All you've done here is make some VERY broad insinuations- so broad in fact that I can't make heads nor tails out of most of what you intend to be not-quite accusing the Bush administration of.

Now, I will certainly grant you that we were understandably but totally wrong to have ever supported the Hussein regime. I know that going on about that gives naysayers of the Bush administration great pleasure, but I fail to see how that is any kind of argument against our current actions- though I do hope that we've learned a lesson about supporting evil thugs. Go forth and sin no more, as Jesus told the woman at the well.

Indeed, our bad history in Iraq is one of the reasons why it was incumbent upon us to go in and clean up the mess that we in some small part contributed to making.

I know also that pinkos get themselves aroused going on about the supposed evils of Halliburton, but this latest story was NOTHING. They didn't overcharge the government at all. STORY HERE.

Basically, some Pentagon auditor noticed high prices for hauling gas from Kuwait into Iraq. Well, yeah. That was the going market price after competitive bidding. It's a war zone, and it costs extra to get someone to drive tankers full of gasoline through all the evil terrorists/"resistance fighters." Duh.

Finally, no one has said that the war on terrorism was over and done with when we caught Saddam. The administration was quite eager not to overplay this, and certainly refrained from anything that could reasonably be described as "gloating." Indeed, catchin Bin Laden would not mean the end.

Catching Saddam made the world a little bit safer, and makes Iraq significantly safer. That leaves a long ways to go. No one is saying otherwise.

Basically, you're trying to set the bar to perfection- anything less than total elimination of the problem of terrorism constitutes abject failure. That's a satisfying little parlor trick for whiners wanting to carp, but is less than impressive to those who just want to do the best we can to make us safer in the real world.

No.

Because quite simply "THE WAR ON TERROR" is never going to be won.

That is why it's all so silly.

It's like trying to win "THE WAR ON DRUGS", "THE WAR ON PORNOGRAPHY", or "THE WAR ON HOMOSEXUALS". The are things people chose to do.

So long as there are people who are unhappy with their situation and feel powerless to do something about it, so long as there are loonies, cults, religion, and politics, there is going to be someone out there who is going to resort to violence of a most heinous kind to get their way.

More what I am saying is that by keeping the public in fear and always diverting attention from the real issues, you have a better chance of remaining in power.

"understandably but totally wrong" <--That is illogical... no matter what. He was using WMD then against Iran... But I guess because it was against Iran, then that makes it the understandable part. The fact that he didn't stop when the United States asked him to made it "totally wrong", I guess.

The election year is about to kick into gear... the more terrified you keep the public and the more you make like you are the only one who can save them, the easier it is to gain control. The funny thing about terror is this: the reason why these people hate us has nothing to do with Bush, Clinton, Bush, Regan, but the fact that we are Americans. If we don't address the core issue why this is going on, its not going to matter who is president because these people are attacking the United States and not The President of the United States.

I think this quote from the evil Nazi Hermann Goering applies:
"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ..Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

And from Hitler:
"Brutality is respected. The people need wholesome fear. They want to fear something. They want someone to frighten them and make them shudderingly submissive."

Now, I am not big on conspiracy theories . . .

Could've fooled me. And what a load of crap it was.

So long as there are people who are unhappy with their situation and feel powerless to do something about it, so long as there are loonies, cults, religion, and politics, there is going to be someone out there who is going to resort to violence of a most heinous kind to get their way.

So . . . we shouldn't do anything at all about that? We shouldn't at least try to prevent those loonies from doing something? Because that's what you're saying - because the war on terror can never be won, we should just forget about fighting against it.

At least, I think it's interesting. Don't you?

Not really. Not even coincidental, actually. I do, however, think it's fascinating that anti-Bush people will cobble together even the most extremely tangential facts in an attempt to show a conspiracy in the works. All it does it make you look like a paranoid loonie. Tinfoil-hat time.

This is one of those times when I would like to ask what you people think Al Gore would have done? I don't know for sure, but I don't think after 9/11 he would have sat on his hands. I just question whether some of you people would disagree if it were a democrat doing the decision-making.

“I know that going on about that gives naysayers of the Bush administration great pleasure. . .”
What the hell does this mean? Are we supposed to be reveling in joy and pleasure every time that we contemplate the corruption that is everywhere in our government? If this were so, then I would be a happy man. But I’m not anxiously awaiting the next time that corruption is exposed—I’d rather it didn’t exist at all. But it seems that you propose that the actions of our government not be questioned at all. Yep, that is a recipe for a safe world. Thomas Jefferson said, “Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights." And, “I know of no safe depository of the ultimate power of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.”

Victoria raised some questions. I don't think that we can know for sure if the connections reveal something, but it's worth looking into them some more.

Let’s be clear on something: Halliburton is in a position to overcharge our government on everything it is doing in Iraq. The same is true of the other companies that are getting our money to rebuild Iraq. That is what we open ourselves up to when we give contracts away without fair competition for the bid (see http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16901). Duh. Fortunately, new contracts are about to be bid out (see http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031211/pl_nm/iraq_contracts_usa_dc_5). Had nobody complained (or been “whiners” as it was put), maybe there would not have been competitive bids this soon. Another Jefferson quotation: "I hope we shall take warning from the example of England and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our Government to trial and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

It’s nice to see you labeling (“pinkos,” “a paranoid loonie. Tinfoil-hat time,” “you people” (you’re with us or you’re against us?)) and assuming (I, for one, don’t like Al Gore). I hate pink. Consider this label: mindless, unquestioning supporter of the fascist, fundamentalist, fanatical right. Does this label sum up who you are? My point is that labels are crutches for weak arguments (this, too, was a Hitler tactic: “The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category”). Labels carry with them all sorts of assumptions and stereotypes. Stick to logic and facts—avoid generalizations and labels.

As for the Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie, it is clearly a joke. Just go to the website:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html
I apologize to all whose arguments have been foolishly dismissed by reference to this. I just like to make jokes from time to time on my weblog. That does not mean that the validity of the points being raised are questionable or that the points themselves are loony.

If you question anything, you must be a loonie.

Didn't you get the memo? ;)

Question everything and anything... esp where there is so much to be gained and so much to be lost.

Oh... by the way... anyone catch this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3348041.stm

Well, they are French so they must be wrong.

The most laughable part:

"US Homeland Security officials are reported to be upset that the flights were canceled so publicly.

An unnamed official told the Associated Press news agency security forces had been "hoping that we would be able to lure some of these people in".

Terrorism expert Walter Purdy, of the Terrorism Research Center in the US, told BBC News the intelligence could have been better used to arrest the suspects at the airport.

He said: "Unfortunately now these individuals can still carry out this type of attack, though not on Air France or out of Paris."

Hello, Dumbasses... Maybe you should not have raised the "terror alert" and instead just informed federal and local governments.

It's like having a bank and you know there is going to be a robbery so you announce to everyone "This bank might be robbed as that we have heard it was going to be."

Only a moronic bank-robber is going to still rob that bank.

"If you question anything, you must be a loonie."

I would say if you question EVERYTHING, you must be a loonie.

Well thank god that

Issac Newton
The Wright Brothers
Albert Einstein
Galileo
Christopher Columbus
The guy who discovered fire
etc...

Didn't really care when I few people called them loonie.

Some are born to lead. Some are born to follow, some go it alone. Thus is the way of the world.

Craig: "you people think ..."

What "you people" is that?

Who exactly is that supposed to represent? Or not even "exactly" - what did you mean?

Was Socrates a loony?

Actually, now that I think about it, Socrates was sentenced to death for challenging the system, corrupting the minds of the young, and maybe for being a loony.

He probably was into sodomy...

And I'm sure he wasn't a Christan either... ;)

He deserved to die for his throughts! The MONSTER!

Ms Pitt, I note with approval your interests in sodomy and violence.

See, this is the kind of POSITIVE thing you should be focusing your energies on, not the cheap Bush hatin.

If I said that I wanted to violently sodomize Bush with my strap on, would that be even MORE positive? ;) =)

Can I watch?

No... no watchers....

But I'm all about the communal experience. You can join if you like! More than enough to go around!

Victoria! NOW you're promoting some community spirit!