The Breck Boy continues to prove his brain is as empty as his soul.

And, since he loves poor and impovershed so much, how come he cant get along with his neighbors??

Where is the outrage from the lefties that a classified report was leaked to the press? Where is the call for an investigation? An independent prosecutor?
Al Queda has always and will continue to be a threat. I did not need a report to know that. The things about liberals is they have their head in the sand. They will say that if we leave Iraq, Al Queda will stop trying to kill us. That is how demented their thinking is.

I also thought it was ironic that Al Queda is strengthened in Europe, the same Europe that refused to take the war to them in Iraq. Seems they like the countries that roll over from weakness. ww

The outrage form the left is over the utter bullshit being pushed by bloggers like Kim.

President Bush came right out and said there is no immediate threat, but bloggers like this one want you to believe otherwise because they are running of apologies for the repeated failure after failure of this administration.

President George W. Bush quickly distanced himself from Chertoff's remarks, with spokesman Tony Fratto saying "there continues to be no credible, specific intelligence to suggest that there is an imminent threat to the homeland."

Get a new schtick!

Harry Reid won't answer ABC News' question: 'Will the Iraqis be safer if we leave?'

Of course Lee Ward does not know what words mean. Imminent Threat, means for sure, no doubt. Please Lee, besides your constantly attacking any woman who posts here, you would think you would look up words your not sure of before you comment trying to look intelligient but end up looking foolish.

For the lefties, we have not been attacked on US soil since 9/11. Thank you GW. ww

And by the way, what happened to "War Czar" Gen. Douglas Lute? I guess he was just a momentary distraction -- part of Operation ROTC (Run Out The Clock).

Al Queda is in Iraq, Al Queda in in the US. It's in Europe.

Thanks to GW Bush's foreign policy of occupation and invasion we can expect much more of the same.

I suggest Kim read the latest report from the Nation which I have attached for her reading pleasure. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/hedges/8

The hatred we have exported to other countries is guaranteed to come back and slap us in the face. Just because it hasn't as yet means nothing.

Bush is the big evil. And no matter what he does, might do, think of doing, or even speculate about possibly thinking of doing... it'll be wrong. Horribly wrong. EEEEEvily wrong.

If there's no successful attack, it's proof there's no threat. If there's a partially successful attack, then it's all part of a conspiracy to keep the American Public afraid. If there should be a successful attack, he's a friggin' incompetent who should have KNOWN the attack was coming and stopped it with his bare hands, OR he's a criminal mastermind looking to institute a Christian theocratic dictatorship ala Heinlein's "If This Goes On"... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_This_Goes_On) through fomenting a state of perpetual war with Islam.

Maybe both. Is it possible to be a supremely competent incompetent criminal mastermind?

It all depends on what the meme of the day is.

It couldn't be because he's doing what he thinks best to protect the US from another attack - it's because of some base ulterior motives that seem to come far more from inside the mind of the critic than from reality itself.

And then there are bloggers like lee who like to constantly delete comments and ban commenters they don't agree with on their pathetic echo chamber blogs. It's funny when you look at conservative blogs versus liberal ones and see which are the truly open and free "societies", as opposed to everything liberals bitch and moan about.

Hey, "civil behavior," why did al-Qaeda attack the WTC in 1993, 8 years before Bush took office and 10 years before he ordered the invasion of Iraq?

Why did al-Qaeda attack the US Embassy in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, 3 years before Bush took office and 5 years before the Iraq war?

Why did al-Qaeda attack the USS Cole in October 2000, about a month before Bush was elected, several months before he was inaugurated, and 3 years before we went into Iraq?

In fact, all of these attacks took place during the administration of one President (though, to be fair, the first WTC bombing was merely a month into his administration, so it would be a large stretch to consider his Presidency a factor in that plot).

Which President was that, "civil behavior"?

C-C-G -

They did it because they knew Bush was going to be elected in '00 - and they were trying a pre-emptive strike because through superior Islamic Science they got a tip from a time machine that Bush would be in the WTC on that day. Because EVERYTHING has to be Bush's fault!

why did al-Qaeda attack the WTC in 1993...Why did al-Qaeda attack the US Embassy in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998...Why did al-Qaeda attack the USS Cole in October 2000...?

Not to get all Ron Paul on you, but blowback.

(Or because they hate freedom. Take your pick.)

Low-flying fruit, mantis.
==============

Interesting, Mantis. An exerpt from Blowback's editorial review on the same page:

"The evidence is building up that in the decade following the end of the Cold War, the United States largely abandoned a reliance on diplomacy, economic aid, international law, and multilateral institutions in carrying out its foreign policies and resorted much of the time to bluster, military force, and financial manipulation,"

"The decade following the end of the cold war." Isn't this the decade constantly championed by the left as responsible for those great peace dividends? A time when we respected the rule of International Law? When our military was only used when absolutely necessary? A time when diplomacy reigned supreme?

But it's Bush's manipulation, Bush's military bluster, Bush's abandonment of diplomacy that the left is constantly chanting.

Right.

Nevermind that I won't read a book with the words "American Empire" in the title as it's merely used to be provocative and is not used in its true sense of the meaning. It's an age old tactic. Make an assertion regardless of the truth of it, then base an entire argument on that. Noam Chomsky does this all the time and he's still a darling of the far left.

why did al-Qaeda attack the WTC in 1993...Why did al-Qaeda attack the US Embassy in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998...Why did al-Qaeda attack the USS Cole in October 2000...?

Was this not because Bin Laden was pissed about US Occupation in Saudi Arabia, especially after the Gulf War? Or, as mantis pointed out, we were told by Bush, that they do hate our freedom. I'm not sure what the answer to terror is, since to me, to completely destroy terror would be to not only kill EVERY terrorist in the world, but also their children and wives, since you can't have them raising more terrorists nor harbor further hatred for having their loved one killed. In the process tens of thousands of innocent people will be killed, but hey, it's not on our soil, nor our people. We don't negotiate with terrorists so we shouldn't try. This IS quite a pickle! I'm guessing from what I'm reading here, totaly annihilation is the only answer.

And upon further reading, isn't that book focused on east Asia?

Of course the terrorists hate freedom. Iraq is proof of this. The terrorists in Iraq know that when there is a reduction in the violence they US will withdraw forces, yet they keep going. Why? They hate freedom. We are just the delievery system. Democracy is based on individual rights, not theocracy. They do not want that. The bozo's on this site that think Al Queda really hates us because of GW is so wrong it is pitiful. They hate what we stand for. The liberal lefties probably would be fine with giving up the way they live to appease the big bad terrorists, but I won't. I will go down fighting and supporting the fight of these lunatics that want us all dead because of who we are. The lefties just don't get it. ww

Simply put war is usually about control and power (C&P). Conventional warfare has been used most recently to gain C&P as seen in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. It's about a person or group of person's desire to control a populace and it's resources. This P&C is rooted in meglomania, Greed, ideology, and a hundred other different reasons but the goal is usually consistant.

Using terrorism through other-than-religious means has been mostly ineffective since the middle ages (with a few exceptions). Terrorism needs something the masses can rally around (examples are the French Rev. and Communist purges in Russia, China, and Vietnam where the rich and affluent ruling class and their supposed "holding down of the masses" became the catalyst). But what if you aspire to P&C of a much larger populace? Say, maybe the WORLD? Enter religion, especially where blissfl eternal life is the reward.

The strategy used by AQ and OBL is near-brilliant. Through mullahs (who have their own thirst for P&C) expousing fundamentalism, OBL et al can manipulate the masses to perform terrorism around the banner of hatred for the infidel and a promise of eternal life with virgins. Of course OBL et al and the mullahs all know these promises are bullshit as you rarely see them on the frontlines and generally they act as cowards (see Al Sadr).

The personal narcotic of controling such operations where people willingly die for you must be overwhelmingly intoxicating. But hopefully only until a team of rough men put a round from a Barrett through your skull

"The decade following the end of the cold war." Isn't this the decade constantly championed by the left as responsible for those great peace dividends? A time when we respected the rule of International Law? When our military was only used when absolutely necessary? A time when diplomacy reigned supreme?

I don't know, is it? I'm pretty sure I've never asserted that. Our military was used in the 1990s when it wasn't necessary, international law was even less defined than it is now, and the "great peace dividends" apply only to former Soviet states (certainly not the Middle East), and unevenly at that. I certainly don't think that "diplomacy reigned supreme" during the 90s.

In any case, the tired canard of "Wait, but I though the whole left (or right) thought this!" is a thoughtless and lazy argument.

But it's Bush's manipulation, Bush's military bluster, Bush's abandonment of diplomacy that the left is constantly chanting.

Some of us are critical of US foreign policy going back years. Johnson's book was published in 2000, and deals in large part with Clinton and Bush 41's policies. But yes, the fact is that Bush 43 has expanded the military activities that Johnson attributes blowback to.

Nevermind that I won't read a book with the words "American Empire" in the title as it's merely used to be provocative and is not used in its true sense of the meaning.

Good argument: "I don't like a word you used!" The term empire has been co-opted by many to describe US foreign policy over the past several decades, changing the meaning slightly as we are not colonialists in the traditional sense, but rather seek to spread the American model, economic, political, etc., around the world, in addition to maintaining and expanding on our worldwide military dominance. This is not really in dispute, and is the stated aim of our current foreign policy. That you dislike the use of that word doesn't change the facts. And by the way, most of the people who seek to harm us see us as exactly that, an empire. In any case, you don't have to read the book. Personally I like to understand the arguments that are out there, both those I agree with and those I don't. But then again, ignorance is bliss.

Noam Chomsky does this all the time and he's still a darling of the far left.

Chomsky's a kook. Johnson is not.

And upon further reading, isn't that book focused on east Asia?

Yes, it is, as that is Johnson's area of expertise. The phenomena, however, is worldwide.

"The outrage form[sic] the left is over the utter bullshit being pushed by bloggers like Kim.

President Bush came right out and said there is no immediate threat, but bloggers like this one want you to believe otherwise because they are running of apologies for the repeated failure after failure of this administration."

Idiots will continue to say this right up until the attack... when they will magically spin 180° and insist that the administration was criminally negligent for not telling them of potential dangers beforehand.

Also of note, if there is no attack coming, then Bush has waged an incredibly successful GWOT, no?

Not to get all Ron Paul on you, but blowback.

Yes, if only America had left the region alone, there wouldn't be Islamic fanactics that believed their religion compelled them to spread it 'by the sword'. And if we hadn't tried to isolate the U.S.S.R. there wouldn't have been a Cold War and there would be 'peace' in the world.

"The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition of socialism."- Karl Marx

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
---Herman Goering

Never ceases to amaze me how easy it has been for the cons to fall into lockstep at this level and deny that they have.

And now we all know American empire has been in action for years (see Confessions of an Economic Hit Man). We all can KNOW what our government has been doing if we read (previous administrations included) But in todays situation, those who deny it are simply saluting the most conniving dictator in chief who through his terms in the WH has GREATLY exacerbated the previously held doctrine of fascism light.

Deny it all you want. The franchising of Al Queda has metastasized thanks to the secretive manipulations of a nasty plutocracy who firmly believe in government for the few at the expense of the many. GW & Dick have taken it to a whole new level, not that it didn't exist to some extent previously.

As Tolstoy wrote: "...the subjection of men to government will always continue as long as patriotism exists, for every ruling power rests on patriotism -- on the readiness of men to submit to power... " As long as people are patriotic, they will overlook the sins of their government, both towards their own people, and towards other those in other countries.

So make sure you gas up the SUV, wrap up in your blood soaked flag fellas and head out shopping. The PNAC's new and improved version of democracy is obviously all you need. The rest of us require much more freedom to live as the Founding Father's intended.

All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked

which would be completely validated by two large vacancies in the Manhattan skyline, among other things. Are you actively seeking to deny reality or does it come naturally ?

Well, first of all, Mantis, I wasn't accusing you specifically of being one of those "champions" of selective pre-9/11 memory. And to clarify my "the left" statement I'm going by the many, many arguments put forward here by those on the left who do just that. Those here and elsewhere. But words have meaning and I stand corrected. Allow me to rephrase it to mean "many on the left" and "more on the far-left".

I turned down your recommendation because there are quite a few other resources which do not use "co-opted phrases" whose meanings have evolved to mean what that author wants it to mean or what has become "socially acceptable". To me, and apparently to you in the way you called out my first couple points, words have meaning. So rest assured that I am not "blisfully ignorant" and wish to remain so because I rejected your preference. For your information I have read much about American interference and influence in other countries economically, culturally and politically. And while I don't always agree with the tactics and specific episodes of such interference, I also understand that there are two sides to every story and many and varied reasons why things lead into what they do. I am indeed aware. I am not afraid of criticism nor do I turn a deaf ear to those I disagree with. I just disagree.

Good argument: "...most of the people who seek to harm us see us as exactly that, an empire," is a lazy argument too if you want to to be honest.

Good argument: "...most of the people who seek to harm us see us as exactly that, an empire," is a lazy argument too if you want to to be honest.

It's not an argument, it's a fact, and it has violent consequences. What to do about it is an argument, and a much, much longer one.

She does? She said there was an immediate threat? In this thread? Really? Methinks not.

Anyway...

Time for you to straighten out--or least be consistent--with what you consider a "threat" to be. The other day you went nutso over AQ being at it's strongest since 9/11 which, I think it's safe to assume given your reason for posting it in the first place, you view as being a "threat". Yet, when it comes to Kim posting reports about AQ "working to strike at US" that's not a threat; that's just right-wing/neo-con fearmongering and therefore we should only do something (aka: preemptive strike) if there's a credible and verifiable threat. Do I have that right? I believe I do.

Mantis: Again, my point was missed. That others see us as an empire does not mean that we are, in the true sense, what an empire is. The very first entry in the dictionary for the word "empire" is (and I'm sure I don't have to point this out to you):

1. a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.

Yes, there are a significant number, of say Muslims, who see us as an empire. When it is they who wish to be exactly that, "an empire" ruled under one caliph. They don't just wish it, they actively pursue it. Odd too that we are slapped with the "empire" label and not, say, China who seeks to absorb more territory as we speak. Why, we have someone on this very thread who mentions our "occupation" of Saudi Arabia. That's how misunderstood all this is.

But I am to lend merit to the fact that some see us as an "empire" by the simple virtue that they do? I'm not doubting they see it that way. I'm saying they're wrong. We are not alone in this world of countries who act in their own interests. It's what countries do. How they do it is another argument.

They hate freedom. We are just the delievery system. Democracy is based on individual rights, not theocracy. They do not want that. The bozo's on this site that think Al Queda really hates us because of GW is so wrong it is pitiful. They hate what we stand for.

You're an idiot. Short of the poster you're mentioning, I doubt anyone thinks al qaeda hates us because of GWB. They hate us because we held bases in their holy land in Saudi Arabia. They hate us because we have propped up dictatorships for cheap oil. They hate us because we don't ascribe to their twisted religious beliefs.

They don't hate us "because of our freedom." That's a stupid, simple man's slogan. They have motives for attacking us, and they're foul, but it's we're not dealing with the borg.

What did these guys hit when they attacked us? The World Trade Center, beacon of capitalism, and the Pentagon, our government building. They're not attacking the Piggly Wiggly here. It would get them nowhere. But I'm sure some scared, right wing nut like you from deep in Oklahoma thinks they will attack their Piggly Wiggly. That's not a real fear based on facts, it's a fear created by GWB.

You can't defeat an enemy with slogans, especially stupid ones like that. They are too broad and don't come close to addressing the real motives of these people. But, then again, we have a stupid person in office, and 29% of the public who support him probably have the same IQ.

I just can't stomach morons who quote this idiot President like he actually knows something. He's a proven failure by every measure.

That others see us as an empire does not mean that we are, in the true sense, what an empire is.

Words change, adapt, and are given new meanings. I've already said that people use that word in different way than it has been in the past. I understand you have a problem with people using that word, but you are missing the point.

Yes, there are a significant number, of say Muslims, who see us as an empire.

Yes, and it's not because we have an emperor that rules over many nations. You can argue semantics with those people if you want, but that won't make them want to hurt us any less.

When it is they who wish to be exactly that, "an empire" ruled under one caliph.

A pipe dream of the highest order, for those who do. Not only would they have to overcome the differences between all the sects and divisions to form a pan-islamic unity (fat chance), they would have to overthrow the various governments in "apostate" nations (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, etc.), and then they could worry about taking over non-Muslim lands (for those extremists for whom this is even a goal, which is not most of them). In any case, moderate Muslims around the world think of us this way, not just those who dream of a renewed caliphate.

They don't just wish it, they actively pursue it.

So far all they can manage is hit-and-run terrorist attacks. Not exactly the military machines of Germany and Italy in the 1930s, despite much of the rhetoric of the right.

Odd too that we are slapped with the "empire" label and not, say, China who seeks to absorb more territory as we speak.

Yeah, China has managed to absorb so much territory. Let's see, there's Tibet, 56 years ago....and, well, that's about it. Holy shit, how are we going to stop them?! Please. We have over 700 military bases in about 130 countries around the world. How many does China have?

Why, we have someone on this very thread who mentions our "occupation" of Saudi Arabia. That's how misunderstood all this is.

By that person, and yourself.

But I am to lend merit to the fact that some see us as an "empire" by the simple virtue that they do?

Yes, because it affects our national security, and the safety of Americans around the globe. We ignore it at our peril.

I'm not doubting they see it that way. I'm saying they're wrong.

You saying they're wrong does not convince them that we are benevolent or at least benign. We are seen as the enemy at least in part due to our actions (political, economic, and military) around the globe. To thumb our nose at those who see us as the enemy and say, "you're wrong" will not spread peace and freedom across the globe.

We are not alone in this world of countries who act in their own interests. It's what countries do. How they do it is another argument.

All I'm arguing is how we do it. Trying not to cause the entire world to wish destruction upon us is in our own interest. Sad you don't see that.

Bush is the big evil. And no matter what he does, might do, think of doing, or even speculate about possibly thinking of doing... it'll be wrong. Horribly wrong. EEEEEvily wrong.

If there's no successful attack, it's proof there's no threat. If there's a partially successful attack, then it's all part of a conspiracy to keep the American Public afraid.

You are stupid if you really think this is what people think. How about we do it the way you Repub's say it.

Bush is the big protector. And no matter what he does it'll be for our good. Tremendous good. Stuuuuuupendous good. If there's no successful attack it's proof Bush is protecting us. If there's a partially successful attack, then its proof that they want to kill us and Bush is right to increase our military response.

Get it now?

Mark:

All I'm putting out is what I've seen on various lefty and anti-war blogs, boiled down considerably from about the last three, four years. There's quite a bit of truther crap mixed in, I must admit. It adds a certain flavor to the mix, don't you agree?

If you don't like it - just consider my sources.

Mantis, I call bullshit.

An empire means just that, an area under direct, exclusive control of one government. Period.

America has gone to war and shed blood to protect other nations, and all we have ever asked in return was a place to bury our honored dead.

If we wanted to be an "empire," would we have returned Germany to German control (after 10 years of occupation, might I point out?)

Would we have returned Japan to Japanese control? Korea? Vietnam? Kuwait? Iraq after the first Gulf War?

Empires do not do that, unless they're falling apart (see British Empire).

In the context of an "American empire," it's a lefty weasel-word and should be dismissed as propaganda.

Therefore, I hereby reject it.