Thankfully, Miller ran with the endless stories on WMD!!

And if Miller had run the stories in July or August, that, combined with the PDB about bin Laden, might have made King George's vacation a bit less relaxing!

Heck of a job, Milly!

A choice of media coverage between the Gary Condit Democratic-sex-murder scandal and a potentially horrific terrorist attack on US? Do you think the media gave this choice a second thought?

Yet, Osama is still out there and we still do not know what happened to Chandra Levy. Coincidence? hmmm...

I would like to see more information, Kevin.

It would reinforce the need for the NSA program the the Dems keep whining about.

Isn't that right, Pelosi/Reid/Kennedy/Dean?

I say bullshit. She's trying to rebuild her reputation by breaking a story 5 years too late.

Frequency nailed it!

and W still went on a month-long vacation

The really remarkable thing to me is that this information makes it clear that Al Qaida's whole reason for its terrorist attacks against the U.S. has been to provoke the U.S. into responding with really big military operations.

Good thing we didn't fall for that.

"And they had been talking to one another, supposedly expressing disappointment that the United States had not chosen to retaliate more seriously against what had happened to the Cole."

While it may be obvious to many this underscores a problem with the Bush White House policies to begin with. al Queda wanted Bush to do something like attack Iraq, and it has paid off for them.

There was right wing spin on the election of 2004 claiming that a video showed he wanted Bush to lose to Kerry, but once again the truth is opposite. Bush is the best thing that could have happended to some like Bin Laden and an organization like al Queda spoiling for a fight. The last thing they want is a level headed response and have to face a united global comunity. So long Bush is President there is little or no chance of that.

What the heck was Miller doing from 9/12/01 until now??? Hacktacular.

Man Alter Ego you got that right !!

That's exactly what jumped out at me from that clipping....

"'Don't worry; we're planning something so big now that the U.S. will have to respond."

Did they see George coming or what ??

It's plausible. Ashcroft knew something was up.

Earlier today, I read about this on a site blaming the NYTimes for 9/11. The blame of course is for Clinton for not being President at a time when he needed to shake the trees.

"It would reinforce the need for the NSA program the the Dems keep whining about."

How would the fact that we obtained fairly specific information about an Al Qaeda attack without the NSA program "reinforce the need for such a program"?

Assuming we can believe Judy Runamuck, this anecdote (like Moussaoui's laptop incident) shows that the problem was information sharing and overall competence, not the legal limits of spying.

The really remarkable thing to me is that this information makes it clear that Al Qaida's whole reason for its terrorist attacks against the U.S. has been to provoke the U.S. into responding with really big military operations.

Good thing we didn't fall for that.

It does explain why OBL ends all of his taped messages with: "YHBT HAND OBL!"

UBL, IBL, We all BL, for UBL.

Perhaps now would be a good time to follow it up?

What seems to be going under the radar here is that Al Qaeda's motive was to provoke a response. THAT seems like news, and might be useful in informing that response from us in the future. Instead we stormed right into Iraq. Mission accomplished indeed. But who's?

And as for the eavesdropping references above, it's the calls like the one in this article that we all agree we should listen to, as we obviously did. It's the wholesale stuff creating databases on all of us that will end up used in the future in who knows what unplanned ways that concerns us. Standing up for the Constitution used to be patriotic...

This would be a really good time to stop giving ANY ATTENTION whatsoever to anything that lying bitch has to say.

I stopped reading the NYTimes 2 yrs ago because of her. I have no intention of starting again.

Judy and her NYT editor say: (1) the source was impeccable

And we believe the NYT and Judy when they reference unnamed sources?

(2) the information was specific, tying Al Qaida operatives to, at least, knowledge of the attack on the Cole

Yeah, cuz no one knew that al Qaeda had taken responsibility for the Cole bombing.

Jeez. The NYT can suck my ****

And one Al Qaida operative was overheard saying to the other, 'Don't worry; we're planning something so big now that the U.S. will have to respond.

Ha! We showed them, because now we got terrorists in Iraq, just like we wanted. That was the justification for invasion, after all, to bring terrorists into Iraq....hold on, something's off here.

...Did someone say Iraq? Quick, look over there, someone's speaking in Spanish!

Judy Fucking Miller, mind like a steel trap.

Except when it's not.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest that elements of the US government and some of our (cough) 'friends' were well aware that an attack was planned... and possibly even when and where it was going to occur.

When govt officials were pulled off commercial airlines they had to know something was afoot... and it would involve a commercial jet.

The real question is why they didn't take full and appropriate action other than protecting their own asses?

Incompetence or conspiracy... or a mix of both?
Will be a loooong time before the american people find out... if they ever do.

This strikes me as just more of the same. First, the timing of the story seems intended to support those that want a lot more domestic surveilence.

Second, if she were to follow up on the story as some here have suggested, she would be reporting on the significant warnings we received from foreign governments regarding details of the 9-11 plot, the military excercises that were being conducted on 9/11 simulating terrorists hijacking airliners, coupled with the warnings Bush received regarding an imminent attack on US domestic soil by Al Quaeda.

JM's agenda is clearly not to dig further or even just to use the reporting of others to connect the dots, but is sadly the same old Judy Miller

What the heck was Miller doing from 9/12/01 until now??? Hacktacular.
Posted by: Big House on May 18, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

Praying for the next Pearl Harbor, like all the other "Aspens".

We had all the info we needed on 9/11. We lacked imagination, insight, and commitment. IOW, George Bush was president.

The NSA records program is a pointless boondoggle to justify buying lots and lots of computers.

Does Miller's story make any sense at all? If true, wouldn't it have made a wonderful story sometime, say, between September 12 and September 30, 2001? Lots of crazier stories got play then. Odd that she just thinks to mention it now.

And we are supposed to now attach the least bit of credibility to anything that someone who breathlessly reported every one of Chalabi’s lies, and those of the administration war mongers, has to say? And we’re supposed to believe a NYT editor?

Give me a break. Judith Miller is a demonstrated serial liar, not to mention a media whore (a label which in her case is literally, as well as figuratively, true).

Until reports start to center on the role that the weather played in the attack on 9/11, I won't believe this kind of tripe.

If you live in the eastern half of the U.S. you know that from the end of June till the first half of Septermber the weather is hot and humid, night and day (the dog days of summer) and that the sky is often filled with haze. The kind of haze that lead to JFKjr's death.

9/11 took place on the first clear day of the late summer, the first day their was an autumn weather pattern of clear hazeless weather from Canada. If you lived in the eastern U.S. and went to school in a school with no A.C. you know what I am talking about.

Sometime in the first two weeks of September the hot muggy weather gives way. 9/11 happened on that day in 2001. The weather was perfect for what the terrorist were trying to do.

Was this a coincidence? Perhaps, But JFK found the going tough while the haze still prevailed.

I can't help but believe that the weather was part of the planning for 9/11, and it should mean that at the very least the perpetrators waited until they knew that a cold front would have passed through - which means they either had multiple tickets, or bought their tickets only shortly before the event.

I know about the weather change because my car broke down the night before while it was still warm, but the next morning I had to waite outside for a ride and I was struck by how cool it was and that the summer weather pattern had finally broke.

Everytime I see a video clip of 9/11 its the clearness, the perfectness of the weather that creaps me out.

Until I see this mentioned in reports, and I didn't read the commissions official report so I am not that curious, yet. But until I see this mentioned, tripe like Judy Miller's is just that.

And the responsibility all falls on Bush's inept and incompetant shoulders. Everyone from Clinton the Clark to the CIA warned him about this, he did nothing. Upto 9/11, Bush thought that being President was like being President of a fraternity - a job of nothing more than handing out patronage contracts. Afte 9/11, Bush say his job as nothing more than handing out patronage contacts, on steroids.

When they were listening to these conversations-did they get a warrant? The right likes to blur this issue, but my bet is they had reasonable cause for a warrant-so why not get one? Same applies now.

The really remarkable thing to me is that this information makes it clear that Al Qaida's whole reason for its terrorist attacks against the U.S. has been to provoke the U.S. into responding with really big military operations.

Good thing we didn't fall for that.

Yea, we blew up their whole Afghan operation, threw out their medieval hosts, caught most of their top guys (save numero uno) and chased the head guy into some shithole corner of Pakistan. They got us right where they want us.

Why is there no mention of this in the August 6, 2001 Presidential Briefing, Bin Ladin Determine to Strike US?

Red State Mike: all for the low, low price of 1 billion per week, 2500 US troops dead, 25,000 wounded with no end in sight. What a great accomplishment. Asshat.

Can we trust Judy Miller on her reporting of even this? Given her long history of questionable ethics what can we really know about what is going on here?

Red State Mike: all for the low, low price of 1 billion per week, 2500 US troops dead, 25,000 wounded with no end in sight. What a great accomplishment. Asshat.

YOu implying Al Qaeda has got us right where they want us? Thrown out of Afghanistan into a shithole corner of Pakistan? Most leaders dead or captured? Failing to win Iraqi hearts and minds through their "Cut off their heads and they'll love us" program?

Moron

keptsimple: (like Moussaoui's laptop incident)

some perspective...

during the moussaoui trial, a former justice department lawyer (until 2003) was a guest on cspan's washington journal.

he stated that there was no mention of 9-11 on moussaoui's laptop.

none.

Red State Mike:

Oh, and don't forget Iraq being controlled by Islamist Shi'ites with strong ties to a your friend and mine, Iran.

And the fact that we're perfectly hamstrung as Iran develops a bomb -- in slo-mo, no less.

Oh, and that we're just *awash* in all that Iraqi oil that paid for the invasion as per Wolfie and Rummie -- NOT.

And that international terrorism incidents are up fourfold since '01. And that al Q went from a zany cult to an enemy as worthy of our zealous attentions as the Soviet Union.

You realize that there are probably more would-be felons in New Jersey than there are locked and loaded Islamist jihadis in the entire *world*?

So why does the FBI still have *green screen* computers that can't share databases while the NSA has built the biggest high-tech database in the world, with traces of *every call made in the US* on it?

Real nice set of priorities, if you ask me ...

Bob

RSM: "YOu implying Al Qaeda has got us right where they want us?"

Yes: tied down without allies in a needless war, against a non-threatening nation, on muslim soil, making their anti-Western "crusade" rhetoric appear very credible and compelling to a billion potential recruits and donors.

Al Qaeda, indeed, has us exactly where they want us. No serious observer could doubt that for one second.

Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA

Yes: tied down without allies in a needless war, against a non-threatening nation, on muslim soil, making their anti-Western "crusade" rhetoric appear very credible and compelling to a billion potential recruits and donors.

So why has Al Qaeda in Iraq lost traction?

Al Qaeda, indeed, has us exactly where they want us. No serious observer could doubt that for one second.

Oh, I think every *serious* observer would laugh if you suggested that getting kicked out of their own little country, hunted down and killed or captured like dogs, hiding like rats, and losing hearts and minds in Iraq would be a strategy for winning. Any more victories like that and they'll all be dead.

Red State Mike:

Al Qaeda never had a base in Iraq *to begin with*, dingus.

And the Taliban (with some foreign jihadi help) is making a resurgence in Afghanistan ...

Meanwhile every place there's been an election in the Muslim Middle East, an Islamist won over a Western-leaning moderate.

*rolling eyes*

Bob

Al Qaeda never had a base in Iraq *to begin with*, dingus.

Al Qaeda thought our invasion of Iraq was their wet dream, moron. They thought they'd roll in there and just take right over setting up their own little Islamic Republic, stooge. They were wrong, doofus. Now Iraqis who are tired of having their heads cut off are ratting them out.

And the Taliban (with some foreign jihadi help) is making a resurgence in Afghanistan ...

Oh my god! Run away! Declare defeat! Or maybe stick around and kick their ass a second time.

Meanwhile every place there's been an election in the Muslim Middle East, an Islamist won over a Western-leaning moderate.

I must have slept through that election. Which one you talking about?

*rolling eyes*

RSM

"So why has Al Qaeda in Iraq lost traction?"

They have? Compared to when? Compared to, say, before we invaded, when there was basically no such thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq? 'Cause compared to then, Al Qaeda now has a great deal of traction

I think every *serious* observer would laugh if you suggested that getting kicked out of their own little country, hunted down and killed or captured like dogs, hiding like rats, and losing hearts and minds in Iraq would be a strategy for winning.

I can't imagine there's anyone who knows *less* about winning muslim hearts and minds than a Bush-supporter, with the possible exception of George Bush himself.

Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA

They have? Compared to when? Compared to, say, before we invaded, when there was basically no such thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq? 'Cause compared to then, Al Qaeda now has a great deal of traction

Compare what they thought would happen (Saddam tossed out, Al Qaeda) to what has happened (Saddam tossed out, multiple free elections, keep struggling to democracy, Al Qaeda now hunted down like rats) I have a hard time seeing how they'd be happy about their situation there. They want the caliphate to return. They made their big move, we squashed it. They've lost in Iraq.

I can't imagine there's anyone who knows *less* about winning muslim hearts and minds than a Bush-supporter, with the possible exception of George Bush himself.

Yea, the democrats totally kicked ass on that front during their 8 years running things. WTC I, Somalia, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, our african embassies. They loved us! Dead.

Nothing new here. We know from Richard Clark, and even from Tennet, that U.S. intelligence knew something was up. (Remember, the latter was running around "with his hair on fire" during the summer?) They just didn't know what, where, or when.

Red State Mike:

> "Al Qaeda never had a base in Iraq *to begin with*, dingus."

> Al Qaeda thought our invasion of Iraq was their wet dream, moron.

And it is, in terms of their long-term strategy. We're completely
bogged down in what looks to many Muslims like a crusade for regional
neocolonial hegemony, and Iraq is such a basket case that it amounts
to the worst imaginable advertisement for liberal democracy.

> They thought they'd roll in there and just take right over
> setting up their own little Islamic Republic, stooge.

Uh, no, Mike. *We* thought we'd roll in there and just take right
over setting our own little free market Republic. Ask Paul Bremer
about that one. The foreign jihadis were attracted like flies to
shit. But the salient point is that *we* invaded. We weren't asked.

> They were wrong, doofus.

*We* were wrong. On reception, number of troops needed, state of the
infrastructure, how much it would cost -- on virtually everything.

> Now Iraqis who are tired of having their
> heads cut off are ratting them out.

Uh Mike ... *sigh* ... the entire police force is infiltrated top to
bottom with sectarians more loyal to their militias than to Iraq. The
Interior Ministry has run Shi'ite death squads that drill holes in
Sunni heads and spolsh their faces with acid -- speaking of the kind
of atrocities perpetrated by evil people like, umm, Saddam Hussein.

The Iraqi Army is coming along -- but the police force is a
disaster and will be for years. Certainly though '08 ...

> "And the Taliban (with some foreign jihadi help)
> is making a resurgence in Afghanistan ..."

> Oh my god! Run away! Declare defeat! Or maybe
> stick around and kick their ass a second time.

Oh really, Mike? Where pray tell are we going to get the added
troops for this? The ones rotating out of Iraq? I know ... the
National Gu-- oh, that's right, they're headed to the Rio Grande ...

Mike -- this is an insurgency. Kicking Taliban ass only creates more
Taliban. That's why we didn't manage to squash them the first time.

> "Meanwhile every place there's been an election in the Muslim
> Middle East, an Islamist won over a Western-leaning moderate."

> I must have slept through that election.
> Which one you talking about?

Which oneS. You got a pencil?

Turkey -- Justice and Development Party (Islamist, moderate).
Lebanon -- Hezbollah (Islamist, moderate).
Palestine -- Hamas (Islamist, hardline).
Iran -- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Islamist, hardline).
Egypt -- Muslim Brotherhood (Islamist, moderate).
Iraq -- Iraqi List (Shi'ite Islamist, moderate).

I don't blame the people for this; it's a natural reaction when
given a choice between pro-Western autocratic stooges and
indigenous leadership. But it sure doesn't bode well for the
idea that Western-style democracy with human rights (inevitably
compromised by Sharia law) is the cure to what ails this region ...

Bob

In other words, Al Queda wanted Bush to invade Iraq and attack in the Middle East as a means of inflaming public opinion in that region against the US and inviting more terrorist recruits and Bush obliged them, played into their hands, and they got exactly what they wanted - a vicious religious war between fanatic Christians and fanatic Muslims.

Why does Bush continue to aid and abet the terrorists to the disadvantage of America and Americans?

Red State Mike -- It's hard to believe that there are still people with your opinions -- after years of lies and flat-out stupidity on the part of those who led us into Iraq. Bush took us from a position of strength in 2001, with a united country and world community, and brought us to where we are now, divided and quarreling amongst ourselves. That is poor leadership...

rmck1
G oback up and read what I replied to initially. The original poster roughly argued that the outcome we desired hasn't occurred, and drew the inference that the outcome that Al Qaeda wants has. The two are not dependent, and a number of the arguments presented have nothing to do with Al Qaeda, such as sectarian divisions in Iraq. For example, the Shiites outnumber the Sunnis, and they are tired of having their heads cut off. their religiosity does not mean that their rise is an Al Qaeda success story.

In short, the question was, has Al Qaeda got want they wanted and prospered? The answer is no, apart from our success.

Detroit Dan, read the whole thing before attacking a straw man.

Only if Miller writes a juicy memoir covering the last six years am I interested in what she has to say.

Red State Mike:

> G oback up and read what I replied to initially.

Why, Mike? This is a quiz, and you'll give me extra credit?
I followed your post closely. This is your lame way of trying
to deny that I spanked your argument until it spat goo?

> The original poster roughly argued

"Roughly argued." Heh. I like that :)

> that the outcome we desired hasn't occurred, and drew
> the inference that the outcome that Al Qaeda wants has.

Hey, Mike -- what exactly is "al Qaeda?" You realize that OBL wasn't
the "mastermind" behind 9/11; that was Kahlil Sheikh Mohammed, right?
The loose network of global jihadis conveniently called "al Qaeda"
by the Western press has mestastasized since we took out the Afghani
training camps and is spread through dozens of countries. A lot of
OBL's lieutenants got fried, and Zarqawi's, too -- but it's not like
there's some finite number of them in fixed locations. More keep
popping up -- because "al Qaeda" is more than anything a transnational
ideology of radical Islamic jihad, would-be members of whom are
as far away as a computer terminal with website access. You can't
*destroy* something like this by killing jihadis -- you only make
more. The only way to eradicate it is to deligitimate it in the
eyes of potential Muslim recruits. And only Muslims can do that.

> The two are not dependent, and a number of
> the arguments presented have nothing to do with
> Al Qaeda, such as sectarian divisions in Iraq.

*rolling eyes* Are you really *this* dense, Mike? WTF do you think
Zarqawi's been about, beheading and blowing up all those apostate
Shia? The Muhajadeen Shura (al Q in Mess o' Potamia's new name,
in case you haven't been paying attention) agenda is precisely
to sew sectarian conflict until Iraq breaks out into civil war.
And they don't appear to be doing a half-bad job of it ...

> For example, the Shiites outnumber the Sunnis,
> and they are tired of having their heads cut off.

Uhh, Mike, if it's a choice between being beheaded like a
goat (by al Q) and having my skull ventilated around the
temples with a Craftsman Cordless a half-hour or so before
being shot (by an Interior Ministry Shi'ite death squad) --
I think I'd choose what's behind Door Number One.

I think *you* would, too. I think, in fact, you'd smile
at me in solidarity for a split-second before your skull
rolled off camera. Better than goddamed power tools ...

> their religiosity does not mean that
> their rise is an Al Qaeda success story.

*shaking head* Big picture, Mike, big picture. Al Q's long-term
agenda is a universal caliphate, and the first step is a revived
political Islam across the Muslim world. By pranging so effing
badly in Iraq -- by providing no security, by raping the standard
of living, by fostering daily carnage which is no less heartbreaking
for being ubiquitous, for jump-starting a thoroughly dysfunctional
political process that's taken more than five fucking months to form
a government after the election -- we have made liberal democracy
look like a FUCKING JOKE, Mike. And to the extent that liberal
democracy looks like a joke, hardline Islam becomes attractive.

> In short, the question was, has Al Qaeda got want
> they wanted and prospered? The answer is no,

According to the CIA, terrorist incidents are up something like
fourfold since '01. Islamist recruiting is high. Suspicious
chatter is incessant. The US has taken a major blow -- we are
hemhorraging money, hemhorraging credibility, we're militarily
hamstrung, we've empowered Iran by default -- and to top it off,
the war -- both through our military demand and plummeting Iraqi
production -- helped keep the price of crude at record highs,
which only goes to bolster "our allies in the region" -- who keep
Islamists in their own countries at bay by cracking heads, but
whose whorish corruption feeds the global jihadist ideology.

> apart from our success.

Which success is that, Mike?

Bob

So retaliating on the USS Cole attack would have prevented 9-11?

Clinton's fault.

Bob,

Here's what I responded to "roughly"...

The really remarkable thing to me is that this information makes it clear that Al Qaida's whole reason for its terrorist attacks against the U.S. has been to provoke the U.S. into responding with really big military operations.

Good thing we didn't fall for that.

Now if you think things are working out for Al Qaeda, that they lured us into Afghanistan in order to have us stub our toes kicking them in the teeth, and then they entered Iraq so we could absolutely crush their attempts to set up little example Islamic Republics in Fallujah and other cities, and they could win hearts and minds (not) by cutting heads...things just can't get any better for them, can it?

And to the extent that liberal
democracy looks like a joke, hardline Islam becomes attractive.

That's stupid. Islamic cultures repressed by dictators have always had only one other outlet, fundamentalist Islam, to turn to. See Algeria a bunch of years back. Our efforts at democratization aren't turning them to fundamental islam. The fundies were the only other people with any organization. Moderates have been suppressed. See Egypt right now. Democracy *is* freeing them to make that choice, and where they do, they choose not-government, which means the fundies.

Red State Mike:

> "The really remarkable thing to me is that this information
> makes it clear that Al Qaida's whole reason for its terrorist
> attacks against the U.S. has been to provoke the U.S. into
> responding with really big military operations."

> "Good thing we didn't fall for that."

A very astute, well-phrased comment that had me going "amen."
And a comment which provoked a number of positive responses.

> Now if you think things are working out for Al Qaeda,
> that they lured us into Afghanistan in order to have
> us stub our toes kicking them in the teeth,

Understand something -- I don't think many of us would have opposed
the operation in Afghanistan. What we *should* have done was to focus
all of our force there, use the Special Forces to kill or capture OBL
while we had 'em on the run from Tora Bora, and then fanned out into
the provences and engaged in genuine nation-building. If we had made
Afghanistan into the Shining City On A Hill -- an example of democracy
in the heart of the Muslim world -- our overall strategy might have
had a chance of success, by setting a positive example. We had the
world behind us -- nobody supported the Taliban or thought it was a
legitimate government. We could have exerted pressure on the warlords,
kept the poppy crop under control, built up the infrastructure,
protected women's rights. We had the resources for Afghanistan.

But no. Why? Because Bush is a ... [fill in the blank].

> and then they entered Iraq so we could absolutely crush
> their attempts to set up little example Islamic Republics
> in Fallujah and other cities, and they could win hearts
> and minds (not) by cutting heads...things just can't
> get any better for them, can it?

Mike, you're what ... Air Force? You're thinking about this like a
tactical battle commander -- as if "al Qaeda" were a unified force,
with objectives like "taking and holding Falluja." "Al Qaeda" is no
such thing. It's a *tendency*. You think the Syrians, Egyptians,
Saudis, Yemenis, Iranians, etc. who slip across the border submitted
their resumes to Zarqawi or something? They're guys who wake up one
morning and go "I will wage jihad against the Americans," find some
local contacts who hook them up with papers, give them a pep talk
and they're on their way -- to become self-inflicted cannon fodder.

Yes, at great expense, we pacified Falluja -- by turning it into a
Big Brother state with retinal scans in order to get into the city
limits. A symbolic victory that's important to us, considering how
many lives we lost there. But we hardly have the resources needed
to lock down the entire Sunni Triangle. It's *still* whack-a-mole.

The problem, anyway, is shifting from the Sunni insurgents to the
reprisal killings *of* Sunnis by Shi'ites wearing Iraqi uniforms.
And that state-sponsored terrorism (what else would you call it?) is
undermining the chance that the government will have any legitimacy.

You know how we could "win" this thing and go home in about a year
"victorious?" Easily. We could say to the Shi'ites -- "Look,
you're in power now. Those Sunni spat on you and oppressed you,
and they won't be satisfied until they're back in the saddle. We
agree -- they can't be trusted. We'll do anything to help you." And
then lead the Shia on a scortched-earth ethnic cleansing campaign that
gave the Sunnis one chance to live -- total surrender -- or else be
shot on sight and/or herded into camps. It would be incredibly good
training for both the police and army -- both vastly Shi'ite, and it
would deeply satisfy the Arab thirst for vengeance and collective
punishment. And with our kickass weaponry, it'd only take a year.

Only one problem, Mike -- it would violate every shred of our
values as a nation. Most Sunnis are good people just like the Shia.

> "And to the extent that liberal democracy looks
> like a joke, hardline Islam becomes attractive."

> That's stupid.

It's the essence of the issue, Mike.

> Islamic cultures repressed by dictators have always
> had only one other outlet, fundamentalist Islam,
> to turn to. See Algeria a bunch of years back.

Well, exactly. Algeria had an election in '91, hardline Islamists
got in, and there was a military coup a year later. Oopsie. That's
why you have to be careful what you wish for in the democracy
department. Ironically enough, I believe that George Bush is
ultimately correct -- democracy is the best thing, both for the
region and for our national security. But the problem is, you
can't call the time frame. Most of these nations are probably
going to have to elect Islamists and then evolve from there into
countries that support human rights. But the process will take
at least half a century or so. Iran *will* reject the mullahs
in our lifetimes -- but not before it has nuclear capability.

> Our efforts at democratization aren't
> turning them to fundamental islam.

They are, Mike. On the one hand, we talk up elections. Elections
elections, elections. We do more than talk them up; we make aid
contingent upon them in some cases. Then we invade Iraq. "See --
this could happen to *you* if you don't change your evil ways." But
simultaneously, we continue to support the most corrupt, oligarchic
regimes in the region -- Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Gulf states. We
*appear* to be agitating for democracy, but it's a dog and pony show
and the people know it. So when tectonic shifts happen and the world
calls Syria's bluff and they withdraw from Lebanon -- who do the
Lebanese people choose to lead them? Western-leaning parties? Hell,
no. Hezbollah. Palestine has an election -- Hamas. Egypt has a
*pseudo* election, but the people aren't fooled and support the Muslim
Brotherhood -- despite the party being suppressed. Two simultaneous
dynamics are going on -- we are whetting the people's desires for
change -- and we are still supporting the corrupt power structures
that oppress them. So we get half-assed democracy -- free elections
to set an Islamist agenda which rejects Western individual rights.

> The fundies were the only other people with any organization.
> Moderates have been suppressed. See Egypt right now.

It's not so much that moderates are suppressed. It's that moderates
are seen as co-opted. Our support for all these years of their
hated oligarchical regimes makes the idea of "moderates" repulsive.

> Democracy *is* freeing them to make that choice, and where
> they do, they choose not-government, which means the fundies.

Exactly. Which will bode ill in the short term for women's
rights and human rights -- and which will only make the
US-supported regimes clamp down the harder, since we sure
as *hell* aren't taking any chances with our access to oil.

The people know this and they consider it a sick,
hypocritical and thoroughly corrupt dance. Which
is why they crave the moral purity of Islam.

And it is our policy in the region -- with a
degree of irony that's truly sickening -- which
is driving them in that very anti-Western direction.

Bob

Bob:The loose network of global jihadis conveniently called "al Qaeda" by the Western press has mestastasized since we took out the Afghani training camps and is spread through dozens of countries. A lot of OBL's lieutenants got fried, and Zarqawi's, too -- but it's not llike there's some finite number of them in fixed locations. More keep popping up -- because "al Qaeda" is more than anything a transnational ideology of radical Islamic jihad, would-be members of whom are as far away as a computer terminal with website access. You can't *destroy* something like this by killing jihadis -- you only make more. The only way to eradicate it is to deligitimate it in the eyes of potential Muslim recruits. And only Muslims can do that.

You've summed up the tragic, basic misunderstanding of al Qaeda terrorism characteristic of this administration and Mike. This is the part of your argument that he will not and cannot address.

Once we scattered the terrorists being sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan, where could our soldiers go to attack "terrorism?" There were lots of choices, since as you note, it's a global movement. Iraq looked like a cherry pick, and it had a vile ruler with few friends, so that's where we went. Maybe there even was some lame idea that it would attract all the terrorists like iron filings to a magnet. If that were working we would have seen a decrease in worldwide terrorist attacks as Iraq became more violent.

rmck1
Understand something -- I don't think many of us would have opposed the operation in Afghanistan. What we *should* have done was to focus all of our force there, use the Special Forces to kill or capture OBL
while we had 'em on the run from Tora Bora, and then fanned out into the provences and engaged in genuine nation-building.

Whatever. What you think we should have done is beside the point of this argument. The point is whether we truly played into Al Qaeda's hands. you are making an argument to a different point.

I think Al Qaeda was not looking to be driven out of Afghanistan. They were probably looking for another Somalia, where we would engage, and get kicked in the nuts, and run home crying like the Russians. Instead we crushed them without even breathing hard. I find it extraordinarily, in fact impossibly, hard to believe that having the Taliban wiped out in Afghanistan and many, many of their leaders captured or killed was part of their master plan.

So they go to Iraq, sensing that we gave them a crowning opportunity to do great things in their march to the caliphate. All of Islam will unite around them.

They, in concert with Sunni nationalists, set up a little piece of Taliban in Fallujah. We crush it. Totally. They threaten to kill Iraqis on the coalition authority. They still serve. They kill some 40+ candidates for election in the first go around. Eight million Iraqis vote. They state that democracy is unislamic. 9 million vote. they cut off heads and threaten voters. 11 million vote in the last election. Over 70% of possible voters. Sunnis are now fully engaged in politics. Shia have avoided the obvious road to catastrophic civil war. As ugly as the political process is in Iraq, it in no way is going in the direction Al Qaeda wants it to go.

You can make arguments about whether we have achieved our goals, but that is a separate argument from whether Al Qaeda has achieved theirs. Looks to me like they are failing miserably.

Red State Mike:

Well Mike, you're still thinking like a tactical battle commander. And you're making the mistake you claim I'm making -- inflating al Qaeda's "goals" into an absurdly vast straw man and then deflating it. Like what -- it'd take 3 years to establish a caliphate?

Haven't you read Zawahiri's master plan that was in the press about a year or so ago? The top eschelons of al Q are thinking in terms of decades, Mike ...

I'm not going to go into what kind of clusterfuck Iraqi politics is, or how close Iraq is to all-out civil war. It's already acknowledged that Iraq is in a low-level civil war, and the only question is whether or not it's going to become like Bosnia ... but, as you say, whatever. It's a side issue. You *would*, though, think that five months would be enough time to establish a government after such a successful election. Anyway ...

Has it occured to you, Mike, that al Qaeda has no assets to speak of? No infrastructure, no weapons, no armies, no government buildings, no country. All it has is a bunch of dedicated followers and the internet.

And this ragtag *handful* of fanatics, who are so hardline they pose a threat to every Muslim country on earth -- and the more pious, the bigger the threat -- has managed to tie down the world's most sophisticated military into a holding action while Iraq tries to get its shit together?

This is a feat as absurdly extraordinary on a pure military level as the SLA or the Weathermen marching into the Pentagon and taking the entire building hostage.

We're hemhorraging money, we've alienated the world, our military is tied down and our *real* threatening enemy in the region -- Iran -- can do whatever the fuck it wants with impunity ... and terrorist attacks are up worldwide. Islamist political agendas are in triumph. Western democracy looks like shit on a shingle to the Muslim world.

George Bush's foreign policy vision has been fucking *repudiated* -- and you think we have al Qaeda on the run?

Islamists are the only beneficiaries of this series of events, my friend.

Bob

Well Mike, you're still thinking like a tactical battle commander. And you're making the mistake you claim I'm making -- inflating al Qaeda's "goals" into an absurdly vast straw man and then deflating it. Like what -- it'd take 3 years to establish a caliphate?

Al Qaeda chose to make a fight in Iraq. They set out goals, stating them publicly. They've failed.

They fully recognize the power of imagery, possibly better than we do. They would not put so much effort into Iraq and expect to fail as they have. Now, this might be a brief burp in their decades-long master plan, but a setback it is. Just as Afghanistan was.

And this ragtag *handful* of fanatics, who are so hardline they pose a threat to every Muslim country on earth -- and the more pious, the bigger the threat -- has managed to tie down the world's most sophisticated military into a holding action while Iraq tries to get its shit together?

No, they've been marginalized. Their role is in the noise over there. We're there in numbers for issues tied to Iraqis, not Al Qaeda. If there was no Al Qaeda, we'd be there same as we are now.

I hit return too fast. you said on behalf of Al Qaeda...

Like what -- it'd take 3 years to establish a caliphate?

and then...

George Bush's foreign policy vision has been fucking *repudiated* -- and you think we have al Qaeda on the run?

Like what, it'd take 3 years to establish a democracy in a country that knew only repression? It'd be easier establishing a caliphate. Time will tell if Bush failed us by going to Iraq. In no way is the final story told.

RSM: Time will tell if Bush failed us by going to Iraq.

It's already told: no massive stockpiles of WMDs secured with 2000 plus American soldiers dead.

Bush failed to accomplish the primary mission goal, at least the one he told the American people.

End of story.

RSM: No, they've been marginalized. Their role is in the noise over there.

Exactly what you said about the insurgents a year ago, yet they continue to make noise.

Just ask the American soldiers who died there in the past month.

Oh, wait, you can't.

Well, ask their families.

Red State Mike:

Okay, Mike -- fair comments, both of them. We'll see what we'll see.

But Islamism is on the rise in a way it wasn't before 9/11.

And our yammering for elections has facilitated it.

As I say, I don't blame the people for that, given the alternative. And as you say, democracy's going to take some time.

It's my contention that most of these countries are going to have to pass through an Islamist phase -- with independent, indigenous rulers -- before they get around to genuine democracy.

And Iran will be the first country to repudiate its Islamist phase. Mark my words ... It's already one of the most socially progressive Muslim countries in that region.

Bob

rmck1
It's my contention that most of these countries are going to have to pass through an Islamist phase -- with independent, indigenous rulers -- before they get around to genuine democracy.

That's something we do agree on.

And Iran will be the first country to repudiate its Islamist phase. Mark my words ... It's already one of the most socially progressive Muslim countries in that region.

I hope you're right.

Hi, great site

Hi, very interesting site

Aria Giovanni - Crissy Moran - Tyler Faith - Ashton Moore - Krystal Steal - Jenna Jameson - Stormy Daniels - Briana Banks - Alexis Amore - Brittany Andrews - Tera Patrick - Gina Lynn - Jill Kelly - Sophia Rossi - Summer Skyes - Jesse Capelli - Lonnie Waters - Natalia Cruze - Terri Summers - Anita Dark - Ginger Jolie - Breana - Crystal Klein - Kelle Marie - Jamie Lynn - Barbie Griffin - Zdenka Podkapova - Tall Goddess - Sky Lopez - Penny Flame - Nikki Nova - Tanya James - Avy Scott - Monique Alexander - Mason Marconi - Bobbie Eden - Britney Foster - Coco Johnsen - Maliyah Madison - Lacey Duvalle - Kylie Wyld - Kira Eggers - Jessica Darling - Jana Cova - Dru Berrymore - Deja Chan - Dani Woodward - Amber Rain - Allysin Chaynes - Tyler Fox - Taylor Ann - Nakita Kash - Charlie Laine - Domino - Becky Le Sabre - Kaylani Lei - Katja Kassin - Nautica Thorn - Victoria Red - Nikki Tyler - Jesse Jane - Monica Sweetheart - Katsumi - Devon - Kyla Cole - Veronica Zemanova - Erica Campbell - Sophie Sweet - Zoe Britton - Jane Darling - Sophie Paris - Lanny Barbie - Veronika Simon - Carli Banks - Monica Miller - Tabitha Tan - Clara Hamilton - Monika Benjar - Dorothy Black - Lizzy Merova - Holly Morgan - Susana Spears - Peaches - Aneta Smrhova - Angel Dark - Nikki Loren - Anette Dawn - Cassia Riley - Nelli Hunter - Jana Mrazkova - Angelina Adelle - Lux Kassidy - Denisa D - Eva Shine - Amy Reid - Natasha Nicolas - Mia Stone - Bettie Ballhaus - Evelyn Lory - Zuzana Drabinova - Katerina Sage - Celeste Star - Sandy Simmers - Silvie Thomas - Zafira - Adrienne Coyne - Lolli Winters - Valentina Vaughn - Stacy Silver - Tiffany Diamond - Brigitte Hunter - Bella Star - Giovana - Milli-Jay - Roxy Carter - Kia Kovicova - Simona Style - Amber Easton - Sonya Smitts - Mindy Vega - Jelena Jensen - Andrea Truman - Sydney Moon - Lenka Gaborova - Veronica Vanoza - Lauren Mai - Natalli Di Rossa - Nikki Blonde - Mora Black - Eniko Reti - Rachel Grace - Lucie Lansen - Jessica Fiorentino - Jody Paige - Allegra - Sylvia Saint - Mellie Williams - Adriana Malkova - Ashley Robbins - Nikki Miller - Chloe Anderson - Isabella Garland - Adele Stephens - Alex Arden - Angel Cassidy - Justine Sands - Mackenzie Mack - Martina Fox - Monique Dane - Tanya Danielle - Sandra Shine - Gina Black - Evelyn Baum - Lee Ann - Tiffany Rousso - Aneta Stone - Michelle Thorne - Monica Moore - Janet Peron - Michelle Afferty - Carmen James - Vanessa Aniston - Ashton Gray - Nikita Blonde - Veronica Carso - Katerina Hovorkova - Monica Silva - Hanna Harper - Eva B