Worldwide War Against Terror

The terror attack in Jordan killed three Americans and dozens of good Muslims attending a wedding. The amazing thing is that Al Qaeda isn’t backing off taking responsibility. I thought for sure that when they saw how unpopular it was they would shift the blame.

These guys really are as bad as we think. The terrorists have no redeeming characteristics. Besides being bloodthirsty and retrograde, they are evidently stupid and so blinded by hate that they often overreach. This makes them deadly, but also ensures that they cannot succeed in the long term goals. They underestimated the U.S. resolve after 9/11 and they lost their base in Afghanistan as a result. They misjudged British courage after London and now they forgot that killing innocent Muslims at a wedding will not make them heroes, even if they manage to destroy the lobby of a western owned hotel in the process.

There is nothing we can do to placate them. Their goal is nothing less than a theocracy including everything from Spain (Andalusia) to Indonesia. It is a stupid plan, but they are willing to kill Muslims, Jews and Christians in the vain attempt. Their alternative seems to be that if they can't achieve their goal they will destroy and rule the ashes.

Making concessions to terrorists is as deadly as negotiating with cancer.

Consider Zarqawi. He has been in the murder business for a long time and he seems to enjoy the actual acts. Attempts at clemency just gave him the chance to kill. He was operating from Afghanistan before we chased him out and he took refuge in Iraq. (Yes, Zarqawi was in Iraq before we were.) He sees any attempts at compromise as weakness, which he exploits.

We can disagree about many things, but let's not mistake the nature of the enemy. They will never leave us in peace, no matter what we concede and no matter where we go. There really is no easy way out for us. They really do hate us because freedom means their evil plans can never be be achieved.

Posted by Jack at November 12, 2005 12:08 AM
Comments
Comment #92224

You’re under the false impression that folks in the Democratic Party have a problem with confronting Terrorists.

You can dispense with the “hate freedom” rubbish too. It’s enough that they hate us, and want to kill us.

I always cringe when Bush starts to explain why we got to win the war on terror. Me and hundreds of millions of other Americans received more than enough motivation on 9/11/2001, and don’t need the rather evident sins of al-Qaeda exhaustively laid out.

Stop screwing around with talking the good game, and start playing it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 12, 2005 1:20 AM
Comment #92227

Jack, then you don’t understand the joint venture which Bush has created out of thin air between al-Queda and Iraqi Baathist insurgents. They never had dreams of world conquest or winning the hearts and minds of all Muslims. These are very intelligent and capable thinkers planning their moves.

It bears repeating, the goal of terrorism is to evoke such an acute overreaction by their foes, as to render their foes no better than they in tactics and strategy in the public eye. That is why bombing, killing and injuring innocent Iraqis in their beds in their homes upon invading Iraq, was a windfall for al-Queda’s plan. They didn’t even have a toe hold in Iraq. Now they have 10’s of thousands of Iraqi supporters who will cover their tracks, and harbor their efforts, and hide their comings and goings in Iraq.

These bastard terrorists got precisely what they wanted. Bush and Blair served it up to them on a silver platter. A reaction by the west that would serve as a recruitment incentive to thousands upon thousands who otherwise might have actually appreciated help from the West. And as if that weren’t enough, Bush gave them Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo, and statements to the world that we would not be held to the Geneva Conventions.

Whether intended or not, the Bush administration guaranteed the growth and strength of terrorism in the world for decades to come. Fits quite nicely into their 2000 queries as to how they were going to build up the military and spread our military presence into the Middle East. But, the world and Americans will be paying for this play with their lives and tax dollars for decades to come, thanks to Bush’s aid and assistance in seeding and watering the al-Queda terrorism in Iraq.

Nothing about Bush’s rhetoric makes any sense. We are fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here? Give me a break. Al-Queda is striking a host of nations outside of Iraq, from Jordan to Australia, and our own authorities keep finding plots occuring right here in the US like suspects ordering shoulder firing surface to air missiles within our own borders.

The enemy was in Afhanistan and Pakistan. But as Bush said, he didn’t spend much time even thinking about them, which is why they still occupy those areas. Saddam was the Bush’s target, and to hell with terrorists. He sent billions to an Islamic Dictator in Pakistan which harbors al-Queda still. The man just had no sense whatsoever of who the enemy was, and how to deal with them. And after 4 years, he still doesn’t.

3/4 of what Bush said about terrorists in his speech a day or so ago, is exactly what Islamo-fascists can credibly say to their people about the Americans. We killed innocents. We tortured suspects without knowing their guilt or not, we abduct people and whisk them away to secret prisons for our own political purposes. The man just does not know how to stop playing to the al-Queda’s plan. They could not have asked for a bigger dupe of a foe than George W. Bush, et.al.

And the American people see this, even if Bush doesn’t, which is why his poll numbers are where they are. You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but, you cannot fool all the people all of the time. Since Bush cannot even remember that wisdom to repeat before cameras, it just makes sense he cannot act in accordance with such wisdom either.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 12, 2005 1:36 AM
Comment #92236

Bush’s little speech about his “successes” in the War on Terror only points out the fact that both Osama bin Ladin and Zarqawi are still free. Wonder if he will change his speech 6 months from now?

Posted by: Aldous at November 12, 2005 4:06 AM
Comment #92237
These guys really are as bad as we think. The terrorists have no redeeming characteristics.

Let me check my watch. It says November 2005. You just figuring this all out, Jack?

C’mon, Jack. This post is as trite as they come. You can do much better. I guess when even Fox News says the President is screwed, the only thing you can do is call terrorists bad and hope people will think his opponents disagree.

Besides being bloodthirsty and retrograde, they are evidently stupid and so blinded by hate that they often overreach. This makes them deadly, but also ensures that they cannot succeed in the long term goals.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. You were talking about the Bush administration here, right?

He was operating from Afghanistan before we chased him out and he took refuge in Iraq. (Yes, Zarqawi was in Iraq before we were.)

Jack, here is a little project for you. Make a list of all the terrorist operations Zarqawi had a hand in pre-Iraq war and another list post-Iraq war. Then tell me how we are winning the “war on terrorism”.

They will never leave us in peace, no matter what we concede and no matter where we go.

It’s OK, Jack. You’ll be alright. You can come out from under the bed. I’ll even personally book some terrorism insurance on you. How much coverage do you want? Just do me a favor and stay under the bed on election day.

Posted by: Burt at November 12, 2005 4:44 AM
Comment #92258

Stephen,David,Burt

The big three.

All in one place

Trois D’Coup.

Maybe if you three close your eyes,make a wish and click your heels three times the problems there will go away.

Better still,having Al Gore or John Kerry at the helm advised by Ted Kennedy was the answer.

Even you three should know by now that September 11 was the endgame of a war that started decades ago.(I bet I have made 100 posts here the last 3 months alone and all I got was partisian malarky from you guys).

When Bush arrived on the scene the die had long been cast.

First off,everybody in that area…every single country with maybe the possible exception of Jordan hates,resents,and despises America for its support of Isreal since 1948.

In terms of “recent” history,the trouble there is a straight line decent of THAT issue,and that issue alone.

Muslims hate us primarily because we have propped up and armed Isreal…a cause,by the way,championed by every liberal bastion in America post WWII.

Rober Kennedy was assassinated by a Palestinaian in 1968 exactly to put the world spotlight on that issue.

At the time,most of America said “Huh,Palestine?Where is that?That guy Sirhan Sirhan is just plain nuts!”

If a modern politicial figure today were to be assassinated,Sirhan’s mantra would still be valid,wouldn’t it?

That is the problem with you guys.Nothing..absolutely nothing that each of you say or write puts this struggle into historicial context.

We have had so many ill conceived strategies dealing with the Mid-East these last 5 decades that sometimes I want to vomit.

Getting into bed with the Saudi Arabian Wahhabis for starters.

Our country is now an energy junkie as a result.

Please don’t not tell me that oil is a purely a Republician issue either.

The liberal lion Ted Kennedy and his family have a billion dollars in the bank (most,by the way,protected by trusts that assure them that they will pay little of no inheritance taxes),largely due to oil.

Democrats have billions and billions in their portfoilios too.Exibit one thru ten thousand being mutual funds.

Burt,Dave,Stephen…you guys own any mutual funds?If you do(with the exception of a very very very few funds) then you guys are really unindicted co-conspititors with the oil companies.

You talk the game but cash the dividend check,don’t you?

As does every retiree in America.

Please guys…look in the mirror.

Both David and Stephen live in a state(Texas) built in large part by oil and its revenues.

Do you guys pedal bicycles?Dave…did you install solar panels on your new house?Burt,do you have a wind mill on you house?

Of course not.

Blame Bush.

For everything.

The third World War has started but you guys(and by “you guys” I mean every one of you that does not unflinchingly support the president against radicial fundamentalism,are,in my opinion,well,just plain wrong.

Six decades ago,Ted Keddeny father Joe was leading the charge for American isolationationism as European jewery was being wiped out.

He was practicially a Nazi apologist.

Three decades ago,the liberal lion Ted Kennedy and his acolyte John Kerry were North Vietmanese apologists.

Today they are fundamentalists apologists.

“No wonder why the radicials hate us” they say.”Look what we have done to them” they carp.

“Follow us..we know what to do”.

And you guys have bought that crap hook,line and sinker.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at November 12, 2005 7:59 AM
Comment #92263

Once again, Jack, you’ve written a nice little platitude: terrorists are bad. Good job. BTW, you mentioned placating and concessions. I’m wondering who you’re talking about. Even Spain didn’t grant clemency to the Madrid bombers.

I guess when even Fox News says the President is screwed, the only thing you can do is call terrorists bad and hope people will think his opponents disagree.

Yeah, he even dusted off the old flag burning amendment. I sense desperation.

SE, I’m not sure who you think isn’t against radical fundamentalism. I’ve never heard anyone here — left, right, or center — speak out in support of it. In fact, most of what I hear on the left is anger that Bush let Saddam distract him from the war on terror.

Seems to me, if our military wasn’t wasting time chasing down pissed off Iraqis, we’d have a lot more guys going after bin Laden and Zarqawi.

Speaking of Zarqawi, Bush had the chance to kill him back in 2002, but let Zarqawi go so he and people like Jack could imply some connection between al Qaeda and Saddam. I remember thinking how it was a real shame Nick Berg had to have his head cut off because Bush wanted to score some political points.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 12, 2005 8:39 AM
Comment #92264

David

There are different kinds of terrorists with different motives. The traditional communist style terrorists indeed hoped to provoke democratic states into overreaction in the hope it would hasten the revolution they thought was inevitable. These kinds of terrorist were prevalent from the 1960-1990, but they mostly disappeared with the Soviet Union.

The Islamic terrorists have different methods and different goals. Their goal vis-à-vis us if to get us to leave the Middle East so that they put into effect their Caliphate plan into effect. When they say leave the Middle East, they don’t mean pull out troops. They mean economically, culturally and politically – something so comprehensive that we can’t do even if we try.

AP sometimes links to Osama bin Laden’s demands. Among them are stop support for Russia’s and China’s oppression of Muslims and pay a fair price for oil. These sound reasonable, but they are not. But those are both things we can’t do. We don’ support it now so we can’t stop it and market forces determine the maximum price of oil. If it goes much above $60 at today’ technology it inspires alternatives.

Stephen

I didn’ mention Democrats or Republicans. In fact, I mentioned Americans only in the context of casualties to show that the terrorists killed mostly innocent Muslims, seem to have done so on purpose and then bragged about it. These guys are enemies of civilization.

Islamic international terrorist (as opposed to the national types or even territorially based Palestinians) must be understood in the context of freedom, as we understand it. Democracy, free markets, the rule of secular law and free exchange of ideas are anathema to them. These are the things the U.S. pushes in its foreign policy in both Republican and Democratic administrations.

There is no misunderstanding.They see our presence in the world as a threat to their world. Their goal is to weaken or destroy our influence.

Solving the Palestinian crisis would go a long way to undercutting support for Islamic terrorism, but it wouldn’t change the minds of Al Qaeda. And it is not like that is something easy to do.

Generally

I wrote about this because I am impressed with the stupidity of Al Qaeda leadership. They are dangerous in the sense of a bloodthirsty stalker or a serial killer. But these guys are clearly no masterminds. I think they are overreaching. 9/11 and the London bombings were clearly big mistakes and this recent bombing in Jordan looks to be even worse for them.

By calling them stupid, I am not saying that they are not dangerous. Stupid can be very dangerous. But I think we can easily read too much into their actions. We look for strategic vision where there might not be much.

Posted by: Jack at November 12, 2005 8:47 AM
Comment #92266

SE,

Better still,having Al Gore or John Kerry at the helm advised by Ted Kennedy was the answer.

Over this clown? Yes, either Gore or Kerry would have made a dramaticly better President than Bush, IMO. Of course, we’ll probably never really know for sure. But what we will know is where this pathetic excuse for a President will rank in history, and it’s scraping the bottom my friend.

By the way, we’re all aware that you have a hard on for Ted Kennedy. Big deal. Do you live in Mass? No. Is he a leader in the Democratic party? No. He last ran for national office in the 80’s. So you can try and keep using him to discredit the entire Democratic party, but it just makes your arguments look more superficial than they already do.

Actually, a lot of your post I really agree with, especially your comments about historical perspective.

We have had so many ill conceived strategies dealing with the Mid-East these last 5 decades that sometimes I want to vomit.

Getting into bed with the Saudi Arabian Wahhabis for starters.

Our country is now an energy junkie as a result.

Please don’t not tell me that oil is a purely a Republician issue either.

I agree wholeheartedly. Most middle east policy in this country has been a disaster - from both sides of the aisle. And yes, Bush bedding down with the Saudis is a huge problem, especially since it was the Saudis who attacked us on 9-11, no?

And yes, our country is a bunch of energy junkies. Don’t you think Gore would have been better to deal with issue rather than a cabal of Republican oil company executives? You’ve elected, and re-elected, oil executives to run this country and you wonder why the energy policies are so skewed?

The liberal lion Ted Kennedy and his family have a billion dollars in the bank (most,by the way,protected by trusts that assure them that they will pay little of no inheritance taxes),largely due to oil.

So which is worse? Someone who profits personally from the oil industry, but works politically to limit that industry because it is in the best interest of the country? Or someone who profits personally from the oil industry and works politically to give these massively profitable companies tax breaks and corporate welfare at the expense of the taxpayer and our nation’s best interest?

Burt,do you have a wind mill on you house?

Does a weathervane count? Actually I’m looking into having my house run on hydro electric with the river that runs through my property. But are you really trying to say that everyone who disagrees with Bush’s actions in Iraq needs to have solar panels and a car that runs on vegetable oil or they are a hypocrite?

Three decades ago,the liberal lion Ted Kennedy and his acolyte John Kerry were North Vietmanese apologists.

Today they are fundamentalists apologists.

“No wonder why the radicials hate us” they say.”Look what we have done to them” they carp.

“Follow us..we know what to do”.

And you guys have bought that crap hook,line and sinker.

Way to back up your argument by inventing quotes that people didn’t say. That kind of crap doesn’t fly around here.

Anyway, you are the apologist - in a big way. A Bush apologist. Despite all the missteps and miscalculations, you still insist on backing Bush “unflinchingly”. And because you refuse to insist on changing policies that aren’t working, as I’ve said before, you sir are the one weak on terror and weak on Iraq.

Posted by: Burt at November 12, 2005 9:01 AM
Comment #92273

Burt

Off subject

We probably share an interest in alternative energies. A piece of land I have has a couple of streams that run across it. But I understand that I am not allowed to dam them in order to make electricity. I am interested in your experience.

Posted by: Jack at November 12, 2005 9:23 AM
Comment #92278

Jack,

“Islamic international terrorist (as opposed to the national types or even territorially based Palestinians) must be understood in the context of freedom, as we understand it. Democracy, free markets, the rule of secular law and free exchange of ideas are anathema to them. These are the things the U.S. pushes in its foreign policy in both Republican and Democratic administrations.”

As Bush has found, these are all wonderfull talking points, but all he seems to be doing is repeating them ad nauseam.
Where is the substance?
Where are the Kuwaitis, the Saudis, the Turks, the Qataris, and yes the Jordanians?
Why aren’t the the folks in the Middle East fighting for their own “freedom” from these terrorists?
When is America going to demand action from those people that this “war on terror” effects the most?
How will we even know that we have won the “war on terror”?

When will “King George” give a speech some place other than on a military base?

This has become a textbook case on how not to run a war. IMHO, Mr. Bush is incapable of understanding what it will take, and he only seems to listen to people that tell him what he wants to hear.

Unless Bush gets some smarts real quick, this “war” will take decades to win.

Posted by: Rocky at November 12, 2005 9:46 AM
Comment #92284

Is it liberalism or communism, I am starting not to see the differences. I think liberals would rather be a communist state instead of a free state. No one like to go to war, but alot of innocent people fight for our freedom every day so we can live freely. Liberals take that for granted, and its about time they realize it or we will be pushed in to a communist state. One last comment, George W. Bush will go down as one of the greatest presidents in history. He has done more in his terms than any other president. Some good, some not… but least he made every tempt to do what he said he was gonna do (and thats what Americans respect). I know, liberals and mainstream media want to change the successes of Bush, but it gonna happpen. 20 years or so, we will look back at Bush’s legacy and remarked how bold and challenge Bush was and give him his proper respect. Thank you !!!

Posted by: jerry at November 12, 2005 10:02 AM
Comment #92291

Burt

Really a terrific post by you…your best yet.

As usual though we agree on somepoints,disagree on most though.

Nonetheless,I enjoy discussing issues with you,David,AP,Stephen,Aldous,Elliot Bay and many others.

This forum is becoming increasingly important as time passes,as I believe I am seeing a moderate movement being born that both sides of the aisle are gravitating to.

In time ,I think we will be left with a left,center and right party system…at this point I hope so,because my views on Iraq not withstanding,I strandle the middle on most other issues.

On Kerry,Gore or Bush:

First off,I am from Massachusetts.And no,I don’t have a hard on for Kennedy.I have seen this guy dance around since 1968 when they flound that floater in the Cape.He is perhaps the biggest politicial con job of the last 150 years but I kinda admire his resilinsy.He is merely a convienient punching bag for guys like me to use.He is a nationial disgrace except he hasn’t realized it.

Between Bush and the other two,as a city kid,I felt that Gore and Kerry were wipms(Put it this way…if Kerry were a kid growing up in my neck of the woods,he would have had his ass kicked every day.Same with Gore.At least with Bus I saw someone with a set of balls.

Given the choice of getting into a fight with either a wimp(Gore/Kerry) on my side or a guy (Bush)with balls on my side,I chose Bush.

And it was the right choice.

We disagree,that’s all.Your job is to convince everybody that you are right,my job is convince everybody that I am right.

AP

Listen,our military should have been chasing these guys five decades ago.

Our CIA,which Senator Church gutted,needed to have been getting human intelligence .It was shut down,remember?

Now the CIA is a politicial mess…very similiar to Hoover’s FBI.

I think that Porter Goss has a set of balls and can clean it up,but I really don’t know.

We should have reacted differently to this war..I certainly do not dispute that….I disagree that we should be so busy looking over our shoulders putting blame on people,that’s all.

We should all concentrating on helping to find OSL,learning about the enemy and pretty much be vigilant about the enemy.

Right now,we are not

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 12, 2005 10:42 AM
Comment #92292

Is there anybody from the right that is capable of communicating with anything other than these hackneyed talking points?

The far right wing pundits and their sychophantic followers have accused anybody that doesn’t march lock-step with their rhetoric of being “enemies” of America.

The universally beloved Bush is their annointed saviour. This man with the white hat and horse will ride herd on the bad guys and all will live happily ever after. We only have to wait a few years to see the wisdom of it.

Posted by: Rocky at November 12, 2005 10:43 AM
Comment #92294

SE-
When Bush arrived on the scene, there were many choices to be made. Could they have saved us from 9/11? I’m not sure they could. Possibility exists, though, and therefor the possibility that a greater focus on terrorism, as advised by Clinton officials, might have been able to prevent the catastrophe. I won’t beat too hard on that drum, though. That would be to confuse probability with certainty.

But the die was not cast on Iraq. The die was not cast on what we were to do in response to 9/11. There were choices to be made there, and there are still choices to be made now.

You call us apologists, but that’s what you are, because you perpetually defend Bush, no matter how badly he screws up. We, on the other hand, have the broader interests of this country at heart, interests we believe threatened by Bush’s reckless and incompetent policies. Between our country and our president, our loyalty is to our country.

And yes, I do pedal a bike. In fact, it’s been such a primary source of transportation that I biked to my Driver’s Ed sessions. I’m known for my long bike rides. As for the other stuff, I doubt our deed restrictions would allow such equipment to be mounted in my neighborhood.

Other bold claims of yours fall flat on their face. Kerry was not an apologist for the North Vietnamese. He just wasn’t an apologist for Nixon’s policy of dragging out the war further, after the general consensus everywhere (even among today’s Neoconservatives- See James Mann’s Rise of the Vulcans) was that we had lost the war. There again, the repeated rhetoric of the right is proved wrong by examination of the historical record.

Joe Kennedy was an appeasers, which may be half the reason we ended up in Vietnam in the first place- If Kennedy had not involved us in Vietnam, his contemporaries might have brought up that old subject and made the same partisan point about appeasement that you did. You should understand that the Kennedy’s always had to deal with the charge of being appeasers, and so often, they did the opposite.

That same partisan point was also used to support right-wing governments abroad, some in the middle east, whose excesses, brutality, and contempt for the traditions of the still pre-modern societies helped create the jihadi movement. Acknowledging that is not apologizing for Jihadis. Knowing that, and not getting caught up in the Islamofascist Bullshit, will help us craft solutions whose effects could be as profound as they are subtle. How? Because any good solution to the problem of the Jihadis is about co-opting and diverting the passions that feed it. Bush and his policies make for obvious targets. We Democrats aren’t going to make ourselves the easy targets your people did.

You folks need to come down off your high horse about foreign policy. We don’t need you to become liberals all of a sudden, but we do need you to realize that ideological goals and the good of America do not always coincide.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 12, 2005 10:52 AM
Comment #92295

To all
I did not see rep or dem in the piece Jack wrote. I did see him presenting a brief on the situation of some of the faces of terrorism. There are some of you who want to politicize the situation. You need to do an indepth study on Islamic faith. How and under what circumstances did it get started. How violent is their history. Why have they been able to grow when so much of their faith does not fit the human nature of things. Then look at todays terrorist leaders and without applying con/lib, dem,rep, left/right but just common sense, and see what makes them tick. I do not see any of what I just put out in your responses above or on other past posts.

Posted by: tomh at November 12, 2005 10:52 AM
Comment #92308

SE,

We should all concentrating on helping to find OSL,learning about the enemy and pretty much be vigilant about the enemy.

Right now,we are not

Thank you. On this, again we agree.

Posted by: Burt at November 12, 2005 12:00 PM
Comment #92310

Jack,

I’m just getting started doing research, so I may not be more ahead of the curve than you. I’ve got beavers doing the damming for me, but I’m not sure yet if that makes it even more of a problem with the Army Corps, etc.

As I learn more, I’ll give you a shout out.

Posted by: Burt at November 12, 2005 12:02 PM
Comment #92316

Thanks, Burt

I have mixed feelings about beavers. I would be happy if they would make me a little pond and I have always thought such things were really nice, but they destroy a lot of trees.

The land is more fun than the politics sometimes, isn’t it.

Posted by: Jack at November 12, 2005 12:42 PM
Comment #92323

“Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators.”
Lieutenant General Stanley Maude
British Commander of the Army of the Tigris

The policies of 1920’s colonial Britain play a great role in our situation today, both in Iraq and in the ‘War on Terror.’ Multinational oil companies also play a great role in both.

Western awareness of the importance of oil developed @ 1900. It became an issue of strategic importance during World War I. The colonial victors of that war, chiefly Britain and France, wanted to make certain of their access to the oil of the Middle East. (The US also played a role, not as a colonial power, but as a backer of its own Big Oil’s interests). The Red Line of 1928 defined the national/Big Oil zone of control.

One other critical development occurred at the same time. The Zionist movement in Palestine received the backing of the British colonial government.

Up until this point, the Muslim & Jewish populations of the Middle East lived side by side in peace. This amicable relationship stood in sharp contrast with the Christian persecutions of Jewish populations in preceding centuries, particularly in central Europe.

The British backing of the Zionist movement angered the Muslims. British colonial policy in the Middle East also angered Muslims.

The Muslims found an international backer for their anger in the good Christians of Germany.

Today the US finds itself trapped by a series of poor decisions- support of corrupt, oppressive authoritarian Middle East regimes, support for a Jewish state, opposition to Islamic states such as Iran, capped by the skewed perspective of the fossil fuel administration of BushCo.

Attempts to break the mold seem to make matters worse. Encourage democracy? Radicalized Islamic populations wait to take control. Withdraw support of religious governments? Policy is incapable of extricating itself from entwinement with Israel. Global War on Terror? It amounts to invasions of countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq, further radicalizing Muslim populations.

We need new leadership in the worst way. We need to drop the Global War on Terror. We need to withdraw support for Israel. We need to continue pursuing terrorists, but using intelligence and Special Ops teams, not the conventional might of our military.

Most importantly, over the next decade we must, as a matter of national security of the highest import, develop alternate energies, and escape dependence upon Big Oil. It’s a Geo-Green strategy, it’s obviously right, and we just need the right people to begin its implementation.

Posted by: phx8 at November 12, 2005 1:10 PM
Comment #92324

Anyone know why Clinton didn’t take Osama bin Ladin when he had the chance to have him handed to him on a silver platter?
I’m not much of a fan of Bushes domestic ploicies. But at least he’s doing something about these cowards insted of blowing up a few sand hills like one President (who’ll remain unnamed) did.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 12, 2005 1:15 PM
Comment #92325

Personnaly I believe that our policy on terror should be simple.
Attack us and a Muslim country disappears.
Maybe it’s a good thing I’m not president.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 12, 2005 1:19 PM
Comment #92328

Stephen

Bravo on the bike.

Unfortunately,mine still has training wheels on it.

I don’t perpetually defend Bush.I do not agree with him on border issues for example.I think he can be much more fiscally conservative.I think that there is someplace betweeen abortion on demand and partial birth abortion that can be accomodated.I think that gays and lesbians should have every entitlement that straights do.

On the flip side,I do not want to be taxed to death and blame the”rich 1% ” for everything either.

Again,someplace in the middle is the truth.

By this time next year,we will be talking the ‘08 election.

By this time next year,we may have the tables turned and a Congress controlled by the Democrats.However,no one will beat McCain or Guilliani for the Oval office.

If McCain gets in,expect more boots on the ground someplace(If not Iraq,then Syria or Iran by that time).

Someplace too within the next year or so,a peace wing will split the Democrats into two camps…a pro-terror war camp lead by Hilary and an anti war camp led by Edwards.

Kerry,of course,will flip flop between the two,depending on what day of the week it is.

phx8

terrific post.Bravo

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 12, 2005 1:24 PM
Comment #92341

Jack said: “The Islamic terrorists have different methods and different goals. “

Sure there are differences, but, you miss what is common. All terrorist groups have the same tactics by virtue of the absence of their ability to wage anything like a conventional war and win. That tactic is as I described above, to cause their opponents to reveal that they are no better than the terrorists when it comes killing, maiming, injustice, and rage based overreaction. Only in this manner can they achieve sympathy and alignment to their cause by those in earshot of their propaganda. And as I said, Bush, et.al. played right into their plan, completely ignorant of all we had learned about such militarily inferior foes since WWII and Korea.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 12, 2005 2:41 PM
Comment #92366

Up until this point, the Muslim & Jewish populations of the Middle East lived side by side in peace.

PHX

What drug are you on? How can anyone ever believe a word you write after that ridiculous statement?

The Kibbutz movement which brought Jews in large numbers to what is now Israel, had to build fences around their settlements to keep maruading MUSLIMS from attacking them. This land they bought from the muslims was turned into farmland by hard work and irrigation, something the muslims never tried apparently. Once they saw the fruits (literally) of the labor they wanted the land back. I lived there for a year in the area I am talking about. I have read and studied extensively about this as well. You are grossely misinformed about this. But it doesn’t really surprise me after reading your knee jerk responses to everything written here.

Posted by: ace at November 12, 2005 5:00 PM
Comment #92373

Ace,
Here is a site on the history of the Jewish population in Iraq. Admittedly most of the information on Baghdad prior to 1246 was lost when Hulagu Khan’s Mongols sacked the city. However, here are some choice quotes from the Jewishlibrary site:

“… Following the end of the British mandate, the 2,700-year-old Iraqi Jewish community suffered horrible persecution, particularly as the Zionist drive for a state intensified. In June 1941, the Mufti-inspired, pro-Nazi coup of Rashid Ali sparked rioting and a pogrom in Baghdad. Armed Iraqi mobs, with the complicity of the police and the army, murdered 180 Jews and wounded almost 1,000. Immediately following, the British Army re-entered Baghdad, and success of the Jewish community resumed. Jews built a broad network of medical facilities, schools and cultural activity… This flourisng environment abruptly ended in 1947, with the partition of Palestine and the fight for Israel’s independence. Outbreaks of anti-Jewish rioting regularly occurred between 1947-49.”

So, Ace, you may not believe what I write, but hopefully the Jewishlibrary site is one you’ll believe.

By the way, Ace, when you write this:

“This land they bought from the muslims was turned into farmland by hard work and irrigation, something the muslims never tried apparently.”

Just out of curiousity, Ace. How did those lazy Arabs eat? Did they wander about aimlessly, bumping into each other, drinking from puddles and chewing bark from trees?


Posted by: phx8 at November 12, 2005 5:36 PM
Comment #92374

Jerry,
“20 years or so, we will look back at Bush’s legacy and remarked how bold and challenge Bush was and give him his proper respect.”

Oh, why wait? We can give him the respect he deserves right now. Let’s see, latest FOX poll shows Bush clocking in with a 36% approval rating. That’s the lowest at this point in a term since, Nixon, who was impeached not long after.

Well! 36%! Whym, that’s downright disrepectful! Hmmph. Damn liberals. Whole damn country’s goin’ pinko commie, Jerry.

Posted by: phx8 at November 12, 2005 5:54 PM
Comment #92386

phx8

Nixon was never impeached. As I recall, only Johnson and Clinton.

Bush’s legacy depends on the outcome of the Iraq conflict. I believe it will be judged a success in the long run.

This is a dark time for Bush, but the perception is not really reality. The economy, for example, is good and has been since 2003. In Iraq we held an unexpectedly successful election in January and an unexpectedly successul referendum last month. I am expecting a good result in the election next month. The terrorists have badly miscalculated in Jordan.

The darkest hour is just before dawn. By next year the whole situaion will look better.

Posted by: Jack at November 12, 2005 7:01 PM
Comment #92398

Jack,
Absolutely correct. Nixon resigned before he could be impeached. You are right.

Here is what I believe is an original contribution to the debate:

The terrorists can be divided into two separate groups, with two separate aims.

The first group is OBL’s Al Qaida. They seek to expel Westerners from Arabian lands, destroy Israel, and prevent the westernization of their culture.

They are the philosophical equivalent of Trotsky. Their viewpoint is international.

At this point, OBL’s Al Qaida is no operational. While OBL & Zawhari survive, their words inspire followers. (The Indonesian radicals & the London bombers can be considered followers inspired by OBL). Because OBL’s and Zarwahari’s words are poison, as well as for justice and revenge, they should be hunted down. But for practical purposes, as an organization, OBL’s Al Qaida no longer matters.

A second group consists of Al-Zarqawi’s Al Qaida in Iraq. They seek to expel the US from Iraq. Unlike OBL’s Al Qaida, Al Qaida in Iraq bears intense hatred for the Shias.

Zarqawi’s Al Qaida in Iraq is the philosophical equivalent of Lenin. They are primarily national in focus.

The Al Qaida in Iraq terrorist attack is of interest mostsly because it occurred outside Iraq’s borders. It occurred in an adjacent country, and it occurred in Zarqawi’s country of origin. Really, it demonstrates the limitations of terrorism, and its inability to project itself internationally; and it demonstates its success within Iraq.

In historical terms, Trotsky’s philosophical branch lost to Lenin’s branch. Trotsky ended up with an ice pick in the head.

International terrorism may lost to national terrorism as well.

A Bush opponent could critize Bush for spurring the formation of the virulent Al Qaida in Iraq organization.

If Bush were smart, he would set expectations to create the circumstances for victory. After elections, and upon the elimination of Zarqawi, Bush should declare victory in Iraq, and victory in the War on Terror.

Why not? Saddam Hussein is gone. Iraq will have an opportunity for democratic self-rule. Zarqawi would be gone. US Withdrawal from Iraq would mean the end of Al Qaida in Iraq.

OBL will still be out there, and a conflict between Shia & Sunni might be inevitable, but we will have done our part. Victory for Bush.

Posted by: phx8 at November 12, 2005 7:43 PM
Comment #92415

Phx8

That is a good analysis and historical comparison.

Of course if we go back to 1917, the Bolsheviks really expected a worldwide revolution. Lenin was no more prescient than anyone else.

The one big difference is that the Bolsheviks actually took over in Russia. I don’t see any chance of Al Qaeda to do the same in Iraq. The Kurds alone could defeat Al Qaeda in a straight up fight. At some point the Bolsheviks went from being freelance terrorists to state terrorists. Al Qaeda won’t be able to make the transition. The more they invest in Iraq, the better.

Actually, it is hard to envision a realistic scenario where we will be worse off next year than we were in the months before the war began. We will be arguing over whether or not the change was worth the cost, but the direction is correct.

What you say in jest, I say seriously. It will be a victory for Bush and more importantly for us.

Posted by: Jack at November 12, 2005 8:51 PM
Comment #92425

Jack,
I’m not saying it in jest. But it won’t happen if the expectation isn’t set. If the US withdrawal is seen as an act of weakness, it will be disastrous. If it seen as an act of strength- mission accomplished, and not just a photo op- it will be perceived as an act of strength.

If the US stays indefinitely, the insurgency will continue indefinitely.

Regardless of how the withdrawal happens, I doubt Al Qaida in Iraq will benefit. The Iraqi civilians and insurgents do not like the indiscriminate slaughter wreaked by Zarqawi’s group.

Will the Sunnis & Shias fight a civil war? I hope not. But I think it will happen. In any event, at some point they will have to take responsibility for their own fates.

Finally, will it be worth it? Saddam will be gone. That’s good. But we will have spent over $200 billion, over 2000 lives, over 15,000 wounded. With the controversies over torture & use of WP, the compromise of our honor, the loss of credibility of the government- no, I don’t think that was a worthwhile trade. I’m furious- FURIOUS- that Bush put our military through this.

But, if the expectations are set, we can see this as a victory.

Posted by: phx8 at November 12, 2005 10:01 PM
Comment #92428

I am a little surprised at the anti-Bush comments I am reading. As the Libby/Plame thing goes on I think many will see that liberals are taking political advantage to win votes in 2006.
Mohammedan terrorists have been attacking us since before 9/11/01. If you think Iraq awakened the Mohammedan terrorist your are dreaming. The bombings in Jordan will start to change the so-called moderate Mohammedan against terrorists. If terrorists continue to kill their fellow religionists their support will changed. It is in popularity that underground movements succeed. Viet Nam demonstrated this. When the popularity changes so will the terrorist begin disapearing. If Mohammedans can live in peace, then so be it.If not, then they must pay the consequences of their actions. And that does not mean patting them on their head whispering politically correct statements to placate a cultural evil as Mohammedan Islamofascism.

Posted by: John at November 12, 2005 10:10 PM
Comment #92429

John-
Yes, we Democrats and liberals will take political advantage of the failures of this administration to gain advantages in the legislature. So should the Republicans. The whole point of Democracies is sort of like that Lending Tree Commercial. We have people come in and compete to bring us the best government. It is not only the natural thing to take advantage of the other party’s incompetence and failures, it’s the right thing. It’s Democracy.

Few people are thinking that this Muslim terrorism has only recent roots or just the recent attacks to their names. In fact, many of us have been tracking word of this group for quite some time now. I knew immediately that al-Qaeda was the prime suspect the moment the other plane hit and it was confirmed as a terrorist attack. Nobody else had that taste for well-coordinated spectaculars.

But Iraq has been a problem because it’s been used to push ideas about us that were purely stereotypes of us as it was. We stepped into a propaganda punch that had us as invaders and occupiers. The use of bad evidence made our case for war seem like what it may very well have been: merely a pretext. Only this made that possibility next to impossible to ignore. Nobody could point to actual weapons, so were stuck with platitudes about terrorism and whatnot.

Iraq enraged many in the Arab world, people not as concerned with the niceties of Democratic government, but very touchy about their civilizational centers being invaded.

You are right, though, in saying that these people might end up having killed the wrong folks. I hope moderate Muslims do in fact begin to look past the glamour of these supposed warriors of God, and see the evils the propaganda has protected.

Don’t be concerned about politically correct statements. We don’t judge our enemies right if we don’t get our judgments of them correct.

As for Islamofascism? such a grouping ignores the pertinent facts: al-Qaeda and the like grew up amongst the opposition to many of the fascist and socialist dictatorships of the Middle East, as well as the Saudi Kingdom. They hate the guts of many of the people that the unwary would group them in with.

These aren’t nice people, and though in some ways we’ve truly wronged them, the truth is that their responses wrong us, and naturally two wrongs do not make a right. Those people must suffer the consequences of their action, and you are mistaken if you think most Democrats think that they shouldn’t. The only therapy we’re interested in giving them is high doses of iron (in the form of prison bars), or a therapeutic dose of steel-jacketed lead, followed by a six-foot-deep full-body mudpack.

Don’t be surprise about the anti-Bush comments. Many of us, unfortunately, know what to complain about.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 12, 2005 10:55 PM
Comment #92437

An advantage of democracy, free speech, free press, & a loyal opposition is that their criticism provides a mechanism for changing course. Criticism by a minority may be unwelcome, especially when the military is engaged. However, the minority’s criticism can spur resolution faster than an inflexible state which suppresses dissent.

Consider Afghanistan. The USSR invaded, and its government did not have to put up with a critical media or internal political opposition. The Soviet military was shielded from news. We all know how that ended. Not only did the USSR lose, its government collapsed.

John,
Each column begins with an article posted by a Dem, Independent, or Republican. From there threads are open.

Islamofascism? Not a useful term. It’s an empty slur, and its inaccuracy can prevent people from understanding the situation. Google definitions of fascism. Al Qaida, Al Qaida in Iraq, and Iraqi insurgents simply do not incorporate fascism in their worldview.

Posted by: phx8 at November 13, 2005 12:29 AM
Comment #92442

Islamofascism? Not a useful term. It’s an empty slur, and its inaccuracy can prevent people from understanding the situation. Google definitions of fascism. Al Qaida, Al Qaida in Iraq, and Iraqi insurgents simply do not incorporate fascism in their worldview.

Posted by: phx8 at November 13, 2005 12:29 AM
________________________________

Really?! Al Qaeda is definitely Islamofascism.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fascist

Instead of “nation and often race” it’s their religion that is above the individual. And it’s forcefully imposed on others.

In fact, they’re “Nazis in headscarves”. Jihadists, Wahabists, etc. are religious fascists; they want their religion imposed on everybody and they’ll stop at nothing to do it, including cutting off heads with a dirty knife while chanting to allah.

What part of “understanding the situation” is not understood with “Islamofacism”?

Posted by: rahdigly at November 13, 2005 1:17 AM
Comment #92448

Rah,
“A political philosophy, movement, or regime… that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.”

The way you are using “islamofascism” can be applied to anyone of a religious persuasion forcing anything upon anyone else. Christians using force would become “christofascists.” Israelis using force would become “judeofascists.” The word becomes a broad pejorative, lacking content.

Perhaps you’re satisfied with a broad pejorative. Being a self-proclaimed “connoiseur of history,” that would be surprising, particularly given the history of fascism in the 20th century, its role in Italy, the usual association of the term with corporatism, and so on. A connoiseur would surely not want to be mistaken for a mere dilettante. Reading this article on fascism might help people graduate from dilettantes to connoiseurs of discussions of the subject. Truly, it’s a tremendously interesting topic. We can go far beyond the dictionary definition some other time. But for now:

Islam does not advocate or possess a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader. This is obviously true of Sunni Islam, whose adherents comprise the members of Al Qaida & Al Qaida in Iraq. Sunni Islam lacks an Islamic economic model, and certainly lacks any elements of corporatism.

(I’m specifying Sunni Islam to keep this simple- a better argument could be made that Shia Islam in Iran represents Islamofascism, but I don’t believe you or John are applying the term to the Iranian Shias).

Social regimentation does not come into play in Sunni Islam, and neither does elitism. Note that regimentation is a term referring to class differentiation, separation, & elitism, not gender regimentation.

You’re on firmer ground with the final phrase of the definition, ‘forcible oppression.’ However, if that’s the only portion of fascism which applies to islamofascism, you’re in quicksand.

‘Religious intolerance’ is the concept you’re grasping for. The meanings included in the word ‘fascism’ go far beyond what you seek.

If you’d like to develop a counter-argument, you might want to consider what I posted earlier comparing OBL to Trotsky, and Zarqawi to Lenin.

Until then, try a new pejorative.

Posted by: phx8 at November 13, 2005 2:14 AM
Comment #92461

Jack,
You’re on message, and the Bush haters no it. This will be a long time solution, as the people were told, and the congress agreed,( when after seeing the same intel.), voted for this war. The dems. condemed Hussein for WMD, as Bush did, long before we acted. As Bush said, their are a lot of revisionist, especially in the press. The diference between the parties are basically the nasty denials by dems, and the take it on the chin rebubs. I want more speeches, telling the truth. Backing up their votes about the war. And their documented statements. Such as Hillary, Kerry, and Kennedy. The double standard sticks out like a sore thumb. The liberal press not only gives them a free pass, but joins in as much as possible.


Posted by: steve at November 13, 2005 7:15 AM
Comment #92465

Rahdigly-
What Bin Laden and his people want is Theocracy. If you look at the area, that’s not what you have for the most part, Iran excluded. Most governments take their cue from secular authoritarian governments, or they go for some kind of feudal government (Shahs, Emir, Kings, etc.) The feudal governments have an uneasy relationship with their more Islamist of citizens, who they alternatively please and disregard. The lifestyle that these folks enjoy because of their oil wealth doesn’t help, especially in Saudi Arabia, where the rise of the royal family has been a balancing act between it and the Wahhabis, and a damn dysfunctional arrangement if you ask me.

The Socialist and Fascist governments of the Middle East have no such problem. Instead, they just fricking hate the Islamists, Wahhabi or Shia. They put in enough religious language so that most people can’t say they’re apostates, but aside from that, they tend to be secularists and modernists, and often are hostile to Islamists movements. Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri Spent many years in Jail as part of the successful plot to assassinate Anwar Sadat.

The Jihadi problem is not so much a direct result of these governments as it is an emergent result of governments and societies that are badly out of step with each other. Now, the obvious solution might be to go in there and change all that, but we must keep in mind that a government must draw it’s legitimacy from the people, and it’s more difficult for the citizens to consider a government theirs if it’s the product of a foreign invasion and occupation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 13, 2005 7:59 AM
Comment #92466

steve-
The facts do not reflect the notion that all the intelligence the President could or would share with folks was shared. It’s a pleasing fiction to those who do not want to admit that they were wrong, and that the Republican party was the driving political force on Iraq. But it’s only a fiction.

The Democrats can admit that the information was bad. The Republicans have to resort to saying “well, others believed it, too”

The problem with this comes when you look closer at what was done with the evidence. First, full evidence was not distributed to most members of congress. Second, when it was, there were substantial differences between the declassified versions and the classified version, which itself was heavily qualified in comparison to the much more assertive declassified version.

Qualifiers are important. If somebody tells you They are going to the store, they sound a lot more certain than if they say they might drop by the story, if the milk’s running low, and if they’re check has gotten in, and they’re not too tired from work.

Now, if somebody else took the latter description of somebody’s plans and then in turn told you that he was definitely going to the store, that would be a unqualified judgment based on a qualifed source.

That is what was done with the NIE. The trouble with that, is that it’s different to conclude that Saddam will share WMDs with Terrorists than to say that he will do this only as a matter of last resort. That changes the nature of the threat. The first makes him an obvious threat. The second only comes into play if he’s about to lose power.

Similarly, conclusions about WMD’s presence were often voiced as suspicions in the original, where in the edited version, they are presented as flat out statements. There’s a big difference in degree between knowing and suspecting.

The Fact that this unqualified version was the only unclassified version of it for the most part meant that no meaningful debate could be had about the qualifiers involved, no real interrogation of why the CIA believed what it did. That is what the “liberal” media reported, and they got that right.

What you can’t handle is that the revisionism for us, is mostly a revision of our opinions in the face of new facts. The revision for you guys has been the cause for the war, the existence of weapons, and all the skullduggery that went into getting the war in the first place. We revised what we thought, you folks have created new missions for the war out of thin air. As somebody else has pointed out, the authorization to use force, in the parts that matter for whatever real authority Bush had, asked him to go through the UN as far as it was possible, and made the disarming of Saddam Hussein and taking action to deal with the supposedly present terrorist threat there the highest of priorities.

This is why WMDs and the pre-existing presence of terrorists in Iraq are such crucial issues- they form the legal basis for the war, as far as US law is concerned. All these other issues, such as founding a Democracy, and toppling Saddam because he was a bad man were only politically important.

They were not our fundamental justifications for this pre-emptive war. That they have been made into that constitutes the greatest and most insidious revisionism at all, because they neglect the very reason that Americans felt this war was legitimate enough to break off of our main concentration on Osama Bin Laden and his people, who were our real opponents in the War on Terrorism from the beginning.

I find it highly disturbing that the main result of this battle in the war on terrorism has been to create a source and a haven for terrorists, rather than destroying it. Even if we win this war, our best net effect will be to break even, as far as the War on Terrorism is concerned.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 13, 2005 8:36 AM
Comment #92469

All

This is a terrific thread.

I think everyone gets the picture that the problem started way before the president got involved.

He fumbled the ball a few times and that is the rub.

Ok.where do we go from here?

How about doing something positive?

Collectively,as a group?

Why don’t you guys join me and help smoke out Zawhari?

Exactly what do we know about this guy for starters?

Nic Roberson of CNN went to his vilage in Jordan yesterday,and they terrorized the guy.Zawhari’s family lives in broad daylight there,is obviously complicit(as are very one of his neighbors,it seems).

How about putting some sunlight on those nearest and dearest to him?

Collectively with your research talents,I best that we all could be enlightened.

I have been researching a lot of Muslim sites lately….just so I can contunue learning about them….and almost every site somehow contains a link to another site that leads to another site that leads to a hate site.

Last week I spent a fascinating couple of hours surfing these sites.One of them is convinced that Isreal planned 9/11 and allegledly has presented this case for all to see.

One article I read said this particular site receives more daily hits than newswee.com

These site must be making money now because almost all of them have banner ads.

How’s that for irony?

Hate for fun and profit.

Blow a human up sponsored by(name your favorite corporation).

These guys use lap tops ,satelite phones,text messaging.

Instead of bickering among ourselves why don’t borrow one of their sayings “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” and have a permanent post here that we can add info to regularily.

Or would my comments be taken as just another neo-com talking point?

I am dropping the gauntlet.

What say you,Mr. Editor David Rimmer,and my dear adversaries di internet Stephen,Burt,Elliot Bay,AP,and the ten thousand others that tomahawk me regularily?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 13, 2005 8:50 AM
Comment #92476

SE-
Just because a problem has roots much older than the current situation does not relieve anybody of the obligation to make good decisions in the here and now. The cold war was old when Reagan fought it, that doesn’t mean he didn’t have a major part to play in dealing with it.

Bush has not fumbled the ball a few times, he’s dropped it repeatedly and even taken it back into our own endzone for good measure.

Zawahiri is a different fellow from Zarqawi. The first is Osama Bin Laden’s lieutenant. The second is leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

As for Muslim sites, I don’t think it’s a mark of infamy that three sites worth of linkage can be had between the moderates and the radicals. I think that would be possible with a moderate site here of any political persuasion. It’s what they call Small Worlds Theory.

Essentially, it’s Six Degrees of Separation. There’s just two degrees of separation between me and Jerry Falwell, for example. Does that make me part of the religiou right? No. It just means I know a guy who knew Falwell.

Don’t go for guilt by association.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 13, 2005 9:41 AM
Comment #92481

Stephen

Sorry for the typo…wrote the above before the morning’s first cup of coffee.You got the drift,anyway.

I agree with you that Bushed may even have scored a touchback,but there are 2 halves in a game.He now has 5 years on the job…not one and a half.

On the six degrees of seperation thing.

Well,yes I do blame “moderate” websites with links to hate sites.The technology out there easily prevents that sort of stuff,so I don’t buy the guilt be association thing.

If you knew a guy who knew Falwell,then tyou should tell the authorities everything about the guy that knew Falwell.He might be a mini-Falwell,no?He might have aclue about Falwell,no?Isn’t that basic police work?

You know what I am saying…you above all.Why don’t you do a piece on Zarqawi(Got it right this time)?

Posted by: Siciilianeagle at November 13, 2005 9:53 AM
Comment #92482
I think that Porter Goss has a set of balls and can clean it up,but I really don’t know.

Think again, SE:

“The jobs I’m being asked to do, the five hats that I wear, are too much for this mortal,” Goss said. “I’m a little amazed at the workload.” Of his responsibilities, he remarked, “It’s got a huge amount of ambiguity in it. I don’t know by law what my direct relationship is with John Negroponte,” Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld or other top officials involved with intelligence.”

That doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence in our new CIA chief.

Anyone know why Clinton didn’t take Osama bin Ladin when he had the chance to have him handed to him on a silver platter?

Because it’s a myth, Ron Brown. That rumor was most recently debunked in the 9/11 Commission report. The guy who started it, Mansoor Ijaz, now works for FOX News.

Bush’s legacy depends on the outcome of the Iraq conflict. I believe it will be judged a success in the long run.

Jack, that’s entirely possible. By that measure, Johnson’s Vietnam policy was a complete success. Forty years later, Vietnam is an emerging success story.

Sure the Vietnam War destroyed American confidence, prestige, and power — even turned our military leadership into a bunch of old ladies as Albright was fond of pointing out — but by God, forty years later, Vietnam is a success.

You’re absolutely right Jack. If we’re lucky, Iraq will eventually be the same stunning success that Vietnam was. :/

Posted by: American Pundit at November 13, 2005 10:00 AM
Comment #92493

Phx8,

Interesting article on fascism, thanks for the link. I can certainly understand where you are coming from with the specifics and differences on fascism and the middle east regimes. I definitely wouldn’t say that I was a “connoisseur” of history; just one that has a passion for it and, basically, I call like I see it.

In this case, it is very hard to discern the difference between the Nazis ideology and the radical Islamists or “religious intolerant” of today. And, I know, I know, the Nazis are a form of fascism, not exactly the definiton fascism itself.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nazism

When I use the term “Islamofascism”, I’m focusing on their hate for Jews and their intolerance for all of those who don’t believe (infidels) in the “true islam” way of life (religious intolerance). The car bombs, suicide bombers, the beheadings, the fatwas, etc. all this has been part of these hateful radical islamists that have hi-jacked the religion.

So, if there is an exact definition for this hateful ideology, I would cetainly like to get to the bottom of it.

Until then, I would argue that they are “Nazis in headscarves”; that’s just how I see it right now. What do you think?

Posted by: rahdigly at November 13, 2005 11:03 AM
Comment #92512

Rah,
Pejoratives are emotionally satisfying. When it comes to emotions, I don’t think we need to be sensitive to the needs of people like OBL & Zarqawi. They advocate the tactic of terrorism to murder innocent people.

While it might be satisfying to call such people islamofascists, or islamocommunists, or islamonazis, that doesn’t get us anywhere in terms of understanding. Grafting Islam onto unpopular European political philosophies is meaningless.

Digression… It’s interesting that when the Mufti & Sunni Muslims worked with Nazis in WWII, each considered the other inferior. The Nazis wanted Iraqi oil & the country’s geo-strategic advantages. The Iraqis wanted the British out. Both shared hatred for Jews, sparked by the Zionist movement, among other things.

Before riots in WWII, Bagdhad’s Jewish population had lived there in relative peace for 2,700 years, and numbered 148,000. Today, less than 100 still live there.

Posted by: phx8 at November 13, 2005 12:31 PM
Comment #92514

All

Danielpipes.org is a good jumpimg off web site.This guy has been crucified as an Islamophile but he has stood the test of time.

Regardless of what your politics are,15 minutes on this site is worth it .

My view anyway.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 13, 2005 12:38 PM
Comment #92582

SE-
What I see from his first term, and the attitude he takes coming into this one, indicate to me that little has changed. He’s still defending decisions most Americans think were wrong, still spouting information most Americans distrust. If he’s so stubborn that even now he’s not letting up, how do I expect him to change?

As for your notion about links, you describe taking three separate links off a site. Small Worlds theory would tell you that this is a result of the strength of weak ties.

You see, you can get just about anywhere in this world by going through people whose lives barely relate. I actually wrote a piece about this subject a while back.

The surprising thing about “weak ties” in this instance is how much wider they spread than our closest ones. We tend to know and like a certain close set of friends, and we tend to have a lot of those in common with them- including other friends! So, things become kind of circular. However, if you go looking for ties to others, you can easily find weak ties that extend out far beyond their normal sphere of relationships. Because of this, we can go from Jerry Falwell to David R. Remer in just four steps- Falwell, The guy, me, then David. There maybe somebody else with an even better connection!

Point is, you go three links out from any political site, and I think you’ll find somebody the author of the first might consider radical.

As for Zarqawi, just google him. There are probably a whole bunch of articles on him by folks who know much more than me about him.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 13, 2005 5:57 PM
Comment #92599

Phx8,

Even though I disagree with you on the verbiage, I see what you’re saying with perjoratives being emotionally satisfying. You dislike the the term “Islamofascists” as I do with people saying “we have to be careful how we fight them so we don’t become like the terrorists”.

The problem with being too sensitive when talking about the enemy is that we can end up missing exactly how bad they really are. I mean, I personally don’t need to know anymore about these terrorists than I already do. They’re hateful and I’ve seen what they do and what they’re capable of doing.
In fact, I haven’t needed anymore convincing since 9/11; that’s when I started to pay attention and I realized that we need to eradicate this enemy, b/c appeasing them will do absolutely nothing.

Unfortunately, many people won’t stop with the politicizing of this war until the enemy (“Islamofascists”, “Religious intolerant”, “misunderstood Islamists” or whatever we’re calling them) comes across this border w/ a dirty nuke and kills hundred of thousands of people or even millions. Then, Americans will start saying, “I don’t care what their history or gripe is, I want them gone”.


So, to debate the semantics of this issue is probably a waste of blog space. The real issue is what do you call them and how do you propose we stop them?

Posted by: rahdigly at November 13, 2005 8:56 PM
Comment #92600

Stephen Daugherty wrote:
It’s a pleasing fiction to those who do not want to admit that they were wrong, and that the Republican party was the driving political force on Iraq. But it’s only a fiction.
______________________________

All anybody has to do is look up the quotes from the Democrats in 1998; it’s almost identical to what the Republicans (and Democrats) were saying in 2002 & 2003. Here’s a little sample for everyone:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/archives/1998/980218.atc.html

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

http://pocketmumbles.blogspot.com/2005/11/convenience-of-poor-memory.html


And that’s just 1998 with Clinton’s intelligence. So, were they wrong and Bill Clinton a liar, or was Clinton right?

Posted by: rahdigly at November 13, 2005 9:34 PM
Comment #92603

Rah,
Well said. There are issues where all sides of the spectrum achieve near unanimity. Was Saddam Hussein bad news? Yes, we all got that a long time ago. Are terrorists bad news? Of course.

The differences arise with perceptions of who they are, ‘understanding’ them, and what it takes to stop them. It’s not a matter of being sensitive to their unmet needs. Well, actually, in a way, it is- because the idea behind ‘understanding’ them is to undermine them, and defeat them, completely and utterly.

I’ve said before, & I’ll stand by it- for all practical purposes, the War on Terror ended in 2003, with the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. There is no longer a coherent Al Qaida, no organizational structure to speak of- wouldn’t you agree? The terrorists lack the means to attack us in the 50 states. Illegal immigrants enter the country by the thousands, at will, yet no terrorists launch attacks. OBL? Yeah, take him out, because his words & Zawahiri’s words inspire other wannabes, plus the matter of justice for the murders of 9/11, and revenge. But in terms of operational involvement, it doesn’t look like he’s matters anymore.

Bush could take credit for this. It’s a matter of setting expectations. I don’t understand why he refuses to do so. Maybe it’s fear a attack will succeed, and make him look bad. Or maybe it has something to do with Iraq, or maybe some kind of neo-Straussian vision of endless conflict with Islam.

What’s interesting is the ascendancy of Zarqawi. It seems like he has become the new poster boy for jihad. Al Qaida in Iraq seems to have superceded Al Qaida as the primary terrorist threat in the world.

Might be early to draw this conclusion- especially if we can knock out Zarqawi- but the invasion of Iraq appears to have made terrorism a bigger problem than it was before we invaded. The question is whether Al Qaida in Iraq will morph into an international threat. The recent murders in Jordan notwithstanding, I doubt it.

Stephen,
I would not be too shy about comments about Zarqawi. Anything we say is going to be speculative, given the lack of hard information publicly available about him. Anyone following the news and spending a little time researching online can learn what has been translated. Short of learning the language of Zarqawi’s websites, or visiting Iraq in person, or having access to classified intelligence, we’re in about as good a position to armchair quarterback as we’re ever likely to be.


Posted by: phx8 at November 13, 2005 9:49 PM
Comment #92606

Rahdigly-
It’s pretty simple. Who had the original unadulterated information? Evidence shows the Democrats didn’t, at least not in a form they could use without going the Scooter Libby route.

Who had the political power? Well, I don’t know what that 2002 election was about, other than getting the power to wage the Iraq war. After all, he did mention the need to disarm Saddam in nearly every speech.

And once the authorization was given, who had the power to make it happen?

This was a Republican driven war. The Democrats were not in strong enough position to oppose it without looking week on national defense or releasing classified information in a day and age where compromises of national security aren’t exactly popular.

All this political pressure, though, would have not come into play had Iraq not been hyped as the next big threat. Who hyped it? Who took advantage of it? Who made it out to be a test of their leader’s resolve?

Who do you think.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 13, 2005 10:24 PM
Comment #92630

Rah, Clinton and the Democrats were vocal on Saddam’s WMD in 1998 because Saddam had kicked out the inspectors and Republicans didn’t want to bomb Iraq — they were too busy looking for semen stains.

In December 1998, Clinton did bomb every suspected WMD site in Iraq and Republicans dismissed it as wagging the dog. The CENTCOM commander, on the other hand, concluded that every suspected WMD site in Iraq had been completely destroyed.

That’s why you don’t hear Democrats making a big deal about Iraq after 1998. Clinton took care of the problem. Even Powell and Rice weren’t worried about Saddam until all of a sudden in 2002 Bush decided on the invasion.

In 1998, Iraq was a real problem. In 2003, not so much. Inspectors were crawling all over the country, cleared Saddam of a nuke program, and were weeks away from wrapping up the bio-chem inspections. In 2003, Saddam was not a threat and Iraq was transparent.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 14, 2005 3:50 AM
Comment #92708

These bastard terrorists got precisely what they wanted. Bush and Blair served it up to them on a silver platter. A reaction by the west that would serve as a recruitment incentive to thousands upon thousands who otherwise might have actually appreciated help from the West. And as if that weren’t enough, Bush gave them Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo, and statements to the world that we would not be held to the Geneva Conventions.
==================================================

I have no problem at all killing every last one of them. Every living thing in Iraq would be gone. Forget gitmo. Line them all up and shoot them.

and then 2 words for the rest of the world…”Oh Well”.

Look at France!! Where’s Charles Martell when you need him? He didn’t play games with the Muslims, hence his nickname “the Hammer”.

Posted by: Silent Majority at November 14, 2005 10:55 AM
Comment #92768

Excellent, accurate and informative article! You should bbe speaking publicly. More people would understand what has happened, and appreciate what is being done.

Posted by: Tom at November 14, 2005 12:57 PM
Comment #92825

Interesting article my brother e-mailed me.

To Summarize-
Our methods of torturing terrorists are a reverse engineering of the SERE training that Navy SEALS and other special forces use to train resistance to interrogation. Those interrogation methods, though, were intended to induce compliance to the communist system more than generate genuine confessions and intelligence.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 14, 2005 2:59 PM
Comment #93000

To PHX8
apparently you can’t read my posts properly. YOU said that up until this point the two sides got along fine. I showed you they did not. Maybe you should try another search engine for all of your answers. I don’t need one to tell me what I know about the middle east. Having lived there on and off for 4 years, I saw what was happening and learned it had been going on for as long as there were Jews and Arabs sharing the same land. The jewish repatriation movement started to gain ground in the early 1900s with the Kibbutz movement. The arabs sold them swamp land or desert land believing they had ripped off the jews. When they drained the swamps and irrigated the desert and made the arabs look like the lazy fools they were, the arabs wanted the fruits of the jewish labor. Get it now? Just like when the arabs attacked the state of Israel and got their butts kicked EVERY TIME, they then wanted the land they lost in a war they started back. Typical BS. Starting to understand? When you make a blanket statement, don’t expect it to go unchallenged. Do you ever read, or just Google you answers? It’s amazing what you can do if you really research something. I lived and worked side by side with jews and arabs. Both did not like the extremists from their side. Read ” The Haj” by Leon Uris. You might get some insight into the Israeli Arab world. Search engines are not the answer to everything.

Goats is the answer to your last question. They believed the land they sold to be worthless. They were wrong. It annoyed them. They never tried to farm those areas. They did farm, but not like the settlers. The Jordan valley is one of the most lush and farmable areas on earth. Few knew that until the jews WORKED the land. Read it and weep………

Oh yeah, I ate goats cheese, drank the milk and ate the meat with Bedouins in Israel. You ought to hear what they say about the “Palestinians”
I would open your eyes a bit.

Posted by: Ace at November 14, 2005 8:46 PM
Comment #93106

American Pundit wrote:
In December 1998, Clinton did bomb every suspected WMD site in Iraq and Republicans dismissed it as wagging the dog. The CENTCOM commander, on the other hand, concluded that every suspected WMD site in Iraq had been completely destroyed.

That’s why you don’t hear Democrats making a big deal about Iraq after 1998. Clinton took care of the problem…In 1998, Iraq was a real problem. In 2003, not so much.
_______________________________________

So, Clinton took care of the problem in 1998?! Let’s take a look at what some of the prominent Democrats said in 1999:

October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry said:
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”

Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999:
“One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons.”

Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999:
“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”

Here’s some more democrats arguing for war from 1998-2003:
http://nashvilletruth.blogspot.com/2005/11/this-weeks-quotes-whole-bunch-of.html


What do you think, now?

Posted by: rahdigly at November 15, 2005 10:04 AM
Comment #93113

Stephen Daugherty wrote:
This was a Republican driven war. The Democrats were not in strong enough position to oppose it without looking week on national defense or releasing classified information in a day and age where compromises of national security aren’t exactly popular.

Who had the political power? Well, I don’t know what that 2002 election was about, other than getting the power to wage the Iraq war. After all, he did mention the need to disarm Saddam in nearly every speech.

And once the authorization was given, who had the power to make it happen?

This was a Republican driven war. The Democrats were not in strong enough position to oppose it without looking week on national defense or releasing classified information in a day and age where compromises of national security aren’t exactly popular…All this political pressure, though, would have not come into play had Iraq not been hyped as the next big threat. Who hyped it? Who took advantage of it? Who made it out to be a test of their leader’s resolve?

Who do you think.
________________________

Well, as I’ve said in a recent post, it was the democrats since 1998 that have been hyping Iraq. And the Repubs didn’t control the Senate in 1998 and 1999 like the repubs did in 2002 & 2003; the Democrats certainly were in “strong enough position to oppose ” a conflict with Iraq. Here’s some direct quotes and dates:

Bill Clinton - February 17, 1998:
“If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”


Al Gore - December 16, 1998:
“If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons…”

John Kerry - February 23, 1998:
“Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.”


Bill Richardson - May 29, 1998:
“The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq.”


So, I think that this isn’t a “Republican War”. Democratic President, Vice Prez and other Senators and cabinet members were all lauding the same thing in 1998; just like the repubs (and democrats) were doing in 2002.

Bottom line, Saddam was a terrorist and we took him out. And, the world is better for it!

Posted by: rahdigly at November 15, 2005 10:40 AM
Comment #93234


This is long, but please read it through to the end. I recieved it and I see this as a real concern . I always use to believe there would be a race war but know it looks like it will be the so called infadels against the muslim extreamist.

Dear Family and Friends: I had no idea who General Chong
is or the source of these thoughts, so when I received them,
I almost deleted them - as well written as they are. But
then I did a Google search on the General and found him to
be a retired Air Force surgeon and past commander of Wilford
Hall Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas. So he is real,
is connected to Veterans affairs, and these are some of his
thoughts. They are worth reading and thinking about!!
Note- the same Google search will direct you to more of
his thought provoking writings.

————————————————————————————-
This war is for real
By Major General Vernon Chong, USAF, ret.

October 1, 2005

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through
it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to
its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your
lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact
that there are very few of us who think we can possibly
lose this war, and even fewer who realize what losing really
means.

First, let’s examine a few basics:
1. When did the threat to us start?

Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer, as far as the
United States is concerned, is 1979 - 22 years prior to
September 2001 - with the following attacks on us:

Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
Beirut, Lebanon, Embassy, 1983;
Beirut, Lebanon, Marine Barracks, 1983;
Lockerbie, Scotland, Pan-Am flight to New York, 1988;
First New York World Trade Center attack, 1993;
Oklahoma City - Murrah Federal Building, 1995;
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Khobar Towers Military complex, 1996;
Nairobi, Kenya, U.S. Embassy, 1998;
Dares Salaam, Tanzania, U.S. Embassy, 1998;
Aden, Yemen, USS Cole, 2000;
New York, World Trade Center, 2001;
Pentagon, 2001;
Shanksville, Pennsylvania, Plane Crash, 2001

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were
7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms.
(a) The attacks happened during the administrations of
Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush
(b) We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were
no provocations by any of the Presidents or their immediate predecessors,
Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?

In each case, the attacks on the U.S. were carried out
by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World?

25 percent.

5. Isn’t the Muslim Religion peaceful?

Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no
doubt that the predominently Christian population of
Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership
of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference.
You either went along with the administration, or you were
eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed
by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish
priests).

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed
by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were
killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than
the Jewish atrocities.

Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he
had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way
of exterminating the Jews, or of taking over the world -
German, Christian, or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the attention
of the world on the U.S., but kill all in the way - their
own people, or the Spanish, French, or anyone else. The
point here, is that just like the peaceful Germans were of
no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many
peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for
us from the terrorist Muslim leaders, and what they are
fanatically bent on doing - by their own pronouncements -
killing all of us “infidels.” I don’t blame the peaceful
Muslims. What would you do - if the choice was shut up,
or die?

6. So who are we at war with?

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone
other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically
correct, and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be
fatal. There is no way to win, if you don’t clearly recognize,
and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?
2.. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal
questions.

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it
may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of
us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question -
“What does losing mean?”

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing
the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home,
and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is
as far from the truth as one can get.
What losing really means is: We would no longer be the
premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside,
but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us
dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they
would not have produced an increasing series of attacks
against us, over the past 18 years.
The plan was clearly, for terrorists to attack us, until
we were neutered, and submissive to them.
We would, of course, have no future support from other
nations, for fear of reprisals, and for the reason that they
would see that we are impotent, and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at
a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already
hold Spain hostage. It doesn’t matter whether it was right
or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain
did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train,
and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they
want Spain to do, will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France
is that they might see the light and realize that if we don’t
win, they are finished too, in that they can’t resist the
Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be
too late for France. France is already 20 percent Muslim,
and fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and
way of life will all vanish, as we know it. After losing,
who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by
the Muslims? If we can’t stop the Muslims, how could anyone
else?

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and
therefore, are completely committed to winning, at any cost.
We better know it too, and be likewise committed to winning
at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing?
Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot
unite, and really put 100 percent of our thoughts and efforts
into winning. And, it is going to take that 100% effort to
win.

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by
“imploding,” that is, defeating ourselves, by refusing to
recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging
in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are
united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue
to be divided, there is no way that we can win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don’t
comprehend the life-and-death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of
Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were
committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age,
Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound
like we are taking this thing seriously?

This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to
give up some of the civil rights to which we have become
accustomed. We had better be prepared to lose some of our
civil rights temporarily, or we will most certainly lose
all of them, permanently.

And, don’t worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up
plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored
them after the victory, and in fact, added many more since
then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all
of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights
during this conflict, and have a clean, lawful, honorable
war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of
your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/
or the Administration that it almost seems they would
literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this
isn’t because they are disloyal. It is because they just
don’t recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that
conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are
divided and weakening.
It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our
cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians
and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war,
perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying.

We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment
of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our
military police.
These are the type of prisoners, who just a few months
ago, were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting
off their hands, cutting out their tongues, and otherwise
murdering their own people, just for disagreeing with
Saddam Hussein.

And just a few years ago, these same types of prisoners
chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same
reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who
recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred
corpses through the streets of Iraq.

And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was,
and is, providing videos to all news sources internationally,
of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who,
for several days, have thought and talked about nothing
else but the “humiliating” of some Muslim prisoners - not
burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through
the streets, not beheading them, but “humiliating” them.

Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of
impeachment of the Secretary of Defense.

If this doesn’t show the complete lack of comprehension
and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are
fighting, the life and death struggle we are in, and the
disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill
over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing
his fiddle, as Rome burned - totally oblivious to what is
going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other
country, can survive this internal strife.

Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians
or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are
absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we
are in, and into which the Muslim terrorists have been
pushing us, for many years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists’ stated goal is to kill
all infidels! That translates into all non-Muslims - not
just in the United States, but throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized, for many years, as being “arrogant.”
That charge is valid, in at least one respect. We are
arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful,
and smart; that we can win the hearts and minds of all those
who attack us; and that with both hands tied behind our
back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!

We can’t!

If we don’t recognize this, our nation as we know it,
will not survive, and no other free country in the World
will survive, if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the
world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought,
freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for
anyone - let alone everyone, equal status, or any status
for women, or that have been productive in one single way
that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united
on this war, or we will be equated in the history books to
the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is,
the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written,
or read.

If we don’t win this war right now, keep a close eye on
how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or
less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population
of France, and continue to encroach little by little, on the
established French traditions. The French will be fighting
among themselves, over what should or should not be done,
which will continue to weaken them, and keep them from any
united resolve. Doesn’t that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don’t have their freedoms taken away from
them by some external military force. Instead, they give
their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically-
correct piece.

And, they are giving those freedoms away to those who
have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom, and will
not apply it to you, or even to themselves, once they are
in power.

They have universally shown that when they have taken
over, they then start brutally killing each other, over who
will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop
hearing from the politically correct, about the “peaceful
Muslims”?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above.
If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope,
now after the election, the factions in our country will
begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will
unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking
about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.

After reading the above, we all must do this not only for
ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country,
and the World.

Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal,
and that includes the Politicians and media of our country,
and the free World!

————————————————————————————-
Please copy and forward this to any you feel may want, or need to
read it. Our “leaders” in Congress ought to read it, too.

There are those who find fault with our country, but it
is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we
must unite!


————————————————————————————————————————

Posted by: Casey Evans at November 15, 2005 4:36 PM
Comment #93246

Sicilian Eagle,

How’s that for irony? Hate for fun and profit.
Hey, it works. Just ask Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, or any one of dozens of extremely well-paid right wing print and broadcast hatemongers. They’re making a fortune out of hate.

rahdigly,
Q. How many of the quotes you posted advocated a pre-emptive invasion and occupation of Iraq?
A. None. That was George W. Bush’s idea.

It’s so funny to watch you folks on the Right trying to squirm out from under the fact that this is your war. When the polls were in your favor, you were bragging about your “mandate”, but now that your support is eroding faster than midwest topsoil during the dust bowl, you’re desperately trying to spread the blame.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 15, 2005 5:21 PM
Comment #93262

To all those that are (still) trying to blame the republicans and dismiss the democrats for this war, chew on this:

http://www.gop.com/Default.aspx


Posted by: rahdigly at November 15, 2005 7:06 PM
Comment #93328

rahdigly-
You cannot argue equivalent zeal from a lesser response. Clinton merely bombed the facilities he thought were producing the weapons. Bush went further.

Casey-
The assumption her is that we face a united enemy. What united enemy? The very fact we were able to invade without first establishing a beachhead (as we did in Normandy, with France German Controlled), indicates the reality of our dealings with the Arabs and Persians.

The very fact that Muslims are killing Muslims should indicate the true disposition of things. The very fact that in all Israel has occupied The Gaza Strip and the West Bank that all those Palestinian Refugees haven’t crossed over into Jordan and Egypt, despite claims of Solidarity with their cause should be another sign of the real situation.

There is no political organization or treaty bonding these so-called Islamofascists, only an lose definition that fails to describe the religious and social complexities of the Middle East.

We do need to start dealing with things there, but to blind ourselves and distort our perspective with these inaccurate perceptions of the situation will only complicate and aggravate the situation. This is no clash of civilizations. This is something much more subtle than that.

The simple answer in Iraq (admittedly easier spoken of than executed) is that we gain military control of the place (which we never fully established) and then under that umbrella of security accomplish all the things we need to do. Iraq will be a beacon of nothing but U.S. Failure if we do not create a stable, persistent nation out of this bloody mess, and we are less likely to do that, if all our efforts are hampered by a constant, corrosive insurgency.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 16, 2005 10:27 AM
Comment #93466

Hello to everyone, newbie here. I must disagree already to the term “War on Terror.” We are not fighting “Terror”. “Terror” is the “tool” of the enemy. That enemy would be Muslims that believe killing Jews, Christians and other Muslims for Allah, will get them a secure place in “Heaven.” Let us be open and honest about this, with no hate attached. We are fighting Muslims around the world. (Yes I said the “M” word.) And Muslims even on our very soil. This simple fact can not be denied, or looked over. Truth, is never hate.

Posted by: Jeff at November 16, 2005 6:36 PM
Comment #94727

Imagine for a moment soldiers of an invading army riding down your street in tanks, blasting heavy machine gun fire into homes, an occasional missile strike in town, the results: seven children, two mothers, one father and a grandfather and two uncles dead. Five more family members seriously wounded.
You have a gun, you know how to make an IED (you learned on your computer). You blow up a jeep with 4 soldiers in it. Are you a terrorist or are you defending your homeland?
You are defending your homeland. You are not a terrorist.

Posted by: Brian at November 22, 2005 6:59 AM
Post a comment