What action do you want the newly elected president to take?
I think it's time for all Americans to start contemplating the real nature of our situation without reliance on rather et al or whether al Qaeda had, has or will have WMD.
Thousands of innocent people have been murdered by these vipers without the damned WMD. If we were to do nothing thousands more will be murdered.
The real issue isn't Bush versus Kerry, or whether WMD exist or not. The real issue is what do we want done to exterminate recruiters of terrorists? It seems few here know. Well, it's long past time to decide; remove your heads from your dogma and answer for yourselves. Then ask yourselves which of the candidates is most likely to do what you want.
You seem to think that once the battle began in Afghanistan that great reams of Al Queda headed for Iraq. How did they know Iraq would be the next target? Wouldn't it be much more logical for, oh never mind.
Anyway, we know some got safe passage through Iran but US Intelligence thinks most of those folks were headed for Syria and Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, and the rest of those who did flee probalbly went as far as Pakistan and no further, as evidenced by the captures the Pakistanis have made there.
Remember, despite all the efforts to change the evidence, the 9-11 Commission found no substansive connection between Saddam, members of government and Al Queda. It's just not true that there was this solid working relationship you and Dick Cheney believe in. So why would they head to Iraq as the Taliban were scattered? Answer: they didn't.
Al Queda is not a centrally located enterprise. All it takes is ten members in a city the size of Jakarta to make a cell. Al Queda does not shoot at soldiers, soldiers tend to be armed and dangerous. They do not get their warriors from the battlefield, they get them from the schoolyards.
The answer to Al Queda is better relations with Islamic countries, a deeper understanding of how the world looks at America and it's war machine and a movement to really trying to find ways of improving the lives of the people who now see no other way other than to make war on us.
John Kerry's administration, after doing their best to clean up the muddle Bush has made of Iraq, will do a better job of all those things, because he has thought about them and Bush and his advisors still think fighting Al Queda has something to do with troop movements, it doesn't, it has to do with ideas.
Joe
Joe Nation wrote:You seem to think that once the battle began in Afghanistan that great reams of Al Queda headed for Iraq. How did they know Iraq would be the next target?
No, I do not think "great reams" headed for Iraq, Joe, only some. I have frequently posted "some" here. Only five per airliner proved sufficient on 9-11. Furthermore, if they had thought Iraq would be the next US military target, they would not have gone there.
Joe Nation wrote:Anyway, we know some got safe passage through Iran ...
One can draw a straight line from Afghanistan to Syria through Iran and Iraq.
joe Nation wrote: Remember, despite all the efforts to change the evidence, the 9-11 Commission found no substansive connection between Saddam, members of government and Al Queda.
That's a miss-statement, Joe. They found "no
formal" connection or relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. Several
informal connections or relations were found between Saddam and al Qaeda. See Osama's 1998 FATWA posted here previously twice. Also see CNN's version of Collin Powell's presention to the UN February 2003, also posted here twice. I'll post both of these again if you like.
...
Joe Nation wrote: ...Bush and his advisors still think fighting Al Queda has something to do with troop movements, it doesn't, it has to do with ideas.
Your statement is contradicted by Bush's adoption of the 9-11 Commissions recommendations which include but are certainly not limited to "troop movements." Also, Bush has recommended Congress adopt the 9-11 Commission's recommended reorganization of intelligence agencies, etc. For a detailed and complete specification of the 9-11 Commission's recommendations and for the complete report itself, see
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
(At this location the entire report is available in PDF format. All of its individual sections (excludes the public statement) are available in HTML format.)
US offensive later in the year?
NYT today:
"U.S. Plans Year-End Drive to Take Iraqi Rebel Areas
By DEXTER FILKINS
Published: September 19, 2004
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 18 - Faced with a growing insurgency and a January deadline for national elections, American commanders in Iraq say they are preparing operations to open up rebel-held areas, especially Falluja, the restive city west of Baghdad now under control of insurgents and Islamist groups.
A senior American commander said the military intended to take back Falluja and other rebel areas by year's end. The commander did not set a date for an offensive but said that much would depend on the availability of Iraqi military and police units, which would be sent to occupy the city once the Americans took it.
The American commander suggested that operations in Falluja could begin as early as November or December, the deadline the Americans have given themselves for restoring Iraqi government control across the country.
"We need to make a decision on when the cancer of Falluja is going to be cut out," the American commander said. "We would like to end December at local control across the country."
"Falluja will be tough," he said........"
Full story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/19/international/middleeast/19strategy.html?th
Whatever you do boys, don't run up the American death-toll before election day, 'K?
and so it begins again...
Bush's failed Iraq policy.
Sep 20, 8:01 AM EDT
Senators Urge Bush to Rethink Iraq Policy
By WILLIAM C. MANN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senators from both parties urged the Bush administration on Sunday to make a realistic assessment of the situation in Iraq and adjust its policies aimed at pacifying the country. But Bush readied a firm defense of his Iraq policy - and a sharp new attack on rival John Kerry's stance - for a speech Monday.
"The fact is a crisp, sharp analysis of our policies is required. We didn't do that in Vietnam, and we saw 11 years of casualties mount to the point where we finally lost," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran who is co-chairman of President Bush's re-election committee in Nebraska.
"We can't lose this. It is too important," Hagel, R-Neb., said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
A major problem, said leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was incompetence by the administration in reconstructing the country's shattered infrastructure.
The chairman, Sen. Richard Lugar, noted that Congress appropriated $18.4 billion a year ago this week for reconstruction. No more than $1 billion has been spent. "This is the incompetence in the administration," Lugar, R-Ind., said on ABC's "This Week."
"Exactly right," interjected Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, the committee's top Democrat. He said later: "This has been incompetence so far. Five percent of the $18.4 billion that George Bush keeps ... beating the other candidate up and about the head for how he voted and didn't vote, and he's released 5 percent."
Sen. John McCain, who has campaigned often with the president, said mistakes in Iraq generally can be attributed to inadequate manpower. McCain, R-Ariz., said problems began arising shortly after the dash through the desert to take Baghdad, the capital, in April 2003.
"We made serious mistakes right after the initial successes by not having enough troops on the ground, by allowing the looting, by not securing the borders," McCain said.
"Airstrikes don't do it; artillery doesn't do it. Boots on the ground do it," McCain told "Fox News Sunday."
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said Bush had pointed out from the beginning that the risks of combat in Iraq.
"I find it shocking that some people are surprised by the fact that it is a long and difficult conflict," Kyl said.
"What's important is that you have a leader who recognizes that there are difficulties, but who is committed to prevailing; who has a firm idea of what he wants to accomplish, confidence in his commanders in the field, and who doesn't send mixed messages to the troops or to our allies, or most importantly, to our enemies," Kyl said.
Bush planned to use that line of attack against Kerry on Monday, seeking to counter increasingly hard-hitting language the Massachusetts senator has been using on Bush's Iraq policy.
In a speech in New Hampshire, Bush "will step up his critique of John Kerry's policy on Iraq of retreat and defeat," said Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel. "Our troops deserve better than to hear Kerry's campaign pushing pessimism and lack of faith in the mission."
Kerry too was ratcheting up his attacks on Bush and Iraq, in a speech to be delivered at New York University. The Democrat "will lay out his plan for cleaning up the mess George Bush has made in Iraq," said campaign spokesman Phil Singer.
Bush's campaign also was airing a new TV commercial promoting his broader anti-terror efforts.
"President Bush and our leaders in Congress have a plan," an announcer says. Among the items listed on the ad are beefing up border and port security, reorganizing the intelligence services, renewing the Patriot Act, and giving the military "all it needs."
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., acknowledged that the situation may deteriorate further before it gets better as antidemocratic forces try to prevent democracy from taking hold.
"So this is not a civil war. This is a part of the war on terror, where the terrorists have gone to Iraq, and we need to fight back or we'll lose the region," Graham told CNN's "Late Edition."
McCain was asked about a report in Sunday's New York Times that U.S. commanders were planning a drive in November or December to retake areas where insurgents have won control. Such a timetable would place the operations after the Nov. 2 election for the White House.
McCain said Bush was not being "as straight as we would want him to be" about the situation. "The longer we delay with these sanctuaries, the more difficult the challenge is going to be and the more casualties we will incur and the Iraqi people will suffer because they will be able to operate out of these sanctuaries obviously now with somewhat of impunity," McCain said.
The fanatical Bush devotés will support him despite such criticism from high-ranking Republicans. This might result in his re-election--which will leave him less likely than before to take the necessary remedial steps to provide the Iraqis a fighting chance at effectively governing themselves without civil war.
Setanta
How can these republicans support him. I guess it's party "uber alus"[sp] well you know what I mean
This Is the kind of garbage that now governs America. Elect it at your own risk.
Hastert's al Qaeda comment draws fire
Idea that terrorists want Kerry to win called 'silly,' 'disgraceful'
Monday, September 20, 2004 Posted: 9:59 AM EDT (1359 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Top Democrats slapped back Sunday at a remark by House Speaker Dennis Hastert that al Qaeda leaders want Sen. John Kerry to beat President Bush in November.
At a campaign rally Saturday in his Illinois district with Vice President Dick Cheney, Hastert said al Qaeda "would like to influence this election" with an attack similar to the train bombings in Madrid days before the Spanish national election in March.
When a reporter asked Hastert if he thought al Qaeda would operate with more comfort if Kerry were elected, the speaker said, "That's my opinion, yes."
Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe called Hastert's comments "disgraceful," saying there was "no room for this in our political discourse."
"And I remind you that, you know, we could have done a lot better," McAuliffe said on CNN's "Late Edition."
"The president of the United States, on August 6th of 2001, was told in his briefing that America was going to be attacked by al Qaeda and they may use airplanes," McAuliffe said, referring to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
"He didn't call the FAA. He didn't leave his monthlong vacation. He sat down there."
Kerry's running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, said Hastert "has joined the fear-mongering choir."
"Let me just say this in the simplest possible terms," Edwards said at a rally in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania. "When John Kerry is president of the United States, we will find al Qaeda where they are and crush them before they can do damage to the American people."
Hastert, who as speaker heads the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, showed no sign of backing off his comments.
His spokesman, John Feehery, said Sunday that the speaker's comments "were consistent with the speaker's belief that John Kerry would be weak on the war."
"If John Kerry is perceived as being weak on the war, then of course, his election would be perceived as a good thing by the terrorists," Feehery said in a written response to questions about Hastert's remarks.
"The fact that John Kerry can't make up his mind about the war only strengthens that perception."
Neither the Bush campaign nor the White House had any comment on Hastert's remarks, but Bush has accused Kerry of repeatedly changing his position on the war in Iraq.
The comments followed a remark by Cheney earlier this month that Americans might be subjected to another terrorist attack if they were to make "the wrong choice" in November.
Cheney later said that any president must expect more attacks and that his point had been that he felt Bush was better prepared to deal with the threat.
Some Republicans played down Hastert's comments Sunday.
"I doubt that Osama bin Laden is likely to weigh in on our presidential election," said Rep. Chris Cox of California, chairman of the House Policy Committee and fourth-ranking member of the Republican leadership behind Hastert.
Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska called the remarks "silly."
"I think most Americans understand that, regardless of who's president, the terrorists are still going to be terrorists, and they're going to still target Americans," said Hagel, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees.
"And I don't think terrorists of the world sit around the campfire gauging who's the easier president to deal with."
It was the second time this month that Hastert's comments have provoked a public row.
Billionaire George Soros, a major backer of Democratic causes, asked the House Ethics Committee to investigate Hastert after the speaker suggested in a television interview that Soros got money from "drug groups."
Hastert later said he was referring to organizations to which Soros has contributed that favor drug legalization, but he ignored Soros' demand for an apology.
Analysts differ on just how much the Madrid bombings influenced the Spanish election.
Some say they prompted Spaniards to vote out Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, a key U.S. ally in the Iraq war. Others say Aznar's insistence on blaming Basque separatists, not Islamist terrorists, tipped the electorate against him.
In any case, Aznar's successor, Socialist Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq shortly after taking office.
The war in Iraq is over....sorry just starting. Its a new war, according to Tony Blair in today's Guardian:-
"Despite George Bush declaring that combat operations were over more than 16 months ago, the growing hostage crisis and insurgency led Tony Blair yesterday to talk of a second war.
In a joint press conference with his Iraqi counterpart, Ayad Allawi, who was on his first visit to Britain yesterday, he said coalition forces were engaged in a "new conflict" now that the "first conflict" to remove Saddam Hussein was over. But the battleground of this fight was global terrorism versus "the side of democracy and liberty". "
Blair didn't say whether we wond the old war or not.
Indeed, the war we should be fighting is the war against lies and stupidity of Bush and Blair. The "B" boys Bluster and Blunder.
Iraqi PM: 'Terrorists pouring in'
Monday, September 20, 2004 Posted: 10:33 AM EDT (1433 GMT)
LONDON, England (CNN) -- Iraq's interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi has warned that "terrorists" are flooding into his country from across the Muslim world.
story
President George W. Bush, shortly after the 9-11 Commission's report was published, adopted the 9-11 Commission recommendations, and he recommended that Congress approve the Commission's government reorganization recommendations.
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT
Quote:Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
...
(pages 12 - 14)
RECOMMENDATIONS
Three years after 9/11, the national debate continues about how to protect our nation in this new era. We divide our recommendations into two basic parts: What to do, and how to do it.
WHAT TO DO? A GLOBAL STRATEGY
The enemy is not just "terrorism." It is the threat posed specifically by Islamist terrorism, by Bin Ladin and others who draw on a long tradition of extreme intolerance within a minority strain of Islam that does not distinguish politics from religion, and distorts both.
The enemy is not Islam, the great world faith, but a perversion of Islam. The enemy goes beyond al Qaeda to include the radical ideological movement, inspired in part by al Qaeda, that has spawned other terrorist groups and violence. Thus our strategy must match our means to two ends: dismantling the al Qaeda network and, in the long term, prevailing over the ideology that contributes to Islamist terrorism.
The first phase of our post-9/11 efforts rightly included military action to topple the Taliban and pursue al Qaeda. This work continues. But long-term success demands the use of all elements of national power: diplomacy, intelligence, covert action, law enforcement, economic policy, foreign aid, public diplomacy, and homeland defense. If we favor one tool while neglecting others, we leave ourselves vulnerable and weaken our national effort.
What should Americans expect from their government? The goal seems unlimited: Defeat terrorism anywhere in the world. But Americans have also been told to expect the worst: An attack is probably coming; it may be more devastating still.
Vague goals match an amorphous picture of the enemy. Al Qaeda and other groups are popularly described as being all over the world, adaptable, resilient, needing little higher-level organization, and capable of anything. It is an image of an omnipotent hydra of destruction. That image lowers expectations of government effectiveness.
It lowers them too far. Our report shows a determined and capable group of plotters. Yet the group was fragile and occasionally left vulnerable by the marginal, unstable people often attracted to such causes. The enemy made mistakes. The U.S. government was not able to capitalize on them.
No president can promise that a catastrophic attack like that of 9/11 will not happen again. But the American people are entitled to expect that officials will have realistic objectives, clear guidance, and effective organization. They are entitled to see standards for performance so they can judge, with the help of their elected representatives, whether the objectives are being met.
We propose a strategy with three dimensions: (1) attack terrorists and their organizations, (2) prevent the continued growth of Islamist terrorism, and (3) protect against and prepare for terrorist attacks. [emphasis added]
Attack Terrorists and Their Organizations
Root out sanctuaries.The U.S. government should identify and prioritize actual or potential terrorist sanctuaries and have realistic country or regional strategies for each, utilizing every element of national power and reaching out to countries that can help us.
Strengthen long-term U.S. and international commitments to the future of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Confront problems with Saudi Arabia in the open and build a relationship beyond oil, a relationship that both sides can defend to their citizens and includes a shared commitment to reform.
Prevent the Continued Growth of Islamist Terrorism
In October 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asked if enough was being done "to fashion a broad integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists." As part of such a plan, the U.S. government should[:]
Define the message and stand as an example of moral leadership in the world. To Muslim parents, terrorists like Bin Ladin have nothing to offer their children but visions of violence and death. America and its friends have the advantage-our vision can offer a better future.
Where Muslim governments, even those who are friends, do not offer opportunity, respect the rule of law, or tolerate differences, then the United States needs to stand for a better future.
Communicate and defend American ideals in the Islamic world, through much stronger public diplomacy to reach more people, including students and leaders outside of government. Our efforts here should be as strong as they were in combating closed societies during the Cold War.
Offer an agenda of opportunity that includes support for public education and economic openness.
Develop a comprehensive coalition strategy against Islamist terrorism, using a flexible contact group of leading coalition governments and fashioning a common coalition approach on issues like the treatment of captured terrorists.
Devote a maximum effort to the parallel task of countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Expect less from trying to dry up terrorist money and more from following the money for intelligence, as a tool to hunt terrorists, understand their networks, and disrupt their operations.
Protect against and Prepare for Terrorist Attacks
Target terrorist travel, an intelligence and security strategy that the 9/11 story showed could be at least as powerful as the effort devoted to terrorist finance.
Address problems of screening people with biometric identifiers across agencies and governments, including our border and transportation systems, by designing a comprehensive screening system that addresses common problems and sets common standards. As standards spread, this necessary and ambitious effort could dramatically strengthen the world's ability to intercept individuals who could pose catastrophic threats.
Quickly complete a biometric entry-exit screening system, one that also speeds qualified travelers.
Set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as driver's licenses.
Develop strategies for neglected parts of our transportation security system. Since 9/11, about 90 percent of the nation's $5 billion annual investment in transportation security has gone to aviation, to fight the last war.
In aviation, prevent arguments about a new computerized profiling system from delaying vital improvements in the "no-fly" and "automatic selectee" lists. Also, give priority to the improvement of checkpoint screening.
Determine, with leadership from the President, guidelines for gathering and sharing information in the new security systems that are needed, guidelines that integrate safeguards for privacy and other essential liberties.
Underscore that as government power necessarily expands in certain ways, the burden of retaining such powers remains on the executive to demonstrate the value of such powers and ensure adequate supervision of how they are used, including a new board to oversee the implementation of the guidelines needed for gathering and sharing information in these new security systems.
Base federal funding for emergency preparedness solely on risks and vulnerabilities, putting New York City and Washington, D.C., at the top of the current list. Such assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing or pork-barrel spending.
Make homeland security funding contingent on the adoption of an incident command system to strengthen teamwork in a crisis, including a regional approach. Allocate more radio spectrum and improve connectivity for public safety communications, and encourage widespread adoption of newly developed standards for private-sector emergency preparedness-since the private sector controls 85 percent of the nation's critical infrastructure.
Quote:HOW TO DO IT? A DIFFERENT WAY OF ORGANIZING GOVERNMENT
(PAGES 14 - 18)
...
(available on request)
au1929 wrote:Iraqi PM: 'Terrorists pouring in'
Monday, September 20, 2004 Posted: 10:33 AM EDT (1433 GMT)
LONDON, England (CNN) -- Iraq's interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi has warned that "terrorists" are flooding into his country from across the Muslim world. ...
Excellent! Better they should concentrate in one place outside of Bitain and the US where we can more easily and effectively:
9-11 Commission wrote:
(1) attack terrorists and their organizations,
(2) prevent the continued growth of Islamist terrorism, and
(3) protect against and prepare for terrorist attacks.
au1929 wrote: ...
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Top Democrats slapped back Sunday at a remark by House Speaker Dennis Hastert that al Qaeda leaders want Sen. John Kerry to beat President Bush in November.
At a campaign rally Saturday in his Illinois district with Vice President Dick Cheney, Hastert said al Qaeda "would like to influence this election" with an attack similar to the train bombings in Madrid days before the Spanish national election in March.
When a reporter asked Hastert if he thought al Qaeda would operate with more comfort if Kerry were elected, the speaker said, "That's my opinion, yes."
What's the matter sport? The truth getting you down. Hastert merely gave his honest opinion in answer to a reporter's question.
It's flat out obvious that al Qaeda would much prefer a weak, vacilating, sometime anti-US, frequently prevaricating, platitude declaring guy like John Kerry. He'd be so much easier to intimidate and manipulate at their will.
Au(1929),
it's still not too late for you to get your head out of your dogma and think.
No way Icann!
You couldn't be more wrong about the president thing.
You see, Bush has given AQ everything they wanted. Everything. Legitimacy, media attention, and a bunch of new recruits thanks to our adventures in the middle east. He treated AQ as idelogical enemies, instead of what they really are - criminals.
He's attacked AQ using the old-style war approach, and not the way it should have been done; a sophisticated, cross-country police action to get the bastards. This heavy-handed approach only shows other muslims how right OBL was (at least, to them) when he talked about American nation-building.
Now, Bush isn't even attempting to shut AQ down anymore; basically they've been given a free rein to do what they like, and we are in a completely reactionary position. Not good when dealing with terrorists.
And for you to characterize Kerry as 'platitude-declaring,' you must be crazy if you think he does this more than Bush; Bush never stops speaking in platitudes about terror, and peace, etc... never definates from that man.
Vacilating? Bush swore up and down that he was going to catch Bin Laden. Now he doesn't even mention him. And you don't think that's vacillating?
Cycloptichorn
Ah yes, I wondered where I read Kerry was a gift for bin Laden
Ican of course
Well half an hour ago Ican, on the BBC wireless, with my cats whisker and earphone, I heard this:-
British ambassador to Italy Sir Ivor Roberts said at a private meeting (as leaked to Italian newspaper today) that George Bush was the best recruiting seargant for al Qaeda.
That if anyone had reason to celebrate his re election it would be al Qaeda and bin Laden.
Cycloptichorn wrote: No way Icann!
You couldn't be more wrong about the president thing.
...
Now, Bush isn't even attempting to shut AQ down anymore; basically they've been given a free rein to do what they like, and we are in a completely reactionary position. Not good when dealing with terrorists.
Bush is doing exactly what he said he would do shortly after the final 9-11 Commission report was issued.
Bush said first that he would adopt the Commission recommendations.
9-11 Commission, page 13 wrote: ...
(1) attack terrorists and their organizations,
(2) prevent the continued growth of Islamist terrorism, and
(3) protect against and prepare for terrorist attacks
Bush said second that he would recommend to Congress the 9-11 Commissions governmental reorganization to establish a single intelligence level cabinet post.
9-11 Commission, page 14 wrote:HOW TO DO IT? A DIFFERENT WAY OF ORGANIZING GOVERNMENT
The strategy we have recommended is elaborate, even as presented here very briefly. To implement it will require a government better organized than the one that exists today, with its national security institutions designed half a century ago to win the Cold War. Americans should not settle for incremental, ad hoc adjustments to a system created a generation ago for a world that no longer exists.
Our detailed recommendations are designed to fit together. Their purpose is clear: to build unity of effort across the U.S. government. As one official now serving on the front lines overseas put it to us: "One fight, one team."
We call for unity of effort in five areas, beginning with unity of effort on the challenge of counterterrorism itself:
unifying strategic intelligence and operational planning against Islamist terrorists across the foreign-domestic divide with a National Counterterrorism Center;
unifying the intelligence community with a new National Intelligence Director;
unifying the many participants in the counterterrorism effort and their knowledge in a network-based information sharing system that transcends traditional governmental boundaries;
unifying and strengthening congressional oversight to improve quality and accountability; and
strengthening the FBI and homeland defenders.
Cycloptichorn wrote: And for you to characterize Kerry as 'platitude-declaring,' you must be crazy if you think he does this more than Bush; Bush never stops speaking in platitudes about terror, and peace, etc... never definates from that man.
Vacilating? Bush swore up and down that he was going to catch Bin Laden. Now he doesn't even mention him. And you don't think that's vacillating?
First to you, catching bin Laden may be the most important thing that needs to be accomplished. Even if he has somehow survived his kidney desease, finding bin Laden will solve little more than a propaganda victory, and the 9-11 Commission and Bush (and I) know that.
9-11 Commission, page 12 wrote:Are We Safer?
Since 9/11, the United States and its allies have killed or captured a majority of al Qaeda's leadership; toppled the Taliban, which gave al Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan; and severely damaged the organization. Yet terrorist attacks continue. Even as we have thwarted attacks, nearly everyone expects they will come. How can this be?
The problem is that al Qaeda represents an ideological movement, not a finite group of people. It initiates and inspires, even if it no longer directs. In this way it has transformed itself into a decentralized force. Bin Ladin may be limited in his ability to organize major attacks from his hideouts. Yet killing or capturing him, while extremely important, would not end terror. His message of inspiration to a new generation of terrorists would continue.
...
Yes, of course, Bush is often platitide declaring. But Bush is also often substance declaring (see above).
Yes, of course, Bush is often vacillating. But Bush is also often consistently and determinedly proceding to accomplish his goal of stopping TMM from killing Americans.
I propose a scale, 0 through 100, for measuring relative competence of Bush and Kerry. If you insist that Bush is a
1, then I will insist Kerry is a
0.01. If you were to insist Bush's competence were
0.01 then I would insist Kerry's competence would be)
0.0001. Your problem as I see it, is you focus
only on your perception of Bush's competence and not on a rational comparison of Bush's competence versus Kerry's competence. As I see it, changing to that which is clearly worse, cannot ever make any improvement.
