crwtom

It's called self-control -- not losing it in a moment of pressure. Would be a nice thing if a commander in chief (or his vice) had at least a minimal amount of that quality (since this is kind-of expected from a few other subordinate officers). Those adolescent compulsive outbreaks are not too encouraging though. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

whoever is better and more successful at what they're doing, and whoever is more pragmatic and thoughtful in their approaches. I don't judge people by cliches but everyone individually by their own record and capabilities. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

so the reason for the war was humanitarian now? If that is really the main priority for employing US military and financial resources those 150'000 or so troops should be standing in various countries in Africa, plagued by genocides, civil wars, their own brutal dictators, and the corruption and warlordism that exacerbate famines and epidemic diseases, all of proportions far beyond those in Iraq. Also, the theory of a "humanitarian motivated war" (intriguing phrase) in Iraq is not consistent with the obvious blunders and lack of thought or care in the post-war security planning. Basic international law states that an occupational force must do all necessary to ensure security for citizen and provide the infra structure for their survival. The troop strength was just enough to take Baghdad and a couple more cities. It was not enough to even control all cities in Iraq - not to mention to provide public safety in them. All that flying in the face of several expert estimates of nearly three times the needed amounts of troops to provide post-war stability and thus fulfill international law. (On top of that the admin went against several advices not to disband regular Iraqi army and security force - now to be "flip-flop-reversed" with a vengeance). Not only violence by insurgent's attacks but far more than that ordinary crime is taking its toll in lives - Iraqi public safety become especially troubling for women. Some people even calculated that the number of killings per day caused by the war and its consequences still exceeds the number of killings per day caused by the injustices of the Saddam regime. (I don't have the time to redo the science but it seems to be in the ballpark at least) Given that Iraq did not appear to be the greatest existing or impending humanitarian catastrophe and that one could make the case that the admin policy essentially broke international law on a crucial humanitarian safety issue I cannot see much plausibility in the idea that the admin was driven by humanitarian reasons to go to war. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

so what do you make of millions of married atheists and agnostics. ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

actually we're at 890 for US casualties and over 1000 for the coalition. The present tactics of the insugents/terrorists is quite clear. The hostage takings and blackmailing are very disproportionally directed at the few allies the US has rather than the US itself. The goal is obvious - to isolate the US or at least US/UK from everyone else. The reason is equally clear. A unilateral force in iraq is favorable for these groups - it makes it possible to advertise neo-colonialism, influence public opinion, denounce legitimacy as well as recruit new fighters into their ranks. If you think about those in the Bush admin who were strongly advocating unilateralism (s/a Cheney) w/o UN backing were thus the ones giving those terror groups a good head start in this respect. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

To say that the Spanish "let the terrorists win" in the elections (or the like) is tempting, but also grossly oversimplifying. It is really false to say that the Madrid attacks changed the Spanish's attitude towards the Iraq involvement. The vast majority (near 90%) of the population has always been against this war. The reason Aznar has had a chance in the elections was because the focus of the public had shifted to other issues over the year. So the Madrid attacks did not change public opinion but the public focus. The second more important factor that really did Aznar and the Populists in was that they hastily tried to pin the attacks on ETA despite the fact that it had AlQuaeda written all over it (simultaneous attacks, large scale civilian casualties, ...). It is not hard to imagine that they'd much rather have the home grown ETA be the culprits, than looking like the ones that had invited foreign terrorists to their home country thanks to a policy that went massivly against public opinion. That really brought out in how much opposition and how much on the defensive the government was against the public at least on this issue. Certainly enough to tip the scale in an election. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

don't know about Rice but the others are all to one extend or another pro-choice - in a campaing so harshly driven by pounding on "moral values" (whatever that's supposed to mean) none of them has a snowball's chance in hell ... Rice, incidentally, would get fried alive for botching seriously the coordination of state dept, DoD, NSC, and Veep office. At the very least Armitage was very harshly critical of her. She'd also get a lot of heat for making AMB treaties with Russia (... and I shit you not!) a far higher priorioty than fighting Al Quaeda before the attacks - contrary to the advices of the previous admin and numerous high-up security experts. The only thing she's going for her is that Bush feel comfortable and unintimidated by her when she coaches him in foreign policy (sheesh!). If you're feeling uncomfy with Cheney - well then that's just tough luck. He's stands right at the core of this year's GOP campaign. Better get used to it. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

rubbish - entirely impossible Bush and Cheney have been telling me repeatedly that we have become much safer because of the Iraq war. You must have your facts wrong. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

lying - maybe not superficial and not on top of his game - anytime if you're happy with a slam dunk gesture without cross-examination and don't get puzzled and inquisitive that every other intelligence agency in the world appears to come up with different threat assessment for a decision of this magnitude you're either a pretty sloppy mind or simply cherry picking. Definitely not an indication of sound leadership. Incidentally, if Tenet managed to survive for this long and Rumsfeld escaped Abu Ghraib without much of a scratch, what makes people think Bush will replace Cheney as Veep in the last minute? Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

What's the highets institution in this country (or any democracy): The People .... They are the employer of any president. ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

As you correctly guessed my major is not "Spell-Checker" - thanks for doing the honors. all else stands as is. ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

nope - that's the office he'd turned down for the baseball job. when I taught for a few years at one of those two I met a lot of brilliant students - ceratinly a majority - but there was also a group of students that I couldn't understand what they were doing in college at all. A C-average would ceratinly singled those out. I'd consider an A-student from a regular state university with some serious majors to be stronger any time. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

as opposed to someone who would have prefered to become baseball commissioner over runing for public office? - man, why didn't anyone give him the ball-playing job - would've saved us a lot of head-aches. whatever one may think of lawyers - you can become one only if you're able to string up a couple of logical thoughts, can anitcipate ramifications of your actions at a minmal level of compexity, and be patient enough to read a document that is longer than half a page and contains more than a bumper sticker bottom line. All qualities that might come in handy for a president. Cheers, Thomas ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

of course the GWB campaign will start the McCain twsit now (Edwards only second choice blah blah - not that McCain would have agreed to be Veep of the cadidate of his own party - or that GWB would have even dared to ask) Here's what McCain had to say about Edwards and his book http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/04/07/ana04009.html ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

Yes, of course. It doesn't have anything to do with the crusades of the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. i'm sure those in the muslim world on the verge will fully understand that. ... perhaps even better than I do. ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

this vocabulary - crusades and crusaders- is, of course, by courtesy of GWB AQ must be loving this guy ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

at least the Kerry's campaign isn't making these kinds of association - on the other hand Bush has no problems with that: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8223-2004Jun26.html ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

for the most part it did happen - far more WMD's were destroyed during weapons inspections process 91-98 than in the first Gulf war. The 98 bombings under Clinton (using knowledge about the locations due to the previous inspections) finished off much else. There was practically zero further eradication of WMD's during or after the 03 Iraq war. Like it or not - in terms of numbers WMD of destroyed, the UN inspections were far and away the most effective tool and the last Iraq war the least effective. In fact there's no evidence to prevent the assertion that UN sactioned or guided actions were essentially 100% effective in the destruction of WMDs in Iraq. the UN gave broad support in the first Gulf War and the Afghanistan Invasion. Obviously they don't have a military of their own that compares to that of the US - but in view of the facts it be sheer nonsense to say they cut and run whenever there's a conflict. US policy was very much part of that management. And I have a hard time seeing the unilateral management right now to be anymore effective. The "difficulties" (to put it politely) have caused enough cold feet in DC that they tucked their tails and went back to Brahimi. Hating the UN is a hobby of the PNAC people. It is in their way of America "boldly asserting her dominance and intersts in the world" (that should be very close to an actual quote of theirs). Sinking the reputation of the organisation (once created foremost on initiative of the US) rather than improving it is a sport for them. Their worst nightmare was that the negotiation in March 03 would actually succeed - and panicked when they nearly did. ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

yeah - right ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

The problem was that there was not one policy in the Admin during the time. There was one wing that preached unilateralism right from the get go - Cheney was quite unambiguously outspoken for action without UN or allies already in summer 2002. The UN track was sought to appease the state department, and the "moderate" supporters in congress and the US public. The possibility that the UN track during March03 would lead to agreements and success put the hard liners in a state of panic - when the French and Russian thought about shortening the Blix stint to those 6 or so weeks it was red alert for them and time to push the Pres hard. Why else would a Secretary of Defense broadly insult exactly those nations that the Secretary of State is in the process of trying to broker a deal with at the same time. All that ceratinly didn't reflect well on the one guy who should have had the reins in his hands and dictated a coherent policy - but instead just sort-of "floated" with the events and power struggles. Guess that wasn't quite the "humble nation" thing he once though he could put up with. T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

hard to tell and I'll violate your 3-sentence rule. Polls (including Nader) have the two main candidates changing leads from week to week and from poll to poll. It just depends on what's in the news at the moment (it appears patriotic feelings around the Reagan funeral gave Bush a boost in the last week that reverted to a Kerry lead this week amidst bad news from Iraq). Last minute events - caputure of ObL etc - could of course create unexpected upsets. Disregarding those, however, I'd say time is working against the incumbent. Iraq is will continue to be a source of bad news - unless there is a drastic change in the current frequency of fatalitues the number of US casualties will break or get close to the 1000 mark by November, and the vileness of attacks of attacks and executions over time will create more disgust than partiotism (recall one of the reasons Carter got booted out of office was b/c many thought the Iranian hostages were a humiliation of the country). The economy has recovered some - however, on the basis or "loan" of very low interest rates. Inevitably they are going to come up and will so sooner than later - the "loan" has to be payed back slowing everything down to possibly a near stagnation. My guess is everything will stay roughly at the level it is now for quite a while. In fact the SP500 is flatlining already for a couple of months. Things are better than the baisse of the war-time recession but still below the pre-9-11 levels. Ambivalence will be the bottom line. The scale is tipped by how the deficit is "communicated" in the campaign. The polling results on "election match-ups" are highly volatile but in average in a something near a "dead-heat" tie between the cadidates. If you look closer though into sub categories (strongly support vs somehat support) most polls tell you that Kerry support is significantly less ambivalent. Two things, I'd consider results of that, are the fact that recently the Kerry campaign is outperforming the "fundraising master" Bush, and that a major blunder of the Admin in the fall could more easily prove fatal for them. The Nader effect is pretty significant in a close election like this. Coming back to the 1980 election I remembered a lot of people got hyped about the independent back then - Anderson, I think. I also rememebr many people switching their votes from Anderson to Carter in the last minute to make their votes count toward what they thought was the "lesser of two evils" - there's some psychology when push come to shove on election day and you have to decide whether you want to make a statement or a difference. The same may happen here. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

there's been in fact a curt statement that there's been no link by the WH sometime last year. It appears it went largely unnoticed. Whatever the WH said, for a long time around three quarters of Americans thought there was a link. The efforts of the Admin to rectify this gross misperception in the US public were less than impressive. Wonder why ... The Iraq war has become a black hole that is eating away on military resources, lives, treasure, and US legitimacy more than anything else. The only thing I can conclude from that is that AlQuaeda is a second priority behind the distant first Iraq. After 9-11 this is not how I would set priorities. blues, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[ You want us to give money to the government of Sudan? [\quote] I guess than the only thing to do is to go to war with Sudan - right? Let's say we really have to - things go south there, radical elements replace the government (that's already been openly sympathetic to AlQuaeda), and/or the genocide against the southern population gets "unbearable". ... would our previous Iraq adventure put us in a better position to do so or not? *** BTW, Iraq DID engage in the development of WMD's and DID have ties with Al Qaida. [\quote] Sure we can go to war with all and everyone who is "evil" by some standard. With all however there is a price tag - militarily, politically, financially, human cost etc. . So you may want to pick your fights wisely and think about the ramifications of what you do. Just to stick with the Sudan-Iraq comparison, Sudan was the host country to Usama bin Laden and his network until 1996 much like the Taliban in Alfghanistan right after that. You can be sure that there are still plenty of radical islamic groups in the Sudan. I have a hard time understanding how a couple of inconclusive meetings with Iraqis can measure up to this degree of AlQuaeda collaboration. I think we had much bigger fish to fry. Also as to WMD's Iraq was certainly not the only "green" one on that map. Much more dangerous and likely sources of nuclear technology for the "evil guys" are the much less controlled former Soviet republic, North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan. Similar for chemical ones for which, e.g., Syria has a known (and not just vaguely suspected) arsenal. It is hard to understand what makes Iraq the far and away the number one among these. What is clear, however, is that Iraq has been a pet cause of many of the people through out the 90's with all the pamphlets posted to their NAC web pages etc.. 9-11 should have prompted a serious reevaluation of priorities in a very complex new war. Instead an "old hat" was brought from the backburner and the US military used as a "silver bullet" that was supposed to bring about the quick fix. ("Saddam"'s high name recognition came in pretty handy as well) The war on terrorism has two elements - the relentless eradiaction of the radical terrorist elements starting where they are most imminent, and second winning the battle of "Heart and minds" of the moderate islamic world. IMO we're not doing a good job at either. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

There is massive evidence that a lot of terrorism and terrorist groups originated from saudi arabis. There is plenty of evidence that saudi arabia has been dragging their feet big time going after them. the stability of the saudi government is in the balance as well - the future of the house of saud less than certain. The alternatives are their versions of Talibans or radical Califates. Expect a "welcome back home" party for Usama. The pet project of W just north of the border certainly didn't help stabilization - the recent frequency of terror acts on saudi arabian soil and the chatter of a revolution are unprecendented. Should push come to shove the adventure of GWB in Iraq would but the US also in a terrible bind. Military, financial and other resources are tied up there. More importantly, occupying or taking control of a second arab country would seal the reputation of the US as an insatiable colonial power. Already quite stimulated Al Quaeda recruitement would skyrocket. So much for the "battle for hearts and minds". true - the 1993 attempted attack on Bush senior for which there was US retliation. That's the extend to which evidence direct involvment and planning exist. Moreover minor financial support for Palestinian Hezbollah since Saddam and Isreal were obviously at bad terms and, finally, the supposed meetings between Iraqi secret service and AlQuaeda, which according to 9-11 report remained just that - a meeting. (As far as I understand Putin's remakrs were in reference to no more than general "chatter" but not concrete plots or any tangible evidence) Tallying this up Iraq would make somewhere between #8 and #12 on a watch list of nations with terrorist problems that need to be dealt with. (and "dealing with" can mean many things - NOT just "invasion"). Unfortunately elevating it up to a distant #1 front runner has cut us out of resources and opportinuites dealing with those. Many of 150'000 (or so) troops tied down in Iraq on could now be combing the border mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Some others special forces may control no man lands near the former Soviet republics - where one may fear material from old Soviet nuclear and chemical stockpiles to be smuggled through. Financial aid against the famine and security forces could have been used in Sudan, which DID have close Al Quaeda ties and DID engage in the deleopment of WMD's, in order to stabilze and prevent it from slipping back into "old habits". Foremost, however, the enormous outpuring of good-will and assurances for help eerywhere in the world right after the 9-11 attcks could have been used to put pressure on many government that were either lax or latently suppotive to terror groups. For example, in those days the streets of Theeran filled with spontaneous demonstrations of sympathy for the US of A. Somehting that could've easily been used to the pressure Iranian government in collaboration and proactive crack-downs on terrorist groups. Similarly, for Suadi Arabia, Syria, Lybia, Palestinians, etc. With the handling of the "Get Saddam" project all that sympathy and the moral high ground (in the international perception) have been royally sqaundered. Unique chances are irreparably down the tubes. Yeah, I guess the guys in DC are fighting a war on terror - but sometimes I'm puzzled whose side they're fighting on. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

a recent suggestion I saw was to put Reagan on a Trillion Dollar bill - convenient change to pay off national deficits. T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true