Say Anything Blog

Lots of details here.

Pre-emptively released news, what a concept.

Did they write the journals copy, suggest a headline?

Woof: They probably supplied accurate information, as opposed to AQIS’s “anonymous sources”.

That is because the left, liberals, social democrats and communists do not know how to tell The Truth.  They lie.  Plain and simple.

The Truth:  I encountered an individual who ‘fits the mold’.  He tried to get our commander to create a “top3” meeting to ‘improve values’.  I knew what he was doing.  He was, like the liberals who lie by omission and inuendu
I told him that I would have not part of his meeting.  It was not organized.  He was a sleeze, just like certain people.

Morning to you too Chief… off to a nice day I see.

Larry King is a putz. What would you expect.

Of Course not Rob, because when the President leaks information it’s not really leaking at all.

That’s right.  The commander-in-chief cannot, by definition, leak anything.  He has the authority to unilaterally declassify national security information whenever he deems it necesary.  You may not like that, but it’s one of the powers that comes with the office.

Also, it is worth reiterating (not that you’ll care) that this information was provided to the Journal after it was certain that the NYT and LAT were going to run their stories.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Hat tip to you too, rbb.  I have been busy, enjoyed a weekend at a B&B in Hendersonville, NC, watched the fireworks and enjoyed being around patriotic people.  I just had a burst of 15 minutes before getting back to work.  So long for now.

Puzzle--- When the CINC, or anyone else with ‘controlling authority’ remember Al?  decided to declassify previously classified documents, they are within their constitutional authority to do so.  When the NYTs releases Top Secret information, they, in my opinion are guilty of treason.  I am not surprised, they have been communist since the 1920s.  Go to my blog and see if you want.  Look up Walter Duranty.

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267mg.htm
December 17, 2002

It’s not like the information about financial monitoring wasn’t already available. The intelligence community has made numerous public comments that they have had to work harder to pursue sophisticated terrorists plots because they have switched to low tech money transfer solutions (aka. briefcases). It’s not like the Bush administration didn’t say repeatedly the last 4 years that we were monitoring terrorists financial transactions.

International Economic Emergency Powers Act, passed in 1977, basically gave the President the exact same powers described by the Times in the “leak”.

I fail to see how this is a leak that is harmful to counter-terrorism. Terrorists, drug cartels, etc. have known for decades that their financial transactions have been monitored. SWIFT has been public information since 2002.

Now, that’s to say the leak isn’t harmful. It is still an entirely different story why stories like this are leaked and why newspapers print them. I like the NYTimes but this seems like a case where they are just trying to add on some heat that started with electronic survelleince.

Financial monitoring is no big secret. The outrage is in my opinion completely over inflated and is retaliatory for creating the hubub over ‘domestic spying’.

"Financial monitoring is no big secret.”

That’s funny; in the original article, the NYT(AQIS) stated that it was highly secret, and they put it on the front page, as if it was a big story.  Were they lying then, or are they lying now?  I can tell you that when it comes to intel, the exact details are the only thing that matters.  They seemed to backtrack to your position only after they found out that the public was really pissed off at what they did.  Not exactly a principled move, eh?

If they called it highly secret that’s there perogative. Perhaps they just wanted to generate some more outrage that was floating around from the domestic spying issue. Obviously it flew in their face.

Regardless of intent, I still don’t think it was a big secret that we were monitoring terrorists’ financial transactions. Bush talked about doing it, and using Swift to monitor the transactions has been publicly available for 4 years. I’m not defending the NYTimes, I just think the criticism is over-hyped.

Stephen: Was the NYT(AQIS) lying then, or are they lying now?  This goes to their credibility in the future.

This goes to their credibility in the future.

You should be worried about Bush’s credibility, not the NYT.

diane: “You should be worried about Bush’s credibility...” I’ll leave that to you; it seems to be your favorite subject.  I’m not consumed by hatred of anyone; it clouds the mind.

I’m not consumed by hatred of anyone; it clouds the mind.

Except the NYT and all those lying lefties, right, Cloudy?  And Clinton....especially Clinton.

diane: When I call Clinton and AQIS liars, it’s because they are, and have been proven to be so.  Clinton was convicted in a court of law, and the AQIS is lying about this latest story, one way or the other.  No hatred is involved in telling the truth.  On the other hand, haters have to keep repeating their hate mantra over and over again, in hopes that someone will believe them.  I might like Clinton if I met him personally, which doesn’t change the facts about what he did while in office and how he dragged this country down. I even have the video of him wagging his finger at the people of this country and lying through his teeth.  Evidence, not hate.

You have accused me and others here of lying.  You have accused me of hating.  I neither lie nor hate.  I have been wrong before, but I am not a liar.  You have no business calling someone like Lawrence Wilkerson a liar; he’s most likely a much better man than you are with a much better resume.  Shame on you.  You are behaving like a self-righteous judge much of the time here in many of your comments and, frankly, it’s tedious and you are just plain wrong in doing it. 

No one set you up as the arbiter of what is and what isn’t on every subject.

Get over yourself.

I hope the filets were good!

diane: I judge you by your words alone.  I have ample evidence of your hate, and I am satisfied that at least some of the time, you intentionally write untruths, or that you willingly ignore evidence that calls your cherished beliefs into doubt, which is the same thing, in my book.
The truth is not dependent on who is telling it, and on what their resume may be, although you are completely ignorant of mine, which is my wish.
On a blog, one expresses one’s opinion.  I do that, and so do you.  I have never expressed any wish to censor you in any way; I do refute you regularly, though, but you often try to intimidate me or get me to quit expressing my opinions, like you did in your last post.  No one set you up as the arbiter of what is and what isn’t, either, but you claim to be able to do that.  All I ask is that you make reasoned arguments, and don’t try to loudtalk, rudetalk and namecall to try to avoid what is probably a lack of substantive argument.
As far as from what I know, Wilkerson lies, unless you have misquoted him.  I am judging him from what you have cut and pasted.

As far as from what I know, Wilkerson lies, unless you have misquoted him. I am judging him from what you have cut and pasted.

Then you are obviously ignorant.  He said he participated in a hoax.  He has no reason to do so except that he looks at it as a horrendous way to end a distinguished career.

On the other hand, the man you call President has many reasons not to fess up to any such thing.

You see it your way, I see it mine; they are both opinions but, as far as I know, 1+1=2, not 5.5.

Goodnight.

Wilkerson lied; The President tells the truth.  It’s really that simple. There was no “hoax” on any level, unless CP perpetrated one.  WMD have been found, the connections between Saddam and worldwide terrorism have been found, the assertion that we went to Iraq solely for WMD was the real hoax, perpetrated by a desperate Dem Party and MSM who couldn’t bear losing everything, and so started a desperate campaign to smear the President, instead of presenting a different strategy, as they should have done, if they had had one.  This is all so pathetic.

If Bush got caught in the Lewinsky scandal, $10 says he would have invoked Presidential powers and would have chastised the NYTimes for leaking sensitive information about his day to day affairs.

All politicians have to lie. It’s a given, they deal with information to protect the population, they protect themselves, they protect American interests, they do whatever. You can go after Clinton all you want, sure he did some stupid things. Don’t play Bush for some kind of truth telling saint though.

And the point of my posts if they NYTimes lied or leaked information then they will be held responsible. What is happening is that the administration and right wing media and bloggers are saying that the “leak” seriously hurt counter-terrorism efforts. Look at the evidence and reasoning I presented to you, do you actually think that it hurt counter-terrorism efforts? I don’t think it did one bit. To repeat, Bush touted his financial tracking program, information about it has been publicly available for 4 years, and it wasn’t a big secret or a secret at all. The question is did it hurt counter-terrorism? Was it actually a leak? I think the answer is no and no. Let it go. You are so wrapped up in exposing the NYTimes that you are ignoring the issue. I’m sure you don’t find FOX News to be exactly credible; if you do you are certainly selectively listening or giving them a free pass.

Stephen: The point of this President is that he doesn’t do the stuff Clinton did.  You have no basis in fact for that speculation, none at all.  If they didn’t intend to hurt anti-terrorism efforts, why did the Al Qaeda Intelligence Service(NYT) run the story in the first place?  They claimed the story was highly secret in their initial article, so obviously they thought they were doing something harmful to the administration, and by extension, to the American people.  No excuses are acceptable for such irresponsible behavior.

Seems even a close ally of Bush has some concerns about his secret monitoring programs and how his committee has not been briefed.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20060709hoekstra.pdf

Puzzledone,

Given that the NYT’s not only has a pony in this race, but is also under criminal investigation…

Why would any rational actor hold them to be neutral and accurate in their reporting on issues such as this?

The world wonders…

Out Here
Rodney Graves

Wilkerson lied; The President tells the truth. It’s really that simple.

The Great Arbiter of truth speaks again.

Well, you are guessing at best.  But that’s nothing new, is it?

Gee, Hackneyed Grouser, one would think the actual letter from Hoekstra would mean something.  Keep those blinders on.

Here’s another cite:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800897.html

The SWIFT website can be found at:

http://www.swift.com/index.cfm?item_id=59897

I’m curious as to just how secret a program can be if it has a website that can be accessed by anyone anywhere…

JML,

Did you read the article you linked?  It certainly seems that you did not…

SWIFT statement on compliance policy

Published on 23 June 2006

Following recent press coverage, Chairman, Deputy Chairman and CEO provide statement to SWIFT community

To the SWIFT community:

There is an article in the June 23 edition of New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and other US newspapers on terrorism investigations and the role of SWIFT,/i>. Let us begin by underscoring SWIFT’s commitment to the highest standards of integrity, confidentiality and availability of the messaging data we transmit on behalf of our members and users.

Thus, the insightful now know:

This article follows the revelation in the AQIS.

Bet that stung a bit.

Out Here
Rodney Graves

Rodney,

I did read the article.  I was hoping to find in it language that addressed how SWIFT’s efforts have been compromised by the NYT et al.  I came up empty.  You, obviously, are far better informed than myself.  Please show me what I missed.

For the record, I also read the origial NYT piece that is the source of the controversey.  I couldn’t find any language in that story that would appear to jeopardize SWIFT’s efforts, unless simply mentioning that SWIFT exists and that it monitors financial transactions with an eye for probable terrorist-related activity constitutes such an offense.  That would be equivalent to being angry at the newspaper for mentioning that the Navy has ships.  Again, show me what I am missing.

The idea that the NYT is deliberately aiding terrorist is utterly moronic.  New York is easily the most popular terrorist target in North America.  Guess where the NYT’s offices are located.  I seriously doubt that they would willingly assist an attack on their very own home.

BTW, my foot is feeling just fine, aside from that hangnail.

JML: If you read the original AQIS article, how did you miss the part where they claimed they were revealing a very secret program?  I’m curious.  They have since backtracked, but the information is out there, for all to see.  If it was no big deal, why did they put it on the front page?

Robert,

I’ve been unsuccessful in trying to find the AQIS article to which you refer.  Can you provide a link or a pertinent quote, at least?

I was referring to the NYT article that seems to have touched off this firestorm.  I don’t see anything in the article that gives away operational secrets or anything.  All it really does is give a name to a program that analyses financial data with an eye for suspicious activity.  Most of us probably assumed that the government(s) were up to this anyway.  Again, getting upset at the media for mentioning that the SWIFT program exists is like getting upset with the media for mentioning that the police sometimes use unmarked cars (which, somehow, are always really obvious).

Here’s the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html?ex=1308715200&en=4b46b4fd8685c26b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Let me know what I’m missing.

Perhaps it was this quote that set people off,

“Administration officials, however, asked The New York Times not to publish this article, saying that disclosure of the Swift program could jeopardize its effectiveness.”

Given the relationships between the Bush Administration and any news outlets that aren’t explicitly right-leaning, I’m not surprised that the article was published against the Administration’s wishes.  The Bushies probably love to make things difficult for the NYT whenever possible.  I suppose that if one wanted to, one could read more into the article than was written. 

This whole thing seems to me to be way out of proportion and little more than a bunch of right-wingers taking predictable pot-shots at a usual target.

JML: The first line: “Under a secret Bush administration program...”

In the newspaper, this article was on the front page.  Does that look to you like it was no big deal, as they are now trying to say?  It is obvious that the AQIS intended this as a blow to the administration, which is what all the fuss is about.  Why did they reveal what they call a “secret program”? It is disingenuous at the very least to now say it had no significance.  You seem to want to believe that it is the administration that is the bad guy here, when it is really the AQIS who sought to do the damage.

Robert,

Thank you for responding.

Having read the article, I am no wiser as to how, when, where, or to whom (other than suspected terrorists in general) SWIFT does what it does.  There is no operational or mechanical detail, for obvious reasons.  Had any such information been published, then you would certainly have a valid argument.  Any terrorist finaciers must be using extensive money laundering techniques as they must certainly anticipate that our government(s) and financial institutions are on the lookout for them.  They might be evil, but they’re not stupid.  Given that, if terrorists saw an article in the NYT that basically says that a program that performs an activity that we all assume has been performed for years happens to be called SWIFT, I don’t think they’re going to say, “Gosh, it’s called SWIFT, let’s change our financial arrangements!”

Frankly, I read the article as a piece on a part of the war on terror that has met with some success.  I didn’t get the idea that anyone was trying to slight the program or the Administration, nor do I think the Administration is wrong to implement such a program.  The existence of the program raises issues about just how far the government should be allowed to reach into the lives of its citizens, and those discussions are ones that we should all participate in. 

BTW, (I’m sure you’ll find this funny) I’ve never seen “AQIS” before.  It just struck me that it is probably a euphemism for the NYT, I’ll guess that it means something like “Al-Qaeda Information Service.” Well, I actually googled “AQIS” to see if there was an article at some hitherto unkown-by-me news source.  I found the websites for the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and L’Association du Quebec pour l’Integration Sociale, neither of which, of course, had any information that I was looking for.

JML: I see you buy into the NYT(Al Qaeda Intelligence Service, so named by Ace) story that it was no big deal, so what is all the fuss about?  It’s funny that they claimed it was the “public’s right to know” until they caught all the flak, including demonstrations outside their headquarters.  They intended to “out” a secret administration program designed to combat terrorism, because they thought it might be unethical or something like that.  That was their intention, and that is why they published the information.  If it was no big deal, as they claim now, why did they put it on the first page?  You seem to ignore this question, which I have asked several times.
The very least they did was to try to smear the administration over what the public perceives as them doing what they should be doing, which is to prevent terrorists from striking us.  Monitoring their phone conversations and their financial transactions is part of that job.  I think the leftie disconnect here is that they are in denial of the fact that we are at war with worldwide terrorism.  They seem to think that if we just cut and run from Iraq, let Israel be wiped off the map, and generally be nice to the jihadis, everything will be just fine.  They are seriously deluded.  It doesn’t help to have a major newspaper trying to discredit the President’s efforts to protect us, and trying to aid the terrorists.  Whether they are successful or incompetent is not the point here.
I favor the public not buying their paper anymore, and letting them(the NYT) assume their place in the dustbin of history.

Robert,

Sooner or later, there will be another terrorist attack here in America.  I don’t like it either.  Then there will probably be some very heavy censorship of the news media, either dictated by the government or self-imposed.  Then the free press will assume its place in the dustbin of history.  You’ll get your wish.

JML In times of war, disclosing ongoing operations or revealing beforehand, plans and even deceptions is an act of Treason.  People who do this may do it for money, they are ignorant of the consequences, or they know full well the consequences but are willing to aide in the killing of other people because “they can”.
Look up Walter Duranty.

Chief RZ,

“In times of war...”

- This is part of what bothers me here.  The war against terrorism is not a war in the traditional sense, as we are not fighting a single, tangible, easily identified entity such as a nation or an army.  We’re fighting terrorists, and while we’re primarily concerned right now with specific groups such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and other anti-America/Israel/West groups, the fact is that terrorism is not a tangible thing, it is a tactic, an abstract concept, that can be used by anybody (large group like the Taliban, small group like the Irish Republican Army, or individual like Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber) for any reason, or for no reason other than sheer insanity.  To that end, if and when we kill the last Al-Qaeda member, terrorism itself will still exist and, thus, we will still be at war.

If the war on terrorism is, therfore, perpetual, and we sacrifice freedom of the press on the altar of the war on terrorism, then we simultaneously sacrifice the rights of the electorate to make informed decisions at the polls about the very government that they are electing or removing from power, in perpetuity.  This seems to me to be about 180 degrees from genuine freedom and democracy.  Freedom of speech/press is one of the most critical components of the free society that we all hold dear.  The loss of the free press might prove to be far more damaging to America than any single terrorist act.

That’s my two cents.  We’ll probably never see eye to eye on this.

BTW, thank you for your service to our country.

JML: I disagree that terrorism is a tactic.  It is a strategy, foremost, one that is designed to intimidate and discourage any opposition, so that the terrorists, while being a minority, can win against a majority.  This means that we have to unite against them, and if temporarily suspending some degree of “freedom” is necessary, like some types of surveillance and terrorist profiling, then the cost/benefit certainly works out.  Besides, the more determined we are, the sooner the terrorists will be defeated.  They are like bullies, and like bullies, they expect us to knuckle under to them.  If you stand up to a bully, eventually they will back down, and that is exactly what we need to do with the terrorists.  The difference between us and the terrorists is that freedom is our default position, to which we will return when the threat is over.  They have only ignorance and violence as their default position.

I fail to see that we’ve been asked to give up an unreasonable amount of freedom during the GWOT.

There’s valid reasons for keeping secrets during peace and war.

Robert,

I agree with most of you last post.  The only thing that I worry about is that there is a possibility that opportunists in our government (be it the current administration or a future one) might find it convenient if the war on terror never ends and, thus, what we might assume to be a temporary suspension of freedoms would become a permanent suspension.  Given that terrorism, in and of itself, will never disappear entirely, I think that this is a legitimate concern.

Whistler,

I agree that, to date, we haven’t had to endure an unreasonable loss of freedom.  I’d like to keep it that way.

Going back to the “offending” NYT article; having read it a number of times now, I am no wiser as to how I might go about avoiding detection by SWIFT should I want to engage in any unsavory transactions.  Therefore, I don’t see how any state secrets were outed.  Is anybody really surprised that such an organization monitors financial transactions?  The President himself has made many references in speeches to the fact that monitoring terrorist finances is a key aspect of the War on Terror.  It’s a no-brainer.  Does it matter if we know what one of the programs is called?  I see the article as a very general overview, with no operation-specific infromation.

I know that every time I purchase an airline ticket, my information is checked against data that would send up a red flag if I was a suspicious character.  This is no secret.  It is also perfectly reasonable.  I don’t see how being aware that such a program exists jeopardizes its effectiveness.

America has a missile defense program.  We all know this.  It has gotten a lot of attention lately in the wake of Kim-Jong-Ill’s misbehavior with his Typo-Dong (I can’t say that without laughing) missile tests.  I’m sure the bulk of information about our missile defense program is secret/classified, but I have seen many stories about it on evening news programs.  I haven’t heard anybody get upset about outing missile defense.

I suppose that if one is predisposed to hating the NYT, as many here seem to, then it would be easy to read more into the article than is really there.  That the Bush Administration didn’t want the article published probably stems from two things:  1) The NYT has been a thorn in the administration’s side and, so, the administration probably wishes that the NYT would publish nothing at all, and 2) given the adversarial relationship between the administration and the NYT, the administration knew that if they expressed their displeasure with the article, then, once published, they could rely on a virtual army of conservative media commentators and pundits to take the NYT to task for “defying the President.” I think it’s a bit of a chess game between the two.

I think that if any serious breach of national security was at risk, Eric Lichtblau and James Risen would simply not show up for work one day.  Body parts would show up in a landfill in New Jersey.

I’m less interested in defending the NYT itself than I am in defending genuinely free press.  The folks at the NYT are big boys and girls and they can defend themselves. 

Thanks for your thoughts.

JML: The only way the war on terror would not “end” is lack of resolve on our part.  It’s true that might happen(highly likely) under a Dem administration, which is why they shouldn’t get elected to anything until they straighten up and get back to supporting American principles, instead of the principles of European socialism, which is what they are doing now.  If you want a strong fight against terrorism, and the restoration of full rights(if any need to be temporarily suspended), then vote Republican. 
As I see it, all this whining about “rights abuses” is a lot of BS.  The lefties use the “rights” arguments to force minority rule on us through the courts.  I think that is a much worse violation of our basic Constitutional rights than anything having to do with fighting terrorism.  The War on Drugs has eroded both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to a much greater extent than anything going on now, and nobody seems to think that is an issue.  This is political propaganda from the Dems to “Get the President”, nothing more.
Lefties confuse freedom with license, and seem to forget that freedom requires responsibility.

Robert,

You offer one straw-man after another here.

What proof do you have that a Dem administration would be any worse at fighting terrorism?  You offer none. 

American priciples, European socialism - what the hell are you talking about?  Again, you offer no evidence.  Should we turn back the clock to, say the 1800’s and eliminate labor laws, environmental laws, anti-trust laws - an America for corporate elitists and screw everybody else?  I’m sure there are those who would love that.

The first thing the Republicans have to do to win one vote from me is divorce themselves from the right-wing religious fanatics that want to turn back the clock to the dark ages before the Enlightenment, and I don’t see that happening.

We can’t forget the horrible courts now, can we?  What rights have they taken from you?  Name one.  Have they restricted your right to infringe on other’s rights?  I bet that what bothers you is that some segments of society whom you don’t like, or approve of, or are afraid of have had their rights defended.  That’s a very different thing than somebody taking your rights away. 

You’re correct, however, that freedom does require responsibility.  (Again, you offer no example of how anybody on the left dismisses responsibility.  I’m sure that if we look around we can find shining examples of this on both the left and right.)

I think we’ve pretty much beat this horse dead.

The first thing the Republicans have to do to win one vote from me is divorce themselves from the right-wing religious fanatics that want to turn back the clock to the dark ages before the Enlightenment, and I don’t see that happening.

Talk about strawmen - nothing described here actually exists, other than maybe a few nutcases.

As if the Left has none of those.

Left religious nut cases? Hmmm. The Rev. Al Sharpton comes to mind. The Rev. Jesse Jackson might be considered in that catagory??? Yep! I would venture to say the Dems. have a few of those too. Actually, I think Jesse Jackson has real spirituality. BUT, his political party of choice has confused and held him back from being as effective as he could be. The Dems. seem to make race an issue for continuing of welfare programs that have held many participants in bondage for generations.

JML-- In your argument, “terrorism” is not a tactic, but a philosophy.  In this case, Islamo-facists want to dominate the world with a strict law of Islam.  The same was true in the 1930s with several forms of Facism.  Some Americans volunteered to fight in Spain against and “ism”.  It was an idea.  The fighters were also in shadows.  America also fought the Barbary Pirates.  They also had no official country.  We also fought England when then “impressed” our sailors, saying that they were still British Subjects.

No was is our Global War On Terrorism a fight against some criminals.  To bring Tim into this demeans the Global War part.  McVeigh did try to use one part of terror to make his point, but, he did not kidnap, torture, kill, cut off heads in public, try to impose any religion on others, make women wear certain clothes, stop people from voting, etc......

Now, I agree that there is a bit of controversy about our present status.  The US Supreme Court seemed to say that we are not at war.  It would be clearer if both houses combined and voted to declare war on islamo-facists, just like was done with the pirates.

Attacking the Pentagon, the two World Trade Center buildings and trying to hit our government in D. C. was an act of war by foreigners.  A US citizen who blows up a building her is probably not.  I did go to Oklahoma City a few months ago and also saw The Enemy Within (Spy museum).  Did you know that our Senate building was bombed?  How about two arsenals by German Spies?  Do you consider the SLA to be an “army”?

Chief: In my argument, terrorism is a strategy; it is designed to give a disorganized movement, which is technologically inferior, to gain victory over a much larger, better organized and technologically superior force by using their internal dissent against them, causing them to lose resolve and hand the terrorists a victory.  The terrorist have been successful in leading us to believe that terrorism was only a tactic, and so we treated it as a law enforcement problem, much to our disadvantage.  Now, they have acquired real power, and control over several nations.  This is directly due to our lack of appropriate response, starting with Munich in 1972, at least.
At least this President has declared it a global war, which is the truth.

Chief and Robert,

(This is my last post on this topic, I promise!)

Whether terrorism is a tactic, a strategy, or a philosophy probably varies as to who is using terrorism and what the want to achieve by doing so.

I definitely think that there’s a big difference between terrorist acts by individuals or small isolated groups and terrorism as employed by islamo-fascists.  I worry sometimes that the general public doesn’t make such distinctions.

I too would like a clearer definition as to the parameters of this war and what, exactly, would determine victory.  Removing islamo-fascism from the world is a tall order.  There are a lot of failed states out there.

Perhaps one of the reasons America treated this problem as a law enforcement one for so long is that we just didn’t have the history of terrorist events here that other countries have experienced for a much longer time. (?)

Genetlemen, thanks for your thoughts.

It’s really hot in my apartment today so I’m gonna go to the grocery store and walk around the frozen section to cool off.  I’m out…

robert108, we agree.  Terrorism can be a tactic also.
Yes, President Bush, thank God was astute enough to realize, as were a majority of Americans that when the second plane hit the WTC, just like the FAA man in charge of the Nation that day, that “We were (and are) at war”

I was hoping to hear back from JML.

JML:  In order to fix something that is broken, you have to make the right diagnosis.  Regarding terrorism as only a tactic has led us to apply the wrong solution, and thus the problem has continued to grow, since it wasn’t being properly addressed.  That was my point.  It is the strategy of terrorism that is the problem, not the tactic.  If we defeat the strategy, we eliminate the usefulness of the tactic.  N’est pas?

Okay, I’m back by popular demand.  Ha!

Chief,

I can’t imagine that there were too many people who didn’t realize that we were engaged in a war of some sort on 9/11, but I’m sure if we look hard enough, we could find them. 

Robert,

I think that part of the problem in the early days of this conflict (as it pertains to modern times, anyway) is that we didn’t know exactly what we were dealing with.  For example, when the WTC was bombed the first time (’93, was it?), Al-Qaeda didn’t exist yet (in it’s current form, at least).  As it turned out, that attempt at bringing the WTC down was orchestrated by individuals who would eventually go on to play critical roles in the formation and expansion of Al-Qaeda.  If I remember correctly, the perpetrators of the ‘93 bombing were arrested when they tried to collect the deposit on the Ryder(?) truck that they had used in the bombing.  At that point, it was a law enforcement issue.  Since Al-Qaeda didn’t formally exist yet, it was next to impossible to make the connections that are now obvious.  Hindsight is 20/20, no?  Of course, one might argue that this is a conflict that has been raging for centuries and that events such as 9/11 are flashpoints in a much broader and older war.  A misdiagnosis indeed, but perhaps an understable one as America at that point hadn’t experienced a direct attack on its own soil by islamo-fascists.  Remember, this is before the USS Cole incident, the bombings of the embassies in Africa, and the bombings of the Khobar (sp?) Towers in Saudi Arabia.

It would be great to eliminate the usefulness of the tactic by eliminating the strategy.  How the hell do we do that when we’re dealing with people who will gleefully blow themselves up for their “cause”?

A few other thoughts:

I’ve been to the World Trade Center three times, once while it was standing (great views of NY from the rooftop ovesrvation deck).  I went to the hole in lower Manhattan about six months after the attacks.  A couple of things will be forever seared into my memory: 

1) There was an entrance to the site itself where the salvage workers would come and go.  There was a checkpoint of sorts that only let authorized idividuals through.  Outside the checkpoint, they had set up a number of tables and on those tables the salvage workers laid whatever personal affects they uncovered during their work.  Photos of husbands, wives, children, wristwatches, coffee mugs, jewelry, etc., whatever items managed to survive the collapse of the towers.  Bitter reminders of lives lost and quite a sobering sight.

2) Another thing I will never forget is the banners and flags surrounding the site, tied to the fences around the demolished area.  What I thought was especially intersting were the often very large flags of other nations that were tied to fences around the site’s perimeter.  I can recall the Union Jack, Brazil’s flag, Japan’s flag, Canada’s flag, and even the French (!) flag, among others, all with thoughts, condolences, prayers, etc., written on them, often in their respective native languages.  We often say that roughly 3,000 Americans were killed on that day.  What is often overlooked is that hundreds of people from around the world were killed that day.  It was the WORLD Trad Center, after all.

Now, for a real act of terrorism:

The Mets scored 11 runs in the top of the 6th against the Cubs tonight at Wrigley Field.  This includes two grand slams, in the same inning!  Talk about shock and awe!…

(Yes, I live in Chicago.)

Sox rule!

Cubs drool!

JML: The short answer to your question, as it’s getting late, is that we must make the point, over and over again, that their strategy won’t succeed, no matter what tactics they use.  Remember, the strategy is to defeat a larger and more advanced force by making them(us) cut and run by sheer force of savagery.  Presenting a united front would help, but that isn’t going to happen any time before this November(with a resounding Rep victory).  Lacking that, dropping out of the BS diplomatic circus will be a step in the right direction, and this latest action by Israel gives us a perfect opportunity.  We have one thing in our favor:  Islamic fundamentalists believe that Allah determines everything, so that if they suffer defeat after defeat, they tend to take it as the Will of Allah that they are doing something wrong.  Every time we give them even a small concession, they take it as Allah telling them to keep doing what they are doing.  This is the real negative impact of the lefties in this country.