"the Hunt for Osama bin Laden"

Also, as we have learned, nobody in the CIA can speak Arabic.

"That we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war."

So his argument against Kerry is that Kerry sees terrorism as a criminal act, rather than an act of war. First of all, I doubt Kerry believes that, because "war on terror" has become the dominant metaphor that all right-thinking people believe in. But haven't events shown national army mobilization to be exactly the wrong response? A cold-war military apparatus responding to box cutters? Shouldn't phone tapping, sneaking around, and creative diplomacy be the main M.O. for this struggle?

Fucking sickening.

Similar points made by military affairs analyst William Arkin: Five Big American Blunders in Terror War.

Another metaphor, although not a recognized cliche, could be .. Someone drove the car into a ditch, and now we're stuck. Maybe he should move over so someone else can drive.

So who was in power last time you were hit...?

I share the outrage over Cheney's statement. But his administration's obsessive insistence that terrorism isn't crime is just baffling.

When the The Carlyle Group and/or the Military-Industrial Complex wanted a forward position in the Middle East, it first set up shoppe in Saudi Arabia. When it became untenable to maintain its forward positions there (see: 9/11), the TCG/MIC went with the next best thing: Iraq.

"...America no longer needs Saudi Arabia militarily and oil from Iraq and the Caspian Sea will eventually reduce Saudi influence in Opec..."

Even if gargantuan stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons were found in Iraq marked with first-class postage to al-Qaeda, what would be accomplished by sending in the Marines aside from forcing those weapons even farther into the unaccountable black market underground than they are already, or even provoking their use?

Those right on the right side of the aisle will drape any number of quixotic (noble?) reasons over Iraq, but the fact remains that the only building protected upon the arrival of US forces in Baghdad remains the Ministry of Oil.

2+2=5

or even better

"DON'T CROSS THE STREAMS!" - Ghostbusters

The neocon perspective is not that the war on terror can be waged in a traditional (i.e., tanks and troops) manner. The neocon perspective is that the war on terror must be waged in a traditional manner: the only way to teach, as George W. Bush so eloquently put it, "...Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned" people autonomy and freedom (i.e., democracy and Christianity) is through force.

The "enemies [of the US] cannot be negotiated with...[the US] has to win militarily, and decisively so...[because] Arab cultures despise weakness in an adversary above all."

Among the smoked and mirrored reason(s) Wolfowitz, Perle, et al would give you is that, "the world consists of a permanent struggle between the forces of good and evil, light and dark (an idea which incidentally accords very well both with the thinking of the Christian Right, not to mention of Bush himself)."

It doesn't matter that we can't win the "war on terror" the way we're waging it - efficacy is not a bone neocons or Christian fundamentalists wish to pick. As long as it appears we (good) are not weak in the face of evil, and "those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world" - that's good enough for the ideologies of the present administration and its neo-conservative cabal.

Overly simplistic, easily digested and wholly unsatisfying, no?

Or perhaps I'm not following you? Putting large numbers of troops/vehicles on the ground in Afghanistan was unnecessary (particularly after extensive bombing campaigns) b/c the U.S. wasn't fighting a standing army.

When I say "traditional" I'm thinking U.S. armed forces (up to and including special ops) whereas to be truly effective against an organization/ideology like AQ, one might be better fighting a covert war - unfortunately the type that doesn't make for very good cable news fodder, and therefore doesn't give one re-election campagin footage.

"Putting large numbers of troops/vehicles on the ground in Afghanistan was unnecessary (particularly after extensive bombing campaigns) b/c the U.S. wasn't fighting a standing army."

is true. Kabul seems like the only halfway "safe" place in the country, due to the presence of international troops, and as we all know it's not particularly safe. Also I'm not sure that the Taliban didn't consist of something approximating a standing army, if not a bit rag-tag (should that make a huge difference?). I dunno.

However, full disclosure among nations can remain covert minus loose lips. In other words, if intelligence agents act responsibly, we'll never know about it or we'll only know about it when we need to so as to not compromise existing operations.

To your point, I feel it is wholly irresponsible of the Bush admin. or any admin. to release terrorist capture information or raising and lowering the Homeland Security code. Again, it makes for good TV, but for lousy, long-term efficacy.

Note, too, that DHS announcements "coincidentally" come at politically sensitive times (see the 'terror' warning Ashcroft but Ridge didn't know about soon (if not immediately) after Kerry's selection of Edwards as his running mate).

At present the terror war is about getting Bush re-elected and whatever his admin. can do to convince you (like appearing on TV often) that he's not only waging it, but waging it effectively, it matters not just how (in)effective he is.

Afghanistan is a mess of unfinished business. The US wasn't done doing its job (per its responsibities according to the Geneva Conventions) - and as many Afghanis outside Kabul will readily attest - but hell will freeze over before the (U.S.) troops necessary to ensure stability, free & fair elections, and a dent in the opium trade will arrive.

US armed forces are spread too thin in Iraq (oil) and as a result Afghanistan (no oil), as a nation, is all but forgotten.

If the intelligence community isn't held accountable and if the public isn't aware of actions based on that intelligence, it seems like there could be problems: reliability of sources (cf. Chalabi), pre-emptive action that the public might not support (cf., plans for regime change in Iran, Syria...), etc. On the other hand, maybe this is the way foreign policy is conducted now, and we only become aware of it through abuses or failures.

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200601090808.asp

I read that article in the new Vanity Fair about the 'real' Osama and close friends said he was really into western movies and Bruce Lee as a youth. He actually visited the US once, bringing his oldest son for medical treatment.

http://www.krysstal.com/images/club_arsenal.gif