Peace and joy to you all!

Congrats on the published piece, best of luck on your press-credentialing duties at PBS.

The sticking point for me, is that terrorism is an age-old tactic, and not just the latest brand for America-haters overseas.

Just ask the McVeigh's, Unibombers and the like in our own country.

Besides, al Qaeda has plenty of hate to share with a variety of opposition, including other Islamic factions, not just us infidel Americans.

As Iraq seems to be slipping further into civil war, I'd prefer to see a migration to a perimeter U.S. defense while the Iraqi military forces take the reins internally.

I realize one annoying variable to consider in this scenario is the possible corruption, alliance to regional factions, among the Iraqi troops; but I suspect that's a continuous threat as long as there's regional civil strife [as it has been for decades before 9/11] and may be better addressed from the borders to reduce daily risk of getting caught in the crossfire for our guys. I also consider a perimeter defense a means to reduce potential "misfires" from our forces, potentially spurring adding America-hating recruits to the likes of al Qaeda.

Regardless of what happens in Iraq, at home, we need to beef up security, simple as that.

I don't see a foreseeable future with a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Middle East, but eventually many of our troops and their families will want them to come home, and to what, a still-vulnerable homeland to terrorists both domestic and foreign?

I don't care where the terrorists live or where we kill them. I'm more concerned about where I live and not being senselessly blown up by any of them.

But I do like your over-all proposal, sort of like installing a Big-Ass Fly-Catcher in Iraq.

Brandon, this has got to be one of THE most fawning pieces on Olbermann we've seen in a long while (about a week or so):
They even made Olbermann's special comment pic Black & White to hit home is "old school NEWS connections" enjoy:

Resign: Olbermann's Independence Day invective showed uncommon courage and shades of Cronkite
By MICK FARREN

http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=5791&IssueNum=214

Sorry for posting off topic Bob, I'll read your essay later.

^just so people are reminded, that many still think Olbermann is a NEWS guy...this from the above linK:

"...Olbermann suddenly does something that no other cable news anchor – and maybe no other broadcaster –..."

I suppose berating me, insulting contributors to the site and calling people names is a lot better than responding to a point so simple that even an OlbyLoon can understand it if you have an inane position on the deployment of U.S. forces to confront and defeat al Qaeda jihadis. I expect no less from you so thanks for being so predictable.

For the rest of you OlbyLoons, I would be more than happy to hear from on the rather easy question posed in the piece: given that no one is disputing that al Qaeda has a large concentration of its forces in Iraq (likely the largest such concentration in the world) why does it make sense to pull out of Iraq without having defeated them or driven them out of the country?

For extra credit, please explain when and were YOU propose that we SHOULD fight them if not Iraq?

Thought-provoking essay, Bob. I think BO'R 's position says it all; that Iraq may not have been the best battlefield chosen on which to fight the jihadists, but now that we're there, it's where we have to win (or something along those lines).

For the rest of you OlbyLoons = Insulting contributors to the site and calling people names = Hypocrisy.

>For extra credit, please explain when and were YOU propose that we SHOULD fight them if not Iraq?

Posted by: Robert Cox at July 12, 2007 3:03 PM

For extra credit, how about you spell 'where' correctly.

I just love it when an ignoramus tries to talk down to his 'audience.'

Apparently Bob has yet to figure out that this site is BETTER when he's NOT part of the discussion.

Oh please Bob, please tell us again how most of Americans are stupid, about how you are never wrong (except when it comes to things you classify as 'exotic'), and please tell us how you have the uncanny ability to control people's thoughts and actions with your (mispelled) words.

APP is right, the only thing more massive than your artificially inflated ego is your obvious jealousy of Keith Olbermann.

The fact that the Government just released a report stating Al-Qaeda is stronger than ever IN SPITE of our 'efforts' and 'casualties' in Iraq seems to fly in the face of your little 'essay.' Perhaps after reviewing ALL of the information at your disposal you will (like most of America) come to the conclusion that our presence in Iraq is actually CREATING terrorists faster than we can KILL them.

But keep on keeping on, in such a volatile world, I'm sure the facts will fit your POV eventually.

> You have the uncanny ability to control people's thoughts and actions with your (mispelled) words.

FYI, you misspelled "misspelled".

Classic.

Dear Evil and Dumb,

You wrote "our presence in Iraq is actually CREATING terrorists faster than we can KILL them"

I don't know about that but lots of people have lots of theories about WHY al Qaeda has such a large prescence in Iraq. Yours is one. There are others. What I do not hear you disputing is that al Qaeda has massed its forces in Iraq.

So, once again, given that al Qaeda has a large number of its forces in Iraq what do you propose the President do about it?

> You have the uncanny ability to control people's thoughts and actions with your (mispelled) words.

FYI, you misspelled "misspelled".

Classic.

Posted by: johnny dollar at July 12, 2007 3:51 PM

As I've said in the past, I'll put my typo ratio (that would be the amount of words typed versus amount of errors made as a percentage) up against anyone on this site, Mr. Two-Cents, including and especially YOURS.

If I EVER point out mistakes someone has made it is generally because they took the time to point out others' mistakes. Additionally I will ALWAYS address the CONTENT in the message as well, which you FAILED to do.

Cheers!

mexican patty, in regards to Johnny's site having "no recent posts" how many posts on your web site have been made recently? Next, how many op-ed pieces have you written lately? None, that's right.
Thanks, Patty!

Posted by: Average American Patriot at July 12, 2007 4:26 PM:

"...soon the backward muslim extremists will be willing to trade 100 barrels of oil for a bag of pork rinds."

This made me laugh out loud. :)

>Dear Evil and Dumb,

You wrote "our presence in Iraq is actually CREATING terrorists faster than we can KILL them"

I don't know about that but lots of people have lots of theories about WHY al Qaeda has such a large prescence in Iraq. Yours is one. There are others. What I do not hear you disputing is that al Qaeda has massed its forces in Iraq.

So, once again, given that al Qaeda has a large number of its forces in Iraq what do you propose the President do about it?

Posted by: Robert Cox at July 12, 2007 4:06 PM

Dear Half Right and All Ego,

Let me walk you through my post, since you seem to have dropped the logic ball about half way through.

>I don't know about that but lots of people have lots of theories about WHY al Qaeda has such a large prescence in Iraq.

You don't KNOW why? Are you willfully ignorant or do you come by it honestly. Let's see....Al Qaeda had NO presence in Iraq pre-invasion, and now they have a huge presence post-invasion. Uhhhhh, let's see, maybe it was OUR INVASION and OCCUPATION that caused that little phenomenon to occur.

>You wrote "our presence in Iraq is actually CREATING terrorists faster than we can KILL them" I don't know about that.

Our government KNOWS about that. They just released a report stating Al-Qaeda is stronger than ever.

My answer:

Fight them wherever THEY are, not where WE happen to be drawing them to.

At the moment that place happens to be Iraq on both counts, and that's BECAUSE of us, not IN SPITE of us.

How about we fight them on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

How about we fight them HERE, BEFORE they get here by actually engaging in some REAL Homeland security.

I think you are fooling yourself and putting too much stock in what you think our efforts in Iraq are actually accomplishing in the global war on terror.

In sports you can tell if what you are doing is working by looking at the scoreboard.

If you think what we are doing in Iraq is a 'winning strategy' in fighting worldwide terrorism, you sound less like a patriot and more like a cheerleader. They keep on cheering regardless of the score.

But Bush definitely IS dumb and Cheney definitely IS evil!

Patsy or whatever the nom du jour is, your logic escapes me.

"My answer:

'Fight them wherever THEY are, not where WE happen to be drawing them to.

At the moment that place happens to be Iraq on both counts, and that's BECAUSE of us, not IN SPITE of us.

How about we fight them on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

How about we fight them HERE, BEFORE they get here by actually engaging in some REAL Homeland security."

Let me make a simple syllogism of your argument.

We must fight them where they are but only if we didn't draw them where they are.

They are in Iraq because we drew them there.

Ergo, we must not fight them in Iraq. We must fight them on the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan and here in the USA where they are not because we drew them to Iraq where we can't fight them because we drew them to Iraq.

All that aside lets consider this statement by you:

"How about we fight them HERE, BEFORE they get here by actually engaging in some REAL Homeland security."

What parameters does 'HERE, BEFORE THEY GET HERE' mean to you? I thought they were 'HERE' in 1993, 2001, and in several thwarted attempts since then. I think they are still 'HERE' plotting away. So what is the 'HERE' that you believe constitutes them being 'HERE'?

When you say "actually engaging in some REAL Homeland security." to protect us before they get HERE". Exactly what, or generally, are those 'Homeland' methods you want us to engage in? Your statement implies that the current measures are not viable as 'REAL' security measures so which of those ersatz Homeland security measures do you want to bury?

Grammie

And Mike has just left the bar.

A.C.C.S. Oh, why bother with the basement bufoon. Then again.

...your latest op-ed sucks.......

Did you think of that all on your own or are you getting your mom to copy and paste gutter words?

Remember A.C.C.S. fat, dumb, stupid and living off your parents in their basement is no way to go through life. Except in your case. IT'S TOO FUNNY!!!!!!

I'd say your Moore's kid but I wouldn't do that to your poor Mom. The woman must be a saint for putting up with your pathetic ass day after day.

Olby with a one on one with Moore.

Oh brother is this going to be a classic!

Now Zombie-Loons make sure you put on your special, special tin foil hat tonight so you can mind melt with Dopey & Fat-Boy.

What's next for Olby. Going down on..er I mean to down to play naked twister with Castro and Chavez?

It's kinda tedious to be replying to ever-changing and long psuedonyms so I am not going to bother further.

To the OlbyLoon who says we should fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan and along the Pakistan border here's a newsflash - WE ARE! Currently there are two major theaters of operation between U.S./Allied forces and al Qaeda. Iraq and Afghanistan/trbial region of Pakistan. The largest is in Iraq.

I have to hear anyone disputing that the largest and most active concentration of jihadis in the world right now is in Iraq. For the moment let me concede to you ALL of the OlbyLoon rhetoric - Bush Lied, its a War for Oil, Dick Cheney is the Devil and Scooter Libby is his Minion, Joe Wilson was right, Valeria Plame was a victim, Halliburton is paying off Cheney, yada, yada, yada. How does that change the situation?

However it happened and whoever is to blame, al Qaeda has a large concentration of forces in Iraq. Other than silly ideas like give away free WiFi routers to people who do not have reliable electricity let alone computers what do you OlbyLoons PROPOSE be done given the facts on the ground?

Any OlbyLoons out there prepared to making any sort of forward-looking, affirmative statement about what the U.S. should do about the thousands of al Qaeda fighters now operating in Iraq?

Perhaps, Mr. Cox, you might get a more favorable response if you didn't hurl insults at your more innovative, intelligent and articulate posters. "OlbyLoon," indeed. I don't have any particular problem with Mr. Olbermann, but I seldom watch him. I find him a bit tedious. You have a very odd and ineffective manner of motivation.

Trust me, I watch KO and BO side by side every night. This blog is the only source that gets that anyone who would follow a man like Keith must be mentally damaged.

>Patsy or whatever the nom du jour is, your logic escapes me.

Of course it does, like most logic escapes you.

>Let me make a simple syllogism of your argument.

If simple is all you got in addressing this complicated matter, be my guest.

>We must fight them where they are but only if we didn't draw them where they are.
They are in Iraq because we drew them there. Ergo, we must not fight them in Iraq. We must fight them on the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan and here in the USA where they are not because we drew them to Iraq where we can't fight them because we drew them to Iraq.

I believe you are OVER-simplifying a bit, allow me to explain. I NEVER said we CAN'T fight them in Iraq BECAUSE we drew them there. In order to understand my argument you have to go back to Cox's argument and ingest it in context.

Cox's argument is essentially this: We might as well fight them in Iraq, because, although no one really knows why they are there, the fact is they are there and so that's where we shall fight them, and if not there, where?

Please follow along, I'll try to type slowly:

Fact 1: Terrorists want to kill as many Americans as possible. Civilians targets are better, but GI's are almost as good.

Fact 2: Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq prior to our ill-conceived invasion. Saddam was a secularist dictator that wanted to keep religious extremists in check. For all his evil, he was also a great foil for Al-Qaeda. He did a much better job of keeping them in check than we currently are.

Fact 3: Al-Qaeda is IN Iraq big-time.

Fact 4: Innocent Iraqi men, women, and children are dying because of Al-Qaeda-style violence brought to them by the good old US of A.

Fact 5: According to a Government study, Al-Qaeda, left largely unchecked along the Afghanistan border, has flourished, expanded, and is just as poised to attack us as on 9-11.

Okay, now here's some THEORY of mine based on those facts.

The war in Iraq is creating terrorists faster than we can kill them. Thus, the war in Iraq is a losing strategy in the global war on terror.

If you want to defeat an enemy, you need to metaphorically cut off it's head, not just it's arms and legs. Al-Qaeda is notorious for growing new arms and legs. Unless you can cut off it's head, running their grunts and our GI's through the giant meat-grinder known as Iraq is a lost cause.

You're on record as saying, although you don't 'believe' in God, you subscribe largely to Judeo-Christian values. What would those values say about what we've brought to the Iraq people. If what you believe is correct, that Iraq is a suitable third-world battlefield for a Super Power to battle it's ideological enemies, then how do you reconcile that with your values as you describe them.

Why should our battle be theirs? Because Bush said it should? Because all the previous reasons for our invasion haven't panned out?

Collateral damage? Wrong place, Wrong time? Unfortunate cannon fodder?

Al-Qaeda will follow us wherever we go. So why not go where their leadership is hiding? That's certainly not Iraq.

Newsflash: Al-Qaeda WANTS us in Iraq. They don't want us to leave. They want to divert our attention and forces from the real War on Terror. They want to kill as many of us as possible. So far, they've been remarkably successful at that.

I NEVER said we can't fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq because we drew them there. I said two things: They are in Iraq because we drew them there and We shouldn't fight them in Iraq because it ISN'T working to weaken them. Those are two different answers to two different questions. One explains why they are there, the other explains how we should fight Al-Qaeda.

>All that aside lets consider this statement by you:

"How about we fight them HERE, BEFORE they get here by actually engaging in some REAL Homeland security."

>What parameters does 'HERE, BEFORE THEY GET HERE' mean to you? I thought they were 'HERE' in 1993, 2001, and in several thwarted attempts since then. I think they are still 'HERE' plotting away. So what is the 'HERE' that you believe constitutes them being 'HERE'?

>When you say "actually engaging in some REAL Homeland security." to protect us before they get HERE". Exactly what, or generally, are those 'Homeland' methods you want us to engage in? Your statement implies that the current measures are not viable as 'REAL' security measures so which of those ersatz Homeland security measures do you want to bury?

Bury none of them. Even the ill-conceived measures (duct tape and plastic sheeting?) serve as a good example of what WON'T work. I'm sure you'll dismiss his knowledge because he has a (D) by his name, but read something on what Gary Hart says we should do to protect the homeland. Then compare and contrast it to what we are actually doing.

Actually, compare what Great Britain is doing compared to what we are doing. Compare what Israel is doing to what we are doing. Compare what common sense tells you we should be doing compared to what we are doing.

I'm not alone with the view that what we've done thus far has been largely superficial and we remain extremely vulnerable. In fact, most public officials hold that same sentiment.

Why haven't we been attacked since 9-11? The fact is, no one really knows how much credit should go to Bush and how much of it is luck. A lot of it has to do with a little thing known as the Atlantic Ocean and many many miles of Longitude. It's a lot easier to attack countries in Europe which has been routinely proven since 9-11.

Are they here now? I don't know. Probably. If you are as sure as you say you are, perhaps we should bring some of those battle-hardened vets home to protect the homeland.

The rest can surround Iraq along the interior border and keep Al-Qaeda from entering or leaving or step up operations in Afghanistan along the Pakistan border.

What your fellow NeoCons fail to mention is that Al-Qaeda in Iraq, along with a civil war, was yet another UNINTENDED consequence of our invasion.

Our continued occupation has it's own set of unintended consequences as well.

Robert Cox seems incapable of grasping a very important concept:....It DOES matter how we got there!....It DOES matter who got us there and why!....And it does very much matter how honorable their motivations were!

It is baffling the way they continue to back a bumbling, incompetent, corrupt, and secretive administration as if the monumental mistakes they have already made were somehow irrelevent to the ultimate outcome.

Guess what else, your genious-ship, the anti-war movement is far bigger than Keith Olbermann and his so called 'olbyloons'.

Bob,

You got half of my point.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq, without reliable electricity, does not have the infrastructure to build the ominous Great Caliphate that you BU$HWIPES fear.

Posted by:below average mexican patsy at July 12, 2007 7:12 PM

Wake up, patsy, Al Queada is already here in the US! They have electricity, gas, propane, knifes, guns and who kows what else, you fool! Keep brainwashing yourself with the bbcrap and Olbermahn, whatever you do!

>It's kinda tedious to be replying to ever-changing and long psuedonyms so I am not going to bother further.

Didn't YOU designate YOURSELF as the managing editor of OlbermannWatch? You made your bed, now lay in it. So what is it about what is typed into the name field that makes replying to the post any more or less tedious?

Thinking can be tedious as well, especially when it always brings you around to the same fallacious circular conclusions.

>To the OlbyLoon who says we should fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan and along the Pakistan border here's a newsflash - WE ARE! Currently there are two major theaters of operation between U.S./Allied forces and al Qaeda. Iraq and Afghanistan/trbial region of Pakistan. The largest is in Iraq.

I thought 'Olbyloon' was a term used as a derogatory means of describing fans of Olbermann, not just anyone who thinks you are full of shit. If you are using the same Noggin to reach the conclusion that I am some fan of Olbermann as the one you use to reach your conclusion about the war in Iraq, well I think that tells us all everything we need to know about you and your reasoning skills.

If you actually believe our efforts in Afghanistan are satisfactory, why is the Taliban making a comeback and gaining much support among locals who used to despise them?

If you actually believe our efforts in Afghanistan are satisfactory, why is Al-Qaeda leadership still flourishing?

If you actually believe what we are doing in Iraq is putting a dent in Al-Qaeda and accomplishing our goals in the global war on terror, read any newspaper from any day since the phased roll-out of the surge began.

Why don't you ACTUALLY ANSWER any one of my questions posed to you, since I bothered to answer yours.

>Now Zombie-Loons make sure you put on your special, special tin foil hat tonight so you can mind melt with Dopey & Fat-Boy.

That's the most apt description of the 28% of folks who still support Bush, leading up to a press conference with the President and Vice President.

mexican patty, in regards to Johnny's site having "no recent posts" how many posts on your web site have been made recently? Next, how many op-ed pieces have you written lately? None, that's right.
Thanks, Patsy!

No answer, patsy? Running w/your tool between your legs? Yep.

Yea AAP!..........."you fool"!......DON'T YOU KN OW THEY WANT TO KILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY?!?!?!?!

And they'll go after you first, cuz Bovines' got his six shooters ready justa waitin fer em to show their ornery faces!

While I do think Mr. Cox's points get lost in his snotty diatribe, I do concede he raises a good point:

We are in Iraq.

By remaining in Iraq, we are in an untenable situation.

In leaving Iraq, we are in an untenable situation.

While I do think there is value in going over the lies and deceptions which put us in Iraq and value in critically examining the unbelievably botched strategy and execution, that does not necessarily inform us what we must do about Iraq now. It merely informs us how we ought to select leaders in the future.

Iraq was not a hotbed of activity for terrorism prior to our Invasion and Occupation, but it is now. In that regard, Mr. Cox is correct, again. In some sense, we invited Al Qaeda into Iraq.

Mr. Cox is also correct, Al Qaeda is a danger to us.

So, what can we conclude so far:

Some condition was unfavorable to Al Qaeda's development and sustenance in Iraq prior to the Invasion and Occupation. That condition was a strong (indeed, repressive, tyrranical) central government. So, our charge is to restore a strong central government, without the abuses. To do that, we must engage, not outrage the Iraqi people and vest them in the government. That is a poltical process, perhaps a police task, but not a military objective.

How do we vest the people? It will not be easy. We have spent almost 4 years estranging them. Perhaps, we are left to the Biden, 3 semi-autonomous state soultion. Each segment will have some sense of controlling its own destiny. This will take tact and wisdom within Iraq and diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors. Tact, wisdom and diplomacy are sorely lacking in this Adminsitration, and in the State Department, in particular. We will be handicapped.

Next, we switch, over to a prolonged, but finite period of policing as opposed to soldiering. Our military is fully capable, indeed skilled in the educational process and in the tools the Iraqi military and police will require. A new mission, not a new term ("surge") will be required. It must be a definition carefully formed by the Administration and the Congress, and the Congress must "enforce" that statement.

All the while, we support the infrastructure build-up. In other words, a public works project. That would win hearts and minds.

It is a refined ISG plan to be sure. But, the ISG plan was and is an excellent template. The problem in Iraq is not that the plan is poor, it is that the plan was never considered. I doubt seriously Bush even read it. Out of hubris or pride or simply out of his pathological and crippling inability to consider an option other than his own, to admit a mistake, the ISG plan was shelved, unread, even unopened by Bush.

So, this leads to the final point. We have a hideously incompetent, arrogant and denuded President and Administration. We didn't have to go to Iraq to learn that. Catrina, Justice Harriet, the DOJ debacle, the Immigration Bill, the Dubai Port's Deal, the passport mess, a thousand other calamities have driven that point home. Bush will have to be tied up and his feet will have to be held to the fire. Otherwise, all we will ever get is meaningless platitudes, snide remarks, slanderous catch phrases and, most importantly, denial. "More Time," the unending chorus.

The Democrats will have to risk a political hit. The handful of defecting Republicans will have to summon up some courage. Don't say one thing and then still vote with and for Bush.

However, this isn't going to happen during this Administration. We have to admit that, as we have to plan on surrendering hundreds, perhaps thousands of more American lives and the billions of dollars during the next (slightly more than) 18 months. There is little we can do about it, as long as we have Republicans of the mindset of the hideous McConnel and the vacuous Hutchinson. But, we have to take every opportunity to so weaken the current Administration that it is unable to further foolishly engage us. Come on, Democrats. Stand erect. Come on, responsible Republicans, join in.

And in November of next year, we have to slash and burn, drive every Republican we possibly can out of office and insure that no new Republicans is elected. Then, we can have a well-tailored, minimally chaotic exit from this wretched mess given us by Bush & Company.

There, Mr. Cox, is your plan. Disagree with it, as I am sure you will. It has flaws, gaps. But stop bleating and blowing about the Olbyloons never suggesting an alternative. Frankly, with some polishing, some additions, some deletions, this will work. It may be the first time anything we have done in Iraq will work.

And, won't Cheney, Kristol, Cox and the neocon naysayers be crying in their Pinot Grigio, then?

Intel Report: al-Qaida Takes Aim at US
By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer
49 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Al-Qaida is stepping up its efforts to sneak terror operatives into the United States and has acquired most of the capabilities it needs to strike here, according to a new U.S. intelligence assessment, The Associated Press has learned.

The draft National Intelligence Estimate is expected to paint an ever-more-worrisome portrait of al-Qaida's ability to use its base along the Pakistan-Afghan border to launch and inspire attacks, even as Bush administration officials say the U.S. is safer nearly six years into the war on terror.

Among the key findings of the classified estimate, which is still in draft form and must be approved by all 16 U.S. spy agencies:

_ Al-Qaida is probably still pursuing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and would use them if its operatives developed sufficient capability.

_ The terror group has been able to restore three of the four key tools it would need to launch an attack on U.S. soil: a safe haven in Pakistan's tribal areas, operational lieutenants and senior leaders. It could not immediately be learned what the missing fourth element is.

_ The group will bolster its efforts to position operatives inside U.S. borders. In public statements, U.S. officials have expressed concern about the ease with which people can enter the United States through Europe because of a program that allows most Europeans to enter without visas.

The document also discusses increasing concern about individuals already inside the United States who are adopting an extremist brand of Islam.

National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative written judgments that reflect the consensus long-term thinking of senior intelligence analysts.

Government officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the report has not been finalized, described it as an expansive look at potential threats within the United States and said it required the cooperation of a number of national security agencies, including the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security Department and National Counterterrorism Center.

National security officials met at the White House on Thursday about the intelligence estimate and related counterterrorism issues. The tentative plan is to release a declassified version of the report and brief Congress on Tuesday, one government official said.

Ross Feinstein, spokesman for National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell, declined to discuss the document's specific contents. But he said it would be consistent with statements made by senior government officials at congressional hearings and elsewhere.

The estimate echoes the findings of another analysis prepared by the National Counterterrorism Center earlier this year and disclosed publicly on Wednesday. That report _ titled "Al-Qaida better positioned to strike the West" _ found the terrorist group is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," a counterterrorism official familiar with the reports findings told the AP.

On Thursday, news of the counterterrorism center's threat assessment renewed the political debate about the nature of the al-Qaida threat and whether U.S. actions _ in Iraq in particular _ have made the U.S. safer from terrorism.

At a news conference Thursday, President Bush acknowledged al-Qaida's continuing threat to the United States and used the new report as evidence his administration's policies are on the right course.

"The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on Sept. 11," he said. "That's why what happens in Iraq matters to security here at home."

Yet Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said Iraq has distracted the United States. He said the U.S. should have finished off al-Qaida in 2002 and 2003 along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

Instead, "President Bush chose to invade Iraq, thereby diverting our military and intelligence resources away from the real war on terrorism," Rockefeller said. "Threats to the United States homeland are not emanating from Iraq. They are coming from al-Qaida leadership."

Rockefeller, who voted in favor of toppling Saddam Hussein, called for the U.S. to end its involvement in what he called the Iraqi civil war.

In recent weeks, senior national security officials have been increasingly worried about an al-Qaida attack in the United States.

Appearing on a half-dozen morning TV shows Thursday, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff laid out a list of factors contributing to his "gut feeling" that the nation faces a higher risk of attack this summer: al-Qaida's increased freedom to train in South Asia, a flurry of public statements from the network's leadership, a history of summertime attacks, a broader range of attacks in North Africa and Europe and homegrown terrorism increasing in Europe.

"Europe could become a platform for an attack against this country," Chertoff told CNN, although he and others continue to say they know of no specific, credible information pointing to an attack here.

National security officials are frustrated by an agreement last year between Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and tribal leaders in western Pakistan, which gave tribes near the Afghan border greater autonomy and has led to increased al-Qaida activity in the region.

Nevertheless, Bush administration officials still view Musharraf as a partner.

Speaking to a congressional hearing, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher said that Pakistan under Musharraf has captured more al-Qaida operatives than any other country and that several major Taliban leaders were captured or killed this year.

"There is a considerable al-Qaida presence at the border, but they are under pressure," Boucher told a House national security subcommittee.

Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., was skeptical, saying al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders apparently feel safe there. "Is this a Motel 6 for terrorists?" he asked.

The Washington Examiner: The US is where the terrorists are now

Bush circa 2004:

“If there’s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is,” Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. “If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.

Bush circa 2007:

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Thursday acknowledged publicly for the first time that someone in his administration likely leaked the name of a CIA operative, although he also said he hopes the controversy over his decision to spare prison for a former White House aide has "run its course."

"And now we're going to move on," Bush said in a White House news conference.

>In some sense, we invited Al Qaeda into Iraq.

You think?

Clucker,

1. Some condition was unfavorable to Al Qaeda's development and sustenance in Iraq prior to the Invasion and Occupation. That condition was a strong (indeed, repressive, tyrranical) central government. So, our charge is to restore a strong central government, without the abuses. To do that, we must engage, not outrage the Iraqi people and vest them in the government. That is a poltical process, perhaps a police task, but not a military objective.

I agree with your first two statements, with this caveat, a point of contention probably never conceded by either side. WMD's in the hands of Hussein. An unstable dictator who was pushing his "containment" limits all the time. But let's just leave that aside because it has already been discussed and discussed,...
I agree with your third statement, and the fourth, except that it does not take into account any good that the soldiers have accomplished. I also agree with your last statement but where I disagree is that Bush does not have that as an objective as well. Security has never been to the point to allow for a political process to work and military action has been needed.

2. How do we vest the people? It will not be easy. We have spent almost 4 years estranging them. Perhaps, we are left to the Biden, 3 semi-autonomous state soultion. Each segment will have some sense of controlling its own destiny. This will take tact and wisdom within Iraq and diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors. Tact, wisdom and diplomacy are sorely lacking in this Adminsitration, and in the State Department, in particular. We will be handicapped.

I agree with the premise that the people need a vested interest but disagree with the bold conclusion that we have estranged the Iraqis. I don't believe that any poll can be a gauge when Iraqis are executed by groups such as The Islamic State of Iraq for helping soldiers. They can't visibly show support. That is a problem and one that shows they (Iraqis) need to do what is now being done in Al Anbar Province (taking the lead with the assistance of U.S. soldiers.) The division of the country may be a solution but it seems that it will lead to three states fighting each other. I have read about mixed marriages between Sunni and Shia but they are persecuted. It seems there is some hope they can co-exist. There was extreme hatred in our country over the Civil War. I know it is not the same but I think you get the point. Regarding the Administration's ability to use wisdom and diplomacy, here is how I see it. On the one hand, Bush has been criticized for not making the Iraqis stand up on their own and yet on the other, he is accused of "estranging" them.
There has got to be better control of the use of funds for the infrastructure. I would rather see those kind of hearings rather than the commutation of Libby's sentence.

I'll continue later. Too much to address in one comment.

Posted by: Now we know what he meant by 'Taken Care Of...' at July 12, 2007 8:57 PM

Bush referred to the commutation of Libby (who was not the leaker) and the "moving on" referred to Libby. Libby was not the leaker. How did the leak get to Armitage? He is the one who needs questioned.

Posted by: They're Fighting Them Over There, So We Don't Have to, Oh Nevermind... at July 12, 2007 8:47 PM

Rockefeller:http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:ZCnd6fajguYJ:www.powerlineblog.com/archives/012249.php+Jay+Rockefeller+September+2002+vote&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a

SEN. ROCKEFELLER (October 10, 2002): "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons. And will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years and he could have it earlier."

WALLACE: Now, by that point, Senator, you had read the National Intelligence Estimate, correct?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: In fact, there were only six people in the Senate who did, and I was one of them. I'm sure Pat was another.

WALLACE: Okay, but you had read that, and now we've read a declassified…

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: But Chris, let's a...

WALLACE: Can I just ask my question sir, and then you can answer as you choose. That report indicated there was an agreement – a disagreement among analysts about the nuclear program. The State Department had a lot more doubts than the CIA did about whether he was pursuing a nuclear program. You never mentioned those doubts. You came to the same conclusion the President did.

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Because that – first of all, that National Intelligence Estimate was not called for by the Administration. It was called for by former Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Dick Durbin. We didn't receive it until just a couple of days before we voted. Then we had to go read it and compare it to everything else that we thought we'd learned about intelligence, and I did make that statement. And I did make that vote. But, Chris, the important thing is that when I started looking at the weapons of mass destruction intelligence along with Pat Roberts, I went down to the floor, and I said I made a mistake. I would have never voted yes if I knew what I know today.

WALLACE: But a lot of people – that's not the point of the investigation, Senator.

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Chris, there's always the same conversation. You know it was not the Congress that sent 135,000 or 150,000 troops.

WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren't you responsible for your vote?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.

WALLACE: You're not?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. I'm responsible for my vote, but I'd appreciate it if you'd get serious about this subject, with all due respect. We authorized him to continue working with the United Nations, and then if that failed, authorized him to use force to enforce the sanctions. We did not send 150,000 troops or 135,000 troops. It was his decision made probably two days after 9/11 that he was going to invade Iraq. That we did not have a part of, and, yes, we had bad intelligence, and when we learned about it, I went down to the floor and said I would never have voted for this thing.

WALLACE: My only point sir, and I am trying to be serious about it, is as I understand Phase Two, the question is based on the intelligence you had, what were the statements you made? You had the National Intelligence Estimate which expressed doubts about Saddam's nuclear program, and yet you said he had a nuclear program. The President did the same thing.
***
Mighty pitiful Senator Rockefeller. You voted yes but it wasn't your fault because you only got the report a few days before.

Al Qaeda terrorists from all around the world are getting one way tickets to Iraq. A country with 200,000 coalition soldiers with machine guns, supported by jets with satellite precision bombs, and assisted by a population not afraid to tell the soldiers where the bad guys are hiding. I think it's good for the security of America and the world to kill the terrorists over there before they get the chance to plot terrorist attacks elsewhere.

Olbyloon Ed 101e
Subject: Al Qaeda in the US
Students/Deniers: "mike" and patsy

The plans for the devastating nuclear attack on the U.S. have been under development for more than a decade. It is designed as a final deadly blow of defeat to the U.S., which is seen by al-Qaeda and its allies as "the Great Satan."

At least half the nuclear weapons in the al-Qaeda arsenal were obtained for cash from the Chechen terrorist allies.

But the most disturbing news is that high level U.S. officials now believe at least some of those weapons have been smuggled into the U.S. for use in the near future in major cities as part of this "American Hiroshima" plan, according to an upcoming book, "The Al Qaeda Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime and the Coming Apocalypse," by Paul L. Williams, a former FBI consultant.

According to Williams, former CIA Director George Tenet informed President Bush one month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that at least two suitcase nukes had reached "al-Qaeda OPERATIVES ALREADY IN THE U.S."

"Each suitcase weighed between 50 and 80 kilograms (approximately 110 to 176 pounds) and contained enough fissionable plutonium and uranium to produce an explosive yield in excess of two kilotons," wrote Williams. "One suitcase bore the serial number 9999 and the Russian manufacturing date of 1988. The design of the weapons, Tenet told the president, is simple. The plutonium and uranium are kept in separate compartments that are linked to a triggering mechanism that can be activated by a clock or a call from the cell phone."

Righto Jeff, and all this is happening despite our "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here".

Don't kid yourself boy, you're not 'educating' me about anything. I was concerned about Al Qaeda and radical islamists long before 911 ever happened. Why wasn't your hero Bush concerned about it when he should have been?

As I've been telling you. Invading Iraq hasn't helped a thing....but it sure has hurt some things, not the least of which is our own readiness.

I was concerned about Al Qaeda and radical islamists long before 911 ever happened. (Mike)

I seem to recall you poo pooing the threat of radical Islamists.

The problem Sharon is that you have misread the meaning of a lot of what I have said.

I have never 'poo pooed' the very real and obvious threat. What I HAVE said many times is that we have grossly over-reacted to the threat to the point that we have allowed the terrorists to partially defeat us without them having to do anything. Half of the game is psychological.

If we allow ourselves to be mentally cowed by the mere threat of terrorism, then we are playing right into their hands, just as I firmly believe invading Iraq played right into their hands.

These mottly terrorists can never defeat us unless we mentally allow them to defeat us, no matter what they do.....and that is a fact!

Looks like "mike" is back pedaling as fast as he can, too funny.
He plays the "I already knew" card. Unbelievable. Didn't you make this post making light of the terrorist threat in the USA, "mike?"

Yea AAP!..........."you fool"!......DON'T YOU KN OW THEY WANT TO KILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY?!?!?!?!

And they'll go after you first, cuz Bovines' got his six shooters ready justa waitin fer em to show their ornery faces!

Posted by: Mike at July 12, 2007 7:47 PM

Only Jeff would have seen my answer to SHARON (as in NOT Jeff) as "back pedaling"!

Don't kid yourself boy, you're not 'educating' me about anything. I was concerned about Al Qaeda and radical islamists long before 911 ever happened. Why wasn't your hero Bush concerned about it when he should have been?

As I've been telling you. Invading Iraq hasn't helped a thing....but it sure has hurt some things, not the least of which is our own readiness.

Posted by: Mike at July 12, 2007 10:04 PM

Am I really seeing this? This prick has defended BJ Clinton every time I have mentioned him letting Osama go and doing nothing after the Cole attack and he goes on to puke this shit out? This dude is as f'ed up as Hogans goat.

Jeff, in looking at your last few posts, what is absolutely amazing your obviously inability to grasp complex concepts. Anything beyond a simple black/white scenario goes right by you every single time.

This site is so entertaining!

OK Jeff.....show me where I "defended Clinton"......BOY!

The only 'defense' I've ever made for Clinton is my repeated observations that many Bushies can't seem to defend the actions of their man without bringing in the name of a man whos been out of office for over 6 years now....you know, the ridiculous "but Clinton did it too" argument.

Mr. Clucker (cont'd)

3. All the while, we support the infrastructure build-up. In other words, a public works project. That would win hearts and minds.
***
That is being done but unfortunately, the sabotage continues.

4. It is a refined ISG plan to be sure. But, the ISG plan was and is an excellent template. The problem in Iraq is not that the plan is poor, it is that the plan was never considered. I doubt seriously Bush even read it. Out of hubris or pride or simply out of his pathological and crippling inability to consider an option other than his own, to admit a mistake, the ISG plan was shelved, unread, even unopened by Bush.

Just pure Bush bashing. I don't think a president should admit any strategic mistake during time of war but attempt to fix it. He is attempting a surge to stabilize the hot spots so that other measures can be implemented. You may think the surge is a ridiculous idea doomed for failure. Nonetheless, it is a plan that should have been given time to work. It was funded. General Petreus stated he would not be able to make a true assessment until at least September. Aren't the commanders on the ground supposed to be give due respect? He is the one in charge now. Give him his due.

5. So, this leads to the final point. We have a hideously incompetent, arrogant and denuded President and Administration. We didn't have to go to Iraq to learn that. Catrina, Justice Harriet, the DOJ debacle, the Immigration Bill, the Dubai Port's Deal, the passport mess, a thousand other calamities have driven that point home. Bush will have to be tied up and his feet will have to be held to the fire. Otherwise, all we will ever get is meaningless platitudes, snide remarks, slanderous catch phrases and, most importantly, denial. "More Time," the unending chorus.

More Bush bashing. At least allow the time that was allotted for by the funding of the surge. I direct you to A S

6. The Democrats will have to risk a political hit. The handful of defecting Republicans will have to summon up some courage. Don't say one thing and then still vote with and for Bush.

The Democrats won't risk a political hit. That is why the ones who decry the war now voted yes at the time. Maybe the handful of Republicans who are sticking with Bush are following their consciences? It doesn't seem to be a political gain to do so. But I guess you are the true judge of hearts and minds.

6. However, this isn't going to happen during this Administration. We have to admit that, as we have to plan on surrendering hundreds, perhaps thousands of more American lives and the billions of dollars during the next (slightly more than) 18 months. There is little we can do about it, as long as we have Republicans of the mindset of the hideous McConnel and the vacuous Hutchinson. But, we have to take every opportunity to so weaken the current Administration that it is unable to further foolishly engage us. Come on, Democrats. Stand erect. Come on, responsible Republicans, join in.

I wouldn't use the word surrendering American lives. When you express your intent to weaken the Administration, what do you mean?

7. And in November of next year, we have to slash and burn, drive every Republican we possibly can out of office and insure that no new Republicans is elected. Then, we can have a well-tailored, minimally chaotic exit from this wretched mess given us by Bush & Company.

Slash and burn? Go on the campaign trail. SLOB is already pledging support for Cindy Sheehan over Pelosi. A well-tailored, minimally chaotic exit? I can't see that happening but whenever withdrawal occurs, I pray for that.

Sharon:

Again, briefly, as I ought to be focusing on a PPT for tomorrow, I think your point about overlooking the good our soldiers have accomplished is well-stated and reasoned. Good has been accomplished and goodwill has been built, one-on-one, small group by small group. How to capture that success, expand it, is well worth studying. I know I have no sense of how to do so. But, I wonder, is this a phenomenon in the nature of the cop on the beat in the old neighborhood? Trust, respect, a sort of tough love? If so, we are talking about a paradigm shift for the Iraqis. So, we nurture that? Serve as mentors? This feeds into my general sense, I have had over time, that the military mission has long been accomplished, and successfully. But has our strategy shifted from that mode? The very notion of the "surge" may imply that we are merely building to a new and different military startegy, or it may mean we are moving away from that into a new policing role. I don't think the Administration has ever been able to shift from one to the other. Maybe, Congress ought to "encourage" that shift.

In any event, thank you for a most interesting and provocative point. I appreciate the insight.

I direct you to A Soldier's Perspective and all the links there. (Forgot to finish my point)

Here is a non-example of enraging the Iraqis.

http://www.soldiersperspective.us/spreadingjoy.htm

.... weaken the Administration.

-----

Politically isolate it, at least for the short-term and, in so doing, forcing it tocompromise, to come to the table, to share, to discuss, to work together. I don't see it as a weak thing to do, myself, but I suspect Bush will. In fact, I know he will. It is is nature, but I remember that line in the "African Queen," perhaps paraphrased, "Nature ... is what we are put on this Earth to overcome." Maybe, he can overcome. I hope.

And, you are correct. I am a Bush basher of the first order. I simply find him so loathsome on so many counts. It is a struggle for me not to become terribly cynical, and that is, I am sure a sin. I also know that, although I believe my view of him to be accurate, this can be tiresome to many and even hurtful to some. Nothing all that productive in it. I can only say it reflects a deeply, deeply held conviction and feeling. I nonetheless apologize for the tiresomeness of it, and I have broken far too many promises to refrain from Bush bashing to ever make such a promise, again.

Back to the PPT, unfortunately, after a quick run through the other threads.

The problem Sharon is that you have misread the meaning of a lot of what I have said.

Posted by: "mike" at July 12, 2007 10:17 PM

"Misread the meaning?" Really? How can we "misread the meaning?" "Mike" never ceases to amaze. The king O' the loons, for sure. When the site Editor calls you a "third grader" it must mean something. He was right. Is ther such thing as third grade olbyloon? Guess so.

Jeff's inquiring mind wants to know: "How can we misread the meaning"? Well now, lets see here:

1) - The post was a response to a specific post from Sharon addressed TO Sharon, NOT you...so where in the hell did you get the 'we' crap from?

2) - Asking someone how they can have the meaning od their words misread by someone else is yet another example of your legendary stupidity.

As for what the beligerent Robert Cox called me.....you conveniently forgot to mention what I called him!

Now is that really "fair and balanced"..... boy?

He likes to talk, but can't produce.

-----

Thank Heavens! He of Many Names, Jr! I guess that would be reproduce, wouldn't it? Surely, the institution sterilized him.

"mike" was your 12:57 spew an explanation of how someone could "misread" your posts? Or, just more of the tired "divert" card?

Patsy, dear, I had no idea that you were so sensitive and would take a throw away line to heart so. The back and forth between R Cox and all the names seemed fairly seamless to me, ie R Cox was actually debating one person playing the name game. If you say, and you do, that I was mistaken I will accept that and say I was mistaken.

The only person here that I know with absolute certainty that has never played the game is me. I have varying degrees of suspicion to virtual certainty about some others. For instance, I am virtually certain that Mike at one time was using three other names, Woogy-Woozy-Mutt, while also posting as Mike but am only highly suspicious that Bobo uses other names from time to time.

My objection to the players of the name game is that they are being intellectually dishonest. Anyone can go back and quote me in a debate to make a point against me based on my own words at another time. I have left hundreds and hundreds of petards with my name on them waiting to hoist me up. But how can I tell one Chicken Blogger's cluck cluck from another Chicken Blogger's cluck cluck.

I have said it before and will repeat my opinion here. In a venue where we all are anonymous to one degree or another (Janet Hawkins is my name but not enough info to pinpoint me from all the other Janet Hawkins in the world) it is cowardly to operate using layers of anonymity from an already anonymous identity.

I have also expressed several times a strong desire that there be a registration here at OW. It would eliminate the problem of not only multiple name users but also the name hijacking that goes on, especially for the sick perverted purpose of lying about a poster's child or wife dying.

Grammie

Al Qaeda terrorists from all around the world are getting one way tickets to Iraq. A country with 200,000 coalition soldiers with machine guns, supported by jets with satellite precision bombs, and assisted by a population not afraid to tell the soldiers where the bad guys are hiding. I think it's good for the security of America and the world to kill the terrorists over there before they get the chance to plot terrorist attacks elsewhere.

Posted by: James at July 12, 2007 9:40 PM

...so what is your opinion of the admininstrations "other" explanation for our presence in Iraq: to midwife them into a stable democracy? I have long asserted that these two latter day excuses for the ocupation (i.e. fight them there so we don't have to fight them here; bring them into the light of American-style peace, justice, and prosperity) are diametricaly opposed to one another.

Basically, the Bush view - half of which being presented by James above - is that we are busy driving the uncounted and unidentified "foereign fighters" from one Bagdhad neighborhood after another; while simultaneously attracting more foreign fighter TO Iraq so they wont "follow us home".

How do you think the average Iraqi citizen views this irrational juxtaposition of such simplistic, mutually exclusive concepts issuing from the same mouths in Washington?

Clucker says he's got a "plan" for Iraq that he "guarantees" will work.

Hoo boy! Let's check it out...

He wants to both "restore a strong central government" AND have "3 semi-autonomous state solution".

He wants to "engage, not outrage the Iraqi people" AND wants "a prolonged period of policing"

He wants to restore a "repressive, tyrranical" government (just without the abuses) AND "vest [Iraqis] in the government".

This is a plan only a schizophrenic could love. Nice work Einstein!

He continues...

He wants a "new mission" for the U.S. military in Iraq but fails to state just what that mission would be.

He wants to "support the infrastructure build-up" but fails to state how he will prevent al Qaeda attacks on infrastructure projects. In fact, nowhere in his plan does he mention al Qaeda or what he would do with troop levels - raise them, lower them or maintain the status quo.

Any other OlbyLoons care to take a crack at actually addressing my point in the Op-Ed by answering the questions I asked: given that al Qaeda has massed its forces in Iraq why would you support withdrawing our troops from Iraq now and, if you are not willing to fight al Qaeda in Iraq, where and when you do propose to fight the thousands of al Qaeda fighters who are there? And don't waste my time saying you want to fight them in Afghanistan or Pakistan because the thousands of fighters that are in Iraq are not in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

I know it's hard for OlbyLoons to do but please try and confine your comments to reality. Al Qaeda has thousands of fighters in Iraq. No one disputes that. So do you stay in Iraq and ignore them? Stay in Iraq and fight them? Leave Iraq with al Qaeda in place with thousands of fighters? Try to be specific!

To my clear-thinking readers, it ought to be telling that the OlbyLoons are unwilling to directly address the question of what to do about the thousands of al Qaeda jihadis who are in Iraq today. The options are pretty simple: stay in Iraq and fight them or leave Iraq and leave them in place.

"Al Qaeda has thousands of fighters in Iraq. No one disputes that."

No one supplies any evidence supporting that either. Bush has been saying we're fighting Al Qeada in Iraq for years now, while at the same time General Myers and the Iraq Study Group have had to admit that the numbers of foreign fighters have been and remain negligible.

This is a made-up war with real people dying.

How old are you, Cox? Younger than 42? If so: are you lame, Gay, or a Conscientious Objector? You need to enlist and make an honest hero out of yourself.

"The options are pretty simple: stay in Iraq and fight them or leave Iraq and leave them in place."

Wait just one gosh-darned minute! "leave them in place"? I thought they were going to "follow us home"!

And if we stay there and attract foreign jihadis from all over the world to Iraq to blow up innocent people, when is this whole reconstrution/stable democracy thing supposed to start?

Lies upon lies make a very ugly, disharmonious philosophy, Cox. You should sign up; suit-up; and clear your addled mind with a little patriotic action.

The answer Bob is that I want to fight them in the entire world, and I want to fight them in a way that is effective, and a way that doesn't play into their hands. I'd also like to fight them with a competent leadership. Beginning with your Braer-Fox tactical error of relying on your enemy for information about his strength and how best to attack him, you totally misunderstand this conflict.

Let's jump to your questions:

» Would you support the United States going to war in a country that was found to be a base of operations for many thousands of al Qaeda members?

No way, Habib. By the way, the obvious top country here by any sane analysis is Pakistan, not Iraq, and I would not support that in the least. The reason I would not support that is that al Qaeda is not a conventional military threat. Trying to counter it with conventional military methods (eg. war and occupation) simply plays into their hands. It is a trap. I can understand people not understanding this BEFORE Iraq...I was a little fuzzy on it myself. But you have to be able to re-calibrate. You obviously can't. You've got a September 12 mindset.

At heart, you are taking the very worst effects of our policy, and using them as tacit support for continuing that policy. You can do this because you make some preposterous assumptions, the first and most egregious of which is that there are a set number of "terrorists" that will move from place to place until they are all destroyed.

This is comically wrong, but it enables your entire analysis. We've killed a lot of "terrorist" fighters in Iraq, along with a lot of other people from diverse and opposing groups. Are there less terrorists now? Is terrorist activity down? You will find no intelligence source that says so. So when does the number get to 0, Bob?

» If the United States were engaged in armed conflict with al Qaeda fighters in a particular country, would you support withdrawing U.S. troops before the jihadists had been defeated and driven out of that country?

Absolutely. Couldn't do it fast enough. First, "Jihadists" have never been defeated and driven out of any country, and they never will be. It's like trying to defeat and drive out all the secular humanists. It's an ideology. It will always be there, in fact, it will always be everywhere. Pick up guns and shoot at it, and see where that gets you. The only question in fighting an ideology is how effectively you show it to be bankrupt and worthless. There is no surer path to delaying and interfering with the natural process that eliminates unnatural, inhuman, nihilistic ideologies than to pick up guns and shoot at them. It's the most invigorating thing you can do for them. Especially if your aim is bad, and obviously ours is pretty bad.

» Which country has the largest number of al Qaeda fighters in the world? Should the United States be engaged militarily in that country?

In principle, Pakistan. In practice, the country with the largest number of al Qaeda "fighters" in the world is whichever one the U.S. invades. And a year after the invasion there will be more, and the year after that still more. It's hard to believe that you people can pursue the line you are taking, offering policy failure as the prime argument for the continuation of that policy. But the arrogance of ideology knows no bounds, and that's why we still play this sucker's game.

"if they fully understood how large a presence al Qaeda now has there, how that compares with its presence elsewhere in the world, and just how much manpower and resources our enemy has put into Iraq."

Right...we all just don't get it. So why don't you enlighten us so we can fully understand it. Exactly how much manpower and resouces has al Qaeda moved from somewhere else into Iraq? Where did they move it from? How much has that base been weakened? How does the total static content of al Qaeda-ness in Iraq compare to the static content in Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Indonesia, and India? You've got those numbers, eh? Sure sounds like you do. Even rough estimates? Let's here them.

JANET whines: "For instance, I am vitually certain that Mike at one time was using three other names, Woggy-Woozy-Mutt, while also posting as Mike"

And so exactly HOW did you know this Janet??? I'll tell you how you knew it;... because I TOLD you you I had used TWO (not three) other names, and I also told you exactly why I had done it. I also proclaimed that I would stop doing it at that time (many months ago), partially out of deference to YOU, and YOUR feelings, because you were the one whining about that very thing at the time.....and I have kept that promise.

SO tell me Janet....is that somehow a negative to you ??? I posted with TWO other names for a specific reason, and freely admitted doing it while explaining the reason I did it. It's not like I had admitted to wrongdoing. There was nothing whatsoever 'wrong' with what I was doing. I just agreed to stop because it was confusing people like yourself.

Now for a correction (AGAIN): I NEVER posted as 'Woozy'...that was nothing but a name distortion by Jeff. And that makes you 'virtually 'wrong'....as well as 'virtually' dishonorable for bringing that up so many months later, when you know as well as I do that the only reason you knew it in the first place is because I admitted it.

"mike," you are lying out your ass, again. You never admitted anything until WELL after the fact that I nailed you on all of your names. You were posting as "woogy" and "mike" at the same time, going back and forth, mostly "woogy," though. I nailed you as doing so, then you started using "mutt" occasionally, never admitting to doing so until I nailed you, again. Just because Janet used "woozy" instead of "woogy" doesn't make her "virtually dishonerable." That would be known as an "honest mistake." Something you would NEVER admit to making. Then again, honor is something you seem to severly lack. Now, hurry up and make one of your posts loaded with "substance" as you like to call it.....

Oh please stop, Mike. I am trying to get Master Gunner from TankerBrothers to respond here on one of the threads and he is going to think this site is a joke.

You are LYING again Jeff. I intentially set you up using the name 'mike' and mentioning your signature 'MOAB's', knowing full well that any idiot would make a connection like that. Why did I do it....becuase I was planning to come clean anyway and stop using 'Woogy' out of deference to Janet (as in NOT you).

No Jeff, you absolutely did not 'nail' me....you are not smart enough to 'nail' me, or anyone else for that matter.

Sharon: This site IS a joke!!!!!!

I'm really surprised you haven't figured that out yet!

On the other thread, I copied two excerpts from Master Gunner from the TankerBrothers website.Truth responded with a tragic story about a young soldier who was badly injured and the soldier's take on morale and the war. I e-mailed Master Gunner and will post his response here:

Sharon:

You know that old saying "War is Hell"?

It's true.

Of course, it would be foolish to say that 100% of every one of us in
Iraq right now is for staying, just like it would be equally foolish
to insinuate that 100% of us would want to come home.

But the truth of the matter is this: re-enlistment rates are very,
very strong. While we are struggling to meet our recruiting goals, the
numbers of people staying in are as strong as ever.

Think about what those two figures mean:

1. About the number of new recruits being down, I attribute to the
horrible media slant that the War is getting. If you tell someone a
hundred times a day that they will go to Iraq and surely die, beat it
into their heads that the war is all about lies, and show graphic
pictures of bombings and killings, then some people who are "on the
fence" probably won't join.

2. About the number of reenlistments being up: think about this: if
you are in the Army right now, there's a good chance that you have
been deployed to Iraq. If you haven't been, then there is an excellent
chance that you will be. I'm on my second extended tour. I know some
guys who have been here three, four times. Guess what? They keep
reenlisting. And guys and gals who are here. reenlist here, to stay
with their units, knowing they will be right back over a year after
they get back.

Why?

-MG

Oh and Jeff, I just caught another lie of yours:

I stopped using both 'Woogy' and 'Mutt' at exactly the same time, and said so at the time.

I'm really surprised you haven't figured that out yet!

Posted by: Mike at July 13, 2007 1:13 PM

If it's a joke, why are you here? Oh that's right. Let me quote you, again.

"I don't defend Olbermahn!" posted by "mike

One month later.....

"I was driven to defend him by you guys!" posted by "mike"

Mr. Cox, how I wish your response were not what I feared it would be. Even aside from your gratuitous snottiness, you have, in a nutshell, managed to typify the attitude of the people who have bungled and mangled the Iraq incursion from the start. Arrogance. Condescension. Stubborness. An unwillingness to consider alternatives. Denial.

Yes, I resent, being told "We're here, and we can't leave Iraq in a mess." It seems much like the brother-in-law who borrows your car on Monday, wrecks it and tells you to get it repaired by Friday because he needs to borrow it again on Saturday.

But, you're right, we have been left a mess. A mess someone other than Bush, the Administration and the Neo-cons will clean up. Indeed, they probably couldn't clean it up if they tried.

You're very good at demanding that people come up with alternative plans, and you're equally good at being dismissive and condescending in a flippant, glib rejection. But, you're a bit weak on any proposal other than: "More Time. More Lives. More Money."

Some of the best minds in this country came up with the ISG Plan, which Bush dismissed as cavalierly as you dismissed my view. Some of the most flawed minds in this country have come up with the Invasion and Occupation and Surge strategies. And, it shows.

Maybe, you and your soul mates ought to listen instead of always talking, whining, denying, throwing out catch phrases and platitudes, and charging ahead without a moment's reflection. Someone might just know something.

Go to the ISG, at a minimum. It is flawed, to be sure, but immeasurably better than anything the neo-cons have emitted.

Jeff: "If it's a joke, why are you here?"

Precisely because it IS a joke makes it great entertainment....and I can read and laugh at the totally illogical musings of idiots like yourself.

Outstanding post at 1:36 Clucker!

You nailed both the situation and people like Robert Cox.

and I can read and laugh at the totally illogical musings of idiots like yourself.

Posted by: Mike at July 13, 2007 2:37 PM

I can GAURANTEE you that they're are MANY people here, that use the same name on a consistent basis, I might add, that feel the EXACT same way about you and the rest of the loons.

Cox,

QUOTE: "addressing my point in the Op-Ed by answering the questions I asked: GIVEN THAT al Qaeda has massed its forces in Iraq..."

Does it not matter WHO created this lose-lose situation for everyone including the Iraqis and the next US Administration?

Once a situation became as hopeless as this, it's pathetic to ignore who is responsible for the mess and that's why it's pathetic to come up with "given that...". The folks responsible proved to be the ones making all the wrong decisions. Or is it all cool there?

BTW, in your number games you forgot the 'more than 1000 nuclear mujahedin' John Bolton told us about when buried (interviewed) by Jeremy Paxman.
But even Bolton is more convincing than you are.

The folks responsible proved to be the ones making all the wrong decisions. Or is it all cool there?

Posted by: George 'Olbyloon' Orwell at July 13, 2007 3:03 PM

Are you referring to Edwards, Hillary, Kerry and all the rest of the dems that voted FOR the War? Or, are they immune from your criticism, olbyloon?

This is absolutely a MUST SEE.

Iraqis/Troops Dancing in the Streets!
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/

Th voice over is not translated but you will get the point. The headline is literal (in Anbar).

patsy, which of your names was "hijacked?" You use so many, you will have to be more precise. Save yourself the embarrassment which you will incur by denying the aforementioned, please.
P.S. If you don't care, why does it matter? Just curious.

I can't say I'm too surprised to log on today and find all the questions I've posed to both Cox and Grammie yesterday go curiously unaswered even after I've answered each of theirs.

Their standard tactic of diversion is to focus on what's in the name field and not what's in the comments field.

Typical...

What's next? The tired 'This is Olbermann Watch not Iraq Watch?'

That would be a tough sell considering Cox started the thread on Iraq so we can all see his piece to feed his ego.

Off topic, be warned before you read!

Shocker! Another "illegal alien" "Adhahn" to be charged for rape, murder and child abduction in Tacoma. He was supposed to have been deported years ago. I guess that little piece of paper that they sent him telling him to leave didn't quite do the trick. Ya think?

patsy, nice try. None of those names you posted are ones you have ever used. I tried to help, oh well.

RK,

Check out the video that I referenced above. Senators Lugar and Warner will get all the airtime now though.

I can't say I'm too surprised to log on today and find all the questions I've posed to both Cox and Grammie yesterday go curiously unaswered even after I've answered each of theirs.

_ Don't you think Grammie may be offline and maybe has other things to do at the moment? She doesn't shrink away from questions and catches up when she gets a chance. I can't answer for Robert Cox but I will speak up for Janet, who doesn't run and hide or turn chicken-blogger when confronted.

I am online but get many distractions with children. With so much nonsense going on with names at the time of the accusations, it was easy to make those accusations. When you have admissions by Mike that yes he did post as others and Clucker, our world traveler, who never even denied posing as Kurt Kissel (and fooled no one; BTW I have since gained a slightly better opinion of him if I can ignore the dripping sarcasm), and so many anons and ridiculous name changes, it is not what I would call paranoid hallucinations. Every time RK posts anything, either you or Mike get the ball rolling. I am frankly tired of it as are other serious commenters, one of the reasons I decided to make some accusations of my own backed up with evidence. I am done with that.

I recognize that this site is OW, that Cox could pull the plug on anyone (yet he rarely do so) or even the whole site, and that we rarely follow the thread. I have been to a religious based site that if you get off topic (the topics are not rude, just not pertinent), you are warned immediately. I enjoy coming here for the most part, because I am limited in my recreational outlets at the moment.

So, the short answer is you are part of the "ongoing paranoid hallucinations from BovineQueen and his baseless accusations" syndrome. I guess my sense of humor differs from yours (and others who keep up the name game). I completely agree with Grammie's intellectual honesty argument. Another distraction...

I just looked at the other thread and forgot about Rudy/Philby. I pointed out the overuse of the & sign and Cox noted the same URL for both. Philby was also a "world traveler" and let everyone know it (I'm off to blah blah blah). Is there a parallel to be drawn to anyone else? You decide. I couldn't care less.

>Don't you think Grammie may be offline and maybe has other things to do at the moment? She doesn't shrink away from questions and catches up when she gets a chance. I can't answer for Robert Cox but I will speak up for Janet, who doesn't run and hide or turn chicken-blogger when confronted.

Posted by: Sharon at July 13, 2007 5:22 PM

I appreciate your loyalty, Sharon, it's an admirable quality, except when it clouds the three R's: reading, retention & reasoning.

My line about how Grammie and Cox would rather go on about names should have gave you an indication they have both been on this thread and both have posted but have both changed the subject or kept rambling on without addressing my questions (which were posted within a very short period of time to their posts.)

>Why don't you ACTUALLY ANSWER any one of my questions posed to you, since I bothered to answer yours.

Posted by: Bush isn't Evil and Cheney ain't Dumb at July 12, 2007 7:43 PM

>ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Posted by: Janet Hawkins at July 13, 2007 6:56 AM

>ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Posted by: Robert Cox at July 13, 2007 11:59 AM

Not surprising you would NOT make the same sort of lame defense for those you don't agree with:

No answer, patsy? Running w/your tool between your legs? Yep.

Posted by: royalking at July 12, 2007 7:44 PM

Loyalty for the sake of loyalty and not using what may or may not be between your ears is a warning sign of Kool-Aid abuse. Seek help now. Or better yet - have someone you trust and admire tell you to seek help.

U.S. Troops Battle Iraqi Police
By LEE KEATH, Associated Press Writer
51 minutes ago

BAGHDAD - U.S. troops battled Iraqi police suspected of links to Iranian-backed Shiite militiamen, killing six in a rare firefight between American soldiers and their Iraqi partners. Friday's clash underscored the deep infiltration of militants in the country's security forces.

________________________________________

It's going to be pretty hard to kill all those Al-Qaeda types rushing into Iraq to get a date with Allah if the Iraq police (that we armed and trained) keep getting in the way.

I realize a site needs some coherent theme, but I really think the Olbermann deal is just getting silly. The first time I came to this site I did so because I was told O'Reilly was funding it. I don't know that was ever true. I suspect it was not, and it is of no particular interest to me, in any event.

I do find it odd that a rather insignificant television personality of little appeal to most people, should warrant so much attention. I guess the answer is: He does not. What would you say? 5-10% on topic? I figure I am not traveling about 25-27 weeks out of the year (ridicule me, if you will, but that is a work reality for me). When I am in the States traveling, I might capture Olbermann, perhaps once a week, and then for only 10 or 15 minutes. Even less when I am at home. I bore quickly. So, maybe 5 hours a year. I click on O'Reilly maybe 3 hours a year, Dobbs about the same. Never Hannity, never Cooper nor Carlson. And, most of my friends seem to average about the same. I think for most Americans, these folks are all pretty insignificant. O'Reilly can crow all he wants to about being "most watched," but it is still a very, very small segment of the total viewing audience, smaller still of the American public which I trust has better things to do in the prime of the evening.

That's all by way of saying that the value of this site is not in any fashion connected to Olbermann. My own personal wish is that the ruse be dropped, but I don't really care deeply about that.

I do tend to agree that the name situation is trite, of no particular interest to anyone. While I have taken a profound dislike to what the individual who most often signs his name as "royalking" has to "offer," which is little or nothing of value, I have taken a great deal of pleasure in prodding him, getting him riled up, throwing him off balance. But, I am tired of that, as well. In part, he is far too easy a target, and in part, beyond some sadistic pleasure or release, it serves no purpose. So, that has now ended.

I will say, Sharon, while I find a great deal of value in what you and Cecelia have to offer, even disagreeing with both of you on so many counts, I do sometimes find the rat pack ethos (with Ms. Hawkins of whose contributions I have a far less favorable view) as tiresome and stifling as you apparently and rightfully have found the name issue to be tiresome and pointless.

If the type of endeavor some of us usually undertake seriously and with purpose is to be valued, the value is in the ideas and not in name-calling nor in pandering (although, admittedly, the former is far more prevalent).

So, the name issue is, for me, buried, and it is my intention that the sniping issue meet its end as well. If, as I truly believe, Olbermann is insignificant and ought not be the focus of energy, then there is a lesson in that for me as well, with reference to he who I have enjoyed tormenting. I won't apologize for the tormenting, but I will admit it gave too much emphasis to an insignificant, valueless body of material and personality. So, that said, this is over too.

I won't be participating in earnest until next week due to some committments over the weekend (perhaps a salvo from time-to-time), but come Monday, it is my intention that my focus be on issues which deeply concern me and are so vital to our nation: Iraq, the War Against Terrorism, the selection of new leadership, civil and political rights, and, I am sure, new and emerging issues as time passes. I would like to see that be the prevalent work on this site, with some time for fun, of course. This could be a really effective tool for testing ideas. Part of my weekend committments include some time spent honoring Ms. Johnson, one of the great women of my home state and our nation, and I have taken guidance from her saying, undoubtedly borrowed from others, "The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom." That is a melodic sound. The on-going exchange of personal barbs, however fun or fulfilling in the short term, is merely a "resounding gong ... a clashing cymbal". So, like it or not, a metamorphosis of sorts.

"tiresome and stifling as you apparently and rightfully have found the name issue to be tiresome and pointless."

Posted by: Mrs. Philby at July 13, 2007 6:48 PM

If you wouldn't keep changing your name, it wouldn't be so "tiresome." I'll take the rest of your post as a surrender. You are definitely singing a different tune, not the cocky little poster of the past. Head hanging low in defeat......Have a good weekend, Mrs. Philby.

I shall. Unfortunately it portends to be yet another wet one. You have an excellent weekend as well, royalking.

I am glad for your change of heart Clucker but I have never understood the mentality of "he who I have enjoyed tormenting." That is a temptation that I was blessed with not having to conquer (there are plenty of others). Your whole change of heart is very degrading to RK, another vice I don't have to overcome. He doesn't need me to speak on his behalf; it is just my own belief system. That is what I always founf disturbing about Professor Bob. I pity the student(s) who held a different view.

patsy, can you name one "baseless, racist accusation? "His own people" in regards to Obama is NOT racist, either. "My own people" are Native Americans and if someone referred to whites as "their own people" I would not consider it racist, either. Calling Obama a "black man" is not racist, either, which you said was.

That's exactly what I expected from you patsy, 100% spew. I gave you a chance, you failed.

Thanks, Bob!

Given the slipshod nature of Adminsitration war strategy and the almost whimsical operation of the State Department these days, it is difficult to know whether this report is true, but it seems to have been a well considered piece in yesterday's TIMES and has been "seeded" in some of the more respected, middle-of-the-road European publications like DER SPIEGEL:

"Anticipating that moment, even some of Mr. Bush's aides acknowledge that the increase in American forces that the president so ardently defended Thursday was already in its final phases. From the White House to the Pentagon to the military headquarters in Iraq, the focus of behind-the-scenes planning is already on what follows - a "post-surge" mission for the American military that Mr. Bush only alluded to on Thursday.

"That narrower mission would focus the Americans on training Iraqi forces, assuring Iraq's territorial integrity, deterring Iran from seeking to extend its influence in Iraq and preventing Iraq from becoming, as a result of a botched American occupation and all that followed, a terrorist haven. To a significant extent, it would pull American troops off the streets and out of harm's way.

"White House officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity so as not to upstage the president, say that it is now clear that Mr. Bush is headed in that direction - and that the Iraqis want Washington to go there, too."

There may be some other indications that this is accurate: the willingness of top Republicans to begin to step away, including, in limited measure, even the uberhawk McCain, the strained and undocumented cries of Surge success in Bush's mid and late week utterances (perhaps, to lay a theoretical framework of Bush claiming to have been vindicated), and the truly bizarre, almost psychotic behavior of Bush in the last several weeks (disjointed comments in which he seems to shut down and drift; his highly flippant and snide remarks, not only to the press, but also to the young girl in Ohio; his general and rapid physical degeneration, at least in appearance). If, as some on the site, proclaim that the Surge is just getting started, yet it is already ending, one has to wonder if it was ever intended to accomplish anything (other than buying the Administration time for strategic planning which ought to have been accomplished months, even years ago, or even, perhaps too cynically, for simple Bush face-saving).

Also, if accurate, this is a stunning adoption of the ISG and an equally stunning rejection of the neo-con manifesto as clumsily and partially restated by Mr. Cox.

This may be some of the biggest real news in some time.

In defense of my RW friends, they were largely "true believers," fundamentalists to the bone. And, they have held onto their faith in Bush tenaciously. We all know how hard it is to have a tenant of faith suddenly questioned. The epiphany has come for most, however, and it is blinding. It seems to have been an epiphany in the truest sense, too, sudden, undenying. In deference to them, I am willing to let them grope around a bit to try to get their bearings. It is proving traumatic.

The terrorists have had nothing but embolding and defense from the likes of Olbermahn and the dems have been doing nothing but trying to keep Bush's hands tied for the last 6 yrs. Is it any wonder? I'm not surprised, one bit.

GWB can't even secure the main road from the airport to the center of Baghdad in 5 years.
=

Posted by: below average mexican patsy at July 14, 2007 9:11 PM

patsy's newest far left lunatic fringe talking point, Ding! Baaa, baaa, baaa. Let me guess, you got it from DU? BBCrap? Puffington Post? Have you been to Bagdad and riven on the airport road? How do you know it isn't secure? Somebody told you so? Been to Detriot, The Bronx, East LA and walked around at night, lately? Not very "secure."

Perhaps if Rove arranged a Katrina-style flyover of the airport road in Bagdad, we could secure it. The flyover was a tremendous aid to the flood victims on their roofs and the thirsty people begging for water at New Orleans.

COMMENT OF THE MONTH! Give AAP a star!

Bob, let cheap Made in China goods flood the M.E. (it is happening already) while Al Qaeda calls to go back into the stone age, soon the backward muslim extremists will be willing to trade 100 barrels of oil for a bag of pork rinds.

Finally, your latest Op-Ed sucks, but not as bad as the last one. I guess you are making progress.

Again, Thanks Bob!

Posted by: Average American Patriot at July 12, 2007 4:26 PM

The only problem with mexican patsy's "post" is muslims don't eat pork....do they?

*New & Improved* COMMENT OF THE MONTH! Give royalking a star!

The only problem with mexican patsy's "post" is muslims don't eat pork....do they?
Posted by: royalking at July 17, 2007 7:16 PM

Why the sudden interest from the left wing for Al Qaeda? Have you guys been listening to Savage? A few weeks ago they were all morons, remember? Now, all of the sudden, we should worry about them? What are you guys, fear mongers? Who's marching orders are you following, Puffington Post? Media Matters? DU?

Why the sudden interest from the left wing for Al Qaeda?
---------------
I suppose because Al Qaeda is a much bigger problem than it was six or seven years ago.