The idiot son of George Bush set us down this garden path when he failed to stop Al Quada and took us to Iraq to get the oil.

Neo-cons and republi-cons. Traitors the lot of them. They left us unsafe in this world to get a tax break for the wealthy. Bastards.

The color-coded terror alert will go up to Orange? No way man - there's no chance of Bush losing office. If we start impeachment proceedings, that's another kettle.

If you mean the general state of alret, Steve, sure. But that's a no-brainer.

i thought they got rid of the color coding when ridge left DHS.

Steve,

While I agree completely with your post, it should be pointed out that the Al-Q responsibility remains an open issue.

Sadly, the UK has no shortage of groups who are familiar with the use of bombs to make whatever point they're trying to make.

chertoff at DHS says transit systems = orange. everything else = yellow. i guess no one told him they were retiring the tutti-frutti popsicle.

Al CIAda strikes again.

What a COINCIDENCE that this "catastrophic, catalyzing" event comes on the heels of the UK announcement that it intends to withdraw from Iraq.

Of course! "Terrorists" attacked the UK because of its "involvement" in Iraq.

Kinda like Spain's "invovement" so closely on the heels of ITS announced withdrawal.

What a coincidence.

Do you buy it?

See the pattern? If not, start here: http://www.pnac.org. Dont's stop reading till you stop crying.

Sheeple, we have GOT to get rid of these criminals.

the UK announcement that it intends to withdraw from Iraq

i'm sorry, i'm so rove/miller/bolton-obsessed i must have missed this.
oh, here it is.

i rarely agree with very much of what i read here but it is always informative and interesting. not so ,this piece. to proclaim mr bush complicit in the tragic events which occurred in london this morning is just outrageous. you might as well make him responsible for the hurrricane currrently racing through the low latitudes. i just rapidly reviewed the posting and i am unable to find any place it in which you pass judgement on the terrorists who carried out this dastardly deed.you are blinded by emotion and hate. george bush is no saint but neither is he the devil. get a grip.please. jjjj

jjj:

Thanks for your input. Did the Bush Administration, or didn't it, expose in the heat of the election campaign last year a covert operation that was about to smash Al Qaeda cells operating in Great Britain? It's a simple question. Did they or didn't they? I have provided several links that show they did expose such an operation for their own political purposes.

If "complicity" is too strong a word for it, fine, I'll accept that criticism. But at what point do you or other Bush supporters ever hold Bush accountable for anything?

well jjj, I get your point, to a point. But invading an Arab/Muslim country for absolutely no reason, and subsequently killing tens of thousands of its citizens while providing both a safe haven for real terrorist and a training ground with live American GI's to shoot at is the fault of George W. Bush. And BinLaden is still on the loose even though our CIA apparently knows where he is. The CIA works for Bush. And please don't get me going on Global Warming and the alarming increase in early season hurricanes.

Ugggh, I am sick to my stomach hearing this news, my sympathies and condolences to all that have been directly ffected by this. although in many ways we are all impacted by this....ugggh.

300 billion and counting, 1750 and counting, hundreds of innocent non alqaida Iraqi's and counting....and what kind of protection did we get...more attacks. I am sickened by these terrorists actions, but I am also sickened by these idiots who attacked the wrong country while letting the real criminals and those responsible get away. How many days has it been since Wanted Dead or Alive was proclaimed....1300+ I believe. The CIA (and even Rumsfeld) was correct when they said the attack Iraq (on the wrong country)has increased the strength of Al Qaida and caused us to be less safer. They have more blood on their hands, the perpetrators of this heinous crime and those who took their eye off the ball and let these perpetrators go. jjj get a grip on yourself....our leaders have failed us miserably and we are in the wrong country while the real enemy is laughing their arses off over Bush and Blairs blunderous choice while bogged down in the knew anti american breeding ground. Idiots...and you are also one if you fail to see it how our leadership has caused this because the ignored the REAL experts before invading Iraq that predicted this would happen.

Iraq War= wrong war, wrong time, wrong place.....today's attack in London proved that once again.

I wonder if the narrow minded Republicans under Cheney and Company will repeat once again the tired, old response to terror attacks: "We had rather fight them over there than fight them over here."

i voted for w the first time and precisely because of the war did not vote for him the second time. (as an aside ,that was my first ever votefor a republican pesidential candidate. i thought the clinton's were an embarassment and a disgrace. but i digress.) i supported the war initially because i felt that a period of realpolitik american dominated hegemony in the middle east would tend to stabilize the region. the facts have proved me very wrong. the reason for my earlier post was that i am concerned about what gets written and posted here in blog space. this particular site seems less offensive and more cerebral than many of your left leaning brethern. so much of what is writeen is emotional ,ad hominem filled invective that serves no purpose. i enjoy this site and the opporunity to post an opinion here. thanks. and peace.jjj

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather not see our busses, malls and school yards exploding on the headline news. I'm surprised you guys are for it. I'd expect a little more unity on this matter, please. This isn't a GOP vs Democrat issue. This is societal issue.

Do we want to live in a free society? Despite your railings on US religions (mostly Christian of one sort or another), citizens in the US are free. Citizens in the UK are free. Citizens in most of Europe and Australia are free.

Or, do we want to live under Plan B, where citizens are oppressed and not free? Because that is what the other side has to offer.

It's not for me. Hopefully, it's not for you, either.

My thoughts and prayers are with our good friends in England. And in Europe. I know we (the US) have our differences with our friends from time to time, but in this cause, we must be united. Domestically in the US, this is not where we start talking about Social Security or the Supreme Court, or any of the other issues that divide us. This issue unites us all.

We must stand together against a common enemy, who does seek to destroy us all.

Their Plan B sucks. We should be shouting that from the mountaintops.

Iraq War= wrong war, wrong time, wrong place.....today's attack in London proved that once again.

This act and those that directy lead to it coalesce into one stunning fact. The "War on Terror" has failed under the leadership of the idiot son of George Bush. Incompetence and Failure. The true legacy of Bushco.

We always knew that fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here meme was absurd and now here is the proof. It's also another good reason for that neocon shill masquerading as a journalist, Judith Miller, to be in jail.

but I'd rather not see our busses, malls and school yards exploding on the headline news. I'm surprised you guys are for it.

lemme see if i understand you: you could give a shit if it happens, but you'd rather not see it on the news. too depressing, huh? that war was starting to be a drag, too. whatever happened to that thing?

oh, maybe you actually are opposed to the terrorism itself and we are "for it" got it. go back to your two minutes hate, you piece of shit.

I wonder whether this tragic attack in London will provide a boost in Bush's approval rating. Common Wisdom has been that another attack would provide a "rally round Bush" effect, again. It will be with interest that I watch the next round of polls. Will terrorist attacks once again pull Bush out of deep public disapproval, as it did in 9/11, or will the public hold him, the man who has repeatedly told us that he, and he alone, can shield us from terror, as having failed by taking his eye off the ball with the ill-advised, lie-based invasion of Iraq?

Or, do we want to live under Plan B, where citizens are oppressed and not free? Because that is what the other side has to offer.

Patriot Act, no-fly lists, the national guard patrolling blogs, black lists, no independent news, writs of attainder.

We must stand together against a common enemy, who does seek to destroy us all.

Oh, yes! Indeed. And the wealthy need another tax break.

...The argument advanced to justify the war, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, has been exposed as a fantasy. That was followed-up with these other fairy tales: that Iraq's security services were behind the September 11attacks; that Iraq was able to launch a chemical attack within 45 minutes; that Saddam had purchased uranium from Niger; and that he supported al-Qaeda, etc.

As they are needed, new reasons come and go, but they don't convince anyone. As for the argument about the dictatorial abuses of Saddam Hussein, that also rings false: In the Eighties, Washington never had the tiniest scruple about supporting the man in Baghdad, just as it supported other famous dictators: Marcos (The Philippines), Somoza (Nicaragua), Pinochet (Chile), Mobutu (Zaire), Batista (Cuba); and the list is far from exhausted.

We could have stopped them in Afghanistan. Remember that. We could have done lots of things. We went after oil, instead.

This isn't a GOP vs Democrat issue. This is societal issue.

You expressed those same sentiments to Karl Rove, a top aide of George Bush's, immeadiately after his disparraging remarks about Liberals last week I presume?

Benjoya, your appeasing attitude towards terrorism is disgusting. Your attempt to divide and hate over an issue that should unite us all, is contemptible. At least you have that option here, in a free country. Under the terrorists, your divisiveness would be met with a beheading.

If you don't think we should be standing shoulder to shoulder with Tony Blair and all of England at this tragedy, they I have the freedom to say that I think you are a complete moron.

I consider terrorists as a societal AIDS virus. Either we go on the offensive and try to cure it, or it'll continue to kill.

Muck,
You're the Bush supporter here. You're the one that buys into the "better to fight them there than here" mentality. You should be celebrating and it sounds like you are. As long as they aren't attacking Americans here then any attack is a good thing to conservatives.

Did you ever notice that when tragedies like this happen, as evidenced by Muck's response, the Bush cultists immediately talk about "pulling together", being "united", and of course the obligatory "you guys are for" terrorism line of crap? These appeals for unity and smears of their opponents are always used to avoid accountability for their own screw-ups, and so nothing is ever done to see that these tragedies are prevented in the future.

But then, are Muck and the rest of cultists really interested in preventing the next one, or are they only interested in demonizing opponents, throwing around warm and fuzzy calls for unity, and then pursuing their next profit opportunity?

Steve,

Blaming this on Bush is completely idiotic and just proves to me that you lost your grip on reality. AQ has tried to attack England before the Iraq war. They'll attack them again if they get the chance. They'll attack us if they get the chance. I don't think Bush has ever claimed we (or our allies) were completly safe from terriost attacks because we were fighting in Iraq. This is ridculous hate blinded reasoning...

Tex, same question to you: did or didn't the Bush Administration blow a covert operation that was yielding benefits to British intelligence last year during the election? It's a simple question.

Did they or didn't they? Where's your concern for accountability?

Ga6's response is disturbing. The reality is, that an attack on any free country is an attack on all free countries.

While I am amazed that Steve pulled his nose out from the polling data to notice the news headlines this morning, his response is more sad. As usual, he attempts to spin any news as justification for voting for Democrats. Terrorism isn't a GOP vs Democrat issue. You should know that. Tony Blair is a liberal. If Gore or Kerry was in, the terrorists would still be attacking. Terrorists don't give a whip about Roe v. Wade, the US Supreme Court, or who pays for health care and retirement benefits.

The terrorists are not attacking the GOP, they're attacking our way of life.

Phid's response is, well, predictable. He's already won consecutive Moonbat of the Year awards, and looks to rack up another. He's the Lance Armstrong of moonbats. I guess he thinks we should fight the terrorists with windmills and solar panels. Yet, he opposes the only thing that would have a meaningful impact in the early part of this century, which is constructing more nuclear energy plants. You've got the yellow jersey, Phid. Again.

BLIar was told by his spies that the war in Iraq would cause Islamic terrorism in Britain. In fine fashion, he lied to the House of Commons saying that there would be a decrease.

He should do the honorable act and resign. However, he is a dishonorable person and will not resgin.

Get on back to your latest profit opportunity Muck; the dollar is calling.

As with every other human being with a shred of decency, my heart and thoughts are with the people of England. A wonderful country and a wonderful people that I *know deeply and love with all my heart.

(*I have lived amongst them during many unforgettable years and also have a good number of English relatives).

Probably due to this direct deep knowledge, but for certain due to this deep love, I know of the Brit resilience, I know of the Brit resolve, and I know that the Brits, in due time, will get over this horrible tragedy—but never the sorrow. Yet, and just like the American people, just like the Spanish people, just like the people from so many other harassed countries, and just like those people from the Arab world that see their own innocent people become victims (though, to make things more palatable, in their particular case referred to as “collateral damage”), what few of us would be able to ever forget is the obvious. That if the world is in the horrible mess that it is today much of the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of self-blinded leaders who refuse to see that no one has the right to create innocent victims to suit their needs.

Yes, as always the terrorists (all of them and from whichever position) are the direct guilty parties and they should be made to face up to their misdeeds.

Paz to all souls of goodwill

Amen quidam, amen.

I think it's a mistake to read Steve as blaming this incident on Bush. Rather, he's arguing that Bush's policies--across the board--are fundamentally misguided.

It's true. The policies are bad--all of them. This notion that we're safer because we've "taken the fight to the enemy" is an illusion; the only reason it works is because people have lost all sense of perspective. We've had no terrorist activity stateside since 9/11, sure. But in the whole history of Al Qaeda--hell, the history of modern Islamism--how many successful attacks were there before 9/11?

Today's bombings might not have been caused by Bush's boneheaded approach to the world, but clearly the fact that they happened should be a good sign that the Flypaper Theory™ is not sufficient to protect ourselves.

This is the usual "we're wrong they're right" crap. The English have been successful in preventing the prior six attacks. It's a shame they weren't successful a seventh time here. The G8'ers are trying to do their best to alleviate one of the causes of terrorism, bad economies. Lets hope they can make strides in that direction. Our sympathies go out to the English people in their time of need.

And you evolutionist should readily understand the evolving use of the color coded system.

Steve, who are you talking to? You're supposed to step around the dogshit, not ask it questions!

Let me see if I've got this right.

When Bill Clinton was in office for 8 years and the Democrats were in power and setting policy it was their fault when something bad happened to the U.S. or our interests.

George Bush has been in office for 4 1/2 years and the Republicans have controlled Congress for a decade and when something bad happens to the U.S. or our interests it's the Liberals fault.

According to muckdog and his ilk we are supposed to rally around George Bush in times like this to show unity.

But during the campaign for the 2004 election it was perfectly acceptable for President Bush, Cheney and others to paint John Kerry as a weak on national security liberal who would endanger the country.

Muckdog likes to sing the praises of our freedoms. He'd just prefer we not make use of them. At what point do we get to question the strategy of our current leadership muckdog? At what point is it ok to say "maybe there's a better way".?

I'm surprised you guys are for it.

gfy muck and your terrorist-loving, mass-murdering, kleptomaniac leader. and the horse he was afraid to ride in on. come to new york and talk that shit.

great, now there's dogshit on my shoe. sorry, coyote's right.

Matt, thanks for saying it better than me.

But we all know it is a typical cultist trait to use extreme accusatory language like Muck did to obscure the mistakes of their leader. Accuse the opponents of the gravest misdeeds and of treason, being unpatriotic, a communist, an Al Qaeda sympathizer, yada yada yada, all in an effort to never answer for their leader's own actions or deeds.

Remember, it is always someone else's fault as muckat says.

Tex,

Bush said we were fighting them (the terrorists) in Iraq so we wouldn't have to fight them here.

Well, they weren't there before we went in. Yet, the administration continues to complain that they are flooding through the porous borders, entering Iraq from everywhere. Isn't that what they asked for...to fight them there?

Unfortunately, the terrorists (whichever they may be...we do a good job of pissing people off) are capable of of doing something are incapable of...fighting on multiple fronts. If we were, we wouldn't have had to pull troops from Afganistan and the hunt for bin Laden front in order to turn Iraq into the terroist training ground that it has become.

Let's say we happen to defeat and eradicate all al Qaida members. That leaves 36 other groups identified by US as foreign terrorist organizations, see list here

Which one is next? Since it is the Global War on Terror(ism), which country do we "liberate" next? Malaysia? Philipines? Russia? Japan? Ireland? Greece? Turkey? Spain? Sri Lanka? Oh, wait..those countries do not have oil so we don't care about their problems with terroists do we?

jjj, You voted for Bush in 2000 when his history of absolute incompetence at virtually everything he ever attempted in life except drinking and snorting was widely known to anyone with access to information over perhaps the most well qualified candidate to ever run for office? That proves you are just plain fucking stupid.

-“The terrorists are not attacking the GOP, they're attacking our way of life.”

Muck, and what “way of life” are we attacking?

No doubt, the terrorists are guilty of being that—lower that dirt terrorists—but their kin (or blind followers) haven’t invaded countries to try to ram down peoples throats their “way of life” until, for many years now we, supreme keepers of what’s right for every single human being and theoretical followers of democratic ideals, started messing endlessly in their portion of the world.

Fairly old as I’m already, must say that I can recall vividly that most terrorist acts perpetrated in the, so called free world, were carried out by disgruntled segments of those free countries—not by peoples tied to any Islamic faith. Quite a departure from today’s terrorists acts.

Moreover, as many of us have been forced to suffer today many, if not most terrorists acts, more than actions seem to be reactions to impositions of every imaginable sort that we, the ones who believe that we love democracy and what is supposed to mean, are so bent on ramming down throats by more means possible that seem reasonable.

Wonder what would happen if everyone decided to stay home and clean house before we dare to go all over creation to tell others how to keep theirs clean—or stuff down throats (with bombs and bullets if necessary) our way of life…

Paz

There's a morning radio talk show in the Bay Area hosted by Ronn Owens, and good lord, this morning turned into some love fest of liberal bashing. Senator Barbara Boxer came on to say something very similar to what Steve said, and most likely because Ronn Owens is a huge war supporter, almost all the subsequent calls have been to bemoan how unpatriotic Boxer was or how ridiculous her statements were.

No they were not ridiculous, and neither are Steve's. If most people could stop their navel gazing for a second they would realize that yes, a serious consequence of the Iraq War was that the Bush Administration (and the Blair one too) has made the world less safe by creating a new haven for terrorists, dropping the ball on the hunt for Al-Qaeda, and squandering our intelligence and resources.

Now, I'm not sure at the moment if today's attacks were committed by Al-Qaeda (according to many news reports, Al-Qaeda supporting websites have claimed responsibility, but that remains to be confirmed). However, I will be so bold to say that if it were committed by Al-Qaeda, then this indeed is a serious consequence of the same policies that lead us into the disastrous Iraq War. Even if Al-Qaeda has targetted the West before, today's events shows us that they are no less organized or potent than they were years ago. Weren't we supposed to be safer after Iraq, according to Dear Leader? It's not hard to see that if we divert our attention from the real killers, the real killers will regroup and strike again.

Bravo to Steve, Markos, and all the others who will call it like it is. We have to hold people responsible for dropping the ball accountable.

The Warrior Wolf Society offers its deepest sympathy to our friends in England. As a world traveler I have become fond of England and its people and wish that if anything could have been done to prevent this tragedy that it would have been done. Why, Dumbya, did you blow the cover of the anti-AlQueida operations in the UK??

But now that the UK has been attacked, let's all see how long it takes Tony Blair to declare war on Antartica for the attacks.

WolfmanSpike

We need to show resolve. We need to strike back at the terrorists. Thats why I propose to strike hard at the heart of their network which I have secretly learned is really based in Sydney.

prof,
Bush did say we were taking the fight to them. But he also got blasted on this board for saying we're under threat still. His efforts are mocked as a "war on terra" ha ha... like he's chasing windmills. Anyway, we are fighting in the middle east instead of in the US and a terriost attack has happened to one of our allies. The arguement then comes to what would happen if we didn't take the fight to them. I think we'd be under a greater threat. Maybe more attacks would have happened. I don't know because we didn't sit back and do nothing. At this point, I think invading Iraq was a mistake, but I don't buy the Left's conspiracy theory as to Bush's motivations.

matt,
Steve is saying that Bush is to blame for this. I guess he is trying to dance around it a little, but he is claiming Bush "outed" British intelligence and ruined their efforts at making progress against AQ. It seems apparent to me that he is trying to draw a link - i.e. if Bush didn't "hose up" the British intelligence would have busted these guys. At the least, in my opinion, he is implying Bush doesn't care whether AQ attacks England as long as it isn't on US soil...

Steve,
I'm sure John Kerry's administration would have had zero intelligence leaks to any reporters during his term had he won. we can only dream... wake up steve. reality is calling. and he isn't just one of your little progressive bush hating yes men that worship you on this board...

vinnie.....i am confused......why the gratuitous and unwarranted use of the f-bomb.......always seemed to me that it should be a special occasion word,reserved for important and propitious moments. for instance ,i picture jfk using the word after first being shown the pictures of russian missles in cuba. or bill clinton after he first learned that ms lewinsky had retained a semen stained blue dress. important and historic moments. somehow calling me "plain fucking stupid " doesnt seem as momentous ."plain stupid" or just "stupid" would have done the trick. instead you demean yourself and demonstrate your lack of intelligence and and your lack of linguistic skills. you insult your readers,too. jjj

The attack in London is far from surprising. While the "war" on terror, or more particularly the police actions in Pakistan, Afganistan, etc. did disrupt Al Qaeda in the short term, the informed long term view was they would soon go back to doing what they were doing before 9/11, which was terrorize Europe.

I'm STILL waiting for those who were asked to answer Steve's question. The lack of a response speaks volumes.

And BTW, when will people accept that invading Iraq was stupid, while finishing the job in Afghanistan was the right call? Silly that this point must be raised again and again.

Tex, go enlist.

I am not saying that Bush is responsible for this, I am saying that he had a role in harming British intelligence's ability to stop this from happening. Or is English a second language for you?

And in case you haven't noticed, Kerry isn't president so you have no way of knowing jack about how Kerry would have handled this, except for what you are fed by those who do your thinking for you.

But of course, accountability is an alien concept for you and your ilk. So show some balls, go enlist if you haven't served already, and support your leader's war on terror so that you can be cannon fodder for it as well. Maybe you'll pick up a paper some time in the next decade and find out that Bush has been in charge for nearly five years and has failed pretty much in whatever he has set out to do overseas.

Except to bamboozle folks like you.

Terrorism will not end until we stop believing ourselves to be the rightous, civilized, all knowing, eurocentric, perfect universal specimen of creation.
Meanwhile, ordinary folks pay the price.

Yet, he opposes the only thing that would have a meaningful impact in the early part of this century, which is constructing more nuclear energy plants. You've got the yellow jersey, Phid. Again.

I never lost the yellow jersey, I've been on topic. The most telling aspect of the coverage of the London bombing is that every single last news channel says "Terrible tragedy" followed by "But the financial markets recovered from earlier declines in the day. Only transportation stocks are down, but that's understandable." No real concern for the loss of life and suffering. Hell, the Londoners might as well be Iraqi civilians, but thank God the markets recovered! What a loss if they were concerned about the event!

The moron you and the TaliEvanFundies put in office made us and the world less safe that at anytime in our respective histories. Failures, the whole lot of you. But at least the financial markets aren't suffering. That's the bestest news of all. Ain't it!

The G8'ers are trying to do their best to alleviate one of the causes of terrorism, bad economies.

White Mans burden. Yes. The White Mans burden. We have to help our little brown brothers by stewarding their natural resources for them...into our pockets. They should appreciate our need to help them give us their stuff.

And you evolutionist should readily understand the evolving use of the color coded system.

No. Evolution has logic and science behind it. The color-coded alert system is faith-based. You might believe in it, but I see no facts behind it.

Tex, maybe the Bushco is right to keep parroting the "better to fight them there" phrase. Had it been Afganistan I would agree. But not in Iraq. Bush isn't defeating terrorists, he's making them. Our occupation there is a huge mistake and history will certainly show that. We have squandered the world's good will since 9-11 and wasted our men, money and effort to finish off a two-bit dictator who was no threat to us. Saddam's government feared Al Qaeda as much as we did. Lets face it, the Arabs (Saudis) used the infadels to shed Iraqi blood so they would't have to shed the blood of a fellow muslim.

Had we chased Osama to ground and run down the Al Qaeda network, even, if need be, into Pakistan and/or Iran, although I am Army Retired, I would be glad to lead the charge. Instead, lost our focus. We took our eye off the ball as we "chased" Al Qaeda into a senseless, exhaustive and needless war in Iraq.

Sadly, our allies are paying the price right along with us. And I bet next time we call upon England to stand with us, they'll be thinking twice.

Tex,

My point was that there were no "them" in Iraq until we were there. We were fighting "them" in Afganistan...saying were are taking the fight to "them" in Iraq is a cover/excuse since the originally stated reasons for going into Iraq turned out to be bogus. We are there so we have to come up with a good/justifiable reason to be there.

And now the "them" in Iraq is greater that the "them" that were in Afganistan. There were also no "them" in Afganistan before the Soviets invaded. Funny how that happens.

As for the futility in fighting something as nebulous as "terra", you can't wage a war against an abstract. Poverty still exists, drugs still exist...those wars are resounding successes.

Bush got blasted for saying two things...1) we are winning but 2)we are not safe. I hate to disagree but if we are not safe, we are not winning. As for winning, he said we will stay until the job is done. How will we know when it is done? That is the complaint by the left..I don't want a timeline, I want to know the conditions required to be met in order to bring our troops home (and so do they.)

My wife had a decent analogy. We are told that we can't leave until the Iraqis can defend themselves. That is like telling my kids that I will continue cleaning their rooms until they learn to clean it themselves. In the meantime, their frinds keep coming over to play and they leave toys on the floor. Why would my kids pick them up if I am going to be there to pick them up? Why would Iraqis want to defend themselves if 1) we are there to do it for them and 2) they (those in police or military forces) are getting killed just standing by in line?

Centrist, I'm sorry to inform you that life isn't as simple as your analogy would suggest, but you like Tex have a right to your opinion.

Steve,

I think you missed my point about Kerry. I was responding to you point about the intellegence leak. I'm saying there were leaks under Clinton, there are leaks under Bush, and there would have been leaks under Kerry. I'm not in any way speculating how he would have handled this situation. So I don't know where you got that from.

Sorry... I guess you were saying that Bush's policies made an attack more likely and he had a direct role in hindering those who had the best chance to stop this attack. How can anyone think that means Bush is responsible? What a mistake on my part. Although now I have no idea what your point is... I guess you don't have one.

I'm not going to enlist Steve. My local city is failing to meet recruitment numbers for the police force. Should I go sign up there too? Or am I not allowed to be against rape or murder or theft if I'm not willing to be a policeman. Thank goodness the sewer plant isn't have problems filling positions. I like indoor plumbing. I also think America should provide aid to Africa with our tax dollars. However, I don't intend to sign up with the aid groups that really need volunteers to put people on the ground. So, using your logic, are you on the next plane to Africa or are you against america providing aid or are you starting a bring the volunteers home campaign? Anyway, my best friend is on the ground in Iraq now. He's doing a great job, but I'll be glad when he gets to come home.

Maybe you should email Michael Moore and ask for some more talking points. Or a better idea, start thinking for yourself instead of just puking up the same old leftist crap everyone else is spewing...

Centrist,

Your analogy needs help.

The terrorists, including but definitely not limited to AQ, will not be defeated as long as there the perceived need on their part for terrorism. It is as simple as that. The more we bomb and destroy villages (a la Fallujah), the more they will want to be terrorists.

Bush is the gun and bullet manufacturer, shooting range operator, target supplier and the one on the intercom telling the AQ (the guy holding the gun) that he is not a man because he can't hit the target.

Tex,

If you are not willing to enlist for a cause you seem so adamantly in favor of, why should anyone else?

There it is folks, the meaty core of the right-wing ideology. They want things to be the way they want them to be, but at someone else's expense. They are all for principles and morals until it is their @$$ on the line.

Is anyone else bone weary of this maelstorm of violence and filthy attacks from GOP freaks?

Thoughts and prayers go out to the citizens of London and the United Kingdom.

Seems to me we'll never gain any ground on this until we somehow stop screaming the news across the media and starting wars for it. All this attention plays into their hands.

The British have developed this restrained response with much more experience. One will often hear their criticism that we over-react to terrorism; stealthy long-term non-flashy tactics work, not stupid macho wars.

We are at the mercy of whatver nuerotic national response the media decides we should take. Go read The Daily Howler to see how truly fucked we are.

Prof,

I agree with you on the point about Iraq. If WMD were there we totally were justified. Since there is none, we aren't. I blame bad intelligence not a Bush conspiracy, but that is for another thread I suppose. I do disagree with you about winning/safe conclusion. That's like saying because you cannot be winning a game without the other team having the possibility to score or eventually win the game. I think AQ can still win this war, but I guess I'm just an impressionable red stater that takes this whole war on "terra" too seriously. Anyway, I don't think that means I can't believe we are winning at the moment.

Also, your room cleaning analogy is flawed. That assumes that 1. Iraqis are currently capable of defending Iraqi and 2. That Iraqis want an American occupying force forever. Both of those points have been refuted by you in previous posts if I remember correctly. A better analogy would be your support in general for your kids. You don’t tell them to get a job at 3 months because they weren’t able. That doesn’t mean that your support for them makes them complacent. Eventually, your support for your kids will be removed and they’ll fend for themselves. Fortunately there have been a lot of kids raised. We know your kids should be able to completely self sufficient by 18. Unfortunaly, we don’t have as good of a sample of knowledge to be able to lay out an Iraq timeline… We need them to be self sufficient before we pull out.

So when are you signing up for the police force prof? Or the fire department. If you don't, I guess you shouldn't call 911 if your house is burning down. Someone else who volunteered for the job might have to risk their life to save your property. I hope you have a lot of fire extinguishers or a big garden hose. And I guess you better not call the cops if you see someone getting raped. That guy might have a gun. Why should a cop ahve to put his life on the line to stop behavior you think is unacceptable. You better just run out there and handle the situation yourself...

"There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on." -- George W. Bush, 7/02/03

Offered without comment.

There certainly are more of "Them" in Iraq today then before the invasion but the "Them" are a very small percentage of those attacking Us forces in Iraq--Ordinary Iraq's that just want the US out of their country make up the overwhelming majority of the resistance. Just as I am sure everyone on this board would fight to the death to protect your home from a foreign invader. But yes Saudis are fighting in Iraq.

"Too many policemen, no liberty; Too many soldiers, no peace; Too many lawyers, no justice." Lin Yutang (1895-1976)

I think the Left will lose the talking points on this one in the 2006 election. I haven't seen any decent liberal blog entries or comments on this. It's all anger and hate towards Bush, instead of compassion and support for countries (our friends!) battling a Jihad.

DimSon had a chance to get BIN FORGOTTEN at Tora Bora. Instead we got a stupid failed war in Iraq. Saddam and Al-Qaeda were enemies, now Iraq is an Al-Qaeda training ground. SO, don't tell me not to blame DimSon when he is in fact to blame for the continued existence of Al-Qaeda and BIN FORGOTTEN. Damn all of you Neo-craps and Rethuglicans to hell. All of you.

Muckdog,
I think you people are the problem.

Dear Steve Soto . . .

Another great missive! It is always a joy to read your reflections.

I offer my own.

Ironically, this morning I tuned into Public Broadcasting this morning. As the world watched the current news, I was exposed to minutes of a piece on the incidents leading up to World War I. Quotes of Woodrow Wilson were spoken. I changed the channel so that I might know what was going on today, here, and now.

I was struck, as I heard of London. I needed to release, to write. I, as are all authors wrote of the most recent bombings, not those in Iraq, but those in Britain.

I invite you to read my words, share your thoughts on these. There is so much that we all wish to say, so much to consider. I offer, TERRORIST ATTACKS, BUSH PROTECTS US ©
Liberty has never come from Government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it . . . The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it. 
 - Woodrow Wilson

Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

As for my Iraq/room cleaning analogy...

Kids can be trained/taught to do what you, the parent, want them to do (in most cases). Why, because you're the parent and you say so. Kids learn to clean their room because there are consequences if they don't (grounding, restriction, spanking, etc.)

Your saying that an Iraqi, seeing that we are getting killed and his fellow Iraqis have been killed, will join the Iraqi military/police force because we tell them they have to? What consequences can we impose on Iraqis that would be worse present conditions in Iraqi? None, because Iraq is a sovereign nation (so sayeth President Bush).

All we can do is stay and hope that 1) the Iraqis will have a large enough population to pump-out FULLY TRAINED police and military troops faster than the terrorists/insurgents/rebels/freedom fighters/martyrs/whatever anyone want to call them can kill them and 2) we can send enough young men and women over to be the targets in the meantime.

As for my joining the police force - I have a gun so I can protect myself just as well as a right-winger and as for the fire department, I am a volunteer firefighter/EMT.

And preventing others from behavior you think is unacceptable is the right-wing domain, not mine.

1389
That's how many days since Wanted Dead or Alive was issued....I'm still waiting, and waiting, and waiting....Osama bin Laden has his freedom, why hasn't Junior hunted him down yet? Why did Junior hand over the fight to war lords in Pakistan/Afghanistan border to catch the man responsible for 9/11? Why is bin Laden and his Al Qaida network still free to terrorize the world after almost 4 years after 9/11? I want to know Mr. President...when will justice be brought to bin Laden?

1389 and counting...tick, tick , tick, tick.

Just one question, "Whose fault was 9/11?"

Your answer should be: not the United States'.

Your answer probably is: The United States' or George Bush's. But you'ld be wrong. Just like you're wrong when you try to blame what's happened in London today on the U.S. or on Britain.

nice straw man, sick. really put up a fight.

prof,

a couple of comments based on this enlist/police/fireman line of thought:

1) Do you resent having to treat non firefighters?
2) Do you think the police force should be disbanded and people be forced to offer protection for themselves? Should society not offer protection to those that cannot protect themselves? Should this protection only be limited to those that are in the police force (i.e. risking their lives for this proctective force)
3) I thought you posted to the effect of supporting the Afghanistan military action the US took. If so, did you try to enlist in that effort? Would you support your kids to elist if they were of age at the time of this effort?
4) Are you saying rape should be legal?

support for countries (our friends!) battling a Jihad.

yes, i am a good friend to the american people. fundamentalists very bad. ha ha.

Are you saying rape should be legal?

yes, he's saying rape should be legal. great debate there.

woah, snark rush; gotta go lie down.

support for countries (our friends!) battling a Jihad.

sorry english is not too good. by "battling" do you mean "waging" a jihad? just wondering. anyway, carry on, jew-loving infidel dogs, i mean my good american friends! (why can't i edit this stuff?)

Its simply amazing how Kilmeade and Varney news believes that this is good because it shows how terrorism should be the number one issue.

Good for who, FOX? These people are idiots.

We have let this FOX administration run the "war on terror" ever since they turned there heads after being warned about possible attacks BEFORE 9-11.

So the war on terror starts in Afghanistan but shifts over to IRAQ? Nice job in going after the perpetraitor of 9-11 Saddam Hussein.

Billions of wasted doallars and lives later, we are in the same boat as we were over five years ago.
Nothing this administration has done has slowed down the terrorists.
London still got bombed, even though Saddam is sitting in his cell eating Doritos.

Yeah, Fox news and the neo-cons really know a thing or two about a thing or two when it comes to fighting terrorism...

...Or, do we want to live under Plan B, where citizens are oppressed and not free? Because that is what the other side has to offer.

So how does Plan B play out, Muck? Jihadists will, aided by the weak will of liberalism, slowly strangle Western institutions of Democracy, jurisprudence, our houses of worship, and our small town city councils until we are forced to forego our heritage and swear allegiance to Sharia law? It is either Plan A or Plan B, right?

Why get so apoplectic over the latest terrorist event? This happens on a daily basis in Iraq. Are they not our allies? We stand in solidarity with the future of Iraq. You are free to order Iraqi take-out; you are free to let your daughter marry an Iraqi. Why is the daily carnage in Iraq not given similar attention to what our allies in Great Britain are garnering?

Bid Laden issued his fatwa way back in 1998. The aim of Jihad has never apparently been to destroy the West or convert it, but rather to expell the West from the Arabian Peninsula. I am comfortable knowing that I can oppose the War and the Jihad concurrently without being in solidarity with the enemy. The reason is I am an adult and I can exercise discernment. The world is more than black and white, it is a colorful place. Today it is a somber color.

Tex,

Let me just say that I find the "why don't you enlist" argument to be as inane as many do.

SickOfAmericanSelfLoathing,

I'll type this real sllooowwwllllyyyyy.

We know the terrorists are responsible for the horrible acts that they commit. We do however disagree with the tactics that George Bush has chosen to confront those who are responsible for the murderous acts.

Some, like muckdog, while singing the praises of our wonderful freedoms would have us muzzle ourselves and stiffle our criticisms in the interest of presenting a vision of national unity to the world. Hogwash!

You can reduce everything to a tired cliche if you like. With us or against us. Or Bring 'em on! Or we're fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight 'em in our own streets. But don't try to wrap those of us who disagree with your blinkered outlook into your moronic grand scheme of things.

I'll ask you what I've asked others. How long do we have to wait? How long do we have to hold our tongues, before we can criticize what we see as the disasterously incompetent approach to the terror threat that the Bush administration has given us?

Are the right=wing flacks being disingenuous, or simply projecting their own shortcomings when they persist in reducing complex reactions to simplistic singular statements? For example, there does not seem to be any indication at all that one could be disgusted with attacks by al Qaeda and others on innocent bystanders, be disgusted with the US invasion of Iraq, completely denounce the individuals who actually carried out the attacks, and still have enough blame left to point out that this attack became easier to carry out because of Bush's actions during last year's campaign. There is instead the knee-jerk response which boils down to 'unquestioningly support Bush or you are supporting terrorism.'

A simple question: if Gore had become president in 2001, and had responded to 9/11 by invading Afghanistan; then moved troops out of Afghanistan before it was stable so as to invade Iraq for reasons which proved to be completely false; claimed before the war that Iraqi oil would pay for the whole adventure, then spent hundreds of billions of dollars of our money; declared 'mission accomplished' prior to things deteriorating into near-civil war; and then told you we were better off fighting in Iraq than here, would you have supported him fully? Then if he disrupted British intelligence operations to help his re-election campaign, and then London got bombed, would you have given him a free pass?

I suspect that most of us who are against Bush's war in Iraq would have been just as opposed to Gore's war. Or Kerry's war. It's like the comment about the so-called liberal media: Give up on this 'liberal bias' nonsense until you can show me the conservative press being as hard on Bush as the 'liberal' press was on Clinton.

As for Muckdog's rant about being safe AND being free, it seems to me that the line we get most consistently from the American right these days is that we should accept less freedom to ensure our safety. Relative to where we are today we would clearly be far worse off ruled by extremists governing like the Taliban. On the other hand, we are already far worse off than we have been for decades being ruled by extremists who govern like the Bush administration. And I think we would be even worse off having our rules decided by extremists like Scalia and Thomas.

You can always rely on Faux News to put a twisted spin on things. Thankfully I haven't heard anyone here in London talking along their lines.

I kind of like this guys take on things: http://www.neonbubble.com/a/never-forget-tony It certainly says what I am thinking.

While the London bombings are horrific, I can't help but remember that US and UK military kill those many innocent people for sport practically every day in Iraq and no one is sending condolences to Iraqi families. And the injured, well the bombs and bullets from these same forces injure more than that in what, a week, a few days? As for all the money and reorganization going to fight terror-apparently it is doing no good as it seems as if there were no inkings that this was going to happen?? (Or is this another 9/11?).

I just heard a caller on Ed Schultz's show on AAR use the exact same Blame Bush = blaming gun manufacturer analogy. So, is Rush using this and now the dittoheads have a talking point? Idiots.

Just been watching the BBC on c-span, according to them,they are starting to believe this was a small group of al-loser wannabees, but this story is still on-going.

Bush=The Gun manufacture
AQ=The person pulling the trigger on the gun

No. You missed one litte step and an r in your = sign analogy:

Bush=The Gun manufacturer/Liar about WMD

It's all anger and hate towards Bush, instead of compassion and support for countries (our friends!) battling a Jihad.

Oh, don't get so fucking petulant about getting your ass shredded on these threads. Here...now go get a drink, breath deeply, and come up with something intelligent to say. Then come right back here to show us big bully liberals and faggots who's smarter.

a couple of comments based on this enlist/police/fireman line of thought:

professor does serve. He tries to make stupid fucks like you and your genetically stupid children smarter. Toughest job on earth!!!

You git-wad neo-cons, con-servatives, and republi-cons have more people under arrest, in prison, on probation, in jail, registered, and under suspicion than any other country on earth. And you want more, lots more. Has it worked? Fuck no.

Instead of being smart about it, why do you fucks have to do everything the stupid vengeful way...like Bush...and fuckup things completely? You always do it! It never changes. I can't wait till we outlaw your brand of fascist conservatism and jail your kind. I'll take a common murderer over your uncommon type anyday.

muckcat,

I also cringe when I hear right wing blow hards carrying on about how you can't criticize the president for anything. (Or if they say you don't deserve a voice in the government if you're too poor to pay taxes which is the same as the enlist arguement I think...). I just get upset at both sides when they put the blinders up. In the 90's it was like oooh how do we blame this one on evil Clinton. Now the left is aping the right of the 90's with ooooh how do we blame this one on evil Bush. It just wears me out. It's like no one can think for themselves anymore. Everyone wants to put his brain on rush or michael moore autopilot.

"... And the world is safer with Saddam no longer in power"
Sure, whatever.

In the 90's it was like oooh how do we blame this one on evil Clinton. Now the left is aping the right of the 90's with ooooh how do we blame this one on evil Bush.

difference is, clinton didn't get anybody killed unnecessarily, didn't ignore al qaeda and was impeached anyway. bush did the opposite on all counts.

oh, and clinton got criticism from the left every day of his presidency. not like the bush cult of personality.

You stated that Bush blew a covert operation against al Qaeda in the UK just so he could be re-elected and exposed Plame just to punish Wilson.

You may be correct, but I think there is more to it than that. Bush and his rich cronies are making out like bandits from the "War on Terra." They don't want it to end. They want to expand it.

Plame was an expert in WMD trafficking and one of the few people who might know for sure if whichever country Bush wants to invade next for its oil really does have WMDs. Getting rid of Plame means it's less likely the next bunch of lies they tell will be exposed as lies.

Al Qaeda's attacks in London today can be used to justify Bush's continuing war without end. Had he not blown the cover of the intelligence asset those attacks might never have happened.

The reason the US is doing everything wrong in Iraq and causing escalating violence is because they can then invoke the misnamed "Pottery Barn" rule and say they can't leave until they fix what they broke (said repair will, by pure coincidence, happen when the oil runs out). They're stealing billions in taxpayer money given in no-bid contracts to Halliburton. They're stealing billions in Iraqi oil resold as Kuwaiti oil. The only thing keeping Bush's popularity rating dropping through the floor is that some Republicans think the war in Iraq is justified and we're winning.

Think I'm wrong and attributing to malice that which should be attributed to stupidity? We know the Bush administration was behind the firing of UN Chemical Weapons Inspector Jose Bustani, who COINCIDENTALLY was pushing for chemical weapons inspections in Iraq (which would have revealed that Iraq had no chemical weapons and removed one of the major planks Bush used to justify war).

Plame may have been outed to punish Wilson and as an object lesson to others tempted to expose Bush lies, but I suspect that the main reason she was outed was because she and her network had the potential to expose future Bush lies about WMDs in other countries.

Who else believes the FEAR police will be out in full force on FOX AND MSNBC???

Are you scared of the boogeyman??

I haven't seen any decent liberal blog entries or comments on this. It's all anger and hate towards Bush, instead of compassion and support for countries (our friends!) battling a Jihad.Posted by muckdog

"My condolences and sympathies go out to the victims. I hope that the perpetrators are found soon. eriposte"

...that great humanitarian Brit Hume, reflecting on the financial ramfications of the attacks, said on Fox News that when he woke up and saw how steep the stock futures had dropped, he thought, "Hmm, time to buy."

Fox News' Brian Kilmeade: London terror attack near G8 summit "works to ... Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together"

Frankly, it seems that the compassion is coming from the left, as usual, and talk of political and financial opportunities from the right, as usual; while Bush cultists like muck broadcast their ignorance, again as usual.

Watching hardball on MSNBC.They believe terrorism is rapant and we have to invade iran.

or michael moore autopilot.Posted by Tex at July 7, 2005 03:16 PM
Who is this michael moore you keep ranting about? I don't see him on TV daily. He's not on Fox, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, BBC, NBC. I don't receive any email from him. I don't hear him on talk radio. I don't read any of his columns in any newspapers. Who is this guy that you obsess about?
If you are going to name people, name the ones that have air time: Hannity, O'Reilly, Carlson, Barnes, Novak, Hume, Matthews, Scarborough, Rush, Coulter, Savage, Russert, Shieffer, Blitzer, Brown, Brooks, Tierney, and hundreds of other right wing loons that constantly bombard one via the airwaves, television, or print media.

Here are some statements by real leftists:
Socialist Worker statement following London bombings
Our thoughts are with all those killed and wounded in this morning's terrible attacks in London.

Press Statement on London bombings by Fausto Bertinotti
What occurred in London is the atrocity of a barbarism. Peaceful people should mobilise.
Fausto Bertinotti, Chair of the European Left Party

Statements from the left are sympathetic but Bush, Blair, their media allies, and their little party apparatchiks like you and muck are attempting to use this and every tragedy for your political agenda.

This has been a tragic day in Great Britain.

Everyone wants to put his brain on rush or michael moore autopilot. -Tex-

Or could it possibly be that you have turned the volume on your "Mem-Dar" on so loud that you don't hear anything else?

judging from all todays posts on this, the London attacks have succeeded in keeping any bad Iraq news off the wire, any Bolton news off the wire, any Supreme Court news off the wire, any Plamegate news off the wire and any news of Bush Social Security Reform off the wire. Please, lets just assume Bush didn't have any form of responsibility for the London attacks. He still went on vacation after the CIA told him Bin Laden determined to attack in US. And he'll still go on vacation a couple weeks from now. And if AlQueda his our subway system tomorrow, he'll still go on vacation.

judging from all todays posts on this, the London attacks have succeeded in keeping any bad Iraq news off the wire, any Bolton news off the wire, any Supreme Court news off the wire, any Plamegate news off the wire and any news of Bush Social Security Reform off the wire. Please, lets just assume Bush didn't have any form of responsibility for the London attacks. He still went on vacation after the CIA told him Bin Laden determined to attack in US. And he'll still go on vacation a couple weeks from now. And if AlQueda hits our subway system tomorrow, he'll still go on vacation.

jjj, nice post about The Left Coaster. Yes, I agree with your assessment. Those who write articles on this blog are far brighter and informed than I am, so I am always learning something new here. Yes, this site is more cerebral because the people who write and post are intelligent and thinking people, not reactionaries (except when Chevy the Coward post his usual bullshit). I feel most fortunate that I stumbled upon this site. Welcome. We don't always agree here, but we respect one another.

Remember, we're fighting al Qaeda in London, not here... Doesn't it piss you off that the terrorists don't use a "u" following their "Q?"

the world is safer with Saddam no longer in power

No, it's not -- the world is less safe with Saddam out of power.

Saddam was a murderous tyrant, but he was contained. Now, Iraq is a breeding and training ground for terrorists, which makes everyone less safe than we were before Bush foolishly chose to invade.

I can't wait till we outlaw your brand of fascist conservatism and jail your kind. I'll take a common murderer over your uncommon type anyday.
The left is the side of open mindedness and understanding? What a joke....

difference is, clinton didn't get anybody killed unnecessarily, didn't ignore al qaeda and was impeached anyway. bush did the opposite on all counts.
uhhhh.... Bosnia? uhhhh... Sudan offered to extradite Bin Laden to the US and CLinton passed... Granted I think Bosnia may have been justified, but innocents were killed (just ask Putin who is still pretty PO'd about the whole thing) and the Bil Laden thing was an honest mistake. He underestimated AQ just like Bush did before 911...

The absence of clapping does not mean that there is no applause taking place here.

Thanks for reading all of our minds here Marcus; that's quite a talent you got there. The same can be said on your side of the aisle...

Steve Soto, I thought you promised us you were going to ignore Muckhead, I mean Muckdog. What's up with that, bro? Your meteor is on the rise because because you have provided an excellent site, but you're digressing when you stoop so low as to acknowledge an idiot like Muckhead, I mean Muckdog. I understand if you're living life on the down-low, slumming a little bit for purient reasons, but to even pay attention to a craphead like him, even for a short while, is demeaning to an intelligent person like yourself.

Without doubt, this is another one of those times in which the human race has found yet another reason to feel ashamed.

Naturally, now we hear the world’s heart tugging cries of sorrow (but not towards those whom we, all of we world citizens, either with our silences or with our election of those who lead us, in a twisted sort of way help to become daily innocent victims).

Now, unsurprisingly, we also hear the world’s heart tugging sounds of deeply felt condolences towards the proper innocent victims and their families (but not towards those other innocent victims, too, who also leave behind sorrowful families as we, all of we world citizens, continue with our daily lives without pausing to think what horrors did the cursed war on terra bring).

Now, predictably, we hear the soothing words of unity, and most particularly coming from somber looking leaders who have already amply demonstrated that they must not own a heart.

Yet, amid all of these natural expressions of sorrow and deeply felt condolences, those of us who’ve been forced to come to realize that there will be, yet, another thing coming—proven lack of humanity is actually a beast that one must reckon with—await with trepidation for the other shoe to fall. The other “shoe” will be the wish to avenge the horrible pain that’s been inflicted upon innocent souls whose only fault was the fact that they were going to work at the wrong time and/or using the wrong mode of transportation. RIP.

Meantime what make us all unique, what feeds the processes of superior intelligence urging it not to become so callous that we forget to pay attention to the insistent tugs harshly made by the strings of our hearts, what actually lies (or should lie) behind the notion of being human beings, our souls, are little by little allowed to whither—lets not be called weaklings or, God forbid, unpatriotic.

Indeed, let us set aside some time to pray and cry for the innocent victims—all of them—but, mostly, let us set aside some time to ponder and cry for us…

Paz to all souls of goodwill.

tony blair is history

if gore or kerry was in, the terrorists would still be attacking.....muckdog

the very heart of our problems..the core...a stolen election..had al gore won i feel pretty certain that there would have been no occupation of iraq for it's oil...i believe that the hunt would have centered on al-qaeda.that that the world today would be a somewhat safer place..but a fraud was installed ..and my god..look what he's done...we are less safe ..not more safe

... Sudan offered to extradite Bin Laden to the US and CLinton passed...

How many times must this myth be debunked before people will take it off their Clinton haters greatest hits list.

Christ Tex. You feed off the same crap that you complain about everyone else for.

Sudan offered to extradite Bin Laden to the US and CLinton passed...

i guess that was right after he killed vince foster

Granted I think Bosnia may have been justified,

forgive me if I'm not as magnanimous about Iraq (btw Iraq > 1750 US dead; bosnia = 1 (suicide))

the Bil Laden thing was an honest mistake. He underestimated AQ just like Bush did before 911...

remember "no war for monica"? that's what the right said when clinton sent missiles into afghanistan. still, it's a good thing the republican majority were all occupied keeping the country safe from oral sex.

but i appreciate you not blaming clinton for 9/11. it's a breath of fresh air.

Tex, if you are still reading here,

marcus, guess how many fingers i'm holding up.

Sorry (I think they make pills for that now, don't they?)

Tex, in answer to your questions...

1) Do you resent having to treat non firefighters?

No, I treat whoever needs to be treated because I care for the condition of any human regardless of race, sex, color, creed, sexual orientation, and even political affiliation (unlike most right-wingers.)

2) Do you think the police force should be disbanded and people be forced to offer protection for themselves? Should society not offer protection to those that cannot protect themselves? Should this protection only be limited to those that are in the police force (i.e. risking their lives for this proctective force)

You are arguing this backwards now? First your counter-argument was if you are for the police protection, you should join the police...now you are arguing that police protection should only be for police?

3) I thought you posted to the effect of supporting the Afghanistan military action the US took. If so, did you try to enlist in that effort?

I served 11 years in the AF and was directly involved in Iraqi operations from 1997 when I deployed to Saudi until 2003 when I chose not to re-enlist (current administration and policies were one of the factors influencing that decision.) I was involved in OEF (Afganistan) from the get-go and Iraq continuously for the entire six year period.

Would you support your kids to elist if they were of age at the time of this effort?

Late 2001 - I would have supported
Early 2003 - No way in hell

4) Are you saying rape should be legal?

First, benjoya is right, what kind of argument is that? Second rape (and worse) seems to be legal if the victim happens to be a detainee in one of our "resorts" as Rush refers to them. But then again, they aren't victims are they?

Granted I think Bosnia may have been justified, but innocents were killed

The big difference between Bosnia and Iraq is that one was sanctioned by the international community. Care to guess which one had the legal troop deployment?

What has been missing in this debate is the "method" one uses in fighting terrorism.

Fighting terrorism with the use of an army has to be simply, more often then not, the worst method known. Terrorists by nature are small groups of people who use the only tactics available to makeup for the lack of military prowness their opponants have.

With the military invasion of Iraq and it's occupation we have qualified the terroists message. Which basically is that the super-powers of this world are using their superior military might to invade countries that have resouces they can exploit.

Nations for many years have kept terroists in check as best as they could by using the same methods one uses to fight any groups of criminal organizations, mainly covert and police action.

Iraq was folly from the get-go. The proof of this is self-evident. WMD, connection to 9/11, pay of itself, no more then 6 months, mission accomplished, violence will end after Saddam's sons killed, after Saddam captured, after Fallujah, after elections, now bush has turned the war into the justification to continue the war using the same methods that created this folly to begin with.

Two things are necessary to quell terrorism, one: stop doing the things that justify the message terroists use, and two: use intelligence instead of might.

I might add a third - hold those that started this folly accountable.

Thanks sf for reminding me to step back up on the sidewalk. You are correct that I swore off Muckdog several weeks ago....

I wish to express my apology or realization. On the morning of July 7, 2005, after the terrorist attack in London, I was engrossed in the thought �terrorism will happen, if terrorist desire to create it.� I offered my words for others to read; however, belatedly, I realized I did not write of London.

I did not discuss the life, death, and injuries in England. I neglected mentioning how similar and different these are to those in Iraq. I overlooked the oblivious parallels between Bush, Blair, and bin Laden. In the evening, I wrote a missive discussing these.

I invite you to visit my site again and to read a more recent and relevant treatise. I thank you for your understanding and comments!
TERRORISTS AND LIBERATORS, ENGLAND AND IRAQ �

Betsy L. Angert Be-Think