger pointing.

Rumsfeld famously asked,

Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?

Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists’ costs of millions.

Do we need a new organization?

How do we stop those who are financing the radical madrassa schools?

Is our current situation such that “the harder we work, the behinder we get”?

Sadly, none of those questions have been addressed adequately (if at all) because our Republican leaders believe that doing so is akin to admitting defeat rather than adapting to circumstances.

They believe changing strategies to win the war on terror is political suicide, and so are incapable of winning.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 3, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #164570

Curmudgeon,

Clinton did nothing? In your dreams maybe, but not in reality. In reality, Clinton behaved differently than either of his two predecessors. Instead of arming them (as Reagan did), or ignoring them (as Bush I did), Clinton ordered his counterterrorism czar, Richard Clarke (the same Richard Clarke that the incoming Bush League thought highly enough about to ask him to remain in that post) to draw up plans to take out Al Qaeda once and for all. The plan included breaking up al Qaeda cells and arresting their members, giving aid to countries having trouble with al Qaeda, and most significantly, putting special forcestroops on the ground in Afghanistan to find bin Laden. Basically, with the notable exceptions of snooping on Americans and invading a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, it’s pretty much the plan that the Bush League is following today. Don’t believe me? Go read the August 12, 2002 issue of Time Magazine.

You really think Bush is making a serious attempt to capture bin Laden? Then why did he say this:

I don’t know where he is. Nor — you know, I just don’t spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I….I truly am not that concerned about him. (source)
Sounds like Bush is real serious, huh?

Posted by: Elliott at July 3, 2006 7:47 PM
Comment #164573

“SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korea would respond to a pre-emptive U.S. military attack with an “annihilating strike and a nuclear war,” the state-run media said Monday, heightening anti-U.S. rhetoric amid close scrutiny of its missile program.”

Now - does anyone feel safer now.

Posted by: tony at July 3, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #164574

As I was re-reading Rumsfeld’s memo, it was interesting to see that all of his questions relate to unilateral US action. This is a phenomena that I mentioned in the original article. Quoting Fukuyama again,

In the period immediately after World War II, American power was used not just to deter Soviet aggression but also to create a welter of new international organizations and agreements, from the Bretton Woods institutions (the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund) to the United Nations, NATO, the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, and United States Treaty), GATT, and the like.

The Bush administration and its neoconservative supporters have been very critical of existing international initiatives like the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court, but have offered up no alternatives in their place that would legitimate and enhance the effectiveness of American action in the world.

The global war on terror truly is global, and cannot be won without the willing cooperation of like-minded allies.

This SWIFT banking thing is a case in point. How much more effective could we be at tracing terrorist financing if America took the lead in creating new institutions and rules of law for that purpose that governments, people and institutions around the would be willing to support? Wouldn’t it be much better to have the world fighting alongside us rather than obstructing us?

Sure, it would be hard work, but it’s a long-term solution that will pay dividends on this and other endeavors.

Our leader’s belief in American exceptionalism is the main reason other countries don’t wholeheartedly support us. The Bush administration puts the US above international law, so naturally, no one trusts us or our motives. Who trusts anyone that acts outside the law?

The same way we prepared for the decades-long post-WWII struggle against Communism, we should be creating new institutions, alliances, and international legal frameworks which would allow the world to work together for a common goal — to defeat global terrorism.

But, as I said, the Bush administration will never do that because they believe it would undermine them politically. Republicans will not win the long war on terror because they are politically incapable of doing so.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 3, 2006 7:58 PM
Comment #164594

>>Yo Marysdude,

Am I right thinking, “long time no see”?

If so welcome back. If not just ignore me. I’m often an idiot.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 2, 2006 10:55 PM

Thanks for the welcome, KD, but I’m just partly back. I’m in the middle of a move, which includes renovation and remodeling, so…not much time for the things I love best, i.e., pulling SE’s tail-feathers and dampening Jack’s hysteria, but I’ll look in when I can. Meanwhile, you, AP & Tony seem to have everything under control.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 3, 2006 9:18 PM
Comment #164595

Hey! Please remember what day tomorrow is. We owe it to those who founded America, and those who fought their fight with them, to respect what we are all lucky to have (even if Cheney/Bush is trying to lose it)…

Posted by: Marysdude at July 3, 2006 9:23 PM
Comment #164613

Elliot,

All speculation I’VE HEAR BEFORE….no proof. Here is comments from the WHite House. I suppose depending if you are red or blue determines who you believe.

“This idea that there was somehow a kind of — some sort of full-blown plan for going after al Qaeda is just incorrect,” said a senior Bush administration official, who did not want to be identified.”

I will say if there was such a plan, why didn’t Bill implement it rather than trying to tell the next adminstration how to do the job? He had 8 years on watching the build up. Once again, the USS Cole was struck and Bill did nothing. This “plan” should have been implemented immediately.

Dems can be amazing….I find those who support Clinton’s orgies and lyeing in the House. Then again, I find Reps who defend Nixon’s transgressions as well. Why can’t Americans put aside their party and admit their guys screw up.

Regardless of party, honor our real heroes on this July 4th weekend……..


Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at July 3, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #164618

AP,

I just finished reading this:

“Most British people view the United States as a cruel, vulgar and arrogant society, which is led by an incompetent hypocrite, according to a UK newspaper poll published on Monday.”

http://english.people.com.cn/200607/04/eng20060704_279594.html

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 3, 2006 10:32 PM
Comment #164623

“I find those who support Clinton’s orgies and lyeing in the House. Then again, I find Reps who defend Nixon’s transgressions as well.”

What I find amazing is people that equate those two incidents.
Blowjob = subverting constitution.
Yeah, ok, sure.

Posted by: Observer at July 3, 2006 11:03 PM
Comment #164631

It’s always good to look beyond our own media sources to see what others are saying:

“The cross-party Commons foreign affairs committee said conditions in both Afghanistan and Iraq had worsened in recent weeks.”
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=966322006

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 3, 2006 11:39 PM
Comment #164640
I will say if there was such a plan, why didn’t Bill implement it rather than trying to tell the next adminstration how to do the job?

Because he didn’t want to stick Bush with a war in Afghanistan like GHW Bush did to him with Somalia. It’s all in the 9/11 Report. Clinton had the plans drawn up and mobilization orders ready for Bush. Bush ignored it all.

Remember, curmudgeon, Republicans (who controlled Congress) never did and never would support any strike against bin Laden — much less an invasion of Afghanistan. Every time Clinton did strike, Republicans all went running around like idiots yelling “Wag the dog! Wag the dog!” They called Clinton’s anti-terrorism bill “a phony issue”.

Republicans and Bush in particular never took terrorism seriously — and they still don’t. For them, it’s just a bat with which to beat their political opponents over the head.

Republicans can’t be trusted to win the war on terror — and they may actually be politically incapable of doing so.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 4, 2006 12:14 AM
Comment #164652

Curmudgeon: One blow job constitutes an orgy? What a sheltered life you must have. Just teaseing a bit .Forgive me

Your original statement that Clinton did nothing about terrorism has been shown to be in error with plenty of backup. You might consider joining the rest of us in accepting the fact that Clinton did do something but it was not enough. He has admitted that also.

Posted by: BillS at July 4, 2006 1:00 AM
Comment #164659

—Most observant people noticed that Mr.Bush had his agenda all laid out for him before he even entered The White House. Knowing President Bush, somewhat, I suspect he had sanitised all files and removed all traces of the Clinton’s. Began with his changes, and never looked back. This is why we must hold President Bush totally responsible for all his actions, He did not want advice from any Democrat, or the FBI, OR THE CIA Bushes staff are the sole designers of what we are now dealing with, for bad or worst take your choice an deal with it. ASAP

Posted by: DAVID at July 4, 2006 1:41 AM
Comment #164663

—BTW one last thought, we all(Good Democrats) need to start a new campaign by e-mailing all the democratic Senators an Congressmen an women that we are no longer going to allow business as usual, like, playing kiss ass with the Reps. make a stand on Democratic principles. an stick by them. We must back them up if they do right an fire them or recall them for in action, or misdeeds! Like one famous person said Givem Hell.

Posted by: DAVID at July 4, 2006 2:10 AM
Comment #164671

I was expecting an intelligent, vigorous, attack, from the biguns on the right with this post. Maybe the right should cop this one in the chin,you are losing the war on terror. maybe its time to give the smart people a go.

Posted by: Tom at July 4, 2006 3:24 AM
Comment #164738

Curmudgeon,
I see your Bush Administration official and call with one of my own, who said that Clarke’s plan amounted to

everything we’ve done since 9/11

I agree with you that Clinton made mistakes. I think his biggest one was in trusting the Bush Administration to protect us.

Posted by: ElliottBay at July 4, 2006 12:22 PM
Comment #164753
The peretrators of the first WTC bombing were captured.

Really? Seeing as OBL was behind the attack and at least one of the people involved fled to Iraq, I would have to disagree. The majority of the people who carried it out, yes. The ones who planned it? Left free to plan further attacks.

Terrorist attempting to cross the Canadian Border to plant bombs during the millenium celebrations were caught.

Yes, they were. Thanks to an alert security guard, not anything that the President did, I can’t give him props on that one.

The Oaklahoma bombers were caught.

Two of them were, yes. Who funded it and helped plan it? Or was it just the two guys we caught, the other ‘suspects’ that were mentioned just disappearing or never existing?

Erm, WTC #1, USS Cole, US Embassies…

Erm, I said al Qaeda attacks on the US. If you’re going to compare apples to apples (9/11), then none of your examples apply.

Excuse me? None of my examples apply? US Embassies and ships aren’t part of the US anymore?
Al Qaeda had nothing to do with the first WTC bombing? Let’s examine that a bit…

Ramzi Yousef masterminded the attack in 1993, was a member of Al Qaeda and nephew of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who masterminded the 2001 attacks.

So, you’re telling me that Al Qaeda wasn’t behind the 1993 attacks? Interesting…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 4, 2006 1:22 PM
Comment #164755

—Curmudgeon—Spinning all those years back to Clinton’s sexual indiscretions is a little tacky, even for you don;t ya think! I would think with all of today’s problems, we really do not need trash from the past!!

Posted by: DAVID at July 4, 2006 1:31 PM
Comment #164783

“Your original statement that Clinton did nothing about terrorism”

Actually BillS, I said Bush did nothing about the USS Cole attacks except work on his pardons. I’m still waiting for someone to come up with something….???? Why didn’t he implement that “plan” he passed off to Bush? I was still serving at the time and we were just itch’in to go and kick some Al Qaeda butt for that attack on our ship.

As for orgies, Do you REALLY beieve that was the firast blow Willie had in THE House? I have seen reported as many as nine. I don’t know the number, but I am not simple minded enough to think that was his first.

It is not old news in my book. Clinton became a lame duck and in the course of things made our nation weak. We are still recovering. I actually thought he was a decent president until he showed us how little discipline and self-control he really had. Very poor leader.

Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at July 4, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #164784

The political dialogue in this country and in these blogs needs to improve dramatically.

I have repeatedly called out Jack, Joebagodonuts, Sicilian eagle and others for it to no avail for responding with straw-man arguments and segueys over and over again in a way that is both intellectually dishonest and ultimately manipulative and destructive. God forbid anyone should try and inform themselves or gain any meaningful perspective based on their so called “responses.”

But here I see similar stuff on the other side. ON MY SIDE…for the first time. It makes me mad.

Yes, Al Qeada WAS behind the FIRST WTC bombings. That is fact. That has been out for some time now as well, so asserting otherwise doesn’t cut it.

But, this articel is demonstrating a truth: The war on terror is folly. It always was. Rooting out all terorists world wide is a preposterous notion. It cannot be done. We can make it more difficult for them for awhile. That is all. We are already over-extended trying to conduct ongoing military actions in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The current state of affairs are bankrupting us at a break-neck pace that is getting faster all the time. More tragically, we are losing more people over there every day.
And for what? We have CREATED the physical battlefield for Al Qeada to attack us! They wanted that. WE went into Iraq, so naturally, they sent first Zarqawe and now this new guy whose name I can’t figure out. We can’t abandon Iraq without causing instability? We CAN’T BE IN IRAQ without causing instability! Afghanistan looks like it is getting worse now, not better, and we have yet to do ANYTHING that would stop a group of terrorists coming into this country in the same way, under the same visas and for the same purposes as those who carried out the attacks on 9/11.

“Stay the course” our lusterless leader says…WHAT COURSE? The course of total folly?

When do we say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH?

Posted by: RGF at July 4, 2006 4:50 PM
Comment #164791

RGF

“I have repeatedly called out Jack, Joebagodonuts, Sicilian eagle and others for it to no avail for responding “

Well, here I am. I enjoy diving into the fray on this side every once in a while, just so I don’t forget how not to think. I ripped AP’s theory to shreds at the top of the thread, so now he can spend the rest of it patching it up, but really, point accomplished.

As far as your comments, one sentence says it all:

“can make it more difficult for them for awhile. That is all.”

And then what? You sound like Custer at the last stand.

Make it more difficult? Damn right. We ain’t gonna stop until either they get it or they’re all dead.

This is a World War. Which is why you party can’t deal with it.

You can’t deal with a fanatic. He can’t be talked to.He won’t listen. You are the infidel.You must die, he thinks.What part of that simplistic story about the Salafist and Wabbabist mind don’t you understand?. You kill him.Or, you get someone else to kill him. End of story.

Chamberlain tried that once with Hitler. Didn’t work. He shoulda been killed. Same situation here.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at July 4, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #164794

Curmudgeon,

Hmmmm..let’s see now. The Republicans control the White House, both houses of Congress, and most of the court system. But without significant opposition, they have failed IN FIVE YEARS to find OBL or the Taliban leaders. Yet, you blame Clinton, who had NO support in Congress, for failing to find the perpetrators of the Cole attack IN THREE MONTHS. I guess you’re nothing more than a Clinton-hater.

Speaking of Republicans and Clinton, shall we discuss how the Republicans consistently opposed Clinton’s attempts to fight terrorism? How they opposed additional funding? Shall we talk about how the Republicans continually sought (like you do) to keep our nation’s attention focused on the Preidential Penis at the expense of the growing terrorist threat? Shall we talk about how ANY attempts by the Clinton administration to focus on terrorism were met by Republican chants of “blue dress - blue dress” and “wag the dog - wag the dog”?

Blaming the Clinton Administration is nothing more than a cheap attempt to take the focus off the Bush League’s total failure to protect the American people. And it isn’t working.

Posted by: ElliottBay at July 4, 2006 5:44 PM
Comment #164796

“I actually thought he was a decent president until he showed us how little discipline and self-control he really had. Very poor leader.”

Curmudgeon-at-large,

I’m a Democrat and I’ll admit that I was disappointed and downright POed at his personal misbehavior in the White House. His personal behavior was shameful. All things considered though, I believe he was at the worst a “mediocre” leader.

OTOH Bush’s personal behavior may be exemplary (if you consider lying acceptable), but I’ve found his political behavior and his performance as our Commander-in-Chief downright impeachable. Count the impeachable offenses:

(1)IMO it’s now very clear that he lied to Congress and the public in the build-up to invade Iraq.

(2)He took it upon himself to “declassify” info with no purpose other than to discredit truthful arguments against his “lies” and in so doing he “outed” a brave and patriotic American CIA agent.

(3)He’s violated the laws of the USA by side-stepping the FISA courts.

(4)He swore under oath to obey the laws of the USA when he became President. Obviously he has not followed the law which should bother you since you love to push the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal—didn’t that all occur because he lied under oath?

Now, I’m patiently awaiting your comments about how Bush’s prayers caused the Taepodong Missile to fail.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 4, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #164798

“I ripped AP’s theory to shreds at the top of the thread, so now he can spend the rest of it patching it up, but really, point accomplished.”

Eagle,

My respect for you is fading with comments like this. This is pure arrogance. Not really becoming of your normal stature. Or maybe I’m just beginning to see the real eagle.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 4, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #164799

“Speaking of Republicans and Clinton, shall we discuss how the Republicans consistently opposed Clinton’s attempts to fight terrorism? How they opposed additional funding? Shall we talk about how the Republicans continually sought (like you do) to keep our nation’s attention focused on the Preidential Penis at the expense of the growing terrorist threat? Shall we talk about how ANY attempts by the Clinton administration to focus on terrorism were met by Republican chants of “blue dress - blue dress” and “wag the dog - wag the dog”?”

Thank you ElliottBay! You said it much better than I could. Now, wait for the spin on N. Korea.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 4, 2006 6:10 PM
Comment #164807

Kansas Democrat

Funny but everytime I make a counter arguement here on the left side that has even a sintila of merit, by the end of the thread I get jumped on by everyone a smidgen left of center.

I am sorry that you are losing respect for me. However, I pointed out that AP’s piece wasn’t independent at all. Truth be told, I spend a little time checking out some of the names…they were unfamiliar. Not all, some. As Rhinehold said above, it was cleverly worded…and AP is brilliant at spinning things his way…which is why I enjoy so much his articles.

Last week I called him a patriot (along with other posters on this side). The response? I am patronizing.

I don’t think so. Tell me: what exactly is the Democratic position on the war? I would love to discuss it with you point by point. Kerry has a plan, Pelosi has a plan, Dean has a plan, Edwards has a plan, does the party as such have a single coherent plan that you and I can discuss?

I tell you what: My next piece on the other side will be precisely that subject, and I invite you…a poster whose opinions I DO respect…to take part in that discussion.

I have told you that nothing is going to change ,I don’t think, in the next two and a half years with the current administration. Truth be told, I am looking ahead and scrutinizing Rudy Guilianni heavily right now. McCain we all know…but Rudy mat have the temperment to deal with this war on terror,and for RGF’s sake, that war includes the Sunni Wahhabists fanatics and the Shia Salafist fanatics and the many varients inbetween that have highjacked a great religion.

That is what I see. Do you?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at July 4, 2006 6:55 PM
Comment #164814

Eagle,

What I see is that I hope you’re never the prosecuting attorney if I’m the defendent. I respect your strength but disagree with your opinions. Your arrogance was what set be back.

Arrogance is not just a conservative thing, I’ve seen it on the left too and I’ve also been guilty of it from time to time. Arrogance is never attractive whether it be from the left, right or the center.

I was simply pointing out that I expected better from you because you usually do present a compelling argument. I could say the same of Jack on the “Right” and Rhinehold or David Remer in the “center”, also many more than I have time to name.

Honestly the greatest threat I see from the Republicans in ‘08 is Mitt Romney. I can’t think of any Democrat today that could give Romney a run for the money. But it’s all about the money today isn’t it?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 4, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #164818

“they have failed IN FIVE YEARS to find OBL or the Taliban leaders. Yet, you blame Clinton, who had NO support in Congress, for failing to find the perpetrators of the Cole attack IN THREE MONTHS.”

Elliot if you actually read my post finding them is not the issue. Read closely…..making an attempt to capture these men. That, my fiend, is the issue. HUGE difference….I would have been satisfied even if the criminals had not been captured before he left office.

KansasDem,

I will not support Prsident Bush to the fault of republicans. I still remain greatly doubtful that he actually lied. If the Intel was only coming from the US……maybe, but there were foreign agencies reporting the same Intel not to mention Sadaam. I still believe WMDs may be found. Too many sources for it to be all bad Intel. But, I will admit I have nothing to base that on. If anything, I blame the Intel agencies and they do fall under his command so in that respect Bush is responsible.

I am biased in this since I support taking out Sadaam WMDS or not. I saw first-hand what the monster was doing. Talked to a buddy tonight who just got back. So….WMDs for me are not a big issue.

“He took it upon himself to “declassify” info with no purpose other than to discredit truthful arguments against his “lies””

I don’t buy that argument either. Mere speculation once again. You cannot prove a man’s motives. That is just democratic talking points. If you could actually “PROVE” this I would support removing him from office. But you can’t. Not to mention, her present status was also very contoversial.

Your last point Kansas Dem about obeying the law. You may actually have an argument there but then lawyers and judges don’t agree as to if he did or did not. I do blame congress for the “loose” wording of the Partriot Act that gives Bush a lot of power with phrases such “as necessary”. War time language is tricky and congress rushed to get something out to show the American people we did something.

Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at July 4, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #164826

Curmudgeon,

“I am biased in this since I support taking out Sadaam WMDS or not. I saw first-hand what the monster was doing. Talked to a buddy tonight who just got back. So….WMDs for me are not a big issue.”

So, should we “take out” all of the world’s evil dictators? If so, don’t you think reinstating the draft is in order? We’re dealing with real life situations not just war game scenarios. How about the American people paying for the war we’re fighting today? I remember well the stories of my now deceased parents and grandparents sacrifices. We are a nation at war. We should all pay.

“her present status was also very contoversial.”

So, if a CIA operative is only slightly undercover it’s OK to leak her identity, but not if she’s “deep” undercover? Had anyone seen her name or picture in the paper before.

I’ll put it this way: I disagree with the NYT and the rest of the papers running that “money tracing” operation. I don’t know how secretive the SWIFT operation was, but if it were up to me to decide I think the media was wrong to release that. Same thing with the Plame leak. It was WRONG and now Bush admits that he declassified the info. Why didn’t he say that when the investigation began? Hmmmm, do 2004 elections ring a bell?

“You cannot prove a man’s motives.”

Even Sicilian Eagle would argue that. He’d probably win your case, but motive is one of the key elements in any criminal case. The Bush & Co. motive was proven after the crime. They broke the law to discredit reputable critics.

IMO Bush deserves to be in the “Big House” more than he deserves to be in the “White House”.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 4, 2006 9:41 PM
Comment #164829

C-A-L,

“If the Intel was only coming from the US……maybe, but there were foreign agencies reporting the same Intel not to mention Sadaam. I still believe WMDs may be found. Too many sources for it to be all bad Intel.”

There is evidence that shows that Mr. Bush was told from the beginning the intel was shaky at best. There is also evidence that he and Cheney wished to take out Saddam regardless of the intel.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/PBS_Frontline_Inside_battle_between_Cheney_0617.html

“You have this wiring diagram that we all know of about national security, but now there’s a new line on it. There’s a line from the vice president directly to the secretary of defense, and it’s as though there’s a private line, private communication between those two,” former National Security Council staffer Richard Clarke tells FRONTLINE.

In the initial stages of the war on terror, Tenet’s CIA was rising to prominence as the lead agency in the Afghanistan war. But when Tenet insisted in his personal meetings with the president that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, Cheney and Rumsfeld initiated a secret program to re-examine the evidence and marginalize the agency and Tenet. Through interviews with DoD staffers who sifted through mountains of raw intelligence, FRONTLINE tells the story of how questionable intelligence was “stovepiped” to the vice president and presented to the public.”

Posted by: Rocky at July 4, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #164840

Curmudgeon-at-large,

Just in case you don’t trust Frontline;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,968581,00.html


“Much of the initial information for Mr Powell’s speech to the UN was provided by the Pentagon, where Paul Wolfowitz, the US deputy defence secretary, set up a special unit, the Office of Special Plans, to counter the uncertainty of the CIA’s intelligence on Iraq.

Mr Powell’s team removed dozens of pages of alleged evidence about Iraq’s banned weapons and ties to terrorists from a draft of his speech, US News and World Report says today. At one point, he became so angry at the lack of adequate sourcing to intelligence claims that he declared: “I’m not reading this. This is bullshit,” according to the magazine.

Presented with a script for his speech, Mr Powell suspected that Washington hawks were “cherry picking”, the US magazine Newsweek also reports today. Greg Theilmann, a recently retired state department intelligence analyst directly involved in assessing the Iraqi threat, says that inside the Bush administration “there is a lot of sorrow and anger at the way intelligence was misused”.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml

“(CBS) When no weapons of mass destruction surfaced in Iraq, President Bush insisted that all those WMD claims before the war were the result of faulty intelligence. But a former top CIA official, Tyler Drumheller — a 26-year veteran of the agency — has decided to do something CIA officials at his level almost never do: Speak out.

He tells correspondent Ed Bradley the real failure was not in the intelligence community but in the White House. He says he saw how the Bush administration, time and again, welcomed intelligence that fit the president’s determination to go to war and turned a blind eye to intelligence that did not.”


Posted by: Rocky at July 4, 2006 11:16 PM
Comment #164847
So, should we “take out” all of the world’s evil dictators?

One way or another, yes.

If so, don’t you think reinstating the draft is in order?

Of course not, that’s a horrible liberal argument that doesn’t hold water because we already know that we do better with a smaller force of people who want to be in the service than a larger one made up of people who are being forced to serve.

Much like how we would do better with a smaller force of people fighting to help those in need than to force everyone to help whether they want to or not. But that’s a different topic…

BUT, the issue is that we don’t have to go knocking the doors down of every current dictator the minute they pop up. But are you going to stand here and tell me that Saddam didn’t have every opportunity to turn his country around, including a thumping in 1991 (that leaving him in power helped set up for the 2003 invasion)? Numerous resolutions, constant bickering and threats, the continued war against the US that he fostered in his government, the continued support of international terrorism against the US and other soverign nations, and the horrible and gross abuses of his own citizens after that long in power and the number of times we attempted to force him to play ball, he was just unwilling to do so. THEN you do something about it, yes.

I of course thought we should have been out of there by now, it’s not our job to make sure that the government is ‘stable’. France didn’t wait around in the US after they helped us win our independance and help us protect ourselves from the English or from ourselves. No one prevented us from having a civil war, we needed to have one, perhaps Iraq does too? Perhaps Iraq SHOULD be cut up into 3 distinct countries, it was cobbled together by the British into what it is today, it’s not a long standing historic country as it stands now, it might just be time to undo the imprealism of England and let them determine what their country should look like in the long run. We should be in Somolia and the Sudan, letting Afghanistan and Iraq develop as they need to.

But I digress…. The fallacy that we need to take down every dictator the same way we needed to take down Saddam in order to be consistent is not only missing the point but really doesn’t track well with those who do have a sense of the banalaty of it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 4, 2006 11:42 PM
Comment #164857

“Of course not, that’s a horrible liberal argument that doesn’t hold water because we already know that we do better with a smaller force of people who want to be in the service than a larger one made up of people who are being forced to serve.”

Rhinehold,

You can’t be serious. many of these guys and gals are looking at their 3rd and 4th tours of duty. Our National Guard is totally strapped man! If we continue down the same path for more than another year we’re screwed. I have some personal knowledge but it would be disingenuous to post it.

Bush and Co. want to paint anything less than a full occupation of Iraq as “cut-n-run” but just as you point out, “France didn’t wait around in the US after they helped us win our independance and help us protect ourselves from the English or from ourselves”. I would add that France didn’t “invade” to precipitate our “freedom”.

A Democracy, or really any form of government, must be developed from within. I think as Americans we’d all fight to the last man if some outside power tried to change our system of government.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 5, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #164864

I am a statistician and survey designer. Just by looking at the list of people you questioned I can see that you used a very biased sample of ‘experts’. Most of these people are biased to these ideas and thus the results would match your message.

Posted by: steve decatur at July 5, 2006 1:52 AM
Comment #164866

“I am a statistician and survey designer. Just by looking at the list of people you questioned I can see that you used a very biased sample of ‘experts’. Most of these people are biased to these ideas and thus the results would match your message.”

steve decatur,

What exactedly are your credentials. When I “clicked on” your link the best credentials I could find was your article,

Ann Coulter At Her Best, dated June 24th

I do hope everyone else takes a look at your site before they accept your self-proclaimed “expert” status.

I took the liberty of “cut-n-pasting” the first few lines just so you can see true “bias”:

“If you have not read Godless by Ann Coulter then I beg you to please, please, please go buy it. Ann is at her best. Very clever with words. Very well documented liberal contradictions and much more. I believe that Godless and Treason are her best two works to date. Just her documentation of liberal lies and deceit is worth the money you pay.”

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 5, 2006 2:23 AM
Comment #164871

Curm:’ Just an alert security gard….” So you do not give Clinton credit for stopping a terrorist at the Canandian border. Incredible. I’ve heard that before. You been listening to that Rush guy? That alert gard was a Border Patrol agent working for the President of the United States,Clinton,put on high alert by his superiors. The particular spin you used means that in order for Clinton to recieve any credit he would have to man every border station personally. Come on. Give credit when credit is due.

Posted by: BillS at July 5, 2006 2:47 AM
Comment #164872

Excuse me Curm. The above should have been addressed to Rhinehold. Tired I guess

Posted by: BillS at July 5, 2006 3:05 AM
Comment #164888

BillS,

You’re kidding me, right?

MSNBC actually went and talked to the security guard, Diana Dean. Here is what THEY found:

NBC News went back to the customs agent who actually stopped an al-Qaida terrorist from entering the United States in 1999, and she says it was her gut instincts — not meetings in Washington — that helped her make the arrest.

In December of 1999, upon arriving on a ferry from Canada, al-Qaida operative Ahmed Ressam was arrested with a trunk full of explosives. His plan: to blow up Los Angeles International Airport.

Some members of the 9/11 commission now argue that al-Qaida’s plot was foiled because of almost frenetic White House meetings that month, keeping the bureaucracy on its toes.

On April 13, 2004, 9/11 commission member Timothy Roemer said, “The Clinton administration has a great deal of success during this time period. My theory is, because of this small group that is meeting at the top levels of government.”

NBC News decided to take a close look at what happened four years ago. Was the bomb plot foiled by an alert White House or by an alert agent on the front lines?

“His story didn’t make sense to me,” said customs inspector Diana Dean. Now retired, Dean was working the border that night. On a hunch something wasn’t quite right, she questioned Ressam and asked him to pop his trunk. Inside were big bags of white powder that were first thought to be drugs.

But that night, drug tests came back negative. When investigators looked further, they found timers and realized the powder was explosives.

Dean said, “My heart dropped right into my toes when I realized what it was.”

She says no one had told her anything about being on alert for terrorists.

“I don’t recall any specific threats,” she added. “I don’t recall anybody saying watch for terrorists.”

Customs officials confirm that no alert had gone out to the field.

The Clinton administration was at battle stations during this period, and that extraordinary effort helped foil al-Qaida plots against Americans in Jordan. But there’s simply no evidence that meetings in Washington stopped the planned attack on American soil.

In fact, senior counterterror officials attribute catching Ressam to good training and sheer luck.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4864792/

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 5, 2006 7:32 AM
Comment #164895

KansasDem,

“So, should we “take out” all of the world’s evil dictators? If so, don’t you think reinstating the draft is in order?”

No we shouldn’t. But since the biggest problem facing the world is a corrupt and inept UN, I guess we are all that is left. The world is growing towards another cold war and the UN is to corrpt to stop the slide. And yes, we should reinstate the draft. Everyone should contribute to the cost of our freedom.

As far as Plame, I have heard all the conspiracies. Hear the one where she is actually in cohoots with Bush and the administration? I remain skeptical. There are so many leaks from Bush haters in our government who knows where, why or how the information was REALLY leaked. Another reason I despise both parties. Parties will do anything to help their cause…..even at the expense of our nation.

But if you and your party have the goods on the man, then I suppose after your sweeps in November you could file charges, huh? While you are at it, make sure charges at filed against William Jefferson, Cynthia McKinney and the honorable Mr. Kennedy. Between them and the Republicans who are facing prison time that should be 10 less politicians to deal with.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at July 5, 2006 9:35 AM
Comment #164899

KansasDem,

I am a statistician and survey designer. Just by looking at the list of people you questioned I can see that you used a very biased sample of “experts”. Most of these people are biased to these ideas and thus the results would match your message.

steve decatur,

[…]

I do hope everyone else takes a look at your site before they accept your self-proclaimed “expert” status.

I took the liberty of “cut-n-pasting” the first few lines just so you can see true “bias”:

If you have not read Godless by Ann Coulter then I beg you to please, please, please go buy it. Ann is at her best. Very clever with words. Very well documented liberal contradictions and much more. I believe that Godless and Treason are her best two works to date. Just her documentation of liberal lies and deceit is worth the money you pay.

Hey, at least he made a point: survey designers could indeed be biased.

;-)

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 5, 2006 9:46 AM
Comment #164901

curmudgeon-at-large,

… since the biggest problem facing the world is a corrupt and inept UN, I guess we are all that is left. The world is growing towards another cold war and the UN is to corrpt to stop the slide.

Who was UN founder already? Who is its largest funder? Who can quit UN whenever he want and who can’t? Who have a veto power and who haven’t?
Who can push for an UN reform and who can’t?

You know, you can’t continue to drop all the world issues on UN without blaming its members and, in particular, its most powerfull members, the one with veto power. Unfortunatly for you and me, it includes my country, France, as much as your, the USA. Let’s take responsability with the blame.

Everyone should contribute to the cost of our freedom.

Indeed because, currently, Iraquis and Afghans civilians contribute more than americans to US “freedom” cost.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 5, 2006 9:58 AM
Comment #164918

>>Indeed because, currently, Iraquis and Afghans civilians contribute more than americans to US “freedom” cost.


Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 5, 2006 09:58 AM

Good point…it sill upsets me when Americans speak of our troops ‘fighting for our freedom’ while they are actually killing Iraqis who were never a threat to our freedom.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 5, 2006 11:14 AM
Comment #164920

>>VFW Supporter, celebrate our freedom and July 4th by supporting our troops and veterans.

Thousands of VFW supporters made a bold statement today by adding their name to the VFW “United We Stand” Independence Day Proclamation published in The Washington Times and on their website.

The proclamation calls upon all Americans, especially our leaders and lawmakers, to recognize the sacrifices made by our troops and veterans to protect our freedom.

And it shows the rest of the world that America stands behind its troops and veterans regardless of what we think about the war.

Please add this to my last comment…I copied it from the VFW newsletter…notice it says our troops need this support, ‘no matter what we think about the war’, but it espouses that the troops ‘fight to protect our freedom’. It is a mindset in America that no matter what our troops do, or where they do it, it is to protect our freedom. How silly…

Posted by: Marysdude at July 5, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #165041

“You know, you can’t continue to drop all the world issues on UN without blaming its members and, in particular, its most powerfull members, the one with veto power.”

I don’t. If we booted the UN out next week you wouldn’t hear me complain (at least the security council). Just imagine where the money could be used legitimately. Use the building for the homeless……Hey, why did we do away with the League of Nations again?

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at July 5, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #165087

>> If we booted the UN out next week you wouldn’t hear me complain (at least the security council). Just imagine where the money could be used legitimately. Use the building for the homeless……
Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at July 5, 2006 06:22 PM

Or we could give Halliburton a no-bid contract to fix homelessness.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 5, 2006 9:50 PM
Comment #165103

Eagle,

You haven’t answered my question yet. If he’s just another Bush-hater, then why did the Bush Administration retain Richard Clarke as their head of counter-terrorism?

Are those burning feathers I smell? I think so.

Posted by: ElliottBay at July 5, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #165119

Because Bush is as stupid as Clinton and they both believed his bull? Clarke has not impressed me at all, he can’t even get basic terrorism theories right before commenting on them politically.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 5, 2006 11:38 PM
Comment #165148

curmudgeon-at-large,

I don’t. If we booted the UN out next week you wouldn’t hear me complain (at least the security council).

Then you should push your local senator(s) to ask the US Government to quit the UN[SC]. Pretty simple.
No one could force your nation to stay at UN table against its will. Afterall, your nation had already retreat or refuse to participate in so many international agencies (except the military or economical ones, go figure) so that won’t suprise many.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 6, 2006 4:58 AM
Post a comment