I'm extreamily depressed by the lack of any balance of power in this country
The Constitution takes care of that for us. The President, Congress, and the Courts are all separate branches of government. They have different responsibilities and concerns. There are severe limits on what the President can do without Congress untimately going along, or in conflict with the courts. The Congress is divided into houses, and each house has procedural safeguards.
Even with only one party controlling the two political branches there is still divided power in the United States.
But of course you know that emacs users stuck back with a set of vi macros that turns vi into a mini version of emacs?
evi.tar.Z (Not to be confused with the vi mode for emacs)
An emacs "emulator." The idea behind it is to turn vi into a modeless editor (one that is always in input mode, with commands done with control keys). It is actually done with a shell script that replaces the EXINIT environment variable.
So what you are really saying is, never vote for someone like Bill Clinton? Or Hillary in '08, for that matter?
That sounds radical, but you might get support for it.
Now here is an interesting question. If you are only voting for veterans, do you care what their peers say? Imagine, for example, that hundreds of veterans that served with candidate when they were in service, or who knew important deails of their service, protested against the candidate? Shouldn't they be listened to? After all, a candidate's legislative record or business record faces scrutiny, should their military record be considered? Or are you simply engaging in demagoguery for momentary advantage in this election? Are you going to believe this in the next election?
After you pulled the lever, if the voting machine went DING! DING! DING! DING!, told you that you had just voted for a lemon, and gave you an instant "tax refund", you just played the slot machine. The voting machine is across the street, in the school.
I'm not sure that the process or outcome is any different though.
Since 9/11 Bin Laden has lost control of an entire country he used to OWN (Afghanistan) and which has flipped from a theocracy from the middle ages to having open, fair elections, he has had his money supply choked off and confiscated, had his training bases captured, lost large amounts of supplies, had his homes and compounds captured, given us huge amounts of intelligence data like Al Qaeda membership lists and plans, had thousands of his followers captured or killed, had to hide deep in the mountains to avoid being killed when he used to ride around in style, had numerous plans fail, had 75% of the known Al Qaeda leaders captured or killed (and no doubt replaced by less experienced and less well trained stand-ins), had his ability to contact and control his followers sharply limited, his pal Zarqawi is having a rough time, and yet, somehow,.... he thinks this is good? You think he wants more of this? If you are right, Bin Laden is apparently trying to discover a level of "victory" below pyrrhic victory. If he has much more success like that, he is a dead man, him and his followers. I don't know, but if you ask me, distributing video tapes is a poor substitute for a terrorist that wants to hand out bombs. He should change his name to Osamma Big Loser.
And you think George Bush has been really underperforming and that John Kerry is going to really get things in high gear, huh? Do tell. I'd love to hear it. I'm not sure what he could do before 2007. It takes a long time to train the special forces soldiers he will need to double special forces, and to raise the two new divisions. And that is after he gets them through Congress. Those are about the only concrete things that I have heard from John Kerry on the subject.
Judges cannot 'impose gay marriage from the bench'.
Nonsense, of course they can. They can do it in the same way that they established the right to abortion in Roe vs Wade, overthrowing the laws governing abortion in all 50 states. They can do it by judicial fiat. That is what is called legislating from the bench. It would be a troubling development, and unpopular, but I don't think that there is much doubt that they could do it given the right case.
The 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution to ensure that the former slaves would be treated equally. Although the scope of its interpretation has expanded over time, there is an open question of what level of scrutiny the Supreme Court would require when presented with a claim of a right to marry someone of the same sex. Your assumption that the claim will automatically be accepted and enforced is not well founded. Even if any court does accept it, it is likely that the judgment will be stayed until all appeals are exhausted.
The Federal Defense Of Marriage act was specifically crafted to prevent states from being forced to recognize gay marriages from another state. The recent legislation limiting review of this law by the courts will make it more difficult to overturn. Probably not impossible, but more difficult.
Repeat after Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United State, Charles Evan Hughes: "the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
The only way you can believe that only liberal judges "legislate from the bench" is if you only call it legislating when a ruling goes against your political agenda.
Conservative judges don't have a lock on "strict constructionism." Rather, they simply have a different idea of which areas the government should be butting its nose into.
That isn't so.
"Legislating from the bench" is when a court delves into territory in which the Constitution or law is silent. This often results in the creation of new rights, duties, or changes in social policy which do not currently exist in law.
Looking at the law and the facts of a case, a strict constructionist would tell you "sorry, you have no case" and dismiss.
A court legislating from the bench will move beyond the law and basically, make things up as it goes along. There will no doubt be some sort of guiding principle, such as fairness, but nothing actually in the law.
The question of "gay marriage" is an example of that. From a purely legal perspective, there is no real controversy in that gays and lesbians have exactly the same rights as everyone else, i.e., a gay may can marry a woman, a lesbian can marry a man. What they want is a change in the definition of marriage to allow same sex couples to marry so that they can marry the person that they love. This is not provided for in the law of most states. By ordering that a state ignore its laws and issue marriage certificates to same sex couples, a court is legislating from the bench. Legally it is better for decisions like that to come from the legislature.
Abortion is another example. The Roe vs. Wade decision by Justice Blackmun was an artful, if messy political compromise, but it had little to do with existing US law at the time. (Read the book The Brethren for an inside look at this decision.) The division of state scrutiny by trimester of pregnancy is a complete legal fiction, made up of whole cloth, but it has the force of law as an order from the Supreme Court. Justice White's dissent is illuminating on this case, as well as the general problem of legislating from the bench:
"I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but in my view its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court."
A significant problem with legislating from the bench is, what are the limits? Who gets to pick the philosophy used? What remedy is there for an ill-conceived order? It presents a basic challenge to democracy. Legislating is the job of the legislature. Legislators are much more accountable for bad laws than judges for bad orders.
So no, this is not a question of whose ox is being gored, but a question of how the courts treat questions of law.
There would have been no point in waiting to attack Iraq in order to attack Al Qaeda for a number of reasons. First, the resources needed to attack each of them are very different. Al Qaeda is generally best pursued by Special Forces and light infantry. They like to hide in the mountains and other rough terrain. The total size of the forces involved isn't all that large. Iraq, on the other hand, was/is the place to employ heavy divisions, units with tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, heavy artillery, etc., in large numbers. There is relatively little overlap between the two requirements. Or, at least there doesn't have to be.
The United States has long had a policy goal of being able to fight two simultaneous wars at the same time. That used to mean basically being able to fight WW2 again. Today it more or less means fight Desert Storm and a war in Korea at the same time. The fight against Al Qaeda is hardly 1/3 of a war in terms of resources, if that.
Going after Saddam sooner rather than later would also offer many useful strategic possibilities. For example, Syria and Iran have both been state sponsors of terrorism, and both have WMDs. It is entirely possible that we may find it necessary to fight one or both of them. Iran and the moment is pursuing nuclear weapons all out and it seems increasingly likely that we will end up fighting them. We will be in a much better position to fight either Iran or Syria from Iraq as it borders both countries. Saudi Arabia is also a potential problem area as there is a powerful insurgent movement which may strike out against the government. The US is in a perfect position to intervene, if need be, from Iraq.
Many Arab and Islamic nations have a strong terrorist presence in the form of terrorist camps or bases. Those same nations are often inclined to look the other way. We are in a good position to conduct raids and expeditions against the terrorists from land, sea, and air bases in Iraq.
The Arab world has two serious problems at the moment. First, is the lack of any democratic nations which act as a moderating influence on the authoritarian regimes. Second, is Islamic extremism. A strong, democratic, moderate Iraq could be a powerful counter-weight to those problems. There is a real possibility that Iraq could attain that status. It is one of the best educated, moderate, and secular societies in the Middle East. Of course the only way for it to make that transition was for Saddam to be removed, and for the country to be rebuilt. That is now occurring.
Iraq itself has serious problems, and was spinning out of control. The Oil for Food program was eroding the effectivness of the sanctions against Iraq. (Amazing what tens of billions of dollars in bribes will do.) Iraq didn't completely destroy its WMDs. There were enough for terrorist use, but not enough to be militarily useful. (Hence the "no weapons" statements. There really are / were weapons, just not a lot of them. 8 R-400 anthrax bombs here, a dozen nerve gas rockets there, etc. Mainly scraps.) The potential danger from waiting to take care of Iraq was actually considerable. You saw how tied in knots the US was from just a couple of envelopes of anthrax send in the mail. Now imagine a smuggled Iraqi anthrax bomb designed to create mass casualties in a dispersed military unit detonated over downtown New York City during rush hour. That would have made the impact of 9/11 look like a picnic. (Look up the UNMOVIC report for things they were unearthing. The Kay report talks about ongoing research. There are also a few news items you can find.) Saddams intent was to restart his WMD programs as soon as he could, and the UN's resolve to keep him in check under sanctions was weakening. If we didn't do it when we did, it is entirely possible that it would not have been politically possible in the future, at least not without enormously increased cost and risk. It was wise to take care of it while we still could.
Like I said, there are many reasons why it made sense to take care of Iraq now, and not wait.
Have you been out of the country? I understand many of you people haven't even visited another nation.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I have. I've been to both Europe and Asia. How about you? And you've piqued my curiosity, what do you mean by "you people"?
Maybe you need to go back and think about your scenario a little more. The point of having free speech and the like is to allow us to voice our unhappiness with our leaders.
The right to free speech doesn't include trying to overthrow the government. That is what is implied by "to prevent Bush from taking office", especially with millions of people involved. You have the right to print papers, publish books, broadcast (within limits) contrary views, set up web sites, march, write letters, and dress funny. You don't have the right to try to overthrow the government.
Finally, you should also take a look at how our election works. There's this thing called the electoral college and, well, you see, they cast votes for us. Not exactly a direct vote of the populace, is it?
So? You get a direct vote for every office except President and Vice President. The Electoral College has been part of the Constitution since it was written to balance power among competing interests. Its a kludge, but it has worked so far. If you don't like it, work to get the Constitution amended to remove it.
Nothing short of a majority of the popular vote should make a person our leader.
And that is the way it almost always works. The exceptions, when they occur, follow a specific set of rules. And while in principle I don't necessarily disagree with you, that isn't the way our system works which is why at the national level we are technically a federal republic. If you don't like it, work to get it changed. Until then, trying to overthrow the government is a really bad idea. I feel pretty comfortable in asserting that the occasional, minor imperfection in operation of the current system, as long as it is within the established rules, is to be greatly preferred to the chaos of insurrection and mob rule. Our government may occasionally step over the line in the way it treats people, infringing upon their Constitutional rights. That is still far, far better than mob rule. A mob respects no rights.
The usual post-60's liberal "progressive" answer is... well, nothing. Is that what you are planning? Come on now, at least 40% of the country is actively against Bush. What would happen if 5 million people showed up on the Mall for the inaguration ceremony? To protest, to stop it, to prevent Bush from taking office? Are there no liberal progressives out there with any stomach for what they believe in? Or, is this all a fantasy Internet game...
I'll tell you what will happen, Bush will still be sworn in as President of the United States of America, and will then proceed to call out the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and National Guard to put down an insurrection against the government of the United States of America. Maybe you didn't get the memo, but in the United States of America we change governments by election, not by mob rule. Those who participate in insurrection tend to learn the routine of prison life and experience a significant loss of civil liberties. Try searching the Constitution, and US Code, for the words insurrection or rebellion, they get special mention. For example, try Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
What you are suggesting is legal grounds for suspending a an important Constitutional protection against unreasonable government action. And they would be right to do it if what you suggest actually happens.
Or, is this all a fantasy Internet game where everyone goes home after the election with "well, we tried." and forgets about it until Hillary runs in 2008?
That is what happens in a functioning democracy like the United States. Your suggestion of rebellion is what happens when people let their fantasies get the better of them. You should try to get a grip on reality before you wind up in jail. If you want to learn what real oppression is about, why don't you spend a semester abroad in some tin-pot dictatorship? Assuming you don't do anything too stupid, you will return home a much better informed and wiser person.
Come on, this country has gotten entirely too boring.
Please tell me that this isn't the reason you are suggesting this foolishness.
Most countries don't have the ability to deploy and support their forces world-wide like the United States does. The US has developed that capability much like the British did, as a matter of necessity. There is little surprise in the US providing support to the many allies that don't have that capability, either because they haven't needed it before, or can't afford it.
Providing logistical support for any significant number of soldiers over long distances is an enormous burden. So much so that there is an old saying in the military: amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics. Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter, is a very long ways away from most of the countries with forces there. If the United States is providing them with beans and bullets, I don't think that there is anything wrong with that.
Everything I have read of the Polish soldiers speaks well of them. I think that the Polish contribution is admirable, and valuable. We are fortunate to have Poland as an ally.
You are correct about Bin Laden and the Palestinians.
Regarding the claims of 100,000 Iraqis being killed, it is at best, very misleading, and at worst junk science. But hey, at least the Lancet editor rushed it through the peer review process to what... maybe effect the elections? That sort of thing helps shore up your confidence in the science.
Actually the Jihadists will not ultimately be satisfied with just an isolated United States. In their view even the United States must answer the demand of: Islam or death! Read Bin Laden's letter to America. In it you will see that his first actual demand is that the United States convert to Islam. His second demand, when fleshed out, is that we abandon the separation of church and state, impose Islamic Sharia law, and enforce its morality code, etc.. You have already touched upon the implications of that: death for any who commits adultery, death for homosexuals, no more drugs or alcohol, no immorality, pornography, etc. Bin Laden says that if we don't meet his demands, they will keep killing us. Just dropping support for Israel won't do it either. We have to become an Islamic nation under Sharia, or else.
The people that think we were attacked because we "stick our noses where they don't belong", or didn't sign this or that treaty are clueless about what this war is really about, and what it will take to keep us safe.
The very fact that Bush specifically mentioned how important it was to kill/capture Osama and then outsourced the job to groups who were also actively fighting eachother
When you say, "outsourced the job to groups", do you mean that we had allies fighting on our side who we let actually....fight? Oh, the horror!
It sounds like you are opposed to the US having allies fight with us in combat. Are you one of those "unilateralists" that I hear so much about? Hasn't President Bush been harshly criticized for not having allies?
After all, besides the 26 nations in NATO (including the French) and Australia, who is with us in Afghanistan? Do you think we can trust them? Or should we go it alone?
In Iraq, who has been with us besides the United Kingdom, Poland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ukraine, Netherlands, Romania, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Denmark, Bulgaria, El Salvador, Hungary, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Latvia, Portugal, Lithuania, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Albania, Estonia, Tonga, Singapore, Kazakhstan, Macedonia, Moldava, Nicaragua, Honduras, Norway, Dominican Republic, Philippines, Thailand, New Zealand, and Columbia? Are they trustworthy? Or should we go it alone?
It is indeed a lonely world as the "only superpower". Maybe sometimes it is better to "go it alone".
By the way, I suspect that President Bush, unlike some people, understands that the problem of Islamist extremist terrorism extends far beyond Osama Bin Laden. There will be years of work to do even after we capture or kill Bin Laden. If your only concern is Bin Laden, you don't understand the problem.
Here is a start on the oil for food scandal for you, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal's on-line service. It isn't just "hand waving."
Saddam still had ongoing WMD activities as noted in David Kays Interim Progress Report to Congress.
We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:
# A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
# A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
# Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
# New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
The US and UNMOVIC have been recovering chemical weapons and biological weapons from Iraq since 2002. Some of them are intact munitions from sites where they were "disposed of" by the Iraqis. What they have been recovering isn't enough to be militarily usefull, but they would be perfect for terrorist use. Personally I think that it is better that we take care of them, don't you?
The US military has long had a policy that it be able to fight two wars simultaneously, although the size of those wars had been reduced. It used to be refight WW2. Now it is more like fight two Desert Storms I think, The hunt for Bin Laden isn't even 1/3 of a war in terms of the resources needed. The resources needed to hunt Bin Laden are also different than those needed to take down Saddam. (Tank divisions don't make great guerilla hunters.) There was no good reason to wait. It isn't even a question of priorities. They could both be done simultaneously with limited impact on the other.
I suspect that most people who say hunt Bin Laden then worry about Saddam would oppose doing anything to Saddam once Bin Laden is captured or confirmed dead. For them, Bin Laden is essentially the diversion protecting Saddam.
I'm curious why so many people think Bush is our best bet for security. Has he actually done anything any other president wouldn't have done?
It practically certain that he has. Intervening in Afghanistan was a big one. By intervening in the Afghan civil war to overthrow the Taliban, the US was able to capture large amounts of documents, plans, computers, and other intelligence material. That material has been a vital asset in the war against the Islamist terrorists around the world. It has led directly to identifying and capturing entire chains of Al Qaeda operatives all over the world, and helped to disrupt or eliminate their support operations, such as money transfers and smuggling. In Afghanistan proper, the US has destroyed many terrorist training facilities, captured terrorists and material, and severely disrupted their operations. Simply bombing the terrorist training camps would not have been anywhere close to being as effective as the intervention.
Although there was considerable political support when President Bush pursued the war in Afghanistan, there was also wide opposition to it. It was going to be another "quagmire," another Vietnam. (Sound familiar?) There was opposition to it both in the US and internationally.
I think it is practically certain that Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or John Kerry would have bombed the terrorists camps. It is very unlikely that any of them would have intervened in Afghanistan like the Bush administration did. You can take your pick of reasons.
The Clinton administration had its hands burned over the way it bungled Somalia, and probably wouldn't have wanted to take the kind of risk Afghanistan represented. There was also a general aversion to things military, and a distaste for potentially messy ground operations. Dropping bombs or launching cruise missiles no doubt would have been the options of choice, albeit in larger numbers than their previous attacks with bombs and cruise missiles, and a few CIA agents.
As to Al Gore, shortly after 9/11 it was reported fairly widely in the main stream media that even some members of Al Gore's inner circle were relieved that Bush was president to handle this. They knew Al Gore and the team he would have had well enough to know he wouldn't have handled the war on Al Qaeda and the Afghanistan problem as decisively as Bush. I think that the most we could have expected from a Gore administration was bombs, and maybe cruise missiles, and a few CIA agents.
John Kerry has a long history of being against US military involvement overseas. There is little doubt in my mind that he would have bombed, eventually, but it seems very unlikely that he would have pursued a broad intervention in Afghanistan. There was a significant chance of failure, it wasn't popular, a notable percentage of the world was against it, and after all, couldn't the UN or our allies do something more? Who wants to pursue an arrogant, go-it-alone because we are the only ones who can get there, foreign policy and war? So it is back to sanctions, and maybe, eventually, bombs and cruise missiles. Please note that now that the war is established, I expect that John Kerry would continue to pursue it in general as he has claimed he would. I just don't think he would have developed it along the lines George Bush has.
So yes, Bush has done, at the very least, one major thing in the war against the terrorists that a number of other presidents, or presidential contenders, would most likely not have done. He intervened in the Afghan civil war to tip the balance against the Taliban, committed US troops to ground combat in Afghanistan, and brought our allies from NATO and other countries into combat with us. The results have been very positive, as the recent Afghan elections help demonstrate.
As to Iraq being unnecessary, that was really up to Saddam, wasn't it? Saddam could have fully complied at any time. He could have met the demands up until the final hours, but he didn't. He wanted to keep playing a c
The report's authors derive this figure by estimating how many Iraqis died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, conducting surveys on how many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That difference?the number of "extra" deaths in the post-invasion period?signifies the war's toll. That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully:
We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.
Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English?which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language?98,000?is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)
This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board.
Imagine reading a poll reporting that George W. Bush will win somewhere between 4 percent and 96 percent of the votes in this Tuesday's election. You would say that this is a useless poll and that something must have gone terribly wrong with the sampling. The same is true of the Lancet article: It's a useless study; something went terribly wrong with the sampling.
The Iraqi body count project is probably much closer to the real number. As terrible as that number is, it is about 1/2 of what Saddam killed every year, and is likely to be a one time number for the liberation of Iraq as opposed to Saddam's annual production of 20-30,000. The people of Iraq are probably 10-15,000 ahead this year. (that is, fewer murdered by Saddam)
You think Bin Laden is less scary than Bush? Bin Laden thought they could kill 50,000 civilians, on purpose, in the twin tower attacks. Al Qaeda's goal is to kill 4,000,000 Americans. The US doesn't particularly care to kill the terrorists. If they either gave up the war, or were captured that would be probably be fine. The US hasn't targeted civilian non-combatants on purpose. Killing civilians is a primary goal of Bin Laden.
Bin Laden's ultimate goal is to either convert all Americans to Islam, or kill them.
If you really think Bush is more scarey, you aren't paying attention. You seem to believe the worst of the conspiracy stories about Bush, and are relatively indifferent to the maniacs Bin Laden and Saddam despite your professed willingness to do violence to Bin Laden.
And by the way, you have left out a LOT of bombings from Al Qaeda's toll of murdered victims. Just the embassy bombings in Africa alone would add many hundreds to the total.
What it really says is that even formerly responsible, trusted people can turn into cranks, go insane, or harbor some very strange notions with no connection to reality.
There is a way to get closer to the truth though. Try to track down the lawsuit he supposedly filed in June 2002, and what its status is. I doubt it is an ongoing concern. As screwed up as the US justice system is, I doubt it got anywhere. But if you can find it, get a copy and start tracking things down. I doubt they will go anywhere.
Given all of the media coverage, even in mainstream media, that the cases of Vince Foster, the Kennedy assassination, Pearl Harbor, the various Clinton follies, Iran-Contra, and so many other scandals got, I can't believe that if there was even the smallest thread of proof for this that it wouldn't show up somewhere. Even the references to it I have seen on Air America have called his claims "insane".
You don't have to believe everything the media tells you, but if you are off by yourself, you better be sure. In this case, pretty much all, I say practically ALL, of the evidence is against you. There is a rule of thumb that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You believe an extraordinary claim without anything like extraordinary evidence, other than the former status of the person making the claim. That isn't evidence. Do yourself a favor, check into the lawsuit. Get a copy. Check the claims. I suggest you should be prepared to be disappointed.
I suspect that the "proof" for the existence and activity for this conspiracy will be dwarfed by the proof for the existence of Jesus.
Let me put your feverish mind to rest, you don't have to rely upon that tape for Bin Laden to take responsibility. You can go back three years to this tape captured when the US went into Afghanistan in 2001, after the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden.
In the hour-long video, Bin Laden is shown joking and laughing with friends and associates about the suicide plane attacks on New York's World Trade Center, in which more than 3,000 people died.
Relaxing in green military jacket and white head-dress, Bin Laden claims to have known the attacks would take place five days in advance, and says the destruction of the twin towers exceeded his expectations.
That article makes good reading for those who have forgotten.
As to the Stanley Hilton thing, let me get this straight. Islamist suicide bombers have been attacking the Americans for what, 20 years now? Ten years ago, Islamic fanatics tried to blow up the same building they crashed the planes into on 9/11. There is a paper trail for the 9/11 attacks going back to Europe, the Middle East, and Afghanistan. Many of the 9/11 attackers attended training in Afghanistan. Bin Laden has admitted doing it and threatened more of the same. Other Al Qaeda members have tried to attack planes in flight, (Remember the shoe bomber?) A number of the attackers entered the country before Bush was even President. (Was President Clinton in on the Plot, or was the whole thing speculative on Bush becoming President?) All of this, and you find it more credible to believe that a President with only a few months in office ordered this attack, that it really wasn't a long planned terrorist operation by fanatics. (Or are you one of the clever ones who as "seen through this diversion" and "understands" that it was a double plot - the terrorists really did come here to attack, but were tricked into the planes that Bush ordered flown into the buildings?) If you really believe that, it is time for one of two things: either start reading from a wider variety of sources beyond the cranks you are reading, or seek professional help before your issues get out of control. I would suggest both.
Is going to point out that according to the man himself, WE WERE ATTACKED BECAUSE OF OUR SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL? (and note that he cited direct military support for Israeli policy)
Or shall we just continue to pretend this doesn't matter?
Regardless of what you think may about Israel, you have to admit that this makes a helluvalot more sense than "they hate our freedom."
Try reading Bin Laden's letter to America. He states a number of demands and says that if we don't comply, they will keep attacking, trying to kill us. It turns out that yes, he really does hate our freedoms. Just the first two demands make it impossible for there to be peace between us as long as we both live and hold to our philosophies.
His very first demand is that we become Muslims. (That sounds like it violates our freedom of religion, no?)
His second demand is that we stop what he refers to our "oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery". As he fleshes it out it turns out that he wants the separation of church and state abolished, the imposition of Islamic Sharia law, the end of adultery, homosexuality, immorality, charging interest in loans, no more drugs and alcohol, and other demands. You should be clear, the implication is: kill adulterers, homosexuals, etc. My thinking is that there are more than a few issues with a variety of rights in those demands.
As a side note: Bin Laden singles out President Clinton's lack of punishment as an infamy which will tarnish America's name in history. I don't think that there is any doubt that Bin Laden thinks President Clinton should have been stoned to death in accordance with Islamic law instead of the gentleman's agreement in which he surrendered his law license.
Sadly, there are far too many Muslims who do not want to simply work out a few philosophical differences with the Israelis, they want to kill them, all of them if possible. What makes it especially troubling is that Araft turned down a peace for land deal in which they could have had about 98% of what they wanted. It is likely that real peace won't be possible until Araft has passed on.
Bin Laden came very late to the Palestinian cause. They became an issue for him when it was politically expedient. He is still using them, and taking in the gullible.
So, knowing Karl Rove's interest in reverse-psychology publicity stunts, one has to wonder if this really is a genuine tape or not...
Of course there is no chance that news of any such stunt would leak out with the large percentage of Democratic civil servants in government, is there? No secrets ever come out of the intelligence agencies, especially when blatant political fraud is involved, eh?
Talk about political suicide.
One of Karl Rove's cleverest moves has been in not interfering with an opponent who is in the process of destroying himself. What you are suggesting is the equivalent of dousing himself and the entire administration in gasoline and dancing around a campfire while offering to catch lighted cigarettes thrown at them. Anyone who was a friend of a friend of anyone involved would be tainted, permanently. Good grief! This just doesn't seem to be his style, even given the evil genius that he is.
You might get me to believe that he was behind the vocal Republican enthusiasm for running against Howard Dean (which gave a number of Democrats pause, and probably cost Dean support.), but not this.
Besides, other than the possibility that the administration responsible for killing or capturing 3/4 of the senior Al Qaeda leaders could lose power, what reason would Bin Laden have for speaking out now? A different administration might, in his mind, pursue different policies. Unlikely, but possible.
The number of soldiers in Afghanistan has never approached the number we've had in Iraq. Had we not (needlessly, in my view) gone into Iraq before finishing what we (appropriately) started in Afghanistan, vastly more troops would have been available.
Nonsense. There are two problems the US faces in fighting in Afghanistan: 1. Getting there. 2. Using the right kind of troops.
Afghanistan is land locked. The US gets it troops there by flying them in. It takes a lot of resources to fly in large units. The lightest divisions that we have are the light infantry divisions of about 10,000 soldiers. It takes more than 500 cargo plane sorties to airlift one of them. Infantry is what you want for mountain fighting, if you have to do it. There are about 4 1/2 divisions of the lighter infantry types in the active Army. Even assuming they all went there, 40,000 soldiers is not a lot given the size of the country. Evading them wouldn't be hard.
The remaining six active Army divisions are "heavy" divisions. A heavy division (armored or mechanized infantry) is equipped with tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and armored personnel carriers. This is the type of division that fought in Iraq in 1991, and 1993, and would have fought the Soviet Army if push came to shove. A heavy division isn't really trained or equipped to fight in the mountains. Also, it takes an entire large cargo plane to lift a single M-1 tank. There are hundreds of those in a tank division, ignoring the thousands of other vehicles and about 1.8x the people of a light division. I'm not sure that you can move an entire heavy division by air given some of the equipment. Anyway, flying tank divisions to fight in the mountains is a really bad use of resources. Sure, you can rotate just the infantry units, but that has its limits. All things considered, sending the heavy units to Iraq didn't meaningfully detract from the effort in Afghanistan, or at least didn't have to.
The Soviet Army had about as many troops in Afghanistan as the US has in Iraq for 10 years and they couldn't subdue it. (And that is more than we could easily get there.) What we are doing is better, more cost effective, and producing better results. Afghanistan's recent elections hold the potential for the long term draining of the swamp that Bin Laden counts upon for resources and places to hide.
The fact that Bin Laden is still out there wouldn't necessarily change with a large number of troops. But the special forces will keep on him. His effectiveness will be greatly diminished, and he will probably be captured or killed eventually. I think you also have to keep in mind, our real problem isn't Bin Laden, it is the Islamist terrorist movement. Democracy is likely to be a much more effective weapon against that in the long run than are bullets.
I find Bin Laden's thinking in this quote a little odd, to say the least:
We found no difficulties in dealing with the Bush administration, because of the similarities of that administration and the regimes in our countries, half of which are run by the military and half of which are run by monarchs. And our experience is vast with them.
Maybe I'm not of the right mindset, but I've never considered having 3/4 of your senior leadership captured or killed, along with thousands of terrorist followers, to be key indicators of success, let alone the fall of the terrorist state within a state that was Afghanistan.
You cut off Bin Laden's quote a little early. Lets flesh it out a bit:
Then, what happened was that he (Bush I) was impressed by the monarchies and the military regimes, and he was jealous of them staying in power for tens of years, embezzling the public money without any accountability. And he moved the tyranny and suppression of freedom to his own country, and they called it the Patriot Act, under the disguise of fighting terrorism. And Bush, the father, found it good to install his children as governors and leaders.
Bin Laden is saying that President George H.W. Bush (Bush I) created the Patriot Act to imitate the Arab despots. What did he do, keep it secret for 12 years? Bin Laden also seems to think that American Presidents can just appoint state governors without the need for elections. I don't think Bin Laden has a grasp on how the United States works, let alone a free society. His grap of history isn't so hot, or for that matter his grap on reality.
The point that he has seems to be trying to see if there is a level of "victory" below pyrrhic victory.
Few people seem to understand Osama bin Laden is an educated and well-spoken man. He's not just some fundie psychopath that "hates us for our freedom". In his opinion, international terrorism is the only means to get to the end of percieved US imperalism. While I strongly disagree with his methods, he does have a well articulated position.
You are right in that he does have a well articulated position, but you seem to be completely unfamiliar with it. If you read Bin Laden's Letter to America you will see that his demands are quite different than you seem to think. I will draw your attention to just the first two of his demands, either of which would be unacceptable to force upon American society. As you read this, keep in mind his position is that we comply with his demands, or he will keep trying to kill us. (Al Qaedas stated goal at the moment is to try to kill at least 4 million Americans):
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.
Comment: We all covert to Islam - or else.
(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.
Comment: No more fornication, homosexuality, alcohol, gambling, or charging interest on loans, under penalty of Islamic law. (Adultery - death, homosexuality - death,... )
(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?
Comment: The United States separates church and state, which is not acceptable to Bin Laden. Our laws are not Islamic Law, which is not acceptable.
Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?
Comment: Bin Laden thinks not only did President Clinton get off too lightly (adultery is punishable by death under Islamic law.), but his lenient treatment makes us a beacon of evil for history.
If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation. The Nation of Monotheism, that puts complete trust on Allah and fears none other than Him. The Nation which is addressed by its Quran with the words: "Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him if you are believers. Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of believing people. And remove the anger of their (believers') hearts. Allah accepts the repentance of whom He wills. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise." [Quran9:13-1]
Comment: In closing, Bin Laden threatens continued war unless we comply with his demands. So, who will be the first new Muslim here? Anybody?
Now there are, of course, other demands that he has. But you should be clear, it is Bin Laden that is the Imperialist, his goal is to impose an Islamic theocracy upon the entire world, to revive the glory days of Islam and expand upon it.
Ultimately the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is just a side show, and a smoke screen for him. Bin Laden came very late to concern for the Pal
Although there is no doubt that there will be more blood shed, at this point I think that there is only one way that the US, the Iraqi people, and the new Iraqi government could lose. That is if enough weapons find their way into the growing and potentially unstoppable army of straw men that you have created. If that happens, the US will have its ass handed to it and be out of the country in 3 weeks. Of course, that is not going to happen. The insurgents will simply lash out in desperation until the elections, the Iraqi government and army will grow stronger and eventually crush the insurgents, and ordinary Iraqis will continue building a new post-Saddam Iraq.
Different sites have different stats, but one civilian death is one too many.
Did you think that one civilian death was too many before the war when Saddam was killing an average of 20,000 - 30,000 Iraqis per year? Or is one civilian death too many only when it is part of the one time cost of the US putting an end to the reign of a mad man like Saddam and his allies?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm extreamily depressed by the lack of any balance of power in this country
The Constitution takes care of that for us. The President, Congress, and the Courts are all separate branches of government. They have different responsibilities and concerns. There are severe limits on what the President can do without Congress untimately going along, or in conflict with the courts. The Congress is divided into houses, and each house has procedural safeguards.
Even with only one party controlling the two political branches there is still divided power in the United States.
But of course you know that emacs users stuck back with a set of vi macros that turns vi into a mini version of emacs?
more info in Emacs implementations FAQ
I must be dreaming... a technical vi/emacs slugfest breaking out in the middle of a political discussion on Slashdot!?! Aahh! Aaaaaaaaahhhh!!
So what you are really saying is, never vote for someone like Bill Clinton? Or Hillary in '08, for that matter?
That sounds radical, but you might get support for it.
Now here is an interesting question. If you are only voting for veterans, do you care what their peers say? Imagine, for example, that hundreds of veterans that served with candidate when they were in service, or who knew important deails of their service, protested against the candidate? Shouldn't they be listened to? After all, a candidate's legislative record or business record faces scrutiny, should their military record be considered? Or are you simply engaging in demagoguery for momentary advantage in this election? Are you going to believe this in the next election?
After you pulled the lever, if the voting machine went DING! DING! DING! DING!, told you that you had just voted for a lemon, and gave you an instant "tax refund", you just played the slot machine. The voting machine is across the street, in the school.
I'm not sure that the process or outcome is any different though.
Lets see now....
.... he thinks this is good? You think he wants more of this? If you are right, Bin Laden is apparently trying to discover a level of "victory" below pyrrhic victory. If he has much more success like that, he is a dead man, him and his followers. I don't know, but if you ask me, distributing video tapes is a poor substitute for a terrorist that wants to hand out bombs. He should change his name to Osamma Big Loser.
Since 9/11 Bin Laden has lost control of an entire country he used to OWN (Afghanistan) and which has flipped from a theocracy from the middle ages to having open, fair elections, he has had his money supply choked off and confiscated, had his training bases captured, lost large amounts of supplies, had his homes and compounds captured, given us huge amounts of intelligence data like Al Qaeda membership lists and plans, had thousands of his followers captured or killed, had to hide deep in the mountains to avoid being killed when he used to ride around in style, had numerous plans fail, had 75% of the known Al Qaeda leaders captured or killed (and no doubt replaced by less experienced and less well trained stand-ins), had his ability to contact and control his followers sharply limited, his pal Zarqawi is having a rough time, and yet, somehow,
And you think George Bush has been really underperforming and that John Kerry is going to really get things in high gear, huh? Do tell. I'd love to hear it. I'm not sure what he could do before 2007. It takes a long time to train the special forces soldiers he will need to double special forces, and to raise the two new divisions. And that is after he gets them through Congress. Those are about the only concrete things that I have heard from John Kerry on the subject.
Judges cannot 'impose gay marriage from the bench'.
Nonsense, of course they can. They can do it in the same way that they established the right to abortion in Roe vs Wade, overthrowing the laws governing abortion in all 50 states. They can do it by judicial fiat. That is what is called legislating from the bench. It would be a troubling development, and unpopular, but I don't think that there is much doubt that they could do it given the right case.
The 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution to ensure that the former slaves would be treated equally. Although the scope of its interpretation has expanded over time, there is an open question of what level of scrutiny the Supreme Court would require when presented with a claim of a right to marry someone of the same sex. Your assumption that the claim will automatically be accepted and enforced is not well founded. Even if any court does accept it, it is likely that the judgment will be stayed until all appeals are exhausted.
The Federal Defense Of Marriage act was specifically crafted to prevent states from being forced to recognize gay marriages from another state. The recent legislation limiting review of this law by the courts will make it more difficult to overturn. Probably not impossible, but more difficult.
Repeat after Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United State, Charles Evan Hughes: "the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
Conservative judges don't have a lock on "strict constructionism." Rather, they simply have a different idea of which areas the government should be butting its nose into.
That isn't so.
"Legislating from the bench" is when a court delves into territory in which the Constitution or law is silent. This often results in the creation of new rights, duties, or changes in social policy which do not currently exist in law.
Looking at the law and the facts of a case, a strict constructionist would tell you "sorry, you have no case" and dismiss.
A court legislating from the bench will move beyond the law and basically, make things up as it goes along. There will no doubt be some sort of guiding principle, such as fairness, but nothing actually in the law.
The question of "gay marriage" is an example of that. From a purely legal perspective, there is no real controversy in that gays and lesbians have exactly the same rights as everyone else, i.e., a gay may can marry a woman, a lesbian can marry a man. What they want is a change in the definition of marriage to allow same sex couples to marry so that they can marry the person that they love. This is not provided for in the law of most states. By ordering that a state ignore its laws and issue marriage certificates to same sex couples, a court is legislating from the bench. Legally it is better for decisions like that to come from the legislature.
Abortion is another example. The Roe vs. Wade decision by Justice Blackmun was an artful, if messy political compromise, but it had little to do with existing US law at the time. (Read the book The Brethren for an inside look at this decision.) The division of state scrutiny by trimester of pregnancy is a complete legal fiction, made up of whole cloth, but it has the force of law as an order from the Supreme Court. Justice White's dissent is illuminating on this case, as well as the general problem of legislating from the bench:
A significant problem with legislating from the bench is, what are the limits? Who gets to pick the philosophy used? What remedy is there for an ill-conceived order? It presents a basic challenge to democracy. Legislating is the job of the legislature. Legislators are much more accountable for bad laws than judges for bad orders.
So no, this is not a question of whose ox is being gored, but a question of how the courts treat questions of law.
(IANAL)
There would have been no point in waiting to attack Iraq in order to attack Al Qaeda for a number of reasons. First, the resources needed to attack each of them are very different. Al Qaeda is generally best pursued by Special Forces and light infantry. They like to hide in the mountains and other rough terrain. The total size of the forces involved isn't all that large. Iraq, on the other hand, was/is the place to employ heavy divisions, units with tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, heavy artillery, etc., in large numbers. There is relatively little overlap between the two requirements. Or, at least there doesn't have to be.
The United States has long had a policy goal of being able to fight two simultaneous wars at the same time. That used to mean basically being able to fight WW2 again. Today it more or less means fight Desert Storm and a war in Korea at the same time. The fight against Al Qaeda is hardly 1/3 of a war in terms of resources, if that.
Going after Saddam sooner rather than later would also offer many useful strategic possibilities. For example, Syria and Iran have both been state sponsors of terrorism, and both have WMDs. It is entirely possible that we may find it necessary to fight one or both of them. Iran and the moment is pursuing nuclear weapons all out and it seems increasingly likely that we will end up fighting them. We will be in a much better position to fight either Iran or Syria from Iraq as it borders both countries. Saudi Arabia is also a potential problem area as there is a powerful insurgent movement which may strike out against the government. The US is in a perfect position to intervene, if need be, from Iraq.
Many Arab and Islamic nations have a strong terrorist presence in the form of terrorist camps or bases. Those same nations are often inclined to look the other way. We are in a good position to conduct raids and expeditions against the terrorists from land, sea, and air bases in Iraq.
The Arab world has two serious problems at the moment. First, is the lack of any democratic nations which act as a moderating influence on the authoritarian regimes. Second, is Islamic extremism. A strong, democratic, moderate Iraq could be a powerful counter-weight to those problems. There is a real possibility that Iraq could attain that status. It is one of the best educated, moderate, and secular societies in the Middle East. Of course the only way for it to make that transition was for Saddam to be removed, and for the country to be rebuilt. That is now occurring.
Iraq itself has serious problems, and was spinning out of control. The Oil for Food program was eroding the effectivness of the sanctions against Iraq. (Amazing what tens of billions of dollars in bribes will do.) Iraq didn't completely destroy its WMDs. There were enough for terrorist use, but not enough to be militarily useful. (Hence the "no weapons" statements. There really are / were weapons, just not a lot of them. 8 R-400 anthrax bombs here, a dozen nerve gas rockets there, etc. Mainly scraps.) The potential danger from waiting to take care of Iraq was actually considerable. You saw how tied in knots the US was from just a couple of envelopes of anthrax send in the mail. Now imagine a smuggled Iraqi anthrax bomb designed to create mass casualties in a dispersed military unit detonated over downtown New York City during rush hour. That would have made the impact of 9/11 look like a picnic. (Look up the UNMOVIC report for things they were unearthing. The Kay report talks about ongoing research. There are also a few news items you can find.) Saddams intent was to restart his WMD programs as soon as he could, and the UN's resolve to keep him in check under sanctions was weakening. If we didn't do it when we did, it is entirely possible that it would not have been politically possible in the future, at least not without enormously increased cost and risk. It was wise to take care of it while we still could.
Like I said, there are many reasons why it made sense to take care of Iraq now, and not wait.
Have you been out of the country? I understand many of you people haven't even visited another nation.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I have. I've been to both Europe and Asia. How about you? And you've piqued my curiosity, what do you mean by "you people"?
Maybe you need to go back and think about your scenario a little more. The point of having free speech and the like is to allow us to voice our unhappiness with our leaders.
The right to free speech doesn't include trying to overthrow the government. That is what is implied by "to prevent Bush from taking office", especially with millions of people involved. You have the right to print papers, publish books, broadcast (within limits) contrary views, set up web sites, march, write letters, and dress funny. You don't have the right to try to overthrow the government.
Finally, you should also take a look at how our election works. There's this thing called the electoral college and, well, you see, they cast votes for us. Not exactly a direct vote of the populace, is it?
So? You get a direct vote for every office except President and Vice President. The Electoral College has been part of the Constitution since it was written to balance power among competing interests. Its a kludge, but it has worked so far. If you don't like it, work to get the Constitution amended to remove it.
Nothing short of a majority of the popular vote should make a person our leader.
And that is the way it almost always works. The exceptions, when they occur, follow a specific set of rules. And while in principle I don't necessarily disagree with you, that isn't the way our system works which is why at the national level we are technically a federal republic. If you don't like it, work to get it changed. Until then, trying to overthrow the government is a really bad idea. I feel pretty comfortable in asserting that the occasional, minor imperfection in operation of the current system, as long as it is within the established rules, is to be greatly preferred to the chaos of insurrection and mob rule. Our government may occasionally step over the line in the way it treats people, infringing upon their Constitutional rights. That is still far, far better than mob rule. A mob respects no rights.
I'll tell you what will happen, Bush will still be sworn in as President of the United States of America, and will then proceed to call out the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and National Guard to put down an insurrection against the government of the United States of America. Maybe you didn't get the memo, but in the United States of America we change governments by election, not by mob rule. Those who participate in insurrection tend to learn the routine of prison life and experience a significant loss of civil liberties. Try searching the Constitution, and US Code, for the words insurrection or rebellion, they get special mention. For example, try Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution: What you are suggesting is legal grounds for suspending a an important Constitutional protection against unreasonable government action. And they would be right to do it if what you suggest actually happens.
Or, is this all a fantasy Internet game where everyone goes home after the election with "well, we tried." and forgets about it until Hillary runs in 2008?
That is what happens in a functioning democracy like the United States. Your suggestion of rebellion is what happens when people let their fantasies get the better of them. You should try to get a grip on reality before you wind up in jail. If you want to learn what real oppression is about, why don't you spend a semester abroad in some tin-pot dictatorship? Assuming you don't do anything too stupid, you will return home a much better informed and wiser person.
Come on, this country has gotten entirely too boring.
Please tell me that this isn't the reason you are suggesting this foolishness.
Most countries don't have the ability to deploy and support their forces world-wide like the United States does. The US has developed that capability much like the British did, as a matter of necessity. There is little surprise in the US providing support to the many allies that don't have that capability, either because they haven't needed it before, or can't afford it.
Providing logistical support for any significant number of soldiers over long distances is an enormous burden. So much so that there is an old saying in the military: amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics. Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter, is a very long ways away from most of the countries with forces there. If the United States is providing them with beans and bullets, I don't think that there is anything wrong with that.
Everything I have read of the Polish soldiers speaks well of them. I think that the Polish contribution is admirable, and valuable. We are fortunate to have Poland as an ally.
Well said. I will offer a few things.
You are correct about Bin Laden and the Palestinians.
Regarding the claims of 100,000 Iraqis being killed, it is at best, very misleading, and at worst junk science. But hey, at least the Lancet editor rushed it through the peer review process to what... maybe effect the elections? That sort of thing helps shore up your confidence in the science.
Actually the Jihadists will not ultimately be satisfied with just an isolated United States. In their view even the United States must answer the demand of: Islam or death! Read Bin Laden's letter to America. In it you will see that his first actual demand is that the United States convert to Islam. His second demand, when fleshed out, is that we abandon the separation of church and state, impose Islamic Sharia law, and enforce its morality code, etc.. You have already touched upon the implications of that: death for any who commits adultery, death for homosexuals, no more drugs or alcohol, no immorality, pornography, etc. Bin Laden says that if we don't meet his demands, they will keep killing us. Just dropping support for Israel won't do it either. We have to become an Islamic nation under Sharia, or else.
The people that think we were attacked because we "stick our noses where they don't belong", or didn't sign this or that treaty are clueless about what this war is really about, and what it will take to keep us safe.
The very fact that Bush specifically mentioned how important it was to kill/capture Osama and then outsourced the job to groups who were also actively fighting eachother
When you say, "outsourced the job to groups", do you mean that we had allies fighting on our side who we let actually....fight? Oh, the horror!
It sounds like you are opposed to the US having allies fight with us in combat. Are you one of those "unilateralists" that I hear so much about? Hasn't President Bush been harshly criticized for not having allies?
After all, besides the 26 nations in NATO (including the French) and Australia, who is with us in Afghanistan? Do you think we can trust them? Or should we go it alone?
In Iraq, who has been with us besides the United Kingdom, Poland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ukraine, Netherlands, Romania, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Denmark, Bulgaria, El Salvador, Hungary, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Latvia, Portugal, Lithuania, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Albania, Estonia, Tonga, Singapore, Kazakhstan, Macedonia, Moldava, Nicaragua, Honduras, Norway, Dominican Republic, Philippines, Thailand, New Zealand, and Columbia? Are they trustworthy? Or should we go it alone?
It is indeed a lonely world as the "only superpower". Maybe sometimes it is better to "go it alone".
By the way, I suspect that President Bush, unlike some people, understands that the problem of Islamist extremist terrorism extends far beyond Osama Bin Laden. There will be years of work to do even after we capture or kill Bin Laden. If your only concern is Bin Laden, you don't understand the problem.
Saddam still had ongoing WMD activities as noted in David Kays Interim Progress Report to Congress.
The US and UNMOVIC have been recovering chemical weapons and biological weapons from Iraq since 2002. Some of them are intact munitions from sites where they were "disposed of" by the Iraqis. What they have been recovering isn't enough to be militarily usefull, but they would be perfect for terrorist use. Personally I think that it is better that we take care of them, don't you?
The US military has long had a policy that it be able to fight two wars simultaneously, although the size of those wars had been reduced. It used to be refight WW2. Now it is more like fight two Desert Storms I think, The hunt for Bin Laden isn't even 1/3 of a war in terms of the resources needed. The resources needed to hunt Bin Laden are also different than those needed to take down Saddam. (Tank divisions don't make great guerilla hunters.) There was no good reason to wait. It isn't even a question of priorities. They could both be done simultaneously with limited impact on the other.
I suspect that most people who say hunt Bin Laden then worry about Saddam would oppose doing anything to Saddam once Bin Laden is captured or confirmed dead. For them, Bin Laden is essentially the diversion protecting Saddam.
I'm curious why so many people think Bush is our best bet for security. Has he actually done anything any other president wouldn't have done?
It practically certain that he has. Intervening in Afghanistan was a big one. By intervening in the Afghan civil war to overthrow the Taliban, the US was able to capture large amounts of documents, plans, computers, and other intelligence material. That material has been a vital asset in the war against the Islamist terrorists around the world. It has led directly to identifying and capturing entire chains of Al Qaeda operatives all over the world, and helped to disrupt or eliminate their support operations, such as money transfers and smuggling. In Afghanistan proper, the US has destroyed many terrorist training facilities, captured terrorists and material, and severely disrupted their operations. Simply bombing the terrorist training camps would not have been anywhere close to being as effective as the intervention.
Although there was considerable political support when President Bush pursued the war in Afghanistan, there was also wide opposition to it. It was going to be another "quagmire," another Vietnam. (Sound familiar?) There was opposition to it both in the US and internationally.
I think it is practically certain that Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or John Kerry would have bombed the terrorists camps. It is very unlikely that any of them would have intervened in Afghanistan like the Bush administration did. You can take your pick of reasons.
The Clinton administration had its hands burned over the way it bungled Somalia, and probably wouldn't have wanted to take the kind of risk Afghanistan represented. There was also a general aversion to things military, and a distaste for potentially messy ground operations. Dropping bombs or launching cruise missiles no doubt would have been the options of choice, albeit in larger numbers than their previous attacks with bombs and cruise missiles, and a few CIA agents.
As to Al Gore, shortly after 9/11 it was reported fairly widely in the main stream media that even some members of Al Gore's inner circle were relieved that Bush was president to handle this. They knew Al Gore and the team he would have had well enough to know he wouldn't have handled the war on Al Qaeda and the Afghanistan problem as decisively as Bush. I think that the most we could have expected from a Gore administration was bombs, and maybe cruise missiles, and a few CIA agents.
John Kerry has a long history of being against US military involvement overseas. There is little doubt in my mind that he would have bombed, eventually, but it seems very unlikely that he would have pursued a broad intervention in Afghanistan. There was a significant chance of failure, it wasn't popular, a notable percentage of the world was against it, and after all, couldn't the UN or our allies do something more? Who wants to pursue an arrogant, go-it-alone because we are the only ones who can get there, foreign policy and war? So it is back to sanctions, and maybe, eventually, bombs and cruise missiles. Please note that now that the war is established, I expect that John Kerry would continue to pursue it in general as he has claimed he would. I just don't think he would have developed it along the lines George Bush has.
So yes, Bush has done, at the very least, one major thing in the war against the terrorists that a number of other presidents, or presidential contenders, would most likely not have done. He intervened in the Afghan civil war to tip the balance against the Taliban, committed US troops to ground combat in Afghanistan, and brought our allies from NATO and other countries into combat with us. The results have been very positive, as the recent Afghan elections help demonstrate.
As to Iraq being unnecessary, that was really up to Saddam, wasn't it? Saddam could have fully complied at any time. He could have met the demands up until the final hours, but he didn't. He wanted to keep playing a c
The Iraqi body count project is probably much closer to the real number. As terrible as that number is, it is about 1/2 of what Saddam killed every year, and is likely to be a one time number for the liberation of Iraq as opposed to Saddam's annual production of 20-30,000. The people of Iraq are probably 10-15,000 ahead this year. (that is, fewer murdered by Saddam)
You think Bin Laden is less scary than Bush? Bin Laden thought they could kill 50,000 civilians, on purpose, in the twin tower attacks. Al Qaeda's goal is to kill 4,000,000 Americans. The US doesn't particularly care to kill the terrorists. If they either gave up the war, or were captured that would be probably be fine. The US hasn't targeted civilian non-combatants on purpose. Killing civilians is a primary goal of Bin Laden.
Bin Laden's ultimate goal is to either convert all Americans to Islam, or kill them.
If you really think Bush is more scarey, you aren't paying attention. You seem to believe the worst of the conspiracy stories about Bush, and are relatively indifferent to the maniacs Bin Laden and Saddam despite your professed willingness to do violence to Bin Laden.
And by the way, you have left out a LOT of bombings from Al Qaeda's toll of murdered victims. Just the embassy bombings in Africa alone would add many hundreds to the total.
What it really says is that even formerly responsible, trusted people can turn into cranks, go insane, or harbor some very strange notions with no connection to reality.
There is a way to get closer to the truth though. Try to track down the lawsuit he supposedly filed in June 2002, and what its status is. I doubt it is an ongoing concern. As screwed up as the US justice system is, I doubt it got anywhere. But if you can find it, get a copy and start tracking things down. I doubt they will go anywhere.
Given all of the media coverage, even in mainstream media, that the cases of Vince Foster, the Kennedy assassination, Pearl Harbor, the various Clinton follies, Iran-Contra, and so many other scandals got, I can't believe that if there was even the smallest thread of proof for this that it wouldn't show up somewhere. Even the references to it I have seen on Air America have called his claims "insane".
You don't have to believe everything the media tells you, but if you are off by yourself, you better be sure. In this case, pretty much all, I say practically ALL, of the evidence is against you. There is a rule of thumb that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You believe an extraordinary claim without anything like extraordinary evidence, other than the former status of the person making the claim. That isn't evidence. Do yourself a favor, check into the lawsuit. Get a copy. Check the claims. I suggest you should be prepared to be disappointed.
I suspect that the "proof" for the existence and activity for this conspiracy will be dwarfed by the proof for the existence of Jesus.
Let me put your feverish mind to rest, you don't have to rely upon that tape for Bin Laden to take responsibility. You can go back three years to this tape captured when the US went into Afghanistan in 2001, after the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden.
That article makes good reading for those who have forgotten.
As to the Stanley Hilton thing, let me get this straight. Islamist suicide bombers have been attacking the Americans for what, 20 years now? Ten years ago, Islamic fanatics tried to blow up the same building they crashed the planes into on 9/11. There is a paper trail for the 9/11 attacks going back to Europe, the Middle East, and Afghanistan. Many of the 9/11 attackers attended training in Afghanistan. Bin Laden has admitted doing it and threatened more of the same. Other Al Qaeda members have tried to attack planes in flight, (Remember the shoe bomber?) A number of the attackers entered the country before Bush was even President. (Was President Clinton in on the Plot, or was the whole thing speculative on Bush becoming President?) All of this, and you find it more credible to believe that a President with only a few months in office ordered this attack, that it really wasn't a long planned terrorist operation by fanatics. (Or are you one of the clever ones who as "seen through this diversion" and "understands" that it was a double plot - the terrorists really did come here to attack, but were tricked into the planes that Bush ordered flown into the buildings?) If you really believe that, it is time for one of two things: either start reading from a wider variety of sources beyond the cranks you are reading, or seek professional help before your issues get out of control. I would suggest both.
Is going to point out that according to the man himself, WE WERE ATTACKED BECAUSE OF OUR SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL? (and note that he cited direct military support for Israeli policy)
Or shall we just continue to pretend this doesn't matter?
Regardless of what you think may about Israel, you have to admit that this makes a helluvalot more sense than "they hate our freedom."
Try reading Bin Laden's letter to America. He states a number of demands and says that if we don't comply, they will keep attacking, trying to kill us. It turns out that yes, he really does hate our freedoms. Just the first two demands make it impossible for there to be peace between us as long as we both live and hold to our philosophies.
His very first demand is that we become Muslims. (That sounds like it violates our freedom of religion, no?)
His second demand is that we stop what he refers to our "oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery". As he fleshes it out it turns out that he wants the separation of church and state abolished, the imposition of Islamic Sharia law, the end of adultery, homosexuality, immorality, charging interest in loans, no more drugs and alcohol, and other demands. You should be clear, the implication is: kill adulterers, homosexuals, etc. My thinking is that there are more than a few issues with a variety of rights in those demands.
As a side note: Bin Laden singles out President Clinton's lack of punishment as an infamy which will tarnish America's name in history. I don't think that there is any doubt that Bin Laden thinks President Clinton should have been stoned to death in accordance with Islamic law instead of the gentleman's agreement in which he surrendered his law license.
Sadly, there are far too many Muslims who do not want to simply work out a few philosophical differences with the Israelis, they want to kill them, all of them if possible. What makes it especially troubling is that Araft turned down a peace for land deal in which they could have had about 98% of what they wanted. It is likely that real peace won't be possible until Araft has passed on.
Bin Laden came very late to the Palestinian cause. They became an issue for him when it was politically expedient. He is still using them, and taking in the gullible.
So, knowing Karl Rove's interest in reverse-psychology publicity stunts, one has to wonder if this really is a genuine tape or not...
Of course there is no chance that news of any such stunt would leak out with the large percentage of Democratic civil servants in government, is there? No secrets ever come out of the intelligence agencies, especially when blatant political fraud is involved, eh?
Talk about political suicide.
One of Karl Rove's cleverest moves has been in not interfering with an opponent who is in the process of destroying himself. What you are suggesting is the equivalent of dousing himself and the entire administration in gasoline and dancing around a campfire while offering to catch lighted cigarettes thrown at them. Anyone who was a friend of a friend of anyone involved would be tainted, permanently. Good grief! This just doesn't seem to be his style, even given the evil genius that he is.
You might get me to believe that he was behind the vocal Republican enthusiasm for running against Howard Dean (which gave a number of Democrats pause, and probably cost Dean support.), but not this.
Besides, other than the possibility that the administration responsible for killing or capturing 3/4 of the senior Al Qaeda leaders could lose power, what reason would Bin Laden have for speaking out now? A different administration might, in his mind, pursue different policies. Unlikely, but possible.
The number of soldiers in Afghanistan has never approached the number we've had in Iraq. Had we not (needlessly, in my view) gone into Iraq before finishing what we (appropriately) started in Afghanistan, vastly more troops would have been available.
Nonsense. There are two problems the US faces in fighting in Afghanistan: 1. Getting there. 2. Using the right kind of troops.
Afghanistan is land locked. The US gets it troops there by flying them in. It takes a lot of resources to fly in large units. The lightest divisions that we have are the light infantry divisions of about 10,000 soldiers. It takes more than 500 cargo plane sorties to airlift one of them. Infantry is what you want for mountain fighting, if you have to do it. There are about 4 1/2 divisions of the lighter infantry types in the active Army. Even assuming they all went there, 40,000 soldiers is not a lot given the size of the country. Evading them wouldn't be hard.
The remaining six active Army divisions are "heavy" divisions. A heavy division (armored or mechanized infantry) is equipped with tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and armored personnel carriers. This is the type of division that fought in Iraq in 1991, and 1993, and would have fought the Soviet Army if push came to shove. A heavy division isn't really trained or equipped to fight in the mountains. Also, it takes an entire large cargo plane to lift a single M-1 tank. There are hundreds of those in a tank division, ignoring the thousands of other vehicles and about 1.8x the people of a light division. I'm not sure that you can move an entire heavy division by air given some of the equipment. Anyway, flying tank divisions to fight in the mountains is a really bad use of resources. Sure, you can rotate just the infantry units, but that has its limits. All things considered, sending the heavy units to Iraq didn't meaningfully detract from the effort in Afghanistan, or at least didn't have to.
The Soviet Army had about as many troops in Afghanistan as the US has in Iraq for 10 years and they couldn't subdue it. (And that is more than we could easily get there.) What we are doing is better, more cost effective, and producing better results. Afghanistan's recent elections hold the potential for the long term draining of the swamp that Bin Laden counts upon for resources and places to hide.
The fact that Bin Laden is still out there wouldn't necessarily change with a large number of troops. But the special forces will keep on him. His effectiveness will be greatly diminished, and he will probably be captured or killed eventually. I think you also have to keep in mind, our real problem isn't Bin Laden, it is the Islamist terrorist movement. Democracy is likely to be a much more effective weapon against that in the long run than are bullets.
Maybe I'm not of the right mindset, but I've never considered having 3/4 of your senior leadership captured or killed, along with thousands of terrorist followers, to be key indicators of success, let alone the fall of the terrorist state within a state that was Afghanistan.
You cut off Bin Laden's quote a little early. Lets flesh it out a bit:
Bin Laden is saying that President George H.W. Bush (Bush I) created the Patriot Act to imitate the Arab despots. What did he do, keep it secret for 12 years? Bin Laden also seems to think that American Presidents can just appoint state governors without the need for elections. I don't think Bin Laden has a grasp on how the United States works, let alone a free society. His grap of history isn't so hot, or for that matter his grap on reality.
The point that he has seems to be trying to see if there is a level of "victory" below pyrrhic victory.
You are right in that he does have a well articulated position, but you seem to be completely unfamiliar with it. If you read Bin Laden's Letter to America you will see that his demands are quite different than you seem to think. I will draw your attention to just the first two of his demands, either of which would be unacceptable to force upon American society. As you read this, keep in mind his position is that we comply with his demands, or he will keep trying to kill us. (Al Qaedas stated goal at the moment is to try to kill at least 4 million Americans):
Comment: We all covert to Islam - or else.
Comment: No more fornication, homosexuality, alcohol, gambling, or charging interest on loans, under penalty of Islamic law. (Adultery - death, homosexuality - death, ... )
Comment: The United States separates church and state, which is not acceptable to Bin Laden. Our laws are not Islamic Law, which is not acceptable.
Comment: Bin Laden thinks not only did President Clinton get off too lightly (adultery is punishable by death under Islamic law.), but his lenient treatment makes us a beacon of evil for history.
Comment: In closing, Bin Laden threatens continued war unless we comply with his demands. So, who will be the first new Muslim here? Anybody?
Now there are, of course, other demands that he has. But you should be clear, it is Bin Laden that is the Imperialist, his goal is to impose an Islamic theocracy upon the entire world, to revive the glory days of Islam and expand upon it.
Ultimately the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is just a side show, and a smoke screen for him. Bin Laden came very late to concern for the Pal
Although there is no doubt that there will be more blood shed, at this point I think that there is only one way that the US, the Iraqi people, and the new Iraqi government could lose. That is if enough weapons find their way into the growing and potentially unstoppable army of straw men that you have created. If that happens, the US will have its ass handed to it and be out of the country in 3 weeks. Of course, that is not going to happen. The insurgents will simply lash out in desperation until the elections, the Iraqi government and army will grow stronger and eventually crush the insurgents, and ordinary Iraqis will continue building a new post-Saddam Iraq.
Different sites have different stats, but one civilian death is one too many.
Did you think that one civilian death was too many before the war when Saddam was killing an average of 20,000 - 30,000 Iraqis per year? Or is one civilian death too many only when it is part of the one time cost of the US putting an end to the reign of a mad man like Saddam and his allies?