1 Thanks. It was a long day today so I hadn't had a chance to read/respond yet. I did a little redirect, but not a bitch slapping to be sure.

2 Well said, Rusty. You are entirely correct; LBJ does not get the credit he deserves for pushing through Civil Rights legislation. I did not mean to imply that court action was the only source of movement against desegregation; I'll clarify in another post. My point was that court action put desegregation on the political agenda. Lacking Brown v. Board or another desegregation ruling, the civil rights movement would have had a much harder time getting off the ground. Thanks for calling my attention to the need to clarify. Love the blog.

3 http://www.nakedvillainy.com/2004/11/thank-you-sir-may-i-have-another.html

1 Rusty?

2 Peter?

3 Greyrooster?

4 McCloud?

5 Bueller?

6 Donkey?

7 good post, i forwarded it to my friends

1 I thought I saw those debunked at least 10 years ago. I'll do some research.

2 You've got to be kidding. Who could have a comment on this.

3 John, thanks. You can see why I'm skeptical. Actually, the first quote comes from the foundation, the second two are from Aaron's site. So, it's possible one or more may be right--but the animal sex one???

4 Actually, I've heard some things from GI's in the region, although not about Khomeni. From what I've heard, pedophelia and be@stiality are not all that taboo - there are even some billboards in Iraq. This is just what I've been told and if I'm wrong, I apologize. Please, somebody tell me I've been lied to.

5 I recall an article in Playboy in 1980 where they printed a long list of these items supposedly from Khomeini. I never heard that they were debunked, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit if this were urban legend.

6 Back... After going through 33 pages of Google, I come to the following conclusions: 1. All citations eventually work their way back to www.homa.org, a website run by an Iranian female exile. References to "Vol. 4" are the give-away. There is such a book, but it runs to three volumes only. The reference may/may be factually correct if instead of "Vol. 4", "4th Edition" is meant, but I can't find a 4th edition or reference to a 4th edition online. 2. No mainstream media, in any country, has covered this as a news story. Reputable sites dealing with comparative religion or Shi'ism have no references to the original citations 3. There are numerous blogs that discuss it, but none of them can be seen as either authoritative or lacking a tradition of bashing Islam/Muslims (e.g., Christian fundamentalists, Sunni, Hindus, atheists, anti-pedophile sites, as well as sites like Jihadwatch and Command Post that take a generally dim view of Islam). I do not say that these sites are motivated out of ill will, but I don't see anything that resembles serious research into it. It seems more like a "too good to check" type of story. My conclusion, so far, is that the document in question is either non-existent, or grossly exaggerated. But I'll keep looking....

7 Rusty- I suggest you check with Robert Spencer over at jihadwatch. I have seen this sort of stuff tossed around over there. Some of it has a ring of truth. Supposedly the prophet himself had a nine year old bride, and there is some written history to document this marriage and its consummation. The animals part sound about much. Are you sure this is not some new anti-republican/red state propaganda that has been confused with Arabs? Of course then this may all just add credence why the camel is called the ship of the desert - because its Arab seamen.

8 As far as I recall I have never cited the statements at Dr. Homa Darabi's website as authentic statements by Khomeini. I am not sure that they aren't, but I don't know for sure that they are. People posting to Jihad Watch may have made reference to them; I don't know. It is a matter of fact that Khomeini married a 10-year-old when he was 28, in imitation of Muhammad (who married a 9-year-old when he was 51, according to Islamic sources that are generally considered reliable by Muslims). Khomeini also advised fathers to marry off their daughters before they reached puberty. I just checked Dr. Homa's site and find this reference: "Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom." I don't know if it has been changed since the above assertion that it said "volume 4" was posted. I'll see if I can find out more about these quotes. Cordially, Robert Spencer

9 Holy Shit! That was fast...it reminded me of another joke...what is the difference between Mick Jagger and a Scotsman? Jagger says, hey you, get off of my cloud, and a Scotsman says, hey, McCloud, get offa my ewe! Anyway, jihadwatch is a good source for info on Islam...there are many links to other sites.

10 Rusty....this is sensationalist bilge, even for you. But you didn't get the response you wanted, did you, a plethora of postings cursing Islamism. What's the point of such an inflammatory piece? Given that your country is the biggest producer of pornography, it's a bit like calling the kettle black. This tabloid journalism does nothing to elevate the real issues. Shame

11 It may be extreme, what about this? http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=13230

12 The Homa site was my source, however, I have a post on 31 March entitled Mullahs for Mule Nookie which has links to actual sources from the Arab press about Arab sex with donkeys and camels, one even from arabnews.com!

13 ok, I'll check it out.

14 Now I know the purpose of the Bekka.

15 The man is a paedophile himself: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/mollah.JPG

16 Well i am aware of the hatred you ppl keep against Islam and its Followers and to satisfy your souls you never intend to seek the facts because you accept everyting you hear and read and due to envy you keep and your subconscious mind assume them to be true i have seen hundreds of anti ISlamic sites where ppl like you have posted those non-existent traditions .. i wonder if Ayatullah Khomeni even wrote such things as the book you mentioned Tahir-ul-Wasila consist on 2 volumes rather Four. And funny to say even your renowned respected writers mentioned those slanders in their works. I believe that Human has given the wisdom and their nature force them to use their intelligence so they may find the truth so they can figure out the purpose of their existence. But human got indugled in the wars in the name of creed inn the name of freedom in the name of their indviduality and even if there isnt any God there must be a single seed from where we all rised up there must be one man who would be the father of all the nations, so why we go for differences? why we tell lies about each other? why we make allegations ? make judgments without knowing the truth? why we never try? why we dont consume our powers the strength we have been given by the nature for the betterment of mankind?doesnt our conscience tell us to good doesnt it says that we should not hurt a man by our hand or by the tongue?

17 i agree with you 100% man. Islamic cause isnt to take over the world or molest kids or have sex with animals;its to live at peace with everyone. Please please please think about what you hear or read on the internet or otherwise and you will know the truth too...

18 Yes, Islam is a religion of peace when they are not: - flying aircraft into buildings - bombing Aussies in Bali - bombing trains in Madrid - killing shoolchildren in Beslan - sending their children on suicide bombing missions to kill Jews - Beheading people in Iraq - Rioting and killing Christians in Nigeria - Burning Christian Churches in Kosovo - Murdering Film directors in Holland - Threatening Dutch politicians with murder - Gang raping women in the suburbs of France - constantly shouting 'death to America, death to Israel' - suicide bombing compounds in Saudi Arabia - bombing synagogues in Turkey NOPE. NOTHING TO SEE HERE FOLKS, SOUNDS LIKE A REAL PLEASANT, PEACE LOVING RELIGION TO ME. etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum

19 no response to Qing Lian, from tima........geez i wonder why. maybe he took in what Qing Lian had to say and actually gave it some ratioanl thought and came across the relevation.........Islam IS NOT a religion of peace........and never will be unless Muslims don't take the Quran literally. READ IT.....i'm sure you already have so you know what im talking about.

20 sorry....he should be they

21 It is indeed well know that Khomeini had robbed Home Darabi's breasts and raped her in her childhood. Homa's mother was a temporary wife of Khomeini and would leave her for daycare with him. It was in those days that apparently Khoum got lucky to have some ream fun. Homa's mother though, would leave her with Khomeini because she was working a prostitute on the street so she had no one to leave her daughter with. See how nice the story goes on? I can just continue and make it a full book. So, if these statement are true, then perhaps what Home Darabi writes is true too!!!

22 It is indeed well know that Khomeini had robbed Home Darabi's breasts and raped her in her childhood. Homa's mother was a temporary wife of Khomeini and would leave her for daycare with him. It was in those days that apparently Khomeini got lucky to have some real fun with the little Homa who was just getting perky breasts. Khomeini slept with Homa three times a day and he had no more interest in his own wife because Homa was so fresh. Homa's mother would leave her with Khomeini because she was working a prostitute on the street so she had no one to leave her daughter with. See how nice the story goes on? I can just continue and make it a full book. So, if these statements are true, then perhaps what Home Darabi writes is true too!!!

23 Violent jihad or holy war against unbelievers. Murder, stealing, torture, slavery and rape against unbelievers is acceptable if couched in terms of jihad. Christians and Jews allowed to live in Muslim dominated lands provided they pay a special tax and accept their status as second class citizens. The status of polythiests is tenuous at best, they will eventually be eliminated either by persecution or death. My dear brother, please read Chronicles of Islamic Wisdom. Here are a few excerpts from the book of one of Islam s' supreme spiritual leader: Ayatollah Khomeini: "A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However he should not penetrate, sodomising the child is OK. If the man penetrates and damages the child then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girls sister" - From Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990. "A man can have sex with animals such as sheep?s, cows, camels and so on. However he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, however selling the meat to the next door village should be fine". From Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990 "If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrements become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed and as quickly as possible and burned." The little green book, Sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini, Political, Phylosophica, Social and Religious with a special introduction by Clive Irving, ISBN number 0-553-14032-9, page 47"It is better for a girl to marry in such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband's house rather than her father's home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven" - From Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990 REMEMBER IRAN CONTRA? Eleven things are impure: urine, excrement, sperm...non-Moslem men and women...and the sweat of an excrement-eating camel.Ayatollah Khomeini I'm so scared i have a wart on my penis. Is it a penis sucking muslim ? 93% muslim males have anal and/or genital warts. ALLAH!! Homosexuality is widely practised in Islamic countries. To please the homosexuals,Muhammad (the evil perverted prophet) promised his followers pre-pubescent boys in Paradise. So after committing plunder, loot, rape and murder in this life, the male followers of Islam get "rewarded" by untouched virginal youths who are fresh like pearls. (72 Virgins, 28 young boys and the virility of 100 men...) dead Warrios of Allah (suicide bombers and the like) believe that today. The most important information to know about Muslims,is that they will smile to your face and cut your throat from the back. Muslims are EVIL, period!!! Like Muhammad, Ayatollah Khomeini and most other Islamic clerks, Iranian Mullahs and American Catholic Priests, are perverted mentally and sexualy.(paedophiles)

24 This comments related to Khomeini are true. This book is real. Homa Darabi is not kidding around. This book was readily available at the beginning of the revolution, but the clerics have realized that they cannot show these to the public. Since then the book has been censored and the quotes regarding pedophilia, rape, have been taken out. Take it from an Iranian, IT IS ALL TRUE

25 hello please send me pakistan urdu languages urdu sexy stories i'm waiting for your reply please send me quickly as so fast as you do so please

26 I'm really shaken and disgusted about the Islamic faith.When you see whats in the real sense.All muslims should be ashamed of this!

27 I would be wary of information about Iran or Khomeini. Many lies have been told about Iran in the west. One of these is the famous story about Iranian children being sent over minefields with plastic keys. That story is false. (How I know this: I served in Iran's armed forces during the war, and no veteran I've spoke to - or anybody else I knew in Iran, for that matter - had EVER heard of such a thing.) When you are presented information about someone, where an ideological war is concerned, it is useful to ask: 1) How do you know this? 2) What familiarity do you have with the subject? 3) Why should I believe you? 4) What does the other side have to say?

28 i want sex all the time

29 yeah well the claims r just ridiculous. this man is foremost scholar within islam, these quotes are nothing but fabrications. besides, it's the church that's grappling with sex abuse and child molestation

30 Muslims should not try to hide behind the'Islam is a religion of peace' argument.They should come out and say boldly that it is morons like the ones posting on this page that drive them to acts of terror like suicide bombings and I don't blame them for it. Ignorant, prejudiced, racist pigs like most of the people who have posted here aided by dodgy propaganda material from exiles who have their axe to grind prove the case of the terrorist.

31 I hate to break it to you, but yes, the book does exist. And for those of you that keep screaming about the non-existent FOURTH volume, of course there is no FOURTH volume of Khomeini's text. Good Dr. Homa Darabi never claimed there was. There is, however, a fourth EDITION. That simply means a fourth PRINTING of a book with corrections and annotations, not a fourth volume of a series of texts. Many people who are not in publishing do not know the difference between a volume and an edition. It's a simple mistake to make. Khomeini routinely advised Muslim followers to marry young children, even those who had not reached puberty, and himself married a small child of only ten years of age.

32 While the sex stories about the middle easterners is indeed interesting it is much more interesting to learn about their increasingly heavy involvement in the American collections industry. They are making untold billions of dollars collecting debts for their banks and credit card companies. The result is untold numbers of horror stories related by the abused.

33 Let's not forget other great moments in peacful Islamic History..... Armenian Genocide: You Jewish folk thought you were special didn't you? Naa, Hitler learned a thing or two from this, Turkish opression of Greeks Kurd Slaughter

34 Let's not forget other great moments in peaceful Islamic History..... Armenian Genocide: You Jewish folk thought you were special didn't you? Naa, Hitler learned a thing or two from this, Turkish opression of Greeks Kurd Slaughter

35 send me urdu sexy story on my e mail add

36 hi

37 Paedophilia??? Very rare in Iran, but somewhat existence. No religious cleric provides right to molest children, at least not publically. Your theory is truly unfounded. Urban Legend

38 ya there's is no 4th volume or 4th edition. The website is run by an iranian female exile. Exiles are the ones who fled the country when Khomeni took over because they were supporters of a dictatorship that was toppled by Khomeni. Many lies have been made by them against the Khomeni and his allies after leaving the country. Learn the truth, what kind of a mentally challenged person would say this?

1 As I said sometime back . . . We have to leave the Western Europeans to their own. It's their Immigration policies at work, and who are we (the Americans) to comment? Should we comment or attempt to help, we would appear to be just like them . . Monday Morning Quarterbacks . . Let 'em deal with the Muslims, lessee if they can do any better than we have! May be fun to watch, once it spreads to France . . . .

2 For some reason I don't believe the Dutch actually had the nerve to put a bomb in one of the schools of these muslim invaders. SOmething tells me they did it themselves to involk sympathy from the leftist sheep they wish to eventually slaughter. BAH BAH BAH dutch. Its similar to what happened in the US with Fat Al Sharptons Neice who claimed she was r*p*d by skinheads. Turns out she faked it so to I think this is a fake by muslims against muslims to blame their host population for it so that they can get special perks in the form of laws that make it an offense to sneeze near one of these toweled living gods. Just my view on this, I feel confident that in time we'll see the whose who and whats what of this.

3 LARGE: What do you mean when it spreads to France. Have you been there recently? The French must have traded places with the Algerians and Moroccans. Twenty more years and France will be a North African puppet state. Judging by their recent actions maybe they already are. After the Algerian thing these guys are scared stiff on anything with a rag on its head.

4 Here's the problem: ok, so we let it spread, then in 20 years or 50 Europe is a majority Muslim continent. Then what? We have Muslim domination of countries with a whole lot of nukes and stuff. Serious problem.

5 "ok, so we let it spread, then in 20 years or 50 Europe is a majority Muslim continent. Then what? We have Muslim domination of countries with a whole lot of nukes and stuff. Serious problem." Maybe...of course, by then, the U.S. will be majority Mexican. Maybe then, the Hispanic majority will be a little more tolerant to other cultures? Who knows. Seriously, it's their countries...if they want Muslims, that's their choice. It's not like every single Muslim out there is a bad person because of recent events, just like every single Christian isn't a bad person because of the Sabra and Shatilla massacres in 1982.

6 VENOM: The US will never be majority Mexican. Hispanic people that immigrate to the US become Americans within a generation or two. I'm amazed at how fast they intermingle with the rest of the population. Anyway, immigration will soon slow to a trickle. I expect we will close the doors to Muslim types which means we will have to close the door on others (it's a liberal play fair thing). Sabra and Shatila massacres? Sharon now a Christian? Been a long time but I thought Sharon's militias were blamed for that one. Maybe he armed some Christian types. I sure you can figure a way to show that palestinians have never done anything to drive people to slaughter them back. Maybe someone's children just got blown up? Live by the sword etc:. Where are all the Christians that lived in Lebanon before Hezzbolah sent it's Syrian and Iranian killers in. Answer dead. Mexican's 100% Catholic population more tolerant to other cultures. Man did you flunk history. Example: England/Ireland. Very tolerant. Catholic/Protestant can get along at times. It's a Christian thing. But Christians, Buddist, Hindus or any other religion will never get along with Muslims. It's an Islamic thing. For clarity: I think Israel in it's present location was a mistake. The Brits should have known the impossiblity of getting along with Islamic people. No one else in the world does. So to me they made a mistake. The end. Nothing can be done now. I don't have the answer. Do you? The palestinians should have a country. I do think it would be easier for them to be absorbed into other arab muslim countries. They will always consider themselves 3 class citizens in Israel. I also think the west is making a mistake by educating Islamic types in our universities. Sound nuts huh. Time will tell. If Iran makes a N bomb we will see. The west educated them. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb. They weren't ready. We worry about Pakistan/India and their constant threats to each other. In my view, if Pakistan/India gets into it, other muslim nations will get involved which will force the west to get involved. Anyway my major difference with you is that I believe in America. It's a winner. It's not perfect but it's far ahead of anything in second place. Better minds than I will come up with the solution.

7 RUSTY: I agree. This immigration thing is changing the face of the world. Never understood why we continue to need immigration. Ever been on a freeway in Los Angeles? Now, who in his right mind would say we need more people. Several states are running out of water because of over population. It's nutso. A bigger gripe is after many immigrate they complain and start trouble with the native populations. Don't make sense, look at Europe. Riots, hatred and so on. People immigrate to Europe and North America because their countries suck. Then they don't seen to appreciate their new country. I honestly think repatriation is the answer and not just stopping more immigration. I HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT GERMANY, FRANCE, SPAIN AND MORE ARE NOT WITH US ON THE TERRORIST HUNT BECAUSE OF THEIR LARGE ISLAMIC POPULATIONS. They are afraid of internal strife. And of course. THE VOTE:

8 The USA is the best county in the world! If you think the US is overcrowded, try living in a country with 15 million inhabitants that's half the size of South Carolina. That's right, you guessed it: I'm talking about Holland. A clearer case for stopping all new Muslim immigration into The Netherlands until the current mess has been cleared up could not be made.

9 DUTCH EXPAT: Then why immigration? doesn't make sense.

10 As Bob Dylan said. How does it feel? It's like a rolling stone.

11 greyrooster: It's been pretty well documented that those that carried out the Shatilla and Sabra massacres were Christian militias operating under the approving eye of Israel. Hey, it wouldn't be the first time a foreign country had used foreign fighters to fight their battles. And, obviously, it wasn't the last. My point is that you can't draw conclusions on a religion of billions because of the actions of a minute fraction of that religion. Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews...all have done their share of killings and massacres. But we're not a planet of murderers. As a Christian, I don't consider myself a murderer because another Christian twisted the word of God and made his own interpretations on words written centuries ago. "The US will never be majority Mexican. Hispanic people that immigrate to the US become Americans within a generation or two." Not necessarily. And it depends on what you consider an "American." I don't know if you've opened your window lately, but the U.S. now is a lot different than 30 years ago. Many cultures based on many immigrants. Sure, they become American citizens, they may learn English...but many of them keep their cultural ties. You think it won't influence your "way of life?" And I'd bet that when these immigrants become American citizens, they're going to be looking to better the lives - which is the main reason people come to America, right? Which means, they're going to be looking for health care, job security, benefits...issues the Republican party has no interest in. Or, more accurately, less interest than the Democratic party. Piss and moan all you want, but that's how things are. "But Christians, Buddist, Hindus or any other religion will never get along with Muslims. It's an Islamic thing." Really? Hmm...what about all those close alliances the western world (read: the U.S.) has with Turkey (NATO ally, btw), Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Quatar, Oman, etc.? What about all those new (military) contracts GWB has signed with some of those Islamic countries that border Afghanistan? What about the arming and training of the mujahadeen during the Soviet control of Afghanistan - the same radicals, btw, that have caused all of the most recent Islamic fundementalist problems these days? C'mon, cultures and religions can get along and they can fight against each other, it just depends on the circumstances. Saying that Christians and Muslims can never get along is being pretty ignorant. "For clarity: I think Israel in it's present location was a mistake. The Brits should have known the impossiblity of getting along with Islamic people. No one else in the world does. So to me they made a mistake. The end. Nothing can be done now. I don't have the answer. Do you?" I completely agree with you that the state of Israel in its present location was a mistake. In fact, it might have been one of the worst mistakes of the 20th century. As for your comment that "no one in the world" gets along with the Islamic people, please re-read my above proof. The U.S. has fantastic ties with Islamic countries and does business with many of them on a regular basis. Just because YOU don't get along with Muslims doesn't mean the U.S doesn't. "I also think the west is making a mistake by educating Islamic types in our universities. Sound nuts huh. Time will tell. If Iran makes a N bomb we will see." I don't know what to make of that comment. What, is physics something the U.S. invented? Sharing isn't allowed? And what's an "Islamic type?" Do you mean, a Muslim? "The west educated them. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb. They weren't ready." Please explain what makes a country "ready." "Anyway my major difference with you is that I believe in America. It's a winner. It's not perfect but it's far ahead of anything in second place. Better minds than I will come up with the solution." Despite what you might think, I believe in America, too. I believe in the country that our ancestors made great. I believe in the country that was once the shining beacon in the world and that stood up for the average American, not the average American multinational. I believe in the country that would only put its soldiers in harm's way when it had a clear-cut reason, not a bunch of half-truths. And that when America does decide to go to war, there's an exit strategy, not a quagmire. I believe in the country that didn't let paranoia govern its foreign policy and run its citizens' lives. I still believe in America, but I have a sinking feeling that America doesn't belive in either me or you.

12 VENOM: As a hater of American policies you immediately skewed my comments to suit your agenda. I did not refer to American citizenship. I did not use a piece of paper as a guidepost. Some are Americans overnight, some never are. I referred to how quickly mexican people assimilate into the mainstream culture. Their work ethics, religion, food, music, etc: match much of the existing areas they mainly move to. Mexicans taking jobs? Which one took your mop and bucket? You want to pick the lettuce and tomatoes? Dig ditches? I don't. They fill a nitch that no one else wishes to fill. Of course they want social services. They earn them in the fields so we can eat cheaper and better. Comparing Mexican imigrants to Muslim imigrants is ignorant. Mexicans do not preach hated for America in their mosques. There are no Mexican clerics in Chicago preaching the killing of non Mexicans. No blind Mexican clerics planning to bomb the world trade center. And you use the word ignorant!! Of course you failed to answer where all the pre-war Christians in Lebanon are today. Of course you failed to answer why Sharon's militas would attack people in a refugee camp. Then use that same stupid excuse losers always use. Everyone else is ignorant. Us losers are the only ones that understand the issue. Only losers know anything. The rest of the population is dumb because they don't agree with us. They cheated. They follow like sheep. The other side is composed of mindless idiots. On & on. Nothing. Religion of Billions? Bullshit! how about 1 billion. There is also 1 billion Hindus, 1 billion Catholics. 1 Billion Protestants and 1 billion Chinese (whatever they are these days). The others in South East Asia are another billion. IN PLAIN ENGLISH MUSLIMS ARE A BIG MINORITY. Why do you play it like they are a majority. Furthermore, I would venture to say more than half the muslims in the world wish to hell they were not muslims. The ISLAMIC religion has been holding them back for centuries. Example: Hewlitt Packard corp. receives more international patents in a month than the entire middle east has in the last 20 years. I did not say physics was invented by Americans, so that is a purposeful mistruth coming from you. I purposely used the word the WEST, of which America is a part of. If you don't know what countries constitute the WEST, meaning the Western World. Then who is ignorant. The technology of atomic energy came from the west. What makes a country ready is this. You're ready when you do not allow religious fanatics to control your countries domestic and foreign policies. Anyone who thinks present day Iran is adult enough to have atomic weapons is IGNORANT. We armed the Mujahaheen to assist them in resisting a foreign government using modern weaponry. A secondary reason was to get back at the Soviet Union for arming people against us in the past. Before you start whinning, its merely a true fact. Nothing I would agree with. Was a republican in office then??? It's ignorant to think the ISLAMIC NUTSO's were doing anything but using us for a means to an end. Using the mujahadeen as an example of Muslims and Christians getting along is IGNORANT. Many of them turned that same weaponry against us the next day. So that's a piss poor example. Close alliances with the countries and organization you mentioned is a myth. The majority of problems in the world today are caused directly by the religion of ISLAM. Read the fucking news. Africa (the sudan, Nigeria). Middle east (Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Afganistan) Bosnia, the Philipines, Indonesia, Russia, India, Holland, Spain, England, United States, Thailand. All these countries and more are experiencing riots, beheadings, insurgency, bombings, and terrorism in the name of ISLAM. The list goes on and on. How can anyone be ignorant enough to blame this on Bush. Talk about ignorant! A religion is the problem. A horrible religion that condones these atrocities. A religion whose holy men yell death to America when discussing the manufacture of nuclear material (Iran this week). A religion whose fundalmentists believe in beating women for not wearing a veil. The horrors India experienced 50 years ago where caused by Muslims. The separation of India into 3 countries was caused by Ghandi's realiziing the Muslims could not get along with the other religions of India. He was the expert on the issue. He tried for years. Then realized separation was the only way. I agree with Gandi. The piss and moan issue you brought up. Are you kidding. It's you liberal democrats that are doing the piss and moan thing. Piss and moan about the election. Piss and moan about the poor Iraqis. Piss and moan about our elected president Piss and moan about our leaders Piss and moan about the war. Piis and moan about this blog. Never a solution. Never an workable idea. Never a constructive thing to say. Just piss and moan. Just a bunch of sore losers. This country is great and kind and giving. America has done more for the world than the rest put together. A nation or person that takes action will make mistakes. However if anything is to get done that nation/person has to stick his neck out for the do nothings to take a swing at. Those that do nothing are safe from criticism. Those that piss and moan about the doers are nothing. No heart, no character, no soul. Never took the lead in anything in their lives. Never won anything in their lives. Never fought for anything in their lives. Call that living? They know who they are. IGNORANT my ass. Look in the mirror. It's easy to read and write and quote. But Common sense will prevail. Attempting to get along with these ISLAMIC assholes shows a lack of common sense. Never has happened, isn't happening now and won't happen in the future. The practice of fundalmentalist ISLAM must be beaten and outlawed. The mugger anology by Rusty was a good example. How can you get along with people that use murder, bombing, human suicide and beheadings as a means to get their way. And they do it in the name of religion. The religion of ISLAM. I KILL YOU IN THE NAME OF ALLAH WHO IS ALL GOOD AND MERCIFUL. BULLSHIT!

13 "Mexicans taking jobs? Which one took your mop and bucket? You want to pick the lettuce and tomatoes? Dig ditches? I don't. They fill a nitch that no one else wishes to fill." What the fuck are you talking about? Do you not even think about the thousands of factory jobs that have gone south of the border because of cheaper labour found in Mexico than in the US? Please tell me you're not this stupid. "Of course you failed to answer where all the pre-war Christians in Lebanon are today." There are actually a lot of Christians living in Lebanon. I happen to have (Christian) friends whose relatives still live there. And their doing pretty decently. Again, please tell me you're not this stupid. "Of course you failed to answer why Sharon's militas would attack people in a refugee camp." Since you're dying for an answer: Simply, the Phalangist militia were retaliating for the assassination of Lebanese President-elect Bashir Gemayal. Now, WHY Israel would allow this to happen is a whole different question, with pretexts dating to before either you or I was born. I'd love to sit here and educate you why Jews and Muslims don't seem to want to dance and the sock hop, but I imagine it would be a waste of my time since you've made up your mind so long ago. "Then use that same stupid excuse losers always use. Everyone else is ignorant. Us losers are the only ones that understand the issue. Only losers know anything. The rest of the population is dumb because they don't agree with us. They cheated. They follow like sheep. The other side is composed of mindless idiots. On & on. Nothing." Actually, you're the one that's being pretty ignorant. I was speaking about you, not anyone else. Please get your facts straight: YOU are ignorant, and YOU don't get it. "Religion of Billions? Bullshit! how about 1 billion." How about close to 2 billion as of the end of 2000. I know this because I actually look things up. You don't know this because, as I previously mentioned, you're ignorant. "Furthermore, I would venture to say more than half the muslims in the world wish to hell they were not muslims. The ISLAMIC religion has been holding them back for centuries." You could venture to say this, but you'd only be speculating and you'd probably be wrong. "Example: Hewlitt Packard corp. receives more international patents in a month than the entire middle east has in the last 20 years." Do you wish you were Buddhist? I mean, Japan is a juggernaut of technological innovation. If a Muslim decides to turn Christian, is he suddenly showered with wealth? Because that's pretty much what you're saying. And equating "contracts" to a person's religion is pretty fucked up. Is this how you really think the world works? Seriously, what point is it that you're trying to make about Hewlett Packard? That because they get a lot of international patents, they're better than the Middle East? Yeah, probably. But so what? "I did not say physics was invented by Americans, so that is a purposeful mistruth coming from you. I purposely used the word the WEST, of which America is a part of. If you don't know what countries constitute the WEST, meaning the Western World. Then who is ignorant. The technology of atomic energy came from the west." No, but you commented that the west (which in your world, I think only seems to involve the U.S.) shouldn't educate "those Muslim types" and that the US shouldn't be sharing its knowledge. I mentioned physics as an example. You do realize that it was Muslim mathematicians who basically helped civilization along hundreds of years ago, right? Sure, atomic energy came from the west. A lot of it came from displaced German Jews. GERMAN, as in "FROM GERMANY," one of the countries you love to bash on a regular basis. But hey, if you can use Germany in an argument (in a backpedalling kind of way), then suddenly they're great, right? Trust me, I know what constitutes the western world. You, on the other hand, have your head so far buried up your ass you'd need a flashlight and two hookers to find it. "Before you start whinning, its merely a true fact. Nothing I would agree with. Was a republican in office then???" Yeah, actually. You might have heard of him. His name was Ronald Reagan, and he served two terms. You might also rememeber him as being a central figure in selling arms to Iran, another hardline Islamic country. Another example of a Christian country and a Muslim country doing business. But hey, we weren't supposed to find out about that, so maybe we shouldn't be talking about it. "It's ignorant to think the ISLAMIC NUTSO's were doing anything but using us for a means to an end." Yup. And it's also ignorant for thinking that it wasn't going the other way around, too. As an aside, I love how on the one hand you call them "mujahadeen" to justify the need for arming them, and then conveniently switch back to calling them "Islamic Nutso's." I guess changing the goalposts is something you do on a regular basis? "Close alliances with the countries and organization you mentioned is a myth." Nope. Wrong again. NATO is a pretty solid alliance, last time I checked. And the US continues to sign deals with those countries, solidifying already strong relationships. See? Christians and Muslims DO get along on a daily basis! "All these countries and more are experiencing riots, beheadings, insurgency, bombings, and terrorism in the name of ISLAM." It's pretty unfortunate and terrible, but when a fraction of a population acts in a certain way, it doesn't represent the charateristics of the total population. In statistical theory, these are called outliers, and they're routinely rejected from the analysis. Because a few thousand fanatics in a total Muslim population of 2+ billion decide to act like criminals doesn't mean that the other Muslims out there have criminal tendencies either. In fact, you earlier stated that "I would venture to say more than half the muslims in the world wish to hell they were not muslims." By this, you're implying that these Muslims wish they weren't part of this religion because they don't like what's happening in the name of Islam by these fanatics. And if that's the case, how can they ALL be bad? How can "a majority" of them be bad? You see? You contradict yourself left, right, and center. "A religion is the problem. A horrible religion that condones these atrocities. A religion whose holy men yell death to America when discussing the manufacture of nuclear material (Iran this week). A religion whose fundalmentists believe in beating women for not wearing a veil." Yeah, and of course, all other religions are completely peaceful...oh, wait, there's that thing called "human history" and every religion has committed atrocities. Each holy book of each religion is open to the interpretations of those who read them. A person who reads "an eye for an eye" in the Bible may one day become president and wage war on everyone. Does that condemn all Christians? Because of a FANATIC's actions and interpretations? You yourself even use the adjective "fundamentalist" to describe them - ie, a person who takes a hard-line view on everything. This isn't a religion of 2+ billion fundamentalists. If it was, you and I would have been gone long ago, along with all of our ancestors. "I agree with Gandi." Absolute, fucking bullshit. You don't know SHIT about Gandhi. He was THE proponent of non-violent resistence, something you haven't demonstrated once in any of these threads. And, on this topic, it was an intolerance between both Hindus and Muslims that created the separation of India. Gandhi...I can't fucking believe YOU of all people try to bring him into this to support YOUR arguments. "It's you liberal democrats that are doing the piss and moan thing." I'm actually a conservative, but I also call 'em like I see 'em. You might not like my criticisms about a party you hold dear to your heart, but who the fuck is going to call them on it when they fuck up? I'll vote for anyone that has the best interests of my country as his focus, and not those of the top 2% of the country. Just because I don't like Bush or his policies doesn't make me a "liberal democrat." It's convenient for you to label me as such, because your arguments are weak all over and you can't back up shit. How the FUCK can anyone vote for a guy who allowed 9/11 to happen on his watch, who could allow job growth to remain stagnant for almost 4 straight years, who caters to the FUNDAMENTALIST Christian minority, whose administrations LIED before its people and those of other countries as to WMDs in Iraq and the need to invade??? Gimme a fucking break. You would vote for a stick of celery if it had a Republican badge on. I don't like Kerry either, but I can tell you Bush was a complete disappointment. "However if anything is to get done that nation/person has to stick his neck out for the do nothings to take a swing at. Those that do nothing are safe from criticism." I'd agree with this, but this isn't what the Bush administration does. The Bush administration sticks up for its own (ie the rich and corporations), and no one else. "Attempting to get along with these ISLAMIC assholes shows a lack of common sense. Never has happened, isn't happening now and won't happen in the future." Islamic assholes, no. Muslims in general, yes. No one will want to talk/negotiate/deal with terrorists, and no one should. But the US has great relations with Muslim countries, and American Muslims get along great with Americans of other backgrounds. Just because YOU don't like Muslims doesn't mean that the whole world (or the majority of Americans) share your view. The world is changing, and you're getting left behind. "How can you get along with people that use murder, bombing, human suicide and beheadings as a means to get their way. And they do it in the name of religion. The religion of ISLAM." I've said from the very beginning that these are criminals that twist the word of God to suit their own agendas. No one is suggesting you get along with criminals. But, an extreme fraction of a large population doesn't embody the characteristics of the whole.

14 Getting left behind? Wanna bet. You run your mouth so much to don't listen to the majority. blab, blab, blab, blab. Nothing else but blab.

15 "the religion is the problem" no people like you are the problem. Do you know anything about Islam? Can you show where in the Qu'ran is condons all these acts of violence you talk of? if so many people hated being Muslim why wouldn't they convert? it can't be that bad if its the fastest growing religions in the world. Muslims are the only ones that murder? are you kidding me!?!?!? how do people get along with christians? jews? hindus? The hatred between Arabs and Israelis is POLITICAL.It is often confused as being religious. Not all Arabs hate Isrealis nor vice versa. You will find extremists on both sides! Some Muslims are distorted in their thinking, BUTSO ARE SOME CHRISTIANS, JEWS, HINDUS.. What about the terrorists who rape, and molest? What about the terrorists who are gang members, or in the KKK? Are they not terrorists? Why isn't their religious offiliation brought into the light? Islam teaches peace! "attempting to get along with these islamic asssholes shows a lack of common sense " Pfffft.... The Quran and other Muslim texts preach tolerance of non-Muslims and especially emphasize the value of human life, the ban on killing non-combatants, and respect for people of other religions. The fact that many acts of terror in recent years have been perpetrated by Muslims should not lead us to lay the blame on the religion of these individuals, since Christian, Jewish, and other histories - even in present times - are similarly filled with instances of violence waged in the name of their faiths. Instead, we should investigate the underlying motives of these individuals, most of whom come from nations in which the United States government has long been supporting puppet governments and providing funding for military actions against the people of these countries. We could point to the United States' support of the Saudi regime, in which the royal family is allowed by the US to rule in an undemocratic fashion in exchange for providing cheap oil resources; or the US' annual financial aid of about $9 billion to the government of Israel which uses these funds in its continued illegal occupation of Palestinian lands; or the US' financial backing of Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. Such circumstances provoke the oppressed people of these nations to feel great animosity towards the United States. And just as others have unjustifiably pointed to religion as the inspiration for their actions, these individuals similarly claim Islam as their motivation, despite the numerous instances in the Qu'ran which discourage them from doing so... but your ignorant way of thinking makes you think otherwise psshtt fool.....Thus, in order to understand the root of the violence, it is important to recognize the significance of the role of US foreign policy in world politics as well- did you change your attitude towards Muslims yet? probably not - **sigh** how little you know.... you are one sad person greyrooster "I HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT GERMANY, FRANCE, SPAIN AND MORE ARE NOT WITH US ON THE TERRORIST HUNT BECAUSE OF THEIR LARGE ISLAMIC POPULATIONS"... "IN PLAIN ENGLISH MUSLIM ARE A BIG MINORITY" why do you play it like they are a majority" Do you think before you open your trap??? - as Venom said you are full of contradictions!

16 Hi, Salaamwalaikum (Peace Be On To You).... Greyrooster, u seem like u have the whole world figured out, I dont have time to get into the whole politics with you, cuz realisticly I'm not going to change your views, and your not going to change mine. But I would like you for starters to look up the Definition of Islam. Because you obviously dont know a damn thing about the religion, so you need to learn your abc's before you can jump into this "Muahideen" talk. By the way if an army was to occupy ur land and accidently shoot ur 6 year old neighbour, and happen to rape ur little sister in the process, what would you do?

17 sorry "MUJAHIDEEN" talk**

1 I think it's fists, for sure.

1 I *still* say he looks like Papa Smurf in that outfit! Did you hear he wants to be buried in Jerusalem?

2 That'll go over big.

3 I heard on the news that his ass, let alone the rest of him, will not be welcome in Jerusalem.

4 Does anyone else have the feeling that Araft is channelling Monty Python? (heard in the background....) "I'm not dead yet!" (cross commented on Wizbang - but it was too good to resist! *grin*)

5 Hey call me stupid, but this guy actually won the Nobel Peace prize in '94????? For WHAT?!

6 If he dies . . There'll be a bloodbath in Palestine! If he survives . . There'll be a bloodbath in Palestine! So what's new?

7 They now reported he's got liver failure. Won't be long now. Wonder why the press kept saying he wasn't in a coma? He's not stable, he's fucking dying.

8 Hey RUSTY AND ASSOC: We need something about the French who are presently invading a foreign country without permission from the UN. Ha, Ha. Their invasion of the Ivory Coast is Illegal. Heh, heh. Hundreds of thousands of innocent muslims are being terrorized. Ha, Ha, ho, ho. The frogs have destroyed the Ivory Coast airforce. The people are rising to fight them. Ha, ha, ha. This is an unjust war. The french had no reason to invade this country. They're only after the Cocoa which they intend to sell to French corporations so Chirac can get a cut. Ha, Ha, THIS WAR IS ILLEGAL: Vote for Kerry and he will talk to the guys with the machetes yelling kill the whites. The world is not safe because the frogs attacked these poor innocent people.Ho, ho, ha, ha, he, he. The hundreds of thousands now in the streets killing, robbing and burning are a small minority. Ha, ha, ha. Americans we must all learn froggy and get on their blogs and tell them how stupid and corrupt their leaders are. Ha, he, ho, ho. All the french being killed deserve what they get. They shouldn't be there so if their women get violated and their children and men get hacked to death its all their fault. Or so it goes. OR MAYBE IT'S BUSH'S FAULT. You can't trust them cowboy Texans. Their trying to control all the Cocoa in the world. Maybe there is a God.

9 Oh yea: I forgot. The Ivory Coast was never a threat to the frog pond.

10 LOL, Roost! Hey, what about that guy who committed suicide at Ground Zero? He was protesting Bush's re-election. His mother said he was depressed about the elections and drove from their home in GA to NYC. Guy was only 25, and was gonna get married. What a waste! In other news, I see that Iraq's declared a 60 day martial law. Bush ain't wastin' no time, is he? Rooster, go look at what Kathleen wrote on the old Ken Bigley blog. I want to ream her ass for it, but am carefully thinking what I want to say. Another one pissed off Kerry lost,. And will someone please tell me WHY Arafart won that Peace Prize????

11 What a shame. He could have died with honor saving another American's life in Iraq. I feel no pity for him. Nor do I choose to give him the 15 minutes the pitiful little shit was asking for.

12 It's about time martial law has been declared. I hope the Marines wipe Fallujah off the map. Here's a link for some recent raghead videos of their ambushes. WARNING: VERY GRAPHIC IMAGES http://www.siteinstitute.org/bin/multimedia.cgi?Category=video&Subcategory=0&sort=newest&Rank=1&Mode=List Here's another link showing how women feed their insurgent sons and husbands (don't want your insurgent son to fight on an empty stomach). http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999736/ (click on "Inside the Insurgency"). NEW MARTIAL LAW RULE OF ENGAGEMENT: ALL PEOPLE STANDING NEAR A BOMB SITE (especially with video camera) ARE POTENTIAL SPOTTERS/DETONATORS, GUN THEM DOWN! ALL WOMEN STILL IN FALLUJAH ARE PROVIDING AID AND COMFORT TO INSURGENTS, GUN THEM DOWN! In fact, why bother invading Fallujah, just bomb it to dust. All the "innocents" have fled, leaving behind nothing but hardcore insurgents. Saturate the area with MOAB's instead of those precision bombs. Also, infiltration of Iraqi police and the Iraqi National Guard by insurgent spies is rampant. Terrorists now have police uniforms, Gulf War era "chocolate-chip" uniforms (what the ING are now wearing), and even CURRENT U.S. ARMY tri-color desert uniforms! Just recently, a high ranking Iraqi officer failed to show up for work after attending a debriefing on invasion plans for Fallujah, worrying U.S. commanders. I'm still trying find that article.

13 I wonder if the frogs know that 25% of the population of the Ivory Coast is Sunni Muslim?

14 France out of Ivory Coast now! No blood for Ivory!!

15 heheheh!!!! Arafart's wife becomes hysterical! Next thing you know, she'll claim someone poisoned his ass.

16 It's not Ivory. It's cocoa. The Ivory Coast is the world's largest exporter of Cocoa. The frogs are trying to control the hot chocolate market. It's a plot to support the terrorists by denying our soldiers chocolate bars in their MREs.

17 Laura, Arafats ass is poison! Hes been using it to speak through for the last 40 years.We all know A-rabs and toilets dont go together.Why do you think nothing grows out there!That toe rag purports to be the champion of the Palestinian people when hes done nothing but line his own pockets and those of his large extended family .He's hated just as much as he is loved by his own people.They have no real alternative leader that Israel wont liquidate any way as soon as he is elected.A case of better the devil you do know than the one you dont.

18 greyrooster The French do control the chocolate market! They have a motto in their military too,its for when your enemy is unrelenting. When the going gets too tough, and the tough get going, use your head, retreat! retreat! retreat!

19 Oh and if there are any Fench people reading this blog,just fuck off will ya! I've spent some time in your country and I know how anti American you motherfuckers are. If you dont like us so much why do you have so many Mcdonalds n shit!You want to take from us but at the same time hate us and run us down all the time!Glad you didnt come to Iraq though. Bad enough having the enemy in front of you,dont need him in your ranks too!

20 So the bastard's finally dead! I was watching Fox News when they broke in. Tell me, what was all the kissing gestures he threw out at the crowds? And why did one of the guys who was holding his hand pull back when he tried to kiss them? How can someone so evil show such affection? He was even holding up babies and children and kissing them. He always smiled too. Rest in Hell, Arafart.

1 "Students, generally, are more liberal in college than when they get out into the real world." Is this why, a day or so before the election, you told your students not to vote? Because, as you say, they're likely more liberal? And, if more liberal, likely to be that much more of an obstacle for getting the GOP re-elected? Please clarify. Were you telling your students not to vote because you knew how they'd likely vote (i.e. probably Democrat), though likely gave them some other bullshit reason not to?

2 Dear God, man! Bush won and now we're talking about this, on a conservative site none the less. Liberal sites spin the election count one way and Conservative sites spin their data another way. Holy shit! Bush won, lets get on with our lives.

3 bad samples by liberal bias? not likely. More likely the exit polls were right and the diebold machines with no paper trail gave the election to diebold's favored candidate, George Bush. ernie

4 Someone needs to take off their tinfoil hat and pop another lithium.

5 Upon further investigation there seems to be a correlation between paper balloting and exit polling being very similiar but computer balloting and exit polling being dissimilar, always in favor of Bush. We do know for a fact that diebold compoany is pro-republican, their programming is not privy to public eyes. I am not saying that there is proof as of yet of fraud, but statiticians can make models of voting irregularities and find if there is fraud. i doubt "liberal students" caused massive sampling error by bias. anyone who utilizes quantitative research, especially those who make a living by it try very hard to make sampling procedures valid and reliable. it is not a great leap to assume that if Bush inc believes in power politics that they will commit crimes to maintain that power. Remember, realpolitik is about power...there in no crime in this realm unless you get caught and can be punished by others. Bush Inc does believe they are above the will of being punished ...by anyone. ernie

6 Will aluminum foil work instead? I don't think tin foil has existed since 1948. What you really need is a raincoat and umbrella, because what it is is a bullshit monsoon.

7 Ernie is making me laugh. No...really...he is. I'm laughing.

8 Methinks Ernie's been listening way too much to Moonbat Central Radio.

9 My understanding is that exit polls were very accurate in some states. Why the disparity?

10 P.S. See my post on this...

11 Plausible, and if accurate rather comical in a way. Liberals can recognize bias easily, right? Reminds me of a seminar I sat in on as an undergraduate student. The researcher was touting his company's new test for "good" cholesterol. During the presentation he mentioned his employees (read "fellow researchers") had provided the samples used in his test group. During the Q & A, I queried him on this (to make sure I had heard it correctly) and then politely suggested the data could be inaccurate as a result of researcher bias. This didn't go over well with him (after all, he wouldn't bias his own research, right?), but it did with other students & some faculty in attendance who had a more objective view. Thanks for the insight.

12 Ernie should share whatever he's taking.

13 I don't think so, greyrooster. Some things are nice to share, but paranoia isn't one of them.

14 Yo, Rusty... not to sound bitter or anything, but if you blow me off this time I'll lose all faith in humanity and the just organization of the universe (ok, I don't have much faith in the latter anyway). Seriously, take a look at my last post. I do believe it severely undermines your explanation. To tell you the truth, I very much hope that the appearance of vote manipulation among electronic ballots is pure hogwash. But there are some troubling numbers that need to be explained. von Nostrand out.

15 PVN - the lastest employment stats show that you were not blown off at all regarding "Kerry's Biggest Lie". Anyway you want to spin it, it looks like there will be a net gain in jobs since 2001. It is you who should issue a retraction.

16 Ernie, the point is you can share what you feel. We are not going to cut off your head. Whether it has anything to do with the truth or not is neither here or there. Just be thankfull that you live in a democracy and stop being such a sore loser.

17 Smokin' analysis: comes closest to any others I've read so far in terms of explaining the exit poll fiasco, or conspiracy, (depending on how you frame it.) I'll post it on my blog.

18 One minor criticism: Given the fact that most of the state exit polls were way off base, I think you're illogical in concluding that relatively small biases caused the large cumulative inaccuracies in these polls.

19 I'd also like to know a bit more about the electronic voting. As some of us know, the CEO of one of the major electronic voting companies, Diebold Inc., has been a major Bush fundraiser and campaign organizer, and said in a confidential August 2003 campaign memo that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes for the president." We already know Diebold is sleazy. Not long ago they secretly collaborated with an advocacy group for the blind. They said they'd donate to the group if the group promised to sue states that don't use electronic voting -- complain the states discriminate against the blind (even though tactile voting cards, etc. work perfectly well and are a lot cheaper). I haven't researched this much, but some have said that the exit polls were quite accurate in many states, and less accurate in states with electronic voting. In some states the exit polling was dead-on, whereas in others it was off by more than 5 percent. When it was wrong, the actual vote inevitably favored the president. There are two possible explanations. One, the exit polling was wrong, and two, the actual vote counting was wrong, and the second possibility is a lot more disconcerting; if I were you, I wouldn't probe so deeply into this one. The voting systems for Diebold in particular are terribly designed, and relatively easy to hack from either the inside or the outside for someone who has even a vague clue about computers. If you know there's a difference between RAM and the hard drive, you probably have a decent shot. Their security is so weak they actually had a lot of their key files stored on a publicly-accessible FTP site until fairly recently. I'm only throwing this out as a response to what you're throwing out -- implying there might be some sort of shenanigans with the exit polls. What I'm MORE concerned about is that there could have been some sort of shenanigans with the ACTUAL VOTING. Some people this year were certainly desperate enough -- I have NO DOUBT -- to try to pull something. I'm not saying anyone did; I'm speculating, just like you did in your blog post. What's the most likely explanation? That the exit polling was wrong. And there are reasons to believe this is the case. But the other possibility is just a little greater than I wish it was, because the system is so flawed. p.s. I also don't trust Jeb. In 2000 he made plenty of "mistakes" down there as governor of Florida with regard to voting, and they always seemed to favor his brother, oddly enough. The Bush's have such extensive political connections they have the power to manipulate some things behind the scenes if they want to. And Jeb seems completely devoted to helping his brother. This isn't an allegation. It's just an observation. I always hope for clean elections, and I'd like to think everyone else does too, but I know some people on both sides care more about winning than about anything else. I don't even think it matters whether manipulations took place. I think it's wrong for people who are so partisan to be in charge of setting up the election systems. Jeb does indeed have the power to pull strings to change the system a bit to favor his brother, and he has certainly done this on a few occasions, though he's not the only one. In Ohio, the official in charge of overseeing all aspects of voting is a devoted Bush supporter and like Katherine Harris in 2000, a Republican with political ambitions. At one point he'd reportedly told White House chief of staff Andy Card that not enough provisional ballots would be available in the state. He knew a Republican strategy would be to challenge voters in Democratic precincts, so that they'd require provisional ballots. And the point isn't whether or not it happened. The point is he HAD THE POWER. (And what else might he have done, knowing all the ins and outs of the system? All the loopholes, all the ways to affect the outcome.) I think in the end, this is like the court system. It not only needs to be fair, it needs to have THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS, so that people will have faith in it. Anyone who thinks Katherine Harris was concerned about fairness needs to have their head checked. Our election system is still desperately in need of an overhaul, but we've done little to set this in motion. How can a guy win the presidency by 500 votes, as in 2000, and there not be a recount? If I'm running for head of the neighborhood beautification committee, for God's sake, I can ask for a recount. Our system is messed up, and it needs a total overhaul. I don't know whether shenanigans occurred this year. I just know enough about the system to know that shenanigans are far too easy to pull off, and that very partisan people are in charge of some very important positions having to do with elections. Both sides have tried to pull tricks, but since Bush has won twice, most of us are most interested the ones that might have favored Bush.

20 PETER VON NOSTRIL: Don't you realize by now that no one reads your posts. Read one, read them all. The reason you're on this blog is that no one is on yours. On exit polls. Bunch of nonsense. Should be outlawed. Waste of money. MY POINT BASED ON WHAT I OBSERVED AT MY POLLING STATION. Ask a normal looking, well dressed person. 65% Bush, 35% Kerry. Ask a person wearing a ball cap & driving a nice pickup truck. 100% Bush. Ask a black woman 100% Kerry. Ask a black man 90% Kerry. 10% Bush. Ask a red neck with a dirty pickup truck. Budweiser 70%, Miller lite 25%. George Wallace 5%. IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHO YOU ASK. Too easily manipulated.

21 what total bullshit. give it up already, and focus on finding a candidate and a theme for the nexte election...or on second thought, hang on to your Michael Moore-esque conspiracy theories, and keep running off serious minded moderate voters.

22 ERNIE: Please continue. Nothing better than a good laugh on Sunday morning. Uh ho! The sky is falling, the sky is falling. We are doomed!

23 Rusty?

24 Hold On A Sec ardon me,only I'm losing the will to live here!I hate to be the bringer of bad news but - Boring!Boring!Boring I'd jump right off of Brooklyn Bridge right about now, only it's a bit too far to walk.Your comment has completely worn me out!Excuse me while I just slit my wrists instead wont you.Jesus, what do you do for an encore?Shit, how can you even be bothered to type that stuff.Take up fishing can't you or even bird watching, anything that involves you chiefly being in your own company,or be a monk in isolation somewhere,yeah thats the ticket,you'l be alone, nobody bothering you, or you bothering them.Just think of it at least.You'l be happy,so will we.Oh what a perfect world it would then be. Save us.I'm out of here!

25 Exit Polling should be illegal. It supports nothing except partisan Bullshitting prior to the real election results, and can be used as a method to sway voters farther west in the later time zones by either party. It should be stopped . . period! And Ernie? Get some help!

26 Personally I think it was caused by the VRWC, who told all their members to claim to be Kerry voters on the way out, in order to make sure all the Bush supporters would get out and vote. See, I can do conspiracy theories too!

27 It is funny, you see conspiracy in polling yet I know not many of you understand probability theory. Exit polling should be the most accurate polling type, given that people are polled upon leaving the election site. You should read a book and figure out the demands of random sampling and the assumptions that can be made about a population from ransom sampling. In short for the american retards though, watch your dollar crash bovine idiot nation. Fascism isnt patriotic fools. my presidnt talks to jesus! hahahah welcome to hell stupids ernie

28 wow, you are seriously kookoo for coacoa puffs

29 Give enough time and true colors come out. The piss ant ERNIES did. Just what I said he was all along. Just another jealous America hater.

30 He doesn't even have a color...he is transparent..he is NOTHING.

31 Dick Morris from an article in The Hill: "Exit polls are almost never wrong. They eliminate the two major potential fallacies in survey research by correctly separating actual voters from those who pretend they will cast ballots but never do and by substituting actual observation for guesswork in judging the relative turnout of different parts of the state. So reliable are the surveys that actually tap voters as they leave the polling places that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in Third World countries." so, after a bush victory in which the exit polls are wrong he naturally assumes that the exit polls were faulty, not the vote count. please. had the polls been favoring bush in a kerry victory he would be screaming foul at the top of his lungs. please understand that this issue has implications larger than this election. elections should be fair and the process should be transperant and verifiable. at the moment there is evidence that places the fairness of certain machines in doubt. the producers of these machines do not have to show their programming code to anyone outside of their own company. with e-voting there is no paper trail, meaning results are not verifiable. if we are going to invest so much time and money into our elections, shouldn't we take the time to scrutinize the voting process and spend money to ensure its accuracy? as far as i am concerned, the question Thom Hartman (commondreams.org) asks is a valid one: "Why are We The People allowing private, for-profit corporations, answerable only to their officers and boards of directors, and loyal only to agendas and politicians that will enhance their profitability, to handle our votes? " you can begin your pesonal attacks now.

32 Okay! Once again I ask. Do you have a better way? Bitch, Bitch. No ideas, No solutions. If you consider this a personal attack. So be it. I just believe if you're going to complain suggest a better way. Even Kerry said he had a plan. He just didn't say what it was. So, now he's unemployed. Which is usually what happens to those without a plan.

33 Lg: Paper trail. At my polling location there is a paper trail. We go to a booth insert our card. Punch out our choice. Then we place the card into a big box and return the top portion to the attendant. There are 4 or 5 people present to ensure (1) You are at the correct polling station. (2) You only get one card (3) You are on the list of registered voters. (4) That there is no cheating by the attendants. and they checked your registration card and ID. Now what is the problem. How could it get any better?

34 dear greyrooster, i was simply pointing out that our voting system may need to be overhauled, and should be thoroughly scrutinized. perhaps we could go to a system that prints out a voter's selections for confirmation, then is kept in case of a request for a recount. how about making the software of these machines accesible to a third party regulator. Maybe these machines can be developed, owned, and operated by the states in which they are used, not by private companies. Perhaps more exit polling should be done to help verify vote counts (as they do in third world countries). i would also like to see conflicts of interest, as in the diebold case, treated more seriously and perhaps regulated. please note: before there can be a solution to a problem, the problem must first be identified. therefore, when someone points out a problem, it does not mean they are "bitching".

35 there are many different types of voting machines. some of the e-voting machines have no paper trail at all. regarding the dick morris quote, exit poll numbers are used to verify the quality of vote counts in other parts of the globe. if they are so accurate, why then are we writing off the fact that the polls in the US were strangely wrong this year? it is easy to say the polls were wrong, but sometimes the easy answer is not always the right answer.

36 Rusty?

37 VEMON: How about everybody punch 3 different machines. One observed by Republicans, one by Democrats, and one by a neutral party. Now I ask you. Who is neutral and how do we know he's neutral. However, if the 3 machines differ. We could do the whole election over. Or it can be done by Social Security #. But then big brother would know. But on the good side you could sell your vote for big bucks. Which is what I would do. I tired of electing the best of the worst.

38 Ernie has a point. Its those damned Diebolds. We need to reverse the result in the state where they were used most widely... California.

39 ok rusty. you say the liberal students messed up the exit polls. i say the op-scan central tabulation machines in florida messed up the count. why don't we settle this thing with some random sampling? all kinds of companies do some sort of quality assurance, why not the voting industry? let's randomly pick some of the counties in florida that used these particular machines and do a manual recount. since these machines (it is actually the software that is in question) were used in smaller counties, a quality assurance test would be fairly quick and inexpensive. isn't proving democracy worked worth a little time and money?

40 Political paranoia strikes again!

41 lg: As much as I love ad hominem personal attacks, I'll resist just this one time. You live in the Florida panhandle and they love to register Democrat and vote Republican. Ann Coulter has an article on just this very subject. http://www.anncoulter.org/ Look up how your county voted in 2000 back when they had the old voting machines, and I bet you will find that it is within 5%-10% of 2004.

42 I got about halfway through this blog entry and decided to abandon it. I find your arguments unconvincing, your methods unscientific, and your opinions transparently partisan. Don't bother to respond, I'll never be back.

1 Thanks for the link! I'm still waiting to hear from the editor. It's about Rathergate, so I'm afraid it's rather old. But I'm working on more stuff so I may bug you again!

2 Hey, no problemo. Happy b-day!!

1 QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE: "When I sat down with Buddy Harris, who was Speicher's best friend and is now married to Speicher's widow"... Hmmm....

2 New it was too good to be true; what a waste. Cindy

3 Did I miss a whole decade? I thought Scott Speicher came home sucessfully. What were the famous speeches he made about living in enemy territory?

4 I never Scott personally but what I have researched and have learned is this....We need to bring Scott home to his family. Granted 13 years have now passed and more questions have been raised and not enough answers. I have contacted both Senators from my home state and only got this classified BS story from both of them. I pray for safe return of Scott and wish his family well this holiday season. Brandon-Indiana

1 yes, and I posted that news in the comments over at cowbytheudders.

2 If I'm not mistaken, he still has the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover. I don't keep up with the jobs tallies from moment to moment, but if you're bragging that he only has ONE OF THE WORST jobs records of all-time, then, well, I don't know what to say. The fact is, anyone who cuts taxes on the wealthy multiple times and still can't generate jobs is most likely doing something wrong. Since we're sacrificing the country's fiscal health in the future for the economy of the present, we at least should get a few jobs out of it. Any president can impatiently stimulate the economy with crude tax cuts. Bush's tax cuts provide little specific stimulus in the correct areas (Clinton's economic team was less crudely ideological about these things, and more analytical), so the wheels just aren't turning quite as well as they should be. I love how Bush supporters talk about these things in a vacuum. You'd think that in order to evaluate the president, you'd need to compare him to someone. Apparently not. They like to cite raw figures, without any mention of the fact that Clinton, say, created more than 10 million jobs per term while, unlike Bush, maintaining a healthy fiscal policy. With Bush, expectations are so damned low. Iraq isn't Vietnam. The jobs situation isn't as bad as it was during the Great Depression. Sure millions have lost healthcare. But think of Kenya! Far more people there without quality health insurance. Yes, Bush has no policy on global warming, even as frightening new data pours in about the vanishing arctic ice caps. But imagine being able to grow tomatoes in Alaska! We haven't caught bin Laden. Or even focused on it, really. But admit it. Sitting home alone with a box of popcorn, watching those video tapes, is better than anything you can rent at Blockbuster. It ain't so bad. Bush is DA GREATEST, man.

3 actually, no bragging. I think to much credit and blame is assigned to presidents where the economy and particularly employment is concerned. I would counter, however, that overzealous efforts to reduce the deficit during the Clinton admin resulted in a huge government surplus. Though it has been over 20 years since I studied macro, I do recall that government surpluses cause recessions...its better to have the money in the hands of the private sector. I would also argue that Clinton's distracted leadership (which was his fault and the fault of republicans who took advantage of his inability to keep it in his pants) added greatly to our being asleep at the watch. This helped contribute to 9-11, which further hammered an economy that was on a slide. I think it will be another two or three years before we find out if Bush and his policies, across the board, will make matters better or worse.

1 Your fucking menteal

1 Never send a boy to do a mans job. Thats why I voted for Bush. If the genders where reversed, never send a girl to do a womans job. Heh Heh Heh Heh.

2 "I vote for John Kerry because George Bush's policies to cut taxes for the rich have killed our economy." But 337,000 jobs were added in October, and they revised the numbers for August and September from 128,000 to 198,000 and 98,000 to 138,000 respectfully. "Yeah, but he's really bad for the environment." Well, they just released an air quality report for Los Angeles today and it's cleaner than it's ever been since they started recording. "But he's going to re-instituted the draft." SEE YOU IN HELL (Canada) What sweet freakin' week this has been! I love being alive right now.

3 I didn't realize we were so close to falling "under the Islamic boot." You guys are hI-larious.

4 Prof. Peter Von Nordstrom [sic intended], Didn't you see the election results? We're not that close to falling under the islamofacist sandles, anymore. George W. Bush was re-elected.

5 How could all those people in England be dumb enought to read the Mirror. I never knew there was enough idiots in the UK to keep them with enough customers to stay in business. PETER VON NOSTRIL: Whats a matter? No one on your blog.

6 The BBC "slightly" anti-Bush? Well, maybe, maybe not but they have been more than slightly anti-war on Iraq since day one. Honestly, things here in the UK are severely messed up right now. The Daily Mirror loses credibility all the time (I have already posted their Front Page headline from the day after the US election results were known). The BBC might as well call themselves Al Jazeera Jnr for all the "unbiased" coverage they have given this war. The problem with the BBC is that all of us in the UK are forced to pay for it. We get charged for a "TV Licence"... which is how the BBC raises its cash (I presume they also receive cash from selling programmes to other countries). It's a complete rip-off and they can charge what they like for this "license" (at the moment, it is around £100/year) anyone caught owning a TV without this license is liable to be fined £1000. So us Brits pay this fee through fear of being fined and we are subjected to all kinds of leftist anti-war propaganda in the news. So many of us don't watch the BBC.

7 People who voted for Bush know that their world is being destroyed around them and they want an angry and vindictivve father figure to protect them in their state of fear. Ignorance is a pain in the neck for people. The amazing fact is that people are so fearful they vote against their interests in their anger. Tax the capitalist to pay for my kids healthcare? no, i like spending 400 a month on 10 bucks an hour.That is irrational. Of course Kerry isnt anything to rely on, but socio-economic stability is reliant on global cooperation, no matter how much you dont need a global "test" or a "permission slip". Angry white America will stay violently ignorant so they dont look like "girly men"...one can see the mentality the republicans can expoit, essentially the emotionally stunted male stuck in high school throughout life. ernie

8 I can tell you why people voted for George W. Bush. Because they fell for BS Bush campaign propaganda and never felt like actually exploring the issues. Bush gets up on the podium and talks about how tough he is on terror, and most Americans never take the time to explore the issues so they have no clue whether what he's saying actually makes any sense. This despite the fact that virtually everything he told us about Iraq before the war turned out to be wrong. People just LOVE trusting George W. Bush, no matter how much of a moron he makes himself out to be! Ain't America a great place? Western civilization falling under the Islamic boot? Give me a f**king break you idiots! Get a life! Excuse me, but this really ticks me off. Stop being so damned ignorant about foreign affairs and stop kissing our president's ass at the expense of America's future. Please explain to me, specifically, what the hell toppling Saddam Hussein has to do with holding America under any Islamic boot? Totally absurd. Obviously Saddam has never promoted Islamist society, being a secular leader. But do you even know what the Muslim population is in America, no less the Islamist-leaning Muslim population? It's relatively neglible. How the hell are they going to turn us into an Islamist society? You people are totally clueless, pardon me. I've lost patience. Get a life, all of you.

9 More ignorance. You guys are the most rationalizing bunch I have ever seen in my life. I'll try to keep this civilized and not make it personal, but please, people, for the sake of this country's future, STOP RATIONALIZING AND START PAYING AN OUNCE OF ATTENTION! >"I vote for John Kerry because George Bush's policies to cut >taxes for the rich have killed our economy." > >But 337,000 jobs were added in October, and they revised the >numbers for August and September from 128,000 to 198,000 >and 98,000 to 138,000 respectfully. No sense of context whatsoever. No mention of how stagnant salary growth has been, or the job losses that PRECEDED this period of time, or more importantly, the fact that Bill Clinton created OVER 20 MILLION JOBS! He promised 10 million in one term and he delivered. (WITHOUT f**king up the country fiscally for our children!) Bush has the worst jobs record of any president since Herbert Hoover. Just keep spinning, keep spinning. America will spin itself right into its grave thanks to you happy connoisseurs of all manner of oblivion. >"Yeah, but he's really bad for the environment." > >Well, they just released an air quality report for Los Angeles >today and it's cleaner than it's ever been since they started >recording. You must be out of your mind. Wake up, Dr. Spinmeister. Knight-Ridder, October: "Over the past 30 years, the nation's air and water have become dramatically cleaner, but the steady improvement has stalled or gone into reverse in several areas since Bush took office, according to government statistics. On Bush's watch, America's environment deteriorated in many critical areas -- including the quality of air in cities and the quality of water that people drink -- and gained in very few. ...Knight Ridder compiled 14 pollution-oriented indicators from government and university statistics. Nine of the 14 indicators showed a worsening trend, two showed improvements and three others zigzagged." Bush's environmental record in Texas was absolutely atrocious and embarrassing. He let polluters write their own environmental policies, and he's tried to do the same with America. Which is why the League of Conservation Voters gave Bush its worst possible rating. An F. LA's improvements are despite Bush, not because of him, for Christ's sake. California is notoriously concerned about the environment. LA is particularly vulnerable to pollution because the mountains to the east trap pollution carried by weather systems moving east. California has long had tighter controls than the rest of the country, and promoted low-emissions vehicles and even zero-emissions vehicles. Bush fights this stuff every step of the way. This is just like how Bush tried to take credit for a patients' bill of rights in Texas, when in fact he weakened patients' rights while in office! It's official. You guys really are the faith-based community. And this is a tragic day for America. We're f**ked. I'm sorry. We're totally f**ked. There is no hope for this country. Thanks for nothing. Abraham Lincoln once said, "Reign of Reason, all hail!" Let's call this the Reign of Total Ignorance. It's the most depressing week in the nation's history, but a glorious day for the mindless. I'm usually not so harsh, but this country has spun out of control and you guys need some cold water in your face, ASAP. You know what I can say, though. You guys and George Bush are a perfect match for each other. Ignorance loves ignorance, I guess. p.s. One accomplishment of George W. Bush as governor of Texas. Houston PASSED LA for worst air quality in the country. Hope you guys love emphesema just as much as you blindly love your moronic president. Emphesema party everyone! Lung cancer for all! No global warming policy. I promise my fellow Americans a case of skin cancer for every household, a case of emphesema for every block! This is gonna be friggin great! I can't wait for the next four years to start. F**KIN' A!

10 "Didn't you see the election results? We're not that close to falling under the islamofacist sandles, anymore. George W. Bush was re-elected." I'd be laughing at you right now if I wasn't crying.

11 RED DEVIL: How much is F100 in US dollars?

12 Jrj: Still mad about the ban on gay marriages huh! Sorry, sissy but the people have spoken.

13 I mean hrj: Can't stand to even read his initials much less his posts.

14 I'm convinced there is no help for these people, GR. Stubborn and pig headed is putting it mildly. If Bush were the asshole everyone's saying he is, why was he voted in for another 4 years? Thank God the lib's on here are but a few of what America really thinks. They are but a small percentile of Bush bashing, peace loving, terrorist sympathizing fuckwits who will never have a clue as to what defending our country really means.

15 Maybe the BBC, The Daily Mirror and all the other Liberal lemmings should look out their window. Terrorists are coming. They want to destroy Western Civilization. It is just too bad that there seems to be so few Brits with the BALLS to do what needs doing. I say good riddance to them. Those who won't should be pushed to the edge of the herd so that they can be the fodder for those of us who REALLY understand what is going on. There comes a time when a man has to just spit into his hands, grab a weapon and start splitting some skulls. I think I know where to start.

16 Are you all whats known as red-necks? Its just that I haven't heard any real people speak like this before, just characters like Cletus from the Simpsons. This is meant as irony isn't it? When did 'peace loving' become an insult?

17 Trinny, no, we are just madder than hell that our country was attacked (are you from the US?) and we are fighting those countries that harbor terrorists. I have a peronal interest, as some of my friends have lost relatives and coworkers in the twin towers. I also know some soldiers fighting in Iraq as we speak. "Peace loving" is not a bad term per se, but in the context of the bleeding heart lib's on this blog, who seem to care MORE for the "innocent people of Iraq", than our own soldiers'lives, then yes, I will use "peace loving" when referring to them. I don't like the idea that our boys are there anymore than anyone else, but I do know that what we are doing is right, and anyone who feels otherwise can pack up and move to Canada. You're either for us or against us. Defend your country.

18 Good post, hrj...too bad it's lost on a lot of the people who read this blog. They would much rather put their hands over the ears, shut their eyes, and scream loudly than be presented with anything that disrupts their perfect view of Dubya.

19 Uhm... Laura? are you saying you don't care about the "innocent people of Iraq?" You know, the ones who are just trying to raise there kids and be good neighbors and all that stuff that all humans seems to want to do? And what about the ones who want to defend their country and way of life? I'ts seems their a lot like you and me and our brave soldiers. How can you say that they're not important?

20 The only thing positive I can say about Bush is that I like to hear my intelligent friends apolgize for the SOB. At least it has a few intelligent people thinking. After Bush; Nowhere to go butup.

21 I love these "freedom loving" war mongers on here whose idea of liberty and freedom is "if you dont like the war, you should leave the US". Is this really the kind of freedom we really want to spread around the world. Laura, read the Constitution. Dissent is the most American action. I love my country. I am a proud American who believes that peace and equality are human, not only American, rights. I not going anywhere. I am here to fight to take my country back.

22 the view from 8 months out: all you fools who voted for bush 'cause he was protecting western civilization from terrorism....funny how terrorism evaporated on november the 6th 2004. you got taken...you're head is up your ass and you voted for a fool who can't protect western civilization from anything because he doesn't know what western civilization is. all of the terror warnings dropped and all of a sudden you feel "safer." but has anything changed? funny how all the states who actually live in the line of danger for being attacked by terrorists...dense and coastal....voted blue. if you live in podunk hicksville you probably voted for baby bush 'cause you so scared of the walmart being blown up. and that would end western civilization. where are you going to get your frozen popcorn shrimp and dockers???? i mean, that is western civilization, ain't it?

23 I worked hard to get Mr. Kerry elected becuase of his ideas on health care, education, tax policy and foreign policy. What ideas does Bush have? Draconian personal bankruptcy laws that are equivalent to a debtors prison, preventing the protection from medical malpractice and defective products, turning a good government pension program into one that pays 30-40% less, more tax cuts for those who don't need, ruining the environment and starting more wars of aggression. Indeed, there is clarity with Bush - he is clearly the worst President in American history.

24 BUSH DID NOT GET VOTED IN. AND HE IS A MAJOR ASSHOLE. THE ANTICHRIST!!! OIL, MONEY,HUNGREY BASTARD!

25 Stumbled onto this blog looking for information read a bit and noticed something peculiar but probably the norm for this communication medium. All the dummies who like bush (mis-capitalization intended) just blow a bunch of empty hot air and get pissed off when they read the only member here who seems to be able to present a logical argument. HRJ is the only person on this site worth reading; try understanding what HRJ is saying and see if you can't learn something. And furthermore, what does our soldiers being in Iraq have to do with American freedom?? I didn't realize that there was a single Iraqi involved in the planning or execution of 9-11. Or did I miss something. Was Saddam actually somehow responsible for that? Obviously American soldiers being in Iraq has never had anything to do with WMD or are our intelligence operators that freaking stupid? I don't think they are. I think the thing to consider would be something along the lines of looking into which countries have made the most profit on that war. And then consider who the shareholders are then make a connection or two (which I realize is difficult for some of you). But if you did, do you think that Dubya and pals didn't make out like bandits? They did. Innocent Iraqis have been getting the shaft from Americans for ten years plus. Our going there to ram it to'em harder is the equivalent of say England beating Italy in a soccer match and then Italy deciding that was about enough of that, then dropping a couple of nuclear bombs on New York. Then convincing alot of their neighbors whom they can bully around to help pay for the cleanup while they annex Virginia and Georgia tobacco fields and companies for their troubles. I don't know what kind of news you guys are reading or if you can really understand what you read, but I live overseas and the reports coming in these days suggest that the average Iraqi is about equally as miserable as ever. So thank your Govt. for sending innocent soldiers to do the work of the corporate monsters and be sure and disregard all those innocent Iraqis for trying to live in their own country. What right do they have to that when the world is controlled by the corporate machine that America represents?

1 30 years or so from now some schmuck is gonna be running for president and it's gonna get out that it was he who did this and that his national guard service was to get out of going to the Iraq war. Oh yes.

2 Our president will be sure to straighten this one out. "Son, coke and fighter planes just don't mix. Truss me on this 'un. I been there."

3 and it's gonna get out that it was he who did this And he'll win in a friggin' landslide. Dude, you shot up a school with an F-16?! That's so cool!

4 See, what happened is, I told those kids, "Is you learning, kids?" And they said, "No, Mr. President, your education plan bites." So I told 'em, "You either with us or against us."

5 "How many frags did we get, Dick?" --"Um, I'm not entirely sure, George." "We fight terror and evil, Dick. We don't differentiate between the terrorist enemy in Afghanistan, and the schoolyard bully who steals my lunch money, you little bastard, I'll never forget that! I'm the president now, and I've got a bunch of red buttons, do you hear me? Red buttons!" (breaks down crying) --"There there, Mr. President. There, there."

6 "Theresh an old saying in Texas. 'The only innocent person is an unborn person.' Once you're out of the womb, you're fair game for execution, USA-STYLE. Yeah I set the record for fryin' the most people as governor, but that stuff takes way too long. The appeals process alone takes like 3 minutes. BORING! My favorite was the retard with the sleeping defense attorney. You shoulda seen the hippies come outta the woodwork tryin' to save that little piece of s**t. But a godless preteen commie liberal waste-of-space from tha Satanic Republic a New Jersey might just take tha cake. I told him, DURING SCHOOL HOURS, man! School hours. It don't do no good if you do it after 11 PM!"

1 Your analysis is dead on. And look at the response -- no comments after 2 hours. We just don't seem to care about this major turning point in American history. It's like when FDR sold out Eastern Europe at Yalta or something. Do we have to wait another 25 years before we recognize what the hostages in Iran represent? These Americans were brutalized for 444 days by an evil equal or worse than anything the world has seen, and we simply don't care.

2 Stotch informs me that he didn't take into account the time difference, or that it took me an hour to write that, or that he is a complete moron--hence the odd comment about the time thingy.

3 Can't it be all of the above? The time difference *plus* I'm a moron? But seriously, November 4th should be reflected upon. Maybe not like 12/7 or 9/11, but very seriously. I'm seriously.

4 I'm here....Thank you Rusty for expressing the views that I have harbored ever since the towers were bombed in '93...that this started a LONG time ago, before Bush, before Clinton, before Reagan, etc. Too bad the other anti-war bleeding heart lib's on this blog can't see that. Especially CooqarUK, who chooses what he reads and hears, and avoids the rest, so he continues his spiel on your Ken Bigley blog. I wonder if he even reads anything else on here, he's so busy calling me a stupid fucking war mongering bitch.

5 Laura: I think the remedy for your concerns is to bookmark Professor Chaos and keep up to date with his posts too. That dude is pretty smart.

6 Hopeful some day Americans and rest of the free world. Will wakeup and get their heads out of their asses. These Jihadis have been filtering into every part of the world so they can their job. So many of us are caught up in our own little world of greed and self bliss. We don't see the big picture . We can hope and prayer. That it wasnt gone to far. I just tried of give peace a chance. They started this shit, so yets finish it and start pulling the weed before their grow over us !!!!!!!

7 Worse than the cash payoff, Carter made political and spiritual payment. He allowed it to suck the life out of his presidency and the country. That's what turned it from fifty prisoners to 'America Held Hostage'.

8 It is indeed sobering to see laid out, as you articulately have, both the stakes and the true timeline of the struggle in which America is currently engaged. It makes the notion of a "rush to war" all the more specious.

9 Yeah, nice history. Why don't you talk about Reagan traded arms for the hostages? That was genius.

10 darren: You're right -- it was all America's fault for being so evil. We should all kill ourselves for being so bad and such degenerates. But you go first, ok? God the left is full of morons ...

11 I believe it really began in '73 when we (Nixon) ordered an emergency arms resupply airlift to Israel to save them - the Sovs were doing the same for Egypt and Syria and the Israelis were definitely on the ropes... funny how people have forgotten just how close Israel forces came to being utterly over-run / anihilated in '73. Of course, in direct response, the Saudis + GCC declared economic war on us with the oil embargo. It continues to this day, just beneath the oily smarmy smiles, PR campaign, and bribed State Dept. I don't know an exact date, but that is when the real Islamists, the Wahhabis, declared war on America.

12 I like a good history first thing in the morning.....thanks rusty

13 The thought occured to me while reading this post that the Americans held hostage in 79' were all eventually released with their heads still firmly on their shoulders... I guess what we see today of brutal beheadings by the jihadiis would be called progress???

14 Rusty that is the greatest load of self righteous xxxx that I have ever read. Please cease with this they started it, crap. Stop trying to sound like the innocent victim in all of this. Whether you like it or not your country is as guilty in this war as the terrorists you are fighting.

15 Here we go again...another foreigner trying to lick his wounds because he's so upset that HIS leader got HIS country into the so called "illegal invasion" with the US. Get off the blog and complain to Blair, leave us Americans alone.

16 James, really, an militant Arab megalomaniac named Mohammed started it in the 7th century.

17 The war started July 15, 1958 when Ike sent the Marines to Lebanon. Unless you want to include that incident in 1948 or the Suez Crisus of 1956... The secular Cold War, Vietnam, the Space Race, Watergate, and other things distracted us. But we've been fighting for more than 25 years...

18 "You see, Carter negotiated a deal with the terrorists." True, but so did Reagan. Remember that whole "Iran-Contra" ordeal? So, you see, it doesn't really matter who's in power - they'll negotiate with the enemy if it's in their best interests to do so.

19 Laura, I am not British. I have told you this countless times before. I am not licking any wounds at all as I have no wounds to lick. Just as a matter of interest, can I ask how old are you?

20 Sorry, it goes back to old Mo. It got stifled at Vienna in 1683. Then the Ottomans got bitch slapped in WWI. Nope, we forgot about the war Dar al Islam waged against Dar al Harb. http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/History/dar_islam-harb.htm They never forgot about us though.

21 Beth, I am not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination. Being anti war does not make one a liberal. I find you neither amazing nor entertaining just another example of your average know nothing. What does amaze me though, is how many experts on Islam and the Middle East we have on this blog. Five years ago, I doubt you could have pointed out the middle east on a globe, nevermind spell Afghanistan.

22 "What does amaze me though, is how many experts on Islam and the Middle East we have on this blog. Five years ago, I doubt you could have pointed out the middle east on a globe, nevermind spell Afghanistan." Hahahaha! Truer words were never spoken!

23 STOP DOING THIS! I'm tired of all the terrorism propaganda. Sloppily lumping together this and that to make it seem like there's some sort of unified Islamist anti-American threat out there. This is exactly what the neocons are doing, trying to turn the current environment into Cold War II. This is only one step removed from saying that everyone with a towel around their head is the exact same. It's ridiculous. And these analyses, usually conducted by people extremely friendly to the idea of always using American force to protect Israeli interests by brute force, always conveniently neglect to mention the role that Israel has played over the decades in destabilizing the Middle East. I'm not blaming Israel, but I also don't believe in leaving Israel out of the equation entirely as though it's just a friendly bystander, sitting there quietly as madmen run around elsewhere and do diabolical things to people. Give it up, man. This schtick is getting very, very old, and people need to take the time to understand these concepts in depth. Saying that 9/11 is an extension of the 1979 hostage crisis is plausible to many people but it's just flat-out misleading. This is not at all reality. There are a million things that contributed to 9/11. An even bigger (early) factor was the Six Day War, which helped to spark a trend of counter-government, counter-peace, and pro-Islamic-extremist revolutionary activity in Egypt, ultimately spawning the groups that Ayman al-Zawahiri (al-Qaeda co-leader) would join. But Islamic extremist terrorism as we know it really doesn't predate the existence of Israel in the Middle East. What a strange friggin' coincidence that is. I'm not bashing Israel. On the contrary, I believe Israel must be allowed to prosper, and I have great faith in the country to find a way to better fit into a delicate environment and be safe and secure. But there is no getting around this. Israel is the 2500 ton gorilla in the region that has been shaking s**t up for the last few decades, and we have GOT to find a long-term solution to all of the tension there. The other thing that truly bugs me about some of these analyses is that the Islamic portion of the terrorism is largely incidental. This terrorism is POLITICAL. Politics is what's behind it. For the most part, Arab or regional pride. Islamic extremism is the tool that the terrorists employ in order to enhance the effectiveness of their operation. They believe in it, too, but embracing Islamic extremism is the end-result of a rebellion against a mainstream they felt was laying down and subjugating itself to Western interests. This is not fundamentally about Islam, Islamism, or religion. There's nothing in the Koran that promotes this kind of terrorism, or says to kill Americans, yadda yadda. Take out Islam, and terrorism still exists. Take out the politics, and there IS NO TERRORISM. The first well-known example of Palestinian terrorism was the Munich Olympics massacre of 1972. Bruce Hoffman, a well-known terrorism scholar, wrote that those terrorists "were suicidal -- not in the sense of religious terrorists who surrender their lives to ascend to heaven but in the sense that we could send them anywhere to do anything and they were prepared to lay down their lives to do it. No question. No hesitation. They were absolutely dedicated and absolutely ruthless." You have to look at the roots of this terrorism if you want to understand it. 1972 was following immediately on the heels of that Six Day War, in which Israel acquired virtually all of the Palestinian territory, technically illegally. Palestinians had also been denied entry into the Olympic games, and they felt particularly shafted all-around by the world. They weren't committing terrorism in order to usher in some Islamic state; this was politics, pure and simple. (And if you want to trace the root of negotiating with terrorists, look no further than Germany's asinine negotiations with the guys who carried out the '72 massacre. Still, modern terrorism didn't really fully evolve until the 80's and really more so the 90's, primarily when those looking for any sort of guerilla advantage against greater powers determined that this was an option that could work. In reality, it's a stupid solution because it turns off the people around the world whose help those fighting for a cause need most.) Anyone who studies bin Laden's history and motivations knows that he's obsessed with politics, too. Some people, including our own dolt of a president, like to reduce his motivations to wanting to turn America into an Islamist state or something equally absurd. Bin Laden may be dumb, but he's not stupid. You think he believes he can turn us into an Islamist state? When he was in Afghanistan, he defeated the Soviet Union with our help, and brags about it to this day. Did he turn them into an Islamist state? No, of course not. There's a lot bin Laden doesn't understand, but he's not quite THAT oblivious. I'm just tired of seeing these ULTRA-SPUN analyses of terrorism. People don't seem to give a s**t about the truth. All they want to do is manipulate terrorism to their political ends. Well, you know what? That's BS. [p.s. For the record, here are a few of the more RECENT political reasons behind 9/11. Saudi Arabia didn't defend Kuwait, but left it up to the Americans. Bad for Arab pride. Then they let the Americans leave troops in their country. Even worse for Arab and Muslim pride. Then they let the US place sanctions on the Iraqis. Also bad. Then throw in the US's perceived ultra-bias toward Israel in the region, and it's frequent seeming-ignorance of Arab needs and concerns, and voila. There are other reasons, but these are a few of the bigger ones.]

24 You are right Venom. I started reading the Quran after 9-11. Its really horrifying. You should try it.

25 NO- I searched long and hard to try to find justifications for what you posted there, but the more I searched the more I found that guys like Robert Spencer over at www.jihadwatch.com are right on target.

26 James you're a foreigner to me if you are against Bush and his justified invasion of Irag to get Saddam. It's none of your business how old I am, has nothing to do with why we are on this blog.

27 Laura.......that's fine. Delighted that you didn't resort to telling me Fxxk Off like you normally do. My, haven't we grown up all of a sudden!

28 CNN Headline News did a report on the 25th Anniversary.

29 Everyone open your Noam Chomsky playbook to page one and read along with me: "Blame America First."

30 Only if you give me reason to. Sarcasm and insults were result in hostility.

31 I sincere wish for a very "Crappy Anniversary" gift of 72 virgins to all the mad mullahs.

32 JAMES: FUCK OFF

33 LAURA: James is a foreigner. Want his address?

34 Roost: He says he's not from the UK, but that doesn't mean he still ain't a foreigner. Even if he IS from the US, he IS a foreigner if he's against our President. Tough shit.

35 QUOTE: "Here we go again...another foreigner trying to lick his wounds because he's so upset that HIS leader got HIS country into the so called "illegal invasion" with the US. Get off the blog and complain to Blair, leave us Americans alone." Oh Laura, now I'm hurt. The Black Watch are out there taking on the insurgents in Baghdad (the Black Watch actually has a longer history than the USA as you know it, show some respect.) True Brits don't blame Tony Blair (even though I hate the guy and his Government). Britain will, at this rate, become an little Islamic Island within the next 100 years or so due to us leaving these shores and the exponential growth of the Islamic community. Many of us Brits don't want that to happen. We like England, we like Scotland and we like Wales and Ireland. Tell us Brits to leave you Americans alone but, to Blair's credit, he is hanging his balls on the line in support of the USA .

36 Of course the islamists declared war on an innocent America that never has any negative impact on the freedom of Arab peoples in their nations. Be it from the Saudi Royal Family to the Shah of Iran, geostrategic maneuvering for oil could never have led the US in its realpolitik to commit crimes. The problem with this analysis is twofold. First it ignores US support for islamic fanatics (see RAmbo 3). Second it assumes that "islamic radicals" are the positive force that actuates policy. Islamic terrorists hate the USA, but they are not that strong. If Al Queada had the resources and expertise, there would have been 200 saudi hijackers, 40 planes, and 5,000,000$ involved. The fact is, there wasnt. Sure Al Queada hates the USA, but they are not that strong as an intl force. In fact, statistically speaking, you should be more afraid of your neighbors teenage daughter driving on the cell phone. Also, instead of justifying giving up the Bill of Rights to fundamentalist Christians, you should note the fact that Americans murdered more than 16,000 fellow Americans last year. Al Quaeda in the USA: 0. Ernie

37 Mr. No: Thanks for posting your "PS". Those are exactly OBL's stated grievances. It also neatly sums up the need for disposing of Saddam Hussein's regime. Whether or not that was your intention, I don't know. Either way, outstanding!

38 I've never seen such an orgy of ignorance in my life, but hey, this is a free country so keep it up! Now, there is absolutely NO JUSTIFICATION to the argument that Islamists (as a group) are targeting America, period. It's simply not true -- although thanks to Bush's policies, it's more true now than it was a few years ago. As far as Islam being evil or something, you know guys, America has been through this BS before. We don't need to devolve as a nation. Stop being so blindly bigoted and wake up. This is not what America is about. If you're condemning these guys, I hope it's based on personally sitting down and talking with them, not simply reading out-of-context excerpts or reading propaganda from someone who hates Islam. If that's what you're doing, you're a damned embarrassment to this country. Let me quote Fareed Zakaria if I can. He said, "The historian Paul Johnson has argued that Islam is intrinsically an intolerant and violent religion. Other scholars have disagreed, pointing out that Islam condemns the slaughter of innocents and prohibits suicide. Nothing will be solved by searching for 'true Islam' or quoting the Quran. The Quran is a vast, vague book, filled with poetry and contradictions (much like the Bible). You can find in it condemnations of war and incitements to struggle, beautiful expressions of tolerance and stern strictures against unbelievers. Quotations from it usually tell us more about the person who selected the passages than about Islam..." More importantly, if we're condemning Islam, we have to ask, compared to what? George Bush is, by his own (and others') admission, the most born-again Christian president we've had in modern times, and he's gone to war more than any president in modern times. Twice in one term. He thinks God is on his side and guiding him. A Christian God. Guiding him into attacking a country that wasn't doing anything to us. That's what the Arab world sees. You think they're going to buy it when you call Islam a violent religion? Give it up. The era of Western civilization called Christendom -- the Dark Ages -- was known for violence against heretics, crusades against Islam, you name it. All in the name of Christianity. If you think Christianity has a clean record, you're out of your mind. Zakaria writes that "through its long history, Christianity has supported inquisitions and anti-Semitism, but also human rights and social welfare." It's spin, spin, spin, spin from you guys. No one cares about the truth. Now, let me respond to this, by yet another truth-deprived individual. "Thanks for posting your 'PS'. Those are exactly OBL's stated grievances. It also neatly sums up the need for disposing of Saddam Hussein's regime. Whether or not that was your intention, I don't know. Either way, outstanding!" I'm sick of this stuff. I'm posting stuff trying to get at the truth, and all you guys are doing is looking for reasons that your president is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I never said there were NO reasons to invade Iraq. I said the reasons for not invading FAR OUTWEIGHED the reasons for invading. Yes, the Iraq war made it slightly easier for the US to move troops out of Saudi Arabia, altough let's be realistic. We could have done this anytime. Yes, the Iraq war made it possible to lift sanctions against Iraq. However, Colin Powell and others had suggested updating the sanctions regime to make it more effective. There were also a bajillion other alternatives to an impatient, poorly-planned unilateral preemptive war against Iraq. I won't get into them now. However, the invasion of Iraq is by far a larger point of contention for these guys than anything I just listed, so it totally counteracts whatever possible benefit we'd get from these, and then some. Besides, we don't make policy to appease terrorists, although if policy makes sense, we can't let terrorists prevent us from implementing it. After 9/11, Americans were interested in honestly seeking and probing for the truth. The Bush administration has f**ked up all of this, promoting crude bulletpoint BS that has nothing to do with reality. I hate this adminstration for the damage it's doing to America, and you guys ought to be ashamed of yourselves for happily trotting behind it like zombie-drug-induced little lambs.

39 No: Get your facts straight. 1. The DEMOCRAT Clinton took us to war more than any president in history. 2. Comparing Christianity 700 years ago to Islam today is stupid. what the Christians done 700 years ago has nothing to do with today. I am not a Christian, but given a choice I would choose Christianity over the religion of hatred Islam. You're just a Bush hating poor loser with nothing good to say. No solutions, no ideas. Just like yourself, nothing. The majority of people decided against you and your way of thinking. Try being a man accept your loss, and try doing/saying something positive for America. Or better yet. Get the fuck out.

40 Laura: The prick (james)is right. He's not from the UK. G'd day Mate. How's your wallaby?

41 At least,after 9/11, President Bush didnt hide in his office porking some "ho" with a cigar. "I did not have....." "THAT" is what I call "LIP LUSTURE" So, talk about a lying bs'er. I would rather have a president that fights back. I do believe that the people of this great United States are destroying each other..NOW, thousands are wanting to imigrate to Canada, split the nation, burn the flag, burn the image of Bush in efogy(sp)..hmmm,seems to me that I saw some of this behavior on the news coming out of an Arab state....of ....mind...

42 RED DEVIL: Some of us may get to protective. Please don't take it to heart. As I've said before. Most Americans look at the UK as being the bravest nation on earth. Americans should not blame England for the few Bush/republican/America hating loudmouths in the UK. We have just as many here in America. Just a need to strike back I think. Another thing. I LIKE TONY!! And the rest of the brave brits serving in Iraq and other places. Hang it there. The liberal cry babies continue to cry but look who is winning. Most conservatives spend their time on better things than complaining. It's a shame to see the racial changes in England. It will hurt your country. They breed like rats and offer nothing to better your great nation. England will not have solidarity in anything if it continues. Unfortunately, I wonder if some of your immigration policies were forced by some of America's past administations.

43 Yes: Thousands may (I find it hard to believe) wish to move to Canada. But 10's of thousands of Canadians wish to move to America.

44 Red Devil: I apologize! I did not mean that comment for you. But some of the UK'ers on here are making your country look like a bunch of sissy bleeding heart, anti-war, peace loving fuckwits. I am sorry if it appeared that I meant it for the whole country. I am getting tired of arguing with the likes of CooqarUK, who does nothing but sit at his computer and complain about Bush and Blair. He wouldn't even be posting on this blog had his country not become involved, I am sure of it. I know that he is not representative of all people of your country, but he and a few others share the same views and make it difficult for me to believe that anyone over there supports our troops at all. The country is so divided, even now with the election over and people are STILL whining that Kerry didn't win, I hate my country. A soldier wrote on this blog that he is taking down his flag, putting it away in a drawer, because he claims he is now " a man without a country"!!!!! I say if these people are so upset Bush is in for another 4 yrs., pack up and move to Canada, or go help the people of Iraq, since they're complaining about all the innocent people over there.

45 PS OOOPS....I didn't mean *I* hate my country, I was just quoting people who are saying that, because Kerry didn't win. Whew.

46 I see that Iraq's declared a 60 day state of emergency. Is America kicking ASS or what? Yesterday, they said that the civilians were told to flee the area. Why couldn't they have done this shit when they first went there, maybe the beheadings and kidnappings wouldn't have had time to happen?!

47 Rooster.......loved your comments about UK Immigration and Tony Blair. Proves that you haven't got a clue about either. As I have said to Laura on numerous occasions, please engage your brain before posting comments. Were you always a thick,ignorant,redneck racist dickhead? Why dont you crawl back under that slimy rock where you came from, you sad little man. Cant wait to hear back from you and read the same old tiresome bilge that vomits from yourr pen.

48 James: "Can't wait to hear back from you and read the same tiresome bilge that vomits from your pen". It is obvious from that last comment that you taunt and vex people into responding hostilely to your posts. You are purposefully trying to piss people off for a response. Poor, sad little man! Wants attention badly, no matter what the cost. Why don't you go over to the Bigley Blog and you and Cooqar can have a nice little tea party, you fucking faggot! These blogs have turned into nothing but immature rantings and insults, typical responses from pinheads who are sore losers and are so frustrated about the election outcome, that they are grasping at straws because they have lost the fight. Go piss in your beer and leave us alone.

49 Laura......if you read through all the posts that we have shared, you will notice that it is yourself and rooster who have lowered the tone constantly with your personal attacks on any one who has disagreed with either of you. Even whilst not particapating in a certain blog, I have been referred to as all matter of things. Contrary to what you might think, I am not playing devils advocate and deliberately trying to wind people up. I am just amazed at the level of ignorance of some of the contributors. As I have said on numerous occasions we can agree to disagree but still conduct ourselves with a modicum of decorum, a concept that you are incapable of grasping. Now, Rooster is perfectly capable of standing up for himself and I doubt for one moment that his feelings have in any way been hurt, gallant though it is that you should defend his honour. I dont know anything about you other than that you are a foul mouthed mother of a 15 YEAR OLD and that you reside in New York. I just hope that your son does not have to suffer the indignity of reading his mothers drivel. And now using a few of your own choice words, Fuck Off Laura

50 JAMES: Doesn't matter what you believe about me. You are as much an enemy of my country as the terrorists. Just another asshole sticking his nose in business where it doesn't belong. Racist? Maybe, I've always thought the white race was a cut above. of course, I also believe if you're not an American of Nordic heritage you ain't shit. Racist, redneck. Yea, we raise a lot of them in San Francisco, Calif. where I was born and raised. You frigging idiot. Unfortunately, we live in a world that if you think the best quarterback in the NFL is white, you're a racist. If you think that Uganda is full of idiots, you're a racist. But if you think the French are cowardly, trouble making assholes you're not a racist. Oh yea, I forgot, everyone who works for me is white. I've already been called a racist for that. A black competitor who hires only blacks in not a racist. My point is I don't give a damn what you and others like you think. You are an enemy of my country. Therefore you are my enemy. You and types like you give support to the terrorists whether you choose to admit it or not. American service men are put in harms way due to the constant bitching, complaining, lying and anything else America hating assholes like you can come up with. I detest you as much as those that do the beheadings. They swing the knife but you give it credence. You make excuses for their behavior. It's Bush's fault, its the republican's fault, it's Rumfield's fault. You backward prick. My son is in Fallujah today. I'm worried about him, not you. You are nothing but words. Foolish cowardly ones at that. Take a hike. My country doesn't want or need you. You are an embarassment to your country. If you truly have one. Your bullshit is to late. America, it's allies and the freedom lovings Iraqis have started taking care of business. I just hope my son and his buddies remember the beheadings and mutilations when these cowardly bastards kneel at their feet begging as they did before. Myself, I say no quarter for those that don't give it. If you believe America and it's leaders are so wrong, why don't you get a plane ticket over there, put a rag on your head and fight with something more than your mouth. Better get a one way ticket because America is tired playing with you bastards. As my old coach would say. you're 100% with this team or get off the fucking field.

51 Agree to disagree yet still conduct ourselves...blah, blah, blah. You have stooped to Cooqar's level now. Scarey the way you remember me as a mom of a 15 yr. old, what are you, taking notes? When you post drivel that obviously is going to provoke some hostility, you have no one to blame but yourself when the flames start firing back at you. Practice what you preach, and think before you type.

52 MESSAGE TO GREYROOSTER'S SON: MAY GOD BE WITH YOU AND ALL THE TROOPS AS YOU GO INTO FALLUJAH. WE ARE PROUD OF YOU ALL AND SUPPORT YOU. GODSPEED.

53 Greyrooster:Smokin analysis.Any waverers take note.The hell fire and brimstone was leaping of the page.Tell your son,that hes in the hearts and minds of ordinary people like me on this blog,strangers to him it is true,some may believe in God, some as I may not,but hes got to know,we care,and in spirit,we are right there with him.For him to know that people like myself care about him,his welfare,that hes okay,though we havent met has got to give him a lift,however small that might be in the scheme of things, it is significant.I believe in the power of the human spirit.The power of people consciousness.That one person projecting these thoughts of keeping him safe,and from harms way has a power.Collectively that power is multyplied a million fold.People will be praying right now.Or like me focusing on an image of your son in their minds eye,willing him to stay safe,wishing him all the luck in the world,mostly hoping that he gets back home safe.To anybody else out there wheather you have religious belief or not,spare a thought for Greyroosters son,or pray or whatever you may do, but most of all mean it. I'm a simple man.I just want to live my life in peace.I welcome strangers fom any land,rich or poor,whatever their religion as long as they dont disturb the peace of myself or my neighbours and dont propogate hate.I believe in the power of good over evil.Your son is one of the soldiers of good.Belief in what you are doing is half the battle.I'm too old to fight.This is the first time in years that I've been itchin to, whatever the cost.At 40 they dont accept you.Greyrooster, I feel fit enough to fire a machine gun,to jog a couple of hundred yards then dive for cover,get by on snatched sleep when you can get it.But you see I just dont get it.You can physicaly do most of whats going on out their but they just don't want to take you because your five or 10 years too old. Its sad.As I said in another comment,I cant believe younger people are not queing around the block to enlist. What is even sadder is that freedom is taken for granted by so many of the populace.People seem too protected,too comfortable. Living their own little lives, in some sort of make believe world. The I'm alright Jack brigade.It's not happening in my back yard.When the Wolf is knocking at the door it is too late.People cannot see the evil that is comming if we dont nip it in the bud right now.There is good and bad in all peoples of the world.I just hope your son will have the chance and the time to know the difference.Sometimes it can be in the blinking of an eye,a sudden movement,an unconscious act that gives away someone that was understood to be an innocent to actualy be a foe and deadly enemy.Whose to know the guy stepping out of the pickup at a road check point is not a suicide bomber.It must be hell to be able to tell. We dont choose where we are born.There must be some good people there. I hope he gets only the bad guys and sends them where they want to go. If there realy is a God out there, then may that God bless and keep your son and save us from those evil people.I'm out of here.

54 Wow, the only reason I can go to sleep tonight is by reminding myself that although Bush is an idiot, he is not as idiotic as the people who read the crap on this blog and then post stupid comments. Maybe if Rusty actually opened his racist eyes and actually realized that he is accomplishing everything that the terrorists want, he would think twice about his motives. Laura and other retards, try to follow: 1. Stupid Terrorists (whose goal is to generate hate) behead a poor soul and release video. 2. Rusty posts video on blog to expose to thousands, making sure to generate hate. 3. Rusty then posts some crap about how Islam is inherently evil, generating more hate. 4. Retards who read this crap and agree with it, demand that the US nuke every Muslim country as hatred consumes them. 5. Stupid Terrorists then put up "Mission Accomplished" banners. In the end, Rusty is helping the terrorists and personally, I think he is worse than them because you don't see Osama creating a blog and exposing his stupid and hate filled beliefs to the world under the cover of "education".

55 Laura, How stupid are you? Can you just take a second and think about what you are posting before you click on that post button??? Here is a quote: "I see that Iraq's declared a 60 day state of emergency. Is America kicking ASS or what? Yesterday, they said that the civilians were told to flee the area. Why couldn't they have done this shit when they first went there, maybe the beheadings and kidnappings wouldn't have had time to happen?!" Where the hell do you want the civilians to go? Do you want them to go camp in the desert and starve to death? Do you want them to go to another country? Imagine for a second that some terrorist come to your city, and there are no police to protect you or to get them out. Then your country tells you to evacuate the city. Where are you going to go? Are you going to leave your home and everything you have? No...instead you are going to stay there and most likely die when the "liberation forces" start launching attacks. Laura, you can not question what is going on there because you are not there. Oh and Rooster, just shut the hell up. You are not the only person who has family in Iraq. Maybe instead of blasting those who question Bush's war on Iraq, you should take some time and ask yourself "Why is my son there?". If your son is anything like you, then he is probably one of the sick fucks who went there so they could kill things and have a good ole time. Instead, I hope your son is a brave human being who only followed orders by a leader who tricked him. If that is the case, then I hope he will return home saftely. To everyone who is hoping that America is "kicking ASS" in Iraq: Just remember that it is not just the insurgents who are getting their asses kicked. It is also innocent civilians who did nothing wrong. According to www.iraqbodycount.net, the civilian death toll is somewhere around 15,000. For those of you retards like Laura who consider the "war" as a football game, isn't 15000 a good enough score? Whats wrong? Has the US failed to cover the spread? Should they instead kill 20k or maybe 30k? Haven't enough innocent people died to satisfy your rage?

56 The analogy you give beggars belief. To equate creating a blog and expounding ones beliefs on it(that incidentaly are not in tandem with your own)with terrorists that commit these discusting beheadings preposterous.One could be forgiven for wondering who the 'quote': retard is here.Those who live in glass houses should'nt throw stones. Having done voluntary work when I was a teenager taking retarded wheelchair bound people out in the grounds of a hospital near my home I found your 'retard' reference particularly distasteful and wholely offensive.These poor unfortunates, often with no living relatives would not have seen the light of day if it were not for us kids at the time.Some of them lived in what was effectively little more than a cage.Patents that would often not even move their lips would shout and cry with happiness just that they were outside in the clear light of day,away from their suffering.

57 Personaly I would be very interested to hear what solution you have if any. Soundbites are all well and good but there is no substance here. You are far more intelligent than your comments posting suggests.Anyone can put down others or belittle their views and opinions.If this blog turns into just another blog where people swear and curse all the time then the true reason why Rusty created it is lost.People are more likely to come over to your side if you ease them into your way of thinking.Character assasination is not going to make people want to change.If you dont attack them from the off you might even find that you win if not their support for your views then at least their respect.Anything less than this is a missed opportunity.Anyone can behave like an (a)word.One is born every day. It takes guts to express yourself in a civilised manner.

58 Sopotamia, You seem like one of the more reasonable people who follow this blog. Thus, I will explain why I came off the way I did. I felt I had to model my post in the same way as some of the people here in order to make them understand. With that said, I apologize for using a word like "retard" to describe the ignorance here but note, I have seen people here use a lot harsher words. I would love to have a intelligent conversation about what is wrong and if there is any way to fix it but unfortunatly, anything I say will be called "un-american" or I will be labeled as a foreigner like James. But before that happens, I am curious as what the original intentions of Rusty are since obviously you have followed this more than I have. On his "jawas-explained" section, he tries to relate our enemy to fictional characters in a popular movie. By doing that, he is immediately taking a serious matter and trivializing it. How can anyone take his beliefs and concerns seriously when he is using an analogy that is based on stereotypes.

59 I, too, take offense at the "R" word. My youngest son happens to have Down Syndrome. That said, let me tell you something, Fake! If you are so upset by the contents of this blog, what the hell are YOU doing here? If you look up any war in history, innocent civilians are always caught up in the crossfire. That's war. I don't want to see them hurt, but that's how war is. If you come onto this blog like a bull in a china closet, call everyone names and insult them because their views differ from yours, it is your own fault if you are met by hostility. I cannot believe the audacity of people who would rather feel sorry for foreigners than their own people (the soldiers). And by the way, over half of the population LEFT THE CITY before we started this latest ground assault on Fallejah. They've been terrorized for years by Saddam, to say nothing of the current wave of insurgents. Allawi has joined forces with our soldiers and we are both fighting the insurgents to rid the country from terrorists, so who the hell are you to come here and declare that innocents are being killed, as though we are doing it on purpose! I am sooo damned tired of you lib's. If you are that against the situation, please move to Canada.

60 Fake like (not going to use a good man's name addressing you). I guess your solution is do nothing. Wait until they gather strength, terrorize more people into supporting them and attack our innocents again. BULLLSHIT: The good citizens of Fallujah are feeding them, supplying them with intelligence, weapons and whatever they need. They had a year to slowly make other arrangements. They wanted to stay and support the Bastards. Here is another one for you. How about I don't give a shit about a people/society that spawns these ISLAMIC Assholes. The good citizens have had plenty of time to let the Iraqi government know where these bastards are. They haven't. Thousands of ISLAMIC NUTS cannot hide from public view for months on end. I know why my son is there. I also know why a piece of shit like you isn't there. There is no justification for cutting innocent peoples heads off. There was no justification for 9/11. I am not concerned about the welfare of the so called but not really so innocents in Fallujah. You stupid ass. This has been the plan all along. You're just to wrapped up in hating America to see it. For the last months I've been giving hints that this is what we want. Get as many of the bastards as we can in one place and end it. Remember, over there, not over here. Assholes like you can't seem to understand that the Iraqi government is at our side. They made this choice and their soldiers are fighting the terrorists as well. Personally, I think the powers that be made a mistake by giving warning. I believe many of the higher ups have already escaped. But we will get a bunch which means less people will die later. In final. If you ever use my son in one of your posts again I will find you. No matter what it costs me. This I promise, you would much rather have a bunch of beheaders in masks at your door than me and mine.

61 Fake...what a fitting word for a low life scumbag such as yourself! Go right ahead, stick up for a country that would just as soon see you dead before we get them. You fucking crumb! Those people in Iraq did nothing. They've had plenty of time to get together and protest to their government about the terrorism that is running rampant over there. THEY DID NOTHING, hear me? So, of course, the good ole US of A, went there to FREE THEM from the scourge of these insurgents. You think we like seeing innocents getting killed amidst all this? Of course not. But that's war, too bad. So tell me, what plans do you have of taking care of the situation besides wanking off with one hand and typing with the other? I am too old to fight, but have plenty of relatives and friends' sons over there fighting those bastards. Big tough guy, or gal, whatever the hell you are. So easy to talk, so easy to act the asshole. And if I ever see you insult disabled people again, I'll hunt you down as well. My nephew is autistic, you insect. I wish I could step on you.

62 Fake:The greatest difficulty I have at this moment is containing the rage I still feel at your earlier statement,though typed and not spoken, it's as if it was and the sound is still ringing inside my head.These beheadings have truly changed me as a person.The Eugine Armstrong beheading brought me very close to a complete mental breakdown.The Henlsey one with his eyes moving above the head band before execution and his mouth open and jaw moving after he was murdered completely unhinged me,taking me to the darkest side of the human psyche,filling me with a hate so profound I wanted instant revenge, by any means necessary.I naively thought at the time that fact that they were beheaded at all was largely due to the fact the fact that they were 'Kaffars', a derogatory term similar to the term Infidels, yet used primarily in that region. If it had not been for the fact these murderers started beheading Moslem Iraqi people that were supporting the infrastructure I would not be here now,lets just say I would have been getting quite busy,and I dread to think of what I might have done.The more I watched the stronger the desire became to exact revenge. I still cant get the video of Nick Berg our of my head as the executioners shout out god is great.That man was conscious when his head was almost off,when he let out a final roar of agony they shout out again god is great.Drawing a correlation between these terrorists and Rusty's setting up of a blog which you feel for the most part expounds his own views, as you did, must be deemed in any discerning persons mind, absolutely reprehensible. In that opening statement you struck a mortal blow in one fell swoop to any credence you might have gained in anything that you followed it up with.The done can never be undone.You might as well have punched us all on the nose.Sledgehammer diplomacy is what they are trying to get rid of in Iraq. Maybe once people realise democracy is better in the end than a dictatorship and Iraqi's on the ground see that things are getting better and they realise that neither the Coalition nor the Americans hate them they will rise up in greater numbers against the extremists that are trying to deny them entry into Iraqs rightful place at the table of the civilised nations of the free world. I am a champion of the underdog,he/she that suffers,he/she that has no voice,he/she that craves for justice in a land where there is none,he/she that is dispossessed of all rights as a human being regardless of religious affiliation. All of these can be found in Iraq and every state where religious fundamentalism is found to be killing and opressing its people. Iraqi people are being beheaded because they are trying to do something so harmless as laying water pipes so that their fellow Iraqis might have fresh drinking water and the facility to bath.They dream of what even the poorest in the western hemisphere take for granted as a given.When people say that Bush makes selective war.What about Zimbabwe and other places,the things that went on there. These things do not sit comfortably with me I admit.The fact is though that the greatest danger to life on earth now is not Robert Mugabe,the atom bomb or anything else.It is however Islamic fundamentalism.If other countries go the way of France with its 6 million moslems and Germany with its 11 million moslems, frightened to get involved in supporting the coalition in Iraq for fear of civil unrest, it begs the question who will be there to defend those that do not want to be forced into becomming a moslem.When this religion gets so powerful that the prospect of conversion or death is the reality in larger swathes of the world.This might seem quite fantastical right now but there are many that believe to get thus far has been a 600 year plan to have world domination.As I am too old to serve in the Army I would gladly get involved in defending foreign aid workers,preferably while being armed to the teeth, That I would do gratuit,which is what most of charity workers are doing it for anyway.France is the major bullwork stopping Turkey joining the European .President Chirac does not want them.He has already openly said Turkey is not a european country,it is an Asian one,one that contains 70 million moslems .Turkey if allowed to join the Union would instantly become the largest country in the whole European Union, with the poorest population, with several thousand miles of largely open borders and Europe would be come swamped.I have stopped watching beheadings for a long time now but I still hold that these people are evil and must be stopped by any means necessary.

63 May as well write this as my wife and two daughters will be up all night. The Marines are moving their tanks into Fallujah so I guess Scott is in the thick of it. I wonder if FAKE the anti American piece of shit can name one of the so called sick fucks that went there so they could kill things and have a good ole time? If you can't name one you are a liar. Which we all know anyway. If FAKE is an American he/she (sissy anyway) should be tried for treasonous behavior. At very least taken to a Marine Corp base and made to read his/her sick fucks statement.

64 Laura....I read through some of your pevious posts and that is how I learned that you have a son. Prior to that, I thought you were just a kid who had been let loose on a computer. Dont flatter yourself by thinking that I am putting a dossier together on you. You are not that significant in any meaning of the word. Rooster, as I said to you before, I hope your son is safe and that he makes a safe return to you and your family. However your views on other Americans who dont share your heritage is nauseating. Given that there could be people of numerous ethnic origins on this blog, deomcrat, republican, American or foreign, it would be a good idea to tone down your racist language. You rantings are similar to those of the cantankerous old sherrif in Smokey and the Bandit. Becareful you dont bust a blood vessel, you blustering old bufoon.

65 What the fuck is this!I've never read such a croq of shit in all my days.Who writes this stuff.This is a set up right.Your putting me on.Nobody is that dumb!

66 This war wouldnt be a war if oil was not involved. Yeah what the insurgents did was barbaric and the culprits have to be caught and brought to justice.Im with you you on that one.Tell me this though.Why have we gone to war in this day and age without a referendum?Shit,America is the most powerful nation on earth and we cant trust our own people to make their own minds up on if they want to go to war or not?That is undemocratic.Why are we messing with Iraq? I thought they were our allies back in a day when the bogie man was Iran. How many times have we got to arm a country to only have them turn said arms on us a few years down the line .Dont you see it.Without America iraq wouldnt have any arms.Shit,what a mess,and what for.

67 This war wouldnt be a war if oil was not involved. Yeah what the insurgents did was barbaric and the culprits have to be caught and brought to justice.Im with you you on that one.Tell me this though.Why have we gone to war in this day and age without a referendum?Shit,America is the most powerful nation on earth and we cant trust our own people to make their own minds up on if they want to go to war or not?That is undemocratic.Why are we messing with Iraq? I thought they were our allies back in a day when the bogie man was Iran. How many times have we got to arm a country to only have them turn said arms on us a few years down the line .Dont you see it.Without America iraq wouldnt have any arms.Shit,what a mess,and what the hell for.

68 James: A real man would have apologized. No one takes you seriously anymore since you went off ranting about our soldiers and us "retards". I don't care what you think about me or anyone else on this blog but I DO care about what people say about our soldiers and our country. I draw the line there. Go ride a kanga and leave the debate to us Americans. Your country isn't even involved. All talk, no action. You are not even remotely connected to the war in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter.

69 Laura......I have never referred to you as "a retard". That was "Fake it" Yet again, you have shown your complete lack of ignorance about this conflict. You have been told that I am Australian, you have just told me to "go ride a kanga". Presumably you mean a "roo" Let me be the first to inform you , because you appear to be the only person who doesn't know, that Australia does in fact have a presence in Iraq. No wonder people think that you are several beers short of a six pack, the fact is, you haven't got a fucking clue what you are harping on about. Get an education and get a life. I believe someone has already referred to you as a "dumb fuckung bitch", that I feel is wholly inappropriate, because it is an insult to the dumb fucking bitches that I have met in my time.

70 To James anything remotely close to the truth is racist. Better to avoid the issue and wait until it's too late. As stated before. You are as much an enemy as the terrorists are. Wekno: So you think the weapons use by the terrorists are weapons the USA supplied the Iraqi army with more than twenty years ago. That says it all. I guess the 8 billion dollars the Iraqi government under Saddam owes the French was for french fries.

71 James: You and Cooqar deserve each other. You have no respect for yourselves, let alone anyone else. You both have turned the blog into a war among itself, when originally, it was a place to vent our feelings for the hostages that were so cruelly slaughtered. I have no respect for anyone that supports the foreigners, even if there are "innocent people" involved. Too damned bad. Lots of innocent people died in those towers, on that plane in PA and at the Pentagon. To say nothing of the 6 that died during the '93 bombing of same, the USS Cole and the Embassy in Africa. To say Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 is getting pretty lame too, as mentioned by many on this blog. Thank God the views these anti-war lib's are making on here are but a small percentage of what the rest of America feels about the war, or Bush would not have been re-elected. Case closed.

72 Will somebody tell me what the fuck is going on here. What is this blog?And whats the rap with the guys from the land down under.Postings are way too long.I dont read that much in a month.Give me a break.Whats the good news out there?I just know your gonna make me smile.Later,I gotta run.

73 Wekno: Some people just hate Bush and think he illegally invaded Iraq, for oil, for WMD, for whatever. Fact remains, our leader won again, and only a small percentage share the views of the lib's on this blog, who continue to spew their filth and would rather stick up for a group of people who would surely like to see us dead before we get them. 55,000,000 + voters have voiced their opinions. If Bush was the prick all these bleeding heart libs say he is, why did he win? And the idiots who are whining the most aren't even from the US. They're mad because their countries became involved. They could give two shits otherwise. I guess they'd rather sit back and wait until Zarqawi and others like him, knock on their doors.

74 Whos hating bush.I dont hate bush,I hate the fucking terrorists murdrers that show no mercy to man woman or child.Help me out here on my word cause I just cant't look at the screen that long to read all this stuff.Some is absolute crap.If I get bored in the first line I move on. Im just skim reading bits but its too hard to find the good stuff.I know there is cause I seen some.Dont get me started on the Frogs,the most arrogant nation on the planet,cant we just nuke them.god I hate those turn coat yellow bellies.They love the American way of life n goods and shit.but those bastards hate us yet fucking admire the krauts,the same people that pummeled their country in 45 ,bastards fucking hate us man,I know it Ive been there,Anti American par exellence.

75 greyrooster:Shit you sound like a professor man.Sounds like you know more than I do about the weapons and shit. It was just a thought though.I know you say 20 years but I heard those kalashnikove assault rifles whatever are better than our own.Cant give you dates n stuff but I heard something about that not that long ago.Also in naam when a platoon of marines were issued with these M16's might be the name but dont slaughter me if it was something else.yeah anyway they were jamming after the first volley.Some platoon that were the first to be issued with these new gismos were in viet cong country and they were sitting ducks, apparently the viet cong were just a few yards off.This Army documentary I saw had a vet on there and he said himself that if not for that cache of enemy kalashnikovs they would not have made it. Also word got around pretty fast in naam and the marines were doing that all the time,exchanging US fire power for cong.Just a though anyway.

76 Twenty years ago our enemy used kidnappings as a weapon of fear, then to suicide bombings, then flying fuel-loaded planes into civilian buildings to today's cold-blooded assassination on the streets. Theo Van Gogh's barbaric execution by a radical Islamist this past Nov 2nd on the tolerant streets of Amsterdam, all because he made a film which exposed the treatment of Islamic females, is a bad sign of things to come for those who tolerate radical Islamic Jihad. Go ahead and protest the war while our enemy draws blood beneath the veil of your peace. For myself, I choose war. Our freedoms are worth dying for.

77 My sentiments exactly.

78 Wow, I thought the people who read this blog were fairly educated. Even Rusty himself claims to be a professor of some kind so I thought that maybe the people who take the time out to follow this blog had similar interests in the pursuit of knowledge. Unfortunately, those thoughts disappeared after about 2 minutes of reading. After I realized that this is merely another hate-blog and that its readers would rather gang up and attack anyone who thinks differently, I decided to give them a taste of their own medicine. Now I will expose you for the hypocritical fucks that you are. Oh yes, I am using a whole new vocabulary now. For those who missed out, here is how it started: James makes a post saying that he disagrees with Rusty. Instead of an intelligent discussion, we have this: >>> Get off the blog and complain to Blair, leave us Americans alone. Posted by Laura at November 5, 2004 08:55 AM JAMES: FUCK OFF Posted by greyrooster at November 5, 2004 12:44 PM LAURA: James is a foreigner. Want his address? Posted by greyrooster at November 5, 2004 12:51 PM Roost: He says he's not from the UK, but that doesn't mean he still ain't a foreigner. Even if he IS from the US, he IS a foreigner if he's against our President. Tough shit. Posted by Laura at November 5, 2004 03:20 PM Poor, sad little man! Wants attention badly, no matter what the cost. Why don't you go over to the Bigley Blog and you and Cooqar can have a nice little tea party, you fucking faggot! Posted by Laura at November 8, 2004 07:46 AM >>> Just by spending 2 days on this blog, I can already see a sad little trend. When Red Devil took offense to all the UK blasts, he spoke out. Roost realized that he had let his racist/nationalist hatred leak out my mistake because he was only trying to attack James so he apologized (only because UK happens to be an ally...who knows what hell he would have unleashed if they werenÂ’t) and says "I LOVE TONY" and then Laura the drone basically echoes everything he said. You people are filled with so much hypocrisy that it makes me sick. You also canÂ’t take what you dish out. I use a word like retard and suddenly everyone knows or has a kid that is retarded and starts speaking up. What about all the words that Roost and Laura have used? Where are all the people who have gays in their family? Didn't LauraÂ’s beautiful "you fucking faggot!" blast upset anyone? The sad thing is that if you do have homosexual family members or friends (which you do, trust me...everyone has at least one), they are probably too scared to make that known to their loved ones because of your hating ways. Rooster, although you try to sound educated and reasonable at times, your anger and hatred matches your ignorance. When I raised the point that the biggest victims in this war are the innocent civilians of Iraq, you responded with this: "They had a year to slowly make other arrangements. They wanted to stay and support the Bastards. Here is another one for you. How about I don't give a shit about a people/society that spawns these ISLAMIC Assholes. The good citizens have had plenty of time to let the Iraqi government know where these bastards are. They haven't. Thousands of ISLAMIC NUTS cannot hide from public view for months on end. Â… I am not concerned about the welfare of the so called but not really so innocents in Fallujah." Wow, if this was a trial that would be the smoking gun you racist fuck. TIME TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS??? Arrangements for what? Leaving their homes and everything they know and love? Do you know how many people lived in fucking Fallujah? Where the fuck would you go? The sad thing is that the majority of the population did leave because they know what happens after the US's "precision" air strikes. The ones that didn't leave live out their days in terror. Yes, some help out the insurgents but most likely because they are starving and they are offered food if they throw a grenade at the troops. Others may help for other reasons. Obviously when they do that they become part of the problem and I have no justification for what they do. Those who I AM concerned about are those who only paid the price of being citizens of a fucked up country that was invaded for all of the wrong reasons. Yes Suddam was a monster and people died in his country for unjust reasons but I am sure that if we hadn't attacked Iraq, Suddam would have been hard pressed to kill off 16,000 of his innocent civilians the way this war has. But Rooster doesn't take into those considerations. He says "How about I don't give a shit about a people/society that spawns these ISLAMIC Assholes." Yes, blame an entire religion for the actions of extremists. And then I saw this: "They've had plenty of time to get together and protest to their government about the terrorism that is running rampant over there. posted by Vinnyboy" Vinny, very nice point you ignorant fuck. Lets complain to the government. Which government are you talking about? The US installed government that can't help them? Don't you understand the situation there? It is called ANARCHY. There are no police. There is no help. All they can do is follow what the people with guns tell them to do. Sopotamia, don't you understand that you are falling in the grasps of the terrorists. ANYONE who sees those gruesome videos would be filled with rage. I avoided watching them because I knew I would and I didn't want hate to cloud my judgment the way it has most of the people here. Yes the beheading bastards need to die but the innocent civilians that are caught in the crossfire don't. Don't you realize that by watching those videos you are building hatred and distrust for any Muslim you see. If the entire US public fell into this trap, they would act out hate crimes against Muslims here and then other Muslim countries would take action and BAM, mission accomplished for the terrorists. Why is it so hard for you to understand that the terrorists are extremists. What they are doing is against every foundation of Islam. They even behead Iraqis for crying out loud. DoesnÂ’t that make you realize that they are monsters using Islam as a disguise??? They should be treated the way monsters here are treated: arrested and punished. The only difference is that in that "country", there is no way to catch them and punish them. There are all kinds of different serial killers and sick bastards in the United States. Why is it that when a Christian serial killer performs horrible acts against humanity, no one associates it with their religion? When some psycho murders someone because "god told him to do it", no one denounces their religion. Now, I can try to provide some solutions but honestly I don't know why I would waste my time. I could say that all the US had to do was change their global policy. Instead of backing Israel 100%, that they provide help to both Palestine and Israel and take measures to find a COMPROMISE and solve their disputes. I could say that instead of launching a war on Iraq, they could try to unseat Suddam in different ways. Hey, they did wonders in Iran with 5 or 6 people, why not create a coup in Iraq? Why not assassinate Suddam or Osama? Why do innocents have to pay the price because they are in the same country as these sick bastards. But that would be too simple. There are other factors involved unfortunately. Oil is one of them but I don't want to get into that. Now I know what is coming. Laura will either say "Face it, we won and you lost" or "If you don't like what Bush is doing go to Canada". Laura, what did you win? You know Bush and Kerry are pretty much the same right? If Kerry was elected, the operations in Iraq wouldn't stop. The "majority" of the nation (wow, 51-49 is a big majority) didnÂ’t elect Bush because of his warring ways, they elected him because they are more concerned about faith based issues like abortion than they are about the economy or global policies. Maybe you idiots need to realize that first. Ernie and No have tried to make you fuckers see things differently without attacking you personally and all they got was shit from you guys. Well I am different. I give the shit back...which leads me back to Rooster. Listen you fucking idiot. Read what I said. The only reason I even mentioned your son was because you keep bringing him in this discussion. As I said before... "I hope your son is a brave human being who only followed orders by a leader who tricked him. If that is the case, then I hope he will return home safely." I would never wish harm in any way. First of all, you need to realize that their ARE misguided members of the military. Either they are raised that way or corrupted by the military system but how else do you account for the atrocities documented in history. What about Abu-Ghariab?? What kind of fairy tale do you live in Rooster? You don't think there are raping and murders in Iraq by US troops? Iraq and Vietnam are becoming more and more similar and we all know what kind of sick shit we did over there. That is the nature of the beast. War is to blame. Now, although even acknowledging an Internet threat is giving too much credit to something that is so childish, I would like to address it because it just exposes you for the stupid bully that you are. You see, what I would like to do is say "I am an American citizen and I can criticize my government because that is my right as a citizen and if you threaten me because I am exercising my right then you will be thrown in prison." Unfortunately, I have been hanging around you sluts too long so I will say this instead: Rooster, you come by my door with a mask on and you will meet the business end of my H&K. With that said, once again I hope that your son returns safely and god bless all of the innocents who are dead or dying in Iraq.

79 Fake, why don't you post your real name? Cowering behind a fake moniker? Why don't you wrap a towel around your head and go protect the innocent people of Iraq? Do you realize that actually, 20,000 troops have been sitting in Iraq since '91 to oversee Saddam? And although a ceasefire was declared Iraq continued to shoot at us from their planes. Now, look who's talking about an "illegal invasion"? People forget sooo sooo easily. We don't care about what people say unless they are against our country and our govt. Pure and simple. If you weren't one of the 55,000,000 + who voted for Bush, then you can take your pro-Iraqi comments and move. Why should I care about the lives of Iraqi's when the livs of our boys over there are at stake as well? I think we should stick to the original plan: level the fucking city! Most of your so called innocents are long gone and left already. The media plays up all this biased shit because they hate Bush and his decision to go into Iraq. Why? Who the hell knows? Probably Kerry, Michael Moore and the other bleeding heart libs'are behind it. Talk about being a fake, Fake.

80 Fake: You make some interesting points.I do wish you would stick to them though and stop going into abuse mode at the drop of a hat all the time its getting boring by now.

81 Fake......good post but chances are that it will fall on deaf ears. Laura, as you rightly point out is the first to complain when she faces a personal attack. However she fails to recognise that more often than not, that the attack is a retaliatory response. However dont be too hard on her, as she only learned to read and write in the last couple of years. She's more of a remedial student as opposed to retarded, but I could be wrong. As for the rooster, well he's an old wind bag who would probably feel happier living in the South Africa of yester year during the time of aparthied. I wouldn't pay too much attention to him. Be good

82 Fake: The beheadings are not against every foundation of Islam. Dont kid yourself here.I have read the Koran and I know for a fact that their prophet sanctioned the beheading of 900 Jews of the ancient Quresi tribe,around the time of 700 A.D. In Medina Market Place,a trench was dug at the side of the road,after which all were beheaded, their heads placed on sticks,exept the women who were enslaved,the prophets followers taking some of them as brides.This was a long time ago its true.You must remember many believers follow the Koran to the letter today. This is not a progressive religion we are talking about here. Many followers take such Koranic verses as legitemising attacks on Jews today. Myself I had Christianity drummed into me from a very early age.I am an atheist.I believe in protecting other peoples right to practice their religious belief,just so long as it does not interfere with my rights to live unmolested and in peace.I have spent many years studying the evoluton of man as a species.There is no mention of dinosaurs in any holy book including the bible, which incidentaly was written by man. I am happy to take your opinions on board,but when as in this case they are based on missinformation,I feel that you need to be informed of the facts. I'd be interested to know your comments.

83 James: If you weren't such a pitiful character, I'd laugh. You continue the insults, just as your pal, CooqarUK did, and his ass is banned now, although he's still trying using other monikers. You and he are from the same mold. Ridiculing women when the going gets tough. If we're so stupid and ignorant, why do you continue the debate with us? Me thinks it's a macho thing, when a woman proves you're wrong. Go ride your "roo", hey, maybe you can meet up with Fake and ride together, since he's from your country.

84 All about Lortab Please visit my site http://lortab.se24h.com/lortab.html Thanks!

85 my advice to the auther of the article: go find something useful to do, my be flipping burgers!

86 Help us. Please try email me so that i will inform u about uor problems. Thank u fauzan5000@yahoo.co.uk

87 I have read this blog and am saddened to see it descend to name calling.I am Canadian and my son is voluntarily serving alongside American troops in Afghanistan.I should mention ,there are 'Roos,Kiwis and Germans there as well. No French I'm afraid. Yes,there are Canadians who feel strongly for our American neighbours, in spite of our prolonged exposure to Liberal politicians.We are hampered by our politics that continue to appease a growing minority population and other selfvested interest groups that flourish in a politically induced, socially correct, mindset. Rather than administering to the needs of this fine country our Government wastes our time telling us how good a job they do in assisting the poor, the inept, the downtrodden and the recently arrived from oppressed countries, whose numbers they are forever prepared to increase when in wake of an upcoming election.We are,as a nation,politely choking on our political correctness because it is the quintessential inoffensive Canadian thing to do. I mentioned this as a means of explaining why we sometimes appear at odds with American foreign policy.We consider Americans as an elder brother and as such we harbour the usual misgivings whenever "Johnny" embarks on a course of action that forces us to tag along.In the past our main squables occurred along trade issues where we just wanted to hold our own and not get screwed in the process. Yankee traders have a well deserved reputation. Our world position, unlike that of the U.S.A is never under threat thereby giving us the freedom to mouth opinions and platitudes that we don't have to live up to.We've given our blustering political idiots disproportinate amounts of time to fulfill their mandate. They subsequently embarrassed the hell out of us on the world stage.Our past liberal Premier,the honourable J.C.Chretien comes to mind.His cabinet was the most corrupt ,divisive and ineffectual in memory.We are only now beginning to discover this. The gist of all of this dribble is to asure you that Canadians will stand by you and offer their assistance.As a people we pride ourselves in reaching out and giving freely.It is a common trait we share. I enjoy this blog space, even the ire it raises. Freedom of speech is a precious commodity.

1 First! Dude - get some help. I need to find some time, so I can return all the kind linkage!

2 Get on the horn to the HT, bubba. And get better.

3 Holy shit! Kim's site is the funniest blog ever!

4 Get well soon Dr. Rusty, and thanks for the link.

5 Rusty, This link's for you, man.

6 You say that this took you only an hour to complete. I'm hoping that theres a slight exaggeration in that statement. I and other lesser mortals hang on to that hope with a fervent desire to know and appreciate that we really are not as slow at typing as our inner gremlins would have us believe! Seriously though, what you wrote was the best piece of informed history I have yet seen on this blog. The consequences of State appathy on such a grand scale,as this most surely was, have implications not only for the state and its people but for the whole civilised world. I remember Carter from when I was about 15 years old. Whenever I think of him I can never erase the image of a man looking so hopless and forlorn,defeat etched on his face, a completely broken man. The absolute shock and heartbreak I felt when I saw live on my T.V. screen the dead bodies of American Forces being pulled and paraded, by jubilant Iranians after their helicopter was downed in that doomed,desperate bid on the part of Carter,to rescue hostages at any cost will stay with me forever. Needless to say we are still suffering the repercussions of that today with these ragheads thinking the taking of hostages will weaken the resolve of the coalition . How wrong they are. Give em hell George.

7 Dude, get better, or we'll hunt you down and make you watch Barney with Hillary Clinton. For real and stuff. Thanks for the link, home-slice.

8 I think sopotamia's comments were from the previous post, but point well taken. I'm feeling much better now...I'm not dead yet.

9 AH HA: Sopotamia brought up the issue dragging and multilating dead bodies. NOW I ASK YOU. Are people who act like this civilized. HELL NO. Then why must we treat them like civilized people. We cannot respond to them in a civilized manner. Their own actions supply the answer. WE DON'T HAVE TO AND SHOULD NOT. They will not understand any other way but their way. So let's reply with something they understand. The people mutilating dead bodies are not the terrorists. But they support them even in this goulish fashion. I only hope that soon they get something they understand. In the words of the Islamic idiots after 9/11. IF GOD DIDN'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN HE WOULD PREVENT IT.

10 Yes my intention was to post my comment on your 'ISLAMISTS DECLARED WAR ON THE USA 25 YEARS AGO TODAY 'posting'. I realised right away when I did it but it was too late and I was hoping nobody would notice.I must be getting old. Still I'm glad it has been read. If ever a president carried the weight of a nation Carter was your man.

11 Greyrooster, right with you on that one. The only language they understand. Cutting off a head is bad enough. But then they place the severed head on the guys back like he's holding it himself. We already know they are evil. This is an act of pure defiance. It's as if they are saying; Ha America! Bush! Look what we do! What are you waiting for! Come and get us! I only hope we do, soon.

12 What about that poor bastard Japanese guy who was beheaded WHILE LYING ON TOP OF THE AMERICAN FLAG!!! WTF is up with that one? The poor fucker had NOTHING to do with it, at least they should get their countries straight. That one really upset me...here's a poor, misinformed, misguided wanderer...shit, maybe he was wandering around for so long he didn't even know what the hell was going on in Iraq! To slaughter this young fellow for no other reason other than the fact that they could appalls me. And those bleeding heart lib's STILL believe that it's our fault it's come to this? And that violence breeds violence? Sorry, folks but this is the only language they seem to understand. Fuck em, get rid of them all.

13 Just what I was looking for. Great joy! Here is another nice site http://crapsadvice.com

14 Just what I was looking for. Great joy! Here is another nice site http://bingoplaying.com

15 I found this wonderful site that helped me a lot! I have started this website http://roulettefinder.com

16 I found your site while searching on Yahoo for examples of blogs. My site http://www.sportsbookworld.com

17 I found your site while searching on Yahoo for examples of blogs. My site http://slots-guide.com

1 Nov. 4, 1979 Let us remember that 25 years ago today, Iran took 44 Americans as hostage. That was the day terrorism really began, not in '93, not in '98, not on 9/11, but on that day, in 1979. If our govt. took notice of this back then, we may not have had those other attacks. Think about it.

2 Hasn't Russia done this before though? It is my impression that they had already taken families of terrorists "hostage" to help end a crisis.

3 During the Beslan siege they rounded up some pro-seperatist leaders, but later released them. It was my impression that the officers in the Army responsible did so on their own, and not as a part of any larger policy.

4 Real simple, I'm in.

5 The bin Ladens wouldn't have been able to leave the country so easily after 9/11.

6 This will never take off... there are too many soft lefties in the world today. I must say, however, that if my great uncle Egbert were to suddenly convert to Islam and start bumping off "Infidels" with alarming regularity and I got caught up in his madness, I would feel a tad pissed off. However tenuous, the people Al Zarqawi et al have been bumping of HAVE had links to the situation in Iraq (they're there in Iraq for a start-off). Personally, rather than family members, I think we should start bumping off those prisoners they are demanding be released as "payment-in-kind" for every "Infidel" they murder. Those two women (Madame Anthrax and her friend Doctor Death) should be beheaded and a tape sent into Al-Jazeera for world-wide Internet snuff addicts' delight and delectation. These monkeys won't care if their family gets killed, the sane half of their family probably disowned THEM many years ago. They will simply see it as a further affront to their "just cause"... they will see the death of these "important" captives as a similar affront but at least there is some military gain to be had from killing these insurgents. The election is over... Bush is in command for another 4 years... bring on the fireworks. Black Watch suffered fatalities today (probably by means of a suicide bomber) ... time to just get stuck in with every weapon in the arsenal. Come on Bush, play dirty for me. For once show that the huge great bomb is mightier than the rusty knife.

7 I see CooqarUK in the Bigley blog is now blaming Bush for the three British soldiers who got killed today....first fatalities from there too. Red Devil, I agree, we should behead those women the insurgents are wanting us to free and send the tape back to Al Jazeera. See what happens. Then, start beheading the Iraqi prisoners that were abused by our soldiers, remember the pics that got in the media's hands? Someone on here somewhere made a comment that disturbed me however. He said there are over 60 Arab nations that hate us...how are we going to fight this war on terrorism? Go to every nation and nuke all of them? Wipe them all out? Those that escape to another country and start spreading their terror there, what then? Nuke them and so on and so on? Makes you think, among all the nuke em comments, including mine!

8 I seem to remember reading (some where) about Russia taking families of hostage takers hostage, chopping them up into bits, and shipping the boxed up parts in as a negotiating method. Am I thinking about medievil Russian history? The theory is the only way to fight an enemy like this, is to be more ruthless then they could ever hope to be. I'd give it a whirl!

9 Its a similar strategy to the Israeli practice of demolishing terrorists family's homes.

10 Hey Rusty: Negative reactions from the Russian press? Maybe their press is as much filled with liberal assholes as ours is. I think its a great idea.

11 Damn it Laura: Quit worrying about CougarUK. He's an America hating, terrrorist supporting prick. Always has been, always will be. Nothing good can possibly come from reading that foreign piece of shits posts. Forget him. Take the families of the terrorists hostage. Treat them well but keep them until the terrorist turns himself in or is captured/killed. The victims of terrorism should have rights too.

12 I actually don't think the policy is moral and I also don't think it would work.

13 Morality will not win this one. We've tried the moral approach. Doesn't work with these people. How do we know it wouldn't work if we don't try? I always thought that major mosques and perhaps Mecca should dis-appear and no one know who done it.

14 i think its a great idea. these people may not care about us but they must care about their families. I dont think we should kill them just keep them imprisoned until they are caught. It must be worth a try.

15 Rooster: I know, I know...but it's hard to ignore, he just pushes all the right buttons on me. I can't help it. I have to defend us. You're right though, he's not worth the time. Anyway, in my paper this morning, they interviewed two of the original hostages that were taken in '79. They said if they were taken today, they'd be dead for sure. They thought about it while they were being held captive, that maybe they might be killed, but it was unheard of then, and the kidnappers were AFRAID of what American might do.....gee, I wonder why they were afraid THEN and not NOW? Maybe because we haven't hit hard enough yet? Find some of these bastards' wives, sisters, mothers, and hold them hostage...then see what happens...yeah baby.

16 Well, you have to remember this is the same organization that screamed murder at south africa at the slightest thing the white minority government did, yet just a year ago in zimbabwe this same lovely organization turned a blind eye to Robert Mugabe's "war veterns" commit acts of force sex (can't say the R word), pilliage and murder of the tiny white minority in Zimbabwe. So nothing now suprises me. Matter of fact, most of the states in the UN voted down any sanctions to be placed or offical condemnation. Go figure they'd get up on their hindlegs and cause a ruckus over a mear statement. Some people are ass backwards!

17 ROBERT MUGABE's ULTIMATUM TO WHITE FARMERS WAS ''GIVE UP YOUR LAND TO BLACK ZIMBABWEANS OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES''- In other words death. After reading the last posting I thought about this killing of white farmers. Why did Britain or America not send troops in there. Surely this was a former British colony and therefore Britain had a responsibility to protect the white farmers that for the most part held dual British/Zimbabwean nationality,as far as I am aware. It is common knowledge that most of the white farmers that decided to stay and refused to give up their land were murdered. Some of these Farmers famillies had owned,lived and worked the land for over 200 years. I'm all for land reforms but this was taking things a bit far. In many cases their black Zimbabwean employees were also murdered when they tried to stop Mugabe's henchemen taking the land, which was their only source of employment or earned income. Most of this land has now returned to shrub as the people that understood the land and the importance of alternating the crops are now dead. Forgive me but is there something I'm missing here. Why the silence and inaction from Britain and America there,what was the motive to do nothing? Why were they not inrerested in going in there? What's the catch? I'm getting a bit of a feeling of deja vu. You can guess what I'm thinking right. I'm just hoping its not so. The big 'o' word.No,couldn't be could it.

18 RHODESIA: Once the most modern progressive nation on the African continent. Now Zimbabwe, just another backward African nation full of crime and suffering. After they murder, kill and r word white people(and progressive blacks & browns) and starvation sets in, they will call on the nations with a majority of white people to save them. Zimbabwe is the product of liberalism. South Africa is going the same way. Just a matter of time. Heh! America why don't we import the white Zimbabweans and South Africans instead of raghead muslims. They have a hell of a lot more to offer. When I drive through New Orleans and some other American cities I wonder if it could happen here? Zimbabweans probably would have voted for Kerry. I know, I know, sounds racist. Not intended to be. Sometimes when you tell it like it is, it comes out that way.

19 Anyway the taking of hostages by America, Russia or any country in an effort to save lives in the long run is okay with me. Countries, religion, families are responsible for what they spawn. If one of my children committed such horrible acts. I would want to hide my head in a hostage camp. The parents and families should feel shame for what they produced.

20 LAMO and the greyrooster are in agreement on the Bin Laden family thing. They gave Osama the money that he started his terrorist network with. Probably, still do.

21 Another note on south africa. The blacks in that country have been making this nice little terroristic threat of genocide. It goes to the extent of "when Nelson Mandela dies, we'll be killing you like flies." Nice, no UN condemnation once again. But Russia makes a statement about dealing with terrorist hostage takers and once again the UN member nations stand up on their hind legs in opposition and condemnation. Ass backwards I tell you.

22 Greyrooster: Would figure they still are giving sonny boy cash. We should never have let the family members in this country go.

23 The UN doesn't give "official sanction" to ANY terrorism or human rights abuses against innocent civilians, if that's what you're implying. Not Sharon's Sabra and Shatila incident from the early 80's, not Palestinian terrorism, and not heavy-handed Israeli military operations that kill innocent people and bulldoze the houses of innocent people. Contrary to what many hard-line Israel advocates say, the UN tries not to discriminate on these matters. (No, I've seen NO evidence that Kofi Annan is anti-Semitic, so give it up.) But you know, what the f**k do you expect from people when you control their territory for several decades and run their economy and society completely into the ground? Just innocent victims. Israel has nothing to do with anything. I'll get out my violin. Why do we have such low expectations for Israel? I happen to think Israelis are pretty smart people, and I think they can do a lot better job than they're doing. We shouldn't appease terrorists, but Christ, do we really have to try so hard to tick people off? As for Russia's proposed policy, it sounds tempting but it's pure idiocy. You can't defeat terrorism by adopting the tactics of the terrorists. If you do that, you lose. The only way to beat the terrorists is to act with grace even when threatened with barbarity. The Bush administration has allowed the terrorists to force them into end-justifies-the-means policies, particularly abroad, but that's COMPELTELY WRONG. We cannot allow the terrorists to damage our national character. We can do better than this. Rush Limbaugh said of the prisoner abuse scandal, "This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation, and we're going to ruin people's lives over it, and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You [ever] heard of the need to blow some steam off?" Give me a break. This is America. We don't judge our morals by the standards of terrorists. We use our own standards. If they're beheading people, that doesn't mean it's OK to chop off peoples' fingers, just because it's not quite as bad. We have to define our own ethics and priorities, and not let the terrorists screw with us. If we do anything else, we lose. p.s. William Kristol, he of Cold War II neoconservatism -- a.k.a. one of "The Bombers" -- said people were "obsessing...about a small prisoner abuse scandal." But Rumsfeld's comments on it were perhaps the most disturbing of all. "I haven't been focused on the war of ideas, to be honest with you." Just f'ing great!

24 QUOTE: "You can't defeat terrorism by adopting the tactics of the terrorists. If you do that, you lose. The only way to beat the terrorists is to act with grace even when threatened with barbarity." Hmmm... so the USA should have simply ignored what happened on 9/11, shrugged it off and gone about its business. I'm guessing that if that was the policy, there would have been a few more 9/11 incidents since... heck why not make it "National Terrorist Day" whereby any terrorist can enter a competition to see who can produce the most spectacular terrorist attack each year? We'll create a new "Terrorist Oscars". Picture Osama Bin Laden walking onto the stage to the applause of thousands of Americans, receiving his award from Dubbya... "Yeah, you really got us there, that was great. Here's your Golden WTC Award". Bin Laden, looking slightly embarrassed at the standing ovation, "thank you America, we are currently working on an even more evil and diabolical plan for next year. I don't want to give anything away because that would spoil the surprise. But if you want a tiny clue, make sure you order your burgers to 'take-away'". Fast forward a few years and Al Zarqawi is receiving the award... "Al, the way you lopped off that Engineers head showed just how committed you are to your cause... do you have anything to say?" Al Zarqawi : This really is an honour. To follow in the footsteps of a great man such as Osama Bin Laden is truly humbling. I guess I didn't think about it too much, I just stuck the knife in and wiggled my hand around a bit until his head came off. And then I was there with his hair in my hand and his head was outstretched before me, I thought, 'we've gotta get this on camera, this looks COOL!'", cue rapturous applause from the audience.

25 When are we going to realise the Russians are now our allies in this thing. Its time to move on fom the cold war Even if you don't believe in religion bet you'd rather have have an orthodox christian brother living next door to you than a crawling sand nigger.

26 Yeah, skew what I said if it's the only way you can make your point. >"You can't defeat terrorism by adopting the tactics of the >terrorists. If you do that, you lose. The only way to beat the >terrorists is to act with grace even when threatened with >barbarity." > >Hmmm... so the USA should have simply ignored what >happened on 9/11, shrugged it off and gone about its >business. Yup, this is the way you guys win arguments. You ignore what the other person said and simply pretend he said something else. It's what the Bush campaign did all season. Kerry was trying to turn the American healthcare system into the Canadian one. We can't let that happen! Only problem is Kerry never mentioned anything about a system remotely approximating the Canadian healthcare system, but what do Bush supporters care? They aren't really the policy types. They're more into following along behind a man with approximately elementary-school-level intelligence. Aside from the actual blog posts by Dr. R, I have seen not a single coherent argument here for Bush's policies. And I can only argue for so long with a brick wall. So, you guys believe in kidnapping innocent family members in order to deal with the threat of "terrorism." That's just grand. Reduce terrorism by becoming a terrorist. Excellent. >I'm guessing that if that was the policy, there would have been >a few more 9/11 incidents since... heck why not make it >"National Terrorist Day" whereby any terrorist can enter a >competition to see who can produce the most spectacular >terrorist attack each year? Yeah, heck, why not. Really funny. What would be even cooler is if you actually did a smidgen of research into the facts. Or, say, respond to my actual arguments rather than pretending I said something else. The society you seem to be envisioning is absolute hell on earth. National Gestapo Day. What happened to "give me liberty or give me death"? Your credo seems to be, "Thinking makes my brain hurt. And who cares about liberty?" It's a good credo. Joseph Stalin would have been proud of you. I also love this line: "I'm guessing that if that was the policy..." Lots and lots of guessing out there for Bush fans. Shore do beat in-depth analysis, don't it Billy Bob? That stuff is fer liberal sissies. Commies, traitors, ya know them people who wear them bell-bottoms 'n' stuff. P**sies. >Picture Osama Bin Laden walking onto the stage to the >applause of thousands of Americans, receiving his award >from Dubbya... > >"Yeah, you really got us there, that was great. Here's your >Golden WTC Award". > >Bin Laden, looking slightly embarrassed at the standing >ovation, "thank you America, we are currently working on >an even more evil and diabolical plan for next year. I don't >want to give anything away because that would spoil the >surprise. But if you want a tiny clue, make sure you order your >burgers to 'take-away'". Perfect, more fantasy for the fantasy-based community. In fact, bin Laden does have a lot to thank Bush for, notably: - before 9/11, John Ashcroft removed Janet Reno's counterterrorism bulletpoints from the FBI's planning memo. Former FBI counterterrorism chief Dale Watson said he almost "fell out of his chair" when he saw it, according to the 9/11 commission. Then, with threat warnings escalating, Ashcroft turned down a request for a modest increase in anti-al-Qaeda funding. The official notice of rejection for the funding arrived on September 12, 2001. - Bush held not a single cabinet meeting on terrorism until September 2001 - the Pentagon did not appoint anyone to its counterterrorism spot until after 9/11 (their focuses included Iraq, and ridding the Pentagon of anything having to do with Clinton -- who had made fighting al-Qaeda a high priority) - Bush spent all but a few days of the MONTH AND A HALF leading up to 9/11 on vacation, despite spectacular threat warnings that summer. Once, when he received a memo called "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the United States," he broke off early and went fishing for the rest of the day. (This despite the fact that Bush easily had less foreign policy experience and knowledge coming into the office than any incoming president in history.) - after 9/11, rather than focus on tracking down those who mindlessly slaughtered 3000 American civilians -- bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the man who sheltered them, Mullah Omar -- Bush decided to go on a little foreign policy adventure the neocons had concocted in the 90's. A few months after 9/11, Bush said, "I don't know where [bin Laden] is. No, you know, I just don't spend that much time on him to be honest with you." He said, "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care." He said, "I'm not that concerned about him." - Bush also said, "I am deeply concerned about Iraq." Iraq, of course, being a country that had nothing to do with Islamic extremism OR al-Qaeda. The invasion of Iraq has been the biggest boon to anti-American terrorist recruiting of any American policy in history. The State Department tells us that terrorism around the world has increased "sharply" since the war began, and that anti-American anger in the Middle East has reached "shocking levels." (Yeah, and for the record, it happens to be known as "take-out" here in America, mate, not "take-away." Blimey that bloody stonker; ain't it a littler bugger? A word of advice for you, though, bloke: make sure you mind the gap, but remember, no fags allowed on the lift. By the way, do fags over there still come wrapped in alumiminiunium? If not, can I get an aluminiuniuiunum laurie to take away please my good man? Make sure you check under the bonnet first, though. Last week I had a shagged propeller shaft and I hit a dumper truck on the carriageway. It would be a pisser if she wrecked during my holiday. And throw in a meat pie and couple of fags while you're at it. I like my meat raw and with lots of entrails. Ta. And ta ta. Oh, and tell your mum she was bloody brilliant last night.) >Fast forward a few years and Al Zarqawi is receiving the >award... > >"Al, the way you lopped off that Engineers head showed just >how committed you are to your cause... do you have anything >to say?" > >Al Zarqawi : This really is an honour. To follow in the >footsteps of a great man such as Osama Bin Laden is truly >humbling. I guess I didn't think about it too much, I just >stuck the knife in and wiggled my hand around a bit until his >head came off. And then I was there with his hair in my >hand and his head was outstretched before me, I thought, >'we've gotta get this on camera, this looks COOL!'", >cue rapturous applause from the audience. Really funny. Great to come up with stories about these guys, since you don't seem to have a grasp of the reality. Zarqawi was in the Kurdish region of Iraq (not controlled by Saddam) before the Iraq invasion. He was targeting the Kurds and the Jordanians, and to a lesser degree, Saddam himself. The US could have bombed his camp before the war but chose not to because it didn't want to undermine a supposed justification for going to war. After the invasion, Zarqawi had virtually no one left to target except the US (although he can still try for Jordan as well). He wasn't aligned with al-Qaeda until a few weeks ago, when al-Qaeda and Zarqawi's organization, Tawid and Jihad, decided to join forces against a new larger foe -- the United States. In other words, not only has Bush not nabbed the original leaders of al-Qaeda, thanks to his policies al-Qaeda now has YET ANOTHER big-time leader. And how is it that this incompetent administration cannot even catch these guys in nations it now has under its thumb? But no one seems to care whether or not Bush is competent. You know what? Writing these comments is too disheartening for me, I think. I knew America didn't understand the threats, and wasn't paying much attention, but the more I read on some of these blogs about just how skewed peoples' sense of reality is, I just wonder whether there is any hope for this country. (And it looks like the UK may be slipping as well.) How do you reason with people who don't want to embrace reason? When people care more about a leader than they do about what's best for the country, what arguments can one possibly make? It all seems pretty pointless. You know what? You guys enjoy your little obliviousness love-in. I can only take so much of it at once. It's too disturbing to me. So I give up. You win. When you think about it, how can reason ever prevail over ignorance? I mean, it's ignorance, after all, right? So screw it. It's useless. You guys want to be oblivious. Be oblivious! When you wake up from your coma, give me a call and we can chat.

27 trr: Again, no solutions, no ideas to help just a tirade against Bush. Exactly, what Kerry did. Exactly, why Kerry lost. America wants to listen to solutions not crying and future forecasting of doom. Bush was re-elected because we (America) decided he would take action. Kerry wished to talk to the frogs and the UN thats full of little jealous countries who would love to see us lose. Wish you could channel your efforts in a positive direction and help America instead of throwing in the towel. Remember this. You too may be the victim of future attacks by these barbaric Islamic idiots.

28 Simple,just dont argue. That way you will have an easier life. Then you will not feel the need to moan so much. Nobody is skewing your argument. Please just condense your comments a little. That way you will give us all a breake.

29 You need to calm down a bit. Dont get so worked up about everything. If every one of you armchair moralist liberals actually had the gumption to to get off of your chair and get out there and do something about your convictions, myself and others might begin to have a bit more respect for you. You dont give any solutions . Talk is cheap and to you its cheaper than most.

30 I'm getting sick of this blog. The more I read some of these comments the more I want to go and live in Austria! Even if I have to learn German, theyre more my kind of people. They dont take bogus assylum keepers or refugees and no begging bowl spongers. Thats my kinda people!

31 RUSTY: MORAL. I respectfully submit that I feel that it is Immoral not to do everything and anything that can be done to save the lives of innocents. Which is worse. 1. Taking hostages and caring for them to prevent horrid deaths? 2. Killing innocent hostages? It ain't always fair but sometimes you have to do what you have to do.

32 SOPOTAMIA: I wonder why Vienna is considered the best city in the world to live in? I guess the proof really is in the pudding.

33 GREYROOSTER: Can't argue with that.If there were more countries where their governments actualy did what the people want, namely stopping their countries beeing over run by undesirables there might not be the tensions in society that there are between different ethnic communities. Whatever the politaical correcters might say it is well documented that most people of a particular race, ethnicity or religion prefer there own types.What perplexes me is that why when South African Whites are trying to sell up and get out before the country goes 'tits up',yet apparerently Whites from The USA and the UK are buying homes there.You can can get what is effectively a 2 million dollar home for a fraction of the price its worth. However I wont be tempted. When I go to sleep at night I want to kow i'm not going to be rudely awakened in the middle of the nighy with the Zulus at my door.

34 sopotamia: The Zulus are the good ones.

35 You havent seen Zulu dawn.

36 So who are the bad guys?

37 Let me see now. That famous British defeat was in 1899. I'd be prepared to accept that things might have changed a little in 105 years. Have they realy changed that much? I'm intrigued to know more.

38 Prior to apartheid's ending the Zulus were fighting the terrorist leftest leaning ANC. ANC was known for its attacks on defenseless citizens. For several years the Zulus were a force that kept the ANC off the streets. It can't be said that the Zulu nation was pro existing government but they did contain the ANC and as a result probably saved many lives. For not I fear.

39 yeah,its just a term I have heard some Brits use when on vacation.I think they mean it in the the back then sort of way,a time when Either that or its the Michael Cain movie Zulu Dawn

40 Strangely enough though at the time when you said they are the good guys I mistakenly took it as a play on words e.g. (and they are the good guys) meaning they are not all that bad cause theirs worse.Having said that I was thinking of the name for ages and couldnt remember it,the African National Congress party or the (A.N.C).Thanks GREYROOSTER,I stand corrected.

1 You read these comments!?!??? Oh Christ! I'm banned for life now. Or, I just come here for the porn.

2 On a more practical note. When Arafat's done and he looks to be. What then? Who's next?

3 Ok, I admit, I am a new captured reader But being that I'm a "VIRGIN" what does BLOG mean?

4 I found it, thanks anyway Definition: a personal Web site that provides updated headlines and news articles of other sites that are of interest to the user, also may include journal entries, commentaries and recommendations compiled by the user; also written web log, Weblog; also called blog Usage: computing

5 Susan, we need to set you up with a website. I'd love to read your daily rants.

6 I am sure I am in your mind when you issued that thank you. I always try to send across the voice off reason in my post (subliminal message: kill all people who pray to any god... don't view it as murder, view it more as "letting them find out for sure that they don't get to meet their 'maker' - it's kinder in the long run"). Promising your blog many more posts in the near and distant future until religious fanaticism is obliterated from this world... and then we can get on with just "moderate religionists"... that would include George Dubya but we'll let him through at the moment because I've never heard of a Christian suicide bomber.

7 there's porn?

8 some funny shit I thought I'd share http://www.worth1000.com/cache/contest/contestcache.asp?contest_id=4046&start=1&end=10&display=photoshop

9 #49...cool! Its a nice post so, thank you Rusty for the fine posts and more importantly your straight thinking point of view ect ect. Bring on the porn. No really, I liked the finger theme yesterday. That was fun.

10 You are welcome. I love reading your blog. It si one of the ones I read every day. I love how you cover the terrorists. I think that all people in America should read your blog. Then maybe the Anti-American's in outr country will see twhat we are up against. I also like to post up a blog just to post my thoughts of the days current events. I can't really talk to most of my friends about these type of things, because most of them are liberal and think I am crazy for being a republican and thinking tha War on Terror is a good thing. More power to you. You have a ver good blog and enjoy it very much.

11 You go, Jawa Boy!

12 Thanks folks, and EIP, that's funny stuff.

1 Same here, but I still have enough SPV to scream, NUKE IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!!

2 Get well soon, Dr. S!

3 Take two shots of tequilla and call me in the morning.

4 Get Well Soon, Rusty!

5 Yeah get well soon Rusty.

1 I emailed GReynolds the same thing (yeah, like he'll respond), but I told him that I thought the real losers of the night were the trial lawyers. Think of all those poor BMW and Lexus drivers that won't be able to drag the results on for the next 3 months! It is them that I feel for. D

2 This is exactly what was wrong with the campaign this season. Republicans wanted to talk about EVERYTHING but Bush's record. Blame the media. Turn Kerry into a slimeball. Talk about values, morals, yadda yadda. Everything but Bush's actual policies, which are total failures. I am so disgusted with Republicans right now I can't begin to tell you. This is not what America is about. Yes, the New York Times is slanted. New York City is overwhelmingly Democratic. It's not news. It's also not hard to unspin the stories. I read the Times sometimes. I know it's biased. So whatever. Get over it. Fox News bothers me because it goes a step beyond, often not only slanting but presenting ideas in such a black and white way that they leave no room for doubt. The Times hardly ever does that. It doesn't present an opinion as certainty. It merely skews things a bit. Ron Reagan, Ronald Reagan's wayward son, said a Fox News friend told him that he was not to mention bin Laden, in case he might remind Americans that Bush has been totally incompetent tracking down the man who killed 3000 people on 9/11. If you'd told me after 9/11 that Bush would fail to nab bin Laden by election time and still win by running on the issue of terrorism, I would have told you you're an idiot. But the Bush team has spun this thing successfully beyond belief, and a willing army of Republican cheerleaders have digested every last morsel, barely questioning a single fact. I used to identify with a lot of Republican values. But right now I've never been more disgusted with Republicans.

3 Hrj, I feel your pain.

4 HRJ, You just don't get it, do you? You lost, get the hell over it and work on making your life better. The problem most of you pricks have is that, you don't realize how good you have it. Stop bitching like a little girl before somebody walks by and bitchslaps you like one.

5 Dick. What an apt name. You are a dick. How can we get over the fact that America has elected the most hated man in the world into power? What are people supposed to do? let you get on with destroying everything that has been built up by the largest democracy in the world? No, we aren't going to stand by and watch. people like you seem to revel in violence and one day someones going to bite you back. Moron.

6 I've been waiting for a half of a century Matt. When? Are you gonna bring it? No, I don't think you have what it takes. Also, thanks for the compliment. You'll probably make the "Acordian News" at my site. Also, before you start talking more trash, you might wanna read yesterdays post at my site.

7 How can we get over the fact that America has elected the most hated man in the world into power? Oderint dum metuant. (Lucius Accius) “Let them hate so long as they fear.”

8 This is GREAT!!! We live in a country where we are FREE to bash each other. Democrats against Republicans and vice versa. I am so happy to live in a country were we are FREE to speak our minds and voice our opinions. This is a GREAT country!

9 Arafat just died.

10 Ok maybe not

11 Arafat just died....OK maybe not!?!?!? Ok Mr. Rather, enough is enough. Get your story straight.

12 The Israelis say yes, the French say no. In hind sight I shouldn't be trusting either of them. My bad.

13 He's in a coma, I know that much.

14 My Way says he's done. http://reuters.myway.com/article/20041104/2004-11-04T163956Z_01_L04284404_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-MIDEAST-ARAFAT-DC.html

15 Does anyone know any more about the possibility of Ashcroft or Powell resigning?

16 Dear God, I hope Ashcroft doesn't almost as earnestly as I hope Powell does.

17 Man, I wish Arafat would die. I don't think either one will resign, although I wouldn't mind seeing Guliani in Ashcroft's place. When it comes to law and order, that guy doesn't mess around. Strike that, I would like to see Guliani in Powell's place. Can you imagine Rudy negotiating with the French? Classic.

18 If figure Arafag (I mean Arafat) will die soon. His chances are about as good as Nick Berg's were. (not good).

19 What's this talk about "reaching across the aisle" and "reuniting America"? Screw the Democrats. Bush has a CRYSTAL CLEAR mandate from the popular vote. The quote, "you're either with us or against us", still holds true. The only reason Bush's 1st term was less than stellar was because of the obstructionist Dems like Tom Daschle, who's fired now thanks to the wise people of South Dakota. Others, like that femi-nazi Nanci Pelosi had better keep their mouths shut in this 2nd term. And who's this Barack Obama guy? Sounds like another proud-to-be-liberal, terrorist sympathizer to me. His very name gives me the chills. The Dems are clearly losing popularity because of their anti-American, obstructionist, treasonous, complaining ways. They criticize and mock Bush's speech mishaps, but they offer no serious, clear, viable plan of their own. They muck-rake for muck-raking's sake. Now that the GOP has total control of the White House, Senate, House of Reps, and hopefully the Supreme Court, the liberals better shut up and let us carry out Bush's agenda the way it's meant to be. The filibustering, obstructionist, Democrat bureaucracy must end for America to defeat terror and revitalize the economy. The end of terror will bring world peace, which will boost the economy. A strong economy will solve all the social domestic problems that Dems are so keen on (health care, social security, education, deficit reduction, etc.). Message to Michael Moore: you are not being silenced by the Bush administration, or some vast right wing conspiracy, you are being silenced by the American people, who have given a very clear message on Nov 2, despite the box office succcess of your film. You're film may be entertaining and provacative, which explains the box office success, but it's just entertaining fiction. The American people, thankfully, are smart enough to see that it's just lies and fiction. Please do us a favor and get a real job, or move to Canada.

20 Not that I give a shit, just chatting here, but I thought Arafat was on the mend? What the heck happened? They said he didn't have leukemia or cancer, so what's the deal? Just got back home and didn't turn on any news. Had to do something important...go to the beauty salon...LOL.

21 Laura: Victory manicure?

22 From what I heard at 8:00am PST, they were thinking that it may be some sort of viral infection. Of course, it might be some STD or some crap now. Hell, they've had 6 hours beyond what I've heard to speculate some more. I wonder if he signed a DNR waiver... we can only hope. Or, maybe he'll see that big light at the end of the tunnel and G-d will talk to him and tell him to stop being such an asshole.

23 LMAO: No, actually that's tomorrow! Today was the hair. ;-)

24 Funniest front page here in the UK here today went to the Daily Mirror paper who splashed a picture of Dubya on the front page and said "How can 59,000,000 people be so DUMB?!". Erm... besides being an affront to every intelligent person who voted for Dubya, that is a question that you yourselves might like to answer. YOU got it wrong. YOU are one person writing the headlines. That is why Democracy isn't perfect... 59 Million people can get it wrong... And one Newspaper editor can be right. But let us just assume that one person out of that 59 Million is NOT "dumb" and of equal intelligence... he/she counters your argument. The other 58,999,999 obliterate it. (Bear in mind, the paer had their Editor sacked recently for printing those pictures purportedly from Abu Ghraig prison but which were more than likely fake mock-ups. The paper itself gets maybe 1-2 million readers per day.)

25 I guess the bitching will go on for some weeks but from an outsider's point of view, I am delighted with Dubya's re-election. What you see is what you get with the man. Kerry won an awful lot of votes but he seemed to shift his position in order to gain that support. The question that will never be answered is What would Kerry have done on November the 12th? 24 hours after that attack at the very heart of America and what makes it great. It's easy to sit back and years later pick holes in the President's reponse, I can do that, you can do that, Kerry can do that. Basically, George Bush realised that these people were hell-bent on the destruction of Western Civilisation and George Bush wasn't afraid to meet fire with fire and declare outright war on the nations that supported and "harboured" such people. The USA has for too long been regarded as a push-over. The mightiest nation in the world would seemingly bend over backward so long as it didn't offend the UN. Well, fuck the UN. This was an attack on YOUR country. You are perfectly within your rights to defend yourselves against foreign invasion. In this case, it wasn't a specific country claiming credit for the attack but a religion... a religion spread across the world but where fanaticism is rife within certain countries. In many ways, the USA brought it on themselves through previous trade misdemeanors but it is ok to accept you were wrong and make amends rather than to try to excuse. The minute that first plane hit the WTC, war was established. Dubya recognised this and went into action. Some people may say this is all for oil but Dubya never asked anyone to destroy the WTC in order that he could head the forces into those countries. America seriously needs to wake up and realise that it DOESN'T owe the world a living. America is great because it is forward thinking. America is the leader in technological innovation. America needs to ensure that a handful of nutters don't threaten the very roots of all that it has achieved over the last couple of centuries. To repeat, America is where it is today through (mostly) rational thought (there's still too much religion dominating the Constitution for my liking but there you go...). It is the hard-headed business-people, the dedicated scientists and the everyday working class who greet their position with vigour as another day to say, "This is what I do to make this Country a better place". It is time for America to be PROUD of what they are AS A WHOLE. Don't give me any lefty clap-trap... the nation was taken by force but if it wasn't, I wouldn't be typing this right now because the internet wouldn't exist... I'd be sending smoke signals. Whether a Kerry voter or a Dubya voter... be proud that you are an American... I truly wish I could say the same thing (I'm from the UK). America stands for all that is great and good in this world. At least it SHOULD do. It has the best philosophical basis that any country has ever been founded upon (it would be better without the religious conotations but hey... nothing is perfect!) Today Iraq, tomorrow Iran, the day after... any other towel-headed, left-hand-bottom-wiping nation that thinks it can bring your mighty nation down. Support your president. He has his faults. But his actions are clear-cut and in your best interests. Just ask him to not be such a fanatical-Christian.

26 Red Devil I would've never expected you to be from the UK...from the many people that are on this blog, I have been crucified for my beliefs on the Ken Bigley Blog on here, mostly from the likes of James and CooqarUK. They are vehemently against Bush's "illegal invasion" and just as mad at Blair. However, they blame everything on the Bush administration! Hey, there's no draft, those soldiers went because they felt it was their duty to protect their country from terrorists, yet those people I mentioned say that Bush went there illegally, that Saddam wasn't a threat, Iraq didn't slam those planes into the WTC, and no WMD were found! How is it possible that persons from the same country can differ so drastically about this? I guess the same way the US is divided...the anti-war, peaceloving lib's and the others who are sick and tired of the threat of terrorism. Your posts have renewed my faith in your country and I'm sorry that the posts of a few could turn me against the whole country. I received an email from someone over there as well and she as horrified at the actions of her fellow Britians on this blog and apologized for them. She told me not to think all Britons were like that. This current situation really dates back to exactly 25 yrs. ago....when Iran took 44 Americans hostage...think about it...everything started happening after that...more and more foreigners entered our country illegally, or came here, never became citizens and planned their attacks for years, meanwhile, some of them acting like "regular Joes" and living right next door to us. I don't know how we will end this...every time we get someone, another group proclaims themselves...now, there's another group besides Zarqawi, can't remember their names, how many more? How many nations will we have to fight to end this? It just keeps spreading.

27 I couldn't agree with you more. The Majority of people has lost all trust in the MSM.

28 HRJ: Exactly how long to you plan to piss and moan. Another word for democrat is CRY BABY!

29 LAMO: Refer: Arafat: Thanks for the brief moment of happiness.

30 Didn't no Red Devil was from the UK. He's one of the few reasons I haven't ripped into some of the UK assholes.

31 This war may never end... certainly not within our lifetime. Whatever the outcome of the next four years, suicide bombs and beheadings will probably continue for a long, long time. This war has become a religious war. Dubya is a fanatical Christian (and that is where is he dangerous). Al Zarqawi et al are fanatical Islamists. These religions cannot co-exist. Even "moderate" Islamists cannot co-exist with moderate Christians (the acid test is whether a Muslim family would accept a non-Muslim into their family though marriage with open arms... if the answer is "no" or "yes, on condition that the person converts to Islam" then that is not integration. If Dubya was Atheist, he would be the perfect president IMHO... he would be defending America purely because it was under attack and not because his religious beliefs were being challenged. The issue over the last few years here in the UK is whether we should "Join the Euro" but us Brits don't want that. Despite being a tiny nation in terms of physical size, we have a strong history of our own. We have been involved in many wars, some just and some unjust. But we have never shirked from a battle and we have always stood up and been counted when faced with opposition. For us to hand over everything we have worked for to a band of free-loaders in Brussels is unthinable. To be quite honest, I think most UK citizens would prefer to be affiliated with the USA. The USA is much closer to our ideals than any country in France. It's a pain that we are so far geographically from the USA yet so close philosophically. But we are so close philosophically to the USA yet so far geographically. If the USA could be somehow moved to the place that Europe currently occupies on the world map, I think we'd all sign up to become part of the USA tomorrow. I may be digressing here but basically, I think we stand "Shoulder to shoulder" with the USA in this war because we all feel the same way about September 11th (not November as I stated above!!!!). Whether our own soft-lefties acknowledge it or not, we all sat here that afternoon and watched the WTC disappear and thought, "Oh shit, another war has started". It wasn't YOUR country that was hit that day, we in the UK (the honest ones amongst us) recognised that it was part of OUR family that was attacked that day. YOU were chosen (as opposed to the UK) because you represent everything the Fanatical Islamist despises on a scale much larger than that of the UK simply by virtue of the physical size of your country. But we recognised that we could just as easily have been in the firing line that day ... or at least, one day in the near future. The UK couldn't act alone, the USA probably could. But as we're fighting against a common enemy here, we're more than happy to lend our support where it counts and where we thrive... on the battlefield. Long after anyone alive reading this blog today has passed on, this war will be discussed in history classes around the world. Who knows? Maybe by then children will have become so de-sensitised to violence that the Al Zarqawi beheading videos will be shown to the pupils as part of the curriculum. Even the most ardent leftie will find it difficult to excuse such acts of barbarism. But us alive today have seen these videos, and when you're asking WHY you watch them and questioning whether you are a sicko with sadistic tendencies, just try to remind yourself that by viewing these things, you remind yourself of just what we're fighting here. If we let these people "get away" with the likes of 9/11 then barbarism on a much more regular, larger and closer-to-home scale will be our reward for such apathy as non-action would only embolden the enemy. Sorry for my mega-blogs this evening but I am revitalised after Bush's win as I feel that this war can pick up pace from now on. The last couple of months he has had to tread carefully as every bomb that kills a terrorist would probably kill a couple of "innocents" and these deaths would affect his popularity with the section of the American voting public who suffer from myopia.

32 Red Devil, I think I'm in love with you.

33 Red Devil, you do not speak for most of the UK. Most of the UK think Bush is a moron, America is actually a backward thinking country (think war, think the environment) and the war on terror was basically brought on by the absurd foreign policy. Most of the war is in his imagination and three British soldiers were killed yesterday because of Bush.

34 RED DEVIL: Speaks for the Brits that count. I can tell that by the E-mails I get. MATT BING you don't count for anything. Just another cry baby punk.

35 Ditto the above. I get emails too from other UK folks apologizing for the jerks on this blog. Thank God your opinions and views don't count in the US. Shove them.

36 Don't take this the wrong way. I'm sure you will. But some of these comments are so incredibly ill-informed. People are forming opinions based on little slivers and bits of information, never having anywhere near the full picture. Maybe you've heard about Ron Suskind's now famous editorial where he talked about the "faith-based community" of Bush supporters versus the "reality-based community." One facet of the faith-based community is that it tends to embrace "easy certainty" over objective analysis, and from what I read from many (though far from all) people participating on some of these blogs, there may be something to it. I see people crudely oversimplifying terrorist motivations, and saying f**k them, let's just bomb them. Well we can bomb them. Bush will certainly back you on this, and his neoconservative pals will come up with some half-baked plan to get us into a quagmire, but none of that deals with the roots of terrorism, man! Al-Qaeda is a privately-sponsored terrorist organization that's present in at least 60 nations around the world. I know some neocons would love to bomb France, those unpatriotic losers. (Benjamin Franklin: "Every man has two nations, and one of them is France." The guys who gave us the STATUE OF LIBERTY, remember??) But that ain't gonna solve the problem. All you guys with your happy six-shooters at your hips ready to blow up anyone who comes to your door. 10 years from now we'll look back at this and say, "Hmmm...this really didn't solve the problem." You guys won't care. As long as your favorite presidential candidate wins, what do you care if his policies make any f**king sense? "HRJ: Exactly how long to you plan to piss and moan. Another word for democrat is CRY BABY!" This is extremely pathetic, but unfortunately very predictable. I'm not even a Democrat, man! Why didn't you ask me? I'm just an American who uses his brain and cares about his country. No more, no less. And if I was a Democrat, you just made the lamest, least convincing argument in the entire history (and prehistory) of mankind. Congratulations. Go treat yourself to a giant toll-house cookie or something. You deserve it. According to most of commenters, however, I appear to be an un-American traitor who gets all his talking points straight from Michael Moore. People seem satisfied with that. They usually prefer to rebut me that way rather than actually think about any issues. And there's a reason they don't want to think about any issues. It's because if you're a Bush supporter, ISSUES DON'T FAVOR YOU. They make you look stupid. He has no policy. Just a bunch of gobbledygook rhetoric. Congratulations on electing the most unqualified leader in American history. I have zero regrets about the vote I cast. You're the ones who'll have to explain this vote to your grandchildren. "The UK couldn't act alone, the USA probably could. But as we're fighting against a common enemy here, we're more than happy to lend our support where it counts and where we thrive... on the battlefield." You guys just don't get it. Saddam Hussein was a S-E-C-U-L-A-R leader. Say it with me. Al-Qaeda called his government an "apostate regime." One of Saddam's greatest fears was that he'd be attacked by Islamic extremists, so he kept his country virtually clean of them. When, precisely, did Saddam Hussein threaten to attack the UK? Because this is definitely news to me. And are you serious that the UK couldn't have toppled Saddam on its own? Saddam Hussein had a handful of pathetic military toys, nothing more. He was an impotent old man sitting around in the Middle East waiting to die. You've got to be kidding me. "Long after anyone alive reading this blog today has passed on, this war will be discussed in history classes around the world. Who knows? Maybe by then children will have become so de-sensitised to violence that the Al Zarqawi beheading videos will be shown to the pupils as part of the curriculum. Even the most ardent leftie will find it difficult to excuse such acts of barbarism." If we're very lucky, the chapter won't be called, "The Beginning of the Great American Collapse." Taking out Saddam isn't the problem. The problem is that our methods and means have become completely crazy and un-/counter- productive. And you do realize that it's the war in Iraq that has turned Zarqawi so fervently against the US and led to this spate of beheadings in the first place. You guys would prefer to ignore reality, and just keep pounding the hell out of the world because we're great and they suck. Well we can certainly do that ad infinitum, but I guarantee you it won't work. It's easy to see what we're doing. We're recreating the Israeli/Arab problem all over again. Israel has perfected the methods for creating terrorism, and America under Bush has decided that that's just friggin grand. The more terrorism the merrier. Crazy comments: "Even 'moderate' Islamists cannot co-exist with moderate Christians (the acid test is whether a Muslim family would accept a non-Muslim into their family though marriage with open arms..." First of all, what the heck are you talking about? Most people who talk about "Islamists" use the term to mean extremists, so when you when say "moderate" Islamists, I have no clue what you mean. But there are plenty of fundamentalist Muslims who coexist perfectly well with other people. If you want to bring back old-school bigotry, go right ahead. I ain't coming along for the ride. Do you happen to know any of these people you're defining so confidently? If you do, I hope it's a wide cross-section, so you're in a position to make such sweeping statements. There are plenty of Orthodox Jews who are opposed to intermarriage. I guess that means we can't trust them, and we can't live together. Boy, this is great. It feels like the 19th century all over again. Maybe we should even bring back the "N" word. "If we let these people 'get away' with the likes of 9/11 then barbarism on a much more regular, larger and closer-to-home scale will be our reward for such apathy as non-action would only embolden the enemy." Precisely, so we should track down the terrorists who attacked us and those who sponsored them, a.k.a. bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar. Rather than go after a secular leader who hadn't even been threatening us -- forget about attacking us -- who had nothing to do with Islamism/Islamic extremism and was not collaborating in any meaningful way with the guys who attacked us. I really hoped that 9/11 would usher in a new era of political awareness. But it seems to have done the opposite, ushering in a new era of dangerous simplistic dogma. It saddens me because I know it's dangerous to confront a problem so confidently, yet be so far off-base that we're not even swinging in the correct general direction. We have GOT to do better. "Just ask him to not be such a fanatical-Christian." I'm sure he'll comply with this request. "HRJ, You just don't get it, do you? You lost, get the hell over it and work on making your life better. The problem most of you pricks have is that, you don't realize how good you have it. Stop bitching like a little girl before somebody walks by and bitchslaps you like one." These are the sort of comments I love and appreciate. In-depth, probing, demonstrating a clear grasp of the issues. Yeah, the thing is, I don't fight cat-fights. You'll be sprawled on the floor before you can get around to bitch-slapping me, unfortunately for you. But listen, what I'd rather do than fight an (apparently) unevenly-matched fight is actually sit down and talk about real issues in a civilized way. You want to bitch-slap people who disagree with you, go right ahead. It's not exactly the path to civilization. "Well, fuck the UN. This was an attack on YOUR country." Exactly. Screw what every American president up until George Bush has done. What we really need to do is let the terrorists completely change our national character. Start fighting aggressive, preemptive, unilateral wars based on scant evidence, even if we know the target had nothing to do with any attack on us and there's no evidence he's planning anything against us. We should just throw away American values completely, say f**k it, f**k the terrorists -- or whoever, random people -- just bomb the hell out of them. Anybody who doesn't want to do that hates America and is a little pink pansy. "The minute that first plane hit the WTC, war was established." Against whoever the hell we feel like attacking. 'Cause this is America. We're self-entitled to be total a**holes. It's our God-given right and we're going to exercise it, dammit, whether it accomplishes anything or not! Who cares if it costs us $5 billion per month for however long the "long, hard slog" lasts. In fact, we should fight more simultaneous wars. Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Libya, France, Belgium, and you know, hasn't Castro been in power too long? Let's see if we can get to 10 simultaneous wars at once. Anything less is a complete failure. "If Dubya was Atheist, he would be the perfect president IMHO..." If Dubya was an atheist, he would be a walking jello-mold. All he has is his "faith." "RED DEVIL: Speaks for the Brits that count. I can tell that by the E-mails I get. MATT BING you don't count for anything. Just another cry baby punk." I'm sure the emails you get are a representative sample. Once again, I'm in awe of the articulate arguments presented here. Cry-baby punk. My personal opinion is that anyone who disagrees with attacking ANY country at ANY time is a cry-baby punk. I think we should attack Canada and Mexico TOMORROW. Actually, why don't we attack the UK? We can take those losers. Anyone who disagrees with me is a sad little cry baby fairy godmother meowing little kitten. Meow! I'm a sad little wimp! Kick my a**! When the debate reaches these embarrassing depths, it's hard to keep the conversation elevated. But easier to keep it entertaining, I guess.

37 HRJ... excellent post. For the record, I live in Manchester UK. A few miles down the road is Oldham where riots occured a couple of years ago between Muslims and "whites" (that's how it was described in the press). There was an metal fence erected to define a border of the area (similar to the Berlin wall but made of steel rather than brick). Yes, I work with several Muslims on a daily basis and I know that if I made a romantic move on any of them, their brothers would be round with baseball bats before you could say "moderate Islamist". Maybe my wording was wrong, but Muslims tell me that the likes of Al Zarqawi and Bin Laden are not true Muslims. But they seem to worship the same prophet and god. So, I refer to them all as Islamists. The preach and practice the religion of Islam. Some are extreme and some are moderate. As for Iraq (I'll ignore your comments about Saddam being a pathetic old man - like he stayed in power there for so long by being old and pathetic). So we invade Iraq and suddenly it is over-run with Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists who are lopping off people's heads on an almost daily basis. Where did these people come from? Did they decide to rush into an area where bombs were dropping and suddenly decide to make their statement? Or were they already there and are pissed off that their guardian angel has been banged up behind bars? As for your comments on the UN and "previous presidents" and your "national character". I would ask you to check how the USA was originally founded. You're clearly an intelligent person hrj who knows his stuff but you fail to offer any viable solutions of your own. Post 9/11, what should the USA have done, in your opinion? Go after Bin Laden? Go after Al Zarqawi? Go after Mullar Omar? Well, Mullar Omar was the leader of the Taliban. I think we can safely say that the Taliban regime is now defunct. Bin Laden? Holed up in some cave. Al Zarqawi... we're working on that one. But it won't end at Zarqawi. These Islamic extremist groups are cropping up like daisies. And they will forever more. They are dangerous to us peace-loving Westerners. You make us Westerners out to be the bad-guys in all of this. We have our bad guys... people who go out and murder, r*pe and steal. By and large our police and justice system deals with these people. But the majority of Westerners simply want to go about their daily lives in peace. How can that be possible when there are people who see it as a glorious act to strap a load of bombs to their chests and run through a populated area? You claim to be all for rational discussion but there is no rational discussion to be had when faced with fanatacism on that scale. People like you really do make me wonder whose side you are on. Is the answer to issue an apology for anything we may have done in the past to offend these people and let them continue with their lives? America is NOT a backward thinking country. America has been a beacon to the rest of the world to all that is possible with FORWARD thinking. It is no coincidence that America enjoys such affluence whilst these "poor" countries remain poor. These "poor" countries were established for many centuries before the US was established. And they are poor and have always been poor. Yeah blame it on Bush if you wish but try to see the connection between religious fanatacism and prosperity (or lack of). The Founding Fathers saw what could be achieved by man and allowed them to achieve it. And there you are today. Be thankful and if you're not, move and live in a country that closer matches your own ideals. You're not a tree. I hope you enjoy the experience.

38 Ahh...excellent. See, now that wasn't so difficult, was it? Thank you for your thoughtful post. This is all I want Bush supporters to do. Think in terms of reason instead of in terms of blind faith. You may have rationale behind your thoughts, but most seem not to. If you have rational arguments, use them instead of resorting to stuff like, "Bomb the f88k out of everyone!" So, finally on a civilized level of discussion. OK, what should we have done? Actually, in this case it's not only what should we have done, but what should we NOT have done. Toppling Saddam in the way that we did made things far, far worse. Saddam was a bad guy, sure. But Iraq was not a center of the terrorism problem. Not by a long shot. By invading we helped to spur anti-American anger in the region, aiding recruiters and helping to turn the next generation of young Arabs into anti-American terrorists. That's not at all helpful. In order to solve this problem we need to take a broader perspective. Now I'm going to say something that people may not want to hear. Where did the war in Iraq come from? Did it come from terrorism experts? No, it didn't. It came from the neoconservatives in the 90's. These guys were NOT focused on terrorism. Most of them knew nothing at all about al-Qaeda. Most of them knew little or nothing about terrorism at all. These guys, most of whom tend to be hard-line Israel fanatics, were interested in reshaping the balance of power in the Middle East using American military force. You can argue with me if you want, but don't argue with me before you've researched it. I've looked into it, and I can provide details, but why not just look into it yourself? I DON'T believe that immediately following 9/11, this sort of foreign policy adventure was at all well-advised. These characters who designed this war show no evidence whatsoever that they understand terrorism. They do the same sort of crude stereotyping I see in many comments on this blog. There is no entity called "the terrorists." Terrorism is a method. It's a type of guerilla warfare. There are more causes and groups than I can name. The Basques were initially blamed for the Spanish train bombings. Why? Obviously because the hard-line Basque separatists have employed terrorism in the past. Why have they toned down their terrorism a lot recently? Is it because the Spanish have used military or police force to pound the hell out of them? Not primarily. It's because they've found ways to better work with the REASONABLE Basques, thus undermining support for the radicals. Basque terrorism more or less exploded when Franco was in power. Franco simply used brute force tactics against the Basques to try to bend them into shape, and the Basques resisted with a passion. Ah, so here we are. Islamic extremism. It's important not to confuse Islamic extremist political terrorism with Islamic fundamentalism, because the two are very different. Some neoconservative idiots like to blame terrorism on Saudi Wahhabism. Just lazy reasoning. Wahhabism, if anything, is often a religion of submission, not one of rebellion. No state power is going to actively promote a type of religion that breeds revolutionary resistance. That's insane. The Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia (and some don't like that term) don't consider bin Laden to be one of them. He adopted a peculiar strain political philosophy mixed with religion that originated in places like Egypt and Pakistan. It's not the Koran; in fact, it even includes bits and pieces of Western philosophy. If you strip out bin Laden's politics, he has no cause left, because there's nothing in the Koran that encourages people to conduct suicide attacks against innocent civilians. On the contrary, the Koran forbids suicide, forbids attacks on women and children, forbids attacks on civilians, and forbids attacks on Muslims. I've seen the way these guys rationalize their actions. It's totally convoluted. They twist and distort the concept of "jihad" until it's totally unrecognizable, making the outrageous claim that these actions are not only permitted in Islam but actually required -- absolutely amazing. Yes, their followers are fervent and religious, but what they follow is some twisted ideology, Islam manipulated for purposes of political terrorism. It's not really Islam. (However, because Islam has no pope or truly central authority, it's hard for Muslims to definitively refute the legitimacy of these strains.) George Bush has consistently ridiculed law enforcement's role in tracking down terrorists. Well, newsflash for Mr. Bush. Law enforcement plays the dominant role, whether you like it or not. If you take out law enforcement, we're all screwed. If you take out the war in Iraq, no problem, because that war didn't do s**t to reduce terrorism. In fact, it's made the job of terrorist recruiters a lot easier. People seem to think we had to invade SOMEBODY. Not true. Although the Afghanistan invasion became a no-brainer to a lot of people because Omar wouldn't capitulate, Iraq is a different matter altogether. If there's no obvious country to invade, the answer is reasonably simple. DON'T INVADE ANY COUNTRIES! You know, we're not being wimpy for not invading a country if invading a country makes no goddam sense. Can we plant the seeds of democracy in the Middle East? Yes, but what we want to do is for these guys to look up to us and admire our system. Right now they hate us. And I'm talking about the broader Middle East. In Iraq, the sentiment is complicated. But for the neocons who designed the war, one of the long-term goals was for other countries in the region to jump at the chance to adopt our system. Well, guess what? If people hate us, they aren't going to be jumping at the chance to adopt our system. The Bush administration is all sledge-hammer and no delicate hand. Resolving the problem of terrorism requires not only a steel-driving hammer, but also surgeon's scalpel. Until the Bush administration realizes this, we will never even come close to resolving the problem of terrorism. The State Department, the department idiot neocons now love to hate, has said that the administration is not providing nearly enough funding for diplomacy in the Middle East. In other words, our policies are fueling unprecedented levels of anti-American hatred in the region, and we don't have the diplomatic armies over there to counter the damage. Neocons seem to think that the more America is hated, the better. Where did they get this notion? America has NEVER embraced this line. You wrote, "As for your comments on the UN and 'previous presidents' and your 'national character'. I would ask you to check how the USA was originally founded." You misconstrued what I said. Clearly the UN wasn't around when the nation was founded. But our founding fathers absolutely did not believe in aggressive military intrusion in other nation's affairs. The Iraq war is the complete antithesis of what any of those guys advocated. Neocons bash the UN as being an organization that requires total submission. That's just stupid. The UN is an organization that encourages nations around the world to seek cooperation foremost, before resorting to other options. We're never BOUND by the UN. That doesn't mean we should reject it. The UN has accomplished as much as perhaps any other organization in the world today. The UN represents the higher ideals of mankind. Being a member of the UN means striving to be more civilized when possible. it doesn't mean subjugating our will to other nations if doing so will be highly counterproductive. I've had it with the UN bashing. I've had it with the French bashing. Particuarly from ignoramuses who don't study the issues and simply parrot the myopic anger of others. I'm not suggesting we entirely go back to the world of our founding fathers. It's not feasible. They believed in isolation where possible, and cooperation where necessary. Not the Bush administration's sort of isolation, meaning attacking nations and turning the world against us. But genuine noninterference. However, I believe the founding fathers would have appreciated the goals of the United Nations as they fit into the modern world. The UN helps to promote values around the world very much in keeping with those of America, and it prioritizes diplomatic, non-military solutions where possible, and military solutions only when necessary. This is a philosophy very much in line with that of the founding fathers. The Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 is always an interesting one to cite. I like to remind people of this: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." Sometimes extremist Christian lunatics argue that the founding fathers knew nothing but Christianity. That's ridiculous. They were familiar with Judaism, Islam, even something called Deism that was trendy at the time (as well as others). It wasn't an oversight that they didn't mention Jesus in the the Constitution. It was by design. The world was, arguably, a much more diverse place then than it is now. The US was not a superpower back then, of course, but you can hardly argue that the founding fathers envisioned the US becoming a lawless bully on the international scene. Yes, lawless. The invasion of Iraq was illegal in the context of international law. The man who designed much of the war, Richard Perle, acknowledged it was against international law. It's hard to believe that some of Bush's allies will talk about the barbarity of the terrorists, meanwhile dismissing the importance of the international institutions like the UN that promote civility around the world. We're dealing with a universal problem, and the antidote to extremism is not more extremism. It's moderation. The antidote to mindless aggression is not more mindless aggression, but sensible reaction. This is a problem that requires patience. Impatience will only make it worse. If we don't know who to invade, then guess what? We shouldn't invade anyone. This is a problem we can tackle. One small place to start is with a widespread PR campaign that exposes bin Laden's ideology for what it really is: counterproductive and infeasible. Blowing up skyscrapers [note to blog: word censored originally, did HTML trick] isn't going to get anyone what they want. Remember how Mahatma Ghandi stood up against a formidable enemy? It worked. Martin Luther King? Provoking the most powerful nation on earth the way al-Qaeda does, while turning reasonable mainstream people around the world totally against you, is not going to work. Some of bin Laden's beefs with the US and the West are legitimate. And some of his followers extrapolate that to mean that his methods are legitimate too. Wrong. His methods suck. We don't need to appease the terrorists, but we do need to stop needlessly making people around the world angry. This is simply pointless, and it's not going to get us anywhere. Most controversially, we need to scrap the entire "war on terror." This concept was idiotic from the start. Terror is an emotion, not an enemy. We can't defeat terror. We need a specific opponent. This is the sort of BS that led us from al-Qaeda, a privately-sponsored Islamic extremist group, to Saddam Hussein, a secular leader unaffiliated with al-Qaeda. Sure, you can argue both have something to do with "terror." So what? This is ridiculous. On 9/11, we were not attacked by Islam. We were not attacked by Saddam Hussein. We were not attacked by "terror." We were attacked by some guys we've paid very little attention to since 9/11. The two leaders of al-Qaeda, bin Laden and al-Zawahiri, are still at-large. Mullah Omar, the guy who sheltered them, is still at-large. Yes, we toppled the Taliban. That was easy and obvious. For symbolic value alone, we need to track down the other guys. But there is far more than symbolism at stake here. Bin Laden is the guy who's been obsessed with the US. All these people who lump Islamists and terrorists and even "terror" together are sort of sad. Most of these guys couldn't care less about the US. Before the 2001 Afghanistan invasion, probably 99.9% of the Taliban couldn't care less about the US. They weren't international thinkers like bin Laden. There are some people who, for their own reasons, want the US to lump all of these threats together. At the center of all of this is Israel, which has faced every variety of tension and threat over the last few decades. While there really isn't any state sponsoring terrorism against America, there are a few that sponsor at least a little terrorism against Israel. It's part of the Arab/Palestinian resistance. Those who don't want Israel to find a diplomatic solution to the Middle East crisis, but prefer Israel to never back down and never give an inch, are OK with terrorism but not OK with conceding territory. So they'd like to get Israel's allies behind the country fending off "terror" and the "terrorists" (part of the anti-Israeli guerilla resistance) so it doesn't have to sit down at the negotiating table and make concessions. (For the record, many of the nutty evangelicals Bush hangs out with are against negotiation because they believe that a national Israel, with ancient Biblical boundaries, is necessary for Armageddon to occur and Jesus Christ to return to earth for his thousand year reign. When Armageddon occurs -- and they think it will be soon -- all Jews are either killed or converted to Christianity, and the world as we know it is destroyed.) I'm not anti-Israel, but I don't believe either that this hard-line approach is wise, nor that American troops ought to be involved in helping Israel not negotiate with its neighbors. This policy is dangerous and counterproductive. People like to bash Arafat, but Arafat was closer than many realize to signing something. He may have wanted to sign something in 2000, but the political climate in Palestine was perhaps not right for an agreement. Israeli Prime Minsiter Ariel Sharon has been far more averse to negotiating than Arafat ever was. So where do we start in trying to resolve this whole thing? We HAVE to start in Israel. I know this is the hardest place to start, but it's where we have to start. We have to resolve this thing, no matter how difficult it is or how tough it's been so far. Bush has paid the Israeli/Arab problem almost zero notice while in office, and thus the tensions over there have escalated over the past few years. The US, the world's only superpower, rubber-stamps anything Israel does (even policies that are bad for both the US and Israel). Why does the Arab world hate us? This reason is huge. Senator Ernest Hollings: "I had a headline the other day. When I saw it, I showed it to my staff. I said: You all come in here, I want to ask you something. 'Israel plans to destroy more Gaza dwellings.' You see that headline? I asked staff members: Suppose they bulldoze your daddy's home. Wouldn't you want to cut their throat? They said: In a New York minute. How do you create terrorists? Where is the front line in the so-called war on terrorism? I learned the answer recently on a trip I was on with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. We talked for over an hour with the King of Jordan. He finally cautioned at the very end, when we stood up, he said: You have to settle this Israel-Palestine question. That is the only way to get on top of this. We went over to Kuwait to the Prime Minister [and] when he got through, he said: You have to settle the Israel-Palestine situation. I will quote Mr. Musharraf, the President of Pakistan. When we got there, he cautioned if you can settle the Israel-Palestine question, terrorism will disappear around the world." Obviously all "terrorism" won't disappear. But the tension between Israel and its neighbors has been helping to fuel this toxic terrorist ideology in the region for decades now. There is no way to pound the terrorists into submission. Israel has got to find a comfortable place for itself in the Middle East. Jews and Arabs get along all the time in specific communities. I don't know what quirky Muslims you're hanging out with; they aren't like the ones I know, and there are as many types of Muslims as there are types of people, or types of Jews, or types of Christians, so don't overextrapolate from one group. Israel's overreliance on force in the region has created an environment in which terrorism is perpetual, and expected. The US, via its new policies, is creating a similar environment worldwide. The US is of course incredibly hard to attack. We've got allies north and south, and oceans east and west. Our strategic location couldn't be much better. But that doesn't mean we need to increase the risk to our security unnecessarily, like we've been doing. We're also greatly underfunding homeland security. With the money we've spent on Iraq, we could have easily addressed the homeland security holes experts have pointed to. We're spending many times on Iraq what we're spending on homeland security, and no, that war is not mitigating the threat from terrorism. After 9/11, after 3000 Americans were killed, how could we distract ourselves like this? How could we ignore the specific threats related to 9/11 and pursue some other random course? I'll tell you how. Because George W. Bush doesn't know what he's doing. He doesn't know much about foreign policy, even today. He doesn't know much about economics. He listens to certain staff members, and some of them have specific and radical agendas. Those guys would never be elected president, but because our president doesn't know enough to create policy himself, he relies on these guys. Americans trust Bush because he's a regular guy. And he tries to act confident to reassure all of us. But the truth is that he doesn't have a clue about his own policies. That's why he's so suspiciously overconfident. That's why his rhetoric is so simple and black and white. If he stopped to think about whether he's actually right, he'd get confused. He DOESN'T UNDERSTAND the threats we face. He never has. Brent Scowcroft, George HW Bush's national security advisor, said in 1999, "Is [W Bush] comfortable with foreign policy? I would say not." But we all knew this. He had zero experience. What makes us think he got so smart in six or eight months? Smart enough to deal with a very complicated foreign policy issue? The fact is, he didn't get smarter. He just got more full of bluster and faux-confidence, reassuring people but not having a clue himself what was going on. That's the truth. In late 2002, when the US was preparing to go to war in Iraq, the following exchange took place as captured by Ron Suskind: " 'I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,' Bush said. 'They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.' [Tom] Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: 'Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion. Bush held to his view. 'No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.' The room went silent, until someone changed the subject." Everyone who's studied European history in high school knows that Switzerland is the neutral country (or people like me, who didn't even study European history in high school). Bush is not just bad on foreign policy. He's nearly hopeless. He doesn't talk about issues in depth because he doesn't understand them. He asks for us to be totally confident in him, but where does he get his own confidence? From knowledge of the world? Nope. From his belief in God. Dallas evangelist Tony Evans said that approvingly that "one of the impetuses for [Bush's] considering running for President was biblical teaching. He feels God is talking to him." Not all church leaders are quite so thrilled. The Presbyterians said the invasion of Iraq has been "unwise, immoral, and illegal." Jim Winkler, the United Secretary of the United Methodists, said, "Well, friends, the job is done and done poorly. In fact, it could not have been done worse. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to trust our leaders to correct their mistakes. Whether it has been on foreign or domestic policy, we have been led down the road to disaster." And we have no one to blame but ourselves. Look forward to four more years. Cheers.

39 hrt: Actually, in this case it's not only what should we have done, but what should we NOT have done. Toppling Saddam in the way that we did made things far, far worse. In exactly the same sense that Iwo Jima and the Battle of the Bulge made things far, far worse; before they made things far, far, far better. Resolved: Give no credence to this argument unless the fellow who proposes it also proposes an alternative course of action that recognizes the origins of Salafism and its linkages to Nazism and Radical Hermeneutics. To suggest that we not intervene in the Middle East is like suggesting that we leave a bomb to tick away in peace. It came from the neoconservatives in the 90's. These guys were NOT focused on terrorism. Most of them knew nothing at all about al-Qaeda. Most of them knew little or nothing about terrorism at all. These guys, most of whom tend to be hard-line Israel fanatics, were interested in reshaping the balance of power in the Middle East using American military force. You can argue with me if you want, but don't argue with me before you've researched it. I've looked into it, and I can provide details, but why not just look into it yourself? Well, I don't know if this counts as "research," but I was S.M. Lipset's student, and discussed terrorism back in the 1990s with Irving Kristol, and I'd like to know who's more neoconservative than Irving? And you're simply wrong about the focus of the neocon movement, which began in Alcove II at the City University of New York in the late 1940s, and was for all of its existence an anti-totalitarian movement. Period. In fact, they began as a Marxist cell, the Campbellites, and their first inkling that something was amiss came when Stalin gave the order to translate into English the works of all prominent Marxists, but forgot to leave Trotsky off the list. (Sometimes totalitarians are hard to figure.) So I beg your pardon, but you don't know what the heck you're talking about. What we're confronting here is not a series of isolated terrorist gangs that we can deal with as though it's a temporary criminal justice problem. This is Totalitarianism 3.0, and the outcome of the struggle is by no means certain. I submit that it's you that doesn't comprehend the nature of the problem, and like a blind man touching an elephant you see it as different beasts that are sometimes "snake-like" while at other times "tree-like," and you favor the application of chain saws or forked sticks to address the creature depending on your latest impression. Except that the blind man is involuntarily blind, while your blindness is volitional. As regards Israel, Yasser Arafat was the leader of a totalitarian quasi-state as well as a long-standing terrorist/totalitarian movement, while Israel is a largely secular democracy. So naturally you see Israel as the problem. God forbid the Palestinians should adopt the institutions of peaceful transition of power and the rule of law, for heaven sake. If you sew total war, by making non-combatants the targets of violence rather than merely the occasional side-effect victims there is just a chance that you'll reap total war as the "reward." It might behoove the Palestinians and the Arab Middle East were someone to clue them in on that possibility, instead of sewing the conviction that the patience of either the US or Israel is infinite. If a ten-year-old shows up at your front door shouting threats and swinging his small fists its a small matter to hold him off with one hand. If he shows up with a 10-guage, it's an entirely different matter. And regarding Ron Suskind's small "gaffe:" The policy of the Swedish Government from 1939 and to the end of World War II, was to remain neutral and stay out of the war. The Swedish policy of neutrality had been a successful strategy for more than a century,... (Source: one click away on Google)

40 Optimists argue that America and Europe are still united by far more than divides them. Democracy, free speech and the rule of law are indeed important fundamentals. But the role of the UN, the gap between rich and poor countries, the doctrine of pre-emptive war, the balance between liberty and security and the idea that tyrants such as Saddam Hussein can be overthrown by what Chris Patten scorns as "Jeffersonian tanks" are all big and divisive issues. Mr Bush's estranged allies are entitled to expect him to take more account of their concerns than he has done so far. He should have no illusion that victory over John Kerry means that the rest of the world has endorsed his way of doing business. Nor should Tony Blair imagine that the outcome vindicates his supportive and uncritical relatioship with the 43rd president.

41 Thanks for your thoughtful response. I truly appreciate it. My participation in this stuff is going to peter out relatively soon by necessity (I won't have the time), but don't take that to mean I haven't thought things through and don't have responses. I have great respect for Irving Kristol, so you won't catch me saying anything bad about the guy. And you're right, of course, about the origins of neoconservatism -- to a degree. One reason I deeply respect Kristol is that the man is relatively honest and open. He tries to tell it like it is. He acknowledges that there's such a thing as neoconservatism. He acknowledges he cares about Israel. He acknowledges that neoconservatism tries to yank conservatism over to its side; you have to love and respect a guy who admits that the "historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills" into a new kind of politics. Neoconservatism, in short, is not conservatism. But Kristol's variety of neoconservatism is obsolete. It's still fascinating to study, but it doesn't represent the central stream of neoconservatism anymore. Kristol's Trotsky-derived strain was long ago supplanted by the Albert-Wohlstetter-derived tactical strain. Kristol is an intellectual (a "New York intellectual," to be specific). Most of the new neocons are not what I would call intellectuals. They see a world of black-and-white tactics, a world of simplistic, interconnected threats. They don't think about the motivations of the other side, or why our opponents might actually be interconnected. They tend to assume it. (And all-too-often they are completely wrong, which means that, dangerously, they totally misconstrue the true nature of the threats out there. For one thing, neoconservatism's frequent emphasis on vulnerable Israel helps to give it a healthy but sometimes overblown sense of near-paranoia.) If Irving's brand of neoconservatism was still the main one, I'd have less of a problem with it. Even Irving's son William is a bit more candid about things than many of the neocons, who crave secrecy and manipulation behind the scenes; I think that sucks in a democracy. For instance, referring to the war in Iraq, William told the Jerusalem Post that Wolfowitz "showed real courage in advancing this agenda." He said, "The truth is there weren't many of us. You know, this 'great powerful neo-conservative conspiracy.' There were about eight people... ItÂ’s a very impressive thing that he did." Some neocons deny the phenomenon even exists. Irving wrote a book about it for Christ's sake. His son William even talks about how small and elite the core of neoconservatism is -- which really is no surprise to anyone who pays attention. "Resolved: Give no credence to this argument unless the fellow who proposes it also proposes an alternative course of action that recognizes the origins of Salafism and its linkages to Nazism and Radical Hermeneutics. To suggest that we not intervene in the Middle East is like suggesting that we leave a bomb to tick away in peace." Part of what you say is reasonable. I never said we should do nothing in the Middle East. I believe we should be REASONABLE, not PASSIVE. Attacking Iraq so soon after 9/11, while all-but-ignoring the primary strains of the movement that led to that attack, is simply reckless and stupid. Saddam Hussein presented a problem in the Middle East, no question. It was not an urgent problem, but certainly one that deserved attention. There were all sorts of things we could have done about him, from simply waiting for him to die and modernizing the sanctions regime, to using more behind-the-scenes methods of toppling him, to waiting longer to assemble a true coalition (France said it would participate under certain conditions, but we didn't have the patience). But Saddam is NOT fundamentally related to al-Qaeda. In fact, he has nothing to do with al-Qaeda. Neocons love to interconnect everything in the Middle East. And you and I both know one of the major reasons. It's because they want us to see all of the various forces that threaten Israel as a united force that also threatens the world at large, and the United States more specifically. Come on, so much of this is about Israel, and so few people have the nuts to talk about Israel. It makes me sick. Israel is a close ally. So why the hell can't we talk about them? What, do they have the cooties or something? Some sort of terrible disease? Why can't we talk about Israel? I believe the US is capable of standing by its allies, AND talking about them. If we don't talk about this s**t, we won't find solutions. I guarantee you that. We can keep knocking over regimes in the Middle East. It won't solve the terrorism problem. There's terrorism in democracies, and there's terrorism in totalitarian regimes. If anything, it's often harder to contain terrorism in a democracy, because people have the freedom to do things. Saddam had the luxury of being able to control Islamic extremists almost entirely. Whatever democracy replaces his regime (God willing) will almost certainly be more wrought with active terrorist and extremist elements than was his regime. There is terrorism in Europe. Algeria has dabbled in (granted, lame forms of) democracy, and the more they did it seems the more terrorism there was. In Egypt, as leaders tried to adopt some Western elements before solving the Israel/Arab problem, terrorism increased, not decreased. When people in the region are so ticked off at the West, the more we force democracy upon them, the more they rebel. And at the moment, one of their top means of rebelling is terrorism. We cannot use so much brute-force. It is counterproductive. Few people in France during World War II were super-keen on Adolf Hitler, and they were happy to accept help building a new society. These guys understand liberty and freedom. They emulated us after our revolution. They gave us the Statue of Liberty. The Middle East is simply not the same place. They're dealing with ancient strains of culture that are not incompatible with ours, exactly, but are quite distinct from ours in a very relevant way. If we pretend these differences don't exist, as Wolfowitz and those other morons do, we simply won't succeed. I promise you. Yes, we can remake the Middle East. Rather, we can help the Middle East remake itself into something that suits both it and us. But if we try to cram this s**t down their throats, look for terrorism around the world to keep rising. It's a simple cause and effect. You mentioned Salafism, another name for Wahhabism, which I mentioned above (you chose the more culturally-sensitive term, although Wahhabism seems to be the term that's more widespread at the moment). Wahhabism is a strict form of fundamentalist Islam, but it has very little to do with the revolutionary aspects of bin Laden's ideology, which come from people like Saeed Qutb (Egypt) and Sayyid Abu'l-A'la Mawdudi (India/Pakistan). These are all ideologies that bin Laden was exposed to, but certainly have little if anything to do with Saddam Hussein. Saddam was secular, neither very pan-Arab nor pan-Islamic, and had no love for bin Laden's brand of Islamic extremist political activism (if anything, he feared it), nor even for the Taliban's medieval Ottoman-esque caliphate-wanna-be system. This actually illustrates precisely my point. It's important to separate out the various groups around the world, rather than to lump everyone together. If one of these ideologies is a target, so be it. But if it is, then leave Saddam out of it. And to imply that there's some sort of ideological consistency between Saddam, Salafism, and Nazism is just not realistic. That's like Bush telling us, after he toppled Saddam, that we'd "removed an ally of al-Qaeda." Ally according to whom? Certainly not according to either the Iraqis or al-Qaeda. I've seen some suggest that Saudi Wahhabism/Salafism is identical to the ideology of Qutb (equally untrue, though at least a bit more understandable), but I've never seen Saddam linked to any of them. It's not fair, and it's not right, to simply say that the whole Middle East is some sort of cohesive ticking time-bomb. Lumping the entire Middle East together is like lumping Asia together. Do we start with China or Vietnam? What does it matter? They all have those squinty eyes. They're trouble. I'll say it one more time. BS! (You know what I think the Nazi link is? Propaganda. I'd like to know where you saw that. If I had a dime for every time a neocon-ally tried to make an analogy between World War II and something entirely unrelated, I'd be Bill Gates times ten. Not true. There aren't enough neoconservatives.) Bin Laden, for the record, was influenced by a number of philosophies and types of theology. What it ALL boils down to, however, in the end, is pride. These guys are a very proud group of people, and they HATE to be disrespected. Some elements over there choose to express their discontent in more outrageous ways, but these angry sentiments that the Middle East (except for Israel) is some sort of trash heap / oil well for the world are not uncommon. The reasonable people in the Middle East deserve more respect from us. Those who attack us deserve our focus in pursuing them. So far, we're getting an F in both. Even Michael Moore, he of the bleeding-heart sensitivity, seemed to lump together all the Saudi Arabians in Fahrenheit 9/11 by showing images of Bush with the Saudis, as though ANY association with ANY Saudi is somehow suspicious. What the hell? Just cuz Amuric'n values are great doesn't mean we have to be so dumb about these things. Let's face it: what conservatives are defending in Iraq is a completely optional nation-building project. I just love the irony. All of that criticism of Clinton trying to reach out America's tentacles to the world to engage in peacekeeping or whatnot. Bush flip-flop #234483: "Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have a kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not." (Circa campaign 2000.) If it wasn't so wrong, it would be funny. But Tony Blair (yet another @#$&*#@*!) actually made an interesting point awhile back. He said that the Iraq war could be justified on humanitarian grounds alone. I.e. to relieve the people of the sanctions. Remember, Blair is the British equivalent of a Democrat. The odd thing is, this reason may have been the MOST compelling one for invading Iraq in early 2003. So what we have now is an expensive humanitarian nation-building project overseas, costing us $5 billion per month. (Clinton never did ANYTHING like THAT.) And the thing is, since we didn't even market the war as a benevolent humanitarian project, we get no political capital out of it. People in the region hate us now more than ever, because we sold the war on selfish terms that turned out to be BS. I think the humanitarian reason for the war was worth considering. But this was certainly not the way to conduct a humanitarian war. Jumping impatiently into a poorly-planned, super-expensive effort without recruiting allies. Just utterly back-asswards. But whenever I hear ANYONE mention the fact that we're freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator, I just like to point them to the dictionary, the section right around h-y-p-o-c... Congratulations, liberals, you've freed the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator. Just keep on bragging about it. I'm not going to go into as much detail as I'd like to, but I think I've covered some of the major points. (So I have a lot to say, so sue me. If you've read this far, you deserve some sort of gift basket, I think, but unfortunately I'm fresh out of gift baskets today.) Let me say this, though. Israel has got to stop playing the victim, and start taking some responsibility for itself, and for its actions. Its policies have bred overwhelming frustration among the Palestinians, 80% of whom are beneath the poverty line (while Israel enjoys European-style living). You cannot simply continue to f**k with people for so long and expect no consequences. And then Israel has the nuts to say the other guys are simply barbarians. Give me a break! This is a problem that will require efforts on both sides. Real solutions are not as far away as some people think. But using American military force to plow through the Middle East and try to bend it to its will is not the solution. And I'll also just throw out the pragmatic problems with it. The Iraq war has already cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. If we keep plowing ahead with Norman Podhoretz's roadmap for the Middle East, we will be nothing but a giant military industrial complex, throwing dollars down the drain for many decades. There are other ways to solve problems. The neocons are so force-obsessed they discard the possibilities of other methods. America is great, sure, and we can exert our will. But there's no reason we have to throw away our common sense, our patience, or our national character to do so. (When people compare Bush to Reagan, I have to laugh -- and shortly thereafter, maybe, cry. What was Reagan's Iraq? He didn't have one. The neocons of today, however, don't want to stop at Iraq. They want us to march through the Middle East, with guns blazing, and just hope it all turns out for the best. They are killing the essential character and purpose of this country. Some of them don't even seem to care. Michael Ledeen -- part of that small neocon elite -- cited Machiavelli. "We can lead by the force of high moral example. It has been done. [But] fear is much more reliable, and lasts longer. Once we show that we are capable of dealing out terrible punishment to our enemies, our power will be far greater." You think the Iraq war has increased our power? We're mired in a quagmire. If someone attacked us right now, what would we do? We can't exert pressure on Iran or North Korea, because they know our hands are tied. Even many of our former allies now hate us. This is stupid. This isn't increasing America's power. It's flushing everything that's great about America right down the tubes. And what did Benjamin Franklin say about virtue? "I pronounce it as certain that there was never yet a truly great man that was not at the same time truly virtuous." This end-justifies-the-means stuff is highly counterproductive. What's the end? If all goes well, America will keep marching ahead for many years. There is no end. All we have are the means. If we discard them, we vanish.) A few non sequiturs: "And regarding Ron Suskind's small 'gaffe:' The policy of the Swedish Government from 1939 and to the end of World War II, was to remain neutral and stay out of the war. The Swedish policy of neutrality had been a successful strategy for more than a century..." If you're implying that Bush's Sweden/Switzerland error was a result of him knowing TOO MUCH history, I respectfully disagree. In fact, I've seen no indication from him of ANY awareness of ANY history. And I would hardly call this sort of monumental, fundamental error a "gaffe." This is International Politics 101. Not even 101. Whatever comes before that. International Politics Preschool. Richard Perle, the ubiquitious neocon who designed much of the war, said "the first time I met Bush 43 [when he was running for president]...he didn't know very much." For all of us, that's a bad thing. But if you're Richard Perle, looking to indoctrinate some sucker who's about to rule the free world, it happens to be a good thing. Bush to Brazilian president Fernando Henrique Cardoso: "Do you have blacks too?" Bush apparently not a soccer fan. For the hell of it, I'll throw out an idea that I DON'T advocate (so please don't refute it) but which demonstrates the wide spectrum of options available. As it turns out, Saddam was hoping to restore ties with the US. One of the more unconventional options would have been to restore ties with Saddam, making those ties contingent on strict oversight and his ultimately handing power over to someone reform-minded who met our approval. It's not so far-fetched. He was, after all, once an ally. The neocons think so narrowly -- imagine walking down a narrow hallway with horse-blinders on, for good measure -- they rarely ever come up with anything creative. If I thought that narrowly I'd get a major migraine in about 5 minutes. For the neocons, it's brute-force or nothing. The point is not whether this particular solution is a great one or even feasible; I mentioned it because it's interesting, not because it's one of the top 5 best choices necessarily. The point is that creative solutions are worth considering over brute-force solutions that carry so many negative side-effects as to be totally counterproductive. Bush has actually had the gall to claim that Libya's about-face was because of Iraq. Few people read much about Libya, so who can argue with him? In fact, US discussions with Libya began during the Clinton years and continued in the State Department in the Bush administration despite resistance from those determining the main thrust of Bush's policies. (By now the absurd Colin-Powell-hating has reached a fever pitch.) Richard Perle and David Frum, in their dumbly-named book "An End to Evil," called Libya an "implacably hostile regime." Woodrow Wilson, whom a lot of the neocons respect -- because as you mention, the movement came from the left, and not the right -- once said, "The thing to do is to supply light and not heat." That well-characterizes America's historic mission. Michael Ledeen characterizes America's historic mission much differently, however: "creative destruction." He writes that "we must destroy [our enemies] to advance our historic mission." He writes, "Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone." He writes, "Of all the myths that cloud our understanding, and therefore paralyze our will and action, the most pernicious is that only the Left has a legitimate claim to the revolutionary tradition." If you're concerned about neoconservativism's leftward origins, fear not. Ledeen acquired much of his perspective by reading about Italian fascism. Podhoretz, that recent Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient (and neocon-co-godfather, together with Irving Kristol, though slightly more relevant today), is itching for World War IV in the Middle East. Ledeen refers to this lovingly as "the Great Game." Americans "love war," Ledeen says. Neoconservative Mark Steyn looks forward to "turning the whole region into a cauldron [of war]." America, it would seem, is now the aggressor, the country that instigates the world wars. Claes Ryn: "America is witnessing nothing less than an inversion of its traditional self-understanding and sense of priorities." We don't need to go to out of our way to create destruction. Sometimes heat is unavoidable, but when we can avoid it, we must; that is the American character. We need to spread light. As Abraham Lincoln said, "I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends." Hey, it doesn't always work, but if all you do is march down the corridor of war, how do you know what works best? It's time to take off the horse-blinders, rub our eyes, and step out into the light. There are a lot of choices. Some of them, as luck would have it, are at least vaguely compatible with American values. "...Israel is a largely secular democracy. So naturally you see Israel as the problem." Israel is not what we tend to think of nowadays as a normal democracy, however. Many of the problems stem from the fact that it's an EXCLUSIVE democracy, i.e. they don't want the Palestinians there because it would mess up the character and political makeup of the state. The United States is a place that accepts all sorts of people; some complain about it, but it's the way it is. Israel is a JEWISH state. And I think if it was anything else, at least for the moment, it would not be serving its purpose. But let's not get too over-the-top about this whole Israel-is-a-secular-democracy thing. If they were truly an American-style democracy, they might have DIFFERENT problems, but they wouldn't have the problems they have now. Let's just think about how it works in Israel; people who lived in the territory for generations have been forced to leave, while Jewish people from anywhere around the world have free license to come and stay. You think that has nothing to do with the frustration on the other side? You probably won't like this, but here's what Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa had to say about Israel. "I am a black South African, and if I were to change the names, a description of what is happening in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank could describe events in South Africa." Face it. Israel has EXPORTED people out of its democracy, and that's where a lot of its problems lie. The Americans may have screwed with the Native Americans early on, but say this: they didn't send them to Greenland. These are issues people have to face, rather than simply sweeping them under the carpet. If Israel starts to acknowledge some of this stuff (taking great care as to how it does), it will be easier to work toward solutions. I'm tired of people elevating Israel to some mythical status. It's a place with great possibility, but also a place that has done some not-so-appealing things. This is all in the past, but this arrogance of pretending Israel is faultless and pristine is pure BS, and it's not getting us anywhere. Think about where the Jewish state is today. Is this where the early settlers had hoped it would be? The state is hated by millions of people in the region. Some Jewish people around the world chalk that up simplistically (or for self-serving reasons) to anti-Semitism. But I don't care who you are; if you create a two-class environment where one side is perpetually repressed while the other reaps all the spoils, you will create frustration. Is the Palestinian leadership absent blame in the equation? Of course not. That doesn't mean Israel can get off scot-free, and pretend that the entire problem is the other guys' fault. Israel has infinitely more power than the Palestinian leadership. That means it has more responsibility. Because I respect Israel and believe in it, I hold it accountable. I think it has the power to do more to solve this problem, and so do billions of other people around the world. And if it's going to solve this problem, it needs real help from the United States. The US can't just rubber-stamp the same-old-same-old asinine Israeli policies that have led to the exact point where we now find ourselves. Say what you will about the Palestinian leadership; but there will be NO LONG-TERM SOLUTION without some sort of reasonable agreement wherein each side acknowledges at least some of the perspectives of the other. What is the long-term plan of the hard-liners? Beating people completely into submission. Well, guess what, the Arab world has been around for more than a few millennia, and Israel's 5 million people aren't going to beat their pride into submission anytime soon. Israel can either face reality, or it can continue to dig itself deeper into the same old BS perpetual crisis. And another thing. People who think they're doing Israel a favor by obscuring the truth? You aren't. We need to be talking about these things openly, so that peoples' minds can be actively engaged in finding solutions. As long as certain issues are simply off-limits, we will never be able to tackle the problems broadly enough to successfully combat them. p.s. That's it for now. Maybe someday I'll go into DETAIL. [insert fancy smiley-face]

42 hrj: Hey asshole: Did it ever occur to you that 99% of Americans don't even think about Israel. You just ramble along about what you perceive the world thinks. Well, it thinks you're boring. Who in the hell asked you to give anyone a lesson on anything. Now go change your dress.

43 hrj: I may turn this into a pocket essay. Anyway, to begin: But Kristol's variety of neoconservatism is obsolete. It's still fascinating to study, but it doesn't represent the central stream of neoconservatism anymore. Kristol's Trotsky-derived strain was long ago supplanted by the Albert-Wohlstetter-derived tactical strain. Well, what this amounts to is an argument that Kristol isn't a "real" neocon. Does that mean his son, Bill, isn't a real neocon either? Because I can pretty much assure you that the two men agree right across the board. And I daresay Gertrude (Himmelfarbe), Bill's mother, is on the same page as well. I'd also say that most of the people, besides Bill, who currently pass for neocons qualify as "intellectuals" to most people. They have Ph.D.s from top universities, and they right books and articles with lots of footnotes and citations. I guess what you might have in the back of your mind, as you use that term, is idea that intellectuals aren't pragmatists. Or possibly that they're absorbed by theory. But on a profound level the neocon movement is, and has always been, dominated by pragmatism and the "reality check." Indeed, my use of the term "Salafism" isn't just a culturally sensitive word, but refers to the more militant version of Wahabbism. And it's a distinction that I learned from a colleague of Michael Ledeen's. Some neocons deny the phenomenon even exists. Irving wrote a book about it for Christ's sake. His son William even talks about how small and elite the core of neoconservatism is -- which really is no surprise to anyone who pays attention. Lipset doesn't like the term either, because it's so often misinterpreted and misused. (Like the term "liberal," in fact.) Many Brits, for instance, frequently refer to Bush as a "neocon." I guess you'd have to call me a neocon as well, since I buy into the notion of peace and security through democracy and prosperity. And I suppose it also applies to Tony Blair. Indeed, the group is getting to be pretty broad, and we'll soon have to start electing an administration in order to bank and manage the dues. And I should tell you that I've also never met a secretive neocon in my life. They'll not only tell you their intentions, but if you buy them a cheese plate and a little wine they'll talk your ear off. After awhile you begin to wonder "Isn't this stuff supposed to be secret?" Maybe I just have a trustworthy face, or something. If the Straussian method of interpreting texts in relation to the repressive conditions of their context is going to have some basis in experience it may not survive for much longer. We may have to create "virtual worlds" in order to undestrand whan repression is, or else run the risk of mistaking it for heated debate, or the exposure of silly ideas as, well... silly. Part of what you say is reasonable. I never said we should do nothing in the Middle East. I believe we should be REASONABLE, not PASSIVE. Attacking Iraq so soon after 9/11, while all-but-ignoring the primary strains of the movement that led to that attack, is simply reckless and stupid. Now that's just silly. You're falling for the "campaign slogan fallacy." Most of the folks who thought the Iraq War a good idea, also keep pretty darn close tabs on how we're doing in terms of busting up the Al Qaeda leadership. One of the chief reasons the movement is making some important mistakes that alienate members of that they consider their own constituency is that we've interrupted their command/control. Isolated cell structures are fine for maintaining security in a law enforcement environment, but they depend on hierarchies to function and coordinate the activities of cells. When those hierarchies are disrupted the result is disorganization... and mistakes. One of the anti-terrorism folks I talk to frequently said that he was a little worried recently that the pace at which we've been busting the major leaders, about one per a year, had slackened after Khalid Shaykh Muhammed. But shortly after that we cornered a handful within a short period. If anything the pace of disrupting their hierarchy is quickening, though we don't know what their capacity for regeneration might be. I do not think we are "all but ignoring the primary strains of the movement." I just don't. My problem with the "REASONABLE, not PASSIVE" approach is that that seems to be what we've been doing, for years. To me the tactic seems to assume that war is off the table, whereas sometimes the only way to control a situation is to be willing to go to war. And if you're willing then you have to actually do it sometimes. If we made a mistake, it was in not outmaneuvering Saddam so that we compelled him to start the war himself. If you recall, Saddam threatened to shoot down the U2s if their flight paths weren't submitted with 48 hour notice, if we flew more than one mission at a time. We should have done that anyway, and just ignored the threats. But, of course, the UN wasn't about to do anything so radical as insist on compliance with it's own demand for unconstrained inspections. So, even had Bush attempted to use this device the UNSC have blocked it. They weren't about to give Saddam a real test. Nor would he have sent a pilot up on such as suicide mission. Which ought to tell you what the UN really thought of Saddam's sincerity. But Saddam is NOT fundamentally related to al-Qaeda. In fact, he has nothing to do with al-Qaeda. You know, it's funny... the argument used to be that a religious purist would never do business with a reprobate pervert like Saddam, until we learned that Bin Laden was actively seeking such cooperation. At that point the door appears not to have swung from Saddam's side... but half the obstacles to cooperation had been already overcome. And you can bet that the instant the relationship had more benefits than liabilities for Saddam he'd have somehow crossed that bridge. We thought Marxists and Nazis were bitter enemies incapable of a strategic alliance until the Hitler/Stalin Pact. And once that door swings both ways we've passed a threshold from which we'll never return, and have entered a world in which a conventional ground war with deliberate rules about avoiding civilian casualties will be viewed as an ananchronism. We can keep knocking over regimes in the Middle East. It won't solve the terrorism problem. Again, "knocking over regimes" isn't the objective. The objective is to change the nature of the regimes in the Middle East. If that happens primarily though negotiation all the better. And the realistic possibility of a military option invariably makes those negotiations a great deal more fruitful. Do you think the Arab Summit in Tunisia recently would have done much about reform if they knew we were willing to abandon Iraq and head home? And now that the election is over, the foot dragging is going to stop as well. You must know this. Was the Iraq War "optional," as Friedman likes to put it? Sure, I guess so... in a way. What I have for dinner, or even whether I eat dinner, is probably optional. But eating, isn't. This was a project that had to eventually start somewhere, and the combination of having the world's worst tyrant (tied with N. Korea and Myanmar) who had a twelve-year history of thwarting UN resolutions and who had used WMD in the past makes the Saddam regime pretty good candidate. If not here, where? If not now, when? Moreover, not acting would have sent yet another message to the organizers of Al Qaeda and other Islamist terror organizations that we're a paper tiger, like the UN. And in this sort of post-9/11 world that's a message we just can't afford to send very often. Indeed, I don't we can ever afford to send it again, and not only for our own sakes. There's terrorism in democracies, and there's terrorism in totalitarian regimes. If anything, it's often harder to contain terrorism in a democracy, because people have the freedom to do things. Saddam had the luxury of being able to control Islamic extremists almost entirely. There's just soooo much wrong with this. Sure Hafez Assad controlled non-Alawite/non-Ba'athist terrorists by bull-dozing their enclave and paving it over, bodies included. But he also used terrorists as a tool, so controling them was simply an essential component of their utilization. This is an ancient pattern: the interrelationship of terrorist strategies and totalitarian state terror. They really aren't that different... just different phases of the some phenomenon. And far from making us more "safe" the ability of states to produce "one point safe" WMD, and the inability (so far) for independent movements lacking enclaves to do it, very definitely keeps the lid on what terrorists are capable of doing. And since the only constraint on their actions lie in the realm of capability rather than intent, that's the only leverage we have. Ultimately control isn't the key. The key is to prevent, as much as possible, the marginalization of people who might turn into terrorists. If you want to read an interesting book about the period leading to the rise of the Nazis try Paul Lazarsfeld's Marienthal Studies. It's about a population that had been isolated and marginalized by unemployment and "the dole," and who were therefore ripe for a movement that gave them social context. In Europe this was Nazism/Fascism. According to Lazarsfeld the US avoided this problem by utilizing various "workfare" programs, like the CCC. Sure there will always be disgruntled people motivated by paranoid movements, but those groups will have to survive within the context of a system that overtly constrains them through criminal justice intervention, and that places burdens on their predatory instincts. It is, in fact, much easier for terrorists to survive in totalitarian states, once they've passed the threshold of being useful to that state. I sort of agree that the problem is one of "pride" for the Al Qaedists, but there are lots of prideful people that don't resort to terrorism. It's more like a "status gap" between what they feel they deserve, and the status they actually receive. This was the problem in Germany/Austria leading up to the Nazis, and it's still the engine that fuels totalitarian movements, whether they constitute secular or clerical "religions." Even Michael Moore, he of the bleeding-heart sensitivity, seemed to lump together all the Saudi Arabians in Fahrenheit 9/11 by showing images of Bush with the Saudis, as though ANY association with ANY Saudi is somehow suspicious. Well, Michael Moore also came up with the theory that Americans have guns because we're more afraid of our neighbors than are the people in other countries, even though the data from several waves of the World Values Survey demonstrates that the US is toward the bottom of that scale... while Belgium is at the very top in just about all measures of prejudice and "fear of the other." Yes, the very Capital of the EU is the most prejudiced and fearful nation in the first world. Michael Moore is tedious. Who cares what he thinks, or says. I guess I'd agree that many of the folks implementing this little project aren't very nuanced about the plethora of divisions and factions in the Middle East, but they're learning and they have some powerful tools at their disposal for understanding those factions at an empirical level. It is how, after all, we're preparing the battlefield in Fallujah. We're at the start here. In fact, we're still at the beginning of the beginning. The tide may be turning though. I think the humanitarian reason for the war was worth considering. But this was certainly not the way to conduct a humanitarian war. Jumping impatiently into a poorly-planned, super-expensive effort without recruiting allies. Just utterly back-asswards. Sorry, but in this sort of work the only ally worth having is the UK. The strategy behind having others involved at this point isn't so much that we need them, but that we have to build a broad contingent of nations capable of this sort of work for the long run. It's a little like taking the kids to work. That's the way I see it, anyway. Let me say this, though. Israel has got to stop playing the victim, and start taking some responsibility for itself, and for its actions. Its policies have bred overwhelming frustration among the Palestinians, 80% of whom are beneath the poverty line (while Israel enjoys European-style living). You cannot simply continue to f**k with people for so long and expect no consequences. I'm sure you won't agree with this, but indulging the Palestinians is not the way to go right now. First, a military victory over institutionalized terrorism must be gained... and leaving that little detail off the table makes all the difference. The strategy being used by Israel of building a wall, and actively killing the leaders of the terrorist organizations is a method that will work, provided we don't undermine it. Sooner or later the Palestinian people will decide that being governed by these degenerates is not to their advantage. Ultimately this is an internal affair within the Palestinian territories, but it's a battle that Israel may be able to shape. It also isn't Israel's job to improve the lot of Palestinians, but in the long run that improvement is to Israel's benefit. After the victory, though. Not before, because any achievements made in that direction without first destroying the terrorists would be undermined by them. They recognize that any movement toward genuine representation and prosperity undermines their control. And then Israel has the nuts to say the other guys are simply barbarians. Give me a break! Watch this, and it'll be clear who the barbarians are... and what their incentives are too. (It's not violent, in case you're worried about that.) Thugs are the same, the world over. The first general organized thuggery with which the western powers had to deal was, in fact, the origin of the word itself. The strategy used by the British to control and eliminate the Thuggee under the command of William Sleeman probably crosses the line into genocide, as many would see it. But for his role in quelling this scourge, that had not only probably murdered over 100,000 people in northern India, but had disrupted the society for generations, Sleeman is remembered as a hero. There are good people among the Palestinians, no doubt. For the most part they have no champion and no protector... so are silenced. Until these modern thugs are quelled, they have no chance. And note that this parses a society that you insist on representing as unitary, without nuance. In some sense the same could be said of the pessimistic characterization of Iraqis and of Arabs in general. I'm not impressed by quasi-sensitivity. There aren't any easy answers here. There are other ways to solve problems. The neocons are so force-obsessed they discard the possibilities of other methods. Well, I actually saw a debate between William Kristol and Joseph Nye on CSPAN the other day over "soft power," and Kristol really had no problem with the notion that soft power is useful and vital. The problem is that in the absence of a credible threat of hard power, soft power is sometimes just powerless. My analogies run more along the lines of a balance between tension and compression, employed in Bucky Fuller's "tensegrity" structures. (I realize he didn't invent the concept, by the way.) The concept provides a convenient bridge from the more conventional references to carrots and sticks. Absent the discontinuous compression elements (struts) the tensional net has no structural integrity to speak of. It's just a pile of knotted string. With discontinuous compression, at strategic locatons within the net, the structure is the strongest per given unit weight on the planet. "Soft power" without "hard power" is just a pile of useless agreements that end up as entanglements. What we ought to be talking about is the expertise needed to strategically locate and place hard power. The terms "never" and "seldom" just don't cut it, I'm afraid. For the hell of it, I'll throw out an idea that I DON'T advocate (so please don't refute it) but which demonstrates the wide spectrum of options available. If you don't advocate it, why should I bother refuting it? Presumably you can do that for me, and it makes a nice division of labor. I think I've suggested that the neocons may be a bit more nuanced that you give them credit for being. But I have to tell you, I get the impression that you're "all nuance," and that's what's problematic for me. As Bill Whittle states so eloquently here and here, not everyone likes carrots and some people even hate them. But everyone has a disdain for sticks. It is therefore impossible to design a foreign policy in this age of the superimpowered individual that doesn't empoy a pretty hefty bundle of sticks. And that's something you should probably incorporate in your philosophy. As for whether Iraq played a role in Qadaffi's decision, all I can say is that he said it did. I think one has to take him at his word. Even if it's not the case, the prinicple still holds... and I simply see zero willingness or your part to even acknowledge what I should call "the principle of sticks" (discontinuous compression). We need to spread light. As Abraham Lincoln said, "I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends." Sort of ironic, don't you think, that after defaming Michael Ledeen and Mark Steyn as war mongers, interested in military destruction purely for its own sake, you should settle on the man responsible for kicking off the most destructive war in this hemisphere as your example of soft power? Of course, he was talking strictly about political enemies... and even at that he never "made friends" of the Copperheads. Nor are Steyn and Ledeen likely to make political friends of our modern antiwar Copperheads. Just as there was no common ground over slavery and secession there is no common ground today over totalitarianism... the scourge that replaced slavery at the top of the heap of infamy. If a little Spartan talk helps to convince our enemies that we're serious, it serves a useful purpose.

44 Wow, thanks for taking the time to respond in-depth like that. There's no way I can keep this up in this much detail right now, but I'll get into a few things. Suffice it to say that while I respect your positions, I also disagree with just about every one of your points (well-stated though they were), and they're more or less what I've been hearing from the neocons for years. The neocons have a FRAMEWORK. But it's not a framework that generally meshes with reality. They create an abstract framework and then cherry-pick parts of reality to try to make them fit. But the framework is NOT REALITY. First, this. Neoconservatism IS indeed secretive. Maybe we don't agree on what secretive means. You just said you yourself are a neocon, and judging by the points you're making, you clearly are a neocon. Neocons obviously aren't secretive AMONGST themselves. What sense would that make? They're secretive in relation to the outside world. I think that's the definition of secretive most people would understand. But as I said, Irving's a notch above. He tries to tell it more or less like it is. He's not ashamed of his ideology, and he doesn't try to hide it from the world. My problem is that this stuff is often so behind-the-scenes that most people don't have a fair chance to refute it. And when you get a good, clean look at neoconservatism, it all falls apart fairly easily. Their greatest defense is their secrecy. The neoconservative mindset is often one of intense distrust for the outside world, and such a mindset is not without its use. But neoconservatives often totally botch their conclusions about who's doing what, who WILL do what, who's cooperating with who, etc. America is supposed to be staunch and strong. Neoconservatives are often borderline paranoid. (Who would YOU trust to keep you safe? A paranoiac, or someone who's staunch and strong? I know who I'd pick.) Gary Hart was a member of the bipartisan Hart-Rudman Commission, which warned the Bush administration prior to 9/11 that they needed to act on al-Qaeda (and were ignored). Hart: "The global rules for nations throughout history have been pretty consistent: a threat must be immediate and unavoidable. Iraq was neither. If someone knocks on your door, and you've been robbed before, you're not justified in blowing that person away simply because you're afraid. The same is true of nations." Neoconservatives often apply an end-justifies-the-means approach, and a framework of speculative guesswork to determine threats -- both of which are completely counter to traditional American ideals. Machiavelli said, "Whether an action is evil or not can only be decided in the light of what it is meant to achieve and whether it successfully achieves it." This is hardly what our founding fathers had in mind. John Adams: "The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue." America has prospered for more than two centuries by striving consistently to adhere to its high ideals no matter what the circumstances. Other nations have faltered when they discarded their ideals for supposed temporary gains. "Trust me just this once," a leader will say. "We'll get back to our ideals when the threat is over." You know what? That's a recipe for national implosion. America is strongest when it adheres to its ideals even in the face of overwhelming pressures to discard them. America is NOT Machiavellian. Many neoconservatives are so enamored of their little strategic games that they shortsightedly value these over the principles of the Constitution, and over the essential character America has sought to maintain since its founding. Let me say it one more time. BS! (Bush's wacky evangelical Christian crowd does something similar, by the way, elevating their own sectarian theology above the Constitution and our nation's founding principles.) What's a human being without his fundamental soul, essence, personality, good character? He's nothing. What's a nation without its fundamental soul, essence, personality, good character? It's nothing. To make matters worse, neoconservatism doesn't even do a semi-passable job of determining which threats are the most important. Prior to 9/11, most neocons couldn't have named three members of al-Qaeda. They didn't care about al-Qaeda. The world of neoconservatism is often a world of juvenile, machismo boasting over which regime America should knock off next. They claim to be visionaries, but at heart many of them are simply schoolyard bullies. Neocon legend Norman Podhoretz grew up on the mean streets of urban Brookyln, and joined a neighborhood gang. "We were a typical Brooklyn gang," he said in an interview. "The main desideratum was to be tough, not to back down from a fight, and to be a sissy, as people used to say, or a coward, was probably the worst possible condition into which you could fall." If it doesn't show up on a map, fuhgettaboutit. Former Bush counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke said, "I began saying [before 9/11], 'We have to deal with bin Laden. We have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz the Deputy Secretary of Defense said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.' And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the Untied States in eight years,' and I turned to the Deputy Director of [the] CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' and he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States.' " Neoconservatism is so narrowly focused that it generally misses about 90% of reality. In the world of neoconservatism, there's not a lot of room for privately-sponsored terrorist organizations. They don't fit conveniently into the laser-focused neoconservative framework. There's not a lot of room for considering what a foreign leader's motivations might be. There's not a lot of room for diplomacy. Neoconservatism is a cynical, insecure, closed-minded game of shoving nations around on a strategic map. And neoconservatives have an incurable Cold War jones. Without cold war strategizing, most neocons feel empty inside, completely lost. But you know what, guys? The Cold War is OVER. We're in a different world now. Karen Kwiatkowski, who used to work under crazy/stupid Pentagon neocon Douglas Feith: "I saw a dead philosophy -- Cold War anti-communism and neo-imperialism -- walking the corridors of the Pentagon. It wore the clothing of counterterrorism and spoke the language of a holy war between good and evil. The evil was recognized by the leadership to be resident mainly in the Middle East and articulated by Islamic clerics and radicals. But there were other enemies within, anyone who dared voice any skepticism about their grand plans, including Secretary of State Colin Powell and Gen. Anthony Zinni." The neoconservative elite tends to go behind closed doors at think tanks like the Project for the New American Century and the American Enterprise Institute and immerse themselves in the strategic games they love to play, and then they emerge in tiny-but-pushy droves to sell their agenda to the world, using whatever framework they think people will buy. At the moment, it's the "war on terror." One of Richard Perle's innumerous echoes, David Wurmser, wrote a book in 1999 called "Tyranny's Ally: America's Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein." The book contains only a few offhand references to terrorism. The first reference to terrorism in the book is to Kurdish PKK terrorists. A connection between Saddam and terrorism barely registers as a blip on the radar screen. The current idea of toppling Saddam was originally introduced by Richard Perle and a few of his colleagues in the mid-90's as a means of changing the balance of power in the Middle East to (supposedly) better favor Israel's interests. In a think tank paper written for the eyes of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Perle, Feith, Wurmser, and a few other neocon radicals wrote that "early adoption of a bold, new perspective on peace and security is imperative for the new prime minister." Later they wrote that "since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites [the Jordanian monarchy] in their efforts to redefine Iraq... This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq -- an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right -- as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions." The idea, give or take, was to change the balance of power in the Middle East to squeeze Israel-rival Syria virtually out of the picture. The next year, Wurmser wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal called "Iraq Needs a Revolution." The year after that, he signed a letter written mainly by Richard Perle and Stephen Solarz, and signed by all top three people at the current Bush Pentagon (as well as a number of other prominent Bush officials), urging Clinton to focus on toppling Saddam. Then he wrote his book, the foreword of which was written by Perle, urging America to use force to topple Saddam. In his book, he talked quite a lot about Syria and Jordan. Not too concerned about terrorism. In the Bush White House, Wurmser co-ran a group with Michael Maloof called the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group, whose purpose, interestingly enough, was to gather so-called "intelligence." The New York Times: "The men, Michael Maloof and David Wurmser, culled classified material, much of it uncorroborated data from the CIA. 'We discovered tons of raw intelligence,' said Maloof. 'We were stunned that we couldn't find any mention of it in the CIA's finished reports.' " In addition to getting info from the CIA, they also got info straight from Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi exile who was hell-bent on toppling Saddam. Perle, a close friend of the scandal-prone Chalabi, helped to establish the ties. Times: "Perle asked Chalabi, now a member of the interim government of Iraq, to have his staff provide Maloof information gleaned from defectors and others." A better-known intelligence-cooking operation in the Pentagon was the Office of Special Plans, whose analyses were guided by such unbiased neocons as Douglas Feith, William Luti, Michael Ledeen, and Abram Shulsky. Shulsky, who ran the operation at the lower levels, has written that "truth is not the goal" of intelligence-gathering, "but only a means toward victory." The coauthor of the book was Gary Schmitt, the executive director of the Project for the New American Century. (The PNAC, as you probably know, was cofounded by William Kristol and fellow neocon Robert Kagan. William Kristol is one of the favorites of News Corp.'s Rupert Murdoch -- of Fox News and New York Post fame. Kristol edits Murdoch's neoconservative Weekly Standard, which Murdoch has long-published at a financial loss and distributed free to thousands, solely for the purpose of political advocacy.) You mentioned Strauss; Shulsky's a Straussian, having studied under Strauss at the University of Chicago alongside Wolfowitz, Chalabi, and some others. (For those unfamiliar with Strauss. Newsweek: "Strauss taught that philosophers needed to tell 'noble lies' to the politicians and the people.") You write, "Was the Iraq War 'optional,' as Friedman likes to put it? Sure, I guess so... in a way. What I have for dinner, or even whether I eat dinner, is probably optional. But eating, isn't. This was a project that had to eventually start somewhere..." What exactly is the "project" to which you're referring? Neoconservatives love projects, and in order to create a project, they'll often lump together all manner of goals and tasks that have nothing to do with one another. They like things to look clean and neat. If the reality doesn't fit the "project," they force it. There is NO cohesive project. Saddam and al-Qaeda have nothing to do with each other. So Thomas Friedman said it was "optional," eh? James Baker, who was Reagan's chief of staff and Treasury Secretary, and HW Bush's Secretary of State, said, "This is a war of choice, more so, perhaps, than a war of necessity." Baker warned that if Bush plowed on ahead, there would be "costs to other American foreign policy interests, including our relationships with practically all other Arab countries (and even many of our customary allies in Europe and elsewhere) and perhaps even to our top foreign policy priority, the war on terrorism." You write that "half the obstacles to cooperation [between Saddam and al-Qaeda] had been already overcome. And you can bet that the instant the relationship had more benefits than liabilities for Saddam he'd have somehow crossed that bridge. We thought Marxists and Nazis were bitter enemies incapable of a strategic alliance until the Hitler/Stalin Pact." Once again trying to determine our enemies based on fantastic speculation. Let's go over this one more time. SADDAM AND AL-QAEDA WERE NOT COOPERATING. I can't say it any clearer than that. You can't attack someone based on speculation that they may someday cooperate with someone. Do you have any idea how ridiculous, not to mention uncivilized, that sounds? Neocon philosophy is particularly riddled with contradiction and hypocrisy. Most neocons are intent on brute-forcing civilization down everyones' throats, but their own methods for doing so are themselves patently uncivilized. This simply doesn't work. Neoconservatives tend to embrace free markets around the world, want nations to participate in the international marketplace, yet they belittle the very international institutions that lubricate the machinery of worldwide capitalism. Neoconservatives tend to claim they're interested in civilization, yet there are few who cooperate less well with others, or value civilized diplomatic engagement less than the neocons. Neoconservatism is a half-assed ideology, and it always has been. The only way it survives is by spending most of its time in the shadows, staying just hidden enough that most people can't quite see what it's up to. Here's the kind of reasoning most neocons try to avoid like the plague. Saddam was an egotistical, power-hungry dictator. He knew the world didn't have an overabundance of patience with him. He knew America's patience in particular was relatively thin. Nearly everything Saddam has done over his career has been calculated to increase Iraq's or his own power. With the scrutiny of the world on both him and al-Qaeda, cooperating with that group would have been regime suicide. Saddam did not move at random; and he liked to press the limits of his power, not intentionally shoot himself in the head. Going around the world attacking people based on speculation is surely a brave new world. It's a world in which America acts out of fear and paranoia, not out of strength and virtue. It would be tempting to say, yes, we have safety, but at what cost? The only problem is that the neocons don't even understand the true threats. So within the neocon framework we have neither safety nor virtue. But at least we can say that we're hated almost without exception, throughout the world. That's something, right? "We thought Marxists and Nazis were bitter enemies incapable of a strategic alliance until the Hitler/Stalin Pact." It's true. For some neocons not only has the COLD WAR not ended, even World War II is still ongoing. Earth to Neocon Headquarters: these analogies are useful for academic discussion, but they're not a good enough rationale for sending American troops to die overseas! Let's stop and think for a moment just how flimsy this argument truly is. A and B are ideologically dissimilar, and they were cooperating. Therefore we're justified in attacking C, which is ideologically dissimilar from D. Don't take this personally, but are you loco, gringo? That's the most convoluted, BS argument I think I've ever heard in my life! And let's stop bringing WWII into this, 'K? You yourself wrote that "the door appears not to have swung from Saddam's side." Meaning that Saddam actively chose not to cooperate with al-Qaeda. Perhaps you can go over your logic one more time, because you left me behind. We're justified in attacking a guy who chose not to cooperate with al-Qaeda, because he might someday cooperate with al-Qaeda, based on an analogy from World War II wherein the Marxists collaborated with Hitler? Whew. That's about as airtight as it gets. You really ARE a neocon. You weren't kidding. "...'Knocking over regimes' isn't the objective. The objective is to change the nature of the regimes in the Middle East. If that happens primarily though negotiation all the better." If only it were so. Wolfowitz summed up the sentiments of the neocons pretty well when he said that toppling Saddam by force "appeared to be about not whether but when" for the Bush administration. The Independent: "Mr [Paul] O'Neill [former Bush Treasury Secretary] said invading Iraq was 'topic A' at the very first meeting of President George Bush's National Security Council, 10 days after his inauguration on 20 January 2001, and continued to be an abiding theme in follow-up meetings. '...From the very first instance, it was about Iraq,' said Mr O'Neill... 'It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The President saying "Go find me a way to do this".' " For most neocons, when the word "diplomacy" comes up in a discussion, it might as well be synonymous with "naivete." Which is ironic, because in reality it's the term "neocon" that's truly synonymous with "naivete." Neocons are working so hard to cram civilization down the throats of good people all over the world, but when you think about it, what is the definition of "civilization"? To a large degree, to be civilized means to be diplomatic, sensible, to play by agreed-upon rules, to get along well with others. All traits that are valued almost not at all by most of the neocons. The neocon sensibility is almost inevitably one of obsessiveness. There's a "project" that needs immediate attention. Little glitches on the horizon that we need to rectify immediately in order to complete our project, form our perfect world. You know what, the world will never be perfect. And especially not if we throw away our fundamental values in order to go around the world impatiently bullying other people and nations without considering all our options or thinking through all the potential consequences. We can improve the world, but how can we improve the world by setting the example that bullying other people based on wild speculation is acceptable and even desirable? It is not a more perfect world that the neocons are helping to create; it's a more chaotic, distrusting world, wrought of a foolish, reckless game that's totally incompatible with both American values and common sense; and you can leave me out of it, thank you. Neocon Daniel Pipes, who's done as much as anyone to spread impressively bogus notions about Islam, Islamism, Wahhabism and the like, summed up the neocon mentality pretty well. "What war had achieved for Israel," Pipes said, "diplomacy has undone." Pipes, who Bush appointed to the US Institute for Peace of all entities, said, "How is a change of heart achieved [in Palestine]? It is achieved by an Israeli victory and a Palestinian defeat. The Palestinians need to be defeated even more than Israel needs to defeat them." And we wonder why the Arab world looks askance at us. (Stephen Schwartz also gets honorable mention for skewing Arab culture hopelessly beyond recognition, i.e. referring to the "the Wahhabi death cult." Even by neocon standards, Schwartz is one of the more confused neocons out there. He doesn't seem to realize that neocons are supposed to be EX-Trotskyites, not actual Trotskyites -- Trotsky being a communist (one-time big-C, later little-c) and all. Schwartz has said he will defend Trotsky "to my last breath, and without apology." Whoa there, easy does it. Like a lot of the rest of the neoconservative pack, Schwartz claims that "military defeat is the only solution with regard to open terror.") You write that Saddam had "a twelve-year history of thwarting UN resolutions and [that he] had used WMD in the past makes the Saddam regime pretty good candidate..." Oh, so it appears we're now concerned about UN resolutions all of a sudden. How entirely convenient for us. Civilization, apparently, is not a two-way highway. When asked about violating international law, Bush once said sarcastically in a press conference, "International law? I better call my lawyer; he didn't bring that up to me." Richard Perle, who said in late 2003 that "international law...would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone," would no doubt have been very proud of his beligerant young Jedi. So Saddam used WMD's, did he? And when was this exactly? Oh, right, in the 80's, when he was a US ally. And who supplied many of the components? Oh, right, the US did. The Reagan administration. In fact, the neocons. New York Times: "Col. Walter P. Lang, retired, the senior defense intelligence officer at the time, [said,] 'The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern...' " DIA official: "The Pentagon 'wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas,' said one veteran of the program [to help Saddam]. 'It was just another way of killing people -- whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference,' he said." But the 80's are over. More relevant as of 2003 was that the combination of the 1991 Gulf War and the 90's weapons inspections had, as luck would have it, DESTROYED ALL OF THAT STUFF. Saddam made no serious attempt to restore his weapons programs after 1991. We can see all of this more clearly in reverse, but we could see plenty clearly enough even then. Foreign policy is a matter of setting priorities, and toppling Saddam was simply not the top priority in 2003. The US did have a number of priorities. Remember 9/11? Doesn't anybody friggin' remember 9/11 anymore? Washington Post: "[Former Bush counterterrorism director Rand Beers] thinks the war in Afghanistan was a job begun, then abandoned. Rather than destroying al Qaeda terrorists, the fighting only dispersed them. The flow of aid has been slow and the U.S. military presence is too small, he said. 'Terrorists move around the country with ease. We don't even know what's going on. Osama bin Laden could be almost anywhere in Afghanistan,' he said." Beers, a normally nonpartisan guy who has worked for both Republicans and Democrats, was so disgusted with Bush's inept so-called "war on terror" that he quit and started working toward Bush's defeat in 2004. Bush's attempts to shore up homeland security, too, had taken a backseat to the neocons' beloved Iraq Adventure. "What else can you say," Beers lamented. " 'We don't care about 3,000 people dying in New York City and Washington?' " Then there's the more-than-over-the-top fearmongering the Bush administration has embraced with a flourish since 9/11, gleefully overhyping the threat from all manner of WMD. Ashcroft said a dirty bomb "spreads radioactive material that is highly toxic to humans and can cause mass death and injury." Actually, no, that's not quite right, John. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says that the conventional explosive material used in a dirty bomb is more dangerous than the radioactive material perched alongside it. "The main purpose of a dirty bomb is to frighten people and make buildings or land unusable for a long period of time," the Commission says. "...At the levels created by most probable sources, not enough radiation would be present in a dirty bomb to cause severe illness from exposure to radiation." Not severe illness, maybe, but certainly "mass death and injury," right? Right? No, sorry. Thanks to Jose Padilla's supposed dirty bomb plot, Bush signed an order authorizing the US military to arrest Padilla, an American citizen, in Chicago and hold him indefinitely without access to the American legal system. The Supreme Court eventually had to intervene to say (me paraphrasing), "What the f**k are you doing, you f**king crazy lunatics? You can't do that for f**k's sake, you insane motherf**kers!" Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative justices on the Supreme Court, a man who has had dinner with the Bushes, gone duck hunting with Dick Cheney, and cast a key vote giving Bush the White House in 2000, said, "Where does he get that power?" The power of a president during wartime, Scalia said, is "the George Washington-like" power to command the troops in battle. "It doesn't mean he has the power to do whatever it takes..." The Court ruled 8-1 that the administration had overstepped its bounds. The administration had argued that Yaser Hamdi, another American citizen, was also too dangerous and had to be held indefinitely without access to the courts. When the Supreme Court disagreed, the Bush administration decided not to try Hamdi at all. Instead, it simply let him go. He is now free. Give him a call if you want. Ask him what's up. "Yo, Yaser, how's it hangin'? You a terrorist or what?" As for Padilla, the day after Ashcroft said, "We have disrupted an unfolding terrorist plot to attack the United States by exploding a radioactive 'dirty bomb'," Wolfowitz said, "I don't think there was actually a plot beyond some fairly loose talk and obviously to plan future deeds." Padilla was a "scout" or something, the administration said. Whatever he was, he wasn't to have access to the American justice system the Constitution promises to all American citizens -- at least until the Supreme Court intervened. At his UN presentation in February 2003, the unfortunate lowlight of his career, Colin Powell warned that "a single drop of VX on the skin will kill in minutes." The Centers for Disease Control says a drop of VX on the skin "can cause sweating and muscle twitching where the agent touched the skin," and that "mild or moderately exposed people usually recover completely." You know, now that you mention it, the VX Powell was referring to had long ago been destroyed, and even if it hadn't been, it would be useless today. Actually, hunh, you know what, now that I think about it, Iraq never perfected VX in the first place... Yeah... Hunh... I'll be damned. Yeah, but it sure was entertaining the way Powell held up that vial and looked at it quizzically, his head slightly cocked to one side like a dog in the woods that can't quite place a sound. A winning performance, although, ironically, a career-damaging one. The Bush administration's hyperactive WMD spin has indeed been more than Oscar-worthy. There will be no Oscars for Bush and his loyal cast and crew, however. Just a second term in the White House. Experts said that even if Saddam HAD HAD these weapons, and HAD been cooperating with some anti-American terrorist group, he STILL wouldn't have given these weapons to the guys. Power-hungry dictators aren't about to give away their favorite toys. It just doesn't happen. But this is the sort of analysis that doesn't interest neocons. It doesn't fit all-too-well into the "project," you know. You write, "...Not acting would have sent yet another message to the organizers of Al Qaeda and other Islamist terror organizations that we're a paper tiger, like the UN. And in this sort of post-9/11 world that's a message we just can't afford to send very often. Indeed, I don't we can ever afford to send it again, and not only for our own sakes." Let's try to keep our countries straight. The war in Afghanistan was widely supported by nations around the world. It was a response to 9/11. It was just; it was logical. What message are we sending the Islamists, again, by attacking a secular leader who hadn't been cooperating with them? There are a few chapters, it would seem, missing from your book. What message are we sending -- remind me -- by ultimately going so light on the people who attacked us and then focusing the vast majority of our energies on a bunch of guys, sitting pretty quietly, really, who our attackers referred to as "infidels"? Remind me to get refund on this book. Chapters 3-15, completely missing. Richard Clarke: "Osama bin Laden had been saying for years, 'America wants to invade an Arab country and occupy it, an oil-rich Arab country. He had been saying this. This is part of his propaganda. So what did we do after 9/11? We invade...and occupy an oil-rich Arab country which was doing nothing to threaten us. In other words, we stepped right into bin Laden's propaganda. And the result of that is that al Qaeda and organizations like it, offshoots of it, second-generation al Qaeda have been greatly strengthened." Perhaps you come from the Michael Ledeen school of thinking. As paraphrased by neocon Jonah Goldberg: " 'Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.' That's at least how I remember Michael phrasing it at a speech at the American Enterprise Institute about a decade ago." Except that we'd already picked up Afghanistan and thrown it against the wall. I think most neocons would consider Afghanistan to be a crappy little country. (Or is there such a thing as TOO crappy? Clarke said Rumsfeld complained there weren't any good in Afghanistan. Again with the machismo. The juvenile need to retaliate against someone, something -- anyone, anything. Punch a wall. It will make you feel better. So what if you break your hand.) Perhaps the problem was, Afghanistan was not one of the crappy little countries the neocons had been targeting. Neocons tend not to be overly flexible. They have narrow plans. They develop them. If someone "moves the cheese," as they say, the neocons still go to the same place. Flexibility is not the neocons' forte. Wolfowitz had wanted to ignore Afghanistan from the very beginning and go right after Iraq. Rumsfeld wanted to do both at once. On September 20, 2001, Perle and his allies wrote to the president that capturing or killing bin Laden should be "by no means the only goal, of the current war on terrorism." They then segued casually into explaining why toppling Saddam had to be a key goal of the war on terror. It's a good thing Bush "didn't know very much" coming into office, as Perle has said. Otherwise he might have noticed the flimsiness of the laughably-forced connection between Saddam and 9/11. As Laura Bush once said of her husband, "He doesn't need to evaluate and reevaluate a decision. He doesn't try to overthink. He likes action." And -- action it is. "Sure Hafez Assad controlled non-Alawite/non-Ba'athist terrorists by bull-dozing their enclave and paving it over, bodies included. But he also used terrorists as a tool, so controling them was simply an essential component of their utilization." I've opened up here far more than I cover in sufficient depth (my bad), but the bottom line is that foreign policy is about setting priorities. "Terrorism" is not an objective term. The US collaborated with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan to topple the Taliban. Many would say that's backing one terrorist group over another. In the Middle East (and elsewhere), many insurgents can be labelled "terrorists." Who do we label terrorists? Terrorists tend to be the guys who do mean things to people without our permission. When Saddam rose to power, we helped him slaughter many of the moderates who might have been useful in toppling him later on. Speaking of which, weren't we pretty much buddy-buddy with Saddam during the 80's when he was screwing with the Kurds? Saddam was sympathetic to Mujahideen e Khalq, because they wanted to overthrow the Iranian government. Many of the Bush administration neocons wanted to fund that exact same group just recently in order to try to topple the Iranian government. The US has backed what most reasonable people would call terrorists in Latin America and elsewhere. Hey -- should we root out the terrorists in Northern Ireland? What about the Spanish Basques? They're our problem, right? Terrorists. No, wait, we're not just targeting "terrorists." We're targeting "terror." I remember a rollercoaster I went on at Six Flags not too long ago that was pretty damn scary. I say take it out. The Bush administration has convinced many of us that there is this singular, entirely interconnected net of "terrorists" out there. I know Bush said, "We are fighting evil, and we will continue to fight evil, and we will not stop until we defeat evil." But let's step out of neo-evangelical dreamland for a moment and snap ourselves back to reality. It's not enough to simply slap a label on someone -- "terrorist" -- and then retaliate against them because we were attacked -- by someone or something terrifying -- on 9/11. We are twisting and convoluting the notion of justice like it ain't never been 'atwisted and 'aconvoluted before. Saddam was not involved in terrorism against America. Al-Qaeda was actively focused on killing thousands of American civilians and bringing down the American economy. What in the hell, pray share, do those two have to do with one another? I'm really eager to read those missing chapters. I'm sure they do a bang-up job of filling in the gaping holes in your p__j_ct blueprint. I'm sorry. Project. Something wrong with my keyboard. I knew I shouldn't have taken the PNAC's surplus computer peripherals. No matter WHAT, if the US wanted to bring down Saddam, in a very delicate post-9/11 climate it needed to do it the right way. That was a given. Obvious. Bush has about as much foreign policy sense as a box of sand. On a good day. This may seem like a lot, but I've only touched the very surface. I don't have time to cover all of this stuff; but a few more things. (I know, I opened it up; it's my fault.) You write, "Ultimately control isn't the key. The key is to prevent, as much as possible, the marginalization of people who might turn into terrorists. If you want to read an interesting book about the period leading to the rise of the Nazis try Paul Lazarsfeld's Marienthal Studies." Again with the Nazis! You mentioned them four times! At some point I'm going to have to say, if you can't discuss these issues without tying them (I believe for reasons that have more to do with propaganda than good logic) to the Nazis or World War II, don't even bother, yo! It's gettin' repetitious. Before the Iraq war, lots of neocons were trying to compare Saddam to Hitler. Like, um, er, ah, give it a rest. Hitler had been aggressively expanding throughout Europe, and he controlled a powerful nation/economy/military. Saddam was sitting there quietly in the Middle East, hemmed in by sanctions, doin' nothin' ta nobody. Last time he acted up he got slapped back, and he hadn't tried anything since. I says, enough already with the Nazi spiel. The Nazis were bad people. They're GONE. The Cold War was a challenge. It's OVER. The Soviets made James Bond movies more interesting. They're kaput. Get with the program. As for preventing the marginalization of people, that's all well and good, but there are ways to do this that are compatible with American values and don't create more problems than they solve. Regardless, however, the Madrid train bombings weren't a result of people being marginalized. They were a result of people BEING F**KING TICKED OFF. You don't have to be marginalized to be ticked off. If you're totally marginalized, you're often defeated. Neither Afghans nor Iraqis, for the record, tended to be international terrorists. Afghans in particular would have been perfectly happy with a free lifetime supply of grain. Is this the nuance I'm not supposed to be using? I'm "all nuance," you said, and that's "problematic" for you. Nuance, I guess, means that if a round peg doesn't fit in a square hole, you don't keep slamming it down until it goes through. Bummer, though, I know, for those who had their hearts set on that hole. "Saddam threatened to shoot down the U2s if their flight paths weren't submitted with 48 hour notice, if we flew more than one mission at a time. We should have done that anyway, and just ignored the threats." You're a neocon all right. You figure out who to attack first, and then come up with a reason later. The UN inspectors had helicopters, aerial drones, satellites, maxed-out vehicles, sophisticated equipment, you-name-it-they-had-it. The one thing Saddam asked is that there not be unlimited spy planes buzzing around overhead. Yeah, that's definitely a reason to bomb the living s**t out of him. At one point the UN inspectors did actually have more than one plane up there, and no, Saddam didn't shoot them down. But since they'd agreed to a certain protocol with the spy planes, the inspectors acknowledged the mistake like civilized people do and didn't do it again. The UN inspectors were NOT lacking for any equipment or access that they needed. This was probably the most intrusive inspections regime in history, even though it was cut short by our ACTION!-happy commander-in-chief. "After all," Bush said, "this is the guy who tried to kill my dad." You wrote, "...Of course, the UN wasn't about to do anything so radical as insist on compliance with it's own demand for unconstrained inspections. So, even had Bush attempted to use this device the UNSC have blocked it. They weren't about to give Saddam a real test. Nor would he have sent a pilot up on such as suicide mission. Which ought to tell you what the UN really thought of Saddam's sincerity." Reality's really not as bad as you think. Sometime when you're feeling a bit saucy, poke your head out of the cave and take a look around. It's actually quite liberating. The UN's purpose, incidentally, is not to create lame rationalizations for one country to invade another. Frankly, though, the Bush administration doesn't seem to need the UN's help in this regard. It came up with plenty of lame rationalizations on its own. My favorite was the Africa uranium documents. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The British government, eh? But not us, I guess. Why'd you mention it in your State of the Union speech if only the British government has learned it? Newsweek: "The State Department...turned over the Italian documents to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which had been pressing the United States to back up its claims about Iraq's nuclear program. 'Within two hours they figured out they were forgeries,' one IAEA official told Newsweek. How did they do it? 'Google,' said the official. The IAEA ran the name of the Niger foreign minister through the Internet search engine and discovered that he was not in office at the time the document was signed." Remind me to donate a personal computer to the White House so that they have access to Google in the future. Briefly: You mention "the problem in Germany/Austria leading up to the Nazis." The NAZIS! The NAZIS! Man. Not sure why you keep mentioning the Nazis, but these comparisons are none too helpful. What's your worry? That some group will turn the US into an Islamist state? If you give me a plausible sequence of events via which this can happen, I'll ship you everything I own, complementary, postage-paid. You concerned about an Ottoman-style pan-Arabic empire in the Middle East? Well, Saddam certainly wasn't about to let that happen, so if that's your worry, toppling Saddam is just plain weird. There isn't going to be any pan-Arabic Taliban empire -- it's not happening -- and even if there was one, it would be impotent because those guys are bad at capitalism. (Not enough people want this either at the top or the bottom, and the international landscape wouldn't permit it anyway. It's the fringe loonies who want it, and even they have to wonder about their chances.) I'll tell you what wouldn't be impotent. A pan-Arabic confederation of democracies. If everybody in the Middle East is democratic, the next logical step is to form a pan-Arabic union not unlike the EU. Then, if these guys don't feel like inviting Israel to join, they'll have more than enough power to push Israel right into the sea. You know, in a way that would be really f**king funny, given all the effort the neocons are putting into this. I'm not suggesting that democracy is bad. What I'm saying is there's no way for Israel to run away from diplomacy and cooperation. They can solve this now, or they can suffer for awhile longer and solve it later -- or, perhaps, destroy themselves waiting for something to happen. There ain't gonna be a perfect solution. These super-obsessive pro-Israel fans who think Israel deserves it all. Give it up, guys. The world will never be perfect, and neither will Israel. Ask Icarus what happens when you want it all. You write that "in this sort of work the only ally worth having is the UK." You couldn't be more wrong. The US could have avoided a lot of the recent damage to its reputation and national interests, particularly in the Middle East, by having a broader coalition. Not exactly rocket science. And this time around, unlike in the 1991 air-power-centric Gulf War, we actually could have used some of these Arab troops for peacekeeping, etc. This also well-epitomizes the notorious neoconservative tunnel-vision. The first war in Iraq cost us about $5 billion. This one is costing us about $5 billion PER MONTH. Stephan Richter: "What a difference a decade makes. Back in the times of the first Gulf War, in 1991, nations such as Saudi Arabia, Japan and Germany were literally lining up to pay the United States tens of billions of dollars for the costs of its military exertions. Now, as Turkey proves, that convenient principle has been put in reverse." We tried to bribe Turkey to join, and they still wouldn't. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that 95% of the Turkish public was against the war? Given the theme of this blog, I can't help myself. "Now, release your anger..." "I can feel your anger... Take your weapon. Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete." How to Create Terrorism, for Dummies "Watch this, and it'll be clear who the barbarians are...and what their incentives are too... Thugs are the same, the world over." Like I'm a clean slate on this issue, and this one extra tidbit is going to convince me that Israel has no blame and Palestine is the only culprit. There may be a sucker born every minute, but unfortunately for you, I ain't one of them. Try reading about how the Israeli military razed the only the zoo in the Gaza Strip, or about how Ariel Sharon permitted the slaughter of hundreds of Palestinian refugees in the 80's. Or how Israeli policies exacerbate crushing levels of poverty in Palestine. You see what you want to see. Personally, I want to see the truth, because that's the only way to solve a problem. If you want to be biased, be biased. It's not as helpful as you may think. Israel has a sophisticated modern military. They don't need to fight a guerilla war. Palestine has s**t. They fight the way they think they have to fight. It's not productive, but they do it out of desperation. Someday this meshugas has to stop, and Israel has to take the initiative. You write, "Until these modern thugs are quelled, they have no chance." Israeli policies are helping to fuel the thugs by creating overwhelming levels of frustration among the Palestinians. Taki, Spectator (UK): "...The [Israeli] occupation has lasted a generation and rules the lives of 3.5 million Palestinians. Sharon's gambles have only managed to turn policy over to the lunatic religious Right on the Israeli side, and the mad mullahs in the Palestinian camp... If a decent human being like Gerald Kaufman can write an article in an English newspaper asking 'How CAN my fellow Jews do something like this?' it's time for America to wake up and take notice." Some people want to use brute force until the cows come home. Well, the cows isn't comin' home. "Absent the discontinuous compression elements (struts) the tensional net has no structural integrity to speak of. It's just a pile of knotted string." [Etc., etc. Abstract discussion of soft power, hard power, etc.] These arguments ought to be separated, however, from the fundamental question of whether preemptively, unilaterally invading Iraq in 2003 MADE ANY GODDAM SENSE! There are two separate issues here. One is what is the overarching philosophy to apply to foreign policy. Worth considering and contemplating. Another is the specific notion of Iraq in 2003. And no matter what kind of overarching foreign policy philosophy you have -- if you use a koosh ball paradigm, I don't care -- the Iraq invasion STILL has to make some friggin' sense on its own merits. I'm not arguing from the perspective of a pacifist. I believe in any given circumstance considering a wide array of options. Neoconservatives do not, in general (despite your arguments that neocons are somehow anything other than blunt) consider a wide array of options. William Kristol is not exactly the WORST, but he's still stuck in a hard-line rut just about all the time. An example of TOO-SOFT is the way Clinton handled Somalia -- Black Hawk Down et al. You can't just pull out of a place after a setback like that. Clinton wasn't what I would call soft, but that wasn't a campaign he'd wanted; it was handed to him by HW, who anticipated it would go a lot quicker. At the time, Clinton was still a bit new at the foreign policy game, though he came in with HEAPS (as the Brits say) more knowledge about foreign policy than Mr. "Keep good relations with the Grecians" Bush. Foreign policy is one-part pragmatics and one-part perception. The war in Iraq, unfortunately, gets a failing grade in both subjects. You can refute an opponent of the Iraq war by simply calling him soft. But being reasonable doesn't make a person a wimp. Being recklessly macho makes a person a danger to mankind. Let me add, too, that American leaders for decades have been trying to lead the world into an era of what (quasi-neocon) Francis Fukuyama called "the end of history." What they've been trying to create is a friendly, civilized international landscape that for the most part identifies with and embraces our own values. The neocons, ever-the-hypocrites, claim they are trying to expand this landscape -- but their persistent cynicism toward institutions like the UN that do no less than amplify American soft power, again demonstrates the obtuseness, narrowness, and incompleteness of the neocon vision. You say soft power without hard power is useless. But hard power, exercised in a lawless context, undermining the precise paradigm it is ostensibly intended to enhance, is not only useless but dangerous and counterproductive. Indeed, despite America's military assets, by far America's greatest power is its soft power -- its valued alliances and its social, cultural, political, and economic sway with nations around the world. That other nations emulate us increases our power and our influence. International institutions that identify with our values INCREASE our soft power, and thus our overall power. And hard power exercised in such a way that it undermines our soft power is pointless -- again, counterproductive. The world we have known in recent times is one that is exceedingly friendly to American interests. Senseless, then, to risk throwing much of that away just so we can throw some crappy little country up against the wall. (The American military is powerful, but even America cannot take on the world. America may be the strongest as of now, but the rest of the world combined is far stronger. We are 300 million people in a world of 6 billion, and we cannot forget it.) In the last two years we have seen a REVERSAL of American power, not an increase in American power. We're stuck in an embarrassing quagmire, unable to exercise our power against anyone right now because our hands are tied in Iraq. In the meantime, we've lost buckets of respect around the world. People don't trust us. They are less likely to listen to us. Rather than want to instinctively cooperate with us, many now consider us to be a force for evil. South Korea depends on us for its national security. In a recent poll, South Koreans said the United States was a greater threat to world security than Iran. Polls show most Europeans are now distrustful of the United States. 40% of Canadian teenagers say America is a force for evil in the world. Countries are dropping out of our coalition. Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski said the US "deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride." Italy's European Affairs minister said the war in Iraq "wasn't the best thing to do." A US diplomat said, "I can tell you it has played hell with our ability to get people behind us on Iran. You hear it once a day: 'How do we know this isnÂ’t another Iraq?' " Former CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack said, "Fairly or not, no foreigner trusts US intelligence to get it right anymore, or trusts the Bush administration to tell the truth." You think the war in Iraq is increasing America's power? The war in Iraq has compromised American interests all over the world. And this is one of the main problems with neoconservatism. I'm glad you brought it up. Near-total obliviousness to the utility of soft power. "...I have to tell you, I get the impression that you're 'all nuance,' and that's what's problematic for me. ...But everyone has a disdain for sticks. It is therefore impossible to design a foreign policy in this age of the superimpowered individual that doesn't empoy a pretty hefty bundle of sticks. And that's something you should probably incorporate in your philosophy." It goes something like this, I guess: "My fellow Americans, we cannot afford to wait a moment longer. The time to arbitrarily attack some crappy little country, based on that time-honored American tradition called the bundle-of-sticks/discontinuous-compression theoretical framework, has, for better or for worse, now arrived on our nation's doorstep. We must take care to embrace our moment of destiny -- not to mention a big, fat bundle of big ole' goddam whoppin' sticks -- and go, like, attack someone or something. Heh heh. Cool. I ask for your trust. And I ask for your patience. Give me just a few days, my fellow Americans, and I'll try to figure out just who the f**k we're actually attacking. Fortunately, citizens, there are more than enough crappy little countries to choose from in this grand and phenomenally diverse world of ours. I close with a simple prayer, oft-repeated. I think. God bless America, and God bless continuous/discontinuous...whatever. Don't forget to tip your waitresses. I'll be here all week." If nuance means being able to tell the difference between Saddam Hussein, the leader of a secular state, and Osama bin Laden, the leader of a privately-funded Islamic extremist organization, then yup, I guess you could say I'm nuanced. Arbitrarily lumping together potential threats to the US based on some vague undefined notion of "terror" is just plain loopy and dangerous, not to mention unprecedented in American history for very good reasons. Employing a hefty bundle of sticks doesn't mean wearing a blindfold and swinging wildly into the dark. We can be assertive without being stupid. And to me, American values are nonnegotiable. These values have worked pretty well for us for the past 200 years, and I don't care how spiffy and cool the strategic framework is, if it doesn't mesh with our national character, f**k it; it's out the window for me. If, as a nation, we look in the mirror and can no longer recognize ourselves in the reflection, then we are nothing. "As for whether Iraq played a role in Qadaffi's decision, all I can say is that he said it did. I think one has to take him at his word. Even if it's not the case, the prinicple still holds... and I simply see zero willingness or your part to even acknowledge what I should call 'the principle of sticks' (discontinuous compression)." The Libyan economy played the dominant role in Qadaffi's decision. It's a no-brainer; his son (and no doubt others) told him that his isolation was killing the country. Why would Iraq have played the dominant role? The Bush administration never explains (and neither do you). Libya wasn't part of the axis of evil, and we hadn't even gotten through country #1 yet. The chances that Bush would still be in power by the time the US got through Iraq, Iran, and North Korea had to be minimal at best. In fact, neocons weren't particularly obsessing about Libya. Rumsfeld was threatening Syria, Perle was threatening Saudi Arabia. Libya came up from time to time, but it was hardly a center of attention. What the hell did Iraq have to do with Libya's decision? As for the "principle of the sticks," if it means attacking other countries without good reason, then yes, I have zero willingness to acknowledge it as legitimate. If it means being assertive and being smart, and employing force where sensible and necessary, then yes, I acknowledge it. "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in the compression-decompression theoretical strategic framework -- did I get that one right? -- and dedicated to the proposition that every few years, we take some crappy little country and throw it against the wall. We are here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that this nation, under God, shall have a grand new bundle of whopping sticks -- and that government of the neoconservatives, by the neoconservatives, for the neoconservatives, shall not perish from the earth. Thank you. We're all f**ked. God bless America. F**k me." " 'We need to spread light. As Abraham Lincoln said, "I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends." ' Sort of ironic, don't you think, that after defaming Michael Ledeen and Mark Steyn as war mongers, interested in military destruction purely for its own sake, you should settle on the man responsible for kicking off the most destructive war in this hemisphere as your example of soft power?" I anticipated that using this quote might draw a response like that. No, the point is that Lincoln, a man who understood that might has its role from time to time, did not go out of his way to create enemies. Lincoln was not "responsible for kicking off the most destructive war in this hemisphere," as you say. Lincoln didn't rub his hands together in sterile conference rooms in Washington, DC think tanks and try to reckon new ways to arbitrarily connect unrelated threats -- who to attack next. War came to Lincoln, not the other way around, and he had the backbone to lead the nation during a difficult and challenging time. Ledeen isn't worthy of shining Lincoln's shoes. The two men have nothing to do with one another. You think Lincoln was Hobbes or Machiavelli? Bzzz. Try again. Lincoln waged war in an attempt to PRESERVE American values. Ledeen and Steyn -- who I can't defame ENOUGH -- want to fight war IN SPITE of American values. Yeah, ah, we can get back to American values later; right now we've got a war to fight. Great American leaders haven't picked and chosen the times in which to employ American values. They've embodied American values from start to finish. Preemptively, unilaterally attacking some guy in the Middle East who wasn't threatening us, at a time when we have serious, urgent foreign policy priorities, in order to fulfill a wargame fantasy imagined in the 90's, was wrong on every level. Not courageous. Not American. It makes my stomach turn. Lincoln's line is directly applicable to what we now face. We seem oblivious to the fact that today's angry, America-hating youth in the Middle East is tomorrow's anti-American terrorist. We seem oblivious to the fact that our slate of enemies is not fixed but variable, and it varies based on our own actions. America's founding fathers never intended for us to go out shopping for enemies. This isn't about others around the world disagreeing with American values. This is about America discarding its own values, and creating unnecessary new enemies in the process. (There are hard-liners out there who focus on Israel who don't mind all of this. After all, America's tough enough to take these guys, and better the US than Israel, right? But once upon a time -- and not that long ago -- the Middle East was on the verge of modern, Western-style reforms, without the application of force. We're sabotaging our own goals, and their futures.) The ongoing Israel-Palestinian problem, and the backlash it creates for the West -- widespread distrust both of Western nations and of Western values and institutions -- has thrown an industrial-sized wrench into the region's modernization engine. Israel has got to shove aside the pesky hard-liners and find a way to somewhat normalize the environment in that part of the Middle East so we can start to move forward there without relying so heavily on ultra-side-effects-laden brute-force. "...there is no common ground today over totalitarianism" Maybe I shouldn't ask this, but what percentage of your immediate concern is for Israel, and what percentage is for America and/or the world-at-large? Are you comfortable answering this question? Can you say you really believed Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat to America in 2003? Can you say you really believed Saddam was connected to 9/11? Or is there some legendary spinning and twisting going on here? If Saddam wasn't an immediate threat, and wasn't connected to 9/11, how on earth can you justify that sort of action following the most devastating terrorist attack in the history of the world? The leader of the group who carried out that attack, as we know, remains at large. Bush has all-but-ignored the Israeli-Arab problem during his first term. Clinton understood the importance of resolving it. Neocons might call Clinton anti-Semitic for answerig Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak's call for assistance in the peace process, but nowadays as some of us know, to be anti-Semitic can simply mean considering the Palestinian side to be less than total nonsense. This conflict is killing us. It's killing the Middle East. It's a drag on the world. It's killing us. Sometimes literally, and we've got to stop sweeping it aside. This is not a problem on which you can procrastinate, which you can hide under the bed while tackling everything else under the sun first. We need leadership both in America and in the Middle East that understands that the sledge-hammer is only one implement at our disposal. Sometimes it takes a needle-and-thread. Sometimes it takes a can-opener. Former Bush counterterrorism chief Rand Beers said that in the Bush administration, "There's no curiosity about opposing points of view." David Gergen (Reagan communications director and Clinton advisor) said that "this president often lacks an open, inquiring mind." Former Bush speechwriter David Frum said that "the president does not hear such a wide range of views." We already know that the neocons themselves don't embrace a wide range of views. The neocons prefer to pursue a narrow, hyperfocused vision. The president, himself a fan of narrowness, eagerly embraces the narrow vision of his staff. And America pounds away with the sledgehammer. Smack, smack, smack. In case you hadn't noticed, that's our nation's foundation we're chipping away at. Just put down the sledgehammer, guys, and slowly walk away. "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time." "It's hard work, I know that." "You forgot Poland." Ah, yes. Poland. Who could forget Poland? One of the innumerous countries we cajoled into fighting the neoconservatives' war, despite that nation's powerful misgivings. Poland, which would later complain to us that we had deceived them. Who COULD forget Poland and its 200 troops? Just remember, Poland, when you're chewing on life's gristle, don't grumble, give a whistle, and remember, it's hard work (I know that). "...Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." "As you can see, my young apprentice, your friends have failed. Now witness the firepower of this FULLY ARMED AND OPERATIONAL BATTLE STATION!" F**k.

1 If I may quote: "Straight Banana also seems to have the video. Unfortunately, videos are too much of a bandwidth hog for me to host them." Please check this out! Appologies to all - "It aint Hollywood" http://www.straightbannana.com/archives/000133.htm

2 Does this mean you want me to take down the link?? Or what?

3 Not at all! - I just thought you may have been interested in the numbers involved

4 Ok.

5 It seems to have finally dawned on these fuckwits that tying the hands to the feet makes the job easier. Thank god the American election is now over and Bush needn't worry about spoiling his campaign anymore. Maybe now we can see some proper fireworks again. Full steam ahead please USA. Our Tony might be taking a backseat at some point over the next few months... he's got an election of his own coming up... oh brother...

6 And, I said this before, don't know where my comments ended up, but the poor officer was dead before they did the beheading thank God. You don't hear a peep out of him as the first cut is made. They must've stopped the tape after they made the statement, shot him, put the cam back on and then proceeded to grab him by the neck and behead him. It reminded me of the Armstrong vid at first, this poor soul was rocking back and forth, seemingly in great distress, just as poor Eugene was. God have mercy on them now.

7 With the election finally behind us and with Bush's victory with the greatest margin since 1988 it is time for the US to cut loose the USAF, USMC and Army and let them do their job. Terrorists claim this is war. They use children and civilians as legitimate targets (see schools in Chechnya, buses and bustops in Isreal, commuter rails in Spain, etc). If we are in a war then YES there will be innocent casualties. War is about destroying your enemy with deadly force, there is no just or pretty war. These terrorists want war. They are provicative. They are defiant. I say lets give them want they want and send a message to the rest of the world. Lets turn Fallujha into the largest piece of glass on the planet.

8 You know, I believe it's kind of sick that you back a president whose policies have led to biggest Beheading Renaissance since medieval times, and you guys post the images and video on your blogs. This is simply disgusting.

9 "With the election finally behind us and with Bush's victory with the greatest margin since 1988 it is time for the US to cut loose the USAF, USMC and Army and let them do their job." ON WHO?? Al-Qaeda is present in more than 60 nations for God's sake. You guys are clueless about terrorism. We cannot beat terrorism this way. Are you friggin out of your mind? Bush won this campaign with smoke and mirrors despite massive policy failures in his first term. If you think his agenda is correct because a bunch of rural Midwestern evangelical high-school dropouts are backing him, God help you.

10 hrj, what's your solution? OK, lets drop our pants and let these retards walk all over us. I wish there was a way to reason with these people but you know and I know there is no reasoning with terrorists. They will not settle with anything less other than the total destruction of the infidels and removal of the crusaders from the holy lands. That means getting oil on their terms and the disbanding of Israel. Are you willing to compromise that? I have voted for Democrats since the beggining of time. I come from Boston, my family has been traditionally Democratic. In this election I was not convinced at all about Kerry's policies especially on being tough on terrorism.

11 Laura, I hate to be morbid but how could he have been shot? There are no wounds in either his body or his head.

12 Because he didn't flinch or yell out...there was absolute stillness and quiet...maybe not shot but killed before the beheading, nonetheless..could've been shot in the back, where you can't see it.

13 Rusty: I'm no longer hanging on the edge of my seat waiting to read that someon else has been beheaded or watching any more videos, or even looking ar the pictures. I just skip to the comments. Could it be that morbid curiosity gets addictive. If so I'm glad I'm cured.

14 Laura, why they would kill him before beheading?? And stop with your "god this, god that" its so annoying. How can you say "thanks God" (that he is dead before), so God helps this officer but not the poor japanese that suffered hardly when the knife went trought his neck, god had something else to do when this happend?

15 Piss off, baf.

16 HRJ: Just because you are gay I don't think you should be attacking everyone who doesn't agree with your sexual orientation.

17 I kind of agree with Laura on this one. The was little reaction from the guy as the knife entered his neck. It seems that there are more and more of these outfits crawling from under the rocks and stones of Iraq recently and maybe some are less enthusiastic than others about actually beheading a man in cold blood? Or it could be that the guy had passed out or had a heart attack due to the stress of the "occasion"? Whatever, dead or alive at the point of "imminent execution", he was most certainly dead when they lifted his head from his body. It's barbaric. Barbarians should have disappeared from this Earth along with the Neanderthals. Time to start sending these people where they want to go...

18 well sorry laura..I didnt mean to be rude.. but you have no proof that god is watching over them.

19 Agree with you on that one, baf, but I'd like to think that God did his seven days of creation, and left the world with free will. Unfortunataly, not eveyone interprets that the same way.

20 My problem is I have no proof God isn't watching over them.

21 good point.

22 Attack these demons without warning. The U.S. warned the before they attacked allowing the insurgents to leave before death. That tells you there what cowards they are. Like Sadaam who taught his son`s to die fighting, however, Sadaa m hid in a hole scared of death, these insurgents are scared to die. They tell the young stupid ones that they will have many virgins after death while they run chicken of death. Time to blow them to hell where they are destined to go anyway. Let us send them sooner that they want. Praise Bush for trying to save the world from these evil people that are giving Muslems across the world a bad reputation. Only Satan himself would blame religion for death.

23 Why do you watch those videos? Do you cum while watching them?

24 Subj: orthodox Islam and unorthodox islam Date: 11/13/2004 10:04:47 PM US Mountain Standard Time From: Gdubl To: kbatarfi@al-madina.com As an american and student of religion, one thing I must say is that there is a problem calling those muslims who are doing suicide bombings are "radical Islamists" the more proper term is "Orthodox Islamist". Why Orthodox? because they are following the exact meanings of the written text, along with following the example of their founder, Muhammed. I know of no one here in America that are practicing the pillar of faith calling for jihad. Why is that? It is because they are unorthodox muslims. none have called on to fight jihad wars or take their life for alla, by strapping on explosives. Except one, that being Mujahid 'Azzam who understands what it means to be Orthodox. he put it in a clear way: Interviewer: “OK, how do you respond to the Muslim clerics and governments around the world who say that you are a small fringe group of extremists, unrepresentative of Islam and the majority of peace-loving Muslims?” Mujahid 'Azzam, the American: “Open the Qur'an, open the books of Sirah, the prophetic biography, and Ahadith, the prophetic teachings. Open the books of Fiqh, jurisprudence, both modern and ancient and you will find our position well supported. Jihad isn't something that al-Qa’ida made up. Ruling by Islam law wasn't started by the Taliban. Hamas didn't invent the concept of martyrdom. Uh, where we differ from these defeatists and hypocrites is that we don't believe that these divine orders and principles are open to negotiation and compromise. “I'd like to tell these people, this is our religion. If you don't like it, that's your problem. But don't tell me that you're the true Muslim and I'm the extremist. You know, the same clerics and people who call us violent extremists and outcasts and endlessly repeat that Islam is a peaceful faith, permit or even encourage their followers to join the American and European militaries and intelligence agencies and the armies of the idle kings in the Muslim world and take part in the killing of thousands of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. So in effect, they're saying that for the Muslim to kill unbelievers in defense of Islam and Muslims is unacceptable, and if he does so, he's an extremist... We are holding fast to genuine Islam at a time when it's under siege from all sides. From 1993 until 2001, there were 6 Al Qaeda attacks directed against the United States by Qaedat al-Jihad and its state sponsors: 1993 (Feb.): Bombing of World Trade Center (WTC); six killed. 1993 (Apr.): Attempted assassination of Former US President G.H.W. Bush in Kuwait. 1993 (Oct.): Killing of 18 U.S. Special Operations soldiers in Somalia. 1995 (Apr.): Bombing of Alfred P. Murrah Building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma by American radicals, Iraqi intelligence agents and known Al Qaeda operatives. 1996 (June): Truck bombing at Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killed 19 Americans. 1998 (Aug.): Bombing of U.S. embassies in East Africa; 224 killed, including 12 Americans. 1999 (Dec.): Plot to bomb millennium celebrations in Seattle foiled when customs agents arrest an Algerian smuggling explosives into the U.S. 2000 (Oct.): Bombing of the USS Cole in port in Yemen; 17 U.S. sailors killed. Subsequent to the massive homicide attacks of September 11, 2001 the only successful large scale attack on America was the destruction of American Airlines Flight 587 in Belle Harbor, New York in October 2001. (The FBI has still not closed its investigation on this incident, despite news reports). All other terrorist actions have been against targets outside of the Untied States: 2001 (Dec.): Man tried to denote shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami. 2002 (April): Explosion at historic synagogue in Tunisia left 21 dead, including 14 German tourists. 2002 (May): Car exploded outside hotel in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 14, including 11 French citizens. 2002 (June): Bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. 2002 (Oct.): Boat crashed into oil tanker off Yemen coast, killing one. 2002 (Oct.): Nightclub bombings in Bali, Indonesia, killed 202, mostly Australian citizens. 2002 (Nov.): Suicide attack on a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, killed 16. 2003 (May): Suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2003 (May): Four bombs killed 33 people targeting Jewish, Spanish, and Belgian sites in Casablanca, Morocco. 2003 (Aug.): Suicide car-bomb killed 12, injured 150 at Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia. 2003 (Nov.): Explosions rocked a Riyadh, Saudi Arabia housing compound, killing 17. 2003 (Nov.): Suicide car-bombers simultaneously attacked two synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 25 and injuring hundreds. 2003 (Nov.): Truck bombs detonated at London bank and British consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 26. 2004 (March): Ten terrorists bombs exploded almost simultaneously during the morning rush hour in Madrid, Spain, killing 202 and injuring more than 1,400. 2004 (May): Terrorists attacked Saudi oil company offices in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, killing 22. 2004 (June): Terrorists kidnapped and executed American Paul Johnson, Jr., in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2004 (Sept.): Car bomb outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, killed nine. Indeed, the War on Terrorism in the United States has been as successfully waged at home as it has been abroad. Specifically, America has liberated over 53 million human beings from Orthodox Islamic totalitarianism and in Afghanistan and unspeakably brutal regime of the Ba'athist government of Saddam Hussein. We’ve pledged our blood and treasury to wage righteous war on those who declared war upon us by their cowardly acts of wanton, indiscriminate violence, so if your country and other countries fail to give us the popular vote of acceptance, look again at the history of Orthodox Islamic violence and see why america could care less what you think. Now, to take you and your faith to task, I feel your religion will be under attack, along with your country, if there is not a call to end jihad. If not, America will very soon come to your country, into mecca, and finish what your faith has started. Sincerely, an American

25 I want to say two thins::: First ... The American War against Iraq was not fair it was pure for the oil.. and Mohammed the profet of Allah said::: One day ther will be blood spilled in the iraqi ground and the blood will combine together with the black Gold... With the Black Gold he means ... The oil And what he said is happening.. Please your post your opinion.....

26 Fuck Mohammed ,he was a bathi too anyway . saddam hussien claimes that he was related to him.

27 I fuck your friday's prayer ,you baathi asholes ,you had to fuck your own mothers and sisters to show your loyalty to the biggest loser in history Saddam Hussien who was a bastard by all accounts ,you are attacking inocent people who just want to get on with thier lifes . I fuck your mosques and your Quran and if you are living in on of the westren countries then go back to your own fucken country and practise your fucken islam there. What the fuck is islam doing here ,you drink (aarak) at night and pray during the day ..ha

28 ciao

29 This clearly show how illitrate Crusaders are. The hindu propaganda against islam which sarted in early eighties is now in its full form and all over the world. In reality, more muslims are killed by non muslims than other way after 2nd world war. Will using F words against Mohammad, Jesus or Mosses will solve problems. Definately not. However, problems are solved by finding the root cause. Do you know what is the root cause? Interests and egos are too high and causes are hindden behind them!!!

30 I strongly denounce terrorism like the most of you. Yet I can't help feeling that our focus is very much one-sided. Do any of us remember our crimes against the Nicaraguans and other countless South Americans who were involved in popular movements against the Latino US-puppet dictatorships? Tens of thousands were threatened, kidnapped, tortured, raped and murdered in a systematic progression of oppression supported by our own U.S. government in the last few decades. That's what I call terrorism. Economic sanctions placed on Iraq before Saddam's removal(by the way, I have not sympathy for that man), the America's continual military, political and economic support for Israel in oppressing the Palestinians, and America's open support for Indonesia's Suharto(a dictator, a mass oppressor of his people and also a mass murderer) are few among many terrorist activities initiated and/or led by the U.S. under either a clandestine veil or a sugar-coated intervention act. Once again, I cannot emphasize enough that I'm against all forms of terrorism. I strongly despise what this Islam fundementalist militant group has done. But you also have to understand their motive behind this act, and find out what we can do to prevent in order to put a stop to may be a long cynical terror cycle.

31 i heard gays are beheaded in saudi arabia. lately i got friendly with a saudi man in mumbai and he invited me to his country. But after reading articles in internet i m really scared. In india being gay is not a big deal and i m very open about it. and people can make out i m gay as i m very good looking/feminine and chirpy. so i d like to know experiences from gay people who have visited saudi arabia and didnt have any problem. i also heard that arab men could be very gay, the whole thing is confusing me and i m scared at the same time thinking about the treatment for gays in saudi. Do they treat the same way to the foreigners as well? i heard if u appear gay first they lock u up, flog u in public, wont give u any way to contact lawyers or even makign a phone call and one fine day u ll be executed. are they all true? i was thinking earlier to wear fishnet stockings with garter belt, short leather mini skirt with lacy top and a knee high boot on my way to saudi to turn on arab men. now i dont think i can wear such things. please let me know your experience guys....is arab safe for us?

32 what can i say ? allah hu akbar allah hu akbar la illahha illalah muhammadarar ra sullulah (p.b.u.h) may allah bless all the mujahids all around the world. keep up the work my brothers and may allah accept your sabar and sacriface. inshallah ameen p.s shia r kuffars make sure u also slit there neck inshallah ameen

33 This one goes to this Baath sunni own mother and sister fucker Yasin, i tell you Only saddam hussien knew how to put you in your own place . Fuck you and FUCK your fagit mujahideen who will go to Jahanam wa bes maseer ,ameen rabal allameen . Fuck you and fuck syria and fuck assad,after you blow up yourself you think you will be sitting next to Allah in 5 minutes ha ,Stupid fuck you are ,i dare you to go face to face with any american soldier but you won't since you are a fucken cowerd. USA army will kill you all no matter how long it takes and you will slatered like sheep ,mark my words ASSHOLE and maybe you should go and pay your mother's boyfriend saddam hissien a visit in his jail cell

34 fuck jullie allemaal ansar sunna, jullie moeten allemaal naar de hel lopen !!!!!!! fuck extreme islamiten, fuck fuck fuck fuck alle arabieren, fuck alle turken, fuck alle perzen die tegen kurden zijn..... ik ben een kurd die zoeen grote haat heeft voor jullie dat groter is dan de hele melkweg... fuck jullie, fuck alle islamiten

35 a note to crusader... calm down little boy, let's not be nasty. Or I'm gonna kick your your head in, or off, ha ha...

36 G-Day.... It would be best for all people of ALL nations to agree that the USA are bunch of loud mouth cock suckers, who has a war hungry leech for a leader and that HE only feels that he should remain in IRAQ for the black gold, since I am the leader of Australian people, I give good head to BUSH and BLAIR (we had a great 3sum once, sorry no pics)because they look after us. Our army,navy,airforce has fuck all defence to protect our country, so we be fucked if there was invasion, so we need the protection from these cock sucking countries, and I have to place my troops in iraq so I still remain a gimp for BUSH (wheres my mask) Now BUSH needs to get the FUCK OUT OF IRAQ, USA DO NOT BELONG THERE! They done there job by removing sadam, now fucking leave.... THE USA HAVE FUCKED WITH THE WRONG PEOPLE THIS TIME.. THIS WAR IS ONLY GOING TO GET WORST BY 2006 mid-year....half the middle east will be at WAR! Signed by John Howard (Bum Puppet for BUSH and BLAIR)