Bin Laden: Rumors of My Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated ...

All the speculation of Osama bin Laden's death -- intensified by the release of a videotaped message from bin Laden deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri earlier this month -- must have finally gotten to him. The terrorist mastermind has offered "a long-term truce on fair conditions" in a new audiotape (listen/transcript), parts of which were broadcast on Al Jazeera yesterday.

Mack at Bruised Orange wonders what a truce would really entail:

The prospect of a truce is interesting only as an academic exercise. What would the political and cultural landscape look like under a truce with al-Qaeda? In every treaty there is compromise. What exactly would they be willing to compromise? What would we be willing to compromise away to al-Qaeda?

Bill over at the Citizen Journal blog asserts that the tape "is a stunning message to the US that the notion the left's attempts to undermine President Bush 'emboldens our enemies' is far from cliche." His evidence of this is bin Laden's mention of opinion polls that suggest Americans are against the war in Iraq. Both Bill and bin Laden ignore the fact that Americans continue to support a U.S. presence in Afghanistan, an effort widely recognized as a crucial battle the U.S. had to fight in order to dismantle the national terrorist training ground that was Taliban Afghanistan.

The Counterterrorism Blog, which is unsurprisingly all over this story, notes that in fact bin Laden's tactic of exploiting divides between Americans and their leadership can be traced back more than 20 years. Contributor Daveed Gartenstein-Ross quotes Gerald Posner's analysis that after the 1993 tragedy in Somalia, "[i]t was clear that Americans did not have any stomach for casualties, something Muslims had noted in 1983 when Ronald Reagan had responded to the deaths of 241 marines in the Beirut barracks truck bombing by withdrawing U.S. troops from Lebanon." Gartenstein-Ross further offers this quote from bin Laden to a Pakistani newspaper: "Hardly eighteen of them were killed, when they fled in the dark of the night ..."

In his blog, The Agenda Gap, David A. Herman challenges the administration's "out of hand" rejection of the truce proposition.

What if the terms of the truce were reasonable? What if the truce would save New York or Washington from another 9/11 without sacrificing our major objectives abroad? Should we reject such an offer out of hand without first hearing the terms, and the proposed means of ensuring that the truce is honored? All this in support of a slogan?

Herman contends that the phrasing of the truce offer would have sounded "eminently reasonable" had it come from a traditional enemy, rather than the leader of a terrorist organization. He concludes:

The President claims that we are "at war" with "the enemy." If the "enemy" is anybody in particular, it is surely al-Qaeda. If this is a war, and al-Qaeda is the enemy, how does the President expect that the war will end, unless it is by an agreement like the one proposed?
In war, if all peace treaties are categorically rejected, the war goes on until one side is utterly vanquished and the other victorious.
Which one will we be?

Look at the history of truces with unstable enemies, says Crazy Politico. As with Iran and North Korea, with bin Laden, it is an issue of trust. "Trusting him to a truce is like trusting a used car dealer when he say's something has 30,000 miles on it."

Instapundit says the truce is not just insincere, it's a sign of weakness. Austin Bay writes, "Essentially, the new Bin Laden tape says 'please don't wage war on our turf, but let us wage war on yours.' "

The Cynic Librarian sees things in a different light:

Bin-Laden is an illusion now. While Bush and others keep talking about him as a real threat, all that he can really do is serve as a mouthpiece that makes idle and empty threats. In the meantime, the new generation of bin-Ladens hang on his every word--fueled by resentment at seeing Moslems killed in Iraq and watching what they perceive as a Christian Holy War unfold in the mideast and elsewhere around the world.
To counter this growing illusion, the message needs to be gotten out that bin-Laden is a phantom of those in the US who wish to gain and hold on to power through creating fear and anxiety.

The tape should also be serve as a reminder that Islamic terrorism consists of networks, and a networked enemy must be fought using a networked offense, contends W. David Stephenson. He says this a reality not sufficiently recognized by the Department of Homeland Security.

Bob P. offers his three reactions to bin Laden's latest rant in his blog The Hue and the Cry: First, bin Laden is a "dangerous international criminal, who needs to be hunted down and brought to justice." Second, the Bush administration has ignored the danger posed by bin Laden -- too distracted by its "bloodlust for Baghdad." Third, he worries that bin Laden's reappearance will be used as fodder for the administration's argument for massively expanded executive powers.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, Bob P., but it's already happening. Check out this editorial from this morning's Investor's Business Daily advocating warrantless surveillance. It makes a good case for the use of wiretaps in monitoring bin Laden's contacts -- a method of investigation that deserves full support when done legally -- but never explains why it is preferable for the executive to circumvent the courts rather than obtain the necessary warrants.

Letter writer Sol Abrams suggests in the Palm Beach Post that "the bombers of the Twin Towers could have been caught without any wiretapping." How about "wiretapping the White House in trying to find out why, after four years, Osama bin Laden has not been captured?"

More useful info:
Post graphic on Al Qaeda messages
Transcript of yesterday's White House news briefing

By Emily Messner |  January 20, 2006; 10:38 AM ET  | Category:  Misc.
Previous: And Iran, Iran So Far Away (I Couldn't Get Away) | Next: Eurasia Freezing, Australia Burning

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



The truce was not aimed at us so much as it was aimed at making OBL look more "reasonable" to other Arabs.

The terrorist spewing machine we built him in Iraq is looking like there may be an end in sight, and that is a problem for him. Some of his ME support has eroded thanks to things like the Jordan bombings and the targeting of innocent Iraqis, more problems for him. Although OBL is enjoying widespread popularity in SE Asia and other places, like the US he too has faltered on the "hearts and minds" road in the ME. His newest base of support, in SE asia, isn't helping him clear the sacred lands of our infidel selves in the ME. He needs to look more like he is a reasonable alternative to American imperialism to start winning back some of those hearts and minds.

He isn't a novice at spin. He will certainly try to continue to make Iraq work to his interests to keep that terrorist recruiting machine going by goading us into staying longer than is good for either us or the Iraqis rather than the alternative of letting him take credit for driving us out. I can't wait to read the posts on this blog about how we must stay in Iraq rather than let him "win" by claiming credit for driving us out. The BA said a "plan" for Iraq would work better for the terrorists. Maybe. But the absence of a plan will give credence to his claims that he drove us out.

Staying in Iraq to deny OBL the opportunity to claim he drove us out would be monumentally stupid and I can't believe even the BA would bite off their nose to spite their face that way.

The right thing to do to fix this monumental blunder has always been to stabilize the Iraq government, declare victory and get the hell out. We must not allow terrorists to goad us into doing the wrong thing just to spite them. And then we need to elect us a president who is serious about energy independence. It will take a lot more courage to make us energy independenet than it does to lob a few cruise missles into a foreign land.

The best way to insure the security of this nation has nothing to do with OBL. It is to make us energy independent. And folks, there's a lot more than oil at stake. We also import half of our natural gas too, just from different parts of the world. And the scene in Russia cutting back on their natural gas exports to Europe for both political and weather reasons should be putting a chill up our spines. I say we NOT make this about OBL, but about OUR future, which will not be secure from lots more people than OBL unless we develop energy independence.

Posted by: patriot 1957 | January 20, 2006 12:34 PM

"Check out this editorial from this morning's Investor's Business Daily advocating warrantless surveillance. It makes a good case for the use of wiretaps in monitoring bin Laden's contacts -- a method of investigation that deserves full support when done legally -- but never explains why it is preferable for the executive to circumvent the courts rather than obtain the necessary warrants"

Yes, the idiot Dems and the msm have once again allowed the BA to frame the debate dishonestly - "either you want us to fight terrorists or you don't". The actual issue, that it is surveillence without oversight, not surveillence itself, is lost on the masses. I'm sure there is a Luntz memo somewhere that will surface eventually and that the masses will never learn about.

Posted by: patriot 1957 | January 20, 2006 12:43 PM

Seems OBL has been channeling Howard Dean & Co.

Posted by: RD66 | January 20, 2006 01:24 PM

Why is it that everyone is taking as an article of faith that this missive is, indeed, from the claimed source? There are numerous groups who would have the interest and the resources to fake the message. The text of the message is concerned with U.S. politics: of what concern is that, really, to bin Laden?

What's next, the international news becoming fixated on the sock puppet show that says it carries a crucial message from bin Laden?

Posted by: Matthew | January 20, 2006 01:46 PM

A few points. First off, Negotiating 101: when you are in a position of power you don't offer concessions, because you don't need to. When you are in a position of weakness, offering concessions can make you appear magnanimous. This is exactly what OBL is doing here.

Also, OBL knows his audience, and there are comments in here for everyone. For those of us who support the war, he's telling us that the only reason he hasn't struck is because he hasn't had the time to do it yet. For the Muslim world, he's taking the spiritual high road, claiming that a truce isn't a position of weakness, it's actually a strength. And for the radical left-wing asshats, he's playing to their deep emotional nature, by claiming that the truce is just to help the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. In other words, if the war continues, don't blame me, blame the warmonger Bush who wants to enrich his corporate friends. (This last remark is a masterstroke. OBL portrays himself as a peacemaker. He's taken a page right out of Arafat's playbook, and Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize.)

How far we've come since all this mess began, with OBL promising to rain down fire on the infidels, and waxing poetically for the restoration of the caliphate. Now he just wants a truce? Bullshit. He's losing, we're winning, and he damn well knows it.

War never solves anything? My ass it doesn't.

Posted by: Kraken | January 20, 2006 02:04 PM

Kraken, he's losing because the Iraq war is winding down and he's losing the recruitment machine we built for him, and also because he's overreached somewhat. When we're out of Iraq and only fighting him where the real "rain of fire" came from he will be in a much weakened position. He has a vested interest in keeping American military action in Iraq (or Syria, etc) going. Then he can play off the radical right wing asshats who want to perpetuate the error of Iraq and go next to Syria to his advantage in promoting himself as a viable opposition to American imperialism. Also, it keeps the BA saying "I don't think much about BinLaden any more" when they have softer targets in sights. American waged war in the ME outside of Afghanistan/western Pakistan is GOOD for OBL and his message.


We need to stabilize Iraq and get the hell out and concentrate our firepower on Afghanistan, where the Taliban has regrouped and which is laughably far from secure. We still have a war left to fight there, ask any soldier who's been there recently, most of whom tell me its all going to come down around our ears very soon, probably as soon as we close up shop in Iraq and the terrorists need a new base. And we need to have the firepower behind our threats to Syria and Iran and North Korea and Pakistan, who can clearly see right now that a few Davids with IED's can effectively tie Goliath in knots.

Yes, OBL seems prophetic when he predicted that we would not accept casualties,and then we proved him right by turning away the mainstream of our force from himself and those who really rained the fire on us in order to try an invasion of a small country on the cheap that we thought a little "shock and awe" would bring down in a cakewalk. And he has milked about as much from our errors as he can. Now he needs to goad us into perpetuating our mistakes. I predict we're not that dumb, neocons or Howard Dean notwithstanding. We need to ignore the tape and go about out business closing out Iraq and restarting the real fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda.

But, it would be dangerous for OBL to think America's disdain for the mistake in Iraq means we have no will to fight a real, actual, war on terror against the people who actually rained the fire on us. ANd if Musharraf loses control of Pakistan we might have to go there too.

Just because the right wing propagandists are telling you that us "leftys" are pacificists who want to roll over and let OBL have his way with us doesn't mean it is true. We really just want to fight the actual people who rained the fire on us from their base of power. Its time to finish the job in Afghanistan.

Posted by: patriot1957 | January 20, 2006 02:53 PM

Are you sure? According to "Mother Sheehan" we need to get out of Iraq AND Afganistan right now if we want peace. Now, you wouldn't question her "moral authority" now, would you?

Posted by: Kraken | January 20, 2006 03:30 PM

I find it pathetic that people who would beat the patriotism drum the loudest are ridiculing a mother who lost her child in combat. And then sneering at a "moral authority" card which is only diminished, apparently, because it is greater than their own.

Posted by: Matthew | January 20, 2006 04:02 PM

Kraken,

Mother Sheehan has the same moral authority as any parent who has lost a child in the clusterfuck that is the Iraq war. patriot1957 has hit the nail on the head that many Americans who consider the Iraq war one of the stupidest things the Bush Administration forced on us are eager to finish the job in Afghanistan. I'm one of them.

Posted by: Average American | January 20, 2006 04:23 PM

Indeed. I'm sure all the press attention, speaking fees, vanity fair covers (laying on her son's grave!), magazine interviews, foreign press, the book she wrote, and the rest have gone a long way to asuage her loss.

What a risible figure. I at first had sympathy for her. ugh.

Posted by: | January 20, 2006 04:26 PM

The media is unwittingly bolstering bin Laden's rehtorical case by highlighting the word "truce". What he is offering is not a truce, which means the parties stop shooting and begin negotiating from the current status quo. Rather was he is demanding is the US accept his demands and there will be no more attacks on Americans.

Posted by: ConsDemo | January 20, 2006 04:32 PM

Dear " ",

So, how do you feel then about Jessica Lynch? Rush Limbaugh? Ronald Reagan? Charles Lindbergh? Should I go on?

Hate the game, not the playah.

Posted by: Matthew | January 20, 2006 04:50 PM

I think it's laughable that after all of the malicious deception practiced by our government in recent years people on the left, right, and down the middle are so eager to swallow any morsel the govt. throws their way. OBL's timing is impeccable. His alleged rant is just what Georgie Porgie needs to stoke the war machine.

Lies and the lying liars who tell them...

Posted by: John | January 20, 2006 04:50 PM

John, all one big conspiracy theory, eh? What about 9/11? Was that an inside job too?

Posted by: ConsDemo | January 20, 2006 04:58 PM

No real truce is being offerred here. Let all the partisans try to manipulate the subject of the truce as much as they want, but it just their usual spin looking for any excuse to support their claims.
Osama Bin Laden is simply offering forth a sign of peace he knows will not be accepted. It then gives him more justification among his followers to perpetuate his acts of terrorism. He has offerred simlar truces before the London and Madrid bombings.
At this point, I'm beginning to wonder if the War On Terror is a fabrication by polticians. Osama Bin Laden has not been brought to justice and continues to freely influence the world and benefit from his acts of terrorism. We're entirely wrapped up in Iraq, which has nothing to do with Bin Laden and everything to do with a president unduly obsessed with Saddam Hussein. Katrina showed that we are not prepared to properly respond to another 9/11. Amid all this, corruption runs amok within our government. The entire War On Terror is a mess at this point, and one wonders if it was ever anything more than a political concept devised to save the asses of those who failed to protect us on September 11, 2001.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 20, 2006 05:04 PM

Indeed. I'm sure all the press attention, speaking fees, vanity fair covers (laying on her son's grave!), magazine interviews, foreign press, the book she wrote, and the rest have gone a long way to asuage her loss.
What a risible figure. I at first had sympathy for her. ugh.
Posted by: | Jan 20, 2006 4:26:43 PM

It would be nice if Karl Rove signed his posts rather than do them anonymously. Luckily, his telltale 'attack the messenger' strategy is so obviously riddled throughout the post so that his signature is virtually all over it.
Why are we focusing on Cindy Sheehan anyway in a blog about Osama Bin Laden? The Bush administration can find Cindy Sheehan any time by going to Crawford, Texas. Who they can't seem to find is Osama Bin Laden. Real tough, though, picking on a mother like that. Try catching the mother of all terrorists instead if you're so tough. Enough with the bullying bluster.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 20, 2006 05:16 PM

Thank you Errinf
"The entire War On Terror is a mess at this point, and one wonders if it was ever anything more than a political concept devised to save the asses of those who failed to protect us on September 11, 2001."

Actually, I think at the beginning it was real. Since then its been co-opted to consolidate power and manipulate the populace. Meanwhile Homeland Security is a joke, our ports and borders are insecure, we're virtually ignorning the loose nukes, and we've given Osama a terrorist generating machine, and we are certainly no more safe than before 9-11 and probably less so. Remember when politicians incited us to courage instead of fear?

Posted by: patriot1957 | January 20, 2006 05:17 PM

Hey, just a couple of years ago he was telling us to ban alcohol and accept sharia. now, he just wants us to stop shooting at him.

I would call that progress. lol.

Binny's just Karl Rove's Sock Puppet...http://blamebush.typepad.com/

Posted by: D. | January 20, 2006 05:20 PM

Osama came out because Wafah Dufour's gams were hoggin' the bin Laden limelight.

Posted by: Turnabout | January 20, 2006 05:26 PM

@Consdemo

I really hate it that you had to drap "conspiracy theory" into the discussion. But I tell ya what. I'll respect your opinion if you'll respect mine.

What convinces you that the latest reports that our govt. has authenticated a tape from OBL are true?

And while you're at it, what convinces you that the explanation for 9/11 was factual and correct also?

I'm not doubting your faith. I am curious who you trust more: your govt. or your instincts?

The US govt. lie to further its own ends? Okay, okay I know that's a stretch. But you have to admit, it could happen some day.

Posted by: John | January 20, 2006 05:30 PM

Hey, just a couple of years ago he was telling us to ban alcohol and accept sharia. now, he just wants us to stop shooting at him.
I would call that progress. lol.
Posted by: D. | Jan 20, 2006 5:20:00 PM

Again, it's a mistake to act like Bin Laden is somehow giving us any ground or acqueiscing to us because of this so-called truce. Such truces have been offerred before when Al Qaida has struck. Was Osama Bin Laden cowering before Spain when he offerred a truce before the Madrid bombings? Could England claim any sort of victory over Bin Laden because of the truce offerred before the London bombings? And yet here are Americans trying to spin this bogus truce offer into a sign of victory when it is nothing of the sort. Osama Bin Laden is as defiant as ever, and the fact that he is free right now to further his terrorism is much more telling then any false truce he is offering. Bush is failing the American people when it comes to the War On Terror and the war in Iraq, and his supporters are simply grasping at straw men when they desperately try to twist this latest message from Osama Bin Laden into an endorsement of Bush's failed practices.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 20, 2006 05:41 PM

rage is such a rush! nothing funnier than watching "believers" throw stones at the devil in the desert.

Posted by: coordinate | January 20, 2006 05:46 PM

John, just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you - tee-hee!

But seriously, small conspiracy theories are often believable. People like McVeigh and Oswald probably were seen by those who wanted to use them, and their desire to act was massaged, and they may have even gotten some help and/or planting ideas "man, it would be so nice to show them govamint SOB's. I bet it could be done with a fertilizer bomb, its to easy to get....But a group like ours would never get away with it, it would have to be someone on the outside with no formal ties to us. Too bad, huh."

And it is very likely that "accidents" happen to people whom it is convenient for the government to have that happen to, even the American government.

But its preposterous to believe that a huge conspiracy theory involving hundreds of people like 9-11 could be kept quiet. Somebody gets drunk and starts dropping hints. Or somebody starts to smell a rat, like the NSA stuff. Or somebody confesses on their deathbed (OK, so its a little early for this in a 9-11 conspiracy, but not so for the Pearl Harbor or the Oliver Stone JFK "conspiracies"). People do tend to get 'religion" late in life.

No, I can't prove 9-11 wasnt' a massive government conspiracy, but its not credible that that many people could keep it quiet.

Someone posted a similar conspiracy theory that the American media (including Fox and Rush and Ingraham and Malkin and Krauthammer and O'Reilley and and apparently even the President in his speeches) were withholding informaton on an Italian terrorist bust made by wiretapping becasue that information might make Bush look good.

Now what this adminstration has done with 9-11 to mild their idiotic neocon fantasies and to consolidate power is another story. Errinf is all over that one.

Posted by: patriot1957 | January 20, 2006 06:14 PM

Release your conditioned response to party rhetoric, terrorists, whatever and just allow....

how's 'bout this?

why would we attack pakisstan with a missle when an assassination would have been a little easier on our press in pakistan.....

IF there really isn't a war, are the president and his men trying to provoke one....gain some sort of credibility? stir one up? IF the natives attack then we have a reason to defend ourselves? Are we putting arabs into the moderne day "they're the indians mode?"


how's about this about that olde tyme flavorite Omar Ben ALA-Ladden, sheaf from olde araby:


I mean really everytime the Bush administration needs a boost, more votes, wants to push something through, the 6'6" unseeable-diabetic arab manages to stagger out of his bed in Riadyh and tape another message for his boss....


just in time to get the overly stimulated Amerikan public stirred up again....along with an infomercial from Colt about how having your own arsenal makes the ladies hot....c'mon.


I think I saw him in the runaway hit show "Runway" with Heidi Klum disguised as "Santino."


oh yeah, 7 of the pilots for the airplanes that "were" 9/11 were saudi, we train the saudi's in military and security....


as a matter of fact these pilots were trained in the united states......whaddya think...

All this government has to do is tell you that there are monsters out there and you give away your right to think and question...fear-full babies.....don't worry, it's a shadow show, and your government needs to do some shadow-work....


by confronting theirs......

You're being invaded all right, by ludicrous notions that somehow that people that lie, steal, thwart justice and obey their own agendas...

have your best interests at heart...

is that your soap over there?

Where's the evidence? When't the last time the president paid for your coke habit like his daddy did?

Who stands to benifit from controlling the oil in Saudi, Quwait and Iraq?
And think in terms of people that know each other, not nations.

Oh, that's right the Bushes do know the bin Ladins' maybe ee's raht 'arry.


If the Brits invade India and it's the 1600's is it to teach them democracy or to control spice trade?


The only problem is that YOU, supposedly come from a democratic country....and you have to be convinced that what your affluent, carefully disguised as goverment leaders invoking the power of a "GOOD GAWD" against the powers of the bad gawds of everyone else.....since youse have such simple minds agree must be the right thing.

bin Laden is an operative of the US government, obviously....think about it....look at the effect of things and quit letting others frame the way you interpret events.

the administration needs proof or credibility: he pops up....

O'Ben aLaddin might as well be painted onto bushes toe and he's shows him to you over there by the end of the table when you ask him where's your proof....chuckee cheeses dramas have more maturity.

Posted by: There's a truce in this sense, not wanting to be examined.... | January 20, 2006 06:26 PM

google these:

"Remember the Maine"

gained us Puerto Rico, and some other territories


"Remember the Alamo"


gained us Texas and California.

does this sound anything like:


"Remember 9/11?"


it should.

Posted by: Regarding 9/11..... | January 20, 2006 06:35 PM

Emily writes: "Bill over at the Citizen Journal blog asserts that the tape "is a stunning message to the US that the notion the left's attempts to undermine President Bush 'emboldens our enemies' is far from cliche."

Not that all Lefties are traitors, but it is clear from Binnies message that his greatest hope is the American Left will prevail politically in America. It is clear that he eagerly sees good news in the polls and the help the Left and their friends in the MSM give to helping cast America as morally equivalent to, or worse, than Al Qaeda.

His reading material is clearly from the Left. "Rogue Nation", is by William Blum, who is one of those rare Jews that Binnie likes - a NYC radical who hates America as much as Binnie does. Blum was a IBM employee that was contracting to State Dept when he went off the reservation and began attending Communist Party, Fair Play for Cuba, and Workers Socialist Party meetings. Then became a radical journalist intent on supporting Allende, denouncing America, then working various scams to expose CIA officers identities on his own or with Philip Agee (back in the pre-Plame days when Lefties LOVED exposing and endangering CIA agents and sometimes seeing them killed).

It is impressive how much of Osama's speech draws directly from liberal Democrat criticism of, and classic Lefty hate speech about, America.

Why reinvent the wheel? I guess. Binnie clearly isn't worried about plagarism lawsuits.

What is also impressive is how the hatred of Bush and hatred of America blinds the Left so much on excusing radical Islamists actions as fellow haters they hope are moving the world in the right direction by attacking America and killing it's citizens. Because radical Islam is so inamicable to just about everything the Left in the West holds sacred. It's as weird and insane as Molotov and Ribbentrop toasting one another's vision for a better world.

D - "Hey, just a couple of years ago he was telling us to ban alcohol and accept sharia. now, he just wants us to stop shooting at him.
I would call that progress. lol."

Indeed, LOL! But for now, I think it is still a good idea for us to ignore William Blum's pals over at the ACLU and in the Democratic Party and continue trying to nail OBL, the thousands of other Islamoids out butchering, and reduce the risk of Al Qaeda communications into the USA causing more deaths. The Islamoids will get more us eventually, but why listen to Schumer, Feingold, and Dean and make it easier on them??

Patriot1957 -

"He will certainly try to continue to make Iraq work to his interests to keep that terrorist recruiting machine going."

Since we went into Iraq, besides whacking tens of thousands of Islamoids and Saddamist criminals - we have seen attitudes shift. Radical Islam is no longer so chic in Lefty circles in Continental Europe. Britain and Australia got wakeup calls on the Islamoid enemy within - as have France, Sweden, the Netherlands, Italy. A senile Pope in Dhimmitude to Islam has been replaced by a Pope that appeared to fully appreciate the dangers of unreformed Islam. Libya has foregone nukes. We wrapped up the AQ Khan network. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, reg Afghan troops are happily killing Islamoids. The slow progress of weeding out sympathetic radical Islamists from Pakistan's Army and ISA continues.

In Iraq, the foreign Islamoids are now becoming openly reviled for their senseless butchery and not drawing the native recruits - instead Iraqi people are beginning to point them out so they do not get the ACLU-sought coveted American treatment, but the treatment only the "Religion of Peace" and countries like France know how to deal out best. KSA, Algeria, Jordan,Morocco, Yemen, Euros, and Egypt are getting a treasure trove of captured Islamoids that are being rendered back to them for some heart-to-heart discussions about their friends and why they found themselves in Iraq as Al Qaeda tools. Radical Islamists are now killing one another in Palestine as they fight for control of Gaza and the world can see how Islamoid Palestinians can fail badly with no Israel to blame....A good part of Iran is sick of the Islamists.

In America too, much of the debate has been healthy as we reconsider our open borders the elites demand, our uncritical support of Israel, the neocon agenda, the Lefty religion of multiculturalism, the limits where free speech becomes sedition, how we will preserve critical liberties in a long war without being so absolutist we cripple the war effort...And a process in which the Left is dragging down the power of a mainstream media too long as an uncritical ally of the Left. A media whose Leftist inclinations have led to massive embarassments, firings, a requestioning of journalist training and ethics standards, and a loss of subscribers...

There are plenty of downsides, too. Oil prices, Canada continuing to be a radical Muslim haven, Bush's many failures domestically and a clumsy diplomacy it will take Rice years to clean up from after the neocon debacle. The Muslim Brotherhood did exceptionally well in the last Egypt cycle. Muslim breeding rates continue to outstrip their native lands resources, guaranteeing lower standards of living and political instability. Muslims refusing more and more to assimilate in the West...and the involvement of a disturbingly high number of Muslim immigrants and descendents in antisocial activities - crime, mayhem, terrorism, low educational achievement..2200 soldiers. A very, very light number for a major American war being fought globally. But a number that has the Left and MSM twisting their knickers - since they only American soldiers they truly like are dead and maimed ones they can weep false tears for to advance other agenda..

But all things considered, the anti-Islamoid forces are doing well despite the breeding rates, the efforts of Binnie, and the efforts of the Left to hamstring us.

Posted by: Chris Ford | January 20, 2006 07:47 PM

Oh I see, you're part of the disinformation circle.....


there is no war.

we have not been attacked except by those trying to foist themselves upon democracy....

and their whining little dawgs...


who needs to keep staring at the wizard of oz chrisssssss.......


you?


you"


don't look at the man behind the curtain....

boo hooo hoooooooooooo


move closer....

Posted by: who are you? some kinda plant or something?.... | January 20, 2006 07:58 PM


Why is anything Bin Laden says relevant in any way? Is there a more discredited source? Attempts to link him to partisan positions or use his endorsement/criticism to smear Americans are an insult to everyone. Nobody should let themselves be influenced by a single word this man says, period.

Unelss I've picked up a piece of misinformation, I understand Bin Laden isn't even enemy number 1 anymore (he's 2, Al Zarqawi's the big man now). That's outrageous. If we're going to keep talking about the effects of 9/11, then let's all agree that Bin Laden did it, and the VAST majority of people are willing to support a VAST allocation of resources to hunting him down. You want to talk about sending a message to America's enemies, how about the message that the man behind 9/11 will be tracked down? Afghanistan was an absolutely necessary invasion. It is a tragedy that the original 'War on Terror' - comprising the invasion of Afghanistan, the removal of the Taliban, the destruction of Al Quaida and the worldwide deligitimization of that brand and, most symbolically, the relentless hunting down of Osama Bin Laden have ALL become of secondary importance.

Bin Laden's words should be ignored on principle, but the fact he's still speaking is a festering wound. I think the whole world would pitch in to hunt him down, if it were only made the priority it should be.

Posted by: Bullsmith | January 20, 2006 07:59 PM

You guys are great!!!!! OBL is still around and you're as happy as Las Vegas discovering Elvis...

Why don't you Libs go over there and live.

I here OBL is looking for a few good goats!!!!!!!

You people stink!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: The Real Lonemule | January 20, 2006 08:35 PM

One other thing why does Messner look like (in the photo next to her by-line)whe needs to take a mean liberal????

Get some fiber, girl!!!!!

Posted by: The Real Lonemule | January 20, 2006 08:37 PM

Yes, he's losing, but then he is not the issue anymore. If he makes concessions, and the "real Al Qaeda" pops up, just like the real IRA did. This isn't about him.

Posted by: Flanders | January 20, 2006 08:45 PM

@patriot1957

The problem with credibility is that it is indelibly linked to that which we believe to be true, and missing from that which we believe to be false.

But I will admit to the possibility that OBL was responsible for 9/11 and that he recently released a video/audio statement offering a truce to America if you'll admit to the possibility that none of that is in fact true.

Posted by: John | January 20, 2006 08:57 PM

President Bush admitted to personally authorizing thousands of allegedly illegal wiretaps, and he doesn't plan to stop. Circumventing the Constitution is serious business.

This is a big moment. People from across the political spectrum are standing together to protect the rule of law and the principles that are core to our identity as Americans.

Can you sign this petition to show Congress that Americans want a thorough investigation of the president's secret wiretapping program?

http://political.moveon.org/ruleoflaw/

Thanks!

Posted by: John | January 20, 2006 09:08 PM

All the liberal posters here hate to admit that the US course of action is slowly working. No thanks John.

Keep the meatgrinder turning.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | January 20, 2006 09:31 PM

Emily wrote:
===========================================
"How about "wiretapping the White House in trying to find out why, after four years, Osama bin Laden has not been captured?"
===========================================

Oh, that would be grateful. Maybe we can get a better understanding how we have leaders that can advocate invasions in our daily lives -- from taking away private property; to wanton disregard to fundemental rights of privacy.

I want OBL captured, tried and thrown off a 747 over the Atlantic by a 9/11 survivor personally, but if we don't monitor what the government is doing, we may be throwing ourselves off with that scumbag.

Some rights are just plain rights not up to question. That's the ability to call mom and not have the heavy breath of some G-Man breathing over the airwave (does anyone have landlines anymore now?). The ability to enjoy some level of privacy and not be the next "Dog-poop-girl" to the point of being a net viglante victim. And the ability to not have our Social Security number tracked from everything from the cellphone bill onwards. With little laws in place to protect our privacy from intrusions only more abuse will occur -- meanwhile terrorism will continue and OBL escapes.

We need to get OBL and his cronies, but will we fall victim of giving up rights for an ounce of security? It's very easy to give up rights, yet very difficult to gain them back once lost. Is the price worth it? I believe not.

Furthermore, a truce needs trust, and if the Palestinian terrorism is an example of what Al qaeta can do, a truce is meaningless (especially when a threat is issued with it). Apparently OBL has flunked history if he thinks by just studying Vietnam he can win another civil war -- he forgot the US has mulled over the Vietnam war for decades, and knee-jerk actions from a two-bit thug isn't going to work. Especially a foreign one not intuned to today's society (does he even know what an iPod is, let alone what's shown in the theaters now??), and the mores/ideas of the population he's trying to sabotage. Just having a taste of Western life isn't a ticket in understanding who we are -- and infiltrators who'll backstab us no doubt no more connected to the society they condemn, either.

So, we'll always have the winning hand in this poker game and will still advocate our country not to be the next USSR or Taliban controlled Afghanistan.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 20, 2006 09:33 PM

"All the liberal posters here hate to admit that the US course of action is slowly working."

Please explain this.

OBL and his top henchmen are still free and plotting against your children. Al Qaeda has morphed into a multiheaded hydra with tentacles all over the globe and children around the world are proudly wearing OBL t-shirts and the bombs are still going off. N Korea has nukes and is crawling further into bed with China and we've fumbled the ball there. China is succeeding in eating our lunch. Iran is going nuclear and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. We are more dependent on foreign oil than ever with absolutely no leadership strategy to change that making the stakes even higher to us there, our credibility around the world is shot and last but not least we tipped our hand that a few Davids armed with IED's can tie Goliath's "shock and awe" up in knots for years.

"You're either with us or against us" morphed into "you're either with the American imperialists who only care about your oil and not your freedom, or you're with the fellow Muslim who will free your sacred land from the infidels but maybe bring the Taliban with him." Such a choice.

What is working is that as al Qaeda has spread, they are overreaching and killing their own blood. This is finally forcing Muslims to poop or get off the pot about which side they want to be on. ANd as the war in Iraq seems finally to be having an end in sight and we no longer look strong enough to rational Muslims, the tide is changing a bit. But its changing in spite of American actions, not because of it.

Posted by: patriot 1957 | January 20, 2006 11:22 PM

John, nothing in life is 100% except death at the end. And we can all be surprised at least once in life.

But I'm not betting the family farm on your conspiracy theory. Probably not even the nickel slots at the casino. I simply don't believe that more than a handful of people can keep their mouths shut, so it makes conspiracy theories involving large numbers of people sustained over long periods of time without detection unlikely.

But I'd be happy to throw in my lot with you over a Soviet conspiracy to have an agent or two stroke and massage Oswald once they realized the gift they'd been given. Whisper in his ear, sustain and pump up his anger, say "wow what a stud" when gets frothed up enought to say lets shoot him. Involves maybe a few very top level Soviets and one or two agents. Very possible. The Oliver Stone version? Nah, way too many people and no deathbed confessions.

Posted by: patriot 1957 | January 20, 2006 11:31 PM

to who are you

huh?

Posted by: | January 20, 2006 11:33 PM

Patriot1957 -

"And we need to have the firepower behind our threats to Syria and Iran and North Korea and Pakistan, who can clearly see right now that a few Davids with IED's can effectively tie Goliath in knots."

IEDs are no magic bullet. They only work when a country wants to occupy a foreign nation and is constrained politically from shooting caught saboteurs (IED people) on the spot and engaging in reprisals against civilians.

Even with our self-imposed moralistic constraints we are defeating the foe - though at huge additional economic cost and the extra cost of hundreds of lives and thousands of maimed as a price for our squeamishness and the Lefties demands of our obligations for being so nice to Islamoids.

But the real lesson of Iraq is that we have the air dominance and precision munitions capability to wreck the infrastructure of any third rate country - every power plant, transpo hub, bridge, dam, telecomm hub, refinery, government center, military base.....as long as we don't mind leaving the remnants to fester in the rubble. Syria knows that. Iran does too. NORKs think China will save them again. S Korea does not want to lose 3 million people to turn the NORKs into rubble, and neither does America. The Paks would be tougher. They have an excellent, professional military, but that skill and knowledge only makes them appreciate more how ultimately fucked they would be in a war against us..

SandyK - "I want OBL captured, tried and thrown off a 747 over the Atlantic by a 9/11 survivor personally, but if we don't monitor what the government is doing, we may be throwing ourselves off with that scumbag."

1. Haven't we pandered enough to the 9/11 families, yet? Though I approve of whacking the guy without trial and keeping the legions of ACLU lawyers dreaming of defending him, idle.

2. Your fears of gummint doing what is has done for 220 years, taking some property by eminent domain for the common good, and listening to our enemies is misplaced. Unless you avoid highways, electricity, reserviors and other fruits of eminent domain - and think 9/11 was a small price to pay to assure the privacy rights of Islamoids here and abroad.

Bullsmith -

"Unelss I've picked up a piece of misinformation, I understand Bin Laden isn't even enemy number 1 anymore (he's 2, Al Zarqawi's the big man now). That's outrageous. If we're going to keep talking about the effects of 9/11, then let's all agree that Bin Laden did it, and the VAST majority of people are willing to support a VAST allocation of resources to hunting him down. You want to talk about sending a message to America's enemies, how about the message that the man behind 9/11 will be tracked down?"

1. This isn't the hunt for Moby Dick. Or, some James Bond potboiler where we are after the single man behind all evil...without which his minions will collapse. A Mr. Evil stroking his white cat, or hairless cat in the deliberate parody, not the inadvertent one the Lefties are making by obsessing about That One Man!! Primarily to Bush-bash. We are looking to quash an idealogy, not for some bonanza for lawyers to stage a Hollywood court drama.

2. Billions spent already in the hunt specifically for bin Laden is a VAST allocation, unless you think that is inadequate and we must invade Pakistan, restart the Draft, and take hundreds of thousands of casualties in a Major War with Pakistan just so you get Moby Dick....then the Lefty Fantasy states - all will be good in the world and we go back to 9/10/2001.....NOT!!! We've spent hundreds more on the "personalized" hunt for Binnie than any other fugitive in history, and are finding out like the FBI did, that no matter how much taxpayer money they squandor on past "#1 Mr. Evils" like Victor Camerena, Pablo Escobar, Eric Rudolf...sometimes it takes years...

3. The man who was the mastermind behind 9/11 - it's creator and implementor, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was tracked down. Of the 20 in the loop (the 15 Saudis brought in at the last minute were not), all but 3-4 are dead or in custody. The same Lefties who want their symbolic White Whale handed over to the ACLU defenders so "the world can see the genius of American justice at work" are also busy blubbering about how mean we have been to 9/11 Mastermind KSM. And demanding we don't listen in on Binnie and friends if there is a chance their pals being talked to are in the USA. Hard to take them seriously..

4. This is still a partially liberal-controlled America, via the . The same Left that wants Binnie so bad, they supposedly say, also try their best to prevent serial child killers from being executed for decades, and cry for Tookie and Mumia. I have no doubt if we were ever stupid enough to take him alive that the Left would be demanding he be allowed to give public speeches as part of his trial and demanding life imprisonment with "decent conditions" and the possibility of early release for good behavior. With a taxpayer funded ACLU selected "Dream Team" of Lefty Lawyers representing him, special Halal food, access for visits by his 24 children and 6 wives, plus his book agent - plus priority for a kidney transplant, and his own little mini-Mosque with a full time Mullah to cater to his spiritual needs.

Posted by: Chris Ford | January 21, 2006 01:49 AM

==================
What is working is that as al Qaeda has spread, they are overreaching and killing their own blood. This is finally forcing Muslims to poop or get off the pot about which side they want to be on. ANd as the war in Iraq seems finally to be having an end in sight and we no longer look strong enough to rational Muslims, the tide is changing a bit. But its changing in spite of American actions, not because of it.
=================
patriot 1957, you are mistaken if you do not believe US actions in the ME have not "forced" this, and accelerated it many years, compared to use of only diplomatic action.

Osama's days are increasingly dwindling as those around him drop. I believe in short time he will meet his demise. True, it has been a long slog. It may be that any approach would have required years. But this I am certain, there was no realistic diplomatic solution to Islamic terrorism before the invasions.

What is not appreciated by many here is that along with all the pumped up blunders of the US, there have been lessons learned and efficiencies gained. I'd bet that the US armed forces have evolved in tremendous leaps over the last few years. At the same time, the US necessarily had to focus on developing better methods of information gathering, which I believe has also improved over the last few years. Both have raised legitimate concerns, but they are being flushed out and will be addressed.

The attitudes expressed by some here, like "once it is taken away, it is so much harder to restore," amuse me to some extent. It's as if they are not aware of the strength of the Americans people. Geezus, people in my town are ready to lynch you for not picking up after your dog. Put small cramp in their style, and you will hear them roar. So far, in these dicussions, I see complaints based only on theoretical scenarios (e.g., "It's a sippery slope ....")

Besides things like airport security hassels, which most grudgingly accept, I would like to hear from any who have actually experienced reductions in their civil liberties.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | January 21, 2006 02:00 AM

"But this I am certain, there was no realistic diplomatic solution to Islamic terrorism before the invasions. "

You say invasions, plural. But I never criticized the Afghan invasion, only that we abandoned it before finishing. And I live near an Army base and when home on leave the troops posted there tell me things are not well there - the Taliban has regrouped and is now armed and entrenched in the caves, and we have lost control of most of the country outside of the major cities. The phrase I hear most often is "its going to come down around or ears soon"

I think our troops will get lots of practice before this is over.

Other than "valuable troop practice" I have yet to hear a plausible reason why the invasion of Iraq was "good" for the US, especially in light of failing to finish Afghanistan first while al Qaeda was still so much more limited in scope.

Posted by: | January 21, 2006 03:44 AM

sorry forgot to sign above

Posted by: patriot 1957 | January 21, 2006 03:46 AM

The fact is that people globaly are getting sick of terrorists, and it doesn't have a lot to do with the US in surprising amounts.

No one can really find anything all that good about Bin Laden's activities when though of in terms of his track record. His support is suffering badly because of that.

This past year there has been examination and condemnation of terrorisim in places that the US has not expected, mostly due to incidents of terrorist activity.

It's taken tidal waves, hurricanes, and earthquakes for people to start looking beyond killing each other, but each of them has provided an oppertunity for peace to be created, and there have been people who have been bold enough to take those actions dispite histories of violence.

Posted by: gentry | January 21, 2006 04:12 AM


Vice President Dick Cheney, asked by Fox News about the tape, said it now seemed likely that Mr. bin Laden, whom some had believed dead, was alive. But, the vice president said, Mr. bin Laden has clearly had trouble getting his message out and added, "We don't negotiate with terrorists."
"I think you have to destroy them," he said. "It's the only way to deal with them."

Why then is the US government negotiating with the AUC (right wing paramilitaries) in Colombia?
They are one the list of terrorrist organizations and responsible for more crimes than Al Quaida, 80% of the crimes commited in their country. They are the most important narco-traffickers in Colombia.
Officials of the US embassy in Bogota have meetings with AUC top leaders for years.
I never heard about a AUC top leader extradited. Only the FARC leaders are.

Posted by: Paquita | January 21, 2006 05:13 AM

Why didn't Bush/Cheney/Rove ask me before they rejected Osama bin Laden's offer of a truce?

It's easy for those assholes to swagger their macho toughness, but I'm in the front lines in case of another bin Laden terrorist attack.

Reminds me of Bush's "bring 'em on" horseshit. He boasted and thousands of Americans were killed and maimed.

What a sorry excuse for a President! What a crock of shit!

Posted by: NYC Resident | January 21, 2006 05:51 AM

Osma and Bush have to be working together, why else hasn't he been caught. The average length it takes to catch a fugitive is 9 months, and that's when you just use available police and FBI resources.
Osma is Bush's vehicle (read bogy man) to scare the American people into doing what he wants. Osma must be a Republican, wont be surprised if he got money from Abramoff.

By the way Osma and Iran are tight. But not Iraq. What are we doing there in Iraq?
So we are in Iraq because we made a mistake. Therefore, the "state of war" that Bush relies upon for his allegedly expansive (read unconstitutional, illegal and extremely dangerous to freedom and liberty) power is null and void.

See I am being civil by calling it a mistake instead of a fraud, but quite frankly the evidence of the fraud is already in the public view and like the purloined letter it sits in front of all of us, hidden.

"Abraham Lincoln said you can fool some of the people all the time and those are the ones I concentrate on."
George W. Bush - 2000

Posted by: Impeach Bush | January 21, 2006 06:50 AM

Does it surprise anyone that these
messeges come out during an election year in
the US. The Man on the Tape, somehow jiggles
the tone meter of US elections, and gives
the party in power, usually some useful fuel,
but this time, there is a catch. The word
'truce' appears as well as 'an attack coming
soon the a location near you'.
The US hasn't had any terror elerts since
before the last presidental election, 'cept
the one used right before the New York City Mayorial election last year. How cheap was that? So now, we may see a ratcheting up of 'scare tactics' to bolster certain parties wins in 2006.
GWB should be sending Bin Laden a bowl of
fruit once a month, because Bin Laden is
what is keeping Bush and his cronies in
office.

Posted by: Z | January 21, 2006 07:08 AM

I'm dead, but you should google my name. I am the architect of the Bush machine's public relations/political machine.

It's quite simple: A person in authority tells a subordinate a blatantly untrue statement and then demands/requires the subordinate agree and act accordingly. This stresses out the subordinate and creates mental conflict. However, due to the "group think" mentality of humans (the need to conform with the group is strong, eg peer pressure), the subordinate has a tendence to adopt the untrue statement as truth, particularly in a large organization like a corporation, government, or media organization, and then they act like it is true.

This techique was used by the CIA to "interview" potential candidates. The trick to passing the "interview" was for the job applicant (read subordinate) to overcome the conflict and maintain a belief in what he knew was true.

Unfortunately, I apparantly tripped out the Unibomber because I forget to tell him what I was doing and well the rest is history.

Posted by: Dr. Henry Murray | January 21, 2006 07:24 AM

Bush and bin Laden could agree on one thing (actually more than one, but another time): with enemies like these, who needs friends? Bin Laden empowers Bush with his murderous lunacy and messages that astonishingly seem to be brilliantly timed to aid Bush politically. The timing may be coincidence, of course. Bush empowers bin Laden by endless wars in places that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and serve only to confirm to Muslims bin Laden's self-serving assertions regarding the west.

Had the focus remained on Afghanistan and nearby areas with even 10% of the effort and funding devoted to Iraq it is hard to believe that bin Laden would not have been captured by now and hard to believe that Afghanistan could not serve as a model of economic and political development for the entire region, making a lie of the claims of bin Laden and his ilk.

Posted by: Robert Paehlke | January 21, 2006 08:26 AM

Z and Robert Paehlke have it right. All agree that OBL is very media savvy and follows American politics closely. All agree this OBL tape helps Bush tremendously. So... y'all really think OBL is dumb enough to be doing that UNKNOWINGLY?

OBL is craftily helping his biggest ally in the world, just as he did before the '04 election. An ally who has given OBL the best propaganda and recruitment tools imaginable at Abu Graib. An ally who has provided al Qaeda with a terrorist theme park called Iraq, a place where every Islamic fanatic can train and kill actual Americans. And the list goes on..

You don't have to be a "conspiracy theorist" to see that OBL and GWB need each other desperately and hold the same essential worldview. This OBL tape is not psy-ops, just one hand washing the other.

The 'truce' thing is brilliant, designed to make OBL appear statesmanlike to his core audience. GWB played his part perfectly, noisily rejecting instead of ignoring the 'truce offer'. Now after the next terror attack on U.S. soil, OBL can claim GWB rejected peace and chose more war. Collateral damage in Iraq, collateral damgage in the USA. And you know what? Most of the world will buy it. Meanwhile Bush/Cheney will have the justification to destroy what's left of the Constitution and complete their ultimate power grab at home. Funny how these things work.

Posted by: Q-Burn | January 21, 2006 09:13 AM

The truth is hate speech to those with something to hide.
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/washpostblog/2006/01/shutting_off_co.html
The whole poinmt of "announcing" the spying on every citizen is to discourage people from talking to each other about what is going on, out of fear the wrong ears will overhear.

It's been 1,587 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

The Homeland Security Department said it had no plans to raise the nation's terror threat alert level and no reason to believe an attack was imminent.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060121/D8F8P9B00.html
The threat on the bin Laden audio tape "means nothing to us," the spokesman for the U.S. Northern Command, which is responsible for the defense of U.S. territory?

"Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview _ and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview," Karl Rove told Republican activists.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/20/D8F8IQQ81.html
"That doesn't make them unpatriotic, not at all. But it does make them wrong _ deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong."

A recently revealed Pentagon study has found that 80% of Marines killed in Iraq may have survived if they had been wearing the latest body armor. That's hundreds of American troops.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-rieckhoff/tragedies-that-should-not_b_14187.html
Why, three years into this war, are our Troops still struggling with inadequate equipment? This is bureaucracy at its worst.

The evil Bush regime is running out of time--how in the hell do you establish a dictatorship when all of your main people are in jail or on their way to jail? Can't count on diebold any more--that whole trick is unravelling. Oops--time for another "terrorist attack", nudge nudge wink wink! Time to get the people back under control and to install a Tyrannical Military Dictatorship.

BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE - USA! USA! USA!

Would you please ask the powers that be to get a new writer to convincingly forge the Bin Laden tapes. They are an embarassment to us all. Rebellion to Tyrants and Liars.

Posted by: I hate to say I told you so, but | January 21, 2006 09:47 AM

"We don't negotiate with Politicos."
"I think you have to destroy them. "It's the only way to deal with them."

Posted by: BOOM! | January 21, 2006 09:49 AM

Notice that OBL rears his ugly head when the crook bush is in trouble. This tape was nothing but a bunch of crap to distract the american public from the criminal conduct of bush and his republican party. Bin laden is bush's best ally. Notice how he hasnt been caught. bush doesnt want to catch him. He would embarass us. He would reveal that he is on our payroll. Notice also we are coming up on the 3rd anniversary of "Mission Accomplished" Bin laden is nothing but bush's boogie man to bring out when people utter the word impeachment. Wake up you so called conservatives. you guys are taking it up the ***. bush is not a republican he is a facist. Also, you cant win a war on a concept and thats exactly what this "War on Terra" is.

Posted by: Sick of bush | January 21, 2006 10:09 AM

"Clearly the al Qaeda leaders and other terrorists are on the run. They're under a lot of pressure," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "We do not negotiate with terrorists. We put them out of business."

[The attack on Iraq cost the U.S. global respect and $1.2 billion a month. In contrast, it's inexpensive to hire an Irish monkey like McClellan to lie shamelessly.]
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/19/binladen.tape/index.html

Let's look more closely at who seems to be going out of business...

WASHINGTON -- New academic research suggests that the war in Iraq could cost the United States up to $2 trillion.
http://159.54.227.3/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060114/NEWS/60114024

According to the Treasury Department, from 1776-2000, the first 224 years of U.S. history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions, but in the past four years alone, the Bush administration borrowed $1.05 trillion.
...
"No American political leadership has ever willfully and deliberately mortgaged our country to foreign interests in the manner we have witnessed over the past four years," said Tanner. "If this recklessness is not stopped, I truly believe our economic freedom as American citizens is in great jeopardy."
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=..Nation..archive..200511/NAT20051104b.html

"The facts are not partisan, and they're not ideological," said David Walker, the nation's comptroller general. He should know. He's the nation's chief accountant and signs off on the government's balance sheet. America's fiscal future, he said, "is worse than advertised."

When the government next reports these numbers Dec. 15, the total is expected to reach $46 trillion to $50 trillion.

How much is $50 trillion? About $166,000 for each of the almost 300 million Americans.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002606771_budget06.html

The Arabic-language network Al-Jazeera released a full transcript Monday of the most recent videotape from Osama bin Laden in which the head of al Qaeda said his group's goal is to force America into bankruptcy.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/

Posted by: JewsDid911LOL | January 21, 2006 10:09 AM

Chris Ford wrote:
=====================================================
"Not that all Lefties are traitors, but it is clear from Binnies message that his greatest hope is the American Left will prevail politically in America. It is clear that he eagerly sees good news in the polls and the help the Left and their friends in the MSM give to helping cast America as morally equivalent to, or worse, than Al Qaeda."
=====================================================

Actually, his worst enemy may come from the Left (and from Libertarians). You'll notice Atheists aren't quite GOP friendly and they're a vocal lot that doesn't like *any* religious indoctrination. For even they wouldn't welcom OBL's buddies over as allies. Nor would I believe Democrats that goto church every Sunday (which in the South are numerous). So OBL is reading propaganda that'll bite him in the butt in the end.

His only hope is gaining more Muslim converts in the US. Most kids that are impressionable aren't religious in US, let alone take orders from some weird looking guy in a bedsheet and turbin. They're more interested in their Xboxes and going out to drink instead (a very unMuslim activity). Or worse, aligning with anti-government militia types who are more interested in rewriting the Constitution or gettting rid of the government.

So in that fingerpointing game allies can come from both sides, and more likely with militia types as commies remember Afghanistan and it's aftermath as well.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 21, 2006 10:15 AM

"Osma must be a Republican, wont be surprised if he got money from Abramoff."

Don't you stupid stupid stupid ugly Americans know how to use google, or are you just afraid of the man?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jack+abramoff+mohammed+atta&btnG=Google+Search

Prior to the events of September 11th, 2001 chief hijacker Mohamed Atta and several of the other 9/11 hijackers were reported to have made multiple visits to the SunCruz casino cruise ship off the Gulf coast in Florida. [24] This has led some to speculate that Mohamed Atta was using the casino to launder money for al-Qaeda and that possibly Atta was involved in a scheme with Abramoff and the mob to smuggle heroin. [25] To date none of these allegations has been confirmed or investigated.
http://www.madcowprod.com/06202005.html
What could a scandal involving Indian casinos and gambling boat cruises to nowhere & pay-for-play government officials have to do with the story of 19 hijackers planning a mass murder in supposed isolation in Florida?

"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html
-- US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.

Posted by: sic semper tyrannis | January 21, 2006 10:16 AM

OBL is an operative of the us vs them government, used as a tool to conjure up enemies of the state....

so the state can assume control of your minds, cashflow, and ss system with which the finance their occupation while diminishing payout to oldpeople and children by $30 dollars a month....and you're okay with that.

Posted by: Dear SandyK.....why do you feel like a man...because no one would read you if you signed your posts. | January 21, 2006 10:19 AM

you're next, it'll be apleasure to expose you.....sweetness...


what you need is a reality enemae....


spinning tales of dissolutionment....


frequenting high level conferences of the emotionallly unemployed...

farquat nec'ce pat....missive granted.

Posted by: Dear Dick..... | January 21, 2006 10:26 AM

This whole Bin Laden tape thing is a real puzzle. I guess he doesn't have a video tape of himself anymore--after being dead for a while, that is probably a good thing. It also stops the pesky internet bloggers from pointing out again that the guy on the tape isn't Bin Laden.
If the CIA is right about the authenticity of the tape, then we are no doubt being addressed by Bin Laden's astral voice at this point. Of course, we can't be too sure about any voice identification by the CIA--not after the confirmation of voices on the telephones from the plane passengers on 911hit that little glitch about cellphones not being able to work when the plane is at a certain height.

There is one way the American people can judge the authenticity of everything after the next attack. Bin Laden mentions Bush ten times and is obviously not a fan of his or of his Washington cabal. In contrast he mentions that the American public does not support their military staying in Iraq. That means Bin Laden has no reason to attack the American people--just the American government. Thus, if the next attack results in the IMF building in New York being bombed, or the Bush family and the Washington politicians being bombed, then we could suspect Bin Laden, If the American people are attacked, it is not Bin Laden behind the attack.

And you know what--either way the result will be a powerful move in the right direction for the American people.

North Port website defaced by hackers
http://wwsb.com/frameset.asp?page=http://wwsb.com/news/details.asp?id=39641
"We're Iranians. Honest! Go bomb them, er, I mean us. Yeah, that's it, come bomb us Iranians. Iran. You know. Sure, sure."

Posted by: Santino Rice | January 21, 2006 10:32 AM

labeling is a good tool to use if you want to sway opinions...

left right....automatic response...no thinking involved...


truth doesn't have a position.


being unwilling to examine a thing on it's own merits is cowardly....


trying to sway, as a way of maintaining control of the way things are perceived is a cowards tool....


Carl Rove sold you a president that can't speak well, reason on his own or mentally comprehend what he is doing to America....


AGAIN: how does someone that is a former cokehead, alcoholic, marginal student, draftdodger, business failure become president of the United States of America?


he has connections, daddy's people needed a front man who wouldn't question what he was being asked to do......daddy's friends wouldn't lead him down the wrong path would they.....


CONNECTIONS REQUIRE: that you repay them with favors....


FAVORS: laws, bills, amendments and control of assests, control of a military force with no peer....what could you do if you controled all the oil in kuwait, saudi, iraq and the caspian sea? What about something simple like oil-futures?


and why didn't those oil magnates get sworn in?.....oh that's two far fetched aintit....oh yaz oh yaz....thinkee mastah.....are yo feets warm eno mastah?

Posted by: friends in the left or right.... | January 21, 2006 10:40 AM

LOL! The conspirisists get up early.

NYC resident, are you suggesting that we should negotiate with Osama? Think about what you're suggesting man (or woman). I too live on a front line most vulnerable to attack, but I have not forgotten what transpired.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | January 21, 2006 10:42 AM

Wondering if some folks drank a tad too much Kool-Aid this morning....maybe with a dash of lead too. =:o

Yo, Santino, if you actually believe OBL isn't interested in killing Americans, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell ya!

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 21, 2006 10:50 AM

heee hee he...

hey john, why should we negotiate with an illusion?

if the secretary comes out and says the man's not in and can't talk to you do you believe her when you can see him?

vulnerable to attack, not by credulousness...you're not


Peace is achieved by believing nothing. Proof is everything.


take this example: we have satellite reconnaisance that can tell you whether the coin came up heads or tails at the super bowl, or if a little girl was kidnapped from a car wash in Florida a year ago and Saddam Hussein escaped from Bagdhad with three tractor trailers loaded with billions in cash in broad daylight while surrounded by troops, infiltrated within his own ranks by our operatives, drone reconnaisance, AWACS, listening devices, ground drone reconnaisance, ground operatives and thousands of troops....it's not possible unless it's planned by our side...


can I sell you some land in Disneyland, want some Willy Wonka Chocolate shares....


George Bush Sr. was a life-long insider in the government....he knows everyone. He alsso headed the CIA for awhile before he was president.....I think the CIA director before him came down with a brain tumor and died 2 days before he was suppposed to undergo questioning about some matter of laizzez fare.

He was president when Saddam attacked Kuwait, just days previously, Madelaine Albright visted Saddam, some say she said it would be alright if Saddam attacked Kuwait....that the US would look the other way. Schwartzkopf leveled Iraq and left Saddam in power....need to time these things you know....scripting is everything...and sandy you are selling a bridge in brooklyn aren't you?

Posted by: selfish people need to live together.... | January 21, 2006 11:09 AM

How sad. Only one person here has even touched on the reality. The news pundits were all amazed at how "media savy" (I hate that word) OBL was by mentioning the polls. Yet, if he was so "savy" (again), then why doesn't he notice that everytime he releases a message, GWB's points go up. Has no one noticed the exquisite timing of this? The arrogant imperialism of this admin is just now starting to come home to roost, and "pow!" right on a "media savy" cue, Mr. Badguy shows up. Not that coincidence isn't possible, but, gosh, a day before the Rove and the RNC sets the battle plan for the 2006 elections? C'mon, the obviousness of this ranks right down there with the 24 year-old beauty queen claiming that she has married the 80 year old billionaire because she "loves him". I'm going to be a bit more wary over the next few weeks because if GWB's numbers continue to decline and the heat stays on the Abramoff blow jobbers, well, I'm glad I didn't invest in a Superbowl ticket.

Posted by: OhYeah | January 21, 2006 11:10 AM

Sandy UBL is DEAD! Americans die all the time, not from terrorists by the way. The best way to stop the terror is to stop Fing around with other peoples countries.

Osama bin Laden: A dead nemesis perpetuated by the US government
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/binladen_9-11_index.html
The Fake 2001 bin Laden Video Tape
The Fake 2002 bin Laden Audio Tape
The Fake 2004 bin Laden Video Tape

It should be obvious by now that Israel, Britain, and the United States have created and selectively unleashed Islamic terrorism for decades and continue to lean heavily on this artifice now, as the Straussian plan for total war and destruction in the Middle East reaches a fever pitch.

Posted by: 4th Reich | January 21, 2006 11:15 AM

There have been ties with other countries that the landed have maintained since 1776...


The germans are huge landholders in the United States.


The english attempted to regain their colonies in 1812, and again surrepticiously in the civil war as they backed the south....which gave them cotton much more cheaply than egypt did....


there are two governments, the visible one, and the invisible one.

the invisible one, you don't belong to or hear about....club members only.


they cut up the pie and give you what's left...and sometimes they eat your share too...

as the country, the United States, has less need for development it becomes more visible that the people in the country are not loved by the leaders/affluent/landed and they begin to lose:

rights

benefits

jobs

influence


security


liberty


pursuit of happiness

lives.............

there are no senators, representatives sons and daughters in Afghanistan or Iraq.....they know better

and those who joined the National Gaurd as a way of having a safe involvement with the military like your bush boy draft dogger did......why he don't care how they feel about fighting do he


he keep 'em over dere 'til hell freiezes ober doncha know...


oh mah too la too

Posted by: Let's put a little moderation in our talk here....he he heeeee | January 21, 2006 11:28 AM

@patriot1957

You assume so much. It's not my "conspiracy theory", I don't even recall saying I supported it. You seem a reasonable person, a bright person even, yet you are clearly not open to alternate explanations. Ultimately that makes this kind of discussion pointless.

Posted by: John | January 21, 2006 11:29 AM

Isn't the biggest conspiracy theory to claim that there are NO government conspiracies? Where the hell is YOUR proof that "Al Qaeda" actually planned and carried out the attacks of 9/11? Isn't the idea that 19 Islamic cavemen could make the US Military stand down during simultaneous War Games and attacks a bit much?

On 9/11, CIA Was Running Simulation of a Plane Crashing into a Building
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/cia-simulation.htm
No one anticipated the use of airplanes as weapons before September 11?

What is the plan? What is the democratic way of handling a known mega-crisis? Shouldn't the public have a say in government strategy, or will the general public be victimized by their rulers and thus subject to the machinations of a police state, spying on their communications, abandonment in emergency settings, etc.?
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=19784&hd=0&size=1&l=x
There is something our government knows; there is something our government is planning; there is something about to happen that they are preparing for and not telling us about. It has little to do with foreign terrorism. Someone is preparing to survive at the expense of someone else.

Posted by: THE END IS NEAR | January 21, 2006 11:30 AM

The U.S. Government is on the verge of collapse!

Just when you think it cannot get any more bizarre!

The Pentagon has gained a very welcome and popular reinforcement for the home front - a furry red monster called Elmo.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/21/welmo21.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/21/ixworld.html
Among the new initiatives is laughter therapy. James Scott, a retired army colonel, is touring the country urging the families of national guardsmen to walk like penguins and laugh like lions.

Army signs emergency body armor contract
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1152AP_Body_Armor.html
It comes on the heels of a Pentagon study that found side armor could have saved "dozens" (80%) of U.S. lives in Iraq.

Now, maybe you're not susceptible to conspiracy theories. Maybe you don't believe Congresspersons from across the political spectrum could be persuaded by Cheney and his Cabal that a successful Iranian Bourse could potentially result in the demise of the Almighty Dollar and with it the American Hegemony for which Congress has authorized the sacrifice of thousands of our servicemen and women, and the expenditure of hundreds of billions of your tax dollars, not to mention borrowing about a zillion dollars from the Chinese, who have already decided it's maybe not such a good idea to have nothing but petrodollars, especially with which to buy petroleum from Iran, denominated in petroeuros.
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8426
Nah! Cheney and his Cabal could never get Congresspersons from across the political spectrum to appear wall-to-wall on TV, loudly proclaiming that the IAEA Safeguarded programs in Iran represent the gravest threat we've faced since the Cold War and that we've got to do something - by March, at the latest.

Posted by: BUSH LIED BUSH SPIED BUSH... | January 21, 2006 11:38 AM

The endless whining wail: why haven't we caught bin Laden?

BECAUSE HE'S IN PAKISTAN, YOU MORONS!!!!

The US military can't go there, got it? We are waiting for the Pakis to catch him. Best we can do is send predator drones to bomb them, and even then we have to listen to the duplicitous denunciations from Paki officials about violating their sovereignty as they protect their flank from the raging Islamoids out in the street.

You can add to this the Times, the Post and the Dems who try every day in every way to reduce any possible advantage in intelligence gathering we might gain, from CIA secret prisons to NSA surveillance. Their enemy is not bin Laden, it's Bush.

Posted by: Jersey Independent | January 21, 2006 11:50 AM

after having lived in washington for a few years one begins to understand things...

you're an outsider, outside the beltway.

they're saying why can't they capture bin ladder, not because they don't think that we can't because they think that we can....

get it? peachy keen like a rock.

Posted by: there is no whining dude, we're in pakistan too.... | January 21, 2006 11:54 AM

he's the puppet.....watch him walkin gout the door in the chinese news conference...


he's a master mind all right.....he's daddy's visible hand....and someones using both georges for sock puppets while making them rich....

would you have liked to be able to buy or sell oil futures if you had the five biggest oil companies in your pocket?????


could you mak a mil or two....in five minutes.

Posted by: the enemy isn't bush it's who he's the front man for.... | January 21, 2006 11:57 AM

Yep, Coo-Coo for Coco Puffs have arrived. What's sad is they actually believe they are right. But like always, come election time, they're nowhere near the election booths (probably making more anarchistic sayings instead of, "They're rigged! My vote doesn't count anyway!").

:sigh:

BTW, we can get OBL if we wanted too, but lily livered politicos don't have the cajones to do it. If they mean business, they'd go in and eliminate OBL's whole "base" and be back in a month (yep, brass tacks time they can perform amazing things, if the leadership would gain a backbone and not be walking on eggshells instead).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 21, 2006 11:59 AM

active ingredients are like people they are what actually makes things tick...


some people say things and it makes sense and other people say things and try to remove the sense...


creating an environment for healthy discussion is necessary in order to promote a level of understanding for people to see the truth as a demonstration rather than a slather of cover-up.


montgomery country.


ask me.

Posted by: actually replying to a sychophant is not really necessary...but moving him into an active zone makes | January 21, 2006 12:06 PM

What's sad is SandyK actually believes she is right. BTW, we can "get" GWB if we wanted too, but lily livered Americans don't have the cajones to do it. If they mean business, they'd go in and eliminate GWB's whole "base" and be back in a month?

Posted by: Zionist Hoodlum | January 21, 2006 12:08 PM

"If this be treason, Sir, why make the most of it!"

Yet again, our grossly incompetent CIA, in conjunction with the prevaricating manipulators in the White House, have produced another faked "bin Ladin tape" threatening to attack the United States but "offering a truce." The CIA has produced at least ten "original terrorist" tapes in the past three years. A man named Morton Weil, working for the CIA out of Waco, Texas, puts these together using someone fluent in Arabic. The documents are produced in Langley, sent to the NSC for vetting and, if approved as written, sent by courier to Waco, Texas where they are translated (from the English) into Arabic and then recorded by a person, as yet unnamed, fluent in that language .

I lunch twice a week with an Arab diplomat who, obviously, is an educated man and fluent in his native tongue. He not only knew bin Laden but has heard him speak a number of times. His opinion? Fake.

His reasoning?

Bush is presently doing so badly in the domestic (and foreign) opinion polls, yet did so well as "The Great Protector of America" after 911, that he seeks to recapture his permanently lost glory by first posing a threat to the US and then stepping forward again, shield and sword in hand, to defend the American people against foreign (and non-Christian) terrorists.

He and Rove feel that his poll numbers will rise once again. The problem is that very few people believe these rigged and seemingly never-consummated terrorist "warnings" and so once again, the boy cried "Wolf" in vain.

I also know someone on the NSC and they told me this morning that they really wished the CIA would be a little more accomplished in their fakes.

His reasoning?

It has been known, officially, that bin Laden died of kidney failure in a Pakistani hospital in August of 2002 and obviously isn't making any tapes now. A live bin Laden, however, is a good boogyman with which to terrify the American public into slavishly believing our government is trying to protect them. Secondly, there is no reference to the Koran in the message, something always found in original, period, bin Laden announcements. Thirdly, the fake bin Laden does not make any references, as original messages have, to past Western atrocities against Muslims and, finally, the tape is far too short.

What is this source's reasoning? That the CIA's blunder in killing 17-25 perfectly innocent Pakistani civilians in a badly botched rocket attack against a bin Laden supporter has caused an uproar in Pakistan, (and elsewhere) an ally, albeit a very dicey one. First, the CIA "revealed," through paid Pakistani stooges, that "many top terrorists" were killed in the attack <>although the sole victims were women and children and two sets of grandparents<>. Their logic is that while the intended target was "mysteriously absent" at the time of the attack, the slaughter of the innocents was justified because "many top terrorists" were eradicated.

Typical high-level bald-faced lies.

This latest taped fake is designed both to give Bush increased stature to a disbelieving American public and to justify any future actions against more generally completely innocent civilians.

The Bush Administration is drawing an enormous bill that is going to have to be paid by the American people, hopefully for the criminals, long after they are out of office and living in tax-payer supported safe (<>and non-extraditable<>) retirement in the south of France or Tahiti.

Something needs to be done about all of this murderous corruption.

When Patrick Henry, addressing the Virginia House of Burgesses, made a negative reference to their King George, some stooge shouted "Treason!" at him.

His reply, and one we all ought to contemplate?

http://www.tbrnews.org/

Posted by: DON'T TREAD ON ME! | January 21, 2006 12:11 PM

SandyK,
But they don't want OBL dead, because then the boogieman would be gone, and they couldn't pump up the numbers whenever they needed. Pay attention!! My vote counts??? Can you say "K Street?" can you say "Jack Abramoff"? Pay attention!!

Posted by: OhYeah | January 21, 2006 12:12 PM

"active ingredients are like people they are what actually makes things tick..."

Oh shut up tick before I burn you with a mathch head and watch you pop.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | January 21, 2006 12:13 PM

hello swwwweeeeeeeeethot....want some home fries and race with that?

Posted by: I'll be eating some chicken.... | January 21, 2006 12:17 PM

Bin Laden needs never again have an act of terrorism. All he needs is the foreign policy of this administration. Karl Rove plans to run on the unitary president and plenty of wire tapping. He didn't call certain democrats soft on terror(he's leaving that to others} but he said Bin Laden was using their talking points. So bin Laden has the country divided and some so scared they would give up all their rights to be protected. And the last thing in the world he wants is a truce. The dogs of war are talking of attacking Iran. The least that would accomplish is a world wide depression if we won the war in 30 days.

Posted by: darby1936 | January 21, 2006 12:24 PM

Message to civilians: don't invite al Zawahiri to dinner.

There was a reason why the Geneva convention prohibited the commingling of combatants with civilians.

Posted by: Jersey Independent | January 21, 2006 12:25 PM

"some so scared they would give up all their rights to be protected...."

It's not fear, it's revenge. There's a big hole in lower Manhattan that drives it, along with the memory of the firemen, cops and civilians buried there. We want these guys dead. Or, as Frankie Pantangele said in Godfather II, "Mort!"

Posted by: Jersey Independent | January 21, 2006 12:31 PM

Too bad some other chickens didn't show up to be roasted, either.

The Colonel would have a "finger licking" good time. ;)

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 21, 2006 12:33 PM

I'm sorry, but it's very suspicious to me the way these tapes keep surfacing every time it looks likes the Dems might finally be getting through to the American electorate.

It's true that Rove focused on Bin Laden in his speech, but he also mentioned doing away with any vestiges of what he calls the "entitlement" mentality or, put more accurately, any minute traces of kindness and or social concern that might still linger in our benighted country. Bin Laden's tapes let Republicans exploit fear and xenophobia in order to win elections, with disastrous results for workers, the poor, and the elderly.

Posted by: Robbin | January 21, 2006 12:37 PM


Robbin,

You're half right. Rove's economic policies are draconian, the deficit criminal. It's because the Dems have no credibility on National Security that they keep losing elections. Instead of manufacturing some conspiracy, come up with a believable strategy for winning. You don't have to be a Bush supporter to want bin Laden dead.

Posted by: Jersey Independent | January 21, 2006 12:54 PM

How does sending OBL to the satan that spawned him hurting the elderly and poor? Don't know any of either group that's condoning OBL's gloating of killing 3,000 on 9/11 -- across any party line.

Only those on the fringe would excuse wholesale terrorism -- especially at home.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 21, 2006 01:03 PM

This has to be the weakest collection of posts I've seen in a while. The majority of it is either wacky conspiracy theories or empty partisan chest-thumping. The lack of actual substance is mesmerizing, whereas the amount of histrionics is downright pathetic. Incredible the ability Osama Bin Laden has to make Americans act like a bunch of panicky idiots. Judging by the way people are making asses of themselves on this blog, the War On Terror seems little more than a politicized farce.
Behaving like a bunch of paranoid, hysterical children is not going to defeat Al Qaeda or bring Osama Bin Laden to justice.
It only makes us appear like losers in the War On Terror.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 21, 2006 01:41 PM

care for a little sideswipe toots? It's imperative to allow your mother to not direct your thinkin ing show me what you've been doing to day....


asking for toomuch can get you released....

ask me.

Posted by: creatin g a dissonance within the personalities of hoodlums... | January 21, 2006 01:45 PM

Monsters incorporated is running your government....and you own shares.


chill swopes.

chasing delusions from your minds by actually thinking instead of referring to written rhetoric....


when your map is broken, so are your conclusions. quite simple really.

Posted by: it would be a good idea to be a looser on the war on terrorized babies. | January 21, 2006 01:53 PM

This statement is disgusting :

From OBL : There is no defect in this solution other than preventing the flow of hundreds of billions to the influential people and war merchants in America, who supported Bush's election campaign with billions of dollars.


It amazes me that people from the coc think they know how to change the world today, when our own government is so corrupt, the enemy used this statement today.

http://getalifes.blogspot.com/

Posted by: getalife | January 21, 2006 01:55 PM

You don't have to be a Bin Laden supporter to want Bush dead either.

Don't know any of either group that's condoning GWB's gloating of killing 150,000 Iraqis across any party line.

Behaving like a bunch of paranoid, hysterical children is not going to defeat the US Terrorist Forces or bring George WMD Bush to justice.

How does sending GWB to the satan that spawned him hurting the elderly and poor?

Posted by: BLOWBACK | January 21, 2006 01:56 PM

Blofeld (stroking his cat): You don't have to be a Bin Laden supporter to want Bush dead either.

Better watch what you say jerkoff fanatic.

Posted by: | January 21, 2006 02:04 PM

askm e.

Posted by: hey there georgie girl there another you calling deep inside... | January 21, 2006 02:18 PM

What goes around comes around.

Why is it "terrorism" when 3,000 Americans die from bombs, but it is "freedom" when 1,000,000 Iraqis die from bombs?

Just asking!

Posted by: jerkoff fanatic | January 21, 2006 02:19 PM

Errin,

Just ignore the trolls. They're not here to engage in debate, anyhow. Spamming is more important than content.

How about some meat to show the children how it's done? ;)

Where's Chris when you need him. :x

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 21, 2006 02:24 PM

chill.

so was 1776 a war for independence or a rebllion by an untrustworth y group of colonials?


depends on whoze rithgting doesn't it?

aspergante'....you make assumptions that your parents have your best interests at heart as they tryst with your freinds...

Posted by: try dialogue and talk from knowledge rather than your text books children... | January 21, 2006 02:46 PM

Why folks can't let these extremists win, especially exporting their filth abroad...

http://www.abfiran.org/english/memorial.php

As long as everyone is focusing on every other issue but the above, the above will continue while others argue over turf.

That's why we fight. That's why all the other spinning is meaningless as long as innocents are killed in name of some religion.

We can argue about spying and a police state, but will it help us in the end when we ignore the reasons and behaviors that promote the justification of killing for some dogma?

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 21, 2006 02:50 PM

Spying? Torture? Illegal airstrikes?

SHUT UP and hate the evil Bin Laden.

It's been 1,587 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

(whine) never forget 911 (whine) support the troops (whine) liberals are terrorists

Why should one more American die for the Theocratic Islamic Revolution of Iraq?

How many Iraqis have been killed by US Airstrikes? Is that Terror or Freedom?

If we are borrowing 2 Trillion Dollars from China to pay for the territorial pissings in Iraq, why don't our Troops still not have the right body armor?

There is no graver crime a government can commit against its own people then to lie them into a war. We were lied into Afghanistan. We were lied into Iraq. We are being lied into Iran. The liars won't stop until they are made to stop! The one thing that will halt the plans for a new staged terror attack is if they decide that the public will not fall for it.

Posted by: isaa utherma uckerfa | January 21, 2006 02:57 PM

Um, Did the 1979 Revolution in Iran have anything to do with the US Supporting the tyrannical dictatorship of "The Shah"??? or anything to do with the US Supporting the tyrannical dictatorship of Iran's enemy the secular Regime of Saddam? or anything to do with the US Supporting the Taliban and Usama Bin Laden in the Cold War?

US Troops told to ignore Opium Crop that is now more than 1/2 Afghan GDP
http://www.bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=9994
When the Taliban was on control of Afghanistan, opium production had been shut down almost completely. In a horrible repeat of the Vietnam era, when Kuhn Sa's heroin flooded the US via "Air America" and the body bags of our Vietnam dead, once again the drug flow into the US is being protected by elements of the US Government itself.

"We can argue about spying and a police state, but will it help us in the end when we ignore the reasons and behaviors that promote the justification of killing for some dogma?"

About 100,000 Iraqi civilians - half of them women and children - have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by coalition forces.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html
"US General Tommy Franks is widely quoted as saying 'we don't do body counts"!

Posted by: ushba ullafa itsha | January 21, 2006 03:06 PM

http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/politics/0000374.php

Anthropological evidence don't lie. But funny how extremists with their fat bellies, no hardship, alcoholic ways and drug doping lifestyle can ignore the above.

Then they claim to care? With such care who but the devil himself needs it!! :shock:

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 21, 2006 03:08 PM

http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

$27,000,000 tax free dollars on the head of Bin Laden, free for the taking. Great money for any bounty hunters out there wanting to get the biggest "collar" around.

Get him and America will l-o-v-e you (and that rat is alive and in some hole like Hussein was in).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 21, 2006 03:13 PM

A time warp of the past...

Truce or Consequences
Don't get wrapped up in Bin Laden's tape.
By William Saletan
Posted Friday, April 16, 2004, at 3:03 PM ET

http://www.slate.com/id/2099024

===========================================
"Half the spin in this message is obvious: According to Bin Laden, this isn't a war between terrorism and civilization; it's a war between Islam and America. This is basic political strategy: Define the conflict to maximize your side and minimize the other. Iraqis are Muslims but not terrorists, so tell them you represent Islam, not terrorism. Europeans are civilized but not American, so tell them you're fighting America, not civilization."
===========================================

OBL is still spinning years later and way too many folks fall for his rhetoric. Every weaving lies with half-truths to make non-reality into reality. In the classic sense it's called "brainwashing". If folks drink that Kool-Aid long enough they'll become mini-OBLs with unreal ideals that are but fantasy.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 21, 2006 03:22 PM

Posting 2 year old talking points about the Fake Bin Laden tapes is fantasy!

The Fake 2001 bin Laden Video Tape
The Fake 2002 bin Laden Audio Tape
The Fake 2004 bin Laden Video Tape
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/binladen_9-11_index.html
Usama bin Laden: A dead nemesis perpetuated by the US government

Pentagon man jailed over spying for Israel
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4633120.stm
"Israel is not spying in or against the United States," said Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Israeli parliament's Defence and Foreign Affairs Committee.

Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html
US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.

Posted by: Israeli Art Student | January 21, 2006 03:36 PM

This doesn't mention Operation 911?
http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

The USA has been bombing Iraq for 16 years. Our "smart" bombs and sanctions have killed millions of Iraqis. Sandy is like the naazis that never knew better!

Horrors of Iraq's mass graves
http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/politics/0000374.php
The killed were killed, the captured were killed, and the injured were killed as well. No one was spared.
Jews were victims of Nazi oppression and "ethnic cleansing" the result of which was the extermination of over five million Jews.

We have been lied to about everything, why not the holocaust?

Posted by: mass graves for the pump and the price is set | January 21, 2006 03:41 PM

Hmmmmm, was there any posts made? Funny could've swore there was something said before.

Oh, well, trollage isn't much to remember anyway.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 21, 2006 03:52 PM

You know, it would have been nice if we could have discussed Osama Bin Laden without the current circus that seems to be going on here. I've heard of emboldening the enemy before, but the chronic stupidity that seems to have taken over this OBL blog makes us look like a bunch of jackasses. If this is the effect Osama Bin Laden has on us, then we are royally screwed.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 21, 2006 04:12 PM

man this board makes you dizzy today.

OK, John. I agree its not a coincidence that a OBL tape pops up when Bush needs a break, lets say right at the beginning of an election year. OBL manipulated the elections in Spain and in the US.

Lets talk about Spain. I don't think people in the US really grasped what went on there. The Spanish were PISSED about Iraq, really pissed judging from the tongue lashing I got at a meeting there in fall 2003. Their government took them into Iraq when they did not believe in the WMD shit (remember their papers were actually reporting the truth and not the neocons manufactured stories). They just needed a spark to set them off, which OBL provided. Then there were no WMD's after all, and they got bombed for participating in an unjust (per John Paul II, whom Bush likes to quote so much when it was convenient) war that by that point had killed many times more innocent Iraqis than 9-11 killed innocent Americans. Now who were they maddest at, 1)themselves for going along with their government, 2)their government, or 3)OBL? All three, but voting out the government expiated the anger for 1 and 2 quite handily.

Now its pretty easy to see that George Bush and company are OBL's best recruiters so its time to toss a match (or in this case a tape or a bomb)into our elections to keep the group in power who will best keep up American imperialism.

I stand by my comment that its becoming crunch time for the Muslims in the ME. And with Iraq winding down, and with it the terrorist generating machine we made him, OBL needs to stoke the fear of American imperialism in the people to sustain his power just like the neocons need to stoke fear of OBL. So its time for OBL to egg the neocons on and get the American people to demand more action. Osama and the neocons is a marriage made in heaven, but it won't end there.

I guess I misunderstood your conspiracy thing. I thought you were saying Bush orchestrated 9-11 to make it look like OBL did it, or he sent VP "go F yourself" to Afghanistan to plot it with the promise we really wouldn't get OBL or his top henchmen - all of which I find to farfetched to believe. But you might be able to convince me of a conspiracy theory that we let him go at Tora Bora so we'd have an exuse to stoke fear of him and keep out troops in the ME. I don't know, I'll have to think about that one for a while first.

ANd Boom! - You're late. About 4 years too late. We got tired of waiting for you and listening to the people crying wolf that you were at the door. We no longer believe you intend to come.

Posted by: patriot 1957 | January 21, 2006 04:18 PM

Emily just wanted to thank you for the plug. Nice to know I'm being read.

http://crazypolitics.blogspot.com

Posted by: Crazy Politico | January 21, 2006 04:28 PM

Wow!
Saturday Morning must be the day they let the loons have computer time as the Asylums, from all the kook posts I have seen here this morning.
And notice the semi literacy of most of the conspriacy posts.

Posted by: dubalb. | January 21, 2006 04:37 PM

Whenever someone speaks the truth, there will be those who feel threatened by it, and they will ask for silence, claiming that the truth is traitorous, hateful, or blasphemous. So, the truth-teller goes silent on this matter, so as not to offend certain quarters, then having made that compromise is more likely to go silent on another matter to not offend another vested interest, then goes silent again and again and again so that this group and that group and the other group will not be offended, and then we are back where we started, with everyone knowing the evils around us, but constrained from speaking out. I won't go there. This is not a popularity contest here. Everything I say pisses someone off. Do I speak blasphemy? Fluently!

Posted by: Americans R Cowards | January 21, 2006 04:37 PM

dubalb

Do you blindly believe everything you have been told by your government? Where the HELL is YOUR proof that Al Qaeda actually planned and carried out the attacks of 9/11? Where the HELL is YOUR proof that Dick Cheney was NOT conducting drills on 9/11 that paralyzed Air Force responses to the real attacks? Where the HELL is YOUR proof that Tower 7 collapsed as a result of the attacks? Where the Hell is YOUR proof that Donald Rumsfeld did not organize an illegal military group (P2OG)that would provoke terrorist attacks which would then require counter-attack by the United States? Where the HELL is YOUR proof that Porter Goss knew nothing about $100,000 that was wired to Mohammed Atta?
Mohamed Atta was using the Jackoff's casino to launder money for "al-Qaeda" and that possibly Atta was involved in a scheme with Abramoff and the mob to smuggle heroin. Where the HELL is YOUR proof that PNAC's call for a "catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor" was only an unbelievably astounding and timely coincidence rather than a statement that should have raised reasonable suspicion?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

There has not been a single piece of evidence presented to the public that corroborates the official government conspiracy theory of the most devastating attack in our history. Think about that.

USA! USA! USA!

Posted by: bladub | January 21, 2006 04:53 PM

Conspricay theories empower human beings beyond their prowess, much like a Hollywood script unduly empowers it's antagonist to further the plot. The neocons masterminding 9/11 gives them far too much credit and is unrealistic. Iraq should be enough proof that the best laid plans of mice and men oft times go astray.
The more realistic interpretation of 9/11 is that our dinosaur of a government was unable to prevent a clever plot by a group of suicidal terrorists. To make 9/11 into some farcical cartoon of Abramoff casinos and the mob is a disservice to the rest of us and makes a mockery of the lessons of 9/11.
Conspiracy theories are fueled by paranoia, not logic. If you removed your own paranoia from the situation, you might see the ridiculousness of your arguments.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 21, 2006 05:09 PM

The single perp here:

1. is a high school student
2. is a high school dropout
3. is a high school expellee
4. watches too many movies
5. is a combination of some of the above

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | January 21, 2006 05:17 PM

@patriot1957 Forget about the term "conspiracy theory". When you freely use that to brand ideas you are coloring your perception of it and that of everyone around you. Base the power of an idea on its own merits.

Google: what brought down the twin towers, and decide for yourself.

This is also a very interesting paper to read: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

I'm not claiming to have answers or facts, I'm just asking questions. Questions that the govt.'s stock answers to do satisfy.

Posted by: John | January 21, 2006 05:23 PM

The biggest conspiracy is to claim that there are No conspiracies!

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/conspiracies_index.html

"We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."
George WMD Bush speaking before the UN General Assembly 11/10/2001

Posted by: slag slag slag | January 21, 2006 05:27 PM

ErrinF

What are the lessons of 9/11?

Bush planned war with Iraq long before 9/11 attacks
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/

August 6, 2001: Bush Administration Warned 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States'
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bin+laden+determined+to+attack+inside+the+united+states&btnG=Google+Search

No wonder the U.S. government is so scared of Google and the American People!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jack+abramoff+mohammed+atta&btnG=Google+Search
Hmm, Muslim hijackers who partied it up with a stripper and cocaine, liked pork chops (see http://tinyurl.com/dkxv3 ), went to a bar the night before they were going to meet Allah , and, as if that wasn't enough, we now find out some of them also went out for "tours to nowhere" on casino boats, and not just any old casino boat, but one owned by lobbyist du jour Jack Abramoff. Why it is almost enough to make a person a conspiracy theorist.

Posted by: Kentucky Fried Kid | January 21, 2006 05:41 PM

BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE

GOP memo touts new "terrorist" attack as way to reverse party's decline
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7639.shtml
The closely-guarded memo lays out a list of scenarios to bring the Republican party back from the political brink, including a devastating attack by terrorists that could "validate" the President's war of terror and allow Bush to "unite the country" in a "time of national shock and sorrow."

USA! USA! USA!

Posted by: Tim Osman | January 21, 2006 05:59 PM

"Now its pretty easy to see that George Bush and company are OBL's best recruiters so its time to toss a match (or in this case a tape or a bomb)into our elections to keep the group in power who will best keep up American imperialism."

Patriot, this is a sentiment echoed by a friend of mine last night. And my response is, to what end? Rallying troops to a flag is only useful insofar as you have a battle to fight. But if your goal is the removal of your enemy, then you don't really want a big marshalling of troops: you just want the other side to get out. And, to me, that's what it appears from the motivations of bin Laden. He just wants the West out of the East. What sent him postal was U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia.

Having a U.S. president who refuses to move out, inciting the populace, and providing an anti-U.S. movement, is not really in bin Laden's interest. Having a non-interventionist president who says to hell with it and withdraws U.S. troops... THAT is within the interest of bin Laden. So the idea that bin Laden (assuming he is still alive) wants the same thing that George Bush wants and that the tape that was distributed furthers that goal... I just don't see it.

Thoughts?

Posted by: Matthew | January 21, 2006 06:01 PM

ErrinF
What are the lessons of 9/11?
Bush planned war with Iraq long before 9/11 attacks
August 6, 2001: Bush Administration Warned 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States'
Posted by: Kentucky Fried Kid | Jan 21, 2006 5:41:07 PM

Yes, Bush wanted revenge for his daddy, and Condi Rice did a crappy job as NSA (worst national security breach ever under her watch). But to orchestrate 9/11 is farfetched. For one, it would be a gamble that 9/11 would lead to more power for Bush. It could have lead to great public unrest and an end to the presidency in 2004. Instead, it seems more realistic that 9/11 was an unexpected occurence that Bush & Co were able to manipulate politically for their own agenda.
As for the Atta-Abramoff connection, I'd like to see more solid proof of what that story is all about and how it could even be relevant to 9/11. There's too much 'guilt by association' in that story, and no explanation of what it actually proves.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 21, 2006 07:24 PM

Johnny G in NE DC writes of the Lefty troll:

"The single perp here:

1. is a high school student
2. is a high school dropout
3. is a high school expellee
4. watches too many movies
5. is a combination of some of the above"

The actual ID of our DU troll is likely to be far sadder than that. With a closetful of self-esteem trophies, he likely went to college. Not much of a girl's kinda guy, he majored in psychology, ethnic studies, or wymmen's studies hoping to get laid more. But despite his degree, he found the world not wanting a white male product of Glendale Community College, despite his "grounding" in multiculti sensitivity...GS-4 or Starbucks clerk were his job offers.

Embittered, his lower lot in life could only be justified if he sought a higher purpose, such as rallying other Government flunkies against the Bush-Hitler or saving Mother Gaia. Or at Starbucks, taking solace in spitting in the cup of a priviledged for life fatcat lawyer.

Sadly, his 30+ posts with changing Internet "handles" but near identical language and links just show he still believes in his self-esteem trophies, and thinks he is smarter than he is.

Now, some sincere liberals DO exist, even patriotic ones....but honestly, how can you not take a little schadenfreude in the marginalizaton of this pathetic creature?

1. No center of power honestly cares about a poor white underachiever, even those that like his DU screeds. GS-4s don't affect outcomes. Nor java jockeys.

2. Liberal powerbrokers like little white Lefty-Boyz, but only when typical parenting maxims are flipped. They should be heard, but never seen in meetings where power and policy are allocated. Minorities eat, wealthy eat, lawyers eat the pie...but Moveon.og whities with no bucks can best serve by whining for others and then dining on crumbs from the meeting.

3. All the extremist conspiracy theories the far fringe Lefties did once are 40 YEARS OLD at their root, thus essentially boring. And a countermedia has arisen to ridicule them. People care about gas prices, corrupt politicians, Bush's many fuck-ups, Democrats fighting for enemy rights....they blow off the "secret Conoco pipeline" theory of the Afghanistan war. To 90% of the public, it's all about payback of the Islamoids that did 9/11, waged poorly to superbly based on their eval of the President. But for that 90% - absolutely necessary to hit the Islamoids there after 9/11 - not indulge in fruitcake ideologue's fantasies.

4. The more they queer up the Democrats, once the Party of Patriotism and the Workingman, the more the Dems infected by the Lefty fringe lose, which makes the Leftys only more fringe and intemperate in their language. A gift they handed Reagan, and the far more incompetent Bush II in 2000,2002, and 2004. Thanks, DU troll!

5. Leaving our troll to wail as his Gaia activists just got indicted for burning businesses, Park Ranger stations. As domestic terrorists. So much for living your life vicariously throgh the "courage" of others who are busy squealing that the burnings were "symbolic panks" and begging their Mommies and Daddies to save them from terror raps. The GS-4 life isn't so hot! Even the outside "heroes" are blubbering...makes a day toiling in data entry suck all the more...

6. If outside the lower tiers of Gov't employment, our Lefty troll has more options to rebel. As minimum wage Starbucks, there is that arrogant lawyer in pinstripes that wants extra spinkles on his Latte`, while totally snubbing & dissing our Lefty as an inferior mere coffee jerker. So Lefty troll spits in the Latte' and feels better. Pity is if it is a pinstriped liberal, rich NYC ACLU Jew whose Daddy was in on tobacco litigation and as a wealthy coupon clipping "junior" is free to treat the troll as the inconsequential subordinate he is, while fighting for "precious terrorist rights". Or our Lefty troll could inadvertently be spiiting on the Stabucks proffering to an Old Blue democrat of wealth outside the Jewish moneyman echelons, like a Teddy Kennedy Boston Bhramin.

**************

Whatever, Lefty troll, keep spitting in the cups of your Masters.

And if I could give you money to keep it up, I'd give you 100 bucks if Reagan was Prez but only 15 bucks under corporate whore Dubya to keep up your Islamoid "enemy-loving" tactics.

Posted by: Chris Ford | January 21, 2006 08:59 PM

The fact that Osama has surfaced again is a testament to our glorious leaders' Bush/Cheney failed war on terror. While Osama has been in semi-retirement apparently reading books at his leisure. He feels comfortable enough to start his own book of the month club recommendations for all of us to read. Why shouldn't he relax we have been doing his work for him. We've brilliantly become bogged down in Iraq turning a generation of young men in the Moslem word into Jihadist. We've moved the center of terrorism from a poor remote mountainous country Afghanistan to the middle of the worlds major oilfields . Everyone happy with $70.00+ per barrel oil from now on? I am.

Now the irony is Osama says he wants to work out a truce. In fact it would appear we've had a truce with him for some time. We let him escape at Tora Bora and he supplies us with a goofy video tape from time to time. Have you noticed that whenever the Bush administration is facing a crisis in the news and needs to change the subject out pops a tape with the raggedy man? Let's see we got one before the 2004 election, one now with Republican scandals in the Congress, the Whitehouse NSA scandal, Alito, Plamegate.

Thanks Osama! We Republicans appreciate your help. Keep reading those books and eating that organic food, Chow....

Posted by: Red Ruffian | January 21, 2006 09:26 PM

Thank God the others must have taken their meds and calmed down! This board got wierd today.

Matthew, you make sense but I think I do to.

I think OBL started out to get our boots out of Saudi Arabia. And he's mostly succeeded. (So did we appease him?) But since we still need ME oil, we're still going to have interests and thus boots in the ME for a long time (even if they're not in Saudi Arabia).

Now I think OBL wants more, and he needs the support of the people to do it. He didn't throw his hat in with the Taliban for nothing. He eschewed the lifestyle of the rich that his family money could have bought him. I think that says a lot about him. He wants to keep Islam from the corrupt Western influences - the loss of modesty, humility,chastity are evils he sees coming and wants to prevent albeit through tyrrany not choice. He's tired of having Muslims be seen as antiquated lower human societies who are in the way of our oil supply. He'd like revenge for the Crusades. Restoring the Caliphate would be good way to sccomplish it all.

He lives in a cave. ANd he was doing so by choice before he was on the run. I don't thnk he cares if he ruins the economy of the ME by spurning oil purchasers. He didn't seem too upset that Afghanistan was transported back to the stone age under the Taliban and I don't think he would care about the rest of the ME either so long as it was a Muslim caliphate living under Sharia.

There has been a huge vacuum of moderate Muslims in the ME. So people have had a George Bush style either/or choice of with the imperialistic Americans or with the Muslim trying to save them from the imperialistic Americans but will bring the Taliban on them. It seemed to be a tossup for a while, many played both sides. But now that Iraq is winding down and we haven't invaded anywhere else and our "shock and awe" was trumped by blow and run, and now that OBL is the one killing Muslims things there are at a real crossroads.

Unless some moderate Muslim leaders emerge to fill the void, OBL needs American imperialism to get the people behind him to finish his goals.

Posted by: patriot 1957 | January 21, 2006 10:55 PM

let me try again. Rereading the above I'm not sure the message is all that focused.

We may be out of Saudi Arabia wrt boots, but we're not out of the ME, and we won't be for the forseeable future so long as they have oil and we need it.

OBL has a long way to go if he wants to remake the ME in the image of the Taliban/Sharia/Caliphate of old. Keep rock and roll and miniskirts out. Lock the customers out (starving the fat cats at the top but unfortunately the people too). And his support is waning a bit now that the common enemy he rallied his support about doesn't seem so threatening any more.

This goes back to a conversation I was having with johnnyg last night that I don't think we finished, but hey ya gotta have a life too. Had we finished the fight in Afghanistan and knocked down al Qaeda before they morphed into a multiheaded hydra and before we built them a recruiting machine in Iraq and had we left enough troops there to keep the Taliban from coming back I think we'd be seeing the fruits of American policy in the ME a lot sooner. Iraq was a giant distraction that may have helped the survivors in Iraq (I think its too soon to say) but sure as hell helped OBL the most.

OBL still needs a common enemy to achieve his full goals of restoring the Sharia and the Caliphate.

Posted by: patriot 1957 | January 21, 2006 11:41 PM

Osama Bin Laden wants a Caliphate that will last a thousand years. Karl Rove wants a Republican majority that will last a thousand years. Sad thing is, both seem more than happy to work side-by-side to achieve their goals simultaneously.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 22, 2006 12:08 AM

ErrinF - they're a good match, aren't they?

Posted by: patriot 1957 | January 22, 2006 12:18 AM

Yes, patriot, where would Karl Rove be without Osama Bin Laden? For that matter, where would he be if it wasn't for the butterfly ballot? It seems that the Bush/Rove era has been the 'Hijack era'. The 2000 election was hijacked instead of won evenly, and the elections since have Bush benefitting from planes being hijacked under his watch on 9/11. Apparently, we live in a world where you seize power and recklessly do what you wish with it. The hapless American voter is simply the passenger on the plane and has seemingly given up control to any and all hijackers, whether it be Al Qaeda or the extremist neocons. It probably doesn't help that our national press is more of a 'suppress' that seems to have been hijacked itself.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 22, 2006 12:31 AM

My conversion to political activist came as quite a surprise to me. I remember hearing the words of Patrick Henry as a kid and thinking they were just words on a page. That came back to me when I saw the lone dissenter in Tiannenmen Square and I wondered where that kind of courage comes from. But in the past few years I've started to understand it and it scares the hell out of me. I think that's why Chris Ford offends me so much - I discovered I love this country much more than I realized when I began to worry that I might be losing it. And I'm actually not really all that liberal, as I've said before my favorite senator is a Republican (Snowe). Maybe its the age thing - just a touch too young to go to Vietnam, then too old to go anywhere else so I never had to face dying for my country personally. I'm still in the "the American people will wake up before it happens here' denial mode, but I am concerned.

I listened to a radio show about the elections today while walking the pooch, and I realized the next elections are STILL going to be decided on electronic machines without a paper trail and we've done NOTHING to fix it before 2008. I think its time to start a letter writing campaign to our state and federal legislators demanding something be done.

What else can we do to fix the election problem?

Posted by: patriot 1957 | January 22, 2006 12:47 AM

Patriot 1957 wrote:
===========================================
"But in the past few years I've started to understand it and it scares the hell out of me. I think that's why Chris Ford offends me so much - I discovered I love this country much more than I realized when I began to worry that I might be losing it. And I'm actually not really all that liberal, as I've said before my favorite senator is a Republican (Snowe)."
===========================================

What scares me is the visiting trolls actually would drink bitter Kool-Aid, then vomit the poison over and over. That they represent a portion of the fringe (either Left or Right) that walks among us.

Even if folks disagree with the direction this country is going, and how to amend the situation, most folks can still reason. Most folks are open to at least hearing new ideas, not entrench themselves into just one belief system.

If a mind is closed, nothing can grow from it.

Even reading Chris Ford's comment above about Dubya and his corporate favoritism, folks can see he's not a happy Bush camper, either. So even though our politics are different, even our Chris Ford's not drinking too much of that Kool-Aid.

So there's hope that the rants of late are but the fringe talking, and that even the ErrinF's viewpoints have two feet in the water too. ;)

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 22, 2006 01:38 AM

ErrinF wrote:
===========================================
"For that matter, where would he be if it wasn't for the butterfly ballot? It seems that the Bush/Rove era has been the 'Hijack era'."
===========================================

That occurred 6 years ago, Errin. After a while the concern becomes but a whine, and folks turn it off. Those who voted aren't going to change sides over that issue (they might on others, if you can reread even Chris Ford's sigh about Bush).

What's sad is that agendas cloud the real rhetoric (better jobs/better pay/better opportunities/innovations/laws that help, not condemn, etc.), and forces more partisanship instead of alliances, which is essential for good government. Partisanship isn't helping America, it's dividing it, it's making bitter enemies, which creates the fringe elements we've seen here.

To add on top of it monies that corrupt our politicians even more -- where is this nation going with them at the helm? And what lies are these so-called "statemen" saying to keep their pockets filled while our dollar buying power is lower than it was 20 years ago? So if someone makes $15/hr their money has a real value of only $7? Do these politicians care about who elected them, or of the contacts and monies they can get from getting to Washington? Even a 2 year congressman can cashin with free healthcare for life and a pension that few others can only dream of -- all for playing a lying game.

No, it's not about who may or may not have stolen an election, it's what caused and fuel the elections of stuffed shirts more interested in saying "I, take credit for..." and lining their pockets with freebies paid by the very citizens who are frustrated that this country is just a bloated money bag (with little real capital inside of it -- just worthless paper).

How about talking about the REAL issues? Not rehashing 6 year-old news that wouldn't persuade any partisan (which seems to be all that votes, since the elections are so narrow in the last 16 years). Let alone if OBL is alive or not (who cares but for political points -- folks want his bones or him in custody for a national trial, the rah rah of his death or if he's alive isn't important) they careless about if he's really dead or not, they just want his butt in a morgue or in court.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 22, 2006 01:57 AM

Neither time passed nor length of post makes an issue invalid, Sandy. As usual, you emphasizie qualifiers for everything. Luckily, people are not as nitpicky and snarky as you are when it comes to debate.
I am entitled to my opinions on Karl Rove, which were apt in the context of the discussion I was having with patriot1957. I suppose you are entitled to blow my opinion out of proportion and out of context of what I was saying, but I would hardly call it apt. By bringing up the 2000 election and the 9/11 hijackings, I was merely pointing out that Karl Rove has benefitted from 'take the money and run' situations that were beyond his control, and that he is not the great mythical political titan he is made out to be. The election of 2006 will prove this when it's all said and done.
How about you talking about real issues instead of desperately trying to pick fights over nothing?

Posted by: ErrinF | January 22, 2006 02:33 AM

By the way, Sandy, what is it with your fast food mentality towards debate? You seem to weigh every issue and post by how much it interests your limited attention span. I'm not here for your instant gratification, so I could care less about your spiteful, petty critiques. Truth is, you don't even pay attention to my posts beyond looking for one little line to go off on some wacky tangent with. Your lazy mind and constant qualifiers are thoroughly boring and do not constitute real debate.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 22, 2006 02:42 AM

ErrinF wrote:
===========================================
"By the way, Sandy, what is it with your fast food mentality towards debate?"
===========================================

Some folks have the ability to say in fewer words what others can't in treatise length posts. :)

ErrinF wrote:
===========================================
"You seem to weigh every issue and post by how much it interests your limited attention span."
===========================================

Read my reply above. I also don't need to play to the looney peanut gallery, also. ;)

Oh, the joys of being an non-partisan! lol

ErrinF wrote:
===========================================
"I'm not here for your instant gratification, so I could care less about your spiteful, petty critiques."
===========================================

How about taking your own beliefs seriously then...

===========================================
"I am entitled to my opinions on Karl Rove, which were apt in the context of the discussion I was having with patriot1957. I suppose you are entitled to blow my opinion out of proportion and out of context of what I was saying, but I would hardly call it apt."
===========================================

BTW, ditto on the apt department. A post filled with screed and yawning about yesteryear (with zero solution offered), isn't quite apt, nor think tank material. It's but more hot air, not much different than the troll fest yesterday.

ErrinF wrote:
===========================================
"Truth is, you don't even pay attention to my posts beyond looking for one little line to go off on some wacky tangent with. Your lazy mind and constant qualifiers are thoroughly boring and do not constitute real debate."
===========================================

How do you know what I read or not, Errin, have a crystal ball? Now proclaiming to be a schizophrenic so you can read minds too??

Tip: never proclaim what you don't know, as it'll come back with ideas of lost mental abilities -- as only loonies proclaim they can read other folks minds directly.

Polish up those debating skills, Errin. Some of us have been debating pros for many years. It's not done in this fashion, since pros have better etiquette, let alone know a few ground rules like above.

Now don't be lazy, let's see content. Let's see more than whining. Let's see some solutions.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 22, 2006 03:25 AM

Now back to regularly scheduled programming...

This column has a nugget of what most folks that I've talked with believe...

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkyNSZmZ2JlbDdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5Njg2Mjg4NyZ5cmlyeTdmNzE3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTM=

===========================================
"Shotsie Gorman, a tattoo artist in Wayne, also believed Bin Laden was alive during all the months when he had no messages for the West. "I just assumed he was always there, somewhere on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan," Gorman said. "Maybe he's not in the best condition or in good health. But he was out there. If he had been killed sometime over the last year, his zealots would have used his death to their advantage and we would have heard about it."

Gorman said he thought it was very unlikely that President Bush would take Bin Laden up on the offer of a negotiated truce. "Not now, not when we're so far into this war in Iraq," he said."
===========================================

Without having the proof that Bin Laden is dead or not, a healthy suspicion that he is still alive, is a good way to not be fooled into believing the guy won't come back to harm again.

OBL is crafty, and undercover and on the run. Which says, unless the public can see and vouch they have his remains (nope, not just assurances he's dead or some DNA printouts), he'll be believed to be alive and still planning the fall of the Western world.

How do partisans who like to live in denial rationalize that al Qaeta isn't going to stop killing, or planning our demise? How can they excuse his behavior/antics/believes with cheap political spin? What do they offer that can bring al Qaeta to it's knees, instead of just taking cheap shots at Bush?

Being all wrapped up in partisanship folks don't seem to see that there's other possibilities (and solutions) to al Qaeta. Problem is folks want to tie the hands to do end their terror, because the fat media overfed partisans are more scared of boogeymen in their own schizophrenic ideas that they're everywhere ready to jump on them (when it's convenient -- domestic spying is evil and such and it can't occur; meanwhile, saying who cares about OBL 5,000 miles away he won't hurt us if we pull out of the Middle East. The hypocrisy is glaring). :rolleyes:

So if OBL is or isn't dead isn't the issue. It's how to dismantle his network so it'll go the way of the dodo.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 22, 2006 03:51 AM

Dear People of the United States Government,

Will you PLEASE stop beating my corpse with that stick?

Sincerely,

UBL

This tape is a precursor to another Zinoist Neocon attack on the US to stampede the US boneheads to support the territorial pissings of Iran. This Boogyman is gona get ya, don't you know. Pure horseshit, top to bottom. What does it take now days for the average "Rip Van Winkle" American to smell a rat?

The Third World War is a financial one and it will be lost by the U$$A!

Posted by: Dubya Dubya Three | January 22, 2006 10:13 AM

Christoid

Why is everyone either on the Left or Right, I'm Pro Life, Pro Gun, Pro Choice, Pro Freedom, Anti Tyranny, Anti Liars.

Are you afraid of terrorists?

Was Jack Abramoff an Israeli Agent?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jack+abramoff+israeli+spy&btnG=Google+Search

"Israel does not spy on the United States of America."
-- Mark Regev, a spokesman at the Israeli embassy in Washington

"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html
-- US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.

The story of the uncovering of the largest spy ring ever discovered inside the United States should be the story of the century, if indeed the US media is looking out for the best interests of the American people. That this spy ring helped drug smugglers evade investigators should be a major scandal, if indeed the US media is looking out for the best interests of the American people. That the spy ring includes companies able to track and tap into any phone in America, including the White House, should be a cause celebre', if indeed the US media is looking out for the best interests of the American people.

Posted by: Ford Naazi | January 22, 2006 10:38 AM

hi, nice to see you reiterating the same points that you regularly do....

rattling the bones of the boogeymen:

al queenda, UseMe ben Alladin....

forward to film shoot:
step over here mister aladin...now we're going to film you coming over here, be sure to get some of those banana republik skee masks on the "rebels," they'll be hot with the klingon tribesmen this year...


these people may be primitive, to some degree but they are being used,


and supporting his terrorist regime, his being bushes....

who's actually the front man for the forces of evil taking over control of you r democracy....not that he knows that, I'm sure he's as mindless ly unaware as he was through most of his youth, being inebriated on power instead of substances....for the first time.

daddy's favorite boy.....rescued from cretin infamy over an d over again.


fear the world people, fear the world, you don't have a right to think about anything but the president being your leader....is he? how so, does he represent you, your interests?

show me....


debate is fine as a first step, but actual examination of facts is what engineers do...


we don't build bridges on opinions, unlike some, who would have you build entire worlds on their fear inspiring rants of deep ly dangerous terrorists....not that some haven't been created as of now....

again: over 4.5 million illegal aliens through the borders of the united states in 5 years.........


how much land is held by foreign internationals......that don't give your country the same privelege.....why is that? because they know better? Japan owns the bulk of Hawaii....how much land can you own in Japan?


the french and english have already had their revolutions where they disconnected a significant number of the affluent from the pulse of the economies.....and the affluent learned to respect the rights of their peasants, defenestration is a french word meaning to throw someone out of an open high window.....has a certain appeal doesn't it?


we're still a young country...maybe we don't have to go to such extremes if our leaders would just give us a piece of the pie too, maybe "contain" alongside of the former blue collar factory workers kids that couldn't find a job because their factories have been moved to third world countries by owners that don't recognize their citizen ship as requiring them to think about the effects of bottom lining every decision that they make.....


for example:

HOOVER moved over seas last year, eliminating 3,000 jobs after a year of record breaking profits.......

again: you pay for unemployment problems, alcoholism, spousal abuse, social service programs.....they just reduced foodstamp benefits by $380 million as they increased tax breaks for the affluent....


these are discernible, recognizable issues not some


boogey man issues......


bread and circuses.....google that

don't you want something besides a circus in washington.....

Posted by: hey, nice to hear some intelligent debate amongst the squeakers.... | January 22, 2006 12:21 PM

because he represented people that were afraid of losing their control over the economy.....


not people who were afraid of communism....


communism is a boogey word like god....

the roman empire usurped christianity in the 4th century....it was becoming too popular....

people thinking that they could find gawd within.....can't control people like that...so they bought it an d passed laws about how you could be a christian.....only if you did certain things....HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE, spawned the Roman Catholick Church as a tool of power...ever wonder why other christian groups don't get saints....it's against church law to recognize a saint outside of the RCC....

many hindu, sufi, buddhist people recognize JC as legitimate...but the RCC don't.....bad for business if the church is used for control....


PROTESTants....protesting against Romes attempted control of their leaders and politics....

seperation of church and state? seperating ROME from the power axis......


power over, bullying, gawd-fearing-using-greed-money-to-control....


why else does the RCC say that a country with over 70% aids should be abstaining?


inquisition.....fear, crucification, throwing people to the lions.....ROME get it, it's part of your fear based history...you flinch everytime someone mentions gawd....


you don't get happy


what the hell is with that?

you want to prevent people from being autonomous you take away their right to think and connect to spirit in a way that helps them to connect to themselves...


hamsters on a wheel, consumerism, fat americans....your president selling you his addiction to fear....along with his barking dawgs.....


ever see a dawg that's been mistreated until it doesn't trust anyone.....won't look at you, lowers it's head....

Posted by: why do you think McCarthy destroyed the fil m industry?..... | January 22, 2006 12:36 PM

"Bread and circuses"? Christ, the troll doesn't even know Roman history, and going around with that remark, then proclaiming it can debate? Nevermind can't post on topic anyway.

Which brings me to this tidbit...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12198590&method=full&siteid=50143

Apparently not only Americans don't know if the crapper is alive or not -- not even his supporters.

Bait and switch, bait and switch...

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 22, 2006 12:50 PM

Emily,
Please start another thread. The ratio of trash to substance on this one is far to high to justify waiting for it to load for those of us who don't have access to broadband.

Thanks

Posted by: Cayambe | January 22, 2006 01:16 PM

actually Cayambe, its not even worth it with broadband. I'm puttin' on my hiking boots an' gettin outta here while the sun is still shining and its not snowing yet.

Posted by: patriot 1957 | January 22, 2006 02:51 PM

this "French Reovolution"

dimbulb.

Posted by: Marie Antoinette twit, and what's an operative doing pretending to be an honest poster....cant post | January 22, 2006 03:08 PM

Ford Hanzi -

The stakes are high enough now that Zionists have lost a good deal of their power to dictate American foreign affairs. The big vulnerability of our system is it's permiability to money and zealous efforts on behalf of nations we don't as a nation feel as passionately about. Thus, Zionists and their gullible Christian Zionist fundies produced America's lop-sided tilt to Israel, the Cuban Americans control our Cuba policy, and Owner Class Americans with heavy money in China trade sway the powerbrokers into waging economic war against middle America.

The pro-Israelis here are hurting on several fronts.

1. The Open Borders influential Jews advocate have led to mass immigration of Muslims that now match the Zionists in numbers, if not clout. Who are as zealous as any Zionist, and active in politics and intimidating by litigation here - following the AIPAC/ADL blueprint..

2. Half the Jewish community is more true to their communist roots than Zionist ones, and that half now sees transforming America into a less Christian, more court-directed secular society that "reform" Jews prefer as a more pressing need than supporting Zionist colonial expansion. That dilutes the strength available to the Zionists. The Jewish multibillionaires like George Soros, Peter Lewis, Bing plunck their money into the ACLU, Moveon.org, the DNC..not West Bank settlements.

3. The neocons got discredited. People now openly laugh at Michael Ledeen with his "1st Iraq, then Syria, then Iran - Faster, America! Faster please, talk" on the strategy of using big, dumb America to smite Israel's enemies at great cost to America, but none to Israel's coffers.

4. The sale of secret American military technology by Israelis and their large spy rings have been noted, though the mainstream American media is always reluctant to run stories on either subject (just like with traitorous Islamoids, enemy symapthizers here) out of fear that the American public might become *biased*.

That said, for all their many faults, like oppression of Palestinians, dual loyalty or no loyalty issues, or Jews at the ACLU using the courts to Christian-bash, Jews on the whole contribute more to America than they harm. Israel is a better nation than Egypt or Iraq, with more human rights, more innovation, a more vibrant culture that makes significant global contributions in numerous fields advancing human civilization.

1. Jews aren't sawing people's heads off or flying planes into buildings.

2. We - if we have a lick of brains - see Islamoids with nuclear weapons as a far greater threat than Jews, French, or Chinese with such devices.

3. Islamoids and "moderate Muslims" both have used Israel as a crutch for their failures. If we look at the Muslim world honestly, you will see the paranoid remnants of a decayed civilization. One blessed with oil, but one cursed by lack of rule of law, stunted intellectual inquiry, endemic corruption, and no democratic traditions. With a sense of perverted entitlement that says any land conquered at any time by Muslims from Christians, Jews, Hindis, Buddhists, African animists is therefore Muslim forever and any level of butchery is sanctioned to regain Andalusia, Palestine, etc. Worse, that any new land is fair game for conquest by the sword or their baby-breeder female chattel.

4. While Jews have had historical assimilation problems, from their own flaws or anti-Semitism of their hosts -nothing matches the modern Muslim problem of conscious refusal to assimilate in lands where they are minorities while demanding infidels assimilate, convert, accept second class discriminatory status if they refuse to convert, or die --in lands where Muslim majorities exist.

5. It has been noted that Muslim writers and scientists can be world-class, but only if they escape the stultifying Islamic culture and do their work elsewhere. As is, the country of Spain, no world leader, publishes more new books than the whole of the Ummah from their Detroit oupost to the Core of Islam to their outpost in Melbourne manage.

6. The Pope has noted that Islam may never reform, because the Koran is held by all observant Muslims as unchanging, immutable world of God with strict laws on dealing with Jews and other infidels different than those according fellow believers, strict laws in other areas of society. While the Hadiths added on top of the Koran may change, be modified, it is hard to see the rejection of any pat of the Koran. In short, it may be impossible for Muslims to live peacefully alongside any other culture for any length of time. There will always be "bloody borders" and immediate suppression of other cultures if Muslims become the majority or have control of the institutions of power. Jews have avoided that except for a brief period in the Soviet Union...and even then their suppression and killings of others was not religiously-based.

7. While other cultures have had women in a subordinate status to men, studies of present and past civilizations show women were given a big presence and sometimes principal say in certain spheres - the household management, religion, art, external purchases, child education. Islam is founded on a culture that only a few other cultures - warrior cultures - had. Women are 2nd class in every sphere. Jews have been adaptable in ways that Muslims have not been and are "fitting" far better into a modern world that is fully using the minds and abilities of women, not just their wombs. Some say that this still gives the Islamists the edge, since they believe as Lefties that the rest of the world is morally obligated to take in surplus Muslims from lands where they have outbred the ability of a nation to use the geometrically growing Muslim numbers, or even support them with basics ---but that presumes the infidels will still honor that "moral obligation" to accept Muslim masses when it looks to be suicidal for a civilization to do so.

Posted by: Chris Ford | January 22, 2006 03:18 PM

Oh, YES!

Emily, please, please, please blog something on this subject...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/21/AR2006012100091.html

In case folks don't know on either side of the political aisle: this program also is affecting everyone on Medicaid and SSDI, not just seniors. Those on Medicaid (children and chronically ill) will now have to get their medications from a *seperate* Part D provider. The thing is there's zero info being sent out of the plans, let alone if the State will pay for the premiums (and any co-payments). And drug cards from the Part D insurers haven't arrived yet (we're told to just show the pharmaist the Medicaid letter instead -- which before has gotten medications denied as the pharmaist doesn't know if a person is in fact in XYZ Part D plan).

Whoever thought of this rollout plan needs to join ex-FEMA's director, as they knew this was coming a year ago, and STILL haven't sent concise info to patients -- and we only have upto May to decide anything before we're penalized (yes, pay a penalty for not enrolling sooner).

There needs to be more media attention to this issue, and before folks literally die (which isn't an exaggeration -- some meds can't be stopped abruptly without dire consequences).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 22, 2006 03:31 PM

Polish up those debating skills, Errin. Some of us have been debating pros for many years.
SandyK
Posted by: SandyK | Jan 22, 2006 3:25:47 AM

Please, lecture me more, Miss Pro. You suck at debate, Sandy, and I don't need a crystal ball to see that your assessment of my posts is shallow and petty. You have a 'holier than thou' attitude that just isn't backed up by any capability on your part. I take my own beliefs seriously, but I do not take you seriously as a 'debating pro' at all. The only whining going on is coming from you in your usual fit of histrionics.
I particularly like the 'know-it-all, talk-down-to-others' approach you have adopted, as if you don't know what an ass you're making of yourself by acting so pompously. Like you're even valued as a great mind around here. GMAFB. Great minds don't need all the qualifiers and excuses you depend upon when you supposedly debate.
Speaking of, there is no real debate here. I made a comment to patriot1957 about Karl Rove, and you being the overly emotional simpleton you are, you took one line out of that and went off on some nutty tangent that had nothing to do with anything I said, and everything to do with your adversarial nature. Whenever I've actually engaged you in debate in the past, you always find some excuse to cry sour grapes and back away from the debate. Why should I waste my time when it's obvious you'll do the exact same thing this time around? In fact, you ARE already doing your usual sour grapes routine of declaring that everything I write and post is inadequate, offering no proof to back up your claims besides your own whims of the moment. Do you think for one second I think your words have any bearing when you don't ever back them up with any substance? Your last post to me proves this.
If anybody here is guilty of 'screed and yawning', it is the self-inflated debate amateur known as SandyK. I look forward to her sour grapes response which I'm sure will once again revolve around whining about her comfort factor. By all means, bitch and moan all you like about me, Sandy. I could give a rat's ass about your petty, pointless snipes, and will continue to post here all I like regardless of what you say or think. : )

Posted by: ErrinF | January 22, 2006 03:40 PM

some meds can't be stopped abruptly without dire consequences.
SandyK
Posted by: SandyK | Jan 22, 2006 3:31:32 PM

Exactly, Sandy. Please, get back on your meds at once so the rest of us don't have to deal with the dire consequences. : )

Posted by: ErrinF | January 22, 2006 03:52 PM

ErrinF are you upset? If so, take a vacation (a l-o-n-g one, like over to Daily KoS where your kind inbreeds).

Oh, and are you now wishing to condemn those on Medicaid? Is this "compassionate" Democrat idealism now?

Enquiring minds would like to know what does *lie* in the hearts of these new wacko Dems. They sold out the unions; agreed with NAFTA; willing to sabotage national defense. So why aren't we surprised they don't care about the poor and disenfranchised as well?

Ball's in your PR destroyed court now, Lefty. :)

Like I said, you have to brush up on your debate skills as you landed in that snakepit all by your lonesome.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 22, 2006 04:32 PM

ErrinF screeded:
===========================================
I could give a rat's ass about your petty, pointless snipes
===========================================

But keeps coming back to like a hypocrite for double scoops. ;)

BTW, is it the Dem's agenda of wanting grandma to die now too? You know Euthanasia and all? You know anyone not Ivory tower material who disagrees with Dem agendas? And what is it with cozying up with OBL? Would you guys invite him over to bomb the White House or such to get Bush, too?

What does *lie* in the black hearts of Dems today?

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 22, 2006 04:45 PM

Not upset, Sandy. Just worried that you're off your medications.
I don't go to blogs like Daily Kos that are slanted towards the Left. I'm not a Lefty, and don't represent Democrat idealism. I'm for third parties and independents, so I rarely vote for major parties, though I'll probably vote Democrat in 2006 like the rest of the country, as I feel it is necessary to correct the system. The Republicans are full of corruption, and that is what sabotages national defense. Beyond that, there is no emphasis for me to defend the Democrats on unions and NAFTA.
Instead of doling out empty advice to me, take some some of your own advice and fix up your own debating skills. You haven't even given me anything to debate... you just baselessly call me a Lefty and say that now I must defend the Democrats. There's no snakepit here, no nothing. Just your usual one-sided blatherings touting yourself as some sort of expert debater. What an ass you make of yourself every time you do that.
Please, just take your medication, Sandy. You can start with a chill pill, or maybe a happy pill. : )

Posted by: ErrinF | January 22, 2006 04:48 PM

Wow. Suddenly the 'moderate Republican' is frothing at the mouth about Democrats like a reactionary extremist. Nice fit of histrionics there, oh skilled debating pro!
Like I said, I could give a rat's ass about your petty snipes, SandyK. That doesn't mean I won't engage you in debate.
If there's any hypocrisy here, it's you claiming I'm such a horrible debater, and yet you can't stop focussing on me. You claim I give a rat's ass about you because I'm engaging in debate with you. Couldn't the same be said about you giving a rat's ass about me since you are engaging me in debate so passionately? Hell, you picked this fight with me first, Sandy. I'm of course going to defend myself against an idiotic spaz like you, but that doesn't mean I picked your post out of the blue and started attacking. And yet, you did that with me, so there's some obvious merit to my debating skills if I'm so fortunate to have caught the eye of a well seasoned debate pro like yourself.
Upset, Sandy? Try taking your medicine for once.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 22, 2006 04:58 PM

Chris Ford wrote:
===========================================
"The stakes are high enough now that Zionists have lost a good deal of their power to dictate American foreign affairs. The big vulnerability of our system is it's permiability to money and zealous efforts on behalf of nations we don't as a nation feel as passionately about. Thus, Zionists and their gullible Christian Zionist fundies produced America's lop-sided tilt to Israel, the Cuban Americans control our Cuba policy, and Owner Class Americans with heavy money in China trade sway the powerbrokers into waging economic war against middle America."
===========================================

That "lopsided tilt" is there because Christians feel Israel is a holy land, and they're more interested in protecting it. They'll use Jews for that means.

And as long as money flows both ways, the Israeli extremists will have a toehold in US goverment as well (along with opportunists that wish to spy for them) -- especially the dual citizen types who feel more tied to Israel than the USA.

The USA should renounce dual citizenships, because if a citizen isn't interested in this country's affairs and it's benefits, he needs to emmigrate elsewhere.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 22, 2006 04:58 PM

Patriot1957 clings to his time warp:

"This goes back to a conversation I was having with johnnyg last night that I don't think we finished, but hey ya gotta have a life too. Had we finished the fight in Afghanistan and knocked down al Qaeda before they morphed into a multiheaded hydra and before we built them a recruiting machine in Iraq and had we left enough troops there to keep the Taliban from coming back I think we'd be seeing the fruits of American policy in the ME a lot sooner. Iraq was a giant distraction that may have helped the survivors in Iraq (I think its too soon to say) but sure as hell helped OBL the most."

There are indeed people that think this is still simply a GWOT, not a long-term struggle of ideology. Ironically, Bush was one of them for the longest time, like Patriot1957, until sense was finally beaten into Dubya's head. In this mindset, the "evildoers" directly responsible for 9/11 are the ONLY problem and if we can just "get" the White Whale, all will be good in the universe again.

In this meme, our "failure" is the inability, supposedly, of a global superpower, to militarily walk and chew gum at the same time. Like "being tied up in Grenada made us "powerless" to pursue strategies against the Soviets, etc. Thus, the only thing that mattered, "getting Bloefeld" in this real life version of a bad James Bond movie, and in "getting him" collapsing the entire radical Muslim ideology was "lost" as our gum-chewing soldiers were "distracted" by a walkabout in Iraq. Worse, innocent bystanders of the Religion of Peace who were just sitting around on the Arab street became (angry) (enranged) (frothing at the mouth) instead of following the usual Religion of Peace pursuits and were forced, yes forced, to join Al Qaeda and fight the infidel.

Some obvious points for the Lefties:

1. Saddam not only supported terrorism against Israelis, he also seems, as evidence finally coming out of the Bush incompetents reveals - to have been running 3 major terrorist training camps for foreign Arabs. And have developed an indigenous terror force.

2. All those who say the White Whale must be hunted down at all costs grow immediately silent when they are called on their bluff to OK, Formally Declare War on Pakistan and invade....Since the SOB IS IN PAKISTAN!! They want no part of that. Just the whining "Where is Osama, Bush-Hitler???" is all they want for satisfaction. They definitely don't want the massive casualties a Pakistan invasion would cost given their bleating over the "unacceptable" losses of only 2200 so far in a major global war.

3. Al Qaeda has stupidly not gone with "new talent" exclusively, but stripped out some of their European and Arab country cells to wage "The Mother of All Battles" in Iraq. We have gotten huge windfalls as we capture Islamoids and give the suspects to people the NYTimes and ACLU "enemy civil liberties" fans would disapprove of, but for the fact they are French and Muslims. More and more, we can send an Islamoid off to the lawfully elected and grinning at the "fish" about to fall in their hands - Pesh Merga, Shiites, even Sunni turncoats happy to extract info. Or back to Algerian, Jordanian, French, Saudi internal security staff happy to have heart-to-heart talks well away from NYTimes and ACLU and "Human Rights Watch" scrutiny. Whole networks have been exposed and collapsed in Europe, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc. as the brains of the Al Qaeda activists are milked out...

4. We have accumulated huge intelligence windfalls from capturing Iraqi state secrets. The Chinese, Russian, Saudi, Brit, French, German, UN, Islamoid factions, and American toady boyz of Saddam are know known. Dirt to be used on them privately. Or open public diplomatic airing of dirty laundry. Several Lefties in the West have already been poltically destroyed by revelation of their "dirt file".

A big downside, as criminal morally as the "enemy civil liberties" gang causing thousands of additional American casualties by their revelations of US intelligence efforts - is the incompetence of the Bushies in exploiting only a fraction of the Iraqi windfall by claiming only a minute fraction of the 3 million Arabic speakers can be utilized in exploiting the Iraqi intelligence - that has also cost American lives. We have, thanks to Steve Cambone and others in the neocon ranks - barely begun to use Saddams spy networks and dirt accumulation for fear Republican and Jewish fatcats will be fingered.

5. We have demonstrated we can, if we want to, destroy any Islamoid regime that defies us, with light casualties and rapid speed. Only when we attempt "nation-building" can Islamoids wage guerilla war and count on the liberal Jewish power centers in America in the media and the ACLU to help them. The Islamoids have to calculate the odds that America, if called out as Saddam stupidly did..will squish their regime like bugs and do so cheaply, or spend immense treasure and significant casualties trying to rebuild and make a better bug. Libya and KSA, for starters, are worried about America just stopping at the squishing stage. We got huge gains out of Libya and KSA's re-reckoning. The Iraq war ended the AQ Khan nuclear proliferation network.

6. Sneer as Lefties want, but Iraq shows that democratic opportunities gained by expenditure of American treasure and blood matter far more as a force of change than Lefties lecturing what Grand Victims Muslims are of the Evil West.

7. Historically, the Iraq War will likely be seen as a necessary, unavoidable war. A sign that Muslim or even as time passes, Zionist intransigence will not be tolerated. A war that netted huge gains in the conflict against radical Islamist ideology by showing the US wants positive change, has no interest in "taking" nations oil reserves, happily leaves Saudi Arabia, Destroying Lefty memes like "It's ALL about the Oil", in the process. It will be full of hits on the Bushies for fighting war on the cheap, for subordinating the struggle against radical Islam to higher goals of tax cuts for the wealthy and involving a tiny part of America and the West in the war - while insisting enemy immigration continue, domestic matters be utterly neglected, and "let the good times roll" for America's Richest 1%.

Posted by: Chris Ford | January 22, 2006 05:03 PM

ErrinF forgetting to take her Haldol screamed:
===========================================
"Wow. Suddenly the 'moderate Republican' is frothing at the mouth about Democrats like a reactionary extremist. Nice fit of histrionics there, oh skilled debating pro!"
===========================================

Pssst...I'm not a Republican. In your amateur sleuthing, let alone debate skills, you are failing another debate asset: facts.

But, let's read more about these "histrionics". Been reading Freud (or seeking Carl Rogers group therapy) of late to avoid neurolyptics?

:x

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 22, 2006 05:05 PM

Chris Ford wrote:
===========================================
2. All those who say the White Whale must be hunted down at all costs grow immediately silent when they are called on their bluff to OK, Formally Declare War on Pakistan and invade....Since the SOB IS IN PAKISTAN!! They want no part of that. Just the whining "Where is Osama, Bush-Hitler???" is all they want for satisfaction. They definitely don't want the massive casualties a Pakistan invasion would cost given their bleating over the "unacceptable" losses of only 2200 so far in a major global war."
===========================================

But chances are OBL won't be in Pakistan when an all out strike is launched. He'll infiltrated into Iran before them (as one of his spies will tip him off).

Then we'll have the Iran problem to deal with, and with the state of our military (which Rumsfeld has gutted), our forces are in no shape to attack Iran.

The problem from the beginning is believing a fantasy of democracy will cure all. For societies that don't understand what democracy is, they're not going to know how to apply the freedoms if it's foreign to their way of life (just look at what Russia is facing -- 1,000 years of dictators, they have no clue how to run a "free" government). Bush and Company seriously underestimated the problems of nation building, with the false sense of security from the USA (where 200 years of experimenting got us this far). The Middle East will have to have 200 years of experimenting with democracy in their region as well.

If the USA really wanted OBL's hide they would've gotten him by now. So they have other reasons to keep him out and about, and those ideas don't look very pleasant.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 22, 2006 05:21 PM

Well here's what's evident:
1) That bin Laden, alive or dead, is still some sort focal point of our collective anger and imagination;
2) That we are either pleased or angry with the national manipulation of public feeling engendered in the current Bush administration; and
3) That we feel comforted (but still angry) or discomfited (and angry) by the prevailing conditions in our country and the world.
Psychologically, we've some mending to do, apparently. We have stories and understandings with holes in them. Errin and Sandy, stop feuding; you're closer in your beliefs than you care to admit. It definitely serves some purposes to have us believe that we stand on opposite sides of an unbridgeable divide. We do not. We all (well most, probably) writing here mean to contribute to some broader understanding of issues and to help move our country in directions that honor and continue the noble ideals that were in-built in its founding.
The above debate stems, in great part, from the fact that none of us can agree with certainty that the "tape" represents an actual individual; and if it does, what meaning, implication, and threat reality is represented. Our government leadership has left the door open to our suspicions, and that serves no one's ends. A bunch of other stuff is also going on, not the least of which is mergers of already powerful industry and business giants consolidating vast resources of money and power. These same entities are represented by lobbyists that have been rabidly buying preferential treatment from our government. Somehow these highly effective "special interests" have been allowed to thrive while political rhetoric has been used to chastize legitimate special interests representing citizen (individual and group) issues.
Errin is right in pointing out that the present administrative era began with some shaky election stuff. K.R. is less than a degree of separation from an indicted leaker of state secrets. We have an innundated region that needs recovery and rebuilding and we don't have a plan. In an age where most western countries are getting more progressive, we are being urged to go backward. An honest assessment has to allow that this is an administration with some serious credibility problems. PR might mask them, but won't resolve them.
My point is that the emergence of a "message" from bin Laden serves to remind us of the complexity of our issues. Hopefully it will remind us of the need to have clear minds and vision. We need to see near future and far. It will be about ten years before the New Horizons research probe reaches Pluto; what will our country look and feel like then? It is up to the good and serious minds here to think longer term than tomorrow. Up to those who will to move past name-calling and try to see truth and to take constructive action to advance our country's best ideas. But, if it's more fun to hack at one another instead of finding where we can grow and build, I guess that's the latest trendy sport.

Posted by: Jazzman | January 22, 2006 05:38 PM

What is up with Errin and SandyK? I agree with Jazzman, we need to be finding common ground here.

Is this the SandyK who months ago told us she was a Marine, and whose posts were militarily conservative but generally centrist and usually thought provoking? Maybe I remembered the name wrong, but I sure wish she'd come back. I don't know what to say to Errin except maybe put the safety on your buttons so Sandy has to work harder to push them? Hey, let Gotham push them instead (not):)

Anyway, having just negotiated the minefield of the Medicare drug plan for my mother, next time I think I'll just walk on a bed of nails, it'll be easier.

The people having the most trouble are the Medicaid plus Medicare beneficiaries, of course these are the people least likely to have the resources and the knowhow to negotiate the minefield. And yes, commonly used heart drugs can kill you by abruptly stopping them - the beta blocker family. I expect some will die from this.

What I found was that the costs listed by the plans frequently didn't add up to what they said promised they were. The explanation of the donut and when the senior would reach it and what the out of pocket expense would be after that was extremely unclear, and there were just too many damn plans to understand all their nuances.

In the end my mother chose no plan. She is fortunate enough to have a New York State senior drug plan (EPIC) that negotiates lower prices and allows her to fill prescriptions for 100 pills at a time that turned out to be a better deal for her. Adding the Medicare drug plan was actually going to cost her more money because the Medicare plan only lets you fill monthly and has a monthly fee to boot, and has a huge donut that she will hit in about 5 months.

Posted by: patriot 1957 | January 22, 2006 06:12 PM

Pro debaters should get their facts straight, Sandy. Erin is a female name, and perhaps Errin is sometimes too, but in my case, Errin refers to a male. That you can't get that fact straight shows you can't even hold up to your own standards. What a pro.
However, I am pro enough to admit that you do indeed describe yourself as a a moderate conservative, not a moderate Republican. My mistake. Either way, your histrionics over the Democrats and OBL were not moderate in the slightest. Your hysterical temperament prevents you from being anything but an extremist.
Beyond that, you again leave me nothing to debate against, just a bunch of empty ramblings on your part. Bottom line is that you are way out of line when you insist the 2000 elections cannot be discussed within our current Debate topic. When discussing a hijacker like Osama Bin Laden, there's room to mention how the 2000 election was hijacked, and how the hijackings of 9/11 also hijacked the political arena in 2002 and 2004. This is an election year that includes many of the same players as the 2000... like it or not, there is still sentiment out there that things have been too out of control since 2000 and that 2006 will probably be the year that all gets reigned in. The worst part is how shallow SandyK's reasoning has been on the topic, instantly discreditting any notion of any relevance to the 2000 election anymore. If she wants to partake in an ostrich act, so be it, but don't think she'll drag me in with her. That Sandy thinks we're all here for her comfort level is ridiculous. You won't hear me trying to silence people out of petty snarkiness. Meanwhile, spastic Sandy is just itching for a fight and looks for any excuse to deride the posts of others. GMAFB

Posted by: ErrinF | January 22, 2006 06:29 PM

THIS PUTS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ONE DEGREE OF SEPERATION FROM THE 911 HIJACKERS, HEROIN, & BRIBERY!

Bush Pioneer Jackoff Abramafia /
9/11 Islamic Terrorist Mohammed Atta
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jack+abramoff+mohammed+atta&btnG=Google+Search
Prior to the events of September 11th, 2001 chief hijacker Mohamed Atta and several of the other 9/11 hijackers were reported to have made multiple visits to the SunCruz casino cruise ship off the Gulf coast in Florida. [24] This has led some to speculate that Mohamed Atta was using the casino to launder money for al-Qaeda and that possibly Atta was involved in a scheme with Abramoff and the mob to smuggle heroin. [25] To date none of these allegations has been confirmed or investigated.

In May 2003 Black was succeeded by Leonardo Rapadas at the recommendation of the Guam Republican Party. He was confirmed without any debate. "Fred Radewagen, a lobbyist who had been under contract to the Gutierrez administration, said he carried that recommendation to top Bush aide Karl Rove in early 2003."

Posted by: Karl (traitor) Rove | January 22, 2006 06:34 PM

what is GMAFB

Posted by: | January 22, 2006 06:34 PM

Jazzman and patriot1957, I hear you loud and clear. This fracas with Sandy is empty and pointless. I was having a discussion about Caliphates (both Muslim and Republican) with patriot, when she suddenly attacked me. Since then, I have got nothing but the usual treatment from her except the usual run of adversarial pettiness.
I will desist from enagaging her anymore in deference to your concerns, but I will say that I don't regret our argument because it demonstrated that she is neither a pro debater nor a moderate conservative. I too was surprised by her sudden vehemence towards the Democrats, when before she was holding both sides of the aisle accountable for doing a cajones-free job of dealing with Osama Bin Laden.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 22, 2006 06:37 PM

GMAFB = Give me a f*cking break. It comes in handy here.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 22, 2006 06:38 PM

It did cross my mind to wonder if someone else in her household was posting in her name. I can even say I learned a thing or two from her before. But not in the last two days....

Posted by: | January 22, 2006 06:47 PM

this aint no woman...can't you tell?

I mean c'mon, he fits the profile of an abusive male....


strutting, sneering....


I'm alright with that, but basically, it's to cover inadequacy, like all body builders.....they make the rest of themselves real big to hide what they don't have a lot of.....


bullying, name calling, labeling

and bin laden is not the issue, it's simply a symptom of a propagand a machine that is out to roll ove r the us electorate a nd convince them that they don't want to look behind the curtain of what is going on....

there is no war

there is an occupation by the us military to control an area that is strategically important, and economically essential to your affluent.....


that's what they don't want you to know...


it's quite simple.


it probably even seems plausible to the little men and women that are involved because typically in strategic situations very few people get to look at the big picture, it's done that way on purpose


need-to-know


most people can't see the elephant because they only get to touch the trunk or the leg or the tail....

it's really pretty simple, just imagine the wizard of oz and that scene where TOTO pulls the curtain back....now imagine that the wizard of oz is bush and cheyney and fallwell and delay....

Posted by: actually sandy is a man about 37, 5'9" 183 pounds....cia | January 22, 2006 06:53 PM

To: ombudsman@washpost.com
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/letters/
Ombudsman
What were the alleged 911 "Islamic Terrorists" doing on Super Zionist Jack Abramoff's casino ships? Prior to the events of September 11th, 2001 chief hijacker Mohamed Atta and several of the other 9/11 hijackers were reported to have made multiple visits to the SunCruz casino cruise ship off the Gulf coast in Florida. [24] This has led some to speculate that Mohamed Atta was using the casino to launder money for al-Qaeda and that possibly Atta was involved in a scheme with Abramoff and the mob to smuggle heroin. [25] To date none of these allegations has been confirmed or investigated.

Time: Bush-Abramoff Photos "Suggest A Level Of Contact Between Them That Bush's Aides Have Downplayed"...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/01/22/time-bushabramoff-photo_n_14246.html
"Say Jack, you got any Aye-rabs hanging out on your casino ship we could use as patsies in a fake terror attack?" -- Official White Horse Souse

What's not right about the Osama Bin Laden audio tape.
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/5747167.html
Bogus tape alert! The Bin Laden tape plugging Bill Blum's book Rogue State is a ridiculous neo-con forgery intended to tarnish the progressive left.

U.S. accused of spying on those who disagree with Bush policies
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/politics/13675006.htm
I wondered who that stinky guy hanging around the end of my driveway was.

Real Reasons Why The United States Makes War
http://www.bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=9996
The reasons are multifaceted, though simply put, the aggressive foreign policies we are seeing, the covert activities and the military strong arming used against other nations by the United States are by all accounts, actions used to coerce, intimidate and force others into submission ...in order to plunder a targeted nation's natural resources and to create a conduit for profitable illegal activities.

US Troops told to ignore Opium Crop that is now more than 1/2 Afghan GDP
http://www.bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=9994
When the Taliban was on control of Afghanistan, opium production had been shut down almost completely. In a horrible repeat of the Vietnam era, when Kuhn Sa's heroin flooded the US via "Air America" and the body bags of our Vietnam dead, once again the drug flow into the US is being protected by elements of the US Government itself.

Posted by: M. R. | January 22, 2006 06:54 PM

Before Sandy accuses me of such, I didn't make any of those anonymous posts. I too have dealt with Jekyll/Hyde behavior from SandyK in the past, but I do not post anonymously. Thing is, that was definitely Sandy and not somebody using her handle. Hope you all learned a thing or two about her 'moderation'. Or was that 'medication'? : )

Posted by: ErrinF | January 22, 2006 06:55 PM

If Hitler and his propaganda machine had to deal with blogs, filtering and exposing every single word they say, every f-cking day and night, WWII and Holocaust would have never happened. Dobbs provoking and begging bloggers for recognition yesterday is a perfect example of the US media demise. Matthews , Russert and the rest of these whores are going down and they know it very well. Bush and his whores are going down and they know it too. The partial destruction of two unique, historical, American cities under Bush's watch is enough to ruin these people and their legacy forever. Is it time for San Francisco to complete another trifecta you bloody scum begs? This week I met five homeless people asking me for money, two of them were from New Orleans and being short of 5 bucks after a week makes me really proud American citizen you Bush apologist shameless whores who contribute to this nation absolutely nothing. If by the end of March, Bush doesn't unleash true hell for American people that the Right has been preparing us for the last four years, it will mean that blogs have passed the ultimate test. Maybe you don't realize but the future is at stake and the countdown has begun. The people will always rise up and win but this time Bush neocon nazi clan will act like bloody, unleashed animals whose very survival is at stake. No wonder you can see a desperate horror in the media anchors' eyes. These "controversial" anti-leftist questions are not really their fault, their fault is being silent and treasonous to American people.

Posted by: $ WAPO/4th REICH $ | January 22, 2006 07:09 PM

A bitch on bitch catfight.

ErrinF - "However, I am pro enough to admit that you do indeed describe yourself as a a moderate conservative, not a moderate Republican. My mistake. Either way, your histrionics over the Democrats and OBL were not moderate in the slightest. Your hysterical temperament prevents you from being anything but an extremist.
Beyond that, you again leave me nothing to debate against."

ErrinF, whether you are biologically a bitch ot not is irrelevant. Epistimloglogically, you are a femme bitch outclassed by SandyK. Not That she has great class, just more than you....

Yes, SandyK, Binnie could easily jump the hunt for the single White Whale "evildoer" the Lefties want even if we have the balls to invade Pakistan. Go to Iran, a safehouse in France, a UAE hideout as needed. If we actually followed through with Patsie1957's fastansy to invade Pakistan to get the White Whale, the repercussion would be "Oooooohhhhhh, the humanity!!!" as Patsie1957 would moan as US forces were nuked and nuked in retaliation - to get his "White Whale".

Not to mention how "Patsie1957" would soak his underpants in horror even after his 1st bladder voiding over "dead heroes" and "precious enemy rights violations" happened -- from any move into Pakistan to find the single "Mr. Evil" of the James Bond flicks -- that then created "another terrorist breeding ground".

Posted by: Chris Ford | January 22, 2006 07:57 PM

Chris Ford, that was an ad hominem attack that engaged in Marxist/Mancusian tactics. And here I thought you were above such a thing.
Problem is, it's hard to offend me with terms like 'femme bitch' when you are MY bitch, Chris Ford. I've bitch-slapped you up and down here at the Debate many a time, including a recent episode where you bugged out and typed an all caps spazout post in response to not being able to take the heat from me. That you and Sandy feel the need to waylay me out of the blue is not at all a deterrant to me. In fact, it justs proves that you two are still smarting from past bitch slaps from me. Nice. : )

Posted by: ErrinF | January 22, 2006 08:27 PM

Chris wrote:
6. Sneer as Lefties want, but Iraq shows that democratic opportunities gained by expenditure of American treasure and blood matter far more as a force of change than Lefties lecturing what Grand Victims Muslims are of the Evil West.

At last, we have something with some substance to it.

I certainly agree with you Chris. Our venture in Iraq is THE current force of change in the ME these days. And it is sunk cost, unable to be undone. Whether it will ultimately have a good or bad effect on our national security and our national interests (they are not quite the same animals actually) remains debatable and remains up for grabs.

I remain uncertain as to what our President's real objective in going into Iraq was. Taken together, the arguments advanced include the absurd with the less than absurd and we are essentially invited to pick the one we like best, any one will do. My best conjecture is that he really believes that the development of democracy in this part of the world will advance both our security and our national interest, will provide "freedom" to these people, and that it is his personal destiny, his role in history, to get this done. Whether he takes his religion so seriously that he is convinced this is God's personal instruction to him I couldn't possibly know. Nor does it matter, since the conviction could as easily be derived from logical thinking. He may even have put some degree of belief in the WMD intelligence, but I don't for a minute think he believed this nonsense about some conspiracy between Saddam and Binnie aimed at attacking us. I doubt that you really do either; you know too much of history and political reality for that.

This is, if anything, actually a leftist kind of idea. Weren't there a fair number of Democrats who endlessly faulted GB 1 for failing to chase the brute all the way to Baghdad and string him up back in Gulf War 1 to relieve the suffering Iraqis of their brutal burden? Not withstanding their more current faulting of GB 2 for just "doing it for good old Dad". Kennedy and LBJ certainly endorsed the basic idea back in Viet Nam days. Clinton used it going into Bosnia and Kosovo when it became clear that neither the Europeans nor the UN had the gumption themselves (that is for you OD). I don't know if you would consider GB 1 a rightist or a leftist but he was clearly on the other side of this particular idea. He didn't put us into Bosnia to the distress of many, to include the media, humanitarian Democrats, Muslims, and even a few Republicans. He put us into Panama only as far as necessary to grab a crook and then got out. He limited our incursion in the ME to kicking the brute out of Kuwait, and a limit so rigid as to betray the Shia and ensure Saddam's survival on top of the heap in Iraq, in the name of national interest of course. We know all the complex reasons for that, to balance the Iranian's for the benefit of the Arabian Peninsula, to keep Turkey happy given their Kurdish issues, to keep Syria from growing, and so on and so on. There were certainly no illusions about the benefits or possibility of a "Democratic Iraq", indeed every step possible was taken to secure a continued Sunni dominated Iraq, replacing Saddam with some more reasonable dictator. Alas, we misjudged the brute and his own people's willingness to dump him.

History will misjudge the President on the basis of long term results of our adventure in Iraq. I have judged him already on the basis that it was a mistake for us regardless of the long term results. But even as I judge him wrong, for my nation's sake I must support every effort to have history judge him right, except for doing more wrong afresh. Bush's logic would have us move next into Syria, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, etc. Iran is certainly more democratic that these, is it not? And whose job will it be to bring China into democracy? Iraq today, the world tomorrow!

My question to you, looking at your opinion of the current state of Iran and your conclusions with regard to Iran, is, should we have gone into Iraq, and if so, why? Is it as simple as it is OK if we have the military where with all, and not if we don't? Is it because Iraq was an imminent threat while Iran is not? Is it because Iraq was a center of radical Islamist ideology and Iran is not? What I seek are the causes you think legitimate our invasion by military force of another country, besides actual self-defense (as opposed to pre-emptive self-defense). That is not a left or right question, though one might perceive left or right within the answers.

Posted by: Cayambe | January 22, 2006 09:13 PM

I second Jazzman's and Patriot's motion.

And Errin, the word is "cojones" not "cajones". The former means balls, hanging ones; the latter means boxes, square ones like you find bananas or oranges in, either cardboard or wood. :o)

Posted by: C | January 22, 2006 09:42 PM

you're afraid of the dark....


but you hate the light.


snicker.

Posted by: little boxers can't step outside..... | January 22, 2006 10:25 PM

GB1, GB2....


any school boy can check out the facts.

sr was a lifelong politician, he supported his son's liesure class life and bought him the presidency....


it's real hard but if you can just relax your mind, you might be able to see the connection between having some and needing to pay them off with favors.....


try thinking about the mob, but with leisure suits....what a bunch of sophomoric thinkers.

Posted by: the "president" as you so nobly posted is a front.... | January 22, 2006 10:55 PM


Great content!

"communism is a boogey word like god...."

"I could give a rat's ass about your petty, pointless snipes"

"O'Ben aLaddin might as well be painted onto bushes toe and he's shows him to you over there by the end of the table when you ask him where's your proof....chuckee cheeses dramas have more maturity."

"Please, lecture me more, Miss Pro. You suck at debate, Sandy, and I don't need a crystal ball to see that your assessment of my posts is shallow and petty."

"we feel comforted (but still angry) or discomfited (and angry) by the prevailing conditions in our country and the world."

"ErrinF, whether you are biologically a bitch ot not is irrelevant. Epistimloglogically, you are a femme bitch outclassed by SandyK. Not That she has great class, just more than you...."

ROTF!!! Ya`ll are killin` me!!! Arrgh! *Farts and collapses...

Posted by: cerebral hemorrhage | January 22, 2006 11:06 PM

Cayembe --
Those are good questions and most worthy of consideration. History has the advantage of a long view and that may cast any number of things into visible light then that only can be seen with infra-red or ultra-violet now. However, if some long-term good accrues to the world (when the apple-cart is upset, someone has to pick up the apples and right the cart and sometimes the cart comes out better loaded than it was) maybe it may be viewed as not as bad as might have been. So what might we draw, looking ahead with our best "vision"?
Iraq has elected its first constitutional government. At some point, its assembly will meet and begin the process of attempting to bring the country under law. Initial indications are that the "masses" seem to want some sort of fractionalized structure; national needs may be subordinated under religious and ethnic goals. And there's an insurrection ongoing which doesn't show signs of acquiescing in spite of control being essentially in Iraqi hands. It is a fledgling democratic launch into fairly hostile conditions with little experience or understanding of democratic principles among the populace.
U. S. power and influence, whatever we might wish it to be, is very limited in Iraq. We know why. While there is no question of a full-scale assault against our military there, the forces aligned against the civil Iraqi authority and all foreign powers as well seem confident that if they continue as now, they will eventually create sufficient instability to prevent a successful implantation of democratic process and its popular support.
The middle east has always adopted a "wait-and-see" approach to new ideas. Further, the dominant Islamic leaders in the region do not seem to be embracing new ideas. In a land where beheadings, mass murders of government (police, armed forces, juciciary, etc.) recruits, hostage takings are part of daily life with no one daring to report these acts (do you imagine that in that rather small and fairly heavily populated place these things happen unseen?) the new government has a giant mountain to climb.
So, while elections and establishment of a framework for governance represent some milestones, the heavy lifting is really in putting these elements into effective play. In what time frame will Iraq's government establish sufficient credibility to assert authority, to gain public confidence, to effectively serve all segments of the population? Do we see any popular will that this become so? So far the evidence seems scant. And this is an important element.
Most modern democratically run societies experienced some turmoil - revolution or war, societal angst, earlier failed democracy - that set the stage for a sincere effort to succeed in this type of governance. There is no instance of a nation having democracy imposed on a society that had never before experienced the same. There is no proof that this can work. My logic says that democracy is something that those who so govern themselves must strive for. This is not to say that Iraq's hopes for a stable democracy are impossible; it only acknowledges the historical probabilities which already show signs of fracturing stress.
Looking at the U. S. side of the equation, we may have more at stake than we know. We have a number of issues domestically that remind us of the trade-offs demanded by the Iraq "adventure." Budget concerns, our stature before the world, our own progress in democracy, and an unnecessarily divided population are among the more serious ones. Is there an expectation that time will pass and we will emerge a stronger and more admirable nation? Will time show that we were wise and most other nations a bunch of chicken-hearted idiots? Well it's possible, but is it really likely? Time and time again we get this macho swagger thing and some version of "We'll show them we've got the guts to face them [and then they'll turn tail and run must be the unspoken completion]."
Read the different sides of the blog comments. It's liberal=chicken, conservative=brave. But that's not how it works in the real world. You've got to have a plan that works in reality both now and in the future. Does the action today lead to a future result that works to our credit? History 100 years from today is going to make many things now taken for granted look very different. Like the question "why did Rome fall", there'll be the question of "why did Communism fail?" The answer will contain a lot less of what the West did and a lot more of the unsustainable internal contradictions of the system. But what do I know?
All we have to look ahead is history and experience. If we are not putting those into play with as unbiased a view as we can, we're not likely to see much of the future. I urge you all again (and those who are doing their best to continue) to separate fact from what we'd like to see. The present administration is feeding the country and the world and the media some amazing misrepresentations. It's fighting "tooth and nail" - as my mother used to say - to keep its head above water (how's that for well-mixed metaphor). That only means that its true nature isn't far from what can be easily seen. Let me suggest that they may not be the good guys. What they're really up to may be more related to high-flying lobbyists, new FCC (and internet rules), increased power and influence within the corporate world at the expense of government of, by, and for the people (as meant in the Constitution), and more relaxed regulation for international commerce at the expense of workers everywhere.
And geez, if they can monitor everyone everywhere through the "telescreens" (wasn't that in George Orwell's "1984"?), it's just a little infraction of our freedom, isn't it?

Posted by: Jazzman | January 22, 2006 11:46 PM

All I need is johnnyg joining in on the bum's rush, then I'll get a trifecta.
At least I learned the difference between cojones and cajones, so I guess it hasn't been a total loss. : )

Posted by: ErrinF | January 23, 2006 01:30 AM

Patriot 1957 wrote:
===========================================
"Is this the SandyK who months ago told us she was a Marine, and whose posts were militarily conservative but generally centrist and usually thought provoking? Maybe I remembered the name wrong, but I sure wish she'd come back. I don't know what to say to Errin except maybe put the safety on your buttons so Sandy has to work harder to push them? Hey, let Gotham push them instead (not):)"
===========================================

Nothing has changed other than maybe ErrinF is a little embarassed that her cohorts have trashed this blog. She's in a pickle because she can't admonish them, so she has to play to their wacko and trollish antics (which explains her weird attacks on me, where otherwise she was a tempest on content).

Maybe her meds ran out over the weekend to explain the ad hominems, let alone wanting to trash this blog -- so much WP isn't even listing this thread on the front page.

SandyK
A Moderate Traditional Conservative

Posted by: SandyK | January 23, 2006 02:54 AM

Jazzman and patriot1957, as you can see, SandyK just wants to feud with me. This latest attack from her is entirely baseless, and she still can't get her facts straight that I am a dude.
For the record, here is me admonishing the 'trolls' earlier in this blog:

This has to be the weakest collection of posts I've seen in a while. The majority of it is either wacky conspiracy theories or empty partisan chest-thumping. The lack of actual substance is mesmerizing, whereas the amount of histrionics is downright pathetic. Incredible the ability Osama Bin Laden has to make Americans act like a bunch of panicky idiots.
Posted by: ErrinF | Jan 21, 2006 1:41:55 PM

You know, it would have been nice if we could have discussed Osama Bin Laden without the current circus that seems to be going on here. I've heard of emboldening the enemy before, but the chronic stupidity that seems to have taken over this OBL blog makes us look like a bunch of jackasses. If this is the effect Osama Bin Laden has on us, then we are royally screwed.
Posted by: ErrinF | Jan 21, 2006 4:12:51 PM

Here's Sandy responding to me admonishing the trolls:
Errin,
Just ignore the trolls. They're not here to engage in debate, anyhow.
SandyK
Posted by: SandyK | Jan 21, 2006 2:24:39 PM

I admonish the trolls, and Sandy tells me to ignore them. I ignore the trolls, and Sandy accuses me of being their cohorts, then abandons them all together and claims I am the root of all the trouble on this blog, not them. I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't with such a petty, adversarial person as her. That her last post was completely lacking in substance shows that she's not the debating pro she'd like to think she is.
Sandy, this is very boring at this point. Other debaters have already expressed that they feel you and I are dragging down the debate by feuding. Your only purpose seems to be to feud with me, as you are offering forth nothing to debate substantively, and are just being snarky. This debate between you and I was supposed to be about whether the 2000 elections are relevent in our current OBL topic, and yet you abandoned any discussion of such to instead make snipes at me. You have neither debated me nor been professional, so it is high time for you to start living up to your claims of being a pro debater and to stop dragging down this blog with petty feuding disguised as debate.
That said, I'm done with you, Sandy. You'd drag this out forever if you could, but I'd rather respect the wishes of the other bloggers here and not bog things down with your personal vendetta and bruised ego. Your performance of late has been rather self-destructive, so it's not like I feel I'm at a loss for ignoring your troll-like behavior.
Besides, your medication will kick in sooner or later, so everything will work out in the end. : )

Posted by: ErrinF | January 23, 2006 03:33 AM

You said you were done 6+ posts ago, ErrinF. Look how you trashed this thread with posts upon posts but anything on the subject -- just like the trolls.

Which is why I'm saying you're playing up to your wacko brethen, while the rest of the regulars are trying to keep to on topic (or at least on subjects, not people), which *good* debaters do.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 23, 2006 04:28 AM

Jazzman wrote:
===========================================
"Somehow these highly effective "special interests" have been allowed to thrive while political rhetoric has been used to chastize legitimate special interests representing citizen (individual and group) issues."
===========================================

The Us vs. Them stragedy doesn't play, since either special interest is prone to corruption and dogma. If it's a K Street $$$$$$ warriors, or the grassroots fringe freakzoids, their ideas/wants/needs maybe different, but their approach isn't.

That money flows so well to grease revolution or anarchy is one of the problems we're not addressing (truthfully) in politics/government. Until we do, any special interest is suspect, as they're way too narrowly focused to be concerned about "the common good for all".

The fractions, the bitter partisanship we're facing today is indeed a byproduct of special interests trying to exert their beliefs on the whole community -- be it with smoking; eating at McDonalds; arguing breast milk is the best over formulas, etc., etc.. What happens is once they're in existence and accomplish their goal, they don't want to go back home -- they stay to play other agendas instead (reinventing themselves as a more general special interest group, which is beyond the original intent of their group -- now seen in M.A.D.D.).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 23, 2006 04:43 AM

Jazzman wrote:
===========================================
"Iraq has elected its first constitutional government. At some point, its assembly will meet and begin the process of attempting to bring the country under law. Initial indications are that the "masses" seem to want some sort of fractionalized structure; national needs may be subordinated under religious and ethnic goals. And there's an insurrection ongoing which doesn't show signs of acquiescing in spite of control being essentially in Iraqi hands. It is a fledgling democratic launch into fairly hostile conditions with little experience or understanding of democratic principles among the populace."
===========================================

Which is why time is the only way we'll know if Iraq can govern itself as a democracy, instead of reverting to another dictatorship.

For countries used to monarchs and/or shogunate rule, they'll seek a figurehead despite all the teachings that dictators/monarchs aren't good for democracies. Hitler rose so high and with such devotion because Germans were used to a single ruler dictating control. Iraq and Iran also had the same history. There is no way for us, in the here and now, can predict what way the people in Iraq/Afghanistan will run their countries, but in such trying times folks DO tend to stick with faith (as it doesn't change overnight). Which leads us to a mending of both democracy and religious control (which is especially troublesome and deadly).

All anyone can do is offer them the opportunity to chose their destiny, and some whiny Libs to hold on to their hats and watch how other cultures handle their own business.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 23, 2006 05:03 AM

Sandy wants to feud with me ad infinitum. I'm trying to end this petty feud; She's trying to stubbornly prolong it. It should be obvious to anybody who is guilty of troll-like behavior here. I've said my peace, but Sandy continues to be belligerent for the sake of belligerence. If she were actually a good debater, she would not be dragging down the current debate like she is right now. Like I said before, Sandy is not debating, but is nursing a bruised ego. If I'm so unworthy of her, I'd like to know why she is obsessing over me like this. I did indeed try to end this 6+ posts ago, but she won't drop it. She's had plenty of opportunity to end her feuding with me, but she has made no attempt to do so, instead making numerous attempts to goad me into bickering with her. She hasn't even noticed that I am no longer talking directly to her but am rather talking to other debaters here about her. I am in no way engaging her directly like I was 7+ posts ago. Sandy is simply behaving boorishly now in a rather childish fashion. I hope she stops this histrionic, 'spoiled brat' behavior of hers before it continues to drag down this blog.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 23, 2006 05:08 AM

Errin admitted:
===========================================
"She hasn't even noticed that I am no longer talking directly to her but am rather talking to other debaters here about her."
===========================================

I wrote:
===========================================
"Which is why I'm saying you're playing up to your wacko brethen, while the rest of the regulars are trying to keep to on topic (or at least on subjects, not people), which *good* debaters do."
===========================================

:)

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 23, 2006 05:40 AM

I have no clue what the point of Sandy's last post was, and I defy anybody to make sense out of that one. Apparently, I am playing up to the trolls I admonished because I am disengaging from direct confrontation with her. How about we let it be her final word on the subject, and call it quits? Sound good? Super! Thanks for your time and concern, SandyK. I really grew as a debater by being able to go toe-to-toe with a real pro like yourself. : )

Posted by: ErrinF | January 23, 2006 06:02 AM

Currently you're trashing two threads at the moment, Errin. If you don't realise that, you're hopeless to reality.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 23, 2006 06:08 AM

Hopeless to reality? Look who's talking!!! LET THIS GO, SANDY! Sheesh. You are obsessive. Stop dwelling on how I'm supposedly trashing these threads, and start focusing on how your own actions have trashed this thread. I don't take your critiques to heart because you offer no substance to go with them. None of the last 5+ posts I've gotten out of you have anything to do with debate. Instead, they have everything to do with your own vanity and your bruised ego. Have you read the other posts from people here wondering why you have been behaving like this? When people here expressed the view that you and I (both of us, Sandy, not just me) were dragging down the Debate by feuding, I took the high road and responded to them by backing off. You completely ignored them and continue to provoke a feud regardless of my efforts to avoid continuing this boring adversarialness that is of no benefit to anybody involved. You even decided minutes ago to pop into another thread I was part of to continue our feud over there! So, you pop over to that thread and come out swinging at me, then you pop back over to this thread to complain about me trashing not one but two threads. I'm not trashing threads at all; Rather, I have a vindictive narcissist by the name of SandyK following me around trying to provoke a selfish feud at the expense of everybody else. Really, Sandy, you're being obsessive to the point of being co-dependent. Stop following me around, and stop provoking empty feuds that accomplish nothing.
Of course, Sandy will just ignore this and respond with another provocation. I have no idea where this self-destructive drive of hers is coming from, but she seems determined to run her credibility into the ground by not ceasing and desisting from this strange vendetta she has against me.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 23, 2006 06:53 AM

The reason he can't be found... the reason they keep trotting him out a platter every time the King's (our King, the Bush) numbers and credibility fall still lower... the reason they have to put up bogus tapes that a child can see are not the man who was diagnosed with a severe kidney disorder a half dozen years ago (and whom the US had in its control -- but let walk away -- while he was in Dubai, 2 months prior to "911")...

The reason he can't be found or killed is because he is DEAD.

And no matter how hard the mainstream tries to preserve the myth (and CNN is especially skilled at this lunacy), the word is out, and people do not believe he is alive.

Just as people do not believe the myth of "Flight 93." [Oh yeah, people with cell phones were in contact with people on the ground while flying in the middle of relative wilderness where there are virtually no cell phone towers... nice try.]

And those with access to the intel about who A-Q truly is are happily spreading the news. The game is up, and people understand who is orchestrating the terror -- George Bush and his NeoConmen.

So good luck to you and the MSM. I suggest you get on the internet. BTW, the first to expose Jack Abramoff were the internet blogs, not any official investigative arm... and Abramoff is the key link to the financial underworld that takes us all the way back to BCCI, precursor to A-Q.

Posted by: A-Q | January 23, 2006 09:04 AM

Errin paranoidly proclaimed:
===========================================
"So, you pop over to that thread and come out swinging at me, then you pop back over to this thread to complain about me trashing not one but two threads. I'm not trashing threads at all"
===========================================

I wasn't even at the other thread until I posted and saw your trolling with Gotham. And now, with me.

Some folks are attention "whores" but really, ErrinF, if you need that much attention (and an Oscar for the "poor me" routine), get on a plane to Hollyweird, instead! lol

That said, what content have you talked about for 2 days? You know the thread topic and not personalities??

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 23, 2006 10:32 AM

A-Q wrote:
===========================================
"Just as people do not believe the myth of "Flight 93." [Oh yeah, people with cell phones were in contact with people on the ground while flying in the middle of relative wilderness where there are virtually no cell phone towers... nice try.]"
===========================================

Try seeking facts not fiction...

http://answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=threadview&id=173057

===========================================
From this morning's New York Times: "According to industry experts, it
is possible to use cell phones with varying success during the ascent
and descent of commercial airline flights, although the difficulty of
maintaining a signal appears to increase as planes gain altitude. Some
older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog
networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones
on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A
typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6
miles."
===========================================

Or much less as a captain was no longer manning the plane. Nevermind we have no idea what model of phone all the passengers were using (in 2001 it's very well have been 50/50 analog). I still use an old Motorola analog phone, which is what you want driving in a rural area (less dropped calls).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 23, 2006 10:41 AM

perhaps he needs to wake up and see what a hopeless nasfu that he's put homoself into.....

expecting to win because you can bullshit better is a waste of time,

it doesn't matter what you say it stil l smilles like bullshit....get it?


no thinking involved....you're toats....


ha ha ha ha ....ho ho ho ocme on become what yuo really are a helples ssynchophant to george shorts....

Posted by: gosh the sand man is still trying to put you all to sleep... | January 23, 2006 12:19 PM

perhaps he needs to wake up and see what a hopeless nasfu that he's put homoself into.....

expecting to win because you can bullshit better is a waste of time,

it doesn't matter what you say it stil l smilles like bullshit....get it?


no thinking involved....you're toats....


ha ha ha ha ....ho ho ho ocme on become what yuo really are a helples ssynchophant to george shorts....

Posted by: gosh the sand man is still trying to put you all to sleep... | January 23, 2006 12:19 PM

As someone who has just sat down and read the thread from start to end, let me say one thing;

ErrinF,
You're going to need to drop it. Don't post about it anymore. Sure SandyK will think she won, but we'll all know better. SandyK is just trying to bait you and to now, has been succeeding. She isn't confident enough in her own posts, so she has to take a Fordesque approach and attack you and hope you get too caught up in her ad hominem attacks to refute her weak points.

SandyK,
Wow. I think Ford might have some competition for stirring up trouble. Seriously. Do you actually want to have a debate or are you too pre-occupied with trying to anger someone?

Posted by: Freedom | January 23, 2006 12:33 PM

Yes, I realize thats two things really, but originally it was condensed into one point. My bad.

Posted by: Freedom | January 23, 2006 12:43 PM

work always requires something to rub against to polish...

ire is a tool to release the truth....


behind sandy's irritation is a little boy tryin to please daddy....help him go home.

Posted by: tha's freedome? | January 23, 2006 12:52 PM

"LET THIS GO, SANDY!"

ErrinF - when your little sister kept running up and poking you, didn't your mother ever tell you that if you ignored her it would stop being fun for her and she'd stop doing it?

People like Chris Ford and Gotham and maybe SandyK, (although I keep hoping with her it will go away when all has calmed down) will continue to twist your words into unrecognizable sentiments, like Ford just did a few posts ago that I want to invade Pakistan or some such nonsense. But we don't have to let them drag this forum into their bizarre behavior. I actually think that second amendment thing turned out to be quite interesting and did indeed make for unexpected bedfellows. If we debate with those who debate honestly, maybe the dishonest will move on.

Posted by: patriot 1957 | January 23, 2006 01:05 PM

I have a question for anyone that would care to respond:

President Bush, Republican party officials and his minions have adopted a "mantra" that they keep repeating over and over again. It goes something like this:

"While we welcome dissenting opinions and honest debate about the war in Iraq, people in opposition need to be mindful that some of their rhetoric can be demoralizing to the troops and can embolden the enemy."

Do you Agree or Disagree with this statement?

Posted by: Left Angle | January 23, 2006 01:26 PM

Honestly, I think it depends on the soldier. To some, who see things as black and white, us vs. them, it must be demoralizing. Then again, they may just take up the call that dissenters are unpatriotic and in bed with terrorists and not let it bother them. To others, they may be able to see past that and realize that dissent is a large part of exactly what president bush tells them they are fighting for; democracy.

That's the problem with democracy. To have it, one must realize that people will speak out against you. Nothing will ever have complete, 100% support. This is why it is key to make sure that you can make a good case for what you enact. If you don't, the people will complain until it is either decided to be good or torn down.
Unfortunately, Bush did not make a good case for Iraq.
/Before anyone tries to make the claim "dems in washington voted for it to," I'm just going to remind everyone that the issue was forced before an election, with repubs making the claim that dems would not protect you. Not only that, but I speak about the people of the country, a body largely ignored in discussing politics and what people want. I don't know the statistics off hand, but while the conflict in Iraq may have/have had a majority support, the stats have mostly been close enough that one could argue the case made for it was subpar.

Posted by: Freedom | January 23, 2006 01:58 PM

Freedom:

That's just it. The Bushites are arguing that there is a link between the anti-Iraq war movement and the Iraqi insurgents. They argue that the Anti-War Movement and Democratic critics are fueling the insurgency in Iraq as in aiding and abetting the enemy. They point to O. bin Ladens mention of U.S. polls showing americans turning against Bush and the Iraq War a proof of such.

I think this is a ludicrous charge that political and partisan in its conception. I think that Bush and the republicans are making this statement/mantra to shut up their critics by labeling them as treasonous anti-american traitors for not supporting the presidents efforts on the GWOT.

It's as if the "right" believes that if those of the anti Iraq movement and democratic critics would shut the hell up, the insurgents would STOP attacking the U.S. military in Iraq and "victory" would come so much easier.

Posted by: Left Angle | January 23, 2006 02:39 PM

Is the war in the ME anything akin to the war on drugs?

Posted by: Xfactor | January 23, 2006 04:04 PM

While I can speak with no authority that it does, I can readily understand why it might have an effect on the insurgency. If the insurgents (our term for them. Want to hazard what they probably call themselves?) see that there is a substantial oppostion in America to the conflict it would most likely affect their decisions and beliefs that they are doing the right thing (I say most likely as there has been no rigorous testing to the validity of the claim. Despite what Bush might say, correlation does not equal causation. Just because it is claimed as a reason does not mean there would not be a similar effect without the dissent).
Again, this brings me back to the point that this is the result of democracy. If Bush does not like us speaking out and thinks that it is a detriment, this is his own fault.

Unless he suggests that we throw patriotic dissent and democratic processes out the window, the burden of proof lies on him. He must prove to the general public that Iraq was the right thing to do. He must prove that we belong in there. To date, he has made a horrible show of it. Too large a population agrees that Iraq was somewhere America should not be. When I say too large, I acknowledge that he was elected via the majority and that he had (don't know the stats off hand so Im giving him the benefit of the doubt) the majority behind him when sending us to Iraq. And as a democracy works, he had the right to do it, disregarding claims of faulty intelligence etc. However, after a rushed decision, he cannot expect the American public to fall in line and keep their mouths shut if they do not agree. This is America and if he does not like it, he must make a better case or deal with the results. Dissent has always been something our government has had to contend with. Bush's latest claim is simply rhetoric masked behind emotions. He is trying to convince the public to agree by playing off of our love for our troops.

Posted by: Freedom | January 23, 2006 04:14 PM

Xfactor-
If you mean a war that can't be won that half the population is wondering why we're doing this, then yes. Yes it is.

Posted by: Freedom | January 23, 2006 04:15 PM

Freedom and patriot1957, thanks for the advice once again.
Sandy really cracked in this feud of hers, and I honestly thought she'd bring an end to it if I gave her enough opportunity.
But, you're right. She is just baselessy attacks and twists my words, and is not even debating anymore.
The weird thing is how she keeps accusing me of actions she is guilty of. She behaves like an attention whore, and then accuses me of such even though I've been doing all I can to stop this feud and stop her being so attentive to me. She focusses entirely on me and not on the topic at hand, then accuses me of never addressing the topic. Truth is, anybody can read the posts to see that I do indeed try to discuss the 2000 election with Sandy midway through this 'feud' of hers, but she just slaps it aside to remain strictly ad hominem in her posts. Just to see if she puts her money where her mouth is, I'll repost part of an earlier post from me to Sandy, and let's see if she addresses it properly, or slaps it aside belligerently:

"Beyond that, you again leave me nothing to debate against, just a bunch of empty ramblings on your part. Bottom line is that you are way out of line when you insist the 2000 elections cannot be discussed within our current Debate topic. When discussing a hijacker like Osama Bin Laden, there's room to mention how the 2000 election was hijacked, and how the hijackings of 9/11 also hijacked the political arena in 2002 and 2004. This is an election year that includes many of the same players as the 2000... like it or not, there is still sentiment out there that things have been too out of control since 2000 and that 2006 will probably be the year that all gets reigned in."
Posted by: ErrinF | Jan 22, 2006 6:29:26 PM

There's some substance for Sandy if she's serious about debate, let alone wants us to take her seriously as a good debater. We'll see if I get a mature response from her, or just her usual childish antics.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 23, 2006 04:31 PM

Freedom assumed:
===========================================
"If you mean a war that can't be won that half the population is wondering why we're doing this, then yes. Yes it is."
===========================================

Actually, the war on illicit drugs can be won very effectively. The problem is if any administration has the backbone to do it (and not use drug trafficking as a political ploy)?

It's called genetic engineering. It's very effective in controlling production, even if hidden in Timbuktu, or in homes growing the junk. Because they can't make each air tight, and as long as folks and plants need air, illicit drugs can be history.

But like I said, it'll take an administration REALLY eager to stamp out illicit drug use to do the above (can't wait for one that does -- sooner the better as abusing drugs doesn't help anyone, and it's a drain on our natural resources).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 23, 2006 04:35 PM

Funny, is Errin still around? Or was that just her ghost reappearing? Thought I just saw some brain dead partisanship crap inbetween some good content.

Blah, doesn't matter since trollers just roll their own.

:x

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 23, 2006 04:39 PM

SandyK,
You make an interesting point. However, I would appreciate it if you could expand upon your ideas a bit, so I am sure that I am following you. By your post, do you mean using genetic engineering to create an airborne bacteria/virus/thingy that would target the plants? If this is not what you mean, I apologize.
If this is, then I would be interested in discussing why this could or could not work.

Posted by: Freedom | January 23, 2006 04:53 PM

Nope, genetic engineering to void the produce via...

1. Contamination via pollen.
2. Neutralizing the chemical(s) that make the illicit drugs worthwhile to grow.

The future of drug production is synthetics (there's too many impurities in natural produce to make it a cost effective way to produce drugs). So, yes, illicit drug production will go the way of the dodo once a carbon-copy replacement can be grown in a lab (and forget some rogue lab in reproducing it -- takes too much capital at that stage, even for the Columbians. Those labs can then also be bombed out of existence if found -- can't be fit in some warehouse or home).

It's all about energy in the end. And energy to produce the synthetics to get around the naturals would make it too costly to produce, let alone sell.

Druggies know economics. If their dope costs $10,000 a ounce, the market they need to buy it is too small to support their investment.

Dollar, cents and energy. ;)

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 23, 2006 05:10 PM

Funny, is Errin still around? Or was that just her ghost reappearing? Thought I just saw some brain dead partisanship crap inbetween some good content.
Blah, doesn't matter since trollers just roll their own.
SandyK
Posted by: SandyK | Jan 23, 2006 4:39:07 PM

Thanks for the proof that you won't engage me in real debate, Sandy. I re-iterate that you do indeed suck at debate, are delusional when it comes to your own assessment of your debating prowess, and avoid engaging me in any substantive way. Each and every time I post anything to you concerning the topics at hand, you automatically disqualify whatever I say by declaring sour grapes about anything I post no matter what.
You don't have the cojones or the cajones to actually engage me on the topics at hand, and are instead an overly emotional child that just wants to emptily bicker. What a big baby you have been throughout this feud with me, and what a lost cause it was for me to engage a coward like you, SandyK.
You of course will continue to snipe at me pettily from the sidelines, but what you won't do is debate me toe-to-toe on the topics at hand, which was the only reason I engaged you in discussion in this thread in the first place. Since then, I've got nothing but petty snipes and avoidance of the real issues from Sandy. After giving her yet another chance to debate me substantively, only to get an immature response once again, I have no choice but to write her off as a pointless bickerer deliberately wasting my time. Since her medication obviously won't kick in any time soon, I need to stop enabling this manic state of hers, if only for her own health and well-being. : )

Posted by: ErrinF | January 23, 2006 05:10 PM

SandyK,
I would argue that its not as easy as it sounds.
First, pollen would need to be genetically engineered to include the self destruct gene that would make seeds sterile. While this could be done, this would be either useless or ridiculously expensive, as to get the pollen spread around the world (even using government means) would take several generations of plant life. Between the costs associated with it, I doubt many politicians would even consider it. And the cost would be enormous, based off of such things as differnt plant strains to be researched, covering the world in pollen, and continuing to do so for dozens of years as many growers stockpile their seeds.
A casualty of this would be any plant that has multiple uses. For example, hemp would be taken out as a collateral damage and medicinal marijuana would be taken away. Another example of collateral damage is is that mushrooms could be affected (not sure if hallucenogenic variety can cross breed or not- if they cannot, then disregard this).

This also leads to a discussion of ethics. Does the United States have the right to target other countries? While many would say yes, in some cases religions or countries accept and embrace certain drugs. The international scandal would be insane.

This argument also neglects many mainstream drugs. LSD, Meth, Acid, and I believe Ecstacy are manufactured drugs. No genetic engineering of plants will stop the use of these (humans on the otherhand....). If anything, usage of these drugs could possibly increase as a result of lack of access to more common, safer natural drugs.

While causing the extinction of some plants is possible, I don't think it is the solution you envision.

Posted by: Freedom | January 23, 2006 05:24 PM

I think that Stupid Ugly Americans are the only people left on the planet that think Israel and America are two different countries. They are going to go down in world history, or take down the entire world, as the stupidest monkey faces to walk this planet for quite a long time. Hitler would drool over our aresenal and prison camps where we hold our hostages. We are the "terrorists". The best way to stop the terrorists is to stop terrorizing and bombing the rest of the world for dwindling oil, while bombing nuclear "power plants"!

Posted by: F THE ZIONISTS | January 23, 2006 05:32 PM

The War On Drugs could be ended today by legalization and regulation. It would disempower the criminals, and put drugs under our control, rather than letting drugs exist so freely out there. It's far more feasible than farfetched genetic engineering. No amount of genetic engineering will put an end to the epidemic of meth labs in the U.S. Man-made drugs are by far more dangerous than the natural-growing kind.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 23, 2006 05:43 PM

Freedom wrote:
===========================================
"First, pollen would need to be genetically engineered to include the self destruct gene that would make seeds sterile"
===========================================

Who said anything about "sterile"? And the cost of that experimentation is quite nominal, as it takes nothing to genetically alter a plant (animals yes, plants no). And it'll take just a little pollen to do the job, and pollen can be *introduced* anywhere at anytime, and across borders.

===========================================
"A casualty of this would be any plant that has multiple uses. For example, hemp would be taken out as a collateral damage and medicinal marijuana would be taken away."
===========================================

The goal is synthetic production. And hemp isn't used much today for rope making, let alone other hemp based products (doubt old ship caulking of tar and rope offends is being used today). ;)

Wild Marijuania won't have much use in medicine, as the dose of THC can't be purified except in a synethic form (and that's not coming from BC bud). Then also, THC doesn't affect folks in the way it's attended, either. Some folks are really poor metabolizers of THC (as well as many other drugs).

===========================================
"This also leads to a discussion of ethics."
===========================================

There's no ethics with lawbreakers, so there's not much to discuss about governmental ethics here. Folks who break laws that's designed to safeguard the public, really don't understand ethics and why Laws are made (they'll disregard ethics, break laws and claim sociopaths and criminals can exercise the same rights are law abiding and productive citizens).

===========================================
"No genetic engineering of plants will stop the use of these"
===========================================

Oh, yeah they can and in very lethal ways too. They can also play around with Cytochrome P-450 as well. :)

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 23, 2006 05:51 PM

Back to Osama Bin Laden and the War on Terror. Here is an excerpt from a piece about how our government is not conducting the War On Terror as thoroughly as they should be:

Countering terrorism - for real
ASK THIS | January 18, 2006

A noted political psychologist outlines the elements of an effective counterterrorism program. But the U.S. isn't pursuing any of them and journalists aren't writing -- or even asking -- about them either.

By Dan Froomkin
froomkin@niemanwatchdog.org

Professor Jerrold M. Post - now the director of the political psychology program at George Washington University, formerly the CIA's chief profiler - has a talk he's been giving around the country called "When Hatred Is Bred in the Bone; Psycho-cultural Foundations of Contemporary Terrorism".

In it, Post describes the elements of an effective counterterrorism program. Such a program, Post suggests, would:

1) Inhibit potential terrorists from joining the group in the first place.

2) Produce dissension in the group.

3) Facilitate exit from the group.

4) Reduce support for the group and delegitimate its leader.

5) Increase societal resilience and reduce societal vulnerability to terror.

What I found most striking about Post's talk when I heard it the other day in Washington was that there is no sign that the current U.S. counterterrorism strategy includes a single one of those elements.

A fair amount is being written about whether the current strategies - most obviously the war in Iraq - are working. By most accounts, they aren't. In fact, by many accounts, they are backfiring and breeding more terrorists. So what about adopting some of Post's ideas?

Post says he recently met with Department of Defense officials, who told him they were intrigued by his suggestions - but didn't know how to go about putting them into action.

So here are three questions journalists should be asking:

Q. Is the U.S. in fact pursuing any of these strategies?

Q. How could we do so?

Q. Would they do any good?

For more, here's the link:

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00160

Posted by: ErrinF | January 23, 2006 06:00 PM

Errin the troll fished:
===========================================
"Thanks for the proof that you won't engage me in real debate"
===========================================

We're ignoring you because...

1. You can't post anything but partisan screed.
2. You're way too sensitive.
3. You can't even engage in a debate except with (1) and (2) above.

So you can stop wasting everyone's time with your need for attention. The more you seek it, the more folks will ignore you.

As the saying goes: either shape up, or ship out.

And this is my last post to you directly, partisan hack.

*click*

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 23, 2006 06:02 PM

Your last post was directed at yourself, Sandy, not me. Your sour grapes excuses to yourself are no concern of mine.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 23, 2006 06:22 PM

Whenever I've actually engaged you in debate in the past, you always find some excuse to cry sour grapes and back away from the debate. Why should I waste my time when it's obvious you'll do the exact same thing this time around? In fact, you ARE already doing your usual sour grapes routine of declaring that everything I write and post is inadequate, offering no proof to back up your claims besides your own whims of the moment. Posted by: ErrinF | Jan 22, 2006 3:40:15 PM

I posted this yesterday when SandyK first started feuding with me. She did exactly what I said and then some. An only child that never grew up, perhaps? Who knows... I rest my case.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 23, 2006 06:35 PM

aside..some cranky posters here ...

i don't understand why people see such grand manipulation, conspiracies and the like from either OBL or the US government

i see a lot of short term political opportunism in the actions of both the US government and the Al Quada crowd - but they're playing to very different audiences

neither side tends to take a long range view - you want to worry about something .. see how the PR China plays Iran for oil against western interests .. the Chinese are definitely long-view thinkers (stereotyping madly here of course) - OBL is still noise in our national security interest, dangerous but not deadly to our society and interests - a country that embraces capitalism but not democratic government - now that's scary - how does one reign in a monopoly when the government owns it and is non responsive to the people?

OBL isn't worth all the ink - study what Premier Wen Jiabao is up to, and what Putin is doing to Russia - much more serious, much more dangerous to US and western interests

Posted by: Mill_of_Mn | January 24, 2006 02:00 AM

OBL is much more dangerous, because Jiabo and Putin never hijacked planes in our country and killed thousands ***on our own soil***.

OBL is wanted meat, and we're going to find that rat fink, and we're going to make sure he knows it was wrong, and the punishment swift and thorough.

May OBL be fried alive, along with all of his other rat haven (who knows they're so ugly they'll even relish eating their own, too. They have no problem in killing their own daily, surely eating their own isn't any worse).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 09:48 AM

SandyK,
If you can target man-made drugs by altering human DNA, (as I take the comment on Cytochrome P-450 to mean) you still have a few problems. First, Altering human DNA is something that most people will fight against, and the ethics surrounding such an idea are slated to be a big topic in upcoming years. Second, this does not deal with the issue of prescription drugs used for recreation- a problem growing larger and larger in this country every year.

When discussing my question of ethics, you state:
"There's no ethics with lawbreakers, so there's not much to discuss about governmental ethics here. Folks who break laws that's designed to safeguard the public, really don't understand ethics and why Laws are made (they'll disregard ethics, break laws and claim sociopaths and criminals can exercise the same rights are law abiding and productive citizens"

Forgive me for not being clearer, as you seem to have misunderstood. I do not mean ethics regarding our country where it is illegal. I refer to the international ethics, as you mention introducing pollen across borders. For some countries and religions, certain drugs are not illegal. What right, ethically, does America have to say what the world can and cannot do? If we start here, why not enforce our view on abortion, stemcell research, etc. (I also quesiton your knowledge about people that use these drugs. I know of several 'stoners' who are otherwise exemplary citizens. Also, alcohol was once illegal. Should people that kept drinking during prohibition be considered in the same category? Another interesting note is what is to say marijuana will never be legalized. Denver, CO is currently discussing it, as are several other cities and states.)

Finally, and this is just nitpicking, but I know of several cancer patients that swear by the use of wild marijuana to help them through the pain and nausea. They would beg to differ by your claim that it has no medicinal purposes.

Posted by: Freedom | January 24, 2006 11:39 AM

Where did I say anything about altering human DNA? They're sure not doing that in the pharmaceutical labs.

P-450 and it's sub divisions play an important part in how humans process drugs. Some ethnic groups are born without certain enzymes, while others are more hyped or depressed in metabolizing drugs.

What can occur is to ensure none of the populations can partake in illicit drug use (block all the drug from enacting in any enzyme of any ethnic group, by eliminating it's pathways to function).

That requires no dark arts in manipulating human DNA, just taking the "kick" out of drugs, biochemically.

As for pussyfooting around the ethics dilemna: it's like this -- folks either have ethics or they don't. And if folks are trying to find ways around the reasoning behind drug laws, they have no ethics to begin with. The laws aren't there just for morality reasons, it's to prevent wholesale anarchy and deaths.

BTW, ever heard of the placebo effect? Well, it's quite apparent in the marijunana debate.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 12:01 PM

I would be interested to see studies on the placebo effect regarding marijuana (not that I doubt you. I haven't seen then and I am curious).

As you describe P-450 would stir up a great deal of privacy issues. The thought of blocking that ability of drugs in the population would stir up a great deal of "Big Brother is watching." I can imagine it being argued in the same way that domestic spying issues are being argued. Even so, this would not stop prescription drug abuse. Would it stop people that use inhalants like glue, spray paint, etc?

In regards to ethics, I don't believe I am pussyfooting around ethics, as ethics require debate. There is no wordwide view on what is ethical and what is not. Hence current debates on abortion and stem cell research, both internationally and between state and the federal government. Ethics change as time passes, and vary between cultures. Just because someone does not believe marijuana to be the demon drug some categorize it as (Refer madness anyone?) does not mean they have no ethics. I, and I assume a great many people, hardly see ethics as black and white. To the individual, maybe. To the society? No. You could argue that a belief that is a very small margin of society is a non-issue and thus a show of lack of ethics because they digress from the population so greatly. But when something is so widespread as marijuana use or belief on abortion or stem cell research, it is hardly clear what the societies ethics are.

And again, I focus my question of ethics on the international level. Not the national level.

I just don't think the 'war on drugs' is something that can be ended in any easy matter. As ErrinF says, I believe the legalization of some things may decrease use and make usage safer, as use in amsterdam decreased. But other things cannot be legalized safely and would still be an issue.

Posted by: Freedom | January 24, 2006 12:33 PM

First sentence of pargraph 2 should read, "As you describe it, P-450....."
Sorry for making it seem like I was attributing you as saying it would be controversial.

Posted by: Freedom | January 24, 2006 12:52 PM

Placebo effect can occur outside the lab, you know? It's well known that individual and group perceptions can influence a drug's benefits. This is one reason why double-blind studies with a placebo is necessary. If you go search PubMed, you'll see various studies on Marijunana (or THC, which is the component used in medicine) with placebos (and it's very mixed results).

P-450 has zero to due with privacy. P-450 studies and designs in drug chemistry are done every day. P-450 is THE pathway for drug metabolism. Any drug you take runs through that pathway, and without it, no drug could metabolise. Be it an aspirin, to a heart medication, and beyond.

There's little "debate" necessary about the nature and premise of Ethics to begin with. Either folks have them (non-sociopaths) or don't (sociopaths). One has to have the capacity to know the difference to appreciate the need of Ethics. Those who try to bend it, to push a Id driven want, don't qualify as being unbiased enough to be ethical (as the want is more important than rationality).

And again this applies universally, outside cultural norms.

War on drugs can be eradicated almost overnight. Very effectively as well, so well to extinct the plant species (or make them so harmless to not have it's intended effect -- who wants to smoke oregano, let alone pay $10 to smoke a spice, you know?). ;)

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 02:23 PM

SandyK

we agree on OBL's just future - he's forfeited his right to exist on this planet.

i still maintain that we should focus more on People's Republic of China and Russia than on OBL and his little crowd.

The cold war with Soviet Union was expensive - we supported thugs so long as they were anti-communist (think Noriega, who was trafficking in drugs while getting CIA support) - we installed the Shah of Iran in 1953, as a friendly regime on the border of Sov. Union - the blow-back from that created Khomeni and the current state of Iran.

We fought the PRChina when they entered the Korean war supporting the north, turning our route of the north into a stalemate that still exists - alot more than 3000 dead Americans in that "police action."

both Russia and China embrace crony capitalism - but the rule of law is what ever the government leader wants - so China can afford to buy US treasury bonds because of positive trade deficit - in large part because workers in that country can't press for better wages, so they subsize the Chinese government, and Walmart stockholders through below-market wages.

Monopolies - of government power in the hands of leaders unresponsive to citizens, or of businesses who control a market - are flat out bad for every but the monopolist. OBL has no monopoly on anything. Russia and China have no internal checks on their government's actions - civil liberties/human rights are deteriorating - and they're both nuclear powers - something OBL has yet to achieve to anyone's knowledge.

Kill OBL, but focus on the large nation-states who have vast resources, anti-western attitudes, and government monopolies of power in my view.

Mill

Posted by: Mill_of_Mn | January 24, 2006 02:32 PM

The rise of China we really can't do much but contain their rise and any aggression (which is the problem with emerging countries fighting for natural resources -- i.e., land grabs for food, manpower, fuel and minerals). So they'll develop along with India about the same time.

Russia has more problems as their culture is very divided, and their climate and infrastructure will need an overhaul, which keeps the bear out on the sidelines.

OBL's monopoly is religious, not resource base. That's a particularly ugly "resource", which can fuel wars longer than government/national existence. Persia doesn't exist anymore, but the religion of it's people do, for example.

Most of the other countries we can't really do much to overturn (it's a waiting game just like the Cold War). We just have to stake our claims, and wait them out (which proves to be a good stragedy for 100 years).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 02:47 PM

First, the issue I address with privacy is how would this path be blocked? And is it voluntarily? Involuntarily? If its involuntarily, I see this as being a large issue with privacy. Or do I still not understand how this would work?

Secondly, I fail to see how your description on ethics regarding destroying drugs can be applied universally. It currently isn't unethical or breaking the law in several places in the world, nor do rastafarians think that it is a horrible thing to use. Are they unethical/breaking a law because they do fall in the mindset of that of you or the current laws of the United States? To take this another step further, marijuana was not always illegal in the US. It became illegal after deliberation. Before claiming it was made illegal after it was studied and deemed bad, remember alcohol was banned and then legalized, and cigarettes have been found very harmful to even those who do not smoke them and have never been banned. Currently, various states are examining stances on medicinal uses, decriminalization, or deprioritizing. Obviously, as can be seen in this countries own history, the ethics regarding this have not always been set in stone, nor are they today. So how is this black and white? Law, as far as this country is concerned, has always, and will always be an evolving concept. This can be seen in changing views towards Roe v Wade and the big uproar with Alito and Roberts over their views on the matter.

Posted by: Freedom | January 24, 2006 02:56 PM

Don't think you understand how it works.

Cytochrome P-450 is needed to metabolize any drug. Without it's enzymes a drug just wouldn't work. A drug can be manufactured to be pro or anti P-450. For example with the heart medication called BiDil, which is targeted for Blacks to threat their HBP and CHF [they have low renin levels which the newer heart meds depend on to lower high blood pressure, thus, needing a medication that addresses the low renin problem]. Without intervention, biochemically that is, they would've had to take *3* meds to control HBP/CHF compared to other populations, with dismal effects. Because technology now can isolate and test different P-450 enzymes, they discovered which ones would be "pro" metabolizers that would work specifically based on their biochemical makeup. We're at that stage now, in biochemistry, to pinpoint specific pathways for drug metabolism.

In drug abuse prevention, blocking all P-450 enzymes from metabolizing a plant's psychotropic agent (via changing the plant's structure -- i.e., making THC impossible to be metabolize), could essentially kill the reason to partake in the recreational use of that drug.

That'll be the end of those illicit drugs. Period. Once genetically altered plants (or better pollen) is introduced in the wild, it's all history.

[If you're interested in learning what the future will bring in this whole illicit drug world, I'll expand on it later (really, seriously off-topic as this all is now). You're not going to get this from any anti-site, as this isn't agenda based]

What's the problem between recreational users is they don't understand where medicine is going. The goal is synthetic production of drugs for purity, cost efficiency, potency, and shelf life. Things recreational users can't justify in their "medicinal" PR campaigns. Marijuana and other narcotics won't have justifications for use in their wild form, because what a lab can produce would be more pure, free from the psychotropic effects (which is harmful for the populations that would use it medicinally), and more potent (and biochemically altered to hit the RIGHT pathways). So this drug debate is quite time limited -- especially when the wild forms are genetically altered to be harmless (i.e., no psychotropic effects).

So ethics on this issue will be moot, as technology and need goes on.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 03:37 PM

It seems very convenient that this latest tape from OBL is released just as the controversy begins about the domestic surveillance.

Posted by: beenfooledbefore | January 24, 2006 05:24 PM

Jazzman.
Thanks for the post. Its really kind of nice to read something...how should I put it .... Judicious wouldn't be bad, or maybe sober, certainly broadly thoughtful.

We don't seem to read the situation in Iraq much differently, if at all. It's very difficult to get a reading on the reality behind the headlines, and I know from experience there is always some level of departure of one from the other. If nothing else headlines are by design intended primarily to entice, to entertain, not so much to inform. Real insight and reporting on the internal politics of Iraq is not very newsworthy here, even though we are in the very uncomfortable position of having our own internal politics and our external image very much hostage to its outcome.

I couldn't agree with you more. The actual evidence is scant indeed; and your logic is my logic. I have searched my mind for an equivalent historical example of the successful formation of a democracy in these kinds of circumstances and the closest I can come is the case of Japan following WWII and Iran following the overthrow of the Shah. Big surprise with that one right? But I think we do have to concede they did establish a valid democratic element in their governing structure and it has been exercised with a substantive amount of power. We may, hell, we do, quibble about its legitimacy, but really, we are in our own legitimacy snit over this President's highhanded way with the NSA. Another odd one that comes to mind is Russia itself following the disintegration of the Soviet Union. But Russia actually did have some prior experience with "democracy" early in its revolutionary period. Far more so did the Central European countries. But as I go through all the democracies I know of in the context of their historical formation I just cannot find one that got there in anything like the manner we did, or anywhere near so smoothly. And we took around 10 years all told. All of the Latin American and Caribbean democracies have had repeated episodes of dictatorship in one form or another, or lengthy transitions from colonial government. The same for the subcontinent, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao, the Middle East (to the extent one can admit to any democracy besides Israel), and Africa. There is very little, if any, historical support for this particular enterprise and it is not difficult to understand why there is not.

Anyway, it leaves me in the conflicted condition of being Patriotic in my hopes and best wishes and in recognition of our nations obligations; but still unwilling to be stupid about my expectations. Its not a very comfortable position to be in.

You pose many very good questions on the US side of the equation. They lead me right back to the formation and foundation of our own democracy, of which I am inordinately proud. I don't think there has ever been any group of people more thoughtful, more methodical, more focused, more careful, more brilliant, about what they were doing and why they were doing it than this odd collection of people. But they would have been the first to acknowledge their product was tailored, ever so carefully tailored, to the culture and the history and the traditions of the particular group of people they represented and to whom it was meant to apply. They would have been the last to assert this product would work for all peoples. On the contrary, people, to be a free people, must form their own rules of governance from within. We freely drew from the best of the Greeks, the Romans, the English, what suited us best. None of it was imposed. The uniquely American gift we have to offer the world is not our Constitution itself, but the process of its formation.

We should also remember we are decidedly not a pure democracy. We are a constitutional democracy, the essential difference between the rule of men and the rule of law; a subtlety oft forgotten today, but never far from the minds of those who put this together. We are a representative democracy, in which is represented not only each person equally, but also each state equally. It is this that acknowledges that while individual people have rights, so do states; another subtlety we often prefer to ignore but never out of the minds of those who put this together. It implicitly recognizes that regions have cultures and resources, that they differ, that these differences are entitled to respect. The structure of the state itself is functional, decidedly undemocratic, with an appointed judiciary bound only by life and good behavior, artfully balanced to keep its powers in check. Those who oversimplify and reduce their accomplishment to "One man, one vote" do not even begin to comprehend why this has been as successful as it has. The starting point of this enterprise was "No man, no vote", each of us with individual inalienable rights and powers, and the question before them was how much and what specific rights and powers do we agree to cede to the state and for what common purpose.

In my view, a conservative focus's on conserving for himself or herself what has not been ceded to the state. A liberal focuses on broadening the purposes held in common. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the qualities of machismo or wimpiness. It is incomprehensible to me how the current President can be characterized as conservative or the ACLU as liberal. It is incomprehensible to me how Rumsfeld can be called Secretary of Defense when he is in fact Secretary of War, and I would say competent in that role.

From this point of view, I think we have no business interfering in or with the inalienable right of other peoples to choose for themselves what form of state and government best suits them. Fundamentally, it is their choice and not ours to make. We have no moral authority to insist on any specific result. We might perhaps be entitled to question whether the process was legitimate, but not unreasonably and I would have to say that in the specific case of Iran and the case of Cuba, the results, however distasteful we may find them, are legitimate and not ours to change, they remain theirs to change if and when they become intolerable to those people.

The notion that because we are a Superpower, even The Superpower, we have some special entitlement to impose our form of government on other peoples is sheer hubris and contrary to the very roots of our own claim to legitimacy. The notion that it provides us the authority of a parent over a child has no legitimate foundation other than the sheer power to impose and enforce it. This is antithetical to the very values that underlie our own foundation. We rejected this ourselves when we through out the British King, why in the world should we expect less from others now? Why are we surprised at the strength of the insurgency in Iraq?

We need to distinguish between National Defense and National Security. It used to be that national security concerned itself primarily with future threats to our national defense. But, like the "Commerce" clause and "public use" in eminent domain, the term has become a coat hanger holding all kinds of strange things far removed from what the words suggest. If AIDS is a threat to our National Security, then so is bird flu, the common cold, illiteracy, obesity, these blogs which so sap the strength and will of the American people, pornography which corrupts our children.... More seriously, access to oil is seen as an element essential to our national security. But even here we must be careful to distinguish between the security of our national defense and the security of our national lifestyle comparative with the rest of the world. Is it coherent with our American values to go to war with other people for the purpose of securing the resources necessary to our over consumptive lifestyles? We have the power to do this, is it wise for us to use it thus?

I personally do see Iraq in terms of Vietnam, and the impending issues of Iraq and Palestine; but not for the usual criteria. Where we tend to get in trouble is where we act contrary to our own most basic values. Vietnam would not have happened had we been willing to permit the free election in the North and the South promised when the French departed the scene. We did not permit these because we knew the Communists would win the election if it took place. This result was unacceptable to us so we did not permit the election to be held. The rest is history.

In Iraq we have removed, under the phony guise of national defense, an odious regime governing another people for the purpose of providing them with a government shaped to our satisfaction in our own national interest. This is, I think, an honest characterization, and, apart from the phony national defense element, one which a reasonable person might defend or criticize with well-meaning intentions. But at its best, it is a departure from our basic values for us, as Americans, to shape the form of government that they as Iraqis must choose. That is why, ineffectual as it is, the UN was essential in this process and its absence inevitably makes the result illegitimate, however good or bad it might actually be.

In the case of Palestine we may be faced with an election in which the Palestinian people will freely choose to govern them a group of people we see only as terrorists bent on the destruction of another state. Why might they make such a stupid choice? Perhaps they simply see it in their best self-interest to dump the burden of corruption of our preferred choice for the social services of our unacceptable choice. Terrorists or not, it is contrary to our own values not to at least acknowledge the legitimacy of their selection.

In the case of Iran we are faced with a nation born in a revolution different from ours in that it was largely internal, i.e. replacing a national government as opposed to establishing a national government as ours did. As much as we might dislike the result they have shaped in their own way, we are not entitled to dictate the shape it must take. This too would be a fundamental departure from our basic values.

I do not accept that the purpose of out military is to further our national interest writ large. Its purpose is for our national defense and I've not the least compunction in its use, even brutal use, in that role for that purpose. To see it as something to be used to impose our will on other sovereign peoples when all else fails is something that I think we must be exceedingly wary of, as this is the beginning of empire, of imperialism, and history will tell you these have come to naught, usually accompanied by a high level of violence.

Jazzman, I think you would probably agree with me that the older you get the farther ahead you look. It must be that the actual accumulation of experience equally expands ones future horizon. I hope you live at least a hundred years.

P.S. If you haven't read them already, I would suggest you do a "find in page" on the prior thread for '(I)nsider' posts. They seem plausibly from some fellow actually in Iran with a rational view of the issues from that perspective.

Posted by: Cayambe | January 24, 2006 06:02 PM

9 months to catch a fugitive!

There are fugitives that were wanted in the 1800s/(through out history), and our government/(the world) has no Idea where they are, if they died, became president, or a critic that says stupid things like it only takes 9 month to track a fugitive.

If you are so smart then tell us where he/they are.

If you can't do that: then find him, and come back and flap your jaw, so you aren't wasting our/my time with the second gunmen theories. Any child can think up bits of garbage about people and things. Grade school is where we learn it.

People who put down other people when they have no Idea of the reality themselves should keep to themselves until they have a real Idea, and only talk about the things they know are true.

I could tell enough people that you are a child molester, and even though you aren't you would still be labeled by 75% to 90% of all who heard it. In their minds anyway.

So I want to see your proof that you just arn't insulting someone for the sake of killing time. If you can prove it to me I'll back you up all the way to the end. We will take the sucker down. Eles get real.

Posted by: dono40 | January 24, 2006 06:03 PM

Here we are with Osama reasserting his murdereous intentions toward the US and the West generally. Why isn't he gone? I haven't read the following conclusion anywhere, so far:

Why did our administration drop the ball so unbelievably in failing to
catch Osama during 2002 (before and during the Tora Bora fiasco) and then so precipitously divert most of our military resources to the Iraq invasion before the job in Afghanistan was done. The only sense I can make of this was that they realized that if they caught Osama, the "War on Terror" would be essentially over. They needed the WOT to continue so that they could maintain their war powers and Bush could continue to push his ideological agenda and increase his executive powers. They want Osama and Al Qaida out there keeping the American public worried. Sadly, it has worked marvellously well for them, given a poorly informed and credulous American public.

Doesn't this conclusion fit our current situation too perfectly?

Posted by: John in SC | January 25, 2006 12:11 AM

John in SC wrote:
===========================================
"Doesn't this conclusion fit our current situation too perfectly?"
===========================================

SandyK in GA replies:

No.

But the high brow nature of some comments of being more "intuned" to the world, highlights the bad stereotypes of Dems (of being Ivory tower types who live in $1,000,000 homes, who try to speak about the poor, yet don't have an iota about being poor or their true day-to-day situation. But they sure have that sappy guilt complex intact!).

Even the poor, who tarry each day, understand that neither party is doing them any good to rise above the cesspool each keeps them in.

It's not all Bush's fault. It's the division, it's the partisanship, it's the disconnection between the top tier and the bottom tier, that's at fault and will continue when folks fingerpoint, and can't even THINK of a solution out of the mess.

Twiddle Dee, Twiddle Dum politics.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 25, 2006 10:01 AM

Good example of the sappy guilt complex is this...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/24/AR2006012401136.html

Since Rwanda the USA has little interest in getting involved in Africa. When we tried to help in Somalia, it shows what can happen when getting inbetween a civil war.

To compound it, the kitty is bone dry. Tsumani and Katrina victims pleading for monies and time, with the high fuel prices to just stay warm in winter, is asking even the poor -- "we can't take care of the entire world, when the world won't help themselves."

The UN was designed for all nations to come to the aid of others in times of trouble. It didn't with the Soviet citizens who were starved to death, and pushed into political prisons to die by the millions. It didn't with Mao's "Cultural Revolution" when untold millions died, and China's continuing dismal human rights record. It didn't with 30% of the Cambodian population eliminated in death camps in Pol Pot's mad plots. It didn't in Bosnia, where countless were lead away right under UN protection to be mass executed. It didn't in Rwanda, where almost a million were HACKED to death, and the UN got caught lying in covering up the extent of the tragedy.

Now this same organization is pleading for monies that less than 75% would reach to the people due to corruption alone.

Hate to say it, but let evolution (i.e., nature) take care of these situations now. Because the USA is just going to be backstabbed by those who are so quick to forget our generosity, and our *own* poor are neglected again.

Enough is enough.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 25, 2006 10:41 AM

So with the P-450, this is something that would be altered within the plants themselves? If this is the case, this still does not seem to be something that can effect man-made drugs, of which people can make free of anything that would inhibit the pathways to metabolize the drug. This is what I originally stated as being a reason that the war on drugs could not be ended instantly. This would still not inhibit the abuse of prescription drugs, inhalants, etc.

I agree though, that if your comments on p-450 refer to altering plants themselves, ethics is moot for this part. I still maintain that altering plants worldwide and even nationwide would still raise issues of ethics, as there is no standard for ethics across the globe, and views on certain drugs seem to be changing, albeit slowly and at small increments (that is not to say rulings will not be reveresed).

Posted by: Freedom | January 25, 2006 11:19 AM

Can be altered easier in plants. Changing human biochemistry is nice in science fiction and horror stories, but in reality, very difficult to do. One phase trial I'm keeping track of (to help cure nonregenative anemia), the results are less than satisfactory. Same can be said of efforts to regrow heart muscle after a heart attack. It's very difficult (not impossible) to coax the cells to do as they're planned, even from stem cells. So the effort will be with plants, as there's less ethical problems in experimenting with plants than humans and animals (botched trials only lose plants, not humans, and the hardship of an animal researchers had bonded with dying scenerio (they're not heartless. They have to remind themselves the science is for the animal's one best interest [many drugs used in human medicine are also used in veterinary medicine]).

Cytochrome P-450 is the "magic bullet" of drug metabolism in humans. No human can process a drug with it inhibited. Changing plant chemistry to make it impossible to process a drug will essentially make it's psychotropic value worthless (which won't affect the hemp and other byproduct production).

The way it can make wild drugs worthless is introducing the pollen of the altered plants with natural varieties. Very simple to do with a pollen overspray.

So, yes, within days after exposure of a target area every illicit drug plant can be made worthless (and even those grown at home <-- try removing every spec of pollen from your home!).

If you don't know: pollen can be a payload of other things as well, which can do more than inhibit a plant, it can be made to carry a poison to kill only the plants in question (i.e., "Surgical Round-up".

That technology is available today, too.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 26, 2006 06:21 PM

Ok, now that I understand it, I agree that it would be fairly easy to make natural drugs uselss. Ignoring the ethics of actually doing this worldwide, there would still be the issue of man-made drugs.

Posted by: Freedom | January 26, 2006 06:29 PM

The ethics is actually on the anti-drug side.

Illicit drugs are illicit for more than moral reasons. It's illicit because of it's problems with the health and well being of citizens (they make folks sloth like [which is counterproductive in a growing nation]. They inhibit motor functioning for a l-o-n-g time, which is deadly not only for the user, anyone else he maims/kills while engaging in it's use. It's really no different than drunk driving; or operating machinery under the influence; or any other high mass [in body and product] activity).

To eradicate illicit drugs will actually be in the best interest of people in the long run. Better health, and possibly better accomplishing goals (like finding a cure for cancer; getting to beta Centuri; finding an infinite fuel source -- each maybe is being robbed due to being a drug addict [I believe a lot of hidden talent is lost in drug abuse]).

Sometimes "free choice" is suicide. And a society has reasons to outlaw suicide (like species survival).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 26, 2006 06:46 PM

I certainly agree that the benefits of getting rid of them, percieved through the ethics of this country's laws and morals, are great. And I appreciate that you seem to have included alcohol in the list of problems, by association (many anti-drug users list harmful effects while conveniently forgetting the problems of alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, etc).

A problem with this line of thinking, however, is that certain groups do not percieve drugs in the same way that we do. As mentioned before, Rastafarians use marijuana as part of their religion. My question on ethics deals with the idea of is it ethical to enfore US ethics upon the entire world, the US being a country based on democracy and tolerance?

Posted by: Freedom | January 26, 2006 06:55 PM

Every person and being on this planet that has eyes (insects too) have canneboid receptors behind and just above their eyes. There are only two sources of canneboids that exist on this planet and that is in our body and from marijuana. These receptors need canneboid to reduce the pressure on the eyes and keep our eyes healthy. When our body is low it is very dangerous. Marijuana can be a source. Marijuana is medicine and has been with us as long as we have lived on this planet. Not one person has died of marijuana use, it is a fairly innocuous substance if you study it in any detail.
Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were great smokers and were traders of seeds to get the best quality smoke and the best quality hemp. Benjamin Franklin felt every loyal American should grow marijuana. Your Constitution and Declaration of Independance were written on hemp.
It is only corrupt government that decided to demonize marijuana due to pressure from du Pont chemicals who did not want to have to compete with the superior product of hemp. Now we have deforestation due to our dependance on forests instead of renewable hemp as our paper source. There is no science in banning marijuana, only greed.
The Netherlands ,which has legalized Marijuana, has the lowest crime rate in the world. Let's be critical thinkers folks, and not part of the propaganda problem.
When I had cancer I took Pharmacies anti nausea pills and they took up to an hour to work, which interfered with my ability to travel or work. When I smoked marijuana I had the nausea dissappear immediatly, it was miraculous. I was able to work through cancer and will always appreciate Marijuana's healing abilities.

Posted by: SpeakoutforDemocracy | January 27, 2006 09:06 AM

I am responding above to the remarks regarding marijuana in these posts. I think we waste time on this issue when there is so much to focus on. I would love to see Marijuana sold at liquor stores in Canada, and I see Canada in the future going in that direction. The demonizing of marijuana has nothing to do with anything but pressure from chemical companies with special interest in boosting their own business.

Posted by: SpeakoutforDemocracy | January 27, 2006 09:15 AM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.