...the only thing which can stop us now is ill-informed domestic political opposition.

How true--I was going to say that the only ones who believe we've abandoned the fight in Afghanistan are those who buy into the DBM/leftist/RINO rhetoric. We are winning the war on both fronts--Afghanistan and Iraq, but the battle at home rages on...

In reading Raman's article I didn't get the impression that he thinks the Islamic jihad movements in South Asia (which is his focus in the article) have been weakened overall -- just that the locus of power is shifting away from al Qaeda to other organizations that don't share bin Laden's pan-Arab philosophy. After all, Pakistan and Afghanistan are not Arabic countries. In paragraph 6 Raman writes, "Anti-US anger over developments in Iraq continues to motivate new recruits to suicide terrorism from members of the Pakistani and Moroccan diasporas and others. The new brand of non-organisational suicide terrorists, who do not necessarily belong to any organisation, shares bin Laden's anti-West anger and urge for reprisal, but they do not necessarily believe in his pan-Islamist ideology."

In the section of the article highlighted in the topic of this thread, Raman is arguing that the loss of Arab recruits to South Asia appears to be weakening the traditional al Qaeda influence there, and as a result may signal the demise of bin Laden and Zawahiri. But those developments do not mean that the international jihad movement would slow down in those areas. It just means less Arabic influence.

Mark also claims, "so much for the concept that we haven't been keeping after al-Qaeda and/or that Iraq has been a distraction from same. We have been keeping it up, and al-Qaeda in that area may be on the verge of complete destruction."

Perhaps so. But if you read paragraphs 11 - 13 of Raman's article, the withdrawal of American logistical support prior to the Iraq invasion allowed the resurgence of the Taliban.

Well done, Mark. Encouraging news for sure. From what I've read, Iran has long been the largest state sponsor of terrorism. Seems to me, the death-blow to terrorism requires bombing Iran and Reagan-style promotion of freedom combined with denunciations of the Islamic world view.

All in all, I remain optimistic.

Anyone thinking that Bin Laden will be captured before Bush leaves office is kidding themselves.

Having him on the loose is of far more value as he serves as a figurehead of the war on Terror. This is why Bush has given up on capturing him. If killed or captured, for most Americans, that will send the war on Terror, they will have gotten the one responsible for attacking America.

This would make the continued presence in Iraq more difficult for the administration and approval will take another big hit.

He serves as a great tool for the administrations "Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid" campaign. It used to be when the poll numbers dropped, a mysterious Bin Laden tape would refresh fears, if that didn't work, then a leaked story about how Terrorists are planning to attack the bridges, planes, ferries etc.

Now, the general public has caught onto the ploy and the last Bin Laden tape had no effect other than to remind people that Bush, supposedly hard on Terror, had failed so badly to capture a single Arab that had attacked America.

The Bin Ladens and the Bush family have been business partners for years and have made millions off one another. Its not in their personal best interests to allow him to come to any harm either.

Clinton had him not once, not twice, but three times and let him go each time.

Imagine what the world would be like today if he took him out. Hell, I might even have some respect for Clinton.

Axis, "The Bin Ladens and the Bush family have been business partners for years and have made millions off one another. Its not in their personal best interests to allow him to come to any harm either." What you just posted is ALL conjecture. If it is true where on earth is the verifiable facts? As it is, it is just another strange conspiracy theory with no basis in reality.

Clinton had him not once, twice, but three times and let hhim go each time.

And Chimpy McFlightsuit had Bin Laden cornered in the mts. of Tora Bora and let him go to attack THE WRONG COUNTRY!

" Bush failed to capture a single Arab that had attacked America."

What b.s They are either dead, imprisoned, or in a cave in Iran or Pakistan. Brilliant stateement.

As far as Bin Laden, Clinton did have the best chances to get him - specifically 3. Facts are facts.

Teenage

Really? Interesting since we blasted the hell out of Tora Bora basically back to the stone ages and didn't withdraw any troops from Afghanistan as it related to Iraq.

By the way, I know you probably wish your pal Saddam was still in power to rape, murder and maim his own people...fortunately we took him out. Sorry that makes you sad.

Again, Clinton had him three times on a silver platter but didn't have the balls (they were probably in some 19 year old's mouth) to order the strike.

Anybody who actually believes that bombing and killing people will eventually bring Peace, has clearly never read a history book. The time has come to reestablish full diplomatic relations with Iran and to get out of Iraq. Peace

First, as B Raman points out, most of the killing/capturing of al-qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan occured immediately after the (justified) US invasion of Afghanistan, and the assault on Tora Bora. We might have completely rid the area of al-qaeda and Taliban had we stayed and finished the job instead of finding pretexts to invade Iraq - ironically, the most secularist and most anti-al-qaeda government in the region. Had we spent a tiny fraction of the resources we have squandered in Iraq to instead rebuild Afghanistan, Afghanistan today might have become that shining example of US goodwill and democratic values we all would have liked it to be. Meanwhile, the Taliban have reconstituted and are controlling increasingly large areas of territory in an increasingly chaotic Afghanistan.

Secondly, Mark, you performed some pretty selective editing on B Raman's analysis. A few of the highlights you decided not to mention were:

- "6. While Al Qaeda in Pakistan is not getting new Arab recruits, there is no dearth of new Pashtun recruits for the Taliban and recruits of Muslims of different nationalities for the pan-Islamic terrorist organisations of different countries, which are allied with Al Qaeda in the International Islamic Front (IIF). Anti-US anger over developments in Iraq continues to motivate new recruits..."

- "4. The weakening of the central command and control has not had an impact on the morale and determination of the cadres."

- "5 ...Al Qaeda has shown a tremendous resilience in recovering from set-backs and pressing ahead towards its objective. One is seeing evidence of it in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and lately in Afghanistan."

- "7.The international Sunni jihadi terrorist movement is no longer dependent on centralised command and control based in the Pakistan-Afghanistan region to keep up its momentum."

- "10. The Taliban's resurgence should not have been surprising to anyone who had kept his eyes and ears close to the ground in the Pashtun areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Taliban is a largely Pashtun organisation, which feels totally at home and whose leaders and cadres are readily accepted in the Pashtun belt on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The Taliban was not defeated by the US-led military strikes after October 7,2001."

Feel safer now? I would add my personal opinion that overall, the US invasion and occupation of Iraq has added more recruits to al-qaeda than were lost in Afghanistan. So, coming up on 5 years after 9/11, Osama and Zawahiri are still at large, the Taliban are reconstituting in Afghanistan, and the international jihadi movement is growing as the result of the US presence in Iraq. And this is supposed to be a success story?

Waroirnation,

You think Saddam is my pal?
ROFLMAO

I'd call removing Saddam a success story. I'd call a Democratic Iraq a success story.

The problem with you liberals is that you have the total incapacity to see long term and judge everything by today. That is, was and will always be your shortcoming.

I don't know what other to come to Teenage, afterall you believe letting him continue to do what he was doing was ok. Isn't that protecting your friends?

Why are you so against removing a guy like Saddam, a guy that ignored UN resolutions for 13 years, guy that constitued WMD programs, used WMD and paid terrorists to suicide bomb our ally Israel? A guy that had connections to Al Queda.

What other conclusion am I supposed to come to Teenage? Where I come from you remove those types of people. I guess where you come from you just let them continue their evil ways.

Warriornation,

Let me make myself clear:

-I have never supported Saddam Hussein and I don't condemn him for his actions.

-You don't know jack s**t about me and yet you feel it necessary to paint me as a terrorist lover because I didn't blindly follow Chimpy's lies aboutinvding a country toht had no ties to al-Qaeda or 9/11.

What lies teenage? Please share them with us about President Bush. What lies did he make.

Thanks

By the way Teenage, plenty of ties between Iraq and Al Queda including Atta meeting with Iraqi administration.

No one is saying a link between Iraq and 9/11, but Iraq and Al Queda yes.

I thought this was a war on TERRORISM? Or it is just a war on Al Queda?

Please advise, I'm learning so much from you.

LOL

teenage liberal is a terrorist lover and a lousy typist.

I guess my birthday wish didn't come true; liberals still exist. Guess I'll have to try harder next year...

warriornation -

Parenthetical comments inserted:

Why are you so against removing a guy like Saddam, a guy that ignored UN resolutions for 13 years (uh, since when do you guys care about the UN anyway? Israel has ignored UN resolutions for 38 years - is that then a pretext for invading Israel?), guy that constitued WMD programs (yeah, with the help of the Reagan administration), used WMD (back in 1986 when he was a pal of Rummy and the Reagan admin) and paid terrorists to suicide bomb our ally Israel? (Israel, which is widely acknowledged to have the best intel in the region and which has no promblem with the idea of pre-emptive strikes, was totally unconcerned with the supposed "threat" from a vastly weakened Saddam) A guy that had connections to Al Queda. (no, actually he was an enemy of al-qaeda. However, there are nations in the region that do in fact harbor and finance al-qaeda - namely our "allies" Saudi Arabia and Pakistan)

What other conclusion am I supposed to come to Teenage? Where I come from you remove those types of people (does that go for Saudi Arabia too?). I guess where you come from you just let them continue their evil ways. (yes, he was a very evil dude - which kind of makes you wonder why the Reagan admin supported him for long)

Teenage,

There is no sense in getting into a pissing match with these guys. They will always blindly trust this administration, regardless of how hypocritical it makes them. Because they only know how to do one thing....attack the messenger. Why? Because they think the MSM fabricates news to support their point while at the same time the administration only releases intelligence to support their claim. Iraq wasn't a threat to the United States in the war on terror and everyone, including conservatives, knows that.

Just to show how hypocritical they are...I get called a moron on a daily basis in here and there are no repercussions...but if you dare to call any of them morons you will get banned. It's quite typical of these pro-fascist fanatics to silence those who don't agree with them.

America will defeat al queda and the democrats.

Ricorun,

That is part of why I like to read Raman's articles - he's an informed, outside observer with no dog in the American political hunt. This doesn't mean we should take his views as gospel, but they are certainly worthy of our consideration.

The resurgence of the Tabliban is a worrisome thing, but the also don't seem to be capturing the hearts of minds of the average Afghani - and Raman implies that they are getting most of their recruits from the Pashtuns in Pakistan...ie, people who have never had a full taste of Taliban rule while at the same time being ignorant of the very large improvements America has midwifed in Afghanistan. My bet is that the Afghan National Army, backed by American airpower, can more than hold its own against anything the Taliban can throw at it.

What was most interesting to me, however, is the paragraph I excerpted - it shows both a disintegrating al-Qaeda in that area, as well as the understanding that al-Qaeda is going to Iraq, where it is bleeding to death. Our military doesn't do body counts, but the usual loss ratio when America engages in this sort of battle is at least 5 to 1...meaning that if we've lost 10 men this past week, al-Qaeda has lost 50. You can't sustain that sort of loss endlessly...and as there are rumors to the effect that Zarqawi is now hiding out in Syria, the losses of al-Qaeda are probably becoming fatal to that organizations ability to operate at all.

Of course, the desrtruction of al-Qaeda and the death or capture of bin Laden doesn't end the war - it never would have, and won't now. While many critics of the liberation of Iraq claim that our focus should have remained on al-Qaeda, the plain fact of the matter is that al-Qaeda is secondary to the main goal...al-Qaeda is a symptom, not the disease...the disease being that socio-political millieu which creates the bin-Ladens and convinced fools to follow them into suicide.

Aaron,

That is why I linked the article - so you can go read it yourself. So much for the theory that I don't look into other points of view...

Mark,

True, true. Thanks for linking.

Aaron

"However, their elimination would not slow down the international jihad in the short and medium terms. Their elimination itself could become an added cause for aggravated terrorism."
Except in American politics, bin Laden is a dead horse. It's the new jihadists that America needs to worry about.
I know that the administration is not stupid enough to look only for "al-Qaida" in phone messages. I can only hope the rank and file are just as aware.
As for the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq:
It's happened. Live with it.
What we need now is a strategy for the future. America's military is about to be stretched again, now that the Guard is being sent to the border. Canada's helping out a bit in Afghanistan, and Britain in Iraq, but it's time to finish off one of those two struggles and consolidate.

Captain (Mo)Ron, you've got some nerve, when all you do is blindly follow the Howard Dean crowd, spewing hatred at this administration no matter what. And we disagree with this administration plenty here, so don't even throw that lie around.

Better yet, why don't you just bugger off, you liar. Yes, (Mo)Ron, you're a liar. Nobody's gotten banned from this site for simply calling one of us Bush supporters a moron. Hell, Captain (Mo)Ron, you just called us, in your own words, "pro-facist fanatics." And I bet you don't get banned for it, moron.

Your hypocrisy is repulsive; I think yhou owe the owners of this blog an apology. Of course, your hate-America blinders won't allow you to see the errors of your ways.

Good day, Captain (Mo)Ron...

Steve:
Speaking of history, has being pacificistic ever worked towards a murderous regime? Let's see... Hitler... NO.
Stalin... NO.
Mussolini... NO.
Khan... NO.
Napoleon... NO.

You can't make a logical, rational, reasonable peace with a madman.

Of course, you're quite happy to turn your back on those pesky zionists (after all they are the scurge of the world as I feel your racist comments indicate) and see anyone who desires democracy succombe as long as you're safe in your home. Well, give Iran the bomb, Argentina control over your energy, and you won't be safe... then you'll throw your arms in the air, blame the Jews for your ills, and ask why the government stood idle by while your convenient world was destroyed.

I feel bad for you.

Stay to the Right,

Yes it is a documented fact that George H. W. Bush (Sr.) and Bin Ladens father have been business partners for decades. Just do a Google search and you will come up with facts, documents and photos

On 9/11, the Bin Laden family was in New York on Business and President Bush had them swept back to Saudi Arabia for safety

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

Quote by : Posted by: Stay to the Right

Axis, "The Bin Ladens and the Bush family have been business partners for years and have made millions off one another. Its not in their personal best interests to allow him to come to any harm either." What you just posted is ALL conjecture. If it is true where on earth is the verifiable facts? As it is, it is just another strange conspiracy theory with no basis in reality.

See the quotes below to see why Bin Laden has not been caught. While he may have been dangerous in the Clinton years, he had NOT attacked America directly.

He did attack America during Bush though, on 9/11 and Bush gave up looking for him less than 6 months later.

Attacking Iraq was more important to this Imperial President than fighting back for the 3000 dead on 9/11

QUOTE:
--------------------------------

“So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him” … “And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run.”

— George W.Bush, responding to a reporter who asked why the President rarely spoke or mentioned Osama Bin Laden, in a press conference March 13, 2002, only 6 months after the 9/11 terrorist attack.

QUOTE:
-------------------

"Because he's hiding."

— George W. Bush, responding to a reporter who asked why Osama bin Laden had not been caught, aboard Air Force One, Jan. 14, 2005

QUOTE:
------------------------------

"The goal has never been to get bin Laden"

— General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, on 6 April 2002.

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

See the quotes below to see why Bin Laden has not been caught. While he may have been dangerous in the Clinton years, he had NOT attacked America directly.

He did attack America during Bush though, on 9/11 and Bush gave up looking for him less than 6 months later.

Attacking Iraq was more important to this Imperial President than fighting back for the 3000 dead on 9/11

QUOTE:
--------------------------------

“So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him” … “And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run.”

— George W.Bush, responding to a reporter who asked why the President rarely spoke or mentioned Osama Bin Laden, in a press conference March 13, 2002, only 6 months after the 9/11 terrorist attack.

QUOTE:
-------------------

"Because he's hiding."

— George W. Bush, responding to a reporter who asked why Osama bin Laden had not been caught, aboard Air Force One, Jan. 14, 2005

QUOTE:
------------------------------

"The goal has never been to get bin Laden"

— General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, on 6 April 2002.

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

teenage liberal is a terroist lover

keefer, your immaturity is nothing short of hillarious.

keefer = spoiled 7 year-old

Teenage Liberal:
I'm 24 years old... I don't know how old you are... nor do I know where you're from... but what I do know is that you clearly are blinding yourself to at least 50% of the truth if you get your "facts" and "truth" and "information" from newshounds. Hey... I can make a website that says you're the King of England... and look... according to Newshound... it's now a fact cause it's on the internet.

I REPEAT TO EVERYONE... just because it's on TV (right CBS?), or in a Newspaper (right, NYT?) or on the Internet (right Newshound?) doesn't mean it's true.

Someday you'll learn to trust but verify...

As long as bin Laden is making TV appearances, what happens in Iraq only matters if Americans are dying there. They can't even form a government. The bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld foreign policy has been a failure. Peace

Mark said: "That is part of why I like to read Raman's articles - he's an informed, outside observer with no dog in the American political hunt."

That may be so. But I feel it incumbent to point out that Raman's real issue in this article is to explain how the American strategy affects India. That's his political hunt. Re-read the article from that perspective. Certainly no one's opinion should be taken as gospel, and no one's opinion should be dispelled merely on the basis of their perspective. But their perspective nonetheless has to be taken into account. No one is totally apartisan. Said in another way, everyone has their biases, even if those biases don't lend themselves well to a simple left/right dichotomy in the American political sense.

Mark said again: "The resurgence of the Tabliban is a worrisome thing, but the also don't seem to be capturing the hearts of minds of the average Afghani - and Raman implies that they are getting most of their recruits from the Pashtuns in Pakistan...ie, people who have never had a full taste of Taliban rule while at the same time being ignorant of the very large improvements America has midwifed in Afghanistan."

First of all, Raman did not imply that the Taliban was getting most of their recruits from Pakistan. Rather, what he did imply is that most of them were TRAINED in Pakistan. And if one were to point to any one "improvement" that America has midwifed in Afghanistan, one has to consider the opium poppy trade -- it has gone from nearly non-existent under the Taliban to 60% or so of the entire economy. Both sides are currently taking advantage of that fact. But neither alternative is particularly good news for the US. Also, the opium trade, while it has invaded the Pashtun areas, is still largely centered in the north -- that is, in the areas most resistant to Taliban control prior to our invasion, and also the area most accepting of our incursion into the country. Our invasion of Afghanistan has certainly changed the balance of power in the country. That can't be debated. But the question I have is, have we changed it into a more intractable version of Bolivia? Uzbekistan is the most important primary conduit for the opium trade out of Afghanistan. What do y'all know about Uzbekistan? How have their allegiances changed in the last four years, and why? I think if you look into it you may be very surprised -- not to mention concerned. But I'm interested to see what people say about it.

"While he may have been dangerous in the Clinton years, he had NOT attacked America directly."

Wrong. Ramzi Yousef the bomber who masterminded the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 had many ties to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/12/attack/main540376.shtml

Al Qaeda is also suspected in planning and assisting in the Somalia battle that killed 19 U.S. soldiers, also in 1993.

"He did attack America during Bush though"

The hijackers entered this country in the mid 1990's in the middle of Clinton's term. Unless you are suggesting that the terrorists entered this country in the mid-90's, planned their attacks, and sought out flight training to carry out the attacks, just in case Bush won the election. Those attacks would have happened even if Gore had won the election and you can bet had Gore won, the Taliban would still be sitting pretty in Afghanistan financing more attacks. Gore would have, in typical Clinton style, fired millions of dollars worth of cruise missles into Afghanistan and then declared victory.

There are plenty of other examples: The U.S.S. Cole, the embassies in Africa, the Saudi Arabia attacks. Clinton did nothing and was much too busy with Monica to try and hunt down an organization that had killed American citizens, Marines, sailors, and soldiers.

As for Bush having intelligence about Al qaeda, I'm sure that he did. But considering how the left has completely freaked because we went after a man like Saddam, what would have happened if he attacked Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11. The left would have been howling about a "pre emptive" attack. Bush had 8 months, Clinton had 8 years during which America and it's military/citizens were attacked.

Last I heard there were still thousands of Special Forces searching the mountains of Afghanistan where they believe Al qaeda/Bin Laden may be. I'm not sure where this "gave up looking for Bin Laden" came from.

keefer,

they have a cure for your problem, it's called sex...do you need me to mail you $50 for a hooker???

1) Don't ever associate me with Howard Dean...I can't stand him even more than you

2) There is a difference between being liberal/conservative or democrat/republican and doing the right thing for America

3) Bush has a quality that I can't stand in any human being...ARROGANCE...and it is my God-given right to hate him for whatever reason I see fit. I couldn't stand him a year before he bacame President and he has never earned my trust.

4) You are an immature, uneducated, spineless jerk. Before you go using big words, look them up in the dictionary. I guarantee you were the kid in school who stole other kids' lunch money and picked on them profusely because it made you feel better about yourself. Get a life!!!

5) Nobody in here deserves an apology from me, or I would be more than happy to offer one.

"and I don't condemn him for his actions.

-You don't know jack s**t about me and yet you feel it necessary to paint me as a terrorist lover."

Teenage moonbat

YOU DON'T COMDEMN SADDAM'S ACTIONS???

YOUR words paint you for what you are.

Ricorun,

You may wanna cut back on the epistemological insights to support your point. In your previous, you immediately contradict yourself when you say, "...No one is totally apartisan. Said in another way, everyone has their biases,..." My point being, it really kills the impact of your claim when in the process of stating it, you admit that you are not (and cannot be) objective.

I've already said my piece on Mark's comments. Just thought I'd jump in and offer up some epistemological insight of my own in the hopes that this mistake can be avoided by yourself and others. (JLMarquez steps aside and allows the talkback to continue).

Hang in there, teenage. The worse things they call you, the more you win.

There are STILL people who repeat the al Qaida/Saddam lie EVEN AFTER BUSH AND RUMSFELD SAY THEY NEVER SAID THERE WAS A TIE. Fox news actually had the nerve to say Bush betrayed THEM by stating there was no connection between Saddam and 9-11. And yet they STILL persist, because they can't admit they were wrong about anything, or risk being proved wrong about evreything.

And the "Osama on a silver platter" lie has been repeatedly debunked by the 9-11 Commission and the the Sudanese government, but they're still living under a rock here. They refuse to acknowlege Reagan BUILT OSAMA'S BUNKERS and trained him and his forces. They refuse to hear Condi Rice say she believes Saddam didn't know a darn thing about 9-11. They refuse to hear Rumsfeld say "we know where they are" followed by "I never said we know where they are." They think lying us into a pre-emptive war has made the world a safer place, and that somehow the billions and perhaps trillions of dollars pissed away into the futile crescent was all part of the plan that is going oh so well. Somehow these people know more about the Iraq war than the U.S. government.

They refuse to see there would have been no 9-11 if Reagan hadn't dismantled Carter's alternative energy program that would have had us importing ZERO barrels of oil from the middle east by the year 2000. ZERO. No oil. No troops in Saudi Arabia. No Afghanistan/Taliban pipeline. They refuse to believe REAGAN'S OWN ADMISSION that he traded arms for hostages and that he negotiated with the IRANIANS to avoid an October Surprise. They refuse to believe Valerie Plame and her cover company Brewster Jennings were monitoring IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM before she and countless of her associates were OUTED BY THE PRESIDENT WITH NO WARNING.

Now the hardest thing to understand is: WHY DO THEY SUPPORT THESE LIARS?!?! WHAT DO THESE POSTERS HAVE TO GAIN BY BURYING THEIR HEADS IN THE SAND?!?! It's THEIR billions and trillions that are being spent. It's THEIR SUVs that cost TWICE AS MUCH to fill as just a couple years ago. It's THEIR oil being GIVEN AWAY from under federal lands FOR FREE and then being gouged to buy it back.

They refuse to do the math as they get a $20 tax cut while the top 1% richest guys are averaging over $40,000. Hey, they're excited to get a TAX CUT! Even though, because of the MASSIVE debt, it's all borrowed money THEY AND THEIR KIDS have to pay back while the top billionaires get their cut made permanent.

They refuse to see How Bush selling our ports to Dubai, whose princes go hunting with bin Laden, as a problem.

I swear these guys live by the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. Read 'em and you'll see what I mean...

As for Saddam, ask the Iraqi women who treated them better, Saddam or the new Iraqi so-called government: Iraq Women More Respected Under Saddam. Don't ask me about Saddam, I don't live there, these women do.

Our president spends like a drunken sailor, while Republicans still claim fiscal responsibility. Really, why do you support Bush? Other than "because I'm right and you're a moron," I mean.

Teenage, still waiting for the "lies". Thanks, we will be waiting.

Axis, there are links galore to Iraq and Al Queda so please try again. Start with Stephen Hayes book and go from there. Or just look at the documents being released and translated in the last two months. Happy to provide links for you. Of course you will ignore them the same way you guys just keep the mantra of "Bush lied" and can never provide an actual lie.

Axis, show us what WMD Reagan provided to Iraq in the 1980's. Thanks.

It's sad, especially coming from the group that believed Bill Clinton was a deity....talk about lies. Good grief the hypocrisy on the left is staggering.

Captain Ron...did you think Bill Clinton was arrogant?

Now you looky here, Captain (Mo)Ron--I have a life, and right now my life includes getting under your skin. And if you're the one who's screwing with my computer, and I find out, we'll just see who's spineless. You got that, Captain Ronda?

teenage wimperal, you are a terrorist-lovin' pimply-faced girly-boy. Why don't you and Captain Ronda get a room, and teach each other some writing skills. I've seen better writing from four-year-olds.

Sorry, Mark, but this blog was so much better before it was infested with brainless lemmings. Oh how I long for the good old days...

congressive, we trust Reuters about as much as we trust Rather. Good try, son; we'll "blindly" follow our leader, thanks very much...

You are all missing an important point.
The response by America after Pearl Harbour and 9/11 were identical.
Everyone united. Democrats pledged absolute support to the president. Everyone waved the flag and yelled "Bring 'em on!"

It's what happened afterwards that was different.

In 1941 America faced equals, if not superiors. Germany had the best army, the best tanks, and the best tactics. Japan had the best navy, the most carriers, and the best naval strategy.
In 1941 America received a series of blows. The Philippines. Wake Island. Guam. Attack after attack, loss after loss.
America was fighting professionals. Strong professionals.
The president mobilized the country. The draft was instituted. Everyone knew a soldier. At home, people forgot about luxuries and businesses forgot about profits. Wives donated their pots, kids their nickels. Everybody fought in some way.
Reporters were NCOs. Ernie Pyle, Bill Mauldin, and a battalion of others lived in the trenches. Some, like Pyle, died there. Stars and Stripes was a soldier's rag, not an officer's sounding board.
The army made progress. Lives were lost, but you could look on a map and see how much territory was Jap-free or de-Nazified. Villagers in France threw flowers.
Meanwhile, the commanders at Pearl Harbour were dismissed. They hadn't really done anything wrong, except let their guard down in an unsafe world, but that was enough. The people got accountability.

Compare that with post 9/11.
Accountability? Nobody was at fault. We weren't briefed. It was Clinton's fault. We'll investigate later. Etc.
The enemy? A bunch of guys with box cutters exploiting a chink in the armor. Overseas, much the same. Clinton probably ignored them because they WERE no threat. The average al-Qaida member doesn't look like a professional, ready to take over the world - he looks like a disgruntled extra from The Mummy Strikes.
The enemy? First, Al-Qaida. then, Afghanistan. Then, Iraq.
The enemy? No carriers, few tanks. Nothing - NOTHING - in America's league.
America didn't mobilize, didn't change, weren't called to sign up. A slimmed down task force was sent to squash a bug. The bug was squashed.
Reporters were embedded. They weren't troops, they were Scud Studs. They weren't NCOs, they were NBC's. They interviewed the generals, not the footslogger.
In the beginning, we all cheered. We saw on the map how much ground was covered, we got Chemical Ali and dug Saddam out of his spider hole.
We won. But the war didn't stop.

Today, the war may as well be on the moon. A few of us know men over there, but not everybody. We aren't asked to cut down on our use of gasoline, rubber, or food - heck, we even got a tax cut! All's well here in America, so why are our people dying? Where's the danger we face, where's the imminent threat?

Terrorism isn't enough. We live day to day with the threat that someone might kill a group of us. Maybe the Bloods, maybe the newest serial killer, maybe two high school kids with guns.
When they strike, we don't send the army in, we send a SWAT team.
So why, we ask, is Iraq worth so much of our blood, our money, and our time? THAT is the question being asked now, by liberals, by Democrats. And nobody is giving a straight answer.
9/11? Saddam's in prison. Osama bin Laden's in a cave. End of problem.
International terror? Not America's problem. Next.
Further attacks on Americans? More Homeland Security. Shut the Mexican border, beef up the cops. Next.

The war doesn't fit America's needs. America is saying so.

It doesn't help that the president has been running the worst public relations campaign since Axis Annie. Stonewall this, attack any dissent, ignore any mistakes, cover up any corruption. Nobody admit responsibility - heck, nobody admit there's anything to take responsibility FOR.
Responding to leaks by attacking the leakers.

These are the reasons the MSM has changed from the Bush Cheerleaders to RepubliBashers.

Warrior,

Remember when Clinton got on national TV and admitted to making a mistake? I do. Do I think what he did was wrong? Yes. Do I forgive him? Yes. Do I think the details of his private life should have remained private? Yes. Do I think Bill Clinton was arrogant? No.

If tomorrow the news reported that Dick Cheney got caught sucking on George Bush's ding-dong, would you still support them? Yes. Would you think the details of their private lives should have remained private? Yes. Would you favor impeachment? No.

Will George Bush ever admit to any mistakes? No. Will he ever apologize for anything? No. Will he continue doing what's best for himself and not listen to the public, which he represents? Yes. Do I consider that arrogant? Yes. Do I forgive someone who doesn't ask for forgiveness? No. Should I?

Keefer, it is possible for you to feign intelligence? You're like that zit that just won't pop. Judging by how you talk, you probably have a few of them. Might want to get that checked out. If you keep up with your "I know you are but what am I" attitude you're never gonna get laid. At least go steal one of your daddy's Playboys and release some of that tension. It really helps. Then go do some reading up on the subjects and come back with something with some substance.

Oh, Captain Ronda, you're such a tool. My dad died in 2002, and I'm way past the pimple stage. In fact, I turned 50 today. The only pimple I have is one on my arse. I named it Captain Ronda.

It is possible, Ronda, for one to feign intelligence. Hell, son, you're trying your best. Keep up the good work, little fella; you've at least got yourself fooled.

Night-night, Captain (Mo)Ronda...

Ron

I wasn't even referring to Clinton and his arrogance regarding Monica... in which case he spent weeks denying it. No, I was referring to his arrogance on many other issues.

How about his comments the night he was elected. "This administration will be the most ethical administration in history".

8 years later, no administration had more convictions, more indictments, more resignations do to absolute gross negligence (Jocelyn Elders ring a bell), and of course a few convenient deaths too.

That is absolute ARROGANCE Ron. There are no two ways about it. He lied about just about everything he has ever done (whether it was raping women, cheating on his wife, sexually harrassing people...sorry Ron...that's more than his personal life, that's the LAW, his "ethical administration", pardoning some of the worst criminals out there, and on and on and on).

Sorry Ron, that is absolute unequival ARROGANCE!

Small Town Hick

I hate to say it, but apparently this country needs to be attacked again. In fact, I'm sure of it. It's the only thing that will actually get people to wake up and way "Oh yeah, I remember why we are doing this".

teenage wimperal, you are a terrorist lovin', pimple-faced girly-boy.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

LMFAO

keefer, contiune to act like an ass. You're immature shots at me only make me stronger.

The small town hick wrote:
The war doesn't fit america's needs.america is saying so.
_______________________________________________
Look man, what corruption is there in a GOD FEARING man,a man who wants and needs to protect his own people,his own family, not to mention your own neck?

I sure am glad the president does'nt rely on pinny-anny polls from thick headed liberal cowards.

If he done this we would all be in fox-holes praying for our lives.

All those people over in iraq and afghanistan have the same mind set,they want control of america for it's easy pickings and rich's just like WE did when we founded it nearly four hundred fifty years ago, and they will go to the furthest extent even if it means waiting that long,those people will never change,they are the mastermind of evil.

The president has one heck of a resposibility,a lot more than you give him credit FOR.

I think he's doing a tremendous job,about ten times better than ol clinton would ever do,if this were in clinton's era where would he probably be?, hmmmm let's guess? oh yeah thats right he'd be out in adultery with little miss lerinchski AH boy! what a POOR EXCUSE he was for a president!

President Bush, had NO such agenda to speak of,he has maintained a clean,decent,moral lifestyle throughout his two nomination's.

As for that osama creep living in a cave can you read his mind on whether he plans to strike a nuclear missile directly into your backdoor or drive a plane into a fuel plant near you and wipe out and entire community or two a whole city, or even state perhaps?

You see these are the things you should be most concerned about,these are the things that change an entire country into "chaos" like baghdad once was,I don't know, maybe you would like to re-live the new york city fiasco 9/11 where you live?
I KNOW I DON'T WANT TOO!!

So to better answer your comment.
I say the war fit's america's every need for the need to thrive and flourish the way we alway's have and ALWAYS WILL.So you should APPLAUD the president for his hard work and AMBITION to provide the GREATEST NEED that we have ever needed,and that is a SAFE HAVEN FROM LOWLY LIFE FORMS LIKE OSAMA BIN LADEN AND THE NOW JAIL BIRD,SADDAM HUSSEIN.

You see,I believe that god ordained that george w.bush be president for the plain simple fact that he knew that there would be troubled time's and that there needed to be someone who could handle the job well,and get things accomplished.
We should thank him that he sent george.

MAY GOD RICHLY BLESS AMERICA,AWAY FROM TERRORIST'S!!!!

Warrior,

You may consider that arrogance. I actually don't remember Clinton saying the line about being the most ethical. Before using the indictments and convictions against him, I would recommend reading, "My Life". You will find that Ken Starr was going above and beyond what he was asked in order to destroy Clinton's reputation. He indicted people because they wouldn't lie for him. People were put in jail because they wouldn't lie. You can hardly hold that against him. Convenient deaths??? Come on! That claim is just outright rediculous.

Have you ever read about any of Clinton's pardons? Most of the time he pardoned people in their 70s and 80s who had been in jail most of their lives. In reality, Clinton pardoned fewer than most other presidents. I admit, he made mistakes. I recall one such pardonee got out and killed someone again. Do you think Clinton feels no guilt for that? Well, he does.

So fine, Clinton made one arrogant statement that you have shown me...I'm sure there were many more. Does that inherently make him an arrogant person??? I don't think so. I've made arrogant statments myself, but I am a humble person by nature.

Bush on the other hand is arrogant across the board, no matter how unpopular his policies are with Congress and the people of the United States. Many of the people in here like that about him. I don't. I feel he has completely lost touch with the people he represents. Even if you completely throw out Iraq and the war on terror as if they never happened. Just look at how fast his social security privatizing died. Look at the response to the Harriet Miers nomination. What about the UAE ports takeover. He kept telling us over and over and over again that his plans were better but they weren't what the people wanted. He is unpopular because he doesn't listen.

Personally, I want a President who will listen to the people and do his job as a representative as well as a leader. Neither republican nor democrat will represent me unequivocally but one thing about Clinton is that he was always in touch with the American people. Bush may be a great leader, but he is a horrible representative.

Wow,

Some super intelligent responses coming from keefer and warriornation here. LOL

Seems they get irked that a youngster many years their junior is able to reply with more logical and intelligent answers.

So they turn and get their kicks from belittling him instead.

No doubt in their spare time they hang out near the candy store so they can steal 6 year old lollypops just to see them cry.

Pretty sad.

Captain Ron,
In response to your comment.
________________________________________________

I say don't let the people have everything they want.

We are like little children being spoiled,and in reality we "REALLY" have been spoiled too much and not enough thanks.

You see it's like the little boy,who goes to the store with his mother if she gave him everything he wanted and then one day decided he would,nt get anything what is his most likely reaction?

You see,It's not what america WANTS that matters it's what america NEEDS,and as long as I've got someone who can do that then I don't need a representative, because war is burden enough to save thousands upon thousands of living people.

BeSelfish said: "My point being, it really kills the impact of your claim when in the process of stating it, you admit that you are not (and cannot be) objective."

Be that as it may, I really don't think it is possible for anyone to be completely objective all the time. One can only try to approach complete objectivity. That's why we discuss things (or at least that's why I do). Through that process new facts emerge, as do different ways of interpreting them. Many times through discussing things with others who don't share my views, biases I didn't even know I had have been revealed to me. I assume it works the same way with others -- maybe even you, BeS.

...the only thing which can stop us now is ill-informed domestic political opposition.

I agree. An ill informed populace is dangerous. That is why we need a probing, aggressive media. And outside of Seymour Hersh and Helen Thomas I am not seeing it. That is why we need an administration that can admit mistakes when they make them. How much credibility can they have when all they do is deny, deny, deny, yet we all see mistakes they have made, daily. No credibility.

If the president spilled the beans all the time and word got around about some puny little mistake he made,what kind of weakness would this play on the united states of america?,you have to do thing's in confidentiality and a timely manner in order to keep the noses of the weak minded evil liberal's at bay!!

That's how the little small town's and communities work these day's all you hear is gossip,gossip,gossip.

If this gossip got into the right hands(IRAQI IMMIGRANT) who know's what would happen.

It sure pays in the long run to receive information and not give it,so the president can deal with whatever new information(trouble) that could arise on top of all the congressional pressure from left extremist(Ted kennedy) and the like.

Do I agree.That an ill informed populace is dangerous.

No way.We are not being informed for a purpose,and that purpose is for your own good as well as the people of america.

__________________________
to:ricorun.
__________________________

You say:Beselfish said.

listen mr.ricorun I can oly be objective as far as things are concerned for my own well being and health of my family.Mainly concern for their lives.

I am willing to discuss things any time in rational thinking debate,engaging in a little give and take,you see the president is the same way but see the president he not only has to engage in give and take but he has to act responsibly upon his own action's as well as the consequences of those trying to tell him what to do.Make no mistake the president should NOT be questioned upon his referendum......for our lives are at stake......this is why he does'nt base his decisions on pinny-anny poles.

That is why i am proud to have a president who is looking out for everyone not just his family.

Captain Ron

Here you go...type in "the most ethical administration in history Clinton" and you can read 1000's of articles on how he made this claim the night he was elected.

Of course then reality hit and his adminstration became the most corrupt, most indicted, most convicted in US history.

Also check out the VERY FIRST thing the Clinton Adminstration did on Jan. 20, 1993...talk about a good laugh....read that Executive Order.

Embarrassingly funny. And Ron, ARROGANT at the highest levels.

Axis

Think about it...a Teenager calling a guy the worst president ever. If he's a teenager (nothing he says leads me to believe he isn't), that means he was born in the 1980's or 1990's. That also means he missed Jimmy Carter who many of us lived through.

That also means he missed LBJ who many of us lived through.

That also means he missed Richard Nixon who many of us lived through.

Sorry you don't see the humor, especially considering Jimmy Carter, of a teenager claiming someone is the worst president ever. Perhaps that is above you.

Warriornation,

I'm not exactly a teenager and not an old man either.born 79' precisely.

but I've seen enough corruption out of clinton that I do not want to re-live it again.

Also not exactly the brightest kid in the world but common sense tell's me and everyone else who has some common sense that clinton was an "evil" minded person.There was NOTHING good about his administration.There's no two ways about it!

THIS IS SO SCREWED UP! I CAN'T EVEN TELL WHO'S TALKING TO WHO!!!

You're immature shots at me only make me stronger.

However, they don't make you learn proper word usage. You improperly used the term "you're," which is a contraction for the words "you are." You should've used "your." Let me school you with the following statement:

You're not really getting stronger, you're actually entering puberty. Check inside your pants; you may find some peach fuzz growing there.

Now that's how you properly use the terms "you're" and "your." As I said earlier, you and Captain Ronda ought to get together and practice your writing.

Axis, you are a waste of time, suggesting that this punk is even landing any blows. And allow me to critique your writing, sonny. The following is from your last post:

No doubt in their spare time they hang out near the candy store so they can steal 6 year old lollypops just to see them cry.

Now axis, I can't tell how old a lollipop is, nor have I ever seen one cry. Maybe you should join teenage pissant and Ronda for some remedial writing training.

A crying, six-year-old lollipop? ROFLMAO!!!

Capt? Ron

Amusing that you bring up Clinton's pardons, since his very last was the 11th hour pardon of Marc Rich, at the time one of the FBIs ten most wanted fugitives. His crime?

In 1983, Rich was indicted in federal court of evading more than $48 million in taxes. He was also charged with 51 counts of tax fraud and with running illegal oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis. He was also involved in the sale of millions of dollars worth or arms and materials to Saddam.

Cooincidentaly Marc Rich's socialite ex-wife has donated an estimated $1 million to Democratic causes, including $70,000 to Hillary Clinton's successful Senate campaign and $450,000 to the Clinton presidential library fund. She also lobbied heavily for Marc's pardon.

Tit for Tat?? Well that's another story rumored to have occured between The philanderer and Chief, let's just call this pardon what it was...
Quid pro Quo.

Jeremiah...we're on the same side.

:)

Warriornation,

:)Alright, Good news I did'nt know what to think for a while. Because nobody seemed to want to address me on the issue's that I was commenting on here.

Don't you think a good idea would be to tell these people that use all the cursing and foul language here to leave unless they want their IP addresses banned, to name one that putred mouthed "teenage liberal" dude, at least I think they should be, because cursing just shows ones stupidity, Right?

Jeremiah said: "listen mr.ricorun I can oly be objective as far as things are concerned for my own well being and health of my family.Mainly concern for their lives."

I think you missed my point. I was discussing objectivity in general, not specifically how it relates to national security issues.

As far as Bush goes, I should hope he's looking out for all of us. But his insistence on doing it without reasonable oversight sets a very dangerous precedent. The war on terror is a generational war. It's not going to end by the time Bush leaves office. Are you sure you can trust the next president? Or the one after that? Can you think of a past president that you didn't trust?

As far as I'm concerned, trust has to be earned. And it can't be earned by anyone that keeps resisting verification. Checks and balances were built into the constitution for a reason -- to minimize the potential for abuse by any one single branch of government.

Ricorun said:But his insistence on doing it without reasonable oversight sets a very dangerous precedent?

I think george takes things more from hindsight rather than oversight though.

He seen where we came from and knew the awful load of events that would transpire post9/11 even if it meant being distracted from every day grind
of hashing it out with the left.which ultimately saved america much heartache!!

For he trusts in a higher being to see him through the every day blog of issue's plaguing america.

Jesus said:with me you can do everthing,without me you can do nothing.

Can I trust the next president?
Provided he's anything like george I can.Sure can.

Do I know a president that I did'nt trust before this one?
Well,quite frankly I really don't have to answer that one,You should already know.It was precisely the very one before this one.

As far as I'm concerned george has earned america's trust or he would not be in office at this time.

I apologize for my interpretation of your comment.

Warriornation,

Your arguement is flawed for you are assuming that only advanced age gives you the ability to make a personal determination.

If that were true, then you are not qualified to voice your opinion either, until you are at least 70 or 80 years old.

Personally, I am 33, and was not around personally during the Nixon years, but did not need to be as there is PLENTY of research materials available to see how corrupt he was.

Quote by Warriornation

"Think about it...a Teenager calling a guy the worst president ever. If he's a teenager (nothing he says leads me to believe he isn't), that means he was born in the 1980's or 1990's. That also means he missed Jimmy Carter who many of us lived through."

warriornation,

Ok, that's fine, but is there any comparison to the last president and this one,and what about John Kerry,You see what I don't like about the democrats is the fact that they condone ABORTION which is big on my list,they are anti-gun,for welfare institutions,low or what I call lazy-housing developments, including many more issue's.

I'm sorry:( if you misunderstood me but I base my decisions not on my age but rather on the difference in right versus wrong.

So why not ask...........?
The ultimate question here. How do past president's measure up to the current president?

Thanks for commenting.

warriornation,

Sorry I did not read before I posted. my bad.please continue with axis discussion,I apologize to you to axis,I'm making a complete embarrassment here.I bettered quit.

I'm all messed up.LOL.