NationStates Jolt Archive

In a obvious attempt to "cook" the books about terrorism.. a clever democratic senator called them on their report.. Now having to fess up that Bush's policy has in fact increased terrorism, not descreased it, the White House sits with egg on it's face. Calling it a "Big Mistake" so which is it? Are they outright lying? Or are they just outright incompetent?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/13/powell.terror.ap/index.html

A leading House Democrat, Rep. Henry Waxman of California, had challenged the findings, contending they were manipulated for political purposes. The conclusion that terrorism was on the decline was used to boost one of President Bush's chief foreign policy claims, success in countering terror

Wasn't Bush suppose to be the one who was strong on terrorism? Strong on getting it wrong, apparently..

Hmm well.. interesitng how many "BIG MISTAKES" the US administration makes... one would assume that one is enough. The biggest mistake of course, was to elect Bush into power in the first place.

Gigatron you beat me to it!

I find it incredible that there have been so many "mistakes" by this administration.

In a obvious attempt to "cook" the books about terrorism.. a clever democratic senator called them on their report.. Now having to fess up that Bush's policy has in fact increased terrorism, not descreased it, the White House sits with egg on it's face. Calling it a "Big Mistake" so which is it? Are they outright lying? Or are they just outright incompetent?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/13/powell.terror.ap/index.html

A leading House Democrat, Rep. Henry Waxman of California, had challenged the findings, contending they were manipulated for political purposes. The conclusion that terrorism was on the decline was used to boost one of President Bush's chief foreign policy claims, success in countering terror

Wasn't Bush suppose to be the one who was strong on terrorism? Strong on getting it wrong, apparently..I believe The Daily Show reported on this. They said that a lot of the material was missing because the thing was printed in November and a couple of different things have happened since then.

Some way to cook the books :roll:

Also, Waxman is a Democrat. Bush is a Republican. It's an election year.
It's not too hard to connect the dots.

Hmm well.. interesitng how many "BIG MISTAKES" the US administration makes... one would assume that one is enough.

I've never seen an administration caught in so many "mistakes" in all my life and I'm a little older then most on this forum. So, the only conclusions really that can be drawn from all of this is.. they're either the world's worse liars... or..are the most incompetent administration in history.

In a obvious attempt to "cook" the books about terrorism.. a clever democratic senator called them on their report.. Now having to fess up that Bush's policy has in fact increased terrorism, not descreased it, the White House sits with egg on it's face. Calling it a "Big Mistake" so which is it? Are they outright lying? Or are they just outright incompetent?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/13/powell.terror.ap/index.html

A leading House Democrat, Rep. Henry Waxman of California, had challenged the findings, contending they were manipulated for political purposes. The conclusion that terrorism was on the decline was used to boost one of President Bush's chief foreign policy claims, success in countering terror

Wasn't Bush suppose to be the one who was strong on terrorism? Strong on getting it wrong, apparently..

Oh WOW!!! Perhaps the CIA should just sit on their thumbs? It must be depressing working for that organization under the current regime?

I liked the expression "cooking the books". This is new? They have been cooking since they decided that they would like some Iraqi cuisine?

Well, I'd have thought it obvious that the heavy handed "1 b0mb j00" tactics of the US governments would never work in decreasing terrorism. I can see what Bush must have thought the terrorist would say.

"After Bombing my homeland to dust, and proclaiming it a great victory, I see that Bush's rule is both sage and wise, and I have learned that the Americans are not the Barbarians I believed they were. Truly, they are enlightened."

Well, now that he sees that wasn't the reaction, looks like Bush'll have to pretend that it was, eh? Good that he was caught fouling up. Again.

If they'd use this report and make a new one now, the result would probably be a 10000% increase since November 2003...

Also, Waxman is a Democrat. Bush is a Republican. It's an election year.It's not too hard to connect the dots.

No, apparently it's looking like the Bush administration was hoping it would go un-noticed.. The administration has already said it was a "mistake" thus, your rational doesn't wash, but nice try, thanks for playing ;)

In a obvious attempt to "cook" the books about terrorism.. a clever democratic senator called them on their report.. Now having to fess up that Bush's policy has in fact increased terrorism, not descreased it, the White House sits with egg on it's face. Calling it a "Big Mistake" so which is it? Are they outright lying? Or are they just outright incompetent?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/13/powell.terror.ap/index.html

A leading House Democrat, Rep. Henry Waxman of California, had challenged the findings, contending they were manipulated for political purposes. The conclusion that terrorism was on the decline was used to boost one of President Bush's chief foreign policy claims, success in countering terror

Wasn't Bush suppose to be the one who was strong on terrorism? Strong on getting it wrong, apparently..I believe The Daily Show reported on this. They said that a lot of the material was missing because the thing was printed in November and a couple of different things have happened since then.

Some way to cook the books :roll:

Also, Waxman is a Democrat. Bush is a Republican. It's an election year.
It's not too hard to connect the dots.
Doesn't negate the FACT that it is news? Doesn't negate the FACT that the FACTS were incorrect and should never have been released?

Also, Waxman is a Democrat. Bush is a Republican. It's an election year.It's not too hard to connect the dots.

No, apparently it's looking like the Bush administration was hoping it would go un-noticed.. The administration has already said it was a "mistake" thus, your rational doesn't wash, but nice try, thanks for playing ;)If that's how you choose to look at it, I'm not stopping you. However, you can't ignore the possiblity that Waxman's statements were politically motivated.

Bush can do no wrong in the eyes of the replicons.

He could slaughter cute innocent puppies on live tv daily and they would find some twistted way to praise him

Of course they are politically motivated. If the administration is my opposition andmakes a "Very Big Mistake", I would do everything to use this politically in some way.

Of course the Democrats will point out every slip up of the Replicons (and boy is that a full time job). of course there is a political motive behind doing so. Who could argue with that?

Do you admit that cooking the books was politically motivated? They didn't just make a mistake, they made a "BIG MISTAKE"

I believe The Daily Show reported on this. They said that a lot of the material was missing because the thing was printed in November and a couple of different things have happened since then.

Some way to cook the books :roll:



That's accurate as far as it goes - but the thng is, it's an annual report. December to December. Every year since it was started, except this year - when it was December to October. (http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh061404.shtml) Coincidence?

So yes, a 'couple of things have happened'. But if the intent had been to shift the calendar year, and this was a transitional report, then the assistant secretary of state had -no- business trumpeting how this was proof the Bush administration's policy on terror was working. (Notice the asymmetry? Lower terrorism reports = it works! Highest terrorism rate in 20-odd years = *crickets*)

It's a pretty stupid way to cook the books - but it worked for a little while. This says more about the laziness of the media. I'd bet the Daily Show's coverage was more accurate than most TV news shows, as usual.


Also, Waxman is a Democrat. Bush is a Republican. It's an election year.
It's not too hard to connect the dots.

You might want to look harder into these issues (although I admit that tidbit was pretty well buried). Ignoring criticism because it comes from a member of another political party is just thought-stopping.

Also, Waxman is a Democrat. Bush is a Republican. It's an election year.It's not too hard to connect the dots.

No, apparently it's looking like the Bush administration was hoping it would go un-noticed.. The administration has already said it was a "mistake" thus, your rational doesn't wash, but nice try, thanks for playing ;)If that's how you choose to look at it, I'm not stopping you. However, you can't ignore the possiblity that Waxman's statements were politically motivated.

Let me put this in as simple terms as possible for you..

A) Waxman called them on the report.

B) Waxman was right.

C) The administration has already (after being caught) admitted the numbers are wrong. That terrorism increased in 2003 and not declined as the administration had tried to claim.

D) Waxman did this for politically motivated reasons? Well if telling the truth is politically motivated, I like that type of politics, I say bring it on.

Beyond the "mistakes" they've made, we should also look at the "principled stances" they've taken. How many times have people from this administration been under fire from the Supreme Court or international human rights groupls like the Red Cross and Amnesty International? One thing we know about smoke, it's that fire causes it. It's not always the fire you think it is, but there's a fire there. These are the people who didn't want to testify at all before the 9/11 commission and when they did, did so while not under oath, which means they might as well have worn a shirt that said "I'm going to lie if you ask me a question I don't want to answer." And they have the GALL to use words like morality, courage, and decency. Dick Cheney was probably directly involved in revealing the identity of an undercover CIA agent... that's not a mistake, that's treason, and there's no other way to spell it. I wasn't going to vote for Kerry until I read something on Max's site that talked about how it's important to elect Kerry just to prove to the rest of the world that Americans don't like proto-fascists either.

Also, Waxman is a Democrat. Bush is a Republican. It's an election year.It's not too hard to connect the dots.

No, apparently it's looking like the Bush administration was hoping it would go un-noticed.. The administration has already said it was a "mistake" thus, your rational doesn't wash, but nice try, thanks for playing ;)If that's how you choose to look at it, I'm not stopping you. However, you can't ignore the possiblity that Waxman's statements were politically motivated.
Of course there is political motivation there. People want the truth!!

BTW, you have called Kerry an "asshole", is that politically motivated as well?

Am I politically motivated? You betcha. Bush is harmful to the people of the US through his failed policy on terrorism and has created an unstable political climate in the Middle East in particular and the world in general.

not trying to flame, but does anyone remeber the line 'Miserable failure"?

Doesn't really surprise me, tbh

Also, Waxman is a Democrat. Bush is a Republican. It's an election year.It's not too hard to connect the dots.

No, apparently it's looking like the Bush administration was hoping it would go un-noticed.. The administration has already said it was a "mistake" thus, your rational doesn't wash, but nice try, thanks for playing ;)If that's how you choose to look at it, I'm not stopping you. However, you can't ignore the possiblity that Waxman's statements were politically motivated.
Of course there is political motivation there. People want the truth!!

BTW, you have called Kerry an "asshole", is that politically motivated as well?

Am I politically motivated? You betc
ha. Bush is harmful to the people of the US through his failed policy on terrorism and has created an unstable political climate in the Middle East in particular and the world in general.



Failed?....let's see...not one terrorist attack on US Soil since 9/11...dozens of cells here in the US broken up...other's detained, deported, or sent to prison..on the international front..Al-Queda on the run..2/3 of it's leaders either dead, or incarcerated..their money drying up whenever it can be found...

Seems to me he hasn't done too badly?

Also, Waxman is a Democrat. Bush is a Republican. It's an election year.It's not too hard to connect the dots.

No, apparently it's looking like the Bush administration was hoping it would go un-noticed.. The administration has already said it was a "mistake" thus, your rational doesn't wash, but nice try, thanks for playing ;)If that's how you choose to look at it, I'm not stopping you. However, you can't ignore the possiblity that Waxman's statements were politically motivated.
Of course there is political motivation there. People want the truth!!

BTW, you have called Kerry an "asshole", is that politically motivated as well?

Am I politically motivated? You betc
ha. Bush is harmful to the people of the US through his failed policy on terrorism and has created an unstable political climate in the Middle East in particular and the world in general.



Failed?....let's see...not one terrorist attack on US Soil since 9/11...dozens of cells here in the US broken up...other's detained, deported, or sent to prison..on the international front..Al-Queda on the run..2/3 of it's leaders either dead, or incarcerated..their money drying up whenever it can be found...

Seems to me he hasn't done too badly?

Ok, the fact that no terrorism has happened on American soil since 9/11 is not a great thing, how many times exactly has a foreign terrorist attack actually happened on American soil? Not often enough for any one administration to take any credit, that's for sure.

Second, the Bush administration has broken up the organization of Al Qaeda? Sure, if you want to look at it like that go ahead. The truth of the matter is because of Bush and the increase in Anti-American sentiment he has brought to the country.. Al Qaeda is no longer an organization..It is a world movement now. If you call that success.. Well.. I don't. The fact is more people hate the United States because of Bush then they ever did before. That's not success, that's horrible failure.

let's see...not one terrorist attack on US Soil since 9/11

That's kind of innaccurate assumption. There has never been a history of frequent terrorist attacks on US soil. Indeed, before 9/11 the only terrorist act of any size was the Oklahoma City Bombings, committed by a domestic terrorist. And that was in the early to mid 90's. So that's kind of like stating, "Since lightning hasn't struck me twice since I attached the lightning rod to my back, it must be what's keeping me from being struck by lightning." There could be any number of other factors besides the Administration's actions to account for the lack of a follow up attack.

One of these factors is the much easier climate to launch terrorist attacks against Americans and American interests in Iraq rather than the country itself. While there hasn't been another attack on US soil, there have been frequent terrorist attacks directed against Americans, and indeed if you counted the Iraq situation, you would find that American deaths from terrorism are probably the greatest they've ever been, barring the 9/11 tragedy.

Also, Waxman is a Democrat. Bush is a Republican. It's an election year.It's not too hard to connect the dots.

No, apparently it's looking like the Bush administration was hoping it would go un-noticed.. The administration has already said it was a "mistake" thus, your rational doesn't wash, but nice try, thanks for playing ;)If that's how you choose to look at it, I'm not stopping you. However, you can't ignore the possiblity that Waxman's statements were politically motivated.
Of course there is political motivation there. People want the truth!!

BTW, you have called Kerry an "asshole", is that politically motivated as well?

Am I politically motivated? You betc
ha. Bush is harmful to the people of the US through his failed policy on terrorism and has created an unstable political climate in the Middle East in particular and the world in general.



Failed?....let's see...not one terrorist attack on US Soil since 9/11...dozens of cells here in the US broken up...other's detained, deported, or sent to prison..on the international front..Al-Queda on the run..2/3 of it's leaders either dead, or incarcerated..their money drying up whenever it can be found...

Seems to me he hasn't done too badly?

Ok, the fact that no terrorism has happened on American soil since 9/11 is not a great thing, how many times exactly has a foreign terrorist attack actually happened on American soil? Not often enough for any one administration to take any credit, that's for sure.

Second, the Bush administration has broken up the organization of Al Qaeda? Sure, if you want to look at it like that go ahead. The truth of the matter is because of Bush and the increase in Anti-American sentiment he has brought to the country.. Al Qaeda is no longer an organization..It is a world movement now. If you call that success.. Well.. I don't. The fact is more people hate the United States because of Bush then they ever did before. That's not success, that's horrible failure.

I call it a succes because the terrorists are dying somewhere else other then doing it here...I call it a success because frankly I sleep better knowing a hawk is at the helm of protecting this nation rather then a dove,...I call it a sucess because it was a movement long before Al-Queda, our enemy simply is the fundamentalist movement of Islamic Wahabbism that is a century old...it's just that they finally found willing violent followers in Al-Queda and it's various brethren.

I call it a success because their money is drying up and 2/3 of their leaders are either dead or incarcerated..I don't know what you'd call that though.

Hmm well.. interesitng how many "BIG MISTAKES" the US administration makes... one would assume that one is enough. The biggest mistake of course, was to elect Bush into power in the first place.

Hmph? Wait...Bush was ELECTED? If, by elected, you mean "used Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush to steal the Oval Office", then
yeah, I suppose.


In a obvious attempt to "cook" the books about terrorism.. a clever democratic senator called them on their report.. Now having to fess up that Bush's policy has in fact increased terrorism, not descreased it, the White House sits with egg on it's face. Calling it a "Big Mistake" so which is it? Are they outright lying? Or are they just outright incompetent?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/13/powell.terror.ap/index.html

A leading House Democrat, Rep. Henry Waxman of California, had challenged the findings, contending they were manipulated for political purposes. The conclusion that terrorism was on the decline was used to boost one of President Bush's chief foreign policy claims, success in countering terror

Wasn't Bush suppose to be the one who was strong on terrorism? Strong on getting it wrong, apparently..I believe The Daily Show reported on this. They said that a lot of the material was missing because the thing was printed in November and a couple of different things have happened since then.

Yeah - like Bush messing up MORE things, no doubt! :roll:


Some way to cook the books :roll:

Also, Waxman is a Democrat. Bush is a Republican. It's an election year.
It's not too hard to connect the dots.

As has been said, and so I now re-itterate "Just because one is from a different party does not mean that that is the only reason that one would criticise someone's policies". There are republicans who criticise Bush (they do it more openly now, but I doubt that any of them fly in small planes or drive on lonely roads near cliff faces, etc).

I call it a succes because the terrorists are dying somewhere else other then doing it here...I call it a success because frankly I sleep better knowing a hawk is at the helm of protecting this nation rather then a dove,...I call it a sucess because it was a movement long before Al-Queda, our enemy simply is the fundamentalist movement of Islamic Wahabbism that is a century old...it's just that they finally found willing violent followers in Al-Queda and it's various brethren.

I call it a success because their money is drying up and 2/3 of their leaders are either dead or incarcerated..I don't know what you'd call that though.

I'm sorry, but you're all rhetoric and little substance, I'm sorry if that offends you, not my intent, but that's how I see it. You are very ill informed on foreign policy and direction. It would appear to me you just wouldn't admit owls existed even if one was sitting on your shoulder. Too bad really. You seem to be quite articulate. To bad your knowledge is not at the same level.

An increase in terrorism equates to a policy failure? Incredibly nearsighted fools!

Does anyone here really believe that we could/should somehow
appease the terrorists? The ONLY way to defeat them is to KILL them. (That's something that America is getting very good at.) Would you
have us capitulate instead? There is no other policy. Period.

Why should we be surprised at a spike in the level of violence? When you corner a viscious animal, does he not become more viscious in his last few minutes of life? Let their hatred for the US, and what it represents, breed more terrorists. We can always make more bombs and bullets.

Also, Waxman is a Democrat. Bush is a Republican. It's an election year.It's not too hard to connect the dots.

No, apparently it's looking like the Bush administration was hoping it would go un-noticed.. The administration has already said it was a "mistake" thus, your rational doesn't wash, but nice try, thanks for playing ;)If that's how you choose to look at it, I'm not stopping you. However, you can't ignore the possiblity that Waxman's statements were politically motivated.
Of course there is political motivation there. People want the truth!!

BTW, you have called Kerry an "asshole", is that politically motivated as well?

Am I politically motivated? You betc
ha. Bush is harmful to the people of the US through his failed policy on terrorism and has created an unstable political climate in the Middle East in particular and the world in general.



Failed?....let's see...not one terrorist attack on US Soil since 9/11...dozens of cells here in the US broken up...other's detained, deported, or sent to prison..on the international front..Al-Queda on the run..2/3 of it's leaders either dead, or incarcerated..their money drying up whenever it can be found...

Seems to me he hasn't done too badly?
I guess that is a matter of opinion. Read the news report? How many attacks against Americans abroad? As far as no new attacks on American soil, there have been countless warnings. Is it just a matter of time?

Then again there is a whole new breed of terrorist being created in the Middle East with the war in Iraq. How many soldiers over there are going to face continued sniping?

If Bush was a smug as you, he would once again be proclaiming "mission accomplished". Even he is more practical about the present circumstances and realizes that daily "victories" do not necessarily win the war.

An increase in terrorism equates to a policy failure? Incredibly nearsighted fools!.

Yes, when you set out to decease terrorism and because of your policy you in fact double the amount of terrorists willing to sign up, I call that a policy failure. It's not a fluke that so many people in high level government positions are speaking out against Bush's foreign policy.. it's not working.. it's making it worse. Or do you not read the newspaper or watch the news?

I call it a succes because the terrorists are dying somewhere else other then doing it here...I call it a success because frankly I sleep better knowing a hawk is at the helm of protecting this nation rather then a dove,...I call it a sucess because it was a movement long before Al-Queda, our enemy simply is the fundamentalist movement of Islamic Wahabbism that is a century old...it's just that they finally found willing violent followers in Al-Queda and it's various brethren.

I call it a success because their money is drying up and 2/3 of their leaders are either dead or incarcerated..I don't know what you'd call that though.

I'm sorry, but you're all rhetoric and little substance, I'm sorry if that offends you, not my intent, but that's how I see it. You are very ill informed on foreign policy and direction. It would appear to me you just wouldn't admit owls existed even if one was sitting on your shoulder. Too bad really. You seem to be quite articulate. To bad your knowledge is not at the same level.

oh get over yourself miss...ill informed?...what is it that is so hard for you to grasp that we've either killed or jailed 2/3 of Al-Queda's members? That we've rooted out terrorist cells here in the US...rhetoric?..From where I sit you want to discus political philosophies and live in the clouds..me..I prefer to be grounded in reality...and the reality is we will hunt them..we will find them...and we will kill them.

An increase in terrorism equates to a policy failure? Incredibly nearsighted fools!.

Yes, when you set out to decease terrorism and because of your policy you in fact double the amount of terrorists willing to sign up, I call that a policy failure. It's not a fluke that so many people in high level government positions are speaking out against Bush's foreign policy.. it's not working.. it's making it worse. Or do you not read the newspaper or watch the news?

All that means is that the vermin are getting flushed from their holes..that's ok..more of them to shoot at.

I call it a succes because the terrorists are dying somewhere else other then doing it here...I call it a success because frankly I sleep better knowing a hawk is at the helm of protecting this nation rather then a dove,...I call it a sucess because it was a movement long before Al-Queda, our enemy simply is the fundamentalist movement of Islamic Wahabbism that is a century old...it's just that they finally found willing violent followers in Al-Queda and it's various brethren.

I call it a success because their money is drying up and 2/3 of their leaders are either dead or incarcerated..I don't know what you'd call that though.

I'm sorry, but you're all rhetoric and little substance, I'm sorry if that offends you, not my intent, but that's how I see it. You are very ill informed on foreign policy and direction. It would appear to me you just wouldn't admit owls existed even if one was sitting on your shoulder. Too bad really. You seem to be quite articulate. To bad your knowledge is not at the same level.

I would of course support Aluran's view and insist that yours is the one that is ill informed driven by ideological blindness. Inviting your enemies to 'play nice' isn't a policy, destroying them is a policy. Your view is one that will get a lot more people killed that GW's and thus is shortsighted in its radical adherence to pacifistic idealism. I would prefer adults with a clear world view run US foreign policy.

My opinion on the US before George Walker Bush became President:

Nice nation, funny president.. at least he knows whats good for him hehe... weird Americans are kinda prude though


My opinion on the US when 9/11 happened:

OMG!!! Thats an atrocity. Nobody deserves this. My condolences to all Americans who lost loved ones during that attack.


My opinion on the US since George Walker Bush started attacking nations, beginning with Afghanistan:

Oh crap.. now they've gone insane and want to dominate the world. No thanks, I'll rather oppose that.



The result being, that today, I despise George Walker Bush and have little to no sympathy left for the US of A. Should an attack on your soil happen now, I'd say: Serves them right, damn bastards. What goes around, comes around.

Redneck Geeks, perhaps the terrorists wouldn't be attacking if American foreign policy was not directly related to screwing the world over for the dollar? Let me get a soundbiteable quote for you, said by a pro-America Iraqi, a while ago. "Perhaps when they have been around for as long as us, they can tell us how to run our onw nation." Gives you an idea of the problem, doesn't it? People are fed up of America diving into situations heavy handed, raising the stars and stripes, and turning everywhere they go to a mini-America. The middle East is a very proud region of the world. Even the most "western" citizen doesn't like to see America cruising around like they own the place.

I call it a succes because the terrorists are dying somewhere else other then doing it here...I call it a success because frankly I sleep better knowing a hawk is at the helm of protecting this nation rather then a dove,...I call it a sucess because it was a movement long before Al-Queda, our enemy simply is the fundamentalist movement of Islamic Wahabbism that is a century old...it's just that they finally found willing violent followers in Al-Queda and it's various brethren.

I call it a success because their money is drying up and 2/3 of their leaders are either dead or incarcerated..I don't know what you'd call that though.

I'm sorry, but you're all rhetoric and little substance, I'm sorry if that offends you, not my intent, but that's how I see it. You are very ill informed on foreign policy and direction. It would appear to me you just wouldn't admit owls existed even if one was sitting on your shoulder. Too bad really. You seem to be quite articulate. To bad your knowledge is not at the same level.

I would of course support Aluran's view and insist that yours is the one that is ill informed driven by ideological blindness. Inviting your enemies to 'play nice' isn't a policy, destroying them is a policy. Your view is one that will get a lot more people killed that GW's and thus is shortsighted in its radical adherence to pacifistic idealism. I would prefer adults with a clear world view run US foreign policy.

So, it's ok with you that Bush lies to you about what he has done and what he hasn't? You don't believe that when you lie (or make "Big Mistakes") in your numbers that this isn't a attempt to mislead but once again the American people? Why would one have to do that if their policy was working? hmm?

And what is all this about killing them all? Talk about going after the symptoms, and not the cause. If you kill them, more will join. You need to solve the problems that are highlighted because if you don't, it will never go away. Also, all of this killing, it sounds like what terrorists would say. (you know, when they send videos saying stuff like "American blood will be the price you pay" and other such phrases.) Remember, they don't see themselves as terrorists. When you go on about wiping them out, killing them all, it doesn't help one little bit.

Failed?....let's see...not one terrorist attack on US Soil since 9/11...dozens of cells here in the US broken up...other's detained, deported, or sent to prison..on the international front..Al-Queda on the run..2/3 of it's leaders either dead, or incarcerated..their money drying up whenever it can be found...

Seems to me he hasn't done too badly?

Oh, for the love of... sir, thank you for being an example to others.

1. I have one word for you: Anthrax (http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/16/anthrax.profiler/). Not the band, the assassination attempt against two liberal politicians.
2. There's no evidence that any of these handful (not 'dozens') of so-called 'cells' are anything more than PR fodder for Ashcroft. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/15/opinion/15KRUG.html) Remember the 'spy ring' at Guantanamo? Strange how that vanished like the morning mist. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/14/yee.appeal/)
3. I'll also remind you that Ashcroft detailed 1,200 immigrants http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20028-2003Nov28?language=printer]without (
[url) finding a single terrorist.[/url]
4. Speaking of which, Al Qaeda is destabilizing Saudi Arabia (http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1227969,00.html) and leading security wonks think al Qaeda is doing fine (http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=2705024).
5. It's not like we've caught either Osama or Mullah Omar, is it?
6. Although some (grudging) progress has been made on drying up funding (http://cfrterrorism.org/responses/money.html), more government employees are devoted to Cuba's money than Al Qaeda's.

Also, you might have noticed we've spent over a thousand American lives, countless limbs and eyes, as well as 250+billion dollars in a place that had nothing to do with 9/11 or US-focused terrorism.

Redneck Geeks, perhaps the terrorists wouldn't be attacking if American foreign policy was not directly related to screwing the world over for the dollar? Let me get a soundbiteable quote for you, said by a pro-America Iraqi, a while ago. "Perhaps when they have been around for as long as us, they can tell us how to run our onw nation." Gives you an idea of the problem, doesn't it? People are fed up of America diving into situations heavy handed, raising the stars and stripes, and turning everywhere they go to a mini-America. The middle East is a very proud region of the world. Even the most "western" citizen doesn't like to see America cruising around like they own the place.

The Middle East a proud region?....It's been quite a long time since the Pharohs of Egypt stood like Gods in front of the Library of Alexandria, a long time since the Assyrians and the Code of Hammarabi..the current Middle East bears little resemblance to its gloried past...were it not for the black crude underneath their soil..most of the middle east would have reverted to little better then the desert bedouins of the 7th century.

Btw .. Osama might have been caught already. There was something like this on the news for a brief moment.. maybe it was a little bit true. If so, then Bush will probably pop out of his office like a toy clown and present Osama Bin Laden on a Golden Platter with fireworks and candles to the American people, who will forget all his mistakes and atrocities and re-elect him for being the glorious saviour of the US of A.

Why should we be surprised at a spike in the level of violence? When you corner a viscious animal, does he not become more viscious in his last few minutes of life? Let their hatred for the US, and what it represents, breed more terrorists. We can always make more bombs and bullets.

Thank you for not paying attention.

My point - clearly stated, but perhaps using long words - was that Dick Armitage had stated lower terrorism meant we were winning (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-06-10-powell-terror_x.htm?csp=23).

Now you are arguing that higher terrorism also means we're winning. I refer you to the "scientific method', very useful in making the blinky box you're reading this on. One of the core principles of science is that you don't get to change the rules after the fact so you 'prove' whatever hypothesis you want to.

If you actually check the report, you'll find that attacks on US troops - who aren't quite as replaceable as bombs and bullets, at least to me - aren't counted as terrorist incidents. We're talking about other civilians being blown up or killed, in places like Saudi Arabia and Turkey. It's hard for me to see how innocent people getting blown up counts as a success. (Note - capturing or killing terrorists does not count as a terrorist incident!)

Redneck Geeks, perhaps the terrorists wouldn't be attacking if American foreign policy was not directly related to screwing the world over for the dollar? Let me get a soundbiteable quote for you, said by a pro-America Iraqi, a while ago. "Perhaps when they have been around for as long as us, they can tell us how to run our onw nation." Gives you an idea of the problem, doesn't it? People are fed up of America diving into situations heavy handed, raising the stars and stripes, and turning everywhere they go to a mini-America. The middle East is a very proud region of the world. Even the most "western" citizen doesn't like to see America cruising around like they own the place.

The Middle East a proud region?....It's been quite a long time since the Pharohs of Egypt stood like Gods in front of the Library of Alexandria, a long time since the Assyrians and the Code of Hammarabi..the current Middle East bears little resemblance to its gloried past...were it not for the black crude underneath their soil..most of the middle east would have reverted to little better then the desert bedouins of the 7th century.

Just because they are not in the same position that they were once in does not mean they are not a proud people. It's quite ridiculous to suggest that they are not proud of their history. I doubt you could find anyone ashamed of it. If you were to check, you would see that it is because of their history, and what they have done for the world, which is why they are proud of themselves. Their current state and status has little effect.

Also, Waxman is a Democrat. Bush is a Republican. It's an election year.It's not too hard to connect the dots.

No, apparently it's looking like the Bush administration was hoping it would go un-noticed.. The administration has already said it was a "mistake" thus, your rational doesn't wash, but nice try, thanks for playing ;)If that's how you choose to look at it, I'm not stopping you. However, you can't ignore the possiblity that Waxman's statements were politically motivated.
Of course there is political motivation there. People want the truth!!

BTW, you have called Kerry an "asshole", is that politically motivated as well?

Am I politically motivated? You betc
ha. Bush is harmful to the people of the US through his failed policy on terrorism and has created an unstable political climate in the Middle East in particular and the world in general.



Failed?....let's see...not one terrorist attack on US Soil since 9/11...dozens of cells here in the US broken up...other's detained, deported, or sent to prison..on the international front..Al-Queda on the run..2/3 of it's leaders either dead, or incarcerated..their money drying up whenever it can be found...

Seems to me he hasn't done too badly?

EXACTLY! I seriously dout kerry would do a better job if he is supposadly just like bush on terror except he wouldn't fight terrorists unless the UN says he can he would strike the enemy before they stike us unless the UN says so. Well what if the UN says to stop fighting terrorist? Looks like we would be pritty screwed wouldn't we not to mention he would slash the military budget(pardon me if i spelled it incorrectly) to pieces. Every one praises clinton on his job as president but he ignored constant threats and didn't do anything for national security besides making it weaker. President Bush might not be the best but hes better than what the democrates have to offer. :?

If the US of A had not murdered the natives of the American continent, the country would still be a small colony somewhere to the West, considering how mentally backwards most people seem to be over there.

And what is all this about killing them all? Talk about going after the symptoms, and not the cause. If you kill them, more will join. You need to solve the problems that are highlighted because if you don't, it will never go away.

The problem is simple...

Young men in most muslim countries are taught from an early age that America and Israel are evil, and that they must be destroyed. How do you solve that problem? Bomb the schools? If they don't want us in there
helping to develop a new government, they certainly don't want us in there schools!

Muslim culture stopped advancing long ago because the fanatics seized the power. People hate the "religious fanatic" that's in the White House, but they feel sorry for the religous fanatics in the middle east.

America and Israel are evil, and that they must be destroyed

Today I also think that America and Israel are evil. I dont want both nations destroyed, but I want both of them to be limited in their aggressive actions all over the world. Of course the UN would be best suitable for that, if the US of A would consider the UN worth the letters it is made with.

If the US of A had not murdered the natives of the American continent, the country would still be a small colony somewhere to the West, considering how mentally backwards most people seem to be over there.

Europeans mudered Asian natives and african natives for a couple of centuries and nobody bugs them about it. Any way how does this relate to present dicussion? We know now that it was wrong but people back then didn't think so. Cant undo what has already been done.

the US and Israel are definitly evil and need to take a look at their own policies and how they create anti-US/anti-Israeli sentiment. It may take a while to change peoples minds but if the right path is taken it will be recognized and praised and it will be hard to make people hate the US when there are no examples of US Imperialism

America and Israel are evil, and that they must be destroyed

Solution: America and Israel should stop doing evil things.

I call it a succes because the terrorists are dying somewhere else other then doing it here...I call it a success because frankly I sleep better knowing a hawk is at the helm of protecting this nation rather then a dove,...I call it a sucess because it was a movement long before Al-Queda, our enemy simply is the fundamentalist movement of Islamic Wahabbism that is a century old...it's just that they finally found willing violent followers in Al-Queda and it's various brethren.

I call it a success because their money is drying up and 2/3 of their leaders are either dead or incarcerated..I don't know what you'd call that though.

Way to spout the party line!

Let's cover some specifics shall we?

I call it a succes because the terrorists are dying somewhere else other then doing it here

And as it becomes more and more unsafe in places like Saudi Arabia, it becomes tougher and tougher for the oil companies to attract people to do the work needed. It becomes more expensive for the insurance carriers to cover these employees, and we all wind up paying the premiums on that at the pump. And shall we ask the people in Spain how much safer it really is for average citizens?

I call it a success because frankly I sleep better knowing a hawk is at the helm of protecting this nation rather then a dove

Interesting how all the "doves" are the ones with successful military careers. Interesting how so many top military people have signed a letter decrying Bush's policies as being badly thought out and endangering to the security of the United States.

A hawk is only good if he's a smart hawk. Taking his eye off the ball of the Taliban and Al Qaeda for his little Iraq adventure has done NOTHING to secure the country. Failing to deliver on the promised cash to properly secure the borders has done NOTHING to secure the country. Adding to the anti-American sentiment in the Middle East has done EVERYTHING for al qaeda recruitment.

Sweet dreams.

I call it a sucess because it was a movement long before Al-Queda, our enemy simply is the fundamentalist movement of Islamic Wahabbism that is a century old...it's just that they finally found willing violent followers in Al-Queda and it's various brethren.

Oh good. It's a success because you have put a simplistic label on it. Gee, that helps.

And calling the IRA a "preexisting movement based on that old Catholic Church" in the '80's would have done so much to end the bombings in London...

I call it a success because their money is drying up and 2/3 of their leaders are either dead or incarcerated..I don't know what you'd call that though.

I'd call that wishful thinking. Or bullsh*t. Your choice.

point: 2/3 of their leaders dead or incarcerated. On what exactly do you base that? Oh right.... GW said it so it must be true!

In actual fact, at best they might be able to say "2/3 of the known al qaeda leadership at around the time of 9-11 is either dead or in custody. Gee, do you think anyone stepped up to the plate to replace the fallen? Do you think that US intelligence had that accurate intel on al qaeda? I mean, we can have a discussion on the quality of US intelligence gathering if you like. Somehow though, I think you might want to pass on that.

point: money drying up.

On what do you base that again? Oh yeah... GW said so.
Yes, they have done a lovely job shutting down charities that they believe were funneling money from the US to al Qaeda. But that is only as meaningful as the percentage of operating funds that this provided. Did they find any of Osamas large bank accounts and freeze them? no? Do you think they got the bulk of their revenue from the US? Or from people in friendly Islamic oil-rich countries nearby? I know where I'd put my bet! And of course people here who want to contribute and used to through charities are sure to just give up right? They won't find other ways to get cash to the right people?


Now you can sleep better if you like. But your arguments are hollow, and let's not forget one thing. If we really WERE winning this war, don't you think we'd have started to see a drop in terrorism rather than continued escalation? You can pin your hopes that this is the dying attack of a cornered pit bull. I tend to believe though that you have only created more dogs in the kennel through the completely inept leadership of Mr. Bush.

Only this time you don't know the dogs names. Hell, remember that warning a month or so ago which comprised a list of people that the FBI have been looking for for years? Still feeling safe in your bed? I don't.

And it's not because, as some have suggested, that we think you should negotiate with terrorists. It's because they should be taken out. But Bush fouled that up by going into a conventional-style war against Iraq. I assume because a nice takeover of a country would look like a real defined victory to point to when in fact it had absolutely nothing to do with the Islamic terrorist movements that are our biggest concern.


The Middle East a proud region?....It's been quite a long time since the Pharohs of Egypt stood like Gods in front of the Library of Alexandria, a long time since the Assyrians and the Code of Hammarabi..the current Middle East bears little resemblance to its gloried past...were it not for the black crude underneath their soil..most of the middle east would have reverted to little better then the desert bedouins of the 7th century.

Oh goody - thinly veiled bigotry.

Since when does pride have anything to do with riches? That is an extremely shallow point of view that does not reflect well on you. Do only rich people in America have pride? I think not!

Ask yourself this one question: Has ANY non-Arab country held onto Arab territory for any period without paying a terrible price? These people will not go down easily when invaded. Ask the Brits from the early part of the last century. Ask the Russians. And ask the Coalition today.


-Z-

Gigatron represents the european and german arrogance in its worst forms.
He should think which country always supported the German unification while others - France, Britain, Soviet Union - were in fact trying to do everything to avoid it.
Well: some West German left-wingers were indeed against the reunifaction of their country. We assume Gigatron is one of them.

To demonise the US is today were popular. What has the US actually done to deserve it??? Nothing. Especially Germans should shut up since they gained a lot thanks to the German-american alliance.
It was irresponsible that the German chancellor used the fear of war and even fuelled anti-american sentiment to get reelected after his polls went down and down. It was only one and a half month before the election he played this anti-american card. He was obviously so desperate that he was even ready to bring a 50-year-old alliance in jeoporday to stay in power. That speaks much against him and his foreign secretary.

It seems that many people outside the US have forgotten 9/11. That was before the intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some people seem to mix up the row of events in order to make them fit in the picture that America is "evil".
And the "evil" Israel is facing an growing arab population, growing islamism and the will of many arabs (in the past nationalist, today islamist) TO ELIMINATE THE EXISTENCE OT THE STATE OF ISRAEL.
Israel has the right to self-defense against those terrorists and those who harbour them as well as the US has the right to do so.
And countries should stop to provide them with money and other support, which Iraq did to Palestinian sucicide bombers and Iran and Syria are giving to Hizbollah in Southern Lebanon.

9-11 is no more a valid excuse for every action that the American Government does any more than the Holocost gives Israel carte-blanche.

you WILL notice that nobody much complains about Afghanistan (except for the fact that the US did not fully pursue their quarry there). Why? Because it wAS an appropriate response to 9-11.

Iraq is not viewed that way by many.

-Z-

Brilliant post up above there Zepp! bravo!!!! *stands up and claps*

US has done nothign to deserve anti-US sentiment? lol - I would post some examples but there are zillions of examples out there and if you cant see those then my post wont do any good.

He should think which country always supported the German unification while others - France, Britain, Soviet Union - were in fact trying to do everything to avoid it.
Well: some West German left-wingers were indeed against the reunifaction of their country. We assume Gigatron is one of them.

To demonise the US is today were popular. What has the US actually done to deserve it??? Nothing. Especially Germans should shut up since they gained a lot thanks to the German-american alliance.
It was irresponsible that the German chancellor used the fear of war and even fuelled anti-american sentiment to get reelected after his polls went down and down. It was only one and a half month before the election he played this anti-american card. He was obviously so desperate that he was even ready to bring a 50-year-old alliance in jeoporday to stay in power. That speaks much against him and his foreign secretary.

First:

The Soviet Union supported the reunification, largely because running the "GDR" was much too expensive for them. It happens to be a fact that Mikail Gorbatchev was the largest supporter of our reunification. He's Russian if i remember right. Not to mention that the reunification was due to the people of the east overthrowing the government with peaceful demonstration. The US, if anyone, cannot claim any "benefitial action" in us reuniting our country. I am an East German.

Secondly:

The US have done a whole lot to deserve demonisation. You of course do not see it, considering that its your president who is the one being attacked with words. Patriotism at the wrong time I say. You should be patriotic for your country, not for the man ruining it.

German-American alliance and what we gained form it: We still have American soldiers in our country, 60 years after the end of WW2. Our "constitution" is not a constitution made by the people of Germany. There never was a signing of a peace treaty between the allied forces and Germany, so technically we are in a very long phase of armistice.

Before I want to hear what we gained from the German-American alliance, I would kindly ask you to get lost from our soil.

Our chancellor never was "anti-american". He was anti-war, which the vast majority of Germany is. Very few people here support what the US does since 9/11 and Germany is not the only country in the world that refuses to follow the US in its blind crusade for revenge. Today I can say.. bye America, we dont need you anymore and most people dont want you anymore. If you would kindly leave our country and mind your own business. Thank you.

The vast majority of Germany think that the right to self-defense does not include waging pre-emptive wars based on lies. The additional fact that the US of A did not have a UN mandate to do what they did, is another indication how the US of A views itself in the world: as the all-powerful hegemony with the right to oppress everyone else and impose their ideals on the entire world. No thanks, we can live without that.

Way to spout the party line!

High praise... coming from the king of party line!


And as it becomes more and more unsafe in places like Saudi Arabia, it becomes tougher and tougher for the oil companies to attract people to do the work needed. It becomes more expensive for the insurance carriers to cover these employees, and we all wind up paying the premiums on that at the pump. And shall we ask the people in Spain how much safer it really is for average citizens?

6 months ago it was "The US is only fighting this war for Oil".
Now we're driving oil prices up? The war has very little effect on oil prices. Opec turned down the volume, remember? All the jobs the US is send overseas are causing economic growth in countries like China and India. Economic Growth = more energy consumption. Nice try, though.


Taking his eye off the ball of the Taliban and Al Qaeda for his little Iraq adventure has done NOTHING to secure the country.

We've argued this before. America IS big enough, and strong enough, to
fight two small wars at the same time. Sticking extra tanks and infantry in
Afghanistan now would do us no good.


If we really WERE winning this war, don't you think we'd have started to see a drop in terrorism rather than continued escalation? You can pin your hopes that this is the dying attack of a cornered pit bull. I tend to believe though that you have only created more dogs in the kennel through the completely inept leadership of Mr. Bush.

The war on terrorism will take many years. That's been stated from the beginning. It will probably be several more years before the fact that we ARE winning is obvious to the shortsighted. We can't always have the instant gratification that the left seems to demand. Take a Ritlan and pay attention for a while longer.


Only this time you don't know the dogs names. Hell, remember that warning a month or so ago which comprised a list of people that the FBI have been looking for for years?

So we don't know their names, but we're able to publish their names?
Nice contradiction.

Way to spout the party line!

High praise... coming from the king of party line!

Nice try Redneck, except my husband isn't a Democrat, we're Canadians who might just be a little more objective then you.


And as it becomes more and more unsafe in places like Saudi Arabia, it becomes tougher and tougher for the oil companies to attract people to do the work needed. It becomes more expensive for the insurance carriers to cover these employees, and we all wind up paying the premiums on that at the pump. And shall we ask the people in Spain how much safer it really is for average citizens?

6 months ago it was "The US is only fighting this war for Oil".

My husband has never said the war in Iraq was about Oil.. You must be thinking of some one else. Nice try though!



Only this time you don't know the dogs names. Hell, remember that warning a month or so ago which comprised a list of people that the FBI have been looking for for years?

So we don't know their names, but we're able to publish their names?
Nice contradiction.

Redneck, you're completely either missing the point, or deliberately trying to be misleading. He was talking about the 6 or 7 people they have been looking for , for years and held a news conference a few weeks ago and tried to make it look like they were new people they were looking for, when they weren't.

6 months ago it was "The US is only fighting this war for Oil".
Now we're driving oil prices up?


The words for today are 'incompetence' and 'hubris'. Anyway, that's a straw man - I don't think anyone serious argued the war was purely for oil. But surely you've noticed that millions of black people dying in African wars don't seem to rate as highly as poor suffering people in oil- and natural-gas rich countries?

The war has very little effect on oil prices.

To quote Fallen "Look around sometime". The Iraq war jacked up oil prices by a few bucks, although there certainly many reasons why oil prices are high. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3708951.stm) Not to mention terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia - helped by decades of neglect and recent American incompetence - might raise the price of a barrel of oil as high as $80 or $100 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3772641.stm).

Opec turned down the volume, remember?

Don't believe everything you read. OPEC reduced their quotas, and then they increased their quotas. Neither incident really affected oil production, which is practically at capacity.

Anyway, if you pay attention to Bush's past, cheap oil prices caused his company to go bankrupt. He wants control of oil reserves, not cheap oil.


Taking his eye off the ball of the Taliban and Al Qaeda for his little Iraq adventure has done NOTHING to secure the country.

We've argued this before. America IS big enough, and strong enough, to
fight two small wars at the same time. Sticking extra tanks and infantry in
Afghanistan now would do us no good.


If you argued this before, I hope you lost every time.

There are a limited number of Arabic-speaking special forces troops, not to mention intelligence officers and equipment like Predators, etc. It's part of the public record that these troops were pulled out of Afghanistan to prepare for the Iraq war (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-28-troop-shifts_x.htm). We're talking about highly trained, competent people who had started to build a rapport with the local communities. They were replaced by new troops trained in Spanish and intended for Latin America - and you don't think that had an impact on how Afghanistan is doing today?

(Note for those not paying attenion - violence has caused the delay of Afghanistani elections. How well are things going?)
[edit - fixed typos]

I heard about this. You can even see for yourself that terrorism has gone up around the world in the past few months!!

It is worthwhile to note, however, that the attacks in 2003 were less sophisticated, and often on soft target. They weren't any grand attacks, like the 2002 bombing in Bali, or the theater seizure in Moscow. It's safe to say that by 2003, they were getting desparate, setting low moral standards for themselves, and targeting anything that wasn't well guarded.
2004 has, so far, followed a similar pattern. Even the trains in Madrid wouldn't have been targeted had there been better security. I'm not blaming the Spanish for 3/11, but simply pointing out that, unlike 2002 and 2001, they are attacking less and less well guarded targets.

Way to spout the party line!

High praise... coming from the king of party line!


And which party would that be? Actually, I have posted my disappointmwnt with Kerry on numerous occasions. I am, however, able to criticize BOTH as the situation merits as I do not believe that puer partisanship is an intelligent way to view issues.

Nice try though.



And as it becomes more and more unsafe in places like Saudi Arabia, it becomes tougher and tougher for the oil companies to attract people to do the work needed. It becomes more expensive for the insurance carriers to cover these employees, and we all wind up paying the premiums on that at the pump. And shall we ask the people in Spain how much safer it really is for average citizens?

6 months ago it was "The US is only fighting this war for Oil".
Now we're driving oil prices up? The war has very little effect on oil prices. Opec turned down the volume, remember? All the jobs the US is send overseas are causing economic growth in countries like China and India. Economic Growth = more energy consumption. Nice try, though.


Ah yes - if one person (or even several) says that, let's paint the entire group opposing a given issue with the same viewpoint.

A bogus tactic indeed.

You will note that I addressed Alurans statements specifically. You are just flinging muck with that crack. I have never stated that this was "all about oil."

Oh, but I do love it when timing works to my favour.

Just posted here, a nice statement from the government (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040615/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_saudi_arabia_8)


The U.S. government is renewing its call for Americans to leave Saudi Arabia after the recent terrorist attacks, saying the safety of U.S. workers was more important than any effect on oil supplies or the Saudi economy.


Now... ecenomically speaking, what do you think might happen to prices in an environment of uncertain supply?





Taking his eye off the ball of the Taliban and Al Qaeda for his little Iraq adventure has done NOTHING to secure the country.

We've argued this before. America IS big enough, and strong enough, to
fight two small wars at the same time. Sticking extra tanks and infantry in
Afghanistan now would do us no good.


Really? You are so big and strong that no extraordinary measure have had to be taken to extend tours and even deny retirements?

The situation hasn't been so dire that the Pentagon has had to struggle to supply troops with basic neccessities like flack jackets? They haven;t run so seriously short of ammo that they are having to source bullets from overseas to keep up with demand?

And the situation if Afghanistan is all hunkey dory with full security and control of that country made with a centralized government bringing freedom and democracy to all?

Interesting.....

I guess all of the news outlets - regardless of political affiliation - got all that wrong.



If we really WERE winning this war, don't you think we'd have started to see a drop in terrorism rather than continued escalation? You can pin your hopes that this is the dying attack of a cornered pit bull. I tend to believe though that you have only created more dogs in the kennel through the completely inept leadership of Mr. Bush.

The war on terrorism will take many years. That's been stated from the beginning. It will probably be several more years before the fact that we ARE winning is obvious to the shortsighted. We can't always have the instant gratification that the left seems to demand. Take a Ritlan and pay attention for a while longer.


I'm sure that's a drug you are very well versed on!

In case you haven't noticed, I am very much for the war agains terrorism. I'm just wishing that the Administration had stayed fightining that war instead of expending the bulk of their resources against something totally unrelated.

Because, you see, that only extends the time it will take to get the job done that really needed to be done.



Only this time you don't know the dogs names. Hell, remember that warning a month or so ago which comprised a list of people that the FBI have been looking for for years?

So we don't know their names, but we're able to publish their names?
Nice contradiction.


Oooooooooooohhhhhhh sorry. Guess I wasn't clear enough for you. Let me put those two sentance in proper context.

The first statement refers to the fact that there are surely many new recruits to al qaeda that your CIA is unaware of. We can base that assumption on the fact that they keep managing to attack you.
The second statement refers to the fact that there are still old members kicking around unaccounted for.

See the diference?

New (unknown) members v.s. old (known but still walking free) ones?

IT's really not that tough a concept....

And for somebody (Aluran) claiming that mopping up was going so swimmingly, the FBI still feeling it neccessary to post pictures of people that have been on their watch list for years, and who they believe are still in the US planning more assaults, is not indicitive of the level of success at stopping Al Qaeda as he stated.

Which might just be why I suggest that he should not sleep so soundly as he thinks he is able to.



-Z-

It is worthwhile to note, however, that the attacks in 2003 were less sophisticated, and often on soft target. They weren't any grand attacks, like the 2002 bombing in Bali, or the theater seizure in Moscow. It's safe to say that by 2003, they were getting desparate, setting low moral standards for themselves, and targeting anything that wasn't well guarded.
2004 has, so far, followed a similar pattern. Even the trains in Madrid wouldn't have been targeted had there been better security. I'm not blaming the Spanish for 3/11, but simply pointing out that, unlike 2002 and 2001, they are attacking less and less well guarded targets.

This is what is known as "rationalizing"

[quote="Stephistan"]In a obvious attempt to "cook" the books about terrorism.. a clever democratic senator called them on their report.. Now having to fess up that Bush's policy has in fact increased terrorism, not descreased it, the White House sits with egg on it's face. Calling it a "Big Mistake" so which is it? Are they outright lying? Or are they just outright incompetent?

Of course terrorism is going to increase when your at war with them do you think they are just going to let us defeat them.The real way to tell if Bush stopped terrorism is after all this is over and we will see then what happens but know of course it will increase.At least Bush had the balls to do what clinton should have done 8 years a go.

Way to spout the party line!

High praise... coming from the king of party line!

Nice try Redneck, except my husband isn't a Democrat, we're Canadians who might just be a little more objective then you.

Did I say your husband was an American Democrat?
Does he know if Aluran is an American Replublican?
Just turning the tables...



My husband has never said the war in Iraq was about Oil.. You must be thinking of some one else. Nice try though!

Okay, I don't know if I've ever seen him say that or not. It was just a general attack on the liberal "party line".



Only this time you don't know the dogs names. Hell, remember that warning a month or so ago which comprised a list of people that the FBI have been looking for for years?

So we don't know their names, but we're able to publish their names?
Nice contradiction.

Redneck, you're completely either missing the point, or deliberately trying to be misleading. He was talking about the 6 or 7 people they have been looking for , for years and held a news conference a few weeks ago and tried to make it look like they were new people they were looking for, when they weren't.

It was OBVIOUS he was referring to two different things, I was just getting a cheap shot in. Withdrawn

America and Israel are evil, and that they must be destroyed

Today I also think that America and Israel are evil. I dont want both nations destroyed, but I want both of them to be limited in their aggressive actions all over the world. Of course the UN would be best suitable for that, if the US of A would consider the UN worth the letters it is made with.

the US and Israel are definitly evil and need to take a look at their own policies and how they create anti-US/anti-Israeli sentiment. It may take a while to change peoples minds but if the right path is taken it will be recognized and praised and it will be hard to make people hate the US when there are no examples of US Imperialism

Two thoughtless, pointless, and completely useless posts.

America and Israel are like the lightning rods of hate on this world. Both for the same exact reason; their political leaders are ready to use force, excessive at times, in order to ensure the safety of the nations/states interests. They neither care nor listen to world opinion until it actually matters in terms of strategy.

And the U.N. has beomce useless much like the League of Nations was.


He should think which country always supported the German unification while others - France, Britain, Soviet Union - were in fact trying to do everything to avoid it.
Well: some West German left-wingers were indeed against the reunifaction of their country. We assume Gigatron is one of them.

To demonise the US is today were popular. What has the US actually done to deserve it??? Nothing. Especially Germans should shut up since they gained a lot thanks to the German-american alliance.
It was irresponsible that the German chancellor used the fear of war and even fuelled anti-american sentiment to get reelected after his polls went down and down. It was only one and a half month before the election he played this anti-american card. He was obviously so desperate that he was even ready to bring a 50-year-old alliance in jeoporday to stay in power. That speaks much against him and his foreign secretary.

First:

The Soviet Union supported the reunification, largely because running the "GDR" was much too expensive for them. It happens to be a fact that Mikail Gorbatchev was the largest supporter of our reunification. He's Russian if i remember right. Not to mention that the reunification was due to the people of the east overthrowing the government with peaceful demonstration. The US, if anyone, cannot claim any "benefitial action" in us reuniting our country. I am an East German.

Secondly:

The US have done a whole lot to deserve demonisation. You of course do not see it, considering that its your president who is the one being attacked with words. Patriotism at the wrong time I say. You should be patriotic for your country, not for the man ruining it.

German-American alliance and what we gained form it: We still have American soldiers in our country, 60 years after the end of WW2. Our "constitution" is not a constitution made by the people of Germany. There never was a signing of a peace treaty between the allied forces and Germany, so technically we are in a very long phase of armistice.

Before I want to hear what we gained from the German-American alliance, I would kindly ask you to get lost from our soil.

Our chancellor never was "anti-american". He was anti-war, which the vast majority of Germany is. Very few people here support what the US does since 9/11 and Germany is not the only country in the world that refuses to follow the US in its blind crusade for revenge. Today I can say.. bye America, we dont need you anymore and most people dont want you anymore. If you would kindly leave our country and mind your own business. Thank you.

The vast majority of Germany think that the right to self-defense does not include waging pre-emptive wars based on lies. The additional fact that the US of A did not have a UN mandate to do what they did, is another indication how the US of A views itself in the world: as the all-powerful hegemony with the right to oppress everyone else and impose their ideals on the entire world. No thanks, we can live without that.

The Soviet Union only agreed to the reunification after the old elite had died off and a reformer, Gorbachev, took power. The East gained its independence thanks to political pressure from the U.S. and from the inability of the S.U. to continue the cold war much longer. Do you really believe that if a Stalin-like leader had taken control of the S.U. in the 1980's that he'd allowed the East Germans to reunify?

As a Pole, from where I stand, the Germans have historically been the aggressors along with their ancestors, the Prussians and Teutons. If Germany no longer wants to retain friendly relations with the U.S. then so be it, I think however, that bases such as Rammstein should be moved East into Poland and Romania. Nations/States friendly to the U.S., because they acknowledge the aid they received against the Soviet Union. The U.S. has done nothing to deserve the amount of hatred it has generated, however, being the sole superpower a certain sense of ineptness on the part of the world towards them is inevitable. The fact is the U.S.A. is able and willing to defend its interests with its armed forces while nations such as Germany must be content with using lip service.

In a obvious attempt to "cook" the books about terrorism.. a clever democratic senator called them on their report.. Now having to fess up that Bush's policy has in fact increased terrorism, not descreased it, the White House sits with egg on it's face. Calling it a "Big Mistake" so which is it? Are they outright lying? Or are they just outright incompetent?

Of course terrorism is going to increase when your at war with them do you think they are just going to let us defeat them.The real way to tell if Bush stopped terrorism is after all this is over and we will see then what happens but know of course it will increase.At least Bush had the balls to do what clinton should have done 8 years a go.

It wasn't a matter of "having balls" it was about finding something to get re-elected with, aside from being seen as "the tough-on-terrorism president" his record is pretty dismal and has attracted criticism from both liberals and conservatives.

The problem with so many people on the right is they see this war as being one where there are a limited number of terrorists and thus when you've killed all of them the war will be over. Sadly their numbers are increasing and measures must be taken to combat this trend as well as fighting those already in active existence. How's this for a soundbyte Bush could use: "Tough on terrorism, tough on the causes of terrorism".

I just have a question for all of you who support GW Bush. All of the scandals that have fallen on this administration have been exposed by "other" sources. Not once has this administration ever come out and made any announcements that they made a mistake on any thing without it being outed by the press or other sources not of their own.

My question is this, how many more "Big Mistakes" and or scandals coming from this administration is it going to take before you say to yourself "Hey, maybe Bush is just bad for America and the world"

Will you defend him like this for the next exposed "Big Mistake"? How many will it take?

How many people lining up to say he's policies are a problem before you start believing them?

What is it going to take? How many times are you going to make excuses for this administration?

It is worthwhile to note, however, that the attacks in 2003 were less sophisticated, and often on soft target. They weren't any grand attacks, like the 2002 bombing in Bali, or the theater seizure in Moscow. It's safe to say that by 2003, they were getting desparate, setting low moral standards for themselves, and targeting anything that wasn't well guarded.
2004 has, so far, followed a similar pattern. Even the trains in Madrid wouldn't have been targeted had there been better security. I'm not blaming the Spanish for 3/11, but simply pointing out that, unlike 2002 and 2001, they are attacking less and less well guarded targets.

This is what is known as "rationalizing"
You mean what I'm doing, or the terrorists are doing?

I just have a question for all of you who support GW Bush. All of the scandals that have fallen on this administration have been exposed by "other" sources. Not once has this administration ever come out and made any announcements that they made a mistake on any thing without it being outed by the press or other sources not of their own.

My question is this, how many more "Big Mistakes" and or scandals coming from this administration is it going to take before you say to yourself "Hey, maybe Bush is just bad for America and the world"

Will you defend him like this for the next exposed "Big Mistake"? How many will it take?

How many people lining up to say he's policies are a problem before you start believing them?

What is it going to take? How many times are you going to make excuses for this administration?
When some of these "Big Mistakes" start to be something that dosen't sound like its from MoveOn or DemocracyNow, it would be time for consideration.

It comes down to what's viewed as a mistake though. Some of us don't feel that removing Saddam Hussein was a mistake, even if it meant ignoring the French and Germans. Some of us also don't buy BS about Bush causing the recession, Florida 2000, prisoner abuse, or a multitude of other things that the left accuses the Bush White House of doing.

Redneck Geeks, perhaps the terrorists wouldn't be attacking if American foreign policy was not directly related to screwing the world over for the dollar? Let me get a soundbiteable quote for you, said by a pro-America Iraqi, a while ago. "Perhaps when they have been around for as long as us, they can tell us how to run our onw nation." Gives you an idea of the problem, doesn't it? People are fed up of America diving into situations heavy handed, raising the stars and stripes, and turning everywhere they go to a mini-America. The middle East is a very proud region of the world. Even the most "western" citizen doesn't like to see America cruising around like they own the place.

The US may be a part of the factor. However, there are wackos in the Islamic Religion that want to see the world as Islam.

I really doubt that the 60000+ dead Algerians was due to the evil United States.

It is worthwhile to note, however, that the attacks in 2003 were less sophisticated, and often on soft target. They weren't any grand attacks, like the 2002 bombing in Bali, or the theater seizure in Moscow. It's safe to say that by 2003, they were getting desparate, setting low moral standards for themselves, and targeting anything that wasn't well guarded.
2004 has, so far, followed a similar pattern. Even the trains in Madrid wouldn't have been targeted had there been better security. I'm not blaming the Spanish for 3/11, but simply pointing out that, unlike 2002 and 2001, they are attacking less and less well guarded targets.
You forgot one telling detail- as of late, it is the MUSLIM states that are targets of terrorist attacks. It is especially apparent in Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda appears to have lost much of their capabilities to carry out attacks outside the Muslim world.

I just have a question for all of you who support GW Bush. All of the scandals that have fallen on this administration have been exposed by "other" sources. Not once has this administration ever come out and made any announcements that they made a mistake on any thing without it being outed by the press or other sources not of their own.

My question is this, how many more "Big Mistakes" and or scandals coming from this administration is it going to take before you say to yourself "Hey, maybe Bush is just bad for America and the world"

Will you defend him like this for the next exposed "Big Mistake"? How many will it take?

How many people lining up to say he's policies are a problem before you start believing them?

What is it going to take? How many times are you going to make excuses for this administration?
When some of these "Big Mistakes" start to be something that dosen't sound like its from MoveOn or DemocracyNow, it would be time for consideration.

It comes down to what's viewed as a mistake though. Some of us don't feel that removing Saddam Hussein was a mistake, even if it meant ignoring the French and Germans. Some of us also don't buy BS about Bush causing the recession, Florida 2000, prisoner abuse, or a multitude of other things that the left accuses the Bush White House of doing.In other words, for you, never.

Sometimes I get the feeling that Bush could come on tv, claim to be Jesus reincarnated, slaughter 20 goats on the White House steps, declare the entire Middle East to be New Jerusalem, and sign an executive order naming himself "Dictator for Life" and you'd go along with it.

I just have a question for all of you who support GW Bush. All of the scandals that have fallen on this administration have been exposed by "other" sources. Not once has this administration ever come out and made any announcements that they made a mistake on any thing without it being outed by the press or other sources not of their own.

My question is this, how many more "Big Mistakes" and or scandals coming from this administration is it going to take before you say to yourself "Hey, maybe Bush is just bad for America and the world"

Will you defend him like this for the next exposed "Big Mistake"? How many will it take?

How many people lining up to say he's policies are a problem before you start believing them?

What is it going to take? How many times are you going to make excuses for this administration?
When some of these "Big Mistakes" start to be something that dosen't sound like its from MoveOn or DemocracyNow, it would be time for consideration.

It comes down to what's viewed as a mistake though. Some of us don't feel that removing Saddam Hussein was a mistake, even if it meant ignoring the French and Germans. Some of us also don't buy BS about Bush causing the recession, Florida 2000, prisoner abuse, or a multitude of other things that the left accuses the Bush White House of doing.In other words, for you, never.

Sometimes I get the feeling that Bush could come on tv, claim to be Jesus reincarnated, slaughter 20 goats on the White House steps, declare the entire Middle East to be New Jerusalem, and sign an executive order naming himself "Dictator for Life" and you'd go along with it.
And if next month 12 Million jobs were created, deaths in Iraq went down to zero, and North Korea and Iran agreed to inspections, you'd still say he sucked.

I just have a question for all of you who support GW Bush. All of the scandals that have fallen on this administration have been exposed by "other" sources. Not once has this administration ever come out and made any announcements that they made a mistake on any thing without it being outed by the press or other sources not of their own.

My question is this, how many more "Big Mistakes" and or scandals coming from this administration is it going to take before you say to yourself "Hey, maybe Bush is just bad for America and the world"

Will you defend him like this for the next exposed "Big Mistake"? How many will it take?

How many people lining up to say he's policies are a problem before you start believing them?

What is it going to take? How many times are you going to make excuses for this administration?

When some of these "Big Mistakes" start to be something that dosen't sound like its from MoveOn or DemocracyNow, it would be time for consideration.

Ok, fair enough. Well this thread was started with a credible article that the administration has had to admit.

If that isn't enough, what about these people..

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1131&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040613%2F1709603633.htm&sc=1131

These people are from all political leanings..

Prominent members include retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East during the administration of Bush's father; retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., ambassador to Britain under President Clinton and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Reagan; and Jack F. Matlock Jr., a member of the National Security Council under Reagan and ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991.

So, what's it going to take?

[quote]
Quote:

He should think which country always supported the German unification while others - France, Britain, Soviet Union - were in fact trying to do everything to avoid it.
Well: some West German left-wingers were indeed against the reunifaction of their country. We assume Gigatron is one of them.

To demonise the US is today were popular. What has the US actually done to deserve it??? Nothing. Especially Germans should shut up since they gained a lot thanks to the German-american alliance.
It was irresponsible that the German chancellor used the fear of war and even fuelled anti-american sentiment to get reelected after his polls went down and down. It was only one and a half month before the election he played this anti-american card. He was obviously so desperate that he was even ready to bring a 50-year-old alliance in jeoporday to stay in power. That speaks much against him and his foreign secretary.


First:

The Soviet Union supported the reunification, largely because running the "GDR" was much too expensive for them. It happens to be a fact that Mikail Gorbatchev was the largest supporter of our reunification. He's Russian if i remember right. Not to mention that the reunification was due to the people of the east overthrowing the government with peaceful demonstration. The US, if anyone, cannot claim any "benefitial action" in us reuniting our country. I am an East German.



Mikail Gorbatchev said in 1989: " Regarding the wall: well, we have to accept the historic facts that there are two german states. That´s the fact at present and the foreseable future. What happends in HUNDRED YEARS shall be decided by history."
I would say that were the fastest hundred years. Gorbatshev only agreed to the unification because Chancellor Kohl paid the Soviets almost 10 billion Dollars and gave them huge loans. That belongs to the truth as well
We also have seen that you voted for the after runner of the communist party of East Germany. The only party which was against the reunification. I see that this wasn´t an important issue for you.




Secondly:

The US have done a whole lot to deserve demonisation. You of course do not see it, considering that its your president who is the one being attacked with words. Patriotism at the wrong time I say. You should be patriotic for your country, not for the man ruining it.

Since I´m not american your argumentation goes astray completly.





German-American alliance and what we gained form it: We still have American soldiers in our country, 60 years after the end of WW2. Our "constitution" is not a constitution made by the people of Germany. There never was a signing of a peace treaty between the allied forces and Germany, so technically we are in a very long phase of armistice.

What you say is completly false and shows that you know were little about the history about the democratic Germany (west Germany). It were Germans who wrote the constituítion in the parlamentary council. The chairman was Konrad Adenauer, the first Chancellor. The constituition was approved by all 11 west german states except Bavaria and Berlin via their parliaments which were democraticly elected in 1946.
It was also approved by the first democratically elected parliament of the GDR in 1990, shortly before the reunification.
The reunification took place in accordance with the "2+4-treaty" solving ALL OUTSTANDING ISSUES between Germany and the allies of world war II.


Before I want to hear what we gained from the German-American alliance, I would kindly ask you to get lost from our soil.

Your are standing pretty alone with your opinion. Donald Rumsfeld plans to reduce the American troops in Germany from 74 000 down to 37000.
It are German politicians from all parties who are asking and begging the US to stay. By the way: due to the 2+4-treaty they are no American troops in east germany. So you won´t see them anyway.


Our chancellor never was "anti-american". He was anti-war, which the vast majority of Germany is. Very few people here support what the US does since 9/11 and Germany is not the only country in the world that refuses to follow the US in its blind crusade for revenge. Today I can say.. bye America, we dont need you anymore and most people dont want you anymore. If you would kindly leave our country and mind your own business. Thank you.

The vast majority of Germany think that the right to self-defense does not include waging pre-emptive wars based on lies. The additional fact that the US of A did not have a UN mandate to do what they did, is another indication how the US of A views itself in the world: as the all-powerful hegemony with the right to oppress everyone else and impose their ideals on the entire world. No thanks, we can live without thatHe should think which country always supported the German .

Which country is the second largest trade partner of Germany???
Right: the US. Germany is exporting very much to the US. The economic ties are strong. Neither side - but especially not the german one - can afford to cut those ties. By the way: also the german secret service believed in the existence of WMD.
Iraq was in material breach of its obligations towards the UN. The UN BANNED Iraq to posses WMD and MISSILES RANGING OVER 150 km. Iraq possesed missiles with the range of 180 and more km (Al-Samoud-missiles). It has therefore been proven that IRAQ was in MATERIAL BREACH of its obligations. The UN treatened Iraq with SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES. The council was unable to make a further decision but according to british and american legal advisers 1441 was a SOLID BASIS FOR TAKING ACTION. Furthernmore Iraq was supporting terror, e.g. palestinian suicide bombings. That wasn´t acceptable after 9/11. The tolerance against the intolerant has gotten much lower in US politics. I welcome that actually. There were a lot of geostrategic reasons to take action against the Saddam regime (e.g. stabilizing the region; increasing the dependency from Saudi-Arabia and many more).
Bye the way: the legal basis was STRONGER than in the Kosovo war, on which Germany actively participated under the leadership of Chancellor Schroeder.

When some of these "Big Mistakes" start to be something that dosen't sound like its from MoveOn or DemocracyNow, it would be time for consideration

The phrase "Big Mistake" comes from Powell, in regards to the State Department's Terrorism report, which was either cooked or bungled horribly. This is from CNN, if you wish to debate the authenticity of the source.

Some of us don't feel that removing Saddam Hussein was a mistake, even if it meant ignoring the French and Germans

Why was this not a mistake? There were no WMDs. So that was a "mistake." It's only increased Al Qaeda's numbers and power. That was a "mistake." It removed a horrible dictator.....but used the support of another horrible dictatorship (ie, Saudi Arabia) to achieve this end. Hmmm...while technically not a mistake, it definitely smacks of hypocrisy.

prisoner abuse, or a multitude of other things that the left accuses the Bush White House of doing.

Um...are you seriously saying you don't believe the prison abuses in Abu Ghraib didn't occur? That, by the way, was another "Big Mistake." And why did it happen? Preliminary reports are blaming the lack of training given to National Guardsmen in guarding prisoners. Something that might not have happened, were our military not stretched so thin that we had no choice but to throw half trained boys into a prison and told to keep order.

and targeting anything that wasn't well guarded.

This isn't a new development. Terrorists have always struck at the weakest targets that will yield the most pain and suffering as possible. While 9/11 required a lot of planning and thought, claiming that the airlines were well guarded is somewhat of a stretch.

unlike 2002 and 2001, they are attacking less and less well guarded targets.

Actually I'd disagree with this. In recent months, it seems terrorists are striking at more heavily guarded personnel and areas than before. Just check out the number of Iraqi Ministers assassinated in the last month, most of which happened in the "highly secured" Green Zone. So contrary to your assertions, it seems the trend is moving from lightly guarded facilities to heavily guarded facilities.

Hmm well.. interesitng how many "BIG MISTAKES" the US administration makes... one would assume that one is enough.

I've never seen an administration caught in so many "mistakes" in all my life and I'm a little older then most on this forum. So, the only conclusions really that can be drawn from all of this is.. they're either the world's worse liars... or..are the most incompetent administration in history.I don't think you needed the either/or in there, as they're clearly both.

It is worthwhile to note, however, that the attacks in 2003 were less sophisticated, and often on soft target. They weren't any grand attacks, like the 2002 bombing in Bali, or the theater seizure in Moscow. It's safe to say that by 2003, they were getting desparate, setting low moral standards for themselves, and targeting anything that wasn't well guarded.
2004 has, so far, followed a similar pattern. Even the trains in Madrid wouldn't have been targeted had there been better security. I'm not blaming the Spanish for 3/11, but simply pointing out that, unlike 2002 and 2001, they are attacking less and less well guarded targets.
You forgot one telling detail- as of late, it is the MUSLIM states that are targets of terrorist attacks. It is especially apparent in Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda appears to have lost much of their capabilities to carry out attacks outside the Muslim world.
Either that, or they don't want to. However, what have these terrorists attacked? Compounds insufficiently guarded by the Saudis. They have great security for Riyadh, don't get me wrong. In fact, I know someone who has family in a compound in Riyadh, and security there is worse to get through than at airports :wink: . But what is guarding facilities at Khobar, Jiddah, and those near the oil fields? I don't know about those fields, as they are the kingdom's most valuable asset by far. But in other places, security seems to be insufficient to easily made car bombs, or a small army of radicals. What they need is far more comprehensive security if they wish to keep foreigners in the kingdom.

Um...are you seriously saying you don't believe the prison abuses in Abu Ghraib didn't occur? That, by the way, was another "Big Mistake." And why did it happen? Preliminary reports are blaming the lack of training given to National Guardsmen in guarding prisoners. Something that might not have happened, were our military not stretched so thin that we had no choice but to throw half trained boys into a prison and told to keep order.
I'm not saying that I didn't believe it didn't happen, but listen to some people (even on NS) and they'll tell you that Bush ordered it to happen.

So, what's it going to take?
Not sure. George Tenet has already resigned, which is good. This report was filed under his time as head of the CIA, and it should be his head that would be rolling for this. And, for "health reasons" (AKA forced to) he resigned.

I just have a question for all of you who support GW Bush. All of the scandals that have fallen on this administration have been exposed by "other" sources. Not once has this administration ever come out and made any announcements that they made a mistake on any thing without it being outed by the press or other sources not of their own.

My question is this, how many more "Big Mistakes" and or scandals coming from this administration is it going to take before you say to yourself "Hey, maybe Bush is just bad for America and the world"

Will you defend him like this for the next exposed "Big Mistake"? How many will it take?

How many people lining up to say he's policies are a problem before you start believing them?

What is it going to take? How many times are you going to make excuses for this administration?
When some of these "Big Mistakes" start to be something that dosen't sound like its from MoveOn or DemocracyNow, it would be time for consideration.

It comes down to what's viewed as a mistake though. Some of us don't feel that removing Saddam Hussein was a mistake, even if it meant ignoring the French and Germans. Some of us also don't buy BS about Bush causing the recession, Florida 2000, prisoner abuse, or a multitude of other things that the left accuses the Bush White House of doing.

Truman: "The Buck stops here"

The Shrub and the Repubs: "It's Clinton's fault"

If we said from the start, we are attacking because Saddam is a bad man, then more people would probably agreed. However, "He tried to kill my daddy!" and all of the vaporware WMD's.....

Bush and the recession? Hmmmm it's funny to hear it's Clinton's fault but then the success under Clinton is in reality Reagan. Gee what a surprise! :roll:

Florida shows the Electorial college has a problem if the majority of Americans vote for another candidate and yet the other wins.

Prisoner abuse? Well the Shrub could have done more about it. Simply tossing Tenat was a token gesture.

Many things are more then valid. Cheney meeting with the energy people being a secret and hidden under the cloud of "National Security opps policy making"

He will probably go down as one of the more corrupt administrations.

I will not vote for him. As with previous Republican administrations; my income goes down and my cost of living goes up.

Not sure. George Tenet has already resigned, which is good. This report was filed under his time as head of the CIA, and it should be his head that would be rolling for this. And, for "health reasons" (AKA forced to) he resigned.

You're too smart Kwan to believe this was all Tenets doing.. Don't give me that. Use your head, I know you have one.

However, what have these terrorists attacked? Compounds insufficiently guarded by the Saudis.

They might not be attacking because of the lax security, so much as what the compounds hold, foreign nationals who help keep the Saudi oil industry growing. They can strike at these nationals without alienating public opinion in Saudi Arabia, which right now is very high in support of them. However, if the nationals are driven from Saudi Arabia (which if you'll remember has always been one of Osama's chief aims), oil production is going to grow a lot more precarious in a few years, with the possibility of wild market fluctuations. Stratfor Weekly actually sent out an article about this very matter not too long ago. Very interesting reading, also a bit disturbing. Definitely increases one's desire to develop an alternative fuel source.

Well it was a report filed by the State Department using intel from the CIA.

Basically, I think a few people should probably step down from the administration. George Tenet was one of them, I think Dick Cheney should, too, but it isn't George Bush thats at the heart of this problem. Powell is one of the most independent (as in not ideologically connected to Rumself-Wolfowitz-Cheney) members of this administration and I don't think that he'd stand to produce a faulty report on purpose. Even Waxman said that he believed Powell, although he wanted a new report immediately.

However, what have these terrorists attacked? Compounds insufficiently guarded by the Saudis.

They might not be attacking because of the lax security, so much as what the compounds hold, foreign nationals who help keep the Saudi oil industry growing. They can strike at these nationals without alienating public opinion in Saudi Arabia, which right now is very high in support of them. However, if the nationals are driven from Saudi Arabia (which if you'll remember has always been one of Osama's chief aims), oil production is going to grow a lot more precarious in a few years, with the possibility of wild market fluctuations. Stratfor Weekly actually sent out an article about this very matter not too long ago. Very interesting reading, also a bit disturbing. Definitely increases one's desire to develop an alternative fuel source.
That is true. However, if security wasn't a factor, why haven't they tried attacking the oil fields themselves? They may try, but it'll probably be a failure, because security there is too good for them. At these compounds, security is more lax. It could stop a lone wacko with a bomb strapped to him, but we've known for a long time that they use car bombs and such. Therefore, to keep foreign nationals working inside Saudi Arabia, I suggest something like a few elite guards, coupled with anti-vehicle weapons at the entrances. And if, God forbid, the threat ever arises, keep a few SAMs there, as well as some chem suits for the foreigners.

Whoops DP!

Well it was a report filed by the State Department using intel from the CIA.

Basically, I think a few people should probably step down from the administration. George Tenet was one of them, I think Dick Cheney should, too, but it isn't George Bush thats at the heart of this problem. Powell is one of the most independent (as in not ideologically connected to Rumself-Wolfowitz-Cheney) members of this administration and I don't think that he'd stand to produce a faulty report on purpose. Even Waxman said that he believed Powell, although he wanted a new report immediately.

The irony of it all is Powell is about the only one you can trust in this administration and it's common knowledge he doesn't intend on going back for a second term should Bush win the white house in November.

If Bush really didn't know any thing about all that has happened. (Because it has been a lot now) then Kwan, he's at least incompetent. Just think about it. I know I'm not going to change your mind.. you have to see it for yourself. I just hope you do at some point.

Any way, I'm off for a bit .. Have a nice day :)

In other words, for you, never.

Sometimes I get the feeling that Bush could come on tv, claim to be Jesus reincarnated, slaughter 20 goats on the White House steps, declare the entire Middle East to be New Jerusalem, and sign an executive order naming himself "Dictator for Life" and you'd go along with it.
And if next month 12 Million jobs were created, deaths in Iraq went down to zero, and North Korea and Iran agreed to inspections, you'd still say he sucked.Well, considering that your scenario would still leave homeland security underfunded, the Patriot Act in place, John Ashcroft still Attorney General, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz still gainfully employed, and none of them in jail where they rightfully belong, then yes, I would still say he sucked.

But there's a better chance of my scanario coming true than of yours, so I'm not worried about it.

if Bush actually pulled of the miracle of getting re-elected, and and only voice of reason (Powell) leaves, then God help us all because we will surely need it.

@Gods Bowels,

I think Bush is going to win for various reasons. Kerry is a boring New-England state aristocrat without any chance in the South and the Middle West.
Secondly he is going to face Nader as a rival for Anti-Bush voters.
Due to that fact we see a Bush victory as almost certain.

However we agree that Powell should stay. He is a good politician.
The US rather needs more Powell and less Rumsfeld. The current development (UN resolution regarding Iraq) shows a positive development in US policy, which was of course also possible because Germany stopped its anti-US-stance and pressured France to do so as well.
This is a good opportunity to come to a more internationalized approach regarding Iraq.
I think there is a good chance for reaching a stabilization of Iraq in the medium term. It´s going to be difficult.
But if it is possible to push Iran to a more constructive position (e.g. make a deal with them) a stabilisation of Iraq and the region is possible.

tp

dp

@Gods Bowels,

I think Bush is going to win for various reasons. Kerry is a boring New-England state aristocrat without any chance in the South and the Middle West.
Secondly he is going to face Nader as a rival for Anti-Bush voters.
Due to that fact we see a Bush victory as almost certain.

According to recent polls, Kerry is running very closely in parts of the south--North Carolina, Arkansas, Louisiana, Florida--and is winning in much of the midwest, so I think your analysis may be a bit off there. And if Kerry chooses a running mate from either of those regions, he bolsters that potential. Even if Kerry doesn't win any of those southern states, the fact that he's doing well there means that Bush has to defend what he once took for granted, and that precludes him from going after Kerry in some of those other tossup states.

However we agree that Powell should stay. He is a good politician.
The US rather needs more Powell and less Rumsfeld. The current development (UN resolution regarding Iraq) shows a positive development in US policy, which was of course also possible because Germany stopped its anti-US-stance and pressured France to do so as well.
This is a good opportunity to come to a more internationalized approach regarding Iraq.
I think there is a good chance for reaching a stabilization of Iraq in the medium term. It´s going to be difficult.
But if it is possible to push Iran to a more constructive position (e.g. make a deal with them) a stabilisation of Iraq and the region is possible.Powell is better than Rumsfeld, but that's not sayng much. I have issues with Powell because he, in my mind, is as guilty of misleading the US public as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Bush. The fact that he stays there even as proof emerges that this crew is dirtier than Nixon only diminishes Powell's stature as a statesman and a politician. The longer he stays, the more of an accomplice he becomes.

[quote]
Quote:

He should think which country always supported the German unification while others - France, Britain, Soviet Union - were in fact trying to do everything to avoid it.
Well: some West German left-wingers were indeed against the reunifaction of their country. We assume Gigatron is one of them.

To demonise the US is today were popular. What has the US actually done to deserve it??? Nothing. Especially Germans should shut up since they gained a lot thanks to the German-american alliance.
It was irresponsible that the German chancellor used the fear of war and even fuelled anti-american sentiment to get reelected after his polls went down and down. It was only one and a half month before the election he played this anti-american card. He was obviously so desperate that he was even ready to bring a 50-year-old alliance in jeoporday to stay in power. That speaks much against him and his foreign secretary.


First:

The Soviet Union supported the reunification, largely because running the "GDR" was much too expensive for them. It happens to be a fact that Mikail Gorbatchev was the largest supporter of our reunification. He's Russian if i remember right. Not to mention that the reunification was due to the people of the east overthrowing the government with peaceful demonstration. The US, if anyone, cannot claim any "benefitial action" in us reuniting our country. I am an East German.



Mikail Gorbatchev said in 1989: " Regarding the wall: well, we have to accept the historic facts that there are two german states. That´s the fact at present and the foreseable future. What happends in HUNDRED YEARS shall be decided by history."
I would say that were the fastest hundred years. Gorbatshev only agreed to the unification because Chancellor Kohl paid the Soviets almost 10 billion Dollars and gave them huge loans. That belongs to the truth as well
We also have seen that you voted for the after runner of the communist party of East Germany. The only party which was against the reunification. I see that this wasn´t an important issue for you.

Kohl didnt pay him "only" 10 billion, but Germany had to accept the borders as they were set by the military occupation forces, thus why Germany now is much smaller than it used to be before WW2. I voted for the communist party because the other 2 I could have voted for suck and my vote was a "protest" vote. Not because I believe in the programme of the communist party.



Secondly:

The US have done a whole lot to deserve demonisation. You of course do not see it, considering that its your president who is the one being attacked with words. Patriotism at the wrong time I say. You should be patriotic for your country, not for the man ruining it.

Since I´m not american your argumentation goes astray completly.

If you arent American then its not your President. I still mean what I said.



German-American alliance and what we gained form it: We still have American soldiers in our country, 60 years after the end of WW2. Our "constitution" is not a constitution made by the people of Germany. There never was a signing of a peace treaty between the allied forces and Germany, so technically we are in a very long phase of armistice.

What you say is completly false and shows that you know were little about the history about the democratic Germany (west Germany). It were Germans who wrote the constituítion in the parlamentary council. The chairman was Konrad Adenauer, the first Chancellor. The constituition was approved by all 11 west german states except Bavaria and Berlin via their parliaments which were democraticly elected in 1946.
It was also approved by the first democratically elected parliament of the GDR in 1990, shortly before the reunification.
The reunification took place in accordance with the "2+4-treaty" solving ALL OUTSTANDING ISSUES between Germany and the allies of world war II.

Our "Base Law" is not a constitution. It is a "preliminary" constitution. Written by 2 politicians and "ratified" by the military occupation forces with some changes. It is not in its entirety our constitution and it is not called a constitution. The changes the US/UK/France made to it also state that Germany's borders are limied to what they are now, until the signing of a peace treaty, which never happened. Until we do have a constitution, I'll not consider our "base law" a constitution.


Before I want to hear what we gained from the German-American alliance, I would kindly ask you to get lost from our soil.

Your are standing pretty alone with your opinion. Donald Rumsfeld plans to reduce the American troops in Germany from 74 000 down to 37000.
It are German politicians from all parties who are asking and begging the US to stay. By the way: due to the 2+4-treaty they are no American troops in east germany. So you won´t see them anyway.

I am not standing alone with my opinion. That many politicians apparently want to keep US forces here, although they arent needed or wanted, just shows me that they act yet again against the will of the people. I am quite happy that I dont have to see US soldiers here. I can imagine better sights in my neighborhood.



Our chancellor never was "anti-american". He was anti-war, which the vast majority of Germany is. Very few people here support what the US does since 9/11 and Germany is not the only country in the world that refuses to follow the US in its blind crusade for revenge. Today I can say.. bye America, we dont need you anymore and most people dont want you anymore. If you would kindly leave our country and mind your own business. Thank you.

The vast majority of Germany think that the right to self-defense does not include waging pre-emptive wars based on lies. The additional fact that the US of A did not have a UN mandate to do what they did, is another indication how the US of A views itself in the world: as the all-powerful hegemony with the right to oppress everyone else and impose their ideals on the entire world. No thanks, we can live without thatHe should think which country always supported the German .

Which country is the second largest trade partner of Germany???
Right: the US. Germany is exporting very much to the US. The economic ties are strong. Neither side - but especially not the german one - can afford to cut those ties. By the way: also the german secret service believed in the existence of WMD.

Well.. the most important trade partner happens to be... France. I am relieved that our chancellor decided to ally with France instead of the US in that case.

Source: http://www.destatis.de/download/e/aussh/rang2.pdf

Btw, our exports to the new EU countries and China are much on the rise.. I wonder when the USA will not be the "2ndlargest trade partner" of Germany. Maybe then we are graciously allowed to not support the US, if we believe that what the US is doing is criminal.

Iraq was in material breach of its obligations towards the UN. The UN BANNED Iraq to posses WMD and MISSILES RANGING OVER 150 km. Iraq possesed missiles with the range of 180 and more km (Al-Samoud-missiles). It has therefore been proven that IRAQ was in MATERIAL BREACH of its obligations. The UN treatened Iraq with SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES. The council was unable to make a further decision but according to british and american legal advisers 1441 was a SOLID BASIS FOR TAKING ACTION. Furthernmore Iraq was supporting terror, e.g. palestinian suicide bombings. That wasn´t acceptable after 9/11. The tolerance against the intolerant has gotten much lower in US politics. I welcome that actually. There were a lot of geostrategic reasons to take action against the Saddam regime (e.g. stabilizing the region; increasing the dependency from Saudi-Arabia and many more).
Bye the way: the legal basis was STRONGER than in the Kosovo war, on which Germany actively participated under the leadership of Chancellor Schroeder.
Legal basis for the war... hmm.. the war didnt have a legal basis as far as I remember. There was no mandate that made the war legal. The US instead decided to throw aside all objections the other security council members had and attacked, regardless of the UN stance. The result being that the US is the first and only country that is a permanent member of the UN and defied its authority in such a degree, rendering it effectively useless. If the UN is just a toy of the US that does not need to be listened to, then it might aswell not exist at all. I've not seen any proof of terror support from Iraq. Got any sources other than the CIA or British Secret Services, which are not known for being overly truthful? Thats it for now.. I am somewhat tired of defending myself when the thread is about what the US of A are doing, so please forgive me if I will not answer to any further corrections of the stuff posted earlier.

Sometimes I get the feeling that Bush could come on tv, claim to be Jesus reincarnated, slaughter 20 goats on the White House steps, declare the entire Middle East to be New Jerusalem, and sign an executive order naming himself "Dictator for Life" and you'd go along with it.

only sometimes?

I just have a question for all of you who support GW Bush. All of the scandals that have fallen on this administration have been exposed by "other" sources. Not once has this administration ever come out and made any announcements that they made a mistake on any thing without it being outed by the press or other sources not of their own.

My question is this, how many more "Big Mistakes" and or scandals coming from this administration is it going to take before you say to yourself "Hey, maybe Bush is just bad for America and the world"

Will you defend him like this for the next exposed "Big Mistake"? How many will it take?

How many people lining up to say he's policies are a problem before you start believing them?

What is it going to take? How many times are you going to make excuses for this administration?

Come on, Steph. You know we'll vote him out of office as soon as Rush tells us to!

Powell tried to reason with them about jumping into things but I think they must have gotten something over on him. who knows, but he was showing much better judgement than anyone else in this administration just after 9/11 happened, afterwards he seemed forced into mouthing the lies of the administration.

Powell tried to reason with them about jumping into things but I think they must have gotten something over on him. who knows, but he was showing much better judgement than anyone else in this administration just after 9/11 happened, afterwards he seemed forced into mouthing the lies of the administration.
Maybe he can get away with "I was only following orders" too ;)
Seems to be the common excuse.. which didnt work after the end of WW2 when nazis had to answer for their crimes and it wont work with the US soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners and it hopefully wont work with politicians who knowingly lead a country to war based on lies.

@Gigatron,


since we are partly going of topic I keep my reply short.
I almost completly disagree with everything you have said. Partly the facts are actually wrong, partly you have a strange definition of things.
For example: The 2+4-treaty is IN FACT solving all issues regarding world war II and in this way is DE FACTO a peace accord.
The basic law was not made by two people: it was written by more than 50 members of the parliamentarian council in 1949 and approved by all german states except Bavaria.

Thanks to the information of destatis we see that the US is and remains with great distance a very important trading partner for Germany.
The EU and the US account for more than 50% of the global economic output and about 56% of the global trade. So: Both have so many common interested together that regardless of other differences they are going to stay together. The transatlantic alliance remains important.
Especially the east Europeans realize that, especially Poland which is aside Britain the strongest ally of the US.

"Well.. the most important trade partner happens to be... France. I am relieved that our chancellor decided to ally with France instead of the US in that case."
BIG MISTAKE. Germany needs a double-binding: to France AND the US. It is complete nonsense to choose between them. Germany needs both.


Regarding the threat of Iraq. They were secret service reports by Britain and the US and others about Iraqi support for palestinian suicide bombings. The palestinian don´t deny that by the way.
The german secret service reported in August 2002 about a potential danger by pox in Iraqi possession. Germany bought protection (vaccine) for 100 million people to protect its entire population IN FEAR for a possible BIOTERROR attack by Iraq or terrorists which may receive those pox from Iraq. Obviously it was not just the US and the UK that believed
in the existence of WMD. That´s also the case for Germany and France.

Regarding the legal situation: as mentioned: there was a much stronger legal basis than for the Kosovo war, where Clinton did not even go to the UN to ask for a mandate and Schroeder and Chirac were supporting the action against Yugoslavia regardless of that.

By the way: the German opposition had a slightly different opinion than the current administration. If there is a "regime change" :D in Germany 2006 - and its looking good for that - conservative and liberals are going to correct that policy and repairing the damage Schroeder has done to the German-US-relationship.

The desaster for the SPD on Suday shows a deep crisis for the ruling party.
Even with good political tactics (and that´s the only thing Schroeder is really good at :twisted: ) it seems to be almost impossible for the SPD to change it and to regain enough strength till 2006 to achieve again a majority for the reds and the greens: only one third of the voters behind the governments: well: it can´t hardly get worse for him.
And even the commies are not going to save him from that.
Times are looking good for a government Merkel-Westerwelle in 2006.

dp

SPD lost a ton of votes due to the internal problems in Germany and the lack of confidence that SPD can solve them with the current planned reformations. Personally I dont think that either party, SPD or CDU, can do it. They all blow hot air and try to gain votes by saying what the people want to hear. CDU brought Germany in the situation it is now by neglecting to solve the issues that amounted to what needs to be solved now all at once. If CDU gets to power again, I doubt they can do it any better than SPD, so i'll vote PDS again.

The basic law was not made by two people: it was written by more than 50 members of the parliamentarian council in 1949 and approved by all german states except Bavaria.

Still doesnt change the fact that we, in Germany, do not have a constitution. If you can read German, please read this:
http://www.costima.de/beruf/Politik/CSchmid.htm

Very interesting. I wonder if Germany will ever get a constitution or if we are still a nation under the rule of the US of A, UK, France and Russia...

@Incertonia,

Edwards would be a good running mate. He could become a second Clinton. But I´m not shure whether he would like to serve only as second on the ticket. I think he doesn´t.

Anyway. Our assumption goes not from current polling but to the most likely development until november.
The office-holder is traditionally in advantage and the fact that he slightly lays behind 6 months, or even three months before the election doesn´t mean anything.
Bush has broadend the basis for the republican party. Especially hispanic voters and jewish voters are likely to vote for him in higher numbers than 2000. That may be not much but can be enough in the close swing states where every vote counts.
It is not important to win the popular vote but the electoral vote. And here again Bush is in advantage.
And since he went to the UN now and achieved a good resolution regarding Iraq the difference between him and Kerry regarding this issue has almost disappeared completly.

The US economy faces a strong recovery. We in Europe can only dream of that. Jobless rate is declining strongly. The jobless numbers in the US are still much lower than in continental Europe. We would be happy to have your problems.

The positive development of the energy prices after the responsible decision of Saudi-Arabia to raise oil production is going to continue decreasing the current heavy burden on the world economy due to the high energy prices.
Also: you have the TV duels between the two candidates.
I think Bush is going to be in advantage towards the more aristocratic Kerry.

That seems in our view being enough to ensure his reelection.
An arrest of some Al Quaida leader like bin Laden or al-Zawahiri would of course be helpful for him even more.

We think he is going to win, due to all of those factors.

Anyway. Our assumption goes not from current polling but to the most likely development until november..

Just a quick question.. who is "our"?

all of Europe of course.

Well, Kybernetia, let me clue you in on a couple of things.

One, Edwards is not only campaigning to be the VP, he's considered the frontrunner by most of the press. Doesn't mean he's a lock--far from it--but he's certainly on the short list, along with Representative Dick Gephardt, Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack and Retired General Wesley Clark. So where you're getting the idea that Edwards doesn't want to be the number two guy is beyond me. Even Republican pundits think he wants the job--they're all arguing that it's others in the party (read Hillary Clinton) who doesn't want him on the ticket.

You're only half right in your assumption that the incumbent has the advantage. The problem for the incumbent is that everyone already knows him and is generally either satisfied or dissatisfied with his job performance. Bush's job performance numbers and unfavorable numbers are both hovering around 50% right now. There's not generally much movement in those numbers unless there's a dramatic shift in the course the country is taking. Something else to remember--the Bush administration is fighting off numerous scandals right now. Abu Ghraib (which is climbing higher and higher every day), the Plame affair, the illegal accessing of Senate documents, not to mention that no matter how they try to spin it, Iraq is still a disaster and will continue to be after June 30.

I don't know where you get your idea that Bush has expanded his base among Latino and Jewish voters, but even assuming he has, he's pissed off gay voters with his open support of the Federal Marriage Amendment, and he's pissed off fiscal conservatives who don't like his profligate spending, so any ground he's made up elsewhere, he's lost in those two constituencies. And it's estimated that a million gays voted for Bush in 2000--he won't get nearly that many this time.

As far as your idea that Bush will come off better in a debate, well, I'll say that we respectfully disagree and leave it at that.

´dp

@Gigatron,

well: I can read German since I´m German.
Our basic law is in fact a constituition. It was made as a provisonary constituition since the founders of the FRG wanted it that way because they didn´t want an obstacle for our reunification.
The basic law allowed to possibilitie to unite Germay: Article 146: new constituition or Article 23 (old): saying: other german states join this basic law. Since writing a constituition takes a lot of time and the demands for reunification were very strong in 1990 - especially among the East Germans - it was decided to chose option 2.

By the way: our highest court its called: BVG having the word constituition (Verfassung) in it.
Therefore I see the fact that the constituition is called basic law as a semantic difference.
The argumentation on the page is based on the situation of 1949 and many arguments were right: and that was the reason why it is called basic law and not constituition. The Volkskammer agreed to it in 1990 by the way.
You can claim that the origin of the basic law does not fulfill a standards of a national constituition since it origins only in a part of the country. But today it is accepted by all parties and there is no will to change it.
It actually a good law: why changing it or throwing it a way. It served the country very well and garantees all civil and human rights. It is the best "constituition" Germany had in its entire history.

By the way: there are many countries without a constituition. One is for example Britain, another one is Israel.
Britain is however the oldest democracy.

@Incertonia,

I´m not american. So I´m not as informed as you may are since it is your country.
I´ve said: Edwards would be good one in my opinion. But whether he would outweigh the weaknesses of Kerry I don´t know.
I´m not shure that an Edwards is enough to make a boring Ketschup-Kerry to an interesting candidate.
Well: I don´t want to get personal: he is certainly the better choice than Dean. That would have been a desaster for the democrats.

Regarding Hillary Clinton: I´m not surprised that she is against Edwards. He is still pretty young and could be presidential candidate in the next two decades to come. It is assumed that Hillary is having her own ambitious to run - for example in 2008. Therefore the question is if she and her supporters really want the democrats to win 2004.

The question is also: if she believed the democrats win this time wouldn´t she have candidated as well to be candidate???
She seems to think that a democratic victory to be rather unlikely - an assumption I agree with.
Such constellations and tactical thinking existenst in every country.


"You're only half right in your assumption that the incumbent has the advantage. The problem for the incumbent is that everyone already knows him and is generally either satisfied or dissatisfied with his job performance. Bush's job performance numbers and unfavorable numbers are both hovering around 50% right now. There's not generally much movement in those numbers unless there's a dramatic shift in the course the country is taking. Something else to remember--the Bush administration is fighting off numerous scandals right now. Abu Ghraib (which is climbing higher and higher every day), the Plame affair, the illegal accessing of Senate documents, not to mention that no matter how they try to spin it, Iraq is still a disaster and will continue to be after June 30."
Most european leaders would be happy to have the numbers of Bush. Governments have won elections with much lower approval ratings.
Regarding Abu Ghraib: Bush can still fire Rumsfeld if things get to hard.
If really all americans are really that outraged by those barbaric acts we unfortunately doubt. The discussion whether harder methods should be used to prevent another 9/11 was visible even here to all which sometimes follow the american debates. As a matter of fact. Some legal experts in many western countries UNFORTUNATELY - in my opinion - say that torture shall be used as a last resort to get information. It is that attitude which lead to the barbarisation of some of the american troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a political responsibility for it by the entire political elite.
But currently the demands for securtity seems to be stronger than serious discussions what should be allowed and what shouldn´t . An election period is hardly the time to have serious discussions. Election times are times for partisan fight and pretty stupid polemic remarks. That´s the same in all democracies.





"I don't know where you get your idea that Bush has expanded his base among Latino and Jewish voters, but even assuming he has, he's pissed off gay voters with his open support of the Federal Marriage Amendment, and he's pissed off fiscal conservatives who don't like his profligate spending, so any ground he's made up elsewhere, he's lost in those two constituencies. And it's estimated that a million gays voted for Bush in 2000--he won't get nearly that many this time."
I don´t say he gets the majority in those groups. But he is going to get more than in 2000. Some estimates say: 40% of the hispanics and between 30-40% of jewish voters would vote for Bush. Also the asian migrants is a group were the republicans could gain.
The gay issue is clearly there to mobilize the religious right for him. That may be a zero- sum game for him (one the one side mobilising voters on the other side loosing some).
But in California he isn´t going to win anyway. And his anti-gay-marriage stance can help him in the South and the Middle West, especially among the religious right and catholic voters (the Vaticans codems homosexuality).
Kerry is a catholic but the vaticans refuses contact to him due to his pro-abortion stance. That may make it impossible for Kerry to use his catholic faith to attract hispanic voters. Bush can.

"As far as your idea that Bush will come off better in a debate, well, I'll say that we respectfully disagree and leave it at that."
Well: I think you shouldn´t underestimate Bush. Most europeans didn´t believe he would win against Gore. He did.
Kerry has much in common with Gore.
We think Bush is more likely to win than Kerry.

the left must NEVER allow another Clinton in the White House--Hillarys a GREAT Senator dont get me wrong but if this power-hungry slag thinks shes worthy of infecting the White House once again with her weak sellouts and rollovers to the enemies shes asking for an all out war on the democratic party by its leftwing

Well: I think you shouldn´t underestimate Bush. Most europeans didn´t believe he would win against Gore. He did.
Kerry has much in common with Gore.
We think Bush is more likely to win than Kerry.

I think Kerry will mop the floor with Bush in the debates. It's not like he doesn't have a lot of material to work with.

Further, Whether Bush actually "won" the 2000 election is some thing that people will forever disagree on, what we can agree on is he is the president of the United States. For now..

Okay Kybernetia, I'm still trying to unscramble your post, but here are some points that jumped out at me.

As far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, I don't believe she's trying to undermine Kerry's candidacy--that's the party line being spouted by Republicans with Clinton fever, most notably Dick Morris. I don't think there's any truth to it at all.

As far as Abu Ghraib is concerned, it's about to explode again. People were willing to buy the party line at first that this was just a few bad apples in the military, but the story refuses to go away. it's been downplayed in the media for the last week because of all the hoopla over the death of Reagan, but recent news reports are going to finger people at the top of the chain of command and it's going to get ugly. Give it a week.

You're also mistaken on the Catholics against Kerry issue. There are a few Catholic bishops in the US who are talking big because of Kerry's pro-choice stance, but in recent polls, over 60% od US Catholics said that the bishops need to stay out of politics and more than that said that it would be wrong to deny communion to Kerry for his stand. Thus far, the church as a whole has yet to make a public statement on the matter.

As far as Kerry=Gore, let me just make this point. Gore got more votes, and that was when Bush was still able to pretend he was a moderate. Bush can't even pretend he's a moderate anymore. He got as many votes as he was ever going to get in 2000, and he still finished second--only a 5-4 Supreme Court decision put him in the White House. Bush won't get as many votes this time as he did in 2000,

And as Stephistan asked--who is this "we" you keep referring to?

I have split and deleted all the posts that were off topic. Now please stay on topic. Thank You.

YAY! anyhow, I think alot things are still unaccounted for. I am going for Kerry, but i'm afraid of what the Iraq mess will be like by the time elections come around. That will probably be a big deciding factor on the outcome.

YAY! anyhow, I think alot things are still unaccounted for. I am going for Kerry, but i'm afraid of what the Iraq mess will be like by the time elections come around. That will probably be a big deciding factor on the outcome.

Well, I'll tell you right now what is going to happen after June 30th..

Then starts the "dance" a fake dance.. the new Iraqi government will pretend to oppose the US on certain issues to assert their independence for all the Iraqi's and the international community to see, mean while behind closed doors Bush/Cheney and co. will be pulling the strings, it will be carefully orchestrated... mark my words ;)

Today they're talking about whether or not to turn Saddam over to the new Iraqi government for them to put him on trial. Can't wait to see how they screw this one up.

Terrorism will reduce when foreign policy changes for the betterment of all rather then a few big companies.

Terrorism will reduce when foreign policy changes for the betterment of all rather then a few big companies.

American treatment of third world countries really has little to do with it.
The terrorists think that Allah tells them to kill the infidels. America is a largely secular, non-muslim society (Infidels). Even if we were complete isolationists, the terrorists would still try to kill us.

For whatever reason, the third world countries are becoming "Americanized" (Nike T-shirts, McDonalds springing up in bigger cities, blue jeans, rap music....). All of this is counter to muslim tradition/law, so they strike out at us.

Terrorism will reduce when foreign policy changes for the betterment of all rather then a few big companies.
This is a classic tactic of the far left: tie every piece of US foreign policy to corporate America. It's gotten a little old, if you ask me.

Hmm well.. interesitng how many "BIG MISTAKES" the US administration makes... one would assume that one is enough. The biggest mistake of course, was to elect Bush into power in the first place.

Well... except Bush wasn't elected.

However, I don't really think it matters who gets more votes in Florida, as much as people putting confidence in and giving a mandate to the "winner" of an election. I mean, really, who cares about what a few thousand people in Florida think either way about the two choices they are given? Unfortunately, Bush received a mandate. If he hadn't, Congress, the military, and the general electorate would be staring at him, wondering why he thought he was in a position to veto legislation or issue executive orders. This is how government works: it's not about who gets the most votes, it's about whom the people are willing to listen to. They would just as easily have given Gore a mandate had he won by a bigger margin, but they did not. I quote Robert Heinlein: "Democracy is a poor system; the only thing that can be said for it is that it's eight times as good as any other method." In other words, democracy is capable of producing some incredibly poor results that could be easily prevented with a benevolent, intelligent dictatorship. The problem is that dictatorship is very unstable. Representative democracy provides a balance between the incompetence of the masses and the instability of dictatorship, and what that means, especially when coupled with a crappy two-party system, is that we often get some very poor results.

Terrorism will reduce when foreign policy changes for the betterment of all rather then a few big companies.

American treatment of third world countries really has little to do with it.
The terrorists think that Allah tells them to kill the infidels. America is a largely secular, non-muslim society (Infidels). Even if we were complete isolationists, the terrorists would still try to kill us.

For whatever reason, the third world countries are becoming "Americanized" (Nike T-shirts, McDonalds springing up in bigger cities, blue jeans, rap music....). All of this is counter to muslim tradition/law, so they strike out at us.

is is just me or are you contraditing yourself here?

Do you think that foreign policy has nothing to do with the westernization of the world outside of the USA? Does the US govt. not make plicies regarding foreign trade and other economic issues?

I didn't say a better foreign policy would end terrorism, just reduce it. Greed is in the way and its painfully obvious to those not living in the USA who are losing out big time to capitalistic ventures.

Of course when you are sitting back in your reclyner at home watching comedy central or the WB, its easy to forget or shrug off those less fortunate who struggle everyday just to get a bit of food to stay alive. Out of sight, out of mind. Why should you even care? They aren't your family or friends. Your country is barely affected by their actions. Who cares that The actions of the US influence theirs majorly in a negative way.

Oh well, its their fault for not being cut throat capitalists. I guess there is nothign else to do but bomb them because a mindful approach is just too much work when we are more powerful than they are.

is is just me or are you contraditing yourself here?



"Americanization" is not the same thing as U.S. foreign policy


Do you think that foreign policy has nothing to do with the westernization of the world outside of the USA? Does the US govt. not make plicies regarding foreign trade and other economic issues?

Western society is invading these cultures because there is demand.
(That means there are people there that want to buy our stuff, for those of
you that don't understand how capitalism works :wink: ) The US govt does not force our companies to sell there, nor does it force conumsers in those countries to buy American stuff.


Of course when you are sitting back in your reclyner at home watching comedy central or the WB, its easy to forget or shrug off those less fortunate who struggle everyday just to get a bit of food to stay alive. Out of sight, out of mind. Why should you even care? They aren't your family or friends. Your country is barely affected by their actions. Who cares that The actions of the US influence theirs majorly in a negative way.



I see.... Since I'm an Evil Capitalist (TM), I must hate all Third World people. Oh well, think what you will. I think that "Americanization" will slowly, (over the period of generations, not just a few years) better the lives of people. In most cases, they don't need our handouts, they need to learn from us how to better their lives through MONEY.


I guess there is nothign else to do but bomb them because a mindful approach is just too much work when we are more powerful than they are.

I believe we should bomb anyone that is retarded enough to attack the US for the way we live.

American treatment of third world countries really has little to do with it.
The terrorists think that Allah tells them to kill the infidels. America is a largely secular, non-muslim society (Infidels). Even if we were complete isolationists, the terrorists would still try to kill us.

For whatever reason, the third world countries are becoming "Americanized" (Nike T-shirts, McDonalds springing up in bigger cities, blue jeans, rap music....). All of this is counter to muslim tradition/law, so they strike out at us.

Actually, the main reason Osama's sore at you guys is cos you sent troops to the Gulf in 1991, apparently. He didn't like infidels in the holiest places of Islam (i.e. Saudi Arabia) and decided to have himself a jihad. And if you were nicer to the people he recruits from, they might be too busy having a good time and making lots of cash to blow themselves up in the name of a crusade many only join because they see no other way out. If you were complete isolationists, well for one you'd not be sending Ronald McDonald and the swoosh out into the big bad world, but if you didn't go and be nasty to poor people around the world, they mightn't hate you so much...

Actually, the main reason Osama's sore at you guys is cos you sent troops to the Gulf in 1991, apparently.

Osama hated us long before that. Lt Col Oliver North (may his name be praised) tried to warn Congress about him during the Iran-Contra hearings in the 80's. They turned a deaf ear.

DP

Actually, the main reason Osama's sore at you guys is cos you sent troops to the Gulf in 1991, apparently.

Osama hated us long before that. Lt Col Oliver North (may his name be praised) tried to warn Congress about him during the Iran-Contra hearings in the 80's. They turned a deaf ear.You have any proof of that? Because I think you're engaging in a bit of revisionist history there--i.e. making shit up.

My opinion on the US before George Walker Bush became President:

Nice nation, funny president.. at least he knows whats good for him hehe... weird Americans are kinda prude though


My opinion on the US when 9/11 happened:

OMG!!! Thats an atrocity. Nobody deserves this. My condolences to all Americans who lost loved ones during that attack.


My opinion on the US since George Walker Bush started attacking nations, beginning with Afghanistan:

Oh crap.. now they've gone insane and want to dominate the world. No thanks, I'll rather oppose that.



The result being, that today, I despise George Walker Bush and have little to no sympathy left for the US of A. Should an attack on your soil happen now, I'd say: Serves them right, damn bastards. What goes around, comes around.

I don't care what people think of my country. I am an American and proud of it. When 9/11 happened, my father got called up with his unit. He has served with honor in both theaters.

As for it serves us right for the next attack? That is sickening. I never wish a terror attack on anyone. Bush is doing all that he can do. If Gore was in office, would things be any different? would they have attack? Yes because they knew he would do nothing.

My mother has told me that they tested this new president to see what he could do. He responded by attacking terror at its heart. My parents also remember 1993, the first attack on WTC! done by our terror friends. Clinton did crap. Our embassies, Clinton did crap. Cole (dad lost a friend on the ship) Clinton did nothing. WTC 2001, 3000 dead, Bush attacks Terror at its heart. Yes attacks are still happening and when they do, they are always responded too by attacks by our soldiers. My dad with them. May God keep him Safe.

The next time you wish ill on a country, remember the Victims. Iraq is enjoying freedom for the first time in decades. Yes they don't want us to "occupy" and we won't be if the date is right.

Remember those that lost lives! I have no respect for people that wishes ill on another. I hope you find peace Gigatron because I wish no ill on you or on your nation whatever that might be.

Actually, the main reason Osama's sore at you guys is cos you sent troops to the Gulf in 1991, apparently.

Osama hated us long before that. Lt Col Oliver North (may his name be praised) tried to warn Congress about him during the Iran-Contra hearings in the 80's. They turned a deaf ear.You have any proof of that? Because I think you're engaging in a bit of revisionist history there--i.e. making shit up.

"Taking The Stand: The Testimony of Lt Col Oliver North"
Published in 1987
I'd give you the exact page number, but I'm too busy.

Actually, the main reason Osama's sore at you guys is cos you sent troops to the Gulf in 1991, apparently.

Osama hated us long before that. Lt Col Oliver North (may his name be praised) tried to warn Congress about him during the Iran-Contra hearings in the 80's. They turned a deaf ear.

Really? Then why'd ya keep giving the chap money? And training? And arms?

I don't care what people think of my country. I am an American and proud of it. When 9/11 happened, my father got called up with his unit. He has served with honor in both theaters.

As for it serves us right for the next attack? That is sickening. I never wish a terror attack on anyone. Bush is doing all that he can do. If Gore was in office, would things be any different? would they have attack? Yes because they knew he would do nothing.

My mother has told me that they tested this new president to see what he could do. He responded by attacking terror at its heart. My parents also remember 1993, the first attack on WTC! done by our terror friends. Clinton did crap. Our embassies, Clinton did crap. Cole (dad lost a friend on the ship) Clinton did nothing. WTC 2001, 3000 dead, Bush attacks Terror at its heart. Yes attacks are still happening and when they do, they are always responded too by attacks by our soldiers. My dad with them. May God keep him Safe.

The next time you wish ill on a country, remember the Victims. Iraq is enjoying freedom for the first time in decades. Yes they don't want us to "occupy" and we won't be if the date is right.

Remember those that lost lives! I have no respect for people that wishes ill on another. I hope you find peace Gigatron because I wish no ill on you or on your nation whatever that might be.Nothing personal kid, but you might try getting your facts straight about what Clinton did and didn't do and what Bush did or didn't do.

The people who pulled off the 1993 WTC bombing are in jail. The people who pulled off the embassy bombings were tracked and linked to al-Qaeda and then to the Taliban. There were numberous attempts made to capture and kill them and in some cases, they succeeded. Of course, there might have been more action taken against them had the Republican party not been making such a big deal out of a blowjob, but hey, what can you do? The Cole bombing took place close to the end of Clinton's term, and there was no firm evidence--actionable intelligence is the exact term used--available until Clinton was gone. Once that intelligence was available to the Bush team, nothing was done about it, even though the Taliban had been warned that any further attacks by al Qaeda would result in action against the Taliban.

WTC 2001, 3000 dead, Bush does what any leader would do--at first. He goes after the Taliban and al Qaeda. Good work--at first. But he leaves the job unfinished and goes after Hussein, who had no connection to al Qaeda, 9/11, the Taliban, or the price of tea in China for that matter. In the process he diverts soldiers, funds, and energy away from the important battle and sticks us in Iraq.

I hope your dad comes through it okay, kid. I really do. But don't forget--assuming your dad is in Iraq--that the man who put him there is George W. Bush, and that the reason he's there is built on lies, deception, and greed.

Hmm, let's look at the facts and compare them with the previous administration responses to terrorism:

Terrorist Attacks
(within the United States or against Americans abroad)

1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead.

Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon:
Shi'ite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.

1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.

1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.


1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. Thirteen Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.

1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. Four men, two of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.

2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole was heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. Seventeen sailors were killed in a deliberate terrorist attack. Osama bin Laden, or members of his al-Qaeda terrorist network suspected.

2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed two commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; two more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9951: 2,752 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism.)

2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including eight Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.

I remember Bill Cliniton sending a missle into a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan - other than that - what other response has there been to these consistent attacks?

And do we already forget that Britain/USA were maintaining no-fly zones (in concert with the UN) over Iraq for at least 12 years?
Yet there was no outcry against the Iraqi administration for failing to live up to its treaty agreements over that period of time. And where was the UN in all this? Voting....

Seems to me people want freedom for free.
We want to complain about Bush when our generation is called to serve.
I'm glad the Brits stood their ground against an aggressive dictator who promised to swallow up the British Isles along with the rest of his Reich.
How many more would have died in that war if England had fell?


Someone please let the terrorist groups know that we want peace, "just leave us alone" - maybe they'll just give peace a chance, like they have up until now.
:cry:

We all know that terrorists don't want peace. They already got Spain to back down and withdraw. (that pissed off my dad)

The only way to confront it is to fight it. Yes, along the way you'll have set backs, what war doesn't! The main thing is that we win it.

Actually, the main reason Osama's sore at you guys is cos you sent troops to the Gulf in 1991, apparently.

Osama hated us long before that. Lt Col Oliver North (may his name be praised) tried to warn Congress about him during the Iran-Contra hearings in the 80's. They turned a deaf ear.You have any proof of that? Because I think you're engaging in a bit of revisionist history there--i.e. making shit up.

"Taking The Stand: The Testimony of Lt Col Oliver North"
Published in 1987
I'd give you the exact page number, but I'm too busy.Is that the transcripts of his testimony or his own version of it--Amazon doesn't list the book and the google searches I've looked at seem to suggest it's more of a memoir. If it's the transcripts, I'd be interested in reading them. If it's his own memoir, then I trust it about as much as I trust him, which is to say, not at all.

"Taking The Stand: The Testimony of Lt Col Oliver North"
Published in 1987
I'd give you the exact page number, but I'm too busy.

Maybe if you posted less, you'd have time to know what you were talking about.

This is an urban legend (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.htm), one which even Oliver North doesn't claim is true.

What you posted is - not unusually, it seems - utter crap on other levels. In the 80s, OBL was perhaps not pro-American, but not particularly anti-American either. I'm not aware of any anti-US statements or actions prior to the first Gulf War, when the US stationed troops in Saudi Arabia.

If you spent a little more time knowing what you were talking about, you might know that withdrawing US troops from Saudi Arabia (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/30/wsaud230.xml/) was OBL's primary demand on the US. Good thing we have such a strong leader in power who would never give in to what the terrorists want, eh?

Thank you, Upright Monkeys. Maybe I ought to add Snopes to my favorites list. :lol:

Terrorist attacks happen because some government does something to piss off people somewhere. I agree that the deaths of innocents is sad and should never happen, but it is the only thing that might get a government to react. So I am not happy that things in the US happened the way they did, but I can fully understand why the terrorists attacked the US and will continue doing so in the future - even more so now that the US have shown their true colors and aim to dominate the world.

DP.

Oops, Upright Monkey beat me to it :)

"Taking The Stand: The Testimony of Lt Col Oliver North"
Published in 1987
I'd give you the exact page number, but I'm too busy.

Maybe if you posted less, you'd have time to know what you were talking about.

This is an urban legend (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.htm), one which even Oliver North doesn't claim is true.

Wow, I'm surprised. I didn't think it Redneck's style to post some thing unless he had actually researched it. I guess you never know huh. :shock:

Terrorist attacks happen because some government does something to piss off people somewhere. I agree that the deaths of innocents is sad and should never happen, but it is the only thing that might get a government to react. So I am not happy that things in the US happened the way they did, but I can fully understand why the terrorists attacked the US and will continue doing so in the future - even more so now that the US have shown their true colors and aim to dominate the world.
You, my friend, are a fool. Sorry, but its true.

Terrorist attacks happen for one reason, and one reason only: a small group's lust for power. Such groups seek ways to present themselves in a favorable way, and therefore adopt any cover story that sounds nice enough to the liberal media. It can be virtually anything. There are people ready to kill scientists for animal testing or doctors for performing abortions- and they are no different from those who kill for vengeance, for religious or political reasons. Real grievances have little, if anything, to do with the true causes of terrorism.

Do not confuse the propaganda spread by the terrorists for their true agenda.

Terrorist attacks happen because some government does something to piss off people somewhere. I agree that the deaths of innocents is sad and should never happen, but it is the only thing that might get a government to react. So I am not happy that things in the US happened the way they did, but I can fully understand why the terrorists attacked the US and will continue doing so in the future - even more so now that the US have shown their true colors and aim to dominate the world.
You, my friend, are a fool. Sorry, but its true.

Terrorist attacks happen for one reason, and one reason only: a small group's lust for power. Such groups seek ways to present themselves in a favorable way, and therefore adopt any cover story that sounds nice enough to the liberal media. It can be virtually anything. There are people ready to kill scientists for animal testing or doctors for performing abortions- and they are no different from those who kill for vengeance, for religious or political reasons. Real grievances have little, if anything, to do with the true causes of terrorism.

Do not confuse the propaganda spread by the terrorists for their true agenda.Both of you are right and both of you are wrong. There isn't a single reason why terrorists do what they do. In some cases, it's the last option for a desperate group of people who feel marginalized and feel there's no other way to be heard. In some cases, it's because the leader is a psycho who has managed to get people to follow him. Or it's a combination of the two or some completely unrelated reason.

Stop looking at the world in terms of simplistic, yes/no dichotomies, evil vs. good. That world doesn't exist and never has.

Terrorist attacks happen because some government does something to piss off people somewhere. I agree that the deaths of innocents is sad and should never happen, but it is the only thing that might get a government to react. So I am not happy that things in the US happened the way they did, but I can fully understand why the terrorists attacked the US and will continue doing so in the future - even more so now that the US have shown their true colors and aim to dominate the world.
You, my friend, are a fool. Sorry, but its true.

Terrorist attacks happen for one reason, and one reason only: a small group's lust for power. Such groups seek ways to present themselves in a favorable way, and therefore adopt any cover story that sounds nice enough to the liberal media. It can be virtually anything. There are people ready to kill scientists for animal testing or doctors for performing abortions- and they are no different from those who kill for vengeance, for religious or political reasons. Real grievances have little, if anything, to do with the true causes of terrorism.

Do not confuse the propaganda spread by the terrorists for their true agenda.

Wom, I respect you as an intellectual. Some one who has a lot of knowledge on terrorism because you live in Israel, some one who probably has seen first hand the horrible outcomes of terrorism. Although, I would be remise if I didn't also take this into account on your opinions. It is of course in your and your countries best interest to support these bold new moves on the part of the American administration. I would be silly to think otherwise. Given your unique situation compared to most of us on the forum who are not living it in Israel.

However, with no disrespect, we have to think of our own best interest as well. We being North America.. and as much as we would like to save the world.. it can't be done. Not like this. I condemn terrorism. It's a war that must be fought on many fronts. I agree. Iraq was a mistake. So many more countries had real connection with Al Qaeda then Iraq. It was a strategic mistake. That is all I espouse.

A smarter move would of been to go after Pakistan after Afghanistan.. or The House of Saud. Even the Sudan. All countries with close ties to Al Qaeda. I agree with the fight and war on terrorism, but we must put our self interest first, not Israel's, I'm sorry, but that is how I believe. If we can help take the peace process to the next level excellent. However, many of the policies on Israel by the west has created this problem to begin with.

I am all for peace in the middle east. I believe in two separate states for Israel and for Palestine.. I believe both people's have a right to be there.

However, as a westerner.. I must say, that the narrow view of this administration that supports Israel in ways we have never seen an American president do before him, is simply dangerous to our own societies. Yes, we should help in the peace process, but we should in no way take sides. Which is becoming more clouded every day.

The way to stop terrorism is not to take sides.. but to moderate the peace process.

I am hopeful that Sharon wants to pull out of the occupied Gaza Strip. It's been a long time coming.

My point is, I know you're so close to this situation that it's hard for you to be objective.. and understandable. However, we in the west must first and fore most look to our own self interest.

Bush's policy has been counter-productive to that end..

This is a very belated reply, but this is the first time the forums have been working well for me in days, so please bear with me. :)

That is true. However, if security wasn't a factor, why haven't they tried attacking the oil fields themselves? They may try, but it'll probably be a failure, because security there is too good for them.

The oil fields aren't a target due in large part to Saudi opinion. The Saudis, all of them, view the oil as a communal property, so an attack on the oil is an attack on all of them. Once more I'll quote from Stratfor.

oil is
the source of more than 90 percent of Saudi Arabia's export
revenues -- which would elicit a far stronger reaction from the
ruling House of Saud and the general population than attacks on
resident "infidels." Saudi sentiment embraces the oil complex as
the property of the people, not simply the House of Saud's
feeding trough. Attacking energy assets would threaten to dull al
Qaeda's reputation locally, just as the Nov. 9, 2003, as did the
attack against Riyadh's al-Muhaya residential compound.

As for security, while the compounds themselves might be well guarded, there are long stretches of pipelines that could be easily targeted. So the reasoning that the only reason these areas haven't been attacked is because of heightened security, might be premature. However, if the reports are true and al-Muqrin's been killed, perhaps his successor won't be as smart and will alienate Saudi public opinion by once more targeting Saudis and their oil infrastructure. We can only hope at least.