Rob…interesting comment. I usually express my disapproval of Bush’s program rather than of Bush himself but the fact is that he is in charge of running the program so he is tied to it. I understand that you are saying you support Bush because you approve of his approach. Would you have supported this approach against the Soviets in the eighties? Would you consider Reagan an appeaser? Honestly curious.

Rush played parts of it. If the President would hae spoken like this all along, we wouldn’t be havingg the troubles we are now.

“because the decision to not track him down symbolises the wrongness of the Bush strategy. ”

And that symbolizes yet ANOTHER misconception you hold. American forces have never stopped tracking me. They are unwilling and unwelcomed to take the fight into the mountainous border area of Pakistan. Are you advising W to invade Pakistan? If so. Come right out and say it. If not. Do tell how you would handle that situation.

“The relentless pursuit and apprehension of the man who orchestrated the attack on American soil ”

Continues to this very day.

“would have spoken volumes to the people in the Middle East…”

Of course it would. And when I’m brought to justice, it still will.

“instead America has veered off in a direction that is not yielding effective results.”

Chewing gum and walking at the same time is not “veering off”. Resources can and are diverted to dealing with terrorism in other nations by 1) helping the nations that are allied with the USA in support of defeating terrorists to find and eliminate terrorist threats within their borders 2) Pressuing governments to address the hives in their own countries that aren’t fully on board (like Lebanon) and 3) by holding responsible those nations that openly support terrorists (like Iraq and Afghanistan). Too tough for you to understand, I know.

“I agree that OBL is not terror incarnate and little symbolic or propaganda value would accrue if they caught him tomorrow…but Bush still brings him up so I can too.”

Lots of people “bring me up”, but you didn’t expect to be taken seriously there anyway…..

the move on Iraq was based on the belief that America should have gone farther in the first Gulf War and not on any evidence of WMD or intelligent anti-terror strategy

Mike,

Really. I’m almost afraid to ask — what makes you think so?

MikeAdamson said, lik…Bush quoted OBL in his speech. OBL said that “the third world war is raging” in Iraq. I said he claimed that as part of his propaganda effort.

Don’t forget Zawahiri. He was also quoted.

You asked “Since when does “propaganda” include going into another country and shooting at U.S. soldiers Mike?”

I think you’re saying that OBL is in Iraq shooting Americans because I said OBL was propagandizing and you said proganda doesn’t include going into another country and shooting at U.S. soldiers.

Oh, I didn’t realize that you had mentioned OBL specifically in your comment. It’s not actually there, but I guess I should have just “known”.

In any regard, these two guys are at the highest echelons of power in the terrorist group of Al Qaeda. The same group, incidentally, that has poured into Iraq to fight in what you label a “distraction from the war on terror”. I’m just trying to figure out where the “propaganda” is in this one. I certainly expect a good bit of propaganda out of OBL’s mouth. No question about it. At the same time, I will take him at his word on some things that have been proven by our guys to be true, such as Al Qaeda recognizing that Iraq is central to the war against terrorism.

I wouldn’t mind the insults about my brain damage, my inability to read, my rudeness etc. except that they’re coming from someone who can’t follow a basic conversation.

Oh,..I’m following you Mike.

I’m always trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and then you pull stuff like this and all I can do is throw up my hands.

You’re surrendering. What a surprise!

Rob…I talk about bin Laden because the decision to not track him down symbolises the wrongness of the Bush strategy.

When was this decision?

The relentless pursuit and apprehension of the man who orchestrated the attack on American soil would have spoken volumes to the people in the Middle East…instead America has veered off in a direction that is not yielding effective results.

You must have a different definition of “effective” than the dictionary.

Now throw up your hands Mike.

I’m not sure there’s much more you can ask from a democratically elected leader.

Who lost the popular vote

lik…so you’re saying that OBL has been in Iraq fighting the Americans?

Oh – I didn’t realize that OBL was the only terrorist targetted in the war! Thanks for the correction!

Excellent speech. I think this will go a long way in the effort to unite Americans around the cause for freedom in Iraq.

Why should the President cater to those who feels are wrong?

I wouldn’t expect him to cater but I would expect him to try to persuade…I’m questioning whether those who don’t faithfully subscribe to the program would be persuaded by the speech.

Yeah, the prez was really a uniter today as was Rummy and Cheney. Get out those war talking points. I think this will also be a blip in the polls. The citizens are already hardened in their position and calling them immoral and stupid won’t bring anyone around to his way of thinking. Olberman was spot on with his response to Rummy.

Whistler,

Nice shot… mid-forehead, right between the eyes.

lik said

Don’t forget Zawahiri. He was also quoted.

I know…that’s why I referred to more than one terrorist. Adding an ‘s’ to a noun pluralises it so when I say “the terrorists” quoted by Bush”, you can safely assume that I am talking about more than one.

Oh, I didn’t realize that you had mentioned OBL specifically in your comment. It’s not actually there, but I guess I should have just “known”.

I did not mention OBL specifically in that comment but what a lot of people would do in that situation is refer to the excerpt of Bush’s speech which can be found in Rob’s original post and find out exactly who “the terrorists quoted by Bush” are. That is where you will find vin Laden specifically mentioned.

Oh,..I’m following you Mike.

No you’re not.

When was this decision?

Late in 2005 apparently. I note from this article that there is disagreement as to whether disbanding the unit dedicating to finding OBL means America is backing off so you are welcome to disagree with or criticise my interpretation of the government’s move.

Now throw up your hands Mike.

It was late and I was tired. I can see from your comments that you still can’t follow what i wrote last night but c’est la vie.

Rob…my mind is quite open but I just don’t have the faith or belief in Bush’s approach that you have.

lik said

Why would he try to persuade people who already view the situation as “faith”. What a waste of time that would be.

Agreed but it’s not the faithful he needs on his side but those who doubt or have lost their faith. He needs them back because he’s the President and his job is to rally the country and he needs them back for the election this year.

MikeAdamson said, lik…I appreciate your efforts at civility but you’re not making much sense. Take a step back from the ideological slugfest and think about some of my points objectively.

I’ve looked at the “Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror” point objectively. I found it to be full of shit in light of the fact that terrorists themselves see it as a war against them.

As for the terrorists Bush quotes as believing Iraq to be central to the struggle, I think you could put their comments down to propaganda…you don’t really believe everything they say I’m sure.

Since when does “propaganda” include going into another country and shooting at U.S. soldiers Mike? That’s not “propaganda”, that’s an action of war. Muslim terrorists seem to know this already. You deny that it is even happening.

Perhaps you need to apply the same standards to yourself and step back from “the ideological slugfest” as you put it.

Would you have supported this approach against the Soviets in the eighties? Would you consider Reagan an appeaser? Honestly curious.

Different enemy. The commies actually wanted to live. Despite the massive killings that go on in every communist country, by and large, “Mutual Assured Destruction” works.

Can you say the same about today’s enemy?

lik…I appreciate your efforts at civility but you’re not making much sense. Take a step back from the ideological slugfest and think about some of my points objectively. The President needs the support of your country right now and while you can talk about biased media and biased polls the fact remains that Bush has lost mementum and he needs to get it back. As for the terrorists Bush quotes as believing Iraq to be central to the struggle, I think you could put their comments down to propaganda…you don’t really believe everything they say I’m sure.

Mike just what exactly don’t you buy about the war for Iraq and the war against Islamic terrorists?

Rob, how are we trying to address the root causes in the war on terror?

HG…I found the possibility that Saddam had WMD plausible although the hard evidence for it was certainly lacking. Given that Al Qaeda perpetrated 911 I believe they were the appropriate target…the move on Iraq was based on the belief that America should have gone farther in the first Gulf War and not on any evidence of WMD or intelligent anti-terror strategy…IMO of course.

You’re right that Bush needs momentum right now, Mike, but he believes what he’s saying. That’s important to remember. He’s not just saying things to appease voters, which is what I think much of the Democrat opposition to the war is based on. Most of them voted for the war, now they’re against it because they think it gives them an edge.

the war in Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror.

No, it’s a part of the war on terror. One part is the intelligence part. Detecting/thwarting/disrupting terrorism. The other part is changing the oppression in the middle east by toppling the oppressors.

Mike thinks we can topple oppressors through diplomacy and encourage toward change. I think anyone who has observed how diplomacy and encouragement worked with Saddam Hussein (and how it is working with Iran) knows that it is a fool’s errand.

But Mike’s a good guy anyway, misguided as he is.

Rob…my mind is quite open but I just don’t have the faith or belief in Bush’s approach that you have.

To be fair, don’t tie the approach to Bush. I support Bush because he supports this approach, but I’d just as happily support Howard Dean if he were advocating for actually trying to fight the terrorists rather than appease them with diplomacy that has failed time after time in the past.

Mike, I have found your need to concentrate on OBL troublesome.

Islamic terrorism doesn’t begin and end with OBL. Outside of a few communications to his followers, that dude is marginalized in a cave. The war in Iraq is about root causes. All we can do with OBL is stop any plots he and his fellow monsters might be planning.

If we want to solve Islamic terrorism we liberate the middle east.