O.T. - On Target...

That's the point I was getting at :)

As opposed to basing it on the rants of the liberal posterboys here? ;)

I have a truck.......

Seems like a difference without a distinction.....

It's been limited to no more than 10 years since 1997, a fact which I didn't know until you made me look it up. ;)

I haven't been able to find out who or which agency sponsored the enabling legislation so it's probably not completely fair to 'blame' Clinton.

I absolutely agree with this - Bush is sending a mixed message about the gravity of the war against Islamofascism. It's eerily reminiscent of the 'guns and butter' policies of LBJ during the Viet Nam conflict.

I don't want people to be scared - that's what the terrorists want. I *do* however, want them to be concerned, involved, and aware.

Why?

Any good "Progressive" (i.e. socialist in older terms) would leave behind his/her worldly possessions for those less able to help themselves.

Of course, if Vancouver opens its proposed govt. sanctioned crack house, I suppose the good "Progrsssive" could take advantage of foolish capitalist pig-dogs by selling old possessions in order to buy a quick high. This in turn would allow a deeper understanding of leftist philosophy thus furthering "Progressive" efforts.

Wow, yes you should help him pack, it could be your contribution to "Tha Cause."

Whoever said conservatives don't help others?

In article , Al Superczynski wrote:

Watch out where you throw your labels, Al. Domestic liberalism is one thing, where we all behave in a fairly civilized manner (and those who don't get thrown in prison sooner or later). All that matters in the international arena is what it takes to protect our vital national interests, whether it's building consensus, imposing sanctions, agreeing to treaty obligations or dropping an assortment of munitions on someone without warning. These are all tools, and the trick is to choose the right tools for the situation.

But the point is that from the perspective of protection against use of nuclear weapons against the US, this was a completely non-essential operation, which has tied us up and distracted us from dealing more directly with rogue nuclear powers. As you state, there are other valid reasons for deposing Saddam (or any other murderous dictator), but there are also priorites (or should be) when deciding how to employ the elements of foreign policy persuasion, including lots of well-trained well-armed American troops.

Not enough yet, and not enough by itself. The PSI is fine as far as it goes, but NK has to be brought round from its intransigence, whether by carrot or stick. This problem simply festers, and the longer that goes on, the more chance Kim Jong Il will decide we're all feckless nincompoops and simply invades South Korea. We would be in a much better position to make our position compelling if we were not tied down in Iraq.

I imagine Dan Quayle supports Bush. Hard to blame the candidate for the failings of individual voters, especially party stalwarts. I don't know if Kerry knows how to be president, or at any rate a passable one. We can't know before the fact. AFAIC, I know Bush is not a passable president, and I see no hard evidence that Kerry will do worse. I happen to think he will do better. It's an opinion, nothing more right now.

This is a poor measure of foreign policy competency; the Iranian hostage crisis never would have justified an invasion of Iran. Never. To invade Iran would have been out of proportion to the offense. Yes, the embassy is sovereign US territory, but that is a diplomatic fiction that serves all countries in good stead, and the fiction would evaporate the moment superpowers started full scale wars simply to reclaim embassy territory. To do otherwise is to simply revert to the worst excesses of 19th century gunboat diplomacy. A commando raid to free the hostages? Sure. Massive air strikes, seven divisions of troops and a few hundred cruise missiles? No, because Iran at that time was no threat to vital US interests.

And I can't imagine why you think Bush has accomplished anything useful internationally since he invaded/liberated/[choose your verb] Iraq. The net positive effect of this invasion so far is that we've killed Saddam's two sons, captured Saddam himself (better he should have been shot 'trying to resist arrest'), disposed of the worst of the Baathists, cut off some aid to Palestinian suicide bombers, caused Muamar Ghaddafi to soil his pants, and confirmed that there were virtually no WMDs to threaten us. That's not a horrible compound result taken in isolation, but it doesn't compensate for the quagmire we are left in, mostly because Bush et al had no realistic plan to 'win the peace.' The last time I heard a statistic on this, something like 3% of the Iraqis were glad we were in country. Now, I have no idea how reliable that number is, but if it's even 25% off, it's still horrible. It also appears that our approach has played right into the hands of the Islamic fanatics, who see no downside to a situation where they can try to assassinate our people on a daily basis, then hide in the numerous holy sites that litter that part of the world, daring us to winkle them out without blasting all this holy masonry to kingdom come. All this ostensibly to give the Iraqis a chance for democracy, when the Iraqis themselves care so little that most of the new recruits to the Iraqi army are deserting in the face of combat against the fanatics. What do you see about this that can reasonably be described as hopeful?

Short of invasion, what would you suggest? Iran is a far more indigestible target than Iraq, unless you simply nuke it to glass. That of curse carries its own set of negative effects.

Well, if all we need is the deposition of tyrants, there's a goodly supply of them in African countries with small ineffective armies and no oil. We could probably knock off one a week for the rest of the year. Anyway, the invasion of Afghanistan was clearly righteous, because it was directly and unambiguously tied to expunging Al Qaeda, and by extension, its supporter the Taliban. Had Bush concentrated on that facet of the war, including support for the central government in Kabul in sublimation or eradication of the regional warlords, I would have had no problem with his approach.

Dead terrorists are also a fine concept, but the idea is to end up with a net total of live terrorists that is smaller than before we started killing them. The exercise in Iraq seems to be generating them faster than we can kill them.

No new attacks on the homeland? If anything, that's because of the action in Afghanistan, and Bush deserves such credit as it relates to that. There is no evidence that the war in Iraq has had any effect on Al Qaeda efforts in this country. Nor is there any evidence that Al Qaeda really has the capacity to act in a major way in this country in the face of heightened awareness by the citizenry. The airliner attack model will never work again because the passengers would not allow it and the Air Force would shoot down such planes. Neither could be expected before

9-11. Most other forms of kinetic energy projection present major isssues of logistics which a small band of operatives is ill-equipped to deliver without someone noticing and tipping off the authorities. It's all fine and dandy for the airport security folks to strip-search Al Gore or some white-haired grandma (God knows it makes me feel much safer), but do you really believe that a fertilizer salesman in Pella, Iowa won't call the cops if someone he's not personally acquainted with (and who looks even vaguely like he's from the Middle East or Mediterranean) orders six tons of fertilizer? The biggest danger is neither chemical weapons, nor biologcial weapons, nor even dirty bombs, all of which are unlikely to kill many people or damage much property, and most of which is beyond the grasp of Al Qaeda anyway. The biggest danger is a smuggled nuclear weapon--which is why resolving the situations with Iran and NK, as well as poorly-secured Russian weapons, is the most critical issue now.

Mark Schynert

And I forgot to add.....if a former President is just anothewr citizen, why do they continue to rate Secret Service protection details?

My home page:

" In walks the village idiot and his face is all aglow; he's been up all night listening to Mohammad's radio" W. Zevon

Yes; that's the point I was making.

My home page:

" In walks the village idiot and his face is all aglow; he's been up all night listening to Mohammad's radio" W. Zevon

Bill, you certainly are an inconvenient man! All those questions and good points!

Cheers,

Ken

Well, it is ok as Israel is a friend of ours and the others.... ARE NOT!

Skewering you,

Ken Lawrence

Hey Off Target,

Besides all of the other good reasons to get rid of him (Res 1441, WMD's, mass murder, chemical weapons use and on and on and on), the fact that he tried to kill Bush senior is good enough for me. You go ahead and take lightly someone trying to kill your father. Laugh it off. How does it feel?

Scathingly,

Ken Lawrence PS: Want your skin back?

Al, like Bill W., you are also an inconvenient man. Please give the slower members of the group a break and leave the facts behind.

Cheers,

Ken Lawrence

This one of the aspects of the Lefties I really like. They always want to invade someone. OK, Kim I agree with you. Next year Saudia Arabia and Syria!! Or maybe Iran, depends on how they react to the upcoming joint Israeli-American airstrikes on their "nucular" facilities.

Gotcha,

Ken Lawrence