Mickey

Right, and all that coverage of the Matthew Shepard murder was simply yet another left wing media plot to make heterosexuals look bad. These people are crazy and they go to church but nobody is suggesting one has anything to do with the other. These kinds of nuts are out there and given the media's need to fill air time 24-7, I'm surprised there isn't a reality series following the godhatesfags.com fruit loops around.

Isn't it true though that they did attack Madrid as part of a strategy to separate us from our allies and that in the case of Spain, it worked? My point on this issue is that I don't really buy at all this idea that attacking them there stops them from attacking elsewhere. The number of suicide attacks linked to AQ since we invaded Iraq has pretty much skyrocketed and plenty of attacks have been against targets outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. I think the lack of an attack in the US has been the result of luck, better security and because they have chosen not to attack us here, for now. If 160,000 troops can't stop a suicide bomber in Iraq then I just don't see how in the world we could prevent a similar attack here against a school, a stadium or some other place with large numbers of people concentrated in a small space. We can't stop a gang-banger selling crack in South Central for goodness sakes.

Actually, I am afraid that it is absolutely accurate, from the interview with Robert Pape I linked to start the thread: "Al-Qaeda appears to have made a deliberate decision not to attack the United States in the short term. We know this not only from the pattern of their attacks but because we have an actual al-Qaeda planning document found by Norwegian intelligence. The document says that al-Qaeda should not try to attack the continent of the United States in the short term but instead should focus its energies on hitting America’s allies in order to try to split the coalition. What the document then goes on to do is analyze whether they should hit Britain, Poland, or Spain. It concludes that they should hit Spain just before the March 2004 elections because, and I am quoting almost verbatim: Spain could not withstand two, maximum three, blows before withdrawing from the coalition, and then others would fall like dominoes. That is exactly what happened. Six months after the document was produced, al-Qaeda attacked Spain in Madrid. That caused Spain to withdraw from the coalition. Others have followed. So al-Qaeda certainly has demonstrated the capacity to attack and in fact they have done over 15 suicide-terrorist attacks since 2002, more than all the years before 9/11 combined. Al-Qaeda is not weaker now. Al-Qaeda is stronger. Here is a link on some of the history of that document: Cracking al Qaeda's code I do want to note that I was wrong to call it a "captured document". I got the info from Pape's interview and he didn't go into detail about the document's history, he just says that it was an AQ planning document "found" by Norwegian intel. I should have checked the claim more deeply but frankly, I had heard of this before and didn't think it was controversial. Had you not heard of this or do you simply question its authenticity? Given the attacks in Egypt, Madrid and London, obviously, the fact that we are attacking them there has not stopped them from attacking elsewhere. Again, if we can't stop Mexican nationals from crossing a barren, desert border and then getting jobs here in the US, how in the world are we going to stop some AQ trained suicide bomber from walking into a McDonalds at lunch hour? "Attacking them there", inmho, is not a sound strategy to keep them from attacking elsewhere. Such a strategy, on their part, makes sense in the short term. To separate us from our allies they need to avoid generating sympathy for us among our allies. Another 9/11, God forbid, is the type of thing that would make us many more friends, even among secular Arabs. I haven't had the time to go through all those links but thanks for providing them. I will try to absorb them. I do note that most of them are from 2 1/2 to 4 years old. Are there any updates available? I think a sober assessment of the national security situation should probably have the benefit of what has and is happening in Iraq. Not to mention Iran and its invigorated nuclear aspirations.

Its just not going to happen Bill. I agree with you but the bottom line is that TD is not going to put much money in to the OL. He wants to get by on the cheap, hoping to get lucky with a nobody. Heck, maybe it will work. In any event, since he isn't going to ever put much money into the OL, we might as well sign Corey Simon. If he is even half the player he was, he'd be a force on the line. A DT who gets sacks is invaluable.

"The fact that if we were to pull out now, it is not going to stop attacks against Americans" I am not so sure that is in fact correct. I also think maybe the issue isn't which course will lead to no attacks. There may not be such a course. Being in Iraq certainly isn't stopping them and as many here believe, leaving won't stop them either. Therefore, stay or go, we still get attacked. The question is really, what makes it harder for OBL, having troops in Saudi Arabia and Iraq or not? What course will lead to the fewest attacks? Pape's point, and I think his research shows that, is that suicide terrorism is almost always done against democracies to compel them to withdraw from territory the bad guys view as their own. It is not just a bunch of crazies wanting to kill free people because they are sick whackos. They have a political goal they are using terrorism to achieve. That doesn't mean that AQ isn't something new and different or that they don't have an appetite for new goals as time goes on. I am not sure what the strategy is that Bib refers to as being "sound". I don't think much of the "we fight them there so that we don't have to fight them here" stuff. Tell that to the British. Besides, captured documents indicate that AQ has made a tactical decision to attack our allies and not to attack in the US, for now. The plain fact is that if AQ wanted to run a suicide bomber into a school somewhere in the US, they would. We wouldn't be able to stop them. We can't stop a Mexican housewife from coming across the border, how are we going to stop an AQ suicide bomber? Transforming the entire ME by building a democracy in Iraq? Is that it? Couldn't we have transformed the ME by doing that in Afghanistan first? Leaving OBL alone somewhere on the border with Pakistan? Is that sound? Even the administration is backing off the idea of there being much of a democracy in Iraq when this is all over. I know its easy to pick but seriously, what exactly is the plan here? I hear the administration talk and talk and all I hear is that we have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here and that kind of thing. I certainly haven't heard any democrats propose anything all that sane either by the way.

I never saw it coming, I was too busy trying to fix my pickle juicer, damn thing is on the fritz again.

Bib, they pled guilty for crying out loud, its a fact. I would think there is more partisanship afoot in denying that then in simply linking the article. I made sure to point out that it likely didn't matter in the results of the elections.

One sweep was read by a corner, F.Smith had a shot at him but didn't even try for some reason. Another guy was totally missed by Teague when he pulled. Shelton got ran over on another, our first series on a third and one. The whole line was pretty shaky, I wouldn't pin it on Anderson alone. Look, we all know that this line was pretty mediocre last year and other than losing one of its better players in Jennings, not much was done in the off season besides collecting a few rejects from other teams. The hope is clearly that McNally can make something out of nothing. I think he is doing wonders with these guys as it is but against a solid defense like that, the inherent weakness of our line was clearly exposed. If that line doesn't get better, we are going to have to rethink this power running thing. That game reminded me so much of last year. The defense plays great but the stumbling offense keeps the game close and then the opponent gets lucky and finally scores a TD late in the game and we lose. Jacksonville all over again.

A GOP official and a consultant have both already pled guilty. The Grand Jury is reconvening suggesting the possibility of additional indictments. Still under indictment is James Tobin, former regional director of the RNC who is awaiting trial. I love how the so-called liberal media conpiracy is playing this story up, not. GOP Election Tampering in NH I think the former state Republican Party Chairman, John Dowd, is likely the next person to be indicted. The elections that year in NH were not all that close with the exception of the Senate race which was decided by about 9,000 votes either way.

Some people just don't understand that the greatest threat to freedom of speech is from those who abuse that freedom. A hospital is no place for politics. Period.

What were they hoping to achieve with that attack?

Are they the ones with the sarin gas in the Japanese subway?

I believe what he envisioned was something like the Gulf War where Saddam did what he did and then we came in and kicked him out. I can't beleive that our only option, should some Taliban like regime invade Saudi Arabia or some such scenario, would be to go nuclear. Maybe it is. Again, I am on like page 30 or something so I don't want to tear into Pape or sing his praises just yet. Do you agree or disagree with him that the presence of foreign troops on soil the terrorists view as their own is the primary or at least a significant motivating factor, in suicide terrorism?

Your end conclusion is exactly what I most concerns, that the result we are hoping to avoid by staying is an inevitable one. If that is the case, better we face it now, arrange some deadlines and start to withdraw rather than to do that anyway a year or two from now after many, many more soldiers are killed to no purpose.

Boy, anybody gets near ol' crazy Pat and you just can't help springing into action can you? Were you his altar boy or something?

I hope so, this effort at building a democracy there is in need of a morale boost. Do you think that Iraqi's might have better luck with the "insurgency" with us out of the picture? It just seems to me that we have given the insurgency our best shot and they are still just as deadly as ever. I can't see why the Iraqi's would do any better but then again, maybe a homegrown force will succeed where a foreign one failed. What do you think?

The raw data he amassed and the insights it provides is helpful but I think he falls flat on what policy to make based on that data. It seems his idea is to get American troops off their soil and protect the strategic importance of the area by having the capability to insert serious force very quickly if trouble brews. At the same time, he wants a push for energy independence thereby decreasing the strategic value of these miscreant lands. It all sounds good but it falls pretty short of anything practical like, what do you do when they have WMD's as you point out. I haven't finished the book, just started it so I guess I'll just have to see what else he's got.

I agree that it was unrealistically pollyannish but at the same time, I have to be honest and tell you that I seriously thought it coud be done. Damn that Friedman.

You misread my post and my intentions so bady that there really is no point in responding. If at some point you want to discuss this with a little respect for eachother, let me know. You'll have to excuse me if I choose not to bother debating anything with someone who can't refrain from personal insults.

All that could be exactly true but if we can't build a stable democracy in Iraq, that is where we are going to end up anyway. I don't see the new Iraq having any more success quelling the insurgency than we have had. How are they going to succeed where we, with all our power and wealth, have not? If you the insurgency can't be stopped, Iraq is going to explode anyway just as you fear. If we are clinging to the idea of building a democracy there because we truly believe it is a reasonable possibility, I can understand sticking it out. My worry is that we are sticking it out so that our last justification for the war, the altruistic goal of a free Iraq, won't turn out like the WMD justification did. If I firmly beleived democracy had a chance in Iraq, it would be easy support staying but I am rapidly losing faith in that idea.

I have no idea about that but even if they were not ingrates, the point is the same. That would just make it a little more palatable to keep trying to get a democracy built there. If a democracy really can't be built there then why are we still there? That question shouldn't really depend on whether they are ingrates.

I wasn't trying to take that literally, that is why I broke the phrase down to the question "...do we really have a responsibility to fix Iraq...?" Certainly, it is a nice, humanitarian thing to do to go out and try to build democracies from scratch and all but do we have a responsibility to do that? Without even getting into the argument of whether our presence there is actually increasing the spread of terrorism, why do we have an obligation, as the Powell doctrine implies, to turn Iraq into a stable democracy, even if that were remotely possible? I am just not sure that building a democracy there was ever anything more than a nice sounding, altruistic, noble, etc, motivation and now, even though it turns out that it just isn't a realistic goal, we have anchored ourselves to it. Drowning in our own altruism and blood. Saddam and his regime were a threat to the United States so in we went and obliterated him and his regime. Yeah, a lot of Iraqi's got caught in the cross fire of that effort but it had to get done. Okay, now its done. Why are we still there wasting lives and fueling terrorist recruiting just to build a transparent democracy that will crumble to pieces the minute we leave? Is it simply to justify the invasion after the fact by accomplishing some great humanitarian effort for Iraqi's? I know it is selfish and Macciavelian but maybe we need to be selfish and Macciavelian and turn that mess over to Iraq now and tell them good luck with the civil war. I just can't bear the thought of another 1,500 or so dead soldiers a year later just so the Iraqi governement can collapse then instead of now. Again, just thinking about this idea out loud.

I just started reading this study of suicide terrorism and I ran across an interesting interview with the author in the American Conservative which says of Pape, "...he knows more about suicide terrorists than any other American." Here is the link: Interview with Robert Pape

It would free up a lot of troops to go after OBL I guess.

Clever, who thought of that one for you? Really, if trading personal insults is where you want to go, certainly you can do better than that? Why not call for my assassination in the middle of a prayer service?