Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
makes me think of "Onward Christian Soldiers" and I don't even know the words to the song beyond that. It kinda sucks.

I vote for "Crusaders Against Polygamy." Are you with me?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
makes me think of "Onward Christian Soldiers" and I don't even know the words to the song beyond that. It kinda sucks.

Sorry. It made sense the day I did it. As soon as we hit 5000, we can get a new thread name.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Sorry. It made sense the day I did it. As soon as we hit 5000, we can get a new thread name.

How about "Partisan Whiff"?

[God]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
makes me think of "Onward Christian Soldiers" and I don't even know the words to the song beyond that. It kinda sucks.

It's not one of My favorites, either, but it puts asses in the seats.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not concerned that they are not with us on the war on terror. I am concerned with the message this sends to our enemies, especially giving the rhetoric coming out of Spain at the moment and how the EU (minus the good guys) is essentially leaving us hanging out to dry after we protected their collective asses for the better part of a century.

I keep saying this, but you don't seem to get it so I'll try again. They, reasonably, don't see the invasion of Iraq as part of the war on terror, but as a diversion from it. Hussein was not supporting Al Qaeda. They were and are with us in Afghanistan, where we had a strong coalition. We fractured that coalition when we decided to go after Iraq, and we set ourselves up for the sort of problem we have now -- a direct consequence of Bush's approach to building a coalition.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop Hussein was not supporting Al Qaeda.

Lie.

Also, what about the $25 grand per palestinian suicide bomber?

[Not Me]

http://www.drudgereport.com/kerrybo.htm

From Drudge:

GLOBE REPORTER CLAIMS TAPE RECORDED KERRY 'MORE' LEADERS NOT 'FOREIGN' LEADERS; TRANSCRIPTION 'SCREW-UP'

A BOSTON GLOBE reporter at the center of a growing controversy over comments made by John Kerry last week in Florida now claims he "screwed-up" -- and John Kerry never bragged how "foreign leaders" privately backed his presidential bid!

"I mistranscribed a key word," explains Patrick Healy, a political reporter for the BOSTON GLOBE who covered the event in a pool capacity.

"Listening to the audio recorder now, in the quiet of my house, I hear 'more leaders' and I am certain that 'more leaders' is what Senator Kerry said."

[Not Me]

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAEONCJVRD.html

Letter Hints at Possible New File-Sharing Scrutiny From Attorneys General

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Companies behind software used by millions to swap music, movies and other files online could be the target of warnings or even legal action by U.S. attorneys general, according to a letter apparently drafted by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

The letter, which was cited in published reports Monday and circulated by a trade group representing file-sharing software firms, warns that the states' top law enforcement officers have set their cross-hairs on the purveyors of so-called peer-to-peer programs.

The added state scrutiny could spell potential trouble for the file-sharing firms, who have thus far survived the sort of legal challenges from the entertainment industry that sank the original Napster service in 2001.

Outlined in the letter are concerns that the software companies have not done enough to curtail the unauthorized distribution of movies, music, software, video games and pornography. The letter also questions whether the firms have made it clear to users that they could be held liable for sharing copyright works, or that they could contract a computer virus or be susceptible to identity theft by using their software.

"A failure to prominently and adequately warn consumers, particularly when you advertise and sell paid versions of your software, could constitute, at the very least, a deceptive trade practice," the letter said.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Lie.

Also, what about the $25 grand per palestinian suicide bomber?

Cite, please, Ms. Cheney.

And I didn't say he wasn't supporting terrorism. Abu Abbas was living in Baghdad, right? But there are plenty of terrorists we're not wasting our time on right now. Haiti is a mess, e.g.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Cite, please, Ms. Cheney.

It is Queen to you.

There was a meeting in the Chech republic.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
But there are plenty of terrorists we're not wasting our time on right now. Haiti is a mess, e.g.

In due time. We cannot do it all in one fell swoop.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I keep saying this, but you don't seem to get it so I'll try again. They, reasonably, don't see the invasion of Iraq as part of the war on terror, but as a diversion from it. Hussein was not supporting Al Qaeda. They were and are with us in Afghanistan, where we had a strong coalition. We fractured that coalition when we decided to go after Iraq, and we set ourselves up for the sort of problem we have now -- a direct consequence of Bush's approach to building a coalition.

I apoligize up front if this makes no sense - tipped a couple too many tonight.

I do get it, I just disagre with your analysis. The Spanish essentially feel as though they are being punished by AQ because of their support in Iraq. (This in and of itself should be evidence of the link between the war in Iraq and the fight against terrorism). So their response is to pull out of Iraq (i.e., appease the terrorists). I have no doubt that the pull out will in no way effect our ability to fight terrorism in the short term, but it will have an effect down the road.

The terrorists and the right see this war on basically the same terms. It is a war of the west/Christians/democracies/infadels v. radical Islam. Both understand that the war in Iraq was part of this larger war. Why else would they send all of those foreign fighters there? The left chooses, I think in good faith, to parse the war (i.e., to separate the war in Iraq/radical Islam from the actions of the specific terrorists commiting bad acts).

So the big ideological divide is as follows: The right and the terrorists view the appeasement in Spain as a sign of weakness on the part of the good guys in the larger war on terror, not just the war in Iraq. This will embolden the terrorists and incentivize them to plan similar strikes at similar times on similar targets. The reason why we have been so successful in Iraq, as evidenced by letters of the terrorists themselves, is that we have not cut and run, but instead are in for the long hall.

The left views this pull back of support as nothing more than a pull back of Spain's support for the war in Iraq. This is a naieve view IMHO, which will have disastrous consequences if it spreads.

Do we not learn anything from history?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Do we not learn anything from history?

Read the post above in which I quoted from a blog about the parallel with Vietnam. Evidently we are not learning from history. Certainly the right sees things the way that you do, but it's unclear to me that the terrorists do. At any rate, to your way of looking, we've trapped ourselves in a (flawed) struggle from which we cannot turn back. (One wonders why we're about to turn over control of Iraq, given this, but I digress.) This is what led us farther and farther into Vietnam.

If this was our course, how wise was it for Bush to lead us here, given how much the public in countries like Spain opposed the war? Something like this was entirely predictable, bombing or no. If you're right, wasn't he setting us up for failure?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I apoligize up front if this makes no sense - tipped a couple too many tonight.

Fringey appears to be wasted, too.

Originally posted by sgtclub
The Spanish essentially feel as though they are being punished by AQ because of their support in Iraq. (This in and of itself should be evidence of the link between the war in Iraq and the fight against terrorism).

I predict that Ty's response will be which came first, the chicken or the egg. NTTAWWT.

Originally posted by sgtclub
So their response is to pull out of Iraq (i.e., appease the terrorists). I have no doubt that the pull out will in no way effect our ability to fight terrorism in the short term, but it will have an effect down the road.

The effect will be more terrorist attempts because they will be emboldened by this.

Originally posted by sgtclub
The terrorists and the right see this war on basically the same terms. It is a war of the west/Christians/democracies/infadels v. radical Islam.

Yep. Unfortunately, moderate islam supports radical islam against us.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop from a blog about the parallel with Vietnam.

Vietnam analogies are as weak as Holocaust analogies.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
we've trapped ourselves in a (flawed) struggle from which we cannot turn back.

Flawed in what sense? Things have gone well and are not perfect, but hardly a Vietnam like experience.

[Not Me]

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGANH1BMVRD.html

Web of Islamic Militants Who Share Bin Laden's Ideology Grew Out of Al-Qaida Recruiting Drive

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - The al-Qaida terrorist network, its command structure hit hard by Washington's war on terrorism, is mutating into a hard-to-define web of Islamic militants who share Osama bin Laden's ideology and goals even if they operate under other names.

For months, especially in Iraq where attacks on coalition forces and Iraqis who work with them are near-daily events, little-known groups have been claiming responsibility.

The veracity of the claims remains unknown, but the attacks bear the hallmarks of this new al-Qaida - a loose-knit cluster of small groups not controlled by a mother organization but well aware of what is expected of them and sometimes even recruited by bin Laden's trainees.

At this point, experts say, there is no practical difference.

"If you believe in their ideas, then you are one of them. You are al-Qaida," said Abdel Rahim Ali, an Egyptian expert on radical Islamic groups and author of "Alliance of Terror, Al Qaida Organization."

Al-Qaida, he said, is now "separate and loose groups bound only by an ideology, but working independently. They know the general guidelines and they know what is required to do," he told the AP. "It is (al-Qaida) recruiting by remote control."

The individuals or small groups that act under al-Qaida's umbrella are believed to draw on their own resources or do their own simple fund-raising, such as collecting donations in mosques. However, bin Laden - who is not thought to be issuing direct orders for attacks - clearly remains their inspiration and al-Qaida what they aspire to be.
Saad al-Faqih, a Saudi dissident and head of the Islamic Reform Movement, said al-Qaida had to change after Sept. 11. Since then, Washington has pursued al-Qaida on its turf - in the villages, mountains and caves of Afghanistan - and cut its financing by pushing for global vigilance over money transactions and freezing of assets of suspected backers.

"There is no organization as such that you can call al-Qaida now, but rather followers who believe in the ideas of bin Laden and can organize themselves in small cells and carry out attacks," al-Faqih said.