I think that you're right, Kevin. At this point, the American people might be tired of using a hammer to solve every problem, and would be willing to see the inherent nuance that always was there, exacerbated by the complexities of the Iraq war aftermath.

TPM has Richard Clarke's response to this, and I think it was too defensive. Law enforcement is only one method, it often works, and it sure beats McCain's solution of unending war.

Also, McCain was recently yelling at Obama for wanting to shoot at bin Laden with Predators.

So, which is it? Naive and wanting prosecutions only? Or naive and wanting to bomb al Qaeda?

Confused isn't an age-related comment when McCain's campaign has the message discipline of an infant.

I for one would like to see the "9/11 changed everything" meme completely destroyedbut I guess we're too attached to over-simplifications.

We could compare, say, the amount of terrorism we've stopped via police work, intelligence, international cooperation, financial interdiction, and so forth, and compare it to the amount of terrorism created by our military intervention in Iraq.

We could compare them, but neither the stopped nor the created terrorism would be measurable. Both would be inflatable according to the imaginations and extrapolations of advocates. The conversation would only be nice if it were honest, which is highly unlikely.

And this was all over an "inside job" on 9/11
| http://www.geocities.com/killtown/911smokingguns.html

PLANNED BEFORE, FUTURE IDEAS...
1. 1962 - US military drafted plans (Operation Northwoods) to commit terror in US cities and kill innocent Americans to trick public into supporting war against Cuba. (ABC)
2. March '01, X-Files spin off show depicts US plot to hijack a Boeing 727 and crash it into WTC to blame foreign terrorists to provoke war. (FOX)

PREPARATION...
3. '99, NORAD starts conducting exercises in which airplanes are hijacked and crashed into targets which include the WTC and Pentagon. (USA Today)
4. Oct. '00, Pentagon conducts emergency training exercises of a mock passenger plane crash into the Pentagon. (Army)
5. April '01, NORAD requested a war games event of having a terrorist group hijack a commercial airline and fly it into the Pentagon. (Boston Globe)
6. Aug '01, Raytheon and US Air Force successfully land pilot-less Boeing 727 using military GPS landing system that enables ground control to take control of hijacked plane. (Der Spiegel, Raytheon)
7. Sept. '01, 25,000 British troops ensemble in Oman near Afghanistan for Operation Swift Sword and will help US in attacking OBL. (BBC, Telegraph)
8. US pulls the plug on Muslim websites days before 9/11. (Guardian)
9. Sept. 7, Jeb Bush puts the FL National Guard on alert. (MyFlorida.com, WorldNetDaily)
10. FEMA rescuer says he was deployed to NYC night before 9/11. (CBS video)
11. FEMA was scheduled to participate in an attack drill in NYC the day after 9/11. (9/11 Commission, NYC.gov)
12. Sept. 11, Fort Belvoir near the Pentagon was conducting an exercise to test the security at the base in case of a terrorist attack. (Connection Newspapers)
13. Sept 11, an airport emergency operations exercise is being conducted at Fort Myer, a mile from the Pentagon. (MDW, DC Military)
PRIOR KNOWLEDGE...
14. Attorney General John Ashcroft stops flying commercial aircrafts three months before 9/11. (CBS)
15. Sept. 3, author Salman Rushdie given US air ban. (Ananova)
16. Sept. 4, an Israeli owned shipping company moves out of the WTC. (Virginian-Pilot, Real Estate Weekly)
17. Sept. 8, Marine Aviation group moves further away from where explosion at the Pentagon will happen. (Leatherneck)
18. Sept. 10, group of top Pentagon officials canceled travel plans for next morning because of security concerns. (Newsweek)
19. San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown receives travel warning eight hours before attacks. (SF Chronicle)
20. Employees at Israeli instant messaging company received text message warnings about attacks 2 hours prior. (Haaretz, Washington Post)
21. Rumsfeld predicts terrorist attack in US 2 minutes before 1st WTC plane crash (Fayetteville Observer) and later predicts Pentagon crash minutes prior. (Telegraph)
22. White House staff given Cipro on 9/11, full month before first cases of anthrax reported. (Washington Post)
DECOYING, STAND DOWN...
23. Sept. 9, NORAD conducts operation "Northern Vigilance," planned months in advance, which deploys fighter jets to the Alaskan region. (NORAD, Toronto Star)
24. Three F-16 jetfighters from Andrews AFB, 15 miles from Pentagon, are flown 180 miles away for training mission morning of 9/11. (Aviation Week)
25. Andrews AFB, home to DC Air National Guard and Air Force 1 & 2, had no jetfighters on alert on 9/11. (Newsday, USA Today)
26. US intel agency planned exercise to simulate plane crash into government building morning of 9/11. (Boston Globe, USA Today)
27. NORAD was running war game called 'Vigilant Guardian' in which the commander in charge thought first hijacking was "part of the exercise." (Aviation Week, New York Observer)
28. FAA bans takeoffs at 9:26 am for all civilian, military, or law enforcement aircraft (FAA, Time)
29. Shootdown authorization was not communicated to NORAD until 28 minutes after Flight 93 crashed. (9/11 Commission, Seattle Post)
30. Rumsfeld, Gen. Myers confirm there were total of four wargames on 9/11 from Rep. McKinney questioning. (C-SPAN)
WTC ATTACK...
31. WTC landlord leased the entire WTC complex 6 six weeks before the attacks. (CBS, Washington Times)
32. WTC officials recently took steps to secure towers against aerial attacks by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center (Newsday)
33. Two week heightened security alert at WTC is lifted and bomb-sniffing dogs are abruptly removed days before 9/11. (Newsday)
34. Occupant in WTC says weeks before attacks they had "unusual" amount of evacuations from WTC and says he thinks "they had an inkling something was going on." (Time)
35. 6:47am, WTC 7's fire alarm is placed on an 8 hr TEST mode which any alarms received are ignored. (NIST)
36. Basement worker of North WTC North hears explosion below him, then a rumble above him, then saw severely burnt man come out of basement elevator. (CNN)
37. CEO from South WTC is invited to early morning charity event at Offutt AFB hosted by billionaire Warren Buffett and is escorted to TV by military officers and sees 2nd plane crash into her offices. (Forbes, SF Business Times)
38. A missile was reportedly launched from the Woolworth Building near the WTC. (NIST, WNBC, NY Daily)
39. Rudy Giuliani says he was told South WTC was going to collapse. (ABC)
40. WTC landlord says he gets a call from a fire chief about the WTC 7 and he recommends to him to "pull it" and after they "decided to pull," they all watched the 7 collapse. (PBS video)
41. Four WTC rescuers say they were waited around for WTC 7 to collapse. (New York Times)
42. The collapse of the 47 story WTC 7 skyscraper hardly gets any media attention. (New York Times)
43. WTC 7 becomes first steel high-rise building in history to collapse solely from an alleged fire. (Chicago Tribune, Stanford Report)
44. Passport is found belonging to alleged hijacker who's plane crashed into WTC. (CNN)
45. Company hired to help clean up Ground Zero is control demolition experts, Controlled Demolition Inc. (Waste Age)
46. FEMA report concludes specifics of WTC 7 fires and how they caused it to collapse remain unknown and call for further investigation. (FEMA)
47. WTC surveillance tapes missing. (Fort Wayne Sentinel/AP)
48. Preliminary tests show steel quality did not contribute to twin towers' collapse. (Boston Globe, Pittsburg Live)
49. Fire in 56-story Venezuelan skyscraper spreads over 26 floors and burns for over 17 hours, but does not collapse. (CBS)
50. WTC Ground Zero workers claim they helped FBI find 3 of the 4 black boxes from planes that struck WTC, contradicting official accounts that none were found. (Philadelphia Daily News)
51. WTC landlord profits over $1.5 billion from his entire WTC being destroyed. (ABC, Wall St Journal)
PENTAGON ATTACK...
52. Emergency equipment for Pentagon's emergency plane crash plans were already out of storage for inventory check before Pentagon crash. (Army)
53. Sept. 10, Pentagon medic is on the phone with FBI talking about who has command of their emergency plane crash plan. (Army)
54. Hours before crash, a Pentagon medic was studying disaster plan based on unlikely scenario of a plane crashing into building. (Washington Post)
55. Flight 77 is piloted by ex-Navy fighter pilot who worked on anti-terrorism strategies in same area of Pentagon hit by his plane and a passenger on board is an ex-Navy Admiral, jet fighter pilot, and American Airlines captain who also worked at Pentagon. (Newsday, Washington Post)
56. Flight 77's radar stops near Ohio/Kentucky border and is the only one of the four hijacked planes that wasn't able to be tracked all the way. (Flight Explorer, Washington Post)
57. Multiple fire and medical units dispatched near Pentagon minutes before crash for high-rise apt. fire that was reported out when 1st responder arrived. (Arlington County, Fire Engineering)
58. Pentagon crash happened right in the middle of the only section being renovated to bolster it against an attack which severely limited damage and loss of life. (USA Today, Army)
59. Rumsfeld announces Pentagon lost track of $2.3 trillion the day before it gets hit (CBS, DoD) attacks came near end of fiscal year & important budget information was located in the damaged area (Arlington County) large number of fatalities at Pentagon were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts (Pitt Post-Gazette)
60. Gas station and hotel's security cameras recorded Pentagon crash, but FBI arrived within minutes and confiscated films. (CNN, National Geographic)
61. Alleged Flight 77 hijacker pilot was described as a horrible pilot and wasn't on the flight manifest. (CBS, NY Times)
62. Live at Pentagon crash, CNN reporter says there's no evidence a plane crashed anywhere near the building. (CNN)
63. Boy on Flight 77 is lectured by military father about dying who subsequently takes 'rare day off' from working in same area of Pentagon that son's plane will later crash into. (MSNBC)
64. Student ID of Flight 77 hijacker reportedly found at Pentagon, still able to read his name on it. (9/11 Commission)
65. Pentagon construction worker says on Larry King Live that plane that hit Pentagon had 'fewer engines' than the other 9/11 planes. (CNN)
PENNSYLVANIA CRASH...
66. June '01, a major terrorist exercise (Mall Strike 2001) is conducted in a PA county next to the one where Flight 93 crashes. (FEMA, PittsburgLive)
67. Flight 93 reportedly lands at a Cleveland airport, adjacent to NASA Glenn Research Ctr, due to a bomb scare after a man over Flight 93's intercom says a bomb is on board and the plane will be "returning to the airport" at about the time it is flying over Cleveland. (WCPO-TV, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
68. Rumsfeld says Flight 93 was shot down in speech. (CNN)

ALLOWING IT TO HAPPEN...
69. '94, US intel warned that terrorists might attack US using airplanes as weapons (CNN, CBS) and was warned in '95 of plot to hijack planes and attack the Pentagon and CIA headquarters. (CNN)
70. CIA had low-level spies inside Al Qaeda three years before attacks. (Reuters)
71. Five of the alleged 9/11 hijackers receive training at secure US military bases. (MSNBC)
72. Jan. 2000, CIA information about 2 alleged 9/11 hijackers in San Diego is squelched before reaching FBI. (LA Times)
73. US agents told to back off bin Laden's soon after Bush becomes president. (Ananova)
74. June '01, convicted terrorist provided US with specific info about a terrorist attack, some was used in Aug. 6th memo. (Newsweek)
75. June 2001, Dept. of Defense changes hijacking rules, first time since 1997. (DoD)
76. July 2001, suspected 9/11 mastermind receives US visa despite '96 terrorist indictment. (ABC)
77. Armed pilots banned 2 months before 9/11. (WorldNetDaily)
78. July '01, briefing for senior US officials warns of spectacular attacks by terrorists with little or no warnings. (CNN)
79. Aug '01, Israeli security issued urgent warning to CIA of large-scale terror attacks. (Telegraph)
80. Aug '01, Taliban warns US of huge attack from bin Laden. (BBC)
81. Aug 6, CIA memo titled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US" warns Bush of attacks and plane hijackings in the US by OBL. (ABC, FOX)
82. FAA chiefs received 52 warnings in 6 months time period before 9/11. (New York Times)
83. All 4 hijacked planes were well below normal passenger loads, averaging only 27% full. (CNN, Washington Post)
84. FBI whistle-blower says bosses ignored 9/11 warnings. (Time)
85. FBI translator Sibel Edmonds: 'I Saw Papers That Show US Knew al-Qaida Would Attack Cities With Airplanes' (Independent UK)
86. 9/11 Commission Chairman: 'Attack Was Preventable.' (CBS)
COVER-UP...
87. Ari Fleischer claims that Bush received no warnings about the attacks. (White House)
88. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani bans all video and photography at Ground Zero. (Boston Globe)
89. President Bush (White House), Gen. Richard Myers (DoD), Condoleezza Rice (CBS), Sect. Mineta and some NORAD officials all deny anybody was aware of the idea that terrorists would use airplanes as weapons. (Seattle Post)
90. Five months after 9/11, Pentagon security photos of crash are released, but Pentagon says gov't didn't 'officially' release them. (CNN)
91. Bush Administration oppose a 9/11 investigation. (CBS)
92. Bush names former Henry Kissinger to head 9/11 investigations. (CNN, CBS)
93. Bush names Homeland Security Project Co-Chair who has business link to husband of OBL's sister to head 9/11 panel. (Fortune)
94. 9/11 investigations get only $3 million budget and 16 month time frame. (Washington Times)
95. White House refuses to release 900-page Sept. 11 congressional report. (Miami Herald)
96. 9/11 panel criticizes Defense, Justice dept's for not cooperating fully and CIA, FBI for intimidating witnesses. (ABC, Guardian)
97. White House, CIA kept key portions of 9/11 report classified dealing with Saudi Arabia and reject Saudi requests to declassify. (Washington Post, Reuters)
98. 9/11 Commission has to interview two of it's own members about attacks. (UPI)
99. Bush and Speaker Hastert oppose granting more time for 9/11 Commission. (Washington Post)
100. Bush Admin gags Sibel Edmonds from speaking to 9/11 Commission about attack foreknowledge. (Independent UK)
101. Bush, Cheney meet together behind closed doors with 9/11 Commission without recorders, stenographer, or being under oath. (CNN)
102. FAA manager mangled, cut, and destroyed 9/11 tapes. (Washington Post)
103. 9/11 report shows much of common wisdom about 9/11 was wrong. (9/11 Commission, Straights Times)
104. Alleged 9/11 mastermind and 10 other Al Qaeda suspects "missing" in US custody. (San Jose Mercury)
105. NORAD takes their 9/11 response timeline off website after US Senator accuses them and FAA of lying. (NORAD, Star Tribune)
106. Inquiry begins about unreleased 9/11 report about civilian, military response timeline and will stay unreleased until after elections. (NY Times)
107. Alleged 9/11 hijacker rented room from FBI informant, FBI covered fact up. (Village Voice)
108. Box cutters weren't allowed pre-9/11 by airlines industry. (9/11 Commission, CBS)
CULPRITS...
109. Of the 18 PNAC members who urged the US to remove Saddam in '98, 10 will be in the new Bush Admin. (ABC)
110. Sept. 10, Former Pres. and ex-CIA dir. Bush Sr. met with Osama's brother at Carlyle Group meeting in D.C. (Washington Post) and is at the White House morning of attacks. (CBS)
111. Sen. Graham, Rep. Goss, and other US Intel committee members have meeting morning of 9/11 with Paki ISI director who had authorized $100,000 wire transfer to Atta. (Wall St Journal, Washington Post)
112. Elite Israeli military commando who understands Arabic is seated near all hijackers on Flight 11. (WorldNetDaily)
113. Bush twice says he saw WTC plane crash live on TV at Booker Elementary. (Boston Herald, White House)
114. Bush proceeds with scheduled reading event after Rice tells him a commercial plane hit the WTC. (9/11 Commission)
115. Chief of Staff Card whispers to Bush about 2nd WTC crash and says 'America is under attack' and immediately leaves without seeing if Bush would respond. (Boston Herald)
116. After being told of attacks, Bush picks up book and reads with kids for 11 mins and after finishing, takes a few questions from kids before leaving. (FOX, St. Petersburg Times)
117. Bush gives speech at school exactly the same time he was scheduled to make speech there day before. (Federal News Service)
118. Solicitor Gen. Ted Olson--who has admitted the US gov't lies and helped stopped FL recount that sealed '00 Bush win--claims wife Barbara called him collect from Flight 77 twice and is sole source that hijackers used box cutters. (9/11 Commission, MSNBC, USA Today)
119. Israeli spies caught celebrating while filming themselves with WTC burning in background and later arrested and found with boxcutters, multiple foreign passports, maps linking them to the attack, explosives detected, and large amount of cash in their white van (ABC, The Forward, Bergen Record)
120. Sept. 6, large put options placed on United, American Airlines, Boeing and some purchases made through bank which used to be headed by Exec. CIA Director Buzzy Krongard. (Chicago Tribune, SF Chronicle)
121. Bush is never evacuated by Secret Service from School. (Globe & Mail)
122. Air Force Gen. Myers claims was never informed 2nd WTC crash and only became aware of it about same time Pentagon hit. (DoD)
123. Former Israeli PM Netanyahu is asked what 9/11 attacks meant Israeli/US relations and he replies "It's very good." (CBS)
124. Bush Admin allows Bin Laden family and top Saudi officials to evacuated from US before general public flight restrictions were lifted. (NY Times, Tampa Tribune)
125. Bush signs Airline Transportation Stabilization Act which if 9/11 victim's families except, they can't sue airlines or US gov't for any reason. (Gurdian, LA Times)
126. Rumsfeld says in a magazine interview that Pentagon was hit by a "missile." (DoD)
127. Bush refers to 9/11 as "an interesting day." (White House)
128. Madrid bombings happen exactly 911 days after 9/11. (News 24, Snopes.com)
MOTIVES...
129. 1998, PNAC calls for a war in Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein who they say threatens Israel and the world's oil supply. (ABC, PNAC)
130. Sept. 2000, PNAC calls to increase US defense budget, but says won't happen absent a catastrophic event like a "new Pearl Harbor." (ABC, PNAC)
131. Sept. 5, Rumsfeld asks the Senate to approve new '02 defense budget which has largest spending increase since the mid 80's. (DoD)
132. Council on Foreign Relation member Gary Hart says 9/11 attacks is chance for Bush to carry out a "new world order." (CFR)
133. Only 1 1/2 months after 9/11, the 342 page USA PATRIOT ACT is signed into law. (White House)
134. Dept. of Homeland Security is created to lead the fight against domestic terrorism. (CBS)
135. Poll Cites GOP Gains Since 9/11. (Washington Post)
Afghanistan
136. 1997, Taleban are in Texas for talks with Unocal about an Afghan pipeline (BBC); Feb '98, Unocal rep testifies before congress that an Afghan pipeline can't happen without a single stable Afghan gov't and asks the US to use it's influence to end conflicts there (US House of Reps); Aug. '98, Unocal suspends Afghan pipeline activities because of deteriorating political conditions there (Unocal), then drops out of Afghan pipeline consortium in Dec '98. (Unocal)
137. 1999, US paid entire annual salary of Taliban gov'tl in hopes to secure a stable Afghan gov't to allow US companies to build a pipeline there to connect to the Caspian Sea. (SF Chronicle)
138. July 2000, Taliban bans cultivation of opium poppies in Afghanistan. (BBC)
139. May 2001, US gives $43 million to Afghanistan and becomes their largest donor two years in a row. (CNN)
140. July 2001, US plans an attack on OBL and the Taliban. (BBC, Guardian)
141. U.S. OK’d a plan the day before 9/11 to topple the Taliban and expel OBL. (MSNBC)
142. Dec. 2002, Afghan gas pipeline deal signed. (BBC, SF Chronicle)
143. By 2005, Afghanistan opium production surges. (USA Today)
Iraq
143. Bush had pre-9/11 Iraq war plan according to Treasury Dept memo (CNN), Bush made plans for ousting Saddam and for Iraq's oil before 9/11 (BBC)
144. Barely 5 hrs after the Pentagon crash, Rumsfeld begins strike plans against Iraq. (CBS)
145. Bush admin was warned statements that Iraq trained Al Qaeda in weapon making was fabricated, yet they would later use same statements as foundation for military action in Iraq (NY Times, AFP), poll later finds 70% Americans believe Saddam-9/11 link (CNN, White House), Downing Street Memo warned Saddam not a threat and US fixed intel around their war policy (London Times, Washington Post), CIA report later concludes no WMD's in Iraq as Bush used to help justify war (CNN, BBC)
146. White House officials say privately 9/11 was main reason for war in Iraq (ABC), Bush says US is in Iraq because of 9/11 attacks. (CNN, White House)
PATSIES...
148. July '01, OBL wanted by US since '98, undergoes medical treatment at the American Hospital in Dubai and is met by the local CIA chief. (Guradian)
149. May '01, several alleged jackers seen at Vegas Strip clubs (SF Chronicle); Sept. 7, Atta seen 'wasted' at FL bar. (St. Petersburg Times); Sept. 10, Atta and two Arab men spew anti-American sentiments at FL strip club, spend hundreds on drinks and lap dances, and copy of Quran and business card are left behind. (USA Today)
150. Sept. 10, OBL undergoes kidney dialysis at Pakistani military hospital in which a "secret team" replaces regular urology staff. (CBS)
151. CIA says 1st WTC plane crash was an attack and Dir. Tenet blames OBL for attacks even before 2nd plane crashes (ABC) and the US is claiming Osama bin Laden is behind the attacks before the day is over. (ABC, The Post)
152. Taliban rulers condemn attacks and says Bin Laden didn't have the means to carry out such well-orchestrated attacks. (TCM News)
153. 7 of alleged 19 hijackers are reported alive, FBI Director admits some identities are in doubt. (BBC, LA Times)
154. Hijacker remains from Flight 77, 93 hijackers were identified at same military base and by a "process of elimination." (CBS)
155. Dec 2001, Osama bin Laden reportedly dies. (FOX, Mirror UK, NY Times)
156. Dec 2001, Pentagon releases poor quality video showing 'OBL' bragging about attacks, but is seen writing with right hand which FBI says he's left-handed, wearing a gold ring and watch which are forbidden in Islam, and Bush Admin uses this video to vindicate US invading Afghan. (USA Today, FBI)
157. Video of OBL admitting to attacks is released 4 days before '04 election and gives Bush a boost in polls. (ABC, NY Daily News, Zogby)
158. Secret FBI report doubts Al Qaeda can stage another 9/11-type attack and says it knows of no sleeper cells in US. (ABC)
159. Mohammed Atta's father says Atta called him on the phone on Sept. 12. (Guardian)

I would bring up the post-9/11 London Bombers, who were captured via good police work.

The SLA and Weathermen were stopped by police work. The Red Brigade and Baader-Meinhof were stopped by police work. The IRA was not stopped by police work. England selected a military solution to stopping the IRA, which prolonged the conflict for decades, and also led to extreme civil rights violations.

The neo-conmen will solve their bad apple problem by compelling Rumsfeld to sign a false confession of innocence.

In Scalia's dissent in the recent habeas case, he says something like "We are at war with Islamic extremists" and lists a number of overseas attacks starting with the Marine barracks in Lebanon early in the Reagan administration. He then says something to the effect that "on September 11, 2001, the enemy brought the conflict to these shores." I wondered why he had left out the first attack on the World Trade Center. At first I thought he might have forgotten it; then I thought that it might have ruined his rhetorical flourish. But then I realized that he left it out because to remind his readers of that case would remind them that everyone involved in that attack had been arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced, with full due process including the right to bring habeas corpus actions. That would have undercut his whole argument. So best just to forget about it, and hope that his readers forget about it too.

No, the September 10th mindset, still mostly adhered to, is that we can be the largest consumers of the world's most important natural resource, and effect the extraction of that resource in the region where it is most readily available, via paying off whatever thugs keep the population of that region under their boots, without becoming a party to the internecine conflicts within that region. When that fantasy fails, it is often replaced with one which supposes that greatly reducing the centrality of that natural resource to the global, and our national, economy, is something other than a long, long, drawn-out process.

It is shameful that in 2008 our would-be political leaders still encourage the electorate to pursue these fantasies. The discouraging thing is that our next President is likely to take to heart what happened to George Bush's popularity as the price at the pump soared, and thus decide to pursue some aspect of the status quo that prevailed for most of the 20th century. Frankly, if the U.S. is to extricate itself from the conflicts of the region, the price of gasoline needs to get a lot more expensive, but what occupant of the Oval Office is going to look at what happened to the Carter and W. Bush Administrations, and decide to risk that? Look for more kissing of Saudi hind ends, no matter what happens come November.

I know what you mean about naive military bluster. One candidate was even naive enough to say:

"You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance."

Obviously, the candidate who said this is ignorant of the problems of asymmetrical warfare and has too much American bravado. Wouldn't you all agree he should not be let anywhere near the Presidency.

As brojo noted above, this question has been answered by the British experience in combating the IRA, or the French, Italian, and German experiences. Authorities in all of those countries have all concluded that the police approach is effective and that the Cheneypath approach is not.

" "
Posted by: on June 17, 2008 at 2:17 PM

Man you really need to cut back on the psychotropics no-name. Should we call Nurse
Ratched for you?

There really aren't that many 'lessons of September 11.' But there's a lot of lessons to be learned from the U.S. response to 9/11.

All we've done is get ourselves embedded in two wars that were both 'won' years ago, but that we can't manage to extract ourselves from now. Oh yeah, and we've tortured a bunch of people, some fatally. And so forth.

Done us a lot of good, hasn't it?

Comparing Baader-Meinhoff, Red Brigades, or even the IRA to being entwined in the conflicts of the Middle East is really pointless. The situations are not the least bit analagous.

I would bring up the post-9/11 London Bombers, who were captured via good police work.

Posted by: ed on June 17, 2008 at 2:17 PM

Not good enough for the 52 persons who were killed and more than 700 wounded because the "good police work" they did failed to prevent the attack from happening. Which is the inherent weakness in any strategy that treats Islamic terrorism as a crime that can be effectively dealt with in the civilian court system, which is intended and designed to punish lawbreakers after the fact.

Prior to them murdering the aircrews and crashing the planes into the World Trade Center what "crimes" had Atta and the others done that would have justified arresting and putting them into prison without bail so as to prevent what happened on 9-11? Overstaying their tourists' visas is the only illegal thing that I can think of them doing prior to their actions on that morning?

What say you Kevin? How would following Obama's proposed strategy prevented 9-11?

"asymmetrical warfare"

You need to look that phrase up champ. It would include police work.

FAIL

As long as we are going to bring up really stupid ways of thinking, what are the odds of either Obama or McCain noting that our idiotic War on Drugs is one of the largest impediments to having a good outcome in Afghanistan?

One thing is that the whole Republican line on this is just ridiculous. When Bush was doing this to Kerry, Bush said that it wasn't enough to "serve legal papers on the terrorists" in response to when John Kerry said the fight against terrorism was more about intelligence and law enforcement than it is about using the military. But of course John Kerry wasn't saying that we were going to just send people legal papers to the terrorists and hope the terrorists stop. When the FBI or any cops go after any criminals who are nearly as dangerous as a terrorist, they arrest them first. So if you read Bush's line as being about what's safest to protect us, well, the law enforcement approach is just as safe as the military approach-- it gets the terrorists off the streets. And anyway, if our law enforcement (or another country's law enforcement agencies who were working with us and our cops) needed the military to help them arrest someone for some reason, of course the US military would be able to help out with that. If Bush wasn't arguing about what approach was safer for America, then what he was really arguing for was lynching and vigilante justice, which is not what most Americans would have understood him to be saying, and not what most Americans want. So Bush was (and now John McCain is) just being deceptive.

Remember it was John McCain who just a while ago was one of the people criticizing Barack Obama for saying he would support military operations inside Pakistan to get terrorists, with or without the Pakistani government's approval! Yet that line easily could have come from a Republican. They change what they say and their criticisms just to make themselves look good, not based on truth in any way.

Tim ( the Other One )

The point was who said the quote. If you don't know. Look it up.

Swan, what is worse, a candidate who changes what he says, or one that actually states that he would mount a small invasion of a very unstable country with nuclear weapons?

Obviously, the candidate who said this is ignorant of the problems of asymmetrical warfare ...

Nowhere does the quote refer to asymmetrical warfare. The "argument from silence" is a logical fallacy.

FAIL.
.

Maybe Barack Obama IS thinking like it's September 10th - September 10, 2008. But McCain is stuck in time. Which one is naive and dillusional here?

Josh Marshall points out that one of the guys calling Obama "naive" for McCain was a lobbyist for Ahmed Chalabi. Talk about naive -- or evil.

Anyway, I don't see what these guys think is the alternative to good police work. Torture every Muslim everywhere until somebody confesses? Come on.

How about we compare McCain's 9/11/01 mindset with Obama's mindset rooted in the present day (or 9/11/08 if you allow some poetic license)?

"You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance."

I politely disagree with your assessment GMT. The very essence of this quote is the stupid bluster that since we outspend Iran on military, we should easily defeat them. Yes we could easily defeat the country of Iran in a test of who had the most bombs and who had the most planes. But, as wikipedia says,

"Asymmetric warfare originally referred to war between two or more actors or groups whose relative military power differs significantly. Contemporary military thinkers tend to broaden this to include asymmetry of strategy or tactics; today "asymmetric warfare" can describe a conflict in which the resources of two belligerents differ in essence and in the struggle, interact and attempt to exploit each other's characteristic weaknesses. Such struggles often involve strategies and tactics of unconventional warfare, the "weaker" combatants attempting to use strategy to offset deficiencies in quantity or quality."

The very reason the statement is so dumb is because of the existence of asymmetrical warfare. BTW - do you know yet who said this stupid statement?

To paraphrase Homer Simpson, "We haven't learned a thing."

Prior to them murdering the aircrews and crashing the planes into the World Trade Center what "crimes" had Atta and the others done that would have justified arresting and putting them into prison ...? ... How would following Obama's proposed strategy prevented 9-11? Chicounsel

You, my dear young person, are an idiot. Have you never heard of conspiracy, in this case conspiracy to commit murder or terrorism? Had the Bush administration, and the FBI under its control, simply followed leads that they had and that agents were urging that they follow (which is simple police work), they would have discovered the conspiracy, arrested the conspirators, convicted them in courts of law, and saved us a great tragedy. (Since then the government has brought numerous conspiracy cases against those who were plotting additional acts of violence, well before they committed other crimes.) I do not see how there was any other way that the WTC attacks could have been avoided. What was the "military" solution in that case? To invade Iraq, which Bush was already contemplating? No, police work would have done it, but Bush and his administration ignored the warnings.

This once again shows the shallowness of the thinking of conservatives. They assume, without knowing much, that war is the answer. The hell with that. The hell with their ignorance.

Let's look at this strictly from the standpoint of campaign tactics.

First, the response to the argument Kevin is making is that reliance on police work, treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter, is what preceeded 9/11. No more than any other national Democratic politician does Sen. Obama and his campaign want to have to deal with that, for while it's a response that leaves President Bush open to criticism it is also consistent with many critiques made of the Clinton administration's record on terrorism, critiques made by, among others, Richard Clarke. In the second place, and just as obviously, the only reason we and NATO has an army in Afghanistan is to fight terrorism, and Obama isn't proposing to walk away from that effort.

Just in the context of the campaign, what is the real weakness in the position Sen. McCain has taken on this subject and the language he is using to take it? The weakness is that it is President Bush's position, and President Bush's language. McCain's campaign is even employing some people who previously worked for President Bush. He's also desperately trying to create the appearance of distance between his campaign and a President who is wildly unpopular among the voters McCain needs to make this election competitive -- a long shot effort even if Obama's campaign did nothing to oppose it.

In Obama's position, I'd oppose it. The correct response to a charge that Obama is taking a naive approach to terrorism is a countercharge that McCain's position is based on his loyalty to Bush, and on the similar loyalty of the people working for him. There's nothing subtle about this approach, and much as I regret this it isn't terribly sophisticated as far as the substance of policy is concerned. If you're running against a Republican candidate when the incumbent Republican President has nearly 70% disapproval ratings, you place the two together every chance you get -- ideally, not with stylized stump speech rhetoric about Bush's "failed policies" but in highly personal terms. Your objective is twofold. One is to put McCain in a position where he is under pressure to either emphasize his differences from Bush (thereby alienating Bush's remaining Republican admirers) or defend him (thereby alienating everyone else).

The second is to generate responses from the White House itself. On this particular issue it should be possible to do this; the resort to abusive interrogation techniques in the early years after 9/11 can be attributed not to Bush administration tough-mindedness but to panic. Bush and Cheney let themselves be caught napping on 9/11, and rather than admit their error lurched into all manner of abuses from interrogation practices to wiretapping, and the product of their panic is what McCain, out of loyalty to Bush, is defending now. Bush has a history of resenting personal criticism and of showing his resentment, and if he can be provoked into attacking something Obama has said, McCain is toast. Once again -- really, this kills me -- this is not a subtle or sophisticated line to take as far as policy substance is concerned. We're talking about a campaign, though, in which the Democratic candidate is going to do a lot better if he runs against George Bush than he will if he only runs against John McCain.

And I don't get that smarmy John Hansen either. He's about as ignorant as Chicounsel. If Iran engaged in warfare against the United States, assymetrical or otherwise, its leaders would end up where Saddam Hussein has. And Iran would end up where Iraq has. And Iran knows that. Do you disagree?

The natural retort, it seems to me, is to call McCain, neocons, etc out on their "pre-iraq mindset".

By the way, does the name "Chicounsel" mean that that person is an actual lawyer? If so, don't hire him/her, at least not for criminal work. I can hear his/her advice now: "You guys can plan all the terrorist acts you want, and take steps to carry the plan out, and the government can't touch you!" Back to first-year law, Chicounsel.

Comparing Baader-Meinhoff, Red Brigades, or even the IRA to being entwined in the conflicts of the Middle East

The conflicts in the Middle East are resistances to occupations by foreign imperial forces. Police work is not being suggested as a strategy to combat insurgencies. The best way to combat the insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq would be to withdraw the imperial troops and try the president for war crimes. Then pay the offended Afghans and Iraqis lots in reparations.

The best way to deal with domestic terrorist violence is with police work, which is how the British should have dealt with the IRA. The terrorist threats from the Weather Underground, SLA, Red Brigade and Baader-Meinhoff were extinguished with police work, while the militarized IRA conflict lasted decades.

Iran poses no threat to the US, asymmetric or otherwise. It is the US who threatens Iran's sovereignty, in every way, including nuclear annihilation. If the US should attack Iran, it will be the end of US prosperity and democracy.

Actually the bomb builder from the 1993 WTC bombing, Abdul Rahman Yasin got away.

Yasin is on the FBI's list of 22 most-wanted terrorist fugitives; there is a $25 million reward for his capture.

Yet another Obama gaffe!

mhr: the first plot against the world trade center was hatched just across the river from Manhattan.

Damn! I don't want to invade Hoboken! Secaucus, maybe?

Although following GWB's logic, if we were attacked by terrists from NJ we ought to be in Maryland.

David, you may not be aware, but Iran is waging war on American military forces at this very time. The U.S. does not respond because the cost of responding would outweigh any benefits gained. The question regarding Iran gaining nuclear weapons are at least twofold: 1) Is Iran stable enough politically to guarantee that whatever nuclear weapons they have will not fall under control of a faction that is not sensitive to traditional nuclear deterrence due to their being possessed of some sort of apocalyptic theocratic vision? 2)At what point does traditional deterence fail, due to their being too many actors in possession of nuclear weapons, thus decimating predictability?

I tend to think the answer to question 1 is "yes", although I certainly can't be sure, and if I was an Israeli living in Tel Aviv, I might be rather less sure. The answer to question 2 is certainly "I don't know", although with a caveat. At some point, once enough nations acquire such weapons, especially nations in unstable, conflict ridden regions, deterrence will certainly fail eventually. The fact that I doubt that Iran's acquisition of such weapons wold be the tipping point isn't especially comforting.

mhr accusing anyone of lacking brains and/or guts is like a whore accusing anyone of being unchaste.

Will Allen at 2:56: I don't remember that Obama said anything about a nuclear attack, and I think you are wrong that he said that. If that's what he said, please provide a link. I think he just said "a missile attack," not a nuclear attack. Since the terrorists don't really have the resources to build hardened bunkers that are some kind of command centers that we need to hit with nuclear weapons to save lives, I think it is really unlikely that Barack said that. You are lying.

Second, it is not a matter of Republicans just changing what they said. They make this a way of doing business- they do it to deceive people, not just to correct a mistake or to refine a point. In our civilization, political leaders are supposed to serve people, not deceive them. Also, it is a symptom of more that is wrong with them. The fact that they treat us this way shows that they are just out for their own narrowly selfish interests, and don't care about policy that helps the people of our country. If they had better character, they would be more honest, and wouldn't have so much reason to lie. Finally, look at the things they lie about!! Those Republicans are really screwing us, including screwing many of their most dedicated supporters, who are like dumb dogs who get kicked in the head by their abusive masters every day, but keep snuggling up to the masters and coming back for more abuse.

Will A., thanks for your response. Do you think Iran has nuclear arms at this point? That seems to be the premise of what you say. I'm dubious.

Brojo, the 1993 and 2001 bombings were not domestic terrorist violence, nor were they a response to foreign occupation. The Khobar Towers bombing in Sunni Saudi Arabia, with Iranian and Lebanese Shia sponsorship, was not a response to foreign occupation. The occupation of Afghanistan was a direct result of the recognized goverment of Afghanistan giving safe harbor to the entity which killed 3000 people on American soil. The people of Iraq should be given the opportunity in their upcoming elections to state whether they want American forces to leave immediately. There is nothing you have written in your post which actually responds to something in the post I wrote.

Let's Fisk this bucket of slop.

Liberals looked benignly on such as Abdul Rachman, the blind guy who planned the operation and would have fought any plan to spy on a church and its members- liberals get religion when it protects enemies of the US.
Fuck you asshole, you do not speak for me or any other Liberal so don't malign our patriotism or I'll hunt you down and teach you some respect. The CIA refused to share its information with the FBI so they could make the arrest. It is still a mystery as to why, although looking at the political views of the senior memebers of the agency, you can't blame it on the 'libtards'. You frikken partizan idiot.

After the operation one of the bombers fled to Hussein's Iraq -which, according to liberals -had no connection with terrorists.
After the fact, not so much, he fled for sanctuary you moron. Let me explain it in terms you can understand, nuking Iraq off the face of the earth in 1997 would not have stopped 9/11. All the planing and financing took place elsewhere. Do you understand you dumb dink?

Clinton thought so little about the bombing that he never bothered to visit the site.
Yeah, why don't you go smack up Ken Starr for distracting America's Commander in Chief at a time of extreme danger. You arrogant ass.

And when he had the chance to kill bin Ladin did not do so because he didn't want anyone to get hurt.
Wrong you god damn liar. How many cruise missiles did Clinton launch into Afghanistan to kill Osama Bin Laden? A hell of a lot more than Bush launched between Jan 20 2001 and Sept 10 2001. He was too busy on vacation to care. You Stupid Lying Ass.

Weak-kneed liberals like Clinton and Obama have no few brains and are short on guts.
Posted by: mhr on June 17, 2008 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Come a little closer to my fist so I can hand you your guts on a platter you brainless keyboard commando coward.

Swan, I never wrote anything about a "nuclear attack". You are lying. I said Obama proposed a small invasion of a politically unstable country with nuclear weapons. He has, and if he's even halfway serious, he is a lunatic.

By the way, that Yasin story that Everett mentions is truly fascinating if Wikipedia has it right:

"Soon following investigation of the attack on Feb. 26, 1993, Yasin was picked up by the FBI on March 4, 1993, the same day as the arrest of Mohammed A. Salameh, in a sweep of sites associated with Salameh. Yasin was found in the apartment in Jersey City, New Jersey, that he was sharing with his mother.[3]

"Yasin was taken to New Jersey FBI headquarters in Newark, where he was reportedly very cool and cooperative. Agents had Yasin retrace where and how the WTC bomb had been built in New York and New Jersey.

"One of seven men indicted for 1993 WTC attack, with full knowledge and approval of US Attorneys involved in the case, Yasin was set free and encouraged to leave the US.

"Yasin said he was released after giving agents names and addresses, and went to Iraq."

Yasin is apparently the only actual Iraq-9/11 link, and we seem to have sent him there. I am very confused.

Get it out of the way and call me Anti-Senitic but I don't think US national security concerns are Israel's siamese twin. Maybe it's because I don't live in Tel Aviv and I've seen Israeli forces in action.

Also, to appropriate a common phrase in a more useful context; how about we leave all deterrents "on the table" ?

Correction of above: "Yasin is apparently the only potential Iraq-al-Qaeda link, ..."

Not clear there is any "actual" link.

And I think Will Allen is sort of twisting what Obama said.

Oh, no, David, I don't think Iran has such weapons yet. I think their current government is very determined to acquire them, and very likely will.

"nor were they a response to foreign occupation."

epically incorrect. They were (in part) a response to the US military presence in Saudi Arabia .

I for one would welcome returning to that dirty old "pre-9/11 mindset". It would mean returning to a time before this administration lost its fucking mind.

"Obviously, the candidate who said this is ignorant of the problems of asymmetrical warfare and has too much American bravado."

Not obviously, but you are obviously ignorant of the problems posed by nuclear warfare to Iran.

Maybe you're right, Will. I mean, the Israelis have nukes and seem to view Iran as enemy #1, so Iran has some incentive to get them. On the other hand, they could have incentives not to if we were not encouraging the Israelis and worked on such incentives.

Well, Tim, every place American military personnel are present overseas does not entail an "occupation", unless you wish to say that, for instance, the U.S. still occupies Japan. Your understanding of the language is epically incorrect.

David, I haven't twisted anything said by Obama. The quote....

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said, "but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Obama is stating he will mount a small invasion of an unstable nation equipped with nuclear weapons. That's plain nuts.

"Your understanding of the language is epically incorrect."

My understanding is not the point. It's the interpretation by Bin Laden and his followers that matters vis-a-vis their reasons/motives for attacking us. I believe they're the ones that would consider our presence an occupation. Get it ?

we get the standard talking point reaction from the McCain team. You know the drill: naive, September 10th mindset, etc. etc. All the usual dumb little campaign comments.

It's worse than that, Kevin. By echoing Bush's dishonest rhetoric, McCain is pissing on the law enforcement and intelligence personnel who have protected this nation from terror.

Clinton thought so little about the bombing that he never bothered to visit the site.

Too busy arresting, trying, convicting, and imprisoning those responsible, all in eighteen months, I guess.

And when he had the chance to kill bin Ladin did not do so because he didn't want anyone to get hurt.

Assumes bullshit not in evidence.
.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801
Aug. 1, 2007

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

Geez, it was hard work to find out that Obama didn't say anything about attacking the Taliban with nuclear weapons. It took me about 30 whole seconds to Google the quote. Maybe I'm ready to be President.

Tim, words have meaning. Brojo asserted that foreign occupation was the source of conflicts in the Middle East. The U.S. does not "occupy" Saudi Arabia, no matter what Bin Laden claims. Furthermore, there is strong evidence that Khobar was largely, if not entirely, a Hezbollah, not Al Queda operation.

Obama is stating he will mount a small invasion of an unstable nation equipped with nuclear weapons. That's plain nuts.

You think?
.

cowalker, I never said Obama asserted he would employ nuclear weapons.

Maybe I'm ready to be President.

By Republican standards, you're already a fucking doge.
.

"Tim, words have meaning"

You didn't just bust out the "words have meaning" cliche did you ?

Yes, Texan, I think promising to mount small invasions of unstable countries with nuclear weapons is crazy. I can only hope your question was ironic.

You didn't just bust out the "words have meaning" cliche did you ?

Cliches have meaning, too.

But jeepers, kids. Are we really wasting brain cells responding to MHR?

Well, Tim, since this truth has apparently escaped you, it became necessary.

Brojo, the 1993 and 2001 bombings were not domestic terrorist violence, nor were they a response to foreign occupation.

Maybe you should tell bin Laden that:

Although India is the only recognised enemy in the region, in reality the true enemies are the Christian and Jewish allies led by the US who occupy Saudi Arabia, and Israel which violates our holy places.

- Osama bin Laden, May 29 1998

Well, Tim, since this truth has apparently escaped you ...

Don't look down, dumbass.
.

I can only hope your question was ironic.

No, just informed.
.

Texan, Bin Laden can claim that the airplane crashers were serviced by 72 virgins in the hereafter. That dosn't make it true. Brojo made the same false assertion Bin Laden did. That doesn't make Brojo's assertion accurate. If Brojo had claimed that the 1993 and 2001 attacks were made by people who falsely claimed that Saudi Arabia was occupied by American military forces, I wouldn't have written what I did. That isn't what Brojo wrote.

Will Allen wrote: "David, you may not be aware, but Iran is waging war on American military forces at this very time."

What is your evidence for that assertion?

Although following GWB's logic, if we were attacked by terrists from NJ we ought to be in Maryland.

Posted by: thersites the peace troll

Well Maryland is a good choice because that is where Norman resides in the winter months. And no doubt John Hansen visits on a regular basis, so maybe a single attack could kill 2 birds with one stone.

Texan, Bin Laden can claim that the airplane crashers were serviced by 72 virgins in the hereafter. That dosn't make it true.

No, but I expect that he knows why he did what he did, dumbass. If you don't know what outrage was produced among Islamists by the US mobilization for the first Gulf War, your ignorance isn't my problem.

Once again, you wrote:

Brojo, the 1993 and 2001 bombings were not domestic terrorist violence, nor were they a response to foreign occupation.

The mastermind of the 2001 bombings says they were in response to the occupation of Saudi Arabia. Your word was "response." You were wrong.
.

SA, I really have to go, but if you wish to dispute the assertion that Iranian arms, and possibly personnel have been used to attack American military personnel in Iraq, well, we will disagree, but I'll try to get back later with some links.

Texan, I didn't say Bush did not entertain similarly silly notions, although my quick scan of your link didn't appear to me to contain any statement by Gates that he would approve such an "incursion" without cooperation with the Pakistani government.

As long as we are going to bring up really stupid ways of thinking, what are the odds of either Obama or McCain noting that our idiotic War on Drugs is one of the largest impediments to having a good outcome in Afghanistan?

Nil. So you should definitely vote for Bob Barr. But you're going to vote for McCain.

Will Allen: the fact that we have already attacked inside Pakistan without such cooperation makes your objection tendentious, at best.

As for the other guy:

BTW - do you know yet who said this stupid statement?

Do you mean the statement as written, or the statement as you are abusing it?

Do I have to give a shit first?
.

Texan, if Bin laden makes a factually false claim, namely that the U.S. occupies Saudi Arabia, then it is factually false to assert that the attack was a response to occupation by American forces, since there is no such occupation.

You neither grasp language or logic, do you? If Bin Laden said the attacks were in response to B-52s dropping pornography on Mecca, that would still mean it would be false to say that the attacks were in response to pornography drops on Mecca, because such drops didn't take place. Sheesh, I had no idea you were this mentally deficient.

Will Allen wrote: "... if you wish to dispute the assertion that Iranian arms, and possibly personnel have been used to attack American military personnel in Iraq ..."

I would just like to see some actual evidence of this, other than the unsupported claims of Bush administration and US military officials that it is so.

Will Allen, thanks for the clarification, but your original comment about nuclear weapons was too ambiguous and easy to read as claiming Barack wanted to fire our nukes.

Anyway, Barack is not a lunatic for wanting to do (non-nuclear) ops in Pakistan. What's loony is thinking that Pakistan would bring a shit-storm down on itself by throwing a temper-tantrum and firing one of its nukes at a target within its range (India, I guess) just because we scooped up some terrorists there. Pakistan, despite being "unstable," is not dumb enough to do something like that any more than we are to do the same thing if Canada chased some terrorists across its border with us without our permission.

You are being dishonest, Will Allen.

The US, by president W. Bush's own words, is waging war in Iran with clandestine operations. From a preventive war point of view, Iran would have license to mount an attack on the US. But wars are almost never started by the weak against the strong. Usually only the strong start wars, just like the US did in Iraq and Vietnam.

Will Allen failed to mention the killing of Marines in Lebanon, occupying Marines.

The Twin Towers' bombing and the 9/11 attacks were domestic terrorist attacks because they occurred here, even if the terrorists were not citizens. Had W. Bush followed and acted upon the terrorist intelligence as intently as W. Clinton did, 9/11 probably is foiled by police work.

The conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are a result of the US occupations of those countries. The US voted to withdraw from Iraq in 2006, but we do not live in a society that is responsive to the desires of the majority. Hopefully Iraqis will have a more responsive government after they vote later this year.

Will Allen makes a very good point about Obama and his reckless announcement about attacking terrorists in Pakistan. I doubt Will Allen is going to vote for Cynthia McKinney because of it though. Will Allen prefers wars against the weak and wants America's youth to attack countries that do not possess defensive nuclear weapons and have oil.

Just so I'm up to speed...

Will Allen thinks that someone other than the 9/11 mastermind should determine what his attacks were in response to.

and John Hansen thinks we shouldn't vote for the guy who says Iran is not a threat because that "dummy" doesn't recognize the threat of asymmetric warfare but rather we should vote for the guy who is urging perpetual, disastrous "asymmetrical war" in Iraq.

Is that about right?

Dave in NY:

Yes, I'm a real lawyer but not involved in criminal law. Still, my memory of criminal law is that in order to be guilty of being a member in a conspiracy, the government must prove that the defendant agreed to take part in a plan or scheme to engage in whatever criminal activity that is the purpose of the conspiracy and that someone in the conspiracy undertook one or more overt acts that were taken in furtherance of that criminal activity.

In the context of 9-11, what would have been the overt acts that any one of the terrorists did that the government could claim to be have been done in furtherance of their plans that would have justified arresting and detaining any one of them prior to 9-11? As I stated earlier, the only illegal thing that these people had done was their overstaying of their tourists' visas. What other evidence would the government had available to it pre-911 to show that these people were a real threat?

You further state:

"Had the Bush administration, and the FBI under its control, simply followed leads that they had and that agents were urging that they follow (which is simple police work), they would have discovered the conspiracy, arrested the conspirators, convicted them in courts of law, and saved us a great tragedy."

If this were true, wouldn't it also justify Bush, as C-in-C, to simply order the military to assassinate these conspirators for being a "clear and present danger" to the national security of the United States? Would you regard such an order as being "illegal" if such evidence did exist?

SA, I really have to go, but if you wish to dispute the assertion that Iranian arms, and possibly personnel have been used to attack American military personnel in Iraq, well, we will disagree, but I'll try to get back later with some links.

I know that American arms have been used to attack American military personnel in Iraq. Does that mean that America is at war with America?

Russian and Chinese arms have also been used. Does that mean we're at war with Russia and China as well?

Dave in NY: Yes, I'm a real lawyer but not involved in criminal law. Posted by: Chicounsel

It's true. I've seen his diploma. And the piece of bubblegum he got with it. All for a nickel! Can you imagine...?

In the context of 9-11, what would have been the overt acts that any one of the terrorists did that the government could claim to be have been done in furtherance of their plans that would have justified arresting and detaining any one of them prior to 9-11? As I stated earlier, the only illegal thing that these people had done was their overstaying of their tourists' visas. What other evidence would the government had available to it pre-911 to show that these people were a real threat?

If you hadn't said it already, the above para. makes it obviously clear that you're not a criminal lawyer (plus that you seem to have slept through that class in law school). Among the ample evidence that the government had was audio and video records of the defendants' conversations and email revealing their plans to commit terrorist acts. The very fact of the actual plane hijackers travelling to the US and enrolling in flight school for the purpose of engaging in plane hijackings was itself an overt act. Buying a plane ticket for the plane they were planning to hijack was an overt act. The "overt act" threshold for criminal conspiracy is extremely low.

Moreover, their very membership in al Qaeda, an officially designated terrorist organization, was itself a criminal act, as it is illegal under federal law to be a member of a terrorist organization. Mere membership, even absent any other act, is enough to get you arrested and convicted.

Obama is stating he will mount a small invasion of an unstable nation equipped with nuclear weapons.

He's talking about a targeted attack against high-level AQ leaders, particularly OBL, not an invasion of a country you dishonest piece of shit.

We get it, you'll always find a reason not to vote for Democrats--they're just as bad as Republicans so you might as well vote for the Republican. For those who don't already know, that's Will Allen in a nutshell.

This country does need a real debate about how much liberty people are willing to sacrifice in the name of preventing terrorism.

I fly regularly for business and routinely meet people while standing in security lines who think that the TSA should be abolished even though it could potentially make it easier for terrorists to get onboard an airplane. Most note that with cockpit doors reinforced and openable only from the inside, the worst that can now happen is that terrorist could blow up a plane and kill a couple hundred people, and that horrible as that might be, it's a price they are willing to pay in order to get their freedom back.

I don't necessarily agree with that line of reasoning, but I'm hearing it a lot more often than I used. Would love to hear McCain & Obama have a serious discussion about the security vs. personal freedom conflict....

Most note that with cockpit doors reinforced and openable only from the inside, the worst that can now happen is that terrorist could blow up a plane and kill a couple hundred people, and that horrible as that might be, it's a price they are willing to pay in order to get their freedom back.

That isn't even the price they'd be willing to pay -- they recognize that the risk of a terrorist act isn't worth the loss if civil liberties, and also that TSA's so-called "protections" -- take your shoes off! -- are hardly likely to mitigate the risk in the first place.

If this were true, wouldn't it also justify Bush, as C-in-C, to simply order the military to assassinate these conspirators for being a "clear and present danger" to the national security of the United States? Would you regard such an order as being "illegal" if such evidence did exist?
Posted by: Chicounsel

President Reagan, through Executive Order 12333, reiterated the assassination prohibition:

2.11 No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

So, if you asked a real lawyer, or someone who can use Google, he or she could tell you the answer. As opposed to asking Chicounsel, who is probably better suited to making things out of the Play-Doh his mommy bought him for his birthday.

ckelly -

No, I think the gaffes by Obama show he really has not thought through his foreign policy positions. His clichés offered on the stump ( followed by apology/retraction and explanation that we did not quite understand the "nuance" ) continually show that although intelligent he is not very serious about foreign policy and its ramifications. This is one of the reasons, I think this man of gifted rhetoric is not ready to be the Commander in Chief.

What other evidence would the government had available to it pre-911 to show that these people were a real threat?

Hmmm, yes, what other evidence could the US government possibly have had that men like Mohammed Atta were a real threat.....

In late 1999, Atta, al-Shehhi, Jarrah, Bahaji, and Binalshibh decided to travel to Chechnya to fight against the Russians, but were convinced by Khalid al-Masri and Mohamedou Ould Slahi at the last minute to change their plans. They instead traveled to Afghanistan to meet with Osama bin Laden and train for terrorist attacks. The information above is related to intense surveillance of the Marienstrasse apartment and telephone surveillance by the CIA and the German Verfassungsschutz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta

Great post Kevin! (Better late...)

Chicounsel, do a little research. Go read a treatise on conspiracy law. And check out 18 U.S.C. § 2332. An overt act does not have to be significant. It does not have to be (as you seem to assume) ille