Third Party & Independents: Archives

Richard Clarke has an excellent piece in the Times on the subject.

I was living in Dallas when the Reagan administration raided an established peace movement group, seized assets, and arrested and investigated it’s members, due to their opposition to the illegal activities of the Contras in Nicaraugua, and El Salvador. They were eventually exonerated in the courts.

Ollie North and Noriega were running guns and drugs through Dallas at the time. Yes, what we need is a new head of the secret police in America. You never know when some commie might advocate peace.

Greg,

You never know when some commie might advocate peace

If I wore swastika armbands in New Jersey the 1940s, and recommended capitulation to Nazi Germany, how would you react to that?

Ciggy, are you advocating arresting and detaining those opposed to the war in Iraq?

Greg’s point is that abuses of power have occurred with checks and balances in the past. Should we not excercise great care and deliberation before concentrating such broad and sweeping power in the hands of two people?

Ciggy,

Are you equating the very Illegal acts of US Cocaine trafficking and arms sales by a faction of our government, illegally mind you, as being tantamount to not supporting our nation in times of genuine world crisis?

The crisises that we genuinely had in WWII with a pretext for world domination by an axis of totalitarian nations and the illegal acts of the C.I.A in South America are apples and oranges in comparison.

The Contra/Panamanian/Columbian drug running and arms sales are not the same as an axis of world powers bent on complete domination of the planet. They weren’t even fighting Communism down there this(arms and drugs) was something separate.

Blind faith and genuine need are two different things. WE ‘NEEDED’ TO FIGHT THE AXIS POWERS we did NOT Need to supply tons of Cocaine to the United States…See the difference!

Blind faith is what led to Noriega and the drug and arms trafficking, people not questioning administration actions. Need is what we had when the Axis threat loomed on the horizon and world domination became emminent so we fought back.

What a group of five to twenty liberals disapproved of our CIA trafficking blow that is somehow on the same equatious level as not supporting(via armbadge)our own survival as a democracy on planet earth.

See the difference?

David, this was a good article. I agree that centralizing power in the two people you mentioned would backfire. I don’t agree, however, that more Congressional oversight is needed, for the same reason that NDI and President should not have full control.

The major failure that I see in our intelligene before 9/11 is a failure in communication. The right hand didn’t know what the left hand was doing. Regardless of who set it up, the wall was in place.

Instead of third party oversight, better communication is necessary. The heads of CIA, FBI, NSA, and any other organization should meet periodically. Whether this is once a month, once a week, or some other interval, would have to be looked at. The purpose of these meetings would be to discuss any pertinent happenings. After they’ve met, they would then brief the President’s National Security Advisor as well as the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Intelligence Committee in Congress. This way, everyone stays in the loop.

By the way, it probably wouldn’t be the heads of the CIA, FBI, and NSA. Rather the head of intelligence in those areas.

David,

Ciggy, are you advocating arresting and detaining those opposed to the war in Iraq?

I was referring to Communist activities in America during the Cold War, back when the Soviet threat was ever-present. And even there I wasn’t advocating arresting protesters, but rather to offer them the same social scorn that any Nazi sympathizers might have gotten during WWII.

With the Iraq war, I myself disagree with keeping conventional forces there. If someone protests against their presence I kind of nod and say “you probably don’t know WHY you’re right, but you’re right nonetheless.”

SB,

Are you equating the very Illegal acts of US Cocaine trafficking and arms sales by a faction of our government, illegally mind you, as being tantamount to not supporting our nation in times of genuine world crisis?

I’m saying Communism during the Cold War, WAS a world crisis.

The leftist creeps protesting at the time didn’t care about cocaine or guns. All they knew is that anything the U.S. did was bad, and anything the USSR or Cuba did was “liberating” in that hemisphere. Hell, if cocaine and guns fueled the Sandinistas (which they did) that was a GOOD thing in subhuman Berkely circles.

we did NOT Need to supply tons of Cocaine to the United States

It was going to be supplied no matter what. The CIA decision, while I disagree with its wisdom, was not adding to the flow of cocaine into the U.S. at the time, but merely tapping it for clandestine funding.

When my Special Ops unit was told we were going to be going on missions pertaining to the Drug War, I joked, “what are we going to do, arrest the CIA?” That got a few laughs among my enlisted peers, but the leadership didn’t see the humor in it.

What a group of five to twenty liberals disapproved of our CIA trafficking blow that is somehow on the same equatious level as not supporting(via armbadge)our own survival as a democracy on planet earth.

OH get over yourself already. That element at that point in time would have disapproved of U.S. troops helping old ladies across the street and you know it. U.S. bad, U.S.S.R. good. And it WAS a game of survival, even if it didn’t look like one from the comfort of your Nicaraguan Solidarity coffee klatch at the time.

Your professors didn’t tell you about the Gulag Archipelago, now, did they? Of course they didn’t. You’d have thrown a few less molotov cocktails had you known about that.

That is, unless you were only in it to pick up on women who wouldn’t shave their pits?

Dale, briefings to the heads of the Congressional Intelligence Committees was what I was referring to mostly in regard to Congressional oversight.

I would add though, that the practice of allocating funds to the intel agencies and military which are secret from the the Congressional Intelligence agencies is huge mistake with disastrous results waiting to happen. That is the other part of Congressional oversight I was referring to. Congress by the Constitution has control of the purse strings, and as our representatives, they should not be abdicating accountability for our tax dollar spending in deference to the Executive Branch’s desire for secrecy.

Ciggy, thanks for the explanation. I agree. 1st Amendment protects the process of social castigation of those who oppose the will of the majority expressed through a democratic government. Doesn’t guarantee the majority or the government will be right, but, it is the best assurance that can be obtained in a democracy.

As for your view on the anti-war protesters and civil rights activists of the 60’s and 70’s, I can only say we have very different perspectives. I was one of those who opposed the war in Viet Nam, even though I enlisted. While I did not get shipped to Nam in 72-75, things were winding down, the sentiment among a very large number of the enlisted at Ft. Sam Houston, also disagreed with the war. Prior to enlisting, I was into the whole psychedelic, yoga, TM, peace, love trip on and around Wayne State University in Detroit.

The folks I interacted with at the time, were some of the most well read, and well reasoned folks I had come across. They were experimenting with different ideas, philosophies, and relationships between citizens and governments, and citizens and societies in response not only to the war in Nam, but, to the lynchings and bombings of negroes this land and the abject poverty so very, very many were forced into by lack of education, lack of decent wages, and lack of respect by their own society.

There were some really far-out ideas at the time and some very radical ones espoused by the likes of the SDS and Charlie Manson. But SDS and Manson were by no means spokespersons for the majority of those opposed to the war, nor working or praying for an end to the discrimination in our land. They had a vested interest in seeing the war come to an end, and many of their straight white shirt and tie middle class parents ended up agreeing with them.

I think your view of the flower children or hippy sub-culture fails to take historical context into account and recognize what gains were made by those folks that we still enjoy today.

Civil rights are all well and good, and the Green side of me applauds the efforts of those people who went before me and secured those rights for African Americans, women, et al.

The Hawk side of me is actually what would have objected to the Vietnam war, the same side that objects to the Iraq war: it’s not being fought correctly, therefore victory isn’t possible. And if victory isn’t possible, pullout is the only option. For now.

That Hawk side of me also takes a dim view of people who knee-jerk toward thinking our country is always wrong, all the time, or that capitulation to people intent on murdering us is the way to go simply because they THINK that’s what Gandhi would have wanted. I spit on all of that. I’m for a vigorous offense, toward those who would slaughter us given half a chance, because that IS the best defense.

Improve domestic conditions: yes.
Hand domestic conditions over to those who hate us: No.

That is my position. If neither mainstream party can meet those two very simple conditions in November, I’ll vote anything but either of those two.

Ciggy,

In all fairness, the CIA was helping them grow it and then shipping it to the US for sale, those monies were then going into clandestine spy ring operations. So some of it you have correct.

But the CIA is also a front for the military industrial complex so at the same time we were also selling weapons massively abroad(still do-laundered black budget) and many of those weapons were going into the hands of rebels that were OUTSIDE of what would have been considered anti-communist freedom fighters. THAT IS WHAT THEY WERE PROTESTING.

It’s senseless murder for profit. And I do know people who served in Panama in late 89 and YES we were loading up C-130’s full of Panamanian blow to be sent to the US and tons and tons of it from fields that we, let’s say, “sponsored” to give it finnesse. That money went into what was called the “FUND” to procure a world spyring supposedly(although I think that’s cock and bull spending too-inexact bookwork). IE to pay spies, supposedly.

Who we were arming down there were any group that had Coca trafficking dollars to spare and it was a horrible bloody mess. Some were anti-communism but others were not they just had cash to spend.

Oh and Ciggy,

If you think that the Iraq war wasn’t concocted and set in place to cover up Afghan heroine trafficking, you’re wrong. We are still in the business.

Take a look at the Iraq “nation-building” going on with all of it’s glitz and shock & awe. Tantalizing little details to keep Americans out of seeing what is actually going on in Afghanistan. Abu Ghraib,Beheadings,Zarqawi, nightly and daily terror manufactured to keep our eyes off of Afghanistan.

Where did Afghanistan go?

Did you know that many of the people we have out at Guantanamo are people pulled off of the street by Afghani warlords and thugs, paid a price by the head? there are numerous reports that some of those men couldn’t have been terrorists. From released persons there are depositions claiming that one person they have in custody is actually deaf and another mentally retarded and even several kids. Guess what? We are back in the drugs business again Ciggy.

We created the Iraq war as a cover.

Think about it Ciggy…We sent the Afghani rebels up into the mountains to find Osama and supoposedly capture him. We have the entire Us army and airforce right there at the ready but we send rag-tag bands of men with no reconn or surveilance to go get enemy number one.

Nothing smells bull-shitty about that to you? We have a billion dollars of surveilance and armament technology at the ready but we send a band of rebel idiots with sand corroded kalashnikovs to go get Osama? And then he supposedly escapes out the back door—whoops! That’s B.S.!

There’s always something new with Iraq to cover the goings-on in Afghanistan.

David Berg let a conspirator of the 9-11 tragedy use his laptop—what are the chances Ciggy?

WE are back in drug-trafficking again and Iraq is the diversion.

Ciggy, you make excellent points from your Green Hawk pov. (Neat handle btw.) I agree that when a nation is targeted for death and destruction, overwhelming offense to secure an end to such attempts appears on its face to be the appropriate response.

But, with overwhelming force in response certain responsibilities attach. First and utmost is insuring that the targets of overwhelming force are the right targets.

Second, and this is very important to me, winning must in fact constitute a net gain in security and freedom from hostilities. Otherwise it is winning in name only.

President Bush started off his offensive so well, before turning into something so wrong. He conditioned the rest of the world with his (and Blair’s) point that the attacks of 9/11 were attacks on all freedom loving nations. He rallied the international community to support and not hinder our invasion of Afghanistan to dismantle the Taliban as sponsors of the terrorism responsible for 9/11. He marginalized dissenters as not credible. It was brilliantly handled.

Then of course, prior to eliminating the al-Queda in Afghanistan, he set his sights on Iraq. It was the wrong country, at the wrong time, and justified by unsupportable reasons. It does not matter now that we took out Saddam and his armies so efficiently and effectively. We can’t win in Iraq because we have lost that massive faith and support of the international community which was absolutely essential to fighting terrorism around the globe. We have lost the war in Iraq because we have turned Iraq into a rallying location for hosts of brand new enemies created by the decision to invade Iraq without international support.

Now, we are viewed as a rogue nation by 100’s of millions of people in the world and that creates a potential resource for our enemies to tap into. I don’t think Bush is the man to carry out this pursuit and demise of the sources and resources of terrorism. That job, if it has a chance must now be accomplished by another President. Maybe Kerry, maybe another Republican or third party canidate in 2008. But another President who can regain the faith and support of the international community to aid and abet our cause instead of drag their feet and act reluctantly regarding Bush’s secret and hidden motives and agendas - whether he as them or not.

SB:

Based on the “theories” that you espouse, seems to me you might have been partaking in a bit too much Panamanian blow, or perhaps indulging in the Afghan poppy festival.

There is a reason why the US sent Afghans in to capture Bin Laden. You may disagree with it or agree with it, but it is a logical and correct reason. It did not work….but only those who are hindsighted fools look simply to the outcome of an action to determine its logic.

The reason is comprised of several issues:
1) The region of Aghanistan is hard and brutal country, and if you know nothing about it, you will flail around aimlessly. First hand knowledge is important.
2) The locals would be more likely to help Afghans rather than Americans.
3) Politically, the US did not want US casualties, since we all know what the press would do with that statistic. So you minimize US casualties by using ally troops.

Had the US used its own troops and suffered casualties, you would be here bleating about how stupid it was for us to use our own soldiers when we had knowledgable local people to send in. It is this kind of doltish simpleton thinking that seems to come out of the far left’s mouth.

Ever notice how the Right’s main arguments these days seem to include the sentiment: “If we had done x instead of y, you would be complaining anyway…” This sentiment is used as a tool to shut down real debate over a subject time and time again, since obviously the partisan Dems (and other non-republicans) opposing certain conservative actions are simply anti-republican, even anti-american, and would never be satisfied by anything the republicans or America as a whole does.

Frankly I’m rather sick of hearing the republican’s ideas of what other people would or would not have done if the republicans had done things differently. Unless they have some sort of time machine with the capacity to go back, change their actions, and actually see the other side’s response to the alternate circumstances, all they are doing is creating a straw man to attack and avoiding their opponents real positions and attitudes entirely.

Joe’s post, above, for example includes the straw man argument that we are so partisan that if soldiers had been lost actually capturing or killing the perpetrator of 9/11, we would have complained about it. The capturing or killing of Osama bin Laden had universal support, even international support, there is no basis for a statement that we would have reacted badly to casualties… we expected them. And frankly, if it took US Casualties to get that particular job done we would have paid that price gladly. Just because people were against the Iraq war does not make them against war and casualties in all cases.

Further, the points Joe makes in support of the use of locals don’t really make much sense:
1) The badland argument: you’re telling me that US Soldiers equipped with maps, compasses, GPS devices and other means of determining their position are completely incapable of navigating the wilds of Afghanistan?
2) The locals helping locals argument: at that point, what did we require local aid for, exactly? We supposedly knew the area where Osama bin Laden had holed up, shouldn’t that have been the end of intelligence gathering? To use a law-enforcement analogy, have you ever seen a handful of local snitch’s get sent in to do the job of a SWAT team, just because they’re more likely to get support from the people on the streets?
3) the US casualties argument: first, I don’t think anyone in the US expected to capture Osama bin Laden without any US casualties. Second, to reduce US casualties at the expense of ultimately losing the objective of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden is a ludicrous trade and an even worse move politically.

I’m sorry for directing the majority of this at you, Joe, but I’ve been seeing this attitude a lot lately (it’s actually been discouraging me from posting replies in several cases) and your post was unfortunately the straw that broke the camel’s back for me… I hope you understand why it’s something that has been bothering me, and I hope that more of the discussion on this blog can return to being about discussing/debating the message rather than criticizing the messengers and stereotyping them as doltish simpletons, among other things.

Politically, the US did not want US casualties, since we all know what the press would do with that statistic.

Make them heros? joe, bin Laden attacked our country. Your president and your party don’t seem to be in any hurry to make him pay for it. What the Hell’s up with that?

SB,

many of those weapons were going into the hands of rebels that were OUTSIDE of what would have been considered anti-communist freedom fighters. THAT IS WHAT THEY WERE PROTESTING.

Not according to their picket signs.

To also be fair and give Republicans the scolding they’re due (which I sometimes forget to the point where I look like a right-winger), based on what I know and what I’ve seen, I think Clinton was handed the Oval Office as a reward for his silence on what HE knew. I also think the “Clinton body count” that was being tallied up by radical Republicans at the time, was discouraged by Republican leaders, primarily because if people dug deep enough into the Mena connection, they’ll see that it goes well beyond just Clinton himself. It would go to people the Republicans don’t want it to go to.

But I still stand by what I said about how the CIA’s efforts did not, in the long range scheme of things, originate the drug problem or make it worse than it already was. They capitalized on it and seized control over some corners of it to fund black operations, but whenever you have demand, if it isn’t supplied by a CIA cell, it’ll be supplied by somebody else. My cynicism during my tenure in such things as the Andean initiative was my understanding that what we were primarily doing was knocking out the CIA’s competition. Had I not also known what the CIA’s long-range goals were, and also not known that attempts to knock out such competition were NOT working, I would have been 1000% more jaded than I already am. CIA did not hold the hands of people in Studio 54 and tell them to snort their cocaine. And probably more than any of us understand today, about the fall of the Soviet Union, was a result of what was done with the money. I don’t know everything about it, but I know enough to extrapolate.

If you think that the Iraq war wasn’t concocted and set in place to cover up Afghan heroine trafficking, you’re wrong. We are still in the business.

The erstwhile Northern Alliance (now the Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western Alliance) is in the heroine business. Looking the other way at the trafficking has been their reward for not siding with the Taliban. You could see some loyalties switch pretty quickly if we start to clamp down on it, though. Just like Bin Laden himself when the aid to fight the Russians got overpowered by the offense he took at U.S. troops being on Saudi soil.

Friends aren’t guaranteed to stay friends for life. That’s one of the many things that leads Michael Moore into miscalculations on his sketchy repertoire of “facts”.

Where did Afghanistan go?

It’s still there. You should visit sometime.

Did you know that many of the people we have out at Guantanamo are people pulled off of the street by Afghani warlords and thugs, paid a price by the head?

A certain amount of those are bound to be grudge matches between rival warlords, but if you have two Afghans, each saying the other is Al Qaeda, sooner or later you need a CIA referee to determine which one is telling the truth.

What I like the best is the new rumor put out by the Saudi Royal government that Al Qaeda is a “Zionist” plot, and that Bin Laden is a puppet of the Jews to make Islam look bad. Pretty clever propaganda there, and it reconciles AlQ atrocities with what ordinary Muslims believe in their system of ethics. It’ll at least keep Bandar’s head above water there for a while.

We created the Iraq war as a cover.

That the Iraq war was preplanned is established fact. According to PNAC documents, prior to 9/11/01, the rationale for going there was to gain “strategic depth” and to gain Iraq as a base of operations that would be less offensive as a western presence than Saudi Arabia. Obviously PNAC miscalculated because Iraq is not in any way unoffensive as an American presence. PNACers are the blind leading the Jethro Bodine, and it’s stupidity multiplied by stupidity in national strategic objectives-building. To assign it some great diabolical “conspiracy” as you Moorean true believers do, offers the present administration too much cerebral credit. This is a comedy of errors, not a horror of bad intent.

We have the entire Us army and airforce right there at the ready but we send rag-tag bands of men with no reconn or surveilance to go get enemy number one. Nothing smells bull-shitty about that to you?

It smells incompetent to me. I’d be the first to say there is more than a bit of that grazing in the DoD pastures.

Have you ever asked yourself why, when we have the technology to implement robotic bomb-sniffers and tire shredders, we still have to have low-tech checkpoints in Iraq that put soldiers unnecessarily in harm’s way every time they stop a car? I’ll tell you why. Idiots who think they’re geniuses, sporting stars and birds. With that as a premise, any misjudgment in Afghanistan becomes not only plausible, but likely—even down to the friendly fire incident that killed that football player, whose name escapes me at the moment.

David Berg let a conspirator of the 9-11 tragedy use his laptop—what are the chances Ciggy?

He was a very, very, naive and trusting person. This is consistent with his wandering around Iraq as a Jew and expecting not to be messed with by the locals. In a way he’s symbolic of many Europeans who think that if we offer them group hugs, the terrorists will put away the car bombs.

WE are back in drug-trafficking again and Iraq is the diversion.

Diversions can come much cheaper than Iraq. I think Iraq was bad planning by PNAC to extend American influence into the middle east, in a way they thought would work, but didn’t. Internally, Republicans should probably make some think tank heads roll for failing to think. It’s likely to cost them the election in November.

David,

But, with overwhelming force in response certain responsibilities attach. First and utmost is insuring that the targets of overwhelming force are the right targets.

Target discrimination is a weakness of conventional forces, which is less weak in Special Operations. Not just from the standpoint of having better-trained snipers, but also in scouring the intel beforehand and making sure it “smells right”. The Black Sea Market battle in Mogadishu was a great example of the bunglings that can take place when the intel isn’t questioned, and the reservations of the experienced operators aren’t taken seriously. That’s a leadership challenge, but when that challenge is properly met, you get huge success in the accuracy and low-intensity effect of such operations.

He rallied the international community to support and not hinder our invasion of Afghanistan to dismantle the Taliban as sponsors of the terrorism responsible for 9/11. He marginalized dissenters as not credible. It was brilliantly handled.

A two year-old could brilliantly handle it though. Jethro Bodine had brilliant handling handed to him on a pretzel platter, in that situation. All he had to do was not choke on it, and he didn’t. Bully for him.

We can’t win in Iraq because we have lost that massive faith and support of the international community which was absolutely essential to fighting terrorism around the globe.

Faith and support from external parties isn’t what wins wars. The faith and support of people in both Iraq and America were lost, mainly because the incompetence of Jethro Bodine’s officers became transparent to all. Killing innocents at checkpoints: incompetence. GETTING killed by the GUILTY at checkpoints: incompetence. Excessive collateral damage by the infantry: incompetence. Infantry not supported by air power: incompetence. Abu Ghraib: incompetence. Non-lethal technology not being used to dissuade rebels from the use of mosques as safe zones: incompetence. Psyops badly handled: incompetence. No apparent transition plan for after the major conventional hostilities of the war: SENIOR incompetence (at at least a Rumsfeld level if not Jethro Bodine himself).

The average soldier there is doing the best he can given the training he’s been given and the orders he’s been given, but the providers of the training and the orders have been a silly circus of losers.

For this reason, I say there should be an immediate “total recall” of troops back to the U.S., for intensive analysis from all of their points of view, as to what went wrong, what went right, and where ALL the opportunities are, to improve. The likely result of that analysis is that EVEN IF there is what seems to be a good reason for invading a country, doing such an invasion is likely not to be the smart thing to do anyway.

Getting back to Sun Tzu: first attack the enemy’s strategy; then attack their alliances; then attack their army. If all you have left to attack are their cities, you probably aren’t doing enough other things right to make a full scale invasion successful anyway.

In the wider war on terrorism, it should not be thought of as a conventional military mission to take down Al Qaeda. It should only get involved if you have entire nation-states that put the full weight of their military toward the protection and harboring of Al Qaeda. And even then, the Sun Tzu steps should be followed before any actual “invasion” takes place.

I don’t think Bush is the man to carry out this pursuit and demise of the sources and resources of terrorism.

I think neither Bush nor Kerry are the man to do it. For that reason, I think we are doomed, and I want no part in it, and no blame for having voted for the idiot who leads us into the next round of disasters. You see, Kerry will be hamstrung and hand-wringing and begging the U.N. for permission to feed the soldiers dinner at the chow hall. That works even less than a reckless abandon toward invading countries that have nothing to do with the primary danger to our national security (which itself is pretty bad).

Jarin,

Ever notice how the Right’s main arguments these days seem to include the sentiment: “If we had done x instead of y, you would be complaining anyway…”

That complaint on the part of the right is actually true. Had Bush invaded Afghanistan prior to 9/11, the sound and the fury from the left would have been even worse than it is now about an Iraq which “oops” didn’t have the WMDs the administration thought they had.

But that’s the left’s job—to nip at the heels of the Republicans and hold them accountable for their mistakes and excesses. This time around they’ll probably win an election out of it.

Joe’s post, above, for example includes the straw man argument that we are so partisan that if soldiers had been lost actually capturing or killing the perpetrator of 9/11, we would have complained about it.

The full sampling of the left’s treatment of the 900 to 1000 KIAs in Iraq right now are a good indicator of how similar expense in action would have been treated in Afghanistan. I think you’re being more than a bit disingenuous here. Moore cried us a river for every drop of American blood lost in Iraq, as if the loss of that blood itself were a reason not to fight the war. It is a raison d’etre of leftist tactics that under a GOP administration, every drop of military blood is sacred, and under a Democrat administration, it’s as expendable as water (e.g., 6,000 lives taking one hill at Iwo Jima).

I’m not saying it’s a tactic that shouldn’t be taken, because the end result only improves the way the military is managed, but to lie about it is rather foolish on the left’s part.

The capturing or killing of Osama bin Laden had universal support, even international support

But not Ted Kennedy’s support, and not the support of the hardest of the hard core of the left. They weren’t smart enough to chant “no blood for opium”, but they still protested that war is always bad no matter what. And Ted Kennedy’s current association with Kerry is another very spooky thing for me—even if it weren’t for Moore and Soros backing him, Kennedy’s ugly round head standing behind Kerry makes a big part of me squeal “MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE!”

But back to the issue you two were arguing about: whether to use Northern Alliance troops, or not, in the effort to find Bin Laden. I think a great deal of symbolic missions with PERCEIVED importance, should always be given to local forces. It’s a morale-booster for the local forces, keeps them on your side, and makes them feel like they’re a vital part of your team—which they are. With that being said, it still doesn’t mean U.S. technology and support has to be absent. Bad terrain can be defeated by GPS. Bad weather, by infrared readings. Bad intelligence feeds, by satellite imagery to verify. There is never any excuse for U.S. assets to be fully absent from a mission even if the local allies comprise the bulk of the “boots on the ground”. So in this sense, the left is 75% right. You don’t elbow the locals out of the way, but you don’t leave them to their own devices, either.

AP,

joe, bin Laden attacked our country. Your president and your party don’t seem to be in any hurry to make him pay for it. What the Hell’s up with that?

I think there is no lack of “hurry”, but plenty of lack of competent leadership. It’s Inspector Clouseau trying to find the Pink Panther, all over again. And the left is acting like Inspector Dreyfuss, nervous ticks, fits of rage, and all. ;)

Ciggy:

Ever notice how the Right’s main arguments these days seem to include the sentiment: “If we had done x instead of y, you would be complaining anyway…”

That complaint on the part of the right is actually true. Had Bush invaded Afghanistan prior to 9/11, the sound and the fury from the left would have been even worse than it is now about an Iraq which “oops” didn’t have the WMDs the administration thought they had.

Undoubtedly. Of course, since nobody on either the left or the right had any real intentions of invading Afghanistan prior to 9/11, isn’t this a moot point? The discussion has been about how the left would have reacted to finishing the job in Afghanistan properly (and capturing bin Laden) after 9/11 if the Republican administration had kept the focus on that task rather than on invading Iraq. Since this is something that was, clearly, an option and which the left was calling for at that time I do not see how it can in any way be compared to a situation where the scenario you propose was never an option and hardly anyone on either side of the political divide was calling for it.

But that’s the left’s job—to nip at the heels of the Republicans and hold them accountable for their mistakes and excesses. This time around they’ll probably win an election out of it.

I’d think the left and right have the same job, actually. To make America a better place. They just have different ideas on how to do so. Describing the job of the left as nipping at the heels of the republicans is demeaning and inaccurate.

Joe’s post, above, for example includes the straw man argument that we are so partisan that if soldiers had been lost actually capturing or killing the perpetrator of 9/11, we would have complained about it.

The full sampling of the left’s treatment of the 900 to 1000 KIAs in Iraq right now are a good indicator of how similar expense in action would have been treated in Afghanistan. I think you’re being more than a bit disingenuous here. Moore cried us a river for every drop of American blood lost in Iraq, as if the loss of that blood itself were a reason not to fight the war. It is a raison d’etre of leftist tactics that under a GOP administration, every drop of military blood is sacred, and under a Democrat administration, it’s as expendable as water (e.g., 6,000 lives taking one hill at Iwo Jima).

You seem to be missing a key point here: losses in Iraq and losses in Afghanistan would have been reacted to quite differently for one main reason. That reason is that the war in Afghanistan was universally viewed as justified while the war in Iraq was viewed as questionable, a view that only increased as the administrations justifications for going to war fell apart under public scrutiny. For this reason, deaths in afghanistan would have been seen as regrettable but necessary, while we continue to view the deaths in iraq as a wasteful use of human lives, sacrificed under false pretenses.

I’m not saying it’s a tactic that shouldn’t be taken, because the end result only improves the way the military is managed, but to lie about it is rather foolish on the left’s part.

I don’t think the left is lying about its position, I just think that the right fails to appreciate that there are very different contexts surrounding Afghanistan and Iraq. Or, as they would prefer to phrase it, our views on the subjects are nuanced.

The capturing or killing of Osama bin Laden had universal support, even international support

But not Ted Kennedy’s support, and not the support of the hardest of the hard core of the left. They weren’t smart enough to chant “no blood for opium”, but they still protested that war is always bad no matter what. And Ted Kennedy’s current association with Kerry is another very spooky thing for me—even if it weren’t for Moore and Soros backing him, Kennedy’s ugly round head standing behind Kerry makes a big part of me squeal “MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE!”

…. riiight. I don’t even know how to begin to respond to a comparison between Kennedy’s open support of Kerry and a fictional plotline wherein a presidential candidate is actually the brainwashed sleeper-agent of a hostile foreign power.

But back to the issue you two were arguing about: whether to use Northern Alliance troops, or not, in the effort to find Bin Laden. I think a great deal of symbolic missions with PERCEIVED importance, should always be given to local forces. It’s a morale-booster for the local forces, keeps them on your side, and makes them feel like they’re a vital part of your team—which they are. With that being said, it still doesn’t mean U.S. technology and support has to be absent. Bad terrain can be defeated by GPS. Bad weather, by infrared readings. Bad intelligence feeds, by satellite imagery to verify. There is never any excuse for U.S. assets to be fully absent from a mission even if the local allies comprise the bulk of the “boots on the ground”. So in this sense, the left is 75% right. You don’t elbow the locals out of the way, but you don’t leave them to their own devices, either.

I have no problem with locals being given missions of symbolic importance… but I do think there is a point where the real importance of a mission means that we need to dedicate actual US troops, trained far better than any of their locals could be, to the objective even if it does mean elbowing the locals out of the way. The capture or death of Osama bin Laden would rise to that level of importance, in my mind.

Ciggy said “Target discrimination is a weakness of conventional forces”

Agreed!

“A two year-old could brilliantly handle it though.”

Got to give Bush credit where credit is due, nonetheless if objectivity is desired.

“In the wider war on terrorism, it should not be thought of as a conventional military mission to take down Al Qaeda. It should only get involved if you have entire nation-states that put the full weight of their military toward the protection and harboring of Al Qaeda.”

I couldn’t agree with you more. And this will be a huge selling point for the Dem’s and Nader as they hammer home Bush’s inability to distinguish al-Queda from Iraq making it appear as if another 4 years of Bush will lead to even other war fronts with nations based on Bush’s inability to tell the difference. Americans are now acutely aware that we barely have enough military resources to fight two fronts, let alone a third or fourth.

Jarin:

I understand your frustration—please allow me to explain mine. Let me use the economy as an example of what frustrates me about the “left”.

The left blamed Bush for the recession, even though economists understand the downturn began late in Clinton’s presidency. Bush reacted by pushing through a tax cut (lets not get into whether its good or bad etc, though its safe to say the economy has improved since the cuts went through—whether they are the cause or not).

The Dems said the economy was not improving….but it did. So they then went to the argument that it was a jobless economy….but 10 straight months of job growth shut that track down. Then it was the complaint that the jobs are not good jobs. FactCheck.org does a good job of dispelling that argument. Now they are talking about the dangers of inflation.

This is the example of finding the cloud in every silver lining.

The other issue is that Dems are putting Bush, in my opinion, in a no-win situation. They cry out that we need better information, yet protest against the use of policies that will gather better information. They cry out that the FBI and CIA should communicate better, but they were in the lead in creating the “wall” between them.

I truly feel its a strategy of the Dems to do this. They get fringes to argue each side of a point so that whichever way Bush turns, they can sic someone on him.

Jbod, you neatly circumvented the fact that the recovery was built upon borrowing that will insure another recession in less than 5 years due to inflationary pressures, a diving demand for U.S. treasuries and thus briskly rising interest rates, resulting from an unimagineable debt load of 10 Trillion dollars. And this does not take into account rising bankruptcies, larger numbers of uninsured, and lowered real wages.

You are right, the left cried it wasn’t coming, then it wasn’t coming fast enough, and now that the cost of it is unbelievable and unrecoverable via growing the economy. But, those statements were all correct in the time they were made. Now we are loading up on debt for decades into the future just to keep our spending spree going for another year or two.

Sorry, Ben Frankilin is rolling in his grave! And that is a big grave!

Ciggy the Greenhawk,

The Iraq War was already on the conservative’s plate before 2000, the RNC/PNAC’s honey-do list. This is something the Republicans have wanted for years.

You are correct, It is not an inexpensive diversion, I understand but was already on the slate when GW went into office. this was going to be done anyway.

Now I do believe Iraq is being used as a diversion to heroine trafficking in Afghanistan. It is a Nation building effort with lots of little stories and events to swamp the headlines while Afghanistan is made of secondary importance. And as of now little is known of what is happening on the ground or with our troops in Afghanistan.

You made a damn good point about the roadblocks, excellent point actually. It is probably in some places being allowed to happen to some extent, negligence is a convenient excuse. But mind you as well there are alot of avenues that terrorists can get through to commit these acts. But your point supports mine to some extent, why are we not utilizing our most advanced technologies to guard roads in and out. Perhaps it’s a poor and negligible application(which serves as an excuse), or perhaps it’s not being optimized for other reasons.

If there is no terror we have less power or reason to dictate our doctrines to them. Terrorism is a source of power for the US and works to our advantage to a good extent, sad as that sounds.

But David Berg coincidentally having a ring leader of the 9-11 tragedy coincidentally use his laptop, is just too much of a coincidence to buy wholesale. The mathematics involved in that probability are just staggering. Out of all the millions and millions who visit airports on an annual basis and thousands daily, Berg happens to run into a ring leader of the 9-11 attacks(?), and on top of that let’s him use his laptop? Who let’s anyone use their laptop, would you at an airport let someone you don’t even know use your laptop? or see or peruse your files? This is quite fishy, who does this? THis person(Berg) is what is called an “asset” and probably Israeli Mossad informant or double. Mossad had quite a bit to do with 9-11, there are many numerous connections.

There is no Zarqawi, that was CIA or Mossad, no doubt in my mind. He had probably turned coat on Israeli intelligence and they took care of things, “By way of deception” so to speak.

There’s also evidence that Israeli’s(possibly soldeirs of fortune contracts) were at Abu Ghraib serving as guards there through subcontracts. I don’t buy into the “Zionism” junk, but there are many nefarious Israeli links to many things and “Berg” is one of them.

This is a big topic Ciggy, but good points.

Jarin,

The discussion has been about how the left would have reacted to finishing the job in Afghanistan properly (and capturing bin Laden) after 9/11 if the Republican administration had kept the focus on that task rather than on invading Iraq.

Further clarification is needed on this, because if you mean to say that the only place in the world we should be allowed to fight terrorists is Afghanistan, and that, because that is the only place the so-called “international community” (a code word for France and Germany, mainly) will allow us to do so, then I would not be on-board for that sort of a national security policy.

My objection to invading Iraq is not fundamentally different from yours, but I think we may be approaching the objection from different angles. I was concerned with the resource management issue, mostly; and also with the hasty move on shaky intelligence; and perhaps most importantly, taking into account the reasons George Bush SENIOR gave for NOT doing so. GHWB’s inaction toward Saddam generated left-wing sniping and bleating about “not finishing the job”, but you know what? He IS vindicated NOW, is he not? Terrible person that Saddam may have been, he was a stabilizing factor in the region so long as we could be certain he wasn’t proliferating WMDs to terrorists (and presumably Hans Blix wasn’t lying to us about his inability to do that, right?)

What I don’t object to is not submitting to every whim venting our way from European leaders. If your candidate intends to ask “mother may I” overmuch of Europe for every military action, it’s bound to cause systemic flaws and operational inefficiencies, which will cost far more lives than a mere thousand here or there.

“Monsieur Chirac, we humbly request your permission to go rescue a downed pilot who is being held by Iranian border guards…”

“I’ll seeeeeenk about eeeeet and get back to you…”

Describing the job of the left as nipping at the heels of the republicans is demeaning and inaccurate.

It’s ironic and humorous to see the party of Michael Moore complain about demeaning characterizations and inaccuracy.

For this reason, deaths in afghanistan would have been seen as regrettable but necessary, while we continue to view the deaths in iraq as a wasteful use of human lives, sacrificed under false pretenses.

That’s not how your idea czar, Mr. Moore, presented it in Farenhype 9/11. The focus and attention he gave to the loss of life for its own sake made the implicit plea that any war in which lives are lost, is unjust. There was no narration to state, or to qualify, “had these lives been lost on the shores of Florida to defend against an invasion of Jihad infantry launched by Syria, all of this would have been justified…”

Live by sloppy presentation, live with the critique of said slop.

I just think that the right fails to appreciate that there are very different contexts surrounding Afghanistan and Iraq.

The danger of the leftward position on all of this is that no action may be taken if it is not authorized by the “international community” (to be defined by the biggest bullies of the EU as they cow the other member nations into submission to their will).

The danger of the rightward position is that no matter what Jethro Bodine decides needs an invasion, go ahead and launch and get behind it and don’t question it.

I think a good sane median approach would be to have tighter Congressional oversight (as suggested by David) so that there is more of a flavor of the operation being in tune with the will of the AMERICAN people, but not to go to the extent of prohibiting all activity of which Europeans, by whim, might not approve. Coordinate with Europe when possible and practical, certainly, but let’s not be as submissive as the left demands.

I do think there is a point where the real importance of a mission means that we need to dedicate actual US troops, trained far better than any of their locals could be, to the objective even if it does mean elbowing the locals out of the way. The capture or death of Osama bin Laden would rise to that level of importance, in my mind.

Neither extreme of approach is necessary. Local troops can easily be involved to an extent to make them feel important, and also to an extent where their local knowledge of culture, language, who’s who in the zoo, etc., can also be leveraged. And the technical, training, and logistical advantages of U.S. power can also supplement the mission. This may or may not involve U.S. boots on the ground, but that should be up to local commanders, I think.

David,

this will be a huge selling point for the Dem’s and Nader as they hammer home Bush’s inability to distinguish al-Queda from Iraq making it appear as if another 4 years of Bush will lead to even other war fronts with nations based on Bush’s inability to tell the difference

Bushian incompetance could be mitigated by a more able replacement for Rumsfeld. Kerrian wrong-headedness on seeking Europe’s permission to do everything under the sun could never be mitigated, no matter what the acumen of the advisors.

The hawk in me still leans rightward, albeit while holding the nostrils and demanding major shakeups in the military leadership.

Americans are now acutely aware that we barely have enough military resources to fight two fronts, let alone a third or fourth.

I supplied numbers to Generals during the Clinton administration to support a complaint that at that time we were too stretched to even properly execute a single MRC, let alone two. The reply back was that we were to rely more on Reserve forces, and that in future operations there would be less recourse to conventional military power (which is exceedingly expensive for the little it tends to accomplish, compared to Special Operations which has enormously higher “bang for buck” ratios).

I agree with the position that had been staked out by Clinton’s military advisors, that the direction should increasingly be that of Reserve forces to supply conventional manpower, but to only supply that manpower when absolutely necessary (and authorized by the U.S. Congress), and to increase the operational tempo (and funding, manpower, etc.) of Special Operations.

SB,

Now I do believe Iraq is being used as a diversion to heroine trafficking in Afghanistan.

Do you want the tragedies and b.s. of the South American drug war replicated in Afghanistan? Is that what you want? I could talk your ear blue on reasons why not to launch such a war. I may be a hawk, but I’m not a PNACer to advocate diving into quagmires at the drop of a hat.

But your point supports mine to some extent, why are we not utilizing our most advanced technologies to guard roads in and out

I think that point is shared by both of us. You’d think a full bird Colonel would pull his head out of his ass long enough to pipe up to General Franks about it, and that General Franks would make the request of Mr. Gin Rummy to get the resources moving to support the smarter approach to roadblocks. But then, if Mr. Gin Rummy were 1% as good as Republicans say he is, he’d have thought about that before day one of the invasion, because by then he’d have been thinking about the wider issues of an occupation plan. Sure, he had a lot on his plate, but when you’re that high up, you order up more plates, and get a good whip-smart advisor working on it.

Much of what I understand about the ongoing conventional war which shouldn’t be conventional, in Iraq, I get from military blogs written by the soldiers themselves, by the way.

This is a good resource:

http://cbftw.blogspot.com/

I think this guy tells it like it is, without filtering anything through a left-wing or right-wing agenda filter.

It was interesting, for example, to learn of the success of the new Stryker vehicles, in protecting troops against IEDs (whereas Humvees would be ripped to shreds and found with G.I. hamburger inside after the dust clears).

Terrorism is a source of power for the US and works to our advantage to a good extent, sad as that sounds.

I think a way to say it that suits me better is, that hatred only hurts the hater. A good professional attitude of doing what needs to be done is always in order, but if you indulge in hatred (which I sometimes catch myself doing when thinking about the terrorists), you cripple your own ability to strategize.

Ironically, if Muslims who want change toward their vision of how their part of the world should be, had embarked on the sorts of non-violent campaigns espoused by our friend Adam, there would have been no way in hell the U.S. could do anything to stop it, and it’s likely we wouldn’t even want to. Particularly if there had been a pure-Gandhian approach to Israel, the U.S. would join the world in scolding Israel to be more equitable toward the Palestinians. But that was not to be: they resorted to violence, and forced the civilized world to defend itself. And with a good offense being the best defense, well, here we are today.

David Berg coincidentally having a ring leader of the 9-11 tragedy coincidentally use his laptop, is just too much of a coincidence to buy wholesale. The mathematics involved in that probability are just staggering. Out of all the millions and millions who visit airports on an annual basis and thousands daily, Berg happens to run into a ring leader of the 9-11 attacks(?),

Berg was on a bus with fellow students, and some of those students happened to be members (not ringleaders) of an organization aligned with AlQ. You want math and numbers? Go downtown. Go to the local university. Take classes in Islamic studies. Now go to the bus stop after class where, due to similar schedules, those middle eastern people will also be waiting. Now board the bus with them. Now, if ANYONE in the bus asks to use your computer, my hack at the math would give it more like a 60% chance that the individual asking would be a member of a group with untoward intentions regarding the American people.

Berg was a book-smart guy, but he didn’t quite have the common synapses to piece together those numbers.

Who let’s anyone use their laptop

A squishy, overly trusting liberal. I hear there is a demand that we let France and Germany use our proverbial national security “laptop”, with Michael Moore licking his chops at the destruction that would bring out, for us.

Mossad had quite a bit to do with 9-11, there are many numerous connections.

Well then you’ll have to send Jason Bourne after them. ;)

Seriously though, did Prince Bandar’s little urban legend sink that easily past your cognitive dissonance filters? I’m impressed.

There’s also evidence that Israeli’s(possibly soldeirs of fortune contracts) were at Abu Ghraib serving as guards there through subcontracts.

That is actually likely. I’m sure the contractor supplying interrogators and guards would not have discriminated by religion or national origin, so long as their background checks didn’t turn up red flags.

I don’t buy into the “Zionism” junk, but there are many nefarious Israeli links to many things and “Berg” is one of them.

It doesn’t smell right that Israeli intelligence would have whacked Berg, though. Berg’s a Jew who was not particularly critical of Israel at the time. Just wandering aimlessly in Iraq looking to “get their side of the story” is all. And he thought all Iraqis would be as non-anti-Jewish as we Americans are typically trained to be. ;)

To those who think Bush should not remain in office:

First of all, he is the only president since this nation has been formed that has been faced with the task that he is faced with. Americans have been attacked by terrorists since the 1970’s. The terrorists know who they can and cannot bully around.

I remember in 1979 when Tehran took 52 American hostages and held them for 444 days. Sure, we got them back without a war but do you know why?? It was the election year and Iran did not know what the new president Reagan would do. They had bullied Carter around for 444 days and they were afraid of Reagan.

Clinton did nothing for 8 long yrs and the attacks kept coming. The democrats did nothing about the 1995 car bomb that killed 5 Americans. The towers were first attacked in 1993 and Clinton did nothing and he knew it was Bin Laden and al-Queda. The USS Cole was attacked in 2000 and 17 US sailors were killed and Clinton did nothing. Bin Laden took all the credit for this attack too. Al-Queda tried to knock the towers down in 93 and finally in 2001 they knocked them down. It is a known fact the Democrats will not wage a war when our country is being attacked but they sure do jump out there and put us in a war when there is no threat to our national security!!

It was the Democrats that put us in the Vietnam war. Vietnam was not a threat to our nation. The Democrats started the draft and we lost many troops in a war we had no business being in. I myself was against sending so many troops and the draft. We lost more lives than anyone else.

The great president Reagan sent American bombers to Lybia when he found out they attacked American soldiers. If the great president Reagan would do this for a few soldiers, just think what his reaction would have been to 9/11??

I shudder to think what shape this country would be in if Gore had of won instead of Bush. We would have 10/11’s, 11/11’s and so on.

Bush went after Bin Laden and Al-Queda and broke up the evil Taliban rule and set the people free.

The he went after the next big terrorists..Saddam!
Saddam was a bigger terrorists than Bin Laden. Saddam owned his own country!

I think the American have forgotten what Bush said…if you harbor or support a terrorist..then you are a terrorist.You either stand with America or you are against us.

The democrats are fussing about Bush going against some of the UN. Well, we had support from other nations. It was 3 nations that stood up and spoke against us. Russia, Germany, and France. Do you know why?? They crawled into bed with Saddam and did a billion dollar business with this evil tyrant.

Now Kerry thinks we should always have the approval of the UN. I am glad George W. Bush did not allow France, Germany, and Russia treat him like a puppet on a string!

The American people better think twice before they vote against Bush. I for one do not want America to fall back into that “do nothing” mode.

People better find out what Franco-German is up to. They are part of the UN and I for one do not want Germany or France telling my country what to do.

thank you and have a great day

Venda,

First of all, he is the only president since this nation has been formed that has been faced with the task that he is faced with. Americans have been attacked by terrorists since the 1970’s.

That seems self-contradictory to me. If terrorists have been attacking us since the 1970s, it appears that foregoing presidents since that time have all faced what George W. Bush is facing, albeit in lesser degrees of intensity.

Jimmy Carter’s reaction was to send a Special Ops rescue mission to Iran, but to micromanage the flow of the mission to where experienced people couldn’t get a word in edgewise, and partly due to that micromanagement, the mission failed. He then promptly gave away the Panama Canal to show how bold he was.

Ronald Reagan negotiated and played ball with the terrorists, and in times when the terrorists could be diverted toward venting their depradations against the Soviets, actually armed and encouraged and financed them. That was a chapter out of Faust if ever there was one.

George H. W. Bush was a little more low-key than Reagan, and played the strategic game with more finesse, and played Kasparovian games of chess on the middle eastern chessboard, keeping terrorists largely at bay with some key phone calls to key people from time to time.

Bill Clinton had a focus on domestic terrorism that dealt not merely with Islamic militants but also right-wing Christian militias, who had their own little bit of 9/11 in Oklahoma City. If a foreign terrorist attacked a U.S. naval ship, that understandably was not as high of a priority to review as when some red-headed nutjob whacked a hundred some-odd federal employees in the heartland. And when the first WTC attack was foiled, it gave FBI a bit of overconfidence about their ability to foil such attacks, and the nature of the cells carrying them out. Clinton wanted to prevent Al Qaeda from getting nukes, but he didn’t have people watching too closely on what they could do with box-cutters.

The unique aspect, obviously, of George W Bush, is that he has 9/11 under his belt as a monumental learning experience from which his predecessors did not benefit. In a way he was blind and goofy about global terrorism, pre-9/11, but in another way, he was carrying on a long tradition of blindness and goofiness that started back with Jimmy Carter in dealing with Jihad types. We all, as Americans, were similarly blind and similarly goofy. We had no idea the capacity for planning and coordination that could be brought to bear on soft American targets like that.

Then along comes Iraq, and the administration makes a case for invasion, which after the culmination of the major hostilities, proves to be an comedy of errors in the intelligence world, both in the development of the intelligence, and in the way it was politically paraded around as “proof”. That was negligent, and given PNAC documents, it’s likely to have been cooked as an excuse for going in. If Bush gets defeated in November, it could hardly come as a surprise given the way the war was misplanned and mismanaged.

With that critique being said, I join you in a hope against hope that we will not become the sock puppet of France, Germany, and Russia. If people think we’re in a bad way when being led around by PNAC, they ain’t seen nothin’ yet compared to when they will see us led around by the wine-sipping clique over there.

Ciggy, where in the hell do you get this garbage from? Nothing Kerry has said even implies that his decisions will be made by European concensus. There is a huge difference between taking our allies views into account in making a decision and letting our allies veto our options. This is pure crap that you are claiming from everything I have read and heard from John Kerry.

I am not voting for the man, but, I don’t see any truth in your claim.

George Bush took the views of pseudo-allies into account, but that wasn’t good enough. They demanded that he do it their way, and got ten kinds of angry. The only way Kerry would be able to prevent that in the next four years would be to act as their lackey, which if you read past the smarmy election-year jargon, is exactly what he intends to do.

When America is everybody’s bitch, like a weakling in prison, and you then begin to see the trade concessions start to flow and American interests sacrificed elsewhere in favor of German or French or Russian or Chinese interests, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

If you think this is “recession”, wait until there are subsidies of E.U. goods flowing into the U.S.

Ciggy, Bush said the U.S. is going, now c’mon board or there will be consequences. That was an ultimatum, he gave our allies. He did not take their views into account. To have done that, he would have had to listen to their concerns, get back to them with feedback and seek common ground for understanding Bush’s desire to attack ASAP - as soon as weather permitted - remember that? But instead, he said you are with us or against us.

Kerry would at least say, I am sorry you don’t agree and won’t share in our effort, we nonetheless must go. Maybe next time. Kerry hasn’t the 4th longest career in the Senate by burning bridges. He would not have given them an ultimatum or veiled threat. He would have left the door open for them to join us at a later point rather than force them into digging in their heels.

Nor is he arrogant and overly self-confident in our military might as to think we don’t need future cooperation of other nations in the world to accomplish goals today and in the future. That is evident from Kerry’s own words.

I just don’t see where the characterization of Kerry as a cowtower to the EU or UN is evidenced.

David,

To have done that, he would have had to listen to their concerns, get back to them with feedback and seek common ground for understanding Bush’s desire to attack ASAP - as soon as weather permitted - remember that? But instead, he said you are with us or against us.

I suppose that forced Europe to don their true colors for a while. And when Kerry’s in office they’ll put their smiling happy masks back on and lull Americans to sleep while they reach their daggers around our back.

It’ll be interesting, I grant you that. But after 3 1/2 years of Kerry offering up America like a roofied-out cheerleader at a frat party, to European interests, I am going to come back here and gloat in vindication when I cite that their sentiment toward us, their REAL sentiment, will NOT have improved, one single iota.

America-bashing in Europe has more to do with Capitalism than with Bush as a person, and to the extent that Kerry fails to implement the marxist pipe-dreams of the EU (which he won’t be able to given Capitalist entrenchment in American politics), they will continue to see America in the same way that fat women see a bikini model.

Face it, they’re player-haters.

Kerry would at least say, I am sorry you don’t agree and won’t share in our effort, we nonetheless must go. Maybe next time.

To which Europe (i.e., the elites of French and German inner circles of power, and those who want to be there) would reply “HOW DARE YOU DO SOMETHING WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION! FASCIST COLONIALIST AMERICANS! YOU ARE ZEE DEVIL YOU KNOW!”

At least the Muslims would back off a bit if we dropped Israel like a bad habit. Europe won’t stop spitting at us until we revert back to European Colony status. Yet they are the ones Kerry wants most desperately to suck up to. For what? A few homosexuals in powder-blue berets to sit in a bunker 500 meters away from a checkpoint and WATCH as Americans continue to do the real work? With “help” like that, any effort at all to secure it is simply energy wasted.

Let them continue to hate, and destroy themselves thereby.

Ciggy said, “I suppose that forced Europe to don their true colors for a while. And when Kerry’s in office they’ll put their smiling happy masks back on and lull Americans to sleep while they reach their daggers around our back.”

Sorry, I have no earthly idea what that paragraph refers to or where it comes from.

I fail to see any evidence for your proposition that European countries envy anything about the U.S., nor that they hate or dislike our economic system. We have had our trade barrier disagreements but what trading partners don’t from time to time. They love their capitalism and social programs mix as much as we love ours. The majority of Americans like the concepts of public schools (socialist program) interstate highway system (socialist infrastructure) Social Security, socially funded military, police and fire departments, etc. etc. They are all socialized programs, taking tax money for everyone to benefit those in need of the services, like FEMA, and the billions spent on flood insurance reimbursements (socialized program).

We have a different mix of socialized programs than European countries but they don’t see the U.S. as being exemplary capitalism devoid of socialist policies. The real problem is that Americans don’t see how very much like European countries we really are. Too many Americans see Europeans as socialists while not even recognizing the panorama of socialized programs and policies they would fight to defend right here in the good ole USA. Americans are really dumb about this. They think we are more capitalist than most other nations, but, we aren’t that different. They fund health care, we fund research and development. They fund education, we fund educational research programs in our Universities. These are socialized programs, just a different mix.

Europeans didn’t go from loving Americans to hating us, overnight. Bush is a handy excuse to get particularly venomous about it, but it isn’t like it was a 180 degree turn-about. Nauseatingly rude American tourists form a large portion of their perception of what we are all about, unfortunately.

That and our history of racism, homelessness, and crime. Especially crime! Our culture exemplified in books and movies is full of our second largest industry to the military industrial complex, crime! Many see us as a nation of criminals or cowbows little smarter than our bovine.

It is a shame. A great President would put Education as the number one priority and that alone after 2 decades of consistent follow through would dispel most of the negative PR the U.S. has acquired over the last 80 years.

Remember the movie the Ugly American? An awful lot of foreigners do in the aftermath of the Brando estate fiasco.

Ironic that the U.K. doesn’t share the dehumanizing hatred continental Europe vents toward us.

America could be a shining city on a hill of utopian perfection, and continental Europe would hate us simply for not being them.

They are, again, worse than fundamentalist Islam, because at least among the radical ulama the hatred subsides substantially if America were to back away from Israel. For Europe there is no mitigation for what they essentially are and what they essentially feel, right down into the marrow of their bones and the double-helix of their DNA. The mutation of that DNA was achieved irreparably by millions of people who came before Bush: the arrogant tourists; the thoughtless businessmen; and each and every time an American ranted about having “saved Europe’s ass” in World War II, completely screwed the pooch for any possibility of amicable relationships between each side of the Atlantic.

Not even Clinton brought us out of the evil box in which we are contained in European appraisal. Bush is just the latest drop to go into the bucket.

That’s just silly. Anyone who has been to Eurpoe recently can tell you Gloomy Gus’s that Europeans still like Americans.

Now you’re just contradicting yourself.

First they all hate us because of Bush, and now they don’t hate us at all. Which is it?

Oh, no Ciggy. They love Americans, but they really hate Bush. :)

*smirk*