How do democrats deal with terrorism?

[fujiyama]

This is a very important issue for us to deal with as we approach the next election. Most of us on this board understand the world is very complicated and that there are many causes for terrorism (though I'll admit I wouldn't agree with many on this board about them and my bet is almost everyone has a different opinion on the causes).

Yet that understanding of complexities and nuances has also led many, if not most of us, to oppose the war with Iraq. For whatever reasons, we could see that the story given by the administration wasn't adding up, that the rationale was twisted and changed from minute to minute. Some believed it was just a big fight for oil, or that it was fought for world domination and with the PNAC crowd in mind, or that it was simply as petty as a personal fued between the personalities of this administration and Saddam. Others, like myself believed something in the middle.

These complexities are difficult, however, for most Americans to understand. Most people have bought into the idea that the War on Iraq is deserved its central role on the war on terrorism. This is an extremely difficult concept for us to fight against, being that the media has absolutely no interest or inclination to bring in the messy history of the US, vis. a vis. Iraq. Even if it were, most people would simply shrug it off, as the public has been accustomed to having their enemies change from day to day (somewhat like 1984).

With this in mind, is such a fiercly antiwar candidate a smart idea? Dean's statement about us being no safer after Saddam's capture may technically be true, but how does it really play with people? Will most people really understand the nuances of this? I never heard all Dean's speech but from what I gather he made some decent suggestion regarding foreign policy. Unfortunatly in this Bush A$$ kissing unfree media we have, little soundbytes of "Dovish antiwar candidate howard Dean doesn't give a crap that we caught Saddam...that his capture makes no difference". That may not be what he said, but it sure as hell will be spun that way.

And while the following may seem like a bit of flamebait, I must ask did anyone really think it was a bad idea for Saddam to have his face butted with a rifle? If so, that person or those people, are CRAZY! I know people are sick of it, but I've seen several posts by people that try to place all the blame for Saddam's atrocities on the US. It's true, the US does deserve a lot of blame, especially with regard to how friendly we were with him. That picture of Rummy shaking Saddam's hand makes me sick, and this was after the Halabja gassing (it also reminds me that we have a candidate on our side that actually put his finger up to a dictator's chest and told him off). However, I would expect some on the far left to just as easilly buy Saddam's own propaganda that Iran did it. As for the head butting incident, I say great! I opposed this war as much as anyone else, but for God's sakes this man is nothing but utter scum. He deserves all the ass pounding he can get, especially if it's true that he spit on a soldier. If I were spit on by anyone, especially if that man was such a cruel tyrant, and if I had a gun on me, I wouldn't want to imagine my own reaction...

[rooboy]

1. Even if you win, you've already lost.

Let me summarize your position this way:

If you believe that you should get a different candidate than Kucinich just because the media won't like him, then YOU have sold out on your principles.

If you believe that it's ok to butt Saddam with a rifle because your hatred for him exceeds your hatred of other people, then you've lost the discipline that is essential to keeping America's standards high.

That's how terrorists win - they just drag you down to their level, until your only justifications for things are "well, at least we're not as bad as xxx or yyy". Before too long you forget what it was you stood for in the first place.

[fujiyama]

3. Sorry, if you don't understand...

why most people would like to smack Saddam in the head, you don't have a freakin clue as to how normal people think.

That's precisely the problem with the left. Most are completely convinced in such "high standards" of morality, that they don't understand that some people don't deserve any better than violence. Many on the far left also seem to have a strange self righteous attitide, and if a person doesn't agree with their candidate, or agree 100% with their standards of morality they have become a "sellout".

Can you seriously tell me, if someone as nasty and displicable a person as Saddam were to spit on you, you wouldn't flinch?

I suppose there are some with that sort of "discipline". Yet, I think most Americans would have done exactly what that soldier did. They would have smacked him.

This sort of pacifistic nonsense will NOT work. And while I think Kucinich seems like a decent enough guy, he couldn't win a national, or even a state election, anytime in the near future.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

6. What an astute observation!

That's precisely the problem with the left. Most are completely convinced in such "high standards" of morality, that they don't understand that some people don't deserve any better than violence.

That is a perfect justification for terrorism! Osama would say that American civilians don't deserve any better than violence because they have supported regimes that have persecuted Muslims for decades, and he would extend that to all Christians who he would say have persecuted Muslims for nearly two thousand years!

How many times have Muslims felt like America was "spitting in their face" over the last half century?

Now tell me again why violence is justified when YOU do it, but not when THEY do it!

All you are managing to do is to create a justification for more Muslims to kill more Americans while saying "They are doing it to us."

Smart move.

[ma4t]

31. yet another astute observation

"Now tell me again why violence is justified when YOU do it, but not when THEY do it!"

OK, I'll explain it. Here is the theory: Violence in the legitimate defense of innocents is acceptable. Violence in the pursuit of theft, terrorism or oppression is not. For example, the forcible abduction, transport and extermination of the Jews in WWII was not justified; however, bombing train yards to disrupt that extermination or yes, even the invasion and conquest of Germany to stop it was justified. There is is in a nutshell, I don't view the Nazi state and the U.S. during WWII as moral equivalents. I realize that there are some who are so fuzzy headed that they do but, frankly, debating them is worse than worthless.

In the same fashion, I don't feel that violence by an armed intruder in my home is justified; but I would welcome, and consider justified, any necessary violence or threat of violence by the police in order to subdue such an intruder.

One who feels that all violence is wrong and yet would rely on police protection is not a pacifist, just someone who is so gutless that he wants someone else to do his dirty work.

[La_Serpiente]

7. what?

What is the problem? Last time I checked, the Catholic Church was against the Death Penalty. The same goes for the foreign minister of Spain, Ana Palacio, who said publicly that Sadaam shouldn't be subjected to the Death Penalty.

I think there are many perspectives to the debate, but to simply lambast the left detracts from the issue.

Let me ask you this:

Is revenge a form of justice?

[Q]

8. Ah...the smell of...

...bigotry in the morning. It used to be napalm...but we're not suppose to admit that 'we' still use it on human beings.

- I would bet that most people wouldn't really care to 'smack' Saddam. It's just not very high on their list of priorities. And I'm not sure that the need to smack Saddam has anything to do with normality.

- The problem: who will make the determine as to whom 'deserves' violence? You? Bush*? And actually...the non-violence thingy comes from the likes of Jesus. It's not a political ideology...but an individual value/principle.

- And the facts show that Saddam wouldn't exist as a threat to anyone if the US (Reagan/Bush) hadn't given him anything a wannabe dictator could want. They gave him the ability to harm others without repercussion from the US.

- It's not 'pacifistic nonsense' to resist striking a prisoner in custody. It's the foundation of international law...and it USED TO BE one of the reasons why the United States was respected around the world. If we act like barbarians...we become barbarians. That would make us just like those we presume to fight in the name of the common good.

[izzie]

11. Violence does work at times. Look at WW2 but....

A lot of that was just needless and did not work as it was planned to. Look at this. Hitler ended up just bombing cities to bring the people to their knees. Did not work. We also did it back to Germany and that also did not work. Not bombing Paris into the stone age did work for both the West and Germany. So you have to be thinking when you say a blanket statement like that. Terror and re-turned violence has not worked.Getting at the root of the trouble and doing something else has usually worked. After all the 1900's have been filled with terror to get what you want.We have even had it in the USA. Even if it does seem that Bush has brought it into high gear for us.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

15. You actually have that wrong...

It was the British who intentionally bombed cities first. During the Battle Of Britain, the Luftwaffe was bombing the crap out of British air bases and other defensive emplacements in preparation for invasion.

This was having such a devastating affect on Britain's ability to defend itself that the British government decided that the Luftwaffe needed to be distracted from bombing these bases. So they ordered Berlin to be bombed.

The Germans were outraged and demanded retaliation. So the Luftwaffe redirected it's focus to London, leaving the air bases etc in relative peace, and allowing the British to regroup and reinforce the defenses. The result was that the Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain, and thus an invasion was averted.

To this day, the British government claims that the first bombing of Berlin was in response to a German raid which accidentally bombed a civilian area of London, even though they admit that Hitler had specifically ordered that civilian areas be protected.

While it may be true that a raid did bomb a civilian area, even the British knew that what the Germans had done was an accident (especially as it was an isolated incident among hundreds of day and night raids against military targets. They also knew that if the Germans could be provoked into a tit-for-tat campaign of raids against civilian cities, the destruction of their defenses would be averted.

In essence, the British committed a war crime in order to avoid total military destruction.

[izzie]

21. I do not know my history that well sorry. But

what about Coventry(SP) What about Hitler and Spain? I can believe the Brits did this as this is an old stand by thing. War and terror on the people to make them give up but I am still saying that it does not work well. I just think who ever does it first seems to be wrong and it brings a lot of blowback.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

23. Coventry was later.

My knowledge of the war in Spain is rather sketchy, but I don't think we are talking about the same kind of bombing. I seem to recall that the bombing done in Spain was more tactical than strategic, with enemy troops being targeted for heavy bombing. I could be wrong, but that is what I recall.

On August 25 1940, Britian sent 100 strategic bombers to attack Berlin, specifically as an attack on civilians, and supposedly in retaliation for an accidental attack on civilians in London by the Germans on August 24.

That would have been a believable excuse, except for the fact that the British then went on to bomb Berlin 7 more times, even though the Germans had NOT bombed civilians since that first accident. After the 7th time, Hitler announced that if Berlin was bombed again, not only would he attack British cities, but he would flatten them. The British bombed Berlin again, and the Blitz was born.

Coventry, was a result of the Blitz and was bombed on the 15th of November.

However, I am not disagreeing with your statement that such bombing doesn't work as a morale sapping excercise. It doesn't. Both the British and German people were more determined to fight back due to the bombing of civilians.

When used the way the British used it though (to distract the enemy from legitimate targets) it worked quite well. The German people wanted revenge, and they then wasted their efforts attacking targets that while devestating to civilians, really had no military worth, which allowed the British to rebuild their defences, and eventually with the aid of the US, to build an invasion force of their own.

[burythehatchet]

33. I have a question for you...

would you also be OK with similar treatment of Bush, if he were to be convicted and hunted down by a mob

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I'm not sure Americans buy Bush's arguements

I was talking with a very non-political fellow worker yesterday about Iraq. He gave me the line about Saddam being an evil man. I shot back with the names of several vicious dictators. Then I said what I objected to was the way in which Bush went into Iraq-unilateralism would only justify anything these other bozos did. And then how safe would the world be? He looked thoughtful for a moment, then said, "You know, Bush lied to us about why we were there. I don't like that."

The thing the Democrats have got to emphasize is that they object to the way Bush is doing things. They can point out that unilateralism is dangerous and that it doesn't result in a safer world. Of course, the media have to report what the Dems are saying, which doesn't happen all that much, and when it does, remarks are spun and 'pundits' 'explain' what the candidates mean, which is usually dead wrong. There's the real problem, imho.

[rman]

5. unfortunately the media do not have to report what the Dems are saying ;

It used to be that they had to give equal time to opposing opinions, untill Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine.

[rman]

4. "head butting" = petty revenge; totally irrelevant

And what are you saying;
An antiwar candidate is no good?
Why?
Is war the only way to deal with terrorism?

How about stopping to give these terrorists cause to be angry at the US (or 'the west' for that matter).
Or are you buying into the the idea that terrorists do what they do simply because they are unreasonable evil people? Kinda like Reagan tried to paint communists as the devil inpersonated?

Are you dimissing the relevance of PNAC? Did you forget this administration = PNAC? I mean, it's the same names...
Did you forget Cheney sliced up the Iraqi oil fields for US companies even before the war had started? (see www.JudicialWatch.org).

[Kolesar]

9. This issue is hardly settled with the demise of Saddam

You talk like the election is about over. Well, friends, it has barely begun. We have months to present a contrarian view. The democrats have barely spent money on campaign ads yet.

The road to peace in that region did not go through Baghdad, it goes through Palestine. Smashing Saddam has actually set us back in progress in the region. Fighters are streaming into Iraq from all over the Muslim world.

Further, Bush's war has soiled relations from Paris and Berlin to Ottawa and Mexico City. This man is no leader. He is an installed dictator, a tyrant, a liar, and a warmonger. The people know it, too. There are tens of millions of Americans who see past the fog of media. It will only take networking and extending the message to promote the message further and shine a sterilizing light on this cancer virus in the White House.

[RainDog]

10. this is how this democrat would address the issue

first of all, we as a nation cannot send our troops into Baghdad and wherever and, at the same time, give a tax cut to the richest of the rich...this is a ludicrous position to take at a time when all Americans are asked what they can do to support the war on terrorism.

Bush got us into Iraq and we've got to deal with being there...this can mean different things to different people...but the money has already been allocated to pay for the occupation, so we have to raise the money to pay for the occupation.

We must avoid the appearance and fact of war profiteering from companies like Halliburton...this is a slap in the face to Iraqis and can be used by our enemies to justify all sorts of accusations against us, and rightfully so.

I do not believe that the PNAC/Bush doctrine is a viable position for the U.S. to take...we are not a nation which wants to be in perpetual war, and the democrats need to find a way to explain to the American people that the people who attacked the U.S. on 9-11 are not a nation...the world is not black and white, and we are dealing with nations which are making a difficult transition to modernity.

Specifically, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, two nations who have people who have been and are instrumental in funding and arming terrorists.

We must make our alignments with these nations (via diplomatic pressure, combined with economic pressure from other western nations) based upon actions from their govts which defuse the issues of terrorism within their borders.

Education, opportunity, a quick and certain move away from their repressive govts to more representative govt.

The move to make women first class citizens.

These are not actions which will occur without pressure, and these are not actions which will be accomplished, esp. in S.A., with Mecca contained therein, by a U.S. show of military force.

Yet these two nations are at the center of the threat of terrorism for the U.S. at this time.

We have to fight smarter, not more brutally, than our enemies.

We need to spend the time and money to buttress effective security in America for our ports and vulnerable facilities.

We need to reinforce rule of law and due process, while at the same time training and equipping people who can get closer to good intelligence about various terrorist cells.

And most importantly, we must demand that Israel pull out of the west bank, dismantle the settlements, and agree to a separation of Israel and Palestine, to an immediate ceasefire from both sides, to aid for Palestinians as well as Israelis to build democratic infrastructures.

Israel must be pressured to deal with its hard liners, as must Palestine.

We must work with other nations in the region which will support peace and which will accept the inevitability of the state of Israel.

It is inevitable, whether anyone thinks it's just or unjust.

This is the reality as it exists at this time.

If the United States will take the lead in establishing the possibility of peace, and will not support abuses by Sharon, we can win the war on terror in the hearts and minds of the entire world.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

20. Sounds good. Too bad it won't work.

The problem that you are failing to address, and are if fact exacerbating is the cultural implications of this conflict.

Just like the Christian Right in the US, you are trying to IMPOSE your morality on other nations. For example, democracy and certain human rights, such as women's rights.

While I agree that no woman anywhere in the world should be treated as a second, or third class citizen, the fact is that many cultures that are thousands of years old still believe this way.

You can not FORCE a culture to change - it doesn't work. Take for example here in New Zealand. While I consider the veil to be a wholly degrading thing to force a woman to wear, and while this country would enforce the right NOT to wear one, many Muslim women still WANT to wear them. They could at any time stop wearing them, and our government would protect them, but they do not. Why? Because it is their culture. These women AGREE with it.

So trying to FORCE Muslim nations to become westernised will only enrage them even more. Do you not LISTEN to what these people say? They are not against the US because they love US culture and are not being allowed to live it, they are against the US because they love their OWN culture and are being told they can't live it.

How would Americans react to being told that ALL forms of Christian worship - from wearing the crucifix to going to church - should be banned? Hell, pick ANY piece of American culture and ban it, and tell me how the American people would react.

So the part of you plan that calls for enforcing womens rights or any other cultural and political changes will only result in MORE terrorism.

Remember, Osama bin Laden doesn't get followers by saying "Americans have movies with half naked women in them - let's bomb them!" he gets followers by saying "Americans want to destroy your religion - they want to take away your culture and replace it with all the things you abhor. Let's bomb them!".

Until you prove Osama wrong by NOT trying to change them, Osama will have a steady stream of recruits.

In my opinion, what is needed is disengagement. Allow the Muslims to find their own balance. IF they want to become more westernised, they will. If not, then who are we to impose it?

As for your arguments regarding Israel/Palestine I actually think they are essentially correct, as long as they fit within the above criteria of not trying to change their culture. Jews WANT to be Jewish, and Muslims WANT to be Muslim. What needs to be done is to encourage the acceptance of these facts by both sides.

Enforcing democracy on the Palestinians as a prerequisite for peace is NOT going to work. Allow them to govern themselves as they see fit - as long as they do not try to enforce their views on Israel. The same must be said for Israelis. As you say, that nation is a "fact on the ground" and nothing will change it short of genocide or ethnic cleansing, which can not be allowed by either side any more.

Disengagement from the internal affairs of either country must occur, the US can no longer provide aid to one side and criticism to the other. That merely causes further bloodshed. If necessary, separate the two with UN peacekeeping forces, who will treat ALL incursions by either side equally.

Basically, I am saying the US has for far too long dictated to other nations how they should be. It is now time that the US recognises that other nations have just as much right as the US to determine their own path. You may not agree with it, you may not like it, but it is their right to figure it out for themselves.

Withdraw US forces from ALL other nations. Allow the world to sort itself out, and basically mind your own business. Allow the UN to become the combined voice of the community of nations.

Basically, be a good neighbour.

[AngryAmish]

25. I agree with everything you said, except...

Cultures can be changed through violence. Japan in WWII, the indiginous culture of the Americas. Obviously, we would not want to do a violent change, but it can and does work if pursued as total war.

[RainDog]

29. I am not suggesting what you say

I'm not suggesting that women cannot wear a veil if they so desire. I'm not suggesting that America should determine the kinds of governments of other countries...we have done that repeatedly in the region by our support of dictators like Saddam.

What I am saying is this: there are basic agreed upon "universal declarations of human rights," that modern nations share in word if not always in deed.

countries which do not want to modernize face the consequences of their decisions...but, if a book I've been reading is in any way correct, modernization will happen whether Osama wants it to or not.

Emmanuel Todd, in his book, After The Empire, notes that all govts around the world have gone through a "psychological dislocation" as they become more human rights, or democratically oriented.

His examples of this are America's Civil War, Russia's Stalinist Era, The Terror in the wake of the initial French Revolution, the Glorius Revolution in England in the 1600s.

This man believes that modernization will happen whether the U.S. intervenes or not, and may happen sooner if the U.S. does not intervene, in fact...and he also predicts another 20 years of instability in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

The things that we as a nation can do is tie our involvement with other nations to things like literacy rates.

Todd predicted the fall of the Soviet Union in 1977, because, he said, the Soviets made sure that all of the various peoples in their empire were basically literate. While other people were saying that the Soviets were going to remain a huge threat, Todd said that the Soviets themselves would rise up and depose their government.

He says the same thing about the Middle East today. He believes that Jihad is already on the way out...whether this is true or not, I don't know.

But if we really want to help create peace in this world, the most important thing we could do would be to fund educational projects for females, for instance.

...at least that's what the stats of history say.

And we should stop imposing stupid restrictions on our aid to countries based upon religious fundies in this country and their problem with birth control.

An interesting country to watch right now would be Turkey. According to last month's American Prospect, Turkey now has an elected one party Islamist govt. which won because the people were tired of the corruption of the secular regime.

Turkey wants to get into the EU, and so it is working to bring about social change...more freedom of expression, more controls on the military's exercise of power. They are extending more rights to Kurds to speak their language and practiced their culture. These things are happening relatively quickly, in political terms, and no doubt there are old-timers who oppose the leaders, but the benefit to Turkey...to join with other modern states as an ally, is a big enough reward.

Turkey did not do what the U.S. asked initially and provide troops for Iraq (and Wolfie questioned why the military didn't 'step in' to let America have their way--even though Turkish troops in Kurdish Iraq could have been a mess.)

Like you, I really don't think the U.S. should be keeping troops all over the place, and I think our army needs to be re-organized so that peacekeepers are also part of our forces.

I don't think my post implied that we need to have troops anywhere, in fact, except to say that we need to get out of Iraq in such a way to assuage the egos of fearful people in this country, and say to Iraq that they have autonomy...which is about as likely to happen as me blowing bubbles out my ears.

Let Osama and the house of Saud duke it out, if that's what they really want to do.

Let us turn our greatest minds and imaginations toward a new energy economy, with wind and water turbines and solar and the idea of small scale, rather than huge grids, to make such projects feasible.

we could put manufacturing employees back to work creating new ways to retrofit existing homes and businesses for this new energy economy.

funny how, if we don't want a nation's mineral or oil rights, we can find a way to co-exist most often, no matter what sorts of abuses they put upon their own people.

Our energy independence could make the entire world a safer and better place.

This is what I've said all along..stupid Bush talks about putting a man on the moon again.

I say we need that same dedication to the future and a "great society" founded on the independence that we claim defines so much of our national character -- only this time the goal is energy independence and a mission to earth to stop the ravages of eco-war.

[AngryAmish]

30. Allow me to politely disagree

I think we live in a more Hobbesian world than you. I do not think that everyone will come around to our way of thinking, because individual cultures do matter.
I totally agree with you that raising female literacy (as well as promoting advanced education in useful subjects) is the easiest way for a country to advance itself.
Countries that do not want to modernize can and will survive - North Korea for example. But the populace will be miserable.
Energy independence would be nice but it would be politically impossible for any number of reasons. People like their air conditioning too much, their SUVs, et al. Because of the enforced ignorance of the people, we are stuck in these wars. It sucks.

[KG]

12. another justification for political expediency over doing the right thing.

always an amusing read.

btw - you won't be too outraged if american POWs get a rifle butt in the face for some percieved slight by their captors, since it's okay for our soldiers to do it, right?

[radwriter0555]

13. WHAT terrorism? ALL attacks against the USA are RETALIATORY in nature

for something the bush regime has enacted against that body or the state that is the home of that body, stretching back 30 years.

Maybe if the bush regime stops playing brownshirt capitalst world conquering hitler, folks wouldn't be getting all pissed off at us and would stop these acts of aggression against Bush interests.

[Blue_Chill]

22. So what?

Who started it is another discussion completely. How will you stop terrorism from reaching our nation again and how will you react if it does? That is what voters want to know.

[radwriter0555]

26. The point is that if the US ceases aggressive, unwarranted actions,

'terrorists' won't attack us.

If the bush regime ceases and desists from conquering, invading, attacking, destroying and murdering people, states, interests and entire countries, then the so-called bad guys won't have a reason to attack us.

It's the horrendously corrupt forces of the bush regime that, for the past 20 years, have spurred on retaliatory actions towards the US interests.

If they'd knock that crap off, globally, folks would calm down and work together in a cooperative manner. But, hey, there isn't enough profit in peace for the bush regime.

[magnolia]

14. Every few months....

...I feel compelled to haul out my favorite quote:

Darkness cannot drive out darkness,
only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate,
only love can do that.
Hate multiplies hate
violence multiplies violence,
and toughness multiplies toughness
in a descending spiral of destruction...
The chain reaction of evil --
hate begetting hate,
wars producing more wars --
must be broken, or we shall be plunged
into the darkness of annihilation.

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.

History has proven that violence doesn't work. Whether it's war or the death penalty...we need to realize that our reasons for killing are no different than theirs. It's all the same. It's been going on forever and needs to stop. As Democrats...let's have the courage, the heart, and the wisdom to say "IT STOPS HERE AND NOW!"

[LunaC]

16. Bravo!

Great quote and sentiment!

"The Violence stops here and now" should be part of the Dem's platform for '04.

[terryg11]

17. Look at what Clinton did in his eight years

He listened to the intelligence community and decided that Osama Bin Laden was a threat and if memory serves me correctly didn't he have a standing order to shoot him on sight if any American soldiers or operatives found him? Didn't Clinton try to get him with a quick missile attack in '98 or '99? Fer cryin' out loud, Clinton's CIA chief told the incoming Bush admn. that they would need to pay attention to al'qaeda and bin laden only to be told that they weren't on this administration's list of priorities!!!

We need to get back to reality folks. This administration dropped the ball and for some reason is being touted as handling terrorism right. Never mind that duriing Clinton's years they stopped at least one high profile attack on US soil and had the correct man in their sights well before 911

[Yupster]

27. Let's not glorify anyone on terrorism

Lots of people dropped the ball, and Clinton is right at the top of the list.

Osama's people blew up the first WTC bomb, then bombed two of our embassies in Africa, then blew up the USS Cole, and we watched him graduate new classes of terrorists from his camps in Afghanistan every six months and send them around the world.

He bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan which is still unclear whether it had anything to do with anything, and sent missiles to Afghnaistan after informing Pakistan in advance which was just as good as phoning Osama since Pakistan was then supporting the Taliban government.

If people want to call that a good record, that's fine, but it appears delusional to me.

[LOL]

28. Ahhh...Yup

I'm agreed there...it's been goin' on for decades.

[LeahMira]

18. You've made some points...

the media has absolutely no interest or inclination to bring in the messy history of the US, vis. a vis. Iraq.

It's true, the US does deserve a lot of blame, especially with regard to how friendly we were with him. That picture of Rummy shaking Saddam's hand makes me sick, and this was after the Halabja gassing

IMO, the media has no particular interest in reporting the messy history of the U.S. vis a vis not only Iraq but many other nations. This nation has supported individuals and groups that are indeed "utter scum," not because no one realized what they were but because they seemed willing to "oppose communism" or to oppose whatever ideology of the day that we perceived as some threat. Many of these SOBs even received training in the U.S. As long as we are ready to make deal with these devils, we are vulnerable. Why do we expect them to behave honorably with us? They use us just as we use them. There's no honor in that. Not ever.

[Drifter]

19. Getting AWOL out of the White House ...

is a great place to start, since much of his failed foreign policy can be blamed for this Decade of Terror.

Cheers
Drifter

[leftofthedial]

24. based on the record

Democrats treat terrorism like the crime it is.

They apprehend and prosecute terrorists. If guilty, terrorists are punished.

[RBHam]

32. Terrorism is a crime, and should be treated as such...

BushCo calling it a "War" elevated the attackers into a realm they didn't deserve.

Of course, the problem with dealing with the 9-11 attacks as a crime is that one would have to gather independent evidence, have a public trial and a considered judgement. And that is the exact opposite of what BushCo wants.