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

And Clinton's legacy regarding terror.

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.

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

Well duh, Einstein.

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

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.

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."

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?

Shorter am: "I am a dumb troll."

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

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.

31%.

Shocking.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

If that was satire, hats off.

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.

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.

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

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.

er, I would have shown some numbers.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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

Reading Pet Goat?

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?

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?

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.

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]

...And Clinton's legacy regarding terror... Frequency Kenneth at 4:50 PM

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

...the Times goes with this anonymous, partisan leak. ex-liberal at 5:19 PM

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

God we are fucked.

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.

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?

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

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

"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.

Let’s 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?

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.

... 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.

"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.

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.

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?

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.

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 doesn’t fit in with the propaganda minion is spreading.

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.

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.

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.

"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!

minion’s moronic attempt at sarcasm does nothing to refute the fact that American companies, including Cheney’s 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 Cheney’s 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 Bush’s wild claims about WMDs has surfaced.

In other words, either Bush lied, or he wasn’t 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.

"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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Sue is trolling and fear-mongering.

Fear is Security.

The idiot sue deserves neither security nor freedom.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

Joyfully Subversive,

Wow!

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

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.

"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.

"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 terrorism—already commencing on October 7 with military strikes in Afghanistan—is 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

"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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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

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.

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

Great planes, indeed, GC. Hmmph.

Only a brat, bad Jim.

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

Peace, Shalom and Salaam America

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.

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)

Rumors of Elvis's death have been greatly exxxagerated.

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?

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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, Guantánamo, 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 Guantánamo.
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

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