I agree with you 100% Jack. But I still think it was one of Bush's better speaches. At least he didn't just say "stay the course" 15 times.

It's not just "reasoning" -- it's a law of nature. Just like the process of exporting democracy. When you do that, you end up with less of it here at home.

"""""""""it's a law of nature.""""""""""

Is your opinion also a law of nature?

His opinion is a joke.

Don't you get it?

I found it quite the riot!! LOL...ROTFLMAO.. (heh)

The President forgot to mention that they'd be "headed our way" with those weapons of mass destruction that we started the war over.

To put the President's statement another way, the war has done Americans at home a service by providing terrorists with closer, more convenient American targets.

Anyone who supports the troops should be disgusted by the President.

Thanks, Harry. I should have put out the Irony Icon.

The pretzel comment says it all.

The attitude is all over this place.

I don't share your views - hope you choke.

You're absolutely right, Ricky. See also Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Taft, Kropf, Larson, and those people at last year's Republican convention mocking Purple Heart winners. What's good for the goose, my friend...

Wait... I thought the terrorists were "on the offensive and headed our way" and that was what justified spying on US citizens on US soil. But now I hear that the invasion of Iraq has held them at bay there.

Either I'm confused or W. is confused.

Wait... I don't think it's me.

Jack, you know how much I’ve come to respect you, but this post is all wrong. You never wish for harm to the President. I’m sure you were just kidding around, but some subjects are not funny. We’ve been through shock jocks. We don’t need shock bloggers.

Oops. I didn't mean for him to choke on a pretzel. Because I don't believe the story that that's how he got that shiner. I think it was something more liquid that caused his fall.

I am still amazed at how much doublespeak we have going on - you have to fight the terrorists there so they won't attack us here - to protect people's liberty you have to spy on them - what is next, ignorance is strength?

Wes Wagner
NW Meridian

Chris-

Please document one time Kropf or Larson have mocked a US soldier.

The others you mentioned (Savage, Limbaugh, Taft, Hannity) I consider far-right wingnuts, so they dont count. They just spew crap all the time anyway.

Chris,

I'm not sure if I follow your post.

You wouldn't be condoning what amounts to eye-for-an-eye type behavior in connection with the wishing of physical harm to anyone, would you?

I know that our gracious host meant his comment as a joke and I took it as such.

I'm not so sure about you.

I was merely trying to point out how pervasive this sort of comment is and did not imply that anyone has a corner on the market - just that such attitudes are at odds with the usual, thoughtful comments from Mr. B.

I never claimed that Larson or Kropf mocked soldiers. My point, evidently poorly made, was that the rhetoric is just as heated on both sides and why it's alright to give one side a pass while condemning the other is beyond me. I dunno. I'm probably as hypocritical as anyone else on the subject. I'm just tired of the Right trying to have it both ways on the subject of rhetorical hyperbole.

As for Ricky, I apologize if I misread your post or your politics. I hope my explanation here is sufficient.

My point, evidently poorly made, was that the rhetoric is just as heated on both sides and why it's alright to give one side a pass while condemning the other is beyond me.

I absolutely agree. Its hard to get get either side to condemn their own. Howard Dean is probably the loudest trash-mouth kook on the left, yet he gets a pass all the time. But they made him their leader. What does that say?
Thats like the right making Michael Savage head of the RNC.

Jonathan Alter's story on "Snoopgate" (President George W. Nixon's domestic spying effort). Sorry, you may need to cut and paste the wrapped URL:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/

listening to EVERY speech bush has made about Iraq, it takes less than 30 seconds to pull out the "al quida/911" card. We need to support our troops.. AL QUiDA! Elections in Iraq.. 911!

even after he admitted no linkage between Iraq and Al Quida, he still does this, and reinforces a blatant lie. And no one calls him on it.

True, there were no ties btwn Iraq and 9/11, but there were ties to Al Qaida.
One biggie is allowing them to train on Iraqi soil, and another is Al Zaqawi (spelling?) getting treatment at a Iraqi military hospital after being injured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. But Im sure they just let "anyone" in there, right?

oh, and lets not forget Saddam paying off the families of those giving their lives killing "infidels".

Or was all that made up by the Bush Adm. too?

Jon,

You haven't memorized the mantra yet?

Okay, for you slow learners, one last time:

"Bush lied, People died"

The first part is all about BushCo...everything they say is always a lie.

The second part is the result of the first part, and not just limited to loss of life, but represents all bad things that we can blame on BushCo. Global Warming, Extemely Low Temps in the South last week, High Gas Prices, Low gas prices, High Unemployment, Loss of Jobs to Outsourcing, Jimmy Carter's bad breath, etc.

Rule #1: Repeat the Mantra in all conversations
Rule #2: Repeat Rule #1

"True, there were no ties btwn Iraq and 9/11, but there were ties to Al Qaida."

Uh-huh. We just can't seem to find any actual evidence of it. Saddam wasn't going to nurture a threat to him like AQ. Maybe give them some lip service to keep them in his camp, but thats it. By your logic, we should be attacking Saudi Arabia and Pakistan instead. Then maybe Western Europe. Goodness-- those AQ guys have been sighted all over the place. Using the vague term "had ties to" is exceptionally weak. I despise the use of it (especially by the press.) Its like repeatedly using "some say": Another favorite of the disingenuous sort.

I thought we were talking about whether Atahuallpa's relatives stole a ship and was threatening to attack the Homeland while Francisco Pizarro was carrying home the booty from Cuzco? Quick, capture the messengers.

Military adventurism for hire, and plausible deniability, would normally fall under the heading of pirate. Yet, it is Congress' fault, as they are delegated the control of the purse strings.

The record profits for oil middlemen gives a lie to any assertion of near term external shortage, as it is just the exertion of monopoly power that is really under discussion. Just internalize the external costs for securing the booty as a starting point . . . from a morally neutral economist's perspective.

For twenty five billion dollars I suppose we could buy 100 million fairly-high-end mopeds from China. That would send a shot across the bow of big oil's pirate ship.

It's Sexy and Cool to moped . . .

Nattering nabobs of know-nothing. The inevitable failure of argument by subtraction -- LALALALAIDON'TSEE,ICAN"TREAD the EVIDENCE -- trying to win by eliminating counterpoint, futily denies information is additive. You can't take away something someone knows.

Liars Larson, the day before Thanksgiving: "Cindy Sheehan is a nothing." Liars Knopf, the day after Thanksgiving: "Be sure to remember our soldiers and their families this Thanksgiving holiday." Liars remember nothing.

In Houston, the cardiologist epicenter, (since Debakey, if that rings any bells), the common knowledge is Prizzy Dumbo had a mild stroke, not a pretzel problem, just like Jack senses he knows. Alcoholic spasm not so evident, except in his habit. Comparing before-and-after photos shows the left-lip droop paralysis, a characteristic symptom recogized by most people who know someone also afflicted.

Go here, (with photos for non-readers):

PHOTOS Show George W. Bush Seriously Ill Physically
by C L Hallmark Tuesday December 21, 2004 at 11:58 AM
George W. Bush apparently is wearing a medical device for "persons at risk of cardiac arrest." It is a LifeVest wearable defibrillator. He started using it sometime after his January 2002 fainting spell, which was attributed to choking. Based on photos showing him wearing the device, one can conclude the fainting was due to atrial fibrillation (AF), which his father also had. His father's AF was caused by Graves' hyperthyroidism, which his mother also has. Bush likely has AF and less likely Graves', based on his family history and symptoms. The AF may have caused a stroke or TIA (mini-stroke), of which physicians watching the debates detected symptoms. Observers have noted psychological symptoms consistent with this and with Wernicke-Korsakoff disease.

Such as who is Zarqawi, as research finds?

The press usually present the terrorist warnings emanating from the CIA as genuine, without acknowledging the fact that US intelligence, has provided covert support to the Islamic militant network consistently for more than 20 years.

Amply documented, the training camps in Afghanistan established during the Reagan Administration had been set up with the support of the CIA. In fact, several members of the current Bush administration including Richard Armitage and Colin Powell were directly involved in channeling support to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, where bin Laden and Al Zarqawi received specialized training. (See Michel Chossudovsky:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
and
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html
)

History of Al Zarqawi

The first time Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi's name is mentioned was in relation to the thwarted attack on the Radisson SAS Hotel in Amman, Jordan, during the millennium celebrations (December 1999). According to press reports, he had previously gone under another name: Ahmed Fadil Al-Khalayleh, (apparently among other aliases).
According to the New York Times, Al Zarqawi fled Afghanistan to Iran in late 2001, following....

Or know nothing.

I'm always struck by the "fight'em there or we'll have to fight'em here" posturing. It always strikes me as meaning something like: better that thousands of Iraqis or Afghanis (innocent or otherwise) die since their lives aren't as valuable as ours. And that pov is precisely why so many in the world even beyond the muslim world despise us, that self-important arrogance.

The problem with talking about the War Against Terror is that it is a lot easier to say what doesn't work than it is to identify what in fact does work.

"...it is a lot easier to say what doesn't work than it is to identify what in fact does work."

Just a wee bit of respect for cultural differences and abiding a neo-commandment "thou shalt not covet thy neighbors energy resources." Might that work? Perhaps engender a tad less hostility from those we seek to remake in our own image???

As divisive as neo-con provocations and incitement propaganda goes on among us, polarizing us, it is time someone noticed we can pull out and have a civil war over there, or stay as occupiers and have a civil war over here.

Our compass should be the history of our own revolution. We won independence because the founders had compelling ideas. We didn't torture prisoners like England did. We minded our businesses and saved for spare times. We fought the good fight against a wicked king. The more we look like England back then, the more our future is at risk.

Geno, I'll sign up with that mantra as soon as someone in a position of power is able to propose how the cliché is capable of transcending into a definable foreign policy. The problem is that the mantra is unilateral and peace by its nature is a function of bi or multilateral agreement.

We had a president like you propose and the Middle East rewarded him by assassinating Sadat, holding our embassy hostage, and engaging in an oil embargo. It all went to hell after that.

Lasting peace will only occur once both sides readily agree that we are jointly culpable for the situation in the Middle East. The Arab world can start taking responsibility by admitting their own strategic blunder in its systemic use of terror groups to advance its own policies while attempting at the same time to absolve itself of direct responsibility for the consequences of that use of terror.

The problem with talking about the War Against Terror is that it is a lot easier to say what doesn't work than it is to identify what in fact does work.

Thats because so far, nothing has worked. They either want us converted to Islam, or dead.

Its kinda hard to work with.

Good point Travis, so how about multilateral determination by a court of international composition, providing the entire buffet table of due process. Then deciding if, or whether to sentence terrorists to an isolated island(not Cuba) for life. Just a thought. Havent really done much more than hip shoot, but the seanson beckons.Peace-out!

LOL. Good post Geno.

"The problem is that the mantra is unilateral and peace by its nature is a function of bi or multilateral agreement."

Peace is a function of accurate assessment of the military power of potential adversaries. At least that is what the books say.

The terror thing adds a variant. Aramco is tied to oil dollars and is the funding source (sort of) of the terror, so cut off the dollar flow by cutting consumption.

The economic and political alliance between Texas Oil (figuratively) and SA (Aramco) should be treated as the chief obstacle to peace, in the context of funding terror. They are virtually indistinguishable in that sense. Yet, militarily, Texas is not a target that requires an aircraft carrier to hit; thus it is a far more cost effective objective.

The multilateral approach would be among the 49 states against the one, via Congress and the National Guard.

Orrrrrr.....we just give Texas back to Mexico. Then it might be a lot harder for them to export their insane ideas.

The Texans, that is-- not Mexico.

Argon...what planet are you from? Kryptonite?

Travis, it was 'Americans' who coveted his power and who would betray that president and America, in order to 'have' it -- 'they,' Americans, CIA bad cops who managed: assassinating Sadat, compromising the embassy sentry, and emboldening OPEC. As means to their (bad CIA) end of removing Carter, and democracy, that they could take power in the vacuum left behind from such removal. Look it up.

Jon, there are richly paid media and press manipulators working full time to get the message to you that Iraqis --the sovereign people in the land that has oil in the Middle East -- either want you converted to Islam or want you dead, and as you have never been there and lived among the Iraqis, you don't know otherwise and you don't recognize the message is false. For one thing, just thinking logically for a moment, with the understanding that human beings everywhere are all more alike in our human nature than different, consider: Those people there with that much oil wealth for themselves aren't likely to care one whit about you or me, don't know and don't care whether we are Moslems or otherwise, green or blue, alive or dead. I mean, do you care the price of rice in China when you got fresh venison on your table? They don't want you Islamified. (Christians are the only sect that 'go impose on the world and covert everybody, by force if need be' -- or can you think of another religion with 'missionaries'?). They don't want to care what you are. They don't want you dead. They don't want to care if you're alive or dead.

Ah, but the messages, The messages in the media are telling you what you say the messages are telling you. Uh, Jon, it's not real. There's no Santa Claus, there's no life inside Disneyland. It's all called special effects.

Go out in the real world, travel to China, travel to Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt -- you can go all these places, and then know what's there. Otherwise, what you know is there depends on who is telling you.

What would settle the cultural unfamiliarity better is establishing, with global network ease: Iraq-cam, China-cam, Travis-cam, and Jon-cam, and then y'all could cut out the middleman-liar-politician, and just get to meet each other directly. What, you afraid somebody's gonna moon you on their Islam-cam and ruin your day? Maybe consider that's what they think you-cam are gonna do to them. They're afraid of you. Just like you're afraid of them. Y'all oughta meet. It's a people thing.

Didja ever notice the messages on the media always say you can never meet, never go there, it's too dangerous, (but other people live there), it's too secret, (but other people know), you can't handle the truth, (but other people handle it and they're a lot dumber than you), that if you see the satellite -cam you would tell somebody how to defeat our national security and come destroy you? Didja ever notice? Seems when someone tells you what you would do with the information, you can pretty much check their message for yourself -- Would you do what they say you'd do? I didn't think so.

Well, all right then.

(For as much special effects as went into the production of the Nine-Eleven Op, it is sort of surprising that people are not naturally curious to read how they -- Cheney, mostly -- did that. There are eyewitness reports, articles, photos, books, videos, all kinds of information about the staging of the trick seen by the people in the wings.)
(One of my favorites is FromTheWilderness.com and the guy there, Ruppert. He was big-time red-blooded true-blue American, voting Republican, LA PD vice cop busting noarcotics like ten years (his bio is on the site), and one night he draws his weapon and shouts 'freeze' at the perp, caught in the act holding the crack cocaine, and the perp says back, 'no, you freeze,' and flashes his CIA badge, and says, 'you can't touch us, we can get you fired from LA PD and ruin your career, and life, because we are CIA and this is our crack.' On the website, Ruppert talks about it -- having his job and love and life destroyed -- but he says the deepest-felt affect was losing trust in America, losing trust in politicians and paying their 'national security' taxes, losing trust in people, losing trust in the media, losing democracy.

From the CIA point of view, it is a great living -- you get to go around the world, do whatever you want, have all this money, break any law you want to, like, rock star squared with USA-bomb-U-if-U-touch-me immunity -- and they don't want to have to care how you vote in Oregon that might change that life they're living. In fact, they could start and get real interested in caring that you can't (vote to) touch them.
Reeeaal interested. Trouble is, (for you), these CIA types are no slouches. 'Any thing. Any where. Any time.' That's the mission statement; they leave off "...in the world." When their mission is caring for your voting condition, for better or worse, your in-democracy/media/free market/human rights-you-trust is toast. They are the cream, cream, cream. And you're not.

They're also psycho, as is any nerd, (squared, the nerds of the nerds), you've ever known. Certified deathly, lock 'em up. And you're not. You're human.

Some percentage of even nerd nerds have conscience, of a kind, and some of them don't take it and righteously call them out. Please notice as you read around the web the articles most critical of the CIA -- Cancer In America -- are the ones who've had it. Been there, done that, denounce it, cream cream creamers themselves.

And you haven't. You're all hanging on the message they say is the message they give to the media as a message so you get the message. The influence, control, power, however you think of it, is so awesome -- anything, anywhere, anytime -- nothing can stop it, so really, the only choice left you is pretending you have hope they are on your side.

Except only you can stop them, stop the 'war,' stop all wars, so probably there is reason they are not on your side. Get you to lose your trust in your freedom, that's one thing they could do to do damage if they are not on your side. And what do they get, why would they do that? They live, royally. You die. Screw 'America', just live, baby. That's what I mean, 'not on your side.'

How can you stop them? Easy, vote to elect a Congress that pulls their purse strings shut, that passes a law: Abolish the CIA. No taxes for war. Something like that.

It is sort of unexciting and bloodless, all it does is stop them, the greatest power on the face of the globe. And not on your side with that power. Because you have the only bigger power that can stop them. You know, 'dead.' So to speak. And if you look around, you (voter) are the only one who is holding that power.

And they know it. You need to remember it. They don't want you to remember it. So they say they can listen to any phone call, email, package, letter, bugged room they want to and they don't have to tell you and you can't do anything to stop them. Unless you remember you could before they started talking and 'sending press-conference messages.'

The problem that voters in one district can not elect a whole Congress, is solved with internet coordination between people among all districts -- so you've got no excuse that you can't do it. Internet is so new, only ten years, and you young adept people have to grow up and wise up fast how much power you are handling in it -- enough to save humanity, so much that only it rivals the greatest power a., a., a., ... in the world.

So, you know, you put your ballot in, you vote corruption out, you do the hokey-pokey and you tour yourself about, and that's what

Will someone please call the men in white..tens has lost it.

"Lasting peace will only occur once both sides readily agree that we are jointly culpable for the situation in the Middle East."

I'm all for it. Thing is, we can only control our own side of the joint responsibility equation. So, shall we begin? Shall we, the world's premier superpower, admit our faults and past mistakes from our position of strength while none can seriously threaten us? Shall we beg the world's forgiveness for our mistakes, and pledge to craft exclusively humane policy henceforth?

There's nothing stopping us.