Or they don't want to find him. What a poster boy for the continued war effort. How can you remain a war profiteer without a war, afterlall.

This just proves the point that going into Iraq was completely unnecessary to fighting "the war on terra". $500 billion and 2,378 dead and 17,469 wounded all for nothing but a civil war. That's a huge waste of resources that could have gone into our own economy and towards fighting other urgent real problems like climate change.

The fight against terror is like Kerry said a police and intelligence issue and hopefully we will understand that before we alienate our most useful allies in the Mideast...the people of Iran.

Ash,

And with all the waste and fraud there has not been one call from the leaders in congress to investigate the stealing of our money by the war profiteers....despicable indeed...but November is coming and they'll answer at that time and then all the necessary investigations can proceed, They will take decades to complete. But when it's all said and done hopefully many a treasonous $%#@ will be in jail.

I hope the neocon right is happy understanding that this is as right as our country will ever go. The Republicans have had six years to show what they our made of and now we all know.....they have NOTHING to do with true Teddy Roosevelt conservatism...they are posers and nothing else. True conservatism will never survive in a corrupt money controlled system.

but muirgeo - the loony left wouldn't have supported the invasion of afghanistan either...

...or any war 4 that matter. remember the bumper stickers "war isn't the answer"...

...well, 'cept to gain independence, free the slaves, shutdown the nazi deathcamps...

duh, what am I thinking, of course...war was NOT the answer to stop the Rwandan slaughter of ONE MILLION, was it?

please peddle ur pablum elsewhere...say kos.

Ash & Muirgwo are proof positive that the left thinks there is no threat, there never was a threat and there will never be a threat to our national security, other the the President and the Republicans.

Can we all have a group hug now and sing Kumbaya?

Ohio,

You are completely wrong. Everyone but complete pacifist were behind the war in Afganastan. That was a no brainer but its been bungled as well because of resources being shifted to Iraq. Iraq was a step AWAY from fight against terror.

phnx,

Terrorism is not a threat to our democracy...it's a threat to the American people but not our country and democracy as a whole.....you've drank the Kool-aide like a scared little child. Now Bush and company and those like you who support them ARE a threat to democracy. They/you everyday allow democracy to be undermined by their policies which favor plutocracy and corportism.

This is pure genius. We should apply this logic to all law enforcement. If we search for criminal but not arrest them, then not only will the criminal be too busy hiding to commit crimes, but think of all the money we will save from not holding trials and housing criminals in jails.

Way to think out of the box Bush.

"Now Bush and company and those like you who support them ARE a threat to democracy" Muirgeo

I rest my case.

Gee00 somehow the terrorist have adopted your talking points or is it vice versa? In any event if you want to know the real threat to our country, just look at your party leadership and have a peak at a mirror. =8^0

Muirgo calls the war on terror a police action in one post, then claims he was for the afghan war in the next. That is some fancy footwork there.

Rich,
Liberals don't have to be consistant; it's not about logic and reason to them; it's all about feeling.

If Barney and Muirgo could take their Moon heads out of the Moon butts, they might see that we're winning the war on terror.

But no, they would rather sit next to Osama and Zarquawi at a little tea party, watching atom bombs turn New York into a landfill.

Am I the only one wondering why cowards like this are even allowed to live in this country? Can't they be rounded up, along with the other liberals and communists and pedophiles (oops, I'm redundant) and shipped off to France?

Rich, Bane,

Logic and true patriotism don't allow for corporations running our elections and our policy.

Making excuses for corporatism because you really like the quid pro quo policies that push your warped sense of Christianity like gay bashing, anti-choice legislation, Middle East crusading and promotion of religion in the public square is neither logical nor patriotic....

Muirgeo,

Very eloquent, if convoluted, however, not one word of your rant has any truth to it.
Neither of us mentioned patriotism, nor is either of us identified as Christians, warped or otherwise. Corporations aren’t mentioned in this thread, and quid pro quo doesn’t mean what you are implying.

Do you just save up anti-right tirades until you feel threatened, then cut and past it no matter what the subject?

Truly pathetic self absorption.

But, tell us how you really feel not what you know.

Well put....Conservative to the Core!

Muirgeo, debate is fundamental of a healthy democracy...anti-gay and/or anti-choice discussion, crusading and religion in the public square is nothing more than free speech. And if that leads to legal legislation that the population accepts...that's just how the system works. And to imply otherwise is "unpatriotic"...and you wonder why people don't get your contradictory message. BTW, right to life is a choice...incase you didn't recognize it.

You're going to bark about how bad 2006 will be, just like you did in the runup to 2004...and there you stood the day after wondering how 100% of the voters didn't back your perspective. Care to guess again?

Thanks to President Bush, the United States has not been attacked in over 4 1/2 years. Don't everyone thank President Bush all at once.

I'm actually glad to hear that Osama and his protege al-Zarqawi (sp?) have been relatively muted. I just wish that while Bush was growing his balls, he would have told Pakistan that we're going in there to find them whether they like it or not. I've always thought that not letting us invade the uncontrollable north amounts to harboring terrorists. Obviously the Pakistani "CIA" can't do a damn thing.

Oops, to clarify, I understand al-Zarqawi isn't in Pakistan.

Thanks to President Bush, the United States has not been attacked in over 4 1/2 years. Don't everyone thank President Bush all at once.

Posted by: james allegro

OK lets see about 400 killed by terrorist during Clintons watch (including right wing terrorist McVeigh and Rudolf's attacks) and about 18 soldiers killed.

And on Bush's watch?......3000+ killed by terrorist, 2300+ soldiers killed and 17,000+ soldiers injured and one non threatening country transformed into the Harvard of terrorist training camps.

Thanks Bush...oh and my children thank you for the $2,000,000,000,000,000,000 of debt you are leaving them.

murkyego, are you trying to blame Bush for 9/11? You point out that it was "on his watch"---just what, exactly, does that mean?

And how about the repeated statements by Osama that it was America's cowardice when she was attacked that convinced him that we were a "toothless tiger" which would meekly accept any punishment they handed out to us? Since the attacks which went unaddressed happened with Boy Clinton in the White House, surely you can see, even you, that the attacks in 2001 were the direct result of failure to fight back.

And don't forget, murky, that about a quarter of those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan were not combat deaths but due to accident or illness or disease. I don't have the figures on those treated for the same causes, but as "treated" equals "casualty" it is obvious that your 17,000 figure does not represent anything that could not have happened right here at home.

But you see, murky, most of us realize that if we had not taken the fight to them,they would have continued to bring it to us. And I have a feeling that you, murky, would have been the loudest of the whiners, railing against Bush for not protecting you. So sit back, look at the attacks before 9/11, look at the escalation in violence and the increasing number of innocent dead, look at how the cowardice of our previous administration emboldened our enemies to continue escalating their efforts to kill as many of us as possible, and see if you can figure out that it took a leader with a backbone and manly parts not used exclusively for pleasure to convince the murderers that this is not a good place for them to be.

Problem is, murky, you have already stated that as far as you are concerned, what manly parts you do have you want to be in a state of constant orgasm, your avowed description of your spiritual goals, which would put you firmly in the Clinton camp and unaware of how real men act.

If we had caught Osama and acknowledged catching him, then what?

Imprisonment in a location which would then become the sole target of every terrorist effort imaginable? Or in a secret location, which would get the knickers of every liberal in the country in a twist?

Ramsey Clark rushing to his side to make sure no one thinks he has gotten soft and started to love his country in his old age?

Can you imagine hostage situations demanding the release of Saint Osama, or else? I can. Big hostage situations, like threatening a whole subway full of people, or a whole city.

I can also imagine the increased slaughter of innocents as retaliation for his death.

On the other hand, now his followers see him essentially emasculated, impotent, powerless, skulking in caves while they go out and die for him, cravenly dodging Americans and still trying to portray himself as a leader. His latest communiques are whining, sniveling, pleas for money, and dependent on regurgitating American Left talking points. Oh, yeah, Osama is really showing himself to be quite the big shot, reduced to quoting Randi Rhodes and Alf Ranken.

I think if we did kill the SOB, it would be a stroke of genius to never tell anyone, and to continue to "verify" the occasional tape or letter which shows how powerless and yesterday's news he really is. It would take a strong man of great character, immune to the ankle-biters, and an administration smart enough and dedicated enough to the greater good, to carry off something like this---which is why I would consider it possible.

Of course, that would enrage the lefties, who would cry foul because Bush is keeping secrets, which is ever so Hitlerish. Or it would be proof he is "arrogant".

No, mushbrain Margolis, IF YOU HAD LISTENED TO BUSH YOU WOULD BE AWARE THAT BIN LADEN IS OF NO CONCERN AND THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF DOESN'T WASTE ANY TIME THINKING ABOUT BIN LADEN. UNLESS YOU ARE CALLING BUSH A LIBERAL?

Results are what counts. The war on terror? According to newly released goverment statistics, incidences of terrorism rose from 3.192 in 2004 TO OVER 10,000 in 2005. How exactly do you spin this into a "victory" in the "war on terror"?

The fact is that the war in Iraq has destabilized the Middle East and given the extremists a prime recruiting tool, and bankrupting us and our children for generations to come, to the tune of $10 BILLION A MONTH.

No, mushbrain Margolis, IF YOU HAD LISTENED TO BUSH YOU WOULD BE AWARE THAT BIN LADEN IS OF NO CONCERN AND THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF DOESN'T WASTE ANY TIME THINKING ABOUT BIN LADEN. UNLESS YOU ARE CALLING BUSH A LIBERAL?

Results are what counts. The war on terror? According to newly released goverment statistics, incidences of terrorism rose from 3.192 in 2004 TO OVER 10,000 in 2005. How exactly do you spin this into a "victory" in the "war on terror"?

The fact is that the war in Iraq has destabilized the Middle East and given the extremists a prime recruiting tool, and bankrupting us and our children for generations to come, to the tune of $10 BILLION A MONTH.

Regarding muirgeo's characterization of "police action" in the so-called war on terror: terrorists are criminals, be they Timothy McVeigh or OBL. And how did we deal with Tim McVeigh? He was a criminal and was tried and convicted in the court system. He is serving a life sentence for his crimes.

Now, you can declare war on a country (did we actually declare war on Afghanistan?). There was widespread support for this because the Taliban refused to cooperate and hand over those suspected of complicity in 9/11. So we did what we had to do there.

Unfortunately, rather than building up local trust and quickly training local police and army and helping build criminal justice institutions to finish the job there, we got distracted in Iraq. Don't believe me, this has been stated over and over again by senior military officials involved in the the conflict. The result is the re-emergence of the Taliban, a growing drug trade, and the resurgence of the warlords.

To win the "war on terrorism", it is essential to build international cooperation and encourage local authorities to investigate, arrest, and in some cases extradite suspected terrorists. This approach is much more effective than blanket military solutions from multiple perspectives: costs, lives lost, and most importantly, actually apprehending (or killing) the terrorists themselves.

Instead our approach has inflamed hatreds against the U.S. Where once we had some allies in the Arab and Muslim world, we are universally reviled. Don't believe me, check public opinion polls about what these countries think of U.S. foreign policy. Exactly how are we going to "win the war on terrorism" when so many of them despise our foreign policy and at the least have sympathy for the those who attack us?