TCS Daily


The Dog That Has Not Barked

By James K. Glassman - January 5, 2006 12:00 AM

As I write, 1,576 days have passed since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and still there has been no subsequent terrorist assault on American soil.

Every day, 130 domestic and 118 foreign airlines serve the United States. Air traffic controllers handle 20 million flights a year -- without a terrorist incident. In fact, the past three years have been the safest in aviation history.

The United States remains the most open nation in the world. Since 9/11, scores of millions of sealed trailer-size containers have entered U.S. ports, and 6 million legal international immigrants have joined the American population. But no terrorist attacks.

Is this just good luck, or is it the result of good policy?

In other words, has George W. Bush succeeded -- at least, so far -- at the number-one task that Americans have assigned him, which is to keep them safe? Or should we make him change his strategy and tactics?

These questions are especially relevant today. Congress has passed a bill that restricts the ways terrorists can be interrogated; there's outrage in the press at revelations that the National Security Agency has intercepted, without warrants, international phone calls and e-mails that originate or end in the U.S.; and, a popular new movie by America's most esteemed director takes a skeptical view of aggressive retaliation against terrorists.

In early 2002, nine Americans out of ten approved of the way Bush was handling the war against terror; today, barely one in two. Recent polls show respondents believe that the parties can handle terrorism equally well.

Much of the recent criticism may be rooted in dissatisfaction, not with the protection we've been afforded against terrorists, but with the apparent lack of progress in Iraq. Many Americans are war-weary and frustrated, and their unhappiness with the war in Iraq is reflected in Bush's poor approval ratings on the economy and terrorism -- even though, by any objective standard, these have been areas of great success.

The danger is that the farther 9/11 recedes in memory, the less we appreciate that it hasn't happened again. When it comes to the war on terror, many Americans have become short-sighted, ungrateful and decadent.

Consider "Munich," the new Steven Spielberg film. The movie, which last month was the subject of a cover story in Time magazine, follows the response to the brutal murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. According to Spielberg's version of events, Israel commissioned a small team to travel throughout Europe to assassinate the terrorists behind the killings.

Rather than an inspiring story of justice and deterrence, Spielberg's movie is a depressing tale of retaliation as counterproductive and morally corrupting. In an interview, the director said, "A response to a response doesn't solve anything." Instead, you need to sit down and talk things out "until you're blue in the gills."

There's little doubt that Spielberg is referring, not just to Munich 1972 but to America post-9/11. The last shot in the film catches the twin towers of the World Trade Center in the background.

Several times in "Munich," characters point out that, if the Israelis kill a terrorist, many more will rise to replace him, and these successors will be even worse. That may have been true with Nazis during World War II, but what is the alternative? To let the World Court handle the matter? To try to reason till you're blue in the gills with Black September and al-Qaeda? Spielberg calls his movie a "prayer for peace," but it is highly likely that calling a halt to the hunt for bin Laden and his henchmen will lead to more bloodshed, not less.

Remember "the curious incident of the dog in the night-time" from the Sherlock Holmes story "Silver Blaze"?

But, says Colonel Ross, "The dog did nothing in the night-time."

"That," said Holmes, "was the curious incident."

Here in the United States since 9/11, the terrorists have done nothing -- that is, no violence on our homeland. That is the incident worth paying attention to. But is it curious? No.

The terrorists' lack of success is the result of a response that has been aggressive and single-minded -- at home, in Iraq and in places we know little about. The policy is working. It has kept us safe. We tamper with it at our own extreme peril.
Categories:

48 Comments

the curious fact
As a fan of Sherlock Holmes I did make this curious observation before. Terrorism has NOT occurred in three kinds of places:

1) Dictatorships and regimes with no critical press: in these societies, terrorism is more often provocations set up by various state agencies. Or, something that is not terrorism is branded as terrorism.

2) Certain peaceful democracies, which seem to fall outside of the world map of the currently active terrorists. For example, no terrorist incidents in "New Europe" which loyally supports the US in its operations. Also, no terrorist incidents in Scandinavia in spite of relatively large amounts of angry young Muslim men.

3) In the USA.

Only in the third category this can be said to be a direct result of successful security policies. Congratulations.

Where terrorism is the biggest threat is:

1) Pro-Western Muslim countries with relatively high level of democracy and media freedom.

2) Western Europe.

Unless an incident of terrorism can be used to harm the interests of the US, another Western country, or a Muslim country with a pro-Western regime, it is useless. In places like Uzbekistan, Russia or China, "terrorism" only serves the interests of current regimes, while more traditional guerrilla tactics might yield more favorable results for the opponents of the regime. Remember Mao more than Guevara.

Meanwhile, when facing the West and democracy, the theories of Guevara and Marig****a are more useful: provoke tougher security measures and "reveal the facist face of imperialism". This is why the so-called Iraqi resistance has resorted almost solely to terrorist tactics and urban warfare. If it would be a legitimate guerrilla movement, it would instead seek to control large land tracts on countryside with wide local support (compare with Chechens, Kashmiris and some of the leftist guerrilla movements with genuine po****r basis). A conclusion that can be derived from this is there is no po****r support in Iraq for the Ba'athist and Jihadist insurgents.

War weary Americans
I agree that Americans are war weary, but it is difficult to understand why. The Global War on Terror has had a minimal impact on life on the home front. The inital "hot" front in that war, Afghanistan, was conducted brilliantly, with minimal loss of American life, and that country is now an ally in the hunt for Bin Laden and a growing democracy (i.e. a great success). In Iraq, the original campaign was also a brilliant operation, with minimal American losses, and even counting the ongoing terrorism in that country as a guerilla war (which is debatable at best), casualty rates for coalition forces are the lowest of any war in history. Therefore, you really have to wonder why Americans are so war weary.

I will be interested in any thoughts anyone might have...

War Weary?
"Much of the recent criticism may be rooted in dissatisfaction, not with the protection we’ve been afforded against terrorists, but with the apparent lack of progress in Iraq. Many Americans are war-weary and frustrated, and their unhappiness with the war in Iraq is reflected in Bush’s poor approval ratings on the economy and terrorism -- even though, by any objective standard, these have been areas of great success."

Every day I read something like this, written by some clueless commentator or such.

They make the mistake of confusing disatisfaction with the presidents performence as with opposition, or unhappyness, with the war, and with the president. Where is the proof of this assertion?

They never seem to think that, maybe, just perhaps, people are not war weary, but instead, are weary of delay. Delay in sealing the borders, delay in gettingt rid of illegals, delay in broadening the war. Yes, BROADENING THE WAR. I'm not saying it's all that, but you are saying it's all the other way. You are wrong.

Support for war is infinite right now, only the weakness of our "leaders" holds us back. Please rethink you assumptions about "war weariness". We are only weary of being called weak.

War Weary Americans
In this particular instance I believe that the public attitude is more a reaction to negative press coverage, than anything else. What is often more important than the true facts is the spin that is put on them. Consider the Tet offensive in Vietnam which is generally considered a major defeat for the United States, when it was actually a disaster for the NVA and VC.

Another major contributor from my perspective is an idealistic view that it is no longer necessary or, in some cases, proper to defend American interests. It seems to have some parallels to ancient Rome when the citizen soldier went out of fashion and the government was forced to rely heavily on mercinaries.

The citizen soldier was much more fashionable in America up through at least 1870, but in the 20th century it became much less so. This may change as a more patriotic generation comes into its own, but it will doubtless still have to struggle with those who believe that the only reason that there is military conflict in the world is because the USA is on the map.

Steven Laib, JD MS

Why Does Bush Get Credit But No Blame?
As you credit Bush in a fairly myopic view of a lack of terrorist attacks on American soil for the last 4 years, shouldn't you also blame Bush for:

1. Failing to prevent the huge terrorist attacks on American soil on 9/11/01? No American President has had a bigger failure to protect the homeland from terrorists.

2. The many terrorist attacks that have taken place on the soil of American allies since 9/11/01? For example, do you blame Tony Blair for the terrorist attacks on the London subways that occurred last summer? He is following Bush's lead and tactics. How about the attacks on Spain and Australia?

3. The attacks on American troops, interests and other Americans in Iraq since 9/11/01?

Looking at the world as a whole, terrorist attacks have not really dimininshed. Do you credit Clinton for the lack of terrorist attacks on American soil in the four years prior to 9/11/01?

99The Dog etc
7800 Mr. Glassman anwers his own question: "The policy is working. It has kept us safe." That is: the policy is causing (responsible for) our safety. Causality is extremely difficult to prove. Mr.Glassman's article does not come close to offering or even hinting at a proof; but it does make for moderately interesting copy.

I suggest that the author peruse thoughtfully David Hume's essay on causality.

Jack

Blame
Only an absolute idiot, or one lost in the depths of hatred would attempt to blame Bush for any of the things on your list.

Opinions
Are you arguing that the only reason the US has not been hit by another attack is because the terrorists have had no desire to attack the US?

War weary Americans
"I agree that Americans are war weary, but it is difficult to understand why."
Its difficult for this anonymous writer to understand why because you have a fixed conclusion independent of cir***stances. By your own logic, only when America loses a record number of soldiers in a war will you be able to understand war weary. Thats a rationalization.

Americans are war weary because Americans with a brain in general don't like war. Families are torn apart, we lose noble citizens, we spend our treasure in a distant land. Sometimes the reason for war is justified, sometimes not. The war in Iraq is debatable in this regard.
Americans are war weary because the whole farce of the Iraqi effort has been tinged with deceit, corruption, setback, and misinformation from our leaders. The original invasion was based on false premises. Looting and chaos destro*** any chance of a quick recovery and stability. The CPA was installed, led by political appointees who brought corruption and a complete lack of skills or experience to do the job. There were too few soldiers to do the job right, there has been a lack of proper armor to protect our soldiers, reconstruction money goes to American companies who charge too much and do an insufficient job. Our strategy to take a city then retreat was a failure (thank goodness we corrected that error, finally). This is just the tip of the iceberg. This is the reality, and through it all, all we get is rosy propaganda from the Administration. They lie and spread fear so Americans will let them do whatever they want. And then some idiot like anonymous wonders why we're war weary. Even if the war in Iraq is justified, the Bush Administration has blundered through it with no concept of accountability or strategy for success.

How can you say the intitial Afghani and Iraq invasions were conducted brilliantly? It was like the Lakers playing a High School basketball team. We steamrolled the inferior armies, as would be expected. Then what? Too bad its not so simple, too bad our leaders ARE that simple.

MarkTheGreat Idiot
So Bush isn't responsible for America's presence in Iraq?
Thats on the list, and it seems pretty conclusive that Bush is responsible for that. Unless of course, you're an absolute idiot, or lost in the depths of purposeful ignorance.

The other things on the list cannot directly be blamed on Bush.

War weary Americans
"Americans are war weary because Americans with a brain in general don't like war."

Well, nobody in general enjoys fighting fires, or fighting crime, either. People get killed in these activities, but we realize why these activities take place.

People often oppose a war because they just don't want to address the problem that caused it. Some oppose war because the government does it, and they don't like the political party that's running the government. It's rather disconcerting that people think to choose between their country and their political party.

Why Does FDR Get Credit But No Blame?
Why does FDR get credit for World War 2? He failed to prevent the attack on Pearl Harbor (indeed, you could say he caused it). Many Axis attacks had taken place against our allies before we got into the war, and would continue after we were in it. There were attacks right off our s****s, and against Americans off our soil for years after FDR got us into the war. Looking at the world "as a whole," Axis attacks went on for years after we got into the war.

Why don't we assign the blame to FDR?

MarkTheGreat Idiot
"So Bush isn't responsible for America's presence in Iraq?"

FDR wasn't responsible for America's presence in Europe and the Pacific?

BobJones the ultimate in cluelessness
Saddam Hussein is responsible for us being in Iraq. All he had to do was give up his weapons programs and stop funding terrorism.

It is to Bush's unending credit that he had the courage to send our troops into Iraq.

99
7800
"Looking at the world as a whole, terrorist attacks have not really dimininshed. Do you credit Clinton for the lack of terrorist attacks on American soil in the four years prior to 9/11/01?"

I guess you have forgotten about the first (less effective) attack on the World Trade Center during the Clinton administration? And you have forgotten that Bill Clinton and his cabinet failed to note the seriousness of what we were up against just as George Bush did?

And let's face it, most Europeans are in the midst of stupendous denial about the danger, even now.

BJ's cluelessness continues
The claim that Bush lied to get us into the war is one of the great lies of liberals. There were no lies.

As to the rest of your drivel, if you can find any war that has gone perfectly from day one, then you are a better historian than all the proffessors in the world.

The fact that you fault Bush for failing to be perfect says more about you and your biases than it does about Bush.

99
7800 Ah, bobjones I see you are covering yourself with the liberal mantra that ANYTHING President Bush does is wrong. Why the hate? Why the idea that America is wrong in defending its self? I think you have been reading and listening to the bias in the press and TV and not using just plain common sense rather than emotionalism.

DocKin

Re: War weary Americans
The only "War weary Americans" I know are members of the alleged "main stream media" and those that listen to them or those who are tired of all the negative "news".

RE: Opinions
The best defense is a good offense. Does it take a genius to figure out that the farther away that you fight your enemy ther better?

For a decade Al Qaeda and company have declared war on us. It is far better to kill them in their back yards than ours.

Those who refuse to realize that we are in World War III will not understand what is going on in the world.

War weary Americans
It is not the average American that is war weary. It is the party out of power and their fellow travelers, the MSM.

War focuses citizens attention on what is good for the country (recall JFK, "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country") and not what is good for them individually.

The opposition party has positioned itself to build it's power base by selling socialism which is a highly introverted mentality. Socialism focuses on what the country can do for the individual. War requires attention to 'what is best for the group'.

Americans are not war weary, the party out of power is weary of the distraction because it directs the national focus away from their agenda.

Politics
It's quite obvious the party not in power is using the war on terror and bias in the media to gain a political foothold. The sad part is if it works and they actually do what they say if they gain the power then America is doomed for a lot of terrorism on the homefront. On the other hand their more likely to change tactics after gaining power and then just say their doing it different. If it wasn't such a critical issue I would want them to win just to say I told you so! How sad that our safety is just a political issue for the left!

World Wars
I prefer to label the cold war as WWIII. This is WWIV.

politics
Have you read Sowell's book, "The Vision of the Annointed"?

The left is so convinced that their "vision", once implemented will bring about heaven on earth, that they are quite willing to believe that if a few of the hoi poloi have to die in the process, it is of no consequence.

Wait a minute
I give Bush every benefit of the doubt. I don't want EVERYTHING he does to be bad for the country, it just is. To qualify that, not every single thing he does is bad, but it is in the high 90%'s. Now, I understand if you're wealthy(so you received the benefit of Bush's tax cuts), if you believe in supporting business over people, if you believe war is always the answer, you've found a way to justify supporting Bush. Ignorance is bliss. You probaly also think our economy is doing brilliantly, while ignoring deficits, stagnant wages and widening divide between economic classes. I didn't say America is wrong for defending itself. Besides, invading Iraq was not an action of America defending itself. Remember, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I was criticizing the blundering performance of our leaders, the corruption of and deception by our leaders. It continues today, how can you possibly believe a word that Bush says?? I know what he's going to say before he even says it, hes an idealogue. He sells messages, he doesn't analyze and think and speak. Using plain common sense with Bush leads to criticism, it is only through emotionalism that one can find unquestionable support for him.

"Liberals" can go eat dog, too. I am me, I think for myself, I independently analyze from multiple perspectives and make judgements based on my values. I look at the big picture and consider whats beneficial to ALL people. If you morons want to feel like part of the group so you feel better about yourself, you go for it. Your ways of generalizing complex points and constructing definitions for opinions different than yours is pla*** out. Pick points I made and hit me over the head with it, tell me why I'm wrong. Try to use logic, because if you really think the economy is splendid and the war in Iraq is going wonderfully, you either have a short in the brain, or in your values. Logic will help you identify which.
(now thats emotional, but still common sense)

To JSims
Yes, FDR was responsible for America's presence in Europe and the Pacific. Whats your point?

Can you agree that WWII was a bit different than Iraq? Germany was conquering Europe, Japan attacked our s****s. We had Saddam contained and surrounded when we invaded. Just a bit different?

Good One Great Idiot
Right, Saddam is responsible. LOL
All he had to do was give up the goods. LOL

You could justify anything to keep yourself feeling comfortable. What a poser.

Yes, how courageous to send the strongest military in the world into a country on its knees from sanctions, a weak military and no allies.
It took political courage, I'll give you that. It was more difficult to sell the project to Americans than it was to invade. And he used faulty information to do it.

What would be courageous would be if Bush addressed Iran or North Korea. Those are real challenges. What has he done with those threats?

By the way Mark, you were right earlier that no war has ever gone perfect. But you shouldn't jusfify a mountain of mistakes by using the fact that no war runs perfectly. Like I said, you could justify anything to help yourself feel better. You've proved that at least twice just in this thread.

GreatIdiots
You two are like a baby who dropped its empty bottle on the floor. Your people are in total power and all you can do is whine about the other side.

Can you EVER be happy? Or does EVERYONE have to agree with you first? You're the type of people cult leaders love.

Think for yourself!

Smith in lotus land
Earth to Smith! One has to assume that either you have no interest in the news or are a denizen of the Upper East Side. If you're willing to blame Bush for 9-11 in the face of the mountain of evidence regarding Clintion's destruction of the nation's intelligencde and national security agencies I have some prime New Orleans bogland for you.

I'm sure you love it as you do covering yourself in the mantra of the unreflective and unthinking.

What's a great bobby wine?
I'm a Leftist and everyone ignores me!

So much bad information
bob says that he's not motivated by hatred, then he spews nothing but long disproven lies.

Bush's tax cuts benefited everybody. Even those who never paid taxes. Is it Bush's fault that rich people pay 90% of income taxes?
Not just the direct affect, but the Bush tax cuts are the direct cause of the excellent economy that we are currently enjoying. An economy that is providing record numbers of jobs and rising incomes, for everyone.

As to the claim that Bush belives war is always the answer, he doesn't. It's just that war is the only answer when you are in a situation where the other side wants you dead, doesn't want to talk as is actively involved in trying to make you dead.

As to Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11. The Czech secret service still disagrees with you, and has substantial evidence to back it up. All you have is the lies of your fellow haters.

As to you analyzing from several perspectives, I can't find any evidence from your post that you analyze at all. All you do is repeat failed slogans and lies.

Point
FDR lied to get us into WWII.

If you believe that Saddam was contained, then you will believe anything, or you are willing to spread any lie.

Left wing wackos, such as yourself had been pushing for years for a complete lifting of the embargo. Don't you remember all the crying about how the sanctions were killing millions of babies a year?

France, Germany and others were falling all over themselves to sell Iraq anything he wanted, whether it was embargoed or not. UN bigwigs (such as Kofi Anan and his son) were getting rich helping Iraq evade the sanctions.

As usual your post shows how much you prefer your comfortable hatred, to cold hard reality.

Bob's lies built upon stupidity
I love the way bob avoids answering questions he can't answer with a derisive laugh. How left wing typical.

Since Saddam had to be gotten rid of, would you have prefered Bush send in a force that was small enough to give Saddams murderers a fighting chance?

As to the lie that the US had no allies, the US had dozens of allies. We didn't have Germany and France, but they were more concerned with keeping the bribe money coming than they were with anything else.

Bush used the only information he had. The same information every other country, and the UN had. He also came to the same conclusion that every other country did. The difference was Bush had the courage to do something about it.

Korea and Iran weren't in violation of several dozen UN resolutions. Korea and Iran weren't shooting at coalition (mostly US) airplanes. Korea and Iran weren't openly funding terrorists, including the terrorists involved in the 9/11 plot.

There was not a mountain of mistakes. There were a small number of mistakes and a small number of disagreements regarding how things should have been done.

I love the way the left wing wackos declare every fact they disagree with a lie. Every move they disagree with an indis****ble mistake. And every opinion they agree with as hate. It's a lot easier to hate your opponents than it is to actually deal with their arguments. Then again, if they could think, they wouldn't be liberals in the first place.

total denial of reality
This maroon actually thinks the Presidency is equivalent to a dictatorship.

Total power? I guess that's why Bush's SS proposal went precisely nowhere. I guess that's why dozens of Bush's appointments still haven't been voted on.

I guess that's why the Patriot Act had to be extended rather than approved outright.

I guess that's why Bush has not got the exentsions of his tax cuts approved.

It's because the Republicans have total power and can do anything they want.

bob again shows just how delusional his hatred has made him.

Understand the evidence and remember your allies
Bush's policies may or may not be helping win the war on terrorism but this kind of undergraduate journalism is no help. You simply cannot make any deductions about the success of the policies from the crude number of days without attack. The best you can say is that it has not been an utter disaster. The only foreign inspired significant terrorist attack on the US mainland before 9/11 was the previous attack on the WTC in 1993. That's an elapsed period of 8 years. So is another period of some 4 years without an attack doing well or badly? There is no way to know. There is no going rate to measure it by.

You also have to be specific about which policies. Most of the world supported the action in Afghanistan - including e.g. France and Russia - and, while it is sad that Bin Laden escaped, it seems very likely that the action was a major set back for Al Qaeda. However, it is hard to demonstrate that the action in Iraq has reduced the risk from terrorism to date. The USA has suffered fatal casualties close to the casualty count of 9/11 and far more serious injuries. Both of the USA's most significant allies have suffered major attacks in their capitals, attacks which have been linked to the war.

The link between Iraq and the war on terror was always a bit murky - but the most convincing argument was that establishing a successful democracy in the Middle East would cause a sea change in the area. This may yet happen. But right now the democracy is still in its very early days and cannot possibly account for any perceived reduction in terror since 9/11.

All in all it is extremely unclear whether the current US policies are successful or not. The evidence just isn't in yet. To boast of 1500 clear days is complacent and insensitive, particular when the USA's closest allies have suffered through supporting the current policy.

Why no Blame?
Hey smitty,

Last time I checked the 9/11 commission (at least the Dems on that committee) were ****bent on pinning the "blame" directly on Bush for 9/11. The fact that it didn't stick is probably due to three things....1) Bush had been in office for less than 8 months and much of the bureaucracy was still heavily "Clintonized". 2) The U.S. mainland hadn't been attacked in nearly 200 years so we were pretty much complacent. 3) Bush has definitely taken the fight to the bad guys and laid a pretty big hurt on them.

As for blaming Bush for attacks in other countries...utterly ridiculous on its face. The fact that the new Spainish PM caved in to Al Qaeda's demands only infers that this part of Western Europe has decided to pull an ostrich and bury its head in the sand and hope nothing else bad happens instead of taking a proactive stance against the terrorists...like Bush HAS done.

As for attacks on troops in a WAR ZONE, you once again show that your argument is entirely baseless. Let there be no doubt that we are in a war in Iraq, albeit a war with quite few casualties (based upon every other war the U.S. has parti****ted in).

As for crediting Clinton for no attacks on U.S. soil in his eight years...I'd like to remind you that embassies are in fact U.S. soil, as are U.S. Naval vessels and several of there were hit during Clinton's term with virtually no response...other than the lobbing of a couple of cruise missiles at an aspirin factory.

To JSims
>>

The same as points that President Bush is responsible for America's presence in Iraq.

>>

Of course, but if you argue that 2+2=35, pointing out that 1+1=2 makes a relevant point, even if it's different.

>>

Yep. We had Japan and Germany contained and surrounded, too. That didn't end the war. Of course, back then, we were smart enough to realize this. Today, we have Americans who don't want to win the war because they have domestic political aims. For them, it seems helpful to not understand the obvious.

>>

Yes, but Japan attacking Pearl Harbor was just a bit different from World War 1, when they were our allies. You can have two different crimes committed by two different people. Does that mean one criminal should be arrested and tried, and that's irrelevant for the other?

Good One Great Idiot
>>

Yes, he was.

>>

... and stop firing on our aircraft, and stop violating the truce that ended the Gulf War (a war which he also caused).

>>

Obviously, you can, too. You're insisting things that accomplish nothing but demonstrating you've never thought about this war -- except on how Democrats can politically benefit from it.

>>

Yeah, we're courageous enough to send powerful police groups against a lonely mass murderer. We're courageous enough to send big fire departments into weak building fires.

>>

Yes, it did, but the political courage was only needed because the Democrats decided to side with the enemy. Saddam has no allies? He's got the Democrats.

>>

... because the Americans include Democrats. The Democrats want to lose a war to terrorists because then can they blame the loss the Democrats caused on the Republicans.

>>

... as did Bill Clinton, all the Senators that voted in favor of the war, and intelligence agencies around the world.

>>

Should we send them some of our troops and weapons to make the killing even more fair a contest?

>>

That's pretty obvious. How many wars have you fought in?

>>

... and you shouldn't try to justify losing a war because it's imperfect. You're eager for the US to lose this war because your loyalty is to their terrorists, or our Democrats. This isn't a conflict of comprehension. You and Mark are just on different sides of the same war. He's on the side of the US; you aren't.

>>

You've proven that you can do it, too. Mark, however, is basing his position on facts and loyalty to the country. Are you impressed that you can use silly interpretations to justify opinions that are loyal to the enemy (or a political party)?

>>

In just this post, you've demonstrated that you're sufficiently motivated against this country to wish we'd fight more dangerous enemies.

By the way, what inspires your sympathy for Saddam Hussein? Was it his torture and execution facilities, or did you prefer him gassing the Kurdish women and children. Did you prefer his invasion of Iran, or Kuwait, or both? Were you entertained by the prison rape specialists, or did you prefer his son the rapist? You obviously wonder why people would choose to be loyal to the US; tell us why you're loyal to the terrorists.

Chihuahua of the Baskervilles
Every dog must have its day, but 1,576 days is time enough for mature specimens of the largest and fiercest breeds to die of old age.

OBL's wolfpack has not been suffered to laze by the fireside - we have been vigorously hounding it for five years, and its inactivity may to some degree reflect the alliance's success in pounding it to kibbles and bits and packing many members of the pack off to kennels in Cuba and elsewhere.

This is not to say it is any less rabid, but five years of chastisement by a hyperpower , seems to have lessened its enthusiasm for chasing airplanes.

Attacks on US soil
The original attack on the Twin Towers occurred while Clinton was in office.

Iraq and terror
The link between Iraq and terror has only been murky for those who choose not to look.
Iraq has always provided support for terrorists, from money to safe havens.
Recently translated do***ents captured after the war indicate that from 1999 through 2002, Iraq was training at least 2,000 terrorists a year.
In the years after the fall of Saddam, 10,000s of thousands of terrorists have been drawn to Iraq in order to fight Americans. They have done us the favor of dieing by the thousands.
The terrorists have nearly given up trying to kill soldiers. Too hard. They have now switched to killing civilians who don't agree with them. And as a result, they are losing po****r support amongst Muslims, world over.

The abyss' tipping point
Very funny and clever, Russel, thanks. (Aside to Jim, I really like your new digs and think you're on your way to more new glories. It will grow even better over time. Suggest dates, or even times, on the posts, it improves communications effectriveness.)

Guys, we really truly are in an actual shooting, world-war, not of our choosing, whether we like it or not, and I don't. There are two, and only two, possibilities; victory or defeat. I'm for victory and the sooner the better. The Dems and other lefties are for our defeat, or at least our humiliation. But, it will not stop there, human greed and envy cause our fellow earthlings to wish, secretly or openly, for our downfall. Our enemies will then sentence us and our progeny to death, as part of Allah's plan. This is the reward for our weakness and reticence in defense of freedom, in the "modern" world.

MoronMarkTheGreatHater
You didn't ask a question Moron. My laughs were a response to your delusion. You can always find a way to blame someone else.

Actually, the force Bush sent into Iraq was too small. He picked the easiest target of the Axis and still screwed it up. We didn't have enough troops to maintain stability. Remember all the looting and chaos? Was that Saddam's fault too?

Mark, why do you criticize America so much? Are you saying our intelligence is no better than the UN's??? You're a traitor. Then you reference the violation of UN resolutions by Iraq. Wouldn't it have been nice if THAT was a reason we invaded? What was the reason again? Oh yeah, WMD's, that didn't exist anymore. I bet they sure scared you though.

You hit it on the head with this statement, "It's a lot easier to hate your opponents than it is to actually deal with their arguments." Exactly. I'm sure you learned this from Bush, it is his modus operandi. You hate liberals, which is everyone who doesn't completely agree with you. It might be safe to say I hate you, because morons like you are destroying this country. You're not even a Conservative, you're just a Bush-cult member. Besides, how can one counter your arguments when they don't make sense. You exist in Bush-reality, truth matters not. I'm just wasting my breath though, you say the same thing about me, I doubt you'll ever figure it out. I doubt you want to though, truth can be painful, I know you just want to feel comfortable and "accepted", even if you're wrong.

Which policy or policies?
Since when does a negative prove a generality?

Merely enforcing the laws in existence at the time of 9/11, following through on intelligence dumped in our lap (by the Phillipines, for example) and following through with decent police work (Check out Coleen Rowley's letter to Mueller) would have had a good shot at disrupting 9/11.

The attempt to credit such policies as illegal NSA surveilance, an unnecessary and disastrous war in Iraq and continued porous borders that would enable, perhaps have enabled, any interested terrorist easy access to this country is but the raw political activism of an astroturf generator.

So typical of a left wing wacko
Declare that everyone who disagrees with them is filled with hate, instead of reckognizing that they are guilty of projecting their own fears and failings onto the rest of the world.

The force was not too small. It got the job done in a matter of weeks.
Of course back bench back biters such as yourself, no program is ever good enough, unless one of your own is in charge.

I've completely demolished everyone of your absurd claims, but instead of dealing with the facts, you just spew more of your hatred and insults. I sympothize with you. It's the only weapon you have, so you make the best of it.

policies
Regarding pre-9/11 intelligence. Jamie Gorlicks wall was still in place.

NSA intelligence has been credited with stoping two or three attacks.

The war in Iraq was very necessary, unless you consider the training of over 2000 terrorists a year, and the financing of thousands more to be no matter.

There's also the matter of the killing of 10's of thousands of terrorist operatives. The destruction of 100's of thousands of tons of supplies, and the capture of millions of pages of documents.

The inducement of Libya to give up it's nuke program.
The inducement of Syria to start backing out of Lebanon.

The war in Iraq has been a tremendous success, on all fronts.

Prophecies
The president of Iran has stated that it is the destiny of Islam to rule the world.

Why is hating Bush equal bad a policy? Because he's right!
It seems that only Bush haters, and I mean the extreme rabid ones, continue to pound the message that "Bush Lied", "Iraq was not involved in terrorism" and my personal favorite "It's all for nothing cause we can't win." (That last is usually expressed in the horible U.S. casualty count and various other comparisions.)
Let's pick these apart one by one shall we?

Bush Lied - Not ever not even once. Numerous Intelligence sources agreed that there was little doubt Saddam had WMD's; In fact WMD's were found in Iraq, just not the stockpiles expected; memos and records were found indicating that Saddam planned to restart his WMD programs in a big way, once sanctions were lifted (and the process of getting the sanctions lifted was well underway. Had the U.S. not attacked I would say Saddam would have been running those programs at maximum speed by now.) That alone is enought to make me happy Saddam is gone.

Iraq had no connections to terrorists - This was first just "Saddam had no connections to Al Quieda", it was no secret that Saddam was supporting terrorist groups all over the place. The support took the form of money contributions, training facilities, and sanctuary. Though the links to Bin Laden were weak, the existed as well. I would think that Zarquawi's presence in Iraq before the war and continued terror activities now are all the proof anyone needed.

We can't win - That is the biggest joke of all. We can't lose, at least not militarily. The only way the U.S. loses in Iraq is if Washington cuts and runs. The terror groups are in trouble over there and cannot sustain the losses for much longer. They are running out of ammo, people and places to hide. Elections are underway and a government is being built; so is an Iraqi security force. Democracy is taking in Afghanistan, with the Palestinians, in Lebanon and beginning to rear it's head in other countries in the region as well. Only Syria and Iran remain unchanged.

The only way to ignore all the positive news in the Middle East is to have blinders on. That is the case for the Bush haters. They want him discredited, they want him proved wrong no matter what it takes and they could care less of the entire Western World is destroyed in the process. They are so focused on Bush that they can't see anything connected to him in a positive light. The Main Stream Media is fueling the fire and largely anti-Bush as well. 20-years from now History will judge Dubya and I'm beginning to think he is going to fare well in that judgement. I never would have believed that possible six-years ago.
In the end the Media and Liberal are often on the wrong side of history; I now think that is going to prove to be the case here. We can't afford to lose the war on Terror, it is a global conflict and, very possibly, the WW IV that many have stated it is (Personally I think the jury is still out on that designation). The U.S. was on the winning side in all of the previous three and, if not distracted from the present course, will be on the winning side in this one.

debate on Iraq's value in reducing terror attacks here
Mark_Frank, speaking only to this issue, jihadis, especially Sunnis who otherwise might be operating in the US find it much more convenient to go to Iraq to hit "The Great Satan." Another poster per****aciously pointed out it is in our interest to be fighting them in their back yards rather than in our own. If they survive their experience in Iraq (more's the pity) they can view it as having played in the farm teams and now they're ready for the Major League, i.e., here.

TCS Daily Archives