[itai195]

Because I don't post nearly enough threads on here, I thought I'd point out a link to an interesting article by a conservative New York Post editorial writer. I'm wondering what the various conservatives on here think about the points he raises, since they make sense to me and, surprisingly, reflect a number of my own views regarding the Bush administration.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=oQsC...gi2gnqhx%3D%3D

My favorite parts:

Yes, it is true that past presidents have taken on extraordinary wartime powers: In the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus; in World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt approved the internment of Japanese citizens. But, in both cases, there existed a defined foe. With each, there was a sense of what victory meant and over whom that victory would be won. The Union would defeat the Confederacy; America and her allies would defeat the Axis powers. Even in the cold war, the ideology of communism had a clear home in the Soviet Union. Those conflicts would end with the defined enemy surrendering, being defeated, or the motivating ideology collapsing. However long it took, the American people knew there would be some sort of definite conclusion.

But, in President Bush's vision, the terrorist enemy remains amorphous. After September 11, Osama bin Laden was wanted "dead or alive." Then, as the Iraq war developed, Saddam Hussein became the ace of spades in the terrorist card deck. Now, Abu Musab Al Zarqawi is the new face of evil. The war, we are told, will not end with any one of these men's capture or death. It will continue until ... until ... until when, exactly? Thus, the comparisons many make to previous U.S. conflicts are hardly applicable. Neither are the comparisons to decisions of previous commanders-in-chief who put aside civil liberties. For the 40 years of the cold war, the United States held off a Soviet enemy that had the power to destroy the country several times over--yet civil liberties were never curtailed to the extent they are now. In the current struggle, which some call World War IV, Americans are being asked to sacrifice liberties in the face of an enemy that has less ability to damage us than the Soviets did. This is not to minimize the threat of Islamist fundamentalism, but it is essential to put the capabilities of the enemy in perspective.

A permanent war would be dangerous enough if the public could be confident in its execution. But we cannot. That's because President Bush has failed to live up to the second key tenet of conservative government: accountability.

Take, for example, the Pentagon's disastrous planning for postwar Iraq. [...] As Bob Woodward writes in Plan of Attack, "[S]everal things were clear from the president's demeanor, his style and all that [Colin] Powell had learned about Bush. The president was not going to toss anyone over the side.... The president also made it clear that no one was to jump ship.... They were a team. The larger message was clear: Circle the wagons." The larger message is that loyalty is prized above all, regardless of the results and regardless of the effect on U.S. standing in the world.

After discussing the president's Medicare reform:

Ultimately, on both foreign and domestic policy, the public's trust has been betrayed. Why should the public trust its leaders with future policy if those leaders deceive and manipulate the people's elected representatives to get a favored policy passed? If the American public and the world at large now react skeptically to future presidential claims that the United States faces a foreign threat, who can blame them?

No, a Kerry administration would not be any conservative's ideal. But, on limited government, a Democratic president would, arguably, force a Republican Congress to act like a Republican Congress. The last such combination produced some form of fiscal sanity. And, when it comes to accountability, one could hardly do worse. Of course, a conservative can still cast a libertarian vote on principle.

At crucial points before and after the Iraq war, Bush's middle managers have failed him, and the "brand" called America has suffered in the world market. In any other corporate structure plagued by this level of incompetence, the CEO would have a choice: Fire his middle managers or be held personally accountable by his shareholders. Because of his own misguided sense of "loyalty," Bush won't dismiss anyone. That leaves the country's shareholders little choice.

[CreepingDeth]

Baited.
Conservative my ass.

His points are ridiculous. This sort of reversal idea he has is more likely to backfire. Don't depend on the Senate or House. The Senate is up in the air [sort of], and gambling on another election to somehow get conservatism back is ridiculous. While the GOP takeover in 94 helped stop Hillary-care, when did it ever end Medicare? When did it cut spending? IT didn't. It can't be expected of them, no matter what party. Sort of reminds me of the fake conservatives, or one dumb enough to gamble on such a dumb prospect, or vote for the Constitution Party.

[BlueSky]

I'm Bluesky and I approved this thread.

[OldManMac]

Excellent article. George Bush is no conservative.

[Spliffdaddy]

Nobody ever accused Dubya of being a conservative. Well, Lerkfish tried to pin the 'neocon' label on him, but it didn't stick.

Proudly proclaiming that Dubya isn't a conservative only serves to make you look a few seconds away from being ill-informed.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Nobody ever accused Dubya of being a conservative. Well, Lerkfish tried to pin the 'neocon' label on him, but it didn't stick.

Proudly proclaiming that Dubya isn't a conservative only serves to make you look a few seconds away from being ill-informed.

And yet conservatives seem, for the most part, steadfastly loyal to him.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:
Because I don't post nearly enough threads on here, I thought I'd point out a link to an interesting article by a conservative New York Post editorial writer. I'm wondering what the various conservatives on here think about the points he raises, since they make sense to me and, surprisingly, reflect a number of my own views regarding the Bush administration.

Hello itai195!

Thanks for sharing.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, in both cases, there existed a defined foe. With each, there was a sense of what victory meant and over whom that victory would be won.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.hundland.com/scripts/Terminator2-JD.txt

VIDEO SARAH
You think you're alive and safe, but you're already dead. Everybody, you, him...(she gestures at the attendant) everybody...you're all ****ing dead!


TERMINATOR
You are targeted for termination. The T-1000 will not stop until it complete its mission.Ever.

http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris_print.html

...Equally absurd, on this interpretation, is the notion that we must review our own policies toward the Arab world — or the state of Israel — in order to find ways to make our enemies hate us less. If the Ethiopians had tried to make themselves more likable to the Italians in the hope that this would make Mussolini rethink his plans of conquest, it would have had the same effect. There is no political policy we could take that would change the attitude of our enemies — short, perhaps, of a massive nationwide conversion to fundamentalist Islam....

...Rather than interpreting 9-11 as if it were a Clausewitzian act of war, Bush instinctively saw it for what it was: the acting out of demented fantasy. When confronted with the enigma of 9-11 he was able to avoid the temptation of trying to interpret it in terms of our own familiar categories and traditions. Instead of looking for an utterly mythical root cause for 9-11, or seeing it as a purposeful political act on the Clausewitzian model, he grasped its essential nature in one powerful metaphor, offering, in a sense, a kind of counter-fantasy to the American people, one that allowed them to grasp the horror of 9-11 without being misled by false analogies and misplaced metaphors. How much wiser Montezuma would have been if he had said, “I do not know who these white-skinned strangers may be, or where they come from, or what they want. But that they are here to do evil I have no doubt. So let us act accordingly.”...

There is one decisive advantage to the “evildoer” metaphor, and it is this: Combat with evildoers is not Clausewitzian war. You do not make treaties with evildoers or try to adjust your conduct to make them like you. You do not try to see the world from the evildoers’ point of view. You do not try to appease them, or persuade them, or reason with them. You try, on the contrary, to outwit them, to vanquish them, to kill them. You behave with them in the same manner that you would deal with a fatal epidemic — you try to wipe it out.

[gadster]

aberdeenwriter, can you explain why the US policy towards Israel is so important to you? I mean, seriously, why should you – or anyone else – give a flying **** about Israel?

Curiously Yours,

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by itai195:
Because I don't post nearly enough threads on here, I thought I'd point out a link to an interesting article by a conservative New York Post editorial writer. I'm wondering what the various conservatives on here think about the points he raises, since they make sense to me and, surprisingly, reflect a number of my own views regarding the Bush administration.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=oQsC...gi2gnqhx%3D%3D

My favorite parts:




After discussing the president's Medicare reform:

Good article. My guess is that this guy will immediately be attacked by Bushites here as a fraud.

Some would claim fraud, regardless of any valid points a disgruntled conservative would make about the current administration. Such is the nature of rabid party loyalty.

edit: oops, I was too slow. It already happened.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
Good article. My guess is that this guy will immediately be attacked by Bushites here as a fraud.

Some would claim fraud, regardless of any valid points a disgruntled conservative would make about the current administration. Such is the nature of rabid party loyalty.

edit: oops, I was too slow. It already happened.

Your claim about someone calling him a fraud were made HOURS after Creeping Death's fine post.

So, rather than saying, "oops, I was too slow. It already happened," why not try this instead:

"OOPS, I WAS TRYING TO BE CUTE BUT MADE MYSELF LOOK LIKE AN FBL BECAUSE THE ONLY POST WHICH QUESTIONS THE AUTHOR'S 'STRIPE' WAS POSTED HOURS AGO AND I DIDN'T BOTHER READING IT AT ALL, I WAS JUST REACTING WITHOUT THINKING OR ELSE I WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO MAKE THE EDIT."

[itai195]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Your claim about someone calling him a fraud were made HOURS after Creeping Death's fine post.

So, rather than saying, "oops, I was too slow. It already happened," why not try this instead:

"OOPS, I WAS TRYING TO BE CUTE BUT MADE MYSELF LOOK LIKE AN FBL BECAUSE THE ONLY POST WHICH QUESTIONS THE AUTHOR'S 'STRIPE' WAS POSTED HOURS AGO AND I DIDN'T BOTHER READING IT AT ALL, I WAS JUST REACTING WITHOUT THINKING OR ELSE I WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO MAKE THE EDIT."

And perhaps it's worth reminding Creeping Death that the article's author has worked for the Republican Party and was a staffer for Newt Gingrich, which is more than I suspect Creeping Death has done to establish his own conservative credentials.

But yes, attack the author, not the content... I'm not particularly surprised.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Your claim about someone calling him a fraud were made HOURS after Creeping Death's fine post.

So, rather than saying, "oops, I was too slow. It already happened," why not try this instead:

"OOPS, I WAS TRYING TO BE CUTE BUT MADE MYSELF LOOK LIKE AN FBL BECAUSE THE ONLY POST WHICH QUESTIONS THE AUTHOR'S 'STRIPE' WAS POSTED HOURS AGO AND I DIDN'T BOTHER READING IT AT ALL, I WAS JUST REACTING WITHOUT THINKING OR ELSE I WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO MAKE THE EDIT."

No, I didn't read the replies. I read the initial post and the related article, and posted my intitial thought. I'm not required to read every reply before posting. But keep on yelling. It makes you look intelligent and very stable.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by gadster:
aberdeenwriter, can you explain why the US policy towards Israel is so important to you? I mean, seriously, why should you – or anyone else – give a flying **** about Israel?

Curiously Yours,

Oh, I dunno...but while we're at it, why should we give a flying dinkum about Australia?

Ok, your question deserves a bit more of an answer.

Israel is an embattled Democracy. The forces which threaten Israel are allied in the fight against ALL democracies.

It's clear to me you didn't read my previous post, or didn't understand it.

VIDEO SARAH
You think you're alive and safe, but you're already dead. Everybody, you, him...(she gestures at the attendant) everybody...you're all ****ing dead!

TERMINATOR
You are targeted for termination. The T-1000 will not stop until it complete its mission. Ever.

See, fundamental Islamicism draws no distinction between democracies such as Israel, America, the UK, or even Australia. Like the T-1000 in the film, TERMINATOR, the forces of radical Islam have targeted democracies as well as moderate ME nations for termination.

They will not stop until they complete their mission.

Unless we wipe them out, we are dead. You may think you are alive and safe, but you're already dead. Everybody, you, them...(aberdeenwriter gestures at the MacNN community) everybody...you're all ****ing dead!

There are challenges that even the GREAT USA cannot handle alone. Just think of what Australia would do alone against the forces of Al Qaeda and all their buddies!

You'd be dead or bowing to Mecca.

That is the reason why we care about Israel.

But, let me also state, WE CARE ABOUT PALESTINIANS, TOO!

What we want is a PEACEFUL solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

"We'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect har-mo-ny, we'd like to buy the world a Coke and keep it com-pa-ny..."

Peace...it's the REAL THING!

We want PEACE for US, for the ME, for Europe, for South America, for Africa, for Iceland, for Russia, for China and all of Asia, for the WHOLE FREAKING WORLD...including Australia!

(Let's not forget, POLAND!)

[itai195]

We've already established that your position on the subject of terrorism is shameless scaremongering, aberdeen. Thanks for your input, though, and have a nice day

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:
And perhaps it's worth reminding Creeping Death that the article's author has worked for the Republican Party and was a staffer for Newt Gingrich, which is more than I suspect Creeping Death has done to establish his own conservative credentials.

But yes, attack the author, not the content... I'm not particularly surprised.

CD posted: "Sort of reminds me of the fake conservatives, or one dumb enough to gamble on such a dumb prospect, or vote for the Constitution Party."

CD just speaks from the heart...no fancy diplomatic lingo which might be misunderstood. It's HARDLY the attack the author MIGHT get from some quarters!

I (honestly!) laughed when I saw the NR had made his article their FEATURED STORY!

He is supposed to be YOUR version of Zell Miller or something???

I would trust CD before the author.

[itai195]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
He is supposed to be YOUR version of Zell Miller or something???

For one thing, he's not the only one. But for another, I'd point out that his argument is rational, unlike Miller's rage and fury. I also think that, unlike Miller, this is someone who still really believes in the principles near and dear to his party.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:
We've already established that your position on the subject of terrorist is shameless scaremongering, aberdeen. Thanks for your input, though, and have a nice day

itai195, why not read the Lee Harris article and then tell me you believe alQaeda doesn't threaten you, personaly.

They want us dead or FUNDAMENTALLY Islamic.

Read Hamas' mission statement.

Read ANYTHING about the forces of Islamic terrorism.

[itai195]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
itai195, why not read the Lee Harris article and then tell me you believe alQaeda doesn't threaten you, personaly.

I've read it, and I think he's wrong in a number of areas and that you overstate your case.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:
For one thing, he's not the only one. But for another, I'd point out that his argument is rational, unlike Miller's rage and fury. I also think that, unlike Miller, this is someone who still really believes in the principles near and dear to his party.

This is not an episode of AMERICAN IDOL.

And if the writer were REALLY well informed he wouldn't suggest he needs an attack to warm up to the dangers at our collective doors.

I looked on the TNR site for a way to send him an email but found none. I wanted to send HIM the Lee Harris essay. I'm not sure I will REALLY look for a way as I'd bet he's getting thousands of emails by now. lol

[itai195]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
This is not an episode of AMERICAN IDOL.

And if the writer were REALLY well informed he wouldn't suggest he needs an attack to warm up to the dangers at our collective doors.

I don't recall him suggesting that.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:
I've read it, and I think he's wrong in a number of areas and that you overstate your case.

Since the early 1990's al qaeda and the other radical Islamic groups have been trying as best they can to kill us. It is their STATED GOAL.

That you think I'm overstating the case might be due to the efforts of our military and 1st responders to keep us all safe. We are living in a false sense of security.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell

The WOT is about making the world peaceful, safe for freedom and for you and I to sleep peaceably in our beds at night.

Because they do their jobs so well, doesn't mean that they aren't busy fighting that threat. That they do their jobs so well doesn't mean they might not fail.

ONE FAILURE could mean the total destruction of a major city.

Is that what it would take to open the eyes of the rest of America?

Wasn't 9/11 enough?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:
I don't recall him suggesting that.

"But, in both cases, there existed a defined foe. With each, there was a sense of what victory meant and over whom that victory would be won. The Union would defeat the Confederacy; America and her allies would defeat the Axis powers. Even in the cold war, the ideology of communism had a clear home in the Soviet Union. Those conflicts would end with the defined enemy surrendering, being defeated, or the motivating ideology collapsing. However long it took, the American people knew there would be some sort of definite conclusion.

But, in President Bush's vision, the terrorist enemy remains amorphous. After September 11, Osama bin Laden was wanted "dead or alive." Then, as the Iraq war developed, Saddam Hussein became the ace of spades in the terrorist card deck. Now, Abu Musab Al Zarqawi is the new face of evil. The war, we are told, will not end with any one of these men's capture or death. It will continue until ... until ... until when, exactly? Thus, the comparisons many make to previous U.S. conflicts are hardly applicable.

...Americans are being asked to sacrifice liberties in the face of an enemy that has less ability to damage us than the Soviets did. This is not to minimize the threat of Islamist fundamentalism, but it is essential to put the capabilities of the enemy in perspective. "

Harris makes a good point,

"But is this the right model for understanding 9-11? Or have we, like Montezuma, imposed our own inadequate categories on an event that simply does not fit them? Yet, if 9-11 was not an act of war, then what was it?"

"...Does anyone in his right mind object to screening someone entering his country for signs of plague? Or quarantining those who have contracted it? Or closely monitoring precisely those populations within his country that are most at risk?"

"You behave with them in the same manner that you would deal with a fatal epidemic — you try to wipe it out."

Because this ISN'T a 'typical' war some have a tough time wrapping their minds around what it all means. We try imposing our own inadequate on this type of war and underestimate it's true threat. As the British underestimated the American colonials
threat when they didn't fight in the traditional methods.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:
I've read it, and I think he's wrong in a number of areas and that you overstate your case.

Where do you think he's wrong?

[itai195]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Where do you think he's wrong?

I guess I'll respond to your three post blitz in this post.

First, you didn't point out where George suggested we had to be attacked first to respond to a threat. What you quoted was him saying he didn't like how George W. Bush has not defined specific target in the WoT. This leads into your next post, where you suggest that I and other objectors to the war in Iraq don't take the threat from al Qaeda seriously. We do, we just fail to see the connection between AQ and Iraq, especially when there are much more obvious connections to much more dangerous states.

As for Harris, while I agree that we have no recourse but to fight people like Osama bin Laden because they are ideologues detached from reality, I believe that his argument that we can ignore the root causes of terrorism is incorrect. It's obvious that certain social and economic conditions provide ample breeding grounds in which terrorism can fester and grow.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:
I guess I'll respond to your three post blitz in this post.

First, you didn't point out where George suggested we had to be attacked first to respond to a threat. What you quoted was him saying he didn't like how George W. Bush has not defined specific target in the WoT. This leads into your next post, where you suggest that I and other objectors to the war in Iraq don't take the threat from al Qaeda seriously. We do, we just fail to see the connection between AQ and Iraq, especially when there are much more obvious connections to much more dangerous states.

As for Harris, while I agree that we have no recourse but to fight people like Osama bin Laden because they are ideologues detached from reality, I believe that his argument that we can ignore the root causes of terrorism is incorrect. It's obvious that certain social and economic conditions provide ample breeding grounds in which terrorism can fester and grow.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"We will pursue peace as if there is no terrorism and fight terrorism as if there is no peace."
-- Yitzhak Rabin

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."
-- Dante Alighieri

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
-- Edmund Burke

AN AMORPHOUS ENEMY

Because the enemy is amorphous (_having no definite form or distinct shape; "amorphous clouds of insects"; "an aggregate of formless particles"; "a shapeless mass of protoplasm") that makes it different and more dangerous.

Lee Harris points this out in his article, and exactly why people have a problem getting a proper fix on this shapeless enemy.

Robt. George laments:

"But, in both cases, there existed a defined foe. With each, there was a sense of what victory meant and over whom that victory would be won....Those conflicts would end with the defined enemy surrendering, being defeated, or the motivating ideology collapsing. However long it took, the American people knew there would be some sort of definite conclusion."

Using a metaphor, Mr. George would feel LESS excited about losing (let's say) his testicles simply because the disease that caused it wasn't easily defined? I would suggest that's all the more reason to be VERY alarmed.

The conflict would be over when the US and World news and intelligence services indicated the number of terror attacks had reached a level where troops were able to come home and we went several months without news of a terrorist action. But even then, the effort against terror will go on. It will always be a part of our consciousness.

(WHY I CAN'T VOTE FOR BUSH. Conscientious Objector by Robert A. George )

He can vote as he pleases, but the reason he gives which I've focused on is the one which most amazes me that a supposedly intelligent man could list.

That's why it seems to me he suggests a REAL attack which might cost us a city would finally get him excited about the WOT.

GWB defined the enemy as well as possible by calling them, "evil doers." (See Lee Harris' essay) That article should be studied.

IN SUPPORT OF IRAQ BEING CRUCIAL IN THE WOT

Opponents arguments to the Iraqi war which demand(ed) a CONNECTION between Iraq and OBL have only seemed 'concrete' on paper or in an academic sense to me. The recent Zarqawi declaration proves how flimsy that argument was and is.

Although this article was published before Zarqawi declared himself part of al Qaeda, it proves the adage, birds of a feather flock together or the enemy of my friend is my enemy. It only took a few contacts between Zarqawi and bin Laden to establish an association. It was predictable. Their goals were in synch. They had a common enemy. Their beliefs are the same. If they WEREN'T connected, it was only a matter of time before they would be.

LIST OF TERROR GROUPS
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt...html/19992.htm
http://www.milnet.com/tgp/tgpndx2.htm
http://www.terrorism.net/index.php

Simply look at these listings for terrorist groups and look at those operating in Iraq, then connect the dots. The terrorist groups that were and are active there have ties to al Qaeda, Iranian or Palestinian based Islamic fundamentalist terror groups.

Their kinship may not have been cemented but it doesn't take long to see that in a war on terror they would join forces for their common benefit. Iraq was a rat's nest and it didn't
take long for the rats to join forces.

And NOW we can OFFICIALLY add al Qaeda to the list.

BTW, you'll note both of the Israeli terrorist groups were "declared to be terrorist organizations in March 1994 by the Israeli Cabinet under the 1948 Terrorism Law."

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/terrorist-groups.cfm

IRAQ

NAME: Abu Nidal organization (ANO) a.k.a. Fatah Revolutionary Council, Arab Revolutionary Brigades, Black September, and Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims.

NAME: Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO) a.k.a. The National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA, the militant wing of the MEK), the People's Mujahidin of Iran (PMOI), National Council of Resistance (NCR), Muslim Iranian Student's Society (front organization used to garner financial support).

NAME: Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harris is only referring to fundamentalist Islamic terrorism in his article (AL QAEDA'S FANTASY IDEOLOGY) so he wouldn't have been addressing those who resort to terrorism out of other reasons. The White House has outlined the efforts to combat the root causes of terrorism here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/p...th.html#global

Diminishing the Underlying Conditions Terrorists Exploit

Many terrorist organizations exploit to their advantage conditions of poverty, social disenfranchisement, unresolved political and regional disputes, and weak state structures. The United States has embarked on a number of initiatives designed to foster broad-based economic growth and development, open societies to global trade and investment, and promote the health and education of people worldwide. As more countries become active participants in the global economy and offer their people the benefits of good governance, economic opportunities, and health and education, terrorists will be denied both recruits and safe havens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE IRAQI CONNECTION TO AL QAEDA

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...R&st=books

The Connection by Stephen Hayes

The Bush administration and CIA director George Tenet warned against complacency and pointed to growing indications that al Qaeda and Iraq were in league. But their case was undercut by unnamed intelligence officials, skeptical politicians, and a compliant media. So America relaxed. A comforting consensus settled in: Osama bin Laden was an impassioned fundamentalist, Saddam a secular autocrat. The two would never, could never, work together. ABC News reported that there was no connection between them, and the New York Times said so too, and pretty soon just about everyone agreed.

Just about everyone was wrong.

In The Connection, Stephen Hayes draws on CIA debriefings, top-secret memos from our national intelligence agencies, and interviews with Iraqi military leaders and Washington insiders to demonstrate that Saddam and bin Laden not only could work together, they did -- a curious relationship that stretches back more than a decade and may include collaboration on terrorist acts, chemical-weapons training, and sheltering some of the world's most wanted radicals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nationalreview.com/script...0406010821.asp

Yet, although there should be few, if any, matters more important to national security than boring into the linkage between Iraq and militant Islamic terror, the very idea of linkage has been discredited. Thanks to a withering campaign waged by ideological opponents of U.S. military operations against Iraq — led by the mainstream media, partisans such as former Clinton counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, and disgruntled factions of the so-called intelligence community whose anonymous carping to sympathetic journalists has now reached a fever pitch — conventional wisdom now holds that secular Saddam could not conceivably have collaborated with Osama bin Laden's jihadist network.

It is, however, pigheaded blindness masquerading as wisdom. There are abundant strands of connection. It is, moreover, breathtakingly irresponsible for the press generally, and for an intelligence community purportedly dedicated to securing America from further attacks, to be ignoring or dismissing countless salient questions, rather than moving heaven and earth to answer them. There is good reason to think we have convicted several terrorists in this country on less proof than already exists regarding Saddam's Iraq. What's more, these linkage questions are not going away.

[aberdeenwriter]

Another thought, itai,

R. George states terrorism has less of a capability to hurt us than the USSR did in the Cold War. But what he doesn't recognize is that the USSR was rational, it was a sole entity and MAD held us both in a nuclear stand-off status without war for decades.

By contrast, OBL makes no demands of us because he wants us dead.

Neither he, nor his pals can be reasoned with. They all operate more or less independently. There are thousands and thousands of them. They exisit and/or operate in almost every country in the world. They breed.

Then George laments there's no way to have a nice clean end to the war. He is almost completely FBL on the issue of the WOT.

And for the cost of only 19 of them and some box cutters, they were able to kill more than 3,000 people and inflict BILLIONS of dollars in damage in our largest city.

This threat is much scarier than the USSR threat.

[itai195]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
That's why it seems to me he suggests a REAL attack which might cost us a city would finally get him excited about the WOT.

No, you're putting words in his mouth. He never said any such thing.

The recent Zarqawi declaration proves how flimsy that argument was and is.

Did that happen before or after we invaded? I seem to have a short memory.

The White House has outlined the efforts to combat the root causes of terrorism here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/p...th.html#global

Diminishing the Underlying Conditions Terrorists Exploit

Many terrorist organizations exploit to their advantage conditions of poverty, social disenfranchisement, unresolved political and regional disputes, and weak state structures. The United States has embarked on a number of initiatives designed to foster broad-based economic growth and development, open societies to global trade and investment, and promote the health and education of people worldwide. As more countries become active participants in the global economy and offer their people the benefits of good governance, economic opportunities, and health and education, terrorists will be denied both recruits and safe havens.

Boy, that sure is convincing! The first bullet the page lists mentions the middle east roadmap, which we seem to have all but abandoned.

http://www.nationalreview.com/script...0406010821.asp

I can't believe an article that tries to pass off the Atta connection as solid, when the article itself calls the evidence for such a connection circumstantial. But that doesn't answer a bigger question for me... There are several much more dangerous states with much more obvious connections to al-Qaeda, why didn't we go after those? And besides, what makes us think we can ever be successful in Iraq?

Anyway, I didn't want to turn this thread into a big debate about Iraq, just to see a reaction to what George says.

[olePigeon]

I love how he interchanges Iraq and Terrorism.

How is pulling out of Iraq in a reasonable fashion going to effect our policy towards terrorism?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:
No, you're putting words in his mouth. He never said any such thing.

Fuzzy Alert

Failure to read thoroughly

I never said he did. I said, "if the writer were REALLY well informed he wouldn't suggest he needs an attack to warm up to the dangers at our collective doors."

"That's why it seems to me he suggests a REAL attack which might cost us a city would finally get him excited about the WOT."

He whines about the enemy being amorphous. He laments the lack of a clearly identified enemy.

It seems the only way to disabuse him of this mental constipation is either to have him read Harris (which he might not 'get'), or to have a suitcase nuke take out an American city. In the latter example one would HOPE his reticence over the WOT would go up in smoke. Thus, my posts to that effect.

Did that happen before or after we invaded? I seem to have a short memory.

In the face of all the pre-invasion suspicion about the connection between Iraq and OBL it turns out there was no DEFINITIVE proof. (Btw, yesterday on C-Span, UK Ambassador to the US, David Manning reminded us that in 2002 virtually NO ONE was debating whether Saddam was a fitting target in the WOT, we were worried about what we'd do about him.)

NO. There was no concrete connection. We had religious fanatic OBL and his hatred for the US on one side.

We had Saddam who hated the US and had worked to create a WMD program and who had supported religious fanatics (suicide bombers) and did not work to rid his country of the terrorist groups operating there but HAD called upon them in 1991 to go on a jihad against the US.

No matter how much you'd like to compartmentalise the two groups and maintain there was a clear separation between Saddam and OBL, you can't dispute the existence of terrorists in Iraq. You can't dispute Saddam's iron grip on his country and society which would allow him knowledge of these groups and the ability to squash them if he wanted. You can't dispute his $25,000 payments to terrorists families.

You can't maintain there would have been no increased support by Saddam to the terrorist groups with the prosecution of the WOT. Desperately clinging to this geo-political version of the JFK "Magic Bullet" theory just makes no sense.

The dangers of compartmentalising the information about as AMORPHOUS an enemy as AQ/OBL was pointed out in the attack of 9/11. Our intelligence and law enforcement knew something was up and the evidence which could have made sense of the coming assault even existed in various departments. But no one was willing or able to use a little COMMON SENSE to look at the whole picture to prevent the attacks.

As powerful as computers are, it takes a human brain to ask what if? Then, to make a decision based on a reasonable understanding of human nature. You seem incapable of imagining that police do this EVERY DAY. It's not rocket science. It's not computer science. It's knowing that when groups with common goals and enemies are being attacked by that enemy, those groups are likely to work together.

{B}Boy, that sure is convincing! The first bullet the page lists mentions the middle east roadmap, which we seem to have all but abandoned.[/B]

Are you arguing that addressing the root causes of non-Islamic Ideological terrorism should be abandoned, too?

I can't believe an article that tries to pass off the Atta connection as solid, when the article itself calls the evidence for such a connection circumstantial. But that doesn't answer a bigger question for me... There are several much more dangerous states with much more obvious connections to al-Qaeda, why didn't we go after those? And besides, what makes us think we can ever be successful in Iraq?

It seems liberals can't understand that WE NEED AND DEPEND ON A STEADY SUPPLY OF OIL.

You say there are several much more dangerous states with much more obvious connections to al-Qaeda than Iraq.

Let's look at POSSIBLE reasons Iraq was #1 on our hit list.

Oil
Shown to be a danger to Israel
Had gassed it's own people
Was constantly committing human rights violations
Was a threat to invade it's arab neighbors
Had intentions of developing WMD's
Ignored almost a dozen UN resolutions
Went under the table to escape the full force of UN sanctions
Supported terrorism
Tried to assassinate the former President's whole family
Would have used the first opportunity to offer real support to terrorists after the start of the WOT and...
Did NOT have a nuclear weapon

Why should we have invaded any of the countries on YOUR list?

Anyway, I didn't want to turn this thread into a big debate about Iraq, just to see a reaction to what George says.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Oil
Shown to be a danger to Israel
Had gassed it's own people
Was constantly committing human rights violations
Was a threat to invade it's arab neighbors
Had intentions of developing WMD's
Ignored almost a dozen UN resolutions
Went under the table to escape the full force of UN sanctions
Supported terrorism
Tried to assassinate the former President's whole family
Would have used the first opportunity to offer real support to terrorists after the start of the WOT and...
Did NOT have a nuclear weapon

We went in there because we "knew" they had weapons of mass destruction. All those reasons you listed came about after they started fishing for new reasons why we went in. Most of those reasons you listed were committed in more heinous ways by foreign states other than Iraq. North Korea can top 9 of the 11 listed. Why didn't we invade them? Oh yeah, reason number one.

[itai195]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:

Unfortuantely aberdeen put his whole post in a quote, so I can't quote from it. However, I will say that you did put words in George's mouth when you said that he suggested the only way he'd change his mind was if a terrorist attacked a US city. You're projecting what you think his position is onto the article, but he never suggested or implied what you say he did. BTW, if you're going to generalize about liberals, then I'd ask why conservatives can't understand that we need alternative energy sources so we can avoid the dependencies that entangled us in middle-eastern affairs in the first place. If you'd like a country with many proven links to al Qaeda, participation in illicit nuclear weapon proliferation, lack of democracy, human rights violations, etc then I don't think you have to look much further than Pakistan as a more logical target. And either way, we haven't even gotten into the question of why war was pushed so heavily as the most appropriate course of action in Iraq.

Your fascination with Israel also interests me, since I'm FROM Israel and familiar with the issues they face. However I have to wonder if threats to Israel are more important to you than threats to America, and if so, why?

Anyway, like I said, I don't want to participate in Iraq discussion #98571 so I'm going to bow out at this poitn. I've already made up my mind.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
I love how he interchanges Iraq and Terrorism.

How is pulling out of Iraq in a reasonable fashion going to effect our policy towards terrorism?

The argument has been made more than once within the past 30 days or so. I'm not convinced you REALLY don't know the answer.

But, I'll risk it.

Pulling out of Iraq in a reasonable fashion means after the Iraqi people can defend themselves from the undue influence of foreign or domestic terrorist groups, right?

Once the terrorist organizations (Including, but not limited to the group headed by Zarqawi) are captured or dead, and the infrastructure has been built up and our people or interests no longer need to be protected by such a large US presence, we'll probably leave just a 'smaller' reaction force in the region to strike quickly should the need arise. Keeping that force in a democracy like Iraq rather than in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere is a move to be more sensitive to the understandable concerns of moderate Muslims.

If terrorism threatens to take over in Iraq, we'd have to go back.

HOWEVER, if the Iranians refuse to indicate what they will do to resolve the concerns the world has about their WMD and terrorist status then, Amb. Manning says the issue will go to the UN Security Council. The US would probably need to maintain a force there in anticipation of that possibility.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:
Unfortuantely aberdeen put his whole post in a quote, so I can't quote from it. However, I will say that you did put words in George's mouth when you said that he suggested the only way he'd change his mind was if a terrorist attacked a US city.

Would it help if I said, "what Robt. George said suggests to me that he'd only understand this amorphous threat and be motivated by it if a US city went up in smoke?"

You're projecting what you think his position is onto the article, but he never suggested or implied what you say he did.

You are right. He never said that. I suggested that if he isn't moved by this clear and present danger, that the thing that would most surely blow away his intellectual facade, would be something even an imbecile like he could understand.

BTW, if you're going to generalize about liberals, then I'd ask why conservatives can't understand that we need alternative energy sources so we can avoid the dependencies that entangled us in middle-eastern affairs in the first place.

I agree, wholeheartedly.

If you'd like a country with many proven links to al Qaeda, participation in illicit nuclear weapon proliferation, lack of democracy, human rights violations, etc then I don't think you have to look much further than Pakistan as a more logical target.

We convinced Pakistan to see the light and they acted in their own best interests and are helping us in the WOT.

See? DIPLOMACY!

And either way, we haven't even gotten into the question of why war was pushed so heavily as the most appropriate course of action in Iraq.

Let's see, the ineffectiveness of TWELVE UN RESOLUTION!!!

We didn't know WHAT the hell he was up to because he was intentionally misleading the world (specifically the Iranians) into believing he had WMD's.

NO ONE could say for sure that he DIDN'T have a bio-tipped SCUD about to launch on Israel.

Remember, Saddam ONLY allowed the weapons inspectors back in because we had 200,000 troops at his door.

There are many secrets buried beneath desert sands. Saddam played games with the inspectors and may have buried his wmds where we'd never find them, but he could get in short order.

Your fascination with Israel also interests me, since I'm FROM Israel and familiar with the issues they face. However I have to wonder if threats to Israel are more important to you than threats to America, and if so, why?

Because Israel is an embattled democracy surrounded by it's enemies yet is putting up a good fight.

I don't agree with oppression of the Palestinians, but with the pullout from Gaza and the West Bank settlements, and the completion of the wall maybe peace can be established long enough for tempers to subside on both sides. Then, once Arafat meets his maker maybe that conflict will be resolved.

Anyway, like I said, I don't want to participate in Iraq discussion #98571 so I'm going to bow out at this poitn. I've already made up my mind.

Actually, Fuzzy Brained Liberalism is seldom a choice one makes; it's hard-wired in. You can't help yourself. So, I do what I can to help you.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
We went in there because we "knew" they had weapons of mass destruction. All those reasons you listed came about after they started fishing for new reasons why we went in. Most of those reasons you listed were committed in more heinous ways by foreign states other than Iraq. North Korea can top 9 of the 11 listed. Why didn't we invade them? Oh yeah, reason number one.

Dem. Sen. Patty Murray (WA) voted against going into Iraq citing all the different reasons the administration gave.

The trouble with liberals is that they seem to always insist on ONE reason for doing anything!

I say, here's a list. Find the one you like. They're all good.

Why didn't we invade N. Korea? How about the fact that N. Korea HAS nukes?

What if the target selection criterion is only this: OIL, NO WMD's and terrorism? You'd say NO GO just because the country has oil?

You don't like our reliance on oil? OK. Turn in your gas rationing card! You are walkin buddy! That, or hitch up the burro.

Hey, I hear there are some Colombian mountain villages where they don't need much oil.

note to self: Send email to Juan Valdez & Burro. Tell him help is on the way and to brew another pot of coffee!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell

The WOT is about making the world peaceful, safe for freedom and for you and I to sleep peaceably in our beds at night.

"War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength"
George Orwell

[Mithras]

I'm sorry, aberdeen. You have used up your capital letters for this month. Please come back on November 1st to collect your new ration.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
"War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength"
George Orwell

"...I am the Walrus, koo koo ka choo..."

John Lennon

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Mithras:
I'm sorry, aberdeen. You have used up your capital letters for this month. Please come back on November 1st to collect your new ration.

i protest your inhumane use of capital punishment on me!!!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
"...I am the Walrus, koo koo ka choo..."

John Lennon

I was just matching your George Orwell quote with one of my own.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
The trouble with liberals is that they seem to always insist on ONE reason for doing anything!

If you say so.

Why didn't we invade N. Korea? How about the fact that N. Korea HAS nukes?

Now they have nukes. 3 years ago they were still developing their weapons program.

What if the target selection criterion is only this: OIL, NO WMD's and terrorism? You'd say NO GO just because the country has oil?

Oil would never be on the criteria because politicians would never admit to going to war for financial interest or investment. It's "unethical," but then, so are politicians. If a country was rich in oil, that would certainly be on the "to do" list after occupation.

Terrorism wouldn't be on there either, that was only an issue after September 11th when George Bush purposely mislead people into thinking Iraq was responsible the attacks.

Assuming removing terrorist networks from Iraq was one of the original reasons, I'm certain the U.N. would've supported sanctions for handling it. If Iraq would not comply, then a military occupation would most definitely be approved since Hussein's administration would be all but supporting the terrorist networks.

You don't like our reliance on oil? OK. Turn in your gas rationing card! You are walkin buddy! That, or hitch up the burro.

How about using any number of vehicles that utilize alternative fuels such as hydrogen, electricity, corn oil, petroleum grease, solar, etc. If you're not ready to make the switch, you can also reduce our dependency on foreign oil just by buying a fuel efficient gasoline or hybrid vehicle. There are hybrid SUVs, if you're so inclined to stick with one. Using a vehicle that gets 30 to 60 mpg instead of 8 to 20 mpg can cut our dependency by half. That would eliminate our dependency on oil from from middle eastern nations.

Hey, I hear there are some Colombian mountain villages where they don't need much oil.

Because in some parts of Columbia, their culture does not revolve around freeways and McDonald's, smart ass.

note to self: Send email to Juan Valdez & Burro. Tell him help is on the way and to brew another pot of coffee!

Racist and ignorant, you are a shining example of the Conservative way of thinking.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I was just matching your George Orwell quote with one of my own.

I was just saying I didn't understand:

"War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength"

Context please.

Is everything relative?
Is one extreme the exact same as the other extreme?
Orwell's attempt at making a statement about mind control and spin?

What?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by olePigeon:


If you say so.

Now they have nukes. 3 years ago they were still developing their weapons program.

Oil would never be on the criteria because politicians would never admit to going to war for financial interest or investment. It's "unethical," but then, so are politicians. If a country was rich in oil, that would certainly be on the "to do" list after occupation.

Terrorism wouldn't be on there either, that was only an issue after September 11th when George Bush purposely mislead people into thinking Iraq was responsible the attacks.

Assuming removing terrorist networks from Iraq was one of the original reasons, I'm certain the U.N. would've supported sanctions for handling it. If Iraq would not comply, then a military occupation would most definitely be approved since Hussein's administration would be all but supporting the terrorist networks.

[/b]

How about using any number of vehicles that utilize alternative fuels such as hydrogen, electricity, corn oil, petroleum grease, solar, etc. If you're not ready to make the switch, you can also reduce our dependency on foreign oil just by buying a fuel efficient gasoline or hybrid vehicle. There are hybrid SUVs, if you're so inclined to stick with one. Using a vehicle that gets 30 to 60 mpg instead of 8 to 20 mpg can cut our dependency by half. That would eliminate our dependency on oil from from middle eastern nations.

Because in some parts of Columbia, their culture does not revolve around freeways and McDonald's, smart ass.

Racist and ignorant, you are a shining example of the Conservative way of thinking. [/B]

Yes, I say they do. Empirical evidence. You don't have to debate their Fuzzy Logic. I do. And I get that "one reason" thing more often than you'd like to imagine.

Yes, North Korea met the "Please Invade Us" criterion 3 years ago when they had no nukes, but they didn't have any oil for us. Sorry.

Let's face facts. All the reasons I listed were good reasons but unless the nation has OIL, TERRORISTS and IS WITHOUT WMD's they wouldn't have bumped Iraq out of the #1 spot.

Here we go with the one reason thing...why COULDN'T we have gone after Iraq for more than one reason? You don't want to believe it had ANYTHING to do with fears of what mischief Saddam might do with his WMD's. (Remember, perception is EVERYTHING and NO ONE knew for sure if he had them or not.) You imply that Iraq's oil was a secondary priority, AFTER the invasion and NOT the main reason. He harbored and supported terrorism.

I maintain there were several reasons that simply tipped the scales in favor of taking him out. Oil, real and potential terrorism, repeatedly ignoring/violating UN resoultions, human rights violations, a history of being a bad man, a bad neighbor and a despot.

By the way, saddam had wiped his hairy ass with the previous 12 UN resolutions. GWB went to the UN and pointed this out. At SOME point action was going to have to be taken. GWB said, NOW rather than later. He gave Saddam EVERY opportunity to comply and to have a peaceful resolution to all this. He refused.

Why do you think we invaded Iraq?

The switchover from a reliance on oil to an alternative energy source was the topic of a thread a week or two ago. This was all hashed. Basically, it will take time and money. The alternative energy source that's cheap and readily available and user friendly and practical for the average driver AND applicable to the industrial consumer is some ways off.

What we might hope for is an Alternative Energy X Prize (like the prize won by the Burt & Dick Ruttan team that launched Spaceship One for going into space) where a tub of money goes to the winner.

Mebbe that would get people REALLY moving on the challenge.

Yes, but oh those Colombianos do love our freeways and McDonalds!

A little secret between you and I...I'm really not a racist, and I'm only ignorant about stuff I don't know!

__________________
...and when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with
hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights
of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism,
will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so.

Ha!

See, that's funny becuz Bushies have an eye on the enemies of freedom both foreign AND domestic. Whereas I believe the FBL's seem to disregard oe downplay the threats from abroad and focus primarily on those posed by government.

Haha. See, now that's funny.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Yes, I say they do. Empirical evidence. You don't have to debate their Fuzzy Logic. I do. And I get that "one reason" thing more often than you'd like to imagine. <snip>

Well, now we're just agreeing. This is suppose to be a debate!

See, that's funny becuz Bushies have an eye on the enemies of freedom both foreign AND domestic. Whereas I believe the FBL's seem to disregard oe downplay the threats from abroad and focus primarily on those posed by government.

The full quote reads:

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervour, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.

And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so.

How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."

I just thought it was fitting since history seems to be repeating itself. You could end it with "And I am George W. Bush.," and no one would know the difference.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Well, now we're just agreeing. This is suppose to be a debate!

How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."

I just thought it was fitting since history seems to be repeating itself. You could end it with "And I am George W. Bush.," and no one would know the difference.

Wow! GWB is good but I don't know if I'd compare him to Caesar!

Maybe if someone named a salad after him I'd reconsider.

[itai195]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
You are right. He never said that. I suggested that if he isn't moved by this clear and present danger, that the thing that would most surely blow away his intellectual facade, would be something even an imbecile like he could understand.

Though I said I won't , I want to respond to this little part of your post. This is not a valid debate tactic. Bringing up a hypothetical situation that MAY make the author change his mind doesn't validate your argument.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
I was just saying I didn't understand:

And that's the whole problem

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
And that's the whole problem

HA!

YOU don't know, either! lol

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:
Though I said I won't , I want to respond to this little part of your post. This is not a valid debate tactic. Bringing up a hypothetical situation that MAY make the author change his mind doesn't validate your argument.

My point is that the author misperceives the threat. I suspect his failure to correctly assess the threat has resulted in his pondering the issue from an academic remove.

Were there a sufficiently large attack on America, I believe his intellectual reservation or doubts would be replaced by an appropriately passionate response.

I lament his failure to fully appreciate the dangers of radical Islamic terrorism at this point in time especially after the devastating 9/11 attack.

My feeling is that if 9/11 wasn't enough to engage him or trigger his instincts for self-preservation, it would take an attack of even GREATER devastation to do so.

I believe his perception is based on a faulty historical model, which Lee Harris speaks to in his essay and wish Mr. George would read and then re-consider the positions stated in TNR.

I suspect Mr. George may be an imbecile.

[itai195]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
My point is that the author misperceives the threat. I suspect his failure to correctly assess the threat has resulted in his pondering the issue from an academic remove.

Were there a sufficiently large attack on America, I believe his intellectual reservation or doubts would be replaced by an appropriately passionate response.

And yet your perception of the threat hinges on a completely hypothetical scenario. I think he has no trouble perceiving the threat, he just doesn't like the president's inability to define the target. If you don't understand the dangers of an endless war against an amorphous and ever-changing target, then you ought not be quoting George Orwell.

Besides, if you really are worried about an attack on a major American city, why aren't you angry about Bush's lack of action on the home front? Public Citizen just put out a lengthy report that, amongst other inadequacies, cites the Bush administration's inaction in securing nuclear power plants from attack.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:
And yet your perception of the threat hinges on a completely hypothetical scenario. I think he has no trouble perceiving the threat, he just doesn't like the president's inability to define the target. If you don't understand the dangers of an endless war against an amorphous and ever-changing target, then you ought not be quoting George Orwell.

Besides, if you really are worried about an attack on a major American city, why aren't you angry about Bush's lack of action on the home front? Public Citizen just put out a lengthy report that, amongst other inadequacies, cites the Bush administration's inaction in securing nuclear power plants from attack.

I just spent 20 minutes crafting a reasoned and moderate response to you but in a moment of mental flatulence, erased it all by going to a website to provide a link to support my assertions.

DAMMMIT

Well, here's the short version...

If the dangers well illustrated by the attacks of 9/11 aren't enough to alarm anyone to support appropriate (prudent) actions to prevent future and possibly worse attacks, then screw Mr. George. He's an idiot.

Radical Islam has identified themselves and their intent (They want us dead or bowing to Mecca) well enough in word and deed, and the job of defining this amorphous target has been accomplished by GWB.

The target is radical Islamic terrorists, those who harbor, promote and support it and terrorism in general...in that order (AFAIK).

As for my quoting Orwell, it's obvious you haven't a clue about military or defense considerations yet you go on and on about it, don't you?

The homeland security IS of concern to me but no one is perfect. I believe W has the right idea and is working on it.

On the other hand, Kerry is convinced his engagement policy is the right idea. Well, this article about Kerry's mindset scares me more than anything W has done or not done:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...5/150139.shtml