Matts, argument is the same one used by southern politicans to reject the northern politicians call for the freeing of slaves in the 1840' and 50's. "All things old will be new again." It was without merit then and it is without merit now. Peace

so where's the alternative location which we MUST have 4 UBL's badguys?

It's the left wing liberals who should be SHUT DOWN -- PERMANENTLY! America and the entire world would be a better place without them!

Why has Guantanamo become such an issue around the world? Why, because our liberal propagandists have made it so, just like their never ending misguided anti-Bush, anti-American propaganda has hurt the image, security, and prestige of the United States around the world. They blame President Bush and others, but it is fact THEY and their hate campaign that is to blame. The sad fact is that they are so blind and incapable of thinking that they can not even see the facts right in front of them!

Because of the liberal Democrat left wing anti-American campaign, the entire world now believes Americans torture and treat prisoners like Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot. Many even equate President Bush to Hitler or Stalin because of our anti-American anti-patriotic liberals. Have we forgotten things like Senator Durbin's irresponsible speech from our very Senate floor which was instantly sent around the world by the world's press.

From the Washington Times: "... [Senator] Durbin said, 'If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

When the world hears speeches like Senator Durbin's, and compares it to the following, what else would they believe!

From the Washington Times: "About 9 million persons, including 6 million Jews, died in Hitler's death camps, 2.7 million persons died in Stalin's gulags and 1.7 million Cambodians died in Pol Pot's scourge of his country ... "

No wonder America has more enemies that ever before. Liberal create more of them every single day!!! Our troops fight and die to stop them and liberals even more to replace them. Our government initiates programs to stop them and protect Americans and their cities, and liberals tell the terrorists about our plans, methods, and efforts. Whose side are the liberals really on? The sad fact is... the liberals don't even have a clue!

Why don't we just turn all of the prisoners loose and let them find a home. Perhaps some of our liberal friends would offer to be a sponsor and adopt them. Forget the fact that most are radicals who will kill anyone they can, the instant they can, and will not change their actions and goals of destroying and killing Americans. Forget the fact that even their home countries do not want them. Forget the fact that for some, returning to their home countries would be a torture and death sentence.

Liberals have been so brainwashed, indoctrinated, and mislead by their liberal colleges, universities, and nutty professors that they are not capable of comprehending or dealing with real life situations. This is not the theoretical world of some liberal professor's text book, hypothetical class exercise, or controlled experiment. This is real life! The kind that can get people killed!

Yes you liberals. Why don't you get some groups together and "adopt a terrorists". Get some real life experience in dealing with Jihadists. Just watch your back and your neck or you may find your head rolling around on the floor and your "friendly" terrorist gone from your comfortable home to kill the next infidel!

Let's get that liberal "adopt a terrorist" program going.

Perhaps we can have some volunteers...

AAR

The radical left needs to sit down, shut up, and let us win the war.

Whew, tough talk Matt. Will you still be blogging when you are on the front lines in Iraq, Syria, Iran, or North Korea? (War de jour)

Ash - I did my time dressed as a tree. You?

I frequently don't understand the liberal mindset. They'll commit treason to advance their own agenda. Truly, barbaric.

It's the left wing liberals who should be SHUT DOWN -- PERMANENTLY! America and the entire world would be a better place without them!

AAR

Without liberals speaking out against the tyranny, corruption and illegal acts of the Bush administration, your country would no longer be a democratic nation. Is that what you want? A nation where only those who blindly agree with every government policy have a voice.

Liberals voices will be heard, whether it fits with your neocon agenda, or not. We will not be silenced.

Liberals voices will be heard, whether it fits with your neocon agenda, or not. We will not be silenced.

The last thing I want, CO, is for people like you to be muffled. You dig your own political grave with your rhetoric -- more and faster, please.

Art,

I truly don't understand the conservative mindset, they will engage in illegal wars, based on bogus information, then when we find out the facts, they continue to let our soliers die, languishing in a hell-hole, so that they don't look like the war-mongering morons, they are...you should be ashamed of your anti-american, anti-troop, pseudo-patriotism

/SPIT!

I remember recently Bush himself said Gitmo should be shut down or atleast the idea be re-examend. Why do we have to hide these people away? If they are guilty of crimes against our nation why not public trial? What are we afraid of?

Answer me this, right wingers:
Why?
Why in God's name do you still stand by Bush and his dishonest and corrupt administration?
What reason is making you side with this idiot?

I frequently don't understand the liberal mindset. They'll commit treason to advance their own agenda. Truly, barbaric.

I really cannot understand the disappointment of the Left. For the Canadian, I would like him to point out ONE FREEDOM or CIVIL LIBERTY I have lost with Bush in the WH. I will help him out, because the answer is NONE.
Third Eye goes with the LIES Canard which is basically the most ignorant response to the lead up to OIF.
The Left REFUSES to believe we are in a War, of which Iraq is just ONE FRONT. Why the Left wants to disrupt the effort is beyond me.
I rarely post here anymore because of the moronic debate tactics of the Left. BFB presents facts, and the Left rants like spoiled children.
I agree with Spook. The Left keeps digging themselves farther into oblivion with the constant name calling, moving of Goal Posts, ignoring facts, and being wrong on every Security Measure to protect the USA.
Must suck to root against your Country to advance your Political Agenda.

TEO,

Only problem is that you're proceeding from a bunch of falsehoods.

The war is legal, authorized by the U.N.
The facts were true as the world knew them to be at the time.
And to leave prematurely would surely send millions to their deaths and hardship.

Why shut down Gitmo? To satisfy the left and the savages?

Why look weak.

We are at WAR. Wake up!

Our little Canadian Observer is still mouthing the talking points of the neorads..." tyranny, corruption and illegal acts of the Bush administration..."

Of course, these talking points are all fables, invented to entertain the feeble minds of the AA groupies, the KOSheads, the leaking Eyes.

Tyranny? No truth to that, no examples. But it's an excellent Ranty Rhodes soundbite. Short, easy to remember, and sounds good.

Corruption? If CO wants to legislate an act that makes every suspect act by every person within every organization automatically include all other members of that organization, then I suggest he start by doing this. Of course, every act of corruption by any Canadian would automatically convict the CO of the same crime. And certainly it would have to apply to the Dems, making the entire party guilty of taking bribes and hiding money in the freezer.

Get real, CO---though that would mean turning your back on the only group that has ever welcomed you, the Loony Left. Acts committed by a few do not convict, or represent, the many.

Illegal acts? (Of the Bush Administration, natch.) Too bad there aren't any.

Yes, I know, the "breathtaking arrogance" of the Left lets them simply define legality according to whose ox is likely to get gored, but in fact legality is an easily defined term----and legal opinions on Bush Administration acts do not find those acts to be illegal. Yes, those pesky courts that have the Constitutional responsibility to rule on legality do get in the way of fevered Leftist rhetoric, don't they? They should only be listened to when they promote the Lib agenda, and ignored when they don't. Yes, CO, we know all about it. We've seen the floor-kicking temper tantrums of the Left when they can't get the grown-ups to say they are right.

Want to see a typical lefty tantrum? The Eye is actually spitting now. I guess saliva is better than what he usually spews.

CO,

One liberal voice is more than enough... to remind us of their left wing agenda, social engineering, and ideology. One liberal voice is more than enough... to remind us that we don't want liberalism for our nation's religion! One liberal voice is more than enough... to serve as voice for the rights of terrorists, criminals, and child molesters. EVEN ONE LIBERAL is far TOO MANY to trust with America's defense and our national secrets!!!

Have you noticed? More and more and more Conservatives -- and Christians -- are starting to speak out and talk about what they believe and what they want! Let's hope that continues and their voices grow louder and louder. Maybe we won't even be able to hear you liberals above those conservative voices some day. That will be a day for celebration and a great day for America!

TEO,

/SPIT! /SPIT! /SPIT! Why don't you go spit, spit, spit all over that "Kettle of S...".

You liberals kill our troops. You liberals kill Iraqi families. You liberals spread anti-American hate and propaganda here and around the world. You liberals even put American families at greater risk by CHEERING, ENCOURAGING, and CONDONING the release of our secret efforts to stop terrorists who WILL KILL AMERICANS.

You are right! You liberals don't understand anything -- except your liberalism. Your heads are so far in the dark, you don't understand reality. You don't want to understand reality. Your liberal education system and professors doesn't teach it, permit it, or tolerate it!!!

AAR

There is no way that we can get rid of liberals without creating a fascist state. Human beings have different ways of understanding and operating their lives. Unless you'd like to follow Stalin or Hitler and try to determine that for them, the only way for you to honor our democracy is to accept that we have political disagreements and have since the beginning of our nation. That is what makes America unique: we don't try to suppress the opposition-and we are better off because of it. Countries that suppress opposing viewpoints suffer, financially, politically and ideologically.
Additionally, whether or not Gitmo should be closed, it is essential to recognize the fact that NOT everyone currently being held in the prison is guilty. In fact many of them may not be. This is important to remember regardless of how you feel about it being closed or remaining open. It is nuances like this that allow us to recognize the complexity of the war on terror, and if anyone thinks that it is not complex, they do not understand what is going on.

teen,

Where's your stand in writer?

Don't they have summer school in your area?

AAR

I know it's silly to talk to the teen aged lib, but here goes.

His questions:
"Why in God's name do you still stand by Bush and his dishonest and corrupt administration?
What reason is making you side with this idiot?"

There is no objective rational evidence that Bush's adminstration is either dishonest or corrupt. It's that simple. The Left has taken it upon themselves to simply redefine terms and assign its new definitions, and then act as if those definitions are valid. They are not. The Left dictionary only works in LeftLand. Out here in the real world, it is a comic book. Badly drawn, silly plot, no heroes, fiction.

We side with Bush because he makes sense, because his actions not only help preserve our freedoms and our way of life but our very lives, and because even though, as a human being, he is not perfect, he has the ability to see the big picture and not get mired down in the trivial.

To this a step further, the fact that the Left has had to rely solely on lies and inventions to create and hold a base is significant. There was a time when opposing parties argued on facts, principles, and differing ideas of the best way to govern. At this time, the Republcian Party is still doing this. But the Democratic Party, particularly its radical left-wing contingent, is not. It is relying on invective, on misstatement of fact, and on simple out-and-out invention. It is totally dependent on somehow creating a hysterical, strident, wholly emotion-based reactive hatred-driven irrational base. Its modest success at doing this is evident by the very existence of the teen aged liberal, the third eye, ash, axis, maf, and so on.

Look at your own posts, teenie. They are exclusively emotion-driven, hate-driven, negativist polemics with no basis in fact or reason. Yet you love your position, you cling to it, and you glory in it. You feel that it makes you better than we are. It allows you to sneer at us and look down on us. Which is exactly why the strategy of the New Dems, the neorads, works on some people. It appeals only to people who not only need this kind of validation, but can only find it in the fever swamps of far left radicalism.

More power to you. You finally found a place where you fit in. You found a place that takes that free-floating teenaged anger and focuses it in a direction that seems to make sense to you, right now. If you're lucky, you'll grow up and look back on this radical loony stage as embarrassing adolescent phase you went through on the way to emotional and intellectual maturity.

Or you might just get stuck there, along with Ash and TEO and the others.

I know it's silly to talk to the teen aged lib, but here goes.

His questions:
"Why in God's name do you still stand by Bush and his dishonest and corrupt administration?
What reason is making you side with this idiot?"

There is no objective rational evidence that Bush's adminstration is either dishonest or corrupt. It's that simple. The Left has taken it upon themselves to simply redefine terms and assign its new definitions, and then act as if those definitions are valid. They are not. The Left dictionary only works in LeftLand. Out here in the real world, it is a comic book. Badly drawn, silly plot, no heroes, fiction.

We side with Bush because he makes sense, because his actions not only help preserve our freedoms and our way of life but our very lives, and because even though, as a human being, he is not perfect, he has the ability to see the big picture and not get mired down in the trivial.

To this a step further, the fact that the Left has had to rely solely on lies and inventions to create and hold a base is significant. There was a time when opposing parties argued on facts, principles, and differing ideas of the best way to govern. At this time, the Republcian Party is still doing this. But the Democratic Party, particularly its radical left-wing contingent, is not. It is relying on invective, on misstatement of fact, and on simple out-and-out invention. It is totally dependent on somehow creating a hysterical, strident, wholly emotion-based reactive hatred-driven irrational base. Its modest success at doing this is evident by the very existence of the teen aged liberal, the third eye, ash, axis, maf, and so on.

Look at your own posts, teenie. They are exclusively emotion-driven, hate-driven, negativist polemics with no basis in fact or reason. Yet you love your position, you cling to it, and you glory in it. You feel that it makes you better than we are. It allows you to sneer at us and look down on us. Which is exactly why the strategy of the New Dems, the neorads, works on some people. It appeals only to people who not only need this kind of validation, but can only find it in the fever swamps of far left radicalism.

More power to you. You finally found a place where you fit in. You found a place that takes that free-floating teenaged anger and focuses it in a direction that seems to make sense to you, right now. If you're lucky, you'll grow up and look back on this radical loony stage as embarrassing adolescent phase you went through on the way to emotional and intellectual maturity.

Or you might just get stuck there, along with Ash and TEO and the others

"You liberals kill our troops. You liberals kill Iraqi families."

AAR

Are you now calling the Bush administration 'liberals'?

It looks as if you are losing it, you're becoming unhinged.

Even bush wants Gitmo closed. The only people that want to keep it open are you and Rush “My penis has fallen and I can’t get it up” Limbaugh.

"I did my time dressed as a tree"

Kahn, I'm not sure what this means, but I'll take a stab. I once had a bit part as a cowhand in our school's senior play- Oklahoma.

Thank you , Jessie, for pointing out the obvious. No, we can't "get rid" of liberals. That was a facetious comment, based on the frustration of having to deal with negativists, obstructionists, and the determinedly obtuse.

Besides, Liberalism is a natural part of the evolution of the growth process, kind of like acne. It's not pretty, but many have to go through it. And it can leave some really ugly scars.

Don't forget the old saying:

"He who is not a liberal in his youth has no heart. He who is not a conservative in his maturity has no brain."

But old-style Libs just wanted, in a vague and fuzzy way, for the world to be a better place. They just plaintively pleaded for us all to be nicer, and to take care of each other. They tended to want to take other peoples' money away from them to do the caretaking, and had some other unreasonable answers to some very hard questions, but Liberalism tended to reflect a nice, warm, Like To Buy The World a Coke mentality. Unrealistic, but generally benevolent in intent.

Nowadays it is militant, hateful, and totally UN-Liberal. It is intolerant of any other views, it is violent (like praising the idea of shooting the President in the head) and it is just plain nasty. It survives only by convincing the gullible and needy of a series of lies, and promoting hatred and contempt.

Worse, it is about not doing anything at all, but just sitting around till something happens or someone else does something and then carping about it. It's not very pleasant, as you can see from the Lib posts.

But you need to realize that "getting rid of Libs" is not a call to somehow "disappear" PEOPLE with a Liberal mentality, but a desire to get rid of that dark and murky and hateful mindset that never strives to accomplish anything but is merely obstructionist.

Short, easy to remember, and sounds good.

Kinda like:

Mission accomplished.
If you're not with us, your against us.
We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here.
It's a post- 9/11 world.
I'm the Decider.
Blah, blah, blah

Almiranta,

"Worse, it is about not doing anything at all, but just sitting around till something happens or someone else does something and then carping about it"

Funny, this is the same war plan Bush has been persuing for 3 years.

Hatred is leaving our brave men and women in iraq, with no spectre for exit. The rights plan of wait till things get better, is a failure, just like his domestic plans; so as we always do, the left will pick up the pieces, and figure a sensible way out. Tweleve years of uselessness will soon be over, get your walking shoes on ladies and gentlemen, and don't let the door hit ya, where the good lord split ya! PEACE

CO,

You've read enough of my posts to understand what I said, what I meant, and why it's true! I'll attempt to re-educate you again at another time, but not here, not now.

If you want to see a left wing [Canadian] liberal go look in the mirror.

Perhaps axis can send you his photo. That way you can see two peas from the same Canadian pod!

Pods? pods? That reminds me. Did you ever watch "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", where people were replaced by duplicates grown from pods, who work together to secretly spread more "pod people" like themselves in order to replace the entire human race.

That's happens when a normal, rational, thinking person attends a liberal college or university. They become just another unthinking liberal robotic "pod person" whose only goal is to replace the entire human race with people and ideas like theirs!

AAR

Excellent posts, Alimiranta!!

Want to see a typical lefty tantrum? The Eye is actually spitting now. I guess saliva is better than what he usually spews.

---LOL!!! Too funny!

World history proves the war on terror will never be "won". Terror has been used throughout history in a misguided attempt by some to make a statement. Our best bet is to address the desire to make these statements before they turn violent. This has been labeled hand-holding by the right but terror is a mind game and needs to be fought as one.

Disappearing people clearly sends the wrong message. Without question there are persons that need to be held accountable for their crimes at Guantanamo, and their prosecution must be swift and appropriate. But the ever increasing number of persons released as innocent confirms that the system there has not worked. It’s a system that plays against the mind game that will ultimately allow us to reduce the terror threat.

World history proves the war on terror will never be "won".

While that is an outright lie you might have a point. Of course the war can be "won." Once we make it undesireable by killing off so many of the jihadists the would be terrorists will turn to something less destructive. The problem is that the left is the political and propaganda wing of terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.... That is the only way that this war will not be one.

TEO, I never know whether to laugh or cry when I read posts like your last.

Funny, this is the same war plan Bush has been persuing for 3 years

That is one of the most intellectually dishonest statements I've ever read. It belies a progression of positive events, the speed of which dwarfs the same democracy-building efforts in both post war Japan and Germany.

The rights (sic) plan of wait till things get better, is a failure.

Not nearly so much as the Left's plan to hope for things to get worse.

so as we always do, the left will pick up the pieces, and figure a sensible way out.

ROTFLMAO!!! You're delusional. You mean like you did in Vietnam when the results of your efforts were the deaths of a couple million Vietnamese and Cambodians?

Tweleve years of uselessness will soon be over

The Left has been useless for a lot longer than 12 years, and the light at the end of the tunnel isn't visible yet. Just out of curiosity, what are you and the rest of your Leftist pals going to do when you lose again this November?

Barney

Somehow I doubt if we will be hearing too much about Rush's latest escapade. Remember, according to Mark, sex is only permitted for married men & women open to the possibility of producing an off-spring. Being unattached, Rush is doing a no-no.

Retired,

Save your tears for someone who cares, I take great joy in laughing at you guys, daily.

the crushing of the japanese will, using two nuclear devices would probably describe the reason why they had little or no fight left in them. The German resistance was put down inside of 3 years, the local elements reassimilated...this insurgency continues, unabated, and the Iraqis government's plan, includes asking us to leave, and offering amnesty to the local insurgents, seems to me, that this says we were causing more problems than we were fixing, unless ofcourse you consider razing Fallujah to be a 'success'

Just because we have a firm grasp on reality, and realize just how sour things are looking, doesn't mean your fantasyland view of things is how it really is, funny how the rest of the world sees a mess too, must just be that darn liberal bias presenting itself in EVERYONE else in the world. LOL

So you get yourself into a war that saps half a millions US lives, then when we get the hell out, and the shit-house you've built for yourself falls down, fine blame it on the left, but we saved countless lives by bringing them home, otherwise we may have been there still fighting the north.

12 years of drunken-spending, building a larger government, losing surpluses, ignoring real reform, endemic corruption, failure to capture OBL, failure to secure iraq, failure to secure Afghanistan...i don't think an elderly chimp could do much worse.

Almiranta,
Apparently you haven't read up on your definition of conservative lately. If you happened to look at any explanation of conservative values, you might see that Bush and his War on Terror are far from conservative.
But then again, you seem to be unable to comprehend looking at things from any perspective but your own narrowed tunnel vision, so looking up a definition for what you claim to believe in might not be available to you.

And CJ, the war on terror will not be won by killing off "so many jihadists, etc" Why? With this war and our country's international policies, we are making Jihadists at twice the rate we kill them. Have you ever thought about why they are doing what they do? It is horribe and wrong, but if you were in poverty and saw a country "invading" America, would you not do the same? It certainly sounds as though you are all too ready to stoop to their level.

Poor Matt done wroted:

"Sadly, we're already letting them ['the fringe left'] lose the war for us. We let them get away with saying that torture is having to wear panties on your head, and that wiretapping terror suspects is spying on Americans."

Losing the war for you, huh? I thought you supported the troops? Aren't they really the ones who're losing the war for you? They're dying pretty thick and fast lately; if you don't think they're doing a very good job, maybe you should focus on them.

The rest of your rant--and every other comment from Almiranta to Retired Spook--reads like The Last Words of Dutch Schultz.

I think he means the war in the big picture.

I think it's clear the the way the left talk about our losing the war, such language emboldens our enemies...

Jessie,
Please explain how “Bush and his War on Terror are far from conservative.” Simply making such a statement without any support is, although typically liberal, not productive to debate.
I should point out that Almiranta was a liberal before she changed her views; she knows whereof she speaks. It seems her perspective is far wider than yours; you should perhaps listen to her and debate her on substance instead on invective, you might learn something.

First: Apologies for any invective used.
Second: Technically speaking, a traditional conservative would shudder at the fact that Bush has spent more money than any president in the past 30 years, that he is increasing the scope and power of the federal government, and he has started an unending foreign war that costs tremendous amounts of money with little to no forsight when he began it. I mean those basic values to start off with: sorry for not explaining, I thought it might be clear, especially for those who consciously chose to change their affiliation.
Additionally, many apologies "Bane" but I'm not a liberal, I just think that the Bush "conservatives" have lost their understanding of what that word is supposed to mean: responsbility, small federal government (that doesn't spend all my money on something with relatively few benefits-like this war), staying out of my home and place of worship.
While you'll respond that the war has tremendous benefits, I, however, find that that is yet to be determined and the way in which our "conservative" government has gone about starting a war is anything but conservative, and far more irresponsible.
Finally, I am debating on substance. I'm very interested in understanding how the conservative party has strayed so far from its fundamental values, especially when debating on the Bush Administration's policies.

OT: The Israelis are launching a rescue operation to get back their soldier who was kidnapped by Palestinians. Israeli airstrike reported in Northern Gaza.

Jessie Miller

Excellent, intelligent posts. If there were more Conservatives with your values, I don't think the U.S. would be in the mess it finds itself today.

Jessie,
I’ll allow Almiranta the option of discussing the points of your post in her thoughtful manner which she does far better than I can.

For my part, I see nothing inconsistent in the Iraq adventure and conservatism. Without going into the long term benefits of another democratically elected government in that region, or the ability to partner with like-minded allies in a region bereft of such, the primary reasons Conservatives support the Iraq war is because Bush, in the beginning laid out the cause and effect of doing nothing while the threat continues to grow. The Bush Doctrine as of 2002 stated that we make no distinction between terrorists and those that support terrorists.

Conservatives disagree as to making Iraq the test case for the Bush Doctrine, noting that Saudi Arabia seemed to be more tolerant of terrorists than Iraq, but Iraq already had UN Resolutions, was in violation of U.N. Gulf War Armistice and Bush had the UN resolution which allowed for “serious consequences” should Saddam fail to comply. As Rachel Alexander wrote in 2002, “Although it is clear that Saddam and his regime comprise one of the most evil governments in the world today, it is important that conservatives understand thoroughly the reasons and ramifications for attacking Iraq, because ultimately, there are a lot of lives at stake.” She also wrote, “Even if the U.S. were to successfully remove Saddam, it is beyond debate that U.S. troops would need to remain in Iraq for years down the road.”

Conservatives can, and do disagree on this application, but it was clear to all of us that the Clinton ideal of status quo was not working, Saddam threw out the inspectors in 1998, and when Iraq fired on the US and British planes over the no-fly zone, and when the US and Britain began the bombing campaign it was de facto a declaration of war anyway. The sanctions were breaking down, and the resolve by corrupt European governments was weakening.

I find it amusing that liberals are now saying that they buckled under “tremendous political pressure" to support the war. Political Pressure? What happened to principals and integrity? And under what circumstances would we trust that liberals will stand up for principals in the future?

Conservatives will never be happy with the current status of spending, even though as an analyst I can demonstrate that spending as a relation of GDP and responsive to domestic crises and populace needs are consistent with other administrations, I would still prefer greater fiscal restraint. Alas, once in power the party of the majority finds itself spending to maintain that power.

Better to ask how conservatives can support Bush on the Border security agenda, simply put, we don’t. But, we don’t abandon the President on every issue because we disagree on one (or three or twelve).

Nature of Politics? George H.W. Bush pointed out in 1988 that the only candidate for any office that completely agreed with him was him; so unless you're intending to run for office, you select those closest to your beliefs and support them as best you can.

Oh, and TEO; Germany invaded the Sudetenland in 1938. That’s seven years of war in Europe.
Japan invaded Manchuria in 1936, that’s nine years of war in Asia. The occupations of both countries has lasted since that time.

TL:

Bravo! I must commend you on your lack of spelling errors THIS time. I ask you, what makes you hate Bush so much? You keep insulting him, only to back up your insults with hate-filled generalities. If your unsubstantiated rants are what we can hope for from today's youth, then I am truly scared for this country.

TL:

I was "shocked and awed" by your complete lack of spelling errors in today's post. Mission accomplished on completing the third grade. I do, however, want to direct a question your way. Why do you hate Bush so much? He is continuously the bearer of your insults, but your insults are nothing more than just that, insults. If they are not backed up with reasons as to why you feel the way you do, then your argument will lack credibility and ultimately be dismissed, as they should. If these unstantiated anti-Bush rants are what we have to look forward to from today's youth, then I am truly scared for this country.

I may not agree with TEO, AXIS, or ASH (just to name a few), but at least they seem to have a logic behind their opinions.

I apologize for the double post.

I know! We can shut down Gitmo and then place those "poor innocent Al-Qaeda terrorists" under house arrest at the homes of steve, Ash, Canadian Observer, Third Eye Open, aric, teenage liberal, Barneyg2000, salmonella5000 and axis. Did I miss anyone?

That's sounds good to me, Freedom1! LOL.

Hey TEO, I think the only tears Retired Spook will cry for you are crocodile tears.

xxxooo

Answer me this, right wingers:

Answer me this, teeny-weenie lib:

Why do you hold up girlie magazines with one hand?

If there were more Conservatives with your values, I don't think the U.S. would be in the mess it finds itself today.

I'd sure like to find this mess that Canadian Opium-smoker claims has gripped our nation; I'd like to help these poor folks out. What a load of hooey...

I find it amusing that liberals are now saying that they buckled under “tremendous political pressure" to support the war. Political Pressure? What happened to principals and integrity? And under what circumstances would we trust that liberals will stand up for principals in the future?

BINGO, Bane. I'd love to hear one of our resident Libs answer that question.

Why do you hold up girlie magazines with one hand?

Best chuckle I've had in a while, keefer.

'I find it amusing that liberals are now saying that they buckled under “tremendous political pressure" to support the war. Political Pressure? What happened to principals and integrity? And under what circumstances would we trust that liberals will stand up for principals in the future?'

Bane, Retired Spook, Keefer

There was such patriotic pathos at the time that any dissenting voice was considered to be almost
treasonous. Everyone wanted to believe the Bush administration knew what they were doing and after the shock of being attacked on 9-ll wanted to go after those responsible. But as we all know now, they were wrong. The terrorists were not in Iraq, but they are now.

Bane,

Did FDR land on a ship and claim victory, a few months into that war?

Don't confuse WWII with Iraq, its a non starter.

Oh for Ash since I didn't see it get answered.

----
"I did my time dressed as a tree"

Kahn, I'm not sure what this means, but I'll take a stab. I once had a bit part as a cowhand in our school's senior play- Oklahoma.
----

Kahn means he was a soldier and did his time in the field "dressed as a tree." It's an old saying I know but it makes sense.

Just an FYI.

As for closing Gitmo I don't see a problem with it if it has served its purpose. Do we no longer send anyone over there? Have we gotten all we figure is still current out them? If so I don't see why we can't close it down and move the prisoners there to whatever cell we're sending those folks to currently.

*Shrugs*

CO: There was no such patriotic pathos that said any dissenting voice would have been considered treasonous. Disagreeing with governmental decisions may be considered treasonous in North Korea, Iran, or Saddam's Iraq, however, in early 21st century America such things are not considered treasonous. To suggest this is slanderous.

You state that the terrorists were not in Iraq but they are now. This is not entirely true. Some of the documents captured when the regime was toppled now indicate that Baathists made a strong effort to establish ties with Iraq. Former President Clinton made reference to Iraq and Al Qaeda seeking to work together. when he was President and Senator Clinton talked about these ties back in 2003. Als0, Al Zarqawi was operating in Iraq prior to the invasion. It seems very unlikely he could have done so without Saddam's knowledge, as he even got medical treatment in an Iraq hospital for wounds suffered in Afghanistan. In addition to that, Saddam sheltered some of the terrorists who participated in the 1993 WTC attack.

As for Bush not knowing what he is doing, you may be correct, however, there has not been an attack on American soil since 9/11/01. The enemy we are fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world is fully capable of defeating the US. To have not had an attack on the American soil since 9/11/01 is quite an accomplishment.

CO: It could be argued that the former Iraqi government's links to Islamic extremist terrorists did not rise tot he level to justify invasion, however, the statement that they were not there prior to 911 or prior to the invasion does not seem to be correct.

That should have been Baathists made a strong attempt to establish ties to Al Qaeda. Oops!!

TEO: It is true that exact comparisions to WWII and the war in Iraq are not possible. This war is like WWII in some respects and it is like Vietnam in some respects. The simillarities to WWII are as follows: 1.)The war on terrorism has operations around the wrold. We are fighting terrorists in Iraq and their allies in the "insurgency." Iraq is but one front. 2.) The enemy we are fighting is capable of defeating America and poses a survival threat to our way of life and probably to the country itself. This is especially apparent when the close relations these regimes have to Russia and China is factored in. The enemy in Iraq needs to be treated as a survival threat to the US. To suggest that comparisions are a non starter does not seem to be entirely correct.

This thread was supposed to be about Gitmo. Obviously no one wants to keep this open forever. I think the president has said so. That being said the interogators say there are people there who want to do us harm and are capable of doing it. We could bring in ICRC to oversee the process. We could also bring in the media to oversee. I think this is already being done. Perhaps we can have military tribunals for these people or regular trials. At a minimum the media and the Government have yet to level with the American people the dangers these terrorists pose to America. If they did so, this would provide some context.

TEO: The decision to land on the aricraft carrier and declare victory was a mistake. What I think he meant was that part of the mission was accomplished but it was clearly a mistake. Alot of mistakes have been made. I would describe the major ones as follows: 1.) The intellegence was wrong. The WMD are not where we thought they would be. 2.) We probably did not use enough troops at the start. This allowed things to be transferred out of the country. Also due to these intellegence failures we underestimated the non WMD capability of this enemy. I still don't think we have enough troops in Iraq. The former Iraqi regime along with their marxists and terrorists allies were a survival threat to our country. Now the former regime elements along with their terrorist and marxist allies continue to be a survival threat to our country.

Regarding point 2 there is no guarantee that had we used more troops that this would have made a significant difference, however, I think it would have. Regarding point 1 we should be taking steps to correct the intellegence failures. Statements like "Bush lied" are unhelpful to our cause. They provide aid and comfort to a very powerful enemy and they obscure the threats we face.

B.Poster- "2.) The enemy we are fighting is capable of defeating America and poses a survival threat to our way of life and probably to the country itself."

As long as the general public believes that "radical Islamic terrorists have hijacked the peaceful religion of Islam" most people won't believe that America is at risk of being defeated by the enemy. They'll just think there are a bunch of idiots running around the world blowing up this or that. They won't understand the true extent of the threat that the enemy poses. They won't believe that we're really at war. Most of the liberal posters here reflect this nonchalance about the "war" daily in their posts.

As for Gitmo, these jihadis want to kill us all for the "crime" of beings infidels. Does anyone think we're going to talk them out of this religious belief? These jihadis must be contained indefinitely somewhere.

You liberals kill our troops. You liberals kill Iraqi families."

AAR

Are you now calling the Bush administration 'liberals'?

It looks as if you are losing it, you're becoming unhinged.

Posted by: Canadian Observer at June 27, 2006 12:05 PM

Canadian Observers been unhinged for along time, ergo hate Bush at all costs and blame the worlds problems on him, of course without any hard evidence, convictions, indictments, U.N. sanctions, anything....anything.... anything!!!! And who is unhinged!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even bush wants Gitmo closed. The only people that want to keep it open are you and Rush “My penis has fallen and I can’t get it up” Limbaugh.

Posted by: Barneyg2000 at June 27, 2006 12:15 PM

Jealous Barney, why would anyone care what Rush does with his penis unless they are unhinged with hate! Hm........are you unhinged barnster!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I did my time dressed as a tree"

Kahn, I'm not sure what this means, but I'll take a stab. I once had a bit part as a cowhand in our school's senior play- Oklahoma.

Posted by: Ash at June 27, 2006 12:17 PM

Gozer shouldn't have to explain what Kahn meant, especially to a SMART liberal like you as. Of course this would explain why we soldier types are so disdainful & um......(questioning liberals patriotism)! Don't you libs get it, we don't like you, we don't want you to succeed in bringing us home and saving us from ourselves, as a matter of fact, we really don't believe you want to save us at all. We do believe however your political agenda is more important to you than freedom & democracy(America)! So, keep it up, your graves get deeper by the week. We WILL prevail over the terrorist and over liberalism!!!!!!!!!

Freedom1

I have several reactions to your post. What you write hits the nail on the head. The US and the Western world are so overcome with political correctness that it is dangerous to state publicly that we are at war with Islam itself. I have deliberately used the term "Islamic Extremism." If we are at war with Islam itself, the methods we are using to fight this enemy may be fundamentally flawed. I see three areas that need to be addressed as soon as possible. 1.) We had massive intellegence failures that led to 911 and in the run up to and during the war in Iraq. These errors were made by government officials on both sides of the aisle. The various Bush lied diatribes are unhelpful, in trying to addres this issue. 2.) Marxist countries such as Russia, China, North Korea, and Venezuela are uncomfortably close to the terror supporting regimes of countries such as Iran, Syria, and the former Iraqi government. So far the US government is not publically acknowledging this. Hopefully the government understands all of these things and they are refraining from being more public about this because of a need for diplomacy. Btw, the statement that Islam is a peaceful religion that has been hijacked is from George W. Bush himself. I hope he is just practicing diplomacy and is willing to privately acknowledge that his public statements may be wrong. 3.)It appears that negotiatians are currently under way in Iraq between the Insurgents, the soverign Iraqi government, and the USA to try and resolve the situation in Iraq. I can only specualte as to how far along the negotiations are or what there prospects for success are. I want the negotiations to succeed. I don't want an agreement to end the same way "Peace in our time" ended in the 1930s. If an agreement can be reached, I'm not worried about the US honoring its obligations. The international pressure on the US will be intense. We will need to insist that some mechanism is in place to ensure that the "insurgents" and other Islamic groups honor their agreements.

Freedom1

Thanks for the reply to my post. I have several reactions to your post. The statement that Islam is a peaceful religon that has been hijacked by extremists was made by George W. Bush himself. I have deliberately used the term "Islamic Extremists" or variations on this term. If we are at war with Islam itsefl the strategeies we are using may be completely flawed. Unfortunately political correctness makes it very dangerous politically to state publically that we might be at war with Islam. I hope George W. Bush was just practicing diplomacy here and he, his administration, and Congress are privately willing to acknowledge that his statements may have been wrong. I see three basic areas that will need to be addressed as soon as possible: 1.) We had massive intellegence failures that led to the 911 attacks and these intellegence failures continued up to and during the Iraq war. These mistakes were made by both Republicans and Democrats. We need to address this issue and fix this problem. The various "Bush lied" diatribes are unhelpful. They take time and resources away from constructive solutions and they obscure the threats we face. 2.) Marxists countries such as Russia, China, North Korea, and Venezuela are uncomfortably close to the terrorist supporting regimes of Iran, Syria, and the former Iraqi government. This makes this enemy all the more dangerous. The US government has yet to publically acknowledge this. I hope they are aware of this and have refrained from making it public for diplomatic reasons. 3.) Negotiations between the soverign Iraqi government, the insurgents, and the US appear to be under way to end the fighting. I can only specualte as to how far along these negotiations are or how likely they are to succeed. I hope and pray the negotiations succeed. In the event that some type of agreement is reached, I don't want this to end like "Peace in our time" ended in the 1930s. In order to ensure the success of the agreements, there will need to be some mechanism in place to ensure that the insruagents and other Islamic groups honor their agreements. I'm not worried about the US honoring its agreements, as the international pressure on the US will be extremely intense.

In the final analysis, to craft a successful policy to defeat the insurgents in Iraq, as well as to win the broader war on Islamic terrorism we will need to acknowledge that both the insurgents in Iraq and Al Qaeda are enemies who are capable of defeating the US. This becomes especially so when we factor in the help they are recieving from their Marxist allies.

B.Poster:

I generally agree with your post. You make several important points especially about the dangerous alliance between the Marxist nations and Islamic terrorists.

"I hope George W. Bush was just practicing diplomacy here and he, his administration, and Congress are privately willing to acknowledge that his statements may have been wrong."

Yes. I'm sure that President Bush understood that any chance of transforming Iraq into a secular democracy depended on not attacking Islam directly. However, I hope that at the very least President Bush and his administration understand that we are indeed at war with Islam. At some point he and/or Congress is going to have to level with the American people that Islam is inherently violent and that Islam itself is the enemy. Otherwise, Islam will continue to produce generation after generation of Muslim terrorists who will follow the Qu'ran's teachings to conquer and subdue the world-ie. the West-until Islam reigns supreme.

"Unfortunately political correctness makes it very dangerous politically to state publically that we might be at war with Islam."

True. But, until this is done, the public will continue to think it's just a bunch of "Islamic fundamentalists" out there blowing themselves up. Meanwhile, millions upon millions of Muslims continue to immigrate to the West slowly transforming more and more of the West into Islamic nations. Mosques everywhere, Wahabbi imams preaching anti-Western hatred and jihad, women wearing headscarves and burkhas...and all of this in Southern California. Detroit, Michigan has a huge Muslim population and these Muslims are building mosques all over, women are wearing headscarves and burkhas, Wahabbi imams are preaching anti-American hatred and jihad. Muslim communities have taken root in Ohio, USA and are growing and expanding all across America. The situation in Europe-aka Eurabia-is even worse. Those Muslim populations are expanding exponentially and they are transforming more and more of the Western nations in which they live into de-facto Islamic nations. How far are we going to let this go before politicians level with the public about the inherently violent nature of Islam?

To win the Global War on Islam, Western nations are going to have to level with their people about Islam-that Islam is an inherently violent, expansionist ideology that commands Muslims to wage jihad war against all non-Muslim nations until Islam conquers the world. Western nations should stop all Muslim immigration into the West. Furthermore, Islam should be outlawed in the West because it is a terrorist ideology. I hope we can transform the Middle East into a democracy, but that will be a long, slow process. In the meantime, I want to save the West from the pernicious influence of Islam.

B.,

I'll be brief in my initial statements, since I don't want a novel here.

I don't agree with your assesment in comparing WWII/Vietnam with WOT, because 1.)Both of these wars were at their most basic, wars of Nationalism, here we are fighting a relatively small force, who holds no state allegiences, and is criminal in nature, I think it is more correct to compare it with the fight against organized crime; 2.) When we go down the route of saying that they have the capabilities to "destroy our way of life", we have elevated them to a platform which they honestly can't ever attain, there is no chance of them taking over our government, or destroying our country by force, all this does is make it easier for an authoritarian government to remove our rights; I would argue that only WE are capable of destroying our way of life.

China does not wish to return to a protectionism version of communism, they realize that the money they gain is predicated on shared econmic well being between us and them. They cannot honestly make an economic super-power to rival the US without the help of the western world, in an age of globalism, we continue, and will continue to be the most preffered trading partner, mainlky because we have the disposible income to purchase their products, so it is not in the best interest of them to see us destroyed, by terrorism or otherwise.

Russia is in economic/social shambles, I would argue that the biggest threat we can expect from an ill Russia, would be black market nuclear proliferation, that is the real issue we should be focusing on, Russia's military is not even clsoe to what it used to be, and it's aging military technology, while still potent, is not a major threat to our safety, short of an almost impossible mass invasion, which we would have a great forewarning about, they cannot overtake us, physically. The Russians don't wish to have an uncontrollable force, namely, Islamic Fascists, under their wings, they may wish to put a thorn in our side, but much like our backing of the Mujahadeen in the 70's, this isn't a killer blow, but a body punch. They have their own extremist problems, so it is much in their interest to keep those elements as far underground as possible, lest they release a pandora's box within their own lands.

We can discuss the mistakes that were made forever, but i am much more interested in how we correct these problems, and avoid making the same mistakes twice.

If I may indulge in some conjecture. I, as an independent progressive, I cringe at the thought of setting up precendents, which we have recently seen enshrined into national acceptance. You must realize how difficult it is to reclaim a way of living once it has been taken away. I don't relish the idea that oversight is a "quaint" ideal in today's America, I don't care what entity wants to engage in sifting through my records to help protect the public, but i expect a vigorous and healthy set of roadblocks to that information, and what has passed as oversight recently in this administration is not policy which reaches that threshold. As many patriots and founding fathers, who were much smarter than I, said, I fear my government, more than I fear the criminals it wishes to bring to justice, that isn't paranoia, but just common sense. I fear that the precedent set down by hunting terrorists is but a short hop to using this information in domestic criminal cases, I fear a short jump to oversight which goes far beyond the ideals setup by our constitution. I believe that the protection of our lives means little when it comes at the expense of liberties. A warrant is a fundamental part of the firewal between us and our government, and when we even for a moment, let loose of those ideals we open ourselves up to future leaders who may not be as benevolent as we wish them to be; the ceeding of legislative powers sets a scary benchmark to later executives who will find it is much easier to claim the right to re-write laws as they see fit, and side-step the checks and balances our nation's future balances on.

Once we have given up our control in the name of safety, we have given the victory that the terrorists so eagerly seek, to see the country constantly looking over its back, chasing ghosts with overly intrusive clubs.

"Authoritarian government required to speak, is silent... Representative government required to speak, lies with impunity. "

--Napoleon Bonaparte

TEO: With all due respect you are wrong. The enemy we fight is capable of destroying us and or conquering us. In WWII certain sacrifices were made for the survival of the country. We will have to make them here to. This enemy does have state alliances. They are Iran, Syria, the former Iraqi government. Also, they receive much support from countries such as Russia, China, Venezuela, and North Korea. You liken it to organized crime. This has been a debate that has been going on for some time. Is this a war or is it organized crime? It is a war and it is a war for our very survival. When you say they can't take us by force, you underestimate their power and you over estimate our own power. The Bush administration made a variation of the mistake you are making when the plans to invade Iraq were drawn up. Lets not make the smae mistake again. Their allies of Russia and China can definitely take the US in a battle. Combined with the terrorists this is a deadly enemy indeed. The bottom line is this enemy needs to be recgonized as a survival threat to our civilization and it needs to be treated as such. Once this is understod we can craft an effective plan to win.

The US also needs China. China holds much of our debt. Should they decide to dispose us this, this hurts the US worse than it does China. Their is no need to trade with America when they can have the country for the taking. On this note, they get more beligerent all the time.

As for Russia, it has the largest and most advanced nuclear arsenal in the world. It is a large supporter of Islamic Extremists terrorists. You are correct to point out they may have opened up a pandora's box of sorts within their country by allying with these people. I think they can probably handle it though. Whats a few dead Russian civilians or diplomats to them if they can use them to inflict harm on their worst enemy, America? I think it comes back to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." As long as they are allies, this is very dangerous. Between its large and highly advanced nuclear arsenal, its active support for terrorists, and its vast oil reserves that it wields as a very effective weapon Russia is the most dangerous enemy America has. I don't see the American government doing much to counter this. Sadly it may already be to late to prevent the Russian conquest of America, however, if we get started now we may yet, God willing, prevail.

You are correct we could discuss the mistakes that have been made forever. This is counter productive. We need to move forward together as Americans. The biggest mistake we have made so far is we over estimated our own power and under estimated the power of our enemies.

The debate between how much privacy we should have is a healthy one. It seems to me all of the programs discussed have had Congressional oversight and media oversight. I think I can trust Congress to over see the President. The debate must begin with an understanding that the enemy poses a direct survival threat to the USA and our way of life. We aren't chasing ghosts here. We are chasing a survival threat to the nation. The name of the biggest threat of all is Russia. Its time for all Americans and the government to get to work on this. Time is short. When Ben Franklin wrote about liberties, his quote was "essential liberties." The balance between secrecy and openess is a delicate one indeed. It must begin with the recognition that we face a survival threat.

TEO: Any abuses by the administration regarding the NSA wire tapping or the monitoring of financial transactions seem to be largely theoretical. With the extensive Congressional oversight that goes on or should go on by the Democrats I'm skeptical that such theoretical abuses could occurr. This in contrast to the Kelo decision by the Supreme Court where the government can take the private property of one person and give it to a larger private concern. This is a real and acutal abuse of government power yet the main stream media is largely silent on ths. This leads me to believe that the media is not interested in protecting the rights of the citizens but is more interested in something else.

"This leads me to believe that the media is not interested in protecting the rights of the citizens but is more interested in something else."

EXACTLY!! Ecspecially ABC,NBC,CBS,MSNBC, AND CNN!!
They do brain damage!!

Watch Fox news only!!

Jeremiah

While you do get both sides of an issue from Fox News, it is helpful to watch the others from time to time.