mattp

OK, so the guy is making political hay at home, saying provocative, untrue, and maybe even racist things. Sounds like our president, doesn't it?

OK then: how do you explain it? Either the planners of "operation lets get him" were incompetent, or they really didn't want to get him. Did they really think he'd just sit there and wait for them to show up? Did they really think they could rely on the Afghani's to turn in Bin Laden?

ChucK: If you want to capture a bad guy, do you tell him two months in advance when you are going to visit his home and try to arrest him? Do you then let his friends and cousins actually perform the arrest? Seriously.

Nope. You remember only partly. Before we went into Afghanistan, we gave Bin Laden two months warning (as in "you have two months to hide or run away"). Then, when we apparently had him surrounded at Tora Bora, we decided to hang back and let the Afghanistani's do the deed (or to decide whether or not they wanted to do it). For whatever reason, capturing or killing Bin Laden WAS NOT a major priority in the American invasion.

It may be "bullshit" for a government to say they can't police the people living within their own borders. However, it may in fact have been true in the case of Afghanistan or, now, Pakistan. These countries have a long history of tribalism, and the governments are relatively weaker than what we have in the US. It would have been perfectly within our right to go into Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden and destroy the training camps after 911, but that is not what we did. We deliberately let Bin Laden go and took over Kabul.

Yes, camping on Adams can be very pleasant. I'd generally favor camping a good deal lower than the lunch counter, though. Camp down near timberline below the Crescent Glacier, and you can have a nice view as well as be in the shelter of the trees and not add to the mess made by all those camping on the Lunch Counter. There are even nicer campsites around to the west a bit, below the Avalanche Glacier, but these are not on the regular route.

Plus, we already tried that one. T They killed 3000 of "ours," and we've killed 600,00 of 'theirs." It doesn't seem to be working, though I suppose it COULD be the case that all the terrorists are in their last gasps.

"Does she or doesn't she" is an old add slogan for haircolor - from the 1970's.

I don't think it is so much a matter of "does she or doesn't she" and only the big hairdresser in the sky knows anyway. Sure, the growth of radical terrorism carried out in the name of Islamism (or whatever) has religious overtones. It is also true as we have been discussing in this thread that the religious orientation of our President and anybody else in the world is part of what drives them to do what they do. However, i believe that using religion as a tool for propaganda just makes all players that much more intractable and causes them to do truly stupid things. We're capable of being tyrants and bullies and crooks without the cloak of god; it is worse when we avail ourselves of that "cover" for what really constitute crimes against humanity.

I don’t know who has made that argument, but certainly plenty of people from both the left and the right were highly critical of his administration for various failings related to possible blundering of opportunities to stop the attack, and for sitting on their thumbs and doing nothing about terrorism in the first 9 months of their reign. Many if not most Americans feel their response to 911 has been sorely lacking as well.

Nope, Jay, I cannot answer your question without recourse to Goiogle. So what? But where in my writing did you get this idea I believe the 911 report concluded that Bin Laden used the U.S. presence in Saudia Arabia, and other current U.S. policies in the Middle East as a substantial basis for his “message.” The report also states that our enemy is not Islam, but the perversion of Islam, and it contains recommendations of the kind of soft on terrorism policy that you so frequently deride as the naive policies of the left.

Is there a new holy war between the Christians and Newsoms?

Yup. But at least god is on our side.

No. You're not sorry. I am.

Sorry to offend you, Archie, but I read where you wrote that "maybe a class in religious history will help you out here...." and I figured that maybe a broader look at history might be useful. Anyway, my point is not that there are no religious elements at play here, but that the Bushies have played up this aspect of the situation for propaganda purposes and in my opinion this has been a disaster and will prove to be an ongoing disaster for the U.S. national interest.

Nope. Our role in Iraq, and the Middle East in general - for 75 years or more - has been to play one state against another, or one faction against another, in the interest of maintaining access to oil. American oil got involved in Saudi Arabia in the 1930's and the President formally announced that defense of Saudi oil was important to U.S. interests in World War II. Our desire for access to the oil was a larger part of the reason for our support of the Shah, in 1941 and again ten years later. It was also behind our support of Saddam Hussein in the 1980's. And on and on. Some say our invasion of Afghanistan had more to do with oil than with Bin Laden, and it sure looks as if we weren’t really trying to capture the bad guy so much as to replace an unfriendly government with one more pliable. Go back to history class. The collapse of the Muslim empire happened in several stages starting nearly a thousand years ago and sure there are many Islamists who would like to see a return to the glory days. It is also true that we helped set up Israel as a Jewish state. But the major drivers behind our foreign policy in the region have been related to the oil found there. George Bush and buddies did not decide to invade Iraq because they wear turbans - they played up the significance of that attire in order to derive the support of a racist and nationalistic American public. When 22 hijackers from Saudia Arabia killed 3,000 of "our own," they responded by attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, where governments were not so willing to go along with American oil money interest. They did not attack or even really sanction Saudi Arabia.

Of course. So what? Does this justify or otherwise suggest a greater influence of religion in our foreign policy?

Archy, I think those evil Moslems were attacking. Are you forgetting what happend to our man, the Shah, in Iran? Remember the hostage crisis?

Carter's expression of how is faith influenced his politics was in many ways opposite that of Bush: he spoke of his faith as a basis for showing compassion at home and pursuing cooperation with outher nations in our foreign policy (well, sort of). By comparison, GW Bush has spoken of his faith as a basis for marginalizing drug addics and gays, transferring resources from public to private schools, and as a guidance in a crusade against Moslem's and a justification for how the U.S. should rule the world (again, well sort of). So, in a word, yes. I do hold GW's faith against him. And, no, I did not hold Carter's against him. Bubba spoke of his faith largely as a political tool to try to reach out to a segment of voters, but I don't think he spoke as much about it as a policy influence. But you didn't answer my question (maybe you don't want to): do your religious beliefs influence your politics? How.

Welcome back. Now what was it that you believe in again? Jay and I can argue about how great Bush is for ever, but what about the religious component? Would you argue that your religious beliefs have nothing to do with your politics?

JayB: WE have killed more people in Iraq with our bombs and bullets and our destruction of the infrastructure than the "bad guys" have. OUR analysts warned that this was likely to happen - beyond the "collateral damage," the President was warned that a civil war was likely to ensue. Our policies HAVE NOT been to limit civilian casualties or we would have gone in with sufficient troops to control the aftermath and we'd be taking care of things now. The blinders are on YOUR eyes, not mine. Your strategic genius, George Bush, may succeed in setting us up to control Iraqui oil for years to come, but maybe not. We may well find that it would have been cheaper to buy the oil.

You've got some serious attention deficit problems if you think I am any kind of blind supporter of the Democratic party. I'd venture a guess that you've voted Democrat more than I've voted Republican, but I think the Democrats are largely a bunch of spineless opportunists that are really little better than their opponents. As to the war? Maybe you don't think it is immoral to invade a country and cause 600,000 people to die based on false premises, but I do.

What are you trying to say here, Jay? You use a lot of words to say very little, as far as I can tell, but that you think I am blindly in favor of what any Democrat might say or do, and that I think killing people for a just cause is the same as killing them for an unjust one? In my posts here, as in every other thread I have ever participated in on this site, I have never said either. Our actions in Iraq have not even remotely been undertaken in what I perceive to be our national interest - unless you think setting up a permanent fort on top of the southern Iraq oil fields is "our national interest" when the predictable consequences - and the predicted ones - included many years' civil war, general instability in the region, and the alienation of important allies. I don't necessarily equate all unjustified mass killing with terrorism, but terrorism is defined as "the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion" (Websters Dictionary) and I'd have to say that our President's careless threat of military action, particularly when combined with his wreckless deployment of the U.S. military, comes very close to that defenintion. Over and over again he has given speeches saying things like "you're either for us or against us," and just what result do you think he's trying to produce? A little coercion, perhaps?

If Hilary were to occupy the office, I'd be equally horrified as you would. I have hate too. Terrorism is terrorism. And I say "those we would call terrorists" because GWB is the #1 terrorist alive today or, if you have trouble with my use of the term, he is the #1 killer, maimer, and general terror-causer for no justifiable reason (except maybe the bad guy, if there is any single one we could call responsible, in Darfur). The biggest threat to sovereignity, security, peace, and human life has been US for the last several years. We have killed way more (probably times 100) innocent bystanders than all the terrorists put together. Saddam did not attack us, and he didn't pose a credible threat. The situation sucked, but we could easily have waited it out, at vastly less expense in terms of human life and dollars. We could have waited until we had broader support, thus not alienating the rest of the world the way we have, and we could have taken whatever action we had to take without anywhere near the same flagrant disregard for consequences and human life. But we are getting sidetracked here. Is religion part of the reason WHY these criminals have the power they do or is it just a cloak for people who would otherwise lead us to go to war in the Middle East no matter what? If GWB and the Republicans were not supported by the core religious right voters who were in large part responsible for electing them TWICE, would we be in this mess today? Would it, in your estimation, be worse?

I completely agree. But that goes equally for GWB and company as it does for those we call the terrorists. Our man George described our campaign as a Crusade, and has used the "clash of civilizations" metaphor repeatedly. He's amped up the religious zealots on both sides (to the extent there are really just two sides). I think our pal Selkirk might argue that a good old fashioned fascist could have / would have done the same thing. And he is right. But the religious component is certainly dangerous. Some of these guys at the very top are looking for Armageddon, for gawd's sake!