First thoughts

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:51:20 GMT

Are we safer? Don't see how we could be. Whatever temporary gains we've made in reducing al Qaeda's ability to launch attacks (and this NIE suggests not as much as we've been hearing from... well, consider the source), we still have to acknowledge that we've created a lot of ill will with this Iraq occupation.

How many Muslim kids out there are growing up in households where the parents are fuming about the U.S.? Guess we'll find out in about 10 years.

First thoughts

JJ in NJ — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:05:47 GMT

Wow. You guys at MSNBC are really terrified of John Edwards, aren't you?

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:12:52 GMT

Hard to be scared of a guy who's wife talks tougher then he does. When President Bush is away from the morons in washington, he does seem to do better when he is out with the real america, rather then the fake america (gee, I guess there are two america's after all!).

First thoughts

Marty Jones, Dover MA — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:13:11 GMT

The ill will has been going on for more then 30 years. It did not start with either Iraq war, and it will not end with the current Iraq war.

What you are implying, and please tell me if I've read too much into it, is that if the Iraq war did not occur, that the level of distain the Muslim community has for the US would be less? That feels like fairly thin ice to be on.

First thoughts

MK,MO — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:22:07 GMT

romney may be a little late for his fundraiser in colorado springs, apparently while he was strapping his dog to the top of his car the dog inadvertently licked part of his $300 dollar make-up off causing a slight delay and another $300 dollar make-over fee, truly bad luck

First thoughts

Blue state baby — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:30:46 GMT

Jerry, Sierra will be up soon and we will hear some good, educated comments from the west coast. She is right. The only way the Dems lose is if we nominate Hillary.

First thoughts

Mary Strom, Fargo ND — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:33:01 GMT

Hillary Clinton said during a debate that the country is safer since 911 occurred. And 'does she still think that?'

What is it with these questions about what Hillary thinks? No matter what she says or how she votes, the media and her supporters never hold her accountable. She is the most pragmatic, do what feels good for the moment, person I have ever seen.

No one can answer the question 'Are we safer' because it has no answer. Are we doing a better job of protecting ourselves? Certainly. Will it be good enough to prevent another attack like 911? Unknown.

First thoughts

Johndroe — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:37:19 GMT

The emperor has no clothes.

That is what the NIE is saying. Incompetence, maladministration, lack of attention to detail, ideological biases, all contributed to this massive foreign policy failure. We failed to get Osama and destroy al Qaeda and we invaded a country on false pretenses and destroyed the infrastructure and are now in the middle of a sectarian, shooting war with no idea how to get out.

This president was elected on accountability. When are we going to hold him accountable? And, yes, this kind of mismanagement calls for impeachment.

First thoughts

BaseballmomInTheSouth — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:38:45 GMT

I read up on John Edwards' trip to Cleveland in my local paper this morning. It quotes the RNC's press guy Chris Taylor, saying Edwards is a hypocrite. Mr. Taylor is, sadly, a latent dumbass. I can relate to the poor. I used to be poor. I can remember standing in the soup kitchen lines with my grandma, picking up aluminum cans by the roadside to sell for much needed pennies, and sitting in the dark at the end of the month because we wanted to eat instead of having electricity. I now have my own company with 100+ emloyees, a $500,000 house, and a fat IRA. Does that make me a hypocrite too? Mr. Taylor, you most certainly can relate, talk, and (hold your breath and jump sir) try to help the poor in spite of your lofty Republican Holier Than Thou attitude.

First thoughts

johndroe — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:39:48 GMT

Why Bush Is A Loser

By David Corn
Tuesday, July 17, 2007; 7:45 PM

Who knew Bill Kristol had such a flair for satire?

How else to read his piece for Outlook on Sunday, in which he declared, "George W. Bush's presidency will probably be a successful one"? Surely Kristol, the No. 1 cheerleader for the Iraq war, was mocking himself (and his neoconservative pals) for having been so mistaken about so much. But just in case his article was meant to be a serious stab at commentary, let's review Kristol's record as a prognosticator.

On Sept. 18, 2002, he declared that a war in Iraq "could have terrifically good effects throughout the Middle East." A day later, he said Saddam Hussein was "past the finish line" in developing nuclear weapons. On Feb. 20, 2003, he said of Saddam: "He's got weapons of mass destruction.... Look, if we free the people of Iraq we will be respected in the Arab world." On March 1, 2003 -- 18 days before the invasion of Iraq -- Kristol dismissed the possibility of sectarian conflict afterward. He also said, "Very few wars in American history were prepared better or more thoroughly than this one by this president." He maintained that the war would cost $100 billion to $200 billion. (The running tab is now about half a trillion dollars.) On March 5, 2003, Kristol said, "We'll be vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction."

After a performance like this -- and the above is only a partial review; for more details, click here -- Kristol, a likeable fellow, ought to have his pundit's license yanked. But he's back again with a sequel: W. will be seen as a wonderful president. His latest efforts should be laughed off op-ed pages. But in the commentariat, he's still taken seriously. So assuming the joke is indeed unintended, I'll examine Kristol's most recent fantasy as if it's real.

Iraq: Kristol says "we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome." The war has been a mess from the start, and these days even leading Republican senators no longer buy the argument that Bush's so-called "surge" is succeeding or can succeed as promised. Kristol contends that with the recent escalation "we are increasingly able to protect more of the Iraqi population." Many in Iraq would find little comfort in his assurances. Despite the "surge," Iraqi civilian deaths are still running at 2,500 to 3,000 a month. And since the "surge" began, according to the Pentagon's own numbers, the number of attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and Iraqi civilians has marginally increased.

Still, Kristol advises, stick with the "surge," train more Iraqi troops, and all will be well. The United States has already spent $19 billion training 346,500 or so Iraqi troops and police officers, and now merely six battalions -- down from 10, according to Gen. Peter Pace -- can function independently. That is, only 3,000 Iraqi troops are operating on their own after all this time and money.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government is making little, if any, progress on key political matters that must be resolved, and the parliament is taking off August -- while American GIs continue to fight and die. What are they dying for? Kristol and Bush argue the war is a vital part of the battle against al Qaeda and international jihadism, and Kristol claims the U.S. military is "routing al Qaeda in Iraq." But, as the Los Angeles Times recently reported, of the 19,000 insurgents held by the U.S. military in Iraq, only 135 are foreigners. The United States is not fighting al Qaeda in Iraq; it's fighting Iraqis. Kristol is whistling past a graveyard -- filled with the bodies of thousands of American soldiers and probably hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians -- when he insists the United States is heading toward a "messy" victory.

And Kristol keeps arguing the past. The problems that have arisen in Iraq since the invasion, he maintains, have to be judged against what would have occurred had there been no invasion: a nuclear-armed Saddam conspiring with al Qaeda. To justify the war, Kristol is pushing the myth (debunked by U.S. intelligence) that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden, and he's ignoring the fact that WMD inspectors were present in Iraq right before the invasion and (as we now know) doing a good job in determining Saddam had no unconventional weapons or nuclear bomb program. Such a policy could have been maintained.

Afghanistan: Steady as she goes, says Kristol. Well, not if you're one of those dozens of civilians who seem to be killed every few days in an errant attack from NATO and western forces. (Even Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai is fed up.) And shouldn't this war have been over years ago? Reconstruction is at a crawl The Taliban is resurgent. Opium production is setting new records. And the Bush administration (last time I checked) had no high-level official solely responsible for Afghanistan policy. Afghanistan has been a job neglected and unfinished.

Terrorism: Yes -- thankfully -- there have been no attacks here since 9/11. But recent intelligence reports say that al Qaeda (the real al Qaeda, not al Qaeda in Iraq) is becoming stronger. The man responsible for the worst act of terrorism ever visited upon the United States remains free. And the Bush administration's excesses in combating terrorism -- Guantanamo, warrantless wiretapping of Americans, and more -- have undermined the cause at home and abroad.

Foreign policy: Kristol does not mention that, thanks to Bush's misadventure in Iraq and other missteps, the United States' image abroad is in the sub-basement. He does note that we now have decent relations with Brazil. But he forgets about the worsening conflict between Israel and the Palestinians (and the other Palestinians) -- a conflict arguably exacerbated by Bush administration blunders.

The economy: All is fine, Kristol claims, pointing to conventional indicators and hailing Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. But most Americans tell pollsters the country is not on the right track. Are they stupid? No, they are coping with various forms of insecurity and stress that Kristol does not recognize. Since 2000, the median income of working-age household has fallen each year. The economy has been growing, corporate profits are up, and the stock market is on the rise, but this recovery has handed working Americans weak growth in wages and salaries. The share of national income going to salaries and wages is at the lowest level since such stats were first compiled in 1929.

Moreover, the high costs of health care and education also worry many Americans. Kristol praises Bush's Medicare drug plan -- which routinely is assailed by critics on the left and right -- but Bush has done nothing to make health care more affordable and more available for most Americans. Forty-five million or so Americans remain uninsured. And while Kristol cheers globalization -- which is causing employment instability for Americans -- we can celebrate by eating tainted shrimp from China.

The Supreme Court: In Kristol's world, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., Bush's contributions to the court, are titans of jurisprudence respected throughout the land. Yet the Roberts court's recent decisions have sparked (justifiably) much controversy and rancor. In two separate decisions, Roberts protected corporate speech but trampled on the free speech rights of students. Roberts was also slammed by Justice Antonin Scalia for not having the guts to admit he was overturning precedent when he was. Bush's Supreme Court has become another battlefront in the partisan wars--not a symbol of accomplishment.

It's remarkable what Kristol leaves out of his bizarro-world view of Bush the Great: Hurricane Katrina, the collapse of the Justice Department, global warming, and much else. An American city was practically destroyed on Bush's watch, but that merits no consideration in Kristol's case for Bush. The Justice Department -- run by Bush cronies accused of corruption, incompetence, or both -- is in tatters. (A former department official tells me the administration is having a hard time finding people willing to fill the vacancies at the top.) And though Bush begrudgingly conceded that global warming is underway and human-induced, he has taken no significant steps to redress this pressing problem. If one wants to peer into the future, it could well be that Bush will be judged a failure more for his inaction on global warming than for his action in Iraq. Vetoing stem cell research legislation, commuting Scooter Libby's prison sentence, rewriting clean air rules to benefit industry, pushing tax breaks for oil companies, suppressing the work of scientists, enhancing government secrecy -- Bush has repeatedly placed parochial interests over the public interest.

The Bush-Cheney years have been marked by ineptitude, miscalculation, and scandal. A successful presidency? Bush will be lucky if he gets a public elementary school in his adopted hometown of Crawford, Tex., named after him. He has placed this country in a hole. Yet Kristol, with shovel in hand, points to that hole and says, Trust me -- we're about to strike oil!

If it's true that history repeats first as tragedy and then as farce, Kristol has short-circuited the process and gone straight to parody. His Bush boosterism -- an act of self-justification -- would be amusing were it not for all the damage he has helped Bush to cause.

David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation, is coauthor of "Hubris; The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War." He blogs at www.davidcorn.com.

First thoughts

Jim, Washington, D.C. — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:42:31 GMT

The Bush spin amchine and the Cheney police state haven't made us any safer, according to the NIE. Not surprising, since they left Al Quaeda alone in Afghanistan and took their show on the road.

First thoughts

yours truly the devil — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:43:27 GMT

that jerry is because bush is the head lemming and the rest of you will follow and thank you folks for making hillary the next president thank you tom i like pageboys foley rush i love drugs limbaugh iluv hokker vitter um the list is so long but thier all jerries heros thanks again fo makin hillary pres oh and for makin america less safe

First thoughts

Desmond — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:45:27 GMT

Eyes were not on the prize. "Nothing to bomb in Afhganistan"-Rummy. War of revenge, war because "the almighty is guiding my hand"-Bush.tired of the spin, tired of being mislead. Where are bin Laden, al-Zwahiri and Mullar Omar? And who, for goodness sake, was behind the anthrax mailings?(the enemy within). All these questions, no one in leadership position to give an answer.Time for new leadership?

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:47:59 GMT

I'm shocked Sierra was not up at 0100, screaming at Hillary on the TV. The Left Coast??? Good, educated comments???? From a state that wants to have Lassie Fixed???? Eh, it should be good for a laugh!

First thoughts

Bob Chandler, Indy — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:49:56 GMT

failed to get Osama and destroy al Qaeda

al Qaeda will never be destroyed. If you think that is the goal, you may want to reexamine your premise. There will always be some radical Muslim group that wants to blame their problems on the Infidels.

As far are getting Osama, they'll probably need to bring a shovel to dig him up. Haven't seen much of the guy lately. The radicals put out a video of him 2002. Re-runs are always boring.

Are we safer? We are doing a much better job protecting ourselves. This includes fighting the radicals where they live, disrupting their communication and finances, and identifying and watching potential terrorist groups in our country.

Are we safer? Yes. Are we safe? No. Never will be.

First thoughts

rick — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:51:12 GMT

jerry, since you comment so frequently on the cost of haircuts, why don't you enlighten us on your opinion of candidates who spend $300 dollars on a single make-up session?

First thoughts

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:59:39 GMT

Marty, the disdain for anything not Muslim has existed in the Middle East for centuries. However, going into Iraq was like knocking down a wasp nest and expecting not to get stung. As long as we stayed away from them and kept our nose out of there business, they pretty much left us alone. Our blind support of Israel, our troops in their countries and our invasion of Iraq pissed the wasps off and they are stinging us whenever they can. Instead of having grand startegies like neo-conservatism, maybe it would be better to fully understand life's simple lessons: If you leave the nest alone, your chances of getting stung are remote; if you have to knock it down because your ego and fear won't allow it to exist in your world, go ahead and mess with it but know you will suffer the consequences. This simple lesson will keep you more safe.

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:02:24 GMT

better re-read your story rick. Did one session for $150, didn't do the other session but had to pay for it anyway. At least he didn't have to fly the guy cross country to do it.

First thoughts

Steve, San Diego — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:02:31 GMT

Thank you Paul in Woodbridge for your comments every day. I am a DEM, but I would support any candidate for the WH that could bring back our country's good name. Unfortunately, the GOP baggage creates too large a target to overcome this problem. And Jerry, your posts are more hilarious than you could possibly imagine.

First thoughts

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:04:06 GMT

Marty - you paraphrased me pretty well, I guess. That's what I'm saying. If we hadn't done Iraq, the hatred toward us by Muslims would be less.

I agree it started before Iraq. But Iraq was like pouring gas on the fire.

Look at what bin Laden said about why he organized the 911 attack. He gave three reasons, if I remember correctly. One was our imbalance in support of Israelis over Palestinians. Another was our continued presence in the Arabian peninsula, following the war (he seemingly supported - at least he never offered public criticism of it) to drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. And a third was our continued bombing of Iraq.

Now we might choose to not believe these reasons, but they are what he said. Personally I think there's another reason. But he presumably said these things either 1) because they were true, or 2) because he thought it was the best political statement he could make.

Assuming bin Laden understands the thinking of potentially radical Muslims better than us here in the U.S., it makes sense to also assume he is tapping into something with his criticism of U.S. presence and meddling in the peninsula. And if you buy that reasoning, why wouldn't you think that our occupation of Iraq wouldn't further radicalize these people?

First thoughts

Desmond — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:06:26 GMT

Mama! I thought the NIE said the potential for terroist attacks were greater today than before 9/11.

First thoughts

Jim, Washington, D.C. — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:09:23 GMT

Ever read (actually READ) 1984? There's a character in there, Emmanuel Goldstein, who is a fivtion of the State, whose anti-state screeds "somehow" get through the State's filters and scare everyone to death, so they love and obey Big Brother better. Osama IS our Goldstein...that's why we mysteriously failed to catch him the last six years, even though we know where he lives.

First thoughts

Editor at Large — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:13:34 GMT

"The Nation" had a negative story about Bush?

Will wonders never cease?

Next you're going to tell us Katrina Vanden Heuvel is "slightly left of center".

First thoughts

Desmond — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:19:12 GMT

And , oh yes, my President stood on a pile of rubble and promised me he would find bin Laden dead or alive. A promise is a promise. I'm still waiting. Guess maybe he shouldn't have personalized the fight down to one name. Guess he needs to put some duct tape on his mouth before he tells me I was unpatriotic for not supporting his war in Iraq.i have lots of duct tape. It's my weapon against terrorism.Stuff and nonsense.

First thoughts

Al, KS — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:21:25 GMT

Of course we are not safer. Let's take a tour of the region. When we invaded Afghanistan, we drove or let the Taliban and Al Quaeda escape into Pakistan, and they have destabalized that country. And they have relatively safe havens to attack back accross the border. With our rhetoric against Iran, Iran is now supporting our enemies in Afghanistan, who used to be their sworn enemies. That same tough talk against Iran causes them to support any and all of our enemies in Iraq. Our failed venture in Iraq has driven refugees and fighters into Jordan and Syria, adding to their problems. It has also built the tensions between Turkey and the Kurds. No telling where that is headed yet. Then there is the whole issue of last summer's Israeli/Lebanese war. We did nothing to stop it, and even openly resupplied Israel with bombs. In the Palestinian territories, we advocated free elections and then cut off funds because we didn't agree with the results...Gaza is now under Hamas control. From Al Qaeda to the Taliban to Hezbolla to Hamas...from Pakistan to Afghanistan to Iran, Jordon, Syria, Turkey, Lebanon and Isreal..every terrorist organization is stronger...every country is weaker (except perhaps Iran)...I can point to no policy...no diplomacy...nothing in the last 6 years that has made us safer. It will take decades to clean up the mess that Bush has created in only a few short years.

First thoughts

Desmond — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:26:40 GMT

Jim Washington D.c. our Senior class in high school did a production of "1984". I helped design the sets. Pretty easy. Just painted the backdrops black.

First thoughts

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:28:11 GMT

Mary said: "No one can answer the question 'Are we safer' because it has no answer. "

While noone can ever answer this to a full extent, the implication is that the Iraq war has generated more jihadist than any measure here in the US will be able to deter.

Thus we are not safer now than we were before 9/11.

First thoughts

Blue state baby — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:31:15 GMT

'The Nation' What a great magazine!!! Very fair & balanced, just like Fox news.

First thoughts

Olivia — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:50:11 GMT

Per johndroe "It's remarkable what Kristol leaves out of his bizarro-world view of Bush the Great: Hurricane Katrina..."

There are 2 obvious reasons Kristol would leave Katrina out. Firstly, isn't he one of those inside-the-Beltway types who's been in Washington so long, anything that happens in "flyover" states like Louisiana and Mississippi, which are so small they have a small amount of electoral votes between them, and so poor they contain very few potential contributors to the GOP, doesn't matter to him?

Secondly, to put it plain and simple: spin. He doesn't want to bring up anything negative about Bush the Great. Kristol is so busily engaged in kissing an intimate part of the presidential anatomy he doesn't want to detract from the mood by reminding people about Katrina. And it doesn't matter to Kristol if New Orleans dies as long as Bush the Great's precious legacy is assured.

First thoughts

Mary Strom, Fargo ND — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:54:49 GMT

Radical Islam has been around for over 30 years. It was here before the first Gulf war, it will be here after the Iraq war. The radical Muslims will always come up with reasons to hate the West. Radical Muslims cannot be reasoned with because they are insane. They see things that are not there, and hear things that are not said. Dealing with them on a rational level is impossible. We (rational people) are never safe from insane people. Insane people do insane things, so we must protect ourselves from them.
One of the ways is to destroy them and break their will. It will take time, probably decades, and during that time there will be an ebb and flow of terrorism. The West will prevail in the end.

First thoughts

Benji Brummels — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:58:08 GMT

'The Nation' What a great magazine!!!

It is! It's very absorbent!

First thoughts

Doles, Miami, FL — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:01:24 GMT

"'The Nation' What a great magazine!!! Very fair & balanced, just like Fox news."
By: Blue state baby (Sent Wednesday, July 18, 2007 11:31 AM). /

LOL
I haven't read that magazine but haven't listened Katrina, I definitely wouldn't call it fair and balance.
Now to another subject: I have to say I never understand why anybody quotes Bin Laden to say he attacks because the United States is involved in the Peninsula. Why would anyone give credence or any thought to what such individual say? It is not to say that perhaps being there is not the wrong policy but for him to use anything to qualify his crimes, and for anyone to quote him is beyond me. The guy does not deserve to be quoted or recognized. Normal people use legal ways to voice their disagreement. What should be taken into account is the fact that such policy will push many vulnerable young muslims to be motivated by such criminals.

First thoughts

Gary, Des Moines, IA — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:01:49 GMT

So when it's Mitt Romney spending it, Jerry is OK with wasting $150 for no reason. Love it. Thanks for the morning laugh Jerry.

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:13:30 GMT

why would I care, it is his money after all. It's too bad the liberal media got to the story now instead of months ago when Edwards was being whipped over his haircuts.

First thoughts

Jim, Washington, D.C. — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:16:12 GMT

Bill Kristal-nacht, join the Army and go fight for your butt-buddy Bush in Iraq, if you believe he's a great winner!

First thoughts

MK,MO — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:25:03 GMT

actually romney spends $300 a day getting his clown face painted on by a make-up artist that is paid to follow him around the country in some sort of beauty salon on wheels, I wonder what else goes on in the make-up shack when only the mittster and his make up artist are in there? anyway $2100 a week to get someone to rub blush on your cheeks makes a $150 hair-cut once a month seem pretty insignificant

First thoughts

LadyLibertee — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:35:44 GMT

New John Edwards Campaign Slogan:

" I'm A Gone Tell My Mama On You "

LOL

First thoughts

rick — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:37:35 GMT

jerry, once again your wrong with your reply. It was one $300 dollar session that Romney tried to cover by splitting the bill in two parts. Of course jerry won't believe anything he doesn't spout, but for the rest of you, check out this quote from the Romney campaign; "Romney spokesman Kevin Madden confirmed that the payments -- actually two separate $150 charges -- were for makeup, though he said the former Massachusetts governor had only one session with Hidden Beauty of West Hills, Calif. That was before the May 3 Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., co-sponsored by MSNBC and The Politico."

Isn't it interesting that jerry screams about Edwards but when confronted by a Republican spending on his appearance it's okay because "it's his money". jerry we all know your a paid Republicant shill, but really now, do you like making a fool of yourself daily?

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:55:12 GMT

Better read my answer again rick, you missed something. Lady Libertee, with Elizabeth acting all big and bad and John being pretty meek and mild lately, maybe a better bumper sticker would be:

My first lady can beat up your first husband!

First thoughts

John Doe, The Peanut Gallery — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:25:09 GMT

I notice that the Romney $300 make up consulting story was a 24 hour event after all. Very "fair and balanced"...

First thoughts

jerri's mom — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:04:23 GMT

there ya'll go agin pickin on poor jerri, she's confused but means well.

First thoughts

Marty Jones, Dover MA — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:31:08 GMT

Not to make this too simplistic, because I realize it is not. Not physically dealing with the Islamic fascists on a daily basis is like dealing with the mechanic in the old FRAM commercial "You can pay me now. Or you can pay me later".

The radical Islamics do not take well to reason. In their minds, the infidels (you and me, and 98% of the people on this board) are to be killed, sooner, rather then later. We are actually fairly lucky they are not very good at it.

So, to answer the question, I don't believe the radical Muslims can be further radicalized. Not believing so says that they can be dealt with at a political/rational level, and I'm not sure 1) which of them you could talk to and 2) if you could believe anything they told you. Without either of these elements, we're dealing with what I believe them to be, barbarians.

Additionally, leaving them alone does not mean they will leave us alone, even if they say they will.

First thoughts

Sierra, San Francisco — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:37:30 GMT

Marty Jones, Mary Strom: There would have been NO 9/11 if there had been a Palestinian state by 2000 !!

There would have been NO 9/11 if there had been a Palestinian state by 2000 !!

The US has been attempting to displace and destroy the Palestinians for over 50 years !! Think that might cause a little resentment among Arabs and Muslims ?? It's holy land to Muslims. Think that might cause concern to Muslims ?

The US has been injuring Muslims for years. The US overthrew the only democratic government in Iran, Mossedegh. We installed the Shah's dictatorship. Think that might have caused resentment among Muslims ?

We've been trying to control ther Arab worlds main resource, oil for 50 years. We've supported a vast assortment of Arab dictators and potentates. Think that might have caused some resentment among Muslims ?

We invaded a country that had never attacked or threatened us ? We're occupying a center of Arab culture and civilization without cause.

Marty Jones, Mary Strom: think that might cause some resentment among Muslims ??
Think REAL HARD
(but don't hurt yourselves)

First thoughts

HMT — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:04:43 GMT

guess the macho Bush does not have a makeup person---his pits and blackheads and red veined nose always show up on big screen tv.weesh------

First thoughts

Sierra, San Francisco — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:13:45 GMT

Thank you, Blue State. ,,,,,
..... actually, I'm a married male (in SF, yet).
Thanks for the kind words, though.

You, too jerry ;->

First thoughts

Jimmy Hill, Pecos TX — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:58:17 GMT

There would have been NO 9/11 if there had been a Palestinian state by 2000 !!

Maybe true, but you better talk to some of your friends around here, they all blame GWB for all of this. Last I looked, GWB was the Gov of Texas in 2000, and he didn't have much say in the Palestinian state thing.

First thoughts

Sierra, San Francisco — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:24:19 GMT

You're right, Jimmy Hill. It's been a continuing policy for over 50 years, beginning with Harry Truman. Bush continues the tradition of American ignorance and stupidity.

Habit and malice.

Is it any wonder that Arab resentment has built up against us ?
America is probably like the Death Star to Arabs and Muslims. (does that make Dick Cheney Darth Vader ?)
(I think Bush is Jar Jar Binks, but wouldn't that put him on the wrong side?)

There's plenty of blame to go around. In fact, none of the current Democratic contenders will address the plight of the Palestinians. Bill Clinton sure didn't !! And he had a real chance to do something. Thanks for 9/11, Bill

First thoughts

Jim, Washington, D.C. — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:43:52 GMT

Anybody remember Haditha, otherwise known as "Gyreens Gone Wild"? Remember the ten-to-12 y.old girl they interviewed, who'd survived watching her family get slaughtered? Her last words were (and I quote)"I hate them. I want them all to just leave." WE'll be hearing more of her in a few years, as she walks up to some group of Americans somewhere with a belt o' bombs and revenge for the kindness the U.S. showed her and her family on her mind. Thus a new generation of terrorists is made...

First thoughts

Jimmy Hill, Pecos TX — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:25:03 GMT

Sierra,

I like your way of thinking, even if I may not like every thing you think. That is a compliment, sometimes context gets lost in translation.

I think you have hit on a root of a very complex problem. You have a very rational position, something lacking from other vocal members around here.

"(does that make Dick Cheney Darth Vader ?) "

Hey, jabs at the my side's guys. That's cool, and fun too. There are times they have it coming. Othersides guys too.

Looking forward to your input in the future. Hope you feel the same.

First thoughts

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:55:41 GMT

Marty, you say you don't believe those people could be more radicalized. Do you really believe that? Do you believe every household in the Middle East or perhaps even every Muslim household globally is full of completely radicalized individuals, just waiting for thier opportunity to participate in the killing of Americans?

I doubt you do, nor anyone else here. People are people, and while its necessary to discuss foreign policy in such oversimplifications of what the people in any given country think/want, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we are talking in oversimplifications.

Plus we shouldn't forget that individuals can create an impression that may not be representative of a larger group. Based on Vitter and McCain's Florida campaign co-chair, would it be fair to conclude all Republicans are out on the street every day looking for hookers or undercover cops to solicit?

Not trying to equate the numbers of Republicans doing these things to the number of Muslims involved with or even sympathetic to terrorism. Clearly we have a problem with radicalized Muslims. But I don't think writing them all off as radicalized does us any good.

First thoughts

Desmond — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 01:15:03 GMT

Golly gee, I thought Great Britian carved out the Palestinian Terrority.Historians, did I get that wrong?

First thoughts

Lee Holmes — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 06:40:09 GMT

Which is one of the reasons I do not usually list a ''David Corn''[leftwinged critic of the administration who had a meltdown on CNN even worse than those cavemen on the GEICO commercials when caught in flatout lies which even had Anderson Cooper looking distressed],or The NATION,which is to the left of Lenin. Odd,is it not,that while critics of ''Faux''News expect Americans not to buy into the crap they peddle,we are to blithely buy into theirs. I would not waste a plate glass window to throw Kristina van den Heuvel through given the option.It is worth more than her idiotic ''commentary''. Which reminds me. Where are the American divisions and armoured brigades and air forces around Tehran these days? Mebbe Corn or Heuvel,or Hersh can explain this strange absence of US soldiers in Iran.For the record,a more balanced presentation of what Corn has to offer these days[including effective rebuttals of the man], may be found at PAJAMAS MEDIA,where he has a quite effective point-counterpoint program with Chris Hitchens[VANITY FAIR,SLATE] and Richard Miniter[''Losing bin Laden:How Bill Clintons Failures Unleashed Global Terror''].In a future post,I will whip Corns assertions peacemeal beginning with the fact that the 2nd Intifada that wrecked Gaza was begun under Clinton.Not Bush.
Homework Lesson For Today: Name the administration which oversaw the highest home-ownership for minorities in American history.
Bonus Point:Name administration which oversaw the highest number of minority and other female college degrees in American history.

First thoughts

Lee Holmes — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:35:14 GMT

Uhh,Paul.Russia did not have a boot on the ground in Iraq.Care to tell us what took place in Beslan?Thailand has no soldiers in Iraq either. What is occuring there with respect to the Muslims now attacking Thai citizens.The Phillipines are not in Iraq either. What did Abu Sayef[al Qaeda-affiliated group],do to seventeen Pilipino soldiers last week?Algeria is not in Iraq. Yet more bombs are going off there.Same deal in Morocco. Same deal in Egypt,in Saudi Arabia,in Lebanon,in Turkey,in the Balkans,in Sudan,in Chad,in Somalia,in Eritria,in Ethiopia,in India.Canada wants no part of Iraq.How many bomb plots has it broken up? The point is,that these nations are not waiting for the span of 10 years for these terrorist events to occur. They are enduring them right now. And they have no portion of the US presence in Iraq. Ye gods,al Qaeda issued threats to France merely for electing Sarcozy and how many Frenchmen are in Iraq? Perhaps it is due to the fact that they kill for the sake of killing.

First thoughts

wahaba.doha Quater — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:29:55 GMT

I do work for aljazeera i thin so you should know how the media is going to say things like bush is doing in Iraq.But i think so all does dippen on money,but we do have very good information about how NBC run their show.Try to understand we all in a war.NBC lost quite a bit things and those people do work under him.