I hate to do this, but.....this is part of a comment I just posted on the previous thread

Everytime some nut job Repug, especially shotgun Dick, spouts off about Democrats being soft on terra, the nation needs to be reminded who chose to fail to decapitate the AQ leaders [by invading Iraq]. It needs to be a bumper sticker mantra as "tax and spend liberals" was during the 1980s and 1990s.

Bush screwed up so Ben Laden is still out there inspiring, if not actually leading, our mortal enemies. What a tragedy.

Fight fire with napalm.

It is the Democrats that have dug the hole they are in. And Kevin, shame on you! This blaming your problems on others is so typical of liberals. No wonder you attack Mr. Bush and the culture of responsibility he brings to Washington. Rudy Guiliani is just asking a very good question. Why won't the Democratic party let Joe Lieberman go on offense against the terrorists?

Democrats have to make it absolutely clear, every single time somebody spouts this rubbish, that supporting the Iraq war doesn't mean you're "on offense against terrorism."

Of course it means that. As reported in the National Post, Saddam had been paying money to Palestinian suicide terrorist bombers.

"Saddam has paid out some US$20-million of it (US$35-million by some estimates) to Palestinians according to a cold calculation: US$25,000 for the families of suicide bombers, US$10,000 for families of those otherwise killed by Israeli forces."

By liberating Iraq from Saddam, America gave a devastating blow to the Al-Qaeda/Hezbollah type of suicide terrorism.

Nor does opposing the war also mean you oppose fighting jihadism.

Of course it means that. Jihadist mastermind Musab al-Zarqawi was being protected by Saddam and by overthrowing Saddam, it allowed Bush to kill al-Zarqawi.

Link

"The UPI reports today that King Abdullah of Jordan told a Saudi newspaper that Jordan wanted Abu Musab al-Zarqawi extradited to Amman prior to Saddam Hussein's removal by US forces. Saddam refused to extradite the terrorist mastermind, providing him sanctuary instead"

"Jordan's King Abdullah revealed Thursday that Iraq's former Baath regime had refused to deport Abu Musab al-Zarqawi"

Add Al to my list of nut jobs along with Rudy.

BTW Al, since you are infavor of invading states that support terrorism, when do you propose we start our sweep of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? They have given much more sustenance to terrorists than poor ol' Saddam could have ever dream of.

"This blaming your problems on others is so typical of liberals."

Pot. Meet Kettle. Look black to you?

I'm not sure that the second was parody Al, although the Zarqawi line gives me pause. The first one was pretty silly, though. The Lieberman who thought things in Iraq were perfectly peachy doesn't sound quite like the hard-eyed realist you'd want at your side in a difficult fight.

Pretty much anyone who ever advocated this war has to admit they were ignorant or deluded. Those who continue to support it can't be expected to make such an admission, but the rest of us can hardly fail to impute to them those same failings.

The Dems shouldn't allow the GOP to spin this terrorist act. This isn't about Iraq, it's about Homeland securty. and we all know in what shape that 'agency' is. Instead of letting right wingers hijack the public debate, Dems should counterattack with right now:

Why is there currently a chaos at US airports? Is DHS unprepared for the kind of attack that was prevented in London?

Why weren't liquids checked before? Did no aircraft security expert warn of that danger after 911, or have there been concerned voices and the Bush administration ignored them?

Has the unsuccesful reorganisation of DHS contributed to the chaos at the airports?

Did budget cuts, for instance for the FAA, play any role in the current state of unpreparedness?

Homeland security should be even more importat than the war in Iraq. It's the last line of defense. However, Bush's record on that matter is less than stellar. The chaos at the airports show that the US is still alarmingly unprepared for the dangers of international terrorism. The Dems shouldn't hesitate at pointing the finger at those who are responsible for the pity state oh Homeland Security!

The meme in here that really drives me crazy is the part that says the Democrats are intolerant and Republicans broad-minded. That it defies the other goofball meme, that the Democrats aren't 'united' makes me even crazier.

But then, I can't get past the fact that Republicans call themselves the Grand Old Party even though they came along about 75 years after the Democrats.

No you see we are fightin' 'em over there so we don't hafta fight 'em over here. We might fight 'em someplace else too if you don't vote for the Democrat in November.
Like I told that guy after he read me the August 6 PDB about AlQaeda attacking the US, 'All right. You have covered your ass now. I am going to chop down some brush. Think it might be that foreign kudzu stuff.'

Good point Kevin.

Lieberman also had many other troubles leading to his defeat, too many to mention.

Let's just say he's shown his true colors.

On the TV last night, I heard him say "cut and run".

Game over.

FWIW, I agree with you on this.

It's a good talking point and no worse than the Democratic line that opposition to abortion means you don't care about women's rights or that opposition to quotas makes you a racist. But it doesn't drive the debate in a useful direction.

We got rid of Lieberman because he didn't do minority politics correctly. The neocon tsunami was relentless, and multi-fronted, and Lieberman wouldn't help his own party get a grip on an opposition stance.
When we see bush screwing up, we want to get a unified voice that can be heard over Hastert's "majority of majority" legislative agenda. Lieberman would be over there huggin'and kissin' before we could start a protest.

supporting the Iraq war doesn't mean you're "on offense against terrorism." Nor does opposing the war also mean you oppose fighting jihadism.

This assertion of Kevin's may have been true at the beginning of the war, when Saddam was in power, depending on whether or not Saddam's regime had a relation to terrorism.

However, we're now fighting al Qaeda in Iraq (among others). Opposing the Iraq war now means opposing the battle against one branch of al Qaeda.

The truth is closer to the exact opposite, and chapter and verse should follow if necessary.

Presumably Kevin means that support for fighting the terrorists who are a threat to the US is close to the opposite of support for fighting in Iraq. However, the correlation doesn't work that way.

Fighting domestic terrorism requires intelligence. It requires imprisoning and killing terrorists. So strong support for fighting domestic terrorism means favoring:

-- the Patriot Act,
-- domestic spying,
-- harsh treatment of prisoners who may have useful intelligence,
-- keeping terrorists in Gitmo locked up.

The Democratic Party tends to oppose these key steps and to oppose the Iraq war. They come across on weak on defense.

When the Dems try to show that they strongly support the fight against domestic terrorism, their main argument seems to be their desire to give out more Homeland Security money. The trouble is that this looks more like pork barrel spending than fighting a war.

P.S. - another issue on which the Dems may be vulnerable is that they often seem more interested in undermining the President than in winning the war. E.g., their misguided opposition to John Bolton as UN Ambassador.

Interesting that the Americans seemed to have had nothing to do with this foiling of the attack. It was all done by the British and Pakistanis. So much for the Republicans being on the offense.

We are doing everything possible to fight terrorism, by having Mr. Bush clear brush, invading Muslim countries for no good reason and bankrupting the Treasury by giving tax cuts to the wealthy.

Thank you for your cooperation.

I don't get it. Why do you want to stop Giuliani from supporting on offense on terrorism.

:P

You're in this perceptual hole because you have sought it out in two fundemental ways: one, no democrat has yet managed to effectively criticise the war without sounding muddled, unsure of what they really believe in when it comes to the use of military power; two, related, liberals can't seem to grasp that the perception of strength is superficial by definition - you have to act the part. Ironically, given their hatred of Hollywood, republicans seem to produce better actors - or at least that type of actor [this wasn't always so - Kennedy would have laughed at the likes of Edwards etc]. Imagine liberals think themselves too clever to engage in such show. If Rudy can paint you in above terms it's because you have chosen that part for yourself and are just too removed from mundane reality to see it.

Democratic party activists learned a great lesson on Tuesday-- when someone like Lieberman insults you, condescends to you, and disdains you, you bring out the big guns and take him down. Now that they've learned to do that to Lieberman, they need to learn to do that to Cheney, Giuliani, and the rest who deign to use Lieberman's loss in this way.

When we do withdraw from Iraq, whether in 1 year or in 10 years, there will be islamic terrorists who claim that the U.S. "surrendered" and "cut and run".

And they'll be able to quote asshats like Cheney, Guiliani, Lieberman, and half the Republican leadership in support.

Let's take Bush's Iraq policy to its' obvious conclusion:
1. Iraq is the central front on the war on terrorism.
2. We are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.
3. We will stand down when the Iraqis stand up.
4. We will then bring our troops home and turn over the central war on terror to the Iraqis.
5. Iraq will splinter into 3 countries.
6. Shiite Iraq will side with Iran.
7. Stong men will take control of each of the three Iraqi nations.
8. We will try to figure out how to contain 3 Iraqs and the terrorism they support.
9. China will get the oil out of Iraq.

Funny how fighting Bush's central war on terror will turn out.

When we finally withdraw from Iraq, most of those forces will no longer have a large anti-jihadist role, unless we intervene militarily in some other country. No one in the military will think it a good idea to send large numbers of troops into the Hindu Kush, that killer of armies.

We cannot go back to Saudi Arabia, which refused permission to use their airfields and ports in the Afghanistan campaign, anyway. Our permission to be in Saudi Arabia disappeared when Saddam was removed from power.

And, if the biggest reason for the presence of jihadists to be in Iraq is the presence of US forces, they are likely to follow us wherever we redeploy in the region. So it will not be so simple as leaving small garrisons in Kuwait or the UAE. It will mean a fighting retreat, probably to countries who are not prepared for the influx of jihadists to follow.

Dear Rudy,

It will take a few more years for the rest of the truth to come out, but you probably know enough of the facts already. So you're not mistaken; you're lying.

If the Democrats had been in charge of national security in 2001, you might have missed the most "heroic" moment of your life. The Republican administration, led by Incurious George, aggressively ignored the intelligence that might have saved 3,000 lives in New York and postponed their adventure in Iraq.

Shut up.

Giuliani's false concern gave me a big laugh. It would not even work at the college I teach at. I mean, I would love to say, "And I don't know why the V-P Acamemic won't allow us the kind of flexibility...." But I can't. Everyone would just laugh at the falseness of it.

Just laugh at the fools.

It an unwillingness to fight fire with fire - 'we were attacked on 9/11 because the President is too incompent to do his job.' 'we continue to face threats from OBL because the President was too much of a coward to go into Tora Bora' etc. etc. repeat repeat repeat These statements have the advantage of being true. But Dems don't use them. Why? Why!

Rudy G. of all people. He used to be a moderate Republican and a decent fellow. But then the rightwing of the GOP would routinely attack Rudy. So Rudy decided - if you can't beat them, join them. Now he's Karl Rove's clone.

I think there are two things that make fighting this kind of attack difficult:
1) Any defense would likely be just a bit longer than sound bite length. You could explain why Lieberman's stances would hurt our national security interests, but such an explanation would too long to get the kinda circulation that Guliani's did.
2) Democrats aren't on the same page in a way that republicans are. It isn't just Guliana. Several coservative politicians/commentators are saying similar things. There is no unified message to go against this. Is there a national defense strategy that all democrats could believe in? Who has articulated it?
I think that until someone finds an alternative that can be expressed simply and succintly, (something more than: the president and his supporters are wrong) we are going to continue to get beat up in these sorts of fights.

There is a brilliant NY Times editoral, and an exceptional column by Krugman, on this very point today.

Don't forget Sully. I nearly threw my computer against the wall after this:

"But, for all Cheney's and Rumsfeld's flaws, they are at least proposing something serious, however ineptly carried out. I have yet to hear anti-war voices on the left propose a positive strategy for defeating Islamist terror at its roots, or call for democratization of the Arab Muslim world. Indeed, I heard little but scorn or silence when Bush announced this vision in London. Do the Democrats stand for democracy in Iraq? Or in Iran? Do they favor Beinart-style containment of Islamism? Nuclear deterrence against Tehran? Certainly, the Kossites seem utterly uninterested in any of these subjects. That's their prerogative; and it's equally my prerogative not to take them seriously until they do."

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/08/the_war_and_the.html

Let's examine Sore Loserman's recent comment:

"If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again."

It doesn't seem like the continued US military presence in Iraq was any deterrent for a group of British-born radicals, does it?

If anything, the disastrous Iraq policy of George W. Bush and Joe Lieberman has been a boon to Al Queda. First of all, by pulling US troops out of Tora Bora in preparation for the Iraq invasion, George and Joe allowed Bin Laden and his stooges to escape. Second, George and Joe could not have given Bin Laden a better gift than the unprovoked invasion of Iraq. In one stroke they eliminated a secularist government that Bin Laden and his stooges hated and, in the view of the Muslim world, it strengthened the Islamic extremist propaganda claim that the US is an enemy of Islam.

Here's a bit of advice for the Lamont campaign: between now and November 7, use the phrase, "the failed policies of Joe Lieberman and George Bush" at every opportunity.

I love how the repubs. tell you how and what to think. It really pisses me off, makes me feel like a child. Again, Iraqis are not terrorists, Iraq is not a terrorist, yet the repubs. seem to want to mesh them all together into one. Its funny to me. They are kind of thinking along the lines that all Arabs or in this case Iraqis are terrorists which is flat wrong. The "war on terror" is fishy to me to begin with but the to win this war it definately cannot be done conventionally. It has to be done through securing our homeland and through intelligence. That is the only way to win this shitty war on terror. Conventional war just creates a never ending cycle that just replunishes the terrorists. Wake up repubs.

Kevin - you goofy Democrats are shooting yourselves in the foot. It's a little late for you to whine that Guliani and Cheney are noticing.

And, if the biggest reason for the presence of jihadists to be in Iraq is the presence of US forces,

The presence of US forces in Iraq, that is.

they are likely to follow us wherever we redeploy in the region.

Why? They fight us in Iraq because we invaded Iraq. If we don't invade another country, they won't have the same motivation to defend it.

So it will not be so simple as leaving small garrisons in Kuwait or the UAE. It will mean a fighting retreat, probably to countries who are not prepared for the influx of jihadists to follow.

What sort of nonsense is this? 95% of the rebels in Iraq are Iraqis, who are fighting us solely because we invaded and attacked their country. When we leave Iraq, they'll stop fighting us. After all, the VC didn't exactly come after the US Army when it cut and ran from Vietnam under Nixon.

Idiot.

"Any defense would likely be just a bit longer than sound bite length." So where's Osama? (That's a very short sound bite.)

"If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again."

I'd like Weepin' Joe to explain exactly how the occupation in Iraq by the United States prevents, in any way, the plotting of Pakistani-born British subjects in Britain. Is there some cause and effect I'm not seeing, or is he even more of a delusional old man than he appears to be?

Don't forget Sully. I nearly threw my computer against the wall after this: "But, for all Cheney's and Rumsfeld's flaws, they are at least proposing something serious, however ineptly carried out. I have yet to hear anti-war voices on the left propose a positive strategy for defeating Islamist terror at its roots, or call for democratization of the Arab Muslim world. Indeed, I heard little but scorn or silence when Bush announced this vision in London."

You're sure that's Andrew Sullivan? Sounds more like Kevin Drum to me.....

For the Giuliani's of our republic (meaning the entire leadership of the Republican party) America winning takes a back set to winning in America. Success over country - a modern Republican to his core.

Harry Reid says the Democrats have defeated the Patriot Act.

And I don't know why his political party won't allow him the kind of flexibility to have that viewpoint.

The party doesn't decide who gets the nomination, the voters do. (Its called a "primary")

I guess Giuliani isn't familiar with the democratic process.

Why won't the Democratic party let Joe Lieberman go on offense against the terrorists?

Same goes for Al.

After their main water carrier, John Breaux, went to his mega-bucks lobbyist reward, the GOP needed another 'useful idiot'.

They slobbered all over Joe, played to his seemingly pathological vanity, and he swooned into their embrace.

What a pathetic farce.

Now I'm going to go look for a discussion of something with real global ramifications: the series of typhoons which have hit SE China.

Hint: what's coming soon to a grocery store near you and what's not coming to retail shelves everywhere for the annual 'Holiday' debauch.

This assertion of Kevin's may have been true at the beginning of the war, when Saddam was in power, depending on whether or not Saddam's regime had a relation to terrorism.

However, we're now fighting al Qaeda in Iraq (among others). Opposing the Iraq war now means opposing the battle against one branch of al Qaeda.

No, it doesn't. The group that renamed itself al-Qaeda in Iraq was a separate extremist group that has and still has its own agenda largely unrelated to al-Qaeda's; it nominally joined the loose al-Qaeda organization only because that was useful in defining itself in opposition to the United States, which was and is only useful to it because of the US occupation of Iraq.

The best way to fight "al-Qaeda in Iraq" isn't to continue to "stay the course" of conducting raids in Iraq that inflict harm on civilians and are often loudly opposed by the government we are nominally supporting, which just radicalizes the population against us. The way to fight them is to starve them of people willing to die for the al-Qaeda cause by removing the motivation that makes them willing to do so.

The party doesn't decide who gets the nomination, the voters do. (Its called a "primary")

The voters in the party are the party.

This assertion of Kevin's may have been true at the beginning of the war, when Saddam was in power, depending on whether or not Saddam's regime had a relation to terrorism.

Hussein had no relation to terrorism directed against the United States, and all Repubican claims to the contrary have been lies.

Stephen:

The voters in the party are the party. BTW: how is said Democratic party preventing Al from going on offense against the terrorists?

Why won't the Democratic party let Joe Lieberman go on offense against the terrorists?

He's too old to enlist and Homeland Security and the FBI haven't hired him because he didn't apply.

Making silly noises in the Senate and White House is not "going on the offense against the terrorists." It is posturing and politics-as-usual.

An aside to Secretary Chertoff and the AG: Stopping terrorists takes careful, competent police work, not early morning press conferences and self-congratulations for something that you had nothing to do with. PR stunts do not make us safer.

Stefan:

American fighter pilots would tell you a different story. Also, is it just a coincidence that a couple of these London terrorists are named Hussein?

I think the past few day's events make it very clear what we as nation must do to combat terrorism and the dangerous jihadist movement that threatens the lives of freedom loving people everywhere.

We must liberate England.

Too long has England been allowed to harbor terrorists, such as the 24 recently arrested. For months or even years, these jihadists were moving freely around England, listening to Oasis, eating fish and chips, and watching soccer or football as they confusingly call soccer - an obvious reference to British shoe bomber Richard Reid.

England has been America's enemy since America first fought them when we first broke free from them when we first left there. They are still led by an unelected monarch and religious leader that they refer omninously to as 'The Queen'.

When America liberates England, we will doubtlessly find many many Muslims there including the particularly dangerous and offensive 'Ali G', as seen on HBO. Some of these Muslims will be terrorists, too. And after we bring them to a nearby newly created island detention facility we are now calling O'Gitmo, some of them will be found to be terrorist leaders.

And then we will be able to show the world that our liberation of the U.K. was justified. England will once again relive it's glory days of being the center of terror for the world. It's better to fight them in York than in New York, isn't it?

Ned Lamont just did--"Lamont Fires Back at Cheney"--and in the CT press, where it belongs.

Zogby reports a snap poll showing 79% of U.S. Democrats are glad Holy Joe got beat; want anti-war candidates. Tactically, I think this means nationalizing the race as anti-Bush, so it plays even in GI towns. Rahm is right on the money with "rubber-stamp Republicans."

Demographics strongly favor Lamont's bringing the Dems home--Lieberman's base in the primary was traditional hard-core Dems, probably voting Name ID. Joe's got wicked bad negatives and they are not getting lower. And pro-choice Lieb ain't getting ALL the GOP vote; they either vote for Schlesinger or stay home.

--sh

Links

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1155
http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/local/scn-gt-a1cheney8.11aug11,0,3163081.story?coll=green-news-local-headlines

This nonsense needs to be fought at every turn. Democrats have to make it absolutely clear, every single time somebody spouts this rubbish, that supporting the Iraq war doesn't mean you're "on offense against terrorism."

This topic is actually pretty pointless. Basically, Kevin is saying that the left needs to use a certain PR and spin approach to make sure people don't equate the Iraq war with fighting terrorism. The first comment from Keith G. reinforces this.

The reason that's all pretty pointless is because the American people already have an opinion on the War on Terror. Everyone on this board believes it increases terrorism and spawns more terrorists. People on the right believe it is necessary in a changing world.

Basically, people have made up their minds on this issue one way or the other, and no amount of word-spin is going to change that.

freelunch:

Perhaps once you read the full story of how British and American intelligence agencies worked this case, you will realize it was not just silly noise.

Stranahan:

Nice try, but the Bush Doctrine does not apply to our ALLIES!!

Steve High:

God forbid there's another terrorist attack in the U.S., Lamont's anti-war stance will come home to roost.

The reason that's all pretty pointless is because the American people already have an opinion on the War on Terror. Everyone on this board believes it increases terrorism and spawns more terrorists.

No, everyone on this board doesn't think that.

Many of us think that the invasion and occupation of Iraq do that, and that they undermine the War on Terror and demonstrate why this administration and its followers are not to be trusted running any war on terror since they don't seem interested in fighting it.

"This nonsense needs to be fought at every turn. Democrats have to make it absolutely clear, every single time somebody spouts this rubbish, that supporting the Iraq war doesn't mean you're "on offense against terrorism." Nor does opposing the war also mean you oppose fighting jihadism. The truth is closer to the exact opposite, and chapter and verse should follow if necessary."

It's not "chapter and verse" that is going to convince people of your "hawkishness" on terrorism, it's "plans and actions".

The left as no viable, logical plan to fight jihadism and has actually attempted to handicap our current efforts by opposing the NSA and the Patriot Act.

"Chapter and verse" will get you nowhere. First of all try recognizing this battle for what it is and come up with a PLAN. Incidentally, had the Lamont-Lieberman primariy been held today, Lieberman would have won considering the Heathrow scare.

"Many of us think that the invasion and occupation of Iraq do that, and that they undermine the War on Terror and demonstrate why this administration and its followers are not to be trusted running any war on terror since they don't seem interested in fighting it." - cm

The following is called a PLAN, cm. And also, all invasions and occupations are not "quagmires", in fact our invasion and occupation of Europe during WWII turned out pretty well didn't it? And we lost quite a few more soldiers in that effort.

"WASHINGTON, Aug. 9, 2006 – The Iraqi army is halfway to its goal of 10 divisions as the 4th Division assumed command of the area north of Baghdad yesterday.
The division assumed primary control of its area of responsibility from the 101st Airborne Division. This is the fifth of 10 division headquarters in Iraq to assume the lead in regional operations.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman called the development a key benchmark in the effort Iraqis are making to take control of their own country. The division will be in the lead for security in Salah Ad Din, Sulaymaniyah and Kirkuk provinces. This area includes the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Samarra and Iraq’s northern oil fields.
Overall, Iraqi security forces are in the lead with five army divisions, 25 army brigades and 85 army battalions, Whitman said. The Iraqi national police have two battalions in the lead in other areas.
In northern Iraq, 33 battalions, nine brigades and two divisions have demonstrated their ability to operate independently and now lead the fight against terrorists and anti-Iraqi forces. The 5th Iraqi Army Division assumed the lead in Diyala province in July."

On this particular issue, he believes that we have to be on offense against terrorism.

"On offense" is code for Bush's failed policy of containing and appeasing terrorism. They didn't stay in Iraq, and giving bin Laden what he wanted didn't make him go away.

GOP: "support failure or we'll say you're not respectable."
.

Krugman today:

'Many of those lamenting Mr. Lieberman’s defeat claim that they fear a takeover of our political parties by extremists. But if political polarization were really their main concern, they’d be as exercised about the primary challenge from the right facing Lincoln Chafee as they are about Mr. Lieberman’s woes.'

Bingo.

Saying that supporting the Iraq War is being on offense in the war on terror is like saying that putting a gun to your head is being strong on self-defense.

Thomas --

You need to read something other than Republican press releases. You need to stop watching Republican press briefings (they aren't press conferences, since they never answer inconvenient questions). America's misconceived and ill-managed 'war on terror' did nothing to break this case. Chertoff and Gonzales were not responsible for the arrests and shouldn't be grandstanding.

On tonight's episode of "Strawman Theatre", we present the twelfth and final chapter of You Can't Fool All of the People All the Time.

I think the proper response to this is simply to ask Mr. Giuliani or Mr. Lieberman exactly where and how they intend to "go on the offense" against terrorism. Sure looks like they're playing a prevent defense in Iraq and attacking Iran with hot air, if you ask me.

It's reached the point where Republicans are endorsing Joe Lieberman against their own party's candidate, and hawkish pundits have been reduced to waving their hands in the air and yelling "McGovern! McGovern!" over and over again, as if it's a protective mantra that they fear has begun to wear off.

I love the smell of my enemies' fear and desperation in the morning. It smells like... VICTORY!

Taking down the hornet's net and tossing it in the fire makes sense. Throwing rocks at the hornet’s nest because one stung you does not. Burning down the barn is not a good option either. Know your enemy, and confront them aggressively. Don't pursue actions that can only work as a recruitment tool for your adversaries. A clumsy inept policy is not better than marshalling your forces and looking for an opportunity to make a positive difference. "Do something even if it is wrong" is a cute phrase but not a good foreign policy.

You wanna know what being on offense in the war on terror would have looked like? It would have looked like 50,000 American soldiers swarming Tora Bora and coming back with a hog-tied Osama bin Laden. Even if it had cost us 3000 men it still would have been infinitely more successful than the Iraq distraction.

What's frustrating about this is the responses to Guiliani's drivel are so obvious. Guiliani, Cheney, and Rove are employing a tactic aimed at gullible and uninformed voters (God they've got nothing but contempt for their base). But because of a lack of articulate and aggressive Democrat response, it sticks, at least among the target audience.

Oh, I am sorry, Kevin, that the truth from Rudy kept you up late last night.

Cut 'N Run Jay: WASHINGTON, Aug. 9, 2006 – The Iraqi army is halfway to its goal of 10 divisions as the 4th Division assumed command of the area north of Baghdad yesterday....

I Googled the text C'N Jay posted above without a link and, suprise surprise!, it's from the Department of Defense web site www.defenselink.mil -- i.e. not a news item but a government propapanda piece. Real unbiased source there....

"Know your enemy, and confront them aggressively. Don't pursue actions that can only work as a recruitment tool for your adversaries. A clumsy inept policy is not better than marshalling your forces and looking for an opportunity to make a positive difference" - bushburner

You, and most of the left, don't have the slightest idea who the enemy is.

November 1979: Muslim extremists (Iranian variety) seized the U.S. embassy in Iran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days, following Democrat Jimmy Carter's masterful foreign policy granting Islamic fanaticism its first real foothold in the Middle East.

1982: Muslim extremists (mostly Hezbollah) began a nearly decade-long habit of taking Americans and Europeans hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley and holding Terry Anderson for 6 1/2 years.

April 1983: Muslim extremists (Islamic Jihad or possibly Hezbollah) bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 16 Americans.

October 1983: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) blew up the U.S. Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines.

December 1983: Muslim extremists (al-Dawa) blew up the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing five and injuring 80.

September 1984: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) exploded a truck bomb at the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing 24 people, including two U.S. servicemen.

December 1984: Muslim extremists (probably Hezbollah) hijacked a Kuwait Airways airplane, landed in Iran and demanded the release of the 17 members of al-Dawa who had been arrested for the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing two Americans before the siege was over.

June 14, 1985: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) hijacked TWA Flight 847 out of Athens, diverting it to Beirut, taking the passengers hostage in return for the release of the Kuwait 17 as well as another 700 prisoners held by Israel. When their demands were not met, the Muslims shot U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac.

October 1985: Muslim extremists (Palestine Liberation Front backed by Libya) seized an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, killing 69-year-old American Leon Klinghoffer by shooting him and then tossing his body overboard.

December 1985: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed airports in Rome and Vienna, killing 20 people, including five Americans.

April 1986: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed a discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen in West Berlin, injuring hundreds and killing two, including a U.S. soldier.

December 1988: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground.

February 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, possibly with involvement of friendly rival al-Qaida) set off a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center, killing six and wounding more than 1,000.

Spring 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the Sudanese Islamic Front and at least one member of Hamas) plot to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the U.N. complex, and the FBI's lower Manhattan headquarters.

November 1995: Muslim extremists (possibly Iranian "Party of God") explode a car bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. military servicemen.

June 1996: Muslim extremists (13 Saudis and a Lebanese member of Hezbollah, probably with involvement of al-Qaida) explode a truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds.

August 1998: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) explode truck bombs at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring thousands.

October 2000: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) blow up the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.

Sept. 11, 2001: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) hijack commercial aircraft and fly planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 Americans.

How does one fight spin?
The GOP tells endless tales of semi-truth or semi-lie, and the Dems have to rebutt each one? Like a game of Ya-ha, Na-ha, Ya-ha, Na-ha my two 6-year-olds play. The GOP are far more able to tell lies to benefit theimselves than the Dems are willing to, and one ounce of lie can bring into default bucketfuls of truth these days.
How does one fight spin, PR, fight personal opinion being passed as objectivity, fight a bias media?

"I Googled the text C'N Jay posted above without a link and, suprise surprise!, it's from the Department of Defense web site www.defenselink.mil -- i.e. not a news item but a government propapanda piece. Real unbiased source there...." - Stefan

This is how the left feels about the military. A puffed up propaganda organization. And you want to be Commander in Chief???????????

The Fool:

Then Bush would have had a dozen Cindy Sheehans to deal with.

Del Capslock:

You probably think every Reagan Democrats was a "gullible and uninformed voter" too.

me: government propapanda piece.

Or, I suppose, a government propaganda piece. But those pro-panda items our government puts out are just as bad! Damn pandas.....

And you want to be Commander in Chief???????????

Er, no, I don't. If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve.

Stefan:

I think it's legal as long as the DoD web page is hosted outside the U.S. Now, do you think it is just a coincidence that a couple of these London terrorists are named Hussein or not?

Actually, Jay, I was aware of all of those terrorist incidents and I agree that the people involved are, in fact, our enemy.

Now please explain how maintaining 130,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely and encouraging Israel to destroy Lebanon's civilian infrastructure are an effective strategy for preventing those attacks.

How does one fight spin, PR, fight personal opinion being passed as objectivity, fight a bias media?

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? As Mark Twain said, "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes."

You realize, Stefan, when asked by Fox News whether he would pursue the Presidency in 2008, Vice President Dick Cheney quoted Sherman's statement as well?

Thomas, do you think it's just coincidence that one of the most bloodthirsty tyrants of all time was named Joseph?

"Now please explain how maintaining 130,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely and encouraging Israel to destroy Lebanon's civilian infrastructure are an effective strategy for preventing those attacks."

It is effective because they think that all arabs / muslims are terrorists. The conserv. repubs. do not distinguish between good and bad arabs. It is very dangerous. Although I do not agree with this way of warped thinking I can recognize it and notice it. This "grouping" together nonsense has to be the reason because the reasons we were given originally were not true. Its the thinking that an arab life is worth less than an American life. Disgusting.

Right on, Kevin. Bush, Cheney and others have managed to link Iraq with terrorism. We need to be on the offensive to break that link. Keep on truckin'

JerryB

"Now please explain how maintaining 130,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely and encouraging Israel to destroy Lebanon's civilian infrastructure are an effective strategy for preventing those attacks" - ajl

It's not an indefinite engagement (strawman), and as laid out by the DOD (Stefans propoganda organization) the transfer of gov't and military power is well under way.

Israel is not "destroying Lebanon's civilian infrastructure" (another strawman), they are attempting to do what the UN failed to do for them, disarm hizbollah.

Please pay attention to the facts, not the spin.

It's clear the war on terror is a failure and at some point the republicans need to be held accountable and stop trying to run away from their responsibility.

The republicans need to be forced to account for this massive failure that has increased jihadism and terror, cost the loss of lives, the respect of the entire world, put us into debt to China, inflamed the entire ME, turned the relatively peaceful and secular societies of Iraq and Lebanon into wastelands of despair and hate, pissed the military down the drain and exhausted them, wasted billions on republican cronie contractors, spied on and turned into suspects college students and Quakers and grannies on airplanes, appointed two boobs like Rice and Bolton who can't negotiate their way out of a paperbag to be in charge of "peace".

Instead of telling us how strong y'all are on terrists and calling dems weak, you republicans got a few questions you need to answer up to and a few things you need to be be accountable for to the American people and the world.

Israel is not "destroying Lebanon's civilian infrastructure"

No one disputes this, not even the U.S.

Damn, a little defensive there. Truth hurts, don'it?

Well, atleast you're fighting something. That's a start.

"Although I do not agree with this way of warped thinking I can recognize it and notice it." - dee

You don't recognize or notice ANYTHING. Did you miss the recent meeting between Condi and the Lebanese, or how about Bush and Al-Maliki. Do you think they both are considered "bad" Arabs?

Facts, not spin!!!!!!!

We can't allow the Rudy Giulianis and Dick Cheneys of the world to get away with this.

Too late.

Jay --

- Please tell me when, exactly, our troops will be out of Iraq. If you cannot, then it is quite clear that the engagement is indefinite.

- The DOD has a long, bipartisan history of presenting misleading press releases.

- Bombing highways far away from Hezbollah does not disarm Hezbollah.

Placing Rudy in the context of the recently foiled terror plot (which is clearly how he intended to be taken) makes his statement looks even more ridiculous.

By all appearances, the terrorists were stopped by good police work. The flypaper theory ("fight 'em there so we don't have to fight 'em here") was once again debunked. These terrorists were already in Britain. And I sincerely doubt that any of them contemplated taking off for Iraq.

The Fool wrote:

"You wanna know what being on offense in the war on terror would have looked like? It would have looked like 50,000 American soldiers swarming Tora Bora and coming back with a hog-tied Osama bin Laden. Even if it had cost us 3000 men it still would have been infinitely more successful than the Iraq distraction."
____________

It would have taken weeks to get that many US troops in country and even more to build a logistics support infrastructure for them. By then, the big targets would have long since departed Tora Bora.

Deploying massive numbers of conventional troops into the mountains would be a matter of helicopters, not easily ambushed and blocked ground convoys. We only have two good airfields in Afghanistan and both are still being upgraded. Afghanistan has no fuel and no pipeline. Everything we need, food, fuel, even building materials, has to be flown in or trucked in from Pakistan, over 600 miles of bad road.

If we deploy three or four divisions in the Hindu Kush, they will become relatively immobile and give up most advantages of technology. 3000 KIA might be a low estimate of what they'd lose inside a single year.

Hizbollah destroyed Lebanon's infrastructure by constructing and employing hostile weaponary from within that infrastructure.

FACTS, NOT SPIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"- Bombing highways far away from Hezbollah does not disarm Hezbollah"

But it does prevent them from re-arming, do you suppose?

on the 'logical plan' gap, I would suggest that this administration has no logical plan for fighting terrorism either, they have a series of slogans that are totally disconnected from reality and a colossal failure of their grand vision in Iraq. It's enough for Dems to say 'we'll fight terrorism by emphasizing the right things in the current approach and dropping the wrong things like Bush's massive blunder in Iraq'.

And, escaping, Jay.

Trashhauler --

Your analysis reminds me of the old joke about the drunk who lost his keys. He kept looking for them under the streetlight. When asked why he kept looking there, when it was clear that they weren't anywhere near the streetlight, he answered that the light was better.

Bush attacks where the fight is easier, even if he isn't attacking those who need to be attacked.

Thomas: Bush would have had a dozen Cindy Sheehans to deal with if he had captured bin Laden?

This is actually pretty funny. First of all its funny how much Cindy Sheehan gets under the skin of the neocon retards. That in and of itself makes Cindy Sheehan an American hero.

I love arguing with neocons. Its like a Dick Cheney hunting trip on a stocked game farm. You just sit there shooting them down one after another. It's fun!

So Thomas is "arguing" that Bush couldn't afford to go after bin Laden because there would have been a dozen Cindy Sheehans. Wow, Thomas. You must think Bush is really, really, really scared of Cindy Sheehan. It's fucking hilarious.

For more laughs though let's examine the logic of neocon retard, Thomas. Its like an analogy question on the SAT:

If a disastrous war in Iraq that costs 3000 men and counting, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars and America's reputation around the world -- all for no apparent gain -- results in 1 Cindy Sheehan...

...How many Cindy Sheehans would an operation costing the same number of men but far less money and that would improve America's reputation around the world, while bringing the world's worst terrorist to justice produce?

Logic would suggest that the 2nd scenario produces fewer Sheehans than the first. But to a retarded neocon it increases the number 12-fold!

Thanks for the laughs Thomas.

The Fool - "You wanna know what being on offense in the war on terror would have looked like? It would have looked like 50,000 American soldiers swarming Tora Bora and coming back with a hog-tied Osama bin Laden. Even if it had cost us 3000 men it still would have been infinitely more successful than the Iraq distraction."

As much as I agree with this, it is still hindsight. Unfortunately, we are where we are and no amount of hindsight will get us out.

I wish the energies of our collective were less interested in W's lack of IQ and more interested in using there own to fix things.

Arrogance and cockiness expressed in the wisedom hindsight is not leadership...its backseat driving.

Formulating a vision for the future and communicating it to the American People in a way that they can understand and embrace is the key to the Presidency and Congress.

Looking backwards and saying, "I would have done better!" isn't what wins hearts and souls.

But it does prevent them from re-arming, do you suppose?

You are implying that the Lebanese Army and Lebanese Government has been complicit in the arming of Hezbollah. Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

To whom are you comparing Stalin, freelunch, and then I can answer your question.

trex wrote:

(Quoting someone else) Israel is not "destroying Lebanon's civilian infrastructure"

No one disputes this, not even the U.S.
________________

It depends on what infrastructure you mean. The transportation infrastructure is taking a real beating. However, Israel has not yet attempted to destroy power generation or much of the distribution grid, waterworks, or any industrial capability to speak of. Most non-transportation related infrastructure is intact.

Sorry, The Fool, but this is no laughing matter (which is why you will keep losing elections). My reference to Sheehan was simply the end result of your side exploiting war dead, which I agree with Trashhauler that 3000 KIA would be a low estimate of what they'd have lost. Try growing up, or at least listen to ArchModerate2006.

Now, do you think it is just a coincidence that a couple of these London terrorists are named Hussein or not?

Probably; its hardly an uncommon name in the Muslim world.

We shall see, Chris.

Thomas --

Anyone with the name Joseph: McCarthy? Kennedy? Biden? Lieberman? Goebbels? Mary's husband? Verdi? Garibaldi? Conrad?

If you don't get my point, Joseph is a name that is common to the culture of the West. Hussein is a name that is common to Arabic Moslem culture.

freelunch wrote:

Trashhauler --

Your analysis reminds me of the old joke about the drunk who lost his keys. He kept looking for them under the streetlight. When asked why he kept looking there, when it was clear that they weren't anywhere near the streetlight, he answered that the light was better.

Bush attacks where the fight is easier, even if he isn't attacking those who need to be attacked.
______________

Freelunch, none of my posts have been about why we are in Iraq. My coments today have been about what the military implications of different options will be.

The military will fight wherever you put us. We just know that when it comes to fighting, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Until the Democratic Party can take the presidency, control congress and sustain them both, I wouldn't dismiss those "retarded" neocons lightly. Calling the opposition stupid doesn't make them stupid and doesn't will elections. Gore may have gotten better grades in high school, but W. was smart enough to take Florida.

Disagree with all your heart, but disrespecting the intelligence and the motivation of the opposition is truly foolish.

Wow. More dishonesty, and character-assassination from the Right.

How

Refreshing.

Not.

Everytime some nut job Repug, especially shotgun Dick, spouts off about Democrats being soft on terra, the nation needs to be reminded who chose to fail to decapitate the AQ leaders [by invading Iraq].

Yeah.

Osama been forgotten alright.

I know everyone knows this, but the trolls are absolutely uninterested in a constructive dialogue, and their comments are designed to piss you off. Best thing is to ignore them.

being on "offense" against terrorism doesn't mean that we have to be engaged in an occupation of Iraq and stuck in the middle of a civil war.

that's not offense, that's actually just fanning the flames of terrorism. In that regard, we're doing a great job.

It's just too bad that the Democrat party sounds so much like the terrorists and Islamo-facists.

Al said:

By liberating Iraq from Saddam, America gave a devastating blow to the Al-Qaeda/Hezbollah type of suicide terrorism.

~~~

Actually, AL international terrorism events more than tripled in 2005: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html

Moreover, hello? Hezbollah is firing more than 100 rockets per day into Israel currently and they live in air conditioned and fortified underground bunkers. You call that a "devasting blow"? How did this come to pass? Well, by invading the U.S. we strengthened Iran to extreme heights of power and influence. They have taken advantage of the chaos in Iraq and now their sphere of influence is much greater. When we leave Iraq they will be leading the Shiite's to create yet another theocracy with even more radical islamic fundamentalists nutjobs (its already happening, read the Iraq constituion and check out their Presdent's support of Hezbollah).

Al, you are a fracking idiot, you always have been, and always will be. I would suggest you get over there and fight in some of these wars you support, instead of acting like a moronic coward here at home.

"Disagree with all your heart, but disrespecting the intelligence and the motivation of the opposition is truly foolish."

To quote King Bush " I reject that. " We do disagree and that's why Leiberman just lost in connecticut. It is time to put heart into action and that's what just happened in CT primary. Respect is something you earn it is not force fed as repubs. would like to have it. Bush stole FL he isn't and wasn't smart enough to do it. That was funny, hearing Bush and smart in the same sentence. Its hard to respect anyone who mixes Iraq with the war on terror because there is no connection.

"It's just too bad that the Democrat party sounds so much like the terrorists and Islamo-facists."

Have you listened to the Republican Party's mumbo jumbo lately?

Both parties just "cut and paste" the same crap and pass it around until someone comes up with new "cool" sound bite. My kingdom for an original idea.

Jay, you didn't answer this question:

Now please explain how maintaining 130,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely and encouraging Israel to destroy Lebanon's civilian infrastructure are an effective strategy for preventing those attacks.

~~~

Not only a coward for not fighting yourself in these idiotic wars, but a coward for avoiding the logical fallacies behind Iraq War = War on al Queda.

What stopped this latest attack Jay? The Iraq war? No good police work and intelligence by the British. How did they do that, INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION with Pakistan (because they still value international cooperation and intelligence sharing). Despite the fact that the US was a target, any indication they knew anything about this before the UK informed them? None.

I would suggest you get over there and fight in some of these wars you support, instead of acting like a moronic coward here at home.

he can join Jay and Charlie/Thomas in the 101st Sqwawkin' Chickenhawks. : )

Today Kevin writes:

"This nonsense needs to be fought at every turn. Democrats have to make it absolutely clear, every single time somebody spouts this rubbish, that supporting the Iraq war doesn't mean you're 'on offense against terrorism.' Nor does opposing the war also mean you oppose fighting jihadism. The truth is closer to the exact opposite, and chapter and verse should follow if necessary."

Hmmm. But only yesterday, Kevin quoted Jacob Weisberg thusly:

"The problem for the Democrats is that the anti-Lieberman insurgents go far beyond simply opposing Bush's faulty rationale for the war, his dishonest argumentation for it, and his incompetent execution of it. Many of them appear not to take the wider, global battle against Islamic fanaticism seriously. They see Iraq purely as a symptom of a cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11, as opposed to a tragic misstep in a bigger conflict. Substantively, this view indicates a fundamental misapprehension of the problem of terrorism."

And how did Kevin respond to that?

When Weisberg conflated opposition to the war in Iraq with "oppos[ing] fighting jihadism" by declaring that those who "see Iraq purely as a symptom of a cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11" thereby "appear not to take the wider, global battle against Islamic fanaticism seriously" and have "a fundamental misapprehension of the problem of terrorism", did Kevin denounce this "nonsense" and "rubbish" and respond with "chapter and verse"?

No. Instead, Kevin wrote:

"... much as I'm reluctant to agree with him, Weisberg has a point: aside from kvetching about Bush's policies, the liberal blogosphere has chosen to almost unanimously sit out any substantive discussion of the fight against radical jihadism and what to do about it."

No, Kevin did not denounce Weisberg's "nonsense" and "rubbish" and respond with "chapter and verse". He did not point out that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was planned long before the 9/11 attacks, from the earliest days of the Bush administration and before; he did not point out that multiple former White House insiders (e.g. O'Neill, Clark) have confirmed that fact, and have confirmed that immediately following the 9/11 attacks, the principals of the Bush administration "cynically" began moving to exploit that tragedy for political gain and to justify their long-planned war of unprovoked aggression against Iraq; nor did he point out that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has nothing whatever to do with "fighting jihadism" and indeed has exacerbated anti-American sentiment not only in the Arab/Muslim world but throughout the entire world, thereby fueling "jihadism".

Instead, he legitimized Weisberg's "nonsense" and "rubbish".

Why?

The Bush admin. isn't very good at bird hunting.

Cheney shot his hunting partner in the face.

Dubya said he was gonna flush out Osama bin Laden and he had a chance at Tora Bora, but hasn't done anything since then except go on vacation.

Man, it must be hot as H*** in Texas in the summer.
I figure it fries their brains, so they just hallucinate about their greatness all the time.

In fact, the Bush administration has been an abject failure, a disaster of historic proportions.

The Fear Offensive won't work this time. The American electorate has come to the conclusion that this administration, the Republican Party, and all its fellow travelers are destroying everything that makes this country work. Plain and simple. So come November, they're going to get their tushes kicked. They're out.

Nothing that happens in the next 2 months can change this. If a plane blows up, people will come to the obvious conclusion that the Bush Administration didn't protect us.

They're incompetent. They're corrupt. It's Katrina all over again. They're out.

ArchModerate2006: Gore may have gotten better grades in high school, but W. was smart enough to take Florida.

No.

The Bush crime family's political machine in Florida -- Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris -- were ruthless and dishonest enough to engage in a criminal conspiracy to deliberately disenfranchise tens of thousands of eligible, black Democratic voters by purging them from the rolls by falsely identifying them as "felons" who were ineligible to vote.

Then, when Gore won Florida anyway, the Bush machine in Florida was ruthless and dishonest enough to steal the election again by preventing all the legitimately cast ballots from being counted in accordance with long-established Florida law, ultimately turning to right-wing partisan Republicans on the Supreme Court to stop all the votes from being counted.

It is, however, as Florida proves, a bad idea to underestimate the ruthless criminality of the Bush crime family and the Republican Party that it dominates.

The terrarists hate us cause of us our freedom. So I'm busy gettin' rid of our freedom, sos we won't have no more terrorists no more.

This would be the same Rudy Giuliani who:

1) Gratuitously insulted the Palestinian delegation at the UN when he shut them out of a city function where all other delegations were invited, thus making NYC more of a target?

2) Failed in his 8 years as mayor to knock heads together so police and fire communications could be linked, thus likely being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of first responders?

3) Put a grandiose emergency center in the upper floors of WTC 7, and had it fueled from tanks on the roof, which caught fire and doomed a building that otherwise might have been saved (the center of course was not used on 9/11?)

That Rudy Giuliani?

MarkH - "In fact, the Bush administration has been an abject failure, a disaster of historic proportions."

I'm trying to follow the logic, are you suggesting that the shortcomings of the current administration are due to it being "Hot in Texas" or "Poor Bird Hunting Skills."

You could be right. A more powerful arguement than some.

The Bushlicker as well the Nutless wings of the Democratic Party have been so dominant in the party for so long that the media has become a part and parcel of the Republican noise machine.

I am very pessimistic about the possibility of this situation changing anytime soon.

"Everytime some nut job Repug, especially shotgun Dick, spouts off about Democrats being soft on terra, the nation needs to be reminded who chose to fail to decapitate the AQ leaders [by invading Iraq]."

But wasn't the left also opposed to invading Afghanistan?

This newest 'terrorist' plot needs to be seen as a failure of the policy of Bush and Lieberman, whose policies have made terrorists out of those with sympathies for the innocent people we and our allies have been slaughtering. We cannot expect everyone to be Rachel Courie and allow themselves to be run over by the tractor of Western militancy.

"1) Gratuitously insulted the Palestinian delegation at the UN when he shut them out of a city function where all other delegations were invited, thus making NYC more of a target?"

I thought the point of this blog topic was to try and convince people liberals are tough on terrorism? I am not sure appeasing terrorists is very productive.

It would have taken weeks to get that many US troops in country and even more to build a logistics support infrastructure for them. By then, the big targets would have long since departed Tora Bora.

If we deploy three or four divisions in the Hindu Kush, they will become relatively immobile and give up most advantages of technology. 3000 KIA might be a low estimate of what they'd lose inside a single year.

Poor baby. Fighting is hard. Accomplishing real goals is hard. If Bush only fights where it's easy - then the enemies will simply hide where it's hard. Duh.

I think that an effort to get bin Laden wherever he is - INCLUDING in sovereign Pakistan, would have been a worthy effort. Look, we've spent $300 Billion++++ in Iraq.

I think it was great that we got Saddam - and killing Zarqawi was definately worth the effort. (Notice: it's no longer an insurgency, it's no longer foreign fighters. It's sectarian violence, a civil war).

These terror organizations are as much about ego as anything else. Killing their leaders and such is definately worth the effort, because it is the charisma of these leaders that binds these organizations together, gives the operatives the faith they need to execute suicide missions. We should focus exclusively on their leaders. (and I wish they would focus exclusively on ours).

SecularAnimist - "The Bush crime family's political machine in Florida -- Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris -- were ruthless and dishonest enough to engage in a criminal conspiracy to deliberately disenfranchise tens of thousands of eligible, black Democratic voters by purging them from the rolls by falsely identifying them as "felons" who were ineligible to vote."

Nothing is new in politics. Kennedy became President because Mayor Richard Daly of Chicago manufacured votes from the grave. In addition, the Kennedy machine took West Virginia in classic "W" Style

Yeap, but at the end of the day...in both cases...who became President? My point is simple. Those "retarded" neocons just keep bringing home the bacon. The opposition is good at what they do and they are smart.

What are you going to do? Call them bad names?

"This newest 'terrorist' plot needs to be seen as a failure of the policy of Bush and Lieberman, whose policies have made terrorists out of those with sympathies for the innocent people we and our allies have been slaughtering."

LOL. Kevin's got a long ways to go, if he really wants liberals to pretend like they are tough on terrorism. Looks like Rudy is spot on!

But wasn't the left also opposed to invading Afghanistan?

No.

"No."

So who were at all those anti-Afghanistan war protests?

Truth hurts, don'it?

The truth was the first casualty of this Administration and its toadies like Rudy. The truth would be refreshing about now - that's Kevin's point.

SecularAnimist - "Gore won Florida anyway"

I didn't say "W" won Florida, I said he took it. But either way it is mere semantics, the history books will record "W" behind Clinton not Gore.

"I didn't say "W" won Florida, I said he took it. But either way it is mere semantics, the history books will record "W" behind Clinton not Gore."

If Gore didn't have the spine to stand up and claim the job for which he was rightly elected for, how can we expect a spineless wimp to stand up for America and face down the terrorists? Thank Allah Gore isn't running the country in times of peril.

Someone upstream commented that JFKennedy became president because of some shennanigans in Cook Cty, IL. JFK became president largely because he and a number of his like-minded sycophants beat on the so-called "missile gap." The "missile gap" was a lie. JFK and his sycophants knew it was a lie. And the Eisenhower administration knew it was a lie, but, because the information that showed that it was a lie was obtained via classified means, they were unable to say how and why they knew it was a lie. That is why JFK won in 1960.

Fast forward to 2000 and 2004. The defense information that was used by the Bush II adnmistration to go to war against iraq in 2002 was a lie, the information that was used to get him re-elected in 2004 was also a lie, and the Bush malAdministration is not willing to release all of the information under claims of secrecy.

That is all laid out in the rather illuminating documentary Why We Fight.

A completely dishonest straw man from a prominet Republican? Imagine my surprise.

This nonsense needs to be fought at every turn.

I agree with the sentiment, Kevin, but you need look no further than your own comment boards to see how even that plays into Republican hands. Dishonest Republicans simply repeat the same straw man bullshit, the Democrats spend their time rebutting it, and the so-called "Liberal Media" simply reports it as a he-said, she-said.

Democrats need to make it absolutely clear, every single time somebody spouts this rubbish, that they're lying, and that they're lying -- yes, lying -- and lying because they're afraid of honest debate.

Joe Lieberman can go on the offensive against terrorism all he wants. Provided that he do it on his own time...

Freedom Fighter wrote: ... how can we expect a spineless wimp to stand up for America and face down the terrorists?

How do you expect a gang of career corporate criminals and war profiteers who came to power by subverting the Constitution and stealing a presidential election to "stand up for America"?

The answer is you don't, because you don't really care about "standing up for America" or "facing down terrorists." You only care about worshipping right-wing power, because you are a bootlicking mental slave and that's what bootlicking mental slaves do.

Gore would have done almost the same things had he been President and the Republicans would be making the same noise as Democrates are now. Its what they do...

Neither party can afford to nominate true leadership and experience. They both nominate lightweights with as little experience as they can get away with.

Rudy's right--if you consider Anzio or the years 1915-1917 on the Western Front examples of being "on the offensive."

McGovern?

Let's see, how many combat missions in World War II? How many decorations for bravery?

Real weak on defense.

I guess Duke Cunningham had more medals, but he's in jail.

-sh

gOre would have done almost the same tHINGs hAd hE been PREsiDENt aNd tHe rEPuBlIcAnS WoUld bE mAkInG thE SaMe NoIsE AS DEMOCRATeS ArE NOW. ITS WhAt ThEy DO.>.

nEItHeR paRtY CaN aFfOrD To NomInAtE TrUe lEaDErShIp aND ExPeRiENcE. THEY BOTH NoMinate liGHpOsted by; aRchmODerate2006 on aUGust 11, 2006 at 12;!3 pm \ permALINk

I don't think so. I think Gore would have gotten a LOT of resistance from Republicans in Congress. Just like Clinton did.

Gore would have tried to attack Afghanistan, and maybe he would have succeeded where Bush failed. But I don't think Gore would have attacked Iraq. Nor would he have signed on to this TIA panty-sniffing BS.

I think Gore would have not cut taxes, he would have borrowed the same $300bln, and spent it on alternative energy research, and we'd all be driving electric cars, or biodiesel or ethanol-fueled.

And the ceo of Exxon would be in jail, next to Ken Lay.(who would have been in jail by the end of 2001, instead of being considered for Secretary of Energy).

But wasn't the left also opposed to invading Afghanistan?

No.

The September 15, 2001 Congressional resolutions authorizing Bush to use force against anyone associated with the terrorist attacks of September 11 passed 98-0 in the Senate and 420-1 in the House.

"But wasn't the left also opposed to invading Afghanistan?"

Anarchists, hippies, and radical college kids were against the war in Afghanistan. They don't vote Democrat. The Democratic party and the entire relevant left supported it. Next lie please.

To Archie, Thomas, and all the other retarded neocon trolls:

Oooooooh!!! I seem to have hit a nerve with the retarded neocon comments.

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!

Sorry boys but you've been exposed -- once and for all. You took a strong stand on the Iraq war, made a number of empirically testable claims, and in the real world test you failed miserably. Miserably.

Everything you retarded neocons said about Iraq turned out to be false. None of your predictions came true. You got your way on Iraq and your way led straight to the worst strategic blunder in American history.

WE WILL NEVER EVER LET YOU RETARDED NEOCONS LIVE IT DOWN!!!!

EVER!!!!

Get used to it my retarded neocon friends. You've had your day but your day is over. You really screwed the pooch on Iraq and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

Its accountability time, boys!!

Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

ArchMod:
Your schtick is tiresome already. If you do not see differences between the parties or want to continue with silly memes like Neither party can afford to nominate true leadership and experience. They both nominate lightweights with as little experience as they can get away with. then maybe you should peddle it where no one actually pays attention to politics. Again, what exactly makes you a moderate? How do your political views lie outside the Democratic party?

I don't believe Gore is a spineless wimp. He is usually pretty aggressive when he has his eye on the prize.

He sold his vote on the first "Gulf War" for a primetime spot on the senate floor. As a result, it got him a spot on Clinton's ticket.

After 9/11, I'm sure Gore would have measured up, if for no other reason that self-interest. Gore and Bush are two-sides of the same coin.

Yeap, but at the end of the day...in both cases...who became President? My point is simple. Those "retarded" neocons just keep bringing home the bacon. The opposition is good at what they do and they are smart.
Posted by: archmoderate on August 11, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

Yeap - and at the end of the day, Osama bin Laden is good at what he does. And who knocked down the twin towers? my point is simple. Those "backwards" terrorists just keep bringing down the planes.

What are you going to do, call him names?

ArchModerate2006: Gore would have done almost the same things had he been President and the Republicans would be making the same noise as Democrates are now.

You are merely demonstrating that "moderates" are just as capable of spouting bullshit as anyone else.

There is every reason to believe that Gore would have (1) taken the numerous urgent warnings of an impending major Al Qaeda attack that were given to the president during the summer of 2001 seriously, unlike Bush, and taken appropriate action, unlike Bush, and very likely prevented the 9/11 attack from happening, just as the Clinton administration disrupted the Millennium terrorist plot; and (2) if the 9/11 attacks had occurred anyway, Gore would not have cynically and dishonestly used them as a pretext for an unprovoked war of aggression against Iraq.

And there are plenty of other areas in both foreign and domestic policy where Gore would have done things very differently from Bush.

ArchModerate2006: Neither party can afford to nominate true leadership and experience. They both nominate lightweights with as little experience as they can get away with.

It is silly to the point of absurd to call Al Gore, with his long career in both the House and the Senate, plus eight years as Vice President, a "lightweight with little experience."

Your comments, however, are very lightweight -- they are basically nothing but empty posturing.

DiscoStu - "How do your political views lie outside the Democratic party?"

Members of both parties are so passionate and emotional about the issues that mean most to them, they tend to lose sight of the big picture. For many, the issues come black and white without any shades of gray. It becomes a battle of "good" against "evil."

The defining characteristic of strong advocates of both parties is their closed minds.

One lesson that seems to be have been lost amid all this hyperventillating is that terrorism is indeed a problem that can be confronted head-on by smart law enforcement without blowing up everything in sight in lands far away.

The Fool:

I am hardly a neocon -- I voted for JOHN KERRY for God's sake!

Del Capslock:

It was not my intent to piss you off either. I am honestly asking if you think every Reagan Democrat was a "gullible and uninformed voter" too.

ArchModerate2006 wrote: [Gore] sold his vote on the first "Gulf War" for a primetime spot on the senate floor.

That's a Republican lie.

And it's becoming pretty evident that you are neither "arch" nor "moderate" but merely another Republican shill, as your "pox on both their houses" shtick gives way to scripted Gore-bashing and recitation of tired old Republican lies.

Anarchists, hippies and 20-year-old college kids playing hackey-sack on the quad vote Green, not Dem.

And there are not enough of them to matter. After graduation they will cut off their dreadlocks and go to work for their fathers at Edward D. Jones.

FF, Jay, AH, and Al seem incapable of grasping the way democracy, let alone the world, actually works, nor do they ever deviate from the talking points of the moment. For example, they get heated up over evolution, Terry Schiavo, or whatever else it is they don't actually give a shit about, simply because it somehow connects with Big Daddy's current spin campaign -- until it is dropped and preplaced by some other mindless distraction.

Their bafflegab is all emotion masquerading as fact, ass-covering posing as strength. Question for the rest of us: Why do they stick around a discussion forum if they can't really read, think, or argue effectively? Do they think they'll get some crumbs of reward from the Captain of the Titanic, or are they secretly hoping to be accepted by the big kids after a sufficient amount of taunting from the edge of the schoolyard?

Dear retarded neocons:

I won't stand for you boys talking down our military. You really don't think that the U.S. military could take down a bunch of mountain goat herders with no airforce without sustaining less than 3000 KIA?

I have a lot more faith in our military than you do. I think they could have figured out a way to put a few thousand guys on the ground between Tora Bora and Pakistan long enough for us to fly in more guys, capture bin Laden, and bring his hog-tied ass to justice.

I'm talking about using the entire force of the American military -- puling out all the stops. We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars on Iraq, 3000 lives, and 15,000 seriously wounded. I'm saying that for that price we could have made a massive effort in Tora Bora, expending a similar amount of resources and we could have captured those goat herding swine and had somehting to show for our trouble.

If you say we can't, then you just don't have any faith in the American military and I, for one, will not stand here and listen to you retarded chickenhawk neocons badmouthing America's armed forces.

But the bottom line, Tora Bora aside, is everything you retarded neocons said about Iraq turned out to be false. None of your predictions came true. You got your way on Iraq and your way led straight to the worst strategic blunder in American history.

WE WILL NEVER EVER LET YOU RETARDED NEOCONS LIVE IT DOWN!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Osama_Been_Forgotten

Nah, Osama has already been called enough names. Clearly, his ideas must be countered and neutralized. Killing him, while comforting, will not address his message.

"Jay, you didn't answer this question:
Now please explain how maintaining 130,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely and encouraging Israel to destroy Lebanon's civilian infrastructure are an effective strategy for preventing those attacks"

I answered your specific question directly, you just didn't like the answer. It's not an indefinite engagment and considering the transfer of power and gov't, our withdrawal is conditions based. Maliki will let us know.

Israel will stop when hizbollah is destroyed.

Got it now!!!!!

cmdicely, I appreciate the fact that you offered a plan to defeat al Qaeda. Although Kevin wants a "chapter and verse" rebuttal to the "weak on defense" accusation, few other posters here attempted to give the detailed rebuttal. You wrote:

The best way to fight "al-Qaeda in Iraq" isn't to continue to "stay the course" of conducting raids in Iraq that inflict harm on civilians and are often loudly opposed by the government we are nominally supporting, which just radicalizes the population against us. The way to fight them is to starve them of people willing to die for the al-Qaeda cause by removing the motivation that makes them willing to do so.

The invites the question of what motivates al Qaeda and what motivates people to support al Qaeda. I assume you think they're motivated to resist aggressive US and western action, such as our war in Iraq and Israel's war in Lebanon.

I think the opposite. I think al Qaeda are deterred by aggressive action against them. I think al Qaeda are motivated by their own successes. We pretty much ignored them for many years before 9/11. During that period they more-or-less took control of Afghanistan, built up their membership, established beachheads in various countries, and mounted numerous terrorist attacks throughout the world.

P.S. I think it's a losing political strategy for anti-war Dems to argue that "al Qaeda in Iraq" isn't really al Qaeda. Most Americans lump all the Arab terrorists together, anyhow, even those who don't call themselves al Qaeda.

SecularAnimist - "That's a Republican lie."

Wanting something to be a lie, doesn't make it one.

If Bush's, Lieberman's, and Giuliani's 'war' on terrorism has been successful, why are there so many people who want to blow up American bound flights? The reason so many British want to kill Americans is because Bush, Lieberman and Giuliani have done such a terrible job, killing innocent civilians and destroying others way of life instead of addressing the actual reasons and individuals who have inspired resistance against the West.

Many Americans and Israelis have argued the killing of Iraqi and Lebanese civilians is permitted because they passively support insurgents or Hezbollah. I am not going to argue that American citizens deserve to die because of their explicit military gifts to Israel are used to kill Lebanese civilians or the war in Iraq has killed so many innocents, but certainly many victims and their sympathizers of our aggression do feel that way. It should not be a surprise, it should have been expected once we started and allowed for indiscriminate killing.

It takes more brains than the Rpublicans have to fight terror. See the mess in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon.

Besides, Republicans don't think it is bad. The chief nerd is on vacation, or not??

So you don't have opinions ArchMod? Or is their distinguishing characteristic that you don't feel passionately about them? Like most self-professed moderates I've met, I ask what makes you moderate and you define it in relation to the partisanship of the parties, not what they're actually advocating. Is this laudable center entirely without a vision?

few other posters here attempted to give the detailed rebuttal.

Here's my rebuttal: It's a dirty lie. But as a dirty liar, you know that, "ex-liberal."

I assume you think they're motivated to resist aggressive US and western action, such as our war in Iraq and Israel's war in Lebanon.

Regardless of whether al Qaeda as an organization is motivated by aggressive US and western action, such as our war on (not "in") Iraq and Israel's war on (not "in") Lebanon, these actions likely motivate al Qaeda's recruits, and certainly serve al Qaeda's PR purposes. Sun Tzu would definitely advocate not untertaking advocate that do not hurt but rather help the enemy, and I agree. I assume you don't.

I think the opposite. I think al Qaeda are deterred by aggressive action against them.

And this thought is based on what evidence, exactly?

I think al Qaeda are motivated by their own successes.

Then it's a real pity Bush's incompetence handed them such a big one on 9/11.

We pretty much ignored them for many years before 9/11.

No, we didn't. But Bush, alas, pretty much ignored them in the months since his inauguration, and specifically in the month since the August 6 PDB. Tell me, "ex-liberal," what action Bush took in response to learning that al Qaeda planned to hijack aircraft?

During that period they more-or-less took control of Afghanistan, built up their membership, established beachheads in various countries, and mounted numerous terrorist attacks throughout the world.

And thanks to Bush's incompetence, they continue to do the latter three.

SecularAnimist - "And it's becoming pretty evident that you are neither "arch" nor "moderate" but merely another Republican shill, as your "pox on both their houses" shtick gives way to scripted Gore-bashing and recitation of tired old Republican lies."

As long as individuals label others conveniently to reenforce their own baises, the truth will never be seen.

True, I am not a big fan of Gore, but it doesn't mean that I feel he is representive of his party. Nor do I feel his is the best and brightest of the democratic party, now or at anytime in the past.

Nor do I feel that Bush is the best and brightest of the Republican Party.

Both Parties push up who they think is least objectionable to the most people....usually Gore/Bush type lightweigths.

"Democrats have to make it absolutely clear, every single time somebody spouts this rubbish, that supporting the Iraq war doesn't mean you're "on offense against terrorism.""

Kevin, 100% correct. And I have to say that I very much respect your ability to revise your initial statements on Iraq in the light of new and clearer evidence. That's what I call being a member of the reality based community. Not every member is right all of the time, but we are willing to stand corrected by the truth, as opposed to those who let ideology trump facts every other time. Kudos to you, Kevin! Thx.

And I see the Washington Post throw it's hat in with the exact same vitriol, helpping with Cheney's projectionism, that Dems love terrorist bs, and WP wants to pretend that the voters of Connecticut favor terrorist instead of change.

If Washington Post can't get the story right or true and clearly isn't interested in facts, are even seems to understand the difference, than there is no difference between WP and National Enquirer.

And for this garbage the press wants a sheild. law.

Archie and Thomas are retarded neocon chickenhawk trolls.

They were wrong on Iraq. And now they're paying for having gone so far out on a limb. Whoops!!!

Its accountability time, my retarded neocon friends. It started with Lieberman but in the end you will all be flushed down the American political toilet. Accountability's a bitch, ain't it, retards?

WE WILL NEVER EVER LET YOU RETARDED NEOCONS LIVE THE IRAQ DISASTER DOWN!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

P.S. I think it's a losing political strategy for anti-war Dems to argue that "al Qaeda in Iraq" isn't really al Qaeda. Most Americans lump all the Arab terrorists together, anyhow, even those who don't call themselves al Qaeda.
Posted by: ex-liberal on August 11, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

Well, I guess that's the difference, then, between Liberals, and ex-liberals and conservatives, and neoconservatives:
If "lumping all Arab terrorists together" is embraced because it's a winning strategy, because you believe that Americans are too stupid to be educated on these differences, then I'll take the losing strategy over the one that kills innocent Arabs, even those who may be potential allies.

Hell, if we lumped "all Afghani" terrorists together, then we certainly would not have flipped Afghanistan by now, because we would be bogged down fighting the Northern Alliance.

In fact, even Bush didn't "lump all Arab terrorists" together, because we didn't attack the Kurds, and we basically sided with the Sistani Shiites over the Sadrist Shiites - an important nuance.

If as a political strategy, you have to abandon nuance, and exploit ignorance, you may actually win - but not among those who don't take kindly to being called stupid.

Add ex-liberal to the list of retarded neocon trolls who will never be allowed to live down the Iraq disaster that they insisted on so retardedly

Stupid retarded neocons: Did you think that you would escape accountability forever? Think again retards!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

bob h: "Interesting that the Americans seemed to have had nothing to do with this foiling of the attack. It was all done by the British and Pakistanis. So much for the Republicans being on the offense."

They couldn't have told Bush about the investigation before they were ready to move. He would have blabbed about it on TV.

We need to use some better terminology here. Leaving aside the logical nonsequitor (that equates the Iraq war with the war on terror), we should not slip into language that supports concepts like "fighting jihadism". "Jihad", as I understand it, means something like "a righteous struggle", and is laden with religious significance. What's the point of "fighting jihadism"? It plays into our enemies' hands by rhetorically creating a religious war, and logically it also says we're fighting "against a righteous struggle".

This whole thing is not about religion, and let's not follow Bush's example and fall into the trap of fighting "Muslim fascists" or other such nonsense. Let's step away from that. We can struggle with militant radicalism, terrorism, and racism, instead. These are all secular terms that apply quite well to the battle we should be waging. Or maybe someone else out here has a better term - but I think we need to control the language and not let the other side define this fight.

Here's my rebuttal: It's a dirty lie. But as a dirty liar, you know that, "ex-liberal."

Gregory, Kevin's post said the accusations should be refuted "chapter and verse", not "name-calling"

You start with a plausible argument: the problems in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon show that Bush has mishandled the situations. Now, how do you convince voters that Dems will do better job in these countries, and especially, how do you convince voters that the Dems will do a better job of protecting the US?

Wow MHR, you hit the troll comment grand slam.

Here is how history will remember the reatrded neocons:

At a time when America needed to confront a serious terorrist threat, the retarded neocons took their eye off the ball, allowed the real terrorist mastermind to get away at Tora Bora, and then plunged us into a disastrously useless war in Iraq that accomplished nothing other than bleeding our resources and turning Iraq into a fundamentalist Shiite Iranian satellite.

That is how you will be remembered neocon retards. Face it. You won't be seen as Churchillian heroes, you will go down in history as the retards that you are.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Let's start by doing away with the ridiculous construction "War on Terror." Everyone needs to make perfectly clear that we are in favor of eliminating Islamic fudamentalism. Not a war, which is something that by definition involves states, and not against "terror," which is by definition not an enemy. We've gone way too far playing by the right's terms, which are designed solely to make serious people look like ineffectual wafflers. So let's stop already.

Mormonism will come into play in some way or other, but I think Romney's lack of experience & his demeanor (he often comes off as a Boy Scout on speed) will play a more crucial role in his candidacy. Will people really turn to a candidate who comes to the campaign as lacking in experience as GWB was when we can see what such a lack of experience has led to in this administration ? Will they turn to a man who has practically no record to run on since he has been an absentee, hands-off Governor for most of his term ? He's desperately hoping his actions with the Big Dig fiasco will be his "Calvin Coolidge Moment" (i.e. analogous to the Boston Po

The question for Republicans should be to explain exactly how the war in Iraq has made us safer. Particularly in light of the following:

• The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures.

• "We are not killing them faster than they are being created," Gen. Caslen told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson Center yesterday, warning that the war could take decades to resolve.

• The Iraq Survey Group report said that Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended the country's nuclear program after the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
  

DiscoStu - "So you don't have opinions ArchMod? Or is their distinguishing characteristic that you don't feel passionately about them? Like most self-professed moderates I've met, I ask what makes you moderate and you define it in relation to the partisanship of the parties, not what they're actually advocating. Is this laudable center entirely without a vision?"

I see good and bad in both parties. I vote for the person that best reflects my views on issues of the day. Presidentally, I have voted 7 times without missing any elections. As a rule, I've backed more losers than winners over the years.

The reason that I bother with taking the time to post is because of the extreme nature that politics is taking. You can see it in here and everywhere. If a person express a view, one way or the other on Iraq, you are either a spineless wimp or bloodthristy hawk. The fact is that most people are neither.

Both political parties are aggressively attempting to divide the country into one camp or the other. I believe that politics should be used to pull differring parties together for a common good. If I am passionate about anything, it would be that.

Mormonism will come into play in some way or other, but I think Romney's lack of experience & his demeanor (he often comes off as a Boy Scout on speed) will play a more crucial role in his candidacy. Will people really turn to a candidate who comes to the campaign as lacking in experience as GWB was when we can see what such a lack of experience has led to in this administration ? Will they turn to a man who has practically no record to run on since he has been an absentee, hands-off Governor for most of his term ? He's desperately hoping his actions with the Big Dig fiasco will be his "Calvin Coolidge Moment" (i.e. analogous to the Boston Po

Osama_Been_Forgotten wrote:

(In response to my post about the difficulities of operating in Afghanistan)

"Poor baby. Fighting is hard. Accomplishing real goals is hard. If Bush only fights where it's easy - then the enemies will simply hide where it's hard. Duh."
______________

Yep. Fighting is hard and so is accomplishing real goals. But you misunderstand my intention. I'm not speaking for the President, I'm providing information to folks who want to change our orders and send us anywhere but Iraq. There are drawbacks to any plan and I thought you should think about them a bit.

Our losses in Afghanistan so far have been minimal, clustered around those times when we insert conventional forces into the mountains in an effort to clean out a Taliban pocket. They sometimes come in multiples over ten, due to helicopter or aircraft losses. However, we have not tried to insert large numbers of troops for extended stays in the Hindu Kush, because it would present very serious difficulties, both operationally and logistically. I'm not certain a very large force would be logistically supportable in the Kush, though that's just my professional WAG. We'd have to crunch the numbers to find out, but you're asking us to support a large field army in very mountainous terrain, with only two usable airfields of any size, no fuel, an extended, vulnerable land LOC and no seaport.

I did not say we in the military would not try, if ordered. I'm just not sure it would do what you seem to think it would do. How would you imagine we'd employ such forces if we can get them in there?

And I'm certainly not whining. But, in my command's ops center during Operation Anaconda, I watched a fight in near real time from a drone. The survivors of a downed helicopter (Army and Air Force special ops troops) fought to the death in the snow on a mountain side, at night, with no help available, though other troops were within mere miles of their position.

We in the military know that we agree to an unlimited liability waiver when we sign up. We just like to know whoever's going to cash it in actually gives a shit. It doesn't sound like you do.

But wasn't the left also opposed to invading Afghanistan? Posted by: Freedom Fighter on August 11, 2006 at 11:47 AM

Virtually everyone I am aware of on the left, felt that invading Afghanistan was appropriate. The Iraq invasion on the other hand was illegal and wrong as well as a dangerous precedent.

The Fool:

How many more "neocons" do you believe voted for JOHN KERRY?!

CrackWilding:

I agree that everyone in the Democratic Party needs to make perfectly clear that we are in favor of eliminating Islamic fudamentalism. Let me know when you herd all of those cats.

Bush, Lieberman, ex-liberal and mhr have advocated a policy that incites people to kill Americans. It is a nice feedback loop, especially for the defense contractors and toady's. We need to kill more, which causes more retaliation, which causes more need to waste more treasure killing more innocents whose sympathizers will then want to kill more Americans, and so on.

Generals gathered in their masses,
just like witches at black masses.
Evil minds that plot destruction,
sorcerers of death's construction.
In the fields the bodies burning,
as the war machine keeps turning.
Death and hatred to mankind,
poisoning their brainwashed minds.
Oh lord, yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away.
They only started the war.
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor, yeah.

Time will tell on their power minds,
making war just for fun.
Treating people just like pawns in chess,
wait till their judgement day comes, yeah.

Now in darkness world stops turning,
ashes where the bodies burning.
No more War Pigs have the power,
Hand of God has struck the hour.
Day of judgement, God is calling,
on their knees the war pigs crawling.
Begging mercies for their sins,
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings.
Oh lord, yeah!
--Black Sabbath, War Pigs

The Brits and Paki's foiled a terror plot, yes indeed they most probably did. Without a Patriot Act. They did it the way the Clinton administration battled terrorism after WTC-I - with police work and intelligence and analysis.

The military is by nature visible and slow moving, requiring supply lines and providing ready targets. The military is inherently ill-suited to combat a mobile, invisible force like terrorism. We should be recruiting human assets instead of invading stable secular countries and propagating bloodshed.

Good police work will do more to protect us than a steady slide toward fascism.

Archie is a retarded neocon concern troll posing as a conflicted moderate. But we see right through your disguise, Archie, you retarded neocon.

You and your retarded neocon friends have had your day -- and your day is over. Now it is time for all of you to be flushed down the American political toilet and into the sewers where you belong.

You retarded neocons seriously harmed our country with your retarded Iraq disaster. And now you must pay for your sins.

Accountability's a bitch, my retarded neocon friends!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

"Jay, you didn't answer this question:
Now please explain how maintaining 130,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely and encouraging Israel to destroy Lebanon's civilian infrastructure are an effective strategy for preventing those attacks"

I answered your specific question directly, you just didn't like the answer. It's not an indefinite engagment and considering the transfer of power and gov't, our withdrawal is conditions based. Maliki will let us know.

Israel will stop when hizbollah is destroyed.

Got it now!!!!!

---

No Jay, again you did not explain why maintain 130,000 troops is an effective strategy for stopping terrorist attacks like those terrorist attacks you listed. That was the specific question. You tried to distract by disputing the "idenfinitely" claim.

You are a coward who cannot even back up your lame attempt to link the real threat al Queda and terrorist threats against the US and the Iraq war.

You can't. Why, because you are spineless jellyfish who engages in moronic fluffy warporn rhetoric because you don't have the brains to do anything else.

"Anarchists, hippies, and radical college kids were against the war in Afghanistan. They don't vote Democrat. The Democratic party and the entire relevant left supported it. Next lie please."

40 years ago, you can make the claim these people don't represent the Democratic party. But today, they are the core, perfectly illustrated by Lieberman's purge.

"Its accountability time, my retarded neocon friends. It started with Lieberman but in the end you will all be flushed down the American political toilet. Accountability's a bitch, ain't it, retards?

WE WILL NEVER EVER LET YOU RETARDED NEOCONS LIVE THE IRAQ DISASTER DOWN!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!" - the fool

He could not have picked a better moniker.

Good one, jay.

Global Citizen wrote: The Brits and Paki's foiled a terror plot, yes indeed they most probably did. Without a Patriot Act. They did it the way the Clinton administration battled terrorism after WTC-I - with police work and intelligence and analysis.

Actually the Brits used more surveillance than the Patriot Act allows. From today's SF Examiner:

First, thanks and praise for the British investigators who (with help from U.S. officials) spied out the plot and then carried off a well-coordinated series of arrests.

A key to their ability to crack the conspiracy was the ability to sneak and peek — that is, to enter suspected plotters’ homes covertly to gather information. U.S. law enforcement officials are not permitted to carry out such operations, except as provided under Section 213 of the Patriot Act. The ACLU is doing everything in its power to hamper or otherwise force the repeal of part or all of that law.

cyntax, you make a good argument that it was a mistake for the US to go to war in Iraq. A majority of Americans agree with you.

But, we can't go back in time and undo that decision. The Dems' challenge is to show voters that given the situation today they would fight terrorism better than the Reps.

With this week's revelations regarding the UK terrorist plot to blow up airliners en route the United States, the Conservative Threat Level (CTL) has been raised to Red/Severe (Return to Middle Ages Likely).

well gosh, I have to admit that Josh Marshall nail like nobody does.

Many Americans are not comfortable with the idea of just pulling out of Iraq. But the war is really unpopular. I think most Americans realize that the president thinks his Iraq policy is a rousing success and most Democrats don't. They get that. They see it. They understand it. If Republicans think the Martyrdom of Joe is going to be their killer issue, let them have at it. They're trying to knock the Dems off their stride but they're showing their desperation. The whole thing is, in both the most serious and frivolous senses of the word, a joke.

The totally illogical commits does indeed show desperation. Cokie Roberts sound just that desperate too, and Broder too.

And the Repug nutjobs are saying it's Vietnam redux - as thought Dems some how lost the Vietnam argument? As I recall - didn't that issue put the Dems in power for many, many years?

But today, they are the core, perfectly illustrated by Lieberman's purge.

Yeah, us and the other 60% of America who are against the war. Keep demonizing the majority as "wacked-out moonbats" and don't be surprised when they start voting more and more like "wacked-out moonbats".

P.S. Got enlistment?

Or Josh Marshall can say it more eloquently than I can. This is why he gets the big bucks.

Neo-cons and their supporters have self inflicted brain damage and therefore act inhuman. They should not be classified with human beings who have inherent mental incapacities.

on Iraq, you are either a spineless wimp or bloodthristy hawk. The fact is that most people are neither.

Unfortunately the above quote is not true. All Americans, because they are citizens of a democracy, are responsible for the crimes their nation commits. We are all represented by the bloodthirsty hawks the majority has elected and we are all collectively guilty for their crimes. That is why the bloodthirsty leaders the majority have elected need to be tried for war crimes and punished severly. Punishing our bloodthirsty leaders is our only way to national salvation.

40 years ago, you can make the claim these people don't represent the Democratic party. But today, they are the core, perfectly illustrated by Lieberman's purge.

A full sixty percent of all Americans--the number which thinks the Iraq war is wrong--are the core of the Democratic party? Right on. November come soon.

BTW, somebody at Kos has a hilarious update on Smoochy Lieberman's crack Web team. Seems they forgot to register the domain name before announcing that Joe would be running on the "Connecticut for Lieberman Party" ticket. Bummer for them. (Can they do anything right?)

Ah, Dustbin of History was all over it.

via Josh Marshall:

Grover Norquist on the Dems' iron wall on Social Security: ""The Democrats cannot be bribed, cajoled or threatened into voting for Social Security reform -- it can't happen."

Grover's meaning is clear: Republicans can be bribed and will cave in to threats and cajoling, no matter their principles. They are weak and unethical and uncommitted to their principles, unlike the Democrats who will stand by their principles no matter that they are bribed, threatened, or cajoled!

Gotta love the Grover!

More of this Grover and the GOP will be toast in November - keep reminding Americans that the GOP is utterly corrupt and uncommitted to its principles, but only interested in caving in to threats or being bought off.

Hostile:

Is that going to be Lamont's campaign song?

Global Citizen:

Tony Blair didn't need the Patriot Act because the courts there already let him get away with that and much more. I only wish the American press were bound by something akin to the Official Secrets Act.

Great minds think alike, shortstop. ;)

Freedom Fighter: "I thought the point of this blog topic was to try and convince people liberals are tough on terrorism?"

Nope. It is to reassure non-Americans that not all Americans are ridiculous fascists.

"You are a coward who cannot even back up your lame attempt to link the real threat al Queda and terrorist threats against the US and the Iraq war.

And Zaqawi was a member of Iraq's YMCA?

You can't. Why, because you are spineless jellyfish who engages in moronic fluffy warporn rhetoric because you don't have the brains to do anything else." - Palooza

Does anyone other than me find it extremely ironic that braindead liberals direct more venom and vitriol towards their own countryman they don't even know and disagree with, yet will excuse every action imaginable of Islamo-fascists they perceive to know intimately and only sometimes disagree with.

Gosh Thomas, I bet it would be really, really hard for terrorists' to carry out their evil plots if we all lived here under Soviet-era oppression. Let's try that!

Official Secrets Act nothing! Iranian constitution or bust, baby!

Does anyone other than me find it extremely tragic that braindead Bush directed his War towards a country totally unrelated to our 9/11 attackers?

No, the Democrats should NOT "fight back" against the Republicans on Iraq.

They should GO ON THE OFFENSIVE.

The Republican position is frivolous - and it is past time that those who mouth it be held to account.

ckelly: Gosh Thomas, I bet it would be really, really hard for terrorists' to carry out their evil plots if we all lived here under Soviet-era oppression. Let's try that!

Now that made me laugh out loud. Good stuff, ckelly.

Write this down.

Lieberman WILL win the CT Senate seat on the independent ticket in November.

And the Dems will lose a seat in the Senate because of their complete alignment with the far left.

Thomas, it is going to be played at your funeral. Then I am going to piss on your grave.

Jay said: And Zaqawi was a member of Iraq's YMCA?

--
Same lame rhetoric. Are you saying that we invaded Iraq to kill a single terrorist that resided in an area that was not even under the control of Saddam? We are spending a trillion dollars and have lost almost 3000 livest to kill a single terrorist?

If that is the case, why didn't Bush kill him when he had the chance (he passed it up three times after the military recommended striking?)

You are not one of my countrymen. My countrymen or not cowards like you, unable to think your way through complex problems, so you send OTHERS to fight irrelevant and distracting wars. When shown to be wrong, you continue to support the war despite the fact it distracts from the true fight against al Queda. That is the definition of coward.

Hey, why do you continue to support al Queda? You don't demand that Bush go into Afghanistan/Pakistan to get Osama? You support a President that indicated that Osama was not a top priority. Why do you love Osama more than America?

P.S. All the rhetoric that I throw out there snarkily, is what you do on a regular basis. A coward is what you are and a coward is what you always will be.

And Zaqawi was a member of Iraq's YMCA?

Sometime after we invaded Iraq Zarqawi decided to go with the "Al Qaeda in Iraq" moniker. So?

shortstop,

A full sixty percent of all Americans--the number which thinks the Iraq war is wrong

CBS News/New York Times poll, July 21-25, 2006

"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"

Did the Right Thing: 47%
Should Have Stayed Out: 48%

Margin of Error: +/-3

I was a Democrat for most of my life and a liberal at that but the times have become too dangerous...

mhr, I call Bullshit.

Jay and Freedom Fighter interpret Lamont as a member of the "far-left". I can just see him now, playing the bongo drums, chlling with Howard Dean smoking some killer hash and waving the Hamas flag at an ANSWER rally. Oh wait, you mean he's a millionaire businessman? FACTS, NOT SPIN!!!!

"WASHINGTON -- Sen. Joe Lieberman filed to run for re-election in November as an independent, saying Wednesday it would be "irresponsible and inconsistent with my principles" to quit. But Democratic leaders in Washington rallied around the man who beat him for the nomination, Ned Lamont."

Goodbye Lamont. Game, set, match.

Goodbye any hope of Dems taking the Senate.

Yes, the Dems are now hopeless in November thanks to the power of Republican self-delusion about Joe's chances to win. Please guide us to victory Jay when you're not busy swinging from W's hacky-sacks and immersing yourself in fantasies about the election.

ckelly and (fake) Thomas:

I thought that slippery slope arguments are not supposed to work with your "reality-based crowd"? Is anyone in England TODAY complaining about the Offical Secrets Act or any other tool used to catch these terrorists? I think not.

DiscoStu:

Howard Dean's BROTHER was on "Meet the Press" stumping for Lamont 2 days before the primary -- Hillary had endorsed Lieberman -- I think the Clinton-Dean struggle is actually a good thing.

"Sometime after we invaded Iraq Zarqawi decided to go with the "Al Qaeda in Iraq" moniker. So?"

Actually, sometime after we invaded Afghanistan Zarqawi was wounded and convalesced in Iraq. He was already well established with Al Qaeda.

Just FYI

Lieberman is not the only senator up for reelection you know. Jim talent is trailing Claire McCaaskill in Missouri. Conrad Burns is in trouble and the Governor is a Democrat.

See, this kinda pisses me off guys. There is more to the USof A than the fucking northeast corridor and the left coast. There are just as many senators sitting in the body from Idaho and Missouri as their are from California and Connecticut.

If Lieberman loses, the Republicans lost their mole. If Lieberman wins, and caucuses with the Republicans, nothing changes, he's been a DINO forever. So what is all the fuss about? I can't believe everyone lives in Connecticut.

Sheesh. Move on.

Thomas,
So do I. You know the fear and loathing Hillary inspires in the blogosphere.

"Yes, the Dems are now hopeless in November thanks to the power of Republican self-delusion about Joe's chances to win. Please guide us to victory Jay when you're not busy swinging from W's hacky-sacks and immersing yourself in fantasies about the election."

Lamont will capture 80% of the Democrats

Lieberman will capture 20% Dems, 80% republicans and 70% independents. More than enough to win.

btw, I love hacky-sacks.

In a piece today in Slate, Michael Tomasky notes that of the eight Democrat Senate incumbents who voted in favor of going to war against Iraq and who are seeking reelection in November, only one, Lieberman, faced or is facing a serious primary challenge because of the war.

Democrats who oppose the war don't seem to care about it enough to make any serious effort to get greater representation of their views even amoung their own elected representatives.

Whatever dudes. You retarded neocons need to think about one thing and one thing only: you're busted! You went out on a limb on Iraq and now you're busted! Your failure is too complete and too obvious for you to spin and demagogue your way out of.

Bummer. Sucks to be you.

All of you retarded neocon trash will soon join Lieberman as you swirl down the American toilet drain into the sewers where you belong.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

"Hey, why do you continue to support al Queda? You don't demand that Bush go into Afghanistan/Pakistan to get Osama? You support a President that indicated that Osama was not a top priority. Why do you love Osama more than America?"

We're already in Afghanistan/Pakistan. 70% of Al Qaeda is either dead or in prison.

"so you send OTHERS to fight irrelevant and distracting wars."

3% of any population at any given time have ever been in the active military, meaning 97% of any populations sends others to do the work.

Smarter liberals please.

Jay: Lieberman will capture 20% Dems, 80% republicans and 70% independents. More than enough to win.

No fool like a conservative fool, I always say!

Joe says he will caucus with the Democrats. Works against GOP support, both contributions and votes. Why vote for a guy who would give those liberal Democrats control by voting for Kennedy and Hillary to lead the Senate, even if he votes to continue to support the president's Iraqi [mis]adventures on particular issues?

Republicans continue to praise Joe. This, especially when it comes from Cheney, associates Joe with Bush, whose disapproval rating is 70% in CT - a whopping 10% higher than the national average. Cheney's approval nationwide has been in the toilet for ages. Works against both Democratic and Independent support.

And if the GOP fields a more credible candidate, which appears to be a possibility (see Josh Marshall's news at TPM), it will only take GOP votes away from Joe and no votes from Lamont.

Joe is toast.

Loserman defenders are fools.

And so is Jay.

Does anyone other than me find it extremely ironic that braindead liberals direct more venom and vitriol towards their own countryman they don't even know and disagree with, yet will excuse every action imaginable of Islamo-fascists they perceive to know intimately and only sometimes disagree with.
Posted by: Jay on August 11, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Please. If there were Islamofascists (whatever that means) posting to this blog, you can bet your ass I'd be directing hate and vitriol at them as well. Because they believe in all the same things you do:

War, chaos, death, and destruction are the only solutions to cultural problems.
Killing innocents to achieve political solutions is acceptable, and desirable.
Religious law is the only valid input for civil law.
For the good of all, people who disagree with us should be silenced, by force, if necessary.
God/Allah hates fags.
The end justifies the means.
Privacy and individuality are decadent luxuries.

Lieberman WILL win the CT Senate seat on the independent ticket in November.
And the Dems will lose a seat in the Senate. . .
Posted by: Jay on August 11, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

If Lieberman won that seat - the Dems have effectively lost it anyway.

No no no, Kevin, we're not supposed to be calling out Republicans for their BS, only Democrats.
"To every Democratic Senator and Congressman who continues to back Bush's War, allow me to inform you that your days in elective office are now numbered. Myself and tens of millions of citizens are going to work hard to actively remove you from any position of power. If you don't believe us, give Joe a call."
I mean, that will win Congress back for the Dems, right?

Jay? Busted.
Thomas? Busted.
Archie? Busted.
GOP? Busted.

All the retarded neocons? Busted!

B-U-S-T-E-D

bwahahahahahahaha!
bwahahahaHAHAHAHA!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Thomas-who-is-Charlie wrote that he voted for Kerry.

Don't you have any shame at all, you filthy, disgusting liar?

Eric Boehlert nails it in The Problem with Pundits

But what I think is essential to understanding the Lieberman media phenomena is that, for the most part, the pundits who assailed Lamont's rise during the campaign were the same ones who signed off on the disastrous war in Iraq and now appear spooked that voters in Connecticut finally decided to hold Lieberman, the de facto Democratic co-sponsor of the invasion, responsible for that foreign policy debacle. They're spooked because for the last three-plus years there's been something of a gentleman's agreement that nobody inside the Beltway, whether at the White House, Congress, the Pentagon, or inside the corporate media world, has been asked to pay any sort of professional price for backing the disaster that is Iraq.But suddenly Democrats in the Nutmeg state have decided enough's enough. That's not a trend Beltway insiders want to see spread nationally, which is why so many pundits were eager to marginalize Lamont and his anti-war backers as "crazies" and "elitist" "bomb throwers."

"BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!" the fool

Does anyone else perceive an imblanace here?

Jay-Jay (or a fake Jay--who can tell anymore?): btw, I love hacky-sacks.

I do not think that word means what you think it means. But perhaps it does.

Global: Sorry, sistah. It's just an interesting race because Lieberman is such a self-centered, pigheaded fool who dug his own grave. It's like watching a train wreck every time he opens his mouth to bray about the results of the democratic process being "unacceptable."

obscure: no he doesn't but you know what? It doesn't matter any more. They can spew all they want about Democratic electoral tactics but it won't make the big elephant in the living room disappear.

The retarded neocons screwed the proverbial pooch in Iraq. Period.

And they are getting increasingly desperate as a result. They know it. We know it. The world knows it. More and more Americans are coming to know it.

All the retarded neocons are in the process of learning about a little thing called accountability. She's a bitch, ain't she my retarded neocon friends?

They are all on the record on Iraq and their little pet project blew up in their faces. They've been disgraced and proven as idiots who have no idea what they are spewing about.

Everything the retarded neocons said about Iraq turned out to be false. None of their predictions came true. They got their way on Iraq and their way led straight to the worst strategic blunder in American history. And everyone knows it, even they do.

WE WILL NEVER EVER LET YOU RETARDED NEOCONS LIVE IT DOWN!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What's the matter, jay, you retarded neocon. Am I getting under your skin?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

"This, especially when it comes from Cheney, associates Joe with Bush, whose disapproval rating is 70% in CT - a whopping 10% higher than the national average." - advocate

wrong. Joe captured 48% of an ALL democratic primary. As an independent he will still capture some Dem votes and knowing that republicans do not have a chance in CT, republican voters will vigorously support Joe as an independent.

Sorry.

"Hey, why do you continue to support al Queda? You don't demand that Bush go into Afghanistan/Pakistan to get Osama? You support a President that indicated that Osama was not a top priority. Why do you love Osama more than America?"

We're already in Afghanistan/Pakistan. 70% of Al Qaeda is either dead or in prison.
~~~

Coward. Your 70% number is pure fantasy. Al Queda is all over the world (see the recent attempted attack). They have resurged not only in Afghanistan, but also have now shown that they are capable of planning sophisticated terrorist attacks.

You, a complete and utter coward, allow them to continue to exist. When schooled on Zarqawi as the reason for invading Iraq (Bush could have killed him without the war), you run away and ignore THE FACTS.

You, a complete and utter coward, would rather allow Osama to continue to live than admit that you and Bush were wrong.

You sir, are weak on security, you are an enabler of Osama and al Queda. You are weak-minded and ignorant of basic information.

But mostly, you are a coward. And you know it.

Good luck convincing any sane person that Ned Lamont, Kevin Drum and Kos and company are in favor of going on the offense against terrorism.

Kevin's sensitivity shows he recognizes the potentially devastating vulnerabililty of democrats to such criticism -- the kind of vulnerability that could cost them the presidency for a generation.

"Religious law is the only valid input for civil law." - Osama

Please cite the specific examples as they relate to American politics.

"For the good of all, people who disagree with us should be silenced, by force, if necessary" - osama

Please cite the specific examples of force being used to silence, Kerry, Dean, Pelosi, Clinton, Sheehan, Moore, Carter, Schumer, etc. etc. etc.

Advocate for God:

Of course Lieberman is saying he will caucus with the Democrats, but maybe the Republicans are hoping for a reverse-Jeffords?

obscure:

I did indeed vote for Kerry, as I suspect you did as well. Now, if you can prove your vote, so will I. But note, if you cannot prove your vote, I will not call you a filthy, disgusting liar.

Global: Sorry, sistah. It's just an interesting race because Lieberman is such a self-centered, pigheaded fool who dug his own grave.

It's the Democrats who have jeopardized what would otherwise have been a safe seat for their party in the Senate who are self-centered, pigheaded fools.

FYI:
"The Fool" writes just like "Patton".

I suspect he's less than genuine.

Liberals what a Joke! So many of you seem to forget how many times under BJ Bill we were attacked by Jihadists. All Bill did was blow up an aspirin factrory and blow up a couple of tents. The New democratic party are nothing more than appeaser Neville Chamberlin types who will sell us all out. nothing scares me more thasn these wimps getting into power and hearing the most frightening words ever spoken "Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House".

Yuk!

Jay: Does anyone other than me find it extremely ironic that braindead liberals direct more venom and vitriol towards their own countryman they don't even know and disagree with, yet will excuse every action imaginable of Islamo-fascists they perceive to know intimately and only sometimes disagree with.

Since what you say is not true (i.e., you lie), I doubt that anyone other than a Bush lemming would find it ironic.

GOP: Democrats who oppose the war don't seem to care about it enough to make any serious effort to get greater representation of their views even amoung their own elected representatives.

Let's see, according to GOP the only reason Dems opposed Lieberman was one issue: the war and that the Dems are being a single-issue party.

Now he says Democrats refuse to be a single-issue party, insisting on opposition to the war as a litmus test.

Proving once again GOP's fundamental dishonesty - posing two mutually exclusive analyses of what allegedly drives Democrats.

Make up your mind GOP.

Well, Jay -- you do have to admit that Cindy Sheehan was forcibly removed from that State of the Union address ; )

Osama_Been_Forgotten:

I don't recall "Patton" ever calling anyone supporting Iraq (as he / she did) a "retarded neocon".

Yeah, but the obsession with the northeast corridor and the left coast represent several nails in the coffins of state democratic parties in the wide middle of this country, and that is why the areas that benefit the most from other peoples taxes and have flush toilets because of the WPA have turned away from their natural allies the Democratic party because of the obsession with those demographics.

I have lived in Tucson, Vegas, Wichita, Little Rock, Biloxi, Knob Noster, Minot. Rahm Emanuel needs his ass kicked. The Democrats in these places matter, damnit.

"Religious law is the only valid input for civil law." - Osama

Please cite the specific examples as they relate to American politics.

Aw jeez, numerous examples of debates on School Prayer, abortion, gay-marriage, inflamed rhetoric among the right-wing pundocracy - don't be obtuse.

"For the good of all, people who disagree with us should be silenced, by force, if necessary" - osama

Please cite the specific examples of force being used to silence, Kerry, Dean, Pelosi, Clinton, Sheehan, Moore, Carter, Schumer, etc. etc. etc.
Posted by: Jay on August 11, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

People. Not specific people. But since you asked:
- Free Speech Zones.
- Sheehan: camping ban at Bush's "ranch".
- Kennedy: no-fly list.
- Conyers: hearings in the capitol's basement, because republican leadership would not allow him to hold official hearings.
- Moore: being forcibly ejected from Bristol Meyers Squibb's premises after being expressly invited for interviews with executives.
- National Security legislation, and abuse of security classification for non-national security-related information.

Let's see, according to GOP the only reason Dems opposed Lieberman was one issue: the war and that the Dems are being a single-issue party.

I never said either of those things. The Dems who opposed Lieberman didn't do so because of the war. They opposed him because they are juvenile idiots who got their panties in a twist because of "the kiss" and other such nonsense. Substantively, Lieberman's record in office is solidly within the Democrat mainstream.

"You sir, are weak on security, you are an enabler of Osama and al Queda. You are weak-minded and ignorant of basic information.

But mostly, you are a coward. And you know it."

Oh OK, whatever. Whatever happened to topical debate? No wonder you guys lose elections.

Jay: Joe captured 48% of an ALL democratic primary. As an independent he will still capture some Dem votes and knowing that republicans do not have a chance in CT, republican voters will vigorously support Joe as an independent.

Perhaps the stupidist (non)rebuttal you've ever made.

Sorry.

But hey, stick to your fantasy.

It's served you well on Iraq.

MarkG: New democratic party are nothing more than appeaser Neville Chamberlin types . . .

Sure. The Democrats were so appeasing to Milosevic.

You trolls just can't tell a good lie anymore, preferring to ramble and rant hysterically using druggie-criminal Limbaugh's talking points!

GOP: It's the Democrats who have jeopardized what would otherwise have been a safe seat for their party in the Senate who are self-centered, pigheaded fools.

You can't even make up your mind whether Democrats are single-issue or not, GOP.

Your predictions and analysis are devoid of credibility.

Nothing new there.

Why don't you simply go back to tossing around inane claims of anti-semitism by misrepresenting what commenter have posted.

It would be just as useful!

brian: Good luck convincing any sane person that Ned Lamont, Kevin Drum and Kos and company are in favor of going on the offense against terrorism.

Good luck convincing any sane person that brian knows what he's talking about! He still believes Saddam has WMDs stuffed in his pants, despite being stripped and having his body cavities searched!

Well, AOG, if I am Charlie, that means I got the 60 million vote win for Bush correct, so do I have any credibility in predicting that Lamont will lose this time? You can't have it both ways.

THE STORY OF HOW JAY AND THOMAS SCREWED THE IRAQ POOCH

Thomas: Hey, Jay, look at that Iraq pooch over there!

Jay: yeah, lookin' mighty fine!

Thomas: I think I got me some I-RACK wood, eyeing that little poochie over there.

Jay: I'm pitchin' a tent just thinking about it. Whaddyasay we SCREW that pooch?

Thomas: Capital idea, my man!

Jay: You hold her down while I give poochie all 3 inches of my neocon man meat.

Thomas: okay but I get sloppy seconds

We see Jay humping the pooch.

Jay: Aaaaaahhhhhh! I sure showed that pooch who his daddy is.

Thomas: I can do better than that. I only have 2 inches of neocon man meat but I'm gonna give that Iraq pooch a reacharound he'll never forget. And then I'm gonna blow his load all over my own face!

Thomas starts jerking the Iraq pooch off

Jay: Oh yeah??? I'm a more committed and retarded neocon than you'll ever be, Thomas! I'll show you. I'm gonna blow that pooch like Lewinsky on Clinton.

Jay furiously engulfs the pooch's penis, blowing him for all he's worth.

Jay: And now just to you show you who's the more retarded neocon, Thomas, I'm gonna swallow this pooch's entire load!

And so ends our tale of the day Thomas and Jay screwed the Iraq pooch. Tune in next month as we bring you the story of how our retarded neocon friends, Jay and Thomas, screw the Iran pooch!

"Well, Jay -- you do have to admit that Cindy Sheehan was forcibly removed from that State of the Union address ; )"

There have ALWAYS been restrictions on free speech. Example, you can not yell fire in a movie theatre, you can not say hi-jack on an airplane. Also, I have no right to walk into any legislature and begin to speak my mind during session. Those are called protocols.

"Moore: being forcibly ejected from Bristol
Meyers Squibb's premises after being expressly invited for interviews with executives."

"Sheehan: camping ban at Bush's "ranch"."

Private Property issues. Sheehan was more than able to get her message out using public land. Any privateer can uninvite anyone from their property.

"Aw jeez, numerous examples of debates on School Prayer, abortion, gay-marriage, inflamed rhetoric among the right-wing pundocracy - don't be obtuse."

These are definitely topical issues with religious overtures, but there remains NO RELIGIOUS LAW in the US. Period.

Don P wrote: It's the Democrats who have jeopardized what would otherwise have been a safe seat for their party in the Senate who are self-centered, pigheaded fools.

Don P wrote: Democrats who oppose the war don't seem to care about it enough to make any serious effort to get greater representation of their views even amoung their own elected representatives.

You are a raving idiot. You will say any stupid thing, then contradict yourself in the next post with some equally stupid thing. As long as you are regurgitating scripted right-wing extremist Republican propaganda, it's all the same to you.

These are definitely topical issues with religious overtures, but there remains NO RELIGIOUS LAW in the US. Period.
Posted by: Jay on August 11, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

". . . One Nation, Under God. . ."

I guess it was too much to expect of you to not be obtuse.

". . . One Nation, Under God. . ."

That's a phrase! Not a law. Incidentally that phrase was coined by the founding fathers, not GW.

Just FYI

And, Rude Pundit, you wonder why people vote for the mild-mannered Republican, or in this case, Democrat thrown out of the party for supporting the war?

"You sir, are weak on security, you are an enabler of Osama and al Queda. You are weak-minded and ignorant of basic information.

But mostly, you are a coward. And you know it."

Oh OK, whatever. Whatever happened to topical debate? No wonder you guys lose elections.

~~~
You have never engaged in topical debate, just the constant spewing of rightwing talkingpoints that people shoot down in about 2 seconds flat. When they are established as bunk, you simply ignore it.

You did that today multiple times. When presented with facts, you run away.

Its to be expected from a coward.

You still have not indicated how invading Iraq stops the terrorist attacks you listed.

You still have not indicated why you favor allowing Osama to be free?

You still have not shown that you are anything but a child, whose ego would be too bruised to admit that Iraq is a fiasco that is hurtng our security.

Instead, simplistic and ego-drive, weak, weak-minded, you continue with bullshite rhetoric. Meanwhile Americans die. And the coward who sent them there sits on his keyboard, too cowardly to even argue honestly.

Gregory, Kevin's post said the accusations should be refuted "chapter and verse", not "name-calling"

And my post said that's conceding to much to liars like you, "ex-liberal." The accusations should be refuted by calling them the lies they are, and calling those who make them the liars they are.

You start with a plausible argument: the problems in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon show that Bush has mishandled the situations.

That's beyond "plausible argument"; it's more like "demonstrable fact."

Now, how do you convince voters that Dems will do better job in these countries, and especially, how do you convince voters that the Dems will do a better job of protecting the US?

I don't have to. Polls show that voters already believe these things. The delightful thing is that Bush's incompetence has flushed the decades-long branding effort of the GOP as "strong on defense" right down the tubes. I love it!

"Now, do you think it is just a coincidence that a couple of these London terrorists are named Hussein or not?"

Hmm do you think it is just a coincidence that a website named 'Husseini.com' had the same IP as 'Joe2006' or not?
Thomas?

Me, I tend to BELIEVE it's one of the strange jokes of fate. But who KNOWS?

...Incidentally that phrase was coined by the founding fathers, not GW.
Just FYI
Posted by: Jay on August 11, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

What are you smoking?

"under god" was added in the McCarthy red-scare era, and was not original to the pledge.

Thomas: what's that you say? Take that Iraq pooch's dick out of your mouth so I can understand what you're saying. And say it, don't spray it.

Bottom line Thomas: everything is a minor detail other than the fact that you retarded neocons have 100% owenership of the worst strategic disaster in American history.

Sucks to be you.

"Hezbollah" means "Party of God"
Why do republicans refer to the GOP as "God's Own Party"

Two peas in a pod.

The American Taliban.

"You did that today multiple times. When presented with facts, you run away." Palooza

Still here.

Its to be expected from a coward. - palooza

Well, you're a good name caller

"You still have not indicated how invading Iraq stops the terrorist attacks you listed." - palooza

How many attacks have we had on US Soil since? Taking the fight to them is an attempt to dismantle their infrastructure and ability to plan and coordinate. Diplomacy obviously did not work very well the last forty years.

"You still have not indicated why you favor allowing Osama to be free?" - palooza

I don't and never said it.

"You still have not shown that you are anything but a child, whose ego would be too bruised to admit that Iraq is a fiasco that is hurtng our security."

Again how many times has American soil been attacked. And I am assuming you woke up in good condition today. btw, does your mom know you're on the computer?

MarkG

does that make you scared enough to pee your pants?

coward

uh, this would be the same rudy giuliani who failed to see that the fire and police departments had coordinated communications gear and had the absolutely brilliant idea of locating the snazzy, new (at the time) emergency command 'bunker' at 7 world trade center.

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/08/giuliani-911-failure.html

Gray:

We will definitely find out if it is a coincidence or not.

Rude Pundit:

For the last time, I VOTED FOR JOHN KERRY - how does that make me a neocon?!

Jay:

I just got this email from Harry Reid (note the lack of alternative plan):

Dear Friend,

Yesterday's arrests of terror suspects in Britain offered a stark reminder of the threat that America continues to face from Islamic fundamentalists.

It is at times like these when every leader in Washington, regardless of party affiliation, should be united behind the singular goal of keeping this country safe. But Republicans don't see it that way.

Once again, GOP leaders are using terrorism and our national security as a political wedge issue. It is disgusting - but not surprising.

This week, after Ned Lamont won the Connecticut Democratic primary, Dick Cheney said his victory would embolden "al-Qaeda types." Is this the type of country we're going to live in? Where the Vice President of the United States can blatantly suggest that Connecticut voters are aiding the terrorists?

Even more disgraceful is that when Cheney made those comments, he had been briefed on the Britain terror plot. There are simply no boundaries for these people. In their minds, our national security and their continued hold on power are one and the same. And they will stop at nothing to keep it that way.

Click here to tell Dick Cheney and Republican leaders to stop playing politics with our national security.

During the 2002 and 2004 elections, Republicans tried to sow fear in the American public by claiming that they were the only ones who could keep America safe. This, from the same crowd that has driven Iraq to the brink of disaster, left Osama Bin Laden on the loose to attack again, and continues to ignore our security needs at home. Ask any foreign policy pro, and they'll tell you we're less safe now than we were five years ago - and that the Bush crowd is largely responsible.

I've had it. This cruel joke has gone on for too long. Tell Republicans in Washington that you won't put up with their fear-mongering any longer.

Click here to tell Dick Cheney and Republican leaders to stop playing politics with our national security.

It is time for Americans to take back our country back. I hope I can count on your support.

"I have lived, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"
July 28, 1787 address at the Constitutional Convention"
Benjamin Franklin.

You're right though. In God We Trust was added to coinage during the civil war.

Jay you said:

"You still have not indicated how invading Iraq stops the terrorist attacks you listed." - palooza

How many attacks have we had on US Soil since? Taking the fight to them is an attempt to dismantle their infrastructure and ability to plan and coordinate. Diplomacy obviously did not work very well the last forty years.

"You still have not indicated why you favor allowing Osama to be free?" - palooza

I don't and never said it.
~~~
Again, you did not answer the question. You responded with a different question, and you provided no facts or evidence otherwise. That is the work of a coward that cannot back up his own rhetoric.

On Osama, yes you do support his continued freedom. You support it because you support Bush and his policies like Iraq which make us weaker and increase the al Queda threat. You never criticized Bush for failing to catch him or for saying he was not a top priority. That makes you a coward, unable to criticize obvious failure. Do you think honestly that Bush has been successful in capturing Osama?

Last but not least, I will continue to call you a coward, because that is what you are on many levels. You accuse democrats and liberals all day long of cowardice and weakness. In reality, you are projecting you own inadequacies like a little teenaged girl. Meanwhile, adults are trying to solve complex problems made worse by the fiasco caused by you and your stupid ilk.

Uh Jay and Thomas? I got one word for you: IRAQ.

It's a disaster.

It's YOUR disaster.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

(note the lack of alternative plan):

Implied alternative plan (for the mentally impaired):

Don't use terror as a political tool. Take it seriously.

Wow, you missed that? I'm sorry. Maybe try quitting the crack smoking. I've heard that recent studies show that the human brain is actually more resilient than once thought, and can indeed recover from some types of brain damage.

That's very nice and warm fuzzy Thomas, but I disagree with everything Harry Reid says.

Lamont ran a single issued campaign, to pull out of Iraq. That action aids jihadism. Period. Cheney was right.

Lieberman woould have won had the Britain scare happened a day earlier.

How can Harry Reid claim that we are less safe today than we were five years ago following the numerous thwarted terrorist attempts and the fact that there has not been one single attack on American soil since? It's just empty rhetoric.

The only thing Harry did was complain. Click here if he has a PLAN! Then I might listen.

That's right, OBF: "Click here to tell Dick Cheney and Republican leaders to stop playing politics with our national security."

"How can Harry Reid claim that we are less safe today than we were five years ago following the numerous thwarted terrorist attempts and the fact that there has not been one single attack on American soil since?"

Jay: you don't have to keep proving over and over what a deeply retarded neocon you are. It's totally obvious.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Agreed Jay, although Harry had it right for his first two sentences: "Yesterday's arrests of terror suspects in Britain offered a stark reminder of the threat that America continues to face from Islamic fundamentalists. It is at times like these when every leader in Washington, regardless of party affiliation, should be united behind the singular goal of keeping this country safe."

Instead, Democrats in CT threw overboard the one person most dedicated to that singular goal.

The Fundamental Political Identity for 2006:

neocon = Iraq = disaster = steaming pile of shit

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Palooza wins the name calling contest. Well done.

"WASHINGTON, Aug. 9, 2006 – The Iraqi army is halfway to its goal of 10 divisions as the 4th Division assumed command of the area north of Baghdad yesterday.
The division assumed primary control of its area of responsibility from the 101st Airborne Division. This is the fifth of 10 division headquarters in Iraq to assume the lead in regional operations.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman called the development a key benchmark in the effort Iraqis are making to take control of their own country. The division will be in the lead for security in Salah Ad Din, Sulaymaniyah and Kirkuk provinces. This area includes the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Samarra and Iraq’s northern oil fields.
Overall, Iraqi security forces are in the lead with five army divisions, 25 army brigades and 85 army battalions, Whitman said. The Iraqi national police have two battalions in the lead in other areas.
In northern Iraq, 33 battalions, nine brigades and two divisions have demonstrated their ability to operate independently and now lead the fight against terrorists and anti-Iraqi forces. The 5th Iraqi Army Division assumed the lead in Diyala province in July."

Maybe you missed this palooza, but this would suggest that Iraq is far from the disaster you want so badly and does not suggest that terrorists are thriving.

Osama has been relegated to a cave and unable to use his cell phone anymore (unless you have your way). He is hardly the man and the organization he once was (thanks to Clinton).

Ever hear of Eric Rudolph? It took the Clinton admin. over fivce years to capture him and he never left the state of Georgia.

Smarter liberals please.

Actually, sometime after we invaded Afghanistan Zarqawi was wounded and convalesced in Iraq. He was already well established with Al Qaeda.

You recite your brainwashed "facts" very well, grasshopper.

FYI.

A non-answer...answer

"every leader in Washington, regardless of party affiliation, should be united behind the singular goal of keeping this country safe."

Yes, Tommy. And getting bogged down in Iraq makes us safer how?

neocon = Iraq = disaster = steaming pile of shit

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA?

"Yesterday's arrests of terror suspects in Britain offered a stark reminder of the threat that America continues to face from Islamic fundamentalists. It is at times like these when every leader in Washington, regardless of party affiliation, should be united behind the singular goal of keeping this country safe."

Instead, Democrats in CT threw overboard the one person most dedicated to that singular goal."

EXACTLY

We are spending a trillion dollars and have lost almost 3000 livest to kill a single terrorist?

And leave it to Bush to make it the WRONG single terrorist at that.

Jay, you continue to post excerpts from articles without giving the source. As in your comment immediately preceding this one, time-stamped 3:27PM.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Andrew Sullivan today ( http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/08/after_london.html ):

"So call me a chastened neocon, if you must: appalled by the execution, humbled by the unintended consequences, but still unable to surrender the belief that more democracy and liberal institutions in the Middle East is the only long-term solution.

"What does this mean in practice? Redeployment within Iraq to regions where we truly can encourage democracy and prosperity, like Kurdistan. More 'soft' support for democratic movements in the Muslim world - the kind of backing we gave Eastern European dissidents in the Cold War - is essential, if done subtly enough not to prompt backlash. Encouraging the entrepreneurial Gulf states to grow in wealth and influence cannot hurt; a serious non-carbon energy policy at home is part of the mix as well. The credible threat of military force is also vital - especially as far as Iran's regime is concerned. And a much more credible homeland defense policy. If the Democrats could present a multi-faceted, hard-nosed approach to winning the war, a lot of us in the middle would give them a second look. But so far, not so good. I'm waiting for a leading Democratic nominee to pill a Sistah Souljah on the anti-war left, to call them on their irresponsibility and narcissism. Gore could do it. The question is: when will he start talking like a future war-president rather than an angry dissident?"

Actually, I think Edwards could do it a lot better than Gore (and better than Wesley Clark, whose only suggestion so far seems to be that we should "win in Iraq" in some unspecified way). Other than that, jeez parbloo cheers for Sullivan's list (with one more moderate caveat: make sure you put pressure on those "entrepreneurial Gulf states" to genuinely democratize, which of course is also necessary to maximize their entrepreneurial effectiveness).

Incidentally, Sullivan also effectively bith-slaps Lieberman today for his moronic insistence that it is somehow unpatriotic to criticize the president in wartime even if you honestly believe that his military strategy is leading the country to disaster. (As he says, they certainly don't believe that drivel in Israel itself.) So tell me: why are the Dems getting some of their best advice right now from a British Tory whose economic policies are solidly Republican?

Jay: Smarter liberals please.

You keep saying this and like the character from the Princess Bride who kept saying "inconceivable" I do not think you know what it means.

Thomas: Instead, Democrats in CT threw overboard the one person most dedicated to that singular goal.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Typical conservative crock.

"It is at times like these when every leader in Washington, regardless of party affiliation, should be united behind the singular goal of keeping this country safe."

Unfortunately, Bush is not pursuing that goal, so there is nothing to unite with him on.

Funny, though, how Republicans refused to unite with Clinton, but instead sought to undermine him at every opportunity with frivolous and false charges.

Tommy and Jay:

No sane person thinks that the Iraq disaster is helping keep the United States safe. You're going to have to come with some more truthy propaganda than that lame crap!

neocon = Iraq = disaster = steaming pile of crap

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I'm like to recommend a decaffined beverage to "The Fool" cause the BWAHAHAHAHs seem to be getting the better of him/her.

Jay: "EXACTLY"

Exactly bullshit.

Do you really expect to impress people with your robotic cutting and pasting of scripted, programmed, right-wing extremist Republican bullshit?

Other than impressing them with the fact that you are a weak-minded, ignorant mental slave?

Jay, you continue to post excerpts from articles without giving the source. As in your comment immediately preceding this one, time-stamped 3:27PM.

It's a Pentagon press release. It looks like a straight news article, but it's really paid Republican propaganda. You can give it all the credence that deserves....

Archie = neocon = Iraq = disaster = steaming pile of shit

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

So many of you seem to forget how many times under BJ Bill...

Clenis' Law has been evoked.

Ever hear of Eric Rudolph? It took the Clinton admin. over fivce years to capture him and he never left the state of Georgia.

Uh, yeah, and he wasn't responsible for the biggest terrorist attack in U.S. history, nor were all of the country's military and law enforcement resources devoted to capturing him.
Nor were the resources that were devoted to capturing him diverted to a state where we were sure he wasn't hiding--as Bush did by diverting so much of our military from Afghanistan to Iraq.

Subtle differences that we don't expect a dumbshit like you to grasp.

Thomas: Well, AOG, if I am Charlie, that means I got the 60 million vote win for Bush correct, so do I have any credibility in predicting that Lamont will lose this time? You can't have it both ways.

Your logic is as faulty as your punctuation.

Jay: I don't and never said it.

Yes, you have.

You've said you favor keeping Bush and the GOP in power and keeping them in power means letting OBL go free.

Osama Been Forgotten, do I read you right?

Cheney supports a platform of staying in Iraq; that's playing politics.

Lamont supports platform of withdrawing from Iraq; that's statesmanship.

Seriously, the charge of "playing politics" is a weak response. Voters know that it's normal for candidates to take positions on issues and to argue that their policy would be better than their opponent's policy.

neocon = Republican = Iraq disaster
neocon = Republican = Iraq disaster
neocon = Republican = Iraq disaster
neocon = Republican = Iraq disaster
neocon = Republican = Iraq disaster
neocon = Republican = Iraq disaster
neocon = Republican = Iraq disaster
neocon = Republican = Iraq disaster
neocon = Republican = Iraq disaster
neocon = Republican = Iraq disaster
neocon = Republican = Iraq disaster

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Advocate for God - "Republicans refused to unite with Clinton, but instead sought to undermine him at every opportunity with frivolous and false charges."

No Doubt about this statement. it is easy to see why the Democrats have not desire to work with W.

Unfortunately, I wouldn't want to be the next Democrat in office or the Republican after that.

Rather than have an election at the ballot box, we will schedule a gunfight in every neighborhood.

"You've said you favor keeping Bush and the GOP in power and keeping them in power means letting OBL go free."

I am in favor of keeping conservatives in power.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/04/dont_worry_osama_were_busy_and_1.html

"With Osama again talking, there also comes news that the United States and Pakistan will conduct an "Inspired Gambit" exercise next month. Air assault forces and American Green Berets will deploy. For the first time, Afghani forces will participate on Pakistani soil."

Get off of your talking points.

Repeat after me:

neocon = Republican = Iraq disaster
Republican = neocon = Iraq disaster
Iraq disaster = neocon = Republican
Lieberman = Iraq disaster = neocon
Iraq disaster = Republican = neocon

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Lieberman update:

“I’m worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don’t appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us — more evil, or as evil, as Nazism and probably more dangerous than the Soviet Communists we fought during the long Cold War,” Mr. Lieberman said.

Still, it's a long way from November for Joe to be getting this shrill already. And why should we trust people who don't accurately describe the situation to deal with it effectively? Joe sounds more and more like a Republican everyday: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." -Rumsfeld.

ex-liberal: Seriously, the charge of "playing politics" is a weak response. Voters know that it's normal for candidates to take positions on issues and to argue that their policy would be better than their opponent's policy.

Then you shouldn't have any problem with Michael Moore's and MoveOn's tactics.

Or you have a double standard, calling "playing politics" a weak response when proffered by liberals, but a strong response when proffered by conservatives.

BTW, every single Republican leader in Congress and the president hysterically rants that the Democrats are "playing politics" on an almost daily basis, so you will agree that their response is as weak as their response to terrorism has been.

. . . do I read you right?

It seems unlikely.

You have a well-known tendency to incorrectly interpret the written word, either deliberately or from intellectual incompetence.

Well, AOG, if I am Charlie, that means I got the 60 million vote win for Bush correct, so do I have any credibility in predicting that Lamont will lose this time?

No, because you were just proven wrong when you predicted that Ralph Reed would win his primary and become the next Lieutenant Governor of Georgia.

You're an idiot, no matter which fake name you're using. I don't even know why you bother changing names so often, since everyone knows who you are anyway. Oh, that's right, you're an idiot...and a liar.

“I’m worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don’t appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us — more evil, or as evil, as Nazism and probably more dangerous than the Soviet Communists we fought during the long Cold War,” Mr. Lieberman said.

Joe Lieberman is calling the "enemy" (God knows if he means Al Qaeda or the armed resistance in Iraq) "more evil" than Nazism? Nazism?!?!?!

I'm...truly, I'm flabbergasted. Has he literally gone out of his fucking mind, or is he so absolutely power-mad that he will say anything, anything at all in his pursuit of it?

Jay: I am in favor of keeping conservatives in power.

You are in favor of keeping Bush and Republicans in power, since you've consistently stated that all Democrats are to the far left (hint: not conservatives).

So, you will agree that you are in favor of letting OBL run free.

Just so we're clear.

“I’m worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don’t appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us — more evil, or as evil, as Nazism and probably more dangerous than the Soviet Communists we fought during the long Cold War,” Mr. Lieberman said.

Lieberman loses, at least according to the conservative trollian interpretation (incorrect as it may be) of Godwin's Law.

Why are you backing Loserman, conservative trolls? He loses by your own standard!

BTW, the fact that this quote is virtually identical in both vocabulary and tone to what Bush has repeatedly ranted ties Lieberman even closer to Bush - in CT with a 70% disapproval rating for Bush, LOL.

Keep up the hysterical girly shrieking Crazy Joe, 'cause it's a winning stahteegery!

haha:

Just kidding. Actually I believe Lamont will win. Lieberman has no hope after having betrayed CT's voters so badly.

Boy oh boy did you retarded neocons ever fuck up with Iraq. You'll never live it down. We'll never LET you live it down.

But at least you brought 100% clarity to American politics:

neocon = Iraq disaster
Iraq disaster = neocon

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Stefan: Has he literally gone out of his fucking mind, or is he so absolutely power-mad that he will say anything, anything at all in his pursuit of it?

Yes.

He's Crazy Joe.

Say it over, and over, and over.

Jay:

Do you think it's just a coincidence that Joe Lieberman is named after Joe Stalin?

"You are in favor of keeping Bush and Republicans in power, since you've consistently stated that all Democrats are to the far left (hint: not conservatives).

So, you will agree that you are in favor of letting OBL run free.

Just so we're clear." - osama

Ok, whatever. Did you not read the following article?

"With Osama again talking, there also comes news that the United States and Pakistan will conduct an "Inspired Gambit" exercise next month. Air assault forces and American Green Berets will deploy. For the first time, Afghani forces will participate on Pakistani soil."

This would make you a liar (that's a word I know you understand).

Jay: "With Osama again talking, there also comes news that the United States and Pakistan will conduct an "Inspired Gambit" exercise next month. Air assault forces and American Green Berets will deploy. For the first time, Afghani forces will participate on Pakistani soil."

Hey, isn't that from the same people who keep telling us, and have been for nearly three years, that the insurgents are desperate and on their last legs?

And btw, if Bush was serious about capturing him, why do we need an initiative to capture bin Laden, eh?

Wouldn't he have been continually purusing bin Laden's capture?

Hmmmmmmm . . . .

Not very "inspired" to wait three years to begin an initiative to capture the most wanted terrorist in the word, at least for someone who is serious about fighting terrorism.

Jay: Again how many times has American soil been attacked. And I am assuming you woke up in good condition today. btw, does your mom know you're on the computer?

During Clinton's eight years, how many times did you wake up in good condition (vis-a-vis terrorists attacks)?

Each and every day.

I guess that means that Clinton did a bang-up job against terrorism.

Two thousand plus people weren't killed on American soil by foreign terrorists during his administration!

What an amusing food fight -- uhh, I mean thread.

This is almost as much fun as Prime Minister's Questions.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!

j/k

Bob

Retarded neocons like Lieberputz are like a poker player who suffered a bad beat and went on tilt. Now they're tiltin' hard and want to double down and then double down again if that doesn't work. But they're playing with other people's lives, not their own money.

neocon = Iraq disaster = Republican = Lieberman

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

In case anybody's interested in a more sober discussion, this is my post on a thread from yesterday where Kevin asked us about why we on lefty blogs don't like to talk about the war on terrorism:

Kevin,

On the one hand you're superficially correct, especially on places
like Kos, Atrios and FireDogLake where the idea is to focus all
attention on the failures of the Bush admin. It *does* seem that
the failing so-called war on terror is a mere means to the ends
of further demonstrating the disaster of this admin and the GOP.

On the other hand, you're mind-bogglingly wrong, as Juan Cole
should amply demonstrate to you. In the lead-up to the war I wasn't
blogging; I was posting on the NYT Iraq fora, and the discussion
often revolved around the nature of Islam; the opinions bifurcated
into two camps: Is Islam an irredeemably anti-modern religion --
antithetical to democracy and peace -- or has it been hijacked by
extremists who prosecute anti-Western aggression for other reasons?

Bush tried to square this circle by arguing the latter through the
means of the former. Hence, we "shock and awe" a primitive people
in the only language they'll understand to get them to accept a
modernism that all human beings crave, whether they know it or not.

There is no way a thinking person can miss the folly of this approach.

The Democratic approach (and this includes liberal hawks like
Friedman and Berman) has been to take the second answer at its
word -- Muslims are just like us, and will respond well to being
treated with dignity. Thus we argue to de-emphasize the grandiose,
radical ideologies of a tiny handful of fanatics by viewing
the war on terror as fundamentally a matter of law enforcement.
Sure, give help to whatever movements there may be in the
Islamic world that yearn for greater democracy and freedom, but
don't expect that destabilization will lead to true democracy.

The Republicans counter with their trump argument "we don't want the
smoking gun to turn out to be a mushroom cloud." They say that we have
to root out threats before they bear potentially catastrophic fruition
rather than prosecuting crimes after the fact. This is, granted, the
toughest argument that a law-enforcement approach needs to face down.

At the end of the day, though -- what has foiled
genuine terrorist plots like the truly frighening
one in today's front pages invoving bombing British
commercial planes bound for America? It was Scotland Yard.

Angst-ing over the nature of Islam is something Democrats
avoid because it gives off a distinct whiff of racism. Bush
has tried to ju-jitsu this by saying that it's really liberals
who don't believe that brown-skinned Iraqis are capable of
democracy -- this is a Rovian projective inversion.

Democrats believe the culture -- environment -- is extremely
important. It has nothing to do with the nature of Islam, as
our own peaceful communities of Muslim-Americans attest (our
uniquely American pluralist approach to immigration is better
than both the European approaches of assimilationism and
multiculturalism). Bush and the neocons are radical
individualists who radically de-emphasize the role of
cultural environment to posit an individual who must choose
between Good and Evil. If Muslims don't live in democratic
societies, it's because they're either oppressed by despotic
rulers or oppressed by the evil ideology of "Islamo-fascism."

This simplistic dualism misses what's readily apparent in,
say, the average color piece on Afghanistan in the NYT -- that
"primitive" villagers can live by both extremely conservative
flavors of Islam and be perfectly decent people, besides.
Democrats reject the idea of forcing people to abandon their
religious traditions in the name of a threatening modernity
because they're either "with us or with the terrorists." We
realize that this only backs Muslims against a wall and postpones
the inevitable day of reckoning with extremist ideologies.

We have faith in the historical process. We look
to the cooperation we extended in the aftermath
of WW2 and the fruits of alliance it bore.

We see war as a tool of regression, not progress. We know that
if we cooperate with Muslim regimes to root out criminal cults of
takfiri Salafists that are at least as much a threat to them as
they are to us, this will stand a greater chance of bearing fruit
than invasions -- which only serve to rally Muslims of all stripes
together in the name of the Umma, postponing Islamic self-criticism.

So yes, Kevin -- it's hard for any thinking Democrat to buy
into Bush's simplistic shibboleths about the so-called GWoT
-- and especially so considering that our global law enforcement
is working at cross-purposes with our foreign policy, which
is creating new terrorists almost as fast as our detectives
and intelligence agents can root out their plots.

What any of this has to do with Democrats "not taking
terrorism seriously" to be perfectly honest I have no idea.

Bob

Jay, if the Iraqi security forces are so well trained (and again, tell me how many are actually battle ready), why is the violence in Iraq spiraling out of control and is at its worse ever? Is that how you define success coward?

Jay tell us whether or not militias and death squads make up any portion of the Iraqi security forces?

Jay, if the security forces are doing so well, why are we all of a sudden sending in 5000 more U.S. troops to contain the out of control violence in Baghdad?

Per usual, coward, you try to avoid reality because your inflated ego, and ego that prevents you from admitting that you are dead wrong, while others die for your egotism. Letting others die because you can't admit that you are wrong is the definition of coward and weakness. Its what alcoholics do to their friends and families.

P.S. So let me get this straight, you criticize clinton for not getting Rudoloph, but give a complete pass to Bush for failing to capture Osama -- the leader of the group that killed 3000 people on 9/11. You expect people to take you seriously when you say you are concerned about stopping terrorism and securing America? You are providing cover for George Bush because he did not get Osama, you don't care about security at all. These are all actions of a major coward.

Can we stop with the "there hasn't been an attack on American soil since 9/11" bullshit? Prior to 9/11, there had not been an attack on American soil by any Islamic interests since WTC-I in February of 1993. That is 81/2 years between attacks, and these terrorists are known for methodical planning and tightly controlled sleeper cells. They plan for years. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't, and pretending that waging a war in Iraq under false pretenses keeps the terrorists at bay and makes us safer is a strawman that needs to be set alight right now.

"Hey, isn't that from the same people who keep telling us, and have been for nearly three years, that the insurgents are desperate and on their last legs?

And btw, if Bush was serious about capturing him, why do we need an initiative to capture bin Laden, eh?"

Google: Eric Rudolph

Then tell me how quickly we shoud have captured UBL.

AOG:

As long as they keep winning elections, who cares about the logic or punctuation? Next, you are going to claim 'tis nobler to lose with your principles intact . . .

Stefan:

A case can indeed be made that al Qaeda is as evil as the Nazis -- and more dangerous than the Soviet Union -- especially with perfect 20/20 hindsight (I'll go first: how many Americans were killed by the U.S.S.R.?).

ckelly and (fake) Thomas:

I thought that slippery slope arguments are not supposed to work with your "reality-based" crowd? Is anyone in England TODAY complaining about the Offical Secrets Act or any other tool used to catch these terrorists?

The reason that Eric Rudolph remained at large for so long was the same reason the insurgency rages. People left food on their porches for him and never said a word when it went missing. He had tacit approval of the population he was hiding amongst.

"P.S. So let me get this straight, you criticize clinton for not getting Rudoloph, but give a complete pass to Bush for failing to capture Osama -- the leader of the group that killed 3000 people on 9/11. You expect people to take you seriously when you say you are concerned about stopping terrorism and securing America? You are providing cover for George Bush because he did not get Osama, you don't care about security at all. These are all actions of a major coward."

No pass at all. It's only a matter of time before UBL is dead or apprehended.

Palooza represents the most intellectually dishonest of all liberals and his way of thinking is WHY the Dems WILL lose again in '06 and '08. A completely misguided fool.

Write that down in permanent ink.

How many Americans were on KAL 007?

Lieberman just said that the threat we face from the Islamic extremists is more dangerous than either the Nazis or the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union -- with thousands of nuclear-tipped ICBM's and filled with a sense of historic mission that they would bury us.

Now that, my retarded neocon friends, is CRAZY.

This is the guy who you think is "serious" about national security?

Advocate for God, have you forgotten the World Trade Center bombing on Feb. 26, 1993? Six people were killed and 1000 were wounded. Clinton treated this as a criminal matter, while Bush treated the 2001 attack as a war. History will record that Bush was right.

ex-lib:

The only thing history is going to record about Bush, my restarded neocon friend, is that he was by far the worst president in the history of the United States. History will record that the retarded neocons took their eye off the ball and let Osama bin Laden get away at Tora Bora while they went ahead with their disastrously misguided Iraq Disaster that was all cost and no benefit.

But history will show that Bush was wrong on Iraq. No one I know (or at least take seriously) opposed the invasion of Afghanistan. But Iraq is a gigantic cluster-fuck that distracts attention and diverts necessary troop strength from the war we should be fighting.

"The Soviet Union -- with thousands of nuclear-tipped ICBM's and filled with a sense of historic mission that they would bury us."

The Soviets were very aware of MAD (mutually assured destruction) hence their retraint.

Jihadists do not fear that in the least.

This is what I mean when I say you guys DON'T GET IT.

Global Citizen:

Not thousands (and the WTC was a deliberate attack, not an "accident").

OK, let me see a show of hands. All those who think that Iran/al-Qaeda is more dangerous than the Soviet Union, raise your hands.

Ok, now all of you with your hands in the air, follow the guys in the white coats as they take you to the special short bus we've arranged just for you. After your complimentary frontal lobotomies you'll all be thinking much more clearly.

have you forgotten the World Trade Center bombing on Feb. 26, 1993? Six people were killed and 1000 were wounded. Clinton treated this as a criminal matter, while Bush treated the 2001 attack as a war.

Clinton's strategy: All perpetrators apprehended and punished

Bush strategy: Mastermind still at large.

History indeed!

LOL - The Fool, considering the Soviet Union does not even exist anymore, YOU personal are currently more dangerous than an entity that does not exist. You got something substantive?

ckelly:

I thought that slippery slope arguments are not supposed to work with your "reality-based" crowd? Is anyone in England TODAY complaining about the Offical Secrets Act or any other tool used to catch these terrorists?

When did I say the WTC was an accident?

Dude: jihadists live in countries and have families and friends too. If they ever nuke New York City, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia will be smooth as glass.

It's only a matter of time before UBL is dead or apprehended.

Jay is correct (a first) Osama's bound to die of old-age someday.

Sorry, GC -- I thought you were responding to my question about: how many Americans were killed by the U.S.S.R.?

God you're stupid Thomas. Lieberman says that the threat we face NOW is greater than the threat we faced from the Soviet Union THEN. You follow, retard?

Only a whippersnapper who doesn't remember the Cold War would think that.

Cheney supports a platform of staying in Iraq; that's playing politics.

No - his plan is steadfastly refusing to admit that they were WRONG. About WMD, about Al Qaeda linkage, about "clear and present danger", about democracy-domino-effects, about flowers and candy, they were wrong wrong wrong. And because they're too ass-stubborn to admit it and apologize and resign like a true statesman, more American troops will die, more Iraqis will die, more BILLIONS of your taxpayer dollars will be wasted, and Osama bin Laden will continue to operate his little jihad. Will you change your mind if a close relative or best friend of yours is bin Laden's next victim?

Lamont supports platform of withdrawing from Iraq; that's statesmanship.

Si senor. Step one: admit the mistake. Step two: FIRE the person responsible for said mistake. Step three: work to correct the problem.

Seriously, the charge of "playing politics" is a weak response. Voters know that it's normal for candidates to take positions on issues and to argue that their policy would be better than their opponent's policy.
Posted by: ex-liberal on August 11, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

Talk about a weak response. That's a pathetic excuse for the degree of cognative dissonance required to call the current situation in Iraq "a success".

"With Osama again talking, there also comes news that the United States and Pakistan will conduct an "Inspired Gambit" exercise next month. Air assault forces and American Green Berets will deploy. For the first time, Afghani forces will participate on Pakistani soil."
Posted by: Jay on August 11, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

Too little, too late.

The dead, from the bombings of the Spanish tranit system on 3/11, the bombings in London last July, (maybe the plane to fall out of the sky in pieces next week, because we don't know if we got them all), and all the Afghanis who have been killed in the southeast of Afghanistan from Al Qaeda's unabated reign of terror there all say that BUSH FAILED. And the sick thing is - he failed on purpose:
"I don't know where he is. I say again, I'm truly not that concerned about him." -George W Bush.

Though he IS truly that concerned, apparently, about Halliburton's profits.

Bush fucked up. A whole lot of people are dead and money wasted because of him. It's time to fire the bastard, and stop being a wishy-washy sissy about it. It's time for Republicans to stop worrying about their party's precious "majority", and their lobbyist's bribes, and start worrying about their fucking country for a change.

lAmont ran a single issued campaign, to pull out of iRaq. tHat action aids jihadism. pEriod. cHeney was right.

There is no jihadism going on in Iraq you moron. There's a sectarian civil war. If the American troops left, there'd be nobody for the jihadists to attack.

The Murtha plan does not call for "withdraw" from Iraq anyway. It calls for redeployment, which keeps US troops (and air power) on hand to support Iraqi troops in case the civil war turns into a large-scale engagement, which American air-power can stop. What American air-power can not stop, is IED's and death squads. So it makes all the sense in the world to redeploy now, and it makes NO sense to oppose the plan because you're worried about your party's political stance.

lIeberman woould have won had the bRitain scare happened a day earlier.

Yes. You're probably right. The effect of terrorism is, um. . . Terror. Duh. What would you rather have in office for six years? The result of one week of fearmongering on the voting populace by a breathless opportunistic newsmedia? Or the well-reasoned, level-headed decision of the majority of voters who are fed up with the incumbent candidate who has proven he is out of touch with reality?

hOw can hArry rEID claim that we are less safe today than we were five years ago following the numerous thwarted terrorist attempts and the fact that there has not been one single attack on aMerican soil since?

The ONLY reason we're safer today, is Bush is now paying attention to his PDB's. And Britain appears to have done some good police work for us.

Personally, I consider Iraq to be "American Soil" since American Troops are occupying and securing it - and if you include that record, I don't think we're much safer.

Clinton thwarted a few attempts in his day. He took his PDB's seriously. Bush didn't. Then 9/11 happened. Bush is an incompetent boob, who surrounds himself with incommpetent boobs so he doesn't feel as stupid, and incompetent boobs vote for him because they can't handle the responsibility of researching candidates for office. (ps. I would have voted for McCain, and I donated $2000 to him in the 2000 primary - but I've since changed my mind about that two-faced bastard).

tHe only thing hArry did was complain. cLick here if he has a pLaN1 tHen i might listen.
pOsted by; jAy on august 11, 2006 at 3;22 pm \ peRmaLiNk

The plan - as stated, above: Admit you were wrong. Fire Bush Now. Do something ANYTHING different than what we're doing now. The Murtha plan is well documented (though not well-understood by conservatives, because they're ignorant).

The fool wrote: The only thing history is going to record about Bush...is that he was by far the worst president in the history of the United States.

Democrat Ed Koch (former Mayor of New York City) disagrees. Today, he wrote:

In my judgment, when history evaluates George W. Bush's position in the pantheon of presidents, he will be compared with Harry S. Truman. Bush's fortitude in recognizing the danger of Islamic fundamentalism to the U.S. and, indeed, the Western world, and his awareness of the need to win this war of civilizations is remarkable. He deserves the applause of all Americans and in time he will receive it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/bushs_fortitude_on_the_middle.html

The cold war (you can thank my husband for winning that one) didn't cost very many lives, but it did cost a hell of a lot of treasure.

Dear ex-lib:

Ed Koch? Oh well, I guess that settles it.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

The Fool:

I know exactly what Lieberman said. I also know exactly what YOU wrote here:

Lieberman just said that the threat we face from the Islamic extremists is more dangerous than either the Nazis or the Soviet Union.

You seem to have a problem with the present vs. past tense.

GC:

To answer your question, at least: Korean Air Flight 007, also known as KAL 007 or KE007, was a Korean Air civilian airliner shot down by Soviet jet interceptors on September 1, 1983 just west of Sakhalin island. KAL 007 carried 269 passengers and crew, including U.S. congressman Lawrence McDonald. There were no survivors.

The Soviet Union stated it did not know the aircraft was civilian, and suggested it had entered Soviet airspace as a deliberate provocation to test their response capabilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAL_007

ex-liberal quotes Koch: "Bush's fortitude in recognizing the danger of Islamic fundamentalism to the U.S. and, indeed, the Western world, and his awareness of the need to win this war of civilizations is remarkable."

Bush has shown no "fortitude", only cynical opportunism.

The notion that "Islamic fundamentalism" is a "danger" to "the Western world" is laughable.

The "war of civilizations" is a fraud.

The real "war" is the war by the tiny, ultra-rich, increasingly hereditary, trans-national, neo-fascist, corporate-feudalist economic elite of the military-industrial-petroleum complex against all other life on earth. All the other so-called "wars" are actually just battles in that larger war.

It appear I have a fake Thomas impersonator. Just remember, I'M the life-long Democrat who supports John Kerry.

(fake) Thomas:

who killed more Americans, the Nazis or Al Qaeda?

Jay:

If "Jihadists do not fear that [MAD] in the least" then how do you imagine that "shock and awe" is supposed to deter them?

ex-liberal:

LOL. Have you forgotten? Clinton caught, tried and convicted all those responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing (a bombing Bush I was responsible for by not going to war against the jihadists who planned it). Bush has still to catch Osama. History will record that Bush failed.

Jay, is it intellectually honest to avoid these questions:

Jay, if the Iraqi security forces are so well trained (and again, tell me how many are actually battle ready), why is the violence in Iraq spiraling out of control and is at its worse ever? Is that how you define success coward?

Jay tell us whether or not militias and death squads make up any portion of the Iraqi security forces?

Jay, if the security forces are doing so well, why are we all of a sudden sending in 5000 more U.S. troops to contain the out of control violence in Baghdad?

The entire rightwing framing of this war is intellectually dishonest, you engage in it day in and day out, and when somebody calls you a coward and throws your own crap back at you, you whine like a little girl. That makes you a coward thrice over.

Is it intellectually honest to state that Iraq is working because there has not been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and offer ZERO PROOF that Iraq has ANYTHING to do with that?

Is it intellectually honest to criticze Clinton for not catching Randolph, while NEVER criticizing Bush for not catching Osama?

Is it intellectually honest to claim that if you are against the idiotic and failed Iraq war that you are against fighting terrorists.

Jay, you are a coward twice over. Once for not fighting it the war that you claim is so important to the survival of the United States. Second for cowardly avoiding facts and reality so that your fragile ego is not bruised.

Yes, that great judge of history and men, Ed Koch. We don't have to travel far into the future to look at the simpering face if our Boy Chimperor and see a man who's been in over his head at every stage of his life. As I've said here before, he is heading for a spectacular flame-out after leaving office that will be unlike anything we've ever seen in U.S. politics, that of Dick Nixon included.

He will be the convenient fall guy for every disgruntled Republican for decades to come (while Cheney will be cryogenically frozen in some Valhalla of his own choosing), and no sitting pol in the rest of our lifetimes will ever consult Dubya Trouble about anything -- except where the next kegger is being held.

(fake) Thomas:

And what did the Republican Reagan do about KAL 007? When did we invade the Soviet Union in response?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAL_007

Clinton treated this as a criminal matter, while Bush treated the 2001 attack as a war. History will record that Bush was right.
Posted by: ex-liberal on August 11, 2006 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

And that's because Osama bin Laden is rotting in jail, and Ramsi Yousef is still planning and executing operations against us?

Get a grip, moron.

ckelly wrote: Clinton's strategy [regarding g1994 WTC attack]: All perpetrators apprehended and punished

Bush strategy [regarding 9/11]: Mastermind still at large.

History indeed!

ckelly, like President Clinton, you seem to see these attacks as criminal actions. History will credit Bush for recognizing them as war.

FDR didn't apprehend and punish the pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor. Obviously, he went to war against Japan, eventually defeated them. Then the US imposed a democracy there, turning the Japanese people into allies.

Bush may or may not succeed in emulating the success of Roosevelt and Truman, but he's trying to do the right thing.

Jay:

It's only a matter of time before UBL is dead or apprehended.

LOL! How much time do you need? Since five years isn't enough do you need five more? ;)

It wasn't "a matter of time" for FDR -- in less than five years he had won WWII and captured all the Japanese leaders responsible for Pearl Harbor.

I remember KAL 007 very vividly. Davis-Monthan Air Force base went into a frenzy. I didn't see my husband or hear from him for 48 hours. I was home alone with a 6-month-old, fifteen hundred miles from the nearest relative, I found out while my husband was incommunicado that we were pregnant again (Surprise!). And to top it off, I thought my brother was on that flight, and didn't know for sure he was okay for three days. He had been visiting our grandmother in Buffalo while he was on leave. He was stationed in Korea at the time.

I remember KAL vividly - it had a direct affect on my life.

Yes, the threat of being forced to pray towards Mecca is much worse than total nuclear annihilation of the entire world. That is why we are bombing innocent civilians in Beirut and letting dogs eat dead children's bodies in Fallujah. Thank goodness we have such brave men as Mayor Koch to set the record straight and explain why so many innocent people must be killed.

ckelly, like President Clinton, you seem to see these attacks as criminal actions. History will credit Bush for recognizing them as war.

Uh, since the 1993 WTC attacks were planned and carried out by a Pakistani and Egyptians living in Hoboken, whom should Clinton have "gone to war" against? Egypt? Pakistan? New Jersey?

Um, we seem to be getting off topic. Remember, all you need to know about American politics can be summed up as follows:

1) The neocons insisted on their foolish Iraq War

2) They got their way

3) It resulted in the worst startegic blunder in American history.

The Iraq Disaster: brought to you by retarded neocons like Thomas, Jay, and ex-lib, who will never, ever be allowed to live down the fact that they were wrong, wrong, wrong about Iraq.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

FDR didn't apprehend and punish the pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor. . .
Posted by: ex-liberal on August 11, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Quick geography lesson:
Japan is a nation.
Al Qaeda is a non-state.

War is for nations. For everything else, there's Rule of Law.

GC:

Sorry for any confusion from the fake "Thomas". And thank goodness your husband and brother were O.K. Rep. Larry McDonald (D-GE) president of the extreme right-wing John Birch Society and founder of the Western Goals Foundation which was intended to combat the threat from Communism (ironically) WAS on that flight. He was the only U.S. congressman ever killed by the Soviets during the Cold War. There is no evidence that the U.S.S.R. knew of the congressman's presence.

While we didn't invade the Soviet Union, you know better than most what we did do.

Didn't someone invoke Truman a few minutes ago? Timely, that...I just got the following email from the Missouri Democratic Party:

What would Truman, Clinton or Carnahan do in these times? The same thing Democrats elected in '06 and '08 will do.

Honor our promises to Veterans and support our troops...

Give working Missouri families a raise. Jim Talent has voted 11 times against increasing the 10-year-old minimum wage.

Provide preventative and timely health care for families. Governor Blunt and the Republican legislators cut health care to 100,000 Missourians, including seniors and the disabled, in 2005...

Increase the quality of education...

Make it easier for everyone to vote by passing reforms like early voting. As opposed to the Republicans who have embarked on a voter-suppression campaign aimed at undoing nearly a century's worth of progress on voting rights.
You know we're in the eye of the storm. I'm asking for your help. There's only one party that wants everyone to survive and prosper, and that is your Missouri Democratic Party.

Yeah, I know. But as I have no desire to bust rocks at Leavenworth, certain topics I do not entertain. And I only know what I was personally briefed on before we went overseas. My husband is one of those officers who doesn't spill state secrets even to a wife of 24 years as long as they are classified.

Osama_Been_Forgotten: why do they call me "conservative", when you're the one stuck in the past?

The loosely linked terrorist attacks being carried out in many countries by certain groups of Muslims represents something new -- particularly because today's weapons are so powerful. A few thousand Hezbollah warriors hiding in Lebanon, armed with mobile missile launchers, may win a war against the mighty Israeli military. An even smaller group with nuclear weapons could kill hundreds of thousands.

This new threat doesn't fit the old paradigm of nations fighting nations. Too bad. We need to deal with it in a way that's effective.

Well everyone, I am going to go take Zoe to the park before the folks downstairs complain to the condo board. She has been inside so much because of the heat that we are all going nuts.

Everyone have a great weekend! See you on the threads.

haha:

No, because you were just proven wrong when you predicted that Ralph Reed would win his primary and become the next Lieutenant Governor of Georgia.

I never predicted that Ralph Reed would win. Perhaps you're confusing me with "Doug M."? Personally I always believed Reed would lose because Georgia values voters would never elect such an obvious crook and cheat. The next vote Reed will face may well be by a jury of his peers whether to convict -- we'll see whether he wins that one ;)

Was not asking you to give specifics, GC ; )

Even if we count KAL 007 against the Soviets, that pales in comparison to 9/11. During the height of the Cold War, there's no doubt I would have told you they were far more dangerous (which is why I don't fault Reagan for how he dealt with terrorism). In hindsight, however, it is now clear which is more dangerous.

I did indeed vote for Kerry, as I suspect you did as well. Now, if you can prove your vote, so will I. But note, if you cannot prove your vote, I will not call you a filthy, disgusting liar.

Right, Charlie.

It's just that I haven't made any (please note: NONE AT ALL) dubious representations about my political affiliations.

You on the other hand, posting under the same handle of 'Thomas' made the ludicrous argument that it was unfair to accuse you of being uncritical of the Bush administration because you did in fact criticize them--wait for it--for failing to sufficiently purge Clinton appointees from the federal bureaucracy.

You poor, dimwitted, filthy and disgusting liar.

cyntax,

More dangerous than the Soviet military, the Warsaw Pact and all their nuclear weapons?

Possibly, yes.

Good to see Joe keeping a level head here and accurately describing the threat. The only way this even begins to make sense is if you factor in the aspect of mutually assured destruction which obviously can't be used as leverage with stateless terrorists. So maybe that made the Soviets "safer."

The degree of danger an enemy poses is a matter not just of how well-armed he is, but of the likelihood that he will use his weapons against you. Obviously, the Soviet Union was much better armed than Al Qaeda and anti-western terrorists in general, but terrorists are probably much more likely to use their weapons against us than the Soviets were.

Lieberman's assessment is echoed by the British Home Secretary John Reid, who recently said that Britain is "probably in the most sustained period of severe threat since the end of World War II" because of international terrorism.

Still, it's a long way from November for Joe to be getting this shrill already.

"Shrill?" I expect most Americans agree with him.

"It wasn't "a matter of time" for FDR -- in less than five years he had won WWII and captured all the Japanese leaders responsible for Pearl Harbor."

And 62 MILLION people dead. We could easily kill UBL if we didn't care about killing A LOT of other people.

"Jay, if the security forces are doing so well, why are we all of a sudden sending in 5000 more U.S. troops to contain the out of control violence in Baghdad?"

Projected forces.

"WASHINGTON, Aug. 9, 2006 – The Iraqi army is halfway to its goal of 10 divisions as the 4th Division assumed command of the area north of Baghdad yesterday.
The division assumed primary control of its area of responsibility from the 101st Airborne Division. This is the fifth of 10 division headquarters in Iraq to assume the lead in regional operations.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman called the development a key benchmark in the effort Iraqis are making to take control of their own country. The division will be in the lead for security in Salah Ad Din, Sulaymaniyah and Kirkuk provinces. This area includes the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Samarra and Iraq’s northern oil fields.
Overall, Iraqi security forces are in the lead with five army divisions, 25 army brigades and 85 army battalions, Whitman said. The Iraqi national police have two battalions in the lead in other areas.
In northern Iraq, 33 battalions, nine brigades and two divisions have demonstrated their ability to operate independently and now lead the fight against terrorists and anti-Iraqi forces. The 5th Iraqi Army Division assumed the lead in Diyala province in July."

Palooza, you are nothing more than a parody of the left wing talking points. You provide NOTHING to back up your assertions, no facts, no stats, just empty opinions.

Howard Dean must be real proud of you.

btw, I am not sure you really understand the definition of coward. But you play one on websites.

Global Citizen's piece from the MI Democratic Party credits Truman with raising the minimum wage and aid to health care. Good enought items, but relatively minor.

History credits Truman with the final defeat of the Axis powers, the United Nations, the Marshall Plan, which restored the economies of Europe and allowed democracy to re-start, and (along with Churchill) beginning the Cold War, which was necessary to prevent the worldwide spread of Communism.

Cut 'N Run Jay: "WASHINGTON, Aug. 9, 2006 – The Iraqi army is halfway to its goal of 10 divisions as the 4th Division assumed command of the area north of Baghdad yesterday.

Once again Cut 'N Run Jay posts the same discredited Pentagon propaganda press release without identifying it as such, hoping that readers will confuse it for a piece of objective news reporting....

(fake) Thomas: Even if we count KAL 007 against the Soviets, that pales in comparison to 9/11.

I see my doppelganger is ignoring all our losses to the Soviet-sponsored "wars of national liberation" during our long twilight struggle against communism. 9/11 pales in comparison to our combat dead in Korea and Vietnam.

Jay says...Palooza, you are nothing more than a parody of the left wing talking points. You provide NOTHING to back up your assertions, no facts, no stats, just empty opinions.

Pot...Kettle, Kettle...Pot.

obscure:

That "criticism" was probably the last line in a long rant you failed to quote about all the other things Bush has done wrong in Iraq. Look, Bush is not perfect. But, even FDR screwed up things during WWII. Luckily, he did not have an opposition party and/or press hell bent on losing that war.

P.S. I missed that one from "haha" -- even if I had predicted Reed the winner, that would just mean my credibility was at 50% instead of 100%.

Soviet-sponsored "wars of national liberation" during our long twilight struggle against communism. 9/11 pales in comparison to our combat dead in Korea and Vietnam.

Over a hundred thousand dead americans, iirc.

"Once again Cut 'N Run Jay posts the same discredited Pentagon propaganda press release without identifying it as such, hoping that readers will confuse it for a piece of objective news reporting...."

Please provide the proof of this information being discredited.

(fake) Thomas: But, even FDR screwed up things during WWII. Luckily, he did not have an opposition party and/or press hell bent on losing that war.

And my doppelganger is now lying about WWII. If the opposition Republican party wasn't hell bent on losing the war, why did they run Thomas Dewey against FDR in 1944? They were trying to unseat a Commander-in-Chief during a time of war while troops were in the field. Had Dewey won he would have signed a separate peace with Hitler and focused on the danger of Stalin's international communism.

Fake "Thomas":

The Soviet Union did not KILL AMERICANS in Vietnam or Korea. You asked above what Reagan did in response to KAL 007 (apart from making sure we won the Cold War, here are some of the "unclassified" responses):

President Reagan condemned the shootdown on September 5, 1983, calling it the "Korean airline massacre," a "crime against humanity [that] must never be forgotten" and an "act of barbarism… [of] inhuman brutality." In an act that surprised many within the U.S. intelligence community, the U.S. delegation to the United Nations played tapes of intercepted communications between Soviet fighter pilots and their ground control. While not publicly claimed, it is almost certain that these communications were originally encrypted.

The next day, the Soviet Union admitted to shooting down KAL 007, stating the pilots did not know it was a civilian aircraft when it violated Soviet airspace. The attack pushed relations between the United States and the Soviet Union to a new low. On September 15, President Reagan ordered the FAA to revoke the license of Aeroflot Soviet Airlines to operate flights into and out of the United States. As a result, Aeroflot flights to North America were only available through their hubs in Canada or Mexico. Aeroflot service to the United States was not restored until April 29, 1986.

As a result of this incident, Ronald Reagan announced that the GPS would be made available for civilian uses once completed. R20, the flight path that Korean Air Flight 007 was supposed to fly, was closed after the accident since it was deemed too close to Soviet airspace (only 144km away at its closest point). Instead, all trans-Pacific flights flying over northern Pacific were redirected to use the R80 flight path, which is 288km from the Soviet airspace.

. . .

The Soviets of course advanced the argument that the U.S. was using the plane as a spy, which was presented in detail by Soviet Marshal Nikolai V. Ogarkov at a press conference on September 9, 1983, covered by the world's press media. Speaking before a huge map showing the provocative intrusion of KAL 007 into Soviet airspace, Ogarkov bluntly argued that the intrusion "was a deliberate, thoroughly planned intelligence operation."

President Reagan dismissed such theories as Soviet propaganda.

P.S. to GOP:

For someone most Americans agree with, Lieberman certainly seems to have trouble convincing them to vote for him in an election ;)

The GOP ran a principled campaign against FDR because an election is required every 4 years under the Constitution, war or not. However, in the interests of winning said war, they did NOT hammer on some of the mistakes. We've come a long ways since those days!

Americans were not killed by Soviets in Korea or Viet Nam, but they were killed with Soviet weapons by Soviet-supplied indiginous armies. Not to get into a semantic debate, but without the soviet weaponry, assistance, and training; both conflicts would have been very different.

And 62 MILLION people dead. We could easily kill UBL if we didn't care about killing A LOT of other people.

WE? You guys are in charge. Kill as many as you like. What's stopping you? Clearly not basic human decency. And certainly not "fear of liberal whining" - or should I remind you - liberals aren't in power?

-- particularly because today's weapons are so powerful. A few thousand Hezbollah warriors hiding in Lebanon, armed with mobile missile launchers, may win a war against the mighty Israeli military. An even smaller group with nuclear weapons could kill hundreds of thousands.
Posted by: ex-liberal on August 11, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

You're such a drama-queen, ex-

The Katyusha Hezbolla's using date back to 1940. The Nazis used to call them Stalin's Organ because of the tubes and the sound they made when they launched.

The reason Hezbollah is "winning" is because they have very different "victory conditions".

Hezbollah's victory conditions are: prevent Israel from succeeding in eliminating them.

Israel's victory conditions are: kill every last Hezbollah member, and prevent them from ever attacking Israel again - even politically.

Under those conditions - Israel loses every time. They were stupid to try to get into such a lopsided battle.

Same with the US. The Insurgent's victory conditions are: blow something up every couple of days or so, wait for the US troops to leave - then declare victory.

The US's victory conditions are: um - what exactly? Ensure there's no WMD? Eliminate Al Qaeda from Iraq? Make Iraq a democracy? Who the hell knows? I didn't plan this shit.

At least the Isralis were clear (to the media) about their goal going into this thing. Even if it was a stupid and unrealistic goal. (for the record, I'm with most of my Liberal bretheren, and do believe Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that must be destroyed; but I don't think it warrants stooping to their level).

The Soviet Union did not KILL AMERICANS in Vietnam or Korea.

Sure they did. For one thing, Soviet MiG pilots flew combat missions against our airmen in both Korea and Vietnam. For another, the Soviets were supplying the weapons, bullets and missiles which were used to kill American forces.

Why are you defending the Soviets, Thomas? Do you hate America that much? Or is it that you love Communism more?

History will credit Bush for recognizing them as war. ex-liberal 5:03 PM

History credits Truman with the final defeat of the Axis powers... ex-liberal 5:26 PM

...even if I had predicted Reed the winner,... Thomas at 5:33 PM

President Reagan condemned the shootdown on September 5, 1983, calling it the "Korean airline massacre," a "crime against humanity [that] must never be forgotten" and an "act of barbarism… [of] inhuman brutality."... Thomas 5:38 PM

So Stefan and I are in agreement once more. Good company to be in, at least for me.:)

"Pot...Kettle, Kettle...Pot."

Feel free to bring up any deluded left wing assertion and I will provide you with stats and facts that will dispel it.

Iran Air 655 was blames on a faulty Aegis system if I recall.

War is good. It kills people. People use valuable resources and continue to reproduce, so they should get killed. These people are like a cancer and they lower the overall quality of the gene pool. They should have been prevented from being born, but now can be killed without getting worried about morals, and that is good. Killng more increases the chances of survival for those more fit. If enough people are killed the world gets better for those who are smart enough. The earth's human population should be reduced, so it will get to be a paradise again. Less than a billion is good. We need more war. Lots more wars.

Thomas: On September 15, President Reagan ordered the FAA to revoke the license of Aeroflot Soviet Airlines to operate flights into and out of the United States. As a result, Aeroflot flights to North America were only available through their hubs in Canada or Mexico. Aeroflot service to the United States was not restored until April 29, 1986.

Wow, that was sure some muscular response by Reagan to "an act of barbarism...[of]inhuman brutality." He actually revoked the license of Aeroflot Soviet Airlines to operate flights into and out of the United States! Was there nothing he wouldn't do? What a fearless Cold Warrior!

And, as we all know, the fact that "Aeroflot flights to North America were only available through their hubs in Canada or Mexico" was the final straw that brought down the Soviet monster....

Stefan (and GC, if she's not at the park with Zoe yet which she knows she should be):

I said above that the case can indeed be made that al Qaeda is as evil as the Nazis -- and more dangerous than the Soviet Union -- especially with perfect 20/20 hindsight. If we can't even agree how many Americans were DIRECTLY killed by the U.S.S.R., I doubt we are going to get much better results if we continue on. Maybe next time though?

Has anyone else haerd anythign about the guy who went to a Wal Mart in Michigan and purchased 80 cell phones with cash? The clerk called the police, and his phones were disassembled and confiscated. That's all I know right now - further info would be appreciated.

I am all for outlawing pay-as-you-go phones. They are a terrorism boon just waiting to be tapped, but racial profiling at the point of sale is kinda unamerican as long as the purchase is legal, don't you think?

Zoe opted for a nap. I encourage such behavior.

The GOP ran a principled campaign against FDR... Thomas at 5:42 PM

(fake) Thomas:

The GOP ran a principled campaign against FDR because an election is required every 4 years under the Constitution, war or not.

The Constitution does not require the GOP itself to field a candidate. The GOP could have sat the election out in a show of national unity behind FDR. But they chose to try to purge the commander-in-chief while troops were in the field, distracting FDR from his struggle with Nazism, dividing his energies and hastening his death.

Cut 'N Run Jay: Please provide the proof of this information being discredited.

Well, there is the fact that it was produced by the Pentagon....

For another, the Soviets were supplying the weapons, bullets and missiles which were used to kill American forces.
Posted by: Stefan on August 11, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

For another, the US is supplying Israel the weapons, bullets, and missiles which are used to kill Palestinian and Lebanese civilian noncombatants.

If the Soviets are responsible for US deaths during Vietnam and Korea - then the US is certainly responsible for deaths in Israel's conflicts. While I'm in total agreement with the killing of combatants, even (especially) ununiformed combatants, there have been many incidents where noncombatants were targeted, or otherwise harmed in "collective punishment" operations. That's what I, and most Liberals are opposed to. I recognize Israel's right to exist, and right to self-defense. But nobody has the right to violate the Geneval Conventions and utilize collective punishment. And I'm not happy about the US spending $3 Billion a year to support this crap.

Damn! we are at 388 comments. Is that a record?

LOL, Global Citizen -- I've seen abortion threads go to 800 posts -- a sleeping child is a gift from God.

O_B_F: Sadly, you are 100% correct. Actions do not occur in an isolated little bubble, they have consequences and repurcussions, and by arming Israel we do bear witness and responsibility for part of the carnage in Lebanon.

I said above that the case can indeed be made that al Qaeda is as evil as the Nazis Thomas 5:49 PM |

Just as France bore responsibility for Israel killing all those Arabs in 1967? Come on, we really are not going down the road whereby gun manufacturers are held liable for murders too, are we?!

The GOP ran a principled campaign against FDR because an election is required every 4 years under the Constitution, war or not. However, in the interests of winning said war, they did NOT hammer on some of the mistakes. We've come a long ways since those days!

Oh yeah? A mere eight days after Pearl Harbor Republican Senator Robert Taft, known as "Mr. Republican," gave a speech blasting FDR on the war. During the speech he said:

"As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government ... too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur."

(fake) Thomas:

Just as France bore responsibility for Israel killing all those Arabs in 1967? Come on, we really are not going down the road whereby gun manufacturers are held liable for murders too, are we?!

My doppelganger does not want to hold the Soviets responsible for arming our enemies in Korea and Vietnam (whether because he hates America or loves Communism he hasn't said).

I suppose he does not want to hold the Syrians and Iranians responsible for the Katyusha rockets they are giving to Hezbollah either? (whether because he hates Israel or loves terrorism I can only guess).

Killng more increases the chances of survival for those more fit. If enough people are killed the world gets better for those who are smart enough. .
Posted by: e7 on August 11, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

Please. You're telling me that the folks we send to the battlefield to die are the dregs? the least fit to survive? You and I sitting on our fat asses blogging are such perfect specimens of genetic purity that we need to be preserved?

jUst as fRance bore responsibility for iSrael killing all those aRabs in 1967/ cOme on, we really are not going down the road whereby gun manufacturers are held liable for murders too, are we/1
pOsted by; THOmas on aUgust 11, 2006 at 6;)0 pm \ peRmAlInk

Famous quote by some russian general, Kalishnikov, you've probably heard of him? They named a gun after him, because he designed it? He said (paraphrasing) "it's not the gun designer's fault for all the deaths. It's the politician's fault."

The important thing to remember about Rudy Giuliani is that he has made over $4,000,000 giving speeches on 9-11, or over $1,000 per dead American. Republicans will never be able to elect him, not because he dumped his wife on national TV, many Republicans would do the same; or because he gave his mistress a high-paying job at the New York Convention Bureau, many Republicans do the same; but because he stayed with a couple of homosexuals after he dumped the spouse. That's just icky.

... Israel killing all those Arabs in 1967?...Thomas 6:00 PM

I suppose he does not want to hold the Syrians and Iranians responsible for the Katyusha rockets they are giving to Hezbollah either? (whether because he hates Israel or loves terrorism I can only guess).
Posted by: Thomas on August 11, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

Sure. Let's hold them responsible. No wait. we can't. Because Iran has all the oil we need. Darn. If only we had listened to the Liberals back in the 1970's who said we should become less dependent on foreign oil. . . .

a sleeping child is a gift from God.

An unwanted pregnancy is a bitch slap from Satan.

Eugenics-7 might be the guy I had to fire a few months ago. Randy, is that you, you racist, sexist piece of garbage?

Mike:

You make your case that the Bush "regime" is pure evil, and I will make my case that al Qaeda is pure evil. The massive military manufacturing capability of each goes to the "dangerous" prong (see Stefan and Global Citizen above).

Stefan:

Criticism, I am fine with -- hell, I voted for John Kerry -- devulging State secrets for political reasons during war should be prosecuted.

"Well, there is the fact that it was produced by the Pentagon...." - Stefan

So, you're calling our military leaders liars? Interesting.

Gun manufactures make a product designed to kill human beings. No life-loving Christian could condone that.
Posted by: Mike on August 11, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

You think if we banned all gun manufacture in the US, there'd be no guns? Guns happen. Any reasonably competent machinist can make them in his or her garage.

They kill only in the hands of killers.

Um, I would say that our military leaders get to be military leaders by lying.

Know what you call a General who doesn't play politics?

"Captain"

Before 911 ol Rudy was politically dead, done for, never going to get elected to anything again, not even dog catcher for the south Bronyx. The towers fell and he was off and running in his fireman cap , his NYPD cap, attending as many funerals as he could work into his schedule and making the talk show circuit. Now there's even talk of his running for president. He's the second biggest beneficiary of the 911 disaster; second only to the Bush administration--thye've played the 911 card so many times it's worn out. So why should anyone really care what Rudy has to say--he's just another politican trying to futher his career.

I use a pay as you go cell phone. I have purchased one for my mother and spouse, too. They are much cheaper to keep than monthly cell phone pay plans. They are not cheaper by the minute, by they are cheaper on an annual basis. For poor people, pay as you go cell phones are an affordable important tool for emergencies like car breakdowns. My mother had a car breakdown and had to rely on the kindness of strangers, which I would prefer she avoid, so I reactivate her pay as you go cell phone every Christmas.

Stefan wrote: Once again Cut 'N Run Jay posts the same discredited Pentagon propaganda press release without identifying it as such, hoping that readers will confuse it for a piece of objective news reporting

Jay rarely if ever gives the source of the articles that he cuts & pastes into the thread.

Guns are not hard to make. My dad gunsmithed as a hobby, making historic recreations. I made a .50 calliber buffalo rifle when I was 14. Gunpowder is easy to make, and making ammunition is not rocket science (it's the basis of rocket science, but lets not quibble, 'kay?)

Guns are not going to go away. Start taking them and people like me will start making them.

Tienanmen square won't happen here. We are too heavily armed.

I will see your Taft, and raise you a Dewey:

As a result of research by his staff, and possibly some "leaks" from Intelligence officers, Thomas E. Dewey (you know, the ACTUAL Republican candidate for President) had learned during the campaign that President Roosevelt had been reading the intercepted Japanese diplomatic messages in the Purple and other codes and was possibly aware of the threat of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor after November 26, 1941, but had failed to warn the commanders there. Dewey was considering presenting this in a major campaign speech.

Roosevelt learned of this through the Democratic grapevine planted at Republican headquarters and, in understandable alarm, pressured Mr. Dewey through General George C. Marshall to abandon his plan, on the ground that it would endanger the war effort by revealing that we had broken Japanese codes. Marshall twice sent Colonel Carter W. Clarke to urge Dewey not to refer to Pearl Harbor during the campaign. To cover up for Roosevelt, Marshall has contended that he operated on his own initiative in sending Clarke to importune Dewey. As Clarke knew by this time, the basis of his plea was spurious, namely, that such a speech by Dewey would first reveal to the Japanese that we had broken their Purple diplomatic code. Actually, the Japanese had already learned of this from the Germans by the end of April, 1941, over three years before the 1944 campaign. Dewey did not know this at the time but, out of his patriotic duty as an American, he suppressed the speech and the publicity which might have won the election for him.

http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/ph25_1.html

Tienanmen square won't happen here. We are too heavily armed.

Thank you, Mr. Heston.

I think the gun control plank of the Democratic platform is what is killing us. I'm a Brian Schweitzer Democrat.

sparky:

I thought the biggest beneficiaries of 9/11 were those widows enjoying their husbands' deaths?

...probably in the most sustained period of severe threat since the end of World War II" because of international terrorism. GOP 5:22 PM

"Um, I would say that our military leaders get to be military leaders by lying.

Know what you call a General who doesn't play politics?

"Captain"

Even more interesting. My brother-in-law is a LT. Col. in the Air Force. What would you call him?

osama,

You think if we banned all gun manufacture in the US, there'd be no guns?

No, but there would eventually be many fewer. But I wouldn't advocate "banning all gun manufacture," anyway. Just much tougher gun control laws.

Yeah right, Mike -- blame BLAIR just like you blame gun manufacturers!

Principled. My husband retired a Major. My brother retired a Lt. Colonel. If your brother in law puts on a bird, in other words if he becomes a senior officer, I would ask him what it cost as far as his personal principles, his own moral core.

"Jay rarely if ever gives the source of the articles that he cuts & pastes into the thread" - secular

I am still waiting for Stefan to show me the proof that that article is false or has been discredited.

Also, I provided the source, as I do 95% of the time, and feel free to recall other postings where I failed to provide the source and I will do so forthright.

Have a nice day.

...Thank you, Mr. Heston. GOP 6:22 PM

I thought the biggest beneficiaries of 9/11 were those widows enjoying their husbands' deaths? Thomas 6:25 PM

Preview is not post.

My husband will be the first to tell you that standing on principle on a couple of occasions cost him a bird. He went head-to-head with a chaplain that gave some really destructive advice to a young airman, and the second time he took a stand we ended up in Turkey, and he retired a Major.

Just spoke with him a few days ago and he is very proud and confident that our military is doing the right thing in this conflict by telling the world that we will no longer excuse the actions of jihadists who kill anyone, regardless of age, gender, faith, race or nationality in the name of fear, oppression and power.

His, and my moral cores are very healthy.
If your moral core feels different, than I feel sorry for you.
Thank you.

Thomas
Only if you subscribe to the Ann Coulter school of thought

And I pity the fuck out of you.

It is the US Government that is using fear to sieze power and oppress freedom.

I think the gun control plank of the Democratic platform is what is killing us. I'm a Brian Schweitzer Democrat.
Posted by: Global Citizen on August 11, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

Yes.

Although Civil Rights set us back a bit, particularly in the South - I think that would be more than made up for by jettisoning the anti-gun nuts.

The solution to gun violence in the inner cities (as Clinton proved) is - more cops!

Of course, Bush is trying to prove the opposite, in Iraq: the solution to gun violence in Iraq is - just enough troops to get the insurgents to build IEDs. Not enough to provide security. That would be too much like welfare, allowing all those G.I.s to go to college for free. We're much better off sending all our money to Halliburton, GE, and Boeing.

...blame BLAIR... Thomas 6:30 PM

That completely ignores the history of IRA terrorism

No it doesn't. It includes the history of IRA terrorism. A single attack on Britain by al-Qaeda, comparable to 9/11 in the U.S., could easily kill more civilians than were killed in over 30 years as a result of "the Troubles" (about 3,500 people in total).

"My husband will be the first to tell you that standing on principle on a couple of occasions cost him a bird. He went head-to-head with a chaplain that gave some really destructive advice to a young airman, and the second time he took a stand we ended up in Turkey, and he retired a Major."

Global, I am sorry for your plight in this case, however one persons example does not brand the entire military as immoral or unprincipled.

I am refering to senior officers only. I have been on base practically my entire life, and every single senior officer I have ever drank to excess with, or watched my dad drink to excess with, has confessed to some compromise to get that bird or star. Just relaying what I've been told. And don't pity "our plight." Tom made a conscious decision and I learned how to make world-class hummus in Turkey.

The GOP is the totalitarian threat attempting to crush dissent and not one armed militiaman is resisting.

Damn those cowardly militiamen!

(But what do you expect from a bunch of overweight, middle-aged geezers who fantasize about being Rambo?)

Good ole Rudy "I moved NYC's anti-terrorist quarters to the WTC against the recommendations of everybody" Giuliani. He's as smart as ever.

"It is the US Government that is using fear to sieze power and oppress freedom."

Prove it, as I am growing very tired of deluded liberal rantings.

"Pot...Kettle, Kettle...Pot. "

Hey, ckelly. I used that one on Al yesterday. We definitely need some new kitchenware around here. Maybe something in copper, or chrome.

Anyway, these guys should all be made honorary members of the projectionists' union. :)

"It is the US Government that is using fear to sieze power and oppress freedom"

btw, with this kind of attitude, I am very glad your husband is retired.

Have a nice day.

By the way, the headlines are pointing to a lot of unprincpled military actions. Shit runs down hill, and when you have a Rumsfeld lying his ass off to the troops and generals, and generals getting railroaded out of service for challenging him (Zinni, Shinseki anyone?) and his false assertions, it has a direct effect on the troops doing the dirty work, and shit like Steven Green happens and that does taint the entire US military enterprise.

...I've seen abortion threads go to 800 posts...Thomas 5:57 PM

A single attack on Britain by al-Qaeda,...GOP 6:39 PM

world-class hummus..

ok, you go up a few notches in my estimation.

Hmm, this is interesting ...

Global Citizen and OBF -- two posters with whom I am generally in strong agreement -- both oppose gun control and speak of "anti-gun nuts" (or at least OBF used that locution. Global Citizen made the Libertarian-esque argument that an "armed citizenry" keeps Tiennaman Squares from happening here).

GOP, OTOH, speaks of strong support for gun control.

Who'd a thunk it, eh?

As for me, while I recognize that tabling the national guntrol issues a la Howard Dean's recommendation was a net plus for the Democrats politically -- I do not, in my heart, support it.

In my heart, I'd contend to anyone on this blog that the Second Amendment has long outlived its historical usefulness and, in a saner world, ought to be repealed.

Call it part of my heritage growing up in the gun-plagued Tri-State Metro area.

Guns don't kill -- BULLETS do.

Oh, and which part of "well-regulated" don't YOU understand?

Bob

Aw shucks, thanks!:)

osama,

I think that would be more than made up for by jettisoning the anti-gun nuts.

Who are the "anti-gun nuts" and how do you propose to "jettison" them?

Bill Clinton campaigned for and signed into law two major pieces of federal gun control law. Is Clinton one of the "anti-gun nuts?"

It isn't the bullet that kills you, it's the hole.

Mike:

Still waiting for you make your case that the Bush "regime" is pure evil. I also agree with GOP (is he my "sock puppet" too?):

The degree of danger an enemy poses is a matter not just of how well-armed he is, but of the likelihood that he will use his weapons against you. Obviously, the Soviet Union was much better armed than Al Qaeda and anti-western terrorists in general, but terrorists are probably much more likely to use their weapons against us than the Soviets were.

Lieberman's assessment is echoed by the British Home Secretary John Reid, who recently said that Britain is "probably in the most sustained period of severe threat since the end of World War II" because of international terrorism.

Prove it,...Jay 6:44 PM

Rumsfeld has simply always been slightly charming as a guy who is willing to pop off at the mouth. He's never shown much in the way of judgement or respect for facts.

He and his friends, for many years, told us how the Soviets had much better weapons and 10 times as many of everything.

But he was hired by Bush who has about the same amount of respect for reality.

What do you call a bunch of people who destroy a whole nation on the basis of two soldiers being taken captive.

What do you call a bunch of people who murder civilians in their hundreds, going on thousands, in a preplanned attack.

You call them EVIL NAZI JEWS.

Most of the people on one side want to kill the other side. The other side wants to do the same thing. Join up and get rid of the people who ruin the world. I am not a sexist or racist, I just want to get the world back to health and to get there, people must be eliminated. War is sloppy and does hurt the environment. Getting people to stop having to many babies and to many retarded babies is the problem. Getting people to kill each other is easier.

Global Citizen:

Quoth Laurie Anderson :)

GOP:

That's right: The Brady Bill and the assault rifle ban. And yes -- I absolutely winced when I heard Kerry trying to make hay of that issue in the '04 primaries. It's a net loser for us.

But I do still believe he was correct on the merits. You don't need a semiautomatic weapon to kill Bambi.

Bob

There is nothing wrong with the Brady Law. I'm all for background checks. They should be expanded to include gun shows. The laws on the books need to be enforced, but are not adequately.

But if anyone thinks that we can keep guns out of the hands of criminals, I have a bridge for sale. It can't be done. You think an underground chemist cooking fentanyl for street sale isn't smart enough to make a gun?

They are here. In the wrong hands they are a deadly fucking nuisance, but they are not going to go away.

Hey everyone, look what I have found. These sites carry the

Israel Fakes a Provocation for WAR (the "kidnapping" of Cpl Gilad Shalit)

article:

http://linux.coconia.net/politics/fake-provocation.htm
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/Gilad_Shalit.html
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=25102
https://israel.indymedia.org/newswire/display/5002/index.php
http://gilad-shalit-news.newslib.com/

The first is the most recent/best version.

Try talking reality. IRA attacks have killed Brits, al Qaeda has killed none.

al-Qaeda has "killed Brits." But the threat is not just from al-Qaeda, but from anti-western terrorism more broadly. In a single attack, al-Qaeda killed almost as many people as were killed in 30 years of "the Troubles" in Northern Ireland.

Still waiting for you make your case that the Bush "regime" is pure evil. I also agree with GOP Chuckles 6:51 PM

Bob; speaking of Bambi (killed with a .270 that has a 6-bullet clip and peep sights):

I'm making venison for dinner.

But if anyone thinks that we can keep guns out of the hands of criminals, I have a bridge for sale.

It's not an either/or, it's a matter of degree. We can reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals by making it harder to acquire, keep and use firearms.

e7:

Then I strongly suggest that you demonstrate the courage of your convictions and jump off a tall building.

Or fellate a tailpipe.

Or have a gulp-a-thon with the dangerous prescription medication of your choice.

Or maybe a bullet to the temple might be quicker.

Then again, you could drink yourself into a near-stupor and drive your car into a bridge abutment. (Just make sure you do this in the wee hours so you don't hurt anyone else.)

In other words -- please go kill yourself and leave the rest of us alone with your *inevitably* racist, sexist and profoundly anti-humanist "policy prescriptions."

Thanks in advance,

Bob

btw, with this kind of attitude, I am very glad your husband is retired.

at least he wasn't a cowardly pussy like Jay is.

Jay wrote: I am growing very tired of deluded liberal rantings.

Then why don't you just go away? Because everyone else has long ago grown tired of your juvenile bullshit.

The IRA killed more Brits than bin Laden

As I said, in a single attack, al-Qaeda killed almost as many people as were killed in 30 years of "the Troubles" in Northern Ireland.

The idea that al-Qaeda, and anti-western terrorists more broadly, are less of a threat to Britain than the IRA was because anti-western terrorists haven't yet killed as many Brits as died in 30 years of "the Troubles" is nonsensical.

I have to agree with e7; it is much easy to get people to kill each other than to get them to stop having babies.

I'm not sure that that is a winning campaign issue, though....

Global Citizen:

Why on earth do you need a six-bullet clip to hunt deer with?

What's next -- a night-vision scope? At what point does all this high technology rob the act of any semblance of sportsmanship?

Bob

al-Qaeda has "killed Brits." But the threat is not just from al-Qaeda, but from anti-western terrorism more broadly...GOP 6:57 PM

For your informatin: the death toll in Northern Ireland was about 3500

Since 1969, the provincial death toll has grown to about 3500 in an area whose population is only about 1.6 million. A comparable relative death toll in America would be about 560,000. The British have imposed an Emergency Powers Act (EPA), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and maintain a military force of about 18,000, supporting the RUC police force of 12,000. The RUC forces are reported to maintain 161 fortified bases, with the British army occupying 135 military bases. Belfast, alone, houses 56 military installations. Armored convoys and armed foot-patrols are common in Nationalist areas, even during cease-fire periods and army "forts" loom above the normal landscape, while helicopters hover incessantly overhead all day, every day.

I'm closer to B. Clinton on gun control. To me, gun control means registration, and banning weapons that are obviously too dangerous. I mean, who thinks any Joe Blow should be able to buy M-60 machine guns.

Mike:

On August 11, 2006 at 6:39 PM, GOP already posted that "a single attack on Britain by al-Qaeda, comparable to 9/11 in the U.S., could easily kill more civilians than were killed in over 30 years as a result of "the Troubles" (about 3,500 people in total)." How dense are you?

"Then why don't you just go away? Because everyone else has long ago grown tired of your juvenile bullshit."

I have to admit, it's just too fun here.

Honestly, I do learn quite a bit from some of the more balanced liberals. Information is power.

And I enjoy good debates.

The idea that al-Qaeda, and anti-western terrorists more broadly, are less of a threat to Britain than the IRA was because anti-western terrorists haven't yet killed as many Brits as died in 30 years of "the Troubles" is nonsensical.

LMAO. Offsetting the actual violence of Party A with your cowardly fraidy cat notion of potential future violence from Party B?

Yes, please, we need more policy decisions based upon that kind of analysis.

Those goal-posts are moving around so rapidly,

They're not moving at all. The threat in question is the threat from international terrorism in general, not just from the specific organization of al-Qaeda. Perhaps you would have realized this if you had bothered to read the post you originally responded to more carefully.

The American/British invasion of Iraq is being met with terrorism.

Anti-western terrorism, including terrorism by al-Qaeda, clearly predates the invasion of Iraq.

Al Qaeda has not killed more people in Britain than the IRA.

As I said, in a single attack, al-Qaeda killed almost as many people as were killed in 30 years of "the Troubles" in Northern Ireland.

For your informatin: the death toll in Northern Ireland was about 3500

Um, I already mentioned that piece of information. You really are a very bad reader, aren't you?

The idea ...is nonsensical.GOP 7:07 PM

Disputo,

with your cowardly fraidy cat notion of potential future violence from Party B?

Yes, that's right. The idea that international terrorism is a serious threat is a "cowardly fraidy cat notion of potential future violence."

It's official: Disputo is a card-carrying member of the Loony Left.

Personally, I think that the girlscout troop down the street is more dangerous than al Qaeda, since the girl scout troop hasn't yet (note the bold emphasis -- emphasis makes the point stronger) killed as many people as al Qaeda.

LMAO @ GOP.

Yes, I am indeed a loon because I value a bird in the hand as more valuable than two in the bush. I'm *crazy* that way.

Boo!!

Question:

What exactly *is* the ideology of al Qaeda -- and what do you think they intend to accomplish by terrorizing the Western world?

(nota bene: This question is both sincere *and* rhetorical :)

Bob

The Jew killed more Brits in Palestine, than al Qaeda ever has.

And that is historical fact.

Jesus, this thread is down the rabbit hole. Entertaining, though. If people are going to continue to do amusing posts signing themselves as our crazier trolls, I may have to start reading more of this blog.

Joe Lieberman is calling the "enemy" (God knows if he means Al Qaeda or the armed resistance in Iraq) "more evil" than Nazism? Nazism?!?!?!

Psssst, Stefan, I assumed he meant the American citizens who voted for or support Ned Lamont. Cool Head Joe rides again.

URIdiots:

What is "The Jew?"

Is that anything like "The Italian?" :)

Bob

It's hysterical that the left considers Al Qaeda as the sole proprieter of jihadism. It's not a monopoly folks; very decentralized, fragmented and yes, Virginia, dangerous.

Jay:

What is "jihadism" as you understand it?

Bob

Who can only be a fake Jay chuckles:

It's hysterical that the left considers Al Qaeda as the sole proprieter of jihadism.

Now *that* is funny!

how dense, Chuckles

Nope, Jay, terrorists are our friends. Not dangerous at all.

Bob

Yeah, as I recall all the liberals got a heads up before the planes hit the towers.

My pager was out of juice that morning.

Mike:

Perhaps you missed the ad-hominem attacks by "slim" and "The Fool"?

Global Citizen:

Just the liberal Jews (no Jews died on 9/11).

Bob

Doesn't slim meet the def of "rightwing loon"?

I'm still alive and kicking. But then, I was in Kansas City, not New York City - might have something to do with it...

I imagine Slim as someone in David Dukes office with a broadband connection, no social skills and too much time on his hands given his problem with premature ejaculation.

I finally have a doppelganger! How honored I feel. Sorry I can't stick around and enjoy it though. Have a great weekend everyone.

Bob

"I imagine Slim as someone in David Dukes office with a broadband connection, no social skills and too much time on his hands given his problem with premature ejaculation." - GC

You are actually probably more right than you think.

rmck1, c'mon you know what jihadism is all about. "Terrorism" is actually the wrong label.

Jay: It's hysterical that the left considers Al Qaeda as the sole proprieter of jihadism.

It's pathetic that many ignorant people use "jihadism" as a substitute for terrorism, thereby elevating the status of many terrorists. It makes about as much sense as the British using the term "patriot" to deride and condemn the founding fathers.

"If "Jihadists do not fear that [MAD] in the least" then how do you imagine that "shock and awe" is supposed to deter them?"

Because history tells them that we will not foght very hard or for very long.

"It's pathetic that many ignorant people use "jihadism" as a substitute for terrorism, thereby elevating the status of many terrorists." - has407

wrong. Timothy McVeigh engaged in terrorism. Jihadism IS on an entirely different level and needs to be taken very seriously.

There are two types of armed religious warfare in Islam, namely the defensive jihad and the offensive jihad. This article discusses offensive jihad as a concept in Islamic law. (For discussion of aspects of jihad not related to warfare, see the main article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad)

Offensive jihad is the waging of wars of aggression and conquest against non-Muslims in order to bring them and their territories under Islamic rule. Although the basis of any decisions, made by Muslims regarding war, should be derived from the Quran and Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad, many people are increasingly quoting the works of non-Muslims or those Muslims that issue inciteful fatwas to justify their opinions of violence in Islam. However, without direct evidence from the Quran and Sunnah these opinions are merely the words of man; as depicted in the paragraph below.

According to the Encyclopedia of the Orient, "offensive jihad, i.e. attacking, is fully permissible in Sunni Islam." [1]. An Islamic theologian considered the father of the modern Islamist movement, Dr. Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, declared in his fatwa, Defense of the Muslim Lands; the First Obligation after Faith that:

"Jihad Against the Kuffar is of two Types: Offensive Jihad (where the enemy is attacked in his own territory) ... [and] Defensive Jihad. This is expelling the Kuffar from our land, and it is Fard Ayn [personal religious obligation on Muslim individuals], a compulsory duty upon all...

Where the Kuffar [infidels] are not gathering to fight the Muslims, the fighting becomes Fard Kifaya [religious obligation on Muslim society] with the minimum requirement of appointing believers to guard borders, and the sending of an army at least once a year to terrorise the enemies of Allah. It is a duty of the Imam to assemble and send out an army unit into the land of war once or twice every year. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the Muslim population to assist him, and if he does not send an army he is in sin. - And the Ulama have mentioned that this type of jihad is for maintaining the payment of Jizya. The scholars of the principles of religion have also said: "Jihad is Daw'ah with a force, and is obligatory to perform with all available capabilities, until there remains only Muslims or people who submit to Islam." [2]

Liberal Muslims who do not subscribe to this interpretation of Jihad dispute the necessity and obligation of the offensive jihad in contemporary times. They argue that the traditional "land of war" referenced in Shaikh Azzam's fatwa refers to the hostile regimes and empires surrounding early Islamic communities. Under this interpretation, offensive jihad was practiced only to preserve Islam from destruction and is now obsolete.

In support of this view, those who reject militant Islamism are likely to resist the claim that Islam as a whole is under hostile attack. While acknowledging both political turbulence and suffering, they point out that Muslim pilgrims come and go as they wish to the annual Hajj pilgrimage, that religious freedom for Muslims to practice their faith exists in most countries, and that sizeable Muslim communities have emerged in countries like the United States and England. They are also likely to emphasize Islamic traditions that endorse tolerance for other religious groups.

Some argue that the conflict between these two points of view can itself be seen as a "struggle", or jihad, for the soul of contemporary Islam. Others argue that the modernizing forces among the non-religious in Muslim countries tend to be have a secular focus.

Who can authorize offensive Jihad?

Only the supreme leader of the Muslims, the Caliph, can declare an offensive jihad against a non-Muslim territory. The institution of the Caliphate ended with the fall of Islamic imperialism. The last Islamic empire was the Ottoman Empire, which fell after World War I; on March 3, 1924, Kemal Atatürk abolished the Ottoman Caliphate. In the absence of a Caliph and an Islamic empire capable of waging wars of conquests, there is no possibility of anyone authorizing an offensive jihad.

"In the absence of a Caliph and an Islamic empire capable of waging wars of conquests, there is no possibility of anyone authorizing an offensive jihad" - rmck1

Really?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/ubl.htm

"In the 1990s, Bin Ladin twice issued manifestos explaining his goals and calling for all Muslims to join him in his quest. The first, issued on 23 August 1996 was titled "A declaration of war against the Americans occupying the land of the two holy places". In his missive, Bin Ladin routinely quotes from ibn-Tamiya, a 15th century scholar important to the ideological development of Islamic extremism. The influence of other predecessors, especially Sayyid Qutb is apparent. Bin Ladin outlines his view that violent activism against the "Crusader-Zionist" alliance is an individual duty of all Muslims, similar to Azzam's calls during the Soviet-Afghan War. Much of the document is aimed at Saudi Arabia, however the shifted focus to attacking the United States and other Western powers is clear. He also details the methods as requiring light forces that swiftly and secretly move against the enemy. In 1998, Bin Ladin issued a second declaration announcing the formation of the "World Islamic Front" and again calling for jihad."

You know sometimes history is just that, history.

Jay, I'm going to get you a dictionary. I'm not sure if you are merely being obtuse, but so many of your most ridiculous posts are premised on you misinterpreting what people write.

The first words you should look up are "authorize" and "indefinite".

He also details the methods as requiring light forces that swiftly and secretly move against the enemy. ... Jay 8:09 PM |

Oh excuse me, UBL does not have the proper "authority" to call for jihad. Well, that makes all the differnce in the world doesn't it?

I wonder if all the jihadists realize that they're acting without the proper authorization.

I am sure that they would be horrified to know that UBL acted without the proper authority.

rmck1: There are two types of armed religious warfare in Islam, namely the defensive jihad and the offensive jihad...

It's also worth noting that there are many other types of jihad which have no violent connotations, and which describe worthy endeavors.

Jay -- The fact that you and your ilk has adopted and promoted the neologism "jihadism", falling hook, line and sinker for bin-Laden's terminology and interpretation, and that you continue to promote it--without, it appears, any fucking clue that you're helping him--only confirms your ignorance and stupidity.

...missed the ad-hominem attacks by "slim" and "The Fool"? rmck1 at 7:41 PM

If Guliani gets into the Republican Primaries he will be denied flexibility on abortion, gay rights, and many other issues.

rmck1: Ad hominem attacks? What ad hominem attacks? Those were strictly descriptive statements with a strong basis in fact, I assure you.

Anyway, you retarded neocon guys, like, own Iraq. Hell you pwn Iraq. You all have 100% ownership, all rights reserved to the Iraq War. It's your baby.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

"Bin Laden is not an existential threat to a nation's survival. Bush is. He has conquered Iraq."

You do realize that America could obliterate Iraq with just a few nuclear warheads. So, if Bush is this great "existential" threat, why is he waiting so long?