well said and timely, Temple...

thanks for the read

Excelsior!

Did you write "Constitution terrorists"?

Shall we call that:

A) "phrasing terrorism";
B) "a grammatical holocaust;" or
C) "political blog raping"?

Was some of this inspired by John Lennon?

Imagine that!

Excelsior!

This is great Temple. We need more of this and less of the "Data mining is good for you" kind of thinking.

If thinking it really is.

Here... sheepy sheepy sheep!

All right then, then it's time to find a solution that 51 percent of the nation can get behind: Curb terrorism without "stomping on the Constitution."

And .... green flag racing.

I'll get the ball rolling by starting off small:

1. Free sandwiches for everyone.

2. Sex on demand

3. Legalize pot

4. If you blow up a building, you have to put it back together.

I imagine we could stand a little terrorism. Thought about in purely mathematical terms even the worst terrorist attacks do a tiny fraction of the human and material damage of natural disasters and other sources of violent death - like driving cars - during the course of a year.

Ireland, England, Israel, India and now Iraq have all learned to live and have functional societies with a certain level of terrorism as an ongoing threat. We could certainly do the same.

I sometimes think that the answer is to scrap the whole defensive approach to terrorism and start over again. We just about invented terrorism during the Revolutionary War. We need to go back to that mentality and to the era of the filibusters and give up on responding to terror with traditional military action and instead respond to terrorism with terrorism. Lift the ban on assassination, switch the military to homeland defense, beef up the CIA and their auxiliaries and just start eliminating terrorist threats by whatever means are appropriate.

We keep America what it should be, preserve the constitution, and take the war to the terrorists outside our borders by the same methods they use. Something very appealing about that.

Dave

How come we are not hearing about how the President violated the Constitution rights of Muslim Americans by checking certain Muslim centers for nuclear radiation. Did I hallucinate that or was it in the news?

Do you object to that too, Temple? Or is it just the phone call monitoring?

You can't do that though, as soon as you do that, you become them, methinks, and what makes you think America will remain 'what it should be'?

Power corrupts, etc. and more relevantly, qui custodet ipso custodes

Aaman, the first and largest signature on the Declaration of Independence is the signature of the leader of a terrorist cell. We're a nation built on fighting with the resources available to us. Maybe we need to find some of those forgotten tools and put them back to use. Take the army of Timothy McVeigh's we have out there waiting to do something and put them to work for us. They may hate the US Government, but they hate outside terrorists even more.

Dave

I don't know what I fear more: the next (inevitable?) attack here in the USA or the reaction afterwards.

Aren't you fighting with your available resources now? Doesn't the US use mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you want to enlist serial killers?

Do you really believe the solution lies merely in war?

I like that new military paradigm. Covert agents should be going into mosques (or bugging them) worldwide to see who is preaching hate and terrorism. Freedom of religion stops where my nose starts. We must pressure their governments to shut them down. Extreme cases may need to wind up on mild cartons.

These people are breeding terrorists, more than we can handle. That is not religion, that is sponsoring terrorism.

So naive, and so ignorant. I wish you had grown up with Muslim friends, at the very least.

Congratulations Temple, whether you like it or not, people have read whatever they chose into your post, based on their own biases and perceptions. C'est la vie

Incidentally, neocondi, why does the US support the government of Pakistan, which has nurtured 'these people' for a long time. The new IIF is very much based in South Waziristan, and with the Lasker-e-Toiba in Muridke. Why aren't they shut down?

#17 It is as it is.

Indeed. As Sussman alludes (crustless sandwiches is my choice or Blunderford's buy something from Victoria Secret online (it has to be online because I've bought in the store and I didn't get the catalogue)), I'm trying to find the level of inconvenience we have in this country. Because I need to know who, shall we say to be polite, have cowardly tendencies.

Who needs to be calmed when the shit hits the fan.

Dave is going directly against what he usually comments about elsewhere. Yawn. SO what else is new. It's a bald attempt to try and have it both ways; trying to pander. Yawn. So what else is new?

TS - That's funny!

Seriously!

"Because I need to know who, shall we say to be polite, have cowardly tendencies."

As one example.

Oops, just lost my nice detailed response. No matter, anyone with half a brain can figure things out. Anyone who thinks that Islam is not the major problem (poor East Indian Hindus are not beheading Christian schoolgirls) has their head really far up their colon.

We know, not every single Muslim is a terrorist. Really? Duh, I though there were a billion terrorists! But most ARE either terrorist sympathizers or apologists to one degree or another. The polls tell the story, they like Bin Laden. Why else would you like Bin Laden, his sense of humor?

As for having Muslim friends, hard core Muslims are not allowed to be friends with Infidels, remember?

Actually, I'm mostly trying to provoke rather than pander.

Dave

Gosh, Temple, what an original idea. Wonder why nobody thought to ask that yet.

Think of it this way, the US was like a young and tender girl. So sweet and beautiful. We wanted to think that the whole world loved us. No one would really want to hurt us, would they?

Well, the country is not a virgin, any more. You know what they say, it never hurts so much after the first time.

The first shock has worn off and we all know it's going to happen again. We just have to keep refining our methods, looking for the best defense methods, staying on the attack wherever we can. It's going to take years.

Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps we ought to take this issue seriously? It was no fun watching the Twin Towers fall in New York, or waking up in the morning to dicover that the Murrah Federal building had been bombed.

Temple Stark is right on the instincts, but Dave Nalle's idea of taking the war to the enemy and remembering your own roots as guerilla fighters against the Brits is also right. They are two sides of the same coin of survival for your country.

Amongst the perceived enemy, you have friends - divide the enemy, and you can conquer.

But the problem has been that you Americans have not identified the enemy.

The immediate enemy - the hammer being used to hurt and threaten you - is the Wahhabi cult of Arabia, and the monarchy it has spawned, Saudi Arabia. They have taken Islam from a religion that can swing between conquest and self stuggle, and turned it into a fire-breathing monster of conquest, rape and ruination.

In other words, the enemy is not 'Islamo-fascists' or 'radical Islam.' These are mere empty phrases to deceive and mislead.

The enemy has an address - Riyadh. Turn Riyadh into a nuclear pit, and you have broken his back. You will have broken the network of funding going world-wide to madrassas to spread hatred of Christians, Hindus and Jews. You will have instilled tue fear in CAIR - that puppet group that deep in its lierature admits that it seeks to establish Islam OVER all of you in America. You will have broken the military power that advocates world conquest by Islam. You will have cut the head off of the snake.

The fact that Riyadh will be a nuclear pit will not be lost on the mad mullahs of Teheran. It will be a sudden and sharp reminder to all of what imperial power means, and just how brutally it can be applied.

The rest of the planet, which waits for America to stumble so as to kick it off the top of the hill of power, will sit up and pay attention.

The Russians will take note. They still have a large network of their own nukes and imperial ambitions of their own.

The North Koreans, who would happily outfit the missiles they have sold to the Arabs with nuclear warheads - for a hefty sum - would sit up and pay attention.

The Chinese, who have more than once openly threatened your nation with nuclear attack, will recognize that they are not dealing with a sweet virgin in the forest..

If you are indeed an empire, you had better act like one. Having cracked the whip and slit a head, you can afford to allow the Sunnis to stir in their own juice, pull out most of your soldiers in Iraq, and cultivate the true allies you have amongst the Moslems - the Sufi scholars. In many respects, they are the Moslem versions of Mahatma Gandhi.

They must be funded adequately to take over the madrassas world-wide in place of the Wahhabi puppets now there, so that they can teach a religion of self conquest - the other meaning of jihad.

Islam got where it is because of education. It can be turned from its present path through education.

But nota bene. The Wahhabis are the immediate enemy, the hammers in the hands of the true enemy. For the true enemy, you must look at the oil and banking establishment in the United States, and elsewhere, the Vatican and other places.

And please do not take me at MY word. Look up the works of Sheikh Abdulhadi Palazzi, Joel Bainerman and Barry Chamish. Google up any of them, and you will discover a wealth of information.

Ruvy: "...The immediate enemy ... is the Wahhabi cult of Arabia, and the monarchy...Saudi Arabia. They have taken Islam... and turned it into a fire-breathing monster of conquest, rape and ruination."

Oh yeah. The guys ya see holding hands with George W. Bush! IRONIC, that.

========

Also interesting:

After 9/11 -- most American's said "We'll never be the same."

"Will we ever laugh again?"

etc. etc.

And one hour into a thread regarding the government response to the deaths of 3,000 Americans, the specter of another attack, and the ongoing erosion of civil liberties -- Sussman and company feel perky, playful, and chirpy enough to make jokes.

========

re:


"1. Free sandwiches

...

4. If you blow up a building, you have to put it back together."


5. *If you want to distract from a thread while drawing attention to yourself -- at least be interesting or entertaining.



* you taught me that. heh.

BTW: I think I kinda agree with Nalle's "fight terrorist with terrorist" approach. Which, ironically, sorta implies that "police" actions, ie intelligence, secret acts, infiltration, monitoring, tracking money, arms, etc. -- is a MUCH BETTER approach than all-out land war.

ie. I remember a few years ago when the Right-Wing demagogues were MOCKING "liberals" who wanted to use "police" methods against terrorists.

Buncha anti-patriotic pussie with no stomach for an all-out invasion.

Anyway -- IRAQ IS STILL FESTERING MISTAKE and a future region-destroying civil war --- thanks very much George -- and it wasted and diverted essential resources in the REAL fight against terrorism.

Nuking Riyadh seems just a tiny bit indescriminate, Ruvy. We could probably get even better results by nuking Tel Aviv. Or to balance things out, let's nuke both.

Perhaps rather than nuking anything we should try to single out those who are our enemies, draw them into the open and then deal with them in a terminal way that is more specific.

Dave

Dave,

If you want to fight a war against savages, you can't behave like a gentleman. Pardon. You can, and live a short life. War is organized killing. The most humane war is scaring the shit out of the enemy so that they do no want to fight. Barring that, the most humane war is the one that gets the enemy to his knees - FAST.

"Drawing the enemy out into the open" is the present strategy of the State of Israel, forced down its throat by the United States. It costs Israeli lives. Too many of them. The idea that MY son should fight like a gentleman and risk his life for the sake of armchair moralists in Washington and New York leaves me less than pleased, to put it mildly.

My strategy costs NO American lives. It gets the enemy - the thugocracy of ibn Saud - to its knees FAST. It convinces folks in the Moslem Brotherhood and similar groups that opposing the US is not smart. At this point, Moslems do not put a high value on life anyway. A nuclear hit that kills millions will change their perspective on the issue.

And to top it all off - it costs very little money. I'm talking about VICTORY. I'm talking about scaring the shit out of all the folks who do not share your ideals, so that they do NOT want to fight you.

What is your problem with that, Mr. Nalle?

Ruvy,

Israel should study the history of Japan. Do you really want a totalitarian regime that exists in a state of war for a thousand years, like Japan did for most of the last millenium?

Aaman, I'm not talking about what Israel ought to do, I'm talking about what America ought to do.

As for us here, were we to adopt a nuclear strategy, it would have to be a first strike strategy; we don't have anywhere to retreat and three good size nukes would do us in anyway.

As for remaining a military garrison state, unless we pursue victory over the Arabs in a convincing way, that is what we are doomed to remain. The peaceniks here - backed by heavy European and American pressure - think that by unilateral withdrawals and other surrender techinques, they can buy peace from the Arabs. They refuse to take the Arabs seriously.

Al Qaeda, on its website, admits that ACCORDING TO THE QUR'AN we have the right to this land. Their argument is that - because we are willing to compromise on it - because we do not put G-d first - we have lost our right to the land.

But this article is not about us Israelis surviving here, it is about America ending the terrorist threat it faces.

Ruvy,

I never really brought out tactics in my post. That's really a separate discussion. I was talking about liberty vs security (you may have noticed).

If you want to talk about fighting Muslims - of course Iraq was the last place to start, wasn't it?

I din't bring up every angle because then I would be writing many books on the subject. Right?


My preference would have been to kill Osama bin Laden; to decimate the camps and kill as many of them as possible. It was a war and we would have had both the practical and moral high ground.

No disrespect, but I don't want Americans to live like Israelis - in fear of death at every waking moment.

"No disrespect, but I don't want Americans to live like Israelis - in fear of death at every waking moment."

I guess that is why I brought up tactics, Temple. Just discussing liberty versus security is nice, but it is much nicer to be able to walk into a supermarket WITHOUT someone checking my wife's bag, or checking me to see if I'm carrying a weapon and have the papers for it...

That's how we live here.

That's what's coming your way if you don't identify your enemies and WIN against them.

The fear you talk about in your comment - and which is reflected in your article - is just a tiny fraction of the load of fear every Israeli steels himself to carry daily.

But Ruvy, it's not an either or.

If you look hasn't much of what's been done in the name of security been worthless? Especially as everyone seems to believe - "we'll be attacked again."

So with that inevitability, comes the question - do you live your life cowed or do you find ways to balance security and liberty without succumbing and falling on your knees to fear?

I'm not sure Israel had a choice in the matter but this seems to be the point for America where we can stop and assess the situation before our liberties erode away.

That's not to say we'll ever be a police state, but there are, internally, less painful ways to avoid it then talking a gient step forward ... off a cliff.

In other words it's not a "nice" discussion, it's a vital one that needs to happen in this country now. Because we're not in the unfortunate geography where Israel sits; though extremist Muslim hate us just as much.

OK Temple, if you want to step back and assess, assess. But at least get your enemy straight.

The immediate ones are not "extremist Moslems." The IMMEDIATE ENEMY is the Wahhabi cult that has hijacked Islam and tuned it into a religion of conquest and hate.

So, quite simply, on the home front, your efforts need to be focused on them and on those they control. They ARE the immediate enemy. So it is their liberty you want to curtail, while maintaining your own.

comment #2. Sorry just noticed.

This isn't incorrect. In my phraseology - hyperbolic a tad - These are terrorists of the Consitution, not terrorists following the constitution.

Forgive my long quotes, but a relevant poem by Langston Hughes seemed in order,

Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.

( America never was America to me.)

Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed--
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.

(It never was America to me.)

O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.

(There's never been equality for me,
Nor freedom in this "homeland of the free.")

Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark?
And who are you that draws your veil across the stars?

I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
I am the Negro bearing slavery's scars.
I am the red man driven from the land,
I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek--
And finding only the same old stupid plan
Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak.

I am the young man, full of strength and hope,
Tangled in that ancient endless chain
Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land!
Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!
Of work the men! Of take the pay!
Of owning everything for one's own greed!

I am the farmer, bondsman to the soil.
I am the worker sold to the machine.
I am the Negro, servant to you all.
I am the people, humble, hungry, mean--
Hungry yet today despite the dream.
Beaten yet today--O, Pioneers!
I am the man who never got ahead,
The poorest worker bartered through the years.

Yet I'm the one who dreamt our basic dream
In the Old World while still a serf of kings,
Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,
That even yet its mighty daring sings
In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned
That's made America the land it has become.
O, I'm the man who sailed those early seas
In search of what I meant to be my home--
For I'm the one who left dark Ireland's shore,
And Poland's plain, and England's grassy lea,
And torn from Black Africa's strand I came
To build a "homeland of the free."

The free?

Who said the free? Not me?
Surely not me? The millions on relief today?
The millions shot down when we strike?
The millions who have nothing for our pay?
For all the dreams we've dreamed
And all the songs we've sung
And all the hopes we've held
And all the flags we've hung,
The millions who have nothing for our pay--
Except the dream that's almost dead today.

O, let America be America again--
The land that never has been yet--
And yet must be--the land where every man is free.
The land that's mine--the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME--
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.

Sure, call me any ugly name you choose--
The steel of freedom does not stain.
From those who live like leeches on the people's lives,
We must take back our land again,
America!

O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath--
America will be!

Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain--
All, all the stretch of these great green states--
And make America again!

Also, possibly relevant, Dylan (Bob) mused,

Oh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side.

Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.

Oh the Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I's made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side.

Oh the First World War, boys
It closed out its fate
The reason for fighting
I never got straight
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.

When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.

I've learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war starts
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side.

But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.

In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.

So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.

#34. Surely, for the sake of discussion here Wahhabists are "extremist Moslems?"

And, of course, I agree with you - to a point. The Taliban, for example, doesn't follow the Wahhabist perversion of Islam.

On a different topic, how's the mood in Israel with the news of Ariel Sharon? A hero? Good riddance?

Aaman: I love the Langston Hughes poem - and his vision of America, the one that it's rightly famous for, and loved, worldwide. Thanks a lot for posting it. Kinda shows up that Dylan geezer too.

(nice poetry sit Aaman - thanks

troll)

Thanks Troll and Chris:)

#34. Surely, for the sake of discussion here Wahhabists are "extremist Moslems?"

No Temple - that is sloppy thinking. That is how people can lead you down the garden path of doing a great deal against an imaginary enemy, like "Islamo-fascists."

The Wahhabis are a cult that has been kicked out of Islam several times in the past - and now has the mnoney to buy the whole of the Sunni Moslem operation, lock stock and turban.

In other words, they are not Moslems at all, they are rebels who have taken over Islam.

As for Sharon, I can't give intelligent news on Israelis (who should be) sleeping. It's 3:00 in the morning here, and I just finished sending an article on this to Blog Critics.

I guarantee that there will be no more 9/11 scale attacks as long as we keep the Patriot Act and other Bush policies, though, I would feel a bit safer if we crack down on illegal immigration.

Ruvy, I agree that's it's sloppy thinking. No question. But it's not my sloppy thinking. They consider themselves Moslems; they do what they do in he name of Allah. They are Moslems in the eyes of most people; for the narrow-minded view they are the totality of Islam.

There seesm to be this strange idea that hough Christians can have 3,042 splinter groups - Anglican, First United Methodist, Pentecostal, Baptist, etc, each at different levels of adherence and their own version of God's word, that somehow Moslems are this omniscient group wih only one way of thinking about life, liberty and the pursuit of eternity.

Understanding some of this would also help NOT have a repeat attack; reasonable Moslems exist int he millions and they can be brought togther for a common cause. Isn't that the root idea behind our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I know you may be ZZZZZZZZZing now. Hope you had a soft pillow and good dreams.

Please, sncerely explain the thought process behind your guarantee Grande. You're more confident than most of those with intimate knowledge of the PATRIOT Act.

Give Temple a cookie and some cactus juice - most Muslims are sane, regular people like everyone.

There seesm to be this strange idea that hough Christians can have 3,042 splinter groups - Anglican, First United Methodist, Pentecostal, Baptist, etc, each at different levels of adherence and their own version of God's word, that somehow Moslems are this omniscient group wih only one way of thinking about life, liberty and the pursuit of eternity.

Understanding some of this would also help NOT have a repeat attack; reasonable Moslems exist int he millions and they can be brought togther for a common cause. Isn't that the root idea behind our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan?

A wise shaman like Temple deserves Peyote not cactus juice ;)

Cactus Juice IS good.

By the way, may all bow before me as the king, emperor and supreme diety of a little cult I like to call Typoism. Holy books have been attempted by true believers, but they were incomprehensible before page 3.

By the way 2 - Langston Hughes, thanks for that. Feeling lyrically delicious today, no?

now now..wel all know the king os "pyto" is my own half brother...

Typo Marx

and don't even get me started with the Esoterica of our other brother...

Crypto Marx

but i digress...

Excelsior!

"Please, sncerely explain the thought process behind your guarantee Grande."

Here is my thought process on the subject:

1. In 1998, Usama bin Laden declares war on the U.S. Clinton does nothing.

2. Because Clinton does nothing it is not much of a big surprise that we are attacked on 9/11/01.

3. During the Clinton presidency we were attacked four times (U.S.S. Cole, 1st 9/11, Embassies in Africa bombings and with the Somalia disaster). Usama got away scott free each time and EASILY carried out the next ones.


4. 9/11 happens, this is the latest of the series of easily carried out attacks by Al Quaeda. But this time Bush cracks down and does something Clinton should have done: Clean up Afghanistan and take care of Saddam.

5. For the next 4 years we have seen no more attacks. Why haven't we been attacked in these last 4 years? What happened to the EASE Osama had with the previous attacks during Clinton's years?

Gee, maybe Bush is doing something right.

"You're more confident than most of those with intimate knowledge of the PATRIOT Act."

The few with intimate knowledge with the Patriot Act aren't confident as I because IT IS THEIR JOB NOT TO BE CONFIDENT WHEN IT COMES TO OUR NATIONS SECURITY.

where's Osama?

Excelsior!

They are my mini-onions

:-)

Al these comments aren't showing up in order for me until I go away, check my e-mail, and come back. Weird.


-- missed this one - isn't "Shaman" toilet paper?


No Anthony, I said thought process, and ... Actually, just joking. Thanks for the reply.

I have one question - isn't Al Qaeda in Iraq now, attacking us? I could be persuaded that voluntary military targets are better than civilians in this case, but they ARE attacking us, now

5. Between 1994 and 2001 there were no attacks on US soil from Al Qaeda, but the group did attack - yep, a military target, as they are doing now in Iraq and Afghanistan. What's the difference in these time period?

So you feel safer is what you're saying? True, plane travel became immediately safer on 9-12 (well, when flying resumed) as passengers knew that they would never let terrorists fly into anything else if they could do anything about preventing. But that was before - barely - the PATRIOT Act was brought out and a little while before the DHS was born.

There are, hmmm, how many terrorist convinctions by the Justice Department in those five years? That's what the PATRIOT Act is designed to gather. THat and intelligence to stop future attacks.

But then, as addressed in the orginal post - why are we being force fed the idea that we're not safe, that there will be an attack? More so before Nov. 2004 than after.

Why do Senators and Reps. need to be convinced the PATRIOT Act is doing much good and that it should not, in fact be curtailed? Why isn't there clear, irrefutable and undeniable evidence to show them that the act has done as advertised - helped capture "bad guys" who threatened us.

Why, if the PATRIOT Act was so damn good, was there the extra need to circumvent the FISA Court?

That's a lot of questions, not "just one." Cactus Juice has that effect on me. Perhaps you could ask yourself some of them.


best

- Temple

Temple,

"Isn't Al Qaeda in Iraq now, attacking us?... but they ARE attacking us, now"

Then what Bush says is true, "It is better to fight them there than here."

There is a big difference between the roadside bombs and the U.S.S. Cole attack: The U.S.S. Cole is a Naval ship. In this war the Navy and our ships are not threatened what so ever.

And last time I checked the Embassies that were blown up in Kenya were not military targets.

Can you say that Bush is doing a good job pretecting us?

Not until you make a better case.

Oen that doesn't cede one of your main points that we haven't been attacked since 9-11-2001. Though thanks for the honesty on that.

Put it this way - what do soldiers say they fight for?

I would like to point out that nowhere in the Constitution is George Bush blessed with the responsibility of protecting us. That fine distinction falls to We The People (unless, of course you figure the second Amendment was just thrown in to help reach the word limit).

One problem is that, as Ruvy pointed out, we fail to recognize just who the enemy is. The friend of my enemy is my enemy. And, occupying the position of Commander in Chief of our armed forces does not shield him from any consideration that "enemies domestic" would include ANYONE with the power to harm our nation.

The erosion of our civil liberties is not a twenty-first century phenomenon. I'm sure that the framers of the Constitution would be aghast at the idea that the government would feel free to go around kicking in people's doors of that one could be imprisoned for the contents of their pockets. But, people are O.K. with this. They're happy to have the freedom to do anything they are allowed to do, as this has somehow come to be equated with liberty. Woe unto he who would engage in unauthorized activity for I need to feel safe, though I will lift no finger to protect myself.

So, we allow ourselves to be herded and protected. This is the legacy of freedom we leave to our posterity.

Well, certainly a president can become an enemy. Just the same as any American can.

Understatement there.

It's the British upbringing. I could never get that upper lip to stiffen though :-)

some starch perhaps?

or we could just crazy glue a bit of sheet metal there

if you are moustachioed then we can easily apply about a half inch of poly urethane

tha should do it

but i digress...

Excelsior!

This was an excellent article that should make a lot of people think. There are very few out there who completely reject any anti-terrorism policies that violate civil liberties.

Those who may feel and think the same way but are afraid to say so because of the fear mongering that has made such assertions unpopular need to know that they are not alone and that rejecting security measures that violate our civil liberties is not some radical "fringe element" notion.

I especially liked the part about how our leaders should seek to change the will of the majority -- without the use of fear mongering propaganda -- rather than simply pander to it.

We elect our representatives to represent our will as well as our best interests and they should uphold the latter when the former is threatening to take us in an unconstitutional, unprincipled or just plain irrational direction -- as is the case when the majority cannot rise above its fear of terrorism to see that tyranny is the greater evil.

Sadly, I believe that Temple is likely correct that another terrorist attack would break the American will. I would much rather take exception with him on that point, but I cannot find compelling evidence to support that argument.

Although I do like to think there is hope that we might someday elect a leadership that works to inspire our courage, instead of stoking our fears.

Temple. Fine start to this long, exciting argument. Needless to say I agree with you. But Aaman gets a prize for turning the argument toward trial by poetry.

If that could be continued it would be a far, far better site we have than we have ever had before. And that is called a literary illusion. Just as George Bush is really a political illusion... or allusion as the case may be.

It is almost 2 AM here so I can't write a coherent cry for freedom and constitutionalism so it is a fine thing that you already have and Aaman reminded us that Langston Hughes (and others) also cried out for freedom and against using fear and terror(ism) to build a political power base.

If only it were an illusion, but in fact it was an allusion. But here's some poetry for you.

The Fabulists

When all the world would keep a matter hid,
Since Truth is seldom Friend to any crowd,
Men write in fable, as old Aesop did,
Jesting at that which none will name aloud.
And this they needs must do, or it will fall
Unless they please they are not heard at all.

When desperate Folly daily laboureth
To work confusion upon all we have,
When diligent Sloth demandeth Freedom's death,
And banded Fear commandeth Honour's grave--
Even in that certain hour before the fall,
Unless men please they are not heard at all.

Needs must all please, yet some not all for need,
Needs must all toil, yet some not all for gain,
But that men taking pleasure may take heed.
Whom present toil shall snatch from later pain.
Thus some have toiled, but their reward was small
Since, though they pleased, they were not heard at all.

This was the lock that lay upon our lips,
This was the yoke that we have undergone,
Denying us all pleasant fellowships
As in our time and generation.
Our pleasures unpursued age past recall,
And for our pains--we are not heard at all.

What man hears aught except the groaning guns?
What man heeds aught save what each instant brings?
When each man's life all imaged life outruns,
What man shall pleasure in imaginings?
So it hath fallen, as it was bound to fall,
We are not, nor we were not, heard at all.

--- Rudyard Kipling (1918)

Temple - great post, great thread.

I was looking at your blog for your email address and didn't see it so I'll respond here re:
Hi. I saw your comment at my fotolog. Can you tell me if the page is easier to read now?Was that when you were trying to say.
I've always been a word guy, not an visual-design guy

Fixed my typo too
Scott

Terrorists: America's scariest nightmare.

Here's a riddle for you.

--I preach peace.
--I posess the most destructive weapons 'just in case'.
--I attempt to take away existent (or non-existent) WMD, to no avail, by the way from 'dangerous nations' at a huge cost to both myself and the nation in question.
--I then sit at home askin people 'who and why would anyone do such a thing to us'?

who am i?

Sadly, I believe that Temple is likely correct that another terrorist attack would break the American will.

I disagree. Another large scale attack, especially a nuclear one, would galvanize America to finally get serious about putting an end to the scourge of Islamic terrorism once and for all, along the lines that Ruvy has wisely indicated would be the only really effective way.

Another large scale attack is inevitable. Its gonna come and we all know it.
No way its over, not yet (ever?).

Heard of EMP?
I hear that [Deleted] has it. Forget nuclear attacks, imagine wiping off an american city's (or state's ) electricity, considering how practically everything in America is electrically powered.

It can happen any time any where America always has to be ready because i wouldnt be surprised if it happened again but in future at least we will be more aware

Only if the president actually reads the intel memo a month beforehand.

Only if the National Security Advisor sees fit to bring the warning to his attention.

Can we NOT give this 2006 piece a 2008 date? I'd rather not have my piece misrepresented so egregiously. What happened? Is there a reasonable explanation?

AGAIN, this piece was written in 2006 but was given a 2008 date.
AGAIN, this piece was written in 2006 but was given a 2008 date.
AGAIN, this piece was written in 2006 but was given a 2008 date.
AGAIN, this piece was written in 2006 but was given a 2008 date.
AGAIN, this piece was written in 2006 but was given a 2008 date.
AGAIN, this piece was written in 2006 but was given a 2008 date.
AGAIN, this piece was written in 2006 but was given a 2008 date.
AGAIN, this piece was written in 2006 but was given a 2008 date.
AGAIN, this piece was written in 2006 but was given a 2008 date.

TS, as far as I can tell from the tracking system that 2008 was in the title from the time it was published 2 years ago. The thread was brought back by the recent comments, not the date in the title. I've removed it so you can rest easy.

Dave