Home > Uncategorized > Here They Come

Here They Come

Thanks again to Santa Maria Bill for appearing Monday night. Always a provocative discussion when SMB shows up and we covered the waterfront on current events.

Here’s something from ABC News that, sadly, I’ve predicted for a long time — the eventual arrival of suicide bombers in the U.S. and other countries.

But note the reporting — these are training camps in Pakistan. NOT IRAQ. And that is probably the biggest frustration I continue to have over this war. We have devoted all this money and effort and troops to Iraq while the terrorists train elsewhere.

We need to refocus our efforts and flood Pakistan and Afghanistan with our troops. That is the best way to fight this war on terrorism.

And whatever happened to Bin Laden?

ABC reports:

“Large teams of newly trained suicide bombers are being sent to the United States and Europe, according to evidence contained on a new videotape obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

Teams assigned to carry out attacks in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Germany were introduced at an al Qaeda/Taliban training camp graduation ceremony held June 9.

A Pakistani journalist was invited to attend and take pictures as some 300 recruits, including boys as young as 12, were supposedly sent off on their suicide missions.

Photos: Inside an al Qaeda/Taliban ‘Graduation’

The tape shows Taliban military commander Mansoor Dadullah, whose brother was killed by the U.S. last month, introducing and congratulating each team as they stood.

“These Americans, Canadians, British and Germans come here to Afghanistan from faraway places,” Dadullah says on the tape. “Why shouldn’t we go after them?”

Advertisements
  1. Anonymous
    June 19, 2007 at 7:16 pm

    If the US “gets” bin laden, the left will be the first to say he’s not relevant anymore.

  2. John Edwards
    June 19, 2007 at 8:25 pm

    This is just a fear mongering plant piece by the Republicans. If I’m elected, I’ll pour on the love and they’ll join hands with us and sing.

    Don’t close the borders, you racists. Let them in and show them the love!

  3. Bob from San Luis
    June 19, 2007 at 8:33 pm

    When the US “gets” bin laden, it will be because we have a Democratic Administration, and the right will say, “Ho hum, what’s the big deal?” Wasn’t it President Bush who said: “I just don’t spend that much time thinking about him anymore”, and then proceeded to dismantle the CIA unit assembled to go after bin laden?

  4. Bob Sr.
    June 19, 2007 at 10:39 pm

    Bob you are a fool or brain dead. President democrat Bubba Clinton was offered bin laden, he declined. Please check yourself and think before you post bullshit Bob.

  5. NewsstandGreg
    June 20, 2007 at 12:13 am

    Bob Sr: with all due respect, your comment is pure bs!

    Can you make a coherent statement without using the “Clinton crutch?”
    Or gratuitous name calling?

    George W Bush and his entire crew are NOT interested in hunting down Osama bin Laden. The Bushes and the bin Laden families have been doing business for years.

    George W did say that exact quote, and the bin Laden CIA unit was decommissioned. Two absolute facts.

    Looks like you could “think before you post.”

  6. Bob Sr
    June 20, 2007 at 12:38 am

    You can listen to Clinton on AUDIO TAPE saying he was offered bin laden by the Sudan. Look around the net and turn down friggin Scott McKenzie so you can hear it.

  7. Anonymous
    June 20, 2007 at 12:53 am

    oh! yes!!!!!!!!!1
    we are finally back to our favorite topic! “Bush hating”!
    Thank you Dave! You and this blog rock when we do what we do best…Hate Bush!
    Oh how sweet it is!
    Copy-n-paste away Bob…
    Marlilyn…show em your stuff!
    Let’s embrace out muslim friends…Show them love, acceptance and maybe have a group hug! They need our compassion!
    I am so happy I could pee may panties!
    OH! how I love to hate that mr Bush!
    Hate on blog! hate on!

  8. ANONYMOUS
    June 20, 2007 at 2:08 am

    Meet the new Trinity!
    Bow down to Allah!
    Convert or die…
    Thank you for joining us in hating mr Bush!
    jihad! jihad!

  9. Dave Congalton
    June 20, 2007 at 6:55 am

    Bob, Sr. —

    The myth that Clinton was “offered” Bin Laden is just that — pure urban legend. It has been disproved time and again over the years. Nice try.

    Anonymouse—

    Boy, you sound like a broken record. This is not about “Hate Bush,” but thanks for reducing everything to such a simplistic level.

    As we approach the 6th anniversary of 9-11, the legitimate question remains: Where is the man behind this gruesome attack and why do we continue to focus the War on Terror in Iraq when the root of the problem is obviously elsewhere?

    C’mon, Anonymouse, try to give me some analysis on this, please?

  10. John Taylor
    June 20, 2007 at 7:06 am

    I certainly don’t hate President Bush, but nor do I respect him very much. Most Americans appear disenchanted with our government, both Democrat and Republican. There’s enough blame to go around.

    I don’t know why we had to go into Iraq and I don’t know how we get out. The surge doesn’t seem to be working. I found this on the ‘net, from McClatchy newpapers.

    “Three months after additional U.S. troops began pouring into Baghdad in the most recent effort to stanch violence in Iraq’s capital, military observers are fretting that the same problems that torpedoed last summer’s Baghdad security plan are cropping up again.

    Violence is on the rise, Iraqi troops aren’t showing up to secure neighborhoods, U.S. troops are having to revisit neighborhoods they’d already cleared, and Iraq’s politicians haven’t met any of their benchmarks.

    With expectations high in Washington for a September assessment from new Iraq commander Army Gen. David Petraeus, military officials in Iraq already are saying they’ll need more time.

    One thing is already clear, however: The additional U.S. troops haven’t yet had a major impact on reducing violence.

    The number of bodies found on Baghdad’s streets declined in March and April after the surge began on Feb. 15, but it shot back up to an even higher level in May. So far this month, 206 unidentified corpses have been found in the capital, compared with 176 in the first eight days of May.”

    This does not look good at all.

  11. Bob Sr
    June 20, 2007 at 11:58 am
  12. ANONYMOUS
    June 20, 2007 at 1:23 pm

    Our great leader is alive and planning more attacks on your weak gutless country of fat, rich and spineless infidels!
    You will never stop our goal of killing every american pig!
    Yes, Bib laden was offerred to your president Clinton, but he took a huge payoff (30 million) to let him live! The clinton’s goal is the same as ours! To destroy america from within while we destroy it in it’s weak spineless state!
    Get out of our coubtries! You have lost the war. You don’t have the guts anymore and that is why you all must die.
    We will win…we kill all americans and jews and allah will once again reign in total power of allah’s perfect earth!

  13. Rich from Paso
    June 20, 2007 at 5:08 pm

    Here is the audio of Clinton admitting that he had an opportunity to get bin Ladne but felt he did not have a legal reason to hold him, even though bin Laden had already been named as the mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing. This is rich with “what-ifs”. What if Clinton had taken out bin Laden?

    Would the 1998 embassy bombings and the 2000 USS Cole bombing happend?

    Would 9/11 have occurred?

    Even if 9/11 did happen, how hard would it have been to roll up al Qaida with their leader under arrest in America?

    It is well known that bin Laden was the ideological head, but he was also the principle fund raiser for al Qaida. Would al Qaida have had the financial resources to conduct their opperations if he was in our jail?

    If 9/11 had not happened because bin Laden was arrested or dead, would Bush have lived up to his 2000 campaign pledge and keep the military at home and not invade Iraq or Afghanistan?

    It is not a myth, just debatable whether or not that bin Laden represented a “clear and present danger” to the United States in 1996.

  14. Thomas W
    June 20, 2007 at 5:39 pm

    I don’t find the comments about what President Clinton did or did not do relevant to the discussion. What he either did or failed to do is in the past. We cannot change the past. We can only work with the present and work for the future.
    The time, money, and lives we are spending in Iraq is doing nothing to eliminate Bin Laden. It only appears to be a great boot camp for training more terrorists.
    I don’t have an answer for how we are going to extract ourselves from the awful trap that our present administration has gotten us into, nor do I see what a change in administration is going to be able to do.
    Yes, we have porous borders and yes it is easy to enter into our country. And, here again, there is no easy answer. Walls will not stop a determined enemy from entering our country, and more troops and border guards will not help that much.
    And, no I don’t have a solution to that either, do you?
    I remember from my experience in Korea, the only time I was ever shot at was in a “secure area” more than 20 miles beyond the lines that were supposedly impenetrable. A determined enemy will always find a way to get to you.
    Maybe the answer is to find a way to stop making so many enemies.
    Easy answers, platitudes, and the blame game are of no help to anyone. If you have an idea as to how to get us out of our present morass than you should get it to the proper authorities and not spend so much time in sarcasm and vindictiveness.
    Have a nice day?

  15. Rich from Paso
    June 20, 2007 at 11:38 pm

    Stop making so many enemies? Tom, you haven’t gone to reciting liberal talking points, have you?

    I challenge anyone, including you, Marilyn, to name for me the event or events that made the Islamofascists so mad that 9/11 is in any way justified. Or how about the USS Cole bombing? Or the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa? Or how about the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing? Or the 1993 WTC bombing? Or the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut? Or the seizing of our territory and our citizens in Tehran in 1979? Did our trillions of petro-dollars make the Muslim extremists so mad that they needed to kill 3000 innocent peoplein NY and Washington D.C.? Hell no! We wouldn’t even be having this discussion if fortune hadn’t bless that region with an abundant supply of oil. So when exactly did we piss them off? I know, I know: Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. My point (and a lot of other people’s points) is that 9/11 happened before we invaded Iraq. Our embassy’s were bombed before we invaded Iraq. Our Marines were killed before we invaded Iraq. Our World Trade Center was bombed twice before we invaded Iraq. So don’t give me “Bush pissed the Muslims off when he invaded Iraq”. My friends, that dog won’t hunt. The other favorite of Marilyn is that old Muslim boogeyman: the Jews of Israel. There will be no peace in that region until either Isreal is wiped off the map or the Muslims assimilate the Palestinian refugees that are forced to live in squaler in refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and elsewhere and stop perpetuating this war against Isreal by giving the so-called Palestinians only one choice: reconquest of Palestine.

    Finally, if we are going to have peace with the Islamic world, they and they alone are going to be the ones that want that peace. Until then, we have three choices: fight, die, capitulate. There is no such thing as peace if only one side wants it. So please don’t try to insult my intelligence by trying to convince me that we made them mad. If anything, they have made us mad because we were perfectly content to give them all the money they needed for their stupid indoor ski slopes in Dubai and gold plated Rolls Royce cars and what not. The responsibility and culpability for this “Global War on Terrorism” rests solely on the shoulders of the extremist believers of the “religion of peace” and no one else.

    Stop making them mad? Please!

  16. Anonymous
    June 21, 2007 at 12:40 am

    As a American who wants to survive, Tom’s analysis is troubling to say the least.

  17. ANONYMOUS
    June 21, 2007 at 2:04 am

    Fatwa laws are to be obeyed by all! Even the infidels!

    Fatwa law #1) Drinking the urine of mohammed is a blessing!

    Fatwa law #2) an unmarried man and woman can work together as long as she breast feeds him 5 times

    Obey the fatwa laws…and put in footbaths in all public places or you will be killed much faster

    Allah is ruling again! Muslims are uniting against Bush and America as well as those stinking jews!

    Convert or die…but whatever you do keep looking over your shoulder! We are here amongst you and we will act soon on Allah’s law to kill all infidels!

    praise be to allah…death to Bush

  18. ANONYMOUS
    June 21, 2007 at 2:07 am

    listen to Tom! leave Iraq! and all of the middle east!
    Leave us alone! Honor our faith…embrace us…we are amongst you!
    Stop resisitng and convert to islam now! allah will accept all who convert!
    Tom is right! listen to him…

  19. Paul
    June 21, 2007 at 2:09 am

    You’d be pretty hard pressed to find anyone who hasn’t been saying they’d keep trying to hit us again, so that’s not exactly cutting edge prophesy there Ezekiel.
    Flooding Pakistan with troops might not be such a good idea since Mushariff is already walking the razer’s edge with the different factions in that country. They already have the bomb, and in case you’ve forgotten they are our allies. Maybe not the best of allies but still…
    Whatever happened to Bin Laden?
    Bin Laden bin hidin.
    His day will come, don’t you worry about that. You make it sound like if we could just get him this whole war would be over. You better buckle up cause this is way bigger than Bin Laden, Iraq, oil, or even SMB’s ego, and we are in for a long bumpy ride.

  20. Bob from San Luis
    June 21, 2007 at 2:09 am

    Rich: I will not attempt to offer any justification for the attacks of 9/11 as there are none. As to the reason(s) that people of the middle east would be “mad” at the US; I raised the point of the Bin Sultan Air-base in Saudi Arabia was a real bitter pill for those who have a fundamentalist view of Islam. Our service members should be able to enjoy their somewhat normal lifestyle while serving at military bases around the world, but to the Muslims in Saudi Arabia, having women soldiers driving vehicles, wearing their uniform (not covering their faces), all of the military eating and drinking as they normally do; all of this was a great affront to the fundie Muslims. We “won” the right to have that base in S.A. during Desert Storm, and have since closed that base so that we no longer have a military base in Saudi Arabia. You mentioned that we give a lot of money to those oil rich nations and that should be enough to satisfy the people living there; most of those countries are monarchies with a very small business owner middle class, a small ultra-wealthy elite and a massive number of working to ultra poor, and the governments of those countries are supported by our government in oppressing their citizens to maintain control of their populations. Think about this: Other than Hugo Chavez in South America, are there any dictators that our government doesn’t support either openly or overtly? Are you aware that our President openly claimed to be funding a group in Iran that is classified by most as a terrorist group? Link here to an article reporting on the claim I just mentioned. I will repeat my first line; there is no justification for the attacks of 9/11, period. There is, however, ample reasons why “they hate us”, and it is not for “our freedoms”, it is our continued support either directly or overtly for murderous regimes and despotic dictators, doing things like teaching South American military troops torture (the School of the Americas) and trying to undermine actual democracies because they won’t be paid off to make corrupt business deals. The information is out there, do a little looking around at what has been done in our name. I love America; I think our country could be much better if we can change some of our aggressive policies.

  21. NewsstandGreg
    June 21, 2007 at 2:34 am

    Bob Sr and right-of-center listeners,

    Can you answer a point without bringing up “Bubba Clinton” or some gratuitous non-sequitur?

    For the sake of argument, I’ll stipulate for the record there are lots of things President Clinton said and did that I do NOT like. Not getting Osama when he could is one item on the list.

    Likewise, in my estimation there are a lot of points on the plus side, too. But it seems to some, it’s either “hate Bush” or as we see here, “trash Clinton.”

    Then ThomasW gives us his experience about how a bullet can find its mark some 20 miles inside a “safe zone.” (Green Zone?)

    But, “we must work toward a better future instead of maintaining a bootcamp for training more terrorists.”

    Rich from Paso appears to be a thinking person (yea!) and asks the best question which “kicks the can” a bit further toward understanding. What did The US do to piss off the Muslims, and when did the US do it?

    One answer can be found in what an “economic hit man” does as explained by John Perkins.

    Reversing our foreign “EHM” policy will take a herculean effort. But our lives could be in the balance.

    [The Project for a New American Century has been arguing in favor of an American attack on Iraq since 1998. Check the link and the names of its prime members.]

    My answer to “when did we piss ’em off?” Whenever the US established military bases around the world, especially in Saudi Arabia. Messages from Osama state quite clearly US military presence on Saudi soil has been a prime motivation for his efforts.

    What puzzles me is the opinion “what the US does in the mid-east is approved by Saudi Arabia.” I do not understand how it plays to their advantage. What do you think?

    –Newsstand Greg

  22. Dave Congalton
    June 21, 2007 at 4:29 am

    Very interesting. I got bashed every time I post something that is “Hate Bush,” but that doesn’t stop Rich & Company for immediately putting all the blame on Bill Clinton. No matter what comes up in the last seven years, there is always an attempt to stick it to Clinton. It’s all his fault.

    Clinton put the man responsible for the 93 WTC bombing behind bars. He was caught, tried and imprisoned.

    Osama Bin Laden killed 3000 people SIX YEARS AGO and he still roams free. Now how exactly is that Bill Clinton’s fault?????

    9-11 happened on Bush’s watch. It’s his responsbility to respond. He responded by going after Hussein, not by going after Bin Laden.

    So guess what? the suicide bombers are coming. They’re coming to this country because we misdirected our resources to Iraq and not where they should have been.

    Rich, thanks for the audio link. We’re talking about two different scenarios. You’re referring to the 1996 incident. According to your audio, Clinton said he had no grounds to hold Bin Laden. So come back and make the case — if you’re the President of the United States and there is someone out there who has not violated U.S. law, what are you supposed to do?

    And remember — Bush took over in January 2001. Condi Rice de-emphasized terrorism. John Ashcroft de-emphasized terrorism. In his first nine months of office, Bush spent nearly 40% of his time on vacation. He refused to even read the warnings from the infamous August briefing paper.

    George Bush was asleep at the wheel. I’m not excusing Clinton, but nor will I allow you to excuse our pretend President.

    Bottom line: we are not in Iraq because of Bill Clinton. 3500 U.S. soldiers certainly aren’t dead because of Bill Clinton. The world doesn’t look down on the U.S. because of Bill Clinton.

    If the electrion were held today and it was Bill Clinton vs. Geroge Bush, any bets as to who would win?

    Yep. You got it.

  23. deleted
    June 21, 2007 at 4:58 am

    (to the theme of the monkees)

    Here they come, walking down the street, heh heh their the bombers, they like to bomb everyone they meet, there just like bombing, so all you libs retreat.

  24. deleted
    June 21, 2007 at 5:07 am

    ?

  25. uneducated fool
    June 21, 2007 at 5:23 am

    Dave are you saying if we did not get rid of Sadaam our muslim friends would not blow us up at the mall?

  26. Dave Congalton
    June 21, 2007 at 6:41 am

    Dear Uneducated —

    The original ABC piece I posted talked about suicide bombers completing their training and heading to a variety of countries, including the U.S.

    But they’re not coming from Iraq. They’re coming from Afghanistan and Pakistan and that’s where we should have been concentrating the last six years. Iraq has bogged us down and tied us up and prevented us from fighting terrorism 100%.

  27. Anonymous
    June 21, 2007 at 1:28 pm

    “prevented us from fighting terrorism 100%”
    Dave! Get off the liberal rag sites and turn off MSNBC & CNN!

    We are fighting and winning the global war on terror!
    No matter how much you sorrosites hate Bush…we are safe. We took the battle to the middle east and it will stay there until those radia=cal muslims are all brought under the strong arm of the world via the USA!

    You libs hate Bush so much you cant see the forest for the trees…nor can your candidates!

    Dave? Why don’t you post a blog topic on Dingy Harry’s approval rating now well under 20% or his congress under Bush’s ratings!

    You all made a big deal about getting congress and the house, but what have you done with it? Not jack squat! deal with it! and stop posting “hate bush crap”…it’s old and getting older.

    Dems are in deep doodoo and you all know it, but you are too afraid to say the emporer has no clothes!
    That’s gutless!

  28. uneducated fool
    June 21, 2007 at 2:54 pm

    Dave who are we fighting in Iraq if all the terrorists are training in Pakistan and Afganistan?

  29. Rich from Paso
    June 21, 2007 at 4:09 pm

    Dave: Thanks for actually listening to the audio I provided, unlike Bob that tells you he didn’t see or hear what you provide and then proceeds to tell you why your clip was pointless.

    Okay, according to Richard Clarke’s book (here in front of me) he states that al Qaida first came on the scene with the 1993 WTC bombing. Khalid Sheik Mohammed is the uncle of Ramzi Yousef. Yousef and KSM are believed to have planned and executed that bombing, just as KSm planned and executed 9/11. KSM worked for bin Laden…in 1993. bin Laden’s name first started popping up in “raw intel” (you know, the same stuff that was characterized as chatter before 9/11) in 1993 and 1994 that he was “financing terrorism”. Isn’t that enough to hold him right there? Furthermore, bin Laden was responsible for trying to set up terrorist training camps in Bosnia , prior to our arrival there, in 1992. The reason why Sudan was expelling bin Laden in 1996 was that Osama attempted the assassination of Hosni Mohbarak of Eqypt that year and Egypt was pressing Sudan hard to “reign in the terrorists or else”. Yes, the indictment of bin Laden came in in 1998, but there had been five years of bin Laden and al Qaida’s fingerprints on just about every terrorist attack on the United States during that time. What the hell kind of twisted logic are you going to use to say that we didn’t have enough evidence to at least hold bin Laden and question him? If Clinton felt he didn’t have enough evidence to hold him (Clinton’s words), then he is wrong, wrong wrong.

    “Prevented us from fighting terrorism 100%” – dave, the US military is not a one-trick pony. Our military is engaging terrorists and terrorism around the world, not just in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have US Special Forces in the Phillipines, Equador, Colombia, Indonesia, all over Africa, and elsewhere, fighting al Qaida and al Qaida franchisees everywhere they are. Only the uninformed would make the statement that Iraq is keeping us from fighting terrorism 100%… and yes, you are uninformed. Our military is like an iceberg: only our conventional forces are seen above the waterline in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. the real fighting of terrorism is done below the waterline with our Special Operations Forces. US News has done the best work of any of the major news magazines in focusing on the terrorism fight outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. They have done articles on the Phillipines, Colombia, and Yemen. I have seen nothing close in Time or Newsweek.

    Bob: You so full of liberal BS it is staggering. I know people that have taught at the “School of Americas”. Are you calling my friends the trainers of torture? If so, then you really are a fool. The “School of Americas” teaches the same sort of tactics and techniques that our young people get on the campuses of our universities in ROTC. They don’t teach torture. What has happened is that graduates of that school have been caught torturing people. In an attempt to smear the whole program, the critics of that school (like yourself) draw connections based on guilt by association. Why don’t you try reading something other than your socialist, ACLU or other liberal websites for a change?

    In your eforts to state emphatically that you agree with me that 9/11 wasn’t justified, you still go on to state why it was justified to them, and therefore you prove my point. American soldiers were invited by teh Saudi royal family to be stationed there. The very fact you point out that women driving trucks without their faces covered up as a rationale for hating us is the very reason why we need to be at war with those people, the islamofascists. They will use any reason at their disposal, no matter how small, to want to kill us. As I said in my earlier posts, they need to grow up, enter the 21st century (I’d actually settle for the 19th or 20th centuries) and learn to co-exist with the people around them with differing beliefs and differing ways of life.

    Have you seen my Hillary with Code Pink video clip yet? I know you haven’t. too much trouble for you to learn about Hillary Clinton, isn’t it? Okay, Bob, the floor is yours to continue to defend terrorists, bash Bush and rail against contractors; the only things you know.

  30. Anonymous
    June 22, 2007 at 12:55 am

    after the last dew comments the libs are licking their wounds checking all the redical left web pages for talking points to combat the honest truth posted here by those willing to really study and understand what is at stake in the world.
    The libs are too busy trying to a lexbian and half breed elected so they cant stop dealing with morality and logic.
    fess up libs! Rope-a-dope worked for Alli…but it’s killing all of you! No pun intended…or was it?

  31. ANONYMOUS
    June 22, 2007 at 1:00 am

    Marilyn? where are my dear sister in allah?
    We need you here! Speak bodly of the plan of allah and your country of hezbullah!
    Don’t be shy! we are about to strike a fatal blow to the infidels so faithful muslims like you can statrt to hold publi office and deal a death blow to the west from the inside out!
    Speak my sister! speak our truth!

  32. Stephen J
    June 22, 2007 at 1:53 am

    Anonymous with the picture

    The guy on the left looks like my politcal science teacher at Cal Poly. The guy in the middle I think is Nancy Pelosi’s friend. Who the heck is the overweight and underwashed fatman with the beard?

  33. Bob from San Luis
    June 22, 2007 at 7:35 am

    Rich: Okay, I listened to the sound clip of former President Clinton explaining why he did not pursue the capture of bin Laden in 1996, and I looked up the Code Pink video of confronting Hillary Clinton prior to the US invading Iraq. President Clinton followed accepted procedure of using vetted intelligence reporting, and apparently did not feel that he had a rock solid case to detain/arrest/capture bin Laden. President Bush (and VP Cheney) used the raw data that you talked about as justification for invading Iraq; every single reason this administration gave as justification for the invasion of Iraq has been proven utterly false. Would the world have been better off if bin Laden had been captured in 1996? Of course; isn’t that like saying that the world would have been better off if Hitler had been assassinated? Like Thomas W. said, what’s done is done; we can’t go back and do it over. Does Bill Clinton regret that he did not “get” bin Laden in ’96? I’m sure as a human being he has a few regrets and that is probably one of his biggest. You make the assertion that if bin Laden had been captured, the attacks of 9/11 may not have happened; I assert that if President Bush had been engaged in the actual job of being president, you know, reading briefings, listening to Richard Clarke, having Cheney hold the anti-terrorism meetings he was supposed to be in charge of and other presidential activities, perhaps the Bush Administration could have prevented the attacks of 9/11; but what’s done is done. President Bush did not do his job the way it should have been done and our country was attacked; President Bush has admitted at a press conference that he has “no regrets” in his job performance. So, which President dropped the bigger ball? Clinton not getting bin Laden because he followed normal procedure; or Bush because he was too “pre-occupied” to do his job correctly, allows our country to be attacked, and then doubles his blunder by invading a country based on faulty intelligence that had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11? But I already know what you will say Rich, because you too are so predictable; President Bush, in your view, can do no wrong.
    As for Hillary getting her “pink slip”; the junior Senator from New York talked to the Code Pink Ladies about how “Saddam must be disarmed” and how the US had been trying to get a clear picture of Saddam’s capabilities for some ten years- do you believe for a minute that Bill Clinton would knowingly give his wife any classified information that he had remembered from his administration? Think about that for a moment; here is a former President who had an impeachment hearing held against him in the House of Representatives based on testimony he gave under oath- do you think that he would risk having an investigation looking into him giving his wife (even if she is a sitting US Senator, maybe even with security clearance) and having that come out so that the Republican Congress could go after him even after he left office? I don’t believe that he would risk that, I think he went to great lengths to avoid any perception that he did or was doing anything that would be against US law.
    School of the Americas: I am sure that there were, or are, many fine military instructors there, teaching many good things all about the military; the bone of contention that many who criticizes the S.O.A. is that so many South American military used, or still are using, identical methods of torture, the same stuff that is allegedly going on in Gitmo. Is it merely coincidence that they all use the same methods of torture, or, more likely, is it that there were possibly secret instructions given in the science of torture taught at the S.O.A., and many of the other instructors (like those you know) did not have the needed clearance to access the areas where the torture may have been taught? I don’t read socialist websites; I linked there once before I understood that to make your case when linking you need to link to a site that is not totally partisan.
    I still assert that nothing the US had done prior to 9/11 would justify the attacks of 9/11, and I am not suggesting that any reason bin Laden or anyone else wants to use as a reason is justification. My comments were to point out why those who do not like the policies and programs our country have carried out feel so strongly about our leadership‘s actions.
    …. The very fact you point out that women driving trucks without their faces covered up as a rationale for hating us is the very reason why we need to be at war with those people, the islamofascists. Rich, you want to kill everyone who has a fundamentalist Islamic belief that women should be subservient, covered head to toe? That is justification for killing them all? You sound almost like a fundamentalist yourself there. But once again you miss my point; in order to remove the zeal that Muslim extremist have towards our nation, we need to change the policies that our government operates with, specifically meaning our government should not be supporting fascist states, murderous dictators or interfering with democratic nations that lean left because that means they may not be as favorable to our business interests. I will criticize President Bush for his failed policies and not taking action to protect our nation or when he fails to execute his oath of office to “protect and defend the Constitution”; and I will attack no-bid contractors in Iraq who continue to be paid even though they do not complete the job they said they could do; but I will never defend or justify terrorism by anyone for any reason. To accuse me of defending terrorists is the most offensive thing you can accuse me of doing. Violence is NEVER the answer.

  34. Anonymous
    June 22, 2007 at 1:54 pm

    Bob, you not only defend terrorists…you encourage and support them!
    Cutting and running will only fan the flames of those nut bags!
    Your entire party encourages terrorism!
    Bubba has been on a muslim jew hating country’s payroll since he left office!
    wake up bob…
    nice cut-n-paste though

  35. Rich from Paso
    June 22, 2007 at 3:06 pm

    Bob, just becaus a woman is First Lady does not reclude her from getting a Top Secret security clearance. Yet again, another topic you know nothing about. Anyone can get access to any information if they go through the proper security checks. However, if you read the book by Gary Aldrich’s book about the Clinton White House’s lax security methods, you’d see that she wouldn’t even need that; they would have just given it to her. I have zero doubt that she was speaking seriously and from the heart that she had seen all the intelligence regarding Saddam and Iraq for the last 10 years and the vote she cast was based on that intelligence. Do you honestly think that the “smartest woman in the world” the one that was going to rewrite our entire healthcare system and was the wife of the POTUS, didn’t have access to whatever intelligence data on whatever subject she wanted? She had 50 or so FBI files in the residence wing of the White House on her political enemies, for Christ’s sake! Don’t give me your “do you really think” crap here. Yes, I really do think she saw everything she wanted on Iraq; she was the “co-president”, two-for-the-price-of-one First Lady. You set minefields for yourself through your ignorance and then blindly walk into them, Bob. Please stop talking our your ass on subjects you have NO clue about, like how people get security access or just about anything military related.

    I clearly said “islamofascists” when I talked about who to kill not anyone with a “fundementatlist” view of Islam. Nice try to twist my words. I know women that have been stationed in Saudi Arabia and they did say that some people looked at her funny for not being covered from head to toe, but they all just let her be. I am talking about the 1/100th of 1% of the entire Muslim population that would actually think that her not being in a bhurka is reason to kill her… or to blow up the barracks she lived in, as the people that need to either eneter the 21st century or be killed as they try to kill us. You want us to cowtow and beg for forgiveness on bended knee from these same pieces of shit that blew up our planes and buildings on 9/11. I won’t do it. Our government (Reagan, Bush41, Clinton, Bush43) may have made mistakes and chose poorly due to bad judgement or out of political expeidence, but the dictators we may have supported in the past do not justify the attacks of 9/11. Even to provide a rationale for why they may have wanted to do 9/11 is supporting their cause because you legitimize their actions with that reason, especially if “violence is never the answer” as you put it. Stop siding with the enemy, Bob. They are wrong as the sun rising in the west and they’re is no reason on earth why what they did is justified or even rational. Come back to America’s side, Bob.

  36. Thomas W
    June 22, 2007 at 4:13 pm

    Well, I wasn’t going to respond to this original posting with anything more than my first remarks, however, I do need to ask the question again. And this is directed to both the “libs” and the “hardliners” in our audience. What is the solution to our problem?
    The “blamegame” is a lot of fun and calling each other common buzz names is all well and fun, but where is there a concrete answer to our mess?
    Our country is still spending way too much on the war and nothing much is happening here to help the situation. We’ve created the “surge” and I hope that it works, but so far the results are not impressive. As of yesterday, over 3500 U.S. troops have been killed, over 26,000 more have been wounded, and the Iraqi casualty list stands at around 72,000 dead and I don’t know how many more wounded (I can’t seem to find accurate statistics on that number)and the economy of Iraq lays in ruins.
    Where’s the clever answer to the problem? It’s easy to use either rightwing or lefty buzz words and throw them willy nilly at each other but no one seems to come up with any idea of what can be done to solve the problem. Just for once, I’d like to here a positive idea from some of you about what can be done!

  37. Stephen J
    June 22, 2007 at 4:57 pm

    The topic put up by Dave is hardly postitive Thomas W.
    So to be postive I would suggest the United States use ALL THE WEAPONS AVALIABLE and give those killers in dirty nightshirts the thing they understand and worship the most, death.

  38. Rich from Paso
    June 22, 2007 at 5:01 pm

    Tom: I’d be my pleasure to start the solution phase of this discussion. First things first, though: we need to setle on whehter or not we need to stay. If you side with Bob and his ilk, then their ‘positive” solution is to just pull up grub stakes and come home… NOW! That, as far as I have heard, is the only thing that that side will accept as a “positive” solution to Iraq. On the other side of the issue, my side of the issue, we have to realize that, for right or wrong reasons, we broke Iraq and it is our moral obligation to fix it and keep that country from falling into utter chaos as the Sunni, Shia, Kurds and the foreign terrorists fight for supremacy. Look at what happened to Afghanistan when the Soviets pulled out in 1989, Afghanistan did have a civil war for several years until the Taliban won control of the country. This allowed for the formation of al Qaida and for Afghaistan to be used as a training ground for terrorism around the world, mainly against the United States. We cannot let that happen again.

    Here is how I would handle Iraq: First thing I would do is stand up and entire command structure that would not change and not move in and out of country. The equipment would stay in country and soldiers would deploy to Iraq and stay for only 6 months; an Army Corps with four division and 12 Brigades and an . These units would be filled from soldiers and officers from all over the Army. The combat forces would come from companies taken from across the Army. Instead of deploying entire Brigades to Iraq, we would need to bring in companies of personnel, and we would be able to fly them in because their equipment would already be on station. The deployment of soldiers to man the Brigade and above headquarters would be for one year; the deployment of soldiers in Battalions and below would be for six months. This would decrease the combat forces in the rest of the Army by about 15% but it would free the rest of the Army to focus on training for something other than Iraq. We need to send in more hunter special forces teams, like the ones used to kill Zaraqawi, to start taking out al Qaida in Iraq and the other terrorists with surgical precision.

    Second, to start winning the “hearts and minds” of the rest of the Arab and Muslim world, we need to take a page out of the hamas and Hezbollah playbooks. No, not suicide bombers or terrorism, but the civic good projects that those terror groups did to win popular support. We should be spending our foreign relations money on building schools and medical facilities and water treatment plants, etc, and we should give it away with no strings attached. This will start to lessen the influence of radical islam because people won’t have to send their children to die wearing a bomb vest to get the benefits that are promised.

    Third, the Arab nations have to end the war on Isreal by assimilating the Palestinians, stop preaching reconquest and accept a permanent Isreal. So much of the angst and anger in the Arab world centers on the war against Isreal and Arab states keeping the Palestinians in refugee status so they will have a ready and willing cadre of soldiers to wage their war against Isreal. This war on Isreal has allowed for the people in charge of the Palestinian Authority (an oxymoron to be sure) to wage its own civil war between fatah and Hamas all the while people like Yasar Arafat steal billions of dollars (his widow has the money in Switzerland) while letting their people live in abject squaller and absolute poverty.

    I know that there is no prescription to follow that if we do this that and the other thing it will be all sweetness and light, but I think these three items will go a long way to end the hostilities between millitant islam and the rest of the non-muslim world.

  39. the ghost of christmas past
    June 22, 2007 at 5:12 pm

    Why are we wasting our time going on and on about Iraq? There is so much more going on in the world that I want to see posts on.

    The Comprehensive “Destroy America” Immigration Bill: good for America or will it make America cease to exist?

    William Jefferson get 16 charge indictment against him: Is the shoe on the other foot or is this just a bump in the road?

    The Democrat plan to end Conservative dominance of talk radio: fair or tyranical censorship

    Why is KVEC playing Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity advertising instead of providing hometown advertising on “hometown radio”? Is there a problem at KVEC in selling ad time? KPRL has no problem selling local advertising to local businesses north of the grade. What is KVEC’s problem in the south country with local businesses?

    The “do nothng” 110th Congress of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi: Will this hurt the Democrat party in ’08 for President and their prospects of holding Congress? You can only run on nothing for so long before the people get wise and turn on you. Just ask the Republican leadership of the previous Congress.

    Gang violence in SLO county: Is it as bad as it is in Santa Barbara county

    These topics would make for a nice change from “all Iraq all the time” peppered with local politics that no one cares about on this blog.

  40. Thomas W
    June 22, 2007 at 5:19 pm

    Dear Rich from Paso and Bob from san luis;
    Even though you are both on the opposite sides of the political fence, I must compliment you as being reasoned men.
    Rich, most of what you just wrote makes sense. We broke it and we need to fix it. That’s right. Your plan makes more sense than most I’ve heard, but you are also right in that nobody seems to be willing to make the correct step and get things going.
    One of the problems I have with the current situation in Washington is that both sides of the Isle seem way to busy posturing and involved with “politics as usual” to get anything done. When the Demo’s first took control I thought that things would change. I’m still waiting.

  41. Rich from Paso
    June 22, 2007 at 7:10 pm

    Tom: That politics as usual mentality is why I have come to believe that we need 100% federally financed elections and Constitutionally set term limits of not more than 18 years in either House (total of 36 between tow two Houses) and it should be retroactive to anyone who has served more than 18 years, they can’t run again. Until we get some new blood with fresh ideas and a vision of making America better rather than making their bank accounts look better, we will continue to be plagued with “politics as usual” from both sides.

  42. Marilyn
    June 22, 2007 at 9:40 pm

    Tom,

    I have a few suggestions for getting out of the Middle East along the Marshall Plan lines post WWII:

    1- Start the planning to end the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan with the help of the world community. At the same time:

    2- Work on plans to rebuild both countries by providing jobs for all the jobless;

    3- Initiate the repatriation of the 4 million Iraqi refugees back into their home country. Many of those refugees have skills that will help them rebuild their nation;

    4- Invite people from all religions and segments of the population to participate in the post-occupation rebuilding;

    5- Make a genuine effort to leave the area;

    6- Leave Iraqi oil to the Iraqis and allow real self-determination;

    7- Work on strengthening Homeland Security through a better educated law enforcement entity that can work outside partisan lines;

    8- Decrease the nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons arsenal of the United States while working on doing the same with the rest of the nations of the world;

    9- Increase taxes on people who make more than $400,000 a year and reduce taxes for those who make less than $100,000 a year;

    10- Abolish corporate free rides and protected status;

    11- Get rid of the middle men in all businesses, including health care; with the money we save, we can build better schools, hire more qualified teachers, and teach important subjects that go beyond home economics and knitting (like foreign languages, economics, math, science, the Classics, world history, ethics, comparative religions, and community service);

    12- Require all government employees on all levels to keep up their education and skill levels;

    13- Strengthen the borders with Canada and Mexico, as well as the maritime borders;

    14- Increase diplomatic relations on all levels with all countries and increase the number of diplomats;

    15- Abolish the two party system as well as the lobby system;

    16- Maintain a consistent foreign policy with all nations; none of this business of “my friend’s enemy is my enemy and my enemy’s friend is my friend.” We cannot support tyrants one day because they are useful to us while condemning and targeting others because we want something they have.

    There are many more things that can be done, but that would require a book to discuss.

    Let’s not forget that after WWII, the leadership in this country was astute enough to realize that the way to halt the spread of Communism in Europe was through “winning the hearts and minds” of people in the true sense of the word. That is why the Marshall Plan was implemented. It had nothing to do with the level of compassion of U.S. leadership at the time. It had to do with the fact that they were smart enough to realize than to win people’s allegiance and prevent radicalism in Europe during a rising tide of Communism was to improve the economic lives of the average people. It worked! That is one main reason why Western Europe never became Communist.

    As far as the blue anonymous with the three-way split personality, easy on the sauce buddy, it does things to the brain and mind.

  43. Rich from Paso
    June 22, 2007 at 10:49 pm

    Marilyn:

    Here’s my response to your plan;

    1 – fine; when the insurgents and the terrorists and the Taliban give up and stop blowing up innocent iraqis and afghanis, we’ll be all to happy to leave.

    2 – It is the obligation of the iraqis and the afghanis to provide jobs for the jobless; not the obligation of US or any other country in the world. If you think it is the obligation of the US, then we should stay and make sure that the country is secure for those people to take the jobs we are providing.

    3 – Agreed; when the country is secure and the sunni/shia/terrorist violence is over, we should get right on that.

    4 – Fine, whatever.

    5 – We will make a legitimate effort to “leave the area” when you liberals allow for oil drilling in ANWAR and off the coasts of the Gulf of Mexico and California and the building of more nuclear powerplants and oil refineries. Until we have a secure and stable supply of oil available for us here in the US, then it is in our strategic best interests to stay involved in the Middle East.

    6 – Fact is that that Iraq ranks 7th in sources of oil to the US. The most we ever imported from Iraq was 11.3 million barrels. If anything, you should support the US developing the 300 million barrel oil fields on some sort of lease agreement so that Iraq will profit from the oil that is exported, which will lower global prices by meeting demand needs and lowering our costs at the pump even though the US doesn’t have to directly import one drop of oil. The iraqis benefit, the American people benefit, everyone benefits.

    8 – Red herring issue: the US has used WMDs twice in our history, both against Japan at the end of World War II. We have been responsible stewards of the atomic genie for the last 70 years. It is the nutbags like Kim Jung-il in N. Korea and Aquavelvanejad in Iran that need to be kept out of the nuclear clubhouse. Even Isreal, Pakistan and India have been very good stewards of the atomic genie seeings how all three countries and their enemies still exist.

    9 – Marilyn, this may come as a shock to you, but RICH PEOPLE PROVIDE JOBS; POOR PEOPLE DON’T!! Why do you want to sabotage our economy just so you can feel good about sticking it to the rich? If anything, you want the rich to spend every dime they have. Higher taxes always equals higher savings, especially among the rich. The reason why revenues are up is because tax rates are down and the rich feel freer to spend their money and not hide it from the taxman.

    10 and 11 – Don’t know what the hell you are talking about here, but i will take a stab at it: Corporate free rides? Oh, you mean the sugar subsidy, the subsidy for the piece of crap hybrid cars, the subsidy for tobacco farmer. Well, if you are for eliminating tax breaks for corporations, I’m for that. After all, since all costs are born by the consumer, the comsumer will pay a lower price when those hidden taxes are removed. As for 11, I just don’t think you know what you are talking about. You must be saying without saying that you want Universal Healthcare. I suggest you get on that plane and head to Aleppo, Syria for that free doctor you were talking about, but not here and not ever. Socialized medicine kills more people than the cancer does and that is a fact everywhere socialized medicine is used.

    12 – They don’t do that now? Hmm, okay. Whatever. Figured the upwardly mobile ones would be doing that anyway.

    13 – Done

    14 – Sure, fine, but let’s not have diplomacy for diplomacy’s sake. You can only talk to the cobra for so long before the damn thing bites you anyway. Got to have the big stick to go along with the soft voice.

    15 – The ‘two-party” system is as American as apple pie and baseball. There is a very good reason why people like the two-party system: because our “Freedom of Choice” allows the American people to. If you want a parlimentary style government, then Great Britain might be more to your liking the the US. They have everything you like in a country: high taxes, rampant political correctness, cowtowing to all things Muslim, socialized medicine, a small impotent military, a white male hegemony that you will feel at home railing against, a multiparty parlimentarian system, and a monarchy (which is no different that the Kings Abdullah in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, Hosni Mohbarak’s 37 year reign in Egypt, Bashar Assad succeeding his father in Syria, and Quaddaffy in Libya; the theocracy in Iran is different, but that is a difference without much distinction). So, Great Britain is the country for you.

    16 – Don’t you mean that the “enemy of my enemy is my friend”? I agree that there needs to be a more morally guided and consistant foreign policy. We export trillions of dollars in goods, services and capital around the world and that money has weight. We should do a better job of not using governments that are morally repugnant as allies just because our enemy is worse. That said, we are talking about cutting ties with Russia, China, India, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Venezuela, Peru, Uraguay, Paraguay, Egypt, Turkey, Belarus, and almost every country in Africa. But we will be morally correct with our foreign policy!

    The other reason why Western Europe didn’t become communist was that the American Army was standing in the Fulda Gap preventing the 20 Soviet tank divisions from taking over Western Europe. Keep in mind: the Soviets took over every European country the United States wasn’t in. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary; what did they have in common? No US presence. The United States protects the peace and does not threaten it.

    See! We’re not so far apart politically as you thought.

  44. the ghost of christmas past
    June 23, 2007 at 12:07 am

    I will make everyone this promise: If Presidnet Bush signs this fiasco of an immigration bill into law, I will agree with you that he is the worst president in recent history. The only thing keeping me from saying that now is that there is a small group of Republican senators that are saving Bush from himself.

  45. Anonymous
    June 23, 2007 at 1:52 am

    Marilyn’s response…
    The ultamite litmus test is to see from where these ideas come from…
    Here goes..
    1) Surrender & retreat-liberal
    2) Welfare-liberal
    3) Open borders – liberal
    4) Secular proessivism-liberal
    5) Cut-n-Run-liberal
    6) Income redistribution-liberal
    7) Raise taxes-liberal
    8) Disarm America-liberal
    9) Raise taxes-liberal
    10) Destroy corporations-liberal
    11) Socialized medicine-liberal
    12) more Govt controls-liberal
    13) Open borders-liberal
    14) More government-liberal
    15) socialism-liberal
    16) Apease terrorists-liberal

    There ya have it! talking points right from Move-on.org!

    So transparent! So typical of a tax supported liberal muslim female…

    Gawd! I love this blog! Thanks for the laff hezzy mary!

  46. Ron
    June 23, 2007 at 5:16 pm

    An Anon wrote:

    “We are fighting and winning the global war on terror!
    No matter how much you sorrosites hate Bush…we are safe. We took the battle to the middle east and it will stay there…”

    And a National Intelligence Estimate report concludes: “Iraq War Made Terror ‘Worse’ “

    Hmmm… let’s see here:

    An anonymous commentor: “We are fighting and winning the global war on terror!”

    and a National Intelligence Estimate: “Iraq War Made Terror ‘Worse’ “

    Sorry Anon, gotta go with the latter on that one.

    Quick shout-out to Newsstand Greg… good to see ya around these parts.

  47. Anonymous
    June 23, 2007 at 5:22 pm

    Ron said:
    Hmmm… let’s see here:

    well thats a good start! it means he is thinking…just not thinking correctly…but it’s a start.
    there may be hope for ron yet

  48. lame brain liberal loser
    June 24, 2007 at 12:47 am

    Let’s fight the terrorists the Clinton way!

  49. Anonymous
    June 24, 2007 at 1:34 am

    Bobby Cutts is being charged with 2 murders! All he is guilty of is one murder and practicing medicine without a license!
    He only performed a late term abortion on the baby! It’s done every day in america!
    Free Bobby! Free Bobby!

    Did you know that Bobby Cutts was a practicing muslim? Yeppers! He needs counseling and love and understanding!

    Free Bobby! and let’s surround him with love and acceptance! Rehab may be the answer here!

  50. Mr Logic
    June 24, 2007 at 1:36 am

    National Intelligence Estimate report

    Hey gregg and ron? what’s the operative word in that reports title?

    Try “esitimate” ya numbskulls!

    a wrong estimate!

  51. Paul
    June 24, 2007 at 3:26 am

    Ron did you read the National Intelligence Estimate, or just the headline of the article? Because it says a lot of things, not the least of which is that if we keep killing them and their leaders they will lose the will to fight.
    When leaders in this country broadcast to the world that we are losing this war it stokes the enemies fires to keep on.

  52. ANONYMOUS
    June 24, 2007 at 3:33 pm

    Marilyn my sister in the great allah!
    You of all should know that believers in the great religon of islam are not allowed to drink the “sauce”!
    Stand strong my shia sister, be of good faith…keep supporting the ranks that defy the wrong islam believes like the sunni! Hezzbolah will free us all! Hamas will free us all and the great nation of iran will lead the way to shia domination of the middle east and then the world!
    wash your feet and drop to your prayer rug my muslim sister! Have faith the great allah!
    we are about to strike a fatal blow to the infidels…do your part to keep them confused and weak!

  53. Shia Muslim
    June 24, 2007 at 3:37 pm

    A Shia Muslim who is curious about everything and who abhors the herd mentality. The herd is not aware and it walks itself to the slaughter. The herd is led from behind. It cannot see that which nudges it. The herd only looks at the ground. It becomes aware of itself when the black sheep is born. In a magnificent unity of action, it devours the black sheep and then it forgets about itself again, never seeing the herder leading from behind.
    Praise allah that we are the truth!

  54. Anonymous
    June 26, 2007 at 10:01 pm

    A man whose family was German
    aristocracy prior to World War Two owned a number of large industries and
    estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he
    gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. “Very few people were true
    Nazis “he said,” but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many
    more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis
    were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all
    happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control,
    and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up
    in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.” We are
    told again and again by “experts” and “talking heads” that Islam is the
    religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to li
    ve in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is
    entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel
    better, andmeant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging
    across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule
    Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the
    fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the
    fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups
    throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an
    Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill.
    It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics
    who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and
    homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the “peaceful majority”
    the “silent majority” is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia comprised
    Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were
    responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful
    majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population, it was peaceful as
    well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million
    people. The average Japanese individual prior to World War 2 was not a
    warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across
    South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder
    of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet.
    And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be
    said that the majority of Rwandans were “peace loving”? History lessons
    are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason
    we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving
    Mu slims have been made irrelevant by theirsilence. Peace-loving Muslims
    will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from
    Germany, they will awake one day and find that the fanatics own them, and
    the end of their world will have begun. Peace-loving Germans, Japanese,
    Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis,
    Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful
    majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it
    all unfold; we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the
    fanatics who threaten our way of life. Lastly, at the risk of offending,
    anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email
    without sending it on, can contribute to the passiveness that allows the
    problems to expand.So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and
    on!! Let us hope thatthousands, wor ld wide, read this – think about it –

  55. Anonymous
    June 27, 2007 at 1:37 am

    Does talk show guy and fans know about the senate immigration bill? 6 weeks into something this large and nothing about it on hometown.
    When Bush and Reid and Kennedy agree, look the F out.

  56. Bobby
    June 27, 2007 at 3:38 am

    Ted Kennedy sings the truth!

  57. the ghost of christmas past
    June 27, 2007 at 11:33 pm

    This is for all you Iraq War haters out there: If the Bush Administration invaded Iraq to get rid of WMDs that they thought were there and for the wars Iraq did on it’s neighbors, then why haven’t we bombed the piss out of Iran for a) stated goals of developing a nuclear weapon, b) the stated goal of destroying Isreal and the millions of innocent people in that country, c) for assisting the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq in their wars against the United States?

    If they rationale was sound in 2003 and proved wrong, why aren’t bombs falling on Tehran for all the stuff Iran has been found doing and have stated they want to do?

    Just asking the question.

  58. Fairness
    June 28, 2007 at 4:13 am

    What’s up Dave?

  59. The new Isalmic force
    June 28, 2007 at 4:24 am

    Get our of our country! Iraq! Leave the middle east!
    let us deal with Israel as Allah has directed us.
    Keep your borders open, at least for now, so we can finish our work in america.
    Retreat back to your own borders. Leave the world alone! we all hate you! Allah hates you!
    You have lost this war, as you know we will never give up! Ever! We will wait you out! We have the conviction of our faith in allah! You evil immoral ifidels are doomed…convert or die!
    Stay active against the war…Vote for our democrat friends!
    We will prevail over the west!
    Allah will rule the earth again!

  60. Hoosier21
    June 28, 2007 at 6:18 pm

    Hey Ghost, we don’t have to bomb Iran to win there. Invading Iran is a lose/lose situation. A) They become nationalistic and actually support their government and B) we destabilize Pakistan and we don’t want a “ally” to fall into radical hands with nuclear capibility.

    The solution is easy. Deinvest in the 485 companies that supply Iran. We have started this already. Several states have passed laws that stipulate that you can not use government pension money to invest in these companies. The Dutch company Shell has already stopped along with some others. Get Europe and the whole of USA to do this, these companies respond to the $. Plain and simple. Deinvest so their stock falls and they will leave.
    Iran will be in shambles in no time. They would not be able to keep the refineries and wells going. Their people will respond, not with hate towards the USA, but towards their government. It would fall fairly quickly.

  61. Hoosier21
    June 28, 2007 at 7:18 pm

    every single reason this administration gave as justification for the invasion of Iraq has been proven utterly false.
    Bob, I must have slept through this one. As I remember it, there were 17 items on the resolution that congress passed and Bush signed. Many of these had already happened and verified (flying in the no fly zone, pinging our aircraft with anti missile sites, banning inspectors from areas) When and how did these prove to be false? Can you show me the link?

  62. the ghost of christmas past
    June 28, 2007 at 8:16 pm

    Hoosier, you mix things up. I said bomb, you said invade. I’m guessing you conceded the point that Iran needs to be dealt with, only not with military force. Do you really think that Iran only does business with the 485 US businesses that are involved with Iran? The French, Russians and Germans had no problem violating the Oil-For-Food program with Iraq to keep Saddam’s terror machine running. Bob says that corporations can’t be trusted, so why should we trust them to act morally. We know where Iran’s military bases are, we know where the six refineries (which they stole from us in 1979) are located, we know the ports that Iran receives it’s oil and gas shipments, we know where the nuclear research facilities are located. We can bomb those targets and blockade their ports are ruin the Iranian government without setting one soldier’s boot in their country. The people of Iran are incredibly pro-US and Pro-western. The Iranian people were burning down gas stations after the Mullahs rationed their gas and tripled the price of the gas they can get. I agree there is no reason to invade. However, we do need to take Iran to the woodshe for blowing up our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, for blowing up iraqi civilians, for creating chaos in Lebanon and Gaza and the West Bank. Iran is the primary source of support for all of the terrorist groups we are fighting today. If we cut off the support the insurgents and the Taliban get from Iran, the faster our soldiers can leave those countries.

  63. Hoosier21
    June 28, 2007 at 9:06 pm

    Good post. There are approximately 485 companies total, not just USA. We would need cooperation of European countries, but American citizens also invest in these companies (like Shell), and could hurt there bottom line. I am just worried that bombing will raise the Iranian citizens ire and become anti USA. Money is always the issue. Companies understand this.

  64. the ghost of christmas past
    June 28, 2007 at 10:12 pm

    If we are going to address Iran, then absolutely I would want a full economic embargo on any capital coming in and out of that country. Why do we need to ask US companies to stop doing buisness with them? Congress can pass a law, as they did with Iraq, and forbid them from doing business with Iran. Sarcozy in France and Brown in Britain would, I think, support a US effort in that regard. The UN is another issue. China, Russia and others that are sitting on the Security Council might block efforts to divest from Iran. Same thing happened with Iraq. That is why I think that “unilateral” military action might be necessary because the business interests in Europe and Asia might trump the morally correct thing to do with Iran and not support regime change. From all of the stories I have seen, the Iranian people want regime change too. The “ire of the people” is always problematic. We tried our damnedest to keep collateral damage to a minimum in Iraq and the people are still fighting an insurgency against us. True, Iraq is ethnically diverse whereas Iran is almost all Persian, but you never can tell. The Iranians might just greet us as liberators like in France. Who knows? Maybe Cheney was right, but just off the mark by one country. But back to the point, Iran is looking more and more like the center of gravity around which almost all of the Mideast violence rotates. We remove the mullahs of Iran from power, give the Iranian people a shot at government and we could be on the road to some serious peace in the middle east.

  65. Hoosier21
    June 29, 2007 at 7:41 pm

    Bob, you have not responded to my response to your silly assertion that every reason we went to war has been verified as being false. I think it is everyones responsibility to educate people on what the real reasons were, what the government actually tried to do to prevent it and that the MSM account is revisionist history. Please read the following. I realize it is from a conservative, but the facts are verifyable.
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=28944

  66. Hoosier21
    June 29, 2007 at 7:44 pm

    Ghost, it is a pleasure discussing issues with someone that is not over the edge, full of hate, and reasonable.

  67. Bob Sr
    June 30, 2007 at 2:31 am

    You hit the nail on the head Dave, here come the killers.

    John Edwards newest bumpersticker:

    “Vote for me, I’m more dangerous than a couple of Mercedes loaded with nails and gasoline”

  68. the ghost of christmas past
    June 30, 2007 at 2:59 am

    Only like Edwards could make George Bush look presciencent with teh way this bumper sticker, campaign slogan of a War on Terrorism has been fought. I wonder if we had waterboarded more people at Club G’itmo that we wouldn’t even be having this conversation, because the terrorists would all be dead.

    Oh, by the way, the FBI thinks that al Qaida is recruiting the inmates of our prison system. So much for closing Club G’itmo. We ought to be talking to Castro about maybe getting some more land for a new wing that we will be needing soon.

  69. Bob Sr
    July 3, 2007 at 1:34 am

    Now than I think more about it, when I see the Homeland security czar, maybe Edwards is a
    bumpersticker marketing genius

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: