Bush (is) Lied (about)

Kennedy won the presidency partly on the missile gap myth. Eisenhower knew it was a lie but chose not to reveal sensitive information to disprove it. President Bush faced similar dilemmas. He permitted his enemies to gorge on the false accusations in the Wilson/Plame affair or imply that the lack of a terrorist follow up attack in the U.S. resulted from the forbearance of our enemies or blind luck. Now as the Plame narrative collapses and the President talks about some of our anti-terror successes, the picture is improving.

Playing only defense you lose

Bush opponents rightly point out that the U.S. does not properly defend its ports or borders. We could do more but we can never do enough. If we surrender the initiative to the terrorists, letting them choose the time and place of confrontations, sooner or later they will be successful. It is like trying to protect your home from hornets. You can and should put up screens, but your best bet is to knock down the nest and kill the hornets when you see them. You will risk getting stung and the hornets may well build other nests, but you really cannot defend yourself from them by waiting for them to come to you.

Marx w/o Lenin is only a bad idea

Since 9/11/2001, the Bush policy has essentially destroyed Al-Qaeda as an operational entity and destroyed their nests. True the "idea" still remains, but as one analyst put it the idea of Al-Qaeda is like Marx w/o Lenin. The ideology is still poisonous, but w/o strong practitioners it is less dangerous. We have destroyed the hornets' nest. Individual hornets can still sting and some still swarm, maybe build new nests, but we have taken the necessary first steps. The idea of Al-Qaeda is much harder to kill, but support for terrorism is declining, unevenly but unmistakably and support for Bin Laden is declining along with his capacity for action. Nobody likes a loser and an impotent rage for the caves of Afghanistan are only interesting for so long.

Denying terrorists the right to privacy

The President's policies have also been making life a lot harder for terrorists. Before 9/11, terrorists had reasonable confidence that they could transfer money and communicate with each other w/o Uncle Sam being much the wiser. No more. Terrorism is a business. Imagine running a business w/o mobile phones or checking accounts and you get a better idea of how this works. Now imagine running a business when most of your top managers are killed, in jail or incommunicado most of the time.

Distance learning not enough

On the downside, the Internet has provided a new recruiting tool, but new recruits need training, mentoring and guidance. "Distance education" provided in the Internet can only take them so far. Bomb making, for example, takes some hands on training and murdering other human beings is easier on the video game format of the Internet than in real life. You cannot stop peculiar and dangerous people from finding each other on the Internet but if they don't find themselves in real life it is much harder for them to cooperate. If you were running a business, would you be content to recruit and train all your employees via Internet or would you prefer to have some interviews and training at headquarters?

Tasks accomplished, tasks left to do

Five years after 9/11/2001 we can by no means claim to have won the war on terrorism, but we have put our adversaries seriously off balance. We have improved our abilities AND WILL to gather and use intelligence. Terrorists are like hornets. You cannot get rid of them, but you can control them if you kill the ones you can and react aggressively whenever they try to build nests. Our initial efforts broke up terror networks and our work to establish greater freedom in the Middle East will help to create an environment less hospitable to terrorism. It is not the end of the fight, but we have made a beginning.

One of the flaws in our modern outlook is that we often overestimate what we can (or should) accomplish in the short run. Terrorism still exists after five years; there is still violence in Afghanistan more than four years after trouncing the Taliban; we don't have a perfectly functioning Westminster democracy in Iraq after three years, so some people want to declare the whole effort an abject failure. If we overestimate the short term, we often underestimate what we can do in the long run. If we had given up and gone home in 1948 or 1950, maybe Marxism would be more than a toy for leftist university professors and half dead dinosaurs like Fidel Castro. The same goes for the idea of radical Islam.

You cannot kill an idea, but if nobody actively supports it, it fades away.

Posted by Jack at September 11, 2006 5:12 PM
Comments
Comment #180515

The President is trying to compensate for the fact that 4 out of 10 weapons tested through TSA check points still make it through undetected. The President is trying to compensate for the fact that nuclear materials were gotten across our borders by testers with fake NRC ID’s. The president is trying to make us feel safer weeks before the election after 2 years of trying to scare us, because his party is about to get its ass kicked at the polls on Nov. 7.

That’s what this is all about, pure and simple. You know, 60% detection rate may be good to some. But, it only takes one time of the remaining 39% to kill hundreds or thousands of Americans. I am all for Americans being unafraid and living free in defiance of the terrorist’s desire to scare us out of our liberties.

But, while our government is going after American’s nail clippers and shampoo bottles, they are spending 10 times as much trying to protect Iraqis from terrorists and themselves. Something wrong with this priority set. Especially when it only takes fake ID’s to bring radioactive materials across our borders, (and that is through a checkpoint).

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 11, 2006 5:35 PM
Comment #180517

Five years later: we find our military and resources tied up fighting the “war on terror” in Iraq, rather than pursuing those responsible for 9/11. Saddam has been removed from power, at least. But is this progress?

Well, let’s take a good look at whether or not we’re better off without Saddam in power. Who is in power now? Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Al-Maliki is a member of the al-Dawa party, a known terrorist organization. It was responsible, among other things, for the bombing of the American Embassy in Kuwait in 1983. And the function of al-Maliki in al-Dawa? Head of the party’s Jihad office. So we deposed Saddam, a secular dictator whose power had already been contained, and replaced him with a religoius zealot who not only gives money to terrorists but *ran* his party’s terrorist branch, which is known for attacks on US installations!

Yeah, we’re clearly doing a bang-up job in the war on terror.

Posted by: Jarin at September 11, 2006 6:00 PM
Comment #180519

“You cannot kill an idea, but if nobody actively supports it, it fades away. “

Indeed this is true. Note the dramatic decline of democracy in this country via signing statements, suspension of habeous corpus, surveillence without warrants or probable cause, trashing of the Geneva Conventions and Nuremburg rulings, torture, the corruption of electoral process by political thievery (gerrymandering, compromised electronic voting machines,)and a steadfast refusal to make election procedures and laws uniform throughout the land, and a media compromised by greed and political machinations.

The only thing worse than the execution of all these mendacities, is the absolute silence and steadfast refusal to fight against such law-breaking by a certain party entrusted to be a watchdog for the people.

And, thus, the idea of liberty whithers for lack of light, water and food, and slowly fades away.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 11, 2006 6:02 PM
Comment #180524

By the way, Kennedy didn’t win because of the missle gap furor. He won because he didn’t have five-o’clock shadow, and he had much better hair.

And so does personal grooming play it’s inexorable part in human history.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 11, 2006 6:18 PM
Comment #180529

Declining, but still significantly there. If I may offer an amateur opinion as to why, it’s probably that seeing Muslims inflict violence on Muslims hasn’t been all that pleasant for people. The question is how an invasion of Iran would affect such sentiments.

Also, part of the decline in Bin Laden’s prestige is related to the length of time it’s been since he’s scored a big hit on the United States. That could be why we’re beginning to get ominous messages from them. They may have something in the works to hit at us, to charge up their popularity again.

As for the Plame Narrative collapsing?

Not so fast. We got information firmly showing an organized effort to get Plame’s identity out there. That Armitage inadvertantly put out the information first doesn’t diminish the deliberate pushing of this information by the other two. It also doesn’t excuse their individual leaks. Classified info is classified, whether Armitage leaked it first or not.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 11, 2006 6:33 PM
Comment #180533

Yes and We also know that President Eisenhower Asked President kennedy not to involve the troops in vietnam. And he also sent A letter to President Truman Pleading him not to drop Atomic bombs On Japan. and president Eisenhower also had several talks with president johnson the last one Was only 1 month before president Johnsons I will Not Run Speech. Jack Find Me A Eisenhower Today! Oh and Five O clock Shadows And bad hair days seemed to have a effect on Mr carter also.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at September 11, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #180537

Hiya David -

…4 out of 10 weapons tested through TSA check points still make it through undetected

Is this an improvement? Maybe we should be happy that it isn’t 2 out of 10 weapons. How many weapons tested got through TSA check points during the Clinton Administration? Most TSA employees are card-carrying democrats. Are you implying that your fellow Democrats are incompetent?

…nuclear materials were gotten across our borders by testers with fake NRC ID’s.

I’m assuming that your information is accurate and relevant. If so, the purpose of the test was to expose weaknesses in our screening policy. The purpose was well served, right? So, there’s work to do. Let’s get it done. Stop whining. Geez.

…it only takes one time of the remaining 39% to kill hundreds or thousands of Americans

And that’s why we now have something called the Bush Doctrine. Take the fight to THEM before they can bring the fight to US. I couldn’t agree more. Good job, David.

…our government is going after American’s nail clippers and shampoo bottles

Again, you and I are in complete agreement. It is such a waste of time and resources to detain and search every single traveler when we know that nearly every single terrorist nabbed or killed so far has been an Islamofascist male from the Middle East. We should start profiling young males of Middle Eastern descent immediately.

Posted by: Chris at September 11, 2006 7:08 PM
Comment #180538

“Playing only defense you lose”

… and playing without defense you loose.

Posted by: tony at September 11, 2006 7:08 PM
Comment #180540

Jarin -

let’s take a good look at whether or not we’re better off without Saddam in power.

Pathetic. Utterly and completely pathetic. Why is there such a love relationship between totalitarian dictators (e.g., Stalin, Castro, Chavez, etc.) and liberals?

So now the world would be better off with Saddam in power. God help us.

Posted by: Chris at September 11, 2006 7:31 PM
Comment #180541

Tim Corw -

And, thus, the idea of liberty whithers for lack of light, water and food, and slowly fades away.

Liberty doesn’t matter a whit if you’re dead. You need to get your priorities in order, Tim. Let’s secure our borders and ferret out the enemies among us before we ascend to the top of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

Posted by: Chris at September 11, 2006 7:38 PM
Comment #180542

You ever read Marx, Jack?

Posted by: Trent at September 11, 2006 7:41 PM
Comment #180543

(Correction)

Hiya David -

…4 out of 10 weapons tested through TSA check points still make it through undetected

Is this an improvement? Maybe we should be happy that it isn’t 6 or 8 out of 10 weapons. How many weapons tested got through TSA check points during the Clinton Administration? Most TSA employees are card-carrying democrats. Are you implying that your fellow Democrats are incompetent?

Posted by: Chris at September 11, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #180545

This string, like most here, is a litany of point-counterpoint. You give me ten reasons why it works and I’ll counter with 20 reasons why it doesn’t work.

But I would hope we can all agree that radical Islamic terrorism is a real and deadly threat to all civilized peoples and must be stopped if there is to be any real chance of any kind of peace on this planet.

tony

I believe it was George Patton who said the best defense is a good offense. Keep pushing forward, keep the enemy off balance. Don’t give him a chance to breath. Don’t let him regroup.

Posted by: ulysses at September 11, 2006 7:46 PM
Comment #180548

Chris, read Bush’s former IG for the state dept. and Homeland Defense Dept, Clark Ervin. He states the test shortly after 9/11 was the same result when the test was done in 2003, and the same results when conducted in 2005. No! No improvement.

Chris asked: “I’m assuming that your information is accurate and relevant.”

Yep, from a conservative Republican named Clark Ervin, GW Bush’s appointee as IG.

Is it whining to raise awareness that little is being done to secure our nation? Or, is it whining to discard fact and derogate critics because they point out the weaknesses and flaws of your favored politicians and demand better? Seems an obvious answer, don’t you think?

“Take the fight to THEM before they can bring the fight to US. I couldn’t agree more. Good job, David.”

Stupid policy. Spend 300 billion a year to protect the homeland overseas and 1/10th that amount to protect Americans here at home. That is like my spending all my wages to personally seek out criminals across the nation who might break into my home, rather than spending that money on an alarm system, good fence and shotgun at home. It is an utterly upside down and backwards minded policy. Amazing such a large minority of Americans buy into it. Considering our education system, maybe not.

Chris, at least we agree it is smarter to go after the terrorists, than the myriad of everyday consumer items they might use.


Posted by: David R. Remer at September 11, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #180551

“I believe it was George Patton who said the best defense is a good offense. Keep pushing forward, keep the enemy off balance. Don’t give him a chance to breath. Don’t let him regroup.”

Yes, but we’re not even playing in the right stadium.

Posted by: tony at September 11, 2006 7:58 PM
Comment #180552

ulysses, sorry, but your ratios are way out of proportion. Civil wars, car accidents, work related accidents, medical malpractice, all have killed magnitudes more people than terrorists. Terrorists threaten psychological serenity of billions of people. But, they physically pose a threat to only a few thousand in any given year.

That is what we must bear in mind. Your risk of being harmed by a terrorist, even a nuclear terrorist, is far lower than surviving routine surgery in an American hospital, 192,000 Americans died in 2004 in American hospitals from malpractice.

Do not allow the terrorists to use such a miniscule personal threat to destroy your rational thinking and choices in reaction to that miniscule threat. The facts are the facts. You have little to fear personally from terrorists, statistically. You have much to fear from them if you succumb to their objective: Which is Fear! Which btw, is why they are called terrorists. There weapon is terror, not bombs, not guns, but irrational fear!

Those who succumb to their terror, gladly trade freedom and autonomy for the illusion of security.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 11, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #180555

Your brave fight to keep defending this imposter-in-chief and his cronies is touching. I hope they have some suitable reward for you when they are finally chased out of office.

“Playing defense” is a misaimed jape at a straw man of your own making. You’re trying to imply that your straw man only wants to spend money and time on beefing up port security, but the brave chickenhawks are willing to expend young American lives in a mad, Quixotic quest to “remake” the middle east (i.e., take it over by American force). In your view, this is a superior tactic, but it clearly denies that the Muslim world is increasingly radicalized by this behavior.

If support for terrorism is declining, it is because so many more Muslims are affected by it, as it is becoming more common in their corners of the world. Support for terrorism among those answering surveys doesn’t equal fewer terrorists or less terrorism, except in a crazy, Bizarro-world, right-wing looney sort of way.

Denying privacy rights to terrorists is only a good strategy when you don’t deny them to the American public. In addition, no evidence was offered (and none exists) that the BushCo illegal intrusion into privacy has produced any good.

Distance learning? I think the proliferating IEDs in Iraq are a terse rebuttal to whatever argument you were trying to make here.

Tasks? What exactly is a War on Terrorism (TM) and how do we know it has been won? It is this kind of vapid and facile verbiage that has us mired in Iraq and squandering resources at the airport against a vague and somewhat conconcted threat. Do you think that we haven’t been attacked because terrorists can’t get through the security line at the airport? Yeah, and if they got onto the airplane, what are they going to do then? If anyone was worried about terrorists attacking, they would beef up port security, food security, etc., but these guys, apparently smarter than you, know that’s not what’s at stake and also know that the public would not be aware of that activity and it wouldn’t make them feel like the Bushies are “pertecting” them. Also, do you think that the war in Iraq has had any impact on terrorism in the world (surely a smart guy like you recognizes that the dismantling of the infrastructure in Afghanistan was the only mililtary action that could possibly have had an impact)? Do you think that invading a nation and devolving it to civil war, all the while mired there because the leadership who got us in can’t admit a mistake and get us out has set the terrorists back on their heels? You’re kidding, right?

Anyway, nice try, Jack. You’re working really hard. It’s a hard job! But these clowns could make it easier for you if they would just not be so f**king incompetent. They should give you a little help once in a while. You know, look like they cared about a city going underwater or something. Anything.

Posted by: mental wimp at September 11, 2006 8:09 PM
Comment #180558

This blows my mind. Things are better in the states. We havent been bombed in 5 years, we haven’t lost over 3,000 innocent people in 1 crushing blow. Hey Libs, maybe we should ask the global community how we should run our country!! Maybe France can guide us through the way to always get our asses handed to us!! As far as airline security, seems like things have been better, haven’t seen any airplanes using the empire state building as a landing site. When does it end, if we had 90% of weapons discovered, they say that 10% is way too much. As far as bringing out the stats, that is totally useless. I believe in protecting our borders, oh wait then you have the people complaining that guarding our borders isnt fair to our friends trying to come to America from down south just trying to support their families. Just remember all you Anti-Bush, Anti-Irag war people…always add an extra 3000 body count on our losses of innocent people. Let’s Bash Bush somemore to honor those innocent people’s memories. Good Job.

Posted by: JT at September 11, 2006 8:11 PM
Comment #180560

JT, you think for one instant that those who died on 9/11 would not want first and foremost, that America take the steps necessary to protect the families and friends they left behind to live on in America?

Think about it! Would those who died say we have honored them with a 40% failure rate in detecting weapons on mass transit, while cutting estate taxes for the wealthiest 1% in the country. Get real! Priorities - Republicans have them, they just read them from the bottom up.

300 billion a year protecting Afghanis and Iraqis from terrorists but only 30 billion protecting Americans? Get real, JT. The White House says they don’t have enough money for better faster homeland security measures. Get REAL.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 11, 2006 8:18 PM
Comment #180564
Maybe France can guide us through the way to always get our asses handed to us!!


Hey they haven’t had a terrorist attack in over 11 years in France. Using GW’s logic, they are winning the war on terror.

Posted by: Loren at September 11, 2006 8:30 PM
Comment #180566

Hi Jack

Where are the lies of your title in your post?

Don’t see any. Or are you setting up another straw man?

Posted by: Loren at September 11, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #180568

Why did they fly the planes into the towers? There is plenty of proof to show it was planned long b4 Bush was in office. I’m just curious as to why did they fly the planes into the towers.

Posted by: JT at September 11, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #180574

Chris:

“Liberty doesn’t matter a whit if you’re dead. You need to get your priorities in order, Tim.”

With your implied set of priorities, liberty doesn’t matter a whit if I’m alive, you’re so willing to throw the constitutional baby out with the bath water.

My priorities, Chris, will always be liberty, sorry. We have fought too long and too hard as a people to have it handed over to the likes of Cheney, Bush, Gonzalez, and their machinations. Once freedoms are willingly surrendered, it usually takes a bloodbath to get them back. History has shown this to be true.

If you’re not feeling secure enough, talk to the Republicans—they’ve had five plus years to placate your fears. But keep your hands off my liberty.

Statistically, the chances of anyone here being killed by a terrorist (other than their respective spouses) are extremely slim. The odds of a fascist lock-down in the name of fighting terrorism has dramatically increased in the past five years.

It’s all in tell-tale behavior—Maislow would be on my side in that regard.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 11, 2006 9:20 PM
Comment #180578

Defense wins all the time. I love when you people quote patton. You spineless liberals would want pattons head in todays army. Just face it all you liberals are is the vocal minority. Go drink bottle water and bitch about gas prices and leave the health of this great nation to a real leader George Bush. PRESIDENT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!

Posted by: nathan at September 11, 2006 9:36 PM
Comment #180581

Trent

When I was in college, a Marxian (he did not call himself a Marxist) made my class read Marx. Up to that time, I thought he might make sense. As I read Marx, I kept on thinking how stupid many of the propositions were. Marx has lots of good liners, mostly copied from others. My favorite, the seeds of its own destruction, I later read in Polybius. I even doubt that it originated with him. What is original in Marx is not good and what is good is not original

Mental

If you are talking about New Orleans, it is nature compounded by human error that is putting it under water.

David

We could secure the borders etc, but people will not tolerate the delay and the lack of PC.

Loren

I am referring to the Plame slander and the ideas that Bush lied about

Tim

I do not consider that I lost any freedom to the wiretaps on suspected terrorist or the monitoring of their bank records. If I were innocently caught up in a terrorist network (i.e. talking to one unknowingly) would sure be glad if my government figured it out and caught the rat who was trying to use me. Therefore, in fact, I believe that terrorist surveillance increases both my liberty AND my security.

The biggest blow to my freedom comes from all the increased scrutiny I get at airports and from the fact that I can no longer freely walk around the monuments and buildings in my country’s capital. If my President can disrupt the terrorist BEFORE they get near these places, maybe we can restore some of the freedom we have lost.

Therefore, I support terrorist surveillance and financial monitoring in SUPPORT of liberty.

Posted by: Jack at September 11, 2006 9:43 PM
Comment #180582

Chris-
If 5 terrorists board a plane with that ratio of caught to passed through, then you still have three armed terrorists.

As for TSA checkpoints during the administration, it might pay to do your research: the TSA did not exist before 9/11. What we had was private checkpoints. Bush federalized these, with little improvement in actual quality. As for whether they’re Democrats or not, it’s irrelevant. I don’t want incompetents screening luggage and passengers regardless of whether we vote the same ticket. It’s also irrelevant because of who their boss is.

As for the NRC smuggling, if the purpose of the test is to expose weakness, and Bush is supposed to be doing such a wonderful job, then why do we still have such weaknesses in our security? Is it whining to point out we’re still vulnerable to that smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud?

As for the Bush doctrine, I suggest you consider one very frightening fact: there is good evidence that al-Qaeda still has agents within our borders. Second, I don’t think you’re clear on the concept of taking the fight to them, because what I see is an administration that treats Iraq, and not Pakistan as the central front in the war on terror.

I also see very little merit in a designation like Islamofascist or the notion that simply targeting people with ethnic profiling is going to do the job. We start ethnic profiling, al-Qaeda’s simply going to send people who can pass for European or another race.

Also, ethnic profiling is smart way of exponentially increasing your suspects,while wasting your time with a shitload of false positives instead of following good old fashioned detective work to the right people.

Additionally, it alienates the very people we need to reject, inform upon, and spy against the real trouble makers.

On the subject of love relationships with totalitarian dictators, have you ever seen that video of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam? Both sides of the aisle have supported scumbags when it was expedient. It’s called the cold war. It’s called WWII.

As for Liberty? Being alive doesn’t matter much if you’re in chains. Security should not be gained at the price of our freedom. If we go for that, we betray the very heart of what America stands for. America is about people who are brave enough to risk death for freedom. If we unwilling to do that, we have no place as heirs of the founding fathers.

JT-
When 9/11 occured, we hadn’t been hit in 8 years. Don’t get complacent, especially with how poorly this administration has followed the 9/11 commission’s recommendations.

It seems you are all to willing to liberal bash us over our disagreement with you. Can you tell me, honestly, that there isn’t a resemblence between the pattern of attacks before 9/11, and that now? al-Qaeda has managed to hit several targets with mass casualties. They don’t seem to have a problem travelling to those diverse locations. Why should they have trouble coming here? Complacency is a lethal quality to bring to the table when the terrorists can still bring the element of surprise.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 11, 2006 9:43 PM
Comment #180585

Jack:

“Therefore, I support terrorist surveillance and financial monitoring in SUPPORT of liberty. “

I don’t.

I have an instinctive feeling that unwarranted taps were not so much for terrorist monitoring as political opposition/anti-war/journalist/Democrats monitoring. That the administration steadfastly refuses to come clean on it makes it smell even worse. Their track record with honesty makes me reticent to trust again.

Your diatribes against government interference in the market and elsewhere ring hollow when you’re willing to trust unwarranted searches by the same government. Why doesn’t a modified Reagan statement such as, “I’m from the government and I’m here to protect you from terrorists” raise your dander?

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 11, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #180586

Tim Crow said RE: Liberty -
“We have fought too long and too hard as a people to have it handed over to the likes of Cheney, Bush, Gonzalez, and their machinations. Once freedoms are willingly surrendered, it usually takes a bloodbath to get them back. History has shown this to be true.”

My question: What liberties have been taken from you personally? I still have all of mine, and will continue to have them unless I do something that smacks of terrorist activities. So, what terrorist activities have you been involved in?

Posted by: Don at September 11, 2006 10:01 PM
Comment #180587

BushCo. has smacked the hornets nest alright, but the hornets aren’t all dead just angry as hell… and now there are new queens being prepared so that there will be many more nests in the future.

Pity the people in whose backyard the nest was hit. It’s easy to call for hitting the nest when you are far away. But the poor citizens of Iraq are suffering greatly and dying by the tens of thousands. How do right wing Christians sleep at night knowing that their efforts have put such callous killers in office? Yes, I said Killers. The terrorists were in Afganistan. The majority were Saudi. Attacking Iraq is like killing in cold blood. The blood is on our hands. May God forgive us all.

Posted by: LibRick at September 11, 2006 10:02 PM
Comment #180590

Chris

“Liberty doesn’t matter a whit if you are dead.”

Remember the words of Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty, or give me death.” I don’t know about you, but I always took that to mean that not only was he willng to die for liberty, he also would rather be dead than give it up.

Posted by: mark at September 11, 2006 10:08 PM
Comment #180592

As any college footbal fan knows-
A good Offense wins games
A good Defense wins championships.

Tim your right
Liberty is lost one baby step at a time, Don will realize that soon enough.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 11, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #180594

Don:

“So, what terrorist activities have you been involved in?”

Let me reverse the question—where is your proof that the administration is only spying on terrorists? Not only that, but where is your proof that this constant defacing and pilloring of the Constitution is working, and is the best way to go about fighting terrorism?

If I’m a terrorist, it is incumbent on the government to prove it in a court of law. The burden of proof is on the government, not me to prove my innocence. So far, anyway. No telling how long those niceties might last.

And who is defining terrorism? You? George, Dick?

And who knows what has been lost, in these days of electronic snooping, cameras and satellites. Who knows what you may have lost, Don.

I’m not willing to trust government to do ‘the right thing.’ Their track record over the last five years stinks.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 11, 2006 10:24 PM
Comment #180595

Tim

The Federal government’s job is protect us from foreign enemies. It has that obligation and a monopoly on the right to do that. That is why I support that Federal power. I need them to do that. I do not need them to interfere in most economic decision making. Those are things we can handle ourselves.

The congressional leadership of both parties has been briefed on both programs. Nobody who knows anything about the program has said or even implied that the power has been used with any intention other than terror monitoring.

On the other hand, I do know that almost every time I pass through an airport my freedoms are compromised. I know that I can no longer stroll by the side of the Whitehouse nor can I casually wander into the Capitol, nor cut through the Smithsonian. All these things are lost. I want them back. But I know I cannot have them unless and until we can control the bad guys. Maybe we never will be able to do so again. But I say again that the wiretapping & financial monitoring bother me not at all. I do not consider it a loss of liberty. I don’t want to talk on the phone to terrorists and it doesn’t bother me if someone does statistical analysis on my international transfers. I DO want to be able to run around the Whitehouse and pop into the Smithsonian and I do not like the look of the Jersey barriers. So if I have to choose, let the authorities check.

We just disagree.

Posted by: Jack at September 11, 2006 10:27 PM
Comment #180599

Noting Tim’s observation:

“Note the dramatic decline of democracy in this country via signing statements, suspension of habeous corpus, surveillence without warrants or probable cause, trashing of the Geneva Conventions and Nuremburg rulings, torture, the corruption of electoral process by political thievery (gerrymandering, compromised electronic voting machines,)and a steadfast refusal to make election procedures and laws uniform throughout the land, and a media compromised by greed and political machinations.

The only thing worse than the execution of all these mendacities, is the absolute silence and steadfast refusal to fight against such law-breaking by a certain party entrusted to be a watchdog for the people.”

one could reasonably conclude that OBL has substantially achieved his goals. Ironically, we’ve done it to ourselves.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at September 11, 2006 10:33 PM
Comment #180605

Dr.

Bin Laden’s goal was never to make America less free in the sense you are taking it. He wants America to convert to Islam. He wants to reestablish a califate and get Spain back into the Muslim empire. If the U.S. became more authoritarian AND more agressive in fighting him, he would not be content.

Posted by: Jack at September 11, 2006 10:40 PM
Comment #180606

Jack:

“We just disagree. “

Yes, but let me point out—I respectfully disagree with you.


Posted by: Tim Crow at September 11, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #180607

Jack:

The president’s only duty, as specially spelled out in his oath of office (and as prescribed in the Constitution), is the defense and protection of the the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. Everything else, is secondary.

The Bush administration has systematically and with impunity dismantled the Constitution. Sadly, that was their intention before 9/11/01. OBL simply permitted them to accelerate this distruction. The Bush administration simply treated 9/11/06 as a pretext, as if it were 2/27/1933. Bush has with deliberateness violated his oath of office and irreparably harmed the United States.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at September 11, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #180610
The congressional leadership of both parties has been briefed on both programs. Nobody who knows anything about the program has said or even implied that the power has been used with any intention other than terror monitoring.

Wow, it’s been a while since anyone has rolled out that little chestnut. Do you honestly believe that the “briefing” was anything more than on a need-to-know basis? Jack, would you trust a democratic president with that kind of power?

The Federal government’s job is protect us from foreign enemies.
and to uphold our constitution, in peace and in wartime Posted by: Loren at September 11, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #180613

Jack said: “Bin Laden’s goal was never to make America less free in the sense you are taking it. He wants America to convert to Islam.”

What a crock. Jack do you believe everything OBL says as gospel? Did OBL even say he wanted all Americans to convert to Islam? I missed that show.

Is it not clear and apparent to you as well read person on this issue, that al-Queda is in this game to create a homeland state of fundamentalist Muslims by rallying millions to their cause? And is it not clear as the nose on my face, that the land they seek IS NOT America, but, some land which is already predominantly Islamic.

C’mon, OBL wants America to convert to Islam, that’s why he is bombing Americans with their own planes. Absurd on its face.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 11, 2006 10:50 PM
Comment #180614

Jack:

I wrote, OBL had SUBSTANTIALLY achieved his goals. What remains to be achieved will now be easily achieved as we are substantially weaker as a nation. It is very easy to trade one form of theocracy for another, one form of totalitarianism for another.

You suggest a false choice between civil liberaties and national security. In our country, our civil liberties are our national security.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at September 11, 2006 10:50 PM
Comment #180615
I am referring to the Plame slander and the ideas that Bush lied about

Jack
Could you be a little more specific?

Posted by: Loren at September 11, 2006 10:50 PM
Comment #180619

Jack said: “The Federal government’s job is protect us from foreign enemies. It has that obligation and a monopoly on the right to do that.”

Wrong again, Jack. It is the people of America’s job to protect us from foreign enemies. It is the federal government’s job to coordinate that effort. Never forget the lesson of the Athenians and the Spartans. The Athenians did not come to the defense of Athens because they paid their taxes to hire the Spartans to do that. Athens fell. End of history lesson.

It is the people’s responsibility to defend themselves from foreign enemies. It is the government’s job to coordinate that defense. Government of, by, and for the people. Please try not to forget that. It’s important!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 11, 2006 10:54 PM
Comment #180622

And no, I don’t think Bush lied. Rather, I think he actually believes what he says. THAT is what truly puts this nation at risk: his inability to discern the difference between facts and ideological delusion.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at September 11, 2006 10:58 PM
Comment #180625

nathan, your comment: “You spineless liberals…” violates our rules of participation. Comply with our rules or lose your privilege to participate.

Posted by: Managing Editor at September 11, 2006 11:00 PM
Comment #180626

Tim Crow -

“And who knows what has been lost…”

Exactly!

You don’t know that any liberty has been lost, but you claim YOU’VE lost liberty.

You have lost nothing that you have had, you have gained freedom by not allowing terrorists to have freedom. YOU have it backward.

Posted by: Don at September 11, 2006 11:09 PM
Comment #180628

Jack-
Armitage might have been Novaks unwitting original source, but the case for the Bush administration having made efforts to disclose the identity anyways does not suffer for that.

First, let me lay out a case on the facts for that: first and foremost, we have Libby and Rove both shopping around information they knew to be classified to reporters. They are the primary sources for two reporters who could have broken the story first, but did not. Secondly, one of them was the confirming source for Novak’s article. I believe it was Rove. With Classified material like this, when somebody asks, the proper response is that you will not confirm or deny the employment of such a person. It’s not “I heard that, too.”

We were wrong in thinking that Rove was Novak’s original source, but not that the information leaked from the administration, and not wrong that administration officials were intentionally disclosing this information.

What we have here is a sloppy security situation that may have already gotten American assets and citizens killed. Just because this was an inadvertant leak on one man’s part doesn’t clear the others of wrongdoing. Other glib disclosures of classified information are known to have been made, without even consulting the CIA or other organizations about the sensitivity of the information.

Ultimately, the problem here is we have folks who think the rules don’t apply to them, who think their good intentions or great ambitions make up for their risky, often problematic behavior. It’s only a set of technicalities and a bit of timing that kept Rove out of jail.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 11, 2006 11:15 PM
Comment #180629

I would note, for the record, that it was “spineless liberals” who founded this country and “spineless liberals” who have, for 230 years, defended and continue to defend this country against monarchists, fascists, imperialists, corporatists, and a host of other major and minor enemies of liberal democracy.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at September 11, 2006 11:15 PM
Comment #180630

Chris said: “Liberty doesn’t matter a whit if you are dead.”

Yes, it does. We all die. Would you rather die being told how to, or die preserving your freedom? We honor our soldiers who die preserving freedom. We wouldn’t do that if liberty did not matter a whit if you are dead. Think about it!!!

Death is inevitable. Freedom must be fought for all the time against those who would strip you of it, both friend and foe. If you submit to those who would strip you of your freedoms to enhance their own, losing freedom will be as inevitable as death. Think about it!!!

Then ask yourself if you want to leach your freedom from our soldiers who die for it, or if you too, are willing to act to preserve it regardless the personal cost?

Enemies of freedom from without come and go. Enemies of freedom for personal power or gain from within are everpresent, seeking competitive advanatage. Far more individual freedom has been lost by submission than has ever been lost by conquest.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 11, 2006 11:20 PM
Comment #180633

David:

I believe Patrick Henry expressed your sentiments thusly:

I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!


Posted by: Dr. Poshek at September 11, 2006 11:34 PM
Comment #180634

“You suggest a false choice between civil liberties and national security. In our country, our civil liberties are our national security.”

Damn, wish I had said that!

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 11, 2006 11:35 PM
Comment #180635

If the left doesn’t like profiling at airports, is upset with the Bush Administration about the NSA wire taping international calls, just in case it is Al Qaeda calling.

Considers the questioning of terrorists torture and hates the idea of keeping them in Guantanamo.

Wants to give every terrorist captured a lawyer and afford them Geneva Conference rights. Defines torture as making them listen to rock music or water boarding. Does not like the military approach. Squawks about any intelligence action.

Exactly what are they for?


Or is this where I get to hear the “change course” talking points.

Posted by: MAW at September 11, 2006 11:35 PM
Comment #180637
Or is this where I get to hear the change course talking points.
Apparently it’s where we get to hear your made up versions of our talking pts Posted by: Loren at September 11, 2006 11:41 PM
Comment #180639

Freedoms, rights, and liberties substantially curtailed over the past 5-1/2 years:

Freedom of speech
Freedom of press
Freedom of association
Freedom of religion
Freedom of contract
Freedom to petition the government
Right to security of our person, effects, home
Right to a speedy trial
Freedom from bills of attainder
Right to face one’s accusers
Right to see the evidence against us
Right to trial by jury of our peers
Right to counsel
Right to indictment
Right to not incriminate oneself
Right to due process of law

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at September 11, 2006 11:43 PM
Comment #180640

Thanks Dr.

Take away rights from people suspected of crimes and you take away everyone’s rights

Posted by: Loren at September 11, 2006 11:49 PM
Comment #180642

Loren,
I did not get an answer in that post. Or did I miss something?

Dr.

If you have lost all those rights then you do have something to complain about. I feel your pain.

I haven’t so I guess I don’t have anything to complain about. You see, I get to post on this board and fear nothing from anyone. Nor does anyone I come into contact with every day. Where are these people that have lost all these rights?


Posted by: MAW at September 11, 2006 11:50 PM
Comment #180647

MAW

just because the left criticizes the tactics used by GW doesnt mean we are against some sane version of those tactics.

Profiling can be done without racism. Wiretaps can be done with warrants and oversight. Torture is not questioning, it’s torture. There should be a code of treatment followed for all POWs, nation based or not. The military has criticized GW’s position on tribunals. Intelligence gathering is necessary, but decisions should be based on sound intelligence, not on cherrypicked rumor.

Posted by: Loren at September 12, 2006 12:01 AM
Comment #180648

MAW: I am not selfish; therefore, I am concerned for those lost rights which impact me directly as well as those lost rights which impact others.

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me

First they came for the fourth amendment,
and I did not speak out, because I didn’t deal drugs.
Then they came for the fifth amendment,
and I was silent because I owned no property involved in crimes.
Then they came for the sixth amendment,
and I did not protest because I was innocent.
Then they came for the second amendment,
and I said nothing because I didn’t own a gun.
And then they came for the first amendment,
and I could say nothing at all.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at September 12, 2006 12:04 AM
Comment #180650

MAW, survivors of 9/11! They are calling once again for an independent investigation of how 9/11 was allowed to happen. They have a right to have their questions answered. But, as yet, their right to know has been shunned, redirected, and ignored. But, like the wives who would not shut up until Bush caved in to their demand for the first 9/11 investigation, these brave Americans won’t stop until their questions have been answered either.

Why were the Generals to board commercial flights on 9/11 advised to take private transportation instead? Why was the memo regarding the warning of the towers, planes used as bombs ignored? Why were the Saudis permitted to fly away while Americans were landlocked in place. Why was NORAD asleep? Why were military readiness exercises postponed until after September 11? Why weren’t the people in the second tower told to evaucate since, those in the United Nations building were told do so within minutes of the first strike. Why did government heads of state from other countries cancel scheduled trips to NY on and around Sept. 11, in unusually large numbers?

Where are these people that have lost these rights. Well, there are some. Here are some more. The Quaker group that was infiltrated by the FBI because they opposed the Iraq war. How about the 10’s of thousands of protesters who have lost the right to peacefully assemble in front of cameras and airports where Air Force One is scheduled to land or arrive?

Someone famous once said to the effect, that in a free land, when one member is enslaved, all are enslaved.

True wisdom there, for subjugation of liberty is everyone’s fight, whether they choose to fight it, or not. If they choose not to, their decendents will have to.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 12, 2006 12:05 AM
Comment #180652

Loren, The question was very simple. Perhaps you should point out a few suggestions on fighting this ideology. People want to kill us because of our way of life. What are your suggestions?

My post was simple and direct. The left does not like military action, inteligence actions, profiling, check banking records. The list goes on and on.

And Dr. I do feel sorry if you have not been afforded any of those rights. You have a right to complain.

Posted by: MAW at September 12, 2006 12:08 AM
Comment #180653

Here is what “spineless liberals” are for:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html


Here is what the Bush administration and its supporters are for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse

http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/shepard_monument.html

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at September 12, 2006 12:09 AM
Comment #180656

Jack, Your title belies your premise. You have failed to demonstrate how Bush hasn’t lied.

The game is that there is some big secret Bush can’t tell us that would explain all his stupid actions. This reminds me of the drunk who tells the cop he is a CIA agent as he is being arrested for drunk driving.

Bush’s plea to believe that his administration is doing the right things and that America should fear the Democrats is the plea of a liar who has lost his creibility. Like a junkie looking for a fix, if we give him just another chance he’ll make it all right.

It’s time for some tough love. Rein in the power drunk junkies and boot them out of office. America’s future depends on not being drawn into this pathetic loser’s twisted lies.

Posted by: gergle at September 12, 2006 12:15 AM
Comment #180658

Gee David, I will ask you the same question. What are your suggestions on combating those that want to kill us? What options would you use if you were in a position to make a difference?

Suggestions Please! Not rhetoric. I am all ears.

Posted by: MAW at September 12, 2006 12:16 AM
Comment #180659

MAW

I responded to every part of your post. Please respond to mine, and stop making up what the left is against.

Posted by: Loren at September 12, 2006 12:17 AM
Comment #180662
just because the left criticizes the tactics used by GW doesnt mean we are against some sane version of those tactics.

Profiling can be done without racism. Wiretaps can be done with warrants and oversight. Torture is not questioning, it’s torture. There should be a code of treatment followed for all POWs, nation based or not. The military has criticized GW’s position on tribunals. Intelligence gathering is necessary, but decisions should be based on sound intelligence, not on cherrypicked rumor.

I responded to every part of your post. Please respond to mine, and stop making up what the left is against.

I see nothing to respond to.

I don’t have to make up what the left is against. They do that all by themselves. I keep waiting to hear what their suggestions are.

Posted by: MAW at September 12, 2006 12:33 AM
Comment #180664

MAW, you asked a question. I answered. You asked where are those who have lost their rights. I answered. I’m done.

Now if you want to elect me and send your campaign donation first, I would be happy to let you know what my platform is. :-) Otherwise, you will have to research my archives here dating back to 2003 for the answer as to what I would recommend.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 12, 2006 12:41 AM
Comment #180665

I am the left, and there are millions of us. I am not characterized by any of your clichéd statements. GW asked for unity tonight. Unity comes when the party in power comes to agreement with the opposition. I just gave you a list on ways that the right and the left could compromise, and you see nothing to respond to. If I disagree with something that GW has done, and I believe that we can reach the same goals with a modified version, I am willing to work with that. this administration has done nothing of the sort, and now I see why.

Posted by: Loren at September 12, 2006 12:42 AM
Comment #180668

Loren,
Clinton was a great compromiser. That got us North Korea left undone and the treatment of terrorism as if it were a nuisance. That strategy worked fine until 9/11. In most cases a compromise only leads to more problems in the long run.

President Bush doesn’t look for quick temporary solutions to hard and difficult problems. I know you disagree with that premise but there are millions of us on the right that believe that.

But the bitterness and vitriol against this President is worse than any I have ever seen and it is disturbing. I do know this; no election will ever be won simply by disliking their opponent. They must have solutions. I see no solutions on the left. Only complaining. I wish that was not true. But all I read on this thread was complaining with no solutions.

So don’t start counting all those ballots in November yet. Let’s hear some answers from those running for office on the left. Perhaps you should be asking the same questions yourself. But if you are satisfied with just listening to complaints, then so be it.

David,

MAW, you asked a question. I answered. You asked where are those who have lost their rights. I answered. I’m done.

You gave me a litany of items that are debatable. I was asking for suggestions on combating terrorism, not someone’s loss of the right to picket. Or the FBI infiltrating a Quaker group or any group for that matter, unless of course it is the Ku Klux Klan, then I would expect that.

I got no suggestions from you on how you would fight the war on terror either. So I am done.

Posted by: MAW at September 12, 2006 1:06 AM
Comment #180669

Jack,
We do not get it because we do not want to get it. The people who support Al Qaida and related organizations are the wrong people. They do not have natural resources to exploit. They live in remote places lacking modern economies. They have nothing, nothing we want to steal anyway, and their culture and language and religion differ considerably from our own.

We do not want to hear about them, so we can pretend their enmity will fade away.

Most of Somalia is under the control of a group very similar to the Taliban. The man in charge, Sheikh Aweys, is a compatriot of Osama bin Laden.

Somalia lacks natural resources, so we are not likely to see Operation Iraqi Liberation in Somalia. It is a failed state with nothing to offer. F-22’s and Virginia Beach class attack submarines do not work very well against civilians with RPGs and pickup trucks with machine guns mounted on the flatbeds.

Pakistan has announced that North Wajiristan will be left to the tribes. As long as “foreigners” are peaceable- men such as Osama bin Laden- they will be left alone. An enormous region adjacent to Afghanistan has become a safe haven for Al Qaida.

But what Republican wants anything to do with a place called North Wajiristan? There is no oil, no natural resources, little which can be dominated by technological superiority.

Personally, I think the entire idea of focusing policy on terrorism is an inefficient waste of time. Taking our revenge upon OBL? Sure. I am in. Beyond that, it is police work on an international scale, not much more. But if we insist on making terrorism the focus, then we had better take off the oil-colored glasses and see the situation for what it really is.

Our enemies are poor, religiously fervent, economically disadvantaged, technologically primitive. Sometimes you have to fight the enemy you have, not the enemy you want to have.

Posted by: phx8 at September 12, 2006 1:16 AM
Comment #180670

To imply that a vast section of America does not want to fight terrorism is unpatriotic. Part of patriotism is always looking for the best in your country, looking at the glass as half full. To blatantly attack ones fellow citizens as unpatriotic is unpatriotic. One should always look at another citizen as just another citizen, not a Republican or a Democrat, an Atheist or Christian, right wing or left wing. We are all Citizens of the United States of America. If we allow terrorists to form differences among us we will fall as a house divided against itself is doomed to do. We must accept that our ability and right to defend our views is our country’s greatest strength and the exercise of that right is the ultimate form of patriotism.

“Gentlemen, I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
-Thomas Paine

Posted by: Silima at September 12, 2006 1:18 AM
Comment #180671

governance without compromise within is tyrany, benevolent or not. So your strategy is to just keep repeating your points and deny the existence of a response. The reason you see no solutions from the left is obviously the same reason you see nothing to respond to. I’m talking to a brick wall here, and that’s one of the reasons I despise GW. Matt Lauer tried to interview King George yesterday, showed some major balls, but our prez didn’t give him one straight answer, but instead kept repeating the same things over and over again, saying them more emphatically with a stronger authoritarian posture.

Posted by: Loren at September 12, 2006 1:23 AM
Comment #180674

MAW-
The problem with profiling is that it investigates to find evidence of a crime before there is probable cause to believe one occurred. May sound convenient, but most often, it’s a waste of time best spent elsewhere.

If our watchlist had been functioning, and airport security was doing its job, a number of hijackers would have been caught, and 9/11 might have become a closecall. if we had initated racial profiling, it wouldn’t be long before the outrage shut the program down.

See, the problem with just about everyone of these macho civil liberties abuses is that they rub Americans the wrong way. That creates friction that cuts down on the half-life of these programs, and wears away at the will of the people to do more to secure the country.

You need effective security Americans can live with. Not only is racial profiling pretty useless, it runs up against half a century of drive this country has had to purge itself of racism.

America’s security must be acheived consistent with America’s character. If we cannot guarantee our saftey and our freedoms at once? Well we’re not the home of the brave for nothing. If we fail to believe we can do better, we indulge in the worst kind of pessimism.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 12, 2006 1:42 AM
Comment #180676
One of the flaws in our modern outlook is that we often overestimate what we can (or should) accomplish in the short run.

You said it brother:

“We will be greeted as liberators” - Cheney

“I doubt it will last six months” - Rumsfeld

“They’re in the last throes of insurgency” - Cheney

“I don’t remember if a robust insurgency was on the list of possibilities I gave the president” - Rumsfeld

“The cold war lasted 40 years, you gotta remember that” - Rumsfeld now

Pretty convenient to not overestimate now, dontcha think?

Posted by: Max at September 12, 2006 1:54 AM
Comment #180677

Why was there no post-invasion war-plan in Iraq? Because Rumsfeld forbade one, and threatened to fire anyone who devised one.

“The secretary of defense continued to push on us … that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we’re going to take out the regime, and then we’re going to leave,” Scheid said. “We won’t stay.”

Scheid said the planners continued to try “to write what was called Phase 4,” or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like occupation.

Even if the troops didn’t stay, “at least we have to plan for it,” Scheid said.

“I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that,” Scheid said. “We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.

“He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war.”

Posted by: Max at September 12, 2006 2:01 AM
Comment #180680

“If we had given up and gone home in 1948 or 1950, maybe Marxism would be more than a toy for leftist university professors and half dead dinosaurs like Fidel Castro. The same goes for the idea of radical Islam.”

“You cannot kill an idea, but if nobody actively supports it, it fades away.”

Jack,

I’m not gonna beat on you personally about this one, as it seems that history is not a strong facet of “most” pundits’ skillset. Radical Islam dates back to the 8th century, or possibly even further. 1300 years is much too long a time to consider radical Islam an unconventional idea to be casually brushed aside.

As Americans we have no reason not to hang on every word our European and Asian allies have to say about the edgier side of Islam, beacuse long after they had counted thier dead for the 5th or 6th time, the United States had not yet even been born.

Radical Islam is not off balance any moreso than radical Judaism or radical Christianity.

I wish people more people could see this with all of it’s rich and bloody historical context.

Again, this wasn’t aimed directly at you. Many people just don’t know.


Posted by: DOC at September 12, 2006 2:21 AM
Comment #180684

BTW - Archetypicaly, a superpower is either loved, respected, feared, or hated. Who has America been? Who are we now?

Posted by: DOC at September 12, 2006 2:30 AM
Comment #180691

Loren,

JT,
Maybe France can guide us through the way to always get our asses handed to us!!

Hey they haven’t had a terrorist attack in over 11 years in France. Using GW’s logic, they are winning the war on terror.

In fact, I’m wondering why. Seriously.
Last time islamists hijacked a french plane, they were targetting Eifel Tower in Paris. It was in 1992. Before first OBL attack on WTC.

What France did since could explain we haven’t being hit by terrorism since, when UK, Spain did?
Maybe it’s just a coincidence.
Maybe not (hopefully).

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 12, 2006 5:37 AM
Comment #180692

After reading some of what everyone wrote I do not remember who wrote what and I do not have the time or the patience to go back to make sure everyone is addressed properly. These are some of my thoughts on what I read.
1. If you are going to quote statistics provide a link where they came from. It would make them somewhat believable. Maybe. It will depend on the reputation of the source.
2. That goes for any other information that is written as if it is fact. (e.g. Generals being directed to fly on private airplanes instead of commercial) Never heard that one before.
3. Whoever wrote that they respected their differences in opinion is full of it. It was meant as an insult, which is not respectful, but as a means to have the last word. GET OVER YOURSELF ALREADY!
4. Another thing about statistics especially the one that stated something about more people die because of other acts of violence besides terrorism. NEWS FLASH: Terrorist do NOT look up statistics to see the total number they have killed. I do not look at that statistic to offer me comfort in my safety.
5. As for the WHINING: You are whining if you are pointing out all the problems but are not making suggestions to solve the problems, which is unfortunately all I have heard the DEMOCRATS do. Please give me one example of a democrat that has offered REAL solutions to all that they are gripping about.
6. When making a point: make it without all the commentary. You would be surprised at how intelligent you will sound instead of sounding like an idiot.
Offer your opinions but do so when you are well informed and have a viable reference to back it up.

Posted by: Katy at September 12, 2006 5:47 AM
Comment #180696

My Name Is Roger:

Jack.. The story about hornets, was a great idea! !

QUESTION: How do you kill an idea?

ANSWER: By coming up with a better idea.

Roger A Conservative Christian Rupublican

Posted by: ROGER at September 12, 2006 6:22 AM
Comment #180697

Katy

I don’t seem to recall doing much gripping(can’t seem to get a grip), but I certainly am tired of being told what I stand for.

What GW and co are doing isn’t rocket science. OBL uses planes for terrorism, so we should improve security at airports. Some people solve problems by taking away the rights of everyone. Its called authoritarianism, and it works well for the boss because it’s easy and cheap. It has no place in democracy. Solving problems and respecting people’s right is expensive and requires sacrifice. GW and co don’t ask for financial sacrifice during war because it is politically difficult. That shows a lack of real leadership. If you can imagine a plan that provides security but doesn’t take away our freedoms and rights, that would be the Democratic plan.

Posted by: Loren at September 12, 2006 6:28 AM
Comment #180698

Loren
Lennon-Imagine.

What is so different? Tell me.

Posted by: DOC at September 12, 2006 6:33 AM
Comment #180701

DOC,

Oh…and they [french] prefer you not yell in a restaraunt!!!!!!

Bad luck you failed to find a karaoke restaurant to exercise your yelling pleasure.

Noise pollution…

Agreed.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 12, 2006 6:50 AM
Comment #180705

I know you are but what am I? I know you are but what am I?

I bet OBL reads or has these blogs read to him and laughs his butt off. Will you children grow up and start working together as Americans. Neither side is perfect or correct 100% of the time.

Clinton did what he could about OBL if he had done more he would have been condemmed for wagging the dog. If it weren’t for 9/11 Bush would not have done anything differently either.

For Pete’s sake people if we spent less time calling each other names, we might actually figure out some way out of this mess.

Posted by: Art at September 12, 2006 8:23 AM
Comment #180744

Re the hornet analogy, it’s more like this:

George says he’s going to hit the hornet’s nest with a stick. Some people tell him he’s going to get stung, and he accuses them of being hornet sympathizers. Others say the hornets will welcome his as a liberator, and he praises them as hard-headed realists.

As it turns out, he gets stung badly and so do all his friends. He isn’t embarrassed though, because “fighting hornets is hell” and no one could have possibly foreseen the bad outcome. Well, save for the crazy hornet sympathizers…

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 12, 2006 10:34 AM
Comment #180749

Stephen,

You made some great points.

If our watchlist had been functioning, and airport security was doing its job, a number of hijackers would have been caught, and 9/11 might have become a closecall. if we had initated racial profiling, it wouldn’t be long before the outrage shut the program down.

Sorry but I never mentioned racial profiling. So how about terrorist profiling! Is that what Democrats call a constitutional violation also? You are correct about airport security though. 19 men buy one way tickets on the same day? Wonder how often that happens?

Besides,

The problem with profiling is that it investigates to find evidence of a crime before there is probable cause to believe one occurred. May sound convenient, but most often, it’s a waste of time best spent elsewhere.


Gee Stephen, when I board a flight with my family I’d like to know before a crime is going to be committed on that plane. I am funny that way. In addition, pulling someone over in a car on the streets of LA because they just look suspicious or is the wrong color is a big leap from profiling people getting on an airplane. Call me a kook, but I think you leave your constitutional rights at the curb at an airport.

You need effective security Americans can live with. Not only is racial profiling pretty useless, it runs up against half a century of drive this country has had to purge itself of racism.

Again, racial profiling would set us back. We can all agree on that. But then my rights to board an airplane has already been set back. I can still remember boarding a plane without even showing ID. Lots of rights have been taken away by just getting on a plane.

Therein lies the problem. It is not fun listening to those that are not in power complain all the time and not truly find solutions and pick at every little thing simply because they just might make the other party look better and then they won’t get their power back. Because this is what this is all about. Democrats are outraged that they are not in power.

So Democrats complain. That is what they do. And that is what this is all about. Getting back in control! And that my friend is the reason we are not safer.


Posted by: MAW at September 12, 2006 11:07 AM
Comment #180774

MAW
I can still remember boarding a plane without even showing ID. Lots of rights have been taken away by just getting on a plane.

Therein lies the problem. It is not fun listening to those that are not in power complain all the time and not truly find solutions and pick at every little thing simply because they just might make the other party look better and then they wonⴠget their power back. Because this is what this is all about. Democrats are outraged that they are not in power.

So Democrats complain. That is what they do. And that is what this is all about. Getting back in control! And that my friend is the reason we are not safer.

Response
Point 1
Flying on an Airplane is NOT a “Right”
Flying on an airplane without ID is not a “Right”
(I find that interesting coming from someone who MIGHT belong to a group that complains about “Activist Judges” creating false rights)
You seem to be so concerned about being inconvenienced during travel, yet express NO Concern about the loss of YOUR rights SHOULD YOU BE ACCUSED — (note, WAITING UNTIL YOU ARE FALSELY ACCUSED BEFORE YOU WORRY ABOUT THE LOSS OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED IS A TAD LATE AND WILL RESULT IN A LONG — UNJUST— PRISON SENTANCE FOR YOU)
Point 2
When pointing your fingers at “Democrats” for “only complaining” you might remember that the “Republicans” have done everything they can to make sure that is ALL the opposition party can do — they have shown NO compunction to work with the opposition party — All previous attempts at offering ideas, counterproposals and solutions have been met with
Silence
Derision
Name calling (unpatriotic, “Liberal” ohhhhh, the boogey-man word — etc)
so since the Repubs don’t want to work with the Dems, then I guess they need to take their case to the Public
and the public appears to be more receptive — because — luckily — Actions speak louder than Words!! and the actions of the past 5 Years absolutely and totally drowns out the hot air that passed for a “presidential” speech last night (9/11/2006)


Posted by: Russ at September 12, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #180781

Russ,

I suggest you read the Time article about Pelosi before you accuse the Republicans of not trying to work with Democrats. Also, you might recall that Howard Dean went on the record in 2004 saying that the Democrats strategy was to disrupt and obstruct every single Republican initiative.

Posted by: 1LT B at September 12, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #180787
Flying on an Airplane is NOT a “Right” Flying on an airplane without ID is not a “Right”

You are absolutely correct Russ. Getting on a plane is not a right.

So why then are Democrats so intent on not allowing profiling for terrorists at airports? Not racial profiling but terrorist profiling.

Again, your post only complains and offers no solutions.

So don’t count those ballots yet.

Posted by: MAW at September 12, 2006 1:07 PM
Comment #180789

Russ,

so since the Repubs don’t want to work with the Dems, then I guess they need to take their case to the Public

Reid, Pelosi, Dean.. I believe you have it backwards.

Posted by: MAW at September 12, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment #180800

Phx8

Should we care about what everybody thinks? I don’t.

The problem with the Middle East is oil and the unearned wealth it has supplied the region. You had picturesque people living in the Arabian Desert. They believed a lot of things that would not fit in the modern world, but it made sense in the desert. W/o oil wealth, Osama bin Laden would be what the British called a “picturesque brighter.”

So I guess I agree with your point, but I only wish you were right about them all being poor with nothing we want. I don’t see the problem until and unless the various picturesque blighters acquire money or power. If they stay in the desert fastness, I really don’t care what they do. The trouble is they come out.

David

The Athenians and the Spartans defeated the Persians. The Athenians actually probably contributed the greater share. They never hired the Spartans to do anything.

Doc

Radical Islam has been around a long time. You are right. They obviously conquered all of North Africa and the Middle East. They did it in a short time and it was not a peaceful acquisition. There has been no history of democracy in the region. But if you look at the problems of Europe in 1948, I think it was as depressing. Europeans had never lived in peace. Most of eastern and central Europe had little experience with what we might call democracy. One of the continents heretofore most civilized countries (Germany) had recently engaged in an aggressive war with genocidal aspects never before experienced. Half the continent was occupied by the Marxist successors to a country that had been the most despotic empire in Europe. And the Marxists were worse.

Overall, the situation in 1948 was much worse than the one we face today. Radical Islam is not an existential threat to civilization the way Nazis or communists were. And Islam need not be radical.

You are also right that radical Islam is not worse than radical Christianity. Christianity as practiced in the 12th Century would also be incompatible with modern civilization. There is one big difference in Christianity, however. Christianity was not designed to be a state religion. Jesus famously said to render onto Caesar what is Caesar’s and said his kingdom was not of this world. It took 300 years before it was even tolerated by the state (Roman Empire). Mohammed saw himself as a political leader and picked up his sword before he even had the doctrine down. Christianity can exist and thrive outside a state. Islam may be able to do that too, but up until recently Islam required the imposition of political power. I hope it can evolve.

Posted by: Jack at September 12, 2006 1:28 PM
Comment #180827

“If you can imagine a plan that provides security but doesn’t take away our freedoms and rights, that would be the Democratic plan.”

Unless your talking about your right to own a gun.

“Some people solve problems by taking away the rights of everyone. Its called authoritarianism,”

Indeed!

“and it works well for the boss because it’s easy and cheap. It has no place in democracy. Solving problems and respecting people’s right is expensive and requires sacrifice”

You guys probably would have won in 2000 and 2004 IF you would have really believed in that.
Instead, it is only the rights and freedoms you agree with that are worthy of your attention.

Posted by: kctim at September 12, 2006 3:07 PM
Comment #180894

“I hope it [Islam] can evolve. “

Religions don’t evolve, they matastasize.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 12, 2006 7:58 PM
Comment #180901

Thanks Jack for all of your thoughtful, intelligent and highly informative posts. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading them. They’ve been like a breath of fresh air. Your calm reason should be an example as to what would promote the most success for us all today, and that is honest, sensible, educated, informed, balanced and thought-provoking communication. We all can agree to disagree, however I’m not sure how some on the other side can fail to see the truth in what you say here.
I just wanted to say thanks for your sanity in the midst of chaos.

Posted by: linda at September 12, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #180916

“When I was in college, a Marxian (he did not call himself a Marxist) made my class read Marx. Up to that time, I thought he might make sense. As I read Marx, I kept on thinking how stupid many of the propositions were. Marx has lots of good liners, mostly copied from others. My favorite, the seeds of its own destruction, I later read in Polybius. I even doubt that it originated with him. What is original in Marx is not good and what is good is not original.”

Jack, there is nothing specific here, and the “one liners” crack makes me think you are thinking of Groucho, not Karl.

I’m sorry a professor “made” you read a bit of Marx, but from what I understand, all professors make students read. You do not subscribe to Ayn Rand’s view that Marx should be banned from public universities, I hope?

Marx contributed profound insights about ideology, alienation, the construction of subjects, etc. Any study of critical theory has to include Marx.

You say that his good ideas are not original. Well, we can find the seeds and sometimes more of everything in the past. Hegel, Smith, Rousseau, and others, of course, influenced Marx’s thought. I’m reminded of the people who say Shakespeare is no good because he stole his plots, or that Plato is just a mishmash of Pythagoras, Heraclitus, etc. Beyond doubt all three men were geniuses.

Marx’s ideas constantly evolved over his life. The so-called Marxist doctrines attempt to codify aspects of his thought; the result is a distortion, just as codifying Platonic thought is. Marx is useful for critical thinking not because he was always right but because he raises good issues. Why do many women living in terribly oppressive cultures support the conditions causing their own oppression? Any attempt to answer that question is going to involve ideas developed and discussed by Marx.

I don’t know anyone who calls him- or herself a Marxist or Marxian. Maybe the times have changed. I read Marx and some Marxists while studying critical theory under a brilliant professor. It was never about “believing” the stuff; it was about thinking. Marx cannot simply be dismissed unless you dismiss critical thought altogether. If I had to guess, my professor was probably to the left of you, but politics never came up. Neither did he try to force his views on us — doing so would have been counterproductive; ciritical thinking never involves uncritically accepting anyone’s views. I spent 17 years in college; I never had a “leftist” professor force his views on me. That’s a myth of the right, I believe, unless you think studying great minds is liberal. (Come to think of it, that is liberal. Open-mindedness is a virtue; close-mindedness assumes certain knowledge, which is a dangerous fantasy.)

I’m afraid that because of the Soviet Union and China that Marx is a bogeyman to many. Marx is not responsible for those repressive regimes. He famously said something along these lines: “I know that I am not a Marxist.” It is unfortunate that many deny themselves the insights found in Marx and in Marxism. Any solid education in the humanities has to include Marx.

When encountering any great mind, the point is not to be uncritically accepting — the point is to engage the mind via the written word. Am I a Marxist? Of course not. I’m not a Platonist or Hegelian or Derridean or Foucauldian, either, yet I’m grateful that I live in an age and culture in which I can engage the great thinkers.

Posted by: Trent at September 12, 2006 9:39 PM
Comment #180917

MAW-
If what you’re suggesting is selectively pulling aside Arab men of a certain age in the airports, it’s racial profiling, regardless of what you call it. Try watchlists. Try names and pictures on a computer. Try investigation that weed out suspects rather than profiling that drowns you in them.

In practical terms, all Bush’s excessive policies have contributed to few broken up cells and few terrorist arrests, because they increase the number of false positives and occupy people’s time with investigating them.

I have no problem with searches and security at an airport. Nobody forces you to travel by air. There’s a limit, though to the effectiveness of any policy that might unfairly single out numerous people who have committed no crime. As for 19 men buying one way tickets, you forget something fairly important: They didn’t buy them all on the same flight, nor are a handful of one way tickets on each flight all that strange. Hundreds buy such tickets everyday.

The solution is to get real screening in there, not this TSA relabelling of poorly educated incompetents. If you want to ask what our plan is, why don’t you start with the recommendations of the 9/11 committee. Don’t you remember us backing that?

1LT B-
Is Pelosi’s rise and her attitude something that predates the Republican’s obstruction, or a general response to it? The Republicans have seen fit to paralyze much of the debate on their policies. I think we owe it to ourselves to be a true opposition party, and oppose your policies when you get to be real partisans about things. If you want consensus, generate it, don’t just sit around expecting everybody to submit to the GOP’s version of it.

Jack-
The problem is not unearned wealth, unless you believe selling people a resource isn’t earning money. The problem is that this is a society yanked out of but still strongly connected to the past. Simply put these are societies in conflict. We had a few hundred years to gradually become acclimated to technological advancement, much of it without outside domination by colonial powers.

The big problem is that often the best parts of Western Civilization have become conflated with the worst, and this has come to represent the modern west to many. It’s no wonder these people turned to communism, to Radical Islamist though, to all the extreme causes. This is what happens. We need to ease the pain of these civilizations where time has come out of joint, not make it worse.

As for Christianity not being designed to be a state religion, you could argue that the original purposes of Christianity rejected a kingdom of this world. However, Christianity got entangled with the State when Constantine legalized and made Christianity Rome’s religion of choice. We should consider that in no small part, this entanglement was maintained in most places until the middle of the last century.

The difference between Islam and Christianity may simply be a matter of timing and the recentness with which most of the former possessions of the Ottoman Empire have separated.

Islam will evolve, but it will do so with Christians having much longer experience in peacefully dealing with religious differences, without imposition of religion on one another.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 12, 2006 9:40 PM
Comment #180936

Jack, you need to read further back in your history book. I refer to 480 BC, after massive preparation king Xerxes led a massive force to subjugate Greece. The small force under king Leonidas of Sparta caused disproportionate casualties but was defeated on the third day. Athens fell. Athenians failed to back the Spartans up, too busy with their shops and businesses. They had agreements with armies, including Sparta to defend Athens.

Athens of course recovered and the Peloponesian wars followed, which pitted Sparta and Athens against each other. But, the writing was on the wall. Specialization had set in, armies fought, businessmen kept shop, senators talked, and the armies were insufficient to defend the homeland anymore, especially against the Romans.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 12, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #180945

Trent

Marx should NOT be banned; he should be required. Marx had great, if negative, influence on the world. If I never read Marx, I might have thought he deserved the admiration according to him.

It is true, however, that Karl was the only one of the Marxist brothers who was never funny.

It is true that Marx evolved over time. It is also true that w/o Lenin, Marx might have remained a harmless curiosity, something like Herbert Spenser. But Marx was obsolete before he finished writing.

You compare to Plato. I am not fond of Plato either. He is also definitely a creature of his time. The difference is that Plato and those like him were philosophers. Marx claimed to represent a science. He claimed to have discovered immutable laws of history, so he set himself up for failure when his predictions were wrong.

Marx should be lumped with other 19th Century philosophers and deserves a special place only because of the consequence of his philosophy.

IMO - the greatest philosopher of the 19th Century was Charles Darwin. Unlike Marx, the basic outlines of Darwinism are applicable today.

Stephen

I believe that wealth is created by human effort. There is no such thing as a natural resource. Resources are only important in particular cultural, technological or economic contexts. The Arabs created none of the contextual aspects that went with oil. Somebody else told they had the resource. Somebody else drilled for it. Somebody else marketed it. Somebody else managed it. It is like a rich kid inheriting money w/o the benefit of someone explaining the nature of wealth. It is very corrupting. You know they call it the resource curse. Even the Norwegians, the world’s most honest and unpretentious people, were partially corrupted by plentiful oil.

I believe the Middle East would be much better off today if oil had never been discovered there. Although there is some hope. Dubai is becoming a good steward of its wealth, for example. Maybe the nouveau rich can develop some noblis oblige.

Linda

Thanks

Posted by: Jack at September 12, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #180949

David

I am not sure what you are getting at. The Macedonians controlled all of Greece, except Sparta, but soon Sparta was irrelevant after it lost its helots. All of Greece was absorbed into the Roman Empire, but in many ways the Greek culture was preserved and fostered in the Empire. Greek culure and civilization dominated the Eastern Med until it was conquered by the Muslims.

Nothing lasts forever, but this particular culure had a very long run. Even today, we are very much heirs to classical civilization. Our own founding fathers read and used the experience of the classics and our mixed form of government is something the ancient Greeks would have easily understood because it conforms very closely with their ideal.

A Roman from the 2nd Century would feel at home in downtown Washington DC. In fact he would also find familiar buildings in London, Vienna, Berlin or even Deli or Shanghai for that matter.

IF only WE are as successful as they were.

Posted by: Jack at September 12, 2006 11:25 PM
Comment #180951

Jack,

Jack, you need to read further back in your history book. I refer to 480 BC, after massive preparation king Xerxes led a massive force to subjugate Greece. The small force under king Leonidas of Sparta caused disproportionate casualties but was defeated on the third day. Athens fell. Athenians failed to back the Spartans up, too busy with their shops and businesses. They had agreements with armies, including Sparta to defend Athens.

Athens of course recovered and the Peloponesian wars followed, which pitted Sparta and Athens against each other. But, the writing was on the wall. Specialization had set in, armies fought, businessmen kept shop, senators talked, and the armies were insufficient to defend the homeland anymore, especially against the Romans.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 12, 2006 11:34 PM
Comment #180957

It is ashame that the ideology that is attempting to defeat the USA is not terrorism, that can be defeated, it is Liberalism. This is the wrong way to go, most Terrorists know this, the way to defeat the USA is to nurture and cultivate Liberalism in America. The only war that was lost by the USA can credit Defeatist/ Liberalism. Our enemies know this. No military can defeat us in battle. To lose anything, we throw in some Libs and the game is over. Its just a shame that any Liberals the enemy may have, are usually the first ones executed, they don’t have any stomach for towel throwing, cry- babies that want to lose.

Posted by: George at September 13, 2006 12:02 AM
Comment #180973

David,

Athens evacuated women and children; the men took to the sea, hid behind Salamis, and tricked the Persian fleet into engaging in a battle in narrow straits — one of the most famous naval battles of all time. I guess you could say Athens fell; more accurate, I think, is that Athens engaged in a strategic retreat and then kicked, most decisively, Persian butt. The story is that Xerxes saw the destruction of his fleet from Athens. Anyway, he had to hightail it out of there. Both Athens and Sparta achieved amazing things.

(A very fun novelization of the battle of Thermopylae is Stephen Pressfield’s The Gates of Fire. Alas, his next book on Alcibiades was a disappointment, imo. We need a Robert Graves to do justice to Alcibiades.)

Jack,

I honestly don’t know what to say to you about Marxism. Are you getting caught up in the utopian dream? Do you deny that the ideology of the ruling class often becomes the de facto ideology of the people? Or that a society’s institutions reinforce the dominant paradigm? Hell, show me a liberal who isn’t a capitalist! It’s inside our heads. When the Normans conquered England, they brought their own language, and any English man wishing to advance had to learn French. Our language today is what it is because of that historical fact. Hell, read Orwell’s Burmese Days about how the Burmese attempted to be like the English — you buy into an ideology that makes you a subordinate then self loathing surely follows.

I simply don’t understand your animosity to marxism or unwillingness to accept that for very legitimate reasons some of the ideas developed by Marxists are still relevant. This isn’t just me saying this, you know. Some of the big shot critical theorists working today identify with Marxism, but they certainly are not advocating revolution. There’s much more there than you are willing to see, for some reason. It doesn’t have to be threatening.

You could say Marx was wrong. Well, I think he was wrong on some things, too. In the west we didn’t see the proletariat uprising; it turned out that industry was able to work with unions, and conditions improved. Did that forestall a revolution? I don’t know. Maybe. Maybe not. So what? It doesn’t invalidate other insights.

Plato — ah well, I’m sorry you don’t appreciate Plato. I certainly don’t buy into much of what is called Platonism. What I like about Plato is his reliance on dialogue — that is, men of good will seeking to build arguments on shared assumptions — and on his incredible writing. In literary terms, the Symposium and the Phaedrus rank among the West’s greatest masterpieces. In philosophic terms, he laid the groundwork for much philosophizing to this day. Whitehead wasn’t exaggerating that much.

Posted by: Trent at September 13, 2006 12:53 AM
Comment #180984

Stephen,

I don´t think it was the Republicans who started the obstruction mess you described above. The Democrats signed onto the war in Iraq, supported it until it became politically expedient not to, then blamed everything on Bush. I know several Democrats, and if they are at all representative of the party, then sour grapes about 2000 has just as much if not more to do with the Democrats opposition than anything else. A general malaise about Iraq coupled with the Democrats refusal to make any sort of compromise or even negotiate with the Republicans has essentially crippled the legislature.

Trent,

I´m a bit surprised that a fellow fan of Plato gives Marx much credit. I can´t speak for Jack, but here´s my thoughts on Marxism. First, it is appealing because it argues for the best of human nature. The idea of each contributing to the common good according to his gifts and being given his needs is certainly appealing. However, it simply doesn´t work. The Founding Fathers recognized greed for wealth and power and designed the Constitution around it to accommodate it and keep it from turning into tyranny. Marx believed that human nature could be changed through a political process and history has shown this to be untrue.

Marxism is a complete and total failure as a form of government. It did not bring about economic prosperity for its people, but economic ruin. Meanwhile, its blatant hatred for religion, which translated into the murder of hundreds of thousands of clerics of many faiths from Russia to China. No Western nation has a secret police force, every communist nation does. Western nations have freedom of the press and religion, communist nations do not. Western nations talk of putting up walls to keep people out who want to share in our prosperity, communist nations build walls to keep their people subjugated.

Even the milder forms of Marxism, such as the socialism of Western Europe are doomed to failure. One of the traits of developed nations is a low birthrate. This very demographic problem guarantees that Europe cannot continue as they have. Meanwhile, China is growing economically only after abandoning communism in all but name. In all of history, I cannot think of any one man whose ideas have caused so much death and misery as Marx. He has the blood of untold millions on his hands and some of the worst dictators in history are associated with his failed gospel of death. Capitalism is not perfect, but it beats the alternatives in a heartbeat.

Posted by: 1LT B at September 13, 2006 4:55 AM
Comment #181000

Hey 1LT B,

Believe it or not, I agree with what you’ve said. As far as a programme goes, what we call Marxism didn’t work. Will humans evolve enough that we will achieve some sort of classless utopia? I don’t know. If so, it’s a long time in our future.

Where I find Marxism useful is in its critical analysis of such things as ideology, fetishism, alienation, etc. IT’s been said that the best way to read Marx is not to — that is, to read other Marxists who develop and extend his ideas.

I am NOT an apologist for Communism in the way we have seen it, and, you know, I don’t think Marx would be either.

We could criticize religion for causing untold suffering and death, too, but that would be a mistake. It is not ideas that cause death, but how people apply them.

Posted by: Trent at September 13, 2006 8:01 AM
Comment #181001

Jack, 1LT B-
On the subject of Marxism, I believe that the response to it can often cause as much trouble as it does itself. It’s a case where letting people have a little of it ensures that you don’t end up with people having a lot of it. In the end, it’s an underdog’s kind of system.

The way to head it off at the pass is first by outcompeting it in terms of social justices and prosperity. The less people can harp on the oppression of the proletariat and that stuff, the less marxism gains a foothold of legitimacy. Secondly, where it does show up, don’t beat up on it. People sometimes panic and try to stamp these things out. That only adds to its prestige. Remember, it’s a philosophy of fighting oppression. Attempts to stamp it out only gain it legitimacy

In politics, the way to bring any philosophy successfully to its knees is to pre-empt its appeal and deny it its necessity.

Jack-
I believe it’s unwise to unhitch wealth from the context that creates it. We can argue resources are separate things, or we can realize that there is no point to monetary wealth without something in the real world that it buys, sells, or facilitates.

There is a such thing as a natural resources. It’s something people want, and the things people want shape an economy.

The thing to consider about the psychology of wealth is that wealth generally gives people the ability to do what they did before, only more so. Unfortunately, though, that often means things that were mildly annoying when lack of funds inhibited them become out of control and dangerous with it.

The key here is to consider what is really missing: A means of dealing with the ethics of wielding economic power. If we are to talk about the corrupting power of misused economic power, we must examine ourselves and our policies, not only internationally, but here at home. The real enemy is a lack of self-restraint, occassioned by the fact that limited resources of a time past meant we never had to take responsibility for that kind of power before.

1LT B-
They actually supported it past the point it became politically expedient to. It took Dean’s rise to prominence to whack them upside the head. You see, the mistake is thinking that the politicians in Washington were the first to push for a change for things. It wasn’t. It was your average Rank and File Democrat, pissed off by the failures of Bush’s policy and the vitriol of the Republican’s campaigns of 2002. That’s perhaps why Kerry’s performance was as muddled as it was. He was caught in the transition from passive acceptance of Bush’s policies to more active opposition.

It’s not sour grapes about 2000. 9/11 made that a distant memory. It’s the fresh bleeding wounds of 2002, the sense of betrayal at the politicization by the Republican, that sense of “oh no, not this shit again” concerning the rise of terror baiting (dusted off red baiting, really). And now it’s the Swift-boating of 2004. The average Democrat feels like they’ve been taken to the cleaners for remaining tolerant of Republican Rule.

You don’t see the rise of Pelosi until after this happens. You don’t see the rise of Dean and his rough edges approach to fighting the Republicans until after 2002.

You have to realize that the average Democrat is not being lead, brainwashed, or any of that trash. They’re the ones leading, and the leadership in Washington is trying to catch up. The smart ones are taking advantage of this.

Without the sense of noncooperation from the other side, without the sense of endangered interests, though, most Democrats would be far more complacent. Your party had to actually threaten our way of life, our existence as a political force in America for the Average voter to get this angry. Otherwise, things would be like they were between 1994 and 2002.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 13, 2006 8:25 AM
Comment #181010

David

The Spartans fought well and bravely but were betrayed. Athens was destroyed, as the Oracle at Delphi had foretold, but a wooden wall protected the people of the city. The Athenian fleet destroyed the Persians at Salamis. The Athenians were a sea, not a land power. W/o their fleet at Artemisium, the Spartans and the others could never have held out at all. The land/sea aspect was the nature of the Athenian alliance with the Spartans. W/o Spartan infantry, the Persians would have conquered Greece, but w/o Athenians ships the Spartans would have been sitting ducks and they all knew it. Besides the Athenians with the help only of the Plateans did all right against the Persians ten years before at Marathon. They were no slouches.

Re the Romans, nobody in Greece could stand up to the Romans once they got going. The Romans were just very good at sticking pieces of sharp metal into their enemies and they didn’t give up. If you crossed the Romans, they came to visit and it was not pleasant. But by the time Greece fell to the Romans, it was no longer the dynamic place it had been.

Trent

There are some things true in Marxism, but those things are not found ONLY in Marxism. The things unique to Marxism (his particular blend of class struggle and dialectical materialism) are wrong. As I said, what makes Marx pernicious is his total system. Marx doesn’t intend for people to take some of what he says and ignore the rest. His is not advice. He (and his followers) called it scientific and that has caused all the trouble.

Experience has shown that classes, in the persistent Marxist sense, just don’t exist. His dialectic is wrong in all the details. It is like people saying Buck Rogers invented space travel. Sure enough you can find the outlines, but the details are what counts.

Marx fails on his own terms. Since he claimed to be scientific, he subjected himself to scientific method. That means theories need some predictive value. His have none.

As I said above, without Lenin operationalizing Marxism, it would be a quaint ideology. Marx would be like Jeremy Bentham or Herbert Spenser. We could talk about it in the abstract. But as it is, it became an action philosophy that has caused more death and destruction than any other, including second place killer Hitler’s National Socialism. And just like we cannot separate the good things they did (Volkswagens and autobahns) and say for that reason it was a decent ideology, we can no longer do that with communism.

Re Plato - I have to nuance my comments. Plato was great for the time he was writing. I have read much of Plato and studied classical Greek. It is just that he is overtaken by events. Just like I would not go to Hippocrates to cure my body, I would not go to Plato to develop my mind. That does not mean Plato is bad or a failure. We stand on his shoulders, but we don’t want to be down there with him. He is historical now and we should read him in that context.

Stephen

Yeah. Wealth needs a social context. I think we may agree on natural resource, but not on the nuance. I don’t believe in ANY resource outside a human context. We have seen this happen as technology changes. Having a lot of oil on your land was a nuance until we developed technologies to use it. And the oil under the Persian Gulf was completely inaccessible to the Arabs until western technology made it resource. Or let’s got the other way. Soft coal and peat used to be important resources. IN our modern ecological context, they really are not any more.

Posted by: Jack at September 13, 2006 9:48 AM
Comment #181051

Jack, nice dodge of the issue of Athens fall while depending on the Spartans for their defense by reciting minutae of the battles. You see the trees, but not the forest. I tried. Some folks just refuse to learn from history. Guess that is why we endlessly repeat it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 13, 2006 12:43 PM
Comment #181059

Jack said to Trent: “Just like I would not go to Hippocrates to cure my body, I would not go to Plato to develop my mind.”

But, you had better go to Plato when a theist attempts to dispense with the checks and balances on his power as he attempts to assert his rule over a nation on the premise of being a philosopher king of the Christian ilk. Which is precisely what Bush is doing with the Wilson Cheny proposals to rewrite FISA rendering it, and Congressional oversight to the pages of what was and is no more.

For if you don’t understand Plato, you won’t understand the appeal GW Bush has on the masses in attempting to shape his power as authoritarian, unchecked by the courts or Congress on the basis of his understanding of God and Right as laid down by his faith in the philosophy of Christianity.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 13, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #181071

Jack,

People read Plato in many different ways. I’m not certain what your approach is, so I’m unclear how to respond. I will say that the Socratic Method is widely used pedagogically. I think we would agree that the purpose of education is not to memorize facts but to learn tools of critical analysis. If that is so, then the tool that Plato honed — dialectic — is absolutely essential to us today.

If we were to meet and discuss political issues, I would first try to see where we could arrive at consensus. That would mean stripping things down as necessary to see at what point we could achieve consensus on our assumptions. Then step by step we would see where are differences really lie. Then we would use logic and reasoning to see if we could sway the other on the difference. That’s essentially Plato in a nutshell.

David,

It is very unclear to me how serious Plato was about the state he proposed in the Republic. First of all, Plato didn’t state any propositions; his character Socrates did. Second, the interlocutors state that they do not believe such a state could exist on earth; the point of the discussion was to discuss the human soul, and to make things clearer, they erected an ideal state to represent this soul. I get very very annoyed when I encountered professors who taught the Republic as if Plato was seriously proposing this ideal state. It is true that Plato apparently believed that philosophy could help a ruler be a better ruler — we have the evidence of the Seventh Letter for that. But insofar as he thought the ideal state could ever exist — I don’t think so. When he got around to writing the Laws, the ideal state was gone — his characters dicussed a state run by rule of law, in which the laws are clearly explained to the public in the belief that understanding would encourage compliance.

Posted by: Trent at September 13, 2006 1:20 PM
Comment #181103

Jack,

I almost dug out my notes and books on Marxism, but nah, life is short and I’ve got other things on my agenda.

I’m not saying you are doing this because I don’t know, but I’ve found that many people conflate Lenin’s and other’s views with Marx’s. If I remember a-right, dialectical materialism is a concept really developed by Lenin, though based on Marx obviously. You could say the historic class struggle that Marx posited doesn’t accurately reflect reality, and you may be correct, though I do think that is debatable. Class consciousness is crucial, after all, and, to bring up an era we are both interested in, we don’t see much class consciousness in the few slave revolts during the Hellenistic era. When a slave revolted or led a revolt, it was more in the belief that it was a mistake to make him or them a slave, and not a revolt against the slave system itself. Sometimes the revolting slaves dreamed of setting up an alternate society, but invariably that society just had them as the rulers. But that doesn’t necessarily invalidate Marx’s claims because he also acknowledges the invidious power of ideology — we have an extremely difficult time of overcoming the ideology of an era or place even when that ideology places us in a subservient role, causes us to regard ourselves as naturally inferior.

Anyway, Russians went with a top down approach, which was not what Marx envisioned. True, they called themselves Marxists but, well, you know, we don’t have to do that. I call them murderous thugs, myself.

I do think as Stephen D. suggested that the accomodations capitalists made to labor unions took the wind out of the sails.

At any rate, the whole class struggle thing, while interesting, isn’t really where my interests lie. Don’t get me wrong; I do think class struggles are real, but in this country, we have class mobility etc. etc. It’s a far cry from conditions in other times and places. The chief reason I find Marx useful is in his analysis of ideology and especially how that was developed by other thinkers. I know I’ve mentioned Althusser and perhaps Adorno here before.

Anyway, you know, it doesn’t really matter what you and I say here. Marxist ideas are obviously still relevant in critical theory — just look at any critical theory anthology. And it’s really not about overthrowing the oppressive masters. Marx, like Freud, created an avenue of discourse that persists long after specific claims have become seen as outdated or in need of modification. Anyway, we can not discuss subject construction without some recourse to ideas developed by Marxism, whether we consider ourselves Marxists or not. One of my favorite philosphers is Foucault, who, among other things, developed a way to think about power that has as a partial basis Marxism, though Marxists hate it. Instead of seeing power relations strictly in terms of the modes and means of production, he decentralized it, and recognized that power flows upwards and downwards — there are nodes of power, and it’s not all based on economic structures. Foucault started off as kind of depressing philosopher — as subjects we were acted upon and completely the result of our environment. But as his thought progressed, he came to believe that, like Oscar Wilde, self-determination could lead to self-construction, and that we could consciously resist the deeply buried underpinings of normative behavior. I think you would find his The history of Sexuality quite interesting; much of it deals with Greek and Roman subject construction. Anyway, Foucault stood on the shoulders of Marxists.

I really don’t think you can separate critical thinking or philosophy from the history of philosophy.

Posted by: Trent at September 13, 2006 3:21 PM
Comment #181106

David

Athens was burned. But the imporant part of the story is that the Athenian people survived and came back better than ever. The Parthenon and most of the classical building date from the years just after that and the golden age of the city followed its destruction.

The destruction and subsequent victory over the Persians is what made Athens great. W/o that, they may have been just another Corinth.

Re Plato

He is the start of many ideas but not the end. We had 2500 years of experience to refine them.

Trent

I think we should read Plato, but (as above) he is no longer the real authority.

BTW - the thing I do not like re Plato is the gotcha attitude. He has Socrates ask questions and then the other guy always overstates and sets up Socrates for the smash.

If Socrates were alive today, he would be at the end of a bar bothering people, which is essentially what he was doing in ancient Athens.

Posted by: Jack at September 13, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #181107

Indeed, Jack, and they killed him for it. He made people aware of their own ignorance, and that is always dangerous.

OF course Plato is not the end. Anyone who thinks so is a mere worshipper. There is not end to philosophy; there can never be any certainty. It’s the questions that are important.

Posted by: Trent at September 13, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #181116

JOHN GLENN SAID
Things that make you think a little:

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the
Month of January. That’s just one American city,
About as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq .

When some claim that President Bush shouldn’t
Have started this war, state the following:

A. FDR led us into World War II.

B. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lo st …
An average of 112,500 per year.

C. Trauma finished that war and started one in Korea
North Korea never attacked us
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost …
An average of 18,334 per year.
d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us

E. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
An average of 5,800 per year.

F. Cli nton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us
He was offered Osama bin Laden’s head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on
Multiple occasions.

G. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush
Has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled
Al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya , Iran , and, North
Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who
Slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining
About how long the war is taking.
But
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno
To take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51-day operation.

We’ve been looking for evidence for chemical weapons
In Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find
The Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the
Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard
Than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his
Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took
To count the votes in Florida !!!!

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant
To realize the facts

But Wait -There’s m ore!

JOHN GLENN (ON THE SENATE FLOOR)
Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13

Some people still don’t understand why military personnel
Do what they do for a living. This exchange between
Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum
Is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive
Impromptu speech, but it’s also a good example of one
man’s explanation of why men and women in the armed
Services do what they do for a living.

This IS a typical, though sad, example of what
Some who have never served think of the military.

Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):
“How can you run for Senate
When you’ve never held a real job?”

Senator Glenn (D-Ohio):
“I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps.
I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions.
My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different
Occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn’t my
Checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was
Not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the
Daily cash receipts to the bank.”

“I ask you to go with me … As I went the other day…
To a veteran’s hospital and look those men …
With their mangled bodies in the eye, and tell THEM
They didn’t hold a job!

You go with me to the Space Program at NASA
And go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans
Of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee…
And you look those kids in the eye and tell them
That their DADS didn’t hold a job.

You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in
Arlington National Cemetery , where I have more friends
Buried than I’d like to remember, and you watch
Those waving flags.

You stand there, and you think about this nation,
And you tell ME that those people didn’t have a job?

What about you?”

For t hose who don’t remember ..
During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney
representing the Communist Party in the USA

Now he’s a Senator!

If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran.

Posted by: Robert at September 13, 2006 3:59 PM
Comment #181127

You are right, Robert. The media is biased. I scan through my cable channels and find O’Reilly spewing his nonsense, Hannity and the other clown doing their thing, and that silly guy who used to wear a bowtie dancing his dance. In disgust I turn off the television and turn on the radio and hear Savage telling me I’m an idiot and Limbaugh just being himself, which is damning enough. So what the hell — I open the newspaper and read Thomas Sowell telling me I’m one of the annoited and William Buckley, though admitting the incompentence of the Bush administration, still gamely trying to find something positive to say.

Thank god for The Daily Show — even though it’s parody, at least it’s not more right-wing rah-rahs and complaints about the “leftist” media. You guys have got all three branches of government on your side and still can’t cut the mustard. So you complain about the so-called “leftist” media. Whatever.

Oh, by the way, you are welcome.

Posted by: Trent at September 13, 2006 5:16 PM
Comment #181147

Robert
GREAT POST

Posted by: KAP at September 13, 2006 8:26 PM
Comment #181163

Robert,

how many Iraqis dead in Jan? 39 or do only american lives count?

BTW, 35 dead in Detriot because??? education system failing, welfare system failing and unempolyment + lax gun control, so I wouldn’t be proud of that comparison

Posted by: mo at September 13, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #181224

Robert
You must be confusing Iraq I with Iraq II
I am unaware that it took Janet Reno 3+ years to take the Branch Dividian complex

Our roll over of Iraq is not over yet — so it is premature to say “war is over — quite complaining about how long it is taking”
We TOTALLY vanquished TWO MAJOR powers from 1942 to Mid - 1945 (Japan attacked at the END of 1941)thats 3.5 years — for a war on two fronts
So shove off lacky-boy
This is a totally f*&%ed up mess brought on by the arrogance of Donny and Dickie and their Lacky Georgie Boy
They LIED to the American people (and continue to do so — look at how often they DENY statements they made when there is VIDEO showing them making the statments —and then apologists such as your self keep bowing at their alter!! unreal!!!
the education system in this country is totally f’d up if you are a product of that system!!


Posted by: Russ at September 14, 2006 10:31 AM
Comment #181225

Robert
Ignorance rears its ugly head again
You state:
“Germany never attacked us; Japan did. “
You neglected that Germany and Japan had formed a pact — an alliance — an attack by one brought both into the fray.
You guys use WWII as a something to honor, and then try to Diss the guy who led us thru it??
FDR as a war Monger????
Churchill — the great British leader who led them thru the war — and is recognized as a Great War-time leader
was asked what this war should be called
His response
“The unnecessary war”
If Churchill can honestly say that WWII was “Unnecessary” (and I know he meant with propre leadership it COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED!!!)
then how in God’s name can there be ANY justification for this little piddly-a**d excuse for a military intervention??
Nothing other than greed and incompetence.

Posted by: Russ at September 14, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #181227

To all of you who responded to me with
“Pelosi” “Reid” “DEAN” etc
get off it
give me something more substantial
and remember — these are only after YEARS of the republicians making DAMN sure that they totally ignored the Democrats (after having a Pres being voted in the lie of being a “uniter”)
So — your basis is that after being kicked and dragged thru the mud that you have the BS to try to pin it on the group being left out of the process?????
Again ist Lt — you point out Deans comments of 2004 — that is 4 YEARS AFTER the BS started with the Repub
You guys are too much — you took control, you f*&k’d things up, and then you blame the group that is out of power!!!

MAW — as has been pointed out — there is no such thing as “Terrorist profiling” —
What profile would have alerted you to Tim McVeigh??
oh yea, I forgot, terrorist are ONLY Arab men (and maybe women)
then that would ignore the Black Muslims
that would ignore the European terrorist groups (remember the Red Brigade — the IRA — etc)
You are a someone who believes in your sterotypes — get an education dude.

Posted by: Russ at September 14, 2006 10:47 AM
Comment #181250

Um, and which of those groups has openly declared war against the US?

Funny how those against “profiling” are all concerned about individual rights unless they are profiling to stop a serial killer.

Posted by: kctim at September 14, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #181292

kctim
HUh??
Funny how those against “profiling” are all concerned about individual rights unless they are profiling to stop a serial killer.

The profiling against a serial killer is something that is developed using scientific data — studies, research, investigation and is based on ACTIONS
NOT
Look for Muslim men age 10-99 — you will be able to identify them by their dark skin (and whatever other features you IMAGINE makes a distinction)
You see the point flew right over your head
“Terrorist”
You need something with which to identify “Terrorist”
FBI profiling of serial killers is NOT done by VISUALLY “pick one out of a crowd” on their way to the airplane.
Proper profiling is NOT something that can be done by your average TSA screener at the airport — which is what many people are calling for (why are you picking on Granny?)
Proper Profiling would be the way to identify persons you would want to investigate futher, whether or not they are in the process of boarding an airplane AND
I would HOPE that PROPER PROFILING is currently one of the tools being used so as to focus attention on PROPER suspects rather than just the dark skinned ones that “Look” like a terrorist.
Funny — when I travelled to Italy in the late ‘70’s during the height of their Red Brigade problems — I was held up at the airport (very short time) because I “looked” like a terrorist
Later on a car load of us were surrounded by Carabenieri (National Police) at gun-point (automatic weapons, none of the wussy stuff our guys use) because we were “acting like” Red Brigade (we had been laughing at a joke, and the cops thought we were laughing at them — plus there were 3 men and a woman — a “typical” Red Brigade group)
you kids forget what was going on in the ‘70’s — we had terrorist then
hi-jackings
We had people taken hostage and Shot thru the knees at a University in Torino — the victims were “Students” (but they were also Executives of Fiat)
there were bomb attacks on the prison in downtown Torino during trials of some of the Red Brigade leaders
anywho
Most of these guys LOOKED LIKE anyone else
No one is suggesting that Proper Profiling (??) done by a trained professional — with the proper tools, is not appropriate nor useful
What WE DO OBJECT TO IS THE BS PROFILING THAT IS A WASTE OF EVERYONE’S TIME AND ONLY MAKES THE PROBLEM WORSE.

Posted by: Russ at September 14, 2006 2:51 PM
Comment #181307

Russ- your “point” did not fly over my head. I understand and chuckle at the point you are trying to make.

“The profiling against a serial killer is something that is developed using scientific data — studies, research, investigation and is based on ACTIONS”

Do all the studies, research and investigating you want and you will come up with a factual profile of the terrorist with who we are at war with: muslim men of middle eastern descent.

Oh, but what about McVeigh and his type? You guessed it. They have their own profile, that I’m sure you don’t mind using, to single them out: White males with short hair and anti-govt feelings who own guns. They are watched and their property searched, regulary. Why? Because they fit the profile of individuals who committed acts against our country.

“You need something with which to identify “Terrorist””

We have that “something,” you just fail to accept it.

“FBI profiling of serial killers is NOT done by VISUALLY “pick one out of a crowd” on their way to the airplane.”

Really? One of their first steps is to “determine all the white males of a certain age group within a particular area.” And, if the airport is where the serial killer is picking his targets, then guess what, those that fit that profile ARE “picked out of the crowd.”

“Proper profiling is NOT something that can be done by your average TSA screener at the airport — which is what many people are calling for”

Despite what the movies tell you, most serial killers are caught because ordinary people used the FBI’s profile and tipped off the police.

“(why are you picking on Granny?)”

I agree. But when it becomes a fact, that “grannies” want to destroy America and her people by flying planes into buildings, then I’m all for profiling little old women too.

“Proper Profiling would be the way to identify persons you would want to investigate futher, whether or not they are in the process of boarding an airplane”

Yeah, your “proper profiling” really would have worked on 9/11 wouldn’t it.

“I would HOPE that PROPER PROFILING is currently one of the tools being used so as to focus attention on PROPER suspects rather than just the dark skinned ones that “Look” like a terrorist.”

What BS! You are so afraid of not being PC that you refuse to acknowledge the obvious: Using your “proper profiling” needs to have a starting point and past hostile actions has given us that starting point. The war declared on us by the terrorists, was done by muslim men from middle eastern descent with extremist views (terrorists).

“What WE DO OBJECT TO IS THE BS PROFILING THAT IS A WASTE OF EVERYONE’S TIME AND ONLY MAKES THE PROBLEM WORSE”

Effective profiling is a waste of everyone’s time?
A little inconvienence-hurt “feelings”-ensure safety. Sounds alot better than “200 dead in terrorist air attack” doesnt it?

And how in the heck does taking a little extra time and ensuring a terrorist isn’t boarding a plane, make the terrorist problem worse?
This I gotta know.

Posted by: kctim at September 14, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #181346

Russ,

They LIED to the American people (and continue to do so — look at how often they DENY statements they made when there is VIDEO showing them making the statements

You want to drag out statements of Donny and Dickie then don’t forget to drag out statement of Kerry, Rockefeller and other prominent Dems ranting about Saddam and urging ‘Georgie Boy’ to take a bat to the so called hornet’s nest. You wouldn’t want to conveniently miss that one now would you?

MAW — as has been pointed out — there is no such thing as “Terrorist profiling” — What profile would have alerted you to Tim McVeigh??

I don’t recall McVeigh boarding an airplane to do his dirty work. Once again, boarding a plane is not a right as was also pointed out and by one of your own.

You are a someone who believes in your sterotypes — get an education dude.

And Maam, Your use of the English language illustrates a lot about the education system in this country. Including your choice of gender references.

the education system in this country is totally f’d up if you are a product of that system!!

Another reason the education system in this country needs vouchers.

Posted by: MAW at September 14, 2006 8:23 PM
Comment #181450

kctim,

You are so afraid of not being PC that you refuse to acknowledge the obvious: Using your “proper profiling” needs to have a starting point and past hostile actions has given us that starting point. The war declared on us by the terrorists, was done by muslim men from middle eastern descent with extremist views (terrorists).

Then, I give no more than 4 years max before seeing Al-Quaida using westerner looking and behaving women suicidal terrorists. They have already used some, IIRC, in Iraq. I’ll bet they’re training some more to eat beacon and wear string underwear right now.

Oh, and BTW, how do you detect “extremists views” at a plane boarding gate? Because otherwise, your profiling will just detect every muslims. Talk about polarizing fear on a large (but minor in US) world community as a whole…

And such lax filter is not called an effective “profiling”.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 15, 2006 9:15 AM
Comment #181454

PH
If that happens in “no more than 4 years” then guess what? We add to the profile to make it effective.

You CAN’T detect “extremists views” just by looking at someone, that is why you must use common sense and that says the people that have declared war on the US and have acted on it are the muslims I talked about earlier.
If ensuring safety is “polarizing fear” onto the muslim world community, then so be it. Maybe then, they will start to take the threat seriously.

You don’t want to hurt feelings, I don’t want to lose anymore American lives.

Posted by: kctim at September 15, 2006 9:33 AM
Comment #181789

kctim,

If that happens in “no more than 4 years” then guess what? We add to the profile to make it effective.

Nice, now you’re profiling all muslim males and all non-muslim looking females. No wonder you’re so optimist about job employment for the next decade ;-)

You don’t want to hurt feelings, I don’t want to lose anymore American lives.

Sadly, both is happening actually and everybody knows that one day or another, in a year or in next century, once again americans will be killed by terrorists. War on Terror is unwinnable on the long term. Seems to be too on the short one…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 16, 2006 9:28 AM
Comment #182464

we were attacked in the U.S. mainland 2 times the first was 1993 next was 2001 thats an eight year gap so saying we havent been attacked since 2001 does not hold that much weight!!!

Posted by: jim conway at September 19, 2006 2:23 AM
Post a comment