Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2008 > December > 04 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USHow to deny victory to terrorists
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Every time terrorists strike, the civilized world vows not to let them win. Yet time after time, we give them exactly the victory they seek.
In the Middle East, Palestinian terrorists have attacked repeatedly in hopes of disrupting peace efforts; time after time, they’ve gotten their way.
In the attacks on Sept. 11, Osama bin Laden made it clear that he was trying to provoke the United States into an overreaction; by invading Iraq, an oil-rich Islamic country that had nothing to do with 9/11, we gave him just what he wanted. Iraq became a great recruiting tool and rallying point for al-Qaida.
So it’s pretty simple: If you want to deny victory to terrorists, you figure out what they’re trying to get you to do. Then you don’t do it.
But given the emotional impact of terrorism, that can be extraordinarily hard, as the people of India know.
The goal of the terrorists who attacked Mumbai last week was not to kill hundreds of victims. “Victims are just the language of war,” as Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the mastermind of Sept. 11, told his captors.
Muhammad and other terrorists are engaged in “asymmetric warfare,” in which a much weaker party faces a much stronger opponent. Unable to win a head-on struggle, the weaker party tries to provoke its opponent into reacting in anger or fear, an overreaction that weakens it in the eyes of the world, reduces its legitimacy and makes it vulnerable.
To the Mumbai terrorists, those many dead innocents were a means of achieving their goal, which was to undermine relations between Pakistan and India and provoke the two nuclear-armed nations to war. The world is now trying to ensure that rising anger in India — anger that is natural and justified — doesn’t give the murderers what they sought.
Ironically, one of the best lessons about how to respond to terror can be drawn from a seemingly unlikely source, the career of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
In his own, very different form of asymmetric warfare, he too tried to provoke his more powerful opponents into an overreaction that would weaken them, with the very important moral difference that King chose to provoke through nonviolence. And as King discovered, some foes are too smart to play along.
In 1962, King was drawn into the struggle to desegregate the town of Albany, Ga. He led protests and marches, trying to provoke local officials into an overreaction that would reverse the power dynamic. But the Albany sheriff, Laurie Pritchett, had studied King’s tactics and refused to give King what he sought. As Pritchett later explained, he met nonviolence with nonviolence.
King would organize mass demonstrations; Pritchett’s deputies would arrest the demonstrators, but they would do so calmly and professionally. King and his lieutenants would get themselves arrested, hoping to become high-profile martyrs; Pritchett would secretly arrange to let them go.
“I’ve been thrown out of a lot of places in my day, but never before have I been thrown out of jail,” King’s assistant, the Rev. Ralph David Abernathy Jr., complained after his release.
Through patience, Pritchett denied King the images of brutal repression that could be broadcast worldwide by the media, images that would build sympathy for the underdog. Frustrated, King left Albany with segregation still in place.
But a year later in Birmingham, King met a more cooperative foe in Police Commissioner Bull Connor. When demonstrators marched, Connor responded just as King hoped, with firehoses and nightsticks and police dogs sicced upon children.
The images out of Birmingham of the strong attacking the weak horrified the nation and forced federal intervention. Within days, legal segregation in Birmingham was ended forever. The weak had beaten the strong.
“We were witnessing police violence and brutality Birmingham-style,” as John Lewis put it. “Unfortunately for Bull Connor, so was the rest of the world.”
Military force is a legitimate and necessary tool to defend ourselves and loved ones. When we can find terrorists, we should kill them, and where possible we should deny them sanctuary.
But it is important to remember that the civilized world is far stronger than they are. Whatever power they have is power that we give them through the anger and fear we allow them to provoke.
It’s hard to cite a segregationist sheriff as a role model, but Laurie Pritchett had it figured out.
Comments
By GodHatesTrash
December 4, 2008 6:50 AM | Link to this
Your macho chickenhawk RightWingnuts aren’t going to like this column Bookman.
Makes way too much sense.
By AJC/DNC Management
December 4, 2008 7:14 AM | Link to this
In the attacks on Sept. 11, Osama bin Laden made it clear that he was trying to provoke the United States into an overreaction; by invading Iraq, an oil-rich Islamic country that had nothing to do with 9/11, we gave him just what he wanted. Iraq became a great recruiting tool and rallying point for al-Qaida.-kooman, Urinal
Duh-duh-duh-duh-duh-duh-duh-duh, da,da,da. (<——-Uh, Twilight Zone theme song.)
I’ll tell you what, Jay, I betcha I can put together enough documentation to prove that Osama Bin Laden thought that, after 9/11, we would be too paralyzed with fear, almost like what your column suggested we should do, and would not directly attack the Taliban.
And I can do it whole lot faster than you can put together anything backing up the wild claims you make about Bin Laden and Iraq, blah, blah, blah.
I’m pretty sure of this challenge, being that you do not have any proof of what you say.
Think “weak horse.”
By Joey
December 4, 2008 7:20 AM | Link to this
I have read this twice, but I still do not understand what you believe people should do after a terrorist attack. What we should not do is clear. We should not over-react. But what should we do?
Please state plainly so that even the most moronic of us Wing-nuts can understand:
Exactly how should we have reacted to the Sep 11, 2001 attacks?
How should we react to the next one?
What should we do to prevent the next attack?
What should India do now?
By AJC/DNC Management
December 4, 2008 7:22 AM | Link to this
Told you I could-
“After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim.”
“When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.”-Has Been Laden
By TW
December 4, 2008 7:50 AM | Link to this
Deny the terrists?
They just want it more than wee do, Jay. They got a leader with a brain - we don’t. They sacrifice by strapping bombs to their backs - we’re lead by republicans who whine about taxes during wartime.
Should we srap bombs to our backs? Of course not. But understand and practice sacrifice for our country is a must - not to be left entirely to our soldiers and their families.
Real leadership gets the electorate to sacrifice. Republicans pander - and you see where its gotten us.
By Truly Inspirational
December 4, 2008 7:56 AM | Link to this
Most excellent column, Jay, and well thought out regarding your connection with the region’s apparent majority, based on election results. That’s truly the proper way to connect with more of the local readership. I can almost hear some of them now saying to themselves, OOOHHhhhhhh!, after grasping the analogy. Give them time though.
By RW-(the original)
December 4, 2008 8:04 AM | Link to this
When we can find terrorists, we should kill them, and where possible we should deny them sanctuary
Except that according to Jay B just prior to that statement he seems to say we should just ignore them or at the very most we should take them into custody quietly and let them walk out the backdoor without causing any fuss, although I’m a little uncomfortable with any comparison of a struggle for basic equal rights with a struggle for forced conversion to Islam.
This is just a very poorly thought out and confused article and if it has any point at all would seem to say that America blew the whole segregation issue so don’t do the same with terror. It may have well been a good thing that some, like Bull Conner, overreacted and forced America to face it’s bigotry, but does anybody really think that fighting back against terrorists will somehow mainstream them or believe that they have any desire to be mainstreamed.
By GOP is gone
December 4, 2008 8:07 AM | Link to this
I believe what Jay is trying to say is that the US is now looked upon as a “Bully” by most of the world. Bush and crew so clearly over reacted to 9/11 with the invasion of Iraq that America went from having the whole world behind us in Afghanistan to having Tony Blair as our only ally. It has weaken America by overextending our military, giving the Jihadists another cause, and made Iran free to do what it wants without Sadam keeping them in check, thus further destabilizing the Middle East.
It also made a huge division between Americans. And yes Dusty and Bud, being against the Iraq war does not make me less American than you or less patriotic than you. Questioning ones Government and Leaders is how America was founded. Speaking out against what you believe to be wrong is the right thing to do. When you believe that Obama is making a mistake, I encourage you to shout from the roof tops about it. Not you Management, your just nucking futs, you would bring an Uzi to the roof top and start taking out Libs.
What should India do? They should talk to the new Government in India. They should act responsibly. They should not start blindly swinging their fists in a rage. They should start planning against any future attacks, learning from the mistakes of this one. They should look to Gandhi’s and King’s successful tactics against much stronger opponents. Essentially as Jay is trying to say, they should not overreact with a War that will get more of their citizens killed along with Pakistanis
By DB, Gwinnettian
December 4, 2008 8:07 AM | Link to this
Truly @ 7.56, like you say.
I was going to nitpick and inquire about the realistic strategic veracity of being terribly overconcerned with what a terrorist wants, simply because I’ve heard more than a few truly dumb-as-a-bag-of-hammer cases made on from the neocons as to “which candidate would Bin Laden prefer” and suchlike.
But I’ll put that aside for now, because the notion that we’ve been living under a Bush/Cheney/Connor administration (in spirit) all this time is something I’d never stopped to consider, and Jay deserves kudos, as you say, for drawing the analogy.
By GodHatesTrash
December 4, 2008 8:13 AM | Link to this
Modern life is vewwwy scawwwy for the RightWingnuts.
But it is a fact of life that there are crazies everywhere. Heck, a couple of misfit highschoolers can put together double digit kills, and a mentally ill college student can leave over 30 dead on a college campus. And postal workers always seem to be having bad days.
The Chicken Little contingent will think the sky is falling, panic, overreact, whine and moan like anxious schoolgirls. Decent people will take thoughtful, meaningful action to deal both with the perpetrators and the root causes.
As Bookman points out, even some segregationist idiots can figure out that one has to strategerize before one reacts.
By Mrs. Godzilla
December 4, 2008 8:17 AM | Link to this
Terrorists will get no victory from me.
In fact, they can kiss my rosey red All American behind.
By @@
December 4, 2008 8:20 AM | Link to this
O:MG! tell me you didn’t, jay…..
Did you just compare Dr. King to Osama Bin Laden?
Did you just imply that the civil rights movement was a terroristic threat to America.
Uhmmmm
I’m speechless.
By AJC/DNC Management
December 4, 2008 8:20 AM | Link to this
Aahhh, yes, more of the same-
Before that, however, Mr. Holder will have to win Senate confirmation, and Members might want to ask about the politicization that took place during his watch at Justice. The first question revolves around Mr. Holder’s role in Bill Clinton’s pardon of fugitive financiers Marc Rich and Pincus Green, a pardon that even Jimmy Carter denounced as “disgraceful” and “attributable to large gifts.” Mr. Rich’s former wife, Denise Rich, had donated to the Clinton Presidential Library.-Wall Street Journal
And then we have thee Bruno-
Hillary’s presidential campaign was caught red-handed accepting huge sums of money bundled and/or donated from convicted felon Norman Hsu. In many ways the sneaky dealings with Hsu were reminiscent of other odiferous dealings with a host of other Asian donors and influence peddlers through the years, from the Riadys to Johnny Chung to John Huang to Pauline Kanchanalak to Charlie Trie.-Quinn Hillyer, AmSpec
Wonderful, isn’t it, having the same old felons and perverts back at the top?
By GodHateTrash
December 4, 2008 8:21 AM | Link to this
Good post DB.
Sobering to think that the twice-selected President of the United States has all the social skills of that notorious Alabama knuckledragger, Bull Connor.
By GOP is gone
December 4, 2008 8:27 AM | Link to this
No @@ unfortunately you are just clueless, not speechless.
By Copyleft
December 4, 2008 8:27 AM | Link to this
Actually, @@, he was contrasting the irrational and stupid approach of terrorists with the much more admirable approach of Dr. King to “asymmetrical warfare,” i.e., the kind without any actual war.
As for “what we should do,” Jay’s article seems perfectly clear to me. We should calmly take common-sense security precautions (without trashing the Constitution or sacrificing the principles we claim to cherish), track down those responsible, and bring them to justice. Overreaction and panicky violence are counterproductive.
By Joey
December 4, 2008 8:29 AM | Link to this
What Rev. King wanted was clear. It was also clear to most of us that what MLK wanted was the right thing for the U.S. to do.
What does bin Laden want? What does al Qaida want? What does Iran want? What do any of the people promoting terriorism want us to do?
Then, can we yield to their wishes? Should we yield to their wishes. What is the further cost to us if we do yield?
By GodHatesTrash
December 4, 2008 8:35 AM | Link to this
The segregationist idiots did think that MLK and his people were terrists @@.
Some RightWingnuts are still hiding under their beds because of the Civil Rights movement.
Let’s face it, everyone knows white racist idiots who view themselves as victims of the Civil Rights movement. Some of those kkklowns hold political office, not just in the South.
Alaska, for one.
By RW-(the original)
December 4, 2008 8:37 AM | Link to this
Copyleft,
It’s simply not possible that your reading of Jay’s article is correct. He plainly states that we should go and kill terrorists, but if your reading is the correct one then we would most certainly be shredding the Constitution by hunting down people that had committed a crime against us and summarily executing them.
When Jay trotted out his first draft of this article on Saturday it was much less confused because he stuck with comparing terrorist acts instead of trying to equate al Quada with the equal rights movement.
By Andrew Phillips
December 4, 2008 8:39 AM | Link to this
Your article on Dec. 4, 2008 on Islamic terrorists is a nice article, but I have a few comments on it. Are you comparing the Islamic Terrorist movement of the present day to the civil rights moment or the 60’s or the Civil Rights movement of the 60’s to Islamic terrorist movement? I am not sure or your point her. Civil right leaders were non-violent there goal was not to kill others who were intolerant of people with different view points, but rather to educate others. Islamic terrorists point is to kill and destroy people who have a different view then their own (much like liberals). They really do no care about people or about their own life. To quote a former co-worker who was from the Middle East, “Life is cheap over there.” Your article also lacked a few facts. 9/11 happened in 2001. We invaded Iraq along with about 30 other countries to thwart a mad man Saddam Hussein who threatened the free world with weapons of mass destruction, we he said he had and Bill Clinton even said he had and he used biological weapons against his own people. But I guess these facts always get in the of the liberal Bush bashing liberal media talking points. To thwart Islamic Terrorism we need to hit it head on. I have several words for these pirates off the coast of Africa, “ USS New Jersey”, that ship would solve the piracy. Fight Islamic Terrorism with strength, not through weakness and cowardness.
By silly liberals
December 4, 2008 8:42 AM | Link to this
You just don’t get it do you? “America’s a bully….the whole world hates us….we shouldn’t play the terrorist’s game…” ENOUGH ALREADY!
The terrorists hate America because we’ve stood for freedom. The rest of the world doesn’t like us not because we’re a bully but because they’re jealous of our success and the fact that they’re not the greatest country in the world. But apparently liberals are too “open-minded” to grasp even these most basic of concepts, and until they do, they’ll never be able to understand why we’re fighting terrorists and madmen the world over.
Yes, the terrorists will continue to try to bring us down, but that will only happen if we give up and let them. Their reason for disruption in Iraq is simple - they’re running scared. Let’s not forget the fact that President Bush has held off the terrorists from our shores ever since 9/11/01.
No, the terrorists are hoping that we’ll pull our soldiers away from every conflict and put our heads in the sand. Believe me, they’re more afriad of a strong America that’s out to get them than they are of an America that just sits by and tries to talk to them and do nothing. But because it involves war, the military, and an aggresive defense of the greatest country in the world beyond our shores, the liberals will never get it.
By AJC/DNC Management
December 4, 2008 8:43 AM | Link to this
On foreign policy, the left will have to content itself with Obama talking with Iran — the left loves talks — and honoring his pledge to close Guantanamo Bay. Meanwhile, the rest of us will have to cross our fingers and hope the number of released Gitmo inmates who have been killed or captured fighting with terrorists abroad does not climb above the June count of 13. Beware: A Pentagon fact sheet estimated that 7 percent of released Gitmo detainees returned to terrorist activities.-Debra Saunders
Meanwhile, Israel, not particularly interested in becoming a flaming ruin, and knowing full well that the “make the world happy” crowd has infested the Pentagon again, is “moving on-“
The IDF is drawing up options for a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities that do not include coordination with the United States, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
Finally, some real men.
By Joey
December 4, 2008 8:48 AM | Link to this
In late March, 2003 the U.S. invaded Iraq. More that 19 months after the Sep 11, 2001 attack.
This does not seem like panicky violence. Is seems a calm deliberate approach. It seemed overly calm to me while I watched the process.
My recollection is that Congress approved this action amd that Congress funded this action.
By Ray
December 4, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this
Bookman,
I take it from your spin that India should just turn the other cheek and stuff a rose down some Muslim idiot’s gun barrel. Seems that India’s borders are no more secure than ours which are so porous that anyone can just enter this country at will with most anything in mind. How soon we forget 9/11 and how this country was focused on an eye for an eye. If we had our own Mumbai, most of America would want to find the perpetrators and make them accountable. 9/11 was our first taste of things to come. Nothing wrong with a good strategy….. as long it centers around toasting the bad guys. Hope the Annointed One is up to the task. It probably won’t be too long before we get a chance to find out.
By Bud Wiser
December 4, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this
By Jay Bookman: “Military force is a legitimate and necessary tool to defend ourselves and loved ones. When we can find terrorists, we should kill them, and where possible we should deny them sanctuary.
I never thought I would live to see the day that you would actually say this in print. Where exactly does this fit into the Democratic Manifesto of talking them out of what they are planning, or being nice to them so they will be nice to us?
Does this open the door to Pakistan now? Is this part of BHO’s plan? Can we nuke ‘em?
If the end of this string of logic is manifested, then we can close up Gitmo tomorrow by executing all of the terrorists there today. Nice and clean, there is most likely a backhoe on the site to provide a symmetrically excavated grave site. Head ‘em up, move ‘em out!
By Shawny
December 4, 2008 8:52 AM | Link to this
Interesting thought processes. Say we do what you ask, turn the other cheek, and don’t ‘give them what they want’, which is a reaction of some sort. Now they are still looking for said reaction, so they do it again, except bigger this time (think first Trade Center bombing - no reaction - second Trade Center bombing).
By Paul
December 4, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this
Jay,
A point that doesn’t detract from you overall thesis but is, I think, widely repeated yet inaccurate: “In the attacks on Sept. 11, Osama bin Laden made it clear that he was trying to provoke the United States into an overreaction; by invading Iraq…” While there was an aim to provoke an ‘overreaction’, to say it al Qaeda’s intent was Iraq is a stretch.
From “The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11” by Lawrence Wright: the reason for the 9/11 attacks was to provoke a massive, incompetent overreaction. Bin Laden wanted the US to invade Afghanistan. He thought it would become a quagmire for America the way it had been for the Soviets. The US managed to invade Afghanistan without that happening. But then we invaded Iraq. Which gave bin Laden all he could have wished for. A quagmire, a focus for jihadist recruitment, and a demonstration of the limitations of American power.
I’m not citing Wright as the final word, but he does represent a view that, I think, is more in line with OBL’s statements pre-9/11.
OBL knew of the desire of figures in the Administration to take out Saddam – who wasn’t exactly supportive of AQ. But to state Iraq as an operational objective of 9/11 is a stretch.
But to your thesis, that OBL would provoke an ‘overreaction.’ In this case, it seems we did what you counseled against: launched a massive invasion that overthrew a government and destroyed AQ’s base of operations. In Afghanistan in Oct 2001. Iraq didn’t happen until a year and a half later. So let’s assume Iraq never happened.
OBL attacked. We destroyed the government (Taliban) in the country that was their base (Afghanistan). At the same time, we embarked upon a worldwide effort to shut off funding sources, track terrorist groups and relationship, hunt them and kill them. So, if it would have stopped there, it seems to me we were well on the way to meeting our objectives.
Which doesn’t mean it’s a cookie-cutter example. I would not advocate such a course for Pakistan, for instance. But Afghanistan seems to be a case where a massive military response worked.
By Bosch
December 4, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this
Great article Jay, no, I’ll say, an awesome article.
Kudos.
I’ve said many times, that OBL got exactly what he wanted with 9/11. The wingnuts are just too blind to see it. He sits in his cave laughing at us.
By Citizen of the World
December 4, 2008 9:04 AM | Link to this
Martin Luther King Jr. was inspired by Ghandi, who said “There is no way to peace, the way is peace” and achieved his ends through passive resistance and civil disobedience.
We fall right into the terrorists’ hands when we respond through violence, especially when it’s misdirected, like with the war in Iraq.
But there’s more than one way to lose and the bigger threat of terrorism is when it causes us to forfeit our civil liberties and ethical standards in the name of safety and security. The Bush administration has used the threat of terrorism to justify all sorts of torture, surveillance and spying, often without due process or just cause and that, just as much as war, has given the terrorists a victory.
Which calls to mind another quote, this one by Ben Franklin (my apologies if it’s not exact) — “He who would forfeit liberty for safety deserves neither.”
By Soixante huitard
December 4, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this
This is one of your bolder columns, Jay, and as such it contains a couple of points that are highly debatable.
But in general, this is exactly the direction we should go in when reflecting on a proper response to terrorism. We should think counter-intuitively and against the grain because that’s what the subject demands.
I was thinking yesterday of a similar way of looking at it, one which also has a parallel in local politics. Namely, gun control in public places. What would happen for ex. if the citizens of Mumbai had been carrying weapons themselves? According to the fantasy of many gun advocates, some apparently here in GA, this would actually make us safer.
But if that were to happen, guess what would be the result? Mumbai would cease to be Mumbai, just as New York would cease being New York if the majority of its citizens followed Plaxico Burress’s example and packed a weapon. And if that were the case, terrorism would win by provoking us to arm ourselves.
Now one could argue that the local advocates of guns in public places are practicing a kind of counter-intuitive thinking that is needed. But I would argue, with Jay, that the real counter-intuitive approach is to do the opposite and recognize that a key part of our strength lies in our very vulnerability. That doesn’t mean neglecting safety and defense, but it means understanding the tradeoffs that we’re making.
By Ray
December 4, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this
Israel learned long ago that the Kumbaya approach to domestic security was a pipe dream, especially when you are dealing with an enemy who is unwilling to talk, very reticent to see anyone else’s point of view and intent on seeing you meet your Maker.
El Al interviews every passenger on every flight before they are allowed to board. Israel’s borders are about as secure as any country in the world. They thrive on survival, surrounded by those that want their head on a pole. A small country, 48m across, bordered by high mountains and the ocean. Wonder how America will react when some team of idiots places a dirty bomb in some shopping center or in a crowded football stadium. Strategy?…….. Keep it from happening in the first place. We could take a lot of good lessons from Israel. We may have to before long.
By Bosch
December 4, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this
Yeah Paul,
Bush is/was such a moron that he gave OBL so much MORE than he ever wanted!
OBL probably spit his coffee all over his keyboard when he learned of Bush’s intention to invade Iraq. He probably had his messengers shot because he thought they surely must be messing with him.
I think the intention of the terrorists in the India attacks are quite painfully obvious, don’t you?
By getalife
December 4, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this
Good stuff Jay.
By Joey
December 4, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this
I have read this post by Jay four times now. There is no answer provided here.
Determine what he terrorists want a do not give it to them. Do this calmly. Do not over-react.
Repeat this process after each attack.
And by the way, if you find a terriorist, you should kill him.
But be damn sure that you don’t take him prisoner and require him to answer questions.
By Paul
December 4, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this
Bosch
Yes, I do. But the point of my earlier post is that sometimes a massive response right where the terrorist wants it (in this case, Afghanistan) can work in our favor.
I think ‘moron’ is a bit harsh. Iraq is a great example of Unintended Consequences. Some people (Obama, Brent Scowcroft) foresaw the quagmire. Where were these same voices, ringing loud and clear, in State, DoD or the Intel agencies?
Others: I do not read Jay as stating “kumbaya, turn the other cheek.” I read it as a call for evaluation of your enemy’s aims, focusing a response with an eye to nontraditional methods and keeping focused on long-term objectives. Sometimes it means responding right where and how your enemy wants you to can work to your advantage. Sometimes it doesn’t.
By "The Corporal"
December 4, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this
Jay
Military force is a legitimate and necessary tool to defend ourselves and loved ones. When we can find terrorists, we should kill them, and where possible we should deny them sanctuary.
I am very happy to see that you agree fighting terrorists is a military and NOT a law enforcement function. Therefore, no trials. You either die or you are a POW until the war is over. Your side’s choice.
Regarding your article in general:
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Sir Edmund Burke.
By Taxpayer
December 4, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this
What’s the answer. We need an answer. We need to fight this terrorism threat. What do we do! OOh, OOh! I know, I know! Let’s eliminate capital gains and dividend taxes, eliminate corporate taxes, eliminate estate taxes, borrow money to fund everything, and enlist our children in the military and ship their sorry buttocks off to the middle east to protect us. And if anyone doesn’t like it, then they’re just un-American terrorists themselves.
By Soixante huitard
December 4, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this
By comparison, here’s your typical Fox News oversimplification: Israel learned long ago that the Kumbaya approach to domestic security was a pipe dream.
To which I’m tempted to respond: and look at where we are today, partly as a result.
By Paul
December 4, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this
Soixante 9:24
Do you have a Fox News cite for that?
By AJC/DNC Management
December 4, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this
For those of you who think the election of Oblahmi has no effect on the actions of people, especially pertaining to the collapse of the stock markets and the looming depression, then please provide an answer for this-
CHICAGO (CBS) ― Gun sellers say the election of Barack Obama is helping them avoid the recession. Sales of new guns are booming - up an estimated 50 percent in the suburbs.
Recent gun sales are up nationally 42 percent. In Illinois, they are up 38 percent; and in Chicago’s suburbs 50 percent.
It doesn’t take a genius to see how bad this is going to be, oh wait a minute, when you figure in the glee of the dullard Pinkkko Nation, maybe it does take a genius.
By BDAtlanta
December 4, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this
Common sense security measures don’t include handing over control of our ports to Saudis?
Remember Bush trying to get that one through? What a bunch of idiots…right alongside pushing Harriet Myers for Supreme Court justice…
By Ray
December 4, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this
It seems like the “rights”of those who want to kill us are more important than rights of our own. I would venture to say that the average American liberal would not survive for 5 min in Israel. We haven’t switched to survival mode ….. yet. We are a nation of complacent, rather lazy, naval gazing liberals who are intent on not hurting someone’s feelings and thinking that we can talk our way out of everything. Nothing wrong with changing strategy….. as long as it keeps foremost the security of this nation and it’s people. That is the prime function of government, to protect it’s citizens. And we are doing a p* poor job of it.
By "The Corporal"
December 4, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
Today’s Headlines:
1) Israel preparing options for strike at Iran… Go it alone…
Get ready Barry the real world vs. the campaign world is coming.
2) Mumbai police to use truth serum on baby-faced terrorist…
Thank goodness he is NOT in our custody. The ACLU would be have a coronary.
By Soixante huitard
December 4, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
Paul: Do you have a Fox News cite for that?
No, I meant that the association of the approach Jay was suggesting with “Kumbaya”, as if it can be reduced to muddle-headed pacifism, represents an oversimplilfication and mischaracterization that is typical of Fox news and other conservative outlets nowadays. That’s all.
By RW-(the original)
December 4, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
Paul,
I think what makes this article so bizarre and hard to debate is the intertwining of OBL and MLK. If we follow whatever twisted logic Jay used to get to where the response’s should be the same then it would hold that if we wanted to keep segregation then we shouldn’t overreact, but we should also kill any civil rights marcher we happened upon. That certainly sounds like an overreaction to me.
Then again I see a vast difference between marching peacefully to City Hall for a just an honorable cause and flying planes full of hostages into occupied buildings with a purpose of world domination.
By Taxpayer
December 4, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
Best post of the day for me so far goes to Bosch. I almost spewed my own coffee with that “aww, what the heck, shoot the messenger anyway” line.
[[[By Bosch December 4, 2008 9:13 AM Yeah Paul, Bush is/was such a moron that he gave OBL so much MORE than he ever wanted! OBL probably spit his coffee all over his keyboard when he learned of Bush’s intention to invade Iraq. He probably had his messengers shot because he thought they surely must be messing with him…]]]
By RB from Gwinnett
December 4, 2008 9:44 AM | Link to this
@@, I caught that too. Jay just equated MLK with BinLaden. Nice one Jay. Can you still work at the AJC after doing that?
Not to throw a wrench in your silly logic or anything, Jay, but…
WTC bombing 1. - Did nothing
USS Cole bombing - did nothing
Barraks bombing - did nothing
embassy bombings - did nothing useful
If your stupid theory were correct, why did our islamic friends bother with 9/11? Is it perhaps that their mission isn’t to incite us to irrational response, but to establish islam as the ruling faction IN THE ENTIRE WORLD?? Get your prayer mat ready, Jay. You’re kind will be kneeling 5 times a day if you keep up the moronic thought we can ignore these nut cases. Even if we just arrest the perps, that alone incites their bretheren to further violence “in the name of their captive brothers held by the great satan”. Isn’t that what you said of gitmo and abu graib a few days ago?
Jay, your logic is messed up, dude.
By DB, Gwinnettian
December 4, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this
Joey, you state “In late March, 2003 the U.S. invaded Iraq. More that 19 months after the Sep 11, 2001 attack.”
True enough. But this timeline is a more accurate depiction of just how quickly the Administration and its allies were pounding the drumbeats for invasion.
From a NYTimes story linked within:
Within hours, Mr. McCain, the Vietnam War hero and famed straight talker of the 2000 Republican primary, had taken on a new role: the leading advocate of taking the American retaliation against Al Qaeda far beyond Afghanistan. In a marathon of television and radio appearances, Mr. McCain recited a short list of other countries said to support terrorism, invariably including Iraq, Iran and Syria.
(…)
Within a month he made clear his priority. “Very obviously Iraq is the first country,” he declared on CNN. By Jan. 2, Mr. McCain was on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea, yelling to a crowd of sailors and airmen: “Next up, Baghdad!”
====
I’m not piling on McCain here, just pointing out that there were very vocal, powerful people acting as if further invasions and occupations were necessary, and the sooner, the better. And they were wrong.
And as those who’ve been following his exit interviews of late are aware, the current President continues to be mired in De Nile.
Ray @ 9.38, I’ll remind you that exit polling indicates American Jews voted about 4:1 for Obama. I can attest that quite a few of these American liberals have, indeed, survived more than “5 minutes in Israel.”
By Paul
December 4, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this
Soixante
I find a lot of people don’t distinguish between the hard news shows and the political entertainment shows on Fox. Kinda like people citing The View as an example of NBC’s (or whatever station it’s on) news style.
RW-(the original)
Because the authorities weren’t out to torture, kill and eradicate the civil rights community is the biggest difference. Citing the civil rights example to illustrate effectiveness of assymetrical tactics gets lost on some.
Your earlier point - gotta keep quick, I’ve an appt so I’m out after this - Jay’s point about “kill them” - not too long ago the Special Ops team tracked an identified terrorist with a kill or capture order. They killed him. The Special Ops Lt General in charge opened an investigation on them. He thought, based on the report, killing was too harsh and the guy could have been captured.
I can only imagine what would have happened if he had been captured. “Hey guys, what Constitutional rights does this guy have right now?”
Later -
By Left Nut
December 4, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
Something to ponder…
I was just sitting here thinking during my morning coffee and this thought struck me…. After all that hupla….time and money spent during the election, what actually was the outcome?….
Another black family living in government housing!
By GOP is gone
December 4, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this
Ray,
I happen to know of a NYC born and bred Liberal who then went to Isreal and fought in the 7 day war and then some, won, and returned to America still a “pansy” Liberal. You do realize that many “elitist” Liberals are Jews don’t you?
By BDAtlanta
December 4, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
wow. It’s easy to tell who the skeerdy cats are.
Some people just need to buy more door/window locks, max out the home security system, and stock up on the canned goods and powdered milk.
BOO!
Oops, Your Wingnut readers just peed their pants. Sorry about that.
By Bosch
December 4, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
Joey,
Four times? Really? Sometimes life does not give answers.
Paul,
I still stick with “moron” - I could go much more harsh, but I’ll refrain because he’s leaving. I agree that the WAY you react is vital in dealing with terrorists.
RW,
You think OBL wants world domination? Himself to be ruler?
I don’t find it so bizarre to have OBL and MLK mentioned in the same article. They were/are both men who want a very significant change in society - comparing their tactics is not that big of a stretch, not that I think there are any similarities, but both men were/are very drastic and determined. One valued human life, the other not so much.
Taxpayer,
Thanks!
By Soixante huitard
December 4, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this
Paul: I find a lot of people don’t distinguish between the hard news shows and the political entertainment shows on Fox.
The best example of the intermingling of supposedly ‘serous’ political discussion and entertainment is Limbaugh. His success in influencing the agenda is a major reason it’s no longer possible to make a real distinction between the two.
By Ray
December 4, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this
DB,
Those 4/1 voters live in a relatively safe, protected environment and are free to gaze at their navels at will. Try running the Annointed One in an Israeli election…. wonder how they would have voted if they were Israeli citizens living in Israel?
By mm
December 4, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
Jay,
Looks like your article flew right over the heads of these low IQ wingnuts.
OBL thought he would destroy our economy by attacking the World Trade Center. But he succeeded when we attacked Iraq and we blew a trillion plus dollars in the process.
Yes, our great country is circling the financial drain, and the wingnuts are more worried about whats going on in the middle east. Just think how secure our borders would be if our troops were actually over HERE.
The only terrorists in this country are Republicans.
By cranky old man
December 4, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this
Actually, I believe Osama’s primary objective to reverse what he sees as the curruption of Islamic society by Western influence. If you want to defeat his strategic goals, then you open a new Hooters or Hard Rock Cafe in downtown Mecca every time he attacks someone. And override all televison broadcasts in the Middle East with the Playboy Channel.
By BDAtlanta
December 4, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this
On the intermingling of news and entertainment, I’ll bet some part of the reason the GOP is falling apart is because its followers can no longer distinguish the two.
On top of the entertainment aspect, you have layered in talking points from a neoconservative agenda where party officials are telling Fox what to report as news and what to not even mention. Scary
By Taxpayer
December 4, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this
cranky old man,
Now that’s thinking outside the box. Perhaps every Thursday, they could have a wet burka contest. Then again, we do have to be mindful that we could upset the wrong people.
By GOP is gone
December 4, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this
Ray,
Did I mention my friend is an Israeli citizen and an American citizen? He did vote for Obama. I should also mention both of his parents were Auschwitz survivors who had lost every member of their family. Kind of blows your “pansy” theory.
By DB, Gwinnettian
December 4, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this
Ray, if the “4/1”-ers were suddenly transported and became Israeli citizens living in Israel, they’d probably be considered fairly ideologically conservative, I’d imagine, based on what I know of day-to-day life in that country from people I’ve known and befriended, who’ve visited and/or actually lived there.
By Ray
December 4, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this
GOP,
I am not sure what an “elitist” liberal is. Thought all of them thought that they were just a little above the fray. Your Israeli friend was probably a lot like my friend who was a tank commander under Moshe Dayan. Drove a tank all the way to the Suez. I used to treat a lot of foreign nationals in helicopter training at Ft. Rucker, AL. The Israelis always sent their best and brightest. What an inspiration it was to know and admire their courage, dedication and resolve. We could use a lot of that in our country.
By RealityKing
December 4, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this
Yeah right, Osama bin Laden wanted America to invade Iraq, create a democracy and turn free loving Iraqi’s against him. Ha Ha!! I mean really Jay, that’s absurd.
No, terrorists attack because the passive have taught them that’s the way to be left alone to continue their rule in terror. Clinton’s Rwanda is the perfect example. Surely Obama doesn’t want that kind of a stain on his legacy. But it’s like Biden said yesterday on the terror attack warnings.., “ this report is, in my view, more than a warning about what we’re doing wrong, it’s a pragmatic blueprint how to get it right. ”
And of course, now that liberals have “a pragmatic blueprint for getting it right”, hell will pay if it happens on again their watch.
By sam
December 4, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
heres my take on the article…our initial reaction to 9/11 was right on..we went to afghanistan to get the people who attacked us and those who supported and hid them, we were doing fine, the world was with us…..then the overreaction part came, Bush/Cheney/Rummie saw an opportunity to take out a guy they didnt like, took our eye off the ball and let the real terrorists escape, in the process we started a war we cant get out of and have ultimately created thousands more terrorists than we’ve killed… destabalized the world much more than it already was…thats the part Bin Laden wanted and expected from us….he got it.
By GOP is gone
December 4, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this
Ray,
I completely agree with you about El Al being the safest airline. I once saw a show about the way they do their profiling of passengers. The El AL employee said the best way he screens people is to look them right in the eyes, if he gets a bad feeling he acts on it. Our Airlines security is a joke. Go ahead and profile in my opinion, and I am married to an Arab-American. The minute he opens his mouth sounding like Colonel Sanders, they back off. He also agrees about the profiling thing by the way. We were rushing through an airport once, I got ahead of him, he was detained by security, I turned around and he yelled in his southern drawl for me to go on ahead. They immediately let him go. I don’t want to give terrorist any ideas, but if they could somehow mock a true Georgian accent, they could fake their way through things easier.
By scrappy
December 4, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this
Very nice article, I agree.
Unfortunately for our conservative posters on here, you actually have to read the entire article, think about, and then come to understand the analogy prior to overreacting.
By Bosch
December 4, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this
GOP is gone,
That’s a real funny story about your husband. “Go on ahead huney. Y’all hurry on down to the gate, I’wll be okay. Tell that gate gal to hold the plane for me!”
Snicker. That’s great.
By RealityKing
December 4, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this
The state of Iraq’s recent, and historical, sign off on it’s democratic independence through American withdrawal proves Bush right. America removed a grave and growing threat to peace in order to set up a 26 million strong free democratic Iraq.
Proofs in the pudding…, now history. Please review again…
By BDAtlanta
December 4, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this
A guy writing a book on airport security was saying the other day that we knew within 1 hour of the 9/11 plane attacks how to prevent that from ever happening again: Reinforce the cockpit doors, lock them, and tell the pilots not to open them under any circumstance. There, no more airplane missiles.
He went on to say that if a terrorist wants to kill air passengers they it would make more sense to just blow themselves up in the security snake lines at airports during busy hours. That way they wouldn’t have to worry about how to get through security.
His whole point is that airline security screening is just for show. We are throwing away lots of money and people’s time to give a “sense” of security.
You have a better chance of dying in a car crash than you do of dying in a plane crash. And you have a much better chance of dying in a car crash than dying in a plane crash caused by a terrorist.
Terrorism shouldn’t scare anyone while they go about their daily lives in the US. The only reason people are so strung out about it is that the Bush Administration used it against us every chance they had….and most of those chances came at a time when they were bumbling something up. They would raise the threat level to get the news channels off of stories about their idiotic, weekly, scandals.
By GOP is gone
December 4, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this
Yeah Bosch He looks Arab but sounds very southern. It usually invokes a chuckle when he travels up north for business. He was raised very Catholic (Maronite)right here in good ole Atlanta Ga.
By DB, Gwinnettian
December 4, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this
BD, yeah. Among Obama’s first easy decisions ought to be dropping the pretense of airport “security” and at least tacitly acknowledging that we’ve been duped into participating in a very expensive, time consuming display of performance art/theater.
If nothing else, at least let passengers bring their damn water bottles and keep their damn shoes on. That’d be a start.
By Bosch
December 4, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this
Reality King,
The real question is why? And was it worth the cost to our own country both in death to our soldiers and the severe economic strain its put on us. And did it benefit us in any way. And will that democracy last or be replaced by a Shiite extreme government similar to that in Iran.
By Bosch
December 4, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
DB, Gwinnettian,
I don’t know, I rather like running through the airport in my socks.
By RB from Gwinnett
December 4, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
I’m sure the government will do a much better job with our healthcare than they’re doing with airport security….
By Truly Inspirational
December 4, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this
We all have better odds of dying from the Republican philosophy of non-regulated business than from terrorist attacks. If not from salmonella-laced jalapenos, melamine-enhanced milk, lead-lined baby chew toys, etc., just give Bush and his Republican business buddies half a chance and it will be something else. Some people clearly could care less about human life when it comes to making a buck. Even drug dealers do a better job of protecting their base. When they discovered than Meth was killing off their customers, they started switching back to other drugs that keep their customers happily hooked and alive to buy more.
By RW-(the original)
December 4, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
Bosch,
Sorry for the delayed response, I was making turkey sushi. Actually soup, but that sounds boring compared to sushi.
I doubt if OBL sees himself as the leader of the caliphate because he’s probably smart enough to know this will be a generations long war. Too bad we aren’t, but oddly a free Iraq may actually be the key to this whole thing ending in our favor. Let’s hope that doesn’t get screwed up.
By RealityKing
December 4, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this
For those who have much, much is expected..
America invaded Iraq to remove Saddam and his support for the ideals of Middle Eastern domination through terror.
America invaded Afghanistan to remove the Taliban and its support for the ideals of Middle Eastern domination through terror.
Iran, Pakistan and Syria now clearly stand as the only ones in the M.E. cultivating terrorism instead of peace. Should we leave them alone too??
By Bosch
December 4, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this
RW,
Turkey sushi. Good one.
I agree with what you wrote @ 11:01. I hope the Iraqis are strong enough to keep their country a democracy.
None of my beeswax, but I hope the AT&T layoffs aren’t close to your home.
By HUH?
December 4, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this
By AJC/DNC Management
December 4, 2008 7:22 AM | Link to this
Told you I could-
“After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished …”
Just who do you claim wrote that screed? Where did it appear? Who provided the translation? Since you present yourself as the superior journalist/reseacher - step up with appropriate citations, please.
By RW-(the original)
December 4, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this
Bosch,
Thanks, but I’ve always been the anti-AT&T and actually a down economy is much better for my business since I specialize in servicing legacy equipment. People tend to keep the older stuff around longer when the economy is sputtering and for some odd reason lots of other companies in my line of work don’t understand that so they start farming out their service work to companies like mine. The downside is that if we stay in a recession for long I’ll have to start hiring.
By AJC/DNC Management
December 4, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this
By HUH? December 4, 2008 11:13 AM Since you present yourself as the superior journalist/reseacher - step up with appropriate citations, please.
You know, I did put the name Has Been Laden at the end of it for a reason.
~~~~~
It is funny to compare liberal Americans to Israelis, the libs live a cartoonish existence in a nation protected by real men, while the Israelis don’t.
By HUH?
December 4, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this
By AJC/DNC Management
December 4, 2008 7:22 AM | Link to this
You know, I did put the name Has Been Laden at the end of it for a reason.
Yes, but did not answer the questions. Typical!
By RW-(the original)
December 4, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this
HUH?
What Andy supplied you with came right from the horses mouth in a 1998 interview on Frontline
By HUH?
December 4, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this
By RW-(the original)
December 4, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this
HUH?
What Andy supplied you with came right from the horses mouth in a 1998 interview on Frontline
Thank you - that is all he needed to do in the first place. After all, since he attributed it to a made up name, who is to say that the words were fabricated as well? It is nice of you to have your buddy’s back. Forgive me for not remembering a 10 year old interview.
By AmVet
December 4, 2008 12:32 PM | Link to this
This explains why the GOP’s lunatic fringe will never again be relevant.
The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn. - Alvin Toffler
In other words they’re stuck on stupid…
By "The Corporal"
December 4, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this
Does anyone know if Obama has ever gone hunting or shot a gun?
I know he has admitted to shooting cocaine.
By Taxpayer
December 4, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this
So, AmVet, when a loyal member of the GOP cries (whines, etc.) out for help via an SOS, what they’re really exclaiming is that they’re “Stuck On Stupid” and they need help. Sort of like the “Help, I’ve fallen and I can’t get up” commercial. That actually makes sense.
By Shawny
December 4, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this
RB hit it earlier with: WTC bombing 1. - Did nothing
USS Cole bombing - did nothing
Barraks bombing - did nothing
embassy bombings - did nothing useful
Bookman, your ruse that Osama pulled off 9/11 in order to ‘trick’ the US into invading Iraq is the stupidest thing ever.
All of the above events took place, mostly, if not entirely, on the Clinton watch. We did NOTHING. Osama planned the US attack of 9-11 for years, basically during Clinton’s reign. Sandy ‘document stuffer’ Berger knows. Billy boy knows. Heck, Billy Boy forced ABC to pull “The Path to 9/11” movie, as it had some factual references to failings during his administration to stop the travesty.
Point is, if we KNOW there were plans for a big hit on the US during a ‘friendly’, non-confrontational administration, following multiple attempts to ‘lure’ the US into actions that we clearly didn’t bite on, HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT THE ARGUMENT THAT SITTING BACK AND NOT GETTING INVOLVED IS THE BEST DETERRENT FOR FUTURE ATTACKS? ‘Splain it to me, Lucy.
By Copyleft
December 4, 2008 2:02 PM | Link to this
All of you folks sneering about how “liberals wouldn’t last five minutes in a Muslim theocracy” should think about what you’re saying….
You’re right, of course. Because what the terrorists REALLY hate is what we liberal Americans represent: freedom, secularism, and a refusal to accept theocracy.
As for you right-wing Christian types—heck, they’d recognize you as kindred spirits right away. Hateful, intolerant, spewing rage and violence at the corrupt, decadent, LIBERAL society we’ve built… you’d fit right in with them, because you’re already there in spirit.
You’re civilization’s enemies every bit as much as the terrorists are. And don’t think we’ll lose sight of that fact for even a moment in the coming eight years of President Obama’s term.
By "The Corporal"
December 4, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this
To Copyleft
You left out some differences between our two groups and the responses we would make.
You would appease them.
We would have the guts to fight them.
By Copyleft
December 4, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this
Wrong, Corporal. You have to ASSUME we’d knuckle under to terrorists because you can’t live with the reality that we know how to deal with them and you don’t. (If you hadn’t noticed, the military approach doesn’t work.)
It takes guts to fight—but it takes BRAINS to win. And we’ve seen how the “gutsy” approach has worked.
By "The Corporal"
December 4, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this
Copyleft
Dulce Bellum Inexpertis
By Copyleft
December 4, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this
Which explains why BushCo was so eager to launch one… and in the wrong direction, to boot.
By Copyleft
December 4, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this
Which explains why BushCo was so eager to launch one… and in the wrong direction, to boot.
Don’t worry your little head about it, Corporal. Better men than you will be protecting our nation from terrorism from now on.
By "The Corporal"
December 4, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this
Copyleft
1) Your branch, MOS, dates of service, etc. please.
2) U.S. Marine Corps 0311/0317 - Infantry/Scout-Sniper 3rd Marine Division Vietnam (1967-68)
3) Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier, or not having been at sea. Samuel Johnson (1709-1784).