While reading Cobra II, one (of many) passages stood out:
“lt. Colonel J. Agoglia, one of CENTCOM’s main planners, speculated about the Bush administration’s new war on terror and their new target: Iraq. What was Al Qaeda up to?, he noted in his diary. Did the terrorist group have a grand strategy? Were they trying to bait the US to strike Iraq or elsewhere in the region and prompt the US to overextend it’s forces?”

It looks like he was correct. Bush is playing right in to the hands of OBL:
“Abu Bakr Naji, an al Qaeda insider and author of the book, "The Management of Savagery," believes that the 9/11 attacks accomplished what they needed to by forcing the U.S. to commit their military overseas. He says 9/11 forced the U.S. to fall into the "trap" of overextending their military and that "it began to become clear to the American administration that it was being drained."

Gore would have never fallen for this trap like Bush did.

Remember that Bill Clinton caught and prosecuted the terrorists responsible for the USS Cole bombing and the first attack on the Twin Towers.

When CLinton launched an attack on the Sudan to destroy terrorist training camps the Republican congress accused him of waging the dog.

Contrast that to Condi Rice ignoring warnings of an imminent attack or Ronald Reagan cutting and running when the Marine barracks in Beirut were flattened. Or Bush invading Iraq and leaving the Taliban and Al Qeada to regroup in Afghanistan.

I would rther the Democrats and liberals fight the war on terror, then President "I don't think we can win the war on terror" Bush.

Wade

Fact-free posting! So refreshing!

Here's my take on liberal running the War on Terror: we would have toppled the Taliban, but we would still have a much larger force there now. Because of this, the Taliban would not be resurgent and Afghanistan would be on a slow but real path to progress.

We would not have invaded Iraq, so Saddam would probably still be in power. However, he would still be in the same box he was in before.

Because we didn't invade Iraq, we would still have some credibility with the rest of the world, specifically the ME, and would be better engaged in the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Iran would not be rattling its saber, as Saddam would still serve as a check to the Iranians.

You're right, we wouldn't be hearing about torture at Guantanamo, or illegal wiretapping. Instead, we would see ACTUAL TERRORIST captures and kills, because increased use of the many LEGAL terrorist tracking mechanisms (as well as a cooperative international intelligence community) would lead to more useful intel.

Look, Matt, we all can just make s**t up about how things MIGHT have been. What's telling here is that you've reduced yourself to defending Dear Leader by contrasting his performance to the imaginary world's worst liberal president. Clearly, you know that you've got nothing left. I feel sorry for your delusions.

Remember that Bill Clinton caught and prosecuted the terrorists responsible for the USS Cole bombing and the first attack on the Twin Towers.

When CLinton launched an attack on the Sudan to destroy terrorist training camps the Republican congress accused him of waging the dog.

Contrast that to Condi Rice ignoring warnings of an imminent attack or Ronald Reagan cutting and running when the Marine barracks in Beirut were flattened. Or Bush invading Iraq and leaving the Taliban and Al Qeada to regroup in Afghanistan.

I would rther the Democrats and liberals fight the war on terror, then President "I don't think we can win the war on terror" Bush.

Wade

I do have to say that the goal of the terror attacks was to hurt us financially. Having us spend billions more than intended seems to paint a great picture for OBL.

I remember on Fox news before we invaded Iraq that the 'liberal commentator' was predicted 400 billion spent in Iraq and the commentator and host laughed and laughed at this 'commie'.

Well put, Matt. I believe when push comes to shove on November 7th, the majority of voters will dig deep in their gut and realize what life would be like with a Democrat majority in Congress again. I believe that the conventional wisdom that says the Dems will take back one, or even both, houses of Congress will fall flat on its face. When it gets right down to crunch time, most voters will realize that, even in the unlikely event that their phone calls and financial records have been monitored, they are no worse for it, and that, in fact, we haven't had another terrorist attack at least partially because of these programs. They will realize that a Democrat majority will not prevent hurricanes and other natural disasters but will raise their taxes. For all the talk about big-spending, big government Republicans, they'll remember that Democrats invented big government and deficit spending and are not likely to reverse the trend if given the chance. They'll realize that 2 years of impeachment hearings is not something they want to go through.

Just my opinion, of course, and if I'm wrong, I won't hesitate to come here and admit it.

500 billion next year for iraq!
getting out my checkbook now. man i love writing chimpy blank checks. at least i now know he'll let me know if my account is in overdraft!

dear Wade & bloviator:

Clinton could've ordered the AF to intercept & shoot-down if necessary, the plane which carried UBL outta Sudan to Afghanistan.

He had advanced knowledge courtesy of the Sudanese govt who were trying to curry favor.

No controlling legal authority.

W would've had no impetus with which to invade anybody had UBL been killed given that his galvanizing influence on al Queda would've ended.

3000 dead americans in the towers + ~2500 KIA later...here we are.

Listen convervatives, if democrats gain control just do as your faithful leader, Dubya says:

"I tell people, let's don't fear the future, let's shape it." - June 7, 2006

Please let me respond to Wade's comment.

"Remember that Bill Clinton caught and prosecuted the terrorists responsible for the USS Cole bombing and the first attack on the Twin Towers."

The attack on the USS Cole was a suicide bombing, so at least some of those terrorists did not live long enough to get caught, by Clinton or anyone else. Wade is correct about the first attack on the WTC, except for one terrorist, named Abdul Raman Yassin, who fled to Iraq and (according to documents found there) was given a house and stipend by Saddam's government.

"When Clinton launched an attack on the Sudan to destroy terrorist training camps the Republican congress accused him of waging the dog."

There were no training camps in the Sudan. Those were in Afghanistan. Clinton's attack did not come even remotely close to destroying them, since they remained active until we went into Afghanistan, under Bush. What we attacked in Sudan was a "pharmaceutical factory", but according to information that Clinton released, samples of a precursor of Sarin gas were found in nearby soil. As far as I can remember, no Republican accused Clinton of wagging the dog for attacking the Sudan or Afghanistan, but for attacking Serbia, in a war that was even more unilateral than Bush's against Iraq. (Against Iraq: 30+ allies, against Serbia: 1 ally)

"Contrast that to Condi Rice ignoring warnings of an imminent attack or Ronald Reagan cutting and running when the Marine barracks in Beirut were flattened. Or Bush invading Iraq and leaving the Taliban and Al Qeada to regroup in Afghanistan."

There were no warnings available to Dr. Rice that specifically mentioned the type of attack which would eventually occur on 9/11, only general warnings that an attack could take place. As for Reagan, I agree that he made a huge mistake leaving Beirut. It should serve to warn us that if we retreat now, it will embolden the terrorists. As for Bush, he did not "leave" the Taliban and Al Qaeda to regroup. Our forces are still there. If the enemies have regrouped, is it only because we let them? Could it be instead because they can use Pakistan as a base, but our forces are forbidden to go there?

"I don't think we can win the war on terror"

If Bush ever said that, it's news to me.

OhioOrrin

Had the 911 attacks not occurred, Bush probablly would have done the same thing Clinton did had he been in office. For better or worse, at least temporarilly the 911 attacks lowered the threshold for risk tolerance when it came to national security risks. I also suspect had Clinton been in office on 911 he would have authorized the attack on Iraq. In 2003 Senator Clinton stated that the intellegence they were getting from the White House was materially simillar to what she and her husband were getting when they were in the White House. She went on to vote for the authorization of the use of force. In hindsight, much of the intellegence was wrong. Of course we can't say for certain what someone may or may not have done. This is all in the past. We need to move forward.

Barney

You raise an interesting point. Two things should have become apparent from the beginning. 1.) Our intellegence gathering was significantly flawed. 2.) The size of the military is inadequate to be as effective as it should be to meet the threats we face. So far it seems the government has yet to call for massive increases in the size of the military. Our military is fighting for the survival of this nation. They need the tools to win. I hope the Colonel you cite will follow this up by lobbying for an increase in the size of the military and for better equipment for these men and women.

I think we would be safer with the girlscouts in charge than we would the Liberals in charge of our saftey. This is from one who used to be one and knows first hand how anti-military Democrats are. If they had their way we have none of our high-tech weapons we are using to destory those wanting to kill us all. That money would have gone to the, wait for it.........

The Children.

Wade,

You are proof that liberals can never again be placed in charge of our national security. Nice try at historical revision, though.

(1) "Bill Clinton caught and prosecuted the terrorists responsible for the USS Cole bombing".

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

That's the funniest thing I have heard in years. The USS Cole was damaged by two suicide bombers on 12 Oct 00, just three months before Clinton left office. And you claim that he caught and prosecuted those responsible?

All President Clinton did was declare that "it was a despicable and cowardly act". He then directed the Department of Defense, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the State Department to send officials to Yemen to investigate the attack.

Some of the planners were never caught. Justice did prevail, however. On November 3, 2002, the CIA fired a AGM-114 Hellfire missile from a Predator UAV at a vehicle carrying Abu Ali al-Harithi, a suspected planner of the bombing plot. al-Harithi was killed. Former President Clinton had nothing to do with the operation. President Bush did.

The Yemenis did capture several of the planners (again without the help of Bill Clinton). Two, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and Jamal al-Badawi were sentanced to death for their roles in the bombing. Al-Nashiri, believed to be the operation's mastermind, is currently being held by the U.S. at an undisclosed location.

Then, "Clinton launched an attack on the Sudan to destroy terrorist training camps."

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Another good one. First of all, it wasn't a terrorist training camp that was hit with a cruise missile, it was the Al-Shifa Pharmaceuticals Industries plant in North Khartoum. We claimed it was producing the ingredients for the VX nerve gas. There are conflicting claims if it truely was a WMD factory. The coincidence that the Sudan attack occurred at the peak of the Lewinsky scandle is too much to put down as pure chance.

I will concede that those behind the first WTC bombing were caught and prosecuted. But a law enforcement approach worked real well in preventing further attacks, didn't it? Can you say Khobar Towers, African Embassies, and the USS Cole?

I will also concede that bailing out of Lebanon was probably a mistake.

But I have to call you on "Bush invading Iraq and leaving the Taliban and Al Qeada to regroup in Afghanistan." We still have over 24,000 troops in Afghanistan helping their government and pursuing OBL. Just two weeks ago, 26 terrorist were killed during Coalition operations there. Hundreds were arrested by Pakistan after Sec Rice secured increased support and help from the Pakistanis.

To date, over 75% of Al-Qaeda's leadership has been killed or captured. Thousands of terrorists have been killed or captured. Neither one of these successes occurred under the Clinton Administration after the first WTC bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing (read this editorial by Clinton's FBI Director about the Clinton Administrations' effort to bring those terrorists to justice), the African Embassy bombings, and the USS Cole. I seriously doubt, based on past history, that a Gore or Kerry Administration would aggressively fight a Global War on Terror. All they would do is investigate the attacks as a criminal matter, leaving the terrorists to plan and execute additional attacks against the US.

One final questions for you: Exactly how many attacks have we had in the US after 9/11?

Funny how things look differently when you're defending one one of your own, huh?

"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

TEO: Where are the mass graves? Where was the countless UN resolutions? Why did we attack our ally? Why are we still there after 9 years?

The use of force resolution calls for an invasion only as a last resort. Clearly we were not at that point in March 2003.

Gore would have continued with the inspections, enforced the no-fly zone, kept the sanctions in place and advanced the US policy to promote regime change from within by Iraqis.

In Afghanistan, Gore would not have confused the Northern Alliance with the 101st Airborne, nor the Pakistani army for the army Rangers. OBL and the rest of the leadership would be dead by now and not only 75%.

Of course you are talking about our intervention in Kosovo, done without Congressional Authorization. Where the Administration used faulty intelligence that mass graves existed, when they didn't. Where we conducted a bombing campaign that killed over 2,500 innocents, more than had been killed in the ethnic violence over the previous years in Kosovo. Where we committed troops without a clear mission, without a plan for success, and where we are still rotating troops.

Liberals effectively running the war on terror? Bwahahahahahahahahahaha.............*catching breath*.........Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Barneyg: Since you know what Gore would have done, do you happen to know the Powerball numbers for tonight's drawings?

A-10: Exactly.

Here's how the neorads would fight the war on terror:

A civil liberties group said Wednesday that it had asked governments around the world to block the release of confidential financial records to U.S. anti-terrorism authorities.

We'd all be undergoing sensitivity training to find out "why they hate us."

Matt, I know the purpose of your blog is to blindly support the current government and make juvenile comments like this, but come on, you should know "why they hate us".

Osama Bin laden, October 7, 2001:

What America is tasting now is something insignificant compared to what we have tasted for scores of years. Our nation (the Islamic world) has been tasting this humiliation and this degradation for more than 80 years. Its sons are killed, its blood is shed, its sanctuaries are attacked, and no one hears and no one heeds.

. . .

Millions of innocent children are being killed as I speak. They are being killed in Iraq without committing any sins, and we don't hear condemnation or a fatwa (religious decree) from the rulers. In these days, Israeli tanks infest Palestine — in Jenin, Ramallah, Rafah, Beit Jalla, and other places in the land of Islam, and we don't hear anyone raising his voice or moving a limb.

When the sword comes down (on America), after 80 years, hypocrisy rears its ugly head. They deplore and they lament for those killers, who have abused the blood, honor and sanctuaries of Muslims. The least that can be said about those people is that they are debauched. They have followed injustice. They supported the butcher over the victim, the oppressor over the innocent child. May God show them His wrath and give them what they deserve.

That's a far cry from "they hate our freedom", but go ahead, bury your head in the sand and tell yourself whatever you need to support your rhetoric.

A-10,

Ask NATO why we went there, they authorized the assault.

Kimberly,

Funny how eager recent president are to bomb and invade nations without proof, and without exit strategies, or goals for winning the peace, ain't it?

Blarney,

And Saddam would continue to kill thousands of Iraqis each year. He would continue to harbor, finance, and train terrorists. He would continue to skim billions off the Oil-for-Food program. He would continue to thumb his nose at the UN Sanctions. He would be free to reactivate his WMD programs as soon as the sanctions were lifted and the inspectors left. He would still be free to provide terrorists with WMD, if he chose. He would continue to fire at US and UK aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone. Yea, things would be just great.

Liberals were leading the war on terror during the 1990's. The problem was that they were so naive or stupid, they refused to acknowledge that we were at war.

They just kept blowing off each successive bombing as if it was nothing more than a police action.

A-10,

as opposed to the thousands of Iraqis we have been killing for the past 3 years, or the money we gain from sweatshops we condone, or the UN resolutions we refuse to submit to, or the terrorist groups we have supported in the past, or the world's largest stockpile of WMDs we have...sounds familiar

War, you forgot that Saddam killed the Kurds with the approval of Reagan, and killed the Shiites with the approval of Bush the elder. The UN sanctions and resolutions were on Bush’s watch as well, and if the sanctions were dropped, Bush (The Dumber) would have had to approve that.

Sorry, my last post should have been direct to a10.

TEO

Most of the Iraqi non combatants who are being killed are done by the terrorists or their fellow travelers in the so called insurgency.

We have looked the other way on some sweat shops. To the best of my knowledge no one is forced to work in these. At least not by the US government or corporations. If we made a huge stink about some of these things, some people would view this as an act of war or at the very least we would be meddling in their affairs. We trade with them and we try to influence them but we don't tell countries like China what to do. As a practial solution to the sweat shop problem I would suggest reducing some of the government regulations on manufacturing interests in the US. This might encourage corporations to do more business in the US and less in other countries. Right now all the UN does is run interference for thuggish dictatorships. I have no respect for this organization. Perhaps you are not aware that if our most important ally Israel submitted to this organization they would be extinct. Russia has the largest stockpile of WMD in the world not the USA. They keep about 20,000 nuclear war heads. The US keeps about 12,000. If memory serves correctly, this was according to a national geographic article in April of 2005 or sometime around this time. Russia has also upgraded its nuclear arsenal in recent years. It now has the largest and most advanced nuclear arsenal on the planet.

Barney,

Yeah, what bin Laden wanted was a US liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan...I'm sure he also wanted Pakistan out of the nuclear sales game and for Libya to voluntarily give up its WMD programs...I'm also dead certain that part of the trap we fell in to includes Syria withdrawing from Lebanon and 300,000 Iraqis volunteering to fight for liberty...

As for Gore, he would have fallen right in to bin Laden's actual plan - which was to kill thousands of Americans, ride out an ineffectual bombing campaign and then emerge as the heroic vanquisher of the Great Satan. Gore has shown he hasn't the strategic sense of President Bush just as his actions have shown he hasn't the courage to be a war leader.

There’s no need to fear! Curt Weldon is here! Curt wants to go over to Iraq and personally look for WMD. What a loon.

Mark, you mean the Pakistan that refuses to turn over OBL, and sold nuclear secrets to Iraq under Bush’s nose (the elder)? The Libya that hasn’t been a threat for 20-years? What about Hamas and Somalia and Indonesia? The world is so much safer with W in office.

How many of those "thousands of Iraqis" TEO had a gun in their hands or a remote control blowing up IED's.

You make it sound like they were all indiscriminate killings. Please, give me a break.

"War, you forgot that Saddam killed the Kurds with the approval of Reagan, and killed the Shiites with the approval of Bush the elder. The UN sanctions and resolutions were on Bush’s watch as well, and if the sanctions were dropped, Bush (The Dumber) would have had to approve that."

Oh really....please provide the source that said Reagan approved killing of Kurds. I didn't realize Saddam called Ron to ask if he could kill his own people.

Making up more s%it again Blarney?

"War, you forgot that Saddam killed the Kurds with the approval of Reagan, and killed the Shiites with the approval of Bush the elder. The UN sanctions and resolutions were on Bush’s watch as well, and if the sanctions were dropped, Bush (The Dumber) would have had to approve that."

Oh really....please provide the source that said Reagan approved killing of Kurds. I didn't realize Saddam called Ron to ask if he could kill his own people.

Making up more s%it again Blarney?

The Reagan administration gave WMD technology to Saddam, and supplied Saddam with satellite photos of the Kurds massing for an attack from the north. Reagan was aware of the attacks and did nothing to stop them.

Warriornation,

Thanks. I was going to say the same thing. I't amazing how the libs can make up things out of thin air and expect us to believe them.

Reagan "approved" of the killing of the Kurds? Who is he kidding? Yes, we should have taken a stronger stance against Saddam's actions, but calling that "approval" is a bit of projection.

Bush 41 "approved" the killing of the Shiites? He asks if we remember. I don't. Only in his virtual, liberal world, 180 degrees out of phase of reality.

Barney

There remain some unanswered questions concerning Iraq's WMD. These specifically are in regards to Syria. It may well turn out that the conventional wisdom is correct and I hope the conventional wisdom is correct. I find nothing loony about trying to complete the parts of the investigation that the ISG was not able to complete. If it turns out the WMD were transferred this would not be a pro Bush argument. It would mean Operation Iraqi Freedom failed to achieve one of its primary objectives which was to halt the spread of Iraqi WMD.

TEO:

"as opposed to the thousands of Iraqis we have been killing for the past 3 years, or the money we gain from sweatshops we condone, or the UN resolutions we refuse to submit to, or the terrorist groups we have supported in the past, or the world's largest stockpile of WMDs we have...sounds familiar"

Actually, the numbers actually killed by Coalition Forces numbers about 30,000 and includes terrorists, Baathists, and remnants of the Iraqi Republican Guard. Innocent lives lost as a direct action of Coalition forces is remarkedly small considering the bombing campaigns and invasion. Whele any loss of innocent life is tragic, failing to put a stop to Saddam's killings, support for terrorism, and his WMD programs would be more tragic.

And what does "condoning" sweatshops have to do with the ability of a liberal to wage a meaningful war agains global Islamist terrorism?

Would you care to cite some "UN resolutions we refuse to submit to"? Of course, with the brilliant results the UN has had in preventing genocide in the Sudan and elsewhere, not submitting to their resolutions is probably the moral and ethical thing to do.

How about some cites of "terrorist groups we have supported in the past". Throwing out wild claims is typical of the left.

As for "the world's largest stockpile of WMDs", to be fair, you have to divide them between Chem & Bio and Nuclear. With Chem & Bio, for the past several decades we have been systematically destroying them. We have never used them and never will (white phosphorus is not a "chemical weapon" per se). As for Nuc's, we have also decommissioned thousands of warheads. They still, however, have a deterrant affect on those countries who wish us harm.

Barney

There remain some unanswered questions about Iraq's WMD programs. Specifically the ISG was never able to complete the investigation into what was transferred into Syria. Also it seems some sights in Iraq were never searched. The conventional wisdom regarding Iraqi WMD may turn out to be correct and I hope it does. If Iraqi WMD were transferred this is hardly a pro-Bush argument. It would mean that Operation Iraqi Freedom failed to achieve one of its primaray objectives which was to halt the spread of Iraqi WMD. Hopefully we can complete this investigation. I find nothing loony in seeking to answer the unanswered questions we have.

It does seem we supplied some assistance to Saddam's Iraq. As I recall, the Democrats controlled Congress in those days. Any transfer of military technology would have needed to be approved by Congress. At a minimum, if they did not intervene to prevent assistance to Saddam, we can infer tacit approval. I assume Congress is not so incompetent as to ignore what the President is doing. This was a mistake made by both political parties. Nations and people can and do learn from their mistakes. I hope we will be more careful in the future.

Blarney,

"The Reagan administration gave WMD technology to Saddam".

Proof?

Since Chem and Bio weapons have been in existance since WWI and before, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to cook up a batch of mustard gas, or other agent. To claim we are at fault for providing the technology is both false and projection.

A10, “Since Chem and Bio weapons have been in existance since WWI and before, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to cook up a batch of mustard gas, or other agent.”

It does take a rocket scientist to weaponize Chem. and Bio. agents. Especially if you put a warhead on a rocket.

I think CJ said it best:

Liberals effectively running the war on terror? Bwahahahahahahahahahaha.............*catching breath*.........Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Posted by: CJ

Actually, Freedom 1, liberals running the war on terror would be more like bwahahahahahahaha(thwack-sound of head being chopped off by Islamic wackos taking over America while liberals have a hug in)

Bigfoot:

Bush claiming that we cannot win the war on terror: right here.

The US supplying anthrax to Saddam is well -documented.

So is Clinton's taking terrorism as a serious threat. I can't believe that you people said that he "did nothing." Clinton's Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995 was significantly weakened by the GOP, mostly because of concerns that civil rights were being jeopardized. The Republicans did the right thing then, but now you're all willing to toss civil liberties out the window.

Barney.
Before you blame any one for the Kurds, simply because your wrong and have no clue! Go to
www.theotheriraq.com and get the facts from them, and then see how fast you are to throw stones. Dumb A#%

Yes,Clinton took the war on terror so seriously that he did zip after the first WTC attack, Kobar towers, USS Cole, and all the other attacks.

Only time he took it seriously was when he launched a few cruise missiles when he was impeached.

The liberal way is to look the other way and hope the issue disappears.

Blarney you forgot that part that at the time Iraq was also fighting Iraq....the enemy of our enemy.

Now, the satellite photos given were for the Iran / Iraq war, not to attack Kurds...a little pesky factoid you forgot while you were lying again.

Keep on lying, just adds to your credibility.

Blarney you forgot that part that at the time Iraq was also fighting Iraq....the enemy of our enemy.

Now, the satellite photos given were for the Iran / Iraq war, not to attack Kurds...a little pesky factoid you forgot while you were lying again.

Keep on lying, just adds to your credibility.

Jon Parker...in 1995 had 9/11 happened yet?

Was 9/11 a wakeup call to this country.

Please advise...thank you.

By the way, what rights of yours have been taken away?

Warriornation, it is not about what rights have been taken away, but what rights Bushco might take away.

hard to write that when laughing :)

Warriornation, it is not about what rights have been taken away, but what rights Bushco might take away.

hard to write that when laughing :)

A little bit of research goes a long way to avoid making a fool out of yourself. Clinton not only was conducting the anti-terror financial tracking campaing first, the whole world knew about it through the mass media. Only now the cons claim to be fighting against terror, after fighting against those fighting against terror for years. The cons put politics and cronyism before liberty, security, and morality.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=600#a012401italy

According to Time magazine, “The US was all set to join a global crackdown on criminal and terrorist money havens [in early 2001]. Thirty industrial nations were ready to tighten the screws on offshore financial centers like Liechtenstein and Antigua, whose banks have the potential to hide and often help launder billions of dollars for drug cartels, global crime syndicates—and groups like Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda organization. Then the Bush administration took office.” [Time, 10/15/2001] After pressure from the powerful banking lobby, the Treasury Department under Paul O’Neill halts US cooperation with these international efforts begun in 2000 by the Clinton administration. Clinton had created a Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center in his last budget, but under O’Neill no funding for the center is provided and the tracking of terrorist financing slows down. Spurred by the 9/11, attacks, the center will finally get started three days after 9/11 (see October 2000-September 14, 2001). [Foreign Affairs, 7/2001; Time, 10/15/2001]

A-10,

We don't even count civilian casualties, so it lies somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000+...that would constitute, "thousands"

my sweatshop comment was to counteract your point about the skimming of millions for OfF,

First-off, Oil-for-food was a huge program, and there was not one "bad apple" involved. Many, many nations were involved in the fraud, including looking the other way, and out and out fraud, this included US companies, and also the lack of oversight that was required by the UN, of us, to make sure the shipments we were recieving were not "skimmed"; so just another example of both democrat and republican laziness and perhaps culpability in allowing Saddam to retain his hold of Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4554507.stm

Secondly, we make millions from the labor that the poor are forced into, B. Poster said people aren't "forced" into slave labor; but our wanting of cheap goods, and the ability for disreputable suppliers to use that demand for goods to wage economic war on poor people does constitute a forcing of them to work for slave wages; if you have a choice between starving and working for $.10 an hour, then that is forcing someone to make a decision they wouldn't otherwise have to make if the infrastructure to support factories which supply cheap products to the US, didn't destroy arable land for food production and animal cultivation.

The US holds veto power within the UN, at this moment there are 66 resolutions against Israel, including things such as oversight of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, and self-determination. We acted quite quickly in the occupation and invasion of Kuwait by Saddam, but in the past 30 years we have used kid-gloves with Israel for what amounts to the same policy within Palestinian areas, it's a bit hypocritical if you ask me.

Besides that, the illegal actions of the US in regards to invading Iraq in 2003 amounts to out and out dismissal of the UN charter, which is a treaty that according to the 6th amendment, we are bound to uphold.

We backed the Mujahadeen, which by its nature was a terrorist group, unless you are going to now refer to them as "freedom-fighters" (LOL), or the Contras of Honduras, or how about the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army); they were our goto guys in our illegal air-war in Serbia, yet they were just a year previous listed as a terrorist group by the state department. Aside from that the backing of nations like Azerbaijan, which is an authoritarian state who has been involved in political killings and severe repression of its citizens, does nothing for our high sense of morals.

As of 2002, the US had 10,600 nukes, Russia held 8,600, that would make us the country with the largest WMD stockpile, and our recent actions in retreating from the CTBT treaty, thus making things even more 'hairy' on the world stage with regards to WMD...not very benevolent, do we really need more than the stockpile of weapons we currently have?

http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/facts/international/security.aspx?ComponentId=15012&SourcePageId=14912

WRONG!!! The USA does NOT have the most nuclear weapons. That is just complete falsehood.

Russia has 16,000 total weapons of which 5,830 are active

USA has 9,960 total weapons with 5735 active.

Source:
U.S. nuclear forces, 2006," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 61:1 (January/February 2005): 68-71, [2]

^ Norris, Robert S. and Hans M. Kristensen. "Russian nuclear forces, 2006," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 62:2 (March/April 2006): 64-67, [3]

Secondly, we don't use our WMD on other people so to even lump us into this argument is such a pathetic straw man it's incredible.

Just watching the National Geographic Channel about the submarine Texas, and the "super secret" weapons they have to defend the USA. No doubt Durbin, Kerry, Kennedy and the MSM would relish the thought of publishing that information for all the world to know.

Danl.
Good research and you are right, to a point! Clinton did enact such a program, but President Clinton actually operated it under a secure agency (classified, if you would) under the Treasury Dept. Thus ppl knew it was there but it wasn’t . It was done that way so the Government could keep its operations classified because they used it to gather evidence. President Bush kept the program in operation and expanded its agency use after 9/11. So again, it was there, know about a little bit, but kept classified so that they could operate world wide to gather evidence. Thus the problems for the NY Times, they may have let to many cats out of the bag. Some were already out, but now every one knows what they look like.

TEO

When you and the Democrats drop the line about the Iraq war being "illegal", you will probably sweep to power in the House, the Senate, and the White House. Frankly there is much to dislike about the current crop of Republicans. Failure to secure the borders, failure to control spending, and what seems to me to be failure to commit the proper amount of resources to Iraq and elswhere in the war on terrorism come to mind. I concede the Iraq war may have been a strategic error. I was never comfortable with it. It is clear we overestimated our own power and we underestimated the non WMD power of the enemy. The notion that our right to defend ourselves is subject to the UN is an anathema to me and to alot of people. This is especially so when the enemy we are fighting poses a direct threat or at least an indirect threat to our very survival and you are going to quote me UN regulations. If we subhjected Israel to UN resolutions they would be extinct. It is completely unrealistic to expect them to submit to an entity who wants to destroy them. "Kid glove" treatment for Israel. We have played a large role in forcing the Road map to peace on Israel. We played a large role in Israel's decision to unilaterally cede land to the Palestinians. Never mind that this land is vital to Israel's defense. According to George W. Bush Israeli acts of self defense are "unhelpful." The only folks getting kid glove treatment are the Palestinians.

I think you are correct the UN oil for food situation was bad. I doubt we had the capability to oversee it. This is especially so when we consider the efforts of very powerful organizations, companies, and nations to thwart it. I think to suggest that people were lazy misses the point. It implies that this was easy to oversee. You may be over estimating our power. The bottom line is where there is alot of money there will be attempts to steal. Perhaps the war with Iraq could have been avoided but we would have needed to re work the oil for food program. The sanctions seem to have been collapsing.

The US is not forcing people into slave labor. If factories destroy land that could be used for food and grazing, these countries can excersize their soverign rights and not do business with the US. I already suggested the US could lessen some of the regulations that make it difficult to do business in the US. This would encourage companies to locate their factories here. I suspect the other countries would make moves themselves to keep the manufacturing there. Other countries manipulate US policies. It works both ways.

We have backed a number of bad peole over the years. To put this another way a number of bad people backed us over the years. This was generally done to oppose the USSR, Iran, or other enemies. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." This does not justify it but to understand it in its proper context the USSR posed a direct survival threat to our country. Morals are great to have but you seem to be asking for perfection. This simply will not happen in this life but please continue to point out our flaws. This helps a society to improve. I hope we learn from our mistakes.

The article I refered to was in the National Geographic. I'm not sure how to reconcle to the one you reference. Yours is from the United Kingdom. I would lean toward thinking the National Geograpchic article is more correct. I think the National Geographic article siad we had about 12,000 and Russia had about 16,000. Russia has upgraded theirs in recent years and we haven't. This may explain the discrepancy between the 2005 National Geographic article and the 2002 article. As for how many we need, we need to at least keep up with Russia. So far we haven't. I'm not sure which one the CTBT treaty is. What I can tell you is I don't trust Iran, North Korea, or even Russia or China to keep their agreements nor do I trust the UN or any other international agency to oversee these countries either. Bottom line, we are facing a threat to our very survival and at minimum to our way of life. With any treaty I would insist on some mechanism to ensure the other side keeps it. We don't have to worry about America keeping their end of the bargain. The international pressure on American is always intense so even if someone within the American government wanted to shirk their responsibilites it would be all but impossible.

While we are fighting Islamic Extremists, we will need to make sure that we keep a close eye on Russia and China. These two countries are uncomfortably close to the terrorist supporting governments. If we are not watching, when we least expect it they will pounce.

While we are fighting the war on terrorism, we must remember that Russia and China are uncomfrotably close to the the terrorist supporting states. We need to keep a close eye on them. If we take or eyes off of them, they, especially Russia will attack when we least expect it.

I'm not sure that I was clear enough in a previous post. Where American foreign policies are flawed, such as when we support people we should not support, this needs to be vigorously pointed out. This is how we can improve and learn from previous mistakes.

We also need to keep a close eye on our actions. when the government supports unsavory characters, this needs to be pointed out. We will need to learn from our mistakes.

Liberal leading the war on terror???

Just tell them they bettered go get an exam from the pathologist before they try!:)

Meanwhile their still on the yellow brick road.

:>) singing because,because,because becaaaaaaaaause, because of the wonderful things he does, were off to see the wizard the wonderful wizard of oz!

darn kooks think their going to get ahead of us,

Well let me tell you, TELL OL DEAN HE BETTERED GET SOME BRAINS FIRST. :) LOL,LOL. SCREAMS!!LOL.

AND TELL OL BYRD TO QUIT FILLING HIS BRITCHES, DURING SESSION!! THE LIBERAL NEXT TO HIM CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHERE IT'S COMING FROM!! LOL :)RIPS!! LOL!

:-D HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAH

GOOD TO HAVE A LITTLE LAUGH ONCE IN A WHILE!!

DON'T YA THINK :-D

Liberals would only cut and run again, like they did in Bay of Pigs, Viet Nam, Lebanon, Somalia and the first Gulf War.

When they say Victory, they mean for our enemies.

As for king Liberal, Kerry, his "cut and run" strategy was changed to "over the horizon," which just remnds me too much of "somewhere over the rainbow."

Click onto my name for an essay on that.

Yes ol kerry is real man of a scarecrow.LOL

:>D

He just looks like a scarecrow!!LOL :)

Warriornation: Thanks for the information on the exact numbers on US and Russian nuclear arsenals. We have heard the refrain from the media over and over again that the US has the largest WND arsenal in the world. It is a bold faced lie. The media has dragged our good name through the mud for the purpose of damaging this administration. Then they have the chutzpah to blame the administration for our dimished standing. The saddest part about this is this president's record is spotty at best. I could even build a case that this is not even a very good president. Had the media simply stuck to the facts, it is very likely this president would have lost the 2004 election and our reputaion around the world would be better.

B.Poster,

Additionally, when the public hears "WMD", they immediately think of Chemical and Biological weapons. Since 1985, the US has been destroying its Chemical based munitions. The US destroyed all of its biological weapons over 30 years ago and ceased its offensive biological program.

The only usable WMD the US currently maintains is its nuclear weapons program. The capability of these weapons far exceeds the capabilities of all other WMD. However, the quantities are far less than Chem & Bio weapons believed to be stockpiled by Russia, China, and other countires.

Blarney,

If WWI scientists could figure out a way to employ mustard gas , I sure the Iraqis could figure it out 80 years later. It is not necessary to launch the WMD in a missile. Aerial dispersion and other delivery methods, while primative compared to a missile, are just as effective.

Besides, you were claiming we gave them the technology to develop the WMD, which we did not, not the technology to deliver the WMD, which we did not either.

Go peddle your lies, distortions, and half-truths elsewhere.

A-10,

Actually arial dispersion of a Chemical or Biological weapon is very difficult, the prevailing wind patterns greatly affects the concentration of the chemical compounds you need for proper use of the weapons; To weaponize most biological weapons, they have to be manufactured to such a minute degree, that the prevailing winds and the method of delivery can vary its potency greatly. So to say you can just "spray" the stuff and forget about it, is a pretty simplistic view of how CW and BW are used.

As far as our involvement in the selling of Chemical and biological weapons to Iraq, it was pretty evident to anyone who cares to track it down, that we were giving him A LOT of help, not just intelligence, but military technology, and basically backing him against Iran, while we played Iran against Iraq, pretty dirty tricksters we are, don't ya think?

"A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."

Monday, December 30, 2002; Page A01
Wasington Post

TEO:

You are missing the point. You, and many on the left, continually blame the US for all of the ills of the world.

So what if we sided with Stalin and the communists against the Nazis? The Nazis were a greater evil and we needed the Russians to occupy the Germans on the Eastern Front. After WWII, we fought Communism in both hot and cold wars for nearly 50 years.

So what if we supported Iraq in its war against Iran? We felt that Iran was a greater evil. However, once Saddam developed his aspirations for complete domination of the Middle East, we need to stop him. We should have probably taken him out in 1991, but we didn't. Shame on us. We didn't make the mistake again.

The US is not the cause of all evil and suffering in the world. Many nations bring suffering upon themselves. Many leaders are evil and corrupt, and we had nothing to do with it. Perhaps we should do more to intercede. But with people like you, we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

It seems that the only variation of this theme is who is occupying the White House. If a Democrat is sitting in the Oval Office, he can use faulty intelligence to stop widespread ethnic-cleansing that was not occuring, and kill 2,500 innocents. He can ignore genocide in Africa where hundreds of thousands were killed. He can fail to respond to numerous terrorist attacks and be put on a pedestal. He can allow our embassy to be overrun and our diplomats taken prisoner for 444 days and later be given a Nobel Peace Prize.

But if a Republican stands up to Communist domination he is a warmonger, and imperialist, and evil. If he enforces UN Resolutions and removes a murdering dictator who possessed WMD from power, he is compared to Hitler.

Sure President Bush has faults. We all do. But he is standing up to global terrorism, when his predecessor refused to. He see the USA as the greatest force for good in the world. You see the US as the greatest evil in the world. I would invite you to take your liberal, anti-American a** and move somewhere where your enlightened views of America and Americans can be appreciated. May I suggest Cuba - I hear Havana is lovely this time of year. Or maybe North Korea - they share your feelings for the US. Or perhaps Venezuela - I understand Chavez is gearing up for a confrontation with the US. Perhaps you could get a gig as an advisor.

I have a question for our liberal posters: Why is it that every major Democrat leader (with the possible exception of Harry Reid) comes across as a raving lunatic? You never see a Republican leader yelling and screaming.

You have Al Gore screaming: "He [President Bush} betrayed us". He rants and raves about global warming being the greatest threat to humanity, and we asre causing it. Guess what...it is a scientific fact that the sun is going through a stage where it is hotter than usual. It is causing the polar ice caps on both the Earth and Mars to melt slightly. Did we cause the sun to give off more heat and solar radiation? I guess Al Gore thinks so.

Then you have the Howard Dean primal Scream. You have him making statements that President Bush had advance warning of 9/11. You have him saying that since the Democrats aren't in power, they don't have to have any plans. Their job is to obstruct.

You have Shrillary screeching: "I am SICK and TIRED...." You have her making wild accusations on the Senate floor.

You have Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy, in one of his less drunk moments: "There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud". And: "Shamefully we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management." He has called the President a liar on the Senate Floor.

I could go on, and on, and on.

When was the last time you saw a George H.W. Bush, a Bill Frist, a Colin Powell, a Condoleezza Rice, or any leading Republican acting like a nut-case during a public appearance or speach?

A-10,

Just because Clinton did it, doesn't give Bush the license to. Illegal wars of agression are the same, no matter which letter resides behind the current president's name.

I don't slight the US for making mistakes, that is what we do, but we knowingly backed a tyrant who was gassing people, while we are sending ambassadors to shake hands and make nice.

My problem with recent administrations is the contempt they hold our national morals in. It is like accepting money from NAMBLA for your run in congress, sure you can beconfident that you didn't rape a little boy, but your tacit acceptance helps to keep the pain on-going.

Instead of writing off organizations like the UN, we should be shining a national spotlight on its failures, and helping to correct them. The laws of the world are not set in stone, they can be changed, and we can help to do that, so when people come asking for help, like Darfur, like Kosovo, like Iraq, we can provide timely, multi-lateral solutions...not "we are going to do it our way, screw everyone else"

On your last post, about ranting, try watching CSPAN sometime, and watch the blowhards on your side of the isle aswell...I particularly like the 'Best of..' reels from Tom Delay, he was a fiery little twit if there ever was one.

The republicans can't afford to look shaken, they already have a tenous hold on power, at its most basic, everyone knows that perception is everything in politics. LOL

TEO

You write: "pretty dirty tricksters we are don't ya think." We have done some things we should not have. Everyone knows we once provided support for Saddam. We by no means have a monolpy on dirty tricks. The masters of dirty tricks are the Russians and the Chinese. When it comes to these guys, we are mere kindergrtners in the dirty tricks category. A-10 provides some of the context on this issue. Saddam was a dirty trickster himself. He used us for what he could get. With all due respect the NAMBLA analogy does not quite fit. Iran was and is a grave threat to American national security. The Government felt they needed to be opposed. The Democrats in Congress failed to reign in the President so we can infer their tacit approval. Saddam was willing to help or so it seemed. Failure to contain Iran had the potential risk of 10s of millions of dead Americans. No one knows for sure what would have happened, but this is a very real possibility. In other words, this is not some mere political campaign like your NAMBLA exanple. This was a matter of attempting to contain a grave threat to American national security. To put this another way Saddam played nice with us to get what he wanted. Then he sought hegemony over the middle east. To have provided any support for Saddam was a mistake. We all know that now. i hope and pray we learn from our mistakes. i fear we have not. The "enemy of my enemy is my friend" theme seems to prevail in international politics. We once provided support for Iraq for much the same reason we supported Stalin in WWII.

Admitedly no one can predict the future, however, I'm going to discuss a very likely scenario. For this scenario I am going to assume the terrorists and their marxists allies do not overthrow or destroy the USA within the next five years. Venezuela and Mexico are growing stronger and more beligerent by the day. Significant elements within Mexico want to annex the American southwest. This is uner the radar of much of the media. Within 5 years both of these countries will pose grave threats to the USA. We may need to play nice with someone to contain these threats. Of course if they turn out to be unsavory you will point it out, as you should

B. Poster,

I like you, you're civil, you discuss the issues, but I have to say, you don't quite get my point.

First off, Iran had a democratically elected leader in Mossedegh, which we (CIA) helped in overthrowing, and they instituted the Sha, who was supposed to be very Pro-West, that didn't work out, so we backed the overthrow of the Shah, and ended up where we are today. So do you see that we have had our dirty little paws in Iran's affairs for quite a while, kinda makes you wonder what things would look like if we would stop helping to overthrow democratically elected governments.

Saddam was the agitator of the Iran-Iraq war, he didn't want a religious leadership bordering his highly secular state, we didn't like that Iran was now out of our control, so we decided to back a sociopathic killer to punish Iran for doing something we didn't like. Always keep in mind that it was a popular revolution which brought the Mullahs to power, not a military coup or otherwise.

Secondly, Venezuela has no military power, not even if they ganged up with Chile, Colombia, and Cuba, could they even get close to our shores without finding a nest of patriots up their collective butts. The mot Chavez can hope to do, is bludgeon us economically, which is even more reason to invest in alternative fuels, if we leave him alone, he will either be the next Torrijos (which I doubt) or he will run his government into the ground, but either way, he was democratically elected, and we have to respect what his people have asked for.

Mexico, while on the verge of their first populist leader in a hundred years, is not a threat, militarily to us either. I think you are refering to La Raza when you said something about elements who want to annex part of the southwest? That is the silliest thing ive ever heard, Can you please name some current, high ranking officials in the leftist party who i srunning, or in the mexican congress who support, actively the thought of invading, occupying, and annexing the southwest from the US...I would love to know about them.

Third Eye Open

I don't know everything about the Democratically elected leaership in Iran back in the 1950s. My understanding is they were pro USSR. This was deemed to be a threat to us. We felt we had to intervene to change this situation. Russia intervenes in North American countries to. There goal was and still is to surround us with hostile neighbors, thereby cutting us off. We were jockeying for position with the USSR. Some of the actions may have been unsavory, but that is what happened. Had we not taken a stance against the USSR we would probably be speaking Russian now. They may yet still conquer us. As for the Shah, I think he was a bad fellow. Carter allowed him to fall and this led to the mullahs. If we overthrew him, we got something worse. If these mullahs are actually popular we have an even bigger problem with Iran than I thought. The conventional wisdom is that they are not very popular.

Iran with its leadership is a major national security threat to the US. It was then and it is an even bigger threat now. Its not a question of control. Its a question of protecting the lives and even the economic interests of millions of Americans. We felt we needed to support someone who would help us contain the threat. Supporting Saddam was a mistake. Everyone knows it and not a day goes by that the media does not remind of this. By that logic we could not have opposed the Soviet Union. We did support them during WWII. Also, we never had Saddam under our control. While we did give some support to him, his biggest supporter was Russia.

If we did not work to oppose some governments who were hostile to us which sometimes means overthrowing them, I think we would have a bunch of quasi Soviet colonies and the Soviet Union would likely still be in power. Its really not that someone votes that counts. Its how they vote that matters. Other countries have their paws in our affairs to. It works both ways. In any event, what the US did in Iran during the 1950s would not be approved of today. I don't even think it would be possible. In today's climate we can't keep national secrets. Iran has their country back. Its time for them to stop threatening us. Actually now they have Russia as their primary supporter. This makes it very difficult for us to do anything to them any way.

Venezuela is an up coming military power. They have made huge purchases from Russia and are making upgrades to their military. They are acting to destablize their neighbors. They are acting to agitate the US. Hugo Chavez needs a threat to keep his hold on power. So he needs to tell his people the US is planning to invade his country. I'm mainly projecting into the future. Admitedly it is speculative. Right now, today they could combine with Rusisa, China, and other terrorist allies and they do present a survival threat to the US. I think we would try to stop it. I hope we would succeed but this enemy is capable of defeating us and needs to be treated as such.

There is nothing silly about the Mexican threat. By saying it is silly I think that once again you are over estimating American power and under estimating Mexico's power. We made a variation of this mistake in Iraq. I would prefer not to repeat that. I don't see Mexican leaders actually working to condemn this group or to stop it. In fact, they are working to promote illegal immigration. If the populist wins the election, he will likely ally with Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, China, and other terrorist groups. The threat will become even greater should this happen. I would suggest puting the military on the border right now to halt the invasion by illegal aliens and getting a UN resolution demanding Mexico to crack down on on these groups.

Many folks had their hands in the Iran/Iraq war. In the final analysis the Iranians and the the Iraqis are the ones primarily responsible. If we really had supported Saddam strictly because we were mad at Iran, I would expect a UN general assembly resolution condeming our actions. It still would not be to late for former regime elements to get this resolution. The international pressure on the US is always intense. The advantage to this is it is very difficult for us to pull off any nefarious activities. The disadvantage is we often get treated unfairly.

B.

Where do you come up with this stuff? you need to stop reading Newsmax, they are rotting your brain!

1) Read about Mossedegh, he was courted by the USSR, but he was not a communist, nor a sympathiser.

2)Russia fell because of the Arms Race, and the expected disintegration of its infrastructure from lack of upkeep and oversight, that is why the cold war was a war of attrition.

3)Venezuela has a right to be scared. We have been meddling in South American and Central American governments for years. Our recent overtures towards them have been very threatening, take for instance the latest "war games" we did off their coast, if I was a Venezuelan i'd be pretty jittery myself.

I think it's very telling when you say he needs fear to keep his power, seems to me that the US with it's color-coded BS and constant ratcheting up of the fear levels over what amounts to BS, keeps us pretty scared of everyone too.

4)We have an immigration problem because there is work and money here, its simple economics, if they can fix their own internal struggles between the haves and have-nots, we would see a stemming of the flow of illegal immigrants, militirizing the border is not the answer, it only agitates things.

As far as La Raza, the Mexican government doesn't care, just like we don't feel the need to talk about white Supremist groups who advocate a lot of pretty stupid stuff, probably some of them advocate annexing lands from Mexico.

5)The UN doesn't do anything close to condemning the US, we hold veto power and the purse-strings for the whole organization, I emplore you to read up on the CIA involvement in the iran-Iraq war, and while you're at it, check out their involvement in Panama, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Chile, etc.

TEO

I occasionally read New