Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 23, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

TERROR REPORT CARD....America's spy agencies have released a report that acknowledges the obvious:

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

....The report says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse, said one American intelligence official.

The point of an anti-terror policy is not to look tough. The point of an anti-terror policy is to reduce terror. Republicans pretty clearly don't get this.

And on that note, a commenter at Steve Benen's site suggests that Howard Dean could have done worse than to simply hire J.D. Henderson of Intel Dump to write the Wall Street Journal op-ed I criticized last night. He's right. This isn't a bad first draft.

Kevin Drum 4:46 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (310)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

PowerLineBlog has a great post on Clinton's meltdown on FOX news.

And Clinton's legacy regarding terror.

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on September 23, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

That Republicans have generated a generation of crazed Christian torturists and lunatic Islamic terrorists is only a small part of the disaster that is lil Bush. We have to deal with both these nutcase groups while recovering both the globe and our nations from huge, expensive mismanagement in the federal government.

Posted by: Matt on September 23, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter Kevin: "to reduce terror, do the things the terrorists want you to do".

Well duh, Einstein.

Posted by: am on September 23, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Will the lowest red-state slugs finally get the point, or are they hopeless? What about the "intellectual" type shrubbot trolls around here?

Posted by: Neil' on September 23, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

PowerLineBlog has a great post on Clinton's meltdown on FOX news.

Clinton's bitch-slapping of Chris Wallace, you mean?

See ThinkProgress for the real story.

Posted by: Foxhunter on September 23, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

No, "am", you have it backwards (as I would expect from a shrubbish (?) troll?) - the Bush misadministration was stupid precisely because they did do what the terrorists wanted: invade Iraq and get bogged down, thus weakening us and stirring up more terror recruitment.

Shorter am: "I am a dumb troll."

Posted by: Neil' on September 23, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

Well, from the Republican viewpoint, the point of an anti-terror policy is merely "to look tough." If the administration had an effective anti-terror policy, what would they scare the American people with come election time? The point is to grow terrorism, not defeat it.

Can you name anything the administration has done that has not grown terrorism?

Posted by: McCord on September 23, 2006 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter am: "I am a dumb troll."

Dumb is excusable, but am's dishonesty is not.

Posted by: kickass on September 23, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

Will the lowest red-state slugs finally get the point, or are they hopeless? What about the "intellectual" type shrubbot trolls around here?
Posted by: Neil'

As of the september 15, 2006, NYT poll, 31% answered "yes" to the question (#59) asking if saddam hussein was "personally" involved in 9/11 (down from a high of 53% in 4/2003).

regarding terrorism, write these illiterate fuckers off. they'll never wean from the propagandic tit of fox news.

Posted by: Nads on September 23, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

31%.

Shocking.

Posted by: Lucy on September 23, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

I'm really pretty surprised that the agencies brought themselves to acknowledge the point, obvious though it be, that the Iraq war actually makes us less safe.

Nothing could be a more direct condemnation of that war, and Bush's justification of it. It's about as dramatic a political slap on the face as I've heard come out of ANY federal agency, especially during the tightly controlled Bush administration.

Finally, somebody's feeling their oats.

Posted by: frankly0 on September 23, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

An anonymous leak. No doubt the leaker is a Dem partisan. Did this partisan leaker spin the report's conclusions? No way to check, since the report's classified.

Is the report correct? Who knows? Measuring cause and effect is virtually impossible in this situation. One cannot take a survey of al Qaeda members worldwide and ask them why they joined. So, the report's conclusions (even if accurately leaked) are theoretical.

Here in the real world, we've gone 5+ years without a terrorist attack in the US or against US ships, embassies, etc. Most Americans credit the Bush Administration. Liberals who love their country are happy. Liberals who put politics first (or who want the US to lose, such as the New York Times) look for ways to keep their spirits up. So, the Times goes with this anonymous, partisan leak.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 23, 2006 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

I've been waterboarding my whole family this weekend. So far my five-year-old son has admitted to being a serial suicide bomber, my wife has admitted to sleeping with Zarqawi, and my sister has admitted to voting for Clinton twice. My dog isn't talking so far but I'm sure it won't be long before I have a full confession about his crimes. I suspet he is the ringleader of a local terrorist cell.

Posted by: Wingnut on September 23, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

You're right, ex-liberal. They don't know how good things are out here in the real world. We've killed at least 50,000 terrorists every day over the last 6 years, broke up at least 1000 nuclear bomb plots against American cities, and kept thousands of Arab fetuses from growing up to become America-haters.

I personally have destroyed 14 al Qaeda cells in my neighborhood, instead of letting them behead some stupid liberal who would've deserved it anyway.

It's hard work fighting terrorists and Democrats. Real hard.

Posted by: Former Human on September 23, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

Well, results are for losers. Real men just describe accomplishments, and leave it at that.

Posted by: craigie on September 23, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

I'd like y'all to know that my meetings with Abramoff were responsible for preventing numerous terrorist attacks against Amurica. I wish I could give you the details of our brilliant plans, but they is classified.

Oh, and the HUD thing - that also broke up a bunch of terrorist plots, but I can't tell ya about them neither.

Posted by: George W. Bush on September 23, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

Of all the vacuous complaints of the left, I think this is the most banal. Of course when you lance a boil there is going to be some temporary inflamation. Do you and your team honestly argue that but for the Iraq situation the Mideast would be like Little House on the Prairie? There are people there that want to kill us because they are ashamed of their own failures and dysfunctionality. No amount of blaming America first is going to change that, and until you realize it the swing voters are going to realize they have no real alternative on national security issues.

Posted by: minion of rove on September 23, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

If that was satire, hats off.

Posted by: Lucy on September 23, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

Can we stop talking about reducing "terror" and start talking about reducing "terrorism"? I'm sorry to pick on Kevin because he's smart and reasonable, but if Democrats are this sloppy with language (and swallow GOP memes whole), then we deserve the fates we get.

Posted by: Martin on September 23, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

Hilarious. Einsteins like am and ex-liberal want to read the classified report to see if it's true that the Iraq invasion has created more terrorists. Fellas: After you read that one, read the one about the Sky Being Blue. Hardhitting stuff.

Posted by: Pat on September 23, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, I wish Dean had used J.D. Henderson talking points. And I would have showns numbers on all miss-spending on Bush's big mistake.

But instead, we just get this:

JIM LEHRER: I see. But just based on just the rough knowledge that we all have of this, it looks to you, at least, as if the president and the White House blinked on this?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: Yes, indeed. I think that the authority that Senators Warner, and Senator McCain, and Lindsey Graham, and others, and certainly Secretary Powell, for obtaining reliable intelligence to protect the American people, as I said, to bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice and do so in a way that protects our troops, has finally -- they impressed that upon the president and persuaded him.

and it's via the busy,busy,busy blog

Posted by: Cheryl on September 23, 2006 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

Of all the vacuous complaints of the left, I think this is the most banal. Of course when you lance a boil there is going to be some temporary inflamation.
Posted by: minion of rove

when you lance a boil the pus drains and there is near-instant relief ... dumbass.

Posted by: Nads on September 23, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

er, I would have shown some numbers.

Posted by: Cheryl on September 23, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

Birth pangs! God intended for women to through severe PAIN during childbirth, so he wants the world to go through horrendous AGONY on the way to a better tomorrow.

I think that should be put on a bumper sticker.

Posted by: Wingnut on September 23, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

The point of an anti-terror policy is to reduce terror.

The point of an anti-terror policy is to win elections.

Then, once you've got a majority in both Houses, and the White House, you can do anything you want.

It's not a 'Global War on Terror'. It's the world's most expensive campaign commercial.

And it works.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on September 23, 2006 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

minion of rove:

You're an idiot. Everyone knows that if we had left Saddam in power, he and his sons would have taken up Parcheesi and feeding stray kittens while their enemy Iran built their atomic weapons next door. How much more stable could things get in the Middle East?

Posted by: marty on September 23, 2006 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

I run a pure-text interface and seem to have trouble accessing the Henderson article. I can't get on the Intel Dump site, but can't find it.

Could somebody link Henderson's piece please?

Thanks muchly,

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 23, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

A lot more Japanese were killing Americans in 1944 than in 1940. Obviously, going to war was the wrong response to Pearl Harbor.

Posted by: fdr on September 23, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

A lot more Japanese were killing Americans in 1944 than in 1940. Obviously, going to war was the wrong response to Pearl Harbor.
Posted by: fdr

yeah, but Japan actually attacked us, whereas Iraq, despite your wholesale swallowing of bush propaganda, did not. you must be one of the aforementioned 31% of unreachable, illiterate trash still watching fox.

... change japan (which attcked us) to vietnam (which did not), and the analogy would be more accurate.

Posted by: Nads on September 23, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

"Can you name anything the administration has done that has not grown terrorism?"

Reading Pet Goat?

Posted by: slanted tom on September 23, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks, Nancy Pelosi. That was just brilliant.

Where's the Democrats' great hope Barack Obama? What do you say, Senator? Torture--yes or no? Suspension of habeus corpus for detainees? Ring a bell? How 'bout them White Sox. Will they make the Wild Card?

Posted by: Lucy on September 23, 2006 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

Nads, you missed the point. A military response to any attack is going to increase the overall violence until the war ends. In case you forgot, the terrorists didn't like us attacking Afghanistan, either. Does anyone think the world would be at peace right now if we only had a hundred thousand American troops in Afghanistan? What would be going on in Western Pakistan? Somalia? Northern Iraq? Iran?

Posted by: fdr on September 23, 2006 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

Nads, you missed the point. A military response to any attack is going to increase the overall violence until the war ends.
Posted by: fdr

an inefficient response against the wrong country will also increase the overall violence, dumbass. and since WE invaded them (predicated on lies I might add), their response is increased violence until the war ends and WE LEAVE.

increased american casualties in japan were an expected response to pear harbor since japan actually attacked us.

Posted by: Nads on September 23, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

Here in the real world, we've gone 5+ years without a terrorist attack in the US or against US ships, embassies, etc.

And of course it's all due to the policies of George W Bush and his magic rock. Magic rock you say?

Just like in the episode of the Simpsons:

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.

Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.

Homer: Thank you, dear.

Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.

Homer: Oh, how does it work?

Lisa: It doesn't work.

Homer: Uh-huh.

Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.

Homer: Uh-huh.

Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?

[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]

Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

[Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]

Posted by: Television Marquee Moon on September 23, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK
...And Clinton's legacy regarding terror... Frequency Kenneth at 4:50 PM
The pro-Bush Washington Post has an even better story of Bush's failures before 9-11

Army Lt. Gen. Donald Kerrick, who had come from top posts on the Joint Staff and the Defense Intelligence Agency to manage Clinton's National Security Council staff, remained at the NSC nearly four months after Bush took office.
He noticed a difference on terrorism. Clinton's Cabinet advisers, burning with the urgency of their losses to bin Laden in the African embassy bombings in 1998 and the Cole attack in 2000, had met "nearly weekly" to direct the fight, Kerrick said. Among Bush's first-line advisers, "candidly speaking, I didn't detect" that kind of focus, he said. "That's not being derogatory. It's just a fact. I didn't detect any activity but what Dick Clarke and the CSG were doing."

It sounds like Bush is off his meds again too:
The president appears to be itching to join the battle. Highly competitive and a political junkie, he becomes invigorated in front of large and supportive crowds.
"I'm looking forward to the campaign. I'm looking forward to reminding the American people there are significant differences in between what our party believes and what the other party believes," the president said Thursday at the first of two open fundraisers in Florida. He pounded his lectern and shouted so loudly that donors sometimes had to cover their ears.

Where's the tape of the Bush yell?

... "to reduce terror, do the things the terrorists want you to do"...: am on at 5:03 PM

Shorter Bush: To increase terrorism, follow my policies.
...the Times goes with this anonymous, partisan leak. ex-liberal at 5:19 PM

Winning the war on terrorism by making it more common:
The number of terrorist attacks has steadily increased under Bush's leadership. As ericbrewer points out, based on the terrorist database, "the sum of "international" and "domestic" terrorist attacks in 2005 was 3991, up 51% from the previous year's figure of 2639. The number of deaths that resulted from those attacks was 6872, which is 36% higher than the 5066 that occurred in 2004."
When the supposed cure increases the problem, it's time to try something different. Common sense is commonly lacking in authoritarian personalities who are devoted to their Dear Leader.

Posted by: Mike on September 23, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

I've been waterboarding my whole family this weekend. So far my five-year-old son has admitted to being a serial suicide bomber, my wife has admitted to sleeping with Zarqawi, and my sister has admitted to voting for Clinton twice. My dog isn't talking so far but I'm sure it won't be long before I have a full confession about his crimes. I suspet he is the ringleader of a local terrorist cell. Posted by: Wingnut on September 23, 2006 at 5:23 PM

See. Torture works. :)

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 23, 2006 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

Mike wrote: The number of terrorist attacks has steadily increased under Bush's leadership.

Not in the US or against US embassies, ships, etc.

When the supposed cure increases the problem, it's time to try something different.

First, you should look up the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Al Qaeda terrorist attacks increased during Clinton's passivity and they have continued to increase during Bush's vigorous resistance. The reason for the increase is al Qaeda and the Islamic community, not us, IMHO. I think in the long run vigorous resistance will work better than passivity and appeasement. YMMV.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 23, 2006 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

during Clinton's passivity

Oh, you mean when Clinton's team handed over the White House to Shrub, and said "terrorism is going to be your number one concern"? And ShrubCo said, as I'm sure you would "yeah yeah yeah, Clinton equals wrong, we're smart, you're dumb, buh bye"

And then they did nothing for 9 months except demote the only guy actually interested in doing something about terrorism.

Is that the passivity you mean?

If you want to be a Bush Cultist, I can't stop you, but please stop making up your own facts.

Posted by: craigie on September 23, 2006 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

A political tidbit to the left from the masters -- attacking Bush's tactics in this war is a winning strategy. Attacking the need to go to war is otios at best, revealing of some very unappealing aspects of your collective personality at worst. Why don't you give it up?

I personally agree Bush is a bad president. I was a strong supporter of McCain in the primaries before Mr. Rove used his mind powers on me, and I still believe this country would be light-years ahead of where we are today had McCain prevailed. There are a lot of people that agree with that view, and you guys throw that potential asset away when you continue to harp on the idea that Saddam did not need to be dealt with. He did, and he was, and you can't change it even if he didn't.

Posted by: minion of rove on September 23, 2006 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK

two-thirds of americans agree iraq was a waste of time and resources. they were suckered because (1) invading iraq justified some racist need to kill some arabs (any arabs); (2) a delusion that militarily reshaping the mideast would be good for either the mideast, us, and/or israel; or (3) successful fear-mongering by repubs invoking nonexistant wmds, nuclear winters, the imagery of 9/11.

the public is no longer the frightened pussies the hardcore ignorant 31% seem to think they are. saddam was contained, had no weapons, and the way he was dealt with was a travesty for us, and especially for iraq. bush lied us into war. that matters, even if I can't change it.

iraq is no longer an asset to the rightwing ... it's a liability, a weight around their collective necks that they need to be strangled with.

they have no credibility in foreign matters, and they never had any in domestic. they are trash, and swing voters are slowly realizing this.

take comfort that there are at least 31% of assholes as ignorant as you.

Posted by: Nads on September 23, 2006 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINK

I see that even craigie is shrill now. no more biting putdowns.

God we are fucked.

Posted by: gregor on September 23, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK

craigie, I will agree that the Bush/Rice folks ought to have paid more attention to Clarke. I don't think they could have prevented 9/11. but they were wrong not to listen more to Clarke.

However, I stand by my contention that Clinton didn't do much. There were al Qaeda attacks before Clinton was elected. Clinton was President during the first WTC attack in 1993. He was President during the US Embassy bombings in Kenya and in Tanzania in 1998. He was President during the USS Cole attack in 2000.

Clinton's main response to all these murderous attacks was suggesting to George Bush in 2001 that he give the problem high priority. BFD.

P.S. If you recall 2001, the Senate Dems were obstructioninsts. They dragged their heels at just about every Bush appointment. The Bush Administration was slow to start dealing with terrorism, but the Senate Dems didn't help any.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 23, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK

So, minon, conservative, name one thing Bush did prior to the attacks of 9/11/01 on his watch? What's that? He did nothing.

As for terrorist attacks on our soil, we rule Iraq. It is effectively our soil until such time as order (such as it is) is not maintained by American troops.

Speaking of which, how's that search for WMDs coming?

Given Bush's failure on 9/11, given that he has made Iraq worse than it was under Hussein, and given that Bush's failures have cost the lives of 3000 American civilians and 2700 American soldiers, how can you possibly support the weak on national security Republican Party?

Posted by: heavy on September 23, 2006 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

Nads, if the public is with you, how come Democrats pee themselves whenever the subject of national security comes up?

Posted by: rnc on September 23, 2006 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

Shut up, rnc. This happened when I was washing up in the restroom.

Posted by: dnc on September 23, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal" is simply lying. Clinton's response to each attack was to find and eliminate the perpetrators. The only one he didn't? The Cole. But then "ex-liberal" can't point to anything that Bush did in response to the Cole either. "ex-liberal" also ignores the Republican Party's multi-year abuse of the FBI to eliminate what the Republicans saw as the real threat to our nation - Clinton.

Lets compare that to Bush. After 9/11 did he find and eliminate the architect? Or did he merely use this attack as a way to sell a war on an unrelated nation?

Posted by: heavy on September 23, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

heavy, nads, etc.

The Bush admin's #1 foreign policy objective from inauguration to 9/10/01 was trying to get "smart sanctions" through the UN. This was because the MSM and the international avant garde blamed the USA for starving thousands of Iraqi children every month with our beasty sanctions. Saddam was contained? He told France and Russia to cripple sanctions and they treated their votes in the UN like they were judging ice skating at the Olympics.

Posted by: minion of rove on September 23, 2006 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK

... do I look like a fucking politician to you dipshits? is it my responsibility that the dems haven't articulated bush's incompetence better? is it my fault that the corporate media haven't finished sucking bush's dick yet?

whether or not the dems argue national security or not, the repubs will take a solid ass-beating this year. the only issue they've ever had was terror, and now they've lost that. they have no domestic policy to speak of, their efforts towards social security and medicare have alienated voters, and they're sending mixed messages on immigration. their base is either asleep or numb, and the swing voters are no longer frightened.

Posted by: Nads on September 23, 2006 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal" is simply lying. Clinton's response to each attack was to find and eliminate the perpetrators. The only one he didn't? The Cole. But then "ex-liberal" can't point to anything that Bush did in response to the Cole either.
Posted by: heavy

ex-liberal also conveniently ignores that al-qaeda wasn't solidly implicated in Cole until january, 2001 ... and bush STILL sat on his white trash ass for 9 months. ... or cleared brush.

Posted by: Nads on September 23, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton's response to each attack was to find and eliminate the perpetrators.

In 1998 we had iron clad proof that Saddam had tried to assassinate GHW Bush in Kuwait. This was after Saddam gave sanctuary to the bail jumpers from the 1993 WTC bombing. His response, and ineffectual slap on the back of the head by bombing a few buildings in the middle of the night. Why bomb at night? Because janitors don't send their kids to Sidwell Friends.

Posted by: minion of rove on September 23, 2006 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK

Bush's response to 9/11 - kill tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Why Iraqis? Because it made him a war President. And besides, none of them had gone to Andover, Harvard, and Yale. Their lives were expendable - just like the lives of the soldiers Bush sent to death.

Hey, is it true that Bush's incompetence has allowed bin Laden to die on his own - without ever standing trial for his heinous deeds?

Posted by: heavy on September 23, 2006 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK

You find out all you really need to know about Clinton and his response to terrorism when you see his crazed rage at anyone even bringing the subject up.

Posted by: jonnycat on September 23, 2006 at 8:16 PM | PERMALINK

minion pretends he can re-write history. Bush wanted to eliminate sanctions because Cheney was already illegally doing business with Hussein through shell companies. But the fact that American companies were also giving Hussein kickbacks doesnt fit in with the propaganda minion is spreading.

Posted by: heavy on September 23, 2006 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK

All you need to know about Bush and terrorism is that there is a big hole in the ground in NY City and 2700 dead soldiers in Iraq - for no reason at all.

Clinton's record against terror stands up proudly next to the weak on national security Republicans.

Posted by: heavy on September 23, 2006 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. Heavy has caught us red handed. We used Colin Powell and Tony Blair as stooges to cover our massive $$$ profits from the Saddam trade. Next he might discover Diebold is just the beginning of the innovations we're rolling out at our labs in Area 51.

Posted by: minion of rove on September 23, 2006 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK

In 1998 we had iron clad proof that Saddam had tried to assassinate GHW Bush in Kuwait. This was after Saddam gave sanctuary to the bail jumpers from the 1993 WTC bombing. His response, and ineffectual slap on the back of the head by bombing a few buildings in the middle of the night.

first, what is this ironclad proof? from what I've read, there has never been anything conclusive about this alleged attempt, despite bush's planitive whining about the attempt to kill his dad.

second, the bombing after the alleged attempt on GHWB occurred in 1993. the 1998 bombings, presumably Desrt Fox, were raids based on faulty intel regarding iraqi sanction violations and supposed chemical weapon manufacturing (also unproven). they occurred because of either faulty intel, deliberate misuse of intel, or an attempt to distract the public from republican crucifixion of clinton.


Why bomb at night? Because janitors don't send their kids to Sidwell Friends.
Posted by: minion of rove

anyone who has defended the iraq war is in a pretty piss poor position to get all worked up about "collateral damage." you're already an apologist for nearly 100,000 civlian casualties ... I find it hard to believe you really care about the 8 civilians killed in 1993.

Posted by: Nads on September 23, 2006 at 8:25 PM | PERMALINK

"A lot more Japanese were killing Americans in 1944 than in 1940."

Kevin, I really must demand smarter trolls.

Is WWII the only template you can use to understand foreign policy? By 1944, the Japanese were losing the war. The tide had actually turned in 1942-43.

Please be sure to tell us about the Great Guerrilla War we fought in Berlin between 1946 and 1954, and don't forget to compare it to the Iraq War!

Posted by: Speed on September 23, 2006 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINK

minions moronic attempt at sarcasm does nothing to refute the fact that American companies, including Cheneys Halliburton were trading with Hussein before the 2000 elections. It does nothing to refute the fact that Scooter Libby was lobbying for an end to the sanctions on Iraq before becoming Cheneys chief of staff. In fact, it looks like minion is merely trying to distract from the facts not just French and Russian companies were providing kickbacks.

None of which changes the fact that Hussein was contained and that to this day not a shred of evidence for Bushs wild claims about WMDs has surfaced.

In other words, either Bush lied, or he wasnt good enough at filtering the intelligence to determine the facts and committed our soldiers to die in spite of his failings. Either way, it clearly demonstrates why Republicans are weak on national security.

Posted by: heavy on September 23, 2006 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINK

"I've been waterboarding my whole family this weekend."

Now, really. Don't you know that you're supposed to stop waterboarding after Labor Day? It's definitely time to go in for the cozier electrode methods. Anyway, it's good that we're getting rid of those quaint Geneva Conventions. And what happens at the Convention, stays at the Convention. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

Posted by: Kenji on September 23, 2006 at 8:55 PM | PERMALINK

Bedwetter, the words "Clinton" and "meltdown" in no way go together for anyone paying attention for the last ten years or more. Now you're guy, on the other hand, is going to be soiling his pants even before the second term is over. And let's just takle a moment to picture what he's going to be like in after the fact, as the most reviled president in U.S. history. Meltdown will be too kind a word.

Posted by: Kenji on September 23, 2006 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINK

Iraq's Biological Weapon Program

This is a brief history of Iraq's attempt to build germ weapons. It begins with a chronology that emphasizes individual facilities and germs, although many important details were never revealed to the UN inspectors who were on the ground in Iraq until the end of 1998. It is their findings on which the history primarily relies. A second set of inspections in Iraq was carried out from September 2002 to March 2003, but answered few of the many remaining questions about Iraq's biological weapon program. After the chronology, a second section discusses Iraq's interest in anthrax in more detail. The third section is a primer on the effects of the germs and viruses Iraq was working on.
Iraq managed to produce anthrax, aflatoxin, botulinum toxin, gas gangrene, ricin, and wheat smut, and was also known to be working on cholera, mycotoxins, shigellosis, and viruses (including camelpox, infectious hemorrhaghic conjunctivitis and rotavirus) as well as genetic engineering. There are suspicions that Iraq was also working on smallpox.
Iraq denied that it ever had an offensive BW program until the defection of Hussein Kamal, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law and head of the WMD program in Iraq, in 1995. Even then, Iraq continued to hide as much information, equipment and material from UN inspectors as it could. Thus, many aspects of Iraq's biological weapon program remain unknown. These unknowns include the total amount of germ agent Iraq produced and the status of Iraq's unaccounted for stocks of biological growth media, agents, production equipment and handbooks, as well as munitions and warheads. Furthermore, inspectors say that Iraq became self-sufficient, meaning it no longer needed imports to fuel its BW program. The uncertainties that surround this program made it all the more threatening in the absence of inspections and monitoring.
The chronology below shows that Iraq's germ weapon program began at a single site - the Al-Hazen Institute - in the 1970s. By the end of the 1980s, Iraq had several more dedicated sites (Al Salman, Al Muthanna, the Technical Research Center at Al Salman, and Al Hakam among them) and had broadened the scope of its research to include just about every major weaponizable germ and many viruses. In the late 1980s, Iraq began field tests, although new germs and new sites were still being added. Iraq had also weaponized germ agents before the first Gulf war, and some weapons had even been deployed. Little of this activity was discovered by the UN inspectors until 1995.

For more information, instead of the specualtion and lies that I have been reading, feel free to visit: http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/chemical.html

Once again, we need to wake up.

Posted by: sue on September 23, 2006 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

..."your guy" is what I meant to write,

Posted by: Kenji on September 23, 2006 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

From the Times article:

"More recently, the Council on Global Terrorism, an independent research group of respected terrorism experts, assigned a grade of 'D+' to United States efforts over the past five years to combat Islamic extremism. The council concluded that 'there is every sign that radicalization in the Muslim world is spreading rather than shrinking.'"

D+! That's even worse than Bush's gentleman's C at Yale.

Posted by: Lucy on September 23, 2006 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

Sue is trolling and fear-mongering.

Fear is Security.

The idiot sue deserves neither security nor freedom.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 23, 2006 at 9:20 PM | PERMALINK

It astonishes me that Kevin Drum and the Dems want to make 2003 an election issue.

What an idiotic suicide mission. Elections are always about the future.

How many more elections do the Dems have to lose before they wake up?

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on September 23, 2006 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

For minion, ex-liberal, Frequency Kenneth, and the rest of the Bush choir, D+ is considered an acceptable performance on the WOT. That's the meritocracy for you!

Posted by: Lucy on September 23, 2006 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINK

McCord on September 23, 2006 at 5:12 PM: Right on.

Of course the point is to look tough. Apparently Kevin believes that these people are actually interested in governing well, even prioritizing it above consolidation of their power.

How risible.

Posted by: Equal Opportunity Cynic on September 23, 2006 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINK

The Bush Administration botches the struggle against radical terrorists in so many ways. Its treatment of Iran is merely one policy that is exacerbating the problem. Please see my blog (http://web.mac/erumple) for more details.

Posted by: Eric R. on September 23, 2006 at 9:41 PM | PERMALINK

Geez, Sue, that's really scary stuff!!!! When we found all those tons of biological agents after invading Iraq, what did we do with them?

Posted by: Pat on September 23, 2006 at 9:47 PM | PERMALINK

Want to know something really twisted?

I was in, I did five years and resigned my commission to go into the VA Health System. I served in a field hospital in Sandbox-I.

And I can't say Bush's name without spitting afterward, so deep is my loathing for him.

But once he is gone, I will most likely return to service. (I will be 42when he leaves office, and I'm an officer with prior service. MFA 71, AOC 67B) Why would I do that you ask? It is simple. The Honor Code. It is in tatters, and it is all that matters. the Honor Code is all there is, and it was up to men and women of honor to step into the breech after the Viet Nam war and the lies that the military brass had perpetrated.

Seasoned officers are the backbone of the Honor Code, and I am a seasoned, wartime officer. So many are leaving that I feel an obligation as a single, childless career woman with command experience to step up one more time.

Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on September 23, 2006 at 9:50 PM | PERMALINK

The point of any anti-terror policy is to enrich wealthy corporations. Republicans and Democratic politicians pretty clearly get this.

Posted by: Hostile on September 23, 2006 at 9:51 PM | PERMALINK

Joyfully Subversive,

Wow!

Posted by: Lucy on September 23, 2006 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

It is for some people and it is not for others. I know I can hack it.

Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on September 23, 2006 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

About a year ago Donald Rumsfeld wrote a note to a staff member asking rhetorically if we are succeeding by killing more terrorists than we are creating with our policies. Rumsfeld himself acknowledged in the note that that was probably not the case: in fact, that our policies are self-defeating. The note was then leaked. It is interesting how different the administration officials act when they don't think they're being watched. It's kinda funny how guys like Rumsfeld don't even buy their own shit but the conservative posters here do.

Posted by: Reality Man on September 23, 2006 at 10:19 PM | PERMALINK

"Tell me what were their names, boys, what were their names, what were their names on the good Reuben James"

Wednesday, MSgt Robb G Needham, Age 51, of Vancouver, WA was killed by sniper fire in Baghdad. MSgt Needham was an Army Reservist and on his third tour. He leaves behind his wife, two children and two grand children. The Defense Department referred to him as a Soldier's Soldier.

We are losing the cream of our fighting forces and for what??? So more cronies of Shrub and the Publicans can line their pockets and build their resumes and try to win elections???

As one of the trolls said yesterday as he left his little roundhouse and keeps spinning around on the turntable, the Army has met its quota for the year - With what? Some 18 year old out of the Chelahis Youth Correctional Facility in Chelahis, WA, with a GT score of 75 will try to replace those who being killed daily?

And the beat goes on.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on September 23, 2006 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

"Do you know what they have to show for millions sent to Russia, China, France and wherever else (whoops, the US sold them much of their chemical weapon stock)?" - Mr. Street

"Baghdad continues to rebuild and expand dual-use infrastructure that it could divert quickly to CW production. The best examples are the chlorine and phenol plants at the Fallujah II facility. Both chemicals have legitimate civilian uses but also are raw materials for the synthesis of precursor chemicals used to produce blister and nerve agents. Iraq has three other chlorine plants that have much higher capacity for civilian production; these plants and Iraqi imports are more than sufficient to meet Iraq's civilian needs for water treatment. Of the 15 million kg of chlorine imported under the UN Oil-for-Food Program since 1997, Baghdad used only 10 million kg and has 5 million kg in stock, suggesting that some domestically produced chlorine has been diverted to such proscribed activities as CW agent production."

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#05


And in the real world it has been proven that Saddam manufactured 97% of his CW arsenal.


"Democrats rallied around Bush after 9/11. Democrats put aside their differences with the man and tried to support every aspect of what he needed to do to defend the country." - Mr. Street


The left is desperately trying to revise what actually happened.
Here's this from a leading liberal journal. They weren't behind anything in the beginning and they still aren't.


"After the Attack The War on Terrorism
by The Editors

There is little we can say directly about the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.except that these were acts of utter, inhuman violence, indefensible in every sense, taking a deep and lasting human toll. Such terrorism has to be rid from the face of the earth. The difficulty lies in how to rid the world of it. Terrorism generates counterterrorism and the United States has long been a party to this deadly game, as perpetrator more often than victim.

The U.S. strategy of retaliation in the form of a global war on terrorismalready commencing on October 7 with military strikes in Afghanistanis certain to compound this tragedy in the months and years ahead. For this reason it is now more important than ever that the realities of U.S. militarism and imperialism be brought to light, along with the role of propaganda in removing them from the scrutiny of the domestic population.

http://www.monthlyreview.org/1101edit.htm

Mr. Steet is full of nothing more than far left talking points that lack truth, clarity or sense. Their ingenous attempts to revise history is hysterical.


"What we should have done was draw up the articles of impeachment in late 2001,...blah blah blah" - Mr. Street


Then DO IT. For Christs sake I wish the Democrats would stand for something and actually do something about it.

Posted by: Jay on September 23, 2006 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK

Well said Jay! Good to see that someone still has the brains to actually look things up before spouting off. Although I will admit, they do give me alot of entertainment, reading some of the made up realities they write. Twilight Zone would love to have some of the people writing for them, that I have seen on a few blogs lately.

The truth is not simple opinion, it is made up of facts ... websters dictionary can explain what a fact is.

Posted by: sue on September 23, 2006 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINK

He isn't the only one Jason. Also last week Independence, MO, the home of Harry Truman, buried a 47-year-old guardsman, killed in Afghanistan by small-arms fire. I believe his funeral might have been today. His parents are polynesian and unable to travel, so his body stopped in Hawaii on the way back to his widow and daughter.

INDEPENDENCE, Mo. -- A local National Guardsman was killed in the war in Afghanistan last week.

Staff Sgt. Mike Fuga, of Independence, had served in Afghanistan for two years.

On Saturday, his family learned he was killed.

"I went to the door and asked, 'Who is it?' And all I heard is, 'Missouri National Guard, ma'am.' Right there, my heart just fell," widow Justina Fuga told KMBC's Dan Weinbaum.

Fuga said that's when she knew the man she married 13 years ago was dead.

"He was a hero, a true hero," Fuga said.

"Proud of him?" Weinbaum asked.

"Yeah," Fuga said.

Mike Fuga was called to active duty in 2004 and was sent to Afghanistan to help train that country's new army.

"Mike was very proud of being able to go over there and serve his country," said friend and co-worker Rusty Hay.

On Aug. 4, 2005, a KMBC photojournalist recorded Mike Fuga coming home on leave.

"His first year there was OK. He was stationed up north, but the second time he was sent to southern Afghanistan," Tina Fuga said. "I think he had a feeling, but he just never told us."

Weinbaum reported that the Taliban has regrouped in southern Afghanistan.

"To him, he felt honored to go out there and do something for his country; to do something that meant something to everybody here," Tina Fuga said.

Mike Fuga worked for Southwest Airlines before he was called to serve. He leaves behind a wife and 12-year-old daughter.

What a most excellent adventure. Fucking chicken-hawk rat bastards.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 23, 2006 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

And by that I mean if we had done Afghanistan right, troops could be home by now. Imagine if we had just kept an eye on the contained Iraqi regime and sent a hundred thousand troops into Afghanistan, and got the fucking job done?

Vice goes on T.V. the day before the Sept. 11 anniversary and implores us to imagine what the world would look like if Saddam was still in power.

Okay - I imagine an Afghanistan that isn't growing poppies in bumper-crop proportions. I imagine an Afghanistan where the Taliban stayed routed and the suicide bombers didn't move into the neighborhood. I imagine troop strength adequate to have cut off the escape of the al Qae'da operatives through the mountains as they fled Tora Bora.

Yes, we might still have three thousand dead by the time it was all said and done, but probably not, yet even if those casualty figures held, it would have been for something, not just a neo-con wet dream.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 23, 2006 at 11:16 PM | PERMALINK

Street-- I did give you the facts, gave you a site that listed all the information needed. The UN reports, reports from 30 different countries, dates, weapons, facilities, all in Iraq. You simply chose to ignore it and ramble about other things.
Avoiding those things simply proves our point.
I am one Democrat that will NEVER vote Democrat again. I would rather have Republicans trying to keep us safe,even if they make mistakes along the way, than Democrats that don't even bother to try.

Night all... enjoy your evening!
Would give my blog address for those that prefer truth, but wouldn't want to be accused of "trolling"...LOL

Posted by: sue on September 23, 2006 at 11:20 PM | PERMALINK

Global Citizen,

Yes, it is becoming too commonplace - When the article was printed in the Oregonian about the loss of MSgt Needham, there was another about the burial in Oregon of another reservist. When his death was originally announced in the paper, there was a story of not only another Reservist from Oregon, but the story of a memorial ceremony for a regular Army Sgt from Oregon.

Our small area in the Northwest, Oregon and Southwestern Washington has lost at least 80 military personnel in the past year. Several had gone with reserve units to either train Afghani or Iraqi troops or to help in rebuilding their cities.

Governor Kulongoski, an ex-Marine, and a Democrat has attended every funeral. What sayeth our mighty boy King georgie boy?

Posted by: thethirdPaul on September 23, 2006 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

Jason;

Did you see where my Dad's cold war mission was decommissioned yesterday? The F-14's have been retired.

I have a pretty funny F-14 storyif anyone cares to read it.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 23, 2006 at 11:26 PM | PERMALINK

"So I really want to see how Sue and Jay deal with all of these items. I'd really like to hear their perspective. Perhaps they can put their heads together and do a little research" - Mr. Street


Provide your sources Mr. Street and I will denigrate them in the same fashion you play your little pathetic partisan game. There's truly not an innocent country on this planet when it comes to most issues, but there is always and a right and a wrong side of an issue at any given time in history, and that apparently escapes you.

Posted by: Jay on September 23, 2006 at 11:29 PM | PERMALINK

Paul-3 - I have missed you!

Missouri has been buring a few reservists and Guardsmen. I have been screaming mightily about the Guard getting short-shrift. They don't get the same benefits, but they get killed just as dead.

They aren't just dead two weekends a month and two weeks in the summer.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 23, 2006 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINK

Pardon my typos - I am wearing a wrist brace - don't ask.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 23, 2006 at 11:38 PM | PERMALINK

Governor Kulongoski, an ex-Marine, and a Democrat has attended every funeral. What sayeth our mighty boy King georgie boy?
Posted by: thethirdPaul

Three points. First, Bush is good about meeting with families, and never publicizes it to take political advantage. Did you know that? Second, get real. Did Clinton attend every funeral for the guys killed in Somalia? No, of course not. Third, kudos to the Governer for attending the funerals.

Posted by: Red State Mike on September 23, 2006 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK

Hi Mike. Click my F-14 link. You will love it. I promise.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 23, 2006 at 11:45 PM | PERMALINK

Okay - I imagine an Afghanistan that isn't growing poppies in bumper-crop proportions. I imagine an Afghanistan where the Taliban stayed routed and the suicide bombers didn't move into the neighborhood. I imagine troop strength adequate to have cut off the escape of the al Qae'da operatives through the mountains as they fled Tora Bora.

Yes, we might still have three thousand dead by the time it was all said and done, but probably not, yet even if those casualty figures held, it would have been for something, not just a neo-con wet dream.

Imagination is wonderful. Imagine that somehow a hundred thousand troops could make wild Afghanistan into a peaceful paradise when they couldn't do it in Westernized Iraq. That no insurgency would arise. That a hundred thousand troops could keep poppies from being grown without using lethal force on the poor farmers. That somehow we could have placed thousands of troops in the mountains on the Pakistani border to seal it off so nobody could escape in the early days of the war, never mind dealing with the thousands of Taliban that have been in Pakistan all along. That somehow all the terrorists around the Middle East would doze peacefully in approval while the war progressed, and the IEDs and bomb cars would never appear in Afghanistan.

And imagine that somehow the Left would not be virulently opposing the War in Afghanistan, calling it a quagmire, waving the bloody shirts of civilian casualties, and counting up the dead Americans. Just like they were in 2002. And no, not one of you would be saying the soldiers had died for a good cause. Give us a break.

Posted by: jonnycat on September 24, 2006 at 12:01 AM | PERMALINK

don't ascribe motives to me. You don't know me, but I have a record to stand on here, and what I posit is based on the what-if game that I heard played in the officers club with my husband and brother about six weeks ago.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 12:10 AM | PERMALINK

jonnycat,

Bull - Read Jawbreaker by Gary Berntsen and still say "somehow, we could have placed thousands of troops and blah, blah, blah". The author sure as hell is no Democrat.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on September 24, 2006 at 12:11 AM | PERMALINK

Matt blunt of Missouri - and a naval Reserves officer who resigned his commission upon becoming Governor, had not attended any funerals of fallen Missouri troops.

Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, has not only attended all of the funerals, she went back to the capitol and got a law passed restricting the Phelps phuckheads protesting at soldiers funerals with signs reading "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 12:20 AM | PERMALINK

I left out a clarifier - Governor Sebelius is the Democratic Governor of Kansas.

And speaking of the governors commanding their Guard contingents - the Defense Authorization Bill before the Senate right now allows King George to bypass the governors and call up troops from Guard units without the council of the governors.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 12:23 AM | PERMALINK

make that "without the counsel of the governors," not council. Some wingnut will try to discredit me on a typo.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 12:31 AM | PERMALINK

You know, troops in uniform are not supposed to be in political photo ops, and they are not supposed to be appearing in uniform at rallies.

No political party owns the exclusive rights to the loyalty of the troops, and when the troops are politicized, it delegitimizes them, their mission, and yes (drumroll please) the Honor Code.

I'm no Ah-nold fan, but I was heartened at his refusal to allow Bush to politicize the California guard.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 12:34 AM | PERMALINK

The problem, as I view it, is that virtually all the actions of this President in the region are fomenting instability and hostility that may soon reach a point of no return. Even worse, the efforts of this administration are failing to create a wedge between extremist leaders and their populations. On the contrary, the language used by this administration, coupled with the perception that the U.S. is engaged in unwarranted and ideological aggression, has served to push otherwise moderate populations into alignment with radical governments and extremist organizations.

As I attempt to grasp the magnitude of allowing this President unfettered authority between now and the end of his second term, I can't help but wonder what it would take to dissuade a man with his level of certainty and conviction from undertaking the actions that will facilitate the ideations he seems convinced have been presented to him through a mix of fate and faith.

History may well record this chapter as a period of unparalleled extremism. Worse yet, the United States may well be viewed as the primary force in facilitating that eventuality. George Bush, when asked about his legacy, seems content to respond that while he can't predict the future he believes his actions will prove to be pivotal. He may well be correct but, in this instance, I would suggest he recall the expression, "Be careful what you wish for".

Read more here:

www.thoughttheater.com

Posted by: Daniel DiRito on September 24, 2006 at 12:37 AM | PERMALINK

Great planes, indeed, GC. Hmmph.

Posted by: bad Jim on September 24, 2006 at 12:49 AM | PERMALINK

Only a brat, bad Jim.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINK

I am afraid I am going to have to follow Jason off the thread and say goodnight.

Peace, Shalom and Salaam America

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 12:55 AM | PERMALINK

Frequency Kenneth: "... a great post on Clinton's meltdown on FOX news."

Meltdown? Are you fucking daft? Did you even read the interview transcript? Never mind, I should know better than to ask the obviou of a loser like you.

Anyway, suffice to say that Bill Clinton kicked their collective asses at FOX News over their naked partisan biases. It will be interesting to see how FOX edits the interview broadcast.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on September 24, 2006 at 1:28 AM | PERMALINK

Nads: "[fdr] must be one of the aforementioned 31% of unreachable, illiterate trash still watching fox."

"There's a sucker born every minute." -- David Hannum, Syracuse, NY 25 Oct 1869 (mistakenly attributed to P.T. Barnum)

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on September 24, 2006 at 1:48 AM | PERMALINK

Rumors of Elvis's death have been greatly exxxagerated.

Posted by: red state slug on September 24, 2006 at 2:06 AM | PERMALINK

Here in the real world, we've gone 5+ years without a terrorist attack in the US...

ex-liberal,

Isn't this administration's ongoing destruction of civil liberties, its degradation of the military, its assault on founding traditions, its contempt for the rule of law, its wasting of national treasure the most brilliant terrorist attack of all?

Posted by: exasperanto on September 24, 2006 at 2:40 AM | PERMALINK

fdr: A military response to any attack is going to increase the overall violence until the war ends.


Days since 9-11, that al queda exists (obl alive): 1800+

Days after Pearl Harbor that Japan surrendered: 1,365

War Deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan Equal 9/11 Toll - A.P. 9/23/06

Posted by: mr. irony on September 24, 2006 at 7:19 AM | PERMALINK

Mike wrote: The number of terrorist attacks has steadily increased under Bush's leadership.

ex-lib: Not in the US or against US embassies, ships, etc.


soldiers in iraq don't count?

more americans have died in iraq since saddam was captured...

than in all his time in power...

War Deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan Equal 9/11 Toll - A.P. 9/23/06

Posted by: mr. irony on September 24, 2006 at 7:23 AM | PERMALINK


ex-lib: I stand by my contention that Clinton didn't do much. There were al Qaeda attacks before Clinton was elected.

#1 killer of americans using terror from 1993 up until 9-11:

timothy mcveigh

Posted by: mr. irony on September 24, 2006 at 7:26 AM | PERMALINK

reality man: About a year ago Donald Rumsfeld wrote a note to a staff member asking rhetorically if we are succeeding by killing more terrorists than we are creating with our policies.

"We are not killing them faster than they are being created."

- Brig. Gen. Robert Caslen, the Pentagon's deputy director for the war on terrorism. 3/2/06

Posted by: mr. irony on September 24, 2006 at 7:32 AM | PERMALINK

Conservatives are masters of accusing the opposition of what they themselves are guilty of.

In 1996, Clinton pushed for more funding to combat terrorism. Of course, the obstructionist Republicans refused to pass the legislation, being more focused on a failed real estate transaction Bill Clinton made 14 years before he became president.

FROM THE ARTICLE
We need to focus on this terrorism issue, Clinton said during a White House news conference. But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.


Sidney Blumenthal, in his book The Clinton Wars, outlines in detail how much time and effort Clinton devoted to combatting terrorism in general.

FROM THE ARTICLE
Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He ordered a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."

Conservatives who claim Bill Clinton did not do anything to combat terrorism or al-Qaeda simply do not know what they are talking about and are ignorant of history.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on September 24, 2006 at 8:40 AM | PERMALINK

It seeems that Bill Clinton agrees With Kevin Drum, Matthew Yglesias, Ariana Huffington, et al, that in response to the coming shitstorm from Karl Rove the Democrats must make clear their strong and serious commitment to national security.

Posted by: Lucy on September 24, 2006 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

TORTURE IS A MORAL ISSUE


As religious leaders in Connecticut we are deeply concerned, indeed horrified, that Congress is poised to legalize torture. Earlier this week, at a press conference at Hartford Seminary, we spoke in one voice to say emphatically: No torture anywhere anytime--no exceptions. We joined our voices with those of national religious leaders in the National Religious Campaign Against Torture who published an advertisement signed by national figures in Washington's Roll Call on the same day.
We are compelled to speak again because the just-announced Republican "compromise" threatens to compromise the rule of law and the laws of God. Torture is a moral and legal issue; it is also a profoundly religious issue, for it degrades the image of God in the tortured and the torturer alike. Our moral compass is swinging wildly. To tolerate, or worse decriminalize, torture jeopardizes the soul of our nation.
If we were not to raise our voices in outrage at this time, the very stones would cry out.
What is the basis of our concern?
We are concerned that the proposed legislation eviscerates the War  Crimes Act of 1996. That act makes it a crime for any American to commit "grave violations" of the Geneva Conventions. But the "compromise" just announced amends the War Crimes Act to under cut that and to give the President unilateral authority--unchecked by Congress or the courts--to declare what is a violation of the War Crimes Act.

The President would then have the power to decriminalize the very prisoner abuse--at Abu Ghraib, Guantnamo, and secret prisons around the world--that rightly has caused American shame and international outrage. Under the legislation now proposed, even the list of permissible forms of interrogation will be kept secret. When reporters asked National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley whether waterboarding was permitted under the agreement, he refused even to answer the question.
We are concerned that the proposed law retroactively decriminalizes  violations of the War Crimes Act. This sends a message that our country is offering one hundred percent tolerance for torture. We insist on zero tolerance for torture. But the bill extends tolerance to mercenaries and top government officials. This is highly self-serving. As former CIA general counsel, Jeffrey H. Smith, recently told the Washington Post regarding accusations of illegal activities by CIA officials, "The fault here is with more senior people who authorized interrogation techniques that amount to torture" and should now be liable, instead of "the officers who carried it out." This legislation would provide such senior officials a "get out of jail free" card.
We are concerned that this legislation removes the right of  habeas corpus for those held as illegal combatants. This overturns the Supreme Court's Rasul decision and strips the courts of their ability to prevent torture and abuse. Habeas corpus cases have been the sole means for challenging the abuse of those held at Guantnamo.
We are concerned that the so-called compromise will allow the use  of evidence coerced through cruel and abusive treatment. Experience has shown that such provisions are an inducement to torture.
We are concerned that the bill allows the President to declare  any foreigner, anywhere, an "illegal enemy combatant" and then detain them forever without trial. Is this what the rule of law has come to for our country?
We are concerned that the bill, in spite of claims that it  preserves the Geneva Conventions, in fact does nothing to prevent the reinterpretation of those Conventions at will. Thus, it will invite other countries to do the same--as past and present military leaders warned when they opposed the President's initial version of the bill.
Former Secretary of State and head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, recently warned that "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," and that "to redefine Common Article 3" of the Geneva Conventions "would add to those doubts." We are concerned that the proposed legislation, far from showing U.S. commitment to the Geneva Conventions, will only intensify those doubts.
We are concerned that this proposal is deliberately designed to  undermine the efforts of the Supreme Court in the Rasul and Hamdan cases to assert the basic democratic Constitutional principle that the rule of law applies to the President and the executive branch.
We are concerned that President Bush may gut the remaining  limitations in this act, just as he did to those in the previous McCain torture law, by issuing a Presidential signing statement.
Given that the President has said there are currently no prisoners in the special CIA interrogation program, we are uncertain of the urgency in passing this legislation right now. We fear that the urgency stems from the upcoming mid-term elections, with the possibility of the Democrats gaining control of the House or Senate and initiating war crimes hearings. This legislation seems not to be about protecting our military personnel or even US citizens; rather, it appears to be designed to protect the leaders at the top of the chain of command who have tolerated, promoted, and justified torture.
Our own sense of urgency arises from a desire to protect the soul and integrity of our nation. Will we be a nation that abides by our own Constitution and upholds international law? Will we be a nation that is "under God" with justice for all? Or will we become a nation that punishes those who follow the orders while exonerating those who give them?
The scriptures of many traditions offer a version of the "golden rule": "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This principle is the guide for the lives of both individuals and nations. The moral basis is clear. Yet there is also a simple utilitarian reason to observe this principle: abandon the rule of law and you yourself will be subject to the consequences.
As religious leaders, we call upon our Congressional delegation and all who would lead or represent us to stand firmly against this attempt to amend the law of the land, to set the United States apart from international law. The moral character and the security of our nation and its people are at stake.
Signatories
Rev. Dr. Davida Foy Crabtree, Conference Minister of Connecticut Conference of United Church of Christ
Bishop Andrew D. Smith, Bishop of Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut
Rev Judy Allbee, Executive Minister of American Baptist Churches of Connecticut
Rev. Dana Lindsley, Executive Presbyter of the Presbytery of Southern New England
Dr. Ingrid Mattson, Professor of Islamic Studies of Hartford Seminary and President of the Islamic Society of North America
Rabbi Jeffrey Glickman, Temple Beth Hillel, Wethersfield, Connecticut
Rabbi Donna Berman, Executive Director, Charter Oak Cultural Center
Rev. Allie Perry, Coordinating Committee of National Religious Campaign Against Torture
Badr Malik, Executive Director, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Connecticut Chapter
Rev. Kathleen McTigue, Unitarian Society of New Haven
Rev. Dennis Calhoun, Middlebury Congregational Church
John Humphries, Hartford Friends Meeting
Rev. Thomas O'Rourke, Roman Catholic Church of the Ascension
Rev. Susan Power-Trucksess, Presbyterian Minister
Rev. Dr. Carl S.Dudley, Faculty Emeritus, Hartford Seminary

Posted by: from The NAtion on September 24, 2006 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK

免费小电影 免费电影在线下载 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 电影夜宴网站 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 激情写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 美女乳房 性爱小说 美眉写真 激情贴图 两性性生活 作爱电影 性交图片 做爱图片 人体艺术摄影 美女裸照 全裸女 黄色小说 成人小说 强暴图片 轮奸美女 泳装图片 韩国电影 性知识图片 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 变态日本女生 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼操比操屄 激情论坛 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 免费电影下载 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内衣内裤 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片

Posted by: amr铃声 on September 24, 2006 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

The conservative deflator wrote: Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He ordered a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."

So Clinton spent money, had meetings, gave speeches, and did bureaucratic shuffling. But, look at what he didn't do:

-- replace governments that were supporting terrorism (as Bush did in Afghanistan and Iraq)

-- persuade terror-supporting countries to end their nuclear arms program (as Bush did with Libya)

-- kill and arrested thousands of al Qaeda terrorists

-- prevent terrorist attacks (as Bush did with the Library Tower in Los Angeles)

-- break up numerous terrorist cells around the world

-- pass legislation and issue executive orders to remove obstacles to fighting terror (such as the Patriot Act.) On the contrary, some of the obstacles were put in place by the Clinton administration.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 24, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

Mr. Irony:

Days since 9-11, that al queda exists (obl alive): 1800+

Days after Pearl Harbor that Japan surrendered: 1,365

As I pointed out in another thread, if we were using the same tactics and weapons we used in WWII, this war would have been over a lot sooner. Six million civilians died in Europe and Japan from military attacks in WWII. Do you recommend that approach? A couple of nuclear bombs on Tora Bora or Baghdad would have been quite easy.

War Deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan Equal 9/11 Toll - A.P. 9/23/06

On what date did the WWII casualty count exceed the casualties at Pearl Harbor? Was this any more relevant then than it is now?

Nice work from the Bill Clinton Defense Squad, but I don't get my history on Clinton from Sid Blumenthal any more than I would credit a biography of Bush by Karl Rove.

Posted by: rnc on September 24, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

rnc troll contingent,

Pause your histrionics over Bill Clinton for a moment if you can and consider:

"More recently, the Council on Global Terrorism, an independent research group of respected terrorism experts, assigned a grade of 'D+' to United States efforts over the past five years to combat Islamic extremism. The council concluded that 'there is every sign that radicalization in the Muslim world is spreading rather than shrinking.'"

Why do you persist in defending the D+ team? The Bush administration's actions have exacerbated the terrorist threat. Face the brutal facts.

Posted by: Lucy on September 24, 2006 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

I was listening to little Billy Frist claim that the proof that the Bush Iraq strategy is working is that we haven't been attacked here for 5 years. Then he listed a lot of terrorist attacks starting with the first world trade center attack and ending with 9/11. See he said, by attacking Iraq, we have stopped similar attacks in America.


Well the dumb ass listed a bunch of attacks outside the US. Well since 9/11 there have been brutal attacks in London, Madrid and a whole lot of other places. Don't fall for the Republican line. There was an attack in the US in 1993 and another one 8 years later. Absence of a successful attack in the US proves nothing.

Instead look at the national intelligence estimate recently leaked. Knocking over Saddam has made Americans less safe.

Surrender your freedoms to be less safe? Makes sense to me. NOT

Posted by: Ron Byers on September 24, 2006 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

-- replace governments that were supporting terrorism (as Bush did in . . . Iraq) ex-liberal

You are at the wrong site. Nobody here, except the trolls, remain in the 31% who believe Iraq was supporting al Qaeda. Sheese not even the President makes such a claim. You should tailor your arguments to the people who you are trying to persuade.

Posted by: Ron Byers on September 24, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal" (and minion of rove, and any more of our stinkingly dishonest Bush apologists),

Name one action Bush took in response to the August 6 PDB.

Other than telling the briefer that he or she had covered his ass, of course.

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Gregory on September 24, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

泵阀 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 彩票 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 设计 仪器 工业 租车 42 机械 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 彩票 设计 仪器 工业 注册 64 65 泵阀 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 彩票 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500

Posted by: dd on September 24, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Byers - Saddam was definitely supporting terror. He was paying large cash rewards to the the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who committed terrorist attacks in Israel. In addition Iraq provided some degree of support for al Qaeda, although the exact amount is unclear.

Lucy asks: Why do you persist in defending the D+ team?

Bush may be D+ compared to some abstract ideal, but we can't elect an abstract ideal. The question is whether the Dems would do a better job than the Reps. Would putting Nancy Peloci and Harry Reid in power help Bush to be more effective at anti-terror work during his last two years?

On the contrary, the Dems have resisted important items, like winning in Iraq, renesing the full Patriot Act, using harsh methods for questioning terrorists, and keeping dangerous terrorist locked up in Gitmo.

I have seen it suggested that if the Dems had a majority in Congress, they would stop their obstructive ways and become anti-terror partners with the President. Do you Dems think that's the case?

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 24, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

Since the perpetrators of 9/11 were killed in the act, Clinton would say "Justice has been served" and forget about it?

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis on September 24, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal,

The Bush administration's misguided policies have created a greater terrorist threat than existed 5 years ago. Republicans have proven themselves unfit to protect the nation. Why should the Democrats enable this folly?

Or is it simply that you Bush supporters love neoconservatism more than you love America? Neoconservatism is a failure. You can't have it both ways.

Posted by: Lucy on September 24, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

"the Dems have resisted important items, like winning in Iraq"

Try to keep scurrilous bullshit like this out of the argument, please.

Posted by: Lucy on September 24, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

ex-lib: if we were using the same tactics and weapons we used in WWII, this war would have been over a lot sooner. ....


no...the weapons the u-s is using today are far more powerful....but the results against a vastly smaller foe?

nothing but excuses......

.

ex-lib: Six million civilians died in Europe and Japan from military attacks in WWII.


so its your argument that not enough people have died today and that has prevented complete victory?

by the way...more people commit suicide each year than die in terror attacks....

.
ex-lib: Do you recommend that approach? A couple of nuclear bombs on Tora Bora or Baghdad would have been quite easy.


the argument that this is a clash of civilizations comes from the president and you..

not me...


Posted by: mr. irony on September 24, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK


gregory: Name one action Bush took in response to the August 6 PDB.


i went fishing....

say..did i ever tell you about what i think was the best moment in my presidency?...

...it was when i caught a big fish...

Posted by: g.w.b. on September 24, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

ex-lib: Bush may be D+ compared to some abstract ideal, but we can't elect an abstract ideal.

number of dead americans from 1990 up until 9-11 due to islamic fundalmentalist terror attacks:

less than 250


number of dead americans from 9-11 until today due to islamic fundalmentalist terror attacks:

near 6000....


ex-lib apparently wouldn't define: abstract ideal as less dead americans....

lol

Posted by: mr.irony on September 24, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

Walter E Wallis,

Hey, tell the gang about those gutless guys in the French Battalion who helped save your rearend that dreadful night of yore in Korea.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on September 24, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

shorter ex-lib: majority rules...but don't blame us

Posted by: mr. irony on September 24, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

-- replace governments that were supporting terrorism (as Bush did in Afghanistan and Iraq)

Lets see Bush has replaced the government in Iraq with chaos and killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis making Iraq a breeding ground for terror and in Afghanistan the Taliban is resurgent. So, neither of those claims holds water and, in fact, Bush has made things worse. 1 point for Bush, zero points for Clinton.

-- persuade terror-supporting countries to end their nuclear arms program (as Bush did with Libya)

Of course, North Korea also failed to advance its nuclear program under Clinton and Bushs ineptitude has restarted that. So, Bush gets the fruit of decades of work but Im in a generous mood and will give him a point. 1 point for Bush, 1 point for Clinton.

-- kill and arrested thousands of al Qaeda terrorists

This is just nonsense. Hes killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, hes arrested hundreds of individuals we have no proof are connected to terror. Killing innocents counts pretty heavy against you, and arresting and torturing individuals without proof demonstrates you arent serious about the Rule of Law. This does more harm to our nation than any terrorist attack. Clintons attempts to go after terrorists were blocked by Bushs party. Again, -1 point for Bush, one point for Clinton.

-- prevent terrorist attacks (as Bush did with the Library Tower in Los Angeles)

You might have heard of the millennium attacks? No, thats because Clinton stopped them. One point to both.

-- break up numerous terrorist cells around the world

Adding numerous cells for every one replaced. 100 points for sheer incompetence.

In the end, we are far better off with someone who actually understands how the world works (that leaves you out ex-liberal) than trying to guide the bull safely through the china shop of world leadership.

Posted by: heavy on September 24, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Walter E. Wallis.....


"Attacking Iraq after 9-11 made as much sense as attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbor." - Richard Clarke

Posted by: king faud on September 24, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

Walter E "Gene" Wallis,

Walter, I diagree with you often regarding your political views. However, I have nothing but the highest respect for your service with the 23rd Regimental Combat Team. You are a true Tomahawk. You have contributed a great deal to the unit's web site.

The reason I keep bringing up the French Battalion is because of the many disparaging remarks by trolls at this site concerning the French. At your site, you write highly of their endeavors on that December 11 night in Korea - Your unit was completely surrounded by the Chinese - You all fought your way out bravely - In fact, the unit was presented with a special unit citation for this action in stopping the advance of the Chinese.

Please tell the trolls how the French fought that night.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on September 24, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK


ex-lib: I stand by my contention that Clinton didn't do much.


#1 killer of americans using terror from 1993 up until 9-11:

timothy mcveigh

we know tim is dead.....

.....osama?

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority. I am truly not that concerned about him."

-- G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02

Posted by: mr. irony on September 24, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Bush Choir,

St. Ronnie's Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb is now running for the Senate as a Democrat.

What do you make of it?

Posted by: Lucy on September 24, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

Sooner or later some Islamo-fascist group will get hold of a real WMD and will use it in the creative and amazingly effective way they used airliners as a weapon. When that happens will it really be useful to sit around arguing whether Bush's policies actually stimulated terrorist recruitment from 2001 to the present?

I think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have pretty much totally tied up the energy and the imaginations of the big-money terrorist organizations. Without a doubt, if we nuked the states of Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia we would probably be done with the main threats, although Londonstan and Detroitabad would still need watching.

The president of Pakistan seems to be acutely aware of this type of realpolitik, probably because Mr. Armitage told him in no uncertain terms after 9/11 what would come down unless full cooperation was forthcoming. But Pakistan has been letting the Taliban operate out of the Pashtun region, likely home of the late (?) Mr. bin Laden.

It might not be unthinkable that the Bush administration would unleash airstrikes on NW Pakistan. This might even be an "October Surprise" to influece the upcoming election, or it might be a "December Surprise" no matter how the election turns out. If Republicans hold their own, the attack would be a celebration. If the Democrats conquer Congress, the attack would be a way of challenging the American left to at last define (having some real power themselves) what they are prepared to do about the War on Terror.

But if the terrorists strike first, with a WMD, then the Bush administration has a mulligan. You wouldn't think any terrorist group could be so stupid as to trigger their own certaint destruction, but we all know that they think differently than we do on these things.

Posted by: Mike Cook on September 24, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

Mike, if terrorists strike with a WMD it will be because Bush has made it easy for them. They have more troops because Bush has provided a training ground. They have more weapons because Bush provided free access to weapon stores. They have more access to nukes because Bush has ignored the fractured USSR. That's why it is important that Bush has increased terrorist recruitment. That's why we need people who are serious about national security in charge. And there isn't a Republican of any stature who fits the bill.

Posted by: heavy on September 24, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. irony - you have attribute to me things written by another poster. That doesn't bother me too much.

What does bother me is that you may have quoted the President out of context or attributed him words he never said. We've all heard Bush say over and over that the search for bin Laden remains a top priority. It's hard to understand why the President would have said finding bin Laden is not that important, not our priority, and he's truly not that concerned about him.

Can you please provide a reliable cite (other than leftist partisans) for that quote? In particular, if he did say those words, can you provide the rest of what he said, so we can understand the context?

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 24, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

heavy,

Please go easy on Mike Cook - First, there was that Brokeback Mountain movie - Because of it, why, Mike can't even wear his chaps, spurs and cowboy hat while strolling across Volunteer Park and strutting down Broadway on Capitol Hill in Seattle. Why with that shooting on Mercer and the Space Needle dustup, which was broken up under Clinton, the boy just gets the frights something fierce when he encounters any brown skin in the Emerald City.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on September 24, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

really mike ... if you just want an excuse to kill some sand niggers, then by all means go to detroit or london and repeat your sentiments. you'll find someone willing to help you out in no time, and send various pieces of your cracker ass back to your mommy in a body bag!

Posted by: Nads on September 24, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

What does bother me is that you may have quoted the President out of context or attributed him words he never said.

Let's go over the rules one more time liberals. It is only okay to cast aspersions on a president if it is Bill Clinton (or Jimmy Carter.) Try to remember the rules here.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal, you can look it up for yourself. In fact, I bet if you search hard enough you can see the video of it. Bush said he wasn't that concerned about bin Laden. Deal with it.

Posted by: heavy on September 24, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

What does bother me is that you may have quoted the President out of context or attributed him words he never said. We've all heard Bush say over and over that the search for bin Laden remains a top priority. It's hard to understand why the President would have said finding bin Laden is not that important, not our priority, and he's truly not that concerned about him.
Posted by: ex-liberal

of COURSE you can't understand ... you're a partisan cocksucker who needs to justify this president's incompetence in order to validate your own prejudices, ignorance, and neuroses.

here's a link. but it's the official website of the WH press release, so I personally doubt its accuracy ... it's probably been cleaned up to make the chimp look better than he is.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

Posted by: Nads on September 24, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

Global Citizen,

Concerning the opening post stating "Clinton's meltdown".

Ever notice how Publican write and speak of Democrats? Ever notice how they speak of male bosses as opposed to female bosses?

A male boss is forceful - a female is bitchy
A male boss is stern - a female must be nearing PMS.

A Publican President is resolute - A Democratic one suffers meltdown.

A Publican speaks with authority - A Democratic one is shrill.

I've got it - The Publicans think of us as their bitches. Ah, but when the lights go out, Publicans, watch out.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on September 24, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

Well, when I meet new hires I warn them up-front: Everything you have heard about red-heads is true, and if you call me a bitch, I am likely to respond by smiling and saying "thank you."

I embrace my bitch-goddess within.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

Without a doubt, if we nuked the states of Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia we would probably be done with the main threats

This is Mike Cook, the Christian, speaking.

Terrorism? Nothing a little nuclear genocide wouldn't take care of. Kill them all and... well, who gives a shit anyway.

You wouldn't think any terrorist group could be so stupid as to trigger their own certaint destruction, but we all know that they think differently than we do on these things.

We're all Gods children, Mike, so to speak. We're all afraid of suffering and we all want our children to grow up in a peaceful world. And we all have base, primitive impulses. Indeed, neither Bush nor the Islamic extremists propping Bush up seem to know the difference between atavistic rage and higher principles of behavior and morality.

Posted by: obscure on September 24, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. Irony:

Abstract reasoning really isn't your strong suit, is it?

Posted by: rnc on September 24, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Nads - thanks for the (alleged) link. It shows that the President did not say the words put in quotes. At best, that "quote" is a twisted paraphrase of what he did say. Here's what the President actually said:

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.

This phony quote gets a huge number of hits on google. from various lefies. I guess this quote comes under the category of too good to check.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 24, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

Nads - thanks for the (alleged) link. It shows that the President did not say the words put in quotes. At best, that "quote" is a twisted paraphrase of what he did say. Here's what the President actually said:

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.

This phony quote gets a huge number of hits on google. from various lefies. I guess this quote comes under the category of too good to check.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 24, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry for the double post. :(

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 24, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

The same people faulting Clinton now for not doing enough then, were then dismissing his anti-terrorism efforts as a thinly veiled attempt to move attention away from the L'affaire Lewinski. Back then they were chest-thumping that the American people wouldn't stand for such a brazen political ploy as tracking down terrorists when there were blowjobs to be answered for.

Short attention span much?

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

I'd still feel better if the quote didn't come from such an obviously biased site, one which is representative of an administration synonymous with lying.

:)

Posted by: Nads on September 24, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

We've all heard Bush say over and over that the search for bin Laden remains a top priority. It's hard to understand why the President would have said finding bin Laden is not that important, not our priority, and he's truly not that concerned about him.

So, now you have the evidence that Bush did, indeed, point out that bin Laden was not a top priority. There's nothing "twisted" about the paraphrase, it reflects Bush's clear lack of concern for getting the architect of 9/11. Want to retract your statement above?

Posted by: heavy on September 24, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

Mike Cook,

Ah, those halycon days of Mountain Meadows, eh?

Perhaps if we could only replicate that glorious day many times over in the Middle East, eh?

Posted by: thethirdPaul on September 24, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

Nads - what is your Rx for the reich-wingers. Adderol for the attention deficit disorder, or Aricept for the Alzheimers?

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

heavy - first of all, that twisted paraphrase was presented as a real quote, both here and by many other lefties. (Just check google) Reporters get fired for presenting paraphrases as if they were quotes.

Second, there's a big difference between saying ObL is not a top priority versus saying that he's not important.

The ensuing years have shown the wisdom of Bush's (actual) comment. Finding ObL is important, but destroying the worldwide al Qaeda network is more important.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 24, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you are making a classic Post Hoc, Propter Hoc error in logic. The Islamist wave began with Sayyid Qutb. Long before Bush. You're correct about one thing. OBL wanted us to come into Afghanistan. He just didn't realize how hard Bush would come. He thought Clinton represented American will.

Have a nice day.

Posted by: Mike K on September 24, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

Nads - what is your Rx for the reich-wingers. Adderol for the attention deficit disorder, or Aricept for the Alzheimers?
Posted by: Global Citizen

Frankly, I only do kids ... over 18 and non-emergent, we send them over to Presbyterian.

... and if I let any of these morally crippled repubs near stimulants, they'd likely end up selling them on the streets for profit.

Posted by: Nads on September 24, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

From today's NYT:

More recently, the Council on Global Terrorism, an independent research group of respected terrorism experts, assigned a grade of D+ to United States efforts over the past five years to combat Islamic extremism. The council concluded that there is every sign that radicalization in the Muslim world is spreading rather than shrinking.

Posted by: obscure on September 24, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

White House Disputes New York Times

The New York Times' characterization of the NIE is not representative of the complete document," White House spokesman Peter Watkins said.

Since the NIE is classifed, we cannot independently check whose version of it is more accurate. Bush-haters will believe the Times's version, because that what they want to believe.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 24, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/24/fox-clinton-interview-part-1-osama-bin-laden/

The video is worth watching.

That is, if you have a functioning faculty of ratiocination.

Posted by: obscure on September 24, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

Bush-haters will believe the Times's version, because that what they want to believe.

Or, they'll believe it because the trust American intelligence experts more than they trust the executive branch.

With ample good reason, btw.

Posted by: obscure on September 24, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

You know, I just don't spend that much time on him

Thats more than not a top priority. You dont spend much time on things that arent important. The paraphrase stands, your defense It's hard to understand why the President would have said finding bin Laden is not that important, not our priority, and he's truly not that concerned about him. does not.

As for the past five years, what it has demonstrated is that the Republicans are not serious about the war on terror. The NIE information that you choose not to believe tells us all we need to know. Were the information the White House is peddling true they would declassify the document in a heartbeat. They outed a CIA agent for political gain, they lied about Iraq, only a moron or a liar would say they believed the Bush team at this late date. Your BDS (Bush Defender Syndrome) is showing.

Posted by: heavy on September 24, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

White House Disputes New York Times Assertion that 'Iraq is a Violent Place'

Posted by: Alfred E. Newman on September 24, 2006 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

obscure,

What follows is the sum total of what the Bush loyalists have to say about the Council on Global Terrorism's conclusion:

"Bush may be D+ compared to some abstract ideal, but we can't elect an abstract ideal."

Many liberals (NYT, Kenneth Pollock, David Remnick, George Packer, etc.) supported the invasion of Iraq despite their distaste for the Republican leadership because they believed the stories about Hussein's WMD and wanted what was best for the country. But they shifted their positions when they realized the war had been a terrible mistake.

But here we have the 31% who prefer to stay the course despite the fact that Bush's policies have proved disastrous for America. Why? Because Monica gave Bill a blowjob.

Posted by: Lucy on September 24, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

After going through this blog and the comments posted, one thing sticks out more than the rhetoric.
Notice who the ones are that cannot refrain from name calling?
Seems a few would like an educated, intelligent debate, and others insist that anyone that disagrees, no matter how respectfully should be spoken to in such a mature way as this :

----of COURSE you can't understand ... you're a partisan cocksucker who needs to justify this president's incompetence in order to validate your own prejudices, ignorance, and neuroses.-----

Or this :
----really mike ... if you just want an excuse to kill some sand niggers, then by all means go to detroit or london and repeat your sentiments. you'll find someone willing to help you out in no time, and send various pieces of your cracker ass back to your mommy in a body bag!-----

Many more examples, but I think you get my point. This is a good way to see the morals and judge accordingly if we want these people on our side of an argument. We wonder why we have lost the last two elections...well look at the types of people we have voting ....that says alot.

Way to help our party folks...thanks!


Posted by: one comment on September 24, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

Let's face it, there are some people who think that dead Americans give them the right to support murdering people all over the world and some who think that seeing support for murdering people all over the world gives them the right to call those murderous bastards on their immoral support.

Guess which guys I would rather have on my side? Ill give you a hint: it isnt the proxy murderers.

Posted by: heavy on September 24, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

"In my lifetime, the answers are going to be in the Democratic Party," said [Jim] Webb, a former Republican. (WaPo)

ex-liberal, do you think the former Secretary of the Navy for right-wing idol Ronald Reagan is running as a Democrat because the Democratic party is weak on national security?

Posted by: Lucy on September 24, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

Way to help our party folks...thanks!
Posted by: one comment

we're up against the trash of humanity that wants to justify torure, rendition, and nuclear annihilation of several countries ... and you've got your panties twisted over this?

against these pieces of shit, you dare question my morality?

you may want to reonsider your priorities, you smarmy, concen troll jackass.

Posted by: Nads on September 24, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

Lucy, I have ne idea why Webb is running. Maybe he likes Democratic values. Maybe he wants to be a Senator, so his only chance was to run as a Dem.

He has an outstanding resume, doesn't he? It was a coup for the Dems to get him as their candidate.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 24, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal,

This is why:

"The foreign policy of this administration has been taken over by people who would do something we've never done in our history, and that is to attempt to export our ideology at the point of a gun," he said in a news conference at the Virginia Capitol.

He also said he wants to solve basic problems confronting middle-class Americans and declared that the Republican Party has been consumed by an "extreme" social agenda. "In my lifetime, the answers are going to be in the Democratic Party," said Webb, a former Republican.

http://tinyurl.com/nc96m

Posted by: Lucy on September 24, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

I think we did export democracy at the point of a gun in Germany and Japan, but he's a good man.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 24, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

Germany was already a democracy moron. And the purpose of WWII wasnt to make Japan a democracy; it was to defeat a nation that attacked us. You dont know much do you?

Posted by: heavy on September 24, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

I think we did export democracy at the point of a gun in Germany and Japan, but he's a good man.
Posted by: ex-liberal

try korea and vietnam and you'd be closer.

the perpetual attempt by ignorant fucking right wingnuts to equate this conflict with WWII speaks to their ignorance of history and the military.

Posted by: Nads on September 24, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

Heavy, you mean Germany had been a democracy for a few years before Hitler. In 1945, it was not a democracy, to say the least. I agree that the purpose of WWII was not to make Japan a demcracy, but we did do just that after the war. These two examples refute Webb's statement.

Setting aside the past, what does Webb want ust to do. Would he prefer that the US had installed friendly dictators in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 24, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

Nads, it was Democratic candidate Webb who made the comparison, and he was a bit off.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 24, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

P.S. - I do thank you for acknowledging the US's postive role in creating an effective democracy in South Korea.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 24, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

Nads, it was Democratic candidate Webb who made the comparison, and he was a bit off.
Posted by: ex-liberal

excuse me, jackass ... you're saying Webb said that we exported democracy at gunpoint to germany and japan?

Posted by: Nads on September 24, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

No, Webb implied that we didn't export democracy at gunpoint to Japan and Germany.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 24, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

P.S. - I do thank you for acknowledging the US's postive role in creating an effective democracy in South Korea.
Posted by: ex-liberal

you've done a piss poor job of citing US history thus far, I thought I could at least make some of your asinine analogies more appropriate.

seriously, given the level of ignorance you've paraded here today, why should anyone expect repubs to be the party serious about foreign policy. it appears that everyone on the right is as pig-ignorant as gwb ... which may explain why you're so enamored of him.

but it makes for shitty foreign policy ... unless you define success as the party most willing to kill large numbers of foreigners indiscriminately, which seems to be an adequate enough definition for you.

Posted by: Nads on September 24, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

Your examples demonstrate only that you don't know what you are talking about. Your nonsensical rejoinder simply makes that clear. We didn't enter WWII in 1945 and Hitler was elected according to German law. As a Bush supporter you should stay away from WWII analogies. The comparison reminds everyone that Bush doesnt look like any of the good guys from WWII. Remember, Germany invaded Poland as a response to assaults on the Fatherland.

None of which explains why the Republican Party should be trusted on National Security. They have made this country and the world less safe through unprovoked aggression against Iraq and their half-hearted invasion of Afghanistan.

Posted by: heavy on September 24, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

Nads, it was Democratic candidate Webb who made the comparison, and he was a bit off.

To be more accurate, jackass, Webb said that we're currently exporting democracy at gunpoint, which we haven't done before ... I can read.

YOU'RE the one who said that we had, in fact, done so before, anmely japan and germany. you've been adequately shown to be wrong ... and ignorant of history.

No, Webb implied that we didn't export democracy at gunpoint to Japan and Germany.
Posted by: ex-liberal

so why would you suggest that HE made the comparison, as you did above? maybe I should lay off of you ... dyslexia is a serious handicap, and you're probably ridiculed enough.

Posted by: Nads on September 24, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

"Setting aside the past, what does Webb want ust to do. Would he prefer that the US had installed friendly dictators in Afghanistan and Iraq?"

http://www.webbforsenate.com/issues/issues.php#iraq

Posted by: Lucy on September 24, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

Side note: I'm with Nads 100% on my view of this administration, but I do think Nads rhetoric tends to the intemperate side.

While I very strongly disagree with ex-liberal, he deserves credit for his civil tone.

Posted by: obscure on September 24, 2006 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

bring me up short enough times like that, obscure, and I may actually start to feel some remorse!

;)

seriously, though, I don't know if this is a generational thing, or the fact that I don't regularly debate, or the comfort of internet anonymity, but loud and vociferous swearing isn't really a big deal to me.

Posted by: Nads on September 24, 2006 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

Nads asked: why would you suggest that HE made the comparison...?

Because, according to Lucy, he said, "The foreign policy of this administration has been taken over by people who would do something we've never done in our history, and that is to attempt to export our ideology at the point of a gun..."

By this statement, Webb invited comparisons with all past attempts by the US to export our ideology. America's ideology is democracy and freedom.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 24, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

By this statement, Webb invited comparisons with all past attempts by the US to export our ideology. America's ideology is democracy and freedom.
Posted by: ex-liberal

wrt korea and vietnam, however, I'm not sure you can claim that the goal was the spread of democracy as much as prevention of communist expansion.

and america never exported "democracy and freedom" in vietnam ... it removed a popularly (possibly fraudulently) elected but inconvenient leader of a sovereign country, proceeded to install compliant puppets, and then lied about and hyped a nonexistant threat in order to further our involvement.

there has been very little "democracy and freedom" in ANYthing us, or most countries, have exported at gunpoint.

Posted by: Nads on September 24, 2006 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

We offer a variety of travel related services, including discount travel, travel guides, cheap insurance quotes,discount hotels, hotel chains, cheap airfare, and discount car rental.

Posted by: isavetravel on September 24, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal,

Even if Webb misspoke (which I don't think he did), so what? The point is:

1) Here's a guy who was Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, for god's sake, a man who, because of bitterness over Vietnam, refused to shake John Kerry's hand for 30 years (that was for you, rdw, you rabid dog), who's so disgusted with Republican rule that he changed parties to run against GOP darling George Allen.

2. He has enough confidence in the Democratic party's commitment to national security to run as a Democrat; not only that, he thinks the future of the country lies with the Democratic party.

2. He has specific ideas about how to disengage from Iraq which don't condense to a soundbite like "stay the course" but which are explained in some detail on his web site. I helpfully provided the link before, but here is is again:

http://www.webbforsenate.com/issues/issues.php#iraq

Mind you, there's plenty about Webb for liberals to dislike, but at least he's got a plan for disengaging from Iraq and beginning the process of neutralizing hostility toward the US. It promises to be a long haul.

Posted by: Lucy on September 24, 2006 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

Nads wrote: wrt korea and vietnam, however, I'm not sure you can claim that the goal was the spread of democracy as much as prevention of communist expansion.

I agree. South Korea did become a fine democracy, but I don't know when that happened or whether the US deserves any credit.

and america never exported "democracy and freedom" in vietnam ... it removed a popularly (possibly fraudulently) elected but inconvenient leader of a sovereign country, proceeded to install compliant puppets, and then lied about and hyped a nonexistant threat in order to further our involvement.

I agree. Vietnam was a f***up. Many of the people leading that war were JFK appointees held over by LBJ. I don't mean this as a slam on Demcrats in general. FDR and Truman did a fine job in WWII. And, looking at the Cold War more broadly, JFK and LBJ did what needed doing, despite their errors in Vietnam.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 24, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK
America's ideology is democracy and freedom.ex-liberal at 6:28 PM
That's laughable. The ideology that America exports at the point of a gun when necessary is exploitation of other's natural resources and people. That has been the history of our dealing with South America, the Phillippines, and the Middle East. If you knew any history, you would know that America does not support freedom and democracy but any regime including totalitarian ones as long as they are friendly to American business and political interests.
...US's postive role in creating an effective democracy in South Korea. ex-liberal at 5:49 PM
Not quite: South Korea became a democracy in the 1980's at the sole instigation of its citizens. The US was always perfectly happy to deal with military dictatorships from the date of its founding in 1948

After its founding in 1948, the country has struggled with the aftermath of 35 years of Japanese occupation, the Korean War, and decades of military rule, seeing five major constitutional changes. Pro-democracy demonstrations during the 1980s led to free elections in 1987. South Korea is now a multi-party democracy.

Got any other "examples" of American political exports?

He thought Clinton represented American will. Mike K at 3:21 PM

If he thought that, he would have never attacked, but since Bush was doing absolutely nothing to prevent any attack, it became doable and inevitable. Remember, Clinton fought the threat and tried, Bush ignored the threat and lied.

This NIE report is, like all the other reports on the Bush regime, devastating.

Posted by: Mike on September 24, 2006 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal" would rather talk about any war other than the one George W. Bush started in Iraq. That's because talking about the one Bush started and is losing reminds everyone that "ex-liberal," like all Republicans, knows jack about national security. How many soldiers has Bush killed today ex-liberal? Hows that exporting of democracy going there?

Posted by: heavy on September 24, 2006 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

"refused to shake John Kerry's hand for 30 years"

It may have been 20 years. My bad.

Posted by: Lucy on September 24, 2006 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. Drum concludes "This isn't a bad first draft."

Sure it is. He doesn't get to the point until the last few sentences. Up until that point, it's just a litany of gripes, whines, and bitches. BOOOOO - RING! I turned off after the first 4 grafs. Wingnuts reading the WSJ would have stopped sooner. Griping, whiny, bitchy Democrats! What's he gonna do next? Scream like a little girl?

Now, don't get me wrong. (Why I bother to write THAT, I have no clue - there's little indication that anybody here ever reads anything anyone else writes...) All the points in the essay are good. It just needs to GET TO THE POINT quicker - like in the very first paragraph, maybe the first sentence. Then build on "the point" with each succeeding example, like the refrain to a sad song: "Is this what a successful national security program is supposed to look like??"

If you're trying to club someone over the head, don't be subtle. And don't make them WAIT AND WAIT AND WAIT to get hit. They're likely to wander off.

I apologize for the yelling. (Or maybe it's whining.)

Posted by: Zandru on September 24, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

Here's Fred Barnes, a right wing hack if there ever was one, on Bush's indifference to bin Laden

WE NOW KNOW WHY the Bush administration hasn't made the capture of Osama bin Laden a paramount goal of the war on terror. Emphasis on bin Laden doesn't fit with the administration's strategy for combating terrorism. Here's how President Bush explained this Tuesday: "This thing about . . . let's put 100,000 of our special forces stomping through Pakistan in order to find bin Laden is just simply not the strategy that will work."

Yet, bin Laden is as big a threat to the US as Lenin and Hitler.

"Bin laden and his terrorists' allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them," the president said before the Military Officers Association of America and diplomatic representatives of other countries that have suffered terrorist attacks. "The question is `Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say?"'

Golly.... here's a guy that killed 3000 Americans and poses as big a threat is Hitler, but Bush isn't going to uncurl his pinky finger to catch him. Of course, the fact that Clinton failed to catch him is the biggest presidential act of treason since FDR failed to stop the attack on Pearl Harbor. Life is sweet if you're a 'pubican: every standard is a double standard and every double standard works to your advantage.

Posted by: Mike on September 24, 2006 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

Mike wrote: America does not support freedom and democracy but any regime including totalitarian ones as long as they are friendly to American business and political interests.

I share Mike's opinion that this has often been the case. What I find striking is that he disapproves of the US in the past when we supported totalitarian regimes, yet he also disapproves now that the US has overthrown totalitarian regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq and replaced them with democratic governments selected by the people who live there.

Heavy askes: How many soldiers has Bush killed today

The answer for last week, if you include the US and our allies, is at least 1,000 to 1,500.

Natos southern Afghanistan offensive this month killed 1,000 to 1,500 Taleban fighters, a large chunk of the entire force, passing a major test on the battlefield, its top operational commander said on Wednesday. Gen. James Jones, Natos Supreme Allied Commander Europe.

I am proud of what the US has done, and particularly the leadership of George Bush, in freeing the Afghan people from the grip of the Taleban and making democracy possible.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 24, 2006 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal,

The Taliban is back.

Posted by: Lucy on September 24, 2006 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK

You were right to call me on not restricting you to American soldiers Bush has killed today, but you are wrong to suggest that every one of the foreign individuals killed by Bush are soldiers.

That you are proud of Bushs record of mass murder demonstrates why you arent to be taken seriously about national security. Bushs half-hearted invasion of Afghanistan has left that nation a broken mess with the Taliban resurgent. Bushs unprovoked assault on the nation of Iraq has been a disgrace. It sullies our national image to allow the architect of mass suffering in Iraq to remain unpunished. It marks you a moral leper that you support the new dictator in Iraq George W. Bush.

Posted by: heavy on September 24, 2006 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

"...seriously, though, I don't know if this is a generational thing, or the fact that I don't regularly debate, or the comfort of internet anonymity, but loud and vociferous swearing isn't really a big deal to me."

I think the word you're looking for is "maturity," not "generational."

Posted by: cassoway on September 24, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

unfortunately, ex-lib, if past behavior is any predictor of future performance, then Iraq and Afghanistan are no different than the assassination of Diem and the subsequent involvement of the US military in vietnam ... a situation which we both agree was a "fuckup."

what, exactly, is the point of deposing a military dictator we helped create if the replacement will be as bad, or worse, for the populace? karzei is losing control of afghanistan. Iraq is in civil war. The taliban is alive and well. terrorism has increased exponentially.

the only, and I mean only, thing bush has achieved is control of the natural resources of the region, and enrichment of cheney's band of war profiteers. neither are achievements worthy of american lives and sacrifice; neither are the goals which bush sold this war to the public on, and neither are beneficial to the citizenry of the involved countries.

Posted by: Nads on September 24, 2006 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone one who doesn't know that Japan's current form of government was firmly imposed by the U.S., or thinks that Germany and South Korea would be democracies today if there had been no military interference, is completely ignorant of history.

Posted by: LLB on September 24, 2006 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

I think the word you're looking for is "maturity," not "generational."
Posted by: cassoway

absolutely ... because arguing in good faith with the opposition side while they advocate the merits of torture is a sign of wisdom, and not at all a waste of my typing finger.

Posted by: Nads on September 24, 2006 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

Lucy -- The Taliban are indeed back. Thank goodness the free world is led the stalwart George Bush. Otherwise the Afghan people might be in real trouble.

Based on their fecklessness in Iraq, if the Dems were in charge, some of them would decide that the return of the Taliban meant Afghanistan was a quagmire. They would demand immediate withdrawal of US troops.

Mike - note that FDR's paramount goal in WWII was not killing Hitler. He knew we had to defeat Hitler's military machine. Similarly, the Cold War goal of Presidents from HST to Reagan was not to kill Stalin, Kruschov, etc. Bush is quite right to recognize that killing bin Laden will not automatically defeat al Qaeda. We have to destroy the entire organzation, which, he rightly says, is more important than just killing ObL.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 24, 2006 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINK

Real Estate Listings, Homes for Sale, Mortgage Rates, Loans and Refinance. Comprehensive real estate and property listings. Includes information on buying, selling or renting a home, mortgage rates, home loans and refinance information. Plus free instant home valuation.

Posted by: Real Estate Agent on September 24, 2006 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

Based on Bush's fecklessness in Afghanistan it is a disaster. Based on Bush's fecklessness in Iraq, it is a killing field. "ex-liberal" apparently is just one of those who loves to see non-Americans killed, whatever the cause.

Do you have hurricane parties too?

Posted by: heavy on September 24, 2006 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal
I am not surprised that you are an EX liberal, you speak well, you make sense and you don't lower yourself to the name calling and insults that are frequent here.
So you know, your points ARE being seen by someone who agrees and appreciates a voice of reason at this forum.
I am also an EX liberal. I changed parties when I realized that I am more scared of the Democrats then the terrorists.
One point catches my attention though.. everyone is so quick to say they want change, but I haven't heard their ideas on what changes should be made. They think the administration should be changed, but they haven't thought far enough ahead to think about what they would have a "new" administration actually DO.
Wake up America

Posted by: 2nd comment on September 24, 2006 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

I see our concern troll is back. If you were honest you would say you were more afraid of the Republcians than you were of the terrorists. After all, the terrorists killed fewer civilians than the Republicans have killed soldiers. Killing civilians is easy, they aren't protected in any way. Killing soldiers is hard work, but the Republicans do a great job of it.

The NIE says terror is up. This is directly attributable to Republicans. Fuck being nice. The Republicans are killing our soldiers.

Posted by: heavy on September 24, 2006 at 8:10 PM | PERMALINK

After all, the terrorists killed fewer civilians than the Republicans have killed soldiers.

Since most soldiers are republicans, and all are volunteers, that makes no sense.

Posted by: Red State Mike on September 24, 2006 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK

Discount Wedding Dresses, Bridal Gowns, Wedding Gifts, Wedding Favors, Wedding Supplies, Wedding Store, Wedding Planning... All you can get at Support my wedding com.

Posted by: support my wedding on September 24, 2006 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike, you are an idiot. First, you don't know how many soldiers are Republicans. Second, being a volunteer doesn't mean that they aren't being killed. Third, the policies that are killing the soldiers are those of Republicans. In other words, the only one here making no sense is you.

Posted by: heavy on September 24, 2006 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK

The troll is the dreg sue.

Posted by: Lucy on September 24, 2006 at 8:25 PM | PERMALINK

Mike, I have to call you on that - I have a military connection too, you know, and I had lunch at the O club this very afternoon. it's a pretty equally split between the parties. No political party has exclusive providence to the loyalty of those in uniform.

'Course, we represent the "Tron Twisting Weenie" contingent of the armed forces:)

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 8:28 PM | PERMALINK

I thought that very same thing, Lucy.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINK

Trivia time Mike: The Major was in for 24 years - 12 under Democrats and 12 under Republicans.

The mid-level and senior officers in the Air Force are a pretty liberal and reflective lot, at least the ones that came out of SAC. These are the folks who won the cold war. Period. And standing in the W under the nozzles of a Titan IIis awe-inspiring. That missile was the Mayor of Trucktown, so to speak. A ten-megaton warhead at the tip of a 144-foot, well, Titan.

Never, at any point in history has any group of people had more power at their fingertips than the men and women of SAC during the cold war. And no group of people in history has ever shown restraint like they did.

And they have a different outlook on the world because they changed it once.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK

When the complex was red, Tom would take a hand-picked crew out to site in a Dodge six-pack, strata blue of course, and they would get to work. By the time they had driven 75 miles to the site, then spent ten hours or so in the hole together, then the drive back, everyone knew the other five peoples opinion on every damned thing. And if it was Friday and they were off the next day, they often ended up at our house drinking beer, and the territory would be staked out in my back yard all over again.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 8:46 PM | PERMALINK

Jason! Behave yourself! No black magic!

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 8:47 PM | PERMALINK

They changed the world with intellect and competence. These are qualities that are not merely lacking in todays civillian leadership of the military, they are openly scorned.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 8:51 PM | PERMALINK

Not a shot was fired.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINK

I got an email from the rabbit this very day. It's been rough of late, but he is coming along. Send him good karma:)

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINK

The following is a letter to the editor that appeared in the Kansas City Star.

We may not like everything President Bush does regarding the Iraq War, but I am very glad we didn't have Al Gore for president before or after the attacks on the World Trade Center.

We already had Clinton and his do-nothing regime concerning Osama bin Laden.

The "Path to 9/11" docudrama, which aired on ABC recently told it like it (really) was.

We are a society with a very short memory. God help us.

And I responded by posting the following:

Jesus fucking Christ. Bill, put down the kool-aid and do a reality check. And hang on to your hat, mother fucker because I am so god-damn sick of you reich-wing, selective-memory, reality-is-what-we-decide-to-make-it, stupid-to-the-point-of-delusional yellow elephant sons-of-bitches that I am ready to embrace a cat-o-nine tails and take peices off your backside. But I don't condone torture, so I'll settle for throwing your entire argument into my cerebral cuisinart and pureeing it. That is the humane thing to do because I am going to make you eat your words.

First Mr. Cook asserts that "We may not like everything President Bush does regarding the Iraq War, but I am very glad we didn't have Al Gore for president before or after the attacks on the World Trade Center."

This is an example of the over-used neo-con strategy known as conflation of issues. Conflation is one of the most intellectually dishonest methods of argument known, and any freshman debate student learned that and moved on to intellectually honest ways of agruing and disagreeing. The reich-wing has not learned the lessons of 9th grade civics. In one sentence, Mr. Austin connects the war in Iraq with the attacks of September 11, 2001. We know there is no connection, even aWol has had to admit that no connection exists. But the dead-enders of the right refuse to stop flogging that dead horse. And God help us if Gore was president! Why, he might have actually concentrated on replacing the Taliban government that harbored the plotters of the attacks against our citizens. He might actually have prosecuted that war correctly. He might not have rushed headlong into an illegal war that he had to stand in front of the American people and lie his ass off to get started. No we will never know what a Gore response would have looked like, and that is indeed too bad. But one thing is for sure...He couldn't possibly have fucked things up any worse than this chump. And I bet a President Gore wouldn't be peddling fear as a political strategy and condoning torture as a legitimate strategy, and I bet a President Gore would not have infringed the Constitution to spy on Americans.

We already had Clinton and his do-nothing regime concerning Osama bin Laden.

Really? Clinton agressively pursued the terrorists threat and warned aWol that terrorism would occupy his presidency. He was dismissed out of hand and his advice was scoffed at. The August 8th briefing was ignored. The FBI agents who wanted to pursue the middle-eastern students in flight school were thwarted. Don't try to pin this on Clinton, you smarmy, lying, BushCrimCo appologist jackass. The plotters of the first WTC bombing were arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to prison. No torture or war-starting necessary. And don't bring up the USS Cole, you rethugliscum asshats - al Qae'da was not confirmed as the perpetrators of that attack until January 2001. That news came down on Bush's watch, and he did nothing.

The "Path to 9/11" docudrama, which aired on ABC recently told it like it (really) was.

I think that statement pretty much self-eviscerates, don't you? What a pathetic attempt at spin. That info-ganda hatchet-job was discredited before it aired. No one in their right mind could possibly take it seriously. It was fiction you jerk. Look that term up in the dictionary. Meanwhile, bin Laden was never surrounded, and the same people who are now screaming that Clinton didn't do enough then; are the same fucking people who screamed then that his efforts to rein in the terrorist threat were nothing more than thinly veiled attempts to draw attention away from the Lewinski matter, and Americans would not be fooled by it.

We are a society with a very short memory. God help us.

Okay, I got nothin' here. I can't top that.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 9:10 PM | PERMALINK

Check your email jason. I forwarded the Rabbit's email to you.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 9:14 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Jason - how good are your Linux skills?

We bought a new PC with windows and office last week, because everything Tom turns in in Med school is in office and emailed. I am going to scrub the hard-drives of the old celeron desktop and P-3 laptop and use Linux to build my computer models. In Linux, they have plenty of power. They ran out of capacity to run windows, but are plenty sound electonically. I've never used it, but I'm not scared.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 9:38 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, I didn't give the Soviets their due. They had a group of men and women with access to comparable raw power and they showed equal restraint.

It was maybe ten years after the last Titan was deactivated at Little Rock that we had dinner with a Russian electrical engineer who was visiting Rhine Mein, and who had done the same job. That was an interesting dinner. It was one of those occasions where the wives wore gowns and the officers wore their military tuxes, or Mess Dress. He and his wife were seated at our table. I left that meal with a whole new level of respect for the folks on both sides of the cold war divide, and I think his wife did as well.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

Well, I have to give Tom the PC and go study myself. Statistics 535 exam Tuesday. I'm not worried about it, I'm annoyed by it.

Later guys.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 10:06 PM | PERMALINK

No political party has exclusive providence to the loyalty of those in uniform.

Maybe. The Democrats in Florida in 2000 sure seemed to think those military ballots were going to go mostly to Bush.

Oh, a quagmire update, including enemy leaders still at large after ten years. Since there have been no casualties, it apparently doesn't really matter whether the mission succeeded or not.

Posted by: clark on September 24, 2006 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

And I responded by posting the following:

GC,

You should checkout NRO for a couple of Byron York take-downs of Bill Clinton relying largely on a sounce Bill Clinton mentioned 11 times as a definitive source. As it happens Richard Clarke is a partisan hack but Byron used his book to support the claim Bill as at best feckless on the war on terror.

You will also find a seris of links to other note-worthy essays based on the historical evidence to find out why Clinton was so weak. You might be surprised some are not as critical on Bill as they are on the various agencies which blocked his weak efforts.

You have two problems here. Byron York is read by millions and after this column will be all over talk radio and heard by over 10M more. It is very likely he'll be on FoxNews for more fair and balance coverage of Bill's interview. You of course are read by 4.

The 2nd problem is the facts. Besides Clarke's book which damns Clinton there are many more sources which are more reliable and more critical. We know what he did after the 1st WTC bombing and the Cole bombings. He did nothing. We also know from interviews with Osama and many other terror leaders they thought Clinton supremely weak. History will be written using these facts not liberal spin in the NYTs. They only sway current opinion in a limited way.

Bill Clinton actually understands this. That's why he's so incensed. He is determined to keep his record scrubbed in the MSM thus the heavy hand with ABC and this silly attempt to bully Chris Wallace. He's losing it.

Posted by: rdw on September 24, 2006 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

The Cole was not determined to have been perpetrated by al Qaeda until Januaty of 2001. Bush's watch.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINK

I am not a journalist. I am an opinionated redhead with a credit card and a broadband connection.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 10:16 PM | PERMALINK

Still waiting for Bush to retaliate

Why do you think Osama is in a cave.

Posted by: rdw on September 24, 2006 at 10:22 PM | PERMALINK

When a Democrat doesn't roll over, he is losing it. When Dick Cheney repeats that we would make the same mistakes all over again, he is resolute.

Okay. Whatever. We came to consensus on the Global Warming thread, but I am never going to have anything but contempt for your president, and you for mine.

I can't stand the son-of-a-bitch and I admit it freely. My husband felt so strongly about it that he resigned his commission on inauguration day. He was one of six officers (a captain a Lt. Col. and four Majors; four of those were in the Air National Guard) in CPBO that day resigning their commissions. All for the same reason. They couldn't, morally, serve under him.

You may say "Good Riddance" since they have a different philosophy than you do. I say it is a tragic loss, because seasoned officers are not a dime a dozen.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 10:26 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the compliment Jason :)

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 10:29 PM | PERMALINK

The USS Cole -

Still waiting for Bush to retaliate.

Abu Ali al-Harithi was taken out by a Hellfire missile from a Predator drone in November of 2002. The Left took a dim view of this action.

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri was captured in the Middle East. He was taking flight lessons at the time. He, at last report, is being held by the U.S. in an undisclosed location. The Left didn't like that either.

A number of other Cole plotters were captured and convicted in Yemen, and held in a prison there. They escaped. Had they been held by the U.S., they probably would still be imprisoned. The Left's opinion of their escape is unknown, but no doubt their being held by the U.S. would not have met with approval.

Posted by: rnc on September 24, 2006 at 10:38 PM | PERMALINK

I guarantee you-readership does not equal competence.

We knew that a long time ago. While Dan Rather was a distant 3rd among the newtorks the fact anyone watched him is astounding isn't it?

Readership DOES equal influence.

Fox News has taken a massive hit in the ratings in the last year--in every demographic that counts,

Actually they're fall back was consistent with most politically oriented shows after an election and Fox remains dominant among cables destroying CNN and MSNBC.

Note that Fox now has sources the networks can't match due to the internet. Byron York among others has a thoughtful column that takes Clinton to the woodshed using his beloved Richard Clarke as well as other sources. Fox new will be able to keep this story alive by having Bryon on for an interview and possibly adding another critic on a day later to refute a different Clinton claim and then another, etc.,

For example Clinton claimed the rightwing attacked him after sending missles into Afghanistan. In fact the record is quite clear and it is the opposite with the WSJ and National Review among others blasting the 'wag the dog' crowd. Much worse for Clinton is Richard Clarke claimed this criticisms actually prevented him from taking further actions. In other words when we needed a leader we got a poll-watcher.

Sorry Jason, Fox is holding all 4 aces here. Clinton has played this as poorly as it could have been played. If he ignored the critics the ABC movie would have been seen by 1/3rd the audience and heard about by 1/10. He would not have had that nasty interview and we would not still be talking about his weak record.

Moreover for Fox this is as much good free publicity as they've received since the election. The wallace video and transcript are all over the web and the story is still cooking.

Posted by: rdw on September 24, 2006 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

Global:

I have no idea who your husband is, but he deserves credit for his service. I also have no idea what kind of philosophy would allow a military man to cheerfully serve under Bill Clinton but resign the minute Bush is inaugurated, long before 9/11, any wars or anything else. Certainly he wasn't comparing service records. Guess it's not my business.

Posted by: rnc on September 24, 2006 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

heavy wrote: Based on Bush's fecklessness in Afghanistan it is a disaster. Based on Bush's fecklessness in Iraq, it is a killing field. "ex-liberal" apparently is just one of those who loves to see non-Americans killed, whatever the cause.

heavy, it's a mistake to focus on conditions today in Afghanistan and Iraq now, but ignore the conditions prior to our involvement.

Before we got into Afghanistan, the Taiban/al Qaeda government had killed many people. A bloody civil war was raging between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. Because of the civil war, it was not going to be possible to bring in food relief. It was estimated by the UN that half a million people would starve in the coming winter. Bush's invasion and his rapid victory allowed food relief to come in and prevented that humanitarian disaster.

Before we got into Iraq, Saddam had killed Iraqis in numbers estimated between hundreds of thousands to 2 million. The UN sanctions were allegedly preventing food and medicine from reaching needy children, causing deaths estimated at hundreds of thousands of children.

Lord knows, Iraq and Afghanistan are far from perfect today, but they're heaven compared to what they were. On any humanitarian measure, Bush did enormous good.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 24, 2006 at 10:44 PM | PERMALINK

I can't actually defend the fact that Bush has failed in the fairly simple task of finding a 6' tall Arab with a kidney problem, so I will attack instead. Of course, I'm not that smart because the attacks remind everyone that Bush has turned Iraq into a disaster, but everyone already knows that so I think I'm safe.

Posted by: rdw on September 24, 2006 at 10:45 PM | PERMALINK

I doubt he's been living in a cave at all; in fact, given his propensity for making videos, he's probably pretty well comfortable and happy and no where near getting caught by the Pakistanis, who are being bribed not to get near him.

Osama lost everything on 9/11. He's living in one of the most backwards places on the planet well behind the communications link. He's never referred to a recent event on his tapes because he's so far removed from civilization. it's quite thefall for a man used to traveling by luxury SUV with an entrouge. His current troop of body guards is very likely medical types
sealing with him many issues.

bin Laden probably gets to sleep all day and read right wing blogs and laugh his ass off at people like you, rdw.

He's most definitly not laughing. He lost Afghanistan and his Taliban buddies are getting slaughtered. Arab govts shoot Al Qaeda suspects on sight and if captured alive soon regret it. Osama. mullah Omat and Saddam are the biggest losers of the century.

Posted by: rdw on September 24, 2006 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

Look how stupid I am, someone demonstrates the kind of clear thinking behind my posts and I lash out at the first person I see. I'm not bright, but at least I'm prolific. But I have to be. I'm backing the single worst President in at least a century; a failure in business, a failure in governance, and a rather sad figure overshadowed by his Vice-President. When you have these kinds of heroes you have to lash out at people smarter than yourself.

Posted by: rdw on September 24, 2006 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINK

Nads wrote: if past behavior is any predictor of future performance, then Iraq and Afghanistan are no different than the assassination of Diem and the subsequent involvement of the US military in vietnam ... a situation which we both agree was a "fuckup."

what, exactly, is the point of deposing a military dictator we helped create if the replacement will be as bad, or worse, for the populace?

If those countries wind up with equally bad leadership, I too will be very disappointed. I don't believe one can predict the future of Iraq and Afghanistan from Vietnam. Each case is different in numerous respects. Time will tell whether the democratic governments can succeed.

the only, and I mean only, thing bush has achieved is control of the natural resources of the region

Iraq controls its own natural resources. Afghanistan has none go speak of.

If Bush really wanted to control natural resources, he could easily invade Saudi Arabia and take control all their oil. Given the thuggish nature of the rulers and the amount of Saudi money going to support terrorists...

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 24, 2006 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINK

Jason:

Interesting. What do you think I just "intimated?"

We're not talking about someone resigning after the war in Iraq began, and Bush's record as Commander in Chief was there for all to see. We're talking about resigning on inauguration.

Bill Clinton's record speaks for itself, and Bush had not even been tried yet. Other than raw politics, I don't understand the motive. I'm willing to listen to an explanation.

Posted by: rnc on September 24, 2006 at 11:02 PM | PERMALINK

"Certainly he wasn't comparing service records. Guess it's not my business."

It's not my business, either, but I'll take a stab at it.

Bush v. Gore

Posted by: Lucy on September 24, 2006 at 11:03 PM | PERMALINK

My husband resigned his commission after 24 years of active duty with the words "I can't serve this guy. he's a punk and a bully and he is going to get a lot of young men killed and a lot of middle-aged men like me are going to be responsible for them."

He was not just right. He was eerily prescient.

Every one of those officers that day were former cold warriors. They came through SAC and the Command College and they had a world-view that was incompatable with serving this president.

I encouraged him to follow his convictions.

The officers I knew between 1993 and january 2001 didn't disparage Clinton. He was never in service. That is a hell of a lot different than pussing out of your responsibility and then pussing out of your pseudo-duty too. Is vice a draft dodger? When you paint Clinton with that brush, Cheney gets a coat too.

Bush, on the other hand, did get into TANG, then spent his last year of service in a titty bar doing blow off a strippers ass. He has never answered the questions about his last year of service. Killian memos, Schmillian memos. Why won't the punk president answer the questions when asked instead of hiding under the petticoats of "Dan Rather has Liberal Bias."

So? Fox ain't exactly neutral.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 11:03 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, but they control large swaths of Afghanistan, which was unheard of a few years ago.

They ran ALL of Afghanistan a few years ago.

Of course, if we hadn't cut and run on Afghanistan and left it to NATO, maybe you'd have a point. I spent a fair amount of time schooling you on NATO earlier, so don't even go there--you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

NATO is what they call in the business "multinational," something liberals usually approve of. Or should we be in Afghanistan "'unilaterally?" Really, how do you keep all these things straight? Or are the rumors true, and you just look at what Bush does and declare that the opposite is the right course?

For the record, the NATO forces are doing a damn good job over there. Even France.

Posted by: rnc on September 24, 2006 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

Bill Clinton's record speaks for itself, and Bush had not even been tried yet. Other than raw politics, I don't understand the motive. I'm willing to listen to an explanation.
Posted by: rnc

military families tend to look down on deserters unable to fulfill even the very cush TANG assignment their daddies' procured for them.

Posted by: Nads on September 24, 2006 at 11:09 PM | PERMALINK

I'm no francophile, but lay the fuck off France. Or start a movement to change the names of all of our military ranks, because they are from the French. God forbid a country show some independent thought and fail to fall into lockstep with the questionable actions of this administration.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

"He was not just right. He was eerily prescient."

He sounds pretty remarkable. Rock on, GC!

Posted by: Lucy on September 24, 2006 at 11:19 PM | PERMALINK

I guess I'll have to settle for "eerily prescient." I have no idea how someone could form that solid an opinion of someone who had never been president, while forgiving Clinton his entire past and moral behavior, unless Democrat vs. Republican overrode everything else.

What made Bush in January of 2001 the anti-Christ and Clinton, after all his history, okay? What makes a draft dodger morally superior to a National Guardsman? According to his brother, Clinton did cocaine. Did you care?

I'd like to think you aren't among those who cracked up after Florida, but I'm not seeing any other objective standards here. It doesn't add up. I could see someone who couldn't serve under either, or both.

Posted by: rnc on September 24, 2006 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

We're going to cut and run on Iraq after the November election anyway.

No. Maybe a Democrat would do that, once the election was won. If Bush was going to clear out of Iraq for political gain, he would have done it in 2004.

What's going to happen after the November election is that the Left in this country is going to go completely insane. It isn't going to be pretty.

Posted by: rnc on September 24, 2006 at 11:26 PM | PERMALINK

Jason:

Yeah, the Chinese and the Russians are going to be willing to go to war under American command. I think you lost the thread of your argument a long time ago. You're only real reason for not wanting NATO there is because Bush wants NATO there.

Posted by: rnc on September 24, 2006 at 11:29 PM | PERMALINK

He had a record in Texas. We lived there when he was governor and I was in health care. I saw the effects of his "leadership" in the emergency room every fucking day. My blood ran cold the day he signed the law allowing patients to be unplugged when they couldn't pay, in spite of family objections.

We had seen first-hand how he discounted the value of human life.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK

Everything Bush has done in Iraq has been for political gain. The invasion was strictly a political calculation done with the hope that there might be some WMD traces that they could use to justify it. When that turned out to be nothing but bad info they started spinning this lie of democracy. But you know the difference between WWII and Iraq? The US brought democracy back to one nation and introduced it in another after the fighting was done. In Iraq they have tried to enforce democracy at the point of a gun and the resulting chaos is entirely the fault of the RNC and the dull-witted, simple-minded, ass-hatted morons it managed to frighten the public into accepting as leaders.

That someone could recognize the difference between a coward who supported the war against Vietnam but still managed to find a way to Not Go, and someone who didn't believe in the war and yet still signed up for the draft, may be surprising to you, but it isn't surprising to those with functioning brains. Bushs failure to demonstrate any competence in the debates with Gore made it clear to all who watched hoping that the Republicans werent just foisting off the idiot son of a bad ex-President that they were entirely right in their original assessment.

Bush, wrong on Iraq, wrong on 9/11, wrong on the economy, and wrong on torture.

Posted by: functional on September 24, 2006 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

To GC:

Ah. If you lived in Texas, and were intimately familiar with him as your governor, that makes a lot more sense. Whatever your opinion, it would at least have been arrived at first hand. Fair enough.

Posted by: rnc on September 24, 2006 at 11:42 PM | PERMALINK

Iraq controls its own natural resources. Afghanistan has none go speak of.

Does Iraq control it's own natural resources?

Following the invasion, the Bush administration implemented orders that have the effect of law allowing for the privatization of Iraq's state-owned enterprises, 100 percent foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses, and repatriation of 100 percent of profits earned in Iraq by foreign companies.

The Bush orders laid the groundwork for U.S. oil companies in Iraq, but a new national law currently making its way through the Iraqi Parliament will seal the deal. The law has its roots in the U.S. State Department's Future of Iraq Project's Oil and Energy Working Group, which found that Iraq "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war" and that the best method for doing so was through Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs). Ibrahim Bahr al Uloum, a member of the Working Group, succeeded al-Ghadban as Minister of Oil in early 2005.

None of the top oil producers in the Middle East use Production Sharing Agreements because they favor private companies at the expense of the exporting governments, including terms of 25 to 40 years and agreements that lock in the laws in effect at the time the contract was signed. Meaning that future Iraqi governments could change their laws, but the changes would not affect these oil contracts.

A new report by Greg Muttitt published by Oil Change International, the Institute for Policy Studies, and others, states that Iraq's new oil law is set for implementation in 2006. It allows for currently producing oil fields -- 17 out of 80 known fields - to be developed by Iraq's National Oil Company, while all new fields would be opened to private companies using PSAs, giving private companies control of 64 percent of known reserves. If a further 200 billion barrels are found, as the Oil Ministry predicts, foreign companies could control 87 percent of Iraq's oil.

http://www.thebushagenda.net/article.php?id=165

Since the invasion Iraq's sovereign resources have been up for sale to the highest bidder.

And just so this post isn't off-topic -- man, the Bush administration has been doing a sucky job on terror. Read why the non-partisan Council on Global Terrorism gives them failing grades on strategy, tactics, and results.

In a word: everything they've been doing only makes it worse.

Posted by: Windhorse on September 24, 2006 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, here's the rest of the Bush life-support story from a right-wing rag...

Posted by: rnc on September 24, 2006 at 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

Iraq controls its own natural resources. Afghanistan has none go speak of.

Any chance you could fact check your assertions before throwing them out there? It would make for less stupefying migraines for the regulars here.

And for the record -- and this is just one of about twenty false or misleading statements you've posted on this thread and the only one I had the energy to tackle -- Afghanistan has all kinds of natural resources. According to the CIA Factbook:

"[Afghanistan possesses] natural gas, petroleum, coal, copper, chromite, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, iron ore, salt, precious and semiprecious stones"

In reality Afghanistan has large untapped oil deposits, huge iron and copper deposits, and is the world's largest supplier of high-grade lapis lazuli gems in the world. In fact, when you remove oil from the equation, Afghanistan possesses significantly more resources than Iraq.

Posted by: Windhorse on September 24, 2006 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK

I have actually voted for a couple of Republicans in my day. Nancy Kassebaum remains my all time favorite senator ever, and I worked on two of her campaigns. I never worked for Dole, but he got my vote because the sacrificial lambs the Democrats offered were not capable of ably representing my interests or the interests of Kansans.

No matter where the USAF sent us, I immersed myself in the local and state politics because I had kids in school.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 24, 2006 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK

Windhorse:

When you remove oil from the equation, Rhode Island probably has more resources than Iraq.

Posted by: rnc on September 24, 2006 at 11:52 PM | PERMALINK

Let me play Devil's Advocate on the resources of Afghanistan. First of all, a lot of those resources are horribly toxic to the environment. Do you have any idea what is involved in the extraction of copper, zinc, lead and sulphur? Drive up Mt. Lemmon and look at that copper smeltery. Or check out the tri-state mining area in southeast Kansas. If we tried to develop those resources in Afghanistan, acres of trees would fall so Robert Kennedy, Jr. could send us all urgent messages and petitions to sign to stop it.

Then we have to consider the tribal and clan hatreds that are always simmering just below the surface in Afghanistan. Bring large-scale resource development into the equation and don't do it very carefully, precisely and in a controlled and incremental fashion, and watch the entire country turn into Deadwood right before our very eyes.

Just off the top of my head.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 25, 2006 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

When you remove oil from the equation, Rhode Island probably has more resources than Iraq.
Posted by: rnc

... you're suggesting that once you subtract a multi-trillion dollar resource from Iraq, that there is nothing left but sand? ... seriously?

what point did you think you were making?

Posted by: Nads on September 25, 2006 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, I bet your average Afghan warlord makes Al Swearingen look downright benevolent.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 25, 2006 at 12:07 AM | PERMALINK

First of all, a lot of those resources are horribly toxic to the environment.

You're talking to a treehugger Globe. You raise some good points about the difficulties of exploiting Afghanistan's natural resources given the current political and cultural landscape there -- but I was just correcting ex-liberal's point that it possessed none.

If Afghanistan and its people aren't poisened by needlessly liberating toxins into the environment, I'll be really OK with that.

Posted by: Windhorse on September 25, 2006 at 12:12 AM | PERMALINK

Oh don't get me started on DU - I have been doing some research, and looking at slides of camels' blood from Algeria and Iraq. the hematologic parameters are totally fucked.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 25, 2006 at 12:17 AM | PERMALINK

Seriously, whoever dreamed up using spent fuel rods in the manufacture of armour-piercing artillery belongs in the evil-genius hall of fame.

I mean the physics are elementary. Uranium has an AMU of 238. The alloys that make up the steel of the armour they are piercing are in the 50-150 amu range. So of course, the DU shells go right through the armour like a shotgun slug through tin-foil. The physics make perfect sense. If you can overlook that niggling little problem with U-238. It has a half life of ten million years!

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 25, 2006 at 12:24 AM | PERMALINK

It has a half life of ten million years!

Coicidentally the half-life of neocon stupidity.

Spooky!

Posted by: Windhorse on September 25, 2006 at 12:30 AM | PERMALINK

"If you can overlook that niggling little problem with U-238. It has a half life of ten million years!"

U-238 has a half-life that long because it is about as radioactive as my socks. More on depleted uranium from the WHO.

Posted by: techman on September 25, 2006 at 1:03 AM | PERMALINK

And actually, U-238's half life is somewhere in the four billion year range.

Posted by: techman on September 25, 2006 at 1:10 AM | PERMALINK

See my post above. I am not blowing smoke, I am actually working on a research study. Camels are amazingly resilient and hearty beasts. But I can tell you as soon as I adjust the scope on the slides when I am looking at smears that were obtained in Algeria and Iraq. As I said earlier, the hematologic parameters are fucked.

I haven't done the research into childhood cancers, but I know a couple of people who are, and the incidence of childhood lymphomas and leukemias are higher than comparable populations in areas where DU weapons have not been used. Also, spontaneous abortion and stillbirts are on the rise, apparently.

Hey we all get background radiation every day. But spent fuel rods in armament is a bad idea.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 25, 2006 at 1:16 AM | PERMALINK

Well, it's a school night. Catch you later.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 25, 2006 at 1:28 AM | PERMALINK

The fact of the matter is that DU weapons are used on battlefields in wars. Odds are VERY good that an awful lot of other factors would be going on at the same time that could cause serious health problems of many kinds, including any number of toxins and environmental problems. The crap floating out of bombed buildings is probably more toxic than the DU.

Most people in war zones only wish their worst problem was DU exposure.

Any studies on illness need to control for this. Studies on animals from a battle zone aren't going to really tell you the whole story.

Doesn't mean DU should be ignored, but a lot of overblown stories about it are all over the place.

Posted by: techman on September 25, 2006 at 1:31 AM | PERMALINK

The crap floating out of bombed buildings is probably more toxic than the DU.
Posted by: techman

... possibly. It's too bad that the bush EPA lied about that, too.

and I'm impressed ... not that many people are willing to defend DU. Maybe you could tell the Vietnamese that agent orange is no worse than vitamin C.

Posted by: Nads on September 25, 2006 at 1:42 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know squat about Agent Orange. I do know something about nuclear material. Many of the problems often attributed to DU aren't from that cause, and some of them aren't even possible from that cause. Keep it scientific.

Fearmongering for political purposes isn't any more impressive on your side than it is on Bush's. Or maybe you think the WHO is in on the conspiracy.

Posted by: techman on September 25, 2006 at 1:54 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know squat about Agent Orange. I do know something about nuclear material. Many of the problems often attributed to DU aren't from that cause, and some of them aren't even possible from that cause. Keep it scientific.

I would LOVE to be educated further on this topic. please link to where people are mis-assigning medical issues to DU, and then link to the scientific refutation of the aforementioned.


Fearmongering for political purposes isn't any more impressive on your side than it is on Bush's.
Posted by: techman

Oh, I agree 100%. Let's keep shit scientific up in here.

Posted by: Nads on September 25, 2006 at 2:18 AM | PERMALINK

I worked for the WHO for a minute - If the right hand knew what the left hand was doing I would feel more confident in their findings.

Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on September 25, 2006 at 2:31 AM | PERMALINK

It took less than an hour for a Depleted Uranium denying shill to show up on the blog; you guys are really doing well.

The level of opposition to finding out the facts on DU is enormous; don't buy the stories being told by the shills on this subject. They are officially sanctioned to go out and post rebuttals--go to the In These Times website or any of a host of sites that feature International articles on DU and you will find a shocking variance in what is known and what is accepted to be true. The shills like techman are here to lull you back into being unaware; I don't know what his 'newmexico.net'E-mail alias refers to, but I would be willing to bet you he works at Los Alamos and is responsible for going out and trying to smack down anyone who tries to say anything negative about DU.

I'm not sure if techman's job is to sit and respond to any and all posts on blog threads that pop up when Depleted Uranium is discussed, but here are some handy facts:

Era of Mini-Nuke Wars

Dr. Leuren Moret takes great pride to flaunt his credentials as a whistleblower on the nuclear establishment. Moret who previously worked with the Lawrence Berkeley Lab considers it significant that soon after the 2003 USUK attack the World Health Organization (WHO) predicted that cancer incidences would increase by 50% by 2020. This comes as no surprise to Moret since huge amounts of DU had been used in Iraq Radiation has no borders, respects no races or socio-economic classesits going to get all of us. Moret should know best. Her specialty study is atmospheric dust and their capability to free float from one part of the world to another.

Moret quotes official US military memos, which describe the need to develop weaponry that uses radioactive materials, including DU to be deployed in the battlefield. These memos include evidence of long-term test results on human beings, plants and animals. According to Moret, once these materials are grinded to 0.1 [1/10 of micron], these (alpha) particles are smaller than bacteria and behave almost as a gas diffusing in the lungs and bloodstream. Their size makes it difficult to protect victims even if gas masks are used at least 70% of these alpha particles will penetrate the state-of-art HEPA filters distributed to coalition troops in Gulf War II. She describes what happens when these particles enter the bloodstream:

After uranium metal burns...and depleted uranium is pyrophoric-burns when it heats to 170 C. So, as soon as they shoot them, and the surface of the weapon heats up to 170 C, it starts burning. And you can see them. They look like tracers going through the air on the battlefield. They are creating billions and billions and billions of superfine particles. These did not settle out by gravity. Gravitational forces do not pull them out of the air. They stay suspended. They act like a radioactive gas. And we know-I work with 8 independent scientists-we've measured depleted uranium, which after it burns, is very very insoluble. It forms oxides that will almost not dissolve. And because they will not dissolve, they will not dissolve and body fluids. And so, the body cannot excrete them through the kidneys in the urine. These particles are like fairy dust. They go everywhere that is red blood cell or a white blood cell will go. And they stay in the body-millions and billions of them. These alpha particles tear through the cell. They tear through the membrane, which damages the immune system. They tear through the mitochondria, which is your energy system. They tear through the DNA, causing mutations.

99.8% of DU is constituted by Uranium 238, whose half-life is 4.5 billon years equivalent to those estimated as the age of earth. As DU decays, it gradually assumes a ten-fold increase in radioactivity by the end of a million years, when it reaches a state of equilibrium. Accordingly, the bombed sites will not decrease but increase in radioactive potency over time. In short, DU facilitates weaponry that continues in its lethalness even after the war is over. The people of Iraq may bear much of the brunt of its lethality. However, the impact of DU through atmospheric free-floats can reach any corner of the world. More over, the signature effect of its lethality is that it can kill most inhumanely and indiscriminately. It is for these reasons why peace activists all over the world has cried for its unequivocal ban and for prosecution of Bush, Blair and Howard for crimes against humanity for using such weaponry.

Since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, Gulf War 1 saw the first break of war convention of not using nuclear weapons. After that followed the Balkans, Afghanistan and Gulf War II. It is estimated that the US used 340 or more tons of DU during Gulf War 1, under 100 tons in Bosnia and Kosovo and over 1000 tons in Afghanistan. Estimates of DU used for Gulf War II are over 5000 tons. Moret considers these mini-nukes as similar to the fourth generation nuclear weapons being currently developed by the US. These weaponry needed to be used so that the effects of DU on health and environment can be studied.

The Idaho Statesman reported that soon after September 11th the U.S. announced it would stockpile tactical nuclear weapons, including small neutron bombs, nuclear mines and shells suited to conduct warfare. Commenting on the bunker buster bombs, George Smith writes in the Village Voice, "Built ram tough, with a heavy metal casing for smashing through the earth and concrete, the B61-11 explodes with a force of an estimated 340,000 tons of TNT. It is lots of bang for the buck, literally two apocalypse bombs in one-a boosted plutonium firecracker, call the primary, and a heavy hydrogen secondary for the good old fashioned H-bomb fireball."

If any more corroboration is needed, the Uranium Medical Research Center reports that urine samples of Afghanis show the highest level of uranium in the world. Afghanis are reported to be dying, demonstrating similar symptoms as the Gulf Syndrome. Dead birds, still perched in trees, are found partially melted, with blood oozing from their mouths. Such scenario is now repeated in Iraq, albeit on a wider scale. As in Afghanistan, the genetic future of Iraqis is destroyed. What if some of their ire was expressed through retaliatory bombings of the Jordanian Embassy, UN Office or the Najaf Mosque? Surely, all these acts of terrorism simply pale into insignificance the most heinous crime committed against the Iraqi nation.

A Japanese journalist wrote about the fallout of DU in a book entitled Discounted Casualities. In it are tragic cases of such as Gulf War 1 veterans returning home only to find that intercourse with their wives leave their vaginal areas burning and without sensation and their semen contaminated with DU. In a study conducted of 251 Gulf War 1 veterans who prior to Iraq had normal children, 67% of their children born after their return were found physical, psychologically and/or mentally abnormal. The Veterans Administration a unit of the US military conducted this study. Despite the existence of such studies, the causal linkages of DU to Gulf Syndrome are still officially denied. Many among the coalition forces now serving in Iraq are simply not aware of the plight of Gulf War 1 veterans. Some, who knew, took the precaution of depositing their sperm with a sperm bank before departing to Iraq.

With regards to Afghanistan:

Afghans' uranium levels spark alert

By Alex Kirby
BBC News Online environment correspondent

A small sample of Afghan civilians have shown "astonishing" levels of uranium in their urine, an independent scientist says.

Critics suspect new weapons were used in Afghanistan
He said they had the same symptoms as some veterans of the 1991 Gulf war.

But he found no trace of the depleted uranium (DU) some scientists believe is implicated in Gulf War syndrome.

Other researchers suggest new types of radioactive weapons may have been used in Afghanistan.

The scientist is Dr Asaf Durakovic, of the Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC), based in Canada.

Dr Durakovic, a former US army adviser who is now a professor of medicine, said in 2000 he had found "significant" DU levels in two-thirds of the 17 Gulf veterans he had tested.

In May 2002, he sent a team to Afghanistan to interview and examine civilians there.

The UMRC says: "Independent monitoring of the weapon types and delivery systems indicate that radioactive, toxic uranium alloys and hard-target uranium warheads were being used by the coalition forces." There is no official support for its claims, or backing from other scientists.

Shock results

It says Nangarhar province was a strategic target zone during the Afghan conflict for the deployment of a new generation of deep-penetrating "cave-busting" and seismic shock warheads.

The UMRC says its team identified several hundred people suffering from illnesses and conditions similar to those of Gulf veterans, probably because they had inhaled uranium dust.

To test its hypothesis that some form of uranium weapon had been used, the UMRC sent urine specimens from 17 Afghans for analysis at an independent UK laboratory.

It says: "Without exception, every person donating urine specimens tested positive for uranium internal contamination.

"The results were astounding: the donors presented concentrations of toxic and radioactive uranium isotopes between 100 and 400 times greater than in the Gulf veterans tested in 1999.

"If UMRC's Nangarhar findings are corroborated in other communities across Afghanistan, the country faces a severe public health disaster... Every subsequent generation is at risk."

It says troops who fought in Afghanistan and the staff of aid agencies based in Afghanistan are also at risk.

Posted by: Fishkiller on September 25, 2006 at 9:12 AM | PERMALINK

Depleted uranium still haunts Balkans

By Alex Kirby
BBC News Online environment correspondent

Depleted uranium (DU) ammunition used by Nato in the mid-1990s in Bosnia-Herzegovina is still polluting air and water there, the UN reports.

"Tankbuster" A10 aircraft use DU ammunition
It says there is no cause for alarm, but urges precautions and regular monitoring.

Its study has made significant advances in understanding how DU behaves in the environment.

The UN says DU used in Iraq will probably behave in the same way, and needs watching closely.

Coalition forces fighting in Iraq have already used DU ammunition there.

DU is a heavy metal, 1.7 times as dense as lead. It is ideal for punching through armour, and is used mainly for attacking tanks and other armoured targets.

The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD), the Pentagon and Nato say it poses little risk on the battlefield or subsequently, though they say troops entering vehicles struck by DU munitions should wear protective clothing.

Cause for concern

The MoD website says: "We recognise that there could be a small risk to our service personnel from DU dust if they work unprotected close to a vehicle recently hit by DU ammunition."


If DU is used in Iraq I think the consequences will be similar

Pekka Haavisto, Unep
But the UN has found contamination in Bosnia-Herzegovina from weapons used there in 1994 and 1995.

Its findings are detailed in a report, Depleted Uranium In Bosnia And Herzegovina, published by the UN Environment Programme's Post-Conflict Assessment Unit (PCAU).

Dr Klaus Toepfer, Unep's executive director, said: "These findings must not be seen as a cause for alarm.

"Nevertheless, we recommend that precautions be taken and in particular that ground and drinking water at and near sites where the presence of DU has been confirmed be monitored regularly."

The "new and significant findings" identified by the study are:

ground contamination occurs at low levels where solid fragments of DU have penetrated, and is limited to about one or two metres around point of impact
the fragments have corroded rapidly, losing 25% of their mass within seven years. They will corrode completely within 25-35 years of impact
this is the first time DU contamination of groundwater has been found. Unep recommends using alternative water sources, with sampling continuing for several years
air contamination was found at two separate sites, including inside two buildings, showing that winds or human activities can disturb DU dust long after the event.
The study recommends collecting DU fragments, covering contaminated points with asphalt or clean soil, proper disposal of DU material, keeping records of contaminated sites, and investigating all health claims.


Test-firing DU ammunition in the UK
It also wants the missing coordinates of six confirmed attack sites in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

It is based on the work of experts who investigated 15 sites targeted with DU weapons. Unep chose the sites from data provided by Nato and local authorities.

The team found contamination and fragments at three sites - the Hadzici tank repair base and ammunition storage area, and the Han Pijesak barracks.

Risks unproven

Unep says local people and even mine clearance teams "are not sufficiently aware of the risks and issues", and urges a public awareness campaign.

The World Health Organisation (WHO), part of the team, concluded that, "due to the lack of a proper cancer registry and reporting system, claims of an increase in the rates of adverse health effects stemming from DU cannot be substantiated".

Unep says: "The existing scientific data... indicate that it is highly unlikely that DU could be associated with any of the reported health problems."

But Pekka Haavisto, who chairs Unep's DU projects, told BBC News Online: "There are no very comprehensive cancer data, especially from the war years.

"We've always said that if people did inhale the dust for several hours during an attack, you could have a health risk.

"We're a bit concerned to find that we can now measure DU in groundwater, and finding the dust on artillery in the barracks was uncomfortable.

"If DU is used in Iraq I think the consequences will be similar. It's something that should be followed very closely."

The allied forces fired at least 300 tonnes of DU in the 1991 Gulf war.

Posted by: Fishkiller on September 25, 2006 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

Depleted uranium: the lingering poison


A-10 tankbusters have also fired DU cannisters in Kosovo

By Alex Kirby, News Online Environment Correspondent and presenter of BBC Radio 4's Costing the Earth

Ray Bristow used to run marathons for charity. His last was the 1990 London marathon.

Then he went off to the Gulf, as a medical theatre technician. When he came home to Hull, things were different, he told Costing the Earth.


DU was used during the Gulf War

"I gradually noticed that every time I went out for a run my distance got shorter and shorter, my recovery time longer and longer.

"Now, on my good days, I get around quite adequately with a walking stick, so long as it's short distances. Any further, and I need to be pushed in a wheelchair."

Ray Bristow says he is open-minded about the cause of his illness. But he was tested - in Canada - for depleted uranium (DU), used in tank-busting rounds by US and British forces in the Gulf.

"I remained in Saudi Arabia throughout the war. I never once went into Iraq or Kuwait, where these munitions were used.

"But the tests showed, in layman's terms, that I have been exposed to over 100 times an individual's safe annual exposure to depleted uranium."

DU poisoning fears


Doug Henderson: Doubts over poisoning

The Armed Forces Minister, Doug Henderson, says only a small number of British Gulf veterans believe DU has made them ill.

His door is open to scientists and doctors, he says. But he says he has no evidence that the dust left after a DU round has exploded can travel very far from the vehicle it has hit.

And he believes you would have to absorb unfeasibly large amounts of the dust to suffer any harm.

Yet a Canadian epidemiologist, Dr Rosalie Bertell, told the programme that DU had been detected 42km from its source in a factory accident in New York state.

Doug Henderson believes there is no case for a systematic programme to test UK service personnel for DU poisoning.

Gulf veterans hit

But an adviser to the Gulf Veterans' Association, Professor Malcolm Hooper of Sunderland University, says nobody has looked coherently at what British veterans are reporting.

"We've got people saying: 'I've got kidney problems, problems with urination'. We don't know the cause. Some have got enlarged livers.


US Gulf War veterans have reported DU-related illnesses

"But a big study of US veterans has found very severe damage to the nervous system. The level of cancers is about 2.4 times higher.

"And there've been massive birth defects in some cases. In one unit, 67% of children born to US Gulf veterans had severe illnesses or birth defects."

The Pentagon says studies of the group with the highest DU exposure show their levels are "still well below occupational exposure limits".

But it acknowledges that, of all the US troops sent to the Gulf, it has tested just 36 for DU contamination.

Ray Bristow says he is now "on death row". The study which established his DU level found contamination in about 40 people, British and US veterans, and a few Iraqis.

It was conducted by Dr Hari Sharma, of the University of Waterloo, Ontario. "Inhalation of DU occurs in 1991, and we are looking at it after eight years", he says.

"To find something after a lapse of eight years was indeed a surprise."

Dr Sharma says cancer in southern Iraq is two or three times commoner than in 1991. Around Basra some cancers are seven times as common.

He says the World Health Organisation regards the figures as "substantially correct".

The Pentagon confirmed in early May that US aircraft were firing depleted uranium rounds over Kosovo.

Posted by: Fishkiller on September 25, 2006 at 9:15 AM | PERMALINK

This is from the link to the WHO site that techman posted:

Under most circumstances, use of DU will make a negligible contribution to the overall natural background levels of uranium in the environment. Probably the greatest potential for DU exposure will follow conflict where DU munitions are used.

I will give it the proper vetting after class. Se you later.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 25, 2006 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

First, you don't know how many soldiers are Republicans. Second, being a volunteer doesn't mean that they aren't being killed. Third, the policies that are killing the soldiers are those of Republicans. In other words, the only one here making no sense is you.
Posted by: heavy

My point is that you seem to be trying to speak for republicans. You aren't, and you can't.

Posted by: Red State Mike on September 25, 2006 at 9:53 AM | PERMALINK

But Mike, you spoke for all those who don the cloth, and that wasn't an accurate statement when you said "most soldiers are Republicans."

Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on September 25, 2006 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

As in, this once and future Army officer is most definitely not a repukeliscum fascist.

And as a member of the medical officers corps, I am outraged at the torture bill, and sent Senator Spectre an email telling him that he is the last line of defense in the realm of American decency.

Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on September 25, 2006 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

But Mike, you spoke for all those who don the cloth, and that wasn't an accurate statement when you said "most soldiers are Republicans."
Posted by: Joyfully Subversive

There have been plenty of polls, including ones I have linked to on this site, that show the military heavily leans republican. That is fact. And it shouldn't be news to you, if you were in the military.

Global, I did see the F-14 page. Nice.

Posted by: Red State Mike on September 25, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

I have seen some of those polls, and they don't always use sampling methods that yield the true picture. Others I have seen do not reveal the methodology used at all.

That said, I was in the Medical Officers cCorps, and we were pretty equally divided, and none to bashful. Even - especially - when we were waiting around for the festivities to start back in 1991.

Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on September 25, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

Globe has a fettish for hardware, Mike. I think she married the Major because missiles got her tingly. Or maybe it's because he is just an all-around decent guy and when she found one of those she held on tight.

Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on September 25, 2006 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

that show the military heavily leans republican.

Sure, fed a steady diet of Rush Limbaugh fallacies, fantasies (eeewwww!) and outright lies...

Posted by: ckelly on September 25, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

Bush is good about meeting with families, and never publicizes it to take political advantage.

Well, we see from todays Washington Post that this is simply not true. What do you know, the war in unpopular, it is election season, and Bush is publicizing his meetings with the families of soldiers he sent off to die.

Second, the only one attempting to speak for Republicans is you Red State Mike. I said the Republicans were sending soldiers off to die. This speaks not at all to the political party of the soldiers. Guess what moron, the soldiers arent sending the soldiers off to die. The soldiers are, by definition, not the nations leaders.

So, how much safer are we now that your dream of killing more Iraqis has been realized? The NIE says that things are worse now that the Republicans are in charge. If you werent an idiot you might rethink the notion that your party knows something about national defense. But you are so you wont, and the result will continue to be mountains of dead bodies, increased terrorism, and mass suffering. No third world dictator could do better.

Posted by: heavy on September 25, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Heavy
RSM: Bush is good about meeting with families, and never publicizes it to take political advantage.

Well, we see from todays Washington Post that this is simply not true.

Huh? Did you read the link? It makes my argument for me, thank you very much for pointing it out.

Posted by: Red State Mike on September 25, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

I did read the link, it makes my point. That Bush does politicize the deaths. You think that was written without the approval of the Bush White House? It's a puff piece. Designed to help the failing fortunes of the mass murderer in chief.

Posted by: heavy on September 25, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

So, Red State Mike, how many Iraqis have to die for the sins of 19 Arabs not of Iraqi extraction? How much safer are we now that we've murdered Hussein's sons? Did capturing Hussein make America safer, or was Howard Dean right when he said that it would have no effect? When are you and your party going to start taking national security seriously? How is it that the military is mostly Republican, but those who leave to run for office are mostly Democratic?

See Red State Mike, you aren't a serious person. You know killing, you know people who kill, but you know nothing about actual defense. It is far more complicated than just killing people. A good President understands this. Clinton was a good President. Your guy is not.

Posted by: heavy on September 25, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

That said, I was in the Medical Officers cCorps, and we were pretty equally divided, and none to bashful. Even - especially - when we were waiting around for the festivities to start back in 1991.
Posted by: Joyfully Subversive

Did you do one of the programs where the military pays for med school?

Posted by: Red State Mike on September 25, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

Nope. My dad died in Viet nam and I went to college on Social Security Survivors Benefits and VA Survivors benefits - until the Omnibus Spending Bill of 1982 did away with those "welfare programs" for the children of dead soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.

I'm a Lab Scientist (like GC) and a specialist in blood banking. I admit freely that I am often an asshole, I just never desired the degree that would tell the entire world I'm an asshole by my signature.

Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on September 25, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

Welcome to the year 5767. I'll save any atoning for Yom Kippur, however.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 25, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

I admit freely that I am often an asshole, I just never desired the degree that would tell the entire world I'm an asshole by my signature.
Posted by: Joyfully Subversive

The joy is in the discovery, eh? Heh.

I genuinely like mil medicine folks, even though in the annual flight phys the best you can ever do is break even (you're still OK, go flying). And the last three times I had blood tests it took them multiple sticks to get it. And they lost my record, so I had to get another yellow fever shot...wait...hmmm

Posted by: Red State Mike on September 25, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

Well, I am going out to Ft. Riley to see the Colonel. If I leave now, I can get out of town before rush hour starts. Later guys.

Sorry you had such a lousy experience last flight physical Mike. Never let the same person attempt venipuncture more than twice. That is the guideline set down by the American Society of Clinical Pathologists, and military labs are still ASCP and CLIA-88 certified. And drink a lot of water before you go in. Hydration makes venipuncture easier and less traumatic, and does not affect lab values if you drink water, plain unsweetened tea or black coffee.

As I said, later on folks. If the colonel is as attentive when I get there as he just was on the phone, I won't even be thinking about y'all.

Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on September 25, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

Keep a copy of your records Mike. You are entitled to your own medical records, even those from military providers. The rights of the patient to military health records was established through the FoI act.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 25, 2006 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

I have had contact with Yolanda Hewitt Vaughn, Mike, and I think that bitch should have her license yanked. When she let the US Army pay eighty grand to educate her in the 80's, she aagreed, when she signed her contract and received her commission, to deploy to war zones if called upon to do so.

I refuse to work with her, or for her. Before I left my last job to go back to grad school full time, when routine specimens came into the lab and she was the ordering physician, I refused to process them, run them or report them. I was a shift supervisor, so I didn't make anyone else do her work either. Once I actually got to call her up and tell her that no one in the lab would test her specimens and she would have to come pick them up and take them to a private facility. It just so happened that it was a Saturday, and she did one of those health fairs. The Subversive one and I were the only med techs in the hospital when the courier brought them in, and we refused to run them.

We told her that we would reconsider our policy once she had paid LabCorp 80 grand in weekend stat fees.

(No harm comes to patients from health fairs whose routine specimens are delayed. I want to make that clear.)

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 25, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

A doctor and officer in the military who refuses to deploy to a war zone, however, does harm patients. She violated every oath she ever took, and is thereby unworthy to be a physician. Society places a degree of trust in their military officers and in their healthcare providers. By violating her oaths, she proved herself faithless and should not be licensed to practice medicine.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 25, 2006 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

So Mike, when are you and yours going to start being serious about national security? It's a simple question. We know you weren't serious when you supported the invasion of a nation that wasn't a threat to our national security. We know you weren't serious when you supported a coward whose lack of seriousness had already killed hundreds of our soldiers over a war hero whose service record was without blemish. So when do you start being serious? Running a country shouldn't be left to those who can't tell the difference between a threat and a paper tiger.

Posted by: heavy on September 25, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

The Subversive one and I were the only med techs in the hospital when the courier brought them in, and we refused to run them.

Well, that explains...something, I'm sure. :)

A doctor and officer in the military who refuses to deploy to a war zone, however, does harm patients. She violated every oath she ever took, and is thereby unworthy to be a physician.

Amen to that.

Posted by: Red State Mike on September 25, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

ex-lib: I think we did export democracy at the point of a gun in Germany and Japan


Days since 9-11, that Bin Laden remains uncaptured or alive: 1800+

Days after Pearl Harbor that Japan surrendered: 1,365

Posted by: mr. irony on September 25, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Why do you think Osama is in a cave.

because bush pulled the troops out of tora bora to attack iraq.

Posted by: mr. irony on September 25, 2006 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, mr. irony, it's pretty funny seeing the pathetic attempts by the weak on national security Republicans defend their work on 9/11 and Iraq. Some of them are too cowardly to even try. I guess it's the difference between being a mile away from your victims and having to answer them.

Posted by: heavy on September 25, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

mr. irony
Days since 9-11, that Bin Laden remains uncaptured or alive: 1800+

Days after Pearl Harbor that Japan surrendered: 1,365

Yea, but wasn't it like 30+ years until the last Japanese surrendered?

In the spring of 1974, Second Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda of the Japanese army made world headlines when he emerged from the Philippine jungle after a thirty-year ordeal. Hunted in turn by American troops, the Philippine police, hostile islanders, and successive Japanese search parties, Onoda had skillfully outmaneuvered all his pursuers, convinced that World War II was still being fought and that one day his fellow soldiers would return victorious.
Posted by: Red State Mike on September 25, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

Um...Red State Mike, one guy does not an insurgency make. Sure, you're joking, but as you joke the guys your votes sent to Iraq are dying. Laugh it up clown.

Posted by: heavy on September 25, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

rsm: Since most soldiers are republicans, and all are volunteers, that makes no sense.


what makes no sense is that bush won by millions of votes...

yet...

the military is having such a hard time getting a few thousand soldiers that they

1. have to increase recruit age up to 42

2. take more than 3-times the category-4 (not as smart and criminal) recruits

and

3. in 2005...the military spent nearly 8-times the amount they budgeted for bonuses at 426-million dollars. (goa.gov)


sure looks like its hard work..


Posted by: mr. irony on September 25, 2006 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

rnc: Abu Ali al-Harithi was taken out by a Hellfire missile from a Predator drone in November of 2002.


CLARKE: I suggested, beginning in January of 2001, that there was an open issue which should be decided about whether or not the Bush administration should retaliate for the Cole attack [which occurred in October 2000].

Unfortunately, there was no interest, no acceptance of that proposition. And I was told on a couple of occasions, "Well, you know, that happened on the Clinton administrations watch." I didnt think it made any difference. I thought the Bush administration, now that it had the CIA saying it was al Qaeda, should have responded.

RICE: I do not believe to this day that it would have been a good thing to respond to the Cole, given the kinds of options that we were going to have. We really thought that the Cole incident was passed, that you didnt want to respond tit-for-tat. Just responding to another attack in an insufficient way we thought would actually probably embolden the terrorists they had been emboldened by everything else that had been done to them and that the best course was to look ahead to a more aggressive strategy against them.


The US invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and...the overall terrorist threat has grown since 9-11 - National Intelligence Estimate 9/22/06

Posted by: mr.results on September 25, 2006 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

Then there is the Guard issue. Well over half have spent as much time deployed as the rules allow - literally. So the solution? Change the rules that limit National Guard deployments to 24 of 60 months.

The Guard is getting screwed, people. The Defense Authorization Bill originally had a provision that would have given the Guard a part in the decision-making process. The bipartisan legislation proposed by Bond and Leahy would have elevated the supreme commander of the National Guard to Four Star General, and required that the second in command of NORAD be a member of the National Guard.

Instead, the Bond-Leahy provision was yanked from the Defense Authorization Bill, which gives the President the authorization to bypass the Governors, who have traditionally enjoyed control of their states contingent of Guard forces.


In spite of the efforts of Missouri's senior senator, Christopher "Kit" Bond and Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the National Guard will continue to get short shrift at the pentagon.

This is outrageous in an era when service in the National Guard does not simply entail response to domestic crises, but often requires lengthy deployments into hostile territories and combat in the face of a determined and often ruthless adversary. It ain't "one weekend a month, two weeks a year" anymore. It hasn't been for some time now. When a Guardsman dies in combat, he or she is just as dead as a regular Army soldier who dies in combat.

The Guard is comprized of the true citizen soldiers who most often enlist to be of service to the citizens of the communities they are part of in the event of disasters, be they natural or man-made.

Look, if we are going to treat them like "regular Army" personnel, carry it on across the board. Allow them to be a part of the decision-making process that more and more affects guardsmen by sending them to fight and die, and give their families full military benefits, costs be damned. They stepped up, and they stepped forward. Treat them with the respect they deserve. And for fucks sake, allow enlisted Guard personnel to be promoted while they are deployed! That they currently can not be promoted is outrageous, and I do not believe that if Americans knew how the Guard was being abused that they would stand for it.

Under the current system, the guard is kept out of the decision-making process, even though they do a hell of a lot of fighting and dying. To take them for granted in this manner is an outrage. They deserve better, and they are not getting it.

Treat them fairly. Give them full benefits and allow them to be a part of the decision making process; or do not deploy them to hot-spots around the world. There is no room for compromise on this issue.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 25, 2006 at 8:03 PM | PERMALINK

The bipartisan legislation proposed by Bond and Leahy would have elevated the supreme commander of the National Guard to Four Star General...

You get up into the three and four star ranks, and the active duty starts getting protective. The Navy Reserve actually asked that their lead remain a two star, so as to not make it so attractive that an active duty guy what snap up the billet.

A 4 star reservist would be a Big Deal.

Posted by: Red State Mike on September 25, 2006 at 8:41 PM | PERMALINK
Iraq controls its own natural resources. Afghanistan has none go speak of. If Bush really wanted to control natural resources, he could easily invade Saudi Arabia and take control all their oil... ex-liberal at 10:56 PM
Why would Bush attack the Saudis when They are hand-holding "pals"? Most of the 9-11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia, and Bush did nothing expect to expedite the bin Laden's families departure from the US after 9-11.

As for controlling Iraqi oil, check out these production sharing agreements (PSAs).
According to Greg Muttitt, co-author and lead researcher of the "Crude Designs" report, "for all the US administration's talk of creating a democracy in Iraq, in fact, their heavy pushing of PSAs stands to deprive Iraq of democratic control of its most important natural resource. I would even go further: the USA, Britain and the oil companies seem to be taking advantage of the weakness of Iraq's new institutions of government, and of the terrible violence in the country, by pushing Iraq to sign deals in this weak state, whose terms would last for decades. The chances of Iraq getting a good deal for its people in these circumstances are minimal; the prospect of mega-profitable deals for multinational oil companies is fairly assured."

Afghanistan has opium poppies as its natural resource, and opium poppy production is at record levels.

Yea, but wasn't it like 30+ years until the last Japanese surrendered?...
Red State Mike 6:52 PM

Astonishing... Are you saying that a lost Japanese PFC was the Japanese bin Laden? This is one of the stupidest analogies I've ever read.

Posted by: Mike on September 25, 2006 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, it would be a big deal. No doubt about it. But if they are going to do the amount of fighting we are asking of them, suck it up and make the change. Or don't deploy them to war-zones.

They get short shrift. Period. I don't like it, it is wrong, and I believe that if ordinary Americans (who sleep better at night knowing the guard is there in case of disasters - or at least used to before Katrina) would be outraged if they knew just how lousy the Guard is treated.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 25, 2006 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINK

Astonishing... Are you saying that a lost Japanese PFC was the Japanese bin Laden? This is one of the stupidest analogies I've ever read.
Posted by: Mike

Mike, you just set a new world's record for Not Getting The Joke. Congrats on your 24/7 seriousness. Like your posting here actually means something to somebody and can Make A Difference. Not.

Global
They get short shrift. Period. I don't like it, it is wrong, and I believe that if ordinary Americans (who sleep better at night knowing the guard is there in case of disasters - or at least used to before Katrina) would be outraged if they knew just how lousy the Guard is treated.

They are getting the short end of it, and they're going to break.

Posted by: Red State Mike on September 25, 2006 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah - thanks for that Joke about the Japanese PFC - I had to wipe coffee off my screen.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 25, 2006 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINK

Crouching Dragon, Hidden Private?

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 25, 2006 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK

They are getting the short end of it, and they're going to break.

And guess whose name is on the hammer? The Republican Party including your cowardly ass.

Posted by: heavy on September 25, 2006 at 11:20 PM | PERMALINK

You laugh, but when that ninja flies through the air and knocks you down with a single feather taken from a hummingbird in mid-flight, you won't be lauging anymore.

Stop! You're killing me! It hurts to laugh that hard!

And guess whose name is on the hammer? The Republican Party including your cowardly ass.

Okay, I gotta step between this one. Mike and I disagree on policy about 70-75% of the time. But I respect him personally, and what I believe some people take for intellectual dishonesty would be more accurately viewed through the lens of sarcasm. If that costs me your respect, so be it.

He wears the uniform and foregoes the protections of the constitution for himself, but the oath he took is to uphold the constitution and protect this nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and he does that for us. No matter our politics. That's the kicker. He is a mid-ranking naval officer with conservative leanings, and my husband is a (retired) mid-level officer with strongly liberal leanings. They both stand for everyone, not just those who vote like they do and agree with them on issues.

Mike and I fight tooth-and-nail, but I like to think we both bring something to the party. There is a big difference between "conservative" and "nut-job." Mike represents the former, but not the latter.

The biggest thing we argue about is the representation among the political parties in the military. No party has a monopoly, and what way service members vote depends on a lot of things (including how the question is asked when the poll is taken) and it vascillates over time. But Dems are represented. Remember that a high percentage of inner-city black kids make up the enlisted corps, a significantly higher portion than they represent in society as a whole.

See what I mean? I step in to take up your cause and start back in on my argument before the post is over.

I either rest my case, or I'm totally confused and need sleep.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 26, 2006 at 12:14 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly