|
 |
February 28, 2004 SERIOUS ABOUT OSAMA....Speaking of Osama, this is the second time recently that I've seen a story like this:
To the extent that this is a result of Pervez Musharraf finally deciding to get more serious about the Taliban and al-Qaeda, it's good news. But to the extent that it's the result of the United States finally getting more serious and "refocusing" on Osama, all I can say is, what the hell? One of the things that war skeptics have been saying for a long time is that Iraq distracted us from Job 1: capturing Osama, wiping out al-Qaeda, and putting the Taliban firmly out of business. The Bushies deny it. But the denials really don't wash. There's just too much evidence that resources were pulled out of Afghanistan as early as spring 2002, that our commitment to Afghanistan has been weak and our ongoing operations have been starved for funding and manpower, and that the administration has been suspiciously unwilling to lean hard on Musharraf. They were just too damn obsessed with Iraq. I don't know how long it will be before we really know everything that happened after 9/11, but I suspect that history's judgment of the Bush administration will not be kind. In fact, Dennis Hastert's admission that they don't want the findings of the 9/11 commission to be released during the campaign is a tacit admission that they already know the facts won't reflect well on them. The Bush administration's record on terror has been amazingly flimsy, all bluster and very little genuine progress. John Kerry has shown a bit more willingness lately to go beyond the defensive and demonstrate ways that he would be tougher on terrorism than Bush and I hope he keeps it up. It's not a subject we should dodge, it's a subject in which we should show how we can do better than the Republicans. Getting serious about al-Qaeda would be a good start. UPDATE: In comments, Chris Conroy asks what Kerry has been saying lately that I like so much. Here's the terrorism speech that he delivered at UCLA yesterday. I thought it was pretty good. Posted by Kevin Drum at February 28, 2004 11:18 AM | TrackBackComments
The first two words out of my mouth were the same, but the third one wasn't "hell." I hope they are stupid enough to actually trumpet the fact that they are "refocusing" or "intesifying efforts" or some bullshit, and Kerry and the Dems need to take that and literally beat them to death with it. This would be a tacit admission that all the criticism (think CMB's "Osama Bin Missin") was correct. Posted by: Mr Furious at February 28, 2004 11:29 AM | PERMALINKWhen I saw the news, I thought: Yeah, and I bet Bush is hoping the capture can be scheduled for October 2004. I get a feeling that this is an "October Surprise" in the making. We have often underestimated the craven political judgment of these people, and I can just imagine them dragging out Bin Laden's capture to give them a trophy to wave around when they need to take people's minds off the mess we have at home. Like about a month before the election. Posted by: joe at February 28, 2004 11:38 AM | PERMALINKDumb Murkans (like Al) who believe the Preznit is doing a good job keeping this country safe deserve to be blown to bits. I just hope I'm not in the neighborhood when that happens. Posted by: Lupin at February 28, 2004 11:42 AM | PERMALINKCal -- Would you mind posting some links to John Kerry's discussions of security and terrorism (the ones that have been heartening you)? I honestly haven't seen any in the media and it's one of my big weak spots with being able to defend his candidacy to others. Posted by: Chris Conroy at February 28, 2004 11:46 AM | PERMALINKIt's cynical, sure, but also SOP for presidents in similar straights -- Carter himself tried an election year rescue attempt followed by stepped-up negotiations in order to free the hostages (from around his neck) and spring a trap on Reagan. Now, who on the Democrat side has enough pull with Musharaff to push the cynicism up to William Casey levels? http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0227a.html Posted by: me at February 28, 2004 11:49 AM | PERMALINKW, September 13 2001- "The most important thing is for us to find Osama Bin Laden. It's our #1 priority and we will not rest until we find him." W, March 13 2002- "I don't know where he is, I have no idea and I really don't care, It's not that important. It's not our priority." Posted by: Jime at February 28, 2004 11:50 AM | PERMALINKSomething funny is going on in Pakistan. First there was the little drama about Pakistan's chief nuclear scientist taking blame for single-handedly supplying the entire axis of evil with nuclear technology and material. (Sure sounds like the same playwright as the recent 9/11 commission drama featuring Hastert.) Now this. So what if it happened like this: - Bush popularity starts falling. - Rove figures out that capturing Bin Laden might actually turn things around. "Hmm, how can we get Pakistan to cooperate?" - Threaten Musharraf with moving Pakistan into the "against us" column. - Offer Musharraf a way out: get Bin Laden no matter how it plays at
home. In exchange, we'll put on this little play to get the nuclear
weapons out of the picture. I get the feeling Dems kind of hope this Osama BIn Laden subject goes away, and if he gets captured, it's all over for the race. I kind of thought that would be a game-ending scenario myself, and it may still be, but there is olny one way to diffuse it, and that is ahead of time, not afterwards. It's time to start changing the conventional wisdom on this subject, right now. If Bush has an "October Surprise" in the works, all discussion and debate will be drowned out in the absolute chaos that will be the coverage of that event. We need to start pointedly demanding where the hell OBL is, and why he hasn't been captured. I don't care if it's shrill or anything else. This is the only way to trump Bush's ace in the hole. If this gets driven home hard enough and successfully, public sentiment will shift. Bush & Co. hope that this will save them from the fact that everything other issue reflects badly on them. Make this another one of those issues. This is actually Bush's Achilles Heel and biggest weakness! We need to actually use it on him, not run from it. If and when OBL is captured (and I doubt he will be alive), the response needs to be "It's about fucking time." Well, that needs to be the sentiment anyway. Bush doesn't get three seconds to bask in the glow or take credit for that. Democrats need to start framing it this way now, for that attitude to take hold in the general public. Posted by: Mr Furious at February 28, 2004 12:02 PM | PERMALINKGee, and I thought only Matt Drudge posted nasty rumors. Anothe thought.... ISN'T IT FUNNY THAT THE ONE AND ONLY FILM LIBERALS CAN FINALLY SAY THEY DON'T LIKE THE VIOLENCE BLOOD AND GORE IS 'THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST'. Why is it that Liberals are soooo upset over violence and Gore at the movies? The New Republic is more upset than when it herd Ralph nader was running unopposed for the Liberal President spot. Posted by: keiser at February 28, 2004 12:03 PM | PERMALINKI think capturing-- or not capturing-- Osama might be checkmate for Bush. 1) If we catch/kill him in the near-term, that's "war over", and Bush will suffer the same fate as Churchill did after WWII as country returns to domestic concerns. 2) If we catch/kill him immediately before the election, the Churchill effect will at least modestly offset any euphoria, and noisy charges of October Surprise will swirl among the left, independents and the mainstream press. 3) If he doesn't capture Osama before the election, Bush will have failed his primary charge, the very one on which he has based his popularity. The second eventuality seems least perilous for Bush's reelection, and is therefore what I expect if we have any sway over events there. Posted by: jon at February 28, 2004 12:03 PM | PERMALINKWhat's actually going on in Afghanistan. There have been other stories like this. Just because the L.A. Times and MSNBC aren't covering it, doesn't mean it isn't happening. Posted by: tbrosz at February 28, 2004 12:04 PM | PERMALINKFollowing up, if we ask often enough and strongly enough why the hell he's still out there, it won't be so impressive if he's caught. This needs to be right out in front in the Dem platform. Undermine Bush's credibilty in the War on Terror, don't concede the issue to him. We can do a better job on this that him and we need to act like it. If Bush trots OBL out this fall, say, "We would have had him two years ago." Posted by: Mr Furious at February 28, 2004 12:08 PM | PERMALINKkeiser, Drudge reports his fantasies as facts, as if he was running a mini-news bureau, trying to make news. Kevin Drum makes observations on items that are already in the news as starting points for discussion. It's sort of the whole point of weblogs. Posted by: Jeff Boatright at February 28, 2004 12:08 PM | PERMALINKIt is not as though we have had no leverage over Pakistan. Just mentioning the words "economic sanctions" to Pervez would have compelled more cooperation at any time. I hope the Pakistanis just shoot him dead so he can't be brandished in the election campaign, but I suppose our special forces will be called in if the Pakistanis get him. Posted by: Bob H at February 28, 2004 12:10 PM | PERMALINKI don't know how long it will be before we really know everything that happened after 9/11 - Never if they could get away with it, but more realistically, 25 to 40 years if they are reelected. One more reason we must deselect this Administration. Someone requested some articles........ Kerry here (some quotes are from an MSNBC article, but they purged it): “I am convinced that we can prove to the American people that we know how to make them safer and more secure with a stronger, more comprehensive and more effective strategy for winning the war on terror than the Bush administration has ever envisioned,” Kerry said in remarks prepared for delivery at the University of California at Los Angeles. Kerry also accused the president and “his armchair hawks” of weakening the U.S. military by failing to provide proper equipment. He lambasted Bush for “stonewalling” the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks." And.......... From Slate a great analysis of Kerry's war votes that they are trying to twist. U.S., Pakistan Deny Bin Laden Was Captured "The director of Iran radio's Pashtun language service, Asheq Hossein, said the report was based on two sources - one of whom later told The Associated Press he was misquoted. The report said bin Laden had been in custody for a period of time, but that President Bush was withholding any announcement until closer to November elections. ``Osama bin Laden has been arrested a long time ago, but Bush is intending to use it for propaganda maneuvering in the presidential election,'' the radio report said. " Posted by: all is lost at February 28, 2004 12:16 PM | PERMALINK"Ever since Task Force 180--as the Afghanistan operation is called--"leaked" a coming offensive to crush the final pockets of terrorist holdouts in the country and along the porous border with Pakistan, "
Again more questions than answers.Over and over again this administration has more questions than answers.Will it ever end?Can we get a strait answer on ANYTHING?Conservatives care to rebut? Posted by: smalfish at February 28, 2004 12:19 PM | PERMALINK"""It's not a subject we should dodge, it's a subject in which we should show how we can do better than the Republicans. Getting serious about al-Qaeda would be a good start.""" Surely you jest. Kerry's terrosim policy plans have been abysmal. This is what Kerry has advocated throughout his political career: - No death penalty for International Terrorists who kill Americans. - He opposed the attack on Lybia because he said it wasn't proportional to their attack on Americans. - He says the 'war' on terorism is mostly an intelligence and law enforcement issue. - Yet he voted repeatedly to cut intelligence by 1.5 Billion dollars and tried to cut the FBI - He has said the terroist threat is exaggerated. Better yet he says we should return to Clintonism Kerry Pledges Return to Clinton Terrorism Policies Democratic presidential front-runner John F. Kerry pledged on Saturday that if he becomes president he'll treat terrorist acts against the U.S. as a law enforcement problem rather than as acts of war - the approach favored by President Clinton throughout the 1990s as Osama bin Laden repeatedly struck U.S. targets with impunity. Speaking before a group of Oklahoma City firefighters, Kerry complained that the Bush administration "doesn't understand the war on terror." Under a Kerry administration, he said, the fight against terrorism "will involve the military now and then," but it will be "primarily an intelligence-gathering, law enforcement operation." "It's a great big manhunt," Kerry explained. "[The Bush] administration has translated that legitimate threat into a completely wrongheaded kind of full-fledged military response." Since 9/11, U.S. terrorism experts have said that the Clinton administration's legalistic approach to fighting al-Qaeda not only proved ineffective - it actually emboldened bin Laden to the point where he thought he could launch an attack on U.S. soil without prompting a serious military response. Indeed, in a 2002 speech to New York business leaders, Mr. Clinton himself cited legal concerns as an excuse for his decision not to have bin Laden arrested five years before the 9/11 attacks. "At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America," said Clinton. "So I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America." Ohh great KERRY'S GOING TO SICK JANET RENO ON THEM.... I can see osama and Zahwahiri high-fiving now. Posted by: keiser at February 28, 2004 12:20 PM | PERMALINKWhy, in all of the 400+ billion dollars we spend each year, does Task Force 121 have to do fucking everything? Why can't we have made a Task Force 122, and assigned them to get Osama while 121 went after Saddam? Posted by: praktike at February 28, 2004 12:25 PM | PERMALINKkeiser: Where are your "facts" from??Are they from the mainstream?If so,they are half truths.From sites like rush limbaugh?If so no rebuttal necessary.Do you have more than one source for ANY of these facts? fess up! Posted by: smalfish at February 28, 2004 12:25 PM | PERMALINKKeiser - one small point, I'll let others do the rest: Why are we stepping up the search for Osama? Well, considering this is now the third time since 9/11 that winter has moved toward spring, it shouldn't be a surprise. Soon the snow will melt, making movement through the mountains significantly easier. The peaks of the Hindu Kush reach into the 7,000 meter range, and the passes are in the 3,000-4,000 meter range. At those elevations, winter is harsh, with snow pack piling up over two meters deep. Think Colorado without highways and snow removal. Posted by: BD at February 28, 2004 12:27 PM | PERMALINKI suppose Kevin and his fellow anti-Bushies on this thread have had a great plan all along on how to get OBL. I would also assume that Kevin and all the other anti-Bushies on this
thread would agree that the War on Terror goes beyond just one man.
Even if OBL is captured, the war goes on. If OBL had been captured, you'd be whining that the Bushies put too
much emphasis on capturing one man, and not on weakining Al-Queda. I'd respect your point of view more if you could tell me what a President Kerry would have done differently in the WOT that would have had a better outcome than the one we currently have (no attacks on the US after Sept 11). It can't be done, for there can be no better outcome. You can say that Kerry would have used different tactics to get to the same outcome, but the very fact that the WOT has had a positive outcome (defined as no terror attacks) makes any criticism from the anti-Bush crowd seem a bit whiny and silly. If there is no further terrorist attack before the election, Bush will win easily. Deep down, do you think most Democrats would prefer another Sept 11 if it could guarantee them Bush would lose in November, or no more terrorist attacks in the US if it assured them of four more years of being on the outs? I don't know the answer, but the fact that it is out there is pretty damning to the Democrats. Posted by: fw at February 28, 2004 12:29 PM | PERMALINK"If there is no further terrorist attack before the election, Bush will win easily." Not necessarily true.Was there ANY attacks before the current regime'?I submit that this administration FUBAR'd the efforts of the spooks in that they ignored intel reports,therefore after 9/11 they started paying a little more attention to the reports that have since led to more vigorous efforts to thwart the efforts that may or may not have been put forth by "terrorists". Furthermore this current administration has done NOTHING to try and figure out the reasons behind 9/11 and therefore have not even tried to stem the tide of hate against the U.S. Posted by: smalfish at February 28, 2004 12:36 PM | PERMALINKfv - deep down I wish OBL would have been pursued to the ends of the earth because of 9-11, and suffered a horrible death - maybe let Mel Gibson do it without the special effects. I was hoping for late 2001, then 2002, 2003, now maybe 2004 - that's the disappointment. Just maybe Kerry would have put 150,000 troops in Afghanistan, and went over the border (as Bush promised he would), and killed him. But No, send 150K to Iraq for (the reason of the moment). Cannot help it, I am a Taliban/al quaida warmonger. Posted by: Dinosaur at February 28, 2004 12:36 PM | PERMALINKDeep down, do you think most Democrats would prefer another Sept 11 if it could guarantee them Bush would lose in November, or no more terrorist attacks in the US if it assured them of four more years of being on the outs? I don't know the answer, but the fact that it is out there is pretty damning to the Democrats. But what is even more damning is Bush's utter hypocrisy and failure regarding OBL...taking resources out of Afghanistan to go after the ginned-up, phony "threat" from Saddam, stonewalling the 9/11 commission, etc,. And also having you Bush ass-kissers always impugning those who see thru this fraud.....get up close, now....take a big sniff...HAIL W! >>>A great leader!!
Remember, an Army War College report has declared, "The war against Iraq was not integral to the Global War on Terror, but rather a detour from it." Posted by: js7a at February 28, 2004 01:02 PM | PERMALINKI agree, Kevin, and I'd like to see the Democratic candidate making it clear that really dealing with terrorism is fully compatible with what I understand Democratic principles to be. It doesn't take a Patriot Act-style national security state, nor war with nations that aren't at war with us. It does take both military action and continued engagement after the war, and it takes consistency of targeting. Getting the people who actually did attack us would be vastly cheaper than what Bush has done, leaving us money that could be used to improve life both for their victims in their home territory and for American citizens back here. In addition, a competent foreign policy would leave us room to maneuver in, rather than (as with Bush and North Korea) locking us into the cycle of grandiose bluster and humiliating retreat while leaving real dangers to regional and world peace intact. Posted by: Bruce Baugh at February 28, 2004 01:08 PM | PERMALINKMy dad has been saying all along that they're going to capture Usama right before the election. I don't think it would be seen as war over and the Churchill effect. The media and the administration has done quite a job making it known that the war isn't just about getting UBL, especially with the Iraqi leader playing cards and the news every few weeks that some new al Queda guy got captured. I am more confused about the way they dealt with the capture of Saddam. Yay, we got him and then we never hear anything else about him? You would think they would try to figure out what to do with him quickly, and capitalize on the moment. Posted by: RichardP at February 28, 2004 01:11 PM | PERMALINKI continue to maintain that the evidence available (to us, I mean, not necessarily to the intelligence agencies), in the form of audio tapes purporting to be of OBL, indicates strongly that he is not alive. If that's the case, than the hints of an "October Suprise" are all in the way of spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt among the people, especially the Democrats. Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) at February 28, 2004 01:12 PM | PERMALINKDinosaur opines: """Keiser - one small point, I'll let others do the rest: Is it really ..have you looked at the state depaertment list of terrorist attacks for each year during the 1990s? No, I thought not.
keiser seems to be making it up or pulling it from rush-level sources. And can't answer why it was a good idea to pull resources from Afghanistan and pursuit of AQ to fight an war that was tangential to the stated goal. Oh well, onward and upward. Posted by: Jeff Boatright at February 28, 2004 01:45 PM | PERMALINKI certainly don't think the Democrats have ben serious about Osama. They really have it out for RALPH NADER.... I think many Liberal Democrats would prefer to see Nader strung up then Osama. Here's one half bake liberal going off on nader: WHAT IS IT, YOU LIBERAL DEMOCRATS DON'T BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY?
SHOULDN'T AN AMERICAN WHO BELIEVE NADER WOULD MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT
HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE FOR HIM....WHY ARE WE SHUTTING HIM OUT...YOU WERE
ALL FOR ROSS PEROT BEING IN... keiser, as a lot of people have been saying (and others have been denying), Clinton's people warned Bush's people that AQ was THE threat to be dealt with asap in yr2000. Your own contribution supports that - AQ was suspected as being behind terrorist attacks in the 90s. Clinton's people gave Bush's people the blueprint to pursue AQ, which they're only now dusting off after the failure of Operation Ignore and the distraction of Operation Avenge My Daddy. Bad planning poorly implemented. And you want 4 more years of this? Thank goodness there's fewer than you than there are of us. Posted by: Jeff Boatright at February 28, 2004 01:55 PM | PERMALINKWith today's denied reports that Osama has been captured, it occurs to me that someone needs to look back at the administrations public comments over the last year or so *very* carefully. We know that Bush's White House is more than Clintonesque in its care in phrasing statements to imply one thing while insuring deniability on a technicalitity. Here's the question: have any of the (apparently few) official comments on Osama been such as to explicitly *deny* that he's already been captured? That is, if he is currently in custody and being held for an "October surprise," has anyone said anything that could come back to haunt them, i. e. "We are still agressively searching for Osama Bin Laden"? For once, I'd like to see someone get ahead of this administration and anticipate their deceptions by detailing the groundwork, if it's there. If they do have Bin Laden on ice, then all public commentary since his capture will have been ambiguous. Is it? Posted by: vicoscia at February 28, 2004 02:09 PM | PERMALINKDeep down, do you think most Democrats would prefer another Sept 11 if it could guarantee them Bush would lose in November, or no more terrorist attacks in the US if it assured them of four more years of being on the outs? I don't know the answer, but the fact that it is out there is pretty damning to the Democrats. Frankly, I'd say it's a hell of a lot more damning to those who entertain the belief. Posted by: Anarch at February 28, 2004 02:11 PM | PERMALINKYou guys are making my point for me. People can disagree about the
tactics used to get where we are now on the WOT (no attacks since Sept
11, 2001), but nobody can argue that the results haven't been good. >Deep down, do you think most Democrats would prefer another Sept 11 if it could guarantee them Bush would lose in November, or no more terrorist attacks in the US if it assured them of four more years of being on the outs? I don't know the answer, but the fact that it is out there is pretty damning to the Democrats. Hahahaha! Oh lordy, I love this. The fact that I can make up deceitful questions about the Democrats is pretty damning to the Democrats. Bwah! Deep down, do you think fw would prefer to be called a moron or do you think he would prefer to be called a brainless twit? I don't know the answer to that but the fact that it is out there is pretty damning to fw. Posted by: Robert McClelland at February 28, 2004 02:34 PM | PERMALINKkeiser SN'T IT FUNNY THAT THE ONE AND ONLY FILM LIBERALS CAN FINALLY SAY THEY DON'T LIKE THE VIOLENCE BLOOD AND GORE IS 'THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST'. Why is it that Liberals are soooo upset over violence and Gore at the movies? I am a liberal and I don't like all the blood and gore in movies. I have not seen the "Passion of the Christ". I understand that it does not accurately follow any of the gospels. As far as blood and gore is concerned don't most of the movies in which Gibson has stared feature lots of blood and gore? Posted by: ____league at February 28, 2004 02:35 PM | PERMALINKAbsent such an attack, Bush is very strong on the WOT angle. Only if you haven't read the Kay report and you don't follow international news anyway. Posted by: Jesurgislac at February 28, 2004 02:40 PM | PERMALINKJUST ONE MORE FAILED CLINTON IDEA...BOY THEY JUST KEEP COMING: When U.N. prosecutors opened their case against Slobodan Milosevic two years ago, they set out to get him convicted of genocide. The consensus today is, they failed. Posted by: keiser at February 28, 2004 02:40 PM | PERMALINK"He seems to be medium-strong on the economy (good, but not great)". ?????????????????????????? First President since Hoover to preside over a net job loss. Hoover! Posted by: Al at February 28, 2004 02:40 PM | PERMALINK>People can disagree about the tactics used to get where we are now on the WOT (no attacks since Sept 11, 2001), but nobody can argue that the results haven't been good. Do you call over 600 dead coalition soldiers in Iraq good results? Do you call over 600 dead Iraqi police good results? Do you call over 10,000 dead innocent Iraqi and Afghan civilians good results. Do you call all the attacks by Al Qaeda terrorists around the world since 9/11 good results? Do you call imprisonment of American citizens with a lose of civil rights good results? I sure can argue that the results haven't been good. What I don't understand is how you can argue that they have been good soley on the basis that foreign terrorists have not carried out an attack in the US for a third time. Posted by: Robert McClelland at February 28, 2004 02:42 PM | PERMALINK"""don't most of the movies in which Gibson has stared feature lots of blood and gore?"" Yes, but I never see hollywood so upset and reviewers telling people
not to go because of the violence. If this movie was called KILL BILL
II and Jesus was Dark Fallace...the reviwers would love it. At least Al and Charlie engage in a sort of dialogue but Keiser just seems to sit at his keyboard thinking of even more inaccurate and OT items to throw out. Iam personally finding him/her/it somewhat annoying. Posted by: ____league at February 28, 2004 02:44 PM | PERMALINKI stand corrected, I have a response from Keiser. I would however like some evidence of this supposed reviewer bias. Posted by: ____league at February 28, 2004 02:46 PM | PERMALINKkeiser paints with a wide brush, going from Afghanistan, to Iraq, to Mel's movie. Oh yeah, I see the thread. I take it he/she does not like "liberals", and has put them in a common corner on all issues. Very easy on the brain that way, requires very little thought process, and its a Rush. Posted by: Dinosaur at February 28, 2004 02:51 PM | PERMALINKkeiser's posts always look like those ultra-unhinged conspiracy theory sites - all kinds of capitol letters, strange qutations, lapses in logic and continuity. the only think lacking is the over-use of bright colors and font sizes. Posted by: cleek at February 28, 2004 02:55 PM | PERMALINKThere is a great deal of information regarding this "search" in the Pakistani and Indian press, and if one is interested, use the Search function on Google News for Al-Qaeda, and you'll pick up on a good deal of the info. In recent weeks, Tenet and Rumsfeld have been in Islamabad, each for a couple of days. Yes, Musharraf has had a change of position. Two matters are involved. First, two failed assassination attempts, and second he won a dispute with the Islamic Parties in Parliament regarding his amendment of the constitution extending his term of office. All this taken together gives him a bit more freedom to act. Until recently he has claimed OBL to be either Dead or in Afghanistan. Recently he has begun to claim he is in Pakistan. At the same time he also agreed to talks with India, and has opened up the bus, train and air connections between Pak and India. By talking with India, he undercuts the Army and many Islamists who have been so focused on Kashmir little else matters. Should Pak and Indian relations become more normalized, it would make it much easier for Musharraf to become less dependent on the paramilitary politics of the Taliban like groups in Pakistan for his political base. Democrats need to learn to pay attention to more in that part of the world than OBL -- important, yes, but creating the conditions for a stand-down of these Nuclear powers is critical. Posted by: Sara at February 28, 2004 02:55 PM | PERMALINKPerhaps Iran has had OBL in custody for "a really long time." Haven't the Iranians claimed that they already have high raniking members of AL Queda in custody? Maybe they know OBL had been captured because THEY are his captors. Just a thought. Posted by: chippydog at February 28, 2004 03:02 PM | PERMALINKDeep down, do you think most Democrats would prefer another Sept 11 if it could guarantee them Bush would lose Man, somebody should revoke your humanity license for that one. As for "the results are good", "strong on the War on Terror", here's Kagan, one of the leading neo-conservative voices saying Whoops in the NYT: "America, for the first time since World War II, is suffering a crisis of international legitimacy. Americans will find that they cannot ignore this problem."Problem. Since WW II. Crisis. Sounds familiar. The internet is littered with leftover conservative spittle flung at Democrats who warned that caution and coalition is good insurance against failure or embarrassment and better paves the way for any neccesary future action. The alternate, your hurry-up version, would cede the high ground--America's hard-earned leadership and her tragically-earned Global empathy. But no, you guys had a John Wayne hard-on you had to relieve, and NOW... President Bush has approved a plan to intensify the effort to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, senior administration and military officials say FW, you don't intensify an effort unless you weren't giving all the needed attention in the first place, which means a cost/benefit was done somewhere by someone--and Osama took less than First place. The slow, agonizing march to the obvious for the bombs not brains crowd is moving apace, you just seem not to have gotten the memo. Even faithful Warriors like tacitus have folded up their tents and bugged out on this "Commander in Chief" Yes, it's in quotes for a reason. He has a Hollywood understanding of leadership and a dreadful aversion to taking responsibility for failed effort. Settle for that if you wish. See you in November--signicant event, or not. Posted by: fouro at February 28, 2004 03:06 PM | PERMALINKfouro -- I guarantee you that if you'd asked 100 million Americans on Sept
12th, 2001 whether having no further attacks on US soil for the next 2
1/2 years would constitute a good result on the WOT, Robert: FW- I'm glad that the absence of another 9/11 scale tragedy reassures you of the president's success in the WOT. I'm not nearly so sanguine. When flight 800 went down over Long Island no effort or expense was spared to try to find the cause. We needed to know what happened to try correct whatever it was that went wrong. Yet, incredibly we have devoted far less in resources to investigating the 9/11 disaster. Whenever I talk to pro-Bush people, it seems to me they would prefer to cling to the notion that it must be Clinton's fault rather than do a full investigation to find out what went wrong. Those unfortunate people who lost loved ones aren't motivated by politics they want to know the truth. How can anyone feel safe unless we really understand what went wrong in the first place? 9/11 represents the worst intelligence failure in U.S. history. The failure to find WMD's represents failure number two. In the face of such failures and in the absence of any attempt to correct what went wrong, we are deluding ourselves to think we are any safer today than we were before 9/11. Posted by: dapman at February 28, 2004 03:19 PM | PERMALINKfw - I disagree. Yes, we are pleased there have been no attacks. We are not pleased with W's detour into Iraq which cost us lots of goodwill, credibilty (WMD's), lives, and $$$$$. And don't give me that "We saved the Iraqis from Hussein" crap - I didn't care about that 3 years ago, still do not. I am just not a humanitarian, at least not of the international-interventionist variety. Posted by: Dinosaur at February 28, 2004 03:25 PM | PERMALINK"He seems to be medium-strong on the economy (good, but not great). " How on earth(or maybe its pluto)can you even entertain this thought?Strucural beef engineers instead of burger flippers are a good way to boost the manufacturing sector?Increasing the load on payroll taxes to give us lower income taxes are good?Giving up on social security is a good thing?Providing mega-corporations an easy tax shelter system is a good thing?Giving companies like Watchovia a tex refund is a good thing? Like Troy Aikman says.....GET REAL! Posted by: smalfish at February 28, 2004 03:25 PM | PERMALINKPresident Bush once said in jest, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier ... just so long as I'm the dictator." Posted by: smalfish at February 28, 2004 03:26 PM | PERMALINKNo, FW, it is not failing, but it is not "succeeding" either. Stasis is backward movement in this game. Poking the organizations and allies you need to fight along with you, not to mention mobilizing generalized anger and steeling the resolve of your enemies...well, it's bad doctrinal mojo. Your "21/2 years" is an actuarial fact as much as it is any endorsement of a particular policy. One could even say, given the bad mojo referenced above, that our little foray into Mesopotamia was a petulant challenge to AQ: hit us again, we dare you! It's called drawing the enemy out. How much skin do you have in that bet? Nor would I say, as it's been represented so far (Iraq is the front line on Terror,I believe it was phrased by administration officials), has the WOT done anything to "please" Americans. I would say though, that, given daily revelations of the slapdash nature of this administration, Relief over no further domestic attacks is the chief emotion experienced by "most Amrericans." Posted by: fouro at February 28, 2004 03:31 PM | PERMALINK" FW, you don't intensify an effort unless you weren't giving all the
needed attention in the first place, which means a cost/benefit was
done somewhere by someone--and Osama took less than First place. " >What major attacks by Al Queda do you refer to around the world. Does Bali ring any bells for starters? >Where were you when people were dying by the millions under Saddam. Since 1992 I was a member of CDI (Canadians for Democracy in Iraq). Where were you? >For the lost of civil liberties, do you have specic examples Jose Padilla! >people think that if we go back to 'police action' that the world will be sunny. More terrorists have been uncovered and arrested by good old
fashioned police work than have been caught or killed by the US
military. The US military has prevented 0 terrorist attacks to date but
good old fashioned police work has prevented terrrorist attacks. "Where were you when people were dying by the millions under Saddam" You need to clarify yourself on this one.If your talking pre gulf war
1 then it goes to the george the first for not doing the necessary
thing then.If your talking post gulf war 1 then you need to go to george
the first AND Bill Clinton and Albright and look at them.It wasnt
saddam's doing that killed millions after the first war it was the
sanctions that was killing,do your research before you come on with the
idea that we had to take out saddam because he was a killer.It was the
U.S and the way they set up the sanctions that prevented people not
getting food.Also it was the sensless bombing of the water production
facilities that killed thousands. "For the lost of civil liberties, do you have specic examples" How about the Miami police crack down on the protest of the FTAA? Theres much activity into the loss of rights that you must not be aware of.Quit listening to rush and sean and you might leaarn that your not as free as you were before King George took office. Posted by: smalfish at February 28, 2004 03:43 PM | PERMALINKCouple of observations: Although pursued as one aspect of the war on terror, Iraq in hindsight doesn't seem to fit the bill. The Bush administration is known to make wide rhetorical flourishes, but I wonder whether Iraq can still be trumped up as a front on the terror war. Second, is there any formal definition or organizational charter for the Coalition (capital C)? The other day, on TV, I noticed that the "Coalition" actually has a spokesman. What I don't understand is how a nation technically is admitted to the big C, is there a process,is it the whim of upper-level bureacrats, or is there even such a thing as the big C Coalition? Posted by: forgetting at February 28, 2004 03:49 PM | PERMALINKfw As others have pointed out, al Qaeda & Associates have hardly been idle since 9/11. They haven't hit here in the US — but why should that surprise you? There was an eight-year gap between the first attack on WTC and the second, devastating one. They're not working on our timetable. later So we're waiting until spring to go after bin Laden. Why didn't we go after him last spring? Oh, I remember — we were gearing up to save the world from fantasy WMDs. Yeah, that wasn't much of a distraction, was it? Posted by: duckie at February 28, 2004 03:51 PM | PERMALINK
When a war is declared on terrorism, where does citizenship come in play?- Padilla declared war, not police action with his dirty bomb plan. I don't think he was doing it for profit.
Good old police work was around before the war, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq got the information to supply to the police in Europe and America. Maybe the two have to work together? Attacking Kuwait was because of sanctions- Burning the oil fields was because of sanctions- The mass graves were because of sanctions- And stopping the flow of water to the Shites in the South was because of sanctions- And gassing the Kurds was because of sanctions- Tourture Chambers were becuase of sanctions- Selling oil under Food for Oil and keeping profits was sanctions (The UN can't relate one death to the sanctions by the way only hardships, but I only am assuming this because I read the report from the United Nations, but will continue to get my facts straight. But sanctions were UN imposed, not US) Oh and by the way, Saddam was in power long before Bush the first. He first attacked Iran during the Carter administration. And the bottom line, is why are you so willing to ignore these deaths. This is why we are hated in the Arab world. They feel that we will not stay, and they have facts to back them up.
Later: Yes, tell the 10th Mountain they can only get their gonads up when the daisies are in bloom. Ditto the SAS or SBS. Wouldn't want to fight when the bad guys are worried about keeping their own balls warm, eh? Wake up, dude. You're talking major theatre warfare and logistics, and beside, do you think command is gonna say "we're going sledding"? They were given other priorities, many in the north of Iraq. Personnel and materiel were diverted from pashtun areas 9 months before D-1 in Iraq. Tora Bora was a handjob according to people who were there. This is the usual f*ck-up revelation of ineptitude, by the usual f*ck-ups. And if you think "Bush controls Pakistan", maybe you'd like to have him speak to those organized engagement guys who keep ambushing Musharraf's convoy on his way home. Posted by: fouro at February 28, 2004 03:59 PM | PERMALINK" I was working in the Red Cresent as a volunteer working direct relief.I highly doubt this dispute but I'lll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you did.Why then are you for more military action if you are.The red cresent is neutral in these matters.
The U.N. might have been the one named as in charge of sanctions but IT WAS the U.S. who would not give the up under any conditions that had saddam still in power. Actually the U.N. does not have numbers of the dead in Iraq because of sanctions.Does this not make you question why. "Padilla declared war, not police action with his dirty bomb plan." Where is the trial transcripts for the evidence of these claims? "Burning the oil fields was because of sanctions-" THis happened during the war not before nor after. The mass graves were because of sanctions- And stopping the flow of water to the Shites in the South was because of sanctions- And gassing the Kurds was because of sanctions- Tourture Chambers were becuase of sanctions- All of these were definatly not done because of sanctions and you ought to know this.More spin and I'm gonna drop.Why is it you need to distort facts. As far as keeping the profits from the oil for food,where is the proof of this "fact"? Maybe the proverb fits you too:If you cant dispute the facts---distract.
Sorry for the confusing post but it was the incoherence that left me confused. Posted by: smalfish at February 28, 2004 04:13 PM | PERMALINKFouro- SAS and SBS are not major offensives, or fall under the intensify operation. Intensify operations is divisional level actions. This is not done under hostile weather when it can be avoided. The 10th can fight in any weather, and no ones assumes they are sledding. However, no one should assume that they should push into harsh conditions where the enemy has an upper hand just to get a time table complete, when there The reports of diversion are true. But there was military, and political, reasons. The mountains are hostile. The plan was to gain control, and build infrastructure of what was controlled, and not to stretch thin. (that is why there was no attack last spring). By the way this is from the UN operational web-site, not the pro-Bush website. Posted by: pol at February 28, 2004 04:20 PM | PERMALINKthe white house did act as if suddenly obl didn't need more attention once the taliban scrammed. as far as iraq, since the uk spied on Kay, the osp must've figured there were no wmd to speak of. is pulling bases out of saudi going to help the House of Saud any with their dissent? and if the dominionists are so intent on helping the oppressed, then what up with haiti? Posted by: mamima at February 28, 2004 04:34 PM | PERMALINKUhh who is distracting? Red Crestent is neutral, the people have thoughts. I started my volunteer work when living in Turkey and have continued. I can not become an official member because of prior military service. "The U.N. might have been the one named as in charge of sanctions but IT WAS the U.S. who would not give the up under any conditions that had saddam still in power. Actually the U.N. does not have numbers of the dead in Iraq because of sanctions.Does this not make you question why." Yes, becuase they were crule and hard on the people. It was all but the US who argued to continue sanctions, and they were not based on Sadaam staying in power, the SC wanted the proof of MWD destoyed.
Where is the trial transcripts for the evidence of these claims?" Uhh- thats the point. He is a war prisoner and not privy to civil rights as charged by the US Government (who is allowing the charge to be considered by the Supreme Court. It is not hidden under the rug as it is on the front page) Where is the facts on distoring the money from the oil for food.
front page NY Times, and every other newspapaper, including Al Jazeer
when they published the list of 250+ oil chits. I can't wait to crush the Taliban out of existence again. Posted by: kurtie! at February 28, 2004 04:47 PM | PERMALINKThe only justification for the Iraq war in my opinion is that war resulted in fewer deaths than continuation of sanctions. It's the one reason I never call myself "anti-war" because there was a justification there. But Bush never resorted to it. The only humanitarian case he made was Saddam's brutality against political enemies 12 years ago. Not how Saddam+UN sanctions (with US applying the enforcement pressure)=500,000 deaths. Posted by: Elrod at February 28, 2004 04:51 PM | PERMALINKThere is worse news from Afghanistan. Go to globeandmail.com for Saturday and read "Taliban lurches back toward power" Posted by: mateo at February 28, 2004 04:55 PM | PERMALINK"You stated there has been major terrorist actions and the only one cited (Bali) was prior to the war. " No that was someone else's thread.
Keiser, When Kerry says "some miltary action" I interpret him to mean special ops of the sort that's carrying out the Afghanistan mission. Similar type of military action can and should be done elsewhere as needed. Kerry has called for 40,000 new troops. Presumably some would be to bolster special ops. But more are probably because of peacekeeping needs in Iraq, which Kerry is committed to. I don't see Kerry jettisoning military action in the war on terror at all. Kerry is absolutely right that most terrorists are caught, and terrorism is prevented, by good old-fashioned police and intel work. The kind that prevented the Lincoln and Holland Tunnel bombings and the Millennium bombings. Good police work could have and would have prevented 9/11. The difficulty is that it involves a sort of communication between agencies that we've never achieved up to now. And, it requires unprecedented international cooperation. Pakistani police work gave us Khalid Mohammad after all. The Yemeni government has netted a handful of al-Qaeda people too. To say that Clinton "did nothing" after the first WTC bombing, the Embassy bombings or the USS Cole is laughable. Did he do enough? No. He should have launched a full-scale military operation in Afghanistan instead of trying a pin-prick Cruise missile attack in 1998. Of course the Republicans would never have rallied around him because they cared more about slamming him in the impeachment scandal than they did stopping terrorism (the Weekly Standard is an exception here, I might add - Bill Kristol in 1998 slammed his fellow conservatives for accusing Clinton of "wagging the dog" and not taking Osama seriously). When Bush took office in January 2001 he simply did not think Osama was a serious foreign policy threat. We'll hear more about this when the 9/11 panel finishes its work, and when Richard Clarke's book comes out (he was the point man for briefing Bush on ongoing anti-terrorism operations at the end of the Clinton Administration). Bush adopted a more openly military role in Afghanistan only after 9/11. And even still he wouldn't commit sizable numbers of ground troops. Maybe that would have helped secure much of the country outside of Kabul. Or maybe it would have stirred up the Afghan population against us. Who knows? What I'm quite certain of, though, is that Bush diverted a sizable chunk of the US military capabilities to invade Iraq. And considering the destabilization of Iraq in the past year, the Iraq war was a complete disaster for the war on terror. Presumably it's shortsighted large-scale ground invasions of nations with very tenuous ties to terrorists that Kerry refers to when he blasts the Bush Administration's war on terror approach. Posted by: Elrod at February 28, 2004 05:08 PM | PERMALINKDeep down, do you think most Democrats would prefer another Sept 11 if it could guarantee them Bush would lose in November, or no more terrorist attacks in the US if it assured them of four more years of being on the outs? I don't know the answer, but the fact that it is out there is pretty damning to the Democrats. Rewritten to reflect reality: As to fw's amusing assertion that the lack of major attacks since 9/11 proves anything, I have a pink purse that protects me from being attacked by a lion – it's amazing, I've never been attacked by a lion while carrying it. It’s the same Republican logic. Posted by: Lori Thantos at February 28, 2004 05:18 PM | PERMALINK"""because of peacekeeping needs in Iraq, which Kerry is committed to""" Yoooo...put down the weed dude...Kerry voted AGAINST peacekeeping in Iraq and funding the continuation of the war on terror by the military. Did you miss the vote dude?? MORE LUNACY: """Pakistani police work gave us Khalid Mohammad after all. The Yemeni government has netted a handful of al-Qaeda people too.""" Hey, guess where the police got their intelligence...from the tents, caves and houses of the Al Queda and taliban in Afghanistan and Iraq. We would have caught, nor stopped 1/10th of the terrorists without the military having opened al queda up like a chest spreader. Believe me, the 10,000 Al Queda trained terrorists fear the army,
marines and smart bombs far more than they fear the FBI. What you don't
hear about in Iraq id we are capturing or killing terroists on a daily
basis. Lori Thantos -- The power of your pink purse in protecting you from lions would be
more significant if there had been a severe lion attack which everyone
assumed would be followed by more. """The Yemeni government has netted a handful of al-Qaeda people too""" Hey did you miss us blowing the USS Cole bombers up with the missile from the drone? You think that was NYPD? Wake up! 90% of what we now know today about Al Queda, how they finance, how
they operate, who they communicate through, the ties and fund raising
through Islamic charities, the ties to which madrassas and which Imams
ALL CAME FROM THE MILITARY VICTORY IN AFGHANISTAN. We got more
intelligence No pakistani police force gave us Khalid Sheikh Muhammed you dolt....we tracked his cell phone, we tracked his internet access, we found out what sattelite communications they used, how they communicated, what their cover names were all from military gathered intelligence. You are simply out of your league. Posted by: kesier at February 28, 2004 05:54 PM | PERMALINKKeiser, "What you don't hear about in Iraq id we are capturing or killing terroists on a daily basis." This is patently ridiculous. If you define the Iraqi insurgents as terrorists then you're right. Sure, they are terrorists in the strict sense: they terrorize the Iraqi population with car bombs and random mayhem. But they aren't the international Islamists who attacked us on 9/11. And if they are, then they moved on in there after our splendid invasion. But I guess that falls into the "Better they fight us in Baghdad than Boise, better in Kirkuk than Keokuk" bullshit. As for the $87 billion request Kerry opposed giving a blank check to the Administration for civil contracts in Iraq. Remember how hard the Administration worked to make sure the military part was paired up with the rebuilding, to the consternation of many conservatives and liberals? Kerry supported and continues to support getting the job done in Iraq. Read his damn website. But if you don't think the Administration was playing politics by coupling the $67 billion military bill with the $20 billion school painting mission then you're naive. Posted by: Elrod at February 28, 2004 05:58 PM | PERMALINKfw, you might just as well say that Clinton's actions in the wake of the first WTC bombing were even more effective than Bush's; after all, another attack didn't occur until after his next term was finished. In other words, we can't say ANYTHING rational about Bush's "success" compared to Clinton's until 2009. And even then we have to take into account the difference in their flexibility of action. Clinton was excoriated for every action, no matter how obviously correct (like his elimination of Hussein's ability to threaten his neighbors and his focus on bin Laden – even to the point of attacking him knowing that the Republicans couldn't put national security above partisanship and would accuse him of wagging the dog). In other words, the pink purse is as good a model as the one you are using. And let's be honest. Terrorism is not the number one threat to an American life. It is not number two. It's not even among the top ten (ask the CDC). But 9/11 was the best thing that ever happened to George Walker Bush. Before that he was a shoe-in for a single term given the divisiveness of the process by which he became President, the far out of the mainstream way in which he governed, and his poor handling of the concerns of ordinary Americans. In reality, it is not the Democrats, but the Republicans whose have
benefited from terrorism. That's why there is good reason to wonder
which the Republicans would rather have – no terrorism that leads to
Bush's defeat because people have become complacent or a terrorist
attack that they can further scare Americans with so he can have a
second term. Ahhh yes!Life,liberty and the pursuit of those that threaten it.----U.S. NAVY advertisement Posted by: smalfish at February 28, 2004 06:20 PM | PERMALINKSmallfish-
I do not agree that my statments on parilla support your argument. In the case where we are at war with a non-government, then the case of citizenship is murky, to me. Is an American in Iraqi shooting US troops a combatant, or a murderer? I beleive they are combatatants, and am glad to let the Supreme Court decide (I believe in them which is why I do not dispute the ruling on Bush, although I don't like it) The first Bush was under a UN charter for the war that had a limited scope. I didn't agree with it, but to continue would have been true isolated actions and condemened the US. It was not the US that turned away at the end of the war, it was the world, which the US is a part. And no the US does not want for blood. It does the best it can, and mistakes happen. But is this unusual for world politics. France backed Hitler, and realized the mistake. Is a past mistake justification for not doing something today? Where is the proof that the US is only after the oil? My comment on the millions dying, was the millions that have died
since Sadaam came to power. No one listened to the cries until the US
got involved, but we keep count of everyone that has died since. My
point being, don't use body count as a justification, unless you use the
full body count. Elrod- The Iraqi 87 billion was what was asked for and delivered. The cost to support Iraqi. Do you really believe that we can support Iraqi shool painting without the military there? Are you advocating a complete withdrawl? The UN won't even show up as they have stated. Also, there are terrorists in Iraq. I don't believe they were there until the war, but they are there. The concept of war is to get the enemy concentrated to fight Posted by: sinop85 at February 28, 2004 06:45 PM | PERMALINKNice way to get the anti-France talking points in there sinop85, too bad that not only did the US (mostly in the form of corporations) support Hitler, Bush's granddaddy did after we were at war with him. Apparently, selective use of the facts cuts across partisan lines. The intellectually honest know this and don't try to pretend that it is a defect unique to the other side. Posted by: Lori Thantos at February 28, 2004 06:45 PM | PERMALINKThe Taliban in Iraq? Do you get your world view from Tobe Keith? Posted by: Ducktape at February 28, 2004 06:47 PM | PERMALINKFW Bush claims to be waging a "Global War on Terror" with a coalition of countries, therefore any terrorist attacks anywhere would be a failure. So you have to count Bali, Turkey, and all the attacks occuring in Iraq as proof of failure of his policies. PERIOD. Posted by: Tom at February 28, 2004 06:51 PM | PERMALINKThe Republicans have to choose a justification and stick to it. It cannot both be that we are draining the swamp and that we are using Iraq as flypaper. Each is the antithesis of the other. And if Iraq is flypaper then they must admit that Bush lied to get us there, since that broken down nation was no threat to us before we invaded. Posted by: Lori Thantos at February 28, 2004 06:51 PM | PERMALINKSinop85 You have very commendable manners,I respect that. "France and Russia did never voted to lift the sanctions, or bring a referendum to the Security Council " While true it was never brought to the SC it was widely known (to the current administration)that they supported and wanted to eliminate sanctions.They and other countries wanted to allow inspectors more time,but this current regime'wouldnt allow it.
This was'nt even the justification for the war.If you know your history(that is just now comming to light) you know that Bush I actually gave the green light for saddam to invade Kuwait."we wont object to the border dispute you may have".It was only after the Iraqi invasion that the Bush I had an opportunity to use force,and then the justification was for (the public thought it was for liberation)the testing of military hardware that was brand new.There is even evidence now new,that saddam had the right to invade,Kuwait was drilling parrellel to the border for oil.Granted this was not a true case for war. Dont get me wrong I am not trying to make saddam a good guy in any way shape or form,but the fact is the American government has and does mislead us to war many times in the recent past and it is criminal.In the meantime wars make civil liberties secondary and this too is not right.Not only that the civilian casualties created by our government is unjustified and should be(but wont) punished.
Pol, I've seen the UN operational boilerplate. The point I think is obvious is you fight when they don't want to fight. 10th Mountain, Rangers and SAS, SBS are anytime anywhere. Full divisional war is a non sequitur in those mountains. Snow or 110 degrees, you are a big fat slow target. In that terrain, small forward teams piggyback, reconnoiter and maintain contact, I believe, and may very well have put the sights on where they believe Bin Laden is. Certainly, whoever is still tasked to maintain a presence there hasn't been hiding in a tent all winter. And that's the ironic part: If they've narrowed down his locations, why the hell the official pomp and circumstance and rain of press about "closing in" or "intensifying effort." Sorry, but after witnessing the last 18 months of how these guys--Rumsfeld & Co--fight, it feels precisely like more of the same politicized rubbish. Things don't "fit." And bad fit invariably points to "bullshit" with this crew. P.S. : Smallfish, In case you were wondering: I'm for our soldiers. Posted by: fouro at February 28, 2004 07:23 PM | PERMALINK>He is a war prisoner and not privy to civil rights as charged by the US Government Jose Padilla is not a war prisoner. He was arrested in the US and has been denied his rights for the past 2 years. As for the terrorist attack in Bali, that did not occur before the war on terrorism began, since the war on terrorism began right after 9/11. Posted by: Robert McClelland at February 28, 2004 07:25 PM | PERMALINKBush claims to be waging a "Global War on Terror" with a coalition of countries, therefore any terrorist attacks anywhere would be a failure. So you have to count Bali, Turkey, and all the attacks occuring in Iraq as proof of failure of his policies. PERIOD. That's just nuts. It sets the bar at such a ridiculous height that no president could possibly ever claim success. I suspect that was the reason you pulled it out of your ass. Posted by: Randal Robinson at February 28, 2004 07:39 PM | PERMALINKLori Smallfish- Bush I did not pursue Sadaam, nor the rest of the world did either. America may be the lead but we can't be expected to run other countris, because the coalition would have fallen apart and Isreal would have been to blame and the mid-east would have been in flames. Already everyone is crying America is only after oil, what if we had expanded the war beyond the original charter? The I told you so's would have spun up the masses. Like you said, there were those that wanted to end sanctions. But they did nothing. That to me is a bigger crime. Yes the US could have vetoed, so they could have vetoed the extensions. The history is up for interpretation. The Ambassador (can't rememeber her name) did make the statement, but it did not mean green light into Kuwait. It could just have likely meant go to world court. The entire context was recorded.
Again, Citizenship is murky, and I in no way agree with violation of
the 5th and 6th ammendments. But also don't want to wait for police
investigation on a man with a dirty bomb. Is he still a US citizen when
he has joined a group that has declared war on the West. I don't know
the answer, nut have not seen abuses that make me worry, watchful, yes.
War is not the same. Was the US justified in the Japannese interment
camps. No in looking from the comforts of now, but what about when there
was confirmed reports that Japanese mixed with the citizens were giving
target information on Pearl Harbor. Robert: ... Meanwhile, the US Supreme Court has agreed to decide the case of Jose Padilla, Antiwar.com identifies Padilla as held by the military, not the police. The Supreme Court is hearing the discussion to determine if he is POW or combatant. And his lawyer has met with him as documented in Newsday- 26 Feb 04. Posted by: sinop85 at February 28, 2004 07:57 PM | PERMALINKCan anyone tell my why I shouldn't credit the Libyan volte-face on WMD to the US's new aggressiveness since 9/11/01? Posted by: Mark Zimmerman at February 28, 2004 07:59 PM | PERMALINKDinosaur, the purse was a gift from some friends who found it in Scotland. Doing a quick google, I find that someone is selling a similar (mine is solid fuchsia, rather than a pink print) one on e-bay (what do you know, two of the biggest cliché's on the net in one post). Posted by: Lori Thantos at February 28, 2004 08:07 PM | PERMALINK"Can anyone tell my why I shouldn't credit the Libyan volte-face on WMD to the US's new aggressiveness since 9/11/01?"
How about this article from Sep of 1999 – from the Christian Science Monitor: The West has long viewed Libya as one of the globe's most dangerous nations. Terrorism linked to Libya in the 1980s compelled then-President Reagan to refer to Colonel Qaddafi as the "mad dog of the Middle East." Handover of suspects But that image appears to be changing. The catalyst was the handover last April of two Libyan suspects in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. The suspects are scheduled for trial in the Netherlands next February. After the handover, United Nations sanctions that prohibited air travel and froze Libyan assets abroad were suspended, causing a rush of euphoria in Tripoli. Libyan moves to accommodate France and Britain have also caught Washington's attention. Despite official denials - and President Clinton's reassurance to Congress in July that he would maintain unilateral US sanctions "fully and effectively" - the Clinton administration is known to be considering removing Libya from the State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism. More can be found at the link, but crediting Bush with success in
Libya is like crediting Reagan for the success of the Cold War. Both
were there when it happened, but neither laid the foundations, and
neither can demonstrate that their part was more than that of their
predecessors. More can be found at the link, but crediting Bush with success in Libya is like crediting Reagan for the success of the Cold War. Both were there when it happened, but neither laid the foundations, and neither can demonstrate that their part was more than that of their predecessors. Posted by: Randal Robinson at February 28, 2004 08:21 PM | PERMALINKDear Mr. Zimmerman, Historians get around it by looking at the minutes of government official meetings, and carefully dissect timelines. In your case, if an official of Lybia acknowledged that Iraq influenced Qhaddafi's decision, it would be a good start. The timeline is not as good though. Lybia did overtures to rejoin the world economy ever since it decided to settle the Lockerby bombing charges. Also, it's current program was not really advanced or going anywhere anytime soon. Iraq, may have played a role or not. It's even possible that the US's embarrassment at failing to find in WMD, was used by Libya: we'll throw you a publicity bonanza, in return for sanction-lifting. Posted by: ch2 at February 28, 2004 08:26 PM | PERMALINKAmericans (or at least Calpundit posters) clearly do not read the news. In the past 12 months, al-Qaida has struck in Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco. Why? Because standing up to secular governments in Islamic countries gets them more recruits. Posted by: js7a at February 28, 2004 08:27 PM | PERMALINK"America may be the lead but we can't be expected to run other countris, because the coalition would have fallen apart and Isreal would have been to blame and the mid-east would have been in flames."
"Americans (or at least Calpundit posters) clearly do not read the news." js7a, thanks for the link. "Libya: we'll throw you a publicity bonanza, in return for sanction-lifting." NO F'in WAY.This reversal was directly related to OIL! With the reserves of oil being touted as getting low what would be better than to reestablish relations with a killer like Libya? Posted by: smalfish at February 28, 2004 08:35 PM | PERMALINKsmallfish, ch2 Your right I misread your post.My apologies. Posted by: smalfish at February 28, 2004 08:45 PM | PERMALINKKevin Drum: YES. WAR ON TERROR. FIGHT TERROR. KILL TERROR. *WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH TERROR.* We need to transform, modernize, Islamic culture. They need to learn multiculturism. Bush can't teach them. Gay marriage? Let's get old fashioned like the Islamist fundamentalists and go for marriage between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a girl. Praise god. Posted by: epistemology at February 28, 2004 08:51 PM | PERMALINKBecause standing up to secular governments in Islamic countries gets them more recruits. Well,since we're setting up a theocracy in a non-Islamic country we're safe? Posted by: M. Tullius at February 28, 2004 09:23 PM | PERMALINK>>>aside the intensity, we seem to argue the same point. US companies are forbidden to trade until sanctions are lifted. Lybia wants them lifted. Qhaddafi may have decided that any action that builds US incentive to do that is great But the sanctions have been in place how long? Why act now? Why help Bush? Why throw open the whole network of illegal nuclear proliferation now? Posted by: Mark Zimmerman at February 28, 2004 09:43 PM | PERMALINKWell Mark, But back to the data and your questions. "But the sanctions have been in place how long?" The Lockerbie bombing occurred in 1988, and sanctions were imposed in 1991. Why act now? Why help Bush? Why throw open the whole network of illegal nuclear proliferation now? a) Why throw open the whole network of illegal nuclear proliferation ? If you're going clean, you don't care about burning your sources. b) Why now ? Don't know. Maybe the Lockerbie concessions were not good enough. Or, we may have asked them to come clean about a program we suspected. Anyway, I gotta go but that was my two cents' worth. Thanks for the link, Kevin! I, unsurprisingly, agree with everything he said, although my two main reservations would be (a.) the cheap shot at the Israeli peace process; as far as I can see, that's one of the only policy issues where the Bush administration has tried to do the right thing, and (b.) the fact that really, none of those ideas are terribly sexy. He's right in every way -- the war of ideas is the more important one -- but it doesn't give the feeling of security that well-oiled guns give to the warbloggers... I'll be interested to see if he can get these ideas across to people. He'd better start soon. Posted by: Chris Conroy at February 28, 2004 10:20 PM | PERMALINKMark, smallfish's point: the desire to exploit oil in Lybia, may have drawn Lybia and the US closer together. Smallfish, Keiser, Does anyone else think that "the last best hope of earth" is a little bizarre? Posted by: David Perlman at February 28, 2004 10:27 PM | PERMALINKSmallfish-
This might have been posted in the wrong thread. Sorry about the repetition:
...is not the holy rating spike that might come with the opportunity to bask in the glory of presenting himself as the Conqueror Shrub, but to reaffirm the only device that has worked in his attempts to pillage this country: FEAR. Images of a babbling, perhaps even cowering bin-Laden in standard issue Army leg-irons will undoubtedly energize the unwavering Bush faithful, but I would guess a lot of Americans who are on the fence experiencing crises of faith in our President would realize they'd been duped, and come to understand what a sham The Hunt for Osama - and perhaps the entire Bush presidency - has been all along. But they and the other once-believers would return to the House of the Doers of Good because... The imprisonment or killing of bin-Laden would absolutely justify taking the whole nation to Homeland Security Code Red; how could any Bush opponent (including me!) suggest that the country would not be in truly imminent danger of a real terrorist attack then? Rove & the Republicans not only would argue that Bush is the one man with the experience to defend us against this threat, but announce that, as a caring leader, he would immediately leave the campaign trail to work on a viable defense plan to save us all, men, women, and children - even homosexual ones. And, well, imagine how that might leave any Democratic challenger looking... Fair enough that Afghanistan is not just special ops. But it's much much smaller in terms of manpower commitment than Iraq. And even if it required 500,000 men it would still be the kind of military action Kerry would support because the actual culprits of 9/11 were hiding in Afghanistan and taunting us from there. It's not the size of the operation that would make it palatable to Kerry, but the obvious necessity of it. It would have been impeachable not to attack Afghanistan. 95% of America supported attacking the Taliban. This wasn't a "Bush Doctrine" move because it was in retaliation for a military attack against the United States. Frankly, I don't see much of a difference, theoretically, between Bush's and Kerry's approach to the war on terror. Bush has relied heavily on law enforcement and intel operations, both domestically and internationally. In practice there's a huge difference. Bush is ready to burn the UN and "Old Europe" a lot faster than Kerry would. Bush had Iraq on the brain all along and it hasn't done jack shit to help make America or the world safer. But they would have approached Afghanistan the same way. As for Kerry's vote on the war and on the $87 billion I have to admit I'm not entirely sure or satisfied. I can only think that he did not like "what was offered", as did many conservative Republicans whose constituents groveled over civil project spending. The US can't pull out, even though I'm quite sure Bush would like to. Perhaps this is why Kerry has asked to increase the size of the military while Rumsfeld still holds on to his cherished, nimble, smallish fighting force, even as our peacekeeping missions demand MORE, not LESS, boots on the ground. We will get minimal help from others so we should be ready to bear the burden in the future. When I hear Bush say that we'll be there for decades and we'll be spending close to a trillion dollars there when all is said and done then I'll know he's serious. Until then, I'll continue to see Bush as a political coward not worthy of leading this nation. Posted by: Elrod at February 28, 2004 11:21 PM | PERMALINKIn Kerry's speach he makes this point of difference with Bush: >>>Where he’s acted, his doctrine of unilateral preemption has driven away our allies and cost us the support of other nations But then later in the speech, Kerry says >>>As President, I will not wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake. and >>>First, if I am President I will not hesitate to order direct military action when needed to capture and destroy terrorist groups and their leaders So waht's the difference with Bush's policy of pre-emption?
>>>We must train more analysts in languages like Arabic. The CIA couldn't get anywhere with this when the Democrats under Clinton. This is how Kerry's going to deal with the Saudis: >>>We will launch a "name and shame" campaign against those that are financing terror. And if they do not respond, they will be shut out of the U.S. financial system. Is it really that easy? This is the only reference to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict: >>>We have seen what happens when Palestinian youth have been fed a diet of anti-Israel propaganda The Palestinians hate Israel because of anti-Israeli propaganda? Would this propaganda be news footage of what the IDF is doing in Palestinian territory every day? Or pictures of the separation fence? This struck me as interesting, in light of Kerry's vote on spending in Iraq last fall: >>>Next, whatever we thought of the Bush Administration’s decisions and mistakes – especially in Iraq – we now have a solemn obligation to complete the mission, in that country and in Afghanistan. Iraq is now a major magnet and center for terror. Our forces in Iraq are paying the price everyday No change in policy if Kerry is elected. Posted by: Mark Zimmerman at February 28, 2004 11:48 PM | PERMALINKI don't know if your last post is sarcastic - I'm guessing not - but I agree. From here on out, Kerry would do exactly what Bush so far has said he'd do. I wish Kerry AND Bush (though especially Bush, since he's the actual President) would come clean with the American people on how long this commitment will last. Tell us that it will be decades and involve a trillion dollars and I'll know he's for real. Right now I see too many mixed signals, as if he's just thinking about how he can pull out and save face for the election. A lot of people would like the US to leave, including many conservatives. I think it would be a disaster. Kerry is right. It doesn't matter why we're there. We're there now and we have an obligation to get it right. Leaving now would yield a certain civil war. The Palestine comments were disappointing. But in an election year do you expect honesty from a candidate on Israeli atrocities? This is the fault of America as a whole, not just Kerry or Bush. The reconciliation of the first points is not too difficult. If the threat is real, Kerry will invade regardless of allies' objections. The practical upside of this is: what about a case where the threat is not so real. Or is only potential. The key difference is pre-emptive war. Because of the failures to find WMD a pre-emptive war in Iraq has revealed itself to be disastrous. Had WMD been discovered other nations could have said, hey, you were right. But now they'll never trust either our intel or our interpretation of our intel if it means a pre-emptive war. Who would join a future coalition of the willing? Not likely Britain or Australia. Unless the threat really is real and imminent, in which case it wouldn't be pre-emptive. Posted by: Elrod at February 29, 2004 12:30 AM | PERMALINKIraq may not have been a distraction, but rather a diversion. Perhaps the administration knew, or at least strongly suspected, that with serious, concerted, persistent effort OSL could be had in relative short order, i. e., in too short of order. W and his crew may not know much but they do know manipulating the electorate and the lesson of Daddy's demise could not be more obvious' Given Ws decline in popularity, people might actually be beginning to think he is not honest, the admin may not want to risk waiting until October to trot out OSL. If that doesnt work, I shudder to think of what terrible acts or acts of omission to which these zealots will resort. Posted by: MikeK at February 29, 2004 12:34 AM | PERMALINKI just read the entire comments by John Kerry and I was quite impressed. Sure, there are moments when he gets his digs in on Bush, and there are points that would require more clarification. But overall it was a strong document. And it does not show him to be shunning military action in the war on terror in favor of law enforcement. Rather, he seems to be saying that we need both - and a lot of both. Just that we have to be careful that we don't hurt the very allies we need to help us on both the military and law enforcement side. I feel more confident with him as a commander in chief, and in the coming political fight. I'd like to hear other comments, especially from those who read the entire document. Posted by: Elrod at February 29, 2004 12:51 AM | PERMALINKRANDAL Or is it just terrorist attacks that cost him votes that concern him? Posted by: Tom at February 29, 2004 03:38 AM | PERMALINK::::Because of the failures to find WMD a pre-emptive war in Iraq has revealed itself to be disastrous. Had WMD been discovered other nations could have said, hey, you were right"""" Sorry, but this just doesn't make sense... The UN, Hans Blix all said that Iraq had NOT MADE THE FUNDAMENTAL DESCISION TO COOPERATE AND DISARM. This WMD stockpile thing is a myth...its just the last of the lefts candards...after we've proven everthng else about Hussein from all the UN resolutions. He had concealed WMD programs, he had violated every UN resolution, he was decisiving the UN, his Final Full Disclosure wass FALSE and he had not made the fundamental decision to disarm. PERIOD. Posted by: keiser at February 29, 2004 03:54 AM | PERMALINKVETERANS SMACK DOWN KERRY: http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhattan/nyc-camp0229,0,3789710.story?coll=nyc-manheadlines-manhattan Vietnam veterans rallied Saturday outside Sen. John Kerry's campaign headquarters in Manhattan — but a Band of Brothers they were not. Side by side with a coalition of Vietnamese-Americans from across the country, members of the Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry chanted "Commander-in-Chief Kerry? No Way!" under banners and signs decrying the Democratic front-runner as a traitor. "He betrayed us. He stabbed us in the back," Jerry Kiley, 57, co-founder of the ad hoc group, screamed to the crowd of about 400 people packed on Park Avenue South. "We will never allow him to be our commander-in-chief. Ever!" Veteran after veteran passionately lambasted Kerry, for, among other things, his testimony to Congress that detailed alleged atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam. Kiley said his group plans to rally at the Democratic convention in Boston in July if Kerry wins the nomination. Now who said Veterans weren't patriotic....ohh yeah, Kerry did. Ahhhhh, now who's being preemptive and unilateral: Sen. John Kerry said he would use American military forces to stop the violence if he were in office. "President Kerry would never have allowed that to get where it is," Kerry said. So being pre-emptive and unilateral is bad , except when Kerry says its not. So Kerry wants the big old mean United States to throw its weight around..of course only when what 500 have died in Haiti while 5000 a month were dying under Hussein in Iraq. Posted by: keiser at February 29, 2004 04:20 AM | PERMALINK5000 a month were dying under Hussein? Why not say it was 7000? Posted by: Dinosaur at February 29, 2004 05:29 AM | PERMALINKThis WMD stockpile thing is a myth...its just the last of the lefts candards... The writer's plea for understanding is touching as is his contempt for punctuation. This otherwise is another example of Republican exegesis in which clarity is victimized by cant. Posted by: Harry 3 Lime at February 29, 2004 06:32 AM | PERMALINKEarlier posters argue that Libya made it's decision to open itself to inspection and rat out its nuclear supplies because of oil. ("the desire to exploit oil in Lybia, may have drawn Lybia and the US closer together"). It took three years of Bush for everyone to figure out there's oil in Libya and money to be made? What I don't understand is that if Bush is such a disaster, why is Kerry proposing to continue his policies? Is Kerry going to make our intelligence infallible? The CIA and FBI bureaucrats are suddently going to come alive under Kerry? Kerry says Israel's problems are due to the Palestinians being raised on a diet of anti-Israel propoganda???!!!! What evidence do we have that Kerry will change anything with regard to Israel? If Kerry is too chicken to talk about it now, what makes you think he can or will do anything later? Posted by: Mark Zimmerman at February 29, 2004 06:53 AM | PERMALINKWho among you would have predicted on Sept 12, 2001, that there would have been no further attacks on the US in the following 2 1/2 years? Ummm, well. First, if you are talking about large-scale 9-11 style attacks, I for one said that we likely wouldn't see anything like that again for five or ten years (and, I also predicted at GWB's subsequent address to Congress that he'd claim a lack of attacks was proof of his success ... which I still believe he'll start touting on the campaign trail). If you are talking about attacks on US "interests" abroad, then you are quite mistaken: there have been several such attacks successfully carried out by OBL and his associates. In fact, there have been more of these than I would have expected. Posted by: Jet Tredmont at February 29, 2004 07:10 AM | PERMALINKI guarantee you that if you'd asked 100 million Americans on Sept
12th, 2001 whether having no further attacks on US soil for the next 2
1/2 years would constitute a good result on the WOT, Ask 100 women after they've been raped if they believe it will happen again in the next two months, and you'll get about the same percentage saying yes. It is natural human response to an unexpected and apparently out-of-our-control event to expect that event to repeat itself unless we do something about it. There is a stark difference between human psychology and the real
likelihood of an encore attack. You can't judge the "War" on Terror by
its striking dissimilarity to a reactionist psychological fear, any more
than you can judge the "War on Crime" to have been won because a
particular woman gets through several years without having been raped a
second time. The best thing America could do to undercut ObL is withdraw from Iraq
and to get the Israelis out of the West Bank and Gaza and create a real
independent democratic state for the Palestinians. No terrorist attacks in 2.5 years is good. It is also an indication that OBL and his crew got lucky on that date, gave it their best shot, made it, but with increased vigilance we have prevented further attacks, and that future ones will be few and far between. One big plus in our favor - attacks have been by Arabs, who stick out like a sore thumb right now. Not good for the law abiding Arabs, but it does help our fight. The white supremacists would be harder to fight because they blend in, but they are stupid. And where does W fit into the above equation - he happened to be the Pres during this 2.5 years, so he gets credit for it? Nah, it's like sports, it has been a team effort, all the way down the line, and the manager should give credit where it is due. Posted by: Dinosaur at February 29, 2004 08:57 AM | PERMALINKKerry is wrong on Israel. But so are 99% of all other US politicians. The last one to get it right was Cynthia McKinney and she was ousted for her honesty. Keiser, """"5000 a month were dying under Hussein? Why not say it was 7000?""" Because the 5,000 a month number is accurate and comes from the United Nations reports. Duhhhh...do you ever read? """"And one guy did get it right from the getgo. His name was Scott Ritter""""" What some fools fail to understand is that we never feared that Saddam would give Osama tractor trailer loads of chemical weapons but a handful of Antrax, or Botulinum Toxin, or Ricin. In fact if you were well read you would understand that Saddam set up Ansar Al islam into operation through his secret police and Al Queda operatives got biological and chemical weapons training from Saddams secret labs. That allowed them to make RICIN in Northern Iraq in no mans land (But with the support of the Mukabarat) and then try to take it to England. That is if you had spent 20 years with a top secret security clearance...you maybe btter at connecting a few news articles. Posted by: Keiser at February 29, 2004 09:16 AM | PERMALINKWooowwww. Is ense so Anti-semetism brewing among Liebrals - - what's the beef?? Isn't it funny how the news media keep asking the question is the Passion of the Christ anti-semetic.....But no one in the media asks...Is one of the leading Democrat presidential candidates an Anti-semite???? Why do you liberal democrats associate with an Anti-Semite like Al Sharpton????? Posted by: keiser at February 29, 2004 09:21 AM | PERMALINKKeiser wrote: "In fact if you were well read you would understand that Saddam set up Ansar Al islam into operation through his secret police and Al Queda operatives got biological and chemical weapons training from Saddams secret labs" If you're well read on fantasy, then of course this makes sense. To those of us who live in the real world, well, sorry, but this little fantasy never was more than a fantasy. You just gotta love someone like Keiser. Definitely a hoot. Posted by: PaulB at February 29, 2004 09:26 AM | PERMALINK"""And for his truthfulness he was labelled a Saddamite stooge"""" No, I believe he was labelled that because he took a bunch of money from his movie producer who got it from it being skimmed off the oil for food program by Saddam Hussein.. Please educate yourself about Mr. Ritters activities. Mr. Ritter got $400,000 from an Iraqi American businessman, Shakir
Alkhafaji, he produced a documentary about Iraq, "In Shifting Sands. Scott Ritter...now PROVEN Saddamite Stooge. Keiser wrote: "can you give me one quote from one other Nation showing they believed Saddam Hussein had fully disarmed from WMD prior to the war?" Wrong question, Keiser. Can you give me one quote from one other nation (other than Britain, of course) showing that they believed Saddam was a threat that required immediate action? Can you give me one quote from one other nation showing that they believed that Saddam still had an active nuclear program? Everybody believed he had something. Nobody believed he had anything significant or immediately threatening. "The UN, Hans Blix all said that Iraq had NOT MADE THE FUNDAMENTAL DESCISION TO COOPERATE AND DISARM." Actually, that's not what Hans Blix said, but thanks for playing. "This WMD stockpile thing is a myth" So I just imagined Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and Donalf Rumsfeld talking about stockpiles? "...its just the last of the lefts candards" Dear me, I wasn't aware that I had any "candards" [sic]. "after we've proven everthng else about Hussein from all the UN resolutions." LOL...yeah, right. Nice try, Keiser. (Talk about denial!) "He had concealed WMD programs," Um, no, Keiser, he didn't. Using the David Kay standard, every single country in the world has a "concealed WMD program." It's nonsense. "he had violated every UN resolution," Well, except for the one that required that he disarm, which he, in fact, did. "he was decisiving the UN," By claiming that he had no WMDs? Some deception! "his Final Full Disclosure wass FALSE" You mean the one where he claimed he didn't have WMDs? That was subsequently supported by the fact that he didn't have WMDs? "and he had not made the fundamental decision to disarm." Well, except for the fact that he had already disarmed. PERIOD. Too funny. Posted by: PaulB at February 29, 2004 09:34 AM | PERMALINK"""If you're well read on fantasy, then of course this makes sense. To those of us who live in the real world, well, sorry, but this little fantasy never was more than a fantasy.""" Your forgetting, Keiser knows much more than you. Three years ago, the world believed Saddam had WMD. Imagine what you will KNOW tomorrow. Thanks to me. Stay tuned. Posted by: keiser at February 29, 2004 09:35 AM | PERMALINKkeiser uses UN reports for the number of dead under SH - Should we be looking to the UN for guidance on all issues? I do not care if it was 500, 5000 or 50,000, I do not want the US go after cruel dictators. What does that make me? An uncaring person? OK, I'll accept that, paint me a Republican. Posted by: Dinosaur at February 29, 2004 09:38 AM | PERMALINKOperation Avenge My Daddy Well, I think if you look at the record, I made it clear that this war was all about avenging mah daddy. If there's one thing the american people appreciate and support, it's a family vendetta. Now, you'll excuse me, it's the lord's day. i got an auto race to watch. Posted by: dubya at February 29, 2004 09:56 AM | PERMALINKsee, i'd like to testify before the 9/11 commission (which i tried to strangle in its crib), but, you know, it's racing season. plus, i got a vacation or two coming up. Posted by: dubya at February 29, 2004 09:59 AM | PERMALINKdubya - How dare you make fun of such a serious topic? This thread is veering into idiocy. What do people (other than Keiser Wilhelm) think of Kerry's national security address at UCLA? It seems to be worthy of lots of commentary. So far only Mark Zimmerman has joined the fray. Maybe this should be a separate blog entry - Kevin? Posted by: Elrod at February 29, 2004 10:16 AM | PERMALINK""""I do not care if it was 500, 5000 or 50,000, I do not want the US go after cruel dictators""" That's the point....we, the United States and the United Nations ALLOWED Hussein to kill these people because we set up the rules for the oil for food program, do you still not get it? We left Saddam in charge of basically a concentration camp that WE were responsible for creating. Posted by: Keiser at February 29, 2004 10:26 AM | PERMALINK"Why are we stepping up the search for Osama? Well, considering this is now the third time since 9/11 that winter has moved toward spring, it shouldn't be a surprise. Soon the snow will melt, making movement through the mountains significantly easier. The peaks of the Hindu Kush reach into the 7,000 meter range, and the passes are in the 3,000-4,000 meter range. At those elevations, winter is harsh, with snow pack piling up over two meters deep. Think Colorado without highways and snow removal." Too bad that geography became "Social Studies" a generation ago. If that had not happened all you guys would understand things like snow in the Hindu Kush and 140 degree summer temperatures in Iraq. We had to go into Iraq before summer and Saddam and the UN weasels knew that if they could delay the war until May we would have to wait until the end of 2003 when Saddam could have bought a few more UN members. Afghanistan, especially the mountains, is impossible in winter. That's one reason why we went in so fast after 9/11. Now spring is coming and Osama is running. You people who know no geography, let alone military geography, think it's some sort of conspiracy. "I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man" Posted by: Mike K at February 29, 2004 10:26 AM | PERMALINKHere's a list of the victims of the Patriot Act: --> Padilla (maybe he is a victim and maybe he isn't) Here's a list of libraries raided due to the Patriot Act: --> Here is a list of other abuses of the Patriot Act that did not involve a court/judge: --> Did I leave any out? Here is the number of gallons of oil stolen from Iraq by President Bush's 'Texas buddies'since 3/03 during or after the War for Oil: --> 0 Here is the number of people in Iraq and Afganistan who are now free to fly kites or to buy bananas in the streets: 100,000,000 (approximately)
The Bush administration's record on terror has been amazingly flimsy, all bluster and very little genuine progress You wish. Posted by: Dennis Slater at February 29, 2004 10:29 AM | PERMALINKFreeing people to fly kites and buy bananas has never been high priority. Arabs killing Arabs also. Arabs coming to our shores and attacking - very high priority. Who did it? Let's get 'em. WE/I did not create SH. Someone earlier said we were veering into idiocy. I disagree, I have never veered, and neither has Bush. Posted by: Dinosaur at February 29, 2004 10:38 AM | PERMALINKIf the Bushies are such great fighters against terrorism, why did they shut down operation Green Quest in March of 2002? That, in case you are not aware, was a Customs Service effort to follow up on leads found in documents seized in raids that month in Northern Virginia on the International Relief Organization and the Muslim World League. Green Quest was looking into Saudi Arabia financing of terrorism. This effort was shut down by Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft. Could it be that the trail was leading into the Bushes? Wonder what was in the 28 redacted pages in the congressional report on 9/11? Could Talat Othman, board member of Harken Energy, be mentioned in those documents? And perhaps Khalid bin Mahfouz? I think it possible that Osama himself, just like Iraq, is the classic red herring. If so, these false trails seem to be drawing off all (or most) of the dogs in Kevin's hunting pack. Posted by: coz at February 29, 2004 10:39 AM | PERMALINKThe liberals LOVE the joke about Bush taking soo much vacation time. Well if he is actually on vacation, he deserves it. He is actually getting things done while Clinton spent his work hours sodomizing interns, hosting coffees for foriegn donors and gernerally getting nothing done. Posted by: keiser at February 29, 2004 10:48 AM | PERMALINKright on, coz. these fuckers are so dirty. does any bush apologist have an answer for the 28 redacted pages or the one hour of testimony Dear Leader has deigned to give to two members of the 9/11 commission? i bet if you put a 9/11 widow alone in a room with aWol, she'd strangle the little prick. Posted by: flatulus at February 29, 2004 10:54 AM | PERMALINK"the United States and the United Nations ALLOWED Hussein to kill these people because we set up the rules for the oil for food program, do you still not get it? We left Saddam in charge of basically a concentration camp that WE were responsible for creating." Keiser, Flatulus- "The best thing America could do to undercut ObL is withdraw from Iraq and to get the Israelis out of the West Bank and Gaza and create a real independent democratic state for the Palestinians." Great! This is to be the new Democratic Party position on Israel ? What do you call the proposal that Clinton and Dennis Ross presented to Arafat in 2000 ? Arafat can't accept peace because he has convinced his followers that only the destruction of Israel will satisfy them. He is a careerist in the pattern so well described by Pryce-Jones in his book "The Closed Circle". Arafat was a creation of the Soviets but they are gone now. He was never intended to govern. Read the piece today in the NYT magazine on anti-Semitism in France. The person in the article is a French radical leftist whose husband is a deputy mayor of Paris. Their children are terrorized at school. See if that helps you decide on the prospects for Palestinians governing themselves. Posted by: Mike K at February 29, 2004 01:29 PM | PERMALINKNo President has ever sat for a debreifing while in office. you might want to qualify that with the standard "created by a legislative body" as there once was a failed real estate deal that required the president to be deposed. i forget what happened. something about a penis, i believe. does any bush apologist have an answer for the 28 redacted pages or the one hour of testimony Dear Leader has deigned to give to two members of the 9/11 commission? that would be a No, just a hypothetical - if we invaded saudi, and for some reason bush had to fight (i know, it's a hypothetical), which side would he be on? Posted by: flatulus at February 29, 2004 04:30 PM | PERMALINKJust heard that the New Yorker is reporting that American troops will be allowed into Pakistan this spring to search for bin Laden. If this report is true, they definitely don't have bin Laden already. I know someone else in this thread (or a related one) said they would do this anyway even if they already had him, but sending U.S. troops into Pakistan seems pretty risky (it might provoke a coup and there'll likely be more U.S. casualties)--I don't think Bush would do it if bin Laden were already being held. Can't stand Bush, but I just don't think he'd run this risk (for his re-election) if he didn't have to. Posted by: otherpaul at February 29, 2004 09:15 PM | PERMALINKI think ion has it right. The thing that's hard to keep in sight when analyzing the schemes of the Bushites is that, on the whole, they're about as bright (as opposed to nefarious) as a moderately intelligent 5th-grader explaining about the dog and their homework. In other words, don't get too far out in front of them. They're not there with you. And a moderately intelligent 5th-grader would think that throwing out commments about "refocusing" on bin Laden February is more than adequate to explain "finding" him in time for the news to make aWol's prime-time acceptance speech at the Repub convention. And when people shout, "October Surprise!", these deep thinkers will respond, "Whaa? But it's only August!" Posted by: Buck at March 1, 2004 07:09 AM | PERMALINK> This is to be the new Democratic Party position on Israel ? I am not a Democrat, I just think Kerry is no different to Bush on Palestine. > What do you call the proposal that Clinton and Dennis Ross presented to Arafat in 2000 ? Bantustans similar to those in South Africa under apartheid - the solution proposed in 2000 would have created a Palestinian state consisting of five cantons, four in the West Bank and one in Gaza. Israel would have annexed 69 settlements in the West Bank and the network of roads would have stayed in place continuing to cause great disruption to the Palestinians. To compensate the Palestinian for the loss of prime agricultural land, the Israelis offered stretches of desert adjacent to the Gaza strip currently used for dumping toxic waste. > Arafat can't accept peace because he has convinced his followers that only the destruction of Israel will satisfy them. Arafat recognised in 1973 that Israel could not be defeated militarily and that a political solution must be found. The reason that there has been no solution is that neither Israel nor the U.S. want one. Arafat acknowledged Israels right to exist in 1993. > He is a careerist in the pattern so well described by Pryce-Jones in his book "The Closed Circle". Arafat was elected by the Palestinians as their President. > Arafat was a creation of the Soviets but they are gone now. > He was never intended to govern. Who decided he "was never intended to govern". The war criminals, Sharon and Bush? > Read the piece today in the NYT magazine on anti-Semitism in France. The person in the article is a French radical leftist whose husband is a deputy mayor of Paris. Their children are terrorized at school. See if that helps you decide on the prospects for Palestinians governing themselves. I have read the article. Odd how the incidents of anti-semetism
increase following Israeli attacks on Palestinian targets. By the way,
almost all of the Moslems in France are from France's former North
African colonies and not from Palestine and they are far more at risk of
racial discrimination and violence than Jews. If I was Jewish, I would
be far more concerned about the anti-semitic Christian Zionists in the
U.S. than a few marginalised Moslems in France. "Bantustans similar to those in South Africa under apartheid - the solution proposed in 2000 would have created a Palestinian state consisting of five cantons, four in the West Bank and one in Gaza. Israel would have annexed 69 settlements in the West Bank and the network of roads would have stayed in place continuing to cause great disruption to the Palestinians. To compensate the Palestinian for the loss of prime agricultural land, the Israelis offered stretches of desert adjacent to the Gaza strip currently used for dumping toxic waste." Even accepting for arguments' sake that you are correct about the proposal, why not negotiate from that position ? That was the Israeli proposal ! Arafat does not negotiate. Dennis Ross has written that there were venture capitalists ready to go into the Palestinian state and fund new projects. They will never again have such a chance. When Iraq is a free, self-governing country, what do you think will happen to Arafat ? Iran will throw out the mullahs sometime in the next two years. Unless Kerry is elected, of course, but that is a small chance. Syria will then be faced with a new reality in the Middle East. They will have no friends. They will dump Arafat and Hezbollah and the Palestinians will have to beg for what Israel will give them. The Sudentan Germans and the Prussians were expelled from Czechoslovakia and Poland after WWII. The Palestinians had better learn some history. The Arabs have used them with disdain and they will discard them when it is time to do so. That time is coming. Posted by: Mike K at March 1, 2004 02:50 PM | PERMALINKFlatulus- You are still wrong, but don't let facts get in your way of your prejudiced opinion. Clinton did not give a debrief, he testified as a witness in a criminal case. The sitting President testifying in an Intelligent investigation is un-precedented. "does any bush apologist have an answer for the 28 redacted pages or the one hour of testimony Dear Leader has deigned to give to two members of the 9/11 commission? that would be a No, " The 28 retracted pages were deemed security risks. Yes, there is such
a thing in the Intelligence World. This may surprize you as it is less
critical in the 'I will make a charge and have nothing to base it one
except useless cospiracy theory world'. The one hour testimony is not
even a required activity to support the investigations intent, so one
hour or 30 hours does not bother me. By the way, the previous President
and VP have also not agreed on a time limit, or public hearing. This
should be more shooking if you really want to blame POTUS, as the
majority of the intell failures were under his Presidency. (before you
get on the high hores, I did not, nor ever will blame Clinton. Yes the
information was there for all to see up until 9/11. The questions is why
were the dots not connected, not who to blame) But like I said, it is
not about a witch hunt, is it? "The 28 retracted pages were deemed security risks. Yes, there is such a thing in the Intelligence World. This may surprize you as it is less critical in the 'I will make a charge and have nothing to base it one except useless cospiracy theory world'." The zeal with which one side is pursuing the witch hunt in the CIA and the administration in public has produced this cautionary note. The piece is, of course, in a source that many of you will dismiss. Still, you should consider that this man is the highest ranking defector we ever got from the Soviet side. Penkovsky probably prevented a third world war, just by keeping us informed of what was going on. He paid with his life. Another major defector, author of "Inside the Aquarium", the description of the GRU, chose to defect to the Brits because he thought they were more hard nosed than the CIA which was being trashed by Church at the time. Sometimes these childish games of 'gotcha' being played by politicians, and always of the left, have real consequences. Here's the link: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pacepa200403010848.asp Posted by: Mike K at March 1, 2004 04:55 PM | PERMALINKA little joke; Salesman comes to a house and knocks on the door and the owner answers. Salesman: I am selling a device that will keep elephants away. Moral of the joke. The fact there has not been any terrorists
attacks against Americans in America only proves there have been no
attacks. The terrorists in Iraq are doing quite a job on American
troops hundreds dead thousands wounded but Iraq is free and America is
safer because of Bush. If I not mistaken the worst terrorists attacks
against Americans in the last 30 years has occurred while a Republican
has been in the White House. Ironic To go to war with untrained people is tantamount to abandoning them. Posted by: Lieber Angie at March 17, 2004 07:41 PM | PERMALINKA good friend can tell you what is the matter with you in a minute. He may not seem such a good friend after telling. Posted by: Henning Emily at May 2, 2004 01:29 PM | PERMALINKBuy www.i-directv.net this it is a wonderful addition to anyones home entertainment system. Posted by: direct TV at May 28, 2004 12:29 AM | PERMALINKgo to WWW.E-CREDIT-CARD-DEBT.COM for great deals! Posted by: credit card debt at June 15, 2004 11:13 AM | PERMALINKNow you can Play Poker online any time! Posted by: Play Poker Online at June 25, 2004 12:33 PM | PERMALINKBelieving in God does not require believing in religion. Posted by: Neufeld Josh at June 30, 2004 06:13 AM | PERMALINKcirruscasino | cityclubcasino | clearcredit | clicksmeds | clubdicecasino | collegepokerchampionship | colosseumcasino | coolcatcasino | crazyvegascasino | crazyvegaspoker | crystalpalacecasino | cyberpharmacist | dejackpotcity | dentalplans | desertdollar | diamondcasino | englishhabour | europacasino | evidenceeliminator | flamingoclub | fortunelounge | fortuneroom | frjackpotcity | gamingclub.uk | gamingclub Posted by: all poker casino at July 1, 2004 12:27 AM | PERMALINKyou can play blackjack online here! If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following online poker guide. This guide you should be in a god position to play poker. Posted by: online casino at July 26, 2004 09:11 PM | PERMALINKIf you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers. You can also play blackjack online fo free! Posted by: online casino at July 30, 2004 08:30 PM | PERMALINK4814 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 03:01 PM | PERMALINK5788 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com Best XXX Sites - Best XXX Sites - 830 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 03:30 PM | PERMALINKhttp://www.massagelondon.info http://www.massagelondon.org London
Massage Therapist http://www.massagelondon.biz massage therapy West
London UK http://www.massagelondon.me.uk London chair Massage UK
http://www.health-resources.co.uk Medical Alternative Medicine resources
in London England UK http://www.mobilephonesites.co.uk Nokia Free
Mobile Phones Sites London England UK http://www.massagelondon.org.uk
London Alternative Medicine UK http://www.backrub.me.uk massage tables
couches chairs UK http://www.backrub.org.uk Massage Warehouse Shop
Showroom http://www.bodywork.me.uk therapeutic bodywork England UK
http://www.getmassage.co.uk Massage Table Couch Chair UK
http://www.getmassage.me.uk massage beauty couch UK
http://www.getmassage.org.uk South London chair massage UK
http://www.holisticpage.co.uk East London holistic sports massage page
UK http://www.holisticweb.co.uk North West London holistic massage web
UK http://www.imassage.biz South West London massage products
http://www.imassage.me.uk South East London massage beds UK
http://www.imassage.org.uk Acton home massage treatment UK
http://www.iwantmassage.co.uk Chiswick massage service UK
http://www.iwantmassage.me.uk Ealing healing massage UK
http://www.iwantmassage.org.uk London Hammersmith massage UK
http://www.londonmassage.biz Central London massage treatment Fulham
UK http://www.londonmassage.me.uk London Shepperds Bush massage UK
http://www.londonmassage.org London W3 Bayswater massage UK
http://www.londonmassage.org.uk London w9 massage
UKhttp://www.londontherapy.biz London W2 Nothing Hill massage therapy UK
http://www.londontherapy.co.uk Complementary health London therapy UK
http://www.londontherapy.me.uk London Holland Park massage therapy UK
http://www.massagelondon-home.co.uk London home visits massage UK
http://www.massagelondononline.co.uk Massage Therapist London Online UK
http://www.massagelondon-online.co.uk London massage w9 online UK
http://www.massagelondonpage.co.uk Greater London massage page UK
http://www.massagelondon-page.co.uk w1 massage London UK page
http://www.massagelondonshop.co.uk London Massage Therapist Supplies
shop UK http://www.massagelondon-shop.co.uk portable massage couches
London UK http://www.massagelondon-site.co.uk therapy tables London UK
http://www.massagelondonweb.co.uk w4 North London massage clinic UK
http://www.massagelondon-web.co.uk w5 massage therapy London UK
http://www.massageme.biz w6 holistic massage practice
http://www.massageme.info massage products http://www.massageme.me.uk w7
massage beds UK http://www.massageme.org.uk w8 massage therapy
organisation UK http://www.massagenow.co.uk w10 alternative treatments
massage UK http://www.massagenow.me.uk w11complementary medicine massage
UK http://www.massagenow.org.uk w12 swedish massage UK
http://www.massagenow-home.co.uk w13 home massage UK
http://www.massagenow-site.co.uk w14 on site massage therapy UK
http://www.massageonline.me.uk sw1 massage clinic online UK
http://www.massageonline.org.uk massage therapists online
UKhttp://www.massagethai.co.uk sw3 traditional thai massage London UK
http://www.massagetherapy.me.uk massage therapy clinic UK London
http://www.myalternative.co.uk sw2 massage alternative health UK
http://www.mybodywork.co.uk sw4 massage & therapeutic bodywork
London http://www.mydrug.co.uk sw5 healthy massage no drugs
http://www.mylondonmassage.co.uk sw6 massage in London UK
http://www.mymassage.co.uk sw7 massage therapy practitioner London UK
http://www.mymassage.me.uk sw8 massage for health relaxation London UK
http://www.mymassage.org.uk sw9 Hawaiian massage rocking holistic
pulsing London UK http://www.my-massagelondon.co.uk indian head massage
London UK sw10 http://www.mymassagelondon.co.uk indonesian massage
london UK sw11 http://www.mymassagelondon.me.uk sw12 Manual Lymphatic
Drainage London UK massage http://www.mymassagelondon.org.uk massage
centre London UK http://www.mymassagenow.co.uk sw13 Kahuna bodywork
massage London UK http://www.my-massagenow.co.uk sw14 holistic bodywork
massage London UK http://www.mymedicine.me.uk sw15 alternative medicine
massage London UK http://www.myrub.co.uk sw 16 massage for pain &
tension London UK http://www.mythaimassage.co.uk nw1 holistic Thai
massage London UK http://www.mythaimassage.org.uk nw2 massage therapy
Wat Pho Bangkok practitioner http://www.mytherapy.me.uk nw3 massage
therapy for body & mind London UK http://www.mytherapylondon.co.uk
nw4 relaxation massage London UK http://www.mytherapylondon.me.uk nw5
massage therapy London UK http://www.mytherapylondon.org.uk nw6 healing
massage London UK http://www.my-website.org.uk nw7 website optimisation
promotion UK http://www.oilmassage.co.uk nw 8 oil massage London UK
http://www.pumper.me.uk http://www.pumper.org.uk nw9 deep tissue massage
London UK http://www.rub.org.uk holistic swedish massage rub London UK
http://www.rubdown.me.uk nw10 home massage service London UK
http://www.rubdown.org.uk nw11 London City massage UK
http://www.thaimassage.org.uk thai massage clinic in London UK
http://www.therapeuticmassage.me.uk therapeutic Massage in London
England UK http://www.therapistonline.co.uk massage therapist online
qualified London UK http://www.therapylondon.org.uk massage therapy
organisation London UK http://www.treatment.me.uk lomi lomi body &
mind treatment London UK http://www.tuina.org.uk chinese massage tui na
Tuina Tui-Na London UK http://www.uk-biz.com web design web development
web designer web site design web hosting web promotion web marketing
http://www.aamerica.biz america business Alternative medicine London UK
http://www.aamerica.info america usa info London health complementary
http://www.aamerica.org american organisation London complementary
therapies http://www.allamerica.co.uk holistic London therapy UK
http://www.allamerica.me.uk healing massage London UK
http://www.allamerica.org.uk London England massage therapy UK
http://www.americadrag.co.uk clothes, clothing, car, motorcar,
automobile, race UK America http://www.americadrag.com therapeutic
massage London UK http://www.americadrug.co.uk american drugs medicines
UK http://www.americahome.co.uk homes america UK sale usa
http://www.america-home.co.uk american homes realtors estate agents UK
http://www.americanow.biz america thai massage London UK
http://www.americanow.co.uk america chinese massage London UK
http://www.americanow.info america craniosacral therapy London UK
http://www.americanow.me.uk america London UK hawaiian massage
http://www.americanow.org.uk American massage lomi lomi London UK
http://www.americaok.co.uk Oklahoma State usa uk ok London
http://www.americaok.org American organisation manual lymphatic drainage
London UK http://www.americapage.co.uk American page magazine newspaper
website UK lymphatic massage London http://www.america-page.co.uk
american books comics UK massage pulsing London
http://www.america-page.com American on site chair massage website
London http://www.america-shop.co.uk american shop UK office massage
London http://www.america-site.com American website London massage table
UK http://www.americauk.com American UK London massage couch
http://www.americaweb.co.uk American web promotion in UK massage couch
London beauty bed http://www.america-web.co.uk American website massage
supplies warehouse London UK http://www.bamerica.info American info
massage chair uk http://www.bamerica.net american massage table covers
London UK http://www.bamerican.biz American massage table store london
UK http://www.bamerican.co.uk American portable massage tables London UK
http://www.bamerican.info American massage tables UK London
http://www.bamerican.org American in london thai massage UK
http://www.camerica.biz US California State American business USA UK
London http://www.camerica.info complementary alternative medicine
America London http://www.damerica.biz American alternative cancer
treatment London UK http://www.damerica.info American dame occupational
therapy London http://www.damerica.org america dame therapy equipment
london http://www.deamerica.co.uk Delavare USA america indian head
shoulder massage london UK http://www.dragamerica.co.uk clothes,
clothing, car, motorcar, automobile, race UK sale America USA
http://www.dragamerica.com craniosacral therapy London UK from america
http://www.famerica.net http://www.famerica.org famous celebrities in
America http://www.f*ckamerica.org http://www.gamerica.biz Americas
game, sport, athletic contests, the equipment for a game, wild animals
or birds hunted for sport or food, gamble http://www.gamerica.info
information on american games football rugby http://www.gamerica.net
http://www.getamerica.co.uk get american aromatherapy massage london UK
http://www.hamerica.biz American Ham US http://www.hamerica.info Hawaii
American State, the Hawaiian Islands, calling attention, expressing joy
http://www.hiamerica.net American Hawaiian Kahuna Massage Bodywork
London UK http://www.hitamerica.co.uk encounter American, arrive at
America, successful pop record, stroke of good luck
http://www.hitamerica.com http://www.hitusa.co.uk massage techniquefrom
USA London UK http://www.iamerica.co.uk american massage service London
UK http://www.iamerica.me.uk america London holistic medicine
http://www.iamerica.org.uk american sports massage UK London
http://www.idamerica.biz US Idaho State, American Identity
Identification Card http://www.idamerica.biz http://www.idamerica.info
http://www.idamerica.org information ID america massage central London
UK http://www.iloveamerica.biz american business sale generic domain
names http://www.iloveamerica.co.uk search engine promotion England
London UK http://www.iloveamerica.me.uk search engine optimisation
american domain names commerce shop UK http://www.iloveamerica.org.uk
web design love america domains UK http://www.iwantamerica.co.uk
american massage products London UK http://www.jamerica.co.uk American
Jam, Jamaican American UK http://www.kamerica.net kamagra generic viagra
domain name for sale London UK massage http://www.LAmerica.info Latin
America, Los Angeles, US Louisiana State information
http://www.Lamerica.org La America organisation alternative health
London UK http://www.loveamerica.co.uk american shop deep tissue massage
london UK http://www.loveamerica.info web development UK domain names
rent lease information UK america massage therapy
http://www.loveamerica.me.uk web designer UK american customers
http://www.loveamerica.org.uk web site design clients love massage
america http://www.mamerica.biz American mam mama mother domain name
business http://www.mamerica.info http://www.mamerica.net US
Massachusetts Statehttp://www.mamerica.org American domain name sale
shop warehouse massage tables UK London http://www.meamerica.net US
Maine, ME Myalgic Encephalomyelitis USA http://www.my-america.co.uk web
promotion UK domain names London business http://www.namerica.biz North
America, name, new http://www.namerica.co.uk http://www.namerica.info
http://www.noamerica.co.uk manual lymph drainage London UK fight
american international capitalismhttp://www.nousa.co.uk web marketing UK
boycott american politics sucks organisation UK London
http://www.nousa.org.uk http://www.oamerica.org http://www.ohamerica.org
US Ohio Statehttp://www.okamerica.biz US Oklahoma State
http://www.okamerica.info http://www.okamerica.org OK america massage
London UK England domains sale massage http://www.okusa.biz US Oklahoma
State http://www.okusa.info USA america UK London massage
http://www.pamerica.biz US Pennsylvania State http://www.pamerica.info
http://www.pamerica.net america domain names for sale massage network
London http://www.qamerica.org queen america organisation USA top-level
websites for sale London http://www.ramerica.biz
http://www.samerica.biz South America Uncle Sam Salvation Army Sex
Appeal American same America U SA business domain brokers
http://www.shitamerica.com commercial domains hate american politics?
http://www.theamerica.biz lease domain american web pages design
promotion UK http://www.theamerica.co.uk website names for sale massage
therapy london http://www.theamerica.me.uk internet websites for
clinics spas UK practitioners http://www.theamerica.org business domain
name america massage http://www.theamerica.org.uk ebusiness domains
america London UK therapy http://www.theusa.co.uk generic domain names
UK USA http://www.the-usa.co.uk top-level domain names
http://www.theusa.me.uk medical domain names http://www.the-usa.me.uk
medical domains http://www.theusa.org.uk professional massage therapist
USA domain nameshttp://www.the-usa.org.uk professional domain names
therapeutic massage London UK http://www.theyankees.co.uk domain name
sellers yankees UK .co http://www.uamerica.info America international
domain names information UK massage therapy http://www.usa-home.co.uk
rent sale houses USA domestic domain names UK http://www.usahome.me.uk
website home addresses property mortgage massage therapy London
http://www.usahome.org.uk how to buy a domain name? usa homes therapist
London UK http://www.usaok.biz US Oklahoma State http://www.usaok.org
political domain names USA Oklahoma business sale London UK massage
treatment http://www.usaonline.co.uk web names online USA London UK
massage http://www.usapage.co.uk website names Lodon therapists UK
massage http://www.usa-page.co.uk business web pages USA UK therapeutic
massage http://www.usa-page.com business websites page design .com
domain name holistic massage London http://www.usa-shop.co.uk buy
shopping domains massage equipment shop UK Lodon USA
http://www.usa-sie.co.uk buying domain names health London
http://www.usa-site.co.uk buying domain sites USA UK London massage
http://www.usa-web.biz commercial domain names USA business UK Europe
London massage http://www.usa web.co.uk http://www.usa-web.co.uk
commercial websites USA swedish massage treatment London UK
http://www.vamerica.biz US Virginia State, Veterans Administration,
Vicar Apostolic, Vice Admiral http://www.vamerica.org
http://www.wamerica.biz http://www.wamerica.info US Washington State,
West Americahttp://www.wamerica.info http://www.wamerica.net
http://www.wamerica.net http://www.wamerica.org America organisation web
page London UK massage http://www.xamerica.biz kiss America, vote
America, films classified as suitable for adults only
http://www.xamerica.info http://www.yamerica.biz YMCA, YWCA, American
Sweet Potato http://www.yamerica.info web page names sale America info
.uk London http://www.yank.org.uk web page sales yank UK London
therapeutic massage http://www.yankee.me.uk web pages for sale.uk yankee
UK London massage http://www.yankee.org.uk website domains america UK
London therapist http://www.zamerica.net http://www.zamerica.org website
name drugs UK http://www.alldrugs.co.uk medicines website names London
UK holistic therapy http://www.alldrugs online.co.uk pharmacy online
website sale UK London http://www.bgates.co.uk microsoft dead bill gates
swine web sites for sale UK London http://www.billgates.org.uk websites
software for sale the Gates Bill UK London massage
http://www.drag.me.uk clothes, clothing, car, motorcar, automobile, race
UK London massage http://www.drag-online.co.uk
http://www.dragshop.co.uk http://www.dragweb.co.uk Domain Names-For Sale
medicine complementary health London massage http://www.gbush.me.uk
STUPID CAPITALIST POLITICIAN UK Tony Blair SOB London UK massage
http://www.georgebush.me.uk George Bush dead now international
terrorist murderer UK London massage aol subscription
http://www.getaol.co.uk http://www.getgoogle.co.uk google search engine
UK London massage gogle http://www.g-mail.me.uk email account from
google free massage London UK http://www.g-mail.org.uk business on
google box search London UK therapists http://www.google inc.biz google
Incorporation info domain business http://www.googleinc.info google UK
searching London engines http://www.googleinc.me.uk google website UK
network London http://www.googleinc.net google corporation UK searches
London http://www.googleinc.org google UK organisation ranked domains
London massage http://www.googleinc.org.uk google personal computer
sale London UK massage http://www.googlepc.biz buy google personal
computer browser pc united kingdom London http://www.googlepc.co.uk
computer sales uk server London domain http://www.googlepc.info computer
information uk shopping personal computer http://www.googlepc.me.uk
http://www.googlepc.net http://www.googlepc.org
http://www.googlepc.org.uk selling London computers office home domain
names UK massage http://www.googles.me.uk googles domain name UK London
massage http://www.googles.org.uk http://www.gooogle.me.uk love google
London massage uk http://www.ilove.org.uk love shoppping uk London
massage http://www.iloveshop.co.uk website designing promotion Lodon
shops UK http://www.iloveweb.co.uk web sell domains search yahoo uk
http://www.iyahoo.co.uk subscribe aol London search UK
http://www.loveaol.co.uk yahoo uk searching engine London aol massage
http://www.loveyahoo.co.uk love yahoos UK London massage
http://www.loveyahoo.com microsoft .com uk software
http://www.macrosoft.me.uk msn London English seach uk
http://www.msn.me.uk love England London massage uk
http://www.nolove.co.uk no love UK .co London massage
http://www.nolove.me.uk http://www.nolove.org.uk no love UK domain names
organisation http://www.nosex.me.uk no sex UK London massage therapy
http://www.nosex.org.uk uk London ok http://www.okok.me.uk business in
the uk London generic names http://www.okuk.biz http://www.okuk.info
information about uk London info http://www.okuk.org the united kingdom
England organisation uk http://www.orkut.me.uk private social networking
website http://www.orkut.org.uk http://www.pcgoogle.biz
http://www.pcgoogle.co.uk PC GOOGLE London SALE UK
http://www.pcgoogle.info http://www.pcgoogle.me.uk
http://www.pcgoogle.org http://www.pcgoogle.org.uk
http://www.sexless.me.uk the bill gates London metal wooden iron uk
http://www.thebillgates.co.uk http://www.thebillgates.me.uk bills gates
money robber UK London massage http://www.thegoogle.co.uk the google
London search engine uk http://www.theuk.biz anarchy massage uk business
London http://www.theuk.me.uk http://www.theyahoo.co.uk the yahoo
search engine . uk London massage http://www.ukok.biz business
information uk domain names sale bussines http://www.ukok.info aol ISP
London uk http://www.weaol.co.uk google uk search London Massage net
http://www.wegoogle.co.uk love . uk London massage
http://www.welove.co.uk information London love uk
http://www.welove.info massage therapy London UK http://www.welove.me.uk
http://www.welove.org.uk http://www.weloveweb.co.uk web promotion yahoo
Lodon search uk http://www.weyahoo.co.uk sailing yacht London massage
uk http://www.yachtie.co.uk http://www.yahooo.me.uk
http://www.yahoos.biz google positioning London massage uk
http://www.001.me.uk 1000 domain names London massage sale uk
http://www.1000.me.uk http://www.1111.me.uk http://www.11111.me.uk
http://www.11111.org.uk http://www.11a.co.uk UK London massage therapy
one two three http://www.123.me.uk http://www.12345.org.uk
http://www.222.me.uk http://www.222.org.uk http://www.33.org.uk
http://www.3a.me.uk http://www.44.me.uk http://www.444.me.uk
http://www.4444.org.uk http://www.4a.me.uk http://www.55.me.uk
http://www.55.org.uk http://www.5a.me.uk http://www.5a.org.uk
http://www.6666.me.uk http://www.6666.org.uk http://www.6a.me.uk
http://www.77.me.uk http://www.7a.me.uk http://www.88.me.uk
http://www.8a.me.uk http://www.8a.org.uk http://www.99.me.uk
http://www.a3.org.uk http://www.a4.org.uk http://www.a6.me.uk
http://www.a6.org.uk http://www.a7.me.uk http://www.a7.org.uk
http://www.a8.me.uk http://www.a8.org.uk search engine amazon London uk
http://www.a9.me.uk http://www.aaaa.org.uk http://www.b11.me.uk
http://www.b11.org.uk http://www.b12.me.uk http://www.b12.org.uk
http://www.b2.org.uk http://www.b4.me.uk http://www.b4.org.uk cameras
http://www.x10.me.uk http://www.x10.org.uk http://www.x11.me.uk
http://www.x11.org.uk http://www.x12.me.uk http://www.x12.org.uk
http://www.x4.me.uk http://www.x6.me.uk http://www.x7.me.uk
http://www.x8.me.uk http://www.x9.me.uk http://www.z14.co.uk
http://www.z15.co.uk http://www.z2.me.uk htttp://www.z3.me.uk
http://www.z4.me.uk http://www.z9.me.uk buy sell mobile phone uk nokia
http://www.mobilephonesites.co.uk free digital mobile phones
salehttp://www.health-resources.co.uk health resources London therapists
uk http://www.worldsocialism.org revolutionary socialism uk
http://www.worldsocialism.com socialist organisation London UK
http://www.worldsocialism.tv spgb socialist party of great britain mass
media http://www.worldsocialistmovement.org anticapitalism uk
http://www.worldsocialistmovement.com anticapitalist organisation uk
London http://www.spgb.org future socialist society
http://www.worldsocialistparty.org marxism uk London
http://www.worldsocialistparty.net socialist party
http://www.worldsocialism.info world socialist movement socialist party
of great britain domain names for sale www.thesocialistparty.co.uk the
socialist party spgb www.thesocialists.org.uk socialists organisation
England Welsh Ireland Scotland UK international www.worldsocialist.org
world socialist organisation spgb www.worldsocialism.org.uk socialism UK
international spgb www.worldsocialism.co.uk socialist party UK
www.worldsocialist.org.uk world socialist party organisation in the UK
www.worldsocialist.co.uk marxist political party UK
www.thesocialistparty.org.uk anti leninist anti trotskyist socialist
party UK www.worldsocialists.co.uk international communist socialist
democratic organisation England UK www.worldsocialists.org.uk
www.thespgb.co.uk spgb clapham high street www.socialistmovement.org.uk
international socialist movement UK organisation .org
www.socialiststandard.co.uk the socialist standard monthly publication
journal spgb socialist party of great britain
www.socialiststandard.org.uk socialist standard online website free
subscription www.thespgb.org.uk the spgb England socialist political
party www.socialiststudies.org.uk socialist publication England UK
www.worldsocialistmovement.org.uk world socialist movement europe
america usa africa australia http://www.inventorsuk.biz inventors UK
London invention imvent patent licence http://www.americasex.biz adult
business escorts London City ladies UK sex america generic domain names
sale http://www.americasex.co.uk erotics girls ladies Central London
females uk nightlife sale americas http://www.americasex.me.uk america
sex adult escort services Greater London England tantric ladies UK
http://www.americasex.org.uk american escorts London sexy girls UK bum
prostitute girl anal happy end female http://www.bumerica.com bum
america sexy London escorts catwalk ladies UK sexual usa
http://www.bumerican.com don't like hate adult services United States
America USA hotel organisation http://www.fuckamerica.org american sex
website for sale organisation UKoutcalls http://www.sexamerica.co.uk
colon cleansing nightlife America London UK http://www.shitamerica.comno
sex http://www.sexless.me.uk england London UK sexy gay lesbian AC/DC 3097 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com Posted by: Viagra at August 13, 2004 10:27 PM | PERMALINK4 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: poker at August 15, 2004 08:46 PM | PERMALINK1485 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: poker at August 15, 2004 08:52 PM | PERMALINK2918 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com Posted by: play blackjack at August 17, 2004 06:20 AM | PERMALINK7970 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is 8457 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 18, 2004 10:50 PM | PERMALINK4988 http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for In your free time, check some information about http://www.worldwide-tramadol.net/ tramadol http://www.online-deals4u.com/ phentermine http://www.texasholdem-4u.com/ texas hold em http://www.worldwide-em.com/ online poker http://www.viagra-use.com/ viagra http://www.blackjack777.net/ blackjack http://www.viagra-experts.com/ viagra http://www.viagra-100-deals.com/ viagra http://www.online-casino-4u.com/ online casino http://www.online-deals99.com/ online poker http://www.online-poker-4u.com/ online poker http://www.viagra24x7.net/ viagra http://www.online-pharmacy-24x7.net/ online pharmacy http://www.viagra-online-sales.net/ viagra http://www.bestgames-winner.com/ blackjack http://www.tramadol-4u.net/ tramadol http://www.melincs.org/ phentermine http://www.online-poker-555.com/ online poker http://www.texas-hold-em-4u.com/ texas hold em http://www.viagrapills100.com/ viagra http://www.worldwide-90.com/ phentermine http://www.online-casino-winner.net/ online casino http://www.sydney-harbour.info/ online casino http://www.texas-hold-em-winner.net/ texas hold em ... Posted by: blackjack at August 22, 2004 02:01 AM | PERMALINK7834 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: blackjack at August 23, 2004 01:07 AM | PERMALINK1029 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 06:08 AM | PERMALINK541 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 26, 2004 11:13 AM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
