Mickey

I do thanes, I have every expectation that we will rebuild the coastal areas devastated in this disaster.

Actually, it is federal policy. Fed money funds everything from rural electrification to major transportation and safety projects in just about every state. There are plenty of ways all of our choices are subsidized directly or indirectly by the federal goverment. The way it works is that when bad things happen to you, that rich guy's tax money gets diverted to help you out and vice versa. Too many people have the attitude that spending tax money to help them is sound fiscal policy but money spent to help anyone else is a waste of their tax dollars. That's why farmers don't call crop subsidies "welfare". It's only welfare if it helps the other guy. If the federal government isn't going to step in and help rebuild after a once in several lifetimes disaster, there isn't much point in having a federal government. If NO flooded like this every 10 years, fine, abandon it at every level but that isn't the case. The whole reason for government is to provide people a mechanism through which they can act collectively to solve problems they couldn't ever solve individually.

Which is precisely why we put so much of our cap money and top draft picks into building a powerhouse offensive line. Or not.

You would think that the Bills would be the one team in the league that didn't need any instruction on how valuable a kicker is if you are trying to be a champion.

Funny thing is, in a debate with Gore back in 2000, Bush praised James Lee Witt, the FEMA director appointed by Clinton. Witt did a great job and elevated FEMA from a backwater for political hacks to an effective and efficient agency. Clinton elevated the position to the cabinet level. As much as Bush praised Witt, he didn't keep him on. The current director was fired from his last job as an attorney for the International Arabian Horse Association. FEMA was also downgraded and folded into Homeland Security. You can't just blame the FEMA director for being incompetent, Bush hired him despite his lack of qualifications when there was an experienced, proven director available.

Lets try to bring this back to the original point. I don't agree with those who say we should not rebuild NO or that the people there are getting what they deserve for daring to live in a flood plain. My point was that lots of people live in areas prone to natural disasters, disasters they are protected from by various engineering feats from earthquake building codes to dams and everything in between. If someone is going to argue that we abandon NO then they should be calling equally as strong for San Francisco to be abandoned. Given the likely cost of heating homes in the Northeast this winter, we should probably evacuate everthing north of Maryland. Afterall, if we run out of oil everyone there will freeze. NO has been around for a long, long time and, God willing, will be around for a few hundred more.

Damn that Hillary. I knew she was behind this. This whole flood has the obvious earmarks of a democratic conspiracy to sabotage Bush's poll numbers. What fiends.

Perhaps we could all agree at least that hiring Michael Brown in 2001, initially as deputy director then as director of FEMA, was a poor decision given that his prior experience was as general counsel for the International Arabian Horse Association, a job from which he was reportedly fired as being a total disaster. This is the same guy who had no idea, as of thursday, that there were thousands huddled at the New Orleans convention center barely surviving, something anyone who had been watching CNN knew. I don't hold the president responsible for a natural disaster and have no idea whether gutting the budget for the Corps of Engineers in NO made any difference at all but at the same time, Bush is not a divine entity sent from on high to deliver us. He does make mistakes and is not above legit. criticism. Hiring a fired lawyer from a horse association to run FEMA is an action worthy of critical review.

...and we can't prevent earthquakes in California yet people still live there. No system can prevent the worst that nature can do but fortunately, nature tends not to do her worst in the same place with any frequency. That is why NO hasn't gone under this bad before. Such storms are rare as are devastating earthquakes. We aren't going to abandon California any more than we are going to abandon NO. We will build as much protection from future hurricanes as we reasonably can and the city will come back.

Do you really think the current population density in southern Cal. would be possible without the engineering that brings in all that water? Should we throw in the fault and earthquakes?

I can't believe he said that. Unreal. People live in lots of places where, but for amazing feats of engineering, it would not be possible to live. All of southern California for example. New Orleans is no different. I don't know of any place that is immune from floods, earthquakes, terrorists, fires, epidemics, blizzards, ice storms, tsunami's, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes. We are Americans. We will clean up, fix it up and move back in. Can do.

Yeah but I am no big fan of the "greatest generation" thing. I say that having a grandfather who served in both World Wars. Cav. in France and artillery in the Pacific the second time around. As much as I admire that generation, I also note that the same generation was running the show when Hitler was being appeased and was perfectly happy being on the sidelines of that war until we were attacked. Had Japan not attacked us, we might never have entered the war and if that happened, would be talking about the greatest generation. I agree that the war with Japan was entirely different but, such as it is, that is kind of the point. In a different war with our interests far more clearly threatened, people were willing to sacrifice plenty. We also had different leaders who spent a lot of time preparing the nation to endure sacrifice.

I'm sure the last thing you want to hear is that I am reading another book relevant to these issues . Even so, I did just finish "Blind Spot" by Timothy J. Naftali, which gives a history of US counter terrorism efforts from WWII to the present. Here is a review from Foreign Affairs: Review It recounts many of the failures and successes we have had. He is pretty even handed in his criticisms of government, mostly he replays the facts and only briefly states his criticisms based on those facts. For example, he is critical of Clinton for not being willing to consider invading Afghanistan but also notes that Clinton did more than prior administrations to recognize the seriousness of the threats posed by terrorists and to begin to reorganize our capabilities. He compliments a study done by then VP Bush but is critical of Reagan and HW for not ever implementing the recommendations contained in that study. He also takes congress to task during the Clinton years for failing to pass those recommendations into law when Clinton tried to get them through. Some of the things I learned that I didn't know before I read it: In the early '70's some ex-cons hijacked an airliner out of Detroit and demanded a $10 million ransom. At one point they flew south to threaten Oak Ridge, Tenn. warning that if the ransom wasn't paid, they would crash the jet into a nuclear facility there. Thus, the idea of causing mass casualties by using an airliner as a flying bomb was known as early as the Nixon administration. After the bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon, an air strike was organized and ordered. Reagan changed his mind at literally the last second and called off the operation. No military response to that attack ever occurred. Reagan sent Carter to Syria to send a message to Assad about Syria's support for terrorism. Carter caught Assad in a lie and, after some embarassing explanations promised to alter Syrias terrorist support. They then expelled Abu Nidal and his group, the AQ of its day, from Syria. The loss of their sanctuary resulted in the disintegration of Nidal's organization and the destruction of its capabilities. Imagine that, two Presidents from opposite ends of the spectrum working together. The US had no real capability to pull off an Entebbe style hostage rescue until well into the Reagan years. We had tried to create that capability but it took a long time to do so. Mostly, we sought instruction from the West Germans who had developed their abilities in response to Munich and from the Israeli's. In any event, to the extent one might object to the resulting policy advice or criticism of this or that leader, it is easy enought to ignore that and concentrate on absorbing the facts presented of which there are plenty. As for war and democracy, certain realities are unavoidable. One of them is that in a democracy you can't realisitically take the nation into war, especially a long drawn out one, based on a leader saying "trust me on this one, there are things I can't tell you". They have to be shown why and they have to believe in it. It is probably unavoidable in the long run. After stating the best case you can, it is their right to then decide what they feel is best. Submitting one's self to the judgment of the masses is scary but that is democracy. I think that at best, the administration gave mixed signals as to the sacrifice involved. Yes, you can dig up plenty of quotes from administration officials that state how difficult the conflict will be but you can dig up just as many "sweets and flowers" comments. For example, Wolfowitz testified to the House Budget Committee that "I am reasonably certain that [the Iraqi people] will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down." I don't think I am going out on a limb to say that you don't prepare the American people for the rigors of a long drawn out and bloody conflict with rhetoric like that. Recall that we took Saddam's forces out unbelievably quickly in the Persian Gulf War and that was when his regime was at full strength. Given his comparatively castrated state in early 2003, I think it is not out of line to suggest that the American people didn't forsee a bloody campaign. Add in the public rhetoric of Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld occasionally hinting at a possible cakewalk and it isn't hard to see why perhaps that as a people, were not prepared to endure a grueling campaign in Iraq. I have no empirical studies to back this up, still, I really don't think the administration did much to prepare the nation for the sacrifice and heartache to come in Iraq. Maybe they felt that if they did, they would lose support for the war before it started. Maybe they beleived that it would be a relatively quick campaign. I have no way of knowing.

I don't have a point of view I am arguing bib. Whether we should have gone or not is a good question in evaluating our leadership but otherwise, we are there, we did go so the most relevant question is what we should do now. I do think that blaming the American people for not having the stomach for the Iraq war is counterproductive. The things that make a general population willing to endure a long war are probably pretty complicated. Under the right conditions, they will. If they aren't in this case, there may be very good reasons why. This is really an isssue that is getting ahead of the game. For what it is worth, however, the idea that a democracy can't continue a long war without pretty deep support for that war to begin with is probably not all that earth shaking of an insight on my part or anyone elses. Some might see that as a weakness of democracies, others see it as a strength. As for the WMD thing, I don't understand your response and in any event, it is a side issue in this discussion. I raised it just as an example of the type of thing that could effect public support for a war. It isn't a polemical trick on my part. We really did think their presence was a "slam dunk" and we really didn't find any. That is my belief anyway.

I think they are looking back a lot further than the first WTC attack. Pretty much every suicide terrorist campaign against a democracy has more or less worked going back to 1983. I wouldn't be so hard on the American people. We have stuck it out before but we were attacked by Japan. No matter how justied you may feel the invasion of Iraq was, it was not as compelling a case that we had no choice in war for national survival. Maybe the resolve of Americans to fight a pre-emptive war against Iraq isn't what it would be against a foe more clearly a threat to us. Some want to ignore the WMD thing or chalk it up to partisanship but the bottom line is that it was very much one of the chief reasons we invaded Iraq and we were wrong. I am not accusing anyone of lying or running off on that tangent. We were wrong, no matter how you cut it. Being that wrong on something that big, well, something like that can shake people's resolve.

You hit on another point Pape gets into which is the effect of concessions. He would agree that concessions won't solve the problem either. In fact, a point he makes several times over is that the reason they do this is because it works. Ultimately, democracies do back down. He looks at all the suicidal terrorist campaigns against democracies and for the most part, they have worked to one degree or another. Between April and December of 1983, Hezbollah ran 5 suicide attacks against the US and the French killing 393 people in a campaign to get those nations to withdraw from Lebanon. They did. Starting at near the same time but not ending until 1985 Hezbollah ran 11 suicide attacks against Israel to get them out of Leb. Israel partially withdrew into what became known as the Lebanon Security Zone. The Tamil Tigers ran 15 suicide attacks killing 206 that eventually resulted in the Sri Lankan gov't negotiating with them. When those broke down they ran another 54 suicidal attacks killing 662 betweem 1995 and 2000. They ran another 6 attacks killing 33 in 2001 and the ultimate end was complete autonomy. Concessions, just as you point out, can be just as dangerous as sticking it out. Like I said, I'll have to see what kind of policies are to stem from these facts.

To them, the troops we have had in Saudi Arabia since the end of the Gulf War is an occupying force. Polls among Saudi's show that around 95% of the population there wants those troops out. Fortunately or unfortunately I guess, the 5% that wants our troops there happen to run the country. So we are there. I am not sure where Pape is going in terms of the policies he would recommend based on the facts he has put together. He states many times that neither military force alone nor concessions alone would do it. Perhaps having the ability to strike where we need to without having to have troops "occupying" these places is an option worth considering. I have no clue as to what military strategy is involved in having troops stationed there and as for Afghanistan and Iraq, plainly we aren't going anywhere anytime soon. I would imagine that for your average suicidal terrorist, looks all around him and sees Arab lands "occupied" by the US or Israel. Obviously, the way we "occupy" these places is not the way a true imperial power would occupy them. For whatever reason, they don't see that as an important difference.

Near as I can figure it, one of the reasons for studying suicide terrorism separately is that it is on the rise and far more deadly than the usual variety of terrorism. Between 1980 and 2003, suicide terrorism accounted for only 3% of all terrorist attacks but inflicted 48% of the casualties not including 9/11. If you count 9/11 in the statistics, suicide terrorism inflicted 73% of the casualties. Even before 9/11, the frequency of non-suicidal attacks was decreasing. In other words, such attacks were on the decline long before we invaded either Afghanistan or Iraq so it may not be entirely sound to attribute a decline in non-suicidal attacks to those invasions. There were 666 such attacks in 1987 but that number was down to 348 by 2001. Essentially, the number and lethality of suicidal attacks are on a sharp rise while the number and lethality of non-suicidal attacks have fallen. The end result is that as bad as other terrorism can be, suicidal terrorism is the worst threat we face on that front. It also is a form of terrorism that is far more of a mystery to us than is the standard variety. I guess I'd rather deal with a Timothy McVeigh than a Mohammed Atta. I would think that an attack that requires an escape route is more difficult to achieve and more likely to be detected.

Terrorists, especially suicide terrorists, seem to look for two things, a soft spot and an opportunity for mass casualties. There is no shortage at all of soft spots here in the US or among our allies in terms of easy to hit targets. The goal of terrorism is to coerce the target state into taking or refraining from taking an action. Usually its occupying with troops the lands they view as their homeland. That is the other facet of a target being "soft", not just easy to hit but also being the most likely to successfully coerce the target state. To that end, Madrid was perfect. It was soft in that it was an easy enough target and it was soft in that Spain was far more ripe to be coerced than us. I think there are plenty of reasons for such a strike by them to make perfect sense. There are also plenty of reasons for them to, in the short term, concentrate on our allies, especially the ones most likely to alter their political position as the result of an attack or series of attacks. The reason I think they have decided to not attack us for now is simple, they haven't. We can't stop meth sales or illegal immigration. I could name dozens of other criminal activities that we can't stop and none of them involve criminals so bent on accomplishing their crime that they are willing to die for it. Sure, our efforts might be making it more difficult and perhaps we are stopping some attacks but given that suicide attacks on the whole have doubled every year since we invaded Iraq, we clearly haven't made it difficult enough. AQ specifically has accomplished 15 suicide attacks since 2002 which is more than all their attacks combined from its founding until 9/11. At some point, if attacks keep going up, you have to question either the strategy or its execution. In any event, Pape's book is one of the only ones I have seen to study specifically suicide terrorism and to amass the raw the data he has. I think it would be easier to find agreement on the soundness of his facts first and worry about what those facts mean as to policy choices later. This discussion is sort of skipping ahead of where I wanted to go which was to first look at the facts. I realize that once you get into policy, the discussion is going to follow its own path but it might help if people can at least agree on some of the basic facts. Pape's study certainly blows up plenty of myths I have seen presented here as rock-solid facts. I am still working through the links you provided but my time is a bit limited lately. I appreciate your insight and please don't take anything I have posted as some sort of attempt at a refutation. I'm just telling you what, from my limited perspective, things look like.

Looks like you'll have to spend Sunday afternoons rooting for a liberal. Oh the irony of it all.

That is a good question. This kid has a rocket launcher for an arm. I think he loses a lot more accuracy than we expected when he is throwing on the run. As I recall, the conventional wisdom is that throwing on the run was one of his special talents. I have only seen a handful of accurate throws on the run from him so far but then again, the accurate ones he has thrown were lasers. What has impressed me the most is the velocity on his passes, he really fires them. I can't recall being able to see the difference in the speed of the ball with the naked eye as between two QB's. It doesn't show much on the tube but at the practices, it is immediately evident, even from an observer 100 yards away. Rather than all this roll out stuff, I'd like to see what he can do on the go routes more often. Maybe we are saving that for the real show. When this guy figures it out and gets his accuracy down pat, look out. I really would like to see him go deep more often with that arm of his. Sometimes I get the feeling we are trying to plow the field with a Porsche rather than putting it on the road and letting it go all out.

Smart young man that JP.

No question, our defense isn't so perfect that it couldn't stand some improvement. Whether we were ranked 1st or 11th, isn't my concern. I saw that defense breakdown at critical junctures costing us a game. Yeah, the offense was pretty inept but they weren't that bad. New England had 27 turnovers and we had 29. Not that big of a difference. The idea that our offense constantly left our defense in a terrible position with turnovers is overstated. The real problem was that the offense didn't generate points to go along with the occasional turnovers. I love our defense but if we want to be on top, it needs to get better. The mere suggestion of such heresy can get you in trouble around here so be careful. As for this year, the best reason to think the defense is going to get better: Kelsay. The best reason to be concerned that it might slip a bit: Edwards. The position I'd most like to see some improvement from: Posey. I'd also like to see Schobel get more sacks against quality opposition rather than beefing up his numbers against the fins and then disappearing against better opponents. The defense is very, very good but needs to get better. The offense.....well lets just say it has more room for improvement than the defense.

That would seem to me to be an indication that the defense doesn't get pressure on the QB when the offense knows the blitz is coming.

I think you may be right on Clements. TD's history would seem to indicate that we are going to lose Nate. I have no sense of Sam's longevity but the bottom line is that Simon is a DT who gets sacks, that is something every defense can use.