Contributors

Monday, September 11, 2006

Five Years

Five years ago,today, our country was attacked by Islamic extremists. Shortly after this attack, I started writing; first in email form and then on this blog. I wanted to work out my anger, my aggression, and my sadness at what was, in my opinion, the worst day in our country's history. The journey from there to here has been filled with many comments, arguments, and discussions.


Everything written in my column or in the comments section has made us better people in my opinion. Some of the arguments have been petty but in the end I think we have all benefited from an online "town hall" meeting that has gone on for virtually five years. I know that your writings have helped me and I have grown beyond what I started out as....an angry person who hated virtually every male Muslim in the world......to someone who is more understanding of the majority of citizens in that part of the world. Recently, however, the questions I find I am asking myself over and over again is: how could we, as a nation, be so off target now? And how can I, as a lone voice in the cyber-wilderness, help? I think I'll answer the last question first.

Five years ago I began a journey that has brought me to a crossroads in my life. Today is a watershed moment for me as this evening, around 5:30 pm, I will begin my Masters program in Education. I honestly believe that if the attacks did not happen, I would not have considered becoming a teacher or even a writer. Chances are pretty good that a Notes from the Front blog would not have existed. After the election of 2000, I felt so apathetic about politics that I found it hard to engage anyone in any sort of discussion of current events or international affairs. I really started to tune out during the whole O-J debacle and lost complete interest when two candidates were presented to me that were just plain awful. I was disengaged. After 9-11, I decided to put my virulent feelings to work in a positive way, become engaged, and attempted to share my point of view in the hopes that this blog would be a gateway for someone to ask more questions....to learn more......to somehow improve, in a small way, our current condition. It is my hope that this has been my way to help out in some sort of small fashion.

After the attacks, I really felt that America would come together. For a time, we did. People seemed to cared more about each other and there was a thirst for knowledge about the Middle East. Most of our citizens were engaged in world events for the first time in decades and we had the love of the rest of the world. I recall the scenes from Tehran of people holding candles and holding American flags in honor of the fallen. All of that good will is gone now...spoiled by the greedy men that have pretty much been running (or ruining) our country, in one form or another, since November 22, 1963. A coup d'etat occurred on that day and it has been the same people (or like minded people) that have been in charge ever since.

Any person that has come along like Jack Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, or John Lennon who has tried to unite people and make the world a more equal or better place has been eliminated. An event like 9-11 is no different. In the end, something that should have brought us together was tarnished, twisted and has ended up dividing our nation even more. I lay the blame for this squarely at the feet of our current leadership who have hijacked that awful day for their own tyrannical needs.

Some of you might not know this but not all of the 3000 victims were American. Many were British and others hailed from countries around the world including Iran. To me, it was an attack upon civilization by a group of uncivilized, insane men who have no regard for human life and a high regard for human suffering.

Which brings me to my other question: where did it all go wrong? Specifically, in regards to bringing those responsible to justice? While it's true that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, one of the men responsible for 9-11, is in custody, the other two, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahari are still at large. The simple fact that the United States, the most powerful nation on the planet, can't find these two men enrages me to the point of insanity. It seems so simple a task given our technology and our intelligence. Vexing me further still are the people in this country who think that Bush Co has done a great job in the War on Terror.

Over the last few weeks, CNN has been airing a documentary entitled "In The Footsteps of Bin Laden," put together by Christiane Amanpour. Just in time for the fifth anniversary of 9-11, the two hour report summarizes what happened leading up to 9-11, what happened immediately after, and what the future holds. I highly recommend watching this program as it demonstrates the completely apathetic attitude of this administration as well as an utter lack of planning in key moments in the War on Terror. Much of the report contained information that I already knew and have talked about extensively on this blog. It did, however, contain two pieces of information, one factual and one conjecture, that were truly horrifying.

Before I go any further, for those of you who loathe Bush Co, please remove all objects from your desk and anything around your personage that could cause you or someone else physical damage. Any outrage you have felt up this point will be small compared to how you will feel after you read the next few paragraphs. For those of you who are still in love with Bush Co, please open another Internet Explorer window and begin searching through your government approved websites and propaganda to calm yourself from my "bias" and "evil liberalism." Everyone ready? Good.

In December 2001, Gary Berntsen was the CIA field commander in charge of capturing and killing Osama bin Laden in the Tora Bora mountain region (left) in Afghanistan. According to Berntsen, they had intercepted bin Laden's radio transmissions and had him cornered. American forces combined with Afghan and Pakistani forces had forced him into an area that was somewhat large and needed to be more thoroughly searched. Up to this point, Berntsen had felt somewhat uncomfortable relying so heavily on non-US forces so he sent a request to CENTCOM (Central Command for US Forces) for more troops.


They never came.

And his request was never answered because, you see, dear readers, our beloved president, our vice president and our warm, wonderful defense secretary must have thought that 50 men were enough to find Osama bin Laden.

50 men.

50 men to search an area that was (and still is) hundreds of square miles. 50 men to dig through the massive complex of caves that had been in place, well known by bin Laden, since the 1980s during the Soviet occupation.

Berntsen had requested 600-1000 army rangers be sent in to help find bin Laden. His request did not even elicit a response. Nothing. Silence. And somehow (gosh, wonder how?) bin Laden managed to slip away through the "net" that Pakistani forces had set up. Since that time, the searches for bin Laden have been half hearted at best and the real focus has been Iraq. This year, command of security and the search for Al Qaeda has been turned over to NATO. Mr. Berntsen has written a book on this called Jawbreaker and it can be purchased here.

What happened at Tora Bora and the "search" since then has always perplexed me. How could we let the man (or men if you count Zawahari) escape? The person most directly responsible for the worst attack on American soil? What happened? And why is NATO now running the show?

Well, now I know. And it pretty much confirms everything I have ever said about Bush Co. Basically it boils down to three possible reasons or perhaps some combination of all three.

1. Our current leadership is inept.
2. Our current leadership doesn't care.
3. Our current leadership was complicit.

I think the way our federal government (and by that I mean both Democrats and Republicans) has handled the War on Terror, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Hurricane Katrina goes a long way to proving the first reason to be accurate. But stupidity only goes so far and then you have to look at what they value and that has always been Iraq. The 9-11 attacks provided this administration with the popular support it needed to invade Iraq. As early as Thanksgiving 2001, according to Bob Woodward in his book "Plan of Attack", plans were under way to invade Iraq. That is what they have always cared about. They could've cared less about Afghanistan. There's no money there! That's one of the main reasons why Tora Bora was such a fiasco. The leadership in our Armed Forces was under orders, by the president, to focus on Iraq during that same time period, December 2001. Woodward, by the way, had complete access to President Bush and his staff and actually received approval by the president to quote him directly!

The balls on our president.....I'll tell ya. Woodward's book, which you can purchase here, is a stunning, step by step look at a complete loss of focus on our true enemies and, ultimately, the breakdown of our democracy. We (that includes me) gave the president carte blanche to go after somebody...anybody....to right the wrong that was done to us. We were all duped into thinking that it was part of the War on Terror and that somehow it would help us in our fight against bin Laden. I know I let my anger cloud my judgment and that will never happen again.

All of this makes me wonder if it was really "just bureaucracy" that prevented us from stopping the 9-11 hijackers. Did people in our government know ahead of time that an attack was coming? Did they let it happen? It's very possible. Heck, Don Rumsfeld told talk show host Larry King that at eight o'clock on the morning of the 9-11 attacks he was meeting with Congressmen and told them that "sometime in the next two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve months there would be an event that would occur in the world that would be sufficiently shocking that it would remind people again how important it is to have a strong healthy defense department." We have all seen the countless documents and testimonies that detail how much we knew before the attacks. Yet nothing was done. People like counter-terrorism expert John O'Neill (who died in the 9-11 attacks by the way) and Coleen Rowley were screaming their heads off about Al Qaeda in the United States. No one did anything. Why? Stupidity and apathy only go so far and then you have to look at other motives which bring us back to Iraq.

We went into Iraq for a multitude of reasons which are now mostly untrue or outright lies. Even Bush himself has said that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks and that bin Laden was responsible. Bush has said that every effort has been made to find him. Yet, what do you think it says to bin Laden, when we basically showed him that he can commit the worst attack on our soil in our country's history and Saddam Hussein is still more important? I guess bin Laden is, as President Bush has said, "insignificant."

And the CNN report confirms what is coming next. Now, bear in mind, what follows is partly conjecture. According to the documentary, odd as it may seem, many in Al Qaeda felt the 9-11 attacks were wrong. It was too big a blow. Bin Laden's own son left him quickly after the attacks because he felt that his father had ruined their little paradise in Afghanistan. There was much in-fighting and some in Al Qaeda felt that bin Laden didn't give us infidels enough of a chance to convert to Islam before attacking. Many in Al Qaeda felt that it was wrong to kill thousands of us if we might come over to their side.

This fits perfectly with much of what we are seeing from him and his followers lately: audio and video recordings of bin Laden and Zawahari reaching out to us and saying that it is not too late to convert. Too late for what I have always wondered. According to CNN and several other sources, bin Laden and Zawahari have recently received a "blessing" from religious leaders around the Middle East to kill ten million Americans if we don't convert. This comes as no great shock to most of us, I suppose, as this is what their goal has seemingly always been. Of course, saying it and doing it are two different things. Can they do it? Or more importantly, can we trust Bush Co to protect us? Their track record so far gives me no hope so my answer to the last question is a resounding NO!

To answer the first question, though, one need only turn to the sale of 4 Agosta submarines, by the French (d'oh, not them again!) to Pakistan. Here is some information I found, on a naval technology site about these subs:

Three Agosta 90Bs were ordered by the Pakistan Navy in September 1994. The first, Khalid (S137), was built at DCN's Cherbourg yard and was commissioned in 1999. The second, Saad, assembled at Karachi Naval Dockyard, was launched in August 2002 and was commissioned in December 2003. The third, Hamza, which is being constructed and assembled in Karachi, is to launch before the end of 2006 and commission in 2007. Work on the vessel was halted following a terrorist attack in May 2002, which killed 11 French engineers in Karachi, but has since restarted. The third submarine is being fitted with the MESMA air independent propulsion system, which will be retrofitted to the first two. The MESMA AIP has successfully completed Pakistan Navy acceptance trials.

Pakistan has been given a license by DCN to offer commercial production of the submarines to potential customers.


Potential customers? Hmm....Oh, and by the way, all of these submarines are capable of carrying nuclear weapons. They are all currently in Karachi, Pakistan, a hotbed of anti-American sentiment and less than 100 miles from where Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahari are supposedly hiding. I don't think it would be real difficult for a few hundred lunatics to take over one of these subs and launch an attack against us. Heck, they already tried it once! Why go to the trouble of smuggling in a suitcase bomb when you can stay near the comforts of home? Remember, too, that most Islamic extremists don't care if we launch a counter strike. They view this life as transitory and if a few hundred thousand innocent Muslims die...well, it is the way of Allah.....as long as several infidels also die.

Now, with all of this information I have just shared with you, how confident do YOU feel that our current leadership is on top of all of this? I guess I feel about as confident as them finding out who the anthrax killer was. Hey, by the way, whatever happened to that whole deal? Last I heard, the anthrax came from a military lab somewhere and then suddenly.....no stories anymore. And weren't all the letters containing the anthrax mailed to either Democrats or the "liberal" media? Hmmm....oh well, there I go again...I probably should just be a good little American, trust my government, and not think to hard. It might hurt.

Anyway, clearly what we are doing now is not working. None of it. We need new leaders. As in, right now. It's too bad we can't do a recall in the national election like they did in California. So I guess that leaves the 2006 midterms. It's up to all of you to look seriously at what each candidate is saying on how best to defend and fight for this country. To me, there is no other issue that is more important. We are talking about the future of our civilization here, people! And the same old, tired line about "cutting and running" or "fight em there so we don't have to fight em here" insults my intelligence. Can't Bush Co come up with something better than this drivel? How about a new plan for Iraq? Something that does not contain grade school level rhetoric and jingoistic fear.

We need smart, strong people who have one goal: protect our nation. I would begin with all seven of my "Profiles in Courage" subjects. They would be a good start. Can we please have a leader who really cares about unifying this world while at the same time is a bad ass mofo that can kick some serious tail?

So, my promise to all of you is to continue to provide you with information and talking points to help you understand what is going on. Don't completely take my word for it, however. Go out and see for yourself if what I am saying is true. If you think I am wrong, find a better way. A new way. Share it with me. There is certainly room for improvement in anything any one of us does.

Most importantly, don't be afraid. Arm yourself with knowledge and any apprehension you feel will slip away. These are dark, dark times my friends and all of us need to start talking.

And listening as well.

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy" -James Madison, 4th President of the United States and father of the Constitution.

42 comments:

Anonymous said...

"enrages me to the point of insanity"

You were insane long before Bush co. took office. ;)

Anonymous said...

As I was lounging around the house last night - fully cognizant of the fact that it was a luxury for me to be able to do so - I was contemplating which of the multitude of TV shows that I was interested in watching I should actual watch. Football seemed a petty choice, although I had players going from my FF team. Of course The Simpsons was near the top of the list, although I ended up not watching that because I figured I could catch it in re-runs. (No, I don't have Tivo or any other means of recording.) Given what day it was, I figured I better watch one of the 9/11 specials. With all the publicity, I started out with the ABC special. I promptly moved away from that after about 10 minutes, given how cheesy I thought it was, not to mention the fact that I wasn't really in the mood for digesting somebody else's take on what happened. Long story short...I ended up on CBS and the footage from the documentary filmmakers who happened to be tagging along with the NYFD on 9/11.

Most of us, myself included, have seen the most dramatic parts of that video. The first plane hitting. The footage from inside the towers during the first collapse, and just outside the tower during the second collapse. The sound of falling debris and people hitting overhead, and the haunted look in one firefighter's eyes as he contemplates "How bad is it up there that jumping from 90 stories seems like the better option?"

Having seen most of the footage before, I wasn't surprised by how emotional I got as much as I was surprised by the range of emotions I felt. I expected to feel the same sorrow, anger, and disbelief, and in some strange way it's comforting to me that I did. What I wasn't expecting was the shift from those emotions to the outright disgust that I felt for two groups of people:

1) My disgust for those who perpetrated the act isn't surprising. To this day, and I suspect probably for the rest of my life, I have no sympathy whatsoever for those subhuman creatures. Failings of our government (both Clinton and GWB) to diagnose and prevent the act don't temper my support for giving the terrorists and those who sponsor them an early ticket to their eternal reward.

2) My disgust for people inside this country surprised me. Specifically, the people who sit in the comfort of their home, watching tv, rooting for Tomlinson to fall forward for 2 more yards so they can score an extra point in FF, sitting in front of their PCs forwarding and supporting crackpot theories about this country and its government. The contrast in perspectives - between theirs and my own - really struck me.

On a similar note, Markadelphia, it was interesting to read your comment on the outpouring of support from around the world. That's the world reaction that you remember, whereas I more vividly remember the other reactions from around the world....those that were not so sympathetic and were even downright jubilant. I'm certainly not suggesting your perspective is wrong. It's just interesting that the different reactions would stick with us.

Lastly, I like the quote from Madison. I believe he stole the thought, if not the bulk of the quote, from Christopher Marlowe. (It rings a bell, anyway. I'll have to look that up.) But getting past the Marlowe thing, it was funny to me that the very next thought in my head was that the quote could be used in so many other ways, the first of which that came to mind being:
If Insanity and Loss of Reason come to this land, it will be in the guise of political dissent.

Mark Ward said...

Love the comments PL and you are right on about that documentary, 9/11. I have watched it twice but I don't think I can anymore. I get angry in an unhealthy way.

I do remember the jubilance of the Palestinian people. I also remember the video of those happy people being shut up quickly by police due to the fear of our wrath. There is no denying the fact that our country was more unified then. We also had more people with us than against from around the world. That is not the case now.

I wouldn't be so quick to discount all theories as "crackpot." I think certain elements of our government knew ahead of time and they let it happen to further their own ends. There is plenty of evidence for this. I do not think it likely that the planes were remote controlled or the CIA flew the planes.

At some point soon, I will be doing a 9/11 conspiracy column. Maybe next week?

blk said...

You said, "We need smart, strong people who have one goal: protect our nation."

The "one goal" way of thinking is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place. When people stop thinking rationally and adopt a monomaniacal goal -- religion, politics, terrorism -- bad things happen.

People like George Bush and Dick Cheney will insist that they have that same singular goal: to protect our nation -- er, "the Homeland." The problem is not with the goal, it's with singlemindedness.

When you take an "at any cost" mentality, you ensure the failure of any noble mission. Adopting the same vicious mind-set and tactics as the terrorists makes you as evil as the terrorists.

Recently we saw the downfall of the vaunted Israeli military because of this. Hezbollah kidnaped two Israeli soldiers, so Israel went after Lebanon with an at-all-costs mentality. They failed to get their guys back. They tried to avenge their two men by taking hundreds of innocent Lebanese civilian lives. The world now believes that Israel lost and Hezbollah won.

By attacking Iraq, Bush tried to avenge the loss of 3,000 American lives by taking tens -- perhaps hundreds -- of thousands of Iraqi lives. Unlike Olmert, Bush is incapable of admitting mistakes, and will stay in Iraq. By the time Bush leaves office as many American troops will have died in Iraq as people died on 9/11.

It's now obvious that the war in Iraq is causing many more problems than it's solving. If there's anything we should learned from watching the Jews and Muslims bicker in the Middle East for the last century, it's that one mofo kicking another mofo's tail doesn't solve anything.

Osama bin Laden and the terrorists believe Muslims -- foreign religious extremists -- can use terror and mass murder to convince Americans to convert to Islam.

George Bush, Dick Cheney and their supporters believe that America -- foreign crusaders -- can torture and kill Muslims to force democracy on the Arab world.

Both groups are equally deluded. And equally dangerous to the American people.

To beat the terrorists we have to combine smart, decisive and limited military action with political and ideological initiatives that convince the Arab world that we really do believe in justice, freedom and democracy. To win we must discredit and embarrass the terrorists in the eyes of the Muslim world.

Instead of screwing over his American political enemies, Karl Rove should focus on Swiftboating Osama bin Laden and Iranian president Ahmedinijad. But Rove needs those bogeymen as much as they need the American bogeyman.

Anonymous said...

I forgot to mention what was the most poignant part of the documentary to me. It won't mean anything to the rest of you, I suspect, so bear with me. I'm just venting.

When the second tower collapsed (or, as Markadelphia will probably be claiming next week, was imploded) the cameraman started to run away. Eventually it became clear they (he and the fire chief) weren't going to escape the dust cloud, so they moved behind a truck and the fire chief jumped on top of him to protect him. The footage becomes simply a scene of dust, almost black as night. Papers, debris, etc. flying past. One lonely sheet of paper comes to rest on the lens....looked to be some sort of accounting report. Right away I manufactured this back-story about a guy in that building who showed up for work everyday hating that report, just like I show up for work everyday hating the reports I see/write. That man presumably just died practically before my eyes, in unimaginable fear and horror, and suddenly the hatred of reports that tied me to this mythical man became as petty a feeling as it should have been all along. Indeed a humbling moment.

Anonymous said...

BLK, awesome post!!! Very nice and thank you.

Mark, great post too. I remember seeing everyone in the world, mostly, lined up to support the US after 9/11 and I remember thinking in the next couple days how quickly it will disappear if we use the attacks as reasons to do things we wouldn't otherwise be able to do.

I'm a veteran and realized with shame that the flag had been co-opted to support military action and a Naziesque attack by the neocons on anyone who spoke out against the war in Iraq as traitors. We weren't patriots if we doubted Bush's justification for single-minded pursuit of thugs, villains, evildoers, etc. These things made the US more facists (i.e. nationalists, my country right or wrong) than a power bent on reigning in terror.

I used to get a little emotional when I saw the flag being raised to our anthem. (I saw this a lot as a veteran). It's co-option as a symbol of America right or wrong and OUR thuggish behavior around the world is shameful and disgusting. My identity as an American and love of the flag has been lessened by the way our flag and values have been whored out by neocons like GWB. He said after 9/11 that terrorists were villains and other simpleton, invective-laced labels and that they sought to destroy our freedoms. Meanwhile, he and the neocons have destroyed more of our freedoms from within and secured more of a stranglelock on political power than foreign terrorists could ever hope to do. Our society has become scarily Orwellian and most people don't seem to care.

I might be less concerned about the Patriot Act and dissenters labeled as traitors if these changes had caught the people responsible for 9/11, stopped terrorist attacks against our country or even conducted a successful war against a known states-sponsor of terror (Afganistan). But we didn't do any of those things and although I doubt I would be less corncerned, we would have something to show for our sacrifices than the terror bogeyman that springs up right before elections or to distract from other bad news, a la Katrina.

Instead of conducting a so called war on terror, we are a human rights abuser. We have violated the Geneva Conventions and our own laws on treatment of prisoners. Americans are being spied on by the CIA. Americans sit in jail for years with no charges filed and no trials conducted.

We are in a quaqmire in Iraq with no end in sight. GWB and his crew say to stay the course. What plan do they have to make things work in Iraq so it is stable and we can leave? What acknowledgement have our employees (the president, the sec of def, the congress, etc.) made to us about their mishandling of the war, about being wrong on their reasons for invading and about getting us involved in a quagmire they don't have an exit plan for? Indeed, the actual war on terror has been ignored for adventures in Iraq, which have acted as a recruiting tool for terrorists and soured a generation of Muslims on the West.

To say nothing of their wider perception on US foreign policy. I could go into depth on this topic, but do you know who was won the presidency in 2000? A governor of Texas with no international experience. And it's been painfully illuminated for 6 years.

Mark, I understand your anger at Muslims, terrorists, etc. But if we are the civilized end of the world, and I think we are, it is up to us to show the light of civilization and act like it (behavior being more telling than words and all). I can't have huge amounts of wrath at Muslims in general. We are the culture that is supposed to be free and tolerant. I'm angry that was hijacked on 9/11 by the very people who claim to love it. Bush preaches freedom while curtailing ours. He talks tolerance while demonizing Muslims, countries, etc.

I agree with BLK about single-minded goals. Having someone who kicks ass is important, but not the most important factor. We should be using all of our considerable power in a restrained way to get what we want. Economics, education, charity, isolation, engagement, military presence and naked force are but a few of the tools we can use.

BLK, great point about the West forcing democracy on the Middle East. We are totally delusional to think that will work.

BLK, this is a smart, succinct goal for western diplomacy in the Middle East and how to win. And we aren't even close to doing this. To beat the terrorists we have to combine smart, decisive and limited military action with political and ideological initiatives that convince the Arab world that we really do believe in justice, freedom and democracy. To win we must discredit and embarrass the terrorists in the eyes of the Muslim world.

Anonymous said...

"Fight for our Freedom" - a slogan used by the military to recruit more influential young men to fight a war based on lies. What is this freedom that must be fought for? Is it really likely that any terrorist orgonization is going to come into the US, take over the country and the government and impose there restrictive "non-freedom" wishes on us? Unlikely! Is it the freedom to not be scared when we go to public areas that may be attacked? Maybe! But since 9/11 we have suffered a number of those terror attacks (Anthrax scares and the Washington D.C. sniper shootings) If the terrorists really wanted to just promote that sort of fear, they could easily do it by coming into the country and buy a hunting rifle at a Wal-Mart and shoot away. Why have they not done this sort of thing? Does the war in Iraq draw all these terrorists. If the terrorists go to Iraq and take up alms against the armed forces there instead of innocent civilians in the U.S. are they really terrorists?
Have we spent any extra money on homeland security to really make it safe here? A recent article I read was about a man hired by a European government official to smuggle explosives(C-4) on to a plane. He did so, took a picture of the assembled bomb in the lavatory and showed the evidence of the failure to detect him to the autorities.
Does this make you feel safe? Not me.
Is the war all about oil? I think so. Let us assume that Bush. co came clean and said - hey, we have been lying to you for the last 3 years. Iraq was never about terror, but all about the oil. Iraq was threatening to reduce supply and start to hold us hostage. If Iraq does this, the price of gas will shoot up extremely high. This will cause the cost of all products and services to sky rocket and plunge our economy into a deep recession. Many people will lose there jobs. Many will commit suicide. Crime will increase drastically and there will be riots in the streets. If we secure the oil in Iraq we can prevent this. Less Americans will die because of this.
I am not suggesting that all the above would have really happened, but it is a possible scenario. Would the American people accept this sort of rationale for going into Iraq better than the terror argument?
More questions than arguments. Not very well structured, but I do not comment often.
Y.

Anonymous said...

I am also not one to respond in these kinds of forums, but wanted to share a different perspective that I believe Markadelphia has picked up recently...

Why is it that in all these posts we talk about the need for military action only to deal with the terrorists? When in the last 5 years has this country tried honestly to figure out the main issues that divide us from these extremists and cause the terrorists to hate us so?? When are we going to try to instill some dialog between "them" and "us"? How many Americans honestly know what it truly means to be Islamic or do most people immediately think "extremist, fundamentalist, therefore terrorist"? Maybe our airwaves should be used to put out the message around the world that we want to somehow figure out a way to compromise in this global society so that we can all GET ALONG. Or am I just being way too naive here?

This may seem simplistic, but I would like to see a woman elected to the presidency in '08 that would put the squabbling two countries (ie. little boys) in their respective corners until they can learn to get along with eachother -- someone that can teach the world that a little understanding goes a hell of a lot further than beating each other up.

Anonymous said...

Hey Mark,

I thought you and your readers would enjoy this as it echoes many of the things you have been saying all along

The Nation

Mon Sep 11, 9:49 PM ET

The Nation -- Keith Olbermann is without a doubt the best news anchor on television today. Two weeks ago, echoing the spirit of the legendary Edward R. Murrow, Olbermann took Donald Rumsfeld to task for comparing critics of the Iraq war to Nazi appeasers. Tonight, broadcasting live from above a desolate and still demolished Ground Zero, Olbermann delivered a stirring eight minute commentary indicting the Bush Administration's shameful and tragic response to 9/11. The entire speech is worth watching and reading, so I'm posting the full text below.

Half a lifetime ago, I worked in this now-empty space. And for 40 days after the attacks, I worked here again, trying to make sense of what happened, and was yet to happen, as a reporter.
All the time, I knew that the very air I breathed contained the remains of thousands of people, including four of my friends, two in the planes and -- as I discovered from those "missing posters" seared still into my soul -- two more in the Towers.

And I knew too, that this was the pyre for hundreds of New York policemen and firemen, of whom my family can claim half a dozen or more, as our ancestors.

I belabor this to emphasize that, for me this was, and is, and always shall be, personal.

And anyone who claims that I and others like me are "soft,"or have "forgotten" the lessons of what happened here is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante and at worst, an idiot whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.

However, of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast -- of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds -- none of us could have predicted this.

Five years later this space is still empty.

Five years later there is no memorial to the dead.

Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.

Five years later this country's wound is still open.

Five years later this country's mass grave is still unmarked.

Five years later this is still just a background for a photo-op.

It is beyond shameful.

At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial -- barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field -- Mr. Lincoln said, "we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.

Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. "We cannot dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground." So we won't.

Instead they bicker and buck pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they're doing instead of doing any job at all.

Five years later, Mr. Bush, we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets. And look carefully, sir, on these 16 empty acres. The terrorists are clearly, still winning.

And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.

And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation. There is its symbolism of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.

The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.

Those who did not belong to his party -- tabled that.

Those who doubted the mechanics of his election -- ignored that.

Those who wondered of his qualifications -- forgot that.

History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government by its critics. It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation's wounds, but to take political advantage.

Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.

The President -- and those around him -- did that.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused, as appeasers, as those who, in the Vice President's words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."

They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken, a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated al-Qaida as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had 'something to do' with 9/11 is "lying by implication."

The impolite phrase is "impeachable offense."

Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space, and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.

Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.

Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible for anything in his own administration.

Yet what is happening this very night?

A mini-series, created, influenced -- possibly financed by -- the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.

The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.

How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death, after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections? How dare you -- or those around you -- ever "spin" 9/11?

Just as the terrorists have succeeded -- are still succeeding -- as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero.

So, too, have they succeeded, and are still succeeding as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.

This is an odd point to cite a television program, especially one from March of 1960. But as Disney's continuing sell-out of the truth (and this country) suggests, even television programs can be powerful things.

And long ago, a series called "The Twilight Zone" broadcast a riveting episode entitled "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street."

In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extra-terrestrials disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for calm. Suddenly his car -- and only his car -- starts. Someone suggests he must be the alien. Then another man's lights go on. As charges and suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced. An "alien" is shot -- but he turns out to be just another neighbor, returning from going for help. The camera pulls back to a near-by hill, where two extra-terrestrials are seen manipulating a small device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that there's no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of the human machines and then, "they pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it's themselves."

And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight: "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men.

"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own -- for the children, and the children yet unborn."

When those who dissent are told time and time again -- as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus -- that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American...When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"... look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:

Who has left this hole in the ground?

We have not forgotten, Mr. President.

You have.

May this country forgive you.

Mark Ward said...

Nice comments everyone.

I thought President Bush's speech on Monday night was tired, old, and outright offensive. Iraq has nothing to do with 9-11 and even mentioning it was ludicrous.

I suggest that he and his cronies keep up the rhetoric. It just makes them look worse every day.

Anonymous said...

Well it's Friday here at work. Don't really have much to add to the regular neo-con bashing that has already been done 5983 times on this blog but I did see a video clip this morning of Rosie O'Donnell on The View saying, direct quote, "Radical Christianity is just as dangerous as radical Islam".

One doesn't even need to debate the issue back and forth to realize why church-going folk don't vote for liberals. Anyone out there get it yet?

Speaking of Democrats, Ned Lamont, the Democratic nominee for Senator from Connecticut, has criticized Joe Lieberman during the campaign for Lieberman's public rebuke of President Clinton over the Lewinsky affair back in 1998. According to Lamont, Lieberman was wrong to turn his back on a long friendship with Clinton and to "go to the floor of the Senate and turn this into a media spectacle."

Back in 1998, however, Lamont's opinion was very different. In fact, he wrote Lieberman an email (which, fortunately, Lieberman kept) praising the Senator for his eloquence and moral authority.

Lamont told Lieberman:
I supported your statement because Clinton's behavior was outrageous: a Democrat had to stand up and state as much, and I hoped that your statement was the beginning of the end.

Typical lefty. Yep, he's your guy. Which way is the wind blowing today?????

Anonymous said...

Good job libtards...I wonder if any of the lawyers mentioned below are ACLU lawyers?

Remember now...Mr. Harris is in the military.

Yeah, all that free health care sounds like torture to me!!!

This is an editorial from the NY Post from today...

A DEADLY KINDNESS AT GITMO, PC RULES LET QAEDAS PLOT ON
RICHARD MINITER

By RICHARD MINITER
September 15, 2006 -- GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA
ON the military plane back from America's most famous terrorist holding pen, the in-flight film was "V for Vendetta," a screed that tries to justify terrorism. It was a fitting end to a surreal, military-sponsored trip.

The Pentagon seemed to be hoping to disarm its critics by showing them how well it cares for captured terrorists. The trip was more alarming than disarming. I spent several hours with Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., who heads the joint task force that houses and interrogates the detainees. (The military isn't allowed to call them "prisoners.")

Harris, a distinguished Navy veteran who was born in Japan and educated at Annapolis and Harvard, is a serious man trying to do a politically impossible job. I spoke with him at length, and with a dozen other officers and guards, and visited three different detention blocks.

The high-minded critics who complain about torture are wrong. We are far too soft on these guys - and, as a result, aren't getting the valuable intelligence we need to save American lives.

The politically correct regulations are unbelievable. Detainees are entitled to a full eight hours sleep and can't be woken up for interrogations. They enjoy three meals and five prayers per day, without interruption. They are entitled to a minimum of two hours of outdoor recreation per day.

Interrogations are limited to four hours, usually running two - and (of course) are interrupted for prayers. One interrogator actually bakes cookies for detainees, while another serves them Subway or McDonald's sandwiches. Both are available on base. (Filet o' Fish is an al Qaeda favorite.)

Interrogations are not video or audio taped, perhaps to preserve detainee privacy.

Call it excessive compassion by a nation devoted to therapy, but it's dangerous. Adm. Harris admitted to me that a multi-cell al Qaeda network has developed in the camp. Military intelligence can't yet identify their leaders, but notes that they have cells for monitoring the movements and identities of guards and doctors, cells dedicated to training, others for making weapons and so on.

And they can make weapons from almost anything. Guards have been attacked with springs taken from inside faucets, broken fluorescent light bulbs and fan blades. Some are more elaborate. "These folks are MacGyvers," Harris said.

Other cells pass messages from leaders in one camp to followers in others. How? Detainees use the envelopes sent to them by their attorneys to pass messages. (Some 1,000 lawyers represent 440 prisoners, all on a pro bono basis, with more than 18,500 letters in and out of Gitmo in the past year.) Guards are not allowed to look inside these envelopes because of "attorney-client privilege" - even if they know the document inside is an Arabic-language note written by a prisoner to another prisoner and not a letter to or from a lawyer.

That's right: Accidentally or not, American lawyers are helping al Qaeda prisoners continue to plot.

There is little doubt what this note-passing and weapons-making is used for. The military recorded 3,232 incidents of detainee misconduct from July 2005 to August 2006 - an average of more than eight incidents per day. Some are nonviolent, but the tally includes coordinated attacks involving everything from throwing bodily fluids on guards (432 times) to 90 stabbings with homemade knives.

One detainee slashed a doctor who was trying to save his life; the doctors wear body armor to treat their patients.

The kinder we are to terrorists, the harsher we are to their potential victims.

Striking the balance between these two goods (humane treatment, foreknowledge of deadly attacks) is difficult, but the Bush administration seems to lean too far in the direction of the detainees. No expense spared for al Qaeda health care: Some 5,000 dental operations (including teeth cleanings) and 5,000 vaccinations on a total of 550 detainees have been performed since 2002 - all at taxpayer expense. Eyeglasses? 174 pairs handed out. Twenty two detainees have taxpayer-paid prosthetic limbs. And so on.

What if a detainee confesses a weakness (like fear of the dark) to a doctor that might be useful to interrogators, I asked the doctor in charge, would he share that information with them? "My job is not to make interrogations more efficient," he said firmly. He cited doctor-patient privacy. (He also asked that his name not be printed, citing the potential for al Qaeda retaliation.)

Food is strictly halal and averages 4,200 calories per day. (The guards eat the same chow as the detainees, unless they venture to one of the on-base fast-food joints.) Most prisoners have gained weight.

Much has been written about the elaborate and unprecedented appeal process. Detainees have their cases reviewed once a year and get rights roughly equivalent to criminals held in domestic prisons. I asked a military legal adviser: In what previous war were captured enemy combatants eligible for review before the war ended? None, he said.

America has never faced an enemy who has so ruthlessly broken all of the rules of war - yet never has an enemy been treated so well.

Of Gitmo's several camps, military records show that the one with the most lenient rules is the one with the most incidents and vice versa. There is a lesson in this: We should worry less about detainee safety and more about our own.

Some 20 current detainees have direct personal knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and nearly everyone of the current 440 say they would honored to attack America again. Let's take them at their word.

Anonymous said...

I think Rosie forgot a few things...

Let it not be forgotten, after all, how countries ruled by Koranic law treat their homosexual citizens. Under the Taliban, Afghanistan put at least ten homosexuals to death; on New Year’s Day, 2002, our good friends in Saudi Arabia beheaded three men for sodomy. According to one report, Iran has executed several thousand men for homosexuality since 1979. Even in Egypt, with its relatively moderate and secular government, a widely publicized mass arrest of suspected homosexuals in early 2001 resulted in the torture and imprisonment of dozens of males as young as fifteen. And these figures are undoubtedly dwarfed by the annual number of "honor killings" of female family members who have strayed sexually (or who have shamed their families by being raped)–a form of murder that is so much a part of traditional Muslim culture that it goes unprosecuted even in relatively moderate Islamic countries like Jordan. In May 2002, Amnesty International reported that in Pakistan at least three honor killings occur every day, and that the perpetrators are usually not even arrested, although their identities tend to be known to family, neighbors, and even the police.

But forget all that...Christians are just as dangerous!! Oh my!!

Mark Ward said...

"One doesn't even need to debate the issue back and forth to realize why church-going folk don't vote for liberals. Anyone out there get it yet?"

((Sound of Loud Buzzer))

WRONG!!

Go to this site

http://www.interfaithalliance.org/site/pp.asp?c=8dJIIWMCE&b=120694

And promptly apoligize to all of us for being so wrong. Good, now that we have that cleared up..onto to the torture bullshit.

Yes, it's true. Other countries have tortured people and done many bad things. They are awful people. You will get no argument from me. But President Bush wants to essentially back out of the Geneva convention and Powell, McCain, and several other prominent Republicans aren't going to let him. Thank God...

The New York Post? Owned by Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox News (currently in negotiations to merge with the White House.) Hmm...there is bastion of unbiased news reporting.

This line:

"The high-minded critics who complain about torture are wrong. We are far too soft on these guys - and, as a result, aren't getting the valuable intelligence we need to save American lives."

made me laugh so hard I had to change my underwear twice. How long do conservatives expect us to fall for this line of complete bullshit?

Here's a thought...how about Dick Cheney, who was put in charge of counter-terrorism in the months before 9-11, actually doing his fucking job? According to public records and just about every news source, the Cheney Terrorism Task Force never met once. Not a single time.

So, the next time we hear about how need torture, wiretaps, and other ridiculous notions such as these to "save" American lives, how about we hold our government officials accountable for doing their job?

Let's not become like the animals we are trying to defend ourselves from. And who needs torture anyway? How about we just show all the Al Qaeda prisoners a never ending TV/Film broadcast of the history of women's rights?

Mark Ward said...

Oh, and one more thing. Radical Christianity has done a...um...I believe the term is HORSESHIT job of running this country the last six years.

They judge people in the same way radical Islam does, setting themselves up to be "closer" to God than the rest of us. And while they aren't flying airplanes into buildings (yet) they are making people's lives utterly miserable in many other ways.

Anonymous said...

I was just following your argument you made just a couple months ago that people of faith (read - evangelicals) "blindly" vote GOP. The existence of that group doesn't lighten up Rosie's comments one bit. Pointing out the existence of that group is all you have to say on that????

So has Al Queda ever followed the Geneva Convention? They aren't fighting under the flag of any 1 country - therefore the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to them. I've only said that on this blog no less than 5 times.

Oh, and you shit-talking peoples "sources" makes me laugh pretty hard when you were not willing to tell anybody your source when you accused the Bush Administration of planting kiddie porn on the computers of their political enemies. At least I posted my source...I'm not hiding anything....unlike you. Still waiting...........

You know, you have 2 sets of standards when it comes to military people. When a military man, even our friend Stephan Perkins, says something critical of the Bush Administration you prop the comment up. When this military man (who is actually there unlike you) talks about the conditions at Gitmo, you don't even address his comments and bash the source. You called the picture of the military man posing with Hillary Clinton you put on the blog column titled "Our new generation of traitors" on March 27, 2006 "sad". Such different reactions I see...interesting.

You'd better put that next column up so this post of mine gets bumped down. Your double standards are showing....

Mark Ward said...

Well, the next post is going to be a little later in the week because I want to beef it up a little.

There are many people of faith that vote many differant ways. Your still sore at Rosie because she threatend guns (aka threatening penis substitute). She's right and she's wrong. She's right because the evangelicals that support the conservatives are every bit as judgemental and frightening as Al Qaeda. They aren't flying airplanes into buildings but they are supporting people who just as evil as the terrorists we are fighting. She's wrong because there are many people of deep faith that I know that hate Bush. There are Christians and pseudo-Christians.

Senators Graham, Warner, and McCain (all Republican and all ex-military) say that President Bush is just plain wrong on torture. They, along with the majority of Democrats, know that this notion of having to stoop to the level of terrorists to stop them is just plain ridiculous. Rather than wasting your energy on lobbying for torture, why don't you take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger

This is the real reason why terror suspects get away and American lives are lost. It's a lack of human intelligence and live real time information that is putting American lives at risk.

I don't have any one source on the kiddie porn thing. The current Republicans are dirty shitbags who will resort to anything to elected. There are multiple sources as well as plain common sense that jibes with everything I have said. I'm still waiting for you to go and look it up. I don't have to becaue I already know it to be true. You are the one that needs convincing.

Anonymous said...

And you yourself "aren't" judgemental?

I'm not sore at Rosie at all. Her whole "gun" campaign went absolutely nowhere (the end of that whole campaign was the John Kerry goose hunt which made the citizens of Ohio laugh out loud). Btw, look at the gun deaths in the counties that vote overwhelmingly democratic (the blue counties) compared to the rural areas of this nation (the red counties). Why just last week in the twin cities a young black man was shot by another young black man because the shooter wanted his shoes and his sports jerseys. Yup, must be fear...lets blame the NRA.

There we go - you don't have any sources worth even mentioning on the kiddie porn thing - then maybe you should refrain from making charges like that in the comments section where the topic you made is "facts".

Oh, my bad...I should have just used plain ol common sense to know that the Bush Administration is planting kiddie porn on peoples computers. Maybe I would automatically know these things were occurring if I were a liberal.

You make charges of criminal conduct, then say it's my job to prove you wrong once you make them? wow

Another reason terror suspects get away is that we refuse to blow them sky high simply because they are in a cemetary. People trying to civilize was or fight a politically correct war will never win.

and the Geneva Conventions still don't apply to individual terror cells not fighting under any 1 nations flag.

Mark Ward said...

Well, I guess we all learned that Democrats aren't allowed to go hunting...treading on sacred territory of conservatives and all.

The difference between my judgements and those of several conservatives in this coutnry is that I am, for the most part, good and they are, for the most part, evil. I don't really think this a matter of debate/opinion/point of view/whatever anymore. People have died, are dying, and will die as a result of the conservative leaderhip in this country. About 65 percent of the country is with me on this.

The other 35 percent refuse to expose themselves to certain books, radio programs, tv shows, and films because of the some irrational fear they have of the truth. I can't really quite figure it out.

Robert Greenwald, a documentary filmmaker who has new film coming out called "Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers" put it best in a recent interview in Newsweek when he said, "(my flims) they're truthful. Do I have to show a side that isn't truthful—that doesn't have the facts behind it—in order to create balance? I argue no."

That's pretty much how I feel when you want me to look at the "other" side. When it comes to an issue like immigration, yes, there are two sides and several grey areas to this problem. I can really see myself on both sides of the fence and firmly in a quagmire of uncertainty. When it comes to things like Iraq, Al Qaeda, terrorism etc, the facts and the truth about what is really going on speak for themselves.

Anonymous said...

Never said democrats couldn't go hunting, not sure how you took that out of what I posted. I'm saying that in 2004, Kerry just flew out of the Hamptons with camo gear in tow and expected people to buy into it.

"Fear of the truth". You have a truth solidly formed in your head but there are military people like Harry B. Harris Jr. (from my above article on GITMO) who are actually there who say something different than you say about what is happening at GITMO. Who should I believe?

Lots of people are refusing to expose themselves to "certain radio programs"...rumor has it that Air America is headed toward bankruptcy.

Liberal vs. Conservative = good vs. evil. If you see no reason to debate that point anymore I'd refrain from calling people myopic, etc.

65% of the US population see conservatives as evil people who are killers? Like I said before - you libs are always doing great in the polls.

Anonymous said...

This could certainly be an invalid assumption on my part, Markadelphia, but are you getting your 65% number from the President's approval rating? If so, it's more than a bit of a stretch to equate that number with the number of people who are "with you on this", isn't it? Without having actual figures to back me up, I would argue that the number of people who think that the "country is on the wrong track" or "disapprove of how the war in Iraq is being handled" (in other words, the actual poll questions) is far higher than the number of people who "think conservatives are evil" or "are responsible for people who have died, are dying, and will die". It strikes me that you are flattering yourself and your position by making a rather questionable assumption.

It's not surprising to me that Mr. Greenwald and his ideas connect with you. But it seems to me that he omitted a rather important clause from his quote.

Do I have to show a side that isn't truthful—that doesn't have the facts that I choose to acknowledge behind it

His position doesn't move me any more than yours, since documentary films pick-and-choose the facts that support the position the filmmaker wishes to uphold just like the rest of us do. I might actually lend his opinion some weight were he to admit that.

Libs always doing great in the polls, HMHC? According to what I saw on CNN yesterday, that's not true. At a point in 1994 Clinton's approval rating was 39%, remarkably similar to GWB's current approval rating (which they stated was 39%). The liberals certainly will try to spin that number with their irrational theories, but the truth is that the number was so low because Clinton supported the liberal position of molesting children and owning slaves. That, and the fact that he was flip-flopping on the issue of molesting slave children. Look it up....

Mark Ward said...

You should believe the people that aren't part of Bush Co. Of course they are going to go along with what the president wants. That's who signs their checks. Careers are broken because people don't "go along."

It's not a matter of liberals and conservatives. I think John McCain is basically a good person and he is a conservative. There are people that are considered liberal that I think are evil. When I speak of evil, I speak of the current leadership and the people that follow them. They are evil. They are doing evil things to us and other people in the world. I know you think that it's just "my opinion" and I think that is what is truly sad.

I should have clarified this: 65 percent of this country doesn't like George Bush and the direction this country is headed. Some of them probably think he is crooked, some think he is inept, and others (like me) think he is evil. It is all a sliding scale of dislike.

PL, I am specifically using this poll

http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

but it still averages out to be around the same for Bush. It's worse for Cheney. People really hate him. Gee I wonder why.

Oh, and here is some info I found about the "demise" of Air America.

On September 13, 2006 a false report by the blog ThinkProgress.org said that the network's parent would file for bankruptcy on Friday September 15, 2006. The report was denied and turned out to be unfounded. On September 15, 2006 Thinkprogress.org filed another report, apologizing for their error.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it is your opinion and I could care less if you think it's "sad". I think it's sad that you have a hard time acknowledging any other point of view other than your own. Like I said before, I'm doing just fine over here - probably because my happiness has nothing to do with who wins elections and worrying is a waste of time as it accomplishes nothing.

Glad to see you could take the time to research that particular rumor.

Mark Ward said...

Crab you can't have it both ways. If, as you say, your happiness is not determined by who wins elections, then why care what the liberals do? If you are arguing just for the sport of it, that's cool because I do the same thing.

I think any kind of discourse is not a waste of time. It makes us all better people. I have no problem acknowledging another point of view, just to simply state that people have one, but when that other point of view is so detremental to people....is so inhuman...well, sorry but I am not going to accept it and be "nice" to other side.

I often wonder what it would take for neocons to admit the disaster the last six years have become. The worst attack in our country's history was on their watch, they completely failed in preventing it and yet they are viewed as tough on terror. Their response to the worst natural disaster in our country's history was a complete failure and yet somehow that's ok too because it was really local authorities' fault.

I for one am sooooo comfored to know that when a nuclear device is detonated in New York or Chicago by Al Qaeda, that any criticism directed at Bush Co will just be viewed as a "loony tirade" and a "biased point of view."

Oh well at least neocons aren't flip floppers. They stick to their guns no matter what!!!

Anonymous said...

The article from Mr. Miniter is wildly inaccurate and I'm surprised it saw print. The facts are in such opposition to his assertions, that it would be surprising if many people believed them.

He calls them cells making weapons and passing information. I had a friend who was a prison guard and there have been documentaries on prison life, so I think a close approximation might be gangs. Even if the events he sites are true (making weapons, coordinating attacks, etc.) that is no different than any other prison. If it's worse, it's because a single "gang" with the same culture and goals is imprisoned together. Who's fault is that for putting such a homogeneous group together and not being able to control them forming a gang or cells?

Most of the prisoners at Gitmo (80%+) are now being kept there because their nations don't want them back and the US can't find someplace else to send them. That's one of the reasons Bush can't close Gitmo. Like Pandora's Box, his administration took all of these people under the wrong assumption they were terrorists or knew something and now has a problem not easily resolved. They're not terrorists, but no one wants to take them. So, who's problem are they? Ours, because we have them.

British citizens who've been released from Gitmo in the last year have written books describing their treatment there. Isolation, intermittent food, being convinced they were about to die, being locked up for as long as five years with no access to family, attorneys, the outside world. This is the treatment that actually has occurred there. What Mr. Miniter describes is, at best, the current treatment. Perhaps only treatment shown during a tour to a guest that would write positively about Gitmo after his departure. Just because treatment is good in general now, or on the day he was there, does not forgive what has been done under the American flag so far.

We provide health care to our own inmates as part of humane treatment. His ire about prosthetic limbs in particular is laughable. How does he think they came to need so many prosthetic limbs for such a small population? It sounds like a very similar ratio to the number needed by our troops hurt in combat in Iraq.

Geneva Conventions haven't been signed by al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbullah, etc. Great. We did and we're violating Geneva and our own laws on treatment of prisoners. We can call the prisoners whatever we like, but they were captured during armed conflict. We lose the moral high ground of fighting for freedom and justice when we act like the enemies we detest. They aren't wearing uniforms of a country that signed Geneva. Our soldiers are. I am, and we should all be, ashamed of the way we've tried to get out of the treaties we've signed and the laws we've passed on how we will treat prisoners. McCain, Powell and others who've served are too.

Torture is an abuse of human rights whether the Chinese, Romanians or we do it. It is morally wrong and it is illegal according to our own and international laws. We lose the moral high ground in our fight for freedom and justice by endorsing it or having a proxy do it. We should not become as barbaric as our enemies or we will be no better. What have we gotten from employing torture? I know we've lost credibility amongst our allies, enemies and those in-between. Our nation's image has been damaged with our allies and we have reinforced our reputation as a bully amongst the others. Torture has done us plenty of practical, visible damage, but we have yet to see it do us any practical good.

Calling the prisoners at Gitmo terrorists is lying. The only person they have attempted to prosecute (Saddam's drive) resulted in the Supreme Court issuing a decision that the legal rights offered to the detainees at Gitmo was unlawful. And that Bush had overstepped his authority to create military tribunals without Congressional oversight. Attorneys of every stripe, including the Judge Advocates General of all four branches of the service, have said the rules for tribunals and detainees would not stand the light of appeal, to say nothing of the initial trial and the eventual reciprocal use of those rules on our own troops when captured.

I'm sure I beat this point to death, but torture is wrong, wrong, wrong and is not defensible from a moral, legal or practical view.

Mark Ward said...

Ah, yes, another soul that wants us to actually move up, rather than down, on the evolutionary ladder......it warms my heart.

Anonymous said...

I don't really care what liberals do (actually, they don't do much except for piss and moan about things and put bumper stickers on their cars that say Free Tibet while at the same time opposing anything that actually would Free Tibet). I like to debate back and forth about politics also but not 3 times a day or at dinner parties, etc and I don't have some kind of "test" of open-mindedness or intelligence I run on new people I meet.

You've made statements on this blog saying GWB is harming your childrens future, destroying the country, and ruining your way of life. Now you're trying to tell me you're just funning around? Not buying it...

That's my point - by your own admission, you aren't willing to accept any other point of view other than your own. And in this very thread you accuse conservatives of being "judgemental". Just know that you will win very few people over to your side as long as you tack on insulting comments like "wants us to move down the evolutionary ladder" to your statements. Not sure how insulting people brings people over to your side.

The only reason you want neo-cons to admit anything is because you are seeking validation of your opinions.

Speaking of having it both ways, you say "GWB completely failed to prevent 9/11" and at the same time you oppose pretty much anything the government wants to do that possibly would prevent another 9/11 (patriot act, wiretapping, financial surveillance, racial profing, etc). Let's say we attacked Afghanistan on 9/10/01?? Let's say John Ashcroft detained 19 muslim men on 9/10/01 whose only "crime" at the time was attending American flight schools. Let's say John Ashcroft deported those 19 muslim men on 9/10/01 - you libs would be up in arms over racial profiling and your buddies in the ACLU would be licking their chops at the thought of a lawsuit.

As far as Adams post goes - so you're saying "They aren't terrorists?" Are all of them innocent?

Regarding our stance on torture and treatment of muslims in general - I think that when people apologize (as the pope recently did), muslims interpret that as a triumph for their religion, a victory won with force and threats rather than through intellectual engagement. I believe Arabs see these gestures as a sign of weakness on our part. The reason I don't care about torture is because I want moral clarity, not mindless moral equivalency. As Charlie Griffin said some time ago, Islam has to change from the inside and has to afford people the right to criticize Islam without resorting to intimidation and violence in response. How can Islam reform when the entire world (European countries, liberals, etc.) enables their temper tantrums? Does appeasement ever work with those muslims? Are you 100% sure they would leave us alone should we depart from the middle east altogether? Sure they hate us but they bomb lots of other countries as well.

You spend all your time ripping apart GWB but you have failed to convince me that another eight years of liberal gesture-laden foreign policy will do any better. If you look at the countries in the middle east, the more westernized a country is, the more access they have to information, and the more moderate their views are.

Anonymous said...

Lost my entire post due to the preview feature.

Bummer.

Let me summarize.

CM: it would be great to have a conversation not involving generalizations that polarize groups into Good-Bad.

I didn't say any of the things you said I did. Let's talk about what to do to get America back to being a global power with the prestige and moral high ground we should own. Let's not be the petty little thugs we've become.

Mark Ward said...

I am not funning about it. I was simply saying that sometimes I like to argue for the sake of arguing.

Wait until you read my future column about No Child Left Behind. You think I was pissed off about Bush before? This bonehead policy is going to start affecting my daughter in two years.

Yes, I am judgemental.....of people that are judgemental. I don't need neocons to admit they are wrong and I really don't need validations for my opinions. I know I am right. If you think that the patriot act, illegal wiretapping, illegal financial surveillance, racial profing and torture are doing to win the war on terror well you are sorely mistaken. These intiatives were not created to protect us. They were created so people in Bush Co could have more power over us, keep us in line, and proceed about their business however they want.

What will win the war on terror is:

1. Actually putting an effort into finding the people who attacked us on 9-11.
2. Human Intelligence i.e. American Muslims who infiltrate Al Qaeda.
3. NOT supporting regimes like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates who do they same shit that we accuse Iran and Syria doing.

And that is just a start.

Mark Ward said...

Oh, and one more thing. What exactly would one call people who torture other people? Civilized?

Now let me see if I have this straight...no insulting (check), no facts (check), no opinions that don't support the president (check), no speaking your mind (check), pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (check), no pissing and moaning (check)...good. Now I know what life is like inside of the tiny 1" by 1" box that neocons want us all to live in.

Super!

Anonymous said...

Adam," it would be great to have a conversation not involving generalizations that polarize groups into Good-Bad". Then read pretty much any post by Markadelphia. That's the way things work on here and I'm nothing more than a team player. Look back a bit and you'll find the quote where he "laughed his ass off" when someone, who he disagreed with politically, was accidentally shot in the face. And he calls conservatives "inhuman"? He also called for images of dead US soldiers to be splashed on prime time TV for political gain for democrats. It's in his column called "5 ways democrats can grow balls". Look it up. The only thing I referenced from your post was the "innocent" label you placed on the detaineees at GITMO.

Marks points....
1. Sounds good to me, I agree - but why is that #1? You all know that as soon as we capture the people involved there will be 200 more people ready to take their place. Thankfully, we caught the morons who bombed the WTC in 1993, notice that it did nothing to prevent further attacks.

2. I agree.

3. Sounds good also. So you're absolutely sure they will leave us alone once we depart from the middle east altogether?

I don't have a box for anyone to live in. I'm just glad I'm not in the box you are in.

Mark Ward said...

The box you are in is owned and operated by Grover Norquist.

Anonymous said...

The only box I am in is the one that exists in your head where the people you meet are labeled as "open minded, closed minded, educated, judgmental", etc. How the people around me vote is none of my concern. You already admitted that you tried to figure out the politics of most of the people you go to school with. You never used to be like that and I hope that this is just a stage that you are going through. You truly are obsessed with the way the people around you vote.

I was thinking about torture on the way to work today and I got a woody and I’d like to talk about it.

We are not saying that we need to rewrite the Geneva Convention. We are saying that we need to pass our own laws that tell our operatives exactly what actions they can and cannot do. Doing this would not change the Geneva Conventions themselves - they would just direct our operatives with clarity.

Let's take playing loud music as an example (this is one of the techniques that is used). The Geneva Conventions ban any treatment that is an assualt on the "personal dignity" of the person. Does this include playing loud music? Can't say...it could be construed that way. So, we write a law, for us, that says to our operatives "go ahead - play loud music. We do not feel that it constitutes torture". This is to allow the operatives to do their work without constant second guessing and uncertainty. Now, even though we pass that law, the Geneva Conventions themselves have not changed. Common article 3 still remains the same. It still just says that you can't assualt someone's "personal dignity".

Your president said something recently to the effect of..."This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court's ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article III of the Geneva Convention. And that Common Article III says that there will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's very vague. What does that mean, "outrages upon human dignity"? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation. And what I'm proposing is that there be clarity in the law so that our professionals will have no doubt that that which they are doing is legal. You know, the piece of legislation I sent up there provides our professionals that which is needed to go forward".

And the US has been operating with their own interpretation of Common Article 3 for years. Why are they asking for Congress to clarify? Because the left is so damn hellbent on accusing our operatives of being evil sadistic torture happy freaks.

It is important to remember that the situation we are in is rather unique. It is kind of uncharted territory. All of our laws...all of our treaties...rules of war are based around one nation fighting another nation (US vs Japan). We entered into unique territory in that we are not directly fighting any one nation and their army (as I said before)...but rather organizations scattered throughout the globe. These organizations do not act as armies do. They do not operate under a flag and uniform(as you said). They do not adhere to any "rules of war". They dress as civilians…hide as civilians…attack civilians. So we are now faced with the task of deciding how process such people as we captured them.

There are several rules that have been set throughout our history. Some were set by our congress, some by our military, some by treaty agreements, and others by precedent. The problem is - none of those rules fit perfectly into the situation we found ourselves in. If you read the Geneva Conventions you will clearly see that there is a section that exactly outlines who the conventions apply to. If you read that, you will clearly see that terrorists do not fit this definition. Like you said Adam, "They aren't wearing uniforms of a country that signed Geneva" therefore, they aren’t afforded the protections contained in the Geneva Conventions. So, GWB set the guidelines on what techniques would be allowed and what would not be allowed. They did not worry about the lack of clarity that was in the Geneva Conventions because they did not feel that the Geneva Conventions would even apply to these people (which I agree with). That does not automatically mean that they are torture happy freaks, it just means that they were able to operate with out worry with regards to the lack of clarity found in Common Article 3.

If you want to ask "Does our existing policy violate the conventions” the answer would be..."it depends".

The reason the answer is "it depends" is because the wording of that particular section is so damn vague that yes, a case could be made that loud music or say having a female interrogate someone who thinks females are inferior, could be construed as an assault on some one's "personal dignity".

Again, none of this violates the conventions in any way. Congress now has to decide what actions the operatives are allowed to take that will make sure they are not violating the Conventions as it is written.

What has torture gotten us? Well, when the Pakistanis nabbed Khalid Sheik Mohammed (who masterminded 9/11) they did it by first capturing one of his buddies. I bet that guy went through some shit to sell his boy out.

How do I think those people needed so many prosthetic limbs? How can you ask that question and assert that "They aren’t terrorists" in the same post? My guess is that they got their limbs blown off by our soldiers on the battlefield.

We’ve lost the moral high ground so that’s the least of my concerns right now. World opinion would have every one of us reading this blog dead, so why concern yourself with world opinion? IMO, we lost credibility with our allies and our image was damaged long before liberal accusations of torture surfaced. I see your point in being concerned but I also see that Islamoacists see that concern as a sign of weakness. Myself, I wouldn’t piss on those terrorists even if they were on fire. I do blame GWB for the way the war on terror is being waged, but not in the way libs see it. He is being too politically correct IMO. For example, I would have blown those 150 Al Queda members in that cemetery to kingdom come without hesitation. You think the fact that we respected their burial grounds got ANY coverage in the arab media? Not hardly. Even when we respect civilians, they will still beat us in the propaganda war (see: Reuters photo controversy where people posed as dead civilians only to be photographed days later walking down the street).

Mark Ward said...

It's not a "phase" I am going through. Calling it an obsession, in my mind, is just another example of you trying to deflect the blame away from the horrendous people that you voted for. I am "loony" so therefore none of what I am saying is true.

They are doing horrible, evil things to other people on this planet. I am going to be very concerned with how people vote on November 7th because I don't want them to do those horrible things anymore. It's that simple. Anyone that is thinking of voting Republican in the federal elections is going to get information from me about the supposed "moral" people they are voing for. I will at least feel that I tried if they stick with their vote.

Today I got four people to vote for Amy Kolbachar and Wendy Wilde. I got three more last week to vote for Patty Wetterling in your and PL's district so who knows? Maybe it will work...

As far as your torture rant goes, why don't you go out and see how many generals support torture and how many are against it? Colin Powell himself has said that we have lost the high ground. How about all these guys?

http://www.essentialliberties.com/archives/000901.php

Anonymous said...

CM: I agree with you on Mark's generalizations. Most of the time I don't really know how to react to some of the stuff he says. It sounds pretty angry and myopic and I haven't seen a point to argue. He and I have disagreed about what should be done and what is ok in the pursuit of a war on terror. That's about the only point we've had where we could argue constructively. Other stuff, I don't know what to say.

I think your points about Geneva conventins are valid ones if you look at the exact wording. The exact wording of our own Constitution doesn't say you can carry a handgun on your hip or you can sue to keep a strip bar out of your neighborhood. What written laws become in practice is due to interpretation. Not just what is written.

My outrage, along with Americans and many other nations and their people, doesn't have to do with fighters without a flag not getting the rights in Geneva. It has to do with how we are acting as a country. Do we want to be the same as the thugs that we are fighting against? I don't. America is supposed to show the way to democracy, freedom, justice, etc. Not enforce be a human rights abuser when it suits us.

Mohammed getting caught because his buddy was tortured is not worth it IMO for the reasons above. I don't know how they caught him, but usually people are caught through communication and financials channels than by beating someone until they talk. Those methods work, why do we need to become what we despise? It's not worth the price.

You're generalizing when you say world opinion would have all three to five of us on this blog dead. That's not true. Many may be pissed at us, but not 50%, and not 100% would wish all Americans dead. And it's really beside the point. You not caring about what world opinion is a problem, but a bigger problem is not caring about how we as a nation regard our own actions. I'm much more concerned about how my country is acting because I thought we were the best, shining example of Western civilization and the fact that others are in contempt of our actions just acts as reinforcement of my opinion about our behavior.

I didn't assert none of them were terrorists in my post, I asserted most of them haven't been associated with any criminal acts.

I hadn't heard about the cemetary incident you mention. When/where was that?

I agree we are in uncharted waters after the cold war. Things are a bit more like imperial times with many nations and shifting alliances. That doesn't excuse abandoning our principles because the world has changed. We should be taking in the changed political structure of the post-cold war and creating new policies once we understand how things have changed and what the long-term effects will be. This administration has used the changed world as an excuse to trample on our civil liberties and allow torture and then say it's ok. I actually think the CIA should be able to do some of the crap it does. But not in public and not with the complicity of our elected leaders. This type of thing should be strictly shadow work that never sees the light of day. Instead we've turned reservist prisons into factories of torture. This kind of thing is amateurish and was certain to get found out.

A lot of CIA black ops also haven't turned out so well. They've botched assassinations or put the wheels in motion, because they tried to kingmake, for serious enemies to come to power in places like Cuba, Iran, etc. They call it blowback in the profession, when you make plans, but don't anticipate other negative outcomes; usually worse than what they started with.

I read something today on the Economist on how Bush and the GOP have been hitting the terror message hard the last few weeks to try and keep Congress in Nov. I'm very concerned about any party that is willing to scare people in order to stay in power. I'm even more concerned by a population that is so uninformed that they would allow it to happen. Bush continues to link Iraq and 9/11 implicity in his speeches and, unfortunately, people like the woman at Mark's gym have shut off their critical thinking filter and buy it without a second thought.

A faceless (i.e. not a nation) enemy bent on destroying our way of life and an endless war with no possibility of resolution. These sound very Orwellian to me.

The GOP likes to make references to Nazis when talking about Hussein and Iraq and appeasement and North Korea and Iran, etc. They should look in the mirror at what they are becoming.

Mark Ward said...

Hey, just to let anyone know that is reading the comments....I am not going to put up my new post about 9/11 conspiracies until Monday...we have had a good thread of communication going on here so I decided to wait.

Mark Ward said...

Adam, I guess you agree with the things I am saying....I know I agree with everything you said above....just the way that I go about it is more vitriolic.

I can't help but be angry and frustrated beyond belief when 60 million people in this country believe that Dick Cheney, a man who had four deferments during Vietnam and stated that he had more important things to do than serve in the military in the 1960s, is viewed as being a patriot and John Kerry, who bravely saved lives in Vietnam, is a traitor.

How blind can people be?

Anonymous said...

The reason you have to ask "How blind can people be" is the same reason you feel the need to tell your friends who they should vote for – IMO it’s based on a liberal perception that people can't think for themselves and make up their own mind. Perhaps only a liberal would think that the public would ignore Kerry’s 30 year public record of McGovernite foreign policy positions simply because he had received medals during the Vietnam War. When this tactic fails to work, the liberal adopts an even more condescending attitude towards the electorate. Instead of blaming the voters for getting the merits wrong, they blame the evil genius Karl Rove for duping the public through (alleged) attacks on the patriotism of whichever liberal candidate has been defeated.

When Kerry came back from Vietnam he joined with Jane Fonda and in 1971 denounced those who wear the uniform as terrorists-like rapists and assassins who cut off heads, taped wires to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and said he committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others. He made these charges under oath. He could have attacked the war without attacking the troops. He could have questioned policy without supporting the communists’ claim that our soldiers were war criminals. He did not and he was held accountable for his actions. Perhaps liberals expected veterans to be blind to Kerry's support of Flag Burning, his non-support of weapons systems and his 12 votes against military pay raises.

I’m not deflecting blame away from anything. Until you prove to me that democrats will give me permanent tax cuts, raise the limits on 401K and IRA contributions, support tort reform and malpractice caps to get healthcare costs down, have a pro-business mindset, support increased refining capacity and drilling for oil over here, tell me what they intend to do about Iran, put forth something (anything) with regards to what they intend to do about Social Security and Medicare, and expand the NSA program, the Patriot Act, financial tracking of funds, and so on...I won’t be voting Democrat anytime soon. I’m doing you a favor by telling you to save your energy for people who probably don’t pay attention to the issues of the day very closely (ie: the people you convince...just a hunch on my part).

For every person you convince there is probably another person who doesn’t care to hear your opinions. When I see you on Sunday, I’ll give you the names of several people who have told me that they think you are "out there" (their words, not mine).

Indeed you have always paid attention to politics but nowadays you can’t spend 4 hours with someone without mentioning George Bush no less than 3 times. If I didn’t know any better I’d think you want him sexually.

How the elections go on November 7th is so far out of my immediate sphere of influence it is unbelievable and I give very little thought to things I have absolutely no control over (elections, outcomes of pro sports games, etc).

My torture rant is what it is...those generals can say what they want...I disagree with them (that does NOT mean I won’t read what they have to say). I could very easily point out to you that FDR authorized the military to bomb the living hell out of German cities, killing many civilians. Truman dropped the bomb on Japan that killed a whole lot of civilians as well. Why did they do that? To win the war. People who try to civilize war baffle me.

As far as Amy Klobuchar goes, violent crime has gone way up under her watch (I know how big you are on accountability). Just last week, some left-wing blogger apparently hacked into Mark Kennedy's secure server and viewed a prospective Kennedy commercial; then the blogger passed the login information on to Klobuchar's campaign spokeswoman, Tara McGuinness, last Saturday. McGuinness watched the illegally-obtained commercial and then recruited other Klobuchar staffers to view it. Her office has reported the apparent federal crime to the FBI, and has hung the unnamed blogger out to dry and McGuinness was fired. I’m sorry but I really can’t tolerate that level of corruption and I’ve decided that I’m not going to vote for her. ; )

Adam, I want us to be just as nasty as our enemies. Mark just said that Colin Powell admitted that we have lost the high ground. I just think that calling for the closing of GITMO, for example, in order to give us "a clean slate" in the Muslim world won’t accomplish anything. The foolishness of that position, IMO, resides not in the error of the position itself, but rather in the fantasy of a "clean slate" that will allow us to regain the "high ground". While that concept may have some applicability in therapy, there is no such thing in international relations. And the idea of a clean slate with Muslims, a group with whom the west has clashed for something like ten centuries, seems kind of ludicrous to me at this point in time. Some of the Muslims from whom we would like to receive a clean slate from are still upset about the reconquest of Spain. And then there's the small matter of the existence of Israel.

I just don’t subscribe to the notion that Muslim antagonism towards the U.S. is our fault. (sarcasm coming) If only we would avoid stepping on the Koran, all would be well (end sarcasm). Any brownie points we might conceivably gain by closing Gitmo would be lost the first time a Muslim (aided by the media and liberals) claimed that abuse was occurring at some other facility or locale. If Gitmo didn't exist, our enemies and critics would invent it.

In the arab world, things are run by a strong man (a tyrant). I remember reading this story somewhere...In the 80's, in addition to taking American Hostages, the nutjobs in Lebanon took one Soviet Citizen. The KGB station chief rounded up three Imams, as well as all their families, including children, and hung one Imam and his family up on meat hooks. He disembowled an Imam, and the families in front of the other Imams who were hanging along side. He then announced he would do the same thing every day to an Imam and their families until the soviet citizen was released unharmed, and gave them till noon the next day, and released one of the Imams. The soviet citizen was back at the Soviet Mission within two hours fit as a fiddle and not another Soviet citizen was harmed. That is the language those folks know, and if we are going to settle things down over there, we have to employ brutality, and not let our Western concept of civilized behavior guide us or be offended because that is how things are done over there.

In the book Saboteur, it talked about how FDR handled eight German saboteurs who landed in the US in 1942 and were caught before they could blow factories up. He had 6 of the 8 executed; despite what many at the time felt was an illegal military commission that convicted them.

Or take a page from the RR book from 1980...when asked what he would do if he were in Carter's position with the hostage crisis, he replied that you give them a 72 hour deadline to release your folks unharmed and if they didn't, consider them dead and do something not so nice to their country like make it glow in the dark. The hostages were released as Reagan took the oath of office on Jan 20, 1981. This nation wants to hear that if someone attacks the US, the President will tear them from limb to limb.

As far as the cemetery thing...one of our drone planes spotted and photographed 150 members of Al Queda in a cemetery just last week and Bush was too politically correct to blow them sky high because they were in a cemetery and we respect their holy sites (a lot more than they do IMO).

I agree that world opinion wouldn’t have us dead but bashing America has been very fashionable, especially in Europe, since about 1946 when they didn't need the blood of our soldiers to fight their war anymore. Bashing the Superpowers, now the Superpower, is world class sport, and will continue on, Iraqi war or no Iraq war. I just think that the fundamental role of anti-Americanism is to absolve the parties involved of their own moral failings and intellectual errors by heaping them onto the monster scapegoat, the US. For stupidity and bloodshed to vanish from the world, it seems like the U.S. must be identified as the singular threat to democracy (contrary to every lesson of actual history).

Going back to something I said above as to why do I want the NSA program expanded...I’ve said it before on this blog - nukes, stealth fighters, carpet bombers are somewhat irrelevant at this point in time since we are not killing an advancing brigade. It’s about uncovering cells. A handful of operatives here and there, nestled among millions of innocents.

The real challenge is how to find them. How to identify them from among the hordes they dress like, sound like, and even act like...right up until the moment they board a plane. Or wave cheerily at a parade. Or park their van next to a big skyscraper. The only way to prevent terrorist attacks from those folks is to gather intelligence...to collect the information that reveals who the jihadists are, who is backing them with money and resources, and where they are likely to strike.

Go Bears.

Mark Ward said...

Wow. For someone who doesn't care that much about politics you certainly can write about it long enough.

I guess I can see your points in the last half of your essay. I even agree with some of it. I was very heartened to hear President Bush say yesterday that if intelligence said that bin Laden was in Pakistan we would cross the borders and get him. What are they going to do? They don't even have control over that part of their own country so if they bitch, the can fuck off. So, my ol buddy George did something good.

But the first part of your essay is hilarious. Did you pull all that Kerry stuff off of an old swift boat site? It's all lies, half-truths and spun perceptions. Do you know what cracks me up about Vietnam? We spent billions of dollars, lost 40 thousand men, killed tens of thousands Vietnamese and in the end they still became Communist and guess what? The end of our civilization did not occur like Johnson, Nixon, and all the other neocons said it would. Maybe you should stop by sometime and see some of films I have of the horror that went on over there. What a waste. And people that question the Vietnam War are traitors? The people that are traitors are the ones that sacrafice human life for finanical gain which is what happening now. We are wasting human life and I, for one, have a problem with that. So, no, I am not going to shut up about it. Your attempts to muzzle me will not succeed.

If people ask me what I think about candidates. I tell them. I hate to burst your bubble here, dude, but a lot of people I know like to talk about politics. It's interesting to us. I respect the fact that you don't like to talk about it so I mostly restrain myself when you and other neocons are around.

By saying I have a "problem" or am "out there" (and I think anyone that said that is probably talking about the UFO thing) you are employing the same techniques used by the people you support. Poor old Mark. He's just so obessesed. What a loon! I could really care less what other people say. I spend a lot of time researching this stuff and I know what is really going on here. They don't. By your own admission, you are not all that interested and don't spend much time on it. So, logically, which of us has a better handle on things? I am not saying you are stupid...just willingly uninformed. I don't think it's a question of being stupid (although some people are). I think it is a question of wanting to listen.

You talk about the Democrats not having a plan. What a joke! Bush Co's plan is the same thing. He, Rumsfeld, and Cheney (still waiting on why his avoidance of military service is OK and Kerry is a traitor, btw) say the same thing over and over again. It plays into people's base fears so they still have enough support to continue. The Democrats do have a plan. The "liberal" media chooses not to talk about it. Here is their plan, which I believe addresses many of your security concerns.

http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html

You can click on any one of the points listed there for more details. I find it intersting that most of your gripes about the Democrats have to do with money issues. Did you become a millionaire over night? Because your paragraph about business is basically supporting a system that favors the rich. Hell, even our new Treasury Secretary doesn't agree with many of the things you said there.

Oh, and it's a good thing you are for tort reform. Will you support this suit being thrown out?

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/08/fighting_dems_s_1.php

Anyway, there are going to be plenty of people that don't agree with me. So what? People say some pretty hilarious things to me about your views on politics..do you care? For you to criticize me after you spent the first few years I knew you waving the Republican flag in front of everyone...kind of hypocritical, don't you think? Now, you say you don't really want to talk about it as much. You say there are other more imortant things to talk about it. That's cool. I respect that. But I think we both know that some of what I am saying is getting through to you and you're too stubborn to admit it.

The real problem here is that politics, history, and the human condition are something I am keenly aware of and knowledgeable in. Too many times in history, civilizations have been at this point and declined. I really don't want that to happen and I don't think you do either. I can see what's coming and I hope that someday you will care enough to see it too.

Go Vikes.

Anonymous said...

I never said I didn’t care about politics or that I wasn’t interested. I said that my day-to-day life is affected very little by who is in the white house. Obviously I still follow politics…it’s just that this is the only place I talk about it. I don’t tell my friends how to vote or get disgusted/think they are blind/think they are stupid if they see things differently than I do.

Ahh yes...Swiftboating - when a veteran says somehthing that liberals disagree with.

I never said people who question the war are traitors. I never said the Vietnam War went well. Re-read what I wrote. What I said was that is probably isn’t a good idea to base an entire political campaign on 4 months of service in Vietnam while ignoring ones 30-year voting record. For the record, Dick Cheney didn’t base his entire campaign on that fact and Bill Clinton never served in the military. Sure things are different after 9/11 but both of those men were elected before 9/11. Hillary and Barbara Boxer didn’t serve in the military either and you’ve said that you would vote for them.

Truthfully, I like to talk politics too...it’s just that you are so condescending toward anyone who doesn’t see things exactly the way you do. It’s never enough for you just to simply disagree with someone – you say things like "down the evolutionary ladder, nazi, stupid, duped, uninformed, intolerant" when it comes to anyone who sees things differently than you do. Indeed some of the people we know like to talk about it as well...just know that there are just as many people who don’t follow it, don’t care about it, already have their own opinions, and don’t like to talk about such divisive subjects while trying to have a nice lunch or dinner.

So somebody just walked up to you and asked you about Amy Klobuchar?

There have been systems tried that attacked the rich. Things didn’t work out very well for those countries. No country has ever taxed itself into prosperity – ever. The capitalist system may favor the rich but it is also the best one that affords everyone in this country the most opportunity to better themselves. Whether they take advantage of the opportunities is up to them. There are plenty of wealthy people in this country that came from very humble beginnings.

There are several things on that list that don’t have to do with money...healthcare costs? I pay $31 a month for my health insurance so obviously that isn’t a money issue for me. Increased refining capacity and domestic oil drilling would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Gas prices are a non-issue for me as I just paid cash for a brand new Toyota Corolla that gets great mileage (not to mention I live 8 miles from my job, not 35 miles like so many other people). Iran, the NSA program and the Partiot Act don’t have much to do with my bank account either.

Wealth is not a zero-sum game…meaning that because somebody else having a lot of money does not mean I have less. Wealth is created. Somebody else being rich has nothing to do with me and truthfully, I’m happy for them that they have succeeded in the work game.

I’m sure people say those things to you about my politics. I’m guessing those people know exactly who is planting kiddie porn on peoples computers because I sure don’t know...color me uninformed. I ain't here to please anybody. I’m sure they are just liberals who can’t figure out why they can’t win elections and who take out their GWB frustrations out on me. I may not be as educated or sophisticated as the liberals but I’m certainly not as miserable as they are. Too bad none of them will ever have the guts to call me stupid to my face. Does a facial rearrangement sound intolerant? Well, since conservatism is based on intolerance, I may as well act the part. Tell them to man up and come on this blog and fire away with me. You've also told me that certain readers like what I have to say.

In case you haven’t read my posts on here, I still wave the republican flag, I just don’t wave it in front of every single person I meet within minutes of meeting them. We debate the issues on here, the main thing I criticize about you is your debate style. I would think that if there was so much validity to your debate content (as you stated), there would be no need to adopt your debating style.

What you are saying is not getting through to me. Don’t flatter yourself. I have complaints regarding GWB as well but until the democratic platform (not just what their website says...their voting records) looks like my above paragraph and as long as they keep up their class warfare rhetoric I won’t be voting for them.

Anonymous said...

hautgy iqms wmunvuta free amateur porn hjvxo dsw cjfkrfhzp.

Anonymous said...

smquybn myk cxrao blonde teen

hudxj!

zftvl eywapv dcf free cum shots