Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

July 5, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

SO HOW ARE WE DOING IN THE WAR ON TERROR?....Foreign Policy magazine has a survey of 116 foreign policy heavyweights in this month's issue and the results are pretty easy to summarize: they think America's efforts in the war on terror are failing on practically every measure. The chart on the right shows the consensus.

The survey respondents are listed here. They trend slightly liberal, but the survey results were weighted to give equal weight to self-described liberals and conservatives. Here's FP's summary:

Despite todays highly politicized national security environment, the index results show striking consensus across political party lines. A bipartisan majority (84 percent) of the indexs experts say the United States is not winning the war on terror. Eighty-six percent of the indexs experts see a world today that is growing more dangerous for Americans. Overall, they agree that the U.S. government is falling short in its homeland security efforts. More than 8 in 10 expect an attack on the scale of 9/11 within a decade.

These dark conclusions appear to stem from the experts belief that the U.S. national security apparatus is in serious disrepair. Foreign-policy experts have never been in so much agreement about an administrations performance abroad, says Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and an index participant. The reason is that its clear to nearly all that Bush and his team have had a totally unrealistic view of what they can accomplish with military force and threats of force.

Via Eric Martin.

Kevin Drum 1:12 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (179)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

boooo.


Booooooooooo!

Posted by: Wingnut on July 5, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

One does suspect The Center for American Progress might have a bias. I agree with the survey, just saying it would probably have more impact if a more neutral group had sponsored it.

Posted by: demisod on July 5, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Who here thought on 9/12/01 we would not have another al Qaeda attack for 5 years?

Posted by: Doug M. on July 5, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

A bipartisan majority (84 percent) of the indexs experts say the United States is not winning the war on terror.

On the other hand, we are winning the war on common sense. Yay for us.

Posted by: craigie on July 5, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Who here thought on 9/12/01 we would not have another al Qaeda attack for 5 years?

I did.

Posted by: Nikki on July 5, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

The reason is that its clear to nearly all that Bush and his team have had a totally unrealistic view of what they can accomplish with military force and threats of force.

Well, but to be fair to the Bush Cultists, these tactics are working splendidly on the Democrats, so why would they question them elsewhere?

Posted by: craigie on July 5, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

Who here thought on 9/12/01 we would not have another al Qaeda attack for 5 years?

Why, no one. Say, how long was it between the first attack on the WTC in 1993 and 9/11, anyway?

Posted by: mwg on July 5, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

Also, this comes from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, not the Center for American Progress.

Posted by: Nikki on July 5, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, but they're experts. Remember, to Bush's dead-enders, having a plurality of experts agree on something contrary to Bush Wisdom confirms that their King is right. After all, if the facts have a liberal bias, opinions of experts must be even more biased.

I'm sure Al's pager has gone off, but here will be his summary: some of those experts are French.

Posted by: ahem on July 5, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

I figured that the mean time to big foreign terrorist attack on US soil was approximately ten years.

Posted by: jefff on July 5, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

Oops, my mistake. It is the CAP.

Posted by: Nikki on July 5, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

Only liberals become foreign policy heavyweights.

So, despite the esoteric weighting described by Kevin who is blissfully unaware that whatever weight you give to the number zero you still get a zero, the only valid conclusion that can be made from the results is that liberals are liberals and they hate America.

Posted by: nut on July 5, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

Who here thought on 9/12/01 we would not have another al Qaeda attack for 5 years?

That's an interesting one. Who here thought on 9/12/01 that we would have 140,000 US troops in Iraq 5 years later?

Kinda strange how we got here from there, no? Perhaps that explains the low grade.

Posted by: ahem on July 5, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, 'nut' must be standing in for 'Al' today.

Really: who is paying the trolls? Is the RSS feed hooked up to an alarm system? And do they use their tiny minds to create the responses, or are they supplied by a database?

Posted by: ahem on July 5, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

Well, Nikki and jefff, you were among a tiny minority out of the vast majority of Americans who were rightfully concerned (none of these experts thought that either, or at least, did not think enough of such a hypothetical scenario to put it into print). Now, I recall there were some who said America DESERVED to be attacked, who said we would be attacked again, how we have to achieve our goal 100% of the time and they only have to achieve 1%, but I don't recall ANYONE guaranteeing al Qaeda would not attack in the U.S. for 5 years, let alone 10 years. Hopefully, you are right.

Posted by: Doug M. on July 5, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

ahem
I should sue you for slander.

Posted by: nut on July 5, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

It's obvious now that scholarly consensus is not going to cause any movement in such a polarized environment. Is there anyway we can get Tom Tancredo to run as an Independent?

Posted by: enozinho on July 5, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Who here thought on 9/12/01 we would not have another al Qaeda attack for 5 years?

Some say that there are those who would say that.

Posted by: someone on July 5, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Who thought on 9/12/01 that the CIA unit tracking Bin Laden would be closed in '05 with Bin Laden still at-large?

Posted by: joejoejoe on July 5, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

I note that 93% agree (and myself, FWIW) that the war in Afghanistan is a net positive for the war on terror. Which simply, and yet again, points out Bush's shame in abandoning a course that united the nation -- bringing the perpetrators of 9/11, and those who harbored them, to justice -- and instead using the nation's fear to embark on a series of divisive, destructive and incompetent policies.

I am a little puzzled by nearly half assessing Bush's clusmy policy toward North Korea as negative in protecting the American people from terrorists. True, under Bush's watch North Korea accelerated both its nuclear and missile programs, which have ominous implications ofr US security interests in general, but I don't really see the connection between North Korea and terrorism. Asymmetric warfare doesn't seem to be Kim's style.

Regardless, I suspect that after Bush, the Republican Party won't be taken seriously on national security for a generation or more. and rightly so.

Posted by: Gregory on July 5, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

Doug M wrote: you were among a tiny minority out of the vast majority of Americans who were rightfully concerned

Pity that minority did not include George W. Bush prior to 9/11...

Now, I recall there were some who said America DESERVED to be attacked

Pray tell, who, apart from Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, said that?

Posted by: Gregory on July 5, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

but I don't really see the connection between North Korea and terrorism. Asymmetric warfare doesn't seem to be Kim's style.

North Korea has practiced plenty of terrorism (blowing up South Korean airliners, slipping saboteurs into South Korea to blow up vital facilities, kidnapping) but, as the examples show, it's been directed at South Korean targets, and, to a lesser extent, Japan, but not at America.

Posted by: Stefan on July 5, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

'Who here thought on 9/12/01 we would not have another al Qaeda attack for 5 years?'
--Doug M.

Everyone bright enough to recognize that they are a low-level, low-tech threat that is best dealt with as a criminal, not a military, problem.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on July 5, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

I not only didn't expect another al Qaida attack on U.S. soil for five years, I was immediately suspicious of claims that the Anthrax mailers (remember those?) were the work of al Qaida. This is a group that does not act on the short-attentions span timeline of Americans. As someone else pointed out, they waited EIGHT YEARS before retrying the attack on the WTC.

Posted by: Don Hosek on July 5, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

but I don't really see the connection between North Korea and terrorism.

I think the reason this analysis is correct is twofold. First, Bush is the one that conflated North Korea with terrorism, so if you're judging his policy based on how he frames it, then you would judge that as his first big mistake. Second, North Korea sells their missle technology to Iran and Pakistan, two states that are completely tied up in anti-terrorism foreign policy. So not only do we frame the debate in a way that limits our rhetorical dealings with the North, but we also allow them to go one doing the things that are supposed to be so dangerous in the first place.


Posted by: enozinho on July 5, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

'Who here thought on 9/12/01 we would not have another al Qaeda attack for 5 years?'

Why kill us here when they have 140 thousand targets in Iraq alone?

Posted by: nutty little nut nut on July 5, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

As I'm sure some wingnut (perhaps the Doughy Pantload) will soon point out, it's just so elitist to listen to foreign policy experts on matters of foreign policy. All those guys, despite their experience, education, and credentials, cannot possibly know as much about foreign policy as [Under-roos wearing wingnut Bush apologist] who blogged about this last year.

Obviously we're in good hands.

Posted by: Derelict on July 5, 2006 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

Second, North Korea sells their missle technology to Iran and Pakistan, two states that are completely tied up in anti-terrorism foreign policy.

Vice versa, actually -- it was the ostensible U.S. ally Pakistan, through the A.Q. Khan network, that sold nuclear technology to North Korea.

Posted by: Stefan on July 5, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't guarantee it I simply did not think there would be one that quickly.

You may note that thus far I am correct and you and your "vast majority" are incorrect.

People panic. It is understandable. They greatly overestimate certain risks and greatly underestimate others.

I think you are also grossly misrepresenting the opinions of "these experts". They weren't polled on 9/12, so we don't know what thier predictions would have been then but in this recent poll 21% of them think a 9/11 scale attack us unlikely by the end of 2011 and 16% by the end of 2016. 16% and 9% don't expect an attack on the scale of the london or madrid attacks by those year ends. Significantly more than "none" of them are not expecting a large attack in the next 5 or 10 years despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of them think we are doing poorly in the war.

Posted by: jefff on July 5, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

Now, I recall there were some who said America DESERVED to be attacked, who said we would be attacked again

That's true. From the September 13, 2001 broadcast of The 700 Club:

Jerry Falwell: What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.

Pat Robertson: Well, Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror, we haven't begun to see what they can do to the major population.

Posted by: Stefan on July 5, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

Remember, if there's an al-Qaeda attack on the day after a Democratic president's inauguration in 2009, it won't be George Bush's fault. At least, not according to the Bush Cultists.

Posted by: ahem on July 5, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK
Who here thought on 9/12/01 we would not have another al Qaeda attack for 5 years?

Are you implicitly claiming that no al-Qaeda linked group has attacked Americans anywhere in the world in the past 5 years? Because if you are...

Posted by: cmdicely on July 5, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK
Vice versa, actually -- it was the ostensible U.S. ally Pakistan, through the A.Q. Khan network, that sold nuclear technology to North Korea.

"Nuclear technology" is not the same as "missile technology". The poster you were responding to was as correct about missiles as you are about the technology used to make the nuclear warheads.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 5, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, my mistake, then.

Posted by: Stefan on July 5, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

All of the arguments to the effect that civil liberties must be curtailed and the executive powers enhanced in this "post-9-11 world" are predicated on the assumption that the Bush administration has the ability to fight terror and should not be encumbered by dated concepts.

This, of course, begs the question of whether or not the Bush administration actually has any such ability.

For too long, Bush advocates have gotten away with the suggestion that mere tough talk and vicious action constitute an effective response.

Posted by: Thinker on July 5, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, the likes of Larry C. Johnson have TONS of experience, education, and credentials . . . as partisan hacks. I wonder why none of these opinions on al Qaeda were published on 9/12/01? For all of you so sure about the "low level" al Qaeda threat now, perhaps you should review the "findings" from all these foreign policy experts: "More than 8 in 10 expect an attack on the scale of 9/11 within a decade."

Posted by: Doug M. on July 5, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:

I said: "attacks IN the U.S."

Stefan / Gregory:

I was thinking more along the lines of liberal college professors.

Posted by: Doug M. on July 5, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sure this administration will plan/allow another attack on US soil when it fits their needs.

Posted by: nutty little nut nut on July 5, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

Another interesting little bit in there.

66% of americans think another terrorist attack in the US is likely this year.

Those people probably would have responded about the same for the past five years. Assuming that and that "likely" means 50/50 we have now won 5 coin flips in a row! Beating the odds with 97% chance of having an attack according to them.

Hard to say exactly what 'likely' means to people, but it has to be 13% for us to be 50/50 to have not had one now.

Posted by: jefff on July 5, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder why none of these opinions on al Qaeda were published on 9/12/01?

The Bush administration didn't seem too concerned about opinions on Al Qaeda published prior to 9/11/01.

Posted by: ckelly on July 5, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the info, Stefan. But I still don't know if I'd define North Korea's harrasment of South Korea as "asymmetric warfare;" merely an outgrowth of the stalemate that also results in a nonzero number of casualties on both sides along the DMZ each year.

enozinho wrote: I think the reason this analysis is correct is twofold. First, Bush is the one that conflated North Korea with terrorism, so if you're judging his policy based on how he frames it, then you would judge that as his first big mistake.

Well, of course I agree that conflating North Korea and terrorism is a mistake -- indeed, I'd say Bush's so-called "Axis of Evil" was one of the big post-9/11 moment when I realized american nation security was in the hands of incompetent boobs (9/11 was, of course, the incident that removed any doubt I might have had, and the Administration's pathetic -- and hastily corrected -- mewling that there was no warning was another bad sign).

Second, North Korea sells their missle technology to Iran and Pakistan, two states that are completely tied up in anti-terrorism foreign policy. So not only do we frame the debate in a way that limits our rhetorical dealings with the North, but we also allow them to go one doing the things that are supposed to be so dangerous in the first place.

Again, I agree that Bush's policy vis-a-vis North Korea and Pakistan as well is damaging to American national security as a whole, but I have my doubts that it's on the terrorism front. Of course, that makes it more, not less, alarming.

Posted by: Gregory on July 5, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

This sucks, I only read the comments to read Al-bot's ridiculous response... and he lets me down. You're a cold, cold, troll, Al.

Posted by: jay on July 5, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

What a goofy scorecard. Take Gitmo, for example. No doubt Gitmo causes a fair amount of negative publicity abroad (undeserved, in my opinion). That's secondary.

The primary impact of Gitmo is the incarceration of that 600+ people, many of whom are terrorists. Keeping terrorists locked up, rather than at large, is surely a plus for the war on terror.

More generally, all categories cry out for an answer to the question, "compared to what?" E.g., our Iran policy is rated 60-12 negative, but what alternative do the raters have in mind? Immediately destroying Iran with nuclear weapons? Ignoring Iran's nuclear development? Getting Iran to stop developing nukes and supporting terror by some magical negotiation approach? Moviong all our Iraq troops into Iran in a land invasion?

Absent this sort of detail, these ratings mean nothing.

Posted by: ex-liberal on July 5, 2006 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

Doug M wrote

"Who here thought on 9/12/01 we would not have another al Qaeda attack for 5 years?"

Piles of corpses in Bali, Madrid and other places show you to be ignorant about the facts, insensitive about non-American dead or both.

Posted by: Ian Whitchurch on July 5, 2006 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

I figured al Qaeda had shot their wad in the US on 9-11-2001, and I didn't expect them to be able to pull anything off on that scale here for a long time.

But I don't think it matters to them, they goaded us into a bunch of stupid moves that have strengthend their movement throughout the Muslim world. Al Qaeda itself has been weakend, but Bush helped them bolster their cause.

Posted by: tib on July 5, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

But you know, if you wussy liberals would just let someone else beat some guy picked up at random with a hose, Jonah Goldberg would feel so much better about the Republicans losing the war on terror.
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on July 5, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

Funny how we were able to fight Hitler and Imperial Japan without surrendering (many of) our civil liberties, and without systematically mistreating prisoners. How come we are so mcuh less capable today, and our enemies are soooo much more frightening.

Answer: we've turned into Peru.

Posted by: Kenji on July 5, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

I was thinking more along the lines of liberal college professors.

Of course you were, my little troll. Well, since you said "some," and since Stefan and I have both mentioned Falwell and Robertson, I'm sure you won't have trouble naming some. As in, more than one. (Then again, since I challenged you to say who said that already, and you haven't done so, maybe you will...)

Put up or shut up.

Posted by: Gregory on July 5, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

The primary impact of Gitmo is the incarceration of that 600+ people, many of whom are terrorists. Keeping terrorists locked up, rather than at large, is surely a plus for the war on terror.

Hey, by that reasoning why don't we arrest 60,000 people -- it'll be one hundred times as effective! It's rather like saying that "the primary impact of this jail is the incarceration of 600+ people, many of whom are actually guilty."

Of course, if "many" are terrorists then some aren't, which means that a large number of completely innocent people have been kidnapped and tortured by the US government (which has been proven to be the case, as the Bush regime has released large numbers of Guantanamo prisoners it concedes were not terrorists).

Posted by: Stefan on July 5, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal" wrote: No doubt Gitmo causes a fair amount of negative publicity abroad (undeserved, in my opinion). That's secondary.

Which tells us all we need to know about the merits of your opinion.

The primary impact of Gitmo is the incarceration of that 600+ people, many of whom are terrorists. Keeping terrorists locked up, rather than at large, is surely a plus for the war on terror.

"Many" of whom are terrorists? So right off the bat you concede that some of those locked up in Gitmo are not terrorists. But, of course, that's "secondary," right?

More to the point, how do you know that "many" -- or, indeed, any -- of those locked up in Gitmo are terrorists. I'll tell you how: The Bush Administration claims they are, and despite the fact that they've resisted having those claims scrutinized, you believe those claims. Well, I, for one, require more to deny an individual of life or liberty than the President's say-so, and in that the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions (which are, of course, as a ratified treaty US law) agree with me.

Posted by: Gregory on July 5, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

Those here claiming they thought on 9/12/01 that there would be no further attacks for five or ten years are lying like a rug.

Posted by: art on July 5, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

As someone else pointed out, they waited EIGHT YEARS before retrying the attack on the WTC.
Posted by: Don Hosek on July 5, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

As nobody has yet pointed out:
The 1993 WTC bombing was in no way connected with the 2001 WTC bombing. Yes, muslim fundamentalists. But Ramsi Yousef (and Co.) was not affiliated in any way shape or form with Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden.

If you want to accurately paint a timeline of Al Qaeda activities to compare with post-9/11 attacks, you need to look at the Khobar Towers bombing, the Cole bombing, and then 9/11, then the attempted shoe-bomber, then 3/11 (Spain), then the British subway bombings last year. And also the flurry of activity in Iraq, with 3-5 suicide/car bombings per day.

In terms of using attacks as a metric for antiterror efforts, you have to ask whether Iraq counts. Isn't it "effectively" US soil? If so, then we've absolutely failed in the war on terror. But if you take the racist stance that suicide bombings in Iraq don't matter, because it's "those people" getting blown into quivering bits of hamburger while shopping at the market or taking their kids out for ice cream, then, absolutely - what a stunning success. No terror attacks since 9/11.

But if you count bin Laden videos as "terror attacks" (and they are - no bombs, no deaths, but he's still pushing our fear button) - then that's failure right there. In a world of free-speech, there's no defense against the terrorist propaganda. Once they've successfully blown something up, they can milk that in their videos and fatwahs, and other crap for decades.

The only defense against terrorist propaganda, is either prevent the bombing in the first place (which Bush FAILED to do) - or you get the terrorist, and kill the motherfucker (or jail him) which Clinton succeeded at with Ramsi Yousef - and Bush FAILED to do.

So as long as bin Laden's still out there making videos, he's still able to push our buttons. And for that, I'd say Bush's war was an absolute failure. What I can't figure out is - bin Laden released one just before the November election. Yet people still voted for Bush after being reminded what a crappy job Bush has done. Fear makes people do strange things, I suppose. Like jumping from the window on the 90th floor of a burning building.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on July 5, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Art,
You peeing your pants on 9/11 didn't confer on you the ability to read minds.

CK

Posted by: CK Dexter Haven on July 5, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Those here claiming they thought on 9/12/01 that there would be no further attacks for five or ten years are lying like a rug.

What are you, 9 years old?


.

Posted by: spork_incident on July 5, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

It's interesting to note that even 71 percent of the survey's conservative respondents disagree with Bush's statement that the U.S. is winning the war on terror. These must be the bad conservatives who don't listen to talk radio.

I still don't know if I'd define North Korea's harrasment of South Korea as "asymmetric warfare;"

The Bushists would, however, consider it an act of assymetric warfare against the U.S. if North Korea were to commit suicide.

Posted by: R. Porrofatto on July 5, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

Why in God's name (or Allah's) would Al Qaeda NEED to attack the US on US soil again? Since 9/11 they have sat back and watched the US implode - senselessly ferrying lives and treasure off to Iraq, stretching our military capabilities and resources, endlessly incarcerating "terrorists" and non-terrorists, torturing, rendering, enraging Muslim populations, clipping civil liberties at home...

Posted by: ckelly on July 5, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

Apparently Kenji has not heard of gas rations, food rations, metal rations, rubber rations, curfews, filtered mail, or interment camps used during World War II. I believe those things would be called infringements on civil liberties. Wrong answer try again.

And apparently you havent known any real WW II veterans who would shoot their prisoners on a regular basis because they didnt have anywhere to put them when they were on the battle field and the prisoner was of little value.

If you think what is factual about Abu Grab is torture then clearly your knowledge of history began the day before you were born, which obviously must have been 2 days ago.

Posted by: Orwell on July 5, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

Why in God's name (or Allah's) would Al Qaeda NEED to attack the US on US soil again? Since 9/11 they have sat back and watched the US implode - senselessly ferrying lives and treasure off to Iraq, stretching our military capabilities and resources, endlessly incarcerating "terrorists" and non-terrorists, torturing, rendering, enraging Muslim populations, clipping civil liberties at home...

...not to mention letting bin Laden escape at Tora Bora (and for the stated reason -- which I no longer believe -- that Bush didn't think the American people would accept many US casualties, for cryin' out loud!), diverting US intelligence assets from monitoring the remnants of al Qaeda to Iraq, shortchanging the security situation in Afghanistan, and most recently disbanding the special anti-Qaeda task force (Mission accomplished -- not!).

bin Laden's stated delight at Bush's actions is a matter of public record. Of course, it isn't hard to see why.

Posted by: Gregory on July 5, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

"Those here claiming they thought on 9/12/01 that there would be no further attacks for five or ten years are lying like a rug."

Ignoring the provocative, trollish tone of that comment, I would emphasize what several posters have been saying. These spectacular types of attacks seem to be attempted about once every 5 to 10 years on american soil. It apparently takes that long to figure out how to work around the hurdles American commerce and law enforcement put in the way of planning and pulling off a large-scale attack.

If another attack had happened immediately after 9/11, when we were still shellshocked, I would not have been surprised. But once we got our bearings, and with the heightened awareness that 9/11 caused, another large-scale attack was extremely unlikely in the near-to-medium term.

Of course, I attempt to view the world through a prism of common sense and reason. Just because you and Doug M were pissing your pants every time Tom Ridge elevated the threat color to orange doesn't mean everyone else was.

Posted by: brewmn on July 5, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Al-Queda is too busy planning to attack Canada because Canada joined us in the war in Iraq
Oh, no wait Canada didn't join us, they stayed out of it. So why did they get attacked?

Because the Islamic terrorist are evil - they have run to fight us where ever we go because they believe Allah will come to their aid in the battle.

Instead all they got was this lame newspaper called the New York Times.

Posted by: Orwell on July 5, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

Al and AH must just have a fucking brain freeze at shit like this that indicates the absolute illogical crap they spout is just that.

Posted by: angryspittle on July 5, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

If you think what is factual about Abu Grab is torture then clearly your knowledge of history began the day before you were born, which obviously must have been 2 days ago.

Want to torture an English teacher? Show him the above sentence.

Posted by: Stefan on July 5, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

"Hey, by that reasoning why don't we arrest 60,000 people -- it'll be one hundred times as effective!"

Actually, the US has locked up 70,000 since 9/11

Posted by: nutty little nut nut on July 5, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

nut wrote...

Only liberals become foreign policy heavyweights

...and for once I agree that he is completely right. It certainly explains why the Bush team is full of foreign policy lightweights.

Posted by: mmy on July 5, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, no wait Canada didn't join us, they stayed out of it. So why did they get attacked?

Uh, we got attacked?

Oh, you mean the kids that got arrested cause they were said to be planning an attack...

subtle difference I know.

Posted by: snicker-snack on July 5, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

Al-Queda is too busy planning to attack Canada because Canada joined us in the war in Iraq
Oh, no wait Canada didn't join us, they stayed out of it. So why did they get attacked?

I'm still waiting to hear what our military response to the above should be. We can't just treat it as a wimpy law enforcement problem, can we? After all, since Canada was harboring these terrorists on its soil shouldn't the wingnuts be clamoring to invade Canada? (Ignoring, of course, the fact that the Canadians would kick our ass -- just ask my girlfriend).

Posted by: Stefan on July 5, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

Yo Orwell, I'm surprised you haven't joined the chorus of idiots, ala powerline malkin, etc, having a coronary about the fact that the NYTimes travel section published photos of Rumsfelds and Cheney summer homes, gasp, with their permission!

Those evil NYTimes people, they sure hate America and want to see all of us dead!

Posted by: Orwell's empty phone book on July 5, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan
...clearly your knowledge of history began the day before you were born, which obviously must have been 2 days ago.

Want to torture an English teacher? Show him the above sentence.

Clearly he's referring to ultra-liberal yuppy parents and their infatuation with in-utero kindertraining. Whatever it takes to get into Harvard, I guess.

Posted by: Red State Mike on July 5, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

I'd say the failure of the Bush foreign policy has more to do with their trying to run their F.P. based on winning elections. It's not about governing, it's about politics.

Regardless of what any Bush apologist says, even staunch hawks and conservatives agree that Bush has been a F.P. failure--the survey has some well known conservatives. It takes a real stretch to give Bush credit on this. I had hope for CondiRice initially, but she seems to have been curtailed recently. That's too bad, she started out impressively.

Posted by: gq on July 5, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry you lost the birth lottery, Redneck Mike, and had to be a wage slave. Bitter much? Havard is a great school, for those of us elites who have parents that did give us the extra attention to excel. Are you against parents giving their kids every advantage in life, or just certain kinds?

Posted by: Blue Bob on July 5, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

just ask my girlfriend).

Does this mean you are sleeping with - gasp - socialists?!?!?!?

My God, whatever next? Trips abroad? Speaking foreign languages? Reading books with actual facts in them?

Why do you hate America so?

Posted by: craigie on July 5, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

Interesting article. One minor bone of contention. Can they hire someone with basic math skills? When you add up the percentages on "name your single greatest threat to national security" chart you come up with 114%. Duh.

Posted by: Red State Mike on July 5, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

Why do you hate America so?

America killed my puppy. From that day on, I swore eternal enmity.

Posted by: Stefan on July 5, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

Does this mean you are sleeping with - gasp - socialists?!?!?!?

I hope she won't mind me speaking behind her back, but when my girlfriend had to spend some time in Texas for business she was more than a bit surprised to find how out of step the American strain of conservatism was with the rest of the world. When one person openly pitied her because "your parents raised you so left-wing" she responded, dumbstruck "I wasn't raised left-wing. I was just raised Canadian."

Posted by: Stefan on July 5, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry you lost the birth lottery, Redneck Mike, and had to be a wage slave. Bitter much?

Wage slave? Heh. Thanks for buying me a many millions of dollar airplane to fly and the gas too.

Havard (sic) is a great school, for those of us elites who have parents that did give us the extra attention to excel. Are you against parents giving their kids every advantage in life, or just certain kinds?

How delightfully and unrepentantly class conscious you are. You never stand so tall as when you're on the backs of all those poor un-elite african-american voters who lemming-like support you and yours.

Posted by: Red State Mike on July 5, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

(Ignoring, of course, the fact that the Canadians would kick our ass -- just ask my girlfriend).

I can't vouch for Stefan's girlfriend's perspicacity on military issues, but she does know her way around the haircare aisle and Aisle 8A, and thus remains an inspiration to us all.

Posted by: shortstop on July 5, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK


doug: I wonder why none of these opinions on al Qaeda were published on 9/12/01?

try this one.....

its titled..

"Bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States"

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on July 5, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

Doug M.: ...another al Qaeda attack for 5 years?'


U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism
State Dept. Will Not Put Data in Report

By Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 27, 2005; Page A01

The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.

Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir.

Terrorist incidents in Iraq also dramatically increased, from 22 attacks to 198, or nine times the previous year's total...


Bush fixed the problem....

he ordered the state department not to print another report...

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on July 5, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry you lost the birth lottery, Redneck Mike. Sorry your daddy had to wash his hands after work every day. Sorry you had to lace up your boots so that I could drive on cruise control.

So bitter you conservatives are. So sad that you'll sit there and stew in your anger that you missed too many chances in life that you didn't take, either because you were too timid or just didn't have it in you.

I'll send you a nice fruit basket for Xmas, how's that for you?

Posted by: Blue Bob on July 5, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

oops.....doug..i;m sorry....my above post...


"Bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States"

that was a month before 9-11....


my bad...


"All right. You've covered your ass, now."

-G.W.B. 8/6/2001 to a CIA briefer who informed him of the P.D.B. titled - Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.


Posted by: thisspaceavailable on July 5, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

...but she does know her way around the haircare aisle and Aisle 8A, and thus remains an inspiration to us all.
Posted by: shortstop

Heck, they're right next to each other, if not the same aisle. If you had said automotive parts or bow hunting supplies I would have been impressed.

A Hank Fan

Posted by: Red State Mike on July 5, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

Osama_Been_Forgotten wrote: What I can't figure out is - bin Laden released one just before the November election. Yet people still voted for Bush after being reminded what a crappy job Bush has done.

It's simple, obf. People think the Dems would do even worse.

I cannot think of a reason to have confidence in how the Democrats would prosecute the war on terror. Can you?

Posted by: ex-liberal on July 5, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

Why would I want to impress you? And if you think shampoo's in Aisle 8A, you've never been down Aisle 8A.

Posted by: shortstop on July 5, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

Why would I want to impress you?

Oh that's right. I momentarily forgot you were a humorless liberal prig. My bad.

Why would I want to impress you? And if you think shampoo's in Aisle 8A, you've never been down Aisle 8A.

I assumed you were referring to lice shampoo.

Posted by: Red State Mike on July 5, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

Heck, they're right next to each other, if not the same aisle. If you had said automotive parts or bow hunting supplies I would have been impressed.

Hey, you should be impressed. Not only did my girlfriend grow up quite poor in the country, and thereby had to acquire all sorts of useful skills with hammer and axe and knife, including chopping wood for the woodstove that heated her house, (a house her dad built himself) but she was useless when I took her to buy fish...because, as she said, "I've never bought fish in a store before. I've just caught them myself."

Posted by: Stefan on July 5, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan
"I've never bought fish in a store before. I've just caught them myself."

I am impressed.

Posted by: Red State Mike on July 5, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder why none of these opinions on al Qaeda were published on 9/12/01?

You mean like a report titled: "Al Qaeda Deteremined to Strike in US" delivered to the
National Security Advisor ?

Posted by: Stephen on July 5, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

Oh that's right. I momentarily forgot you were a humorless liberal prig. My bad.

"Prig" is a new one. I gotta show that to the people who keep telling me I should be more demure and stop laughing at (funny) dirty jokes. Anyway, it is your bad, Mike, but only because a) not all humor here is actually directed at you, and b) the original joke, which was anything but priggish, is probably lost in the PA vaults.

Back to the posters worth worrying about: Stefan, I'm more admiring than ever. Hold onto that woman.

Posted by: shortstop on July 5, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

I cannot think of a reason to have confidence in how the Democrats would prosecute the war on terror.

You're not thinking. Democrats would have finished the job in Afghanistan, left Saddam the neutered non-threat that he was and treated terrorism as the international law enforcement issue that it is. For starters.

Posted by: ckelly on July 5, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

You mean like a report titled: "Al Qaeda Deteremined to Strike in US" delivered to the
National Security Advisor ?

Well, yes, but who could have imagined you nitpicky libs would bring this up later, crashing into the tower of our denial?

Posted by: shortstop on July 5, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

I cannot think of a reason to have confidence in how the Democrats would prosecute the war on terror. Can you?

They're not Republicans. That alone ensures a measure of sanity that would be refreshing. I know, I know, 'ex', 9/11 changed everything for you, but really, as you'd rather be treated like a subject than a citizen, you are eternally thankful that the big bad Ay-rabs blew up that building. It saved you from unilaterally surrendering to the first person to sneak up behind you and jab your sides.

Even if the Democrats fucked up as bad as the Bushies have done, I'd have more confidence in children at a Montessori School conducting foreign policy than the GOP. I'd have more faith in a chicken picking a randomly generated number that corresponds with a random foreign policy action than I do in the Bush Administration. The chicken, after all, might choose right, something that, at present, has completely eluded the Bushies. That these people have failed in every manner possible, save for winning a single election, speaks volumes to how badly, "ex", you need a daddy protecting you.

Posted by: n.o.l.t.f. on July 5, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

"I've never bought fish in a store before."

Me neither. I get them mail order.

Posted by: craigie on July 5, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

I am still just completely devistated about what the world thinks of me as an American in this poll. I don't know how to deal with this injury to my delicate self-esteme.

Oh, I know how to handle it.
Dear the rest of the world,

Concerning your recent opinion of our country we have two words. Smart bomb. You are either going to be helped by it or hurt by it, the choice is yours.

Sincerely,
all the non-liberals in America.

Posted by: Orwell on July 5, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

crashing into the tower of our denial?

Ha! Splendid!

Posted by: craigie on July 5, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

Not only did my girlfriend grow up quite poor in the country, and thereby had to acquire all sorts of useful skills with hammer and axe and knife, including chopping wood for the woodstove that heated her house, (a house her dad built himself)

Goddamn rural elitist liberals...

Posted by: craigie on July 5, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

I cannot think of a reason to have confidence in how the Democrats would prosecute the war on terror. Can you?
Posted by: ex-liberal on July 5, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

Ramsi Yousef in jail?

Maybe Dems would win an election once in a while if they gave Ramsi Yousef a video camera. . .

"Dear America, life sucks, because I'm here rotting in jail, being fed pork chops every thursday. I wish I were lucky enough to be in northwestern Pakistan right now, like Osama bin Laden PBUH, but I'm not, because when I tried to blow up the WTC, Bill Clinton, a Democrat, had me arrested and locked up like the filthy criminal I am. Had a Republican been in charge in 1993, I might be free to plot more attacks and kill more infidels. Oh well."

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on July 5, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

I cannot think of a reason to have confidence in how the Democrats would prosecute the war on terror.

Because Rumsfailed and Cheney would no longer be in charge.

Have any two people ever been more wrong more often than Dick and Don ?

Posted by: Stephen on July 5, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Concerning your recent opinion of our country we have two words. Smart bomb.

What, no "you're either with us or against us"

or

"nuke 'em till they glow"

or

"kill 'em all and let God sort them out"

or...

Posted by: ckelly on July 5, 2006 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

Back to the posters worth worrying about: Stefan, I'm more admiring than ever. Hold onto that woman.

Yeah, all that, plus two degrees from Harvard. Which I guess does indeed make her, in craigie's words, a "rural elitist liberal."

Posted by: Stefan on July 5, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

ckelly -

smart bomb. dumb posters.

Posted by: craigie on July 5, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

ckelly -
smart bomb. dumb posters.

Indeed dumb - scary dumb. The bomb is only as smart as its user and in the case of this Administration, well...

Posted by: ckelly on July 5, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

Experts, schmeckperts. Bush is the decider, and he don't need no stinkin' experts. Gawd will tell him what to do, or at least will tell him if something he has done is not right.

Since Gawd has not told Bush to stop torturing suspects, Gawd must be fine with it.

Posted by: Cal Gal on July 5, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

Who here thought on 9/12/01 we would not have another al Qaeda attack for 5 years?

Me. I don't think there will ever be another. bin Laden succeeded beyond his wildest dreams in getting a totally hysterical American reaction. He's the King of Terror! And we can't catch him.

Posted by: Ace Franze on July 5, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

"Those here claiming they thought on 9/12/01 that there would be no further attacks for five or ten years are lying like a rug."

I thought there wouldn't be any more attacks by Bin Laden, because I thought (and wished and supported) that we'd go to Afghanistan and kick his and the Taliban's butts. And that we wouldn't give up until we got him "dead or alive" and killed or captured most of the bad guys there.

Silly me.

Posted by: Cal Gal on July 5, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

Not enough information about the survey or the participants to judge it, but they are strange results and appears to be biased. If self described "liberals" and "moderates" are anti-Bush, then you do not fix the survey by weighting. You have a survey where 2/3 are going to be against Bush on almost every issue.

The Guantanamo results are particularly hard to understand. Keeping 500 to 600 terrorists in jail obiously helps our security. The "image" issue is way overblown. To the extent the terrorists are rallying around Gitmo (I actually think the MSM is making more of a deal out of it than terrorists, who presumably understand as a matter of common sense why we are keeping their brothers in custody), they would be using some other rallying point if there was no Gitmo.

Every time a CIA official says something in the paper, he seems to come across as a nit wit. In the artcile, on CIA guys says Iraq provides terrorists with "a recruiting bonanza, a valuable training ground and a strategic beachhead at the crossroads of the oil-rich Persian Gulf and Turkey." I don't know how anyone knows about the recruiting aspect of it (seems like there is a shortage of foreigh jihadists in Iraq), but the training ground and strategic beachhead points are ludicrous. The terrorists have a strategic beachhead, with 250 Muslim Iraqis in the fight against them? A "training ground" where most terrorists are getting killed? If the terrorists win in Iraq, what the CIA guy says will be true. If they lose, it is nonsense. So much of the MSM overrate and glorify the terrorists.

The other CIA guy, Michael Scheuer, said "It has made everything more difficult and the threat more existential." Anyone who uses the word "existential" should be dq'd on the spot, but more serously, you can't take a guy supposedly in a nuanced profession seriously when he talks in such overstatements like "everything more difficult" and "broke our back."

Hopefully, the CIA guys keeping their mouths shut have better judgment.

Any honest observer would say it is too soon to tell what the effect of Iraq will be on the war on terror. And all the anti-Bush folks neglect that, even with the problems in Iraq and the uncertainties in the future, we do know that Sadaam and his two sons will be not imposing any terror and destruction on the world.

Posted by: brian on July 5, 2006 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK


cal gal: Gawd will tell him what to do, or at least will tell him if something he has done is not right.

that's not god....


its cheney on the oval office intercom...

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on July 5, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

Keeping 500 to 600 terrorists in jail obiously helps our security. The "image" issue is way overblown.

A weak performance, brian. Both these issues were disposed of upthread. The only way you know there are "500 to 600 terrorists in jail" is that the administration tells you that, because they obviously want you to think that it helps our security. But even the earlier poster admitted, tacitly, that many of those at Gitmo are not,/i> terrorists or anything of the kind.

I don't think anyone here is fooled by your pose, brina. Why do you bother?

Posted by: Gregory on July 5, 2006 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone who uses the word "existential" should be dq'd on the spot, but more serously, you can't take a guy supposedly in a nuanced profession seriously when he talks in such overstatements like "everything more difficult" and "broke our back."

You know, I just can't trust someone who uses the word "nuanced."

Posted by: Stefan on July 5, 2006 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK


brian: Any honest observer would say it is too soon to tell what the effect of Iraq will be on the war on terror.


U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism
State Dept. Will Not Put Data in Report

By Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 27, 2005; Page A01

The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.

Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir.

Terrorist incidents in Iraq also dramatically increased, from 22 attacks to 198, or nine times the previous year's total...


...

The controversy comes a year after the State Department retracted its annual terrorism report and admitted that its initial version vastly understated the number of incidents. That became an election-year issue, as Democrats said the Bush administration tried to inflate its success in curbing global terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"Last year was bad. This year is worse. They are deliberately trying to withhold data because it shows that as far as the war on terrorism internationally, we're losing," said Larry C. Johnson, a former senior State Department counterterrorism official, who first revealed the decision not to publish the data.

....

Aguilar, according to Hill aides, told them that Rice decided to withhold the statistics on the recommendation of her counselor, Philip D. Zelikow. He was executive director of the Sept. 11 commission that investigated the terrorist attacks on the United States.

yeah...honest...

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on July 5, 2006 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

Yeesh...my kingdom for a proofreader.

That last sentence should have been: "I don't think anyone here is fooled by your pose, brian, nor is anyone convinced by your GOP talking points masquerading -- poorly -- as reasonable rhetoric. You seemed mych more at ease bashing the Marien veteran Murtha for the sin of opposing the Bush Administration. Why do you bother?"

Posted by: Gregory on July 5, 2006 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

thisspaceavailable, brian would like to appear as an honest observer, but frankly, as i noted, his performance simply isn't very convincing. Must have something to do with his dishonesty.

Posted by: Gregory on July 5, 2006 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

I haven't been able to access the links here or at foreignpolicy. Anybody else have that problem?

Anyway -- heard an interesting proposistion that Osama wouldn't attack the US at home again until he can top 11th September, to maintain his graph of increasing terrorism. All the overseas attacks are incidental. Obviously it might take some time for a group of al-Qaeda time to think, plan and set up the operation. But I wouldn't place any bet on setting a likely time frame. I think there is a certain logic to this view.

===============
"Interesting article. One minor bone of contention. Can they hire someone with basic math skills? When you add up the percentages on "name your single greatest threat to national security" chart you come up with 114%. Duh."

Posted by: Red State Mike on July 5, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

There were 116 participants; maybe 2 declined to answer. In the poll (which, as above, I haven't read yet), I understand this total was then proportioned with 1/3 weight to self-identified liberals, moderates and republicans.

So "name your...threat" is a number, not a percentage. Duh.

brian (6:30 pm) --

re Guantanamo, we already had the same point made:
Posted by: ex-liberal on July 5, 2006 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK
except he admitted not all those held were terrorists.

You fall for the Bushnut propaganda that all those held by the US are, necessarily, terrorists and should therefore have their rights suspended: habeas corpus, knowledge of what you are accused of, due process, communication, and humane treatment.

That you believe that any of this conveys some advantage to the US or serves any real or effective purpose in fighting terrorism derives from what? History points to all these policies as counter-productive. Maybe, like Bush, from the belief that all the past lessons of fighting terrorism do not applying to the US today. Bush has found his own and better way.

Or, as someone else already said, by degrading foreign policy to domestic political contortion.

Or maybe it's all about the money.

Posted by: notthere on July 5, 2006 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

Bush can't catch a break from you guys. Some say the five years without a terrorist attack in America is of no importance because a longer view is necessary, others say Bush is bad because terrorism has gone up in the past few years.
I think the long view is ncessary and, of course,currently the subject of only speculation.

Also, the critics always have a superficial advantage short term in their arguments against any action (in this case, the Iraq war) because they ignore the potential cost of inaction (i.e., what Sadaam and his sons would have done if left in power), they seize upon short term problems (terrorist attacks in Iraq), and they ignore the potential long term benefits (democrat Iraq, 250k Iraqi Muslem soldiers and 25 million citizens joining with Americans in defeating Al Quaeda in Iraq, etc.). So the supporters of the action are left with arguing unknowns -- the cost of inaction and the long term benefits -- while the critics can focus on the known short term problems.

One historical example would be Reagan's military build up which proved to be such a great long term success, but was the subject of intense criticism. Another would be FDR's military build up and support of Russia/England prior to WWII. Another would be Lincoln's perseverance in the Civil War. All subject to intense short term criticism, but achieved magnificent long term benefits. I would like an honest answer to this questions: Isn't it possible Iraq falls in that category?

Posted by: brian on July 5, 2006 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINK

And all the anti-Bush folks neglect that, even with the problems in Iraq and the uncertainties in the future, we do know that Sadaam and his two sons will be not imposing any terror and destruction on the world.

Osama bin Laden, though, he's free to spread all the terror and destruction he likes.

So it seems that the Bush response to the terrorist threat is to ignore the terrorists who've actually attacked the US while going after the dictator who never attacked the US. Cunning, that -- he's lulling bin Laden into a real sense of security.

Posted by: Stefan on July 5, 2006 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINK

I've come to the conclusion that the same three or four idiot dittoheads are scrambling to post on each and every lefty blog.

They all sound exactly, exactly the same. And so lame to boot.

How sad to think that after five years of Bush this is the best they can do, and all they have to say.

Posted by: Jim J on July 5, 2006 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

"Some say the five years without a terrorist attack in America is of no importance because a longer view is necessary, others say Bush is bad because terrorism has gone up in the past few years."

As if these statements are contradictory.

"Reagan's military build up which proved to be such a great long term success"

As if it was known with certainty that Reagan's military build up had any good effects beyond enriching defense contractors. The soviet union was collapsing because communism does not work. None of Regean's military spending changed the basic equation that we could kill a very large fraction of the soviet population in a matter of hours and they could kill a very large fraction of ours in a matter of hours. If you want to point to a Regean/BushI success it ought to be the diplomacy with the soviets which kept tensions low enough that the soviet union dissolved more or less peacefully. Now who would I guess would have been critical of arms control treaties and closer diplomatic and trade relations with the soviets, certainly not the left.

Posted by: jefff on July 5, 2006 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINK

So let me get this straight. People from the Carnagie Endowment found 100 "terrorist experts" and "foreign policy" wonks who gave very poor grades to, and predicted dire circumstances because of the Iraq war and we're all to be surprised.

Not.

Posted by: Jay on July 5, 2006 at 8:10 PM | PERMALINK

um....jefff, communism still seems to be working in China, Cuba and NK. Maybe it was that the Soviets bankrupted themselves trying to keep up militarily.

Posted by: Jay on July 5, 2006 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK

brian:

The comments that you apparently have cut and pasted into several threads don't sound any more intelligent through repetition. The fact that you think they might, however, makes you even stupider than the average troll. Nice job, loser.

Posted by: brewmn on July 5, 2006 at 8:30 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan, answer these two questions as honestly as you can (I know that can be hard for you).

Are there still US Troops in Afghanistan?

Is Pakistan an ally?

Now if you answer these questions correctly, you might realize that maybe our forces are still after him. And that maybe the most powerful military in the world can do two things at once. However, because of the left, we may not have been able to listen for his phone calls nor try to follow his money, and oh by the way thanks for that.

Posted by: Jay on July 5, 2006 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINK

我向大家推荐:上海新丝路国际商务旅行社提供各种飞机票包括打折机票特价机票国际机票上海机票;除机票预定外,还提供火车票查询。购上海机票及飞往各地机票请至上海尚游旅行社,提供打折机票特价机票国际机票等各种飞机票。上海国际机票网还提供其他旅行社的打折机票特价机票国际机票等。

Posted by: jimmy on July 5, 2006 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

...you might realize that maybe our forces are still after him. And that maybe the most powerful military in the world can do two things at once....

Posted by: Jay on July 5, 2006 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINK

I'll take the second first. The military can walk and chew gum at the same time because that is all their C-in-C can do. Used effectively? Not in any objective judgement.

As to the first, you might want to ask why, when we knew where Osama Bin Laden was, and when the special forces asked for blocking forces to be used between him and the Pakistan border, and when, to that aim, the UK offered 6,000 troops to facililtate that and were turned down, and no help was provided in capturing or killing OBL at the moment when it was a possibility, just as k why the C-in-C did absolutely nothing.

Must have been sort of a replay of that moment in the schoolroom when he is told about the WTC. Gosh! I bet it would be scary to look into the space between those ears.

As to Pakistan? Every country has it's own agenda. The US, Pakistan, Israel. Allies? As long as their is a common interest. Something Bush has with noone.

Posted by: notthere on July 5, 2006 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

Are there still US Troops in Afghanistan?

Yep. But since Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan, that's not so helpful.

Is Pakistan an ally?

If by "ally" you mean a country with the most virulently anti-American population in the world, a country which has sold nuclear technology to North Korea, shelters bin Laden, supported and funded the Taliban, is one of the world's largest state sponsors of terrorism, has a military and intelligence service that is riddled with fundamentalist Al Qaeda sympathizers, and doesn't seem to want to contribute any troops to Bush's Big Adventure in Iraq, then yes.

And that maybe the most powerful military in the world can do two things at once.

Actually, apparently it can't.

However, because of the left whine lie whine lie...

*yawn*

Posted by: Stefan on July 5, 2006 at 9:20 PM | PERMALINK

Don't know why I still can't access links.

Anyway, was Palestine-Israel mentioned at all? If not I'm beginning to smell a conspiracy! Many Arabs see this as a root of Islamic terrorism. Certainly the Israelis must think so!

Come on, Kevin!

Posted by: notthere on July 5, 2006 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan, Bill Clinton sold nuclear technology to NK, Bill Clinton sheltered UBL, Bill Clinton indirectly supported the Taliban, many on the left have claimed that the US is one of the largest state sponsors of terror, Our gov't is riddled with jihadists sympathizers (Dean, Pelosi, Reid).

So what was your point again?

Posted by: Jay on July 5, 2006 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK

So what was your point again?

Well, gathering from his unhinged lunatic rant above I guess my point is that poor Cut 'N Run Jay has lost what slight little grasp on reality he had and is now floating away on his own hot air.

Fascinating, the Internets. Before them you'd have to turn over a rock to find sad creatures like Cut 'N Run Jay -- now, they're able to show themselves in public without the drool and tics being visible.

Posted by: Stefan on July 5, 2006 at 9:41 PM | PERMALINK

"I would like an honest answer to this question: Isn't it possible Iraq falls in that category?"

Yes, it is possible that, 25 years from now, we will be able to see that Bush's strategy in the GWOT was successful. However, just because something is "possible" does not mean that it is likely.

The results of this survey do not *prove* that Bush's policy is failing. But the survey does show that a large majority of people from across the political spectrum with far more foreign policy expertise and experience than anyone on this thread believes that Bush's policy is failing.

If I sat down to play poker for a couple hours, and I had 116 professional poker players watch me and evaluate my strategy of play, and 84% of them said "You know, your strategy is not really very effective", that wouldn't *prove* that I'm not a good poker player. But it sure would give me pause, and make me think that "Heck, maybe I need to rethink my poker strategy".

Posted by: unceph on July 5, 2006 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINK

mp3铃音 mp3手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 诺基亚铃音 搞笑图片 诺基亚免费铃声 诺基亚下载铃声 下载铃声 诺基亚手机铃声 诺基亚铃声下载 三星乐园手机铃声 三星mp3铃声下载 三星论坛 三星手机 三星铃声下载 三星铃声 铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声免费下载 免费铃声 江苏移动铃声 下载铃声 浙江移动铃声 北京移动铃声 深圳移动铃声 移动铃声 移动免费铃声 移动下载铃声 下载铃声 搞笑铃声下载 搞笑手机铃声 搞笑图片 搞笑动画铃声 搞笑歌曲铃声 搞笑图片铃声 搞笑免费铃声 搞笑下载铃声 有情人终成眷属铃声 手机铃声下载 移动彩铃下载 小灵通铃声下载 酸酸甜甜就是我铃声 免费铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 小灵通铃声下载 MP3铃声下载 免费铃声下载 三星铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 牛皮癣治疗 脂溢性皮炎 斑秃脱发炎 白癜风,外阴白斑 鱼鳞病 脂溢性脱发 阴虱病 治疗疱疹 各类皮癣 湿疹,皮炎 青春痘,痤疮 螨虫性皮炎,酒渣鼻 烧伤烫伤 中国文秘网 治疗牛皮癣,阴虱特效药 癌症肿瘤新药 工作总结 工作汇报 八荣八耻 开业开幕讲话 竞聘演讲稿 就职演讲 心得体会 工作汇报 2006年入党申请书 思想汇报 鼻咽癌治疗 乳腺癌治疗 肺癌治疗 肝癌治疗 结肠癌治疗 直肠癌治疗 胃癌治疗 食管癌治疗 恶性黑色素瘤治疗 皮肤癌治疗 恶性淋巴瘤治疗 胆管癌治疗 胆囊癌治疗 甲状腺癌治疗 脑瘤治疗 白血病治疗 宫颈癌治疗 肝复乐 天蟾胶囊 健脾益肾颗粒 破壁灵芝孢子粉 复方斑蝥胶囊 慈丹胶囊 参丹散结胶囊 珍香胶囊 抗癌平丸 金复康口服液 清肺散结丸 手机铃声下载

Posted by: 手机铃声/手机铃声下载/免费&# on July 5, 2006 at 10:51 PM | PERMALINK

Unable to address the substance of the argument, Stefan resorts to personal attacks. Which is exactly what he blames the conservatives for.

Ironic?

Posted by: Jay on July 5, 2006 at 11:03 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for buying me a many millions of dollar airplane to fly and the gas too

No problem Red State Welfare Queen.

Posted by: heavy on July 6, 2006 at 12:20 AM | PERMALINK
. You never stand so tall as when you're on the backs of all those poor un-elite african-american voters who lemming-like support you and yours.Posted by: Red State Mike on July 5, 2006 at 3:44 PM
The reason we stand with African Americans and other minorities and they with us, is because the Republican Party has a policy called "the Southern Strategy" In return for pushing anti-minority policies, Southern whites support the Republican Party. Also the Republican Party is now using Nativist rhetoric against Hispanics.
Jay on July 5, 2006 at 9:29 P Bill Clinton sold nuclear technology to NK, Bill Clinton sheltered UBL, Bill Clinton indirectly supported the Taliban, many on the left have claimed that the US is one of the largest state sponsors of terror, Our gov't is riddled with jihadists sympathizers (Dean, Pelosi, Reid
McCarthyism thrives with the smear&lie Republicans.

Clinton sold no nuclear technology to North Korea. We were supposed to be a part of a consortium to develop a light water reactor in North Korea but Bush reneged on the deal. Bill Clinton tried to get UbL prior to 9-11, George W. Bush had the CIA discontinue the bin Laden group at the CIA. Ronald Reagan supported the Taliban, not Bill Clinton. It was an international opinon poll that shows others regard the Bush regime as more dangerous terrorists.
On Monday 19 June a Harris poll carried out for the confirmed these trends: according to 36 percent of Europeans (Britons, Germans, French, Italians, and Spaniards,) the United States is now the main threat to world stability, ahead of Iran (30 percent) and China (18 percent.)
The only jihadists sympathizers are on the Republican side: Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, and other foam-at-the-mouth Republicans. Dean, Pelosi and Reid are interesting in seriously combating terrorism, not using terrorism as a political talking point like the Republican Party.

Unable to address the substance of the argumentJay 11:03 PM

You made no argument, only smears & lies.

Posted by: Mike on July 6, 2006 at 12:24 AM | PERMALINK

Unable to address the substance of the argument, Stefan resorts to personal attacks. Which is exactly what he blames the conservatives for. Ironic?

Yeah, it's ironic like rai-ai-ain on yer weddin' day.

Posted by: Stefan on July 6, 2006 at 12:34 AM | PERMALINK

Why in God's name (or Allah's) would Al Qaeda NEED to attack the US on US soil again? Since 9/11 they have sat back and watched the US implode - senselessly ferrying lives and treasure off to Iraq, stretching our military capabilities and resources
my-bookmarks.50webs.com

Posted by: yoni on July 6, 2006 at 2:31 AM | PERMALINK

Are we all properly scared yet?

Posted by: Kristine on July 6, 2006 at 3:10 AM | PERMALINK

The experts agree that the war in Iraq has been bad for the war on terror. I refer of course to the experts of al Queda.

They say that winning in Iraq is/was do or die.

From Osama's lips to your ears:

Stay steadfast and dont leave Baghdad, otherwise all the capitals in the region will fall to the crusaders, said the message.

Iraq is the key to the region.

Posted by: M. Simon on July 6, 2006 at 6:55 AM | PERMALINK

No problem Red State Welfare Queen.

Is that an insult? Welfare queens make up half of the democratic party's voters.

Posted by: Red State Mike on July 6, 2006 at 8:57 AM | PERMALINK

"Dean, Pelosi and Reid are interesting in seriously combating terrorism, not using terrorism as a political talking point like the Republican Party."

Talk about someone living in an alternative universe. What exactly is the plan of Dean, Pelosi,and Reid? Leave Iraq? Negotiate with terrorists? Ask the jihadists to kindly stop? Let global warming kill all of them?

The Democratic party is actually just one big series of talking points. The reason the left hates Bush is exactly because he quit talking about the problem and started doing something about it.

Tell you what. You progressives go act like Al Gore is the reelected president and get him to talk with all these so called policy heavy weights to make a peace treaty with whatever country or focus group can stop this terrorism. If the terrorist stop attacking innocent people then we will agree your efforts have merits. If not then stick to what progressives do best; talking the talk.

Posted by: Orwell on July 6, 2006 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINK

Why would I have to provide prrof for my assertions when this site is constantly calling Bush a criminal absent any crimes, indictments or investigations?

Why would I have to provide proof that Madeline Albright and Bill Clinton sold NK the technology capable of developing nuclear energy (which they have taken a step further), why would I have to prove that Bill Clinton declined the offer for UBL from the Sudan, why would I have to prove that Bill Clinton did NOTHING following the U.S.S. Cole attack and the Khobar Towers, etc., why would I have to prove that your beloved Cindy Sheehan constantly and publicly calls the US a terrorist state, why would I have to prove that Dean would have never engaged the jihadists in a war.

You guys calling me a smear merchant and liar is the pot calling the kettle black and all of you are toooooo fucking stuuuupid to know it.

Posted by: Jay on July 6, 2006 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

No yoni, sine 9/11 only the left has imploded. You're confusing your party with the rest of America. Which is a common mistake amongst liberals.

Posted by: Jay on July 6, 2006 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

mike: The only jihadists sympathizers are on the Republican side: Jerry Falwell,


"...blow them all away in the name of the Lord." -- Jerry Falwell on CNN, 10/29/04

he does sound like bin laden...just replace lord with allah...


jay: Why would I have to provide proof...


to provide credibility that you yourself lack?

backing up what you assert is sooo...pre-bush


jay: why would I have to prove that Bill Clinton did NOTHING following the U.S.S. Cole attack..

bush took over about 3-months later...

what was gwb's reaction?

anything?

anything at all against terror between 1/20/2001 and 9-11?

anything?

name one...


Posted by: thisspaceavailable on July 6, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

Well let's see here, since the left constantly blames GW for not connecting the dots. Had Billy boy connected the dots stemming from the Khobar Towers (just one example), he may have been able to prevent the U.S.S. Cole.

And furthermore, Billy boy had eight years to dial in on Al Qaeda and GW had eight months leading up to 9/11.

What was Billy boy doing?

anything?

anything at all? Just one thing?

Unless Monica was a secret Al Qaeda spy.

Posted by: Jay on July 6, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Welfare queens make up half of the democratic party's voters

...and RSM continues his demented slide into crand-dom...

Posted by: Gregory on July 6, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

btw, Falwells comment was about the left, which I fully support. Kill a liberal, hug a jihadist.

Posted by: Jay on July 6, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

What exactly is the plan of Dean, Pelosi,and Reid? Leave Iraq? Negotiate with terrorists? Ask the jihadists to kindly stop? Let global warming kill all of them?

If only Republicans were as effective aqgainst terrorists as they are against straw men!

Posted by: Gregory on July 6, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

Really just answer the question greggy.

What in the hell is the plan??????????

A simple question is not a strawman.

Posted by: Jay on July 6, 2006 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

Red State Welfare Queen writes: "Is that an insult? Welfare queens make up half of the [D]emocratic [P]arty's voters."

Once again demonstrating that all he knows is propaganda. Sorry Red State Welfare Queen, it is quite clear that those who suck at the teat of government (yourself for example: have you ever had a job that wasnt, either first or second hand, reliant on government largess?) mostly vote Republican.

Oh, and run some numbers Queenie. How many children could be fed on what it costs Americans to gas up your government issue airborne Rolls Royce? How do you think your welfare check from the government this month compares to that of a mother whos lost her children's father? How many T-Bills do you think she has? How much in stocks and bonds? None of Reagans mythical welfare queens lives as high on the hog as you.

The Democratic Party could only wish it could hand out welfare like the Republicans do.

Posted by: heavy on July 6, 2006 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

Shorter Heavy to Red State Welfare Queen:

Prove it.

Posted by: heavy on July 6, 2006 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

Well let's see here Mr. Heavy, the largest single example of recent entitlement fraud would be that of Katrina victims. Those people wasted away billions of dollars on vacations, sex changes, i-pods, drugs, etc. And these were people from a city that has an entrenched democrat leadership. It was a city that festered in it's own decay and corruption in which half of the residents have not chosen to return because of the leadership of the democrats. Well done!

How is that the Democrats have been "fighting" poverty for 50 years, had control of both houses of congress for forty years and there is still poverty?????????????????

Posted by: Jay on July 6, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

oops my bad. I proposed a difficult question to the liberals. I suppose that's a "strawman".

Posted by: Jay on July 6, 2006 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

Well apparently here is the left's plan to fight jihadism:

Is everyone clear?

Posted by: Jay on July 6, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

the largest single example of recent entitlement fraud would be...Iraq

Where is that pesky $8 Billion anyway?

Posted by: ckelly on July 6, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Well let's see ckelly. We've spent nearly $300 billion in Iraq forming a freely elected representative government, crafting a constitution, recruiting and training a 250,000+ military, killing Zarqawi and putting Saddam on trial.

In one single year we spent $360 billion on entitlements for Americans (exhorbitant inherent fraud).

Leave it to the liberals to pick the wrong fight.

Posted by: Jay on July 6, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

half of the residents have not chosen to return because of the leadership of the democrats.

Yes, I'm sure the fact that New Orleans is still utterly destroyed (what about those rebuilding promises Mr. President?) and is still in danger from crap levees has nothing to do with it.

Posted by: ckelly on July 6, 2006 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

Why aren't those democrat residents rebuilding their own city?????

Are they waiting for someone else to do the heavy work????

Typical liberal.

Posted by: Jay on July 6, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

I'd rather the entitlements go to Americans than to the Iraqis.

Posted by: ckelly on July 6, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

Are you racist? Prejudiced? Iraqi-phobe?

What about your universal citizenship?

Couldn't we label that the ugly selfish American viewpoint?

Posted by: Jay on July 6, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

When I'm 58 and

1) too chickenshit to put my money where my mouth is and enlist in a war I'm a screwy, barking cheerleader for, and

2) too squirrely to get laid

I sure as hell hope I don't up spending my time humiliating myself by spazzing out in a public forum where people who are actually in control of themselves have serious discussions.

Posted by: Cautionary Tale on July 6, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

When I'm 58 and

1) too chickenshit to put my money where my mouth is and enlist in a war I'm a screwy, barking cheerleader for, and

2) too squirrely to get laid

I sure as hell hope I don't up spending my time humiliating myself by spazzing out in a public forum where people who are actually in control of themselves have serious discussions.

Posted by: Cautionary Tale on July 6, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

heavy
yourself for example: have you ever had a job that wasnt, either first or second hand, reliant on government largess?

Yes, that's it. All those men and women who fought and died in the Revolutionary War, 1812, Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, GWI, Bosnia, and GWII were just slackers reliant on government largess.

Why do you hate our military, heavy?

Posted by: Red State Mike on July 6, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Welfare Queen, same question: when did you stop beating your wife?

Once you've answered that, perhaps you can show us your evidence that 24% of American voters are on welfare and vote for the Democrats.

Posted by: heavy on July 6, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

When I'm 58 and

1) too chickenshit to put my money where my mouth is and enlist in a war I'm a screwy, barking cheerleader for, and

2) too squirrely to get laid

I sure as hell hope I don't up spending my time humiliating myself by spazzing out in a public forum where people who are actually in control of themselves have serious discussions.

Posted by: Cautionary Tale on July 6, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, that's it. All those men and women who fought and died in the Revolutionary War, 1812, Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, GWI, Bosnia, and GWII were just slackers reliant on government largess.

The alert reader will note that, rather than answering heavy's question, he ducked it by an nonsensical appeal to the sacrifce of others. It's a good question, actually, and worth a response.

Posted by: Stefan on July 6, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

The alert reader will note that, rather than answering heavy's question, he ducked it by an nonsensical appeal to the sacrifce of others. It's a good question, actually, and worth a response.

Actually Heavy gets the responses he deserves, in the same tone that he asks them.

Posted by: Red State Mike on July 6, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK


shorter jay: clinton bad...bush worse?


certainly more dead americans...

more debt....

nothing succeeds like success...lol

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on July 6, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

The truth is, Red State Welfare Queen has no insight into foreign policy. All he knows is how to collect his monthly welfare checks. His responses demonstrate that his entire life the tab has been picked up by the American Taxpayer. Out of gratitude he votes for his sugar daddies the Republicans. Thus demonstrating that, of course, I am right it is the Republican Party that is the home of welfare. Look, if we stopped creating enemies, the Welfare Queen might have to become a productive citizen.

Remember, Democrats (and those who vote for them because they aren't the party of bomb them first, bomb them often) don't hate welfare recipients. They are just working to help the needy get out of their cycle of dependence on government largess. The first step to recovery is recognizing your dependency.

Posted by: heavy on July 6, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

Everywhere that Red State Mike goes, his little Heavy was sure to follow.

You make a fine butt-licker, Heavy. Thanks for the wipe.

Posted by: Red State Mike on July 6, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

Keep hitting on how dumb it was to pull so much out of Afghanistan instead of following through. Now, the Taliban are coming back, etc. - what a waste. Feingold said it well on MTP a couple weeks ago.

Posted by: Neil' on July 6, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

Poor Red State Dahmer reduced to making potty jokes. What's wrong? Didn't get to murder anyone today?

Posted by: heavy on July 6, 2006 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

James Zogby - Foreign Policy Expert. What a hoot Drummy. The fancy chart looks good though.

Posted by: w on July 6, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

not to mention the expertest of all foreign policy experts - Gary Hart. You libs bite every sinker they send don't you?

Posted by: x on July 6, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

man, this is a hoot, survey brought to you by:

Copyright 2006, The Center for American Progress.

Next up, National Review posts a survey by the Heritage Foundation on how great the drug war is going with 200 respondants who are experts in law enforcement such as: insert 200 hacks here.

Posted by: y on July 6, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

Poor Red State Dahmer reduced to making potty jokes. What's wrong? Didn't get to murder anyone today?
Posted by: heavy

Heavy, you should change your name to "Dense". Your head bends light.

I'm off to spend your tax dollars on zipping around the skies for three days. Thanks! Paint a bullseye on your roof, I'll see if I can't stop by and say hello.

Posted by: Red State Mike on July 6, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

communism still seems to be working in China, Cuba and NK. Maybe it was that the Soviets bankrupted themselves trying to keep up militarily.
Posted by: Jay

My God, you're stupid!

Posted by: Ace Franze on July 6, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

Well Ace there still seems to be limited functioning societies in Cuba and NK and a fairly burgeoning society in China. So, you're saying communism is not working?

Did the Soviet Union not collapse economically and then get regionally torn apart?

Just honest simple answers please, if your capable.

I am curious as to your view on this.

Posted by: Jay on July 6, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

Do I get to enjoy my American 1st Ammendment Freedoms or will I get censored because I might make an unpopular stand here? This is a phenomena that I have been running into more and more when I make valid points that others don't want to hear.

Commenting on the poll that led me to this debate, I see very biased data that seems to come from a very biased side. To mention the figures in this posted "poll" is absurd. (1) War in Iraq- Who are you asking? Certainly not the majority of troops and/or peaceful Iraqi citizens who are currently enjoying more freedoms than 2000 years of their history (dispute this and find me another time they had as much freedom), (2) "Gitmo" - how much intel have we extracted? Should we let them all out? Where? How about your neighborhood? Would you like one to stay with you awhile so he/she obtains a visa and makes several trips to your local fertalizer plant or Home Depot? (3) Energy- yes, we all hate fuel prices. Dont blame anything but our current President (no there where never fuel/oil fluxuations during Clinton), (4) Iran Policy- Don't do anything, but if you do anything your screwed. (5) Public Diplomacy- The world hates us now but really loved us during Clinton's tenure (hmm...why did Clinton give North Korea advanced missile tech under the diplomatic guise (and con) of peaceful purposes)? What fine diplomacy he did for us and the world......NOT, (5) North Korea Policy- I just mentioned the wonderful "gift" the Clintons gave to NK then, and the impact we are dealing with now, (5) Afghanistan- the one point in the poll that states that there is improvement. Sorry to say, latest news (even CNN: Communist News Network) states that the former, ousted Taliban are re-grouping, and Afghanistan insurgents are making progress. The one positive thing in your poll tends to be the current negative.

It is sadly amazing how far some will go to twist facts and figures to discredit the leaders of a nation just to spite them. They have no conscience about hurting the ones who have to take orders, bleeed and die. They say things that hurt our troops, stain our nation, and ultimately give our enemies words of inspiration that are used to recruit more misguided souls ultimately against you and I who should be on the same team.

Posted by: AZCougar on July 7, 2006 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

or will I get censored because I might make an unpopular stand here?

You must be new here or you'd know there is zero censoring . Even the least capable minds are allowed to post. Don't be surprised if your get your ass handed to you for nonsense arguments, though .

It is sadly amazing how far some will go to twist facts and figures to discredit the leaders of a nation just to spite them.

So what you're saying is that you love George Bush so much you'd rather protect him than face hard truths about his abysmal leadership, lack of integrity, and costly errors.

I hear N. Koreans have the same sort of blind devotion toward their leader.

Pointing out his tragic errors is not spite, it's holding a leader accountable for mistakes and suggesting alternate plans, which is what we do in democracies.

Certainly not the majority of troops and/or peaceful Iraqi citizens who are currently enjoying more freedoms than 2000 years of their history (dispute this and find me another time they had as much freedom)

With the exception of having multiple political parties, during the 1980's Iraqis enjoyed most of the same freedoms and enlightenment vales that Americans enjoy. Read a book.

Further, Iraq has not been around for 2000 years, it's been around less than a hundred.

Read a book.

Even further, if you were more broadly speaking of Mesopotamia and not the country of Iraq, then it may interest you to know that historians refer to it as "the Cradle of Civilization" precisely because it was ahead of the rest of the world in developing a system of law, philosophy, science,and civics - not behind it, as you suggest.

And the civilization goes back 5000 years, much longer than your curious and arbitrary figure of 2000.

Read. a. book .

The rest of for post was such a poorly written mish mash of strawmen and unsupported assertions it was not possible to determine when you were using the sarcastic voice and when you weren't, so addressing the other points isn't possible without further clarification.

Except for Afghanistan, which we agree is in terrible shape and getting worse.

Did you know that Bush keeps saying things are great there and pointing to it as one of his successes?

Posted by: ltot on July 7, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: Why aren't those democrat residents rebuilding their own city????? Are they waiting for someone else to do the heavy work???? Typical liberal.

Funny, both Haley Barbour and Rick Perry, stalwart conservative GOPers, were foaming at that mouth and ranting hysterically about federal aid for their states, as did Jeb Bush - indeed, they were first at the trough!

So, Jay, why were those Republican residents and governments not rebuilding their own states? Why were they waiting for someone else to help them?

Typical conservatives.

Typical Republicans.

Typical mendacious and hypocritical Jay.

Posted by: Advocate for God on July 7, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly