Gwynne Dyer says the Islamofascists want Bush re-elected, because that would continue the massive battle of civilizations they intended to provoke on 9/11.

Gwynne Dyer is a fucking asshole.

A twofer if you gofer, vote Kerry you get Kofi as a freebee.

You can't ask those questions without the permission of the U.N. Come on you guys know that :P

Absolutely correct comment. To me, this is the far most important political domestic and international issue. I cannot vote for Kerry for this very reason. This time, more than any other, is the time for the ballbuster in the White House.

Not to start, but another relevant question is:

Who do you think the Saudis want to win the election?

Wouldn't such an ad be possible through an independent organization, so long as it doesn't advocate one candidate (ala MoveOn)?

So it was John Kerry twisting Israel's arm to release prisoners for Hizb'allah hostages in the recent exchange.

#4

exactly how i feel - there is no issue more important.

#5

great question; bush seems weak on coddling the saudis, but there might be stuff going on that we don't know about

That'll be the day when congressional Republicans cooperate with a Democratic president in a time of war. Does the phrase "wag the dog" ring any bells?

It's good to hear Lileks trash Neville Picard Stewart. Stewart's views on space travel mirror his leftist, pc, UN loving mentality of his alter-ego, Captain Picard. That show charted brave new frontier of galactic namby pambyism where there were no bad guys, save the Borg who Picard could have destroyed. How could any ship function with the ship's shrink and doctor on the bridge constantly kibbutzing the real guys who actually ran the ship? Conselour Troi was a veritable font of psycho-babble. Even the Klingons were rehabilitated, we get to learn they were just noble, fun loving savages. Funny we never got to hear from any of their victims. In short, that show was the quintessential product of the British Labour Party, emphasis on the bour.

#9 Zionista

Does WWII ring a bell? How 'bout Vietnam?

#5, So Cal Justice. That would have been a much better question 4 years ago. Do the Saudies sell their product to the US government or international corperations? Do the Saudies have the same concerns about Iraq that they had prir to the last election? Does anyone think that the US is going to save the house of Saud from its rapidly developing collapse from within. The world as it is and the world that the Saudis think it is are two different places.

#4 (Steven) "This time, more than any other, is the time for the ballbuster in the White House."

Point well taken. But also cause for some concern. I'm fairly confident that Bush will be re-elected in November, although it's still early in the year. Kerry is riding high now, but that's among dedicated Democrats, the ones who show up for primaries. That group is not necessarily representative of the vast bulk of Americans, who - I believe - will not be any too eager to vote for the snivelling and equivocating dissembler that Kerry is demonstrating himself to be.

All that being the case, we only get to have "the ballbuster" for four more years. Historically unprecedented as the rapidity with which the US military is dispatching our foes is, I'm inclined to think that this won't all be settled by 2008. I'd very much like to think that the GOP is grooming a successor to carry on the fight, but it's not clear who that would be. Strikes me that, 2008 - just as much as 2004 - will be "the time for [a] ballbuster in the White House."

SoCalJustice wrote:

Who do you think the Saudis want to win the election?

Easy to find out -- who is CAIR backing?

More on just exactly how unserious the Democrats have become:

Truth goes AWOL

For months now, we have seen the fringe elements of the Democratic Party peddling cheap conspiracy theories against President Bush. Even some prominent liberal figures in the party have engaged in this foul rumor mongering.

Sen. Ted Kennedy alleged the Iraq War was "made up in Texas" for political purposes. Howard Dean floated the "interesting" theory that the president was forewarned of the attacks on September 11.

Not to be outdone, Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe has joined the cacophony, stating that Mr. Bush "was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard." Further, Mr. McAuliffe declared that "George Bush never served in our military in our country."

And just what a two-faced organization they have:

During the 1992 campaign, Mr. Kerry defended then-candidate Bill Clinton, saying, "We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways ... We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam, reduced to simple campaign rhetoric."

Isn't it funny how the left morphed the "baby killers" of the 60's into "patriotic war heroes" for today?

This goes perfectly with my day...I just had a long drawn out fight with co workers over the "imminent threat" crap ...

I am so sick of having to argue for this admin on the WoT and the war on Iraq...

Who do I blame..the media? nope...the LLL nope!!!

I blame the white house...their lack of policy statements and absolute failure to refute obvious lies and mis statements...I got so fed up I tried to type up a mock letter...for those of us on blogs like this...who have these same arguments every day...I however am not the most eloquent writer, so I apologize for my grammar.

Open letter to the White House,

We the sane people of the Anti-Idiotorians are tired of fighting continually on behalf of this administration, without receiving the commensurate support and backup from the sitting president. Too many American people are beginning to accept as truth, the lies and mud being thrown with regards to the war on terror and the war in Iraq.

It is now commonly accepted by a wide number of the populace that in fact this administration declared Iraq and Saddam Hussein to be an “imminent threat”. The learned of course know the exact opposite to be true, but a majority of the voting public have short or adjusted memories. They do not realize the exact words to the contrary spoken in the 2003 state of the Union are;

“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”

I understand the need to keep policy, intentions and intelligence facts secret. However if this administration fails to bring together their ideas, principles and reasons for their conduct on the war on terror, in a broad and public campaign. Not only will you fail to win another 4 years in office, but you will have done a great disservice to this country. As the concept of pre-emption and the war on terror will become either non-existent or handicapped to a degree thus making them inept.

So I beseech you, let the voice of reason be heard, develop a solid public media relation’s campaign and regain the focus this administration had during the fall of 2001. Otherwise this country will not regain that focus until several thousand more souls have died.

Jheka on the splodeydope accident thread pointed out the DUmbies' position on the pesky Israelis.

paranoid

apathy

Zionista

IIRC the Repubs didn't give Clinton half the grief over Operation Forget Lewinsky Desert Fox as the dhimmicraps (especially Teddy 'Chappaquidick' Kennedy) are giving GWB over Iraqi Freedom.

Clinton had six years of cheat and retreat behavior from Saddam, but only decided Iraq needed to be spanked during the hearings about whether the person charged with enforcing the law of the land encouraged perjury.

A few people from the Right mentioned "Wag the Dog" scenarios, but please compare the volume of the "Bush Lied/People Died" and "The CIA Blew Up the WTC" type people. Remember, the Vince Foster conspiracy/black helicopter types of the Republicans were the far fringe, whereas US Senators, and candidates for the Presidential nomination are speaking the same bizarre looniness.

Where should I lobby to get Giuliani as Secretary of State and Condi Rice Vice-President in 04 ?
These two little (...) changes would solve a lot of problems (Condi as Vice would solve the problem of 08...). And Giuliani would mend the troubles created by Colin-The-Great-Appeaser.

#7 See Kerry No Friend of Israel

Sure, I'll hold my nose and vote for George "Religion of Peace Let's kiss the ass of every fucking 5th Column traitor mozzie cleric in America instead of shipping them back to the hellhole where they came from" Bush.

It's not like I have a choice here. Bush is a weak-o. I'll say only two more things about how weak he is: Mineta and Powell.

It's a sad constatation to the state of the country that Bush is the best we can do. Without taking away some of the integrity he has shown, he's simply doing too little too late. Our problem are nukes in muslim hands, and in the case of Iran and Pakistan (and whoever else the pakis have been selling the technology to), there is only one way to solve it. This is not going to get done, and one day Bush's weakness is going to come back and bite us in the ass.

Personally, I'd much prefer to have someone in the mold of Vladimir Putin on the ballot. It must rile the Russians when the American press call the tchetchen "freedom fighters" or "guerilla" and our politicians press for negociations with terrorists in Russia. The Russians are no angels, but I think that if there is an area where people have legitimate reasons to dislike and distrust us, Russia is the place.

Who do you think al-qaeda wants to win the election?

Well, perhaps al-qaeda isn't looking at this as a choice between canned Spam and chocolate ice cream. Perhaps this is the equivalent of a choice between cholera and the black plague. They choose cholera because they have a 10% chance of surviving instead of 0%.

Maybe al-qaeda looks at this as the equivalent of a Republican primary between George W. Bush and Patrick Buchanan. Of course a poor Republican like myself forced to make this choice would choose Bush, but it would definitely be a lesser of two evils decision.

On the other hand, who do you think one of the majority of Americans who is pro-choice, who wants to preserve and enhance our environment instead of destroying and exploiting it, who wants sensible gun laws, who doesn't want to have his taxes raised after George W. Bush has left office to pay for his budget deficits, who doesn't want liberal activist judges replaced if it means they will get conservative activist judges instead, who doesn't want "school choice" used as a way to promote government funding of Islamic madrassas in the U.S...would want as President?

(#14) Charles

You think Crown Prince Abdullah and Prince Bandar want Dennis Kucinich to be President?

Perhaps. But publicly backing Dennis Kucinich for President is about the same as publicly backing me.

After all, I think so far I've gotten the same amount of delegates as Kucinich, and I didn't even campaign in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

(#12) gymnast

That would have been a much better question 4 years ago ... The world as it is and the world that the Saudis think it is are two different places.

Less than 3 years ago, the Saudi regime had created the set of conditions so that a 9/11 was possible.

They have done perilously little to change those conditions.

But, we still accept "friendly" visits from C.P. Abdullah, and we have redacted 28 pages of the Congressional Joint 9/11 task force dealing with Saudi Arabia.

The question is still very relevant. It doesn't negate the other questions, but Mecca and Riyadh consitute the Mothership that feed the jihadist mindset and the Madrassahs of the Ummah and the Dar-al-Harb.

17 Ms. Andi

good gawd, i just looked through the first thread and about every other post is [deleted].
long live censorship, paranoia and denial with our democratic nutcases.

Well the Muslims first choice was Dean

[Link: www.arabamericansfordean.com...]

Since he is likely out of the picture --I am sure they will settle for Kerry.

#13--Who is that? And why post as "observer?"
Post under you own name, thank you.

Good Morning Gordon

Yeppir, as a normal American, I am worried more about woman who forgot to use birth control being freely able to kill their "mistake" than I do about a smallpox attack on America or a nuclear weapon detonating on a cargo ship in one of our seaports.
Thanks for setting my priorities straight.

#5 SoCalJustice: Any word on what the Dem candidates' positions on Saudi Arabia would be, if it came down to America having to act alone? And no, rigging a sail and a solar panel to my car is not a foreign policy. We'll have to wait 'til we know more to answer that question.

#9 Zionista: I was merely hoping that the liberals would be stupid enough to bring up the 2000 election this time around. If they want to bring Clinton's "Monica Missles" into this, I'll be overjoyed. Because he showed that regardless of his criminal behavior, he was committed to getting the inspectors back into Iraq, and implementing his policy of regime change because he was concerned with the security of our nation.

Do you do requests? You can probably score huge points by bringing up the more successful military operations, like torching a compound in Waco, some of the AFT's killing sprees, and capturing a Cuban boy. Remember, the more you attach the party to Clinton, the better it does. Losing the House and the Senate were just accidents that he'll be able to reverse by keeping a high profile.

#22 Gordon

Are you really that stupid, or is it just an act?

LGF standards-check: Is it all right to refer to John Kerry as "The Gigolo"? Is it any less accurate than calling John Edwards "The Ambulance Chaser" or Howard Dean "The Human Train Wreck?"

Who do you think the Saudis want to win the election?

Hmm. The one who does their bidding due to cash, or the one who does their bidding due to weakness?

Or maybe I'm just a cynic... :-)

#30 V the K

I think both "The Gigolo" and "Gold Digger" are acceptable.

V the K

Kerry must be pretty good in the sack to keep snagging all those rich broads. It certainly isn't his looks or personality...

As someone who voted Libertarian in 2000, this song shouldn't make me as happy as it does...

How does Hezbollah worry about?

Damn straight.

#27 Ed Moran: I said "a majority of Americans." I guess that doesn't include you.

OT: Interesting article in al-Economist last week (go to the library and read it - it's "premium content" on their website) about how the U.S. is a 50-50 nation now, polarized, very few swing voters left, with the result that the two parties no longer must "move to the middle" for the general election, but keep to the extremes so as to energize their base to get out and vote (and find ways to keep the opponents' base from showing up at the polls). It is compared to a situation from Dickens' "The Pickwick Papers," which I'll have to read now.

When will these scum-bag hippie war protesters like John F. Kerry ever be called to account for ruining this country? For all the blood of innocent Vietnamese and Cambodians spilled? For thier blatant sedition ?

Just look at the pictures of JFKerry in the 60's posing under the North Vietnamese flag. It's just as easy to imagine him posing under a Hamas flag.

Let's face it. The New Deal is Ancient History. The "Great Society" is a failed relic just like the "Great Leap Forward" Kerry and his ilk are responsible for a failed welfare state that almost bankrupted the country, for the devastation of the drug culture prevalent in the underclasses, for the "in-your-face" homosexuality and the explosion of illegitimacy and all it's attendant pathologies.

Not only is the Democrat party bereft of relevant ideas, by hanging it's collective hat on Hippie scumbags like Kerry and the Clintons, they are dragging America further down the filthy sewer of thier obsolete 60's socialist-libertine peacenik counter-culture bullshit ideology.

I think it's unquestionably true that CAIR, Hamas, Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda want Kerry in the White House. With his history of hostility toward America, hostility toward the military and particularly the CIA. Kerry, along with the Neville Chaimberlain wing of the Democrat party are tailor made enablers for the enemies of America. Thier lack of core principles and their fetish for goose-stepping with the French and the Germans will signal open-season on America.

GW Bush, although he has been acting disgustingly Clintonesque in his "triangulation" strategy, has proven his leadership ability in his handling of the US Counteroffensive against the Islamofascists who are bent on indiscriminate killing of Americans anywhere in the world. Ball-buster indeed.

Anti-War activists like Kerry have NO BUSINESS getting thier hands on our military.

The one who does their bidding due to cash, or the one who does their bidding due to weakness?

It used to be, you could vote Republican and let them transfer the first five months of your yearly income to the military and big business, or you could vote democrat and have the first five months of your yearly income be given to teacher's unions, government bureaucrats (but I repeat myself), counter-cultural performance artists, trial lawyers, race hustlers, illegal immigrants, people who don't want to work except for the one day every four years they're bussed to the polling place, third world despots who vote against us in the UN, and also big business. Thanks to Bush, you can vote for one guy, and have your taxes (and the taxes of the next five or six generations) divvied up among all of them.

#22 Gordon

Well, perhaps al-qaeda isn't looking at this as a choice between canned Spam and chocolate ice cream. Perhaps this is the equivalent of a choice between cholera and the black plague. They choose cholera because they have a 10% chance of surviving instead of 0%.

That's a generous set of percentages. I think it's fair to say that Clinton was tougher on terrorists than Kerry would be, and we know how that worked out.

I'd say AQ have a 80-90% chance of survival right now, and a 100% chance against (shudder) President Kerry.

(#28) Model4

And no, rigging a sail and a solar panel to my car is not a foreign policy.

That's exactly right, as it's clearly the only alternative to questioning the efficacy of our dealings with Saudi Arabia, and the motives of a President with a Saudi Prince as an adoptive brother.

(#31) Colt

Hmm. The one who does their bidding due to cash, or the one who does their bidding due to weakness?

A better point. But the first clause is a given, the second is a possibility - perhaps even a likely one, but not necessarily an aboslute.

And no matter what one's politics, our relationship with the Saudis should not just merely be "part of the debate" post-9/11. It is one of the most important factors in the WoT.

#22 Gordon:

Do you think for a minute that you'll continue to enjoy those things you list, if the Islamofascists get the upper hand and prevail in this clash of civilizations?

Our first priority to to keep the West free. Anything else is secondary. But none of the Dhimmicrat candidates realize this. For them, it's all about gaining/retaining power, not leading.

#30 V the K: "Gigolo" doesn't really have the grain of truth needed to make it effective. "Gold Digger" or "Kept Man" work better for me.

Personally, I think the best angle is going to be "sell out," based on what he tried to do to the men and women putting their lives on the line in the military, once he was personally safe and sound back home and out of uniform. Should be able to knock the legs out from under him with a well-timed VFW endorsement.

Wouldn't it be grand if CAIR massively mobilizes behind the Dems, and a car swarm of indictments rains down about them? Bush is such a clear-cut better leader for a war on genocidal Muslims that I predict he's going to get close to 33% of the Jewish vote. Errr, ok, that was kind of a letdown.

I've heard limbaugh refer to kerry as lurch.

Here's lurch.

Here's kerry.

There is a certain resemblance there.

#22 Gordon

I have been a registered voter for many, many years and it is the Democrats who always raise taxes, who implement more taxes.

The mistake of the "left" is to somehow think that all their pet projects and causes which get funded do not come with government controls and government restrictions.

Do not forget that as of a few years ago --only 10 cents of ever dollar for the public aid/welfare program actually went to the "poor" and the remaining 90 cents was for administration costs. There are more efficient and cost effective ways to handle such programs at a state and community level than at the federal government level.

That is TRUE of any social or environment or even educational program. That the more efficient role of the federal government is to set basic guidelines for standards and to protect our democracy --which includes militarily. Not micro-manage.

Last night Dennis Miller said Kerry didn't seem to know there was a war going on. David Horowitz agreed. If that's true, you don't dare vote for him. America would go down for the count the moment the jihadis thought you weren't serious. That's all they're waiting for is one misstep. Up to now the pressure's been on them; the moment Kerry turned his back on them to devote time to other things, is when what happened in Moscow this morning would happen here.

#39 SCJ

...the second is a possibility - perhaps even a likely one, but not necessarily an aboslute.

I cannot picture President Kerry leading the United States to war, nor to the defence of an ally. He'd assume the dhimmi position without even being approached by the Sauds.

Thousands of U.S. Muslims Signing Up in Voter Drive

Guess who is leading this voter drive?

Now, umbrella groups like the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections and CAIR are organizing nonpartisan voter registration drives throughout the country and online at ([Link: www.americanmuslimvoter.net)...]

In 2000, Muslim leaders largely backed George W. Bush, but a series of polls and anecdotal evidence shows rising anger at Middle East policies as president, which Muslims say tilt too much toward Israel, and new homeland security measures they feel have singled them out for harassment and prosecution.

And more ...

That study shows while about one third of the U.S. Muslim community was born in the United States, the community also draws from 79 other countries. Forty percent of those polled described themselves as Democrats, 23 percent said Republican and 28 percent said they were independent.

This is akin to the problem in the Jewish community. As a Jew, I am appalled by the substantial numbers of Jews who reflexively vote for and support Democrats because they view themselves as Democrats down to the core. It's all inextricably bound-up in this innate sense of socialism and distrust of right-wing zealotry. It's absolutely pathetic how many Jewish people refuse to recognize that the Democratic Party is not the party that is most inclined to advance their interests. I mean, what Arab people are voting to re-elect George Bush? Are there any at all? Don't the Jews see that? It's way past time for a general exodus to the Republican Party.

(Exodus -- "movement of the people." See Marley, Robert.)

I am aware that most Jewish people do not vote based solely on what is good for Israel, myself included. But it's one issue that, in this day and age is important, and it ought to hold far more sway than it seems to do right now.

#47 Zooty Zoot 2/6/2004 09:34AM

Oh, Jebus, an obscure Babylon 5 reference. I feel so much less like a geek now.

#30 V the K: "Gigolo" doesn't really have the grain of truth needed to make it effective. "Gold Digger" or "Kept Man" work better for me.

How about "Man-whore," sums up his personal and political life?

Muslim- and Arab-Americans Seek a Presidential Peacemaker to Support in 2004

More than 1,000 supporters packed the sold-out, standing-room-only ballroom at the Sheraton Hotel in Tyson’s Corner, VA. CAIR broke all records for an American Muslim fund-raising event, topping its Ramadan fund-raising goal of $1 million. Well-educated and successful doctors, lawyers, computer specialists, business people and entrepreneurs filled the room and reached deep into their pockets to show their confidence and pride in CAIR’s work.

The pumped-up, well-heeled audience also came to hear from the 2004 presidential candidates. Only one showed up, however: U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). The others missed a terrific opportunity to introduce themselves to a vital American voting community.

#39 SoCalJustice: You may misunderstand me. My problem isn't with attacking the Bush administration for (by most all appearances) being in bed with the Saudis. It's with those that give the Dems a free pass on the issue without hearing what they would do, and letting them off the hook for fictions like "As president, I would command other countries to..." and "Gutting industry, the economy and transportation will solve the problem of terrorism by..."

Heck, if Howie himself said "If elected, the Saudis will have 6 months to end all support of terrorism, cease the incitement of violence and bigotry, and embrace human rights. Should they chose not to, we'll bury them beneath the burning sands like the other warlords and tyrants of antiquity.", well you just might see me on the campaign trail wearing a stupid orange beanie. It's that important. But even on the stump when they can promise the Moon and not deliver, we're not hearing a peep from them on the topic. Still, only Bush gets the bad press, even after opposing most of the world to do the right thing. It just ain't fair, y'know?

#47 Zooty Zoot

It's all inextricably bound-up in this innate sense of socialism and distrust of right-wing zealotry.

Perhaps the greatest insanity is that the perpetrators of the Holocaust, the repressors in the USSR, Gamal Nasser of Egypt, the sponsors of the PLO, the source of weapons and cash for much of the Arab world, the founders of the DFLP and PFLP, Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath party, the backbone of European antisemitism and the defenders of Islamic fascism...

Socialists.

#47 zooty zoot

what Arab people are voting to re-elect George Bush?

Arab christians, Iraqi-Americans to name a few who might vote for Bush.

This issue is on Fox News right now (Arab American vote.)

I give my fellow Minnesotan up here on the Tundra, Mr. Lileks, a great deal of respect. I, too, dread a Kerry campaign.

That said, IM (very) HO, this is a pointless debate and leads nowhere except to cheap shots on the other guy's patriotism and loyalty, which in the end, have no place in a major presidential campaign as it crowds out the real issues around our foreign policy, economic policy, social policy and just who and what we are as a nation.

Come now, does anyone really believe we will get statements from Hezbollah or Arafish like, "Bush? Hell no, man! Our guy is Kerry, all the way. Nader would be better but we'll go for somebody who's electable."?

Foreigners, with the possible exception of a few of the British, almost always get US politics very, very wrong. Kennedy accused Ike (a Republican war hero of the first rank!) of being soft on Communism (the "missle gap"). So, do you think the Kremlin would root for Nixon?

There's a tendency for foreigners to take campaign rhetoric as fact, platform planks as commitments, photo-op blurbs as reasoned position statements. We as a people know better, others across the world are plainly confused and confounded by the way the single most powerful person in the world is chosen.

Once in power, things change. Republican presidents have engaged in small wars. It's the Dems that run the big ones. Wilson (D) - WWI, FDR (D) - WWII, Truman (D) - Korea, Kennedy/LBJ (D) Vietnam.

The last US President to have a multi-front, international war start on his watch was McKinley (R) with the Spanish-American war, in 1898.

Show that record to Hezbollah. See if they want to vote Democratic.

Gordon, the same "majority" that puts abortion rights ahead of national security (like you) are the ones who (like you said yesterday) think Islam isn't a big threat because its only killed 3000 Americans in NY and DC (and a few hundred more in Lebanon and Africa and places like that).

I can see Gordon in Cambodia in the '70s as the "bourgeois reactionaries" are lead to the death camps. "Don't worry, Pol Pot hasn't killed a third as many people as Hitler has. It isn't a threat".

#47 Zooty Zoot: It's not just Israel. The left is fostering anti-Semitism in Europe and N. America, and trying to Islamicize both. If any American Jew feels comfortable with these developments, I think they're just feeding the crocodile.

But it must somehow feel nobler to march around the campus with the lefties carrying the Star of David swastikas, blood libel posters, Zionism is racism, genocide, apartheid etc posters. Just pretend there's a right-winger hiding in the bushes somewhere. That's the real source of evil in the world, no thought required. Go figure.

#54
That last line should have been "The last Republican US President...

"Gwynne Dyer says the Islamofascists want Bush re-elected, because that would continue the massive battle of civilizations they intended to provoke on 9/11."

Gwynne Dyer is probably right. They're stupid enough to want a lot of things they don't realize will utterly, and comparatively easily, destroy them.

The one good thing you can say about the Dem side at the moment is that the Dean implosion has demonstrated that the strong antiwar stance is an excellent way to come in third or fourth. I expect Kerry to move steadily right, even if he doesn't go far enough and remains a wimp on this subject, the hard antiwar constituency has completed failed and will be increasingly ignored. John F. Kerry likes to bring up JFK, I assume he's not unaware that his initial-sake beat Nixon by going to the RIGHT of the Eisenhower administration on defense...

#13-- excellent point about Bush's lack of an obvious successor (apart from Jeb, and Barb, dream on, he's your unlikable son and even your likable son is loathed by half the country). I've always thought Cheney was a poor choice because he doesn't even pretend to be interested in talking to ordinary voters, so it would never be him. Unless Bush picks a new VP (Con-DEE! Con-DEE!) it's going to be a free-for-all of Republican "dwarves" next time out versus, most likely, a pretty unified Democratic field consisting of Kerry's running mate and (if he isn't it) John Edwards.

#18-- "IRC the Repubs didn't give Clinton half the grief over Operation Forget Lewinsky Desert Fox as the dhimmicraps (especially Teddy 'Chappaquidick' Kennedy) are giving GWB over Iraqi Freedom." Well, I think you don't recall just how nutty and full of crazy conspiracy talk that time was. I hold no brief for Clinton any more but his lack of seriousness on what would turn out to be the real foreign policy challenge of our time was only bested by the Republican pipsqueaks in Congress who spent an entire decade trying to catch him. By definition, Bush hasn't had it nearly as bad until the day impeachment hearings start being televised.

#36-- although I don't share your hatred of antiwar activists (I kinda think, you know, in a democracy, it's my job to be active against a war I'm against), you do raise part of a good point which I have made before. For me, it is hard not to see this election as being a choice between the guys who live in the present and the guys who live in the past. One set is trying innovative new things in the middle east, one set is thinking if we just do the same thing for the 1001st time, this time peace will magically break out.

To me it's interesting that the party of CEOs is the one willing to think outside the box and do all that trendy executive book stuff on the middle east, and the party of unions is the one desperately afraid to alter the status quo. The Dems missed a great opportunity to come into the future by not allying with the socially liberal Silicon Valley crowd and instead leaving it out in a libertarian wilderness so they could continue to be the party of secure government jobs, no innovation and a nice pension if you don't rock the boat. I suspect they will pay for that mistake for several elections before it gets fixed.

#4 Steven:

This time, more than any other, is the time for the ballbuster in the White House.

Um, I don't think Hillary's running this year. ;)

(#45) Colt

I cannot picture President Kerry leading the United States to war, nor to the defence of an ally. He'd assume the dhimmi position without even being approached by the Sauds.

So you're saying, as zulubaby does, that they own us no matter what?

Model4 (28):

Do you do requests? You can probably score huge points by bringing up the more successful military operations, like torching a compound in Waco, some of the AFT's killing sprees, and capturing a Cuban boy.

Is kicking over Milosevic and dispatching him to the Hague without a single American fatality good enough?

New and Improved (36):

I think it's unquestionably true that CAIR, Hamas, Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda want Kerry in the White House.

Read it and wake up:

[Link: www.frontpagemag.com...]

Josh Marshall on John Kerry:

[Link: www.hillnews.com...]

As nearly as I can figure it, Kerry’s position was to get inspectors back in the country and then see if America’s national interests could be safeguarded short of war.

If war was necessary, he was willing to wage it. But if he did so, it would be with the mix of planning and international support that would avoid the parade of deadly misjudgments we’ve seen over the last few months.

To me, that sounds not like waffling but like a much sounder approach than the one we’ve been following for the past year.

Could Kerry have pulled that off? Could he have produced a better result than the one we’re facing now? I’ll leave those questions to that drove of journalists and armchair analysts who will be poring over his record in the coming months.

But from where I see it, we already have enough folks in the field who spout dogmatism, inflexibility and maximalism and mistake those qualities for leadership.

#60 SoCalJustice

So you're saying, as zulubaby does, that they own us no matter what?

Basically, yes.

Bush may surprise us all and, after an election victory, tell them to get bent. But I doubt it.

Kerry/Edwards could, in the wake of a 9/11-esque attack linked directly to KSA, rally the nation against them and destroy the House of Saud. But I doubt that, too.

What do you think could happen in the forseeable future to shake the Saudis off?

How 'bout a nice spot with yasser, chirac, etc... lookalikes complaining about how business unfriendly the world is with Bush in office...

"AK sales down 75%, there's no market for Rolands anymore, we're keeping afloat on WWII surplus comp-b and cyanide coated nails! Let's get a business friendly guy in office..."

Kerry for President

Ah, Clintonista returns to defend the Manwhore.

Josh Marshall says: "To me, that sounds not like waffling but like a much sounder approach than the one we’ve been following for the past year."

No, it sounds like a Dem claiming his imaginary war that woulda been woulda been much better than the real war that actually happened. When in fact it was a recipe for continuing to do nothing, leaving Saddam's murderous regime in place and the sanctions grinding away at the people. But the French would like us more, except they never would anyway.

Waffling is precisely the word, and enough of it already.

#58 Mike G.

Well reasoned piece.

one set is thinking if we just do the same thing for the 1001st time, this time peace will magically break out.

Love it...isn't that the mark of insanity..doing the same, indentical thing over and over and expecting a different result?

#62 Zionista

A troubling piece, indeed. I'll have to read that one very carefully. Thanks for brining this out.

Damn hard to know one's enemies in this battle.

Josh Marshall:

But from where I see it, we already have enough folks in the field who spout dogmatism, inflexibility and maximalism and mistake those qualities for leadership.

Right, because when dealing with mass-murderers, the key to victory is to remain flexible.

VtheK,

If you ever find a real argument to articulate feel free to drop in and say hi.

#63 zionista

To me, that sounds not like waffling but like a much sounder approach than the one we’ve been following for the past year.

Josh Marshall dhimmocratic spinmiester.

(#64) Colt

What do you think could happen in the forseeable future to shake the Saudis off?

Aside from an uncharacteristic infusion of common sense? I'm not sure.

And if we could avoid the partisan sniping, I would LOVE to see comments, speeches or op-eds by President Bush like this one from John Kerry:

Winning War on Terror Requires Reconsideration of Saudi Alliance

More than a year after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Saudi interior minister, Prince Nayef, told an Arab media outlet that he thought "the Jews" were responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

When a senior member of the Saudi ruling family — its top law enforcement officer responsible for tracking down terrorists — promotes wild, antisemitic conspiracy theories to explain away the September 11 attacks, it is time for America to look seriously at our relationship with Saudi Arabia and its reliability as an ally against terrorism.

Yes, it's Kerry trying to get the Jewish vote - but this type of talk SHOULD appeal to everyone. But I want to hear stuff like that from my President - and more importantly, I'd like to see action. Would Kerry follow up his rhetoric with action? Obviously almost everyone here feels he wouldn't. And of course I have my doubts.

And there are a whole host of other reasons why I'd be uncomfortable voting for Kerry. But this is the kind of stuff I want my President, whoever it is, talking about. And our current one does not.

If nothing else, I'm glad some people are taking the opportunity of this election to call out the Saudis. I just wish Bush would follow suit.

#61 Zionista: Mission-wise, those were good results, though there's still much doubt about whether we did the right thing there. However, I did not think you'd have the nerve to bring up a military action that wasn't pre-approved by the UN, especially against an opponent that wasn't an immediate threat to the continental US. And exactly what was the "exit strategy" and "plan for winning the peace" there? How many years will be too many to have our troops deployed there, keeping in mind that six-months was enough to ring alarm bells concerning Iraq? What are you going to pull out next, Haiti? How's that country doing?

Out of curiousity, when did your hatred for Bush start? If you're like most of your ilk, it was before he was even sworn in, and never stopped since. Should a Dem get elected this time around, he's going to have my support until he proves unworthy of it. I certainly don't like Kerry, but he's going to get a fresh start from me once getting sworn in to see what kind of leader he'll be. That's something liberals never seem willing to do.

(#72) me

By the way, that Op-Ed is a great piece, no matter who authored it.

The war on terrorism requires unprecedented cooperation and diplomacy among the global community — especially among countries in the Middle East. But America cannot afford to hold its nose and play nice with a country whose actions often speak louder than its words when it comes to fighting terrorism. It's time to put the American-Saudi relationship on a frank and balanced basis. Not surprisingly, the Saudi-friendly Bush administration has failed to get this point.

Saudi Arabia's role in financing terrorism is well-documented. A report published by the Council on Foreign Relations tells us that "For years, individuals and charities based in Saudi Arabia have been the most important source of funds for Al Qaeda. And for years, Saudi officials have turned a blind eye to this problem."

Perhaps even more disturbing is the allegation that Al Qaeda continued to receive money from inside Saudi Arabia long after the September 11 attacks. According to the council's report, "some, whose donations go to Al Qaeda, know full well the terrorist purposes to which their money will be put." The Saudi government now claims to be cracking down on terrorist financing, but its actions have not yet matched its words.

Saudi Arabia's support for Islamic extremism here and elsewhere is also well known. Saudi-funded hate speech can be found in schools, mosques and other institutions across the world, fostering hatred of Jews, Christians, Americans and the West. This kind of officially sanctioned bigotry breeds terrorism.

Spokesmen for the Saudis now say that their textbooks are being rewritten to remove "possibly offensive" language and that Islamic clerics are being told to tone down their rhetoric. But we need more than promises. We need to see the new textbooks. We need to hear what the government-financed clerics are preaching.

It's too long to post the whole thing. And the paragraph about changing our foreign dependence on oil is woefully inadequate, and belies the Democrats' antipathy towards even discussing drilling in ANWAR - plus he gets into inordinate campaign stumping.

Again, it's not perfect. Kerry's far from it. No candidate is perfect, not even Bush. But the area where he's lacking the most is the area of most concern to me. I don't expect everyone else to share my concerns equally. To each their own.

#50 Model4

Heck, if Howie himself said "If elected, the Saudis will have 6 months to end all support of terrorism, cease the incitement of violence and bigotry, and embrace human rights. Should they chose not to, we'll bury them beneath the burning sands like the other warlords and tyrants of antiquity."

If you think we had problems getting other nations to support on Iraq, just try going after Saudi Arabia. Europe, Japan and many others depend on the Saudis for oil. If we tried to attack them or to get control of the oil fields, we might just provoke a shooting war with the U.S. on one side and the whole world on the other.

Also, if the KSA oil fields stopped pumping for a few months for any reason, the world’s economy would take one hell of a beating.

IMHO, Bush is doing the best that can be done with the Saudis.

Folks,

What was George W. Bush doing up until 9/11 (besides cutting $43,000,000 checks to the Taliban?

[Link: www.robertscheer.com...]

The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God (Robert Scheer, May 22, 2001).

Keep talking about spinning, but maybe we might even find out before election day?

[Link: www.tnr.com...]

The Commission, tasked by Congress with "making a full and complete accounting" of "the circumstances surrounding the [September 11] attacks," says Bush administration foot-dragging has left it unable to meet its May deadline. For weeks, it has been asking for more time. So have the families of the September 11 victims. Their rationale is simple: The American people should be given a full accounting of the bloodiest foreign attack on U.S. soil. For weeks, the White House and GOP congressional leaders resisted. Their rationale was also simple: Giving the American people a full accounting during an election campaign could hurt President Bush.

[...]

In other words, the papers [New York Post and Wall Street Journal] saw nothing wrong with the GOP holding its convention in New York in early September, in a blatant attempt to capitalize on the anniversary of September 11. They saw nothing wrong with President Bush making his interpretation of that awful day the centerpiece of his reelection bid. But they deemed it unacceptably political for a bipartisan commission to issue its report during the election campaign, so voters would have an independent analysis against which to judge the GOP's September 11 spin?

Zionista, extraordinary as it may seem, some of us care more about what Bush has done since the general wakeup call than what foolish things he and so many others in our government did in the pre 9-11 period.

But like I said, the choice is between those who live in the present and those still in the past...

Re#54

"Foreigners, with the possible exception of a few of the British, almost always get US politics very, very wrong."

As a Canadian I'd like to believe I understand American politics. It's what the voters were thinking that I can never figure out, in either country.

76 Zionista

Scheer Deception.

Model4 (73):

Zionista: [...] I did not think you'd have the nerve to bring up a military action that wasn't pre-approved by the UN, especially against an opponent that wasn't an immediate threat to the continental US.

Why? Since when do I represent the UN fan club? "Exit strategies"? Last I heard, regarding Iraq, Bush is only about 5 months apart from Kucinich's "now."

Out of curiousity, when did your hatred for Bush start? If you're like most of your ilk, it was before he was even sworn in, and never stopped since.

And when did you stop beating your kids, sir?

And there's an ilk? Please! Bush had me regarding Iraq from the beginning. In fact, it would have been nice to have seen Clinton get the support against Saddam in 1998 that Democrats like Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman gave Bush last year.

#40 Ol' Southern Boy: Sad, but true. It's too bad we can't get a President who will save our country in the world, but not destroy it at home at the same time.

Oscar Jr (79),

You're saying that the Bush administration DIDN'T cut a $43 million check to the Taliban in the Spring of '01?

Mike G (77),

But like I said, the choice is between those who live in the present and those still in the past...

Then why so forgiving of Bush & Co. stonewalling the 9/11 commission now? Give me a break!

(#50) Model4

Kerry, Edwards, and even Dean have talked about our relationship with Saudi Arabia on the campaign trail.

Each of them are scary in their own way.

And as I said in (#72), I have my doubts as to whether Kerry (or any other candidate for that matter) will follow through with their rhetoric.

(#75) Engineer

IMHO, Bush is doing the best that can be done with the Saudis.

I hope you're right. But I'm not calling for us to invade the KSA, nor take control of their oil fields. I don't think that's the answer.

But I want a President with a vocal, coherent strategy to figure a way out of our "alliance" with the country most responsible for educating the Ummah about their responsibilities towards Allah, the Dar-al-harb and Jihad.

We are the world's largest market. The Saudis need us as much as we need them. Perhaps more. We have the best scientists in the world, and we do have the power, if we cared or felt it necessary, to make oil virtually irrelevant. If oil is irrelevant, the Saudis are irrelevant. And hell, lets give first crack at the revenues and patents for alternative sources to the existing oil companies. I don't find it necessary to change the commercial structure of our energy industry, nor do I want us to lose any jobs in that field. But it is time to at least consider a strategic shift in our energy policies, if for nothing other than national security. As long as Wahabbis own the oil, and we need the oil, Wahabbis have us over the preverbial barrell.

I'm not saying we can snap our fingers and do it tomorrow. But we need to think about it, because oil is not the Saudi's number one export. Wahabbism is.

#50 Model4

Very good point. Times running out to get any "bold statements".

Right now it seems my choice of evils is to vote bush and watch my gay friends end up in prison along with any woman that chooses to have an abortion after being raped OR vote Kerry and not see human rights trampled but then worry about getting me or my family friggin killed by terrorist. God dammit Clark/Edwards put your balls on the table and run on a "end to all violent fundementalist extremist" platform.

Zionista, the question is: which is more important? Finding out about a few dropped balls on 9-11, or what they've done since and continue to do? There's just no contest.

There's a lot to not like about this administration's secretiveness, its general air that the voting public and Congress should just shut up and let it do what it pleases. But I think it's crazy to consider that stuff more important than the conduct of the war and foreign policy, which has been innovative and daring and, so far, enormously successful in the big ways.

That's why.

#43 Nancy: You make good points.

So why then is the current administration:

Trying to prevent states such as California and Oregon from implementing voter approved medical marijuana laws?

Trying to prevent the state of Oregon from implementing a voter-approved (twice!) death with dignity law?

Passing a new entitlement (medicare prescription drug benefits) whose primary benefits will be wealthy seniors who don't need help with their drug costs?

Trying to prevent people from buying the exact same pharmaceuticals at cheaper prices in foreign countries by issuing scare tactics?

Trying to require school districts to "teach to the tests" by withholding federal money if they don't meet standards, while not providing them with any money to meet the standards?

Trying to prevent people from traveling to Cuba as tourists if they want to?

Trying to micro-manage the Venezuelan state by supporting coup attempts against an elected President (even if he is worthless)?

Government controls come in different forms. Don't think the Democrats have a monopoly on them.

#75 Engineer: Again, I agree that's probably the case. My point (let me try this again) is that Bush is constantly under assault for not being tougher with the Saudis (and always in unscpecified ways), while the Dems who want his desk are given a free pass without having to answer similar questions, even in the hypothetical.

I do like the Kerry statement SoCal posted though. But again, "What would you do about it Senator Kerry, besides 'look at it,' that you'd be willing to support even if it meant unilaterally?"

BTW, if you were a national leader and it came down to it, would you get in a trade/diplomatic/shooting war with the US to protect the House of Saud, if your other option was being on board to overthrow them, with guarantees the oil would keep flowing and a multi-national task force to see to this? It's not an operation I'd undertake lightly, but there are other ways it could play out. Additionally, pretend the nation you lead is threatened at least to some degree by the extremism and terror pumping out of KSA. There are very few countries that matter who don't fit into that category.

#82 Zionista

You could look behind the link:

[T]he $43 million was not aid to the Taliban government. Instead, the money was a gift of wheat, food commodities, and food security programs distributed to the Afghan people by agencies of the United Nations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Secretary of State Colin Powell specifically stated, in fact, that the aid "bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it."

#46 Zulubaby: This is an interesting and somewhat disturbing story. My question for you is: what would you do about it? Do you think we shouldn't allow Muslims to vote? I can't imagine that you would. Perhaps we can do a counter-education drive?

#82 Zionista

Read Powell's statement on the aid package.

We distribute our assistance in Afghanistan through international agencies of the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations. We provide our aid to the people of Afghanistan, not to Afghanistan's warring factions. Our aid bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it. We hope the Taliban will act on a number of fundamental issues that separate us: their support for terrorism; their violation of internationally recognized human rights standards, especially their treatment of women and girls; and their refusal to resolve Afghanistan's civil war through a negotiated settlement.

#76 zionista Spewing left wing lies

makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime"

Afghanistan is in crisis. After more than 20 years of war and now the third year of a devastating drought, the country is on the verge of a widespread famine.
The latest aid will provide 65,000 more tons of wheat, dollar five million in complementary food commodities, and dollar 10 mllion in other livelihood and food programmes within Afghanistan. "We distribute assistance in Afghanistan through international agencies of the UN and non-governmental organisations."
[Link: fpeng.peopledaily.com.cn...]

aw nothing wrong with the GOP holding its convention in New York in early September, in a blatant attempt to capitalize on the anniversary of September 11.

It will be Boston's first national political convention. The Massachusetts city won because Democrats didn't want to share the same venue with Republicans, who are considering New York.

"New York was the only city that wouldn't sign an exclusivity agreement," McAuliffe said.

"That has been a big stumbling block," said New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton.
[Link: www.bizjournals.com...]

Let's don't confuse Zionista with facts, Oscar Jr. and Thom. Zionista, feel free to move the goalposts again.

#93 andrew

Well, let's be fair and give her a chance to change her mind on the "writing checks to the Taliban" thing. Apparently she was basing her facts on {giggle, snort} Robert Scheer's assertions.

Now she has some facts, and a link to State's own web site to consider. Let's see what she does with them.

Thom

Okay. I think zionista is a he, though.

#1 Damian P.

Gwynne Dyer is a journalist who's famous for his many part CBC series on the history of war. He's served in three different armies.

During the Balkan confilict, he kept writing articles saying that Yugoslavia was guilty of attempted genocide and that Europe (mostly) and everyone else was guilty of looking the other way and not giving Yogoslavia the pounding it deserved.

Anyway, so now he's saying that Al Q want's GW to win and that they probably won't attack the US now unless it looks like Bush needs a boost...

My opinion is that Dyer is a smart guy who knows way too little about the middle east - his assumption is that Al Q leaders understand the west and are rational men grounded in reality (something Dyer explicitly stated in his article!) has been proven wrong in past.

I remember Robert Fisk's (yes the Robert Fisk!) interview with Osama Bin Laudin, back before 9/11.

Osama said that he expected the various states of the United States to secede from the Union in protest of Washington's support of Israel... That's how deep Osama's understanding of American politics is.

There's been reports of quotes from various Al Q Islamists who thought, that like Beruit, the US would run away from any confrontation.

But Dyer is a problem because he has credibility with lots of people (more in Canada and Britain than in the US). So Dyer's mistake is another nail in the coffin of civility and sanity in attitude of outsiders toward the Bush Administration. Just remember to refer to Bush as "resident" instead of "president" and that his name is now "The BushHiter". You'll fit right in.

#78 Iron Oxide (lurking)

As a Canadian I'd like to believe I understand American politics. It's what the voters were thinking that I can never figure out, in either country.

Um. My apologies to my neighbors to the North. I've never thought of Canadians as "foreign" with the exception of some of the more radical Quebocois. People who live in totalitarian countries have great difficulty understanding our messy system. You Canadians have a suitably messy (and soundly democratic - small "d" there) system you can understand things.

What was that Churchill said? "Democracy is the worse form of government ever invented, with the exception of every other?"

Ronin (#85)

Right now it seems my choice of evils is to vote bush and watch my gay friends end up in prison along with any woman that chooses to have an abortion after being raped

What law is GW planning on enacting that would put gays in jail? Ditto with rape victims having abortions?

#95 andrew

If that's the case - then deepest apologies to Zionista. (I could have sworn Zionista was a she, though. Oh well.)

SoCalJustice,

Nice posts on this thread. I agree with you - Bush's relationship with the Saudis leaves much to be desired.

About oil: Right now, there's so much of it in the ground and the costs are so low that the economics don't make sense, but it is probably possible to artificially synthesize oil. The bacteria used to digest oil after oil spills lower the energetic barriers to the reaction to break down oil, but also to make it again. This would imply that oil could be synthesized, in the presence of this bacterial enzyme, if there was an external energy source. Obviously, some of the reaction details need to be figured out - can the enzyme survive at the temperature that oil would need to be synthesized? - but this is a plausible course of action that would require only a fairly limited investment. Right now, though, it doesn't make sense, thanks to the economics described earlier. (Of course, all of this is with the caveat that it might not make sense if it requires too much energy even after the enzyme helps.)

T-1 day for me until the LSAT.

#84 SoCalJustice Look at Figure 52 for 1995 in this link you will see that Europe and Asia are much more dependent for oil on the ME than the U.S. is. IMHO, this accounts for a great deal of the problems we had going into Iraq. They don't want that oil cut off and they don't want the U.S. to control it.

That said, i don't disagree with you, I just think that it is very complex. For example, if we push the KSA to reform too hard, we may just set off a civil war. We can't have that. Those oil fields MUST keep pumping. Not so much for us, but for the rest of the world.

Later, I have got to get back to work.

#100 Ariel

Good luck on the LSAT. I know you'll do well!

Zionista,

If you ever find a real argument to articulate feel free to drop in and say hi.

And if you ever have anything to bring to the debate other than tiresome cliches and warmed-over leftoid rhetoric... I just might.

Oscar Jr, Thom, ralph, andrew,

OK, fine. Colin Powell didn't have to literally "cut a check." Mea culpa. But it's funny how all of a sudden (and not long after Model4 appoints me king of the Koffi Annan fan club) we're supposed to believe in the honor and integrity of "agencies of the United Nations and non-governmental organizations." So, who's spinning now?

And don't sweat the mistaken gender identity, Thom. Some of my best friends are chicks.

By the way, Dyer didn't bring it up... But there's a difference between what Al Q thinks is good for them and what actually is good for them.

Dyer was reasoning that Al Q knew EXACTLY how the US would respond to 9/11 that therefor they must like the outcome.

But the fact is that Al Q, and Islamists in general are much less powerful than they were before 9/11. It's sad to say that their power wasn't waning in this modern age before 9/11... The governments of the middle east were crumbling, and the best chance of the Islamist had was to attack at home, not to get the US involved.

The US may be more willing to let some of those governments collapse than we used to be, but we're much more likely to give substancial support to the reformers who are Al Q's real competition and enemies than we were before... So GW is Al Q's worst nightmare. They ARE in decline now in the long run, which they should have been before but actually weren't.

Al Q screwed the pooch when they attacked us. Sometimes I wonder if that's why there has been no more large attacks on the US. Perhaps Al Q's leadership can't admit it publically but they realized that attacking the US will cause a war that they can lose long before Judgement Day - and like all Islamists they've promised to fight the infidels until then.

#104 zionista

But it's funny how all of a sudden ...we're supposed to believe in the honor and integrity of "agencies of the United Nations and non-governmental organizations." So, who's spinning now?

Friday, May 18, 2001, updated at 14:46(GMT+8) World

US Announces Additional Humanitarian Aid for Afghanistan
[Link: fpeng.peopledaily.com.cn...]

Dates are useful when studying history.

#100 Ariel:

T-1 day for me until the LSAT.

Good luck! Use the Force, Luke! Or an as honorary Irish Jew, I can now say, use the Schwartz!

(Speaking of Irish Jews, I just met someone whose last name is "McIsaac".)

#104 Zionista

we're supposed to believe in the honor and integrity of "agencies of the United Nations and non-governmental organizations." So, who's spinning now?

Some NGOs and UN agencies do good work. But that is not the point.

The point is that Powell didn't write the Taliban a $43M check.

#104 Zionista

But it's funny how all of a sudden (and not long after Model4 appoints me king of the Koffi Annan fan club) we're supposed to believe in the honor and integrity of "agencies of the United Nations and non-governmental organizations." So, who's spinning now?

Where did those goalposts go?

What other agencies could have delivered the aid? Our troops had not yet arrived.

(#100) Ariel

Good luck tomorrow, I'm sure you'll do fine.

And the best part is, after tomorrow, you'll never have to do another "Analytical Reasoning" game. Unless, of course, you want to, which would make you a very strange man. ;-)

And thanks for the info re: synthesizing oil. I hate to think we're helpless when it comes to defeating terrorism at the source, just because of our (an international) oil dependency.

Going after terror cells and financing is also incredibly important, and I think we're doing a fairly good job - with the exception of the Saudi Golden Triangle funding. Of course, two weeks ago Treasury Sec'ty Snow and Adel Al-Jubeir, lying scum that he is, held a joint press conference about our future "cooperation" in dealing with these problems - it's only been two and a half years since 9/11. And I expect very little to come of our newfound "cooperation" anyways.

(#101) Engineer

Thanks for the link, and the info.

I know our options are limited. But I want to see some creative thinking from those who claim the political leadership positions in our country, and who's chief responsibilities involve dealing with our national security. And by extension, whether the world likes it or not, we are their best hope too in ensuring long term security from the jihadis.

Ariel,

If it gives you any confidence, I scored in the 97th percentile on the LSAT... and I am far from the sharpest pencil in the LGF drawer.

Ariel, Good luck tomorrow!

(Speaking of Irish Jews, I just met someone whose last name is "McIsaac".)

A very old joke:
An old Jewish man coming thru Ellis Island is so
tired and confused after the long voyage in steerage that when asked his name
by the immigration officer, he says 'Shon Fergessen' ("I have forgotten", in Yiddish) and is entered as Sean Ferguson.

#107 Occasional Reader
Now we're getting totally OT: There's also Ashley MacIsaac, a hell of a Canadian Celtic fiddler, though I don't think he's Jewish. But as a Jew who loves listening to & playing Irish/Celtic music, I've been surprised at the number of other Jews with the same interest.

#100 Ariel: Good luck on the LSAT. Don't let the "there are nine airline seats in three rows. Jim can't sit behind Jane. Joe and Karen must sit together so that they can fondle each other. Fred must sit on the aisle so he can flash the stewardess. Martha must sit by the window and in front of Joe so that she can annoy him by flipping her seat too far back" - type questions.

piglet (#113)

LOL!

Ariel, good luck, I know you'll do beautifully.

Oscar Jr (109):

What other agencies could have delivered the aid? Our troops had not yet arrived.

So whose fault is that? Hint: Ever hear of Richard Clarke? (Condoleezza Rice wishes she never had).

See [Link: www.cnn.com...]

Too bad for us all that your heroes in the Bush administration were more interested in being the anti-Clinton than in taking things like national security seriously.

Brusque. Noisome. Rotten. In case you can't tell, I'm making a direct reference to George Bush, Jr.. I will start this discussion by arguing that in the good old days, when courage, honor, devotion, duty, and loyalty meant something, it was comparatively easy to face our problems realistically, get to the root of our problems, and be determined to solve them. Then, I will present evidence that Bush exhibits an air of superiority. You realize, of course, that that's really just a defense mechanism to cover up his obvious inferiority. While it is reasonable to expect that "caustic", "uncontrollable", and "morally crippled" seem the most appropriate adjectives to describe his lamentations, it remains that if you've read any of the ribald slop that he has concocted, you'll honestly recall his description of his plan to spread crude, socially inept views. If you haven't read any of it, well, all you really need to know is that whatever your age, you now have only one choice. That choice is between a democratic, peace-loving regime that, you hope, may purge the darkness from Bush's heart and, as the alternative, the sophomoric and jaundiced dirigisme currently being forced upon us by Bush. Choose carefully, because Bush thinks that everyone and everything discriminates against him -- including the writing on the bathroom stalls. Of course, thinking so doesn't make it so. Bush has mastered the art of bamboozling unwary listeners by introducing names of persons and events of which they have only a hazy recollection and then making statements, seemingly documented, with such authoritative confidence that they never think of trying to clarify their own recollections or consulting a reference work. However true that is, if we're to effectively carry out our responsibilities and make a future for ourselves, we will first have to rage, rage against the dying of the light.

It's undeniably a tragedy that his goal in life is apparently to understate the negative impact of fascism. Here, I use the word "tragedy" as the philosopher Whitehead used it. Whitehead stated that "the essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things," which I interpret as saying that some of the facts I'm about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, Bush wants to erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty. You know what groups have historically wanted to do the same thing? Fascists and Nazis.

I indeed hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before Bush does any real damage. Or is it already too late? We should be able to look into our own souls for the answer. If we do, I suspect we'll find that letting Bush grant a free ride to the undeserving is a recipe for disaster. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, his principles are merely a stalking horse. They mask Bush's secret intention to demand that loyalty to juvenile authoritarians supersedes personal loyalty. We should agree on definitions before saying anything further about Bush's uppity policies. For starters, let's say that "radicalism" is "that which makes Bush yearn to pooh-pooh the concerns of others."

He must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why Bush is so desperate to create widespread psychological suffering; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if Bush also realized that I do not appreciate being labeled. No one does. Nevertheless, if Fate desired that he make a correct application of what he had read about jingoism, it would have to indicate title and page number, since the backwards fool would otherwise never in all his life find the correct place. But since Fate does not do this, I can't possibly believe his claim that the laws of nature don't apply to him. If someone can convince me otherwise, I'll eat my hat. Heck, I'll eat a whole closetful of hats. That's a pretty safe bet, because some people say that that isn't sufficient evidence to prove that Bush is secretly scheming to make my blood curdle. And I must agree; one needs much more evidence than that. But the evidence is there, for anyone who isn't afraid to look at it. Just look at the way that he claims that his epithets provide a liberating insight into life, the universe, and everything. I feel that the absurdities within that claim speak for themselves, although I should add that Bush holds onto power like the eunuch mandarins of the Forbidden City -- sterile obstacles to progress who extirpate the very things I unequivocally cherish. If the people generally are relying on false information sown by malign, loquacious carousers, then correcting that situation becomes a priority for the defense of our nation. I insist that Bush will unmistakably undermine the individualistic underpinnings of traditional jurisprudence one of these days. I base this confident prediction on, among other things, the fact that if he wants to complain, he should have an argument. He shouldn't just throw out the word "auriculoventricular", for example, and expect us to be scared.

There is no doubt that he will violate strongly held principles regarding deferral of current satisfaction for long-term gains in a matter of days. Believe me, I would give everything I own to be wrong on that point, but the truth is that I take seriously the view that it's time for Bush to grow up. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that every time Bush utters or writes a statement that supports materialism -- even indirectly -- it sends a message that Bush is a paragon of morality and wisdom. I, hardheaded cynic that I am, certainly suspect we mustn't let him make such statements, partly because if the word "nondenominationalism" occurs to the reader, he or she may recall that Bush once tried to ascribe opinions to me that I don't even hold, but primarily because he says that his op-ed pieces epitomize wholesome family entertainment. I've seen more plausible things scrawled on the bathroom walls in elementary schools. Bush's cock-and-bull stories may sound comfortable and simple, but it must not be forgotten that Bush's ultimata cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that the sky is falling. I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Unfortunately, when dealing with Bush and his drones, that claim assumes facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that I, not being one of the many myopic ratbags of this world, decidedly don't believe that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not. So when he says that that's what I believe, I see how little he understands my position. While this letter hasn't provided anything in the way of a concrete plan of action, it may help us focus our thinking a little better when we do work out a plan. For now, we must spread awareness of the temperamental nature of George Bush, Jr.'s histrionics. I will unquestionably be happy to have your help in this endeavor.

#117 zionista LLL

Too bad for us all that your heroes in the Bush administration were more interested in being the anti-Clinton than in taking things like national security seriously.

# January 2001: A few days later, Rice receives a memo from Richard Clarke, the Clinton administration's counterterrorism chief. Based on that memo, she orders a "comprehensive policy strategy review on al Qaeda."
# May-July 2001: The deputies' committee develops a strategy to enlist Pakistan's support for pressing the Taliban to shut down al Qaeda in Afghanistan and a strategy for dealing with the Afghan regime.
# August 14, 2001: The security directive draft goes to Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other national security principals.
# September 4, 2001: These principals sign off on the directive.
# September 9 or 10, 2001: The directive, ready for the president's final approval, arrives on Rice's desk.
# September 11, 2001: The directive is sitting on Rice's desk waiting to go to the president.

So much Clinton bashing going on. /sarc off

#16 AustinfromBoston . . .

Good letter to Bush! I, too, think that Bush & Co. must find a way to explain an aggressive foreign policy using a few simple soundbites.

The WMD issues is being so hopelessly spun that the reason we are fighting Islamofascism is getting lost.

Yesterday in the New York Times a letter from a New Yorker claimed that there was no reason for the Iraq War. This idiot woman was probably a block from Ground Zero when the Twin Towers were destroyed--but that was two years ago--and she forgot all about it.

Even this latest revelation--that nukes are being spread all over the globe by independent contractors--does not seem to be making an impression on the media.

Please, Karl Rove, let's get a good media campaign going!

On the other hand, who would the Saudis rather have in the White House? Who would Musharraf trust to look the other way while Pakistan proliferates WMD to axis of evil members? Who has refused to impose sanctions on Pakistan for its proliferation activities?

The answer is George W(ahabi). Bush

I think Unrepentant Liberal is a bot wasting Charles' bandwidth. Or else a really, really bad writer. Is it posting on other threads?

#118

What a load of crap.

Promethia (120):

The WMD issues is being so hopelessly spun that the reason we are fighting Islamofascism is getting lost.

But the WMD issue is what the Bush administration built its case on. And because of it, our credibility is screwed. Look, as a genuine liberal myself, I believe that any day the US kicks over a genuinely murderous fascist regime is a very good day. And I believe most Americans with at least half a brain would have supported that as reason enough to kick over Saddam -- Iraq's support of terror networks besides Al Qaida should have been enough. But what happens now when we have to slap Syria down for supporting Hizb'allah? Or build a real WMD case against Pakistan or North Korea? When can we count on Tony Blair's support again?

Ariel - check your mail.

Thanks for all the good wishes guys! That's why I haven't been posting as much (or writing e-mails, sorry Occasional Reader). What's concerning me is that there is a fair amount of variability from one practice test to another. I'm hoping (and on track) to beat the median for Harvard, but we shall see. Today is my day to relax and take it easy before the big day tomorrow.

HalfLife (#122),

LOL. A random sentence generator program?

#117 Zionista

The link you posted shows that the Bush administration had prepared a plan to shut down al Qaeda, but not in time to prevent 9/11, that Rice had received the plan on September 9 or 10, and that it was ready for the President's final ok, and it only took 8 months for the Bush administration to come up with the plan.

Where was Clinton's plan to shut down al Qaeda, and why didn't he implement it?

Your blind hatred of Bush is nothing short of astonishing.

Colt - I'm laughing out loud! Thank G-d I'm not at work... (taking the day off)

I think Unrepentant Liberal is a bot wasting Charles' bandwidth. Or else a really, really bad writer. Is it posting on other threads?

Got to be a bot... not enough spelling errors for an actual troll.

#124 Zionista

When can we count on Tony Blair's support again?

Tony Blair cannot and will not send troops to fight a war about WMD. We'd have to be gassed/nuked by a terror-state, who admitted responsibity, showed film of their WMD and swore that Alistair Campbell had nothing to do with it.

#118 Unrepentant Liberal: Iowahawk? Is that you? The fixation with bathroom walls was a strange but funny touch. LMAO.

#62 Zionista

I disagree. Trying to influence an administration from within is standard "diplomacy," or, war by other means.

This is a far cry from supporting the Bush administration. Hell, Grover Norquist? he's out of the loop as it is.

#129 Ariel

It's hilarious, isn't it? :-)

Anyways, I'm off. Good luck.

ralph (119)

#117 zionista LLL

And aren't you a real ray of sunshine yourself.

The following is from an AP story dated July 28 2003. Sorry, but I don't have a link...

The congressional report on pre-Sept. 11 intelligence calls into question answers that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice gave the public last year about the White House's knowledge of terrorism threats.

President Bush's adviser told the public in May 2002 that a pre-Sept. 11 intelligence briefing for the president on terrorism contained only a general warning of threats and largely historical information, not specific plots.

But the authors of the congressional report, released last week, stated the briefing given to the president a month before the suicide hijackings included recent intelligence that al-Qaida was planning to send operatives into the United States to carry out an attack using high explosives.

The White House defended Rice, saying her answers were accurate given what she could state publicly at the time about still-classified information.

On Monday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush had full confidence in Rice. ``She is strongly committed with the president to making America safer,'' he told reporters.

The Sept. 11 congressional investigators underscore their point three times in their report, using nearly identical language to contrast Rice's answers with the actual information in the presidential briefing.

Remember "vandalgate"? Give us a break. The hatred of all things Clinton was so strong that they couldn't even accept the credibility of an expert from the Clinton administration national security team to implement a policy that could have saved alot of trouble for alot of people.

The president's daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, contained ``information acquired in May 2001 that indicated a group of bin Laden supporters was planning attacks in the United States with explosives,'' the report stated.

A footnote to that passage compares the information with what Rice told the public at a May 16, 2002, news conference.

Rice ``stated, however, that the report did not contain specific warning information, but only a generalized warning, and did not contain information that al-Qaida was discussing a particular planned attack against a specific target at any specific time, place, or by any specific method,'' the footnote said.

At the same May 2002 press briefing, Rice also said that ``I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.''

But the congressional report states that ``from at least 1994, and continuing into the summer of 2001, the Intelligence Community received information indicating that terrorists were contemplating, among other means of attack, the use of aircraft as weapons.''

117 Zionista

I don't know -- Rice took the threat of terrorism seriously enough to hire Clarke:

Clarke's white crew cut imparts a military demeanor, but he actually came to government by way of Boston Latin School and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Under Clinton, he had combined modest authority with immodest infighting skills to become the government's main engine of policy on terrorism. In this first meeting with Rice, on Jan. 3, he won a prompt invitation to keep the job.

"The focus was on al Qaeda – who is al Qaeda, what is al Qaeda and why is it an existential threat?" Clarke recalled in an interview.

Rice told him first, he said, that the dangers appeared to be greater than she had known.

"Her second reaction was 'What are you going to do about it?'‚" Clarke said. "I don't think we actually got a tasking at that meeting, but it was clear that she wanted an organized strategy review. She didn't just passively take this information."

Also, would you have supported, as you imply, invading Afghanistan prior to 9/11/2001?

#118 Unrepentant Liberal . . .

Huh? Could you summarize?

(#126) Ariel

I'm hoping (and on track) to beat the median for Harvard, but we shall see.

Will you condescend to talk to us lower lifeforms when you achieve your goal? ;-)

If you've been hitting 170 in practice exams, tomorrow should be a piece of cake for you.

I thought my exam was a little tougher than the practice ones, but I scored roughly the same as I'd been testing.

Thom (128):

Where was Clinton's plan to shut down al Qaeda, and why didn't he implement it?

Clarke was Clinton's pick following the Cole bombing. But instead of handing a hot war off to an incoming administration (like BushXLI did to Clinton in Somalia), it seems teamwork and good faith were something of a shortcoming.

Your blind hatred of Bush is nothing short of astonishing.

You keep telling yourself that. Again, like anyone with any seychl I supported the Bush administration's policies in Afghanistan and Iraq. But they let us all down, liberal and conservative alike, when the administration underestimated Al Qaida and the Taliban and oversold Iraq. Accountability should count for everybody, and not only for Democrats.

#118

There is no doubt that he will violate strongly held principles regarding deferral of current satisfaction for long-term gains in a matter of days.

Well, golly, don't deep us in suspense!

Colt (#131),

Tony Blair cannot and will not send troops to fight a war about WMD. We'd have to be gassed/nuked by a terror-state, who admitted responsibity, showed film of their WMD and swore that Alistair Campbell had nothing to do with it.

At which point the left will scream: "You did nothing to protect us."

If I'm going to poke fun at a bot, I should use preview.

errr... that would be "keep" not "deep"

curled up in a ball, rocking back and forth

Oscar Jr (136):

Also, would you have supported, as you imply, invading Afghanistan prior to 9/11/2001?

Of course. I'm a Zionist thug. I already wrote that any time the US kicks over a genuinely murderous fascist regime is a very good day. Besides, according to what I've read, at the time Clinton had the case against Al Qaida for the USS Cole. But the timing, between November and January, was hardly right to launch a war.

But of course it's easy to vouch such support from here. So, to demonstrate my sincerity, I would support kicking over Assad in Syria tonight. But the administration would have to present a solid case (as I understand the Clinton people could do regarding the Cole) so we would have some support for it beside Israel. There are already enough Pat Buchanans and Bob Novaks ready to blame Israel for everything that doesn't look just right.

#118 Unrepentant.

"malign loquacious carousers" ? "myopic ratbags" ?

Who's engaging in histrionics here?

I think it's you. You should change your handle to:

Pedantic Ratbag.

#118 Unrepentant

because if the word "nondenominationalism" occurs to the reader

Uh, it's been a while since that word popped into my mind upon reading anything.

I agree. It's a robot pulling random paragaphs from Poly-Sci PhD candidate's thesis at U of C - Berkeley mixed in with passages from editoral columns at the Utne Reader.

#135 Zionista

But the congressional report states that ``from at least 1994, and continuing into the summer of 2001, the Intelligence Community received information indicating that terrorists were contemplating, among other means of attack, the use of aircraft as weapons.''

I am looking for a reference, but I think I recall reading that the worry was more about getting smaller private planes (think two engine 8 passenger) and loading them with HE and / or HazMat and plowing into the White House, Congress, etc. Or taking a cargo liner off an isolated runway or loading ramp and doing the same. The scenario of hijacking a commercial liner, murdering the crew and flying it into a building was not on the list.
But I could be wrong.

#139 zionista

Accountability should count for everybody, and not only for Democrats.

Hi. Could you site some examples of lapses of accountability on the part of Democrats? I don't recall seeing any in your posts (perhaps I was reading too fast).

#139 Zionista

Clarke was Clinton's pick following the Cole bombing. But instead of handing a hot war off to an incoming administration (like BushXLI did to Clinton in Somalia), it seems teamwork and good faith were something of a shortcoming.

Nothing you've posted supports that in any way. Honestly, I'm not even sure what it means (in toto).

What year was the Cole bombing, btw? And the other al Qaeda attacks?

My questions stand:

Where was Clinton's plan to shut down al Qaeda, and why didn't he implement it?

Lileks rightly in my opinion points out that our enemies are not happy with the current US government and would prefer a US President in the order of let's say James Earl Carter.

#10 Jakester

Compare Patrick Stewart with John Rhys-Davies. Patrick Stewart was on "I Claudius" and played the Praetorian commander Sejanus. Rhys-Davies played his deput Macro. Rhys-Davies character collaborated with Caligula and Tiberius in getting rid of Sejanus. Rhys-Davies is a realist about the dangers of Islamofascism. Stewart seems to be a Kumbaya type.

Abu Radley (147):

Could you site some examples of lapses of accountability on the part of Democrats?

Recall a certain intern and a hummer. Born yesterday were ya?

Thom (148):

What year was the Cole bombing, btw? And the other al Qaeda attacks?

For chrissakes! Does everything have to come with a link to be real to you people?

OT sort of

The Deaniacs are getting a little pissy. So it's time for them to pull out the big guns:

Go after Kerry supptors!, INVADE AND ENGAGE

I'll check out the Kerry site later and see what kind of trollage they can muster up.

This link was posted by "link" on the Whitewashing thread. It absolutely spells out who Hizb'allah wants gone from power.

Nasarallah pulls no punches

"The resistance movement [against the U.S. in Iraq] may not be able to remove the U.S. from Iraq within a year, but it will be able to remove Bush, Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice, together with their Zionist friends, from the White House," Nasrallah assured his listeners.

Nasrallah is the secretery-general of Hizb'allah, so it's pretty f*cking obvious who Hizb'allah wants to win the election this fall.

#152 Zionista

For chrissakes! Does everything have to come with a link to be real to you people?

Don't be silly. My point was that Clinton had plenty of time to act against al Qaeda. But he did nothing, or next to nothing.

But according to you, Clinton had a plan to shut down al Qaeda, but he had to wait to get an airtight legal case against them after the Cole attack, but to be nice to the next President, he put it on ice so as not to bequeath the next President a hot war?

That strains credulity and I'm astonished that any serious person could actually think such a thing.

OT, good news:

Israel may move Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip (news - web sites) to the West Bank under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites)'s new plan to evacuate Gaza settlements, officials said on Friday.

Rayra (153):

Clinton appointed Clarke head of counter-terrorism in '98. Fat lot of good it did. Spent all his time posturing about cyberterrorism, ignoring the threats of real-world terror acts.

Oscar Jr (136):

Rice took the threat of terrorism seriously enough to hire Clarke

I'll let you two fight it out.

Ariel (#157)

Why is that good news?

zulubaby #159,

Well, if they've got to do it, they might as well solidify the hold on Judea and Samaria.

zionista:

Born yesterday were ya?

Why, yes I was.

Recall a certain intern and a hummer.

What's a hummer?

Actually, I should have been more specific in my first question of you. Do you know of any instances of Democrats showing a lack of accountability regarding terrorism, terror-sponsoring states, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, WMD proliferation, etc.?

I'll check back later on zionista. I want to get back to my real life.

Ariel (#160)

Okay, so it's average news. I can't find the enthusiasm to call this good news because I don't think the Jews should be pulled out of Gaza in the first place. I still can't get a handle on why Sharon is doing this and why so many LGFers support this move.

Are veebee and I the only two who don't support this plan?

Do the Jews in Gaza want to be moved to Judea and Samaria? Do they have any say in the matter? Are these people we're talking about, or pawns?

I'm baffled by the idea peddled by some here that Bush is some muscle-flexing he-man while Kerry and the Dems are a bunch of 98-pound weaklings.

What does everyone think the next phase of the war on terror will actually look like? Are we really likely, absent another 9/11, to go after more regime change via war in the Muslim world? Despite the ravings of people like Richard Perle, the answer is probably not, even under Bush. Where will the differences between Bush and the Democrats be in the future? I'm not sure that's such an easy question to answer.

Maybe after the successes in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, (both of which I think were very worthwhile, despite the problems in execution) a "law enforcement" approach is the right one. Furthermore, maybe continuing to piss off the rest of the world isn't such a good idea, regardless of how spineless and craven the French are. The fact is that the Iraq war was necessary as a long-term strategy against Muslim despotism. The democratization of the Arab world was the main good reason for the war and will likely only affect the war on terror in the medium to long term. In the short term, Osama and his boys are still roaming and the whole Muslim world is radicalizing against us. We need continued cooperation from other governments and we need a carrot as well as a stick in our approach to the Muslim world. The more hardline characters on LGF may not like it, but that is the way the Bushies see things as well. Rhetoric aside, there's not a huge difference between what Bush is doing and what the Dems would do in his place.

Finally, I think a very reasonable case can be made that Bush's instincts that the reaction to 9/11 needed to be war and not just police hunts were on the mark and that the war in Afghanistan was executed well (although the subsequent follow-through has been weak). Furthermore, the goal of democratizing the Middle East, as well as removing one of the world's worst despots was a worthy goal and Iraq was a good place to start. In Iraq, however, the whole WMD flap has led to a total destruction of our credibility. In the future, no one will believe us if we warn about WMD, even if we have great evidence. Furthermore, it is clear that the goal of Iraqi democratization is taking a back seat to Bush's political needs. This is not effective leadership.

Why is everyone automatically assuming that Bush will be more effective in the war in terror when he has such a decidedly mixed record?

#155 Tasty Beverage

Thanks for the link. Typical ranting and raving.

Suicide attacks and sabotage operations against the American forces in Iraq will cause American public opinion to turn against the president and not re-elect him, thus bringing about the disappearance of this group of leaders from the White House.

Again, I think it reinforces my view that they don't understand US Politics. They think by getting rid of Bush & Co. in the next general election, they will see a wholesale repudiation of everything connected to the present administration.

Adolf Hitler, in his bunker, heard of FDR's death and dreamed that the Allied effort would collapse. He was wrong.

How many times have we heard about the Dems each trying to outdo each other as a supporter or Israel?

Kerry's been hammering Dean on Israel for months...

#163 zulubaby

I agonized for a day or two, and then voted "disapprove". I hate the thought of the terrorists gloating over an evacuation of Gaza. And you know it will only embolden them.

#164 Rayra

According to the CNN timeline Zionista posted, it took the Bush administration exactly 8 months to come up with a plan to dismantle al Qaeda. That is a remarkably short time considering how many departments it had to be cleared by.

#165 BPP

Umm ... have you ever actually listened to what the Dem candidates are saying? That's some scary shit ...

BPP (#106),

Rhetoric aside, there's not a huge difference between what Bush is doing and what the Dems would do in his place.

And you know this how?

Have you heard that Kerry explicitly said that he would do nothing without UN approval? And that he feels that the threat of terrorism is exaggerated? And that he feels its a police problem, not a military one.

Those differences are not slight.

Rayra (164):

"allowing" the 9/11 attacks.

Never said that. You may go bite yourself now.

#118 Unrepentant Liberal

That is just about the most insane nospeak I've ever seen posted here at LGF.
If I were Charles I would delete is as it's just a waste of bandwidth.

Difference between what Dems would do as compared to Bush:
This very morning Gen. Clark said he would pull the US out of Iraq soon after becoming Pres. He explained that he wouldn't just be leaving the Iraqis hanging and leaving things to become a heck-hole once again because he would enlist "international" aid to step in. Does that mean the UN? Cuz if it does we all know how well off are all those countries under UN control. And we also know how quick the UN packed up and left Iraq after their first time under fire.

Rayra (171):

So, ANSWER your (deliberate?) error regarding the relation between the Cole bombing and Clarke's appointment.

Rayra, my ray'o'sunshine, I'm here to please...

[Link: www.legalright.com...]

As chair of the interagency Counter-Terrorism Security Group (CSG), Clarke was known as a bit of an obsessive—just the sort of person you want in a job of that kind. Since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen on Oct. 12, 2000—an attack that left 17 Americans dead—he had been working on an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda. The result was a strategy paper that he had presented to Berger and the other national security "principals" on Dec. 20. But Berger and the principals decided to shelve the plan and let the next Administration take it up. With less than a month left in office, they did not think it appropriate to launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden. "We would be handing [the Bush Administration] a war when they took office on Jan. 20," says a former senior Clinton aide. "That wasn't going to happen." Now it was up to Rice's team to consider what Clarke had put together.

A presidential candidate cannot run that ad and keep the wolves from snapping. BUt private citizens can. What do you say Charles, want to start a collection towards a tv spot. What the hey, we could call the sponsor for the ad "Americans for Little Green Footballs."
If Dean can use the internet for funding, why not libertarians?

quark2, here's something for you...

It's UN-believable

The 22 Arab League states together contribute just 1.773% of the UN budget. (The Palestinians, with observer status, don't pay a cent.)

Until about two years ago, Israel paid less than $2m. a year and the US funded more than 25% of the UN's budget. When the US revolted and decided to pay only 22%, Madeleine Albright asked some of the US's friends to split the cost. Israel was among those who paid the price of friendship.

Good grief, ya don't suppose [Link: www.legalright.com...] has an axe to grind or anything, do ya?

Rayra (#171),

Doesn't Sharon's decision create a frightening precedent for, and possible excuses of future "removal of Jews" in other places?

What do we say when France claims they can't protect the Jews in Paris and want them all to relocate somewhere, you know, for their own protection, just like Sharon did.

Thom (177),

Good grief backatcha. It's just a reprint from Time Magazine. Get over it.

I was referring to the main page, not the Time article.

Long before 9/11, the White House debated taking the fight to al-Qaeda. By the time they decided, it was too late. The saga of a lost chance

Yeah.

Rayra (#171)

Removal of Jews from Gaza, and its total isolation will prove the lie of the LLL/PC claims about 'Occupation' being the 'root cause' of terrorism. Simplifies the defense issue.

So all those people need their lives ripped up in order to prove a point to people whose opinion we don't even respect? There is something terribly wrong with this plan to move the Jews out of Gaza. Besides, the Palestinians haven't done a damn thing to show that they are willing to make concessions but most frightening of all is that Kofi Annan approves of this move!

#172 quark2 . . .

On the other hand, having #118 as a bad example shows what models of brevity and good writing most of the posters on LGF demonstrate.

The sentence above, however, is a bit convoluted. Oh well...

#1: wrong, the Islamonutzoids want Kerry because they want to WIN this battle of civilizations and Kerry will let us be steamrolled easiliy.

Rayra,

My little ray'o'sunshine. Don't ever change.

I think Sharon is abandoning Gaza to the Palestinians because he is abandoning the two-state solution. Soon the Gazans will be able to stew in their own juices. The Arab West Bankers will be dealt with differently--I don't have any predictions here.

The Gaza part of the plan seems sensible. The place is already a pit, and now it will be a worse pit.

I personally think that many of the settlers are crazy religious fanatics, but the difference is they don't believe in a fascist death cult, and I'm not eager to make Gaza Judenrein to satisfy the Islamonazis. But alas, the LLL Jews will not agree with that viewpoint.

Thom (180):

I was referring to the main page, not the Time article.

I was referring to (and linked) the Time article. Isn't that the information you people asked me for -- Cole bombing, al-Qaida, Richard Clarke, that sort of thing...?

#188: Your arguments will fall on deaf ears of the LLLs because they only know one reality to themselves:

Republicans = Evil Neocons to be despised and ridiculed
Democrats = Good Liberal Thoughtful Citizens of the World

Muslims = dark-skinned poor oppressed people
Jews = Aryan oppressors

BTW, when an LLL says "neocon" he really means right-wing Jew or right-wing Jew/Israel lover.

Rayra,

Always such a pleasure. My ray'o'sunshine in a world of darkness and pain. Won't you be my valentine?

Rayra, it's a TKO.

#189 Zionista

Well, I guess I fail to see how the Time article supports any of your assertions. The legalrights site, however, goes a looong way towards explaining your almost hysteric attacks on Bush ... You're not just left or liberal, your waaay out there in orbit somewhere...

Huh. Did you know that Clarke was a holdover from the Bush 41 administration? Isn't that interesting?

Is Gaza considered part of historical Israel?

Berger was determined that when he left office, Rice should have a full understanding of the terrorist threat. In a sense, this was an admission of failure. For the Clinton years had been marked by a drumbeat of terror attacks against American targets, and they didn't seem to be stopping.

Fascinating! Thanks for the article, Zionista.

The Gunslinger (191):

BTW, when an LLL says "neocon" he really means right-wing Jew or right-wing Jew/Israel lover.

So, Pat Buchanan and Bob Novak are liberals now? Who'd athunk...

[Link: www.cnn.com...]

[Link: www.townhall.com...]

#195: It's not the point whether Israel is "historically" entitlted to Gaza, the fact is that Israel conquered Gaza in 1967 after Gaza had been used as a staging point of endless terrorist attacks for over 50 years, under any morality, Israel as the defending nation has a right to conquer any territory used as an aggression point against it. Israel's only fault was not executing every Arab in 1967.

#197: Buchanan is a known Nazi sympathizer(remember Demjanuk) and Novak is a well known anti-semite. He has always shown his hatred for Israel and the Zionist lobby.

Thom,

You really gotta make up your mind. Either the legalrights site is bullshit, or it's a good article. Pick one. Anyway, it's what came up when I "Googled" the topic, so take it up with them. I never heard of legalrights before today.

Thanks for taking it all so seriously...

#200: I agree with your CLARION call for all French Jews to LEAVE immediately!

Possessions can be reaquired, but a life once lost is gone forever. I hope the French Jews heed this!

Alas, I think French Jews won't get into panic mode until Muslims actually start killing them. Apparently beating up kippah-wearing Jews and burning shuls isn't sufficient to get them panicked. Or maybe it's the secular Jews there who are rationalizing they they're safe because they aren't openly Jewish.

@176 zulubaby

I can tell ya now, it's not been a good day for me. And that just makes me even more nauseous! You have all these ass holes who want to live their whole lives as talking heads with no backbone. There is no standard of excellence anymore, no loyalty, no real law and order.
It's becoming more insane by the day now instead of by the generation.
If I could find a warp/portal to step through I would. And not look back.
It is disgusting the sewer we are throwing ourselves down.
Our moral compass and our values are shit and becoming even worse. There is a developing parallel between this civilization and the Roman one. Jaded, any thing goes.
I weep.

#206 quark2:

I hope those harsh words were not intended for those inflicted with LGF disease or the LIzard King himself!

quark2 (#206)

I'm sorry you're having a bad day and I'm sorry I can't say something to make you feel better, because I agree with you.

#202 Zionista

Thanks for taking it all so seriously...

I take it all very seriously. But you shift the discussion around so much that it's hard to be too serious. Honestly, I'm not even sure what we were arguing about anymore!

#206 quark2

It is disgusting the sewer we are throwing ourselves down.
Our moral compass and our values are shit and becoming even worse. There is a developing parallel between this civilization and the Roman one. Jaded, any thing goes.
I weep.

I hear you. This is why I want to puke every time I hear the "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" buzz-phrase that seems to be so popular nowadays ...

#186 Promethea

Uri Dan in yeaterday's JPost

Letter to Ariel, thinks Sharon is pulling out of Gaza, because he finally realizes there will not be peace with the arabs

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

Gunslinger #198 - I didn't specify a point. I simply asked a question. I'm not preparing an argument for international court, trust me.

From the book of Joshua, the borders of the land given to Israel by God are filled with many landmarks I don't know, so it is difficult to discern the actual borders Ex:" to the border of Edom the wilderness of Zin southward the uttermost part of the south coast."
Maps that I have seen don't show exact borders but simply place the names of the twelve tribes in general areas. From Joshua 13:2, The Promised Land includes "all the borders of the Philistines." Gaza, no? I was hoping someone at lgf would know off the bat. If I've learned anything here it is that pretty much any question one asks, someone here just happens to be an expert in that field.

@208 The Gunslinger

No, my harsh words are not for my fellow lizoidminions. :)
But I am sickened unto death with the endless wimp, limp wristed apologists and appeasers. All of the sniveling and sneering that happens redundantly when ever they witness
loyalty, bravery, clarity and good shipmanship.
This ship called the USA is in danger of sinking in a storm that will allow no survivors.

#214: the question really is it any worse now then during the pacifist 1920s and 30s? I think we all need al little historical perspective now and then.

quark2, Gunslinger,

Put yourselves together. Republicans control the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government. What could we possibly have to whine about in LGFland?

@215 The Gunslinger

IMO yes because of the advancements in technology.
Man's pyschological profile has not changed in thousands of years, he is as warlike and brutal as when he stopped living in caves. But his knowledge base has expanded thousands of times larger, and it's not enabled him to clean up his act.

@216 Zionista

I'm not going to whine about LGFland. When there's a thread that I am not comfortable with, I just lurk.

#207 Rayra: Another follower of the Elon "ethnic cleansing" plan, I see.

#219 Gordon

Where did that comment become ethnic? Are you suggeting that all Pals are suicide bombers? Are all Arabs in Gaza refugees?

Zionista: Don't ask for whom the siren wails. It wails for thee.

VDH on Dennis Miller NOW CNBC 9pm (repeated Midnight ET).

Gee, lets see what moral compass Clinton was using in Kosovo:

From Drudge:

Top Clinton administration officials wanted to end the Kosovo war abruptly in the summer of 1999 -- at almost any cost -- because Al Gore's presidential campaign was about to kick off, former NATO commander Gen. Wesley Clark says in his official papers, the WASHINGTON POST is set to report in Saturday editions, according to newsroom sources...

'There were those in the White House who said, 'Hey, look, you gotta finish the bombing before the Fourth of July weekend. That's the start of the next presidential campaign season, so stop it. It doesn't matter what you do, just turn it off. You don't have to win this thing, let it lie...'

What a joke. Clinton's legacy will be revealed as based purely on his selfish self-serving decisions.

#223 Geepers: Ever read one of those stories where a scrawny-ass burglar breaks into the home of a karate champ, or a guy trys to rob a diner the SWAT team's eating at? Sounds like Zionista had similar luck with his Clinton-worship today.

Still, I hope this doesn't discourage him. Dragging the Clinton albatross around for this year's campaign is going to be a winning tactic I'm sure. And Gore knows he could easily win because the public wants him in the Oval Office, but has better things to do.

Geepers (#223):

Gee, lets see what moral compass Clinton was using in Kosovo:

The attack on Serbia was a disgraceful, narcissistic, cluelessly cynical PC charade from the very start.

I just got back to this thread, and holy crap did I miss a lot!

Hey Model4, I was trying to get zionista way back in my post #161 to talk about whether he believed any Dems had any accountability re terrorism, WMD, etc. He/she ducked it, because I was looking for something that didn't involve Clinton's weenie (aren't we all?). Not that I even like all these blame-games (I don't, and anyway there's so much to go around)... but I guess zionista had his/her own talking points to stick to.

Model4 (#224),

LOL, yeah it was a bad day for Zionista, but I have faith that the FoBs will never stop defending his 'greatness' in all things.

And after I posted that I read your 221 and thought "Man, now I feel like I'm copying off Model4's paper" ;-)

Q (#226),

Well at least in Kosovo Clinton had a broad-based coalition and UN approval.

Oh wait, no he didn't.

Somebody left the doors unlocked in the Psych ward.
It's way past bedtime, and yet the lying uber-libs are still batting around. And look, it's Medication time.
A shot of bullshit perhaps? Maybe a flask of bad faith? A syringe of half-truths? A spoonful of odious conspiracy? How about a mind-altering historical amnesiac satellite chip?
Nurse, bring in the tray.

Just a layman's observation on the topic.

Prior to 9/11 I had never heard of Al Q. Didnt know much about the teachings of the Quran. I knew that Muslim terrorists were a growing threat (Cole, Somalia, etc.).

On 9/11 I watched from 4 miles away as the planes hit and collapsed. I spent the next 9 months on a disaster response team cleaning up (red zone clearance), having to feel the heat, see the carnage and smell the smell (it will never go away).

I know now exactly who and what Al Q is. I know the twisted moralistic teachings of the Quran. I know that there are those that truly want nothing more to wipe me and all those that I love from the face of the planet.

Who do I think they fear? Certainly not a Doctrine of passify, then maybe arrest and prosecute. Most definitely a Doctrine of preemption and destruction to those that even think of doing anything like 9/11 again.

Never Forget...Never Again...

The best part about my post #231 is that I know that this is thread nobody has been posting to for a while and I am basically posting to make myself feel a bit better. I see and hear the Democrats who want to be the President and promise this and that and especially that they can protect me. ( 'cause thats what it boils down to for me--who can protect me and my two Westies--my best buds--and those I love from those I cant protect against myself). I dont believe them. Then there is GW--A man who hasnt promised--hes delivered. I trust him (and Cam and Angus trust him too).

This is a new time in the world. All is not rosey and honky dory. Evil walks the earth and has taken form and shape. Shortly I'll be sending my nephew off to active duty; into the domain of the living Evil.

I want him to come home. I cant go with him and look over him to make sure he comes home safe to his mother, so I have to put my trust for this oh so sacred task in someone else. I truly do feel that I can trust the President for this, and I pray my nephew will feel this trust. I do not for one second trust Kerry or Edwards or Clark or Dean---they are only want to be's---not the kind of Leader I need to have looking over my sister's little boy.

And somehow, someway should anyone of the Evil people read this, then you've been forewarned. No rest, no warning, no treaty, no quarter. Not until it is done.

The difference between Right and Left:

The Right say; "Let's Roll", the Left says; "Let's Roll Over."

#233 Geepers

OOOPs. I thought everyone had gone. Hope I didnt get too personal in my self doctoring postings. I've just gotten a bit overwhelmed by the carnage (moscow) and drivel (Dem rhetoric) today. Plus the weather has been really bad.

On the brighter side I did hear that the Congressional Left is pushing to buy a lot of used French rifles...Never used and only dropped once.

#232 stevieboy: Nice post. I hope your nephew appreciates all the love and gratitude most of us in the nation feel for him (should be all, damn LLL whack cases). He'll surely make us proud.

Zionista, never, ever, under any circumstances, or conditions, cite Robert Scheer to defend your point of view. When you quote Scheer, you become Scheer. You will become dizzy and eventually afflicted then finally shunned by those who know what is is.

#235 Model4

Thank you. Now I've got to put my pups and myself to bed. Good night.

stevieboy (#234),

self doctoring postings

Hey, LGF is good for what ails ya. :-)

I've just gotten a bit overwhelmed by the carnage (moscow) and drivel (Dem rhetoric) today.

I'm with you there, brother. It's terribly frustrating some times ain't it?

And keep us updated on your nephew.

#232 stevieboy - Thank you for your posts. I hope your nephew comes home safe & sound. He and all of our men and women in uniform are in my thoughts and prayers. May they know how grateful we are.

#195 Yes. Gaza is part of historical Israel. Prior to 1948
there were 23 major Jewish setllements in teh territories the Arabs took in that opening war.

Look guys, I don't like Kerry's attitude toward Israel. But you're kidding yourselvs if you think Bush and his Carlyle buddies and daddy are Israel's friend. The Road Map was an ultimatum given Bush by Crown Prince Abdullah. Bush has never sanctioned the Saudis for supporting Hamas and terrorism. Grover Norquist and Karl Rove have thrown their support to the PLO and
CAIR for the election. So Bush isn't beatng Israel up right now in an election year? Wait until he gets elected then he can make Israel give up the Negev for a cintiguous Palestinian state. Don't kid yourselves. Arafat is alive today because Bush took his marching orders from the Saudis and he will continue to do so.

If we have garbage in both parties, we ahve to look at the domestic agenda to decide how to vote. But if you think Israel will fare well with either of these two turkeys, you are living in a pipe dream.

#226: Milosevic is scum. The Serbs are chauvinist, nationalist, aggressors.

Oh yeah, they are Christians (or, more accurately, non-Muslims) and their victims were Muslims. Then, according to the LGF'ers, it's OK.

#42 ralph

I've heard limbaugh refer to kerry as
Lurch

Not that I think that's fair to poor Lurch, but {sigh} such is the price of fame. :-)

Good morning, Busheviks!

LOL, yeah it was a bad day for Zionista... (Geepers, #228)

I feel great! Slept like a (one-headed) baby...

gymnast (236):

Zionista, never, ever, under any circumstances, or conditions, cite Robert Scheer to defend your point of view. When you quote Scheer, you become Scheer. You will become dizzy and eventually afflicted then finally shunned by those who know what is is.

Indeed. Now I appreciate what a cult of personality LGF has morphed into over the last year or so since I first started checking in. It's sad really. But in a very real educational way it reveals the shallowness of ideological conservative activism. When you run out of arguments, get personal. Never mind the words, attack the person. It won't make you smarter, or right. But never mind the intellectual bankrupcy, it will help you feel better.

Hey, LGF is good for what ails ya (Geepers, #238).

You want safety? Then elect in a President that won't cause any more blowback. Because it was Washington that trained and financed Bin Laden and his fighters, back when the USSR seemed like the most important threat, and Islamic Fundamentalism seemed like a force that we could shape for our own strategy. If we keep taking sides in battles that are none of our damned business, if we keep funding and training foreign forces in this grand chess game, then "it" will happen again, no matter how inconvenient the airport lines get.

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

OK:

Yes, I agree. We should stop giving money to the PLO
and go back to laons for the Israelis which were always paid back at a profit and let the Israelis deal with the Arabs once and for all. And we should back them up in the UN.

Your attitude ignores 9/11. Everyone thought terrorism couldn't happen here and it did. WE can't be ostriches and bury our heads in the sand in a nuclear age.

Simpy ain't possible.

I feel great! Slept like a (one-headed) baby...

That surely could have gone without saying.

And who do you think Kim Il Jong wants to deal with?

Lileks should have included .North Korea in that list.

I told you why 9/11 occurred and how to prevent the next one, and you accuse me of "ignoring 9/11"!

[Link: www.lewrockwell.com...]

This is getting to be sad. I actually read this page in some respects because I hope to see some voices of reason (and of course, there are many with regards to the Middle East). However, "who does Al-Qaida want to win the election" is just disgusting. This type of question harkens back to such questions as, "Who does Stalin want to win the election," and "Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist party," hopefully not leading to questions such as, "Who was the whore that bore you," and "Who was the one who raped the whore?" (brownie points for whoever understands from where the quotes were referenced)

You may not see it, but I do: your rhetoric DOES sound like something out of Nazi Germany, especially in this thread, and it needs to stop if you want to engage in a meaningful debate.

And if you ask me, I'll vote for anyone (sans Dean) to get that asshole out of the White House. I don't feel any safer today than when Saddam was in power, because if there were indeed WMDs in Iraq, that means people like the Syrians, Hizbollah, and other terrorist groups have them, and what is Bush doing to find them if they do indeed exist?

This may indeed be hyperbole, but it may not be far from the truth: the next anthrax attack could very well be Bush's fault, as he chose to go on Pershing-like adventures rather than get to the root of the terrorist infrastructure.

Joshua (#249),

Please explain what the "root of the terrorist infrastructure" is, and how you would best go about destroying it.

>>>I don't feel any safer today than when Saddam was in power, because if there were indeed WMDs in Iraq, that means people like the Syrians, Hizbollah, and other terrorist groups have them, and what is Bush doing to find them if they do indeed exist?

This may indeed be hyperbole, but it may not be far from the truth: the next anthrax attack could very well be Bush's fault, as he chose to go on Pershing-like adventures rather than get to the root of the terrorist infrastructure.

Disregard my last. I was cut off before my own reply to the linked comment appeared.

"Root of the terrorist infrastructure" refers to Afghanistan (where a modicum of deconstruction is taking effect), Pakistan (whom we continue to coddle in order to keep Osama under wraps before October (which, by the way, is also a joke in conservative circles)), Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Additionally, the trail of terrorism follows the old Watergate adage: "Follow the money." If we cut off the funding, we could dramatically reduce terrorism. I know that Saddam did exactly that with the Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers, but I would have liked to seen a better way of going about it (and, more importantly, not mincing words).

However, if there is a bigger consequence than the hyperbole that I posted (BTW, the hyperbole was meant to be a worst-case scenario), then it would be the more realistic intelligence problem with the war on terrorism. The Iraq expedition revealed serious intelligence flaws that will be uncovered in the weeks and months ahead. In my opinion, this is the best thing to happen for the terrorists, as it plants seeds of doubt into everyone's minds about intelligence data gathered. These seeds of doubt may end up having its parallels to the fable of the boy crying wolf. For if one day, the wolf does come, nobody will believe us. Thus, the terrorists can continue doing their evil work right in front of our eyes, with nobody rushing in to do anything.

In other words, 9/11 might as well be a taste of purgatory before the taste of hell that is very likely to come from them.

Joshua (#253),

I don't agree with some of your assessments, but fair enough.