How can anyone argue against the psychotic primitivism of mainstream Islam? Iran's former President defended executing homosexuals and adulterers at Harvard the other day: http://direland.typepad.com/ dire...mi_at_harv.html

This culture is a cancer on the world. Which is not to say we're perfect -- we ain't -- but we sure as hell have more to offer the world than they do.
Kohut/Kernberg | Email | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 11:39 am | #

Ok then, I've read the speech and fail to see any Bush pot shots at the Democrats...yet they're currently howling that he 'politizied' 9/11 and his speach!
John | Email | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 12:10 pm | #

Doc, you are of course assuming the interceptor rockets will be launched at all instead of lawsuits and pointing fingers and bickering while Chixlub II bores in on its collision course.
Headless Unicorn Guy | Email | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 12:36 pm | #

I particularly liked this line:

"We are now in the early hours of this struggle between tyranny and freedom."

By equating the last five years to mere 'hours', Bush brilliantly illustrated that this will be a long multigenerational struggle.

Doc's asteroid analogy is also excellent. I believe Bush 'got it' much earlier than most, realizing that this war on Islamofascism will require every tool in the box: diplomacy, intelligence, law enforcement, military, etc. His approach is to go on the offensive and disrupt terrorists at each and every level possible, both here and abroad. While border security must be fixed, the idea of 'Fortress America' -- enveloping the nation in some sort of prophylactic cocoon -- is woefully inadequate. We have to take the fight to the bastards where they live and train.
GnuCarSmell | Email | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 1:00 pm | #

If there is anyone in the world who doubts that Bush means what he says, then they haven't been paying attention for the last 6 years.

Uh huh.

Bin laden and his terrorists' allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them," the president said before the Military Officers Association of America and diplomatic representatives of other countries that have suffered terrorist attacks. "The question is `Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say?

Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

I think there are some people who haven't been paying attention to what Bush has been saying and doing but it's not the ones you think.
salvage | Email | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 1:02 pm | #

Nice try salvage but no go. Why don't you put the entire comment in perspective?

Here, I'll do it for you.

"Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban."

Next time try being a little more intellectualy honest.
x | Email | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 1:23 pm | #

Curses! Foiled again! Maybe I shouldn't have included the links...

Or maaaaybeee putting the quote in context doesn't change its meaning a lick.

Well, no maybe. Bush knew that bin Laden was lost and was trying to make it look like it wasn't that big a deal.

bin Laden killed 3,000 Americans and got away with it, no, no, him on the run or hiding is not justice. Please, spare me.

But thanks I missed this bit of Bush ignorance:

I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country.

He hadn't taken over any country, the Taliban had, they acted as host for bin Laden and his men. It's sad that Bush didn't even know the basics of the situation, sad but telling.

And this is funny too:

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied;

Those humvees in Iraq ever get the armour?

that the strategy is clear;

If someone could tell me what that is I'd be grateful. From what I can tell the Taliban have come back strong. 'Zat part of the plan? More flypaper perhaps? You do know that Canada has had to call in tanks to support our guys? Where are all the American tanks I wonder?

that the coalition is strong;

Speaking of coalitions how many members of the Iraqi version have dropped out? Heckuva leader that Bush.

In short silly person, the Chimp's remarks in full context show his muddled thinking, his weaselling and just how out of touch with reality he is.

I was just focusing on his clear flip-flop but heck if you want to point out that he’s all-around useless go crazy!
salvage | Email | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 1:37 pm | #

I'm a checkers player, not a chess player, but even I can see how important it is that we have forces in the middle east. I'm not sure that the reasons stated for going into Iraq were sufficient cause, but they were at least _a_ cause. Where else could we have initiated military action? We now have forces on two sides of Iran - it isn't any wonder that they feel threatened, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. If their intentions were "honorable" we could deal with them. They feel threatened because they are con artists with a game they don't want exposed - the domination of the area, and ultimately the world.
suek | Email | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 1:37 pm | #

We (meaning everyone in the world who wants to live in freedom) are so lucky that Bush is our President. He's an adult in a media world dominated by overgrown children--the anklebiting pundits. Luckily, there are enough people in Washinton who keep the war against terrorism on track, despite the difficulties.

Dr. Sanity, I like your asteroid-hurtling-toward- earth analogy. That's the way I've viewed the situation since 9-11.
Promethea | Email | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 1:39 pm | #

salvage - your deranged. Truly. As I say, you are not the least bit intellectually honest. Par for the course for you lefty moon-bats.

John said it best in a previous thread: "What's their brilliant "plan" for solving terrorism? Pull out of the ME and then focus on the first responders - so we'll just do a really good job picking up pieces after attacks, not preventing attacks.... Give the UN MORE power and then preferably play "the victim" to win sympathy from the G8 nations?

Um...how does that stop terrorism exactly? It doesn't. It changes the subject.

I'd welcome any liberal to a spirited dialogue of "their plan" for the future but I don't think they are a) nuanced b) sophisticated, and c) informed enough to do more than sputter sound bites and slogans."

Amen.

What is your brilliant plan salvage? Uh, wait, never mind. You'd rather deride the only true leader this nation has and call him a chimp. Say, that is brilliant.

Oh, and on your blog you wrote: "And thanks to Bush's disaster in Iraq more and more Canadians are souring on the war in Afghanistan. Seems that they've lost their enthusiasm for helping the Bush regime out. I can't say that I blame them but Afghanistan isn't about Bush anymore than Bush is America."

That is simply astounding. You're about as un-American as they come.

Go to hell.
x | Email | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 2:18 pm | #

There's a great piece by James Lewis today in The American Thinker, entitled "The Moral Emptiness of the Left".
http://americanthinker.com/ artic...article_id=5847
He correctly notes that while Bush is confronting the threats we face, the Left spend their time and energy whining and spinning revisionist versions of history, like so many buzzing gnats. Or, as Lewis puts it:

"All we know for sure is that the mewling, puking infants of the Left will blame any adults in sight, for the anxieties of having to live in the real world."

Well said, James Lewis.
GnuCarSmell | Email | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 2:20 pm | #

Gnu - I will have a post up tomorrow about it.
Dr. Sanity | Email | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 2:23 pm | #

Ah yes, the "humvees without armour" canard.... well first of all, SKIPPY, humvees weren't designed to be armored cars or tanks. They are 'trucks', multipurpose, lots of configerations, but ultimately, trucks. Not tanks. Not armored cars.

IEDs - by definition are 'improvised' as in, ad hoc, things the Soviets' didn't have alot of (when the Humvee was being designed). So not having armored Humvees isn't some evil plot to get our troops killed, it's the normal flow of warfare :bad guys exploit a weakness and we respond; one PART of that NUANCED response is 'uparmoring' humvees...but armor isn't the TOTAL SOLUTION - a) because 155mm artillery shells used as IEDs will blow up TANKS, so all the armor in the world won't save a truck... and b) better intel (gotten thanks to a better political and economic situation) is crucial to spotting the bombs before we drive by them... and c) defense doesn't win wars. Armor isn't as vital as a better sword.

But naturally the Left gloms on to whatever weakness or mistake or simple give and take we encounter and don't let go - even though the military has LONG SINCE solved the 'armor' issue and moved into the more nuanced phases of prevention and remote detonation of the IEDs and their controllers...

I say to all Lefties... bring it on if you THINK you have a plan or a real beef... all you have are little snide comments dressed up as 'bold' statements.
John | Email | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 2:36 pm | #

That is simply astounding. You're about as un-American as they come.

I am literally laughing out loud at you.

I am Canadian so no I'm not as "un-American" as they come but considering what you think America is (and you’re wrong) I take that as a compliment.

You'd rather deride the only true leader this nation has and call him a chimp.

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Oh my, if Bush is your idea of a true leader than you are indeed a very silly person. I can call him Commander CooCoo Bananas if you like, we have about 140 names for him.

Go to hell.

Aw that's sweet, doesn't answer any of my questions or refute points however.

My plan for ending terrorism:

I don't have one, it's not my job to have one and to be honest I doubt that terrorism can be in fact ended. The reality is we live in a dangerous world full of crazy people that will do crazy things. It’s been true for at least 6,000 years and I don’t see it changing anytime soon.

What can be done to blunt terrorism:

First of all it requires police work. Oh I know it’s not as fun as invading countries whose connection to terrorism is well weak at best but it gets the job done. The reality is terrorism is a crime at heart. Wars are waged against foes that can actually destroy you. The West is not in danger of being destroyed by a few thousand greasy crazy ignoramuses. So a sort of INTERPOL would be a good start.

On the home front sensible security that doesn’t sacrifice rights and freedoms. Yes I know it’s scary they could blow us up but the reality is we are all more likely to die in a car accident or from a heart attack. More people have been killed by bathtubs than terrorists. Y’all really need some perspective. Look to the words of the great Benjamin Franklin if you need to know the theory behind the ideal.

And beyond that we continue on, we don’t cower, we don’t hide in bunkers shaking with fear. We keep on living on the greatest most prosperous and freest hemisphere in the world (Australia too) at least that’s my plan.
salvage | Email | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 2:45 pm | #

Take a tough stand now will earn you another "warmonger" label. With everybody else claiming "discredited intelligence" for an unnecessary war in Iraq, this time around we won't even get a coalition going. The left will have forced either Israel or US to unilateral action. What other ways the UN/EU have not tried and failed miserably? Can they (the left, rest of the world) not see it? If they can see what's coming, how can they ignore it?

Also I doubt anybody succeeding GWB will be as tough (even for a GOP POTUS) and as far seeing.
always right | Email | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 3:10 pm | #

salvage, so you're Canadian, eh? I'll bet you never played hockey. Hockey players are generally pretty tough hombres, and don't think things can be handled as "police work" when hockey players would rather take matters into their own hands.

When hockey players get slashed by another player, they don't go crying to the referee to call a penalty (except for the Great Wimp, Wayne Gretzky, when he played). Instead, they will retaliate and get the slasher, no matter if it takes until the following season. That's the mentality that President Bush has. Screw the UN, the bastards whacked us on 9/11/01, and we'll get them no matter what.

Of course, you could have played one game of hockey in your life, in which I'll bet someone knocked you down and were crying for your mommy.
Garry K | Email | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 4:22 pm | #

I don't think this has been linked here yet: Christopher Hitchens's wonderful defense of Ari Fleicher in response to the common leftist talking point that somehow this administration sought to stifle dissent post 9/11: http://www.slate.com/id/2149377/...49377/? nav=tap3

I have major problems with both the left and the right, but the anti-American hysteria from the left is so disturbing to me. You simply cannot cry wolf over and over again without setting yourself up for dire consequences if, God forbid, a truly repressive right-wing regime ever did take hold in the U.S. (guess what Moveon.org -- that will never happen in America).
Kohut/Kernberg | Email | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 5:01 pm | #

Thought you might appreciate this tribute, via No Pasaran!:

9-11 remembered by a French writer

If on the one hand, Communism was never that popular and influential all over the world, on the other hand, Capitalism is the subject of thorough demonization in the world of arts and letters, while passing the corner coffee shop, TV, and the university. Witness the anti-Americanism that oozes out of every pore of the planet, and in particular in France.

For example, I remember September 11, 2001. I had my mother on the telephone, and she asked me "Why, son, why did this happen?! …" with all the anguish in the world in her voice, and suddenly she started to cry uncontrollably when she saw a man and a woman jumping out of one of the burning towers hand in hand on television.

But I especially remember September 12, 2001, when my colleagues scoffed me during our coffee break, mocking my distress, decrying the "arrogance" of the Yankees and the "imperialism" of their boss, Bush. What is worse, it is that, although I can be labeled today as an artist or intellectual, at the time I wasn't working in an artistic or intellectual milieu which are traditionally anti-capitalists and therefore anti-American.

No, I was working for the Paris police.

From top to bottom, I saw it for myself: on September 12, 2001, the overwhelming majority of the French didn't shed a tear for what had just happened in New York. Moreover, I wasn't the least bit surprising, since French anti-Americanism is trapped in the confused logic of its' love of Communism.

[...]

Just look back at the headlines of some of the big players in the French press (Le Monde, Libération, Le Nouvel Observateur, Le Figaro, Paris Match, Marianne, Télérama) during hurricane Katrina in 2005, one of worst natural disasters to ever hit the United States (a storm with an eye 50 kilometers wide and 300 km/h winds) : "Bush's Titanic", "Bush: the fall of the pyromaniac firefighter", "Barbara Bush is afraid of refugees", "to appease critics, Bush visits the devastated areas", "Bush knew what Katrina would do" ...

[...]

Re-reading those slaps by the French press, I want to vomit on my national flag. Katrina killed 1500, and that's 1500 too many, but don't forget how many were killed by a simple heat wave in 2003 in France, the nation that claims that it has the "finest healthcare system in the world", a country five times fewer people than the United States. 15000 died. 15000, that 1500 times 10!

Are you sure about that?!?...

That said, the coverage of the Iraq war in France reached and continues to reach a level of hatred where the objection to it and the lies reaching the point of ridiculousness - the Communist Party stiffs taking the Front National stiffs, both in love with their wild and different ideas of utopia, by the hand dance to the old French anti-American tune. And yet...

And yet America is the only Utopia that ever succeeded.

- Bertrand Latour, from the preface of the Vietnamese language
edition of George Orwell’s 1984, published by Édition Underbahn.

More: http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2...embered- by.html
...

No Pasaran! commenter, ic, adds:

"Please don't call America utopia. Utopia means "no place" in Greek. America is real, it is a daunt good place. It's the best place on earth for those who don't mind working hard. Not such a good place for those who want to lord over their fellow citizens."
ic | 09.11.06 - 7:25 pm
...

Carry on, and thank you!
a. fremont | Email | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 5:21 pm | #

"I don't have one, it's not my job to have one and to be honest I doubt that terrorism can be in fact ended."

So you don't have a plan.... but still opine that what WE'RE DOING is obviously wrong. wow.

"The reality is we live in a dangerous world full of crazy people that will do crazy things. It’s been true for at least 6,000 years and I don’t see it changing anytime soon."

So...what are you complaining about! If "these things happen" and "boys will be boys" is the BEST ANSWER you've got to TERRORISM, then what the hell possible problem could you have with the Patriot Act, and everything Bush has done sine 9/11?

I mean we have Canadians making "assassination of Bush" movies without being hauled off to Gitmo... we have American pundits, actors and buffoons taking rhetorical pot shots at him night and day -AS PART OF THEIR CAREERS - and NOTHING AT ALL HAPPENS TO THEM.

But somehow OUR RESPONSE TO TERROR IS UNDERMINING CIVIL LIBERTIES (cue scary music here). Really? Where? Did I miss the invite to shoot Lefties with my "evil assault rifle" I picked up from the ice-cream delivery truck by the school? (The kids got all the Uzzis and Aks).

Complete cluelessness... According to your theory of "this stuff happens, deal with it" there's no reason to get upset with the USA kicking in doors and shooting people - after all, that's the NORM for humanity; big dog beats up and eats little dogs... we're big dog #1, ergo.... start running.

But have we invaded Canada? No. Do we dictate the EU domestic programs? No. Have we kicked out the UN? No. Here we are, big, bad, macho, cowboy America...sheepishly paying the bills and asking for permission from the WTO to do business, getting Mexico to sign off on how we police our own border and you lefties have the gall to claim America is acting like a bully?

Our problem is we're not aggressive ENOUGH. If Bush really did act like Hitler (or Chavez) the NYT would praise him to the skies....
John | Email | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 5:36 pm | #

Actually, another comment regarding so many on the left wanting to treat terrorism as a "police matter."

If it's only a "police matter," why then do you all on the left try to prevent the police from using standard police tactics such as wiretaps, interrogation, etc. It's almost like the left is "on the other side," because they're sure trying to make it easier for our enemies to do their dirty deeds. It should also be pointed out that the other side doesn't follow any rules. They don't respect the idea of non-combatents, they violate just about everything in the Geneva Conventions, etc.
Garry K | Email | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 6:18 pm | #

"the reality is we are all more likely to die in a car accident or from a heart attack. More people have been killed by bathtubs than terrorists"...this is an abuse of statistical reasoning. You can only carry past probabilities forward into the future if the situation remains the same. At the beginning of an epidemic, your chance of catching the disease and dying might be 1 in 20 million...but you would have to be an idiot to assume this would still be the probability six months later.
david foster | Email | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 7:18 pm | #

"More people have been killed by bathtubs than terrorists", if true, so what? You can take precautions in a bathtub. I rode my motorcycle to work at the World Trade Center, avoiding the obvious traffic hazards in Manhattan. How does one avoid terrorists?
Tom TB | Email | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 7:35 pm | #

B"H

Last night, I had the inestimable good fortune and pleasure to attend a talk given by Ari Schonbrun in our Synagogue.

Here's an abbreviated article about him, with a condensed version of the story he tells.
http:// www.jewishworldreview.com...ll_miracles.asp

He is alive today, in part because he took the time to help his son fill in an overdue "Scholastic Book" order form. He said that the two books his son ended up deciding to get were from "The Survivor series"!

The message? G-d is always in charge, in the bad, as well as the good, so take the time to do kindnesses to others. It's is one of the main reasons we are here, and can even sometimes shield us from harm.

Have a happy and wonder filled new year.
ytba | Email | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 10:47 pm | #

Garry K – The NHL recently made some rule changes to prevent fights on ice. While your idea of everyone taking the law into their own hands and seeking revenge sounds like fun in the end you wouldn’t have a hockey game you’d have a riot.

I’m not even going to get into why that doesn’t make for sensible foreign policy, if you can’t understand that I doubt you ever will.

>So you don't have a plan.... but still opine that what WE'RE DOING is obviously wrong. wow.

So you if you don’t have a plan you can’t point out obvious flaws? That doesn’t make any sense at all. Doing a stupid self-defeating plan is better than not? How do you figure that?

>the hell possible problem could you have with the Patriot Act, and everything Bush has done sine 9/11?

I didn’t mention the PA and I have a problem with everything Bush has done because much of it has been wrong. The results are self-evident. Bush’s plans are not working.

>I mean we have Canadians making "assassination of Bush" movies without being hauled off to Gitmo... we have American pundits, actors and buffoons taking rhetorical pot shots at him night and day -AS PART OF THEIR CAREERS - and NOTHING AT ALL HAPPENS TO THEM.

>But somehow OUR RESPONSE TO TERROR IS UNDERMINING CIVIL LIBERTIES (cue scary music here). Really? Where? Did I miss the invite to shoot Lefties with my "evil assault rifle" I picked up from the ice-cream delivery truck by the school? (The kids got all the Uzzis and Aks).

Actually the movie is British, it was just shot in Canada as are many American films.

You do understand that there are many legal rights, not just speech right? The legal rights that the Bush administration is trying to get around are just as important. We’re not talking about speech we’re talking about the legal rights to trial. Let’s say someone shot you in the leg would an acceptable defense be that they didn’t shoot you in the arm?

>Complete cluelessness... According to your theory of "this stuff happens, deal with it" there's no reason to get upset with the USA kicking in doors and shooting people - after all, that's the NORM for humanity; big dog beats up and eats little dogs... we're big dog #1, ergo.... start running.

No, that’s not according to my theory at all. I’m saying terrorism is a crime, we will always have crime. I’m not sure I can make it any simpler.

So because America hasn’t gone full out crazy they’re immune from criticism for what wrong they have done? How does that make sense? I ran down 12 nuns today but I didn’t blow up an orphanage so what’s everyone upset about?!?!

>But have we invaded Canada? No. Do we dictate the EU domestic programs? No. Have we kicked out the UN? No. Here we are, big, bad, macho, cowboy America...sheepishly paying the bills and asking for permission from the WTO to do business, getting Mexico to sign off on how we police our own border and you lefties have the gall to claim America is acting like a bully?

No you concocted an excuse to invade Iraq, tortured people there, ran an ill-planned occupation that has made millions there miserable, ripped their society apart to the point of civil war and helped destabilize the region further.

Why don’t you put your straw men away and focus on what I’m actually talking about rather than what I’m not?

>If it's only a "police matter," why then do you all on the left try to prevent the police from using standard police tactics such as wiretaps, interrogation, etc.

They’re not; they’re preventing warrantless wire taps. FISA makes it very easy to get one; only four in the history of the court have been rejected. They want Bush to follow the law, why is that so hard for you to understand? Laws do not come with * that say “Only when it’s easy”. You really want to eject hundreds of years of American legal theory? You have cops, they need oversight, that’s what courts do. It’s a great system that you all seem to hate. Are you that frightened that you’d eject a system that prevents the state abusing its power? How many times have corrupt politicians used law enforcement as their own personal army? You really want them to have unfretted access to that power? You do understand that these laws are in place to prevent police states? Unless is that what you want? Are you that concerned with terrorism that you’d cheerfully dismantle the checks and balances? Since when do conservatives have such a love affair with authoritarianism?

It doesn’t matter what the bad guys do, if they followed the law they wouldn’t be bad guys would they? Saying you’re better than terrorists isn’t saying anything at all.

>At the beginning of an epidemic, your chance of catching the disease and dying might be 1 in 20 million...but you would have to be an idiot to assume this would still be the probability six months later.

Sure, is terrorism in America increasing like a disease? Are more people dying in America from terrorism today than five years ago? It’s no abuse, it’s called putting things in perspective. Terror is a threat to the individual not the Republic.

>How does one avoid terrorists?

If you want to live life you can’t avoid it anymore than you can avoid lightning, being run over or all the other million ways we die unexpectedly.
salvage | Email | Homepage | 09.13.06 - 6:41 am | #

If you don't know where you're going, how do you know that the driver is obviously going the wrong way? I.e. If you don't have a clear idea of what a successful war on terror looks like, or a successful invasion,occupation,and counter-insurgency looks like, how can you say "we're obviously screwing up"?

Secondly, Bush's "plans" ARE working... in the strategic sense. Zoom in on ANY time in history and you'll see it chock full of tactical mistakes and errors. WW2 was FULL OF MISTAKES, but we still won the war.

Liberals don't have a plan for victory - don't even think we're at war - and yet focus all their energies claiming we're doomed strategically because of some cherry picked nit-picking on tactical matters...

So let's look at the Gitmo and "legal" issues you're concerned with.... the only people getting caught up in these warrantless wiretaps and secret prisions are COMBATANTS picked up on the battlefield, not Joe Schmoo from Idaho, most whom the Left insist need their 'civil' rights ARENT' EVEN AMERICAN.... they're not 'criminals' - they're terrorists/enemy combatants. POWs were held for years WITHOUT TRIAL. YOU DON'T NEED A TRIAL TO DETERMINE THEIR STATUS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS.

As for "concocted an excuse"; 17 UN resolutions, following clearly broken Armistice agreements (there never was a 'ceasefire' following Gulf war 1... Saddam won a hiatus of hostilities by promising to do certain things, then reneged on these as soon as most US troops pulled out... so we had every right to go back to war.

It was official US policy under CLINTON that Iraq's regime was to be changed. The Left was all for it when it looked unlikely... along comes Bush and 9/11 and suddenly the Left wanted Iraq to be untouchable.

Terrorism isn't merely "crime" - not when the organization behind it has made an official declaration of war and not when state sponsors use them as proxies.

As for the Post hoc propter hoc claim that WE MADE MILLIONS MISERABLE...I'll simply direct your attention to the fact that we aren't behind or promoting suicide bombers or their targetting of civilians in Iraq... Saddam killed 10,000 civilians PER MONTH and the Left made movies praising him to the skies.... we're not killing civilians while the 'insurgents' and terrorists are... so how does their crimes suddenly become OUR FAULT?

Finally on the checks and balances... the ultimate check on government is the second amendment, not FISA, and no NON-MUSLIM US Citizen has lost life, limb, or liberty from all the post 9/11 PA and other "authoritarian" actions done by the USA. NOT ONE. So spare us with the police state BS paranoia.
John | Email | Homepage | 09.13.06 - 9:59 am | #

>If you don't have a clear idea of what a successful war on terror looks like,

I do less terrorists and terrorism.

>or a successful invasion, occupation,and counter-insurgency

Germany and Japan.

>looks like, how can you say "we're obviously screwing up"?

Because there are more terrorists, more terrorism and Iraq and Afghanistan are collapsing.

>Secondly, Bush's "plans" ARE working... in the strategic sense.

They are not.

Zoom in on ANY time in history and you'll see it chock full of tactical mistakes and errors. WW2 was FULL OF MISTAKES, but we still won the war.

Are you seriously suggesting that three years after the fall of Berlin the Nazis were killing two allied soldiers a day?

>cherry picked nit-picking on tactical matters...

A whole province of Iraq lost to Al Qeada is “nit-picking”? That’s a pretty big nit.

>So let's look at the Gitmo and "legal" issues you're concerned with.... the only people getting caught up in these warrantless wiretaps and secret prisions are COMBATANTS picked up on the battlefield,

No, that simply isn’t true, they’ve realesed many “combatants” from Gitmo who were rounded up by t he Afghans. Some of them were press-ganged into combat by the Taliban. See this is why we don’t have secret prisons and trials, justice doesn’t require secrecy.

>YOU DON'T NEED A TRIAL TO DETERMINE THEIR STATUS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS.

No, you need a hearing to do that.

>As for "concocted an excuse"; 17 UN resolutions, following clearly broken
I find it fascinating how selective some are in respect to UN resolutions, tell me do you feel the same about the resolutions against Israel?

At any rate I was clearly referring to the WMD, remember them?

>It was official US policy under CLINTON that Iraq's regime was to be changed. The Left was all for it when it looked unlikely... along comes Bush and 9/11 and suddenly the Left wanted Iraq to be untouchable.

Yes, I have covered this, please pay attention. Saddam bad, Saddam being removed good. Invasion not way to do it, invasion trade Saddam problem for other problems. Solving a problem by making new problems is not problem solving.

>Terrorism isn't merely "crime" - not when the organization behind it has made an official declaration of war and not when state sponsors use them as proxies.

No it is a crime, Al Qeada is no more or less a threat than the Mafia, the IRA or the KKK. The state sponsorship does not change this fact.

>As for the Post hoc propter hoc claim that WE MADE MILLIONS MISERABLE...I'll simply direct your attention to the fact that we aren't behind or promoting suicide bombers or their targetting of civilians in Iraq...

Thank you for drawing my attention to something I already know, can you please put your strawmen away and focus on what I actually say?

Saddam killed 10,000 civilians PER MONTH and the Left made movies praising him to the skies....

It’s also facinsting how often that number changes and what movie are you talking about? He bad, we know.

>we're not killing civilians while the 'insurgents' and terrorists are... so how does their crimes suddenly become OUR FAULT?

There is fault and there is responsibility, the two are often confused by the confused. The situation is Iraq overall is now America’s responsibility. Everything that happens there, who’s actual fault it is is no the issue.

>Finally on the checks and balances... the ultimate check on government is the second amendment,

Your understanding of your Constitution is about as clear as your understanding of everything else you’re trying to talk about. Sorry Sparky the wild west ended almost a hundred years ago.
salvage | Email | Homepage | 09.13.06 - 10:35 am | #

SALVAGE: RISK of death by lightning and other natural phenomena is not comparable to the risk of death from deliberate targeting by a wealthy, numerous, clandestine, suicidal enemy who believes YOUR existance is an affront to his God.
SCATTERSHOT | Email | Homepage | 09.13.06 - 11:11 am | #

salvage, you are a fool. Only a fool would say something like "No it is a crime, Al Qeada is no more or less a threat than the Mafia, the IRA or the KKK. The state sponsorship does not change this fact."

You forget one important thing: The Mafia, IRA, and KKK are NOT going around trying to get nukes to blow up American cities. And a second thing: The Mafia, IRA and KKK have not declared war on America, and they have not declared that they want to convert us all to their way of thinking or else kill us.

It's a good thing you are NOT in charge of anything important, especially not other folks' safety!

Tell me this: let's say you were sitting at home watching TV (it's a safe bet you wouldn't be watching Hockey Night in Canada, and you especially wouldn't be watching Don Cherry's Coaches Corner). And let's say an intruder breaks into your house and threatens you and your family (presuming you have a family). How would you respond? Would you leave matters to the police? The police could get there just in time to put you and your family in body bags. Would you try to negotiate with the intruder? Of course, that may slow him down laughing before he kills you and your family! Or would you figure you had no other option but to fight him to protect yourself and your family? Or are you a typical leftie who would NEVER use "violence" to solve anything?

PS with the "new" NHL, I can't stand to watch it any more. Gary Bettman has definitely made it into a game for wimps. Pity. The NHL used to be a great league. Is it true that players have to carry purses this upcoming season?
Garry K | Email | Homepage | 09.13.06 - 12:19 pm | #

>You forget one important thing: The Mafia, IRA, and KKK are NOT going around trying to get nukes to blow up American cities.

No, the Mafia is busy dealing drugs that kill more Americans than terrorism, the KKK are too fractured but back in the day I bet they would have loved a nuke and the IRA has been all but beaten by police work coupled with political solutions to the underlying problems.

As for them trying to get a nuke, I’m trying to get Lindsay Lohan’s phone number, I suspect we’ll both have the same amount of success.

>Or are you a typical leftie who would NEVER use "violence" to solve anything?

Yeah, I never get tired of this argument; I’ll set aside the rather self-evident “apples and oranges” and say obviously I would do whatever needed to be done. However what I wouldn’t do is roll the intruder over, take out his wallet, find his address and go to his neighbourhood and kill everyone there assuming them all to be as dangerous. Nor would I be suspect of everyone who shared the intruder’s religious beliefs and or ethnicity.

Once again, Saddam bad, no one disputes that.
Invasion of Iraq, stupid, makes more problems than solves.

Violence is sometimes necessary and can be used for good, no one disputes that. For instance I’m all for the invasion of Afghanistan, it was justified and necessary and the only solution. The opposite of Iraq. Tell me do you ever wonder why the same people who supported Afghanistan don’t support Iraq? Doesn’t that dichotomy make you wonder as it sort of takes the wind out of the whole “Hate America / Bush love evil terrorists” canard that gets tossed about.


>PS with the "new" NHL, I can't stand to watch it any more. Gary Bettman has definitely made it into a game for wimps. Pity. The NHL used to be a great league. Is it true that players have to carry purses this upcoming season?

Is that how you measure masculinity? By how much punching someone does?

Sad but hardly surprising.

You do know that a player was nearly crippled after be hit from behind right? The whole point of hockey is to get the puck in the net not to take out spinal cords. The rule changes were correct and welcome.

And for the record I have no interest in the NHL, that isn’t Canadian hockey. Canadian hockey is played on the street or in local amateur leagues by real people, not bad haircut prima donnas making 1.8 millions a season while the owners bitch and moan about having to pay local taxes.
salvage | Email | Homepage | 09.13.06 - 12:51 pm | #

So there! Phbbbble!

Why in the hell are we arguing with a lefty? It is an absolute real-world excercise in the lesson of futility. Isn't it obvious to all that salvage is the smartest one here? I'm telling ya people, put away your "strawmen" so Harry the ol' Fish Nut can prance his own scarecrows across the lefty stage doing the fargin' Cha-Cha.

Quoteth The Machine: "Un-salvageable thou art".

Say, you wouldn't happen to be a Quebecan Would ya? Like your pizza all dressed up eh?
x | Email | Homepage | 09.13.06 - 1:34 pm | #

salvage, I'm not really a fan of multiple hockey fights, nor of "cheap shots," but jeez, last year players would hardly touch an opposing player and they'd get called for some kind of penalty. Even the players on the team who benefitted from the penalty call looked baffled at how the refs could call some of that incidental contact penalties.

And it's ironic how the NHL tries to "speed up the game" by calling more penalties. I'll bet you even support the totally idiotic "trapezoid" rule that penalizes goalies who play the puck outside of the trapezoid area. Now there's a rule that *really* speeds up play--NOT!
Garry K | Email | Homepage | 09.13.06 - 3:05 pm | #

>How can anyone argue against the psychotic primitivism of mainstream Islam? Iran's former President defended executing homosexuals and adulterers at Harvard the other day: http://direland.typepad.com/ dire...mi_at_harv.html

> This culture is a cancer on the world. Which is not to say we're perfect -- we ain't -- but we sure as hell have more to offer the world than they do.

OK, who stole K/K's moniker and started making relatively sensible posts in his name?

C'mon -- Fess Up.
Oh Bloody Hell | Email | Homepage | 09.14.06 - 1:09 am | #

> Next time try being a little more intellectualy honest.

Oh, don't be ridiculously silly.

salvage? honest?

His head would explode in horror!
Oh Bloody Hell | Email | Homepage | 09.14.06 - 1:12 am | #

> Well, no maybe. Bush knew that bin Laden was lost and was trying to make it look like it wasn't that big a deal.

bin Laden killed 3,000 Americans and got away with it, no, no, him on the run or hiding is not justice. Please, spare me.

No, numbnuts, we won't spare you jack shit.

He's the President of the USA -- despite the Left's endless caterwauling about how the whole Iraq thing was "just for revenge because they tried to attack his daddy", the man is capable of grasping that his position requires far more than that sort of petty bullshit.

He's neutralized the threat, if not (certainly) destroyed it (I would not place money on Bin Laden being alive). Bin Laden certainly can't attack the USA, which, as PotUS, is one of his CHIEF goals -- not "justice" for those deaths. There are others of his ilk who ARE showing similar capabilities -- as PotUS, he needs to focus ON THEM and let his intel agencies keep looking for Bin Laden as their resources allow, and not get the resources of the USA tied up in some vengeful snark hunt.

We've got bigger fish to fry, and OBL's been reduced to a minnow. That's enough for now.

If you're so certain he needs to be brought to justice, why don't you get together with ten thousand like-minded people and donate another 25 million for his head?

Oh, right -- that would be a distraction for YOU, and that's not what you're out to get.

What YOU want is for Bush to getwrapped up in your snark hunt, so you can shift gears the moment something serious occurs so you can scream about how Bush should have been preventing THAT rather than going off on some snark hunt.

Do us all a favor and fade away -- the snark is a boojum, you see.
Oh Bloody Hell | Email | Homepage | 09.14.06 - 1:20 am | #

> PS with the "new" NHL, I can't stand to watch it any more. Gary Bettman has definitely made it into a game for wimps.

Garry, hockey has always been a wimp sport, it allows "ties". Ties are for wimps too chickenshit to fight until the other is too exhausted to continue.

The only reason to watch hockey -- ever -- has been the fights.

I think it more than amply says enough that the canucks are nuts about it.

As for salvage, his crap has already been covered ad nauseum in the past in these comment threads. You can't pin him down because he keeps tap dancing around the whole concept, never actually offering solutions to problems -- he just wants to complain about Bush, usually in hoary cliches, while his entire nation has been hiding behind America's skirts for the last 50+ years. Their outlay for the military is a tiny fraction of what it would have to be, solely because they know if anyone actually invaded them, we'd be up there in a heartbeat to kick ass and leave no prisoners.

But we're "warmongers", you know.
Oh Bloody Hell | Email | Homepage | 09.14.06 - 1:39 am | #

Hey salvage, in actuality, do you play hockey anywhere? If so, I may come out of retirement at age 53 to play in that league, just so I can check your sorry ass into the boards. And it would all be quite legal! And of course you wouldn't even *think* of retaliating, because only manly men would do something like "getting even." LOL
Garry K | Email | Homepage | 09.14.06 - 7:29 am | #

All Major wars got bloodier and costlier in lives and treasure as the fighting raged on.... more Germans were fighting in 1944 than in 1940 and had more guns, tanks, planes and U-boats later in WW2 than earlier... and US casualties went UP from 1941 right through the winter in 1945... but then we WON and the war was over.

You seem to think more terrorists/attacks = failure when that's never the whole picture. Of 18 provinces in Iraq only 4 pose serious problems. Our casualties have remained VERY LOW, something like 10x lower than Vietnam, and we're not in danger of being tossed out by any 'sectarian violence'.

As for gitmo - you typically - missed the point: they're not civilians, they're combatants at best and unlawful combatants (no uniform, no clear chain of command, attacking civilians, etc) who did nevertheless get seized on the battlefield... ergo THEY'RE NOT AMERICAN CIVILIANS WHOSE CIVIL RIGHTS MUST BE RESPECTED, THEY'RE FOREIGNERS PICKED UP ABROAD SO DON'T AUTOMATICALL GET ALL THE RIGHTS WE DO.

As for "invasion bad" - why did we HAVE to invade Afghanistan then? If we didn't really really have to invade Iraq to overthrow Saddam, then the same argument can be made about land-locked and 4th world nation of Afghanistan! "After all, the Taliban never declared war on us and Afghanistan never attacked us".

In fact...neither did Serbia but we bombed the hell out of them UNDER CLINTON ANYWAY WITHOUT UN APPROVAL. Oh, but that's OK - Democrats can bomb countries that pose zero threat to our national security.... but woe to any Republican who bombs countries that DO POSE THREATS to us!

As for 10,000 a month killed by Saddam.... that's actually LOW. IRAQ ITSELF CLAIMED 100,000 CHILDREN DIED PER YEAR UNDER THE 'OIL FOR FOOD' EMBARGO - which was bitterly blamed on the USA by everyone - including the Pope! Are we supposed to believe Iraq when they claim to not have WMDs and links to terrorists but then disbelieve them when they claim 100,000 children died because of evil US embargos?

Then you have the killing fields UN reports have indicated are filled with tens of thousands of victims...

Clearly, nothing short of invasion was going to stop the killing fields and nothing short of invasion would put us in a position to change the ME by toppling all the axis of evil nations.
John | Email | Homepage | 09.14.06 - 3:11 pm | #