They Did What !

With regards to Blackwater, also keep in mind that a large number of them are ex-military and have been extensively trained by, and at the expense of the U.S. government. And in addition to paying each mercenary an extraordinary amount of money, which by itself must just thrill the U.S. troops making a pittance, they are held to lower military standards in the field. They don’t have the U.S. Military Code of Justice to deal with, and I’d bet they aren’t subject to Geneva conference conventions either. Of course the Bush Administration has so fouled up the waters of those conventions by figuring they themselves are privileged to define what torture is, it’s hard to know who might or might not be covered. It reminds me of defining what “is” is. I believe we all know real torture when we see and hear it, regardless of how often our AWOLed, Mr. National Guard stay-at-home-during-Vietnam, and lost-flight-certification War President and Decider cares to deny it.

In similar fashion, Bush keeps praising the sacrifice of the troops, all the while being less concerned about the quality of their equipment, and veteran’s benefits. He is pulling the same kind of scam with the schip legislation. He’s been bragging all along about how he wants to help the kids. Funny that after running an Administration that has allowed government spending to rival the spending habits of drunken sailors, he has finally decided to curb that spending. And what does he pick as the line not to cross, but money for children without health care. What a shock! It’s too bad his dwindling number of supporters don’t take note of what he does, rather than what he says; but that might be asking too much from people with such low critical thinking skills.

Did you happen to catch the Republicans attacking a 12 year old disabled boy, recently out of a coma, for daring to speak up about the need for an expanded schip program? It seems the Republicans can become outraged when a general’s testimony and motives are challenged by the opposition, and then turn right around and bash a sick child for stating the need for healthcare insurance for children. Oh I forgot, this is also the party that bashed a multiple amputeed war veteran like Max Clellan, and long time prisoner of war, John McCain, when it suited their purposes. I really wanted to insert “evil” there, but I want to wait till their horns and tails finally appear before doing that. For the present, I’ll just drop the compassionate out of “compassionate conservative,” or had that already been done some time ago?

As for Hillary, she’s not my favorite, but no one really is. I long for the days of true statesmen, people with real ability, talent and understanding of what needs to be done; people who were more concerned with doing their job than constantly obsessing with winning the next election. I do see Hillary as a “politics as usual” type person. I don’t see her instigating any great change as far as Corporate America goes, but I do perceive her as being about 100 times more sane than any of the Republican candidates. They are one scary bunch, or should I say the idea of any of them being President is scary as hell. I do believe Hillary is cognizant of the need of actual “real” people, and is motivated to help them. To try and take money and corporations out of the present power paradigm won’t work; it’s a given. Better to at least have a person as President that can play that game, and at the same time not allow people to be forgotten and corporations aggrandized, such as we’ve seen in the past seven years.

I still have no idea who I want to support in the upcoming election. I’ve only gotten as far as knowing it won’t in any way be a Republican.

Mideast terror leaders are watching the American presidential campaign with great interest. Bottom line: they are all praying to Allah that Hillary Clinton will win the Presidency.
And why not? After all, her husbands efforts got Yassar Arafat the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize. Who knows what she can do for Nasser Abu Aziz, the deputy commander of the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades in the northern West Bank. He, too, paid attention to the Democrat debate.

That remains to be seen R. Hoeppner. The George Bush Administration has been the golden goose for those terrorists you mention. Things couldn't have gone better for them if Bin Laden and Bush had been partners. Bush gave them everything they could have desired, far beyond bringing a few buildings down; he is the face on their recruiting poster. I'd have thought they'd be more interested in keeping neocons IN the White House.

What remains to be seen? Terror organizations use whatever propaganda they can for recruitment? The madrasas have been in business for decades. Radical Islamists have been training terrorists from pre-school to adult. Those toddlers that today are being trained on AK 47's are the very ones our children and grandchildren are going to have to deal with in the future. To blame Bush is the height of stupidity as it provides the justification and comfort to the terrorist radicals to make war on us and Israel. Americans who condemn this administration do so at their own peril.
At least thats what Nasser Abu Aziz and some other terror leaders say.
Consider this; the terrorists first look for 'soft' targets. "Soft" meaning less security and easier access to those targets. President Bush has effectively "hardened" America as a target by creating the Homeland Security Act(the largest government reorganization in 50 years), and the Patriot Act which the Democrats have criticized. If and when the Democrats get in they will immediately repeal some of the things that act provides, effectively 'softening' America as a target. Then lookout! The terrorists understand this and respect only one thing - force. There's no negotiating with them. There's no room in their philosophy for anything other than extreme Sharia Law. Their goal is to usher in a Pan-Caliphate and they will use every means to acheive it. This is something most Democrats haven't come to grips with yet. It's not about negotiations or "tolerance." The radical element of Islam perceives that as weakness. To them a Democrat in the White House is a victory, and an invitation to attack.

RH, what more can I say? You didn’t really pay attention to my post. You take it lightly that Bush’s actions and reactions have greatly magnified the terrorist threat, and act as if he and the neocons have done nothing to exacerbate the entire issue by erroneously and dishonestly invading a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, simply because it had already long been on their agenda. Oil and bases in the Middle East were the Gods the neocons had come to worship (no doubt you also believe most Arabs can’t connect the same dots). You also forget that 9/11 happened during Bush’s watch, and perhaps because of it, and during a time when by all accounts they were not very interested in looking into terrorist activities, and had a quite unqualified person, namely Condoleezza Rice, in the very important and pivotal position of National Security Advisor.

I still wonder, and maybe you can tell me, why the Bush Administration basically stopped going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan and pretty much gave up on getting him period ("I truly am not that concerned about him.”). Was that a sign of strength? How do you think radical Islamists interpret that one?

Everyone, including those Democrats (the same ones that successfully fought WW I, WWII, and the Korean War, and in which countless registered Democrats fought and gave their lives) know we face threats from Jihadists and other fanatics in the Middle East and elsewhere. No one is turning their backs on that. And once again I repeat that the irresponsible and inept actions and decisions of the present Administration have greatly magnified the danger, pissing off quite a lot of people that might have remained neutral, but now feel compelled by anger and revenge to get even. No doubt you still believe there are some Iraqis who have lost a family member or friend during the last bloody four years who still include the USA in their prayers at night. No doubt you also have little grasp of the USA history of manipulation and control in the Middle East, which by its own nature pissed off others even earlier. It has been claimed that Bin Laden attacked the World Trade Centers because of the US presence in Saudi Arabia. He had volunteered to help them during the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, and was turned down in favor of the US Government under Bush I, which was no doubt drooling over the prospect of a permanent presence in Saudi Arabia.

Compromising, and ignoring the US Constitution, is not the way to fight our enemies; it is rather a way to support them. Whittling down the personal freedoms in our nation does not make us stronger, even though mediocre minds like Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld would make the case. FISA could have been sufficiently altered to accommodate present threats. The Patriot Act was not required to walk over personal freedoms in extremis, and most certainly the idiotic and totally ludicrous idea of publicly condoning torture to the world, while editing the Geneva Conventions took the cake! Oh, I forgot Bush says we don’t torture, we only define it conveniently so it fits the methodology we choose to use.

And personally, I could not give a rat’s ass how and why the radical elements of Islam care to define anything we do. I’m not as willing as you to change how we live so they might perceive us differently. What’s the grand strategy to convince them we are strong? Maybe we should force our women to wear burkas; give all our children toy guns to play with from the age of two, and real M16s to all adults who register Republican; wire tap all our communications, both domestic and foreign, Internet and phone as a matter of fact; have random strip searches in our streets; make everyone go to church each day; give incentives to war profiteers just to show how pro-war we are; and cancel all future elections and install a permanent Neoconservative/Republican triumvirate in office which will be responsible to no one but themselves and the Military Industrial Complex. Hell, we can even start recruiting the homeless, disillusioned, and religiously confused as suicide bombers. Why not just get rid of any notions of democracy or a republic altogether? After all, both could be perceived as weakness by those who haven’t had them themselves for the past 7000 years. Let’s just suspend the Constitution (especially free speech and freedom of the press) until this “endless” war is over! After all, since Madison Avenue has convinced us that “perception is reality” we need to change our way of life, so they will believe us strong.

Do you honestly believe that if “There's no negotiating with them. There's no room in their philosophy for anything other than extreme Sharia Law. Their goal is to usher in a Pan-Caliphate and they will use every means to acheive it” they will ultimately care if we are weak or strong? I don’t agree with you that “they” see Democrats as weak. Perhaps they see them as less likely to respond in a predictable fashion to a Pavlovian response such as a neocon. I imagine the Japanese agreed with your perception of weakness before the first Pearl Harbor.

Ideology is a war fought in the mind, not on a battlefield. All the wars in the entire history of this race have not as yet led to peace on earth, have they? Sure, sometimes that battle becomes physical, but without leadership ultimately capable of fostering reasons for peace instead of a constant litany of fear, violence and suspending freedoms, the physical battle will indeed remain endless. I wish our government was more concerned with winning an ideological war than they were with making profits from it.

I’m one of those dreaded liberal minded people; can’t you tell from my silent acquiesce following your comment that I’m just another pacifist who doesn’t want our nation defended? Stop with the stereotypes, they are as inaccurate now as ever! No one will stand by and let our nation be attacked and defeated. Perhaps one exception is the corporate mentality, with visions of “globalization,” outsourcing of jobs and manufacturing, the death of unions and benefits, and profits from all directions and any nations. Think about it.

Sorry I forgot to mention the suspension of habeas corpus among the "tactics" of the Bush Administration - historically the most important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.

That's how I define "extreme."