Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

"Triumph of the Will". Where did I hear that?

Mind you, even Cheney might look better if in something produced by Leni Riefenstahl. Genius is genius, and she had it.

I'm not sure what she could have done with GWB's critical insight.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

But isn't it more likely that Al-Qaeda intends to draw the United States into unending battles that drain our treasury, weaken our military, distract our foreign policy, and yet never reverse our willingness to go on fighting. It's the American will to fight without end and arguably without judgment or flexibility that Al-Qaeda is counting on, isn't it?

Documents captured after 9/11 showed that bin Laden hoped to provoke the United States into an invasion and occupation that would entail all the complications that have arisen in Iraq....Bin Laden also hoped that such an entrapment would drain the United States financially. Many al-Qaeda documents refer to the importance of sapping American economic strength as a step toward reducing America’s ability to throw its weight around in the Middle East.

All Hail, MiniPax!!

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran

Documents captured after 9/11 showed that bin Laden hoped to provoke the United States into an invasion and occupation

Anyone paying attention during the 90s knew that. Ayman al-Zawahiri (Al Qaida's theoretician) made no secret of his "far-enemy" strategy. The evolution of this strategy during the 80s was quite well know within the CIA but was one of those analytic nuances that politicians shy away from.

What other lesson could they have taken from the Soviet/Afghan war?

Every item in Reed's list is well taken.  I'd only add another motive in prodding America to act: polarizing the world, radicalizing Islam, and thus recruiting for the cause. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

J. McCutchen

We've been functioning just as they anticipated.

That's why US NIE tells us that AlQaeda Intl is back and why the Taliban are set for more gains when the snows melt in the Hindu Kush in the next few weeks and why, ominously, Pakistan with its nuclear weapons may be vulnerable

why in a word George Bush and Dick Cheney have spent nearly $1 Trillion of your grandchildren's money and accomplished precisely nothing, actually less than nothing

Mr. Hundt, a little off topic here, but you are infinitely closer to the actual governing process than I ever will be. How long do we have to wait before the Senate Democratic Majority begins to hold hearings on the corruption, lies, deception, mismanagement of the Bush thugs? I thought a majority could do this? What am I missing?

Forget Cheney, the reality is that we are in a rare period in American political history, in which the battlefield alone will determine the next election, perhaps not seen since 1864.

Cheney's demeanor, Bush's lies, the economy, scandal, social issues, domestic spending, jobs, all these usual criteria and more pale in comparison to what happens in Iraq, where a few thousand brave American soldiers will determine our collective future.

Hillary can only await the result.

You mean that Osama is smarter that Dubya? Who'd a thunk it?

Maybe it's because Osama actually reads books and Dubya doesn't. Oh, well, It's just a thought.

Would anyone like to speculate about the outcome of an Osama-Dubya chess game?

Jan Knaus

Perhaps all originating from a Nietschean "Wille zur Macht" only at the level of banality.

Kache thinks pointing out that bin Laden made a chump of Cheney is the place to begin, I think it's the place to end.

Cheney loves to tell us how WE are embarassed, and how we are defeated if we leave Iraq now.

I say we point out how Cheney's real fear is that his war will be proven fruitless. Cheney is not worried about the reputation of the US, Cheney is worried about the reputation of Cheney. The reason there can be no change of course in Iraq is not for the sake of the US but for the sake of Cheney.


Once we establish that this is Cheney's war then we can let Cheney lose the war. And when we jetison Cheney, only those who cling to Cheney will be lost.

America can emerge victorious.

Nyah, nyah! Dick made more money than you did too! Is there a single person on this planet who thinks Dick is where he is for any other purpose?

Hoppy in Sacramento

No, not nearly enough time has been spent trying to get the facts about this administration out where they can be seen.

This Congress cannot begin to solve the problems facing this country as long as Bush is president. Don't forget, just because Bush hasn't used the veto doesn't mean he can't or won't. And, there aren't nearly enough votes in the Senate to override a Bush veto. The most productive thing this Congress can do is to lift up the curtain around the Bush administration and let people see what's back there.

Hoppy in Sacramento

... But isn't it more likely that Al-Qaeda intends to draw the United States into unending battles that drain our treasury, weaken our military, distract our foreign policy, and yet never reverse our willingness to go on fighting. It's the American will to fight without end and arguably without judgment or flexibility that Al-Qaeda is counting on, isn't it?

Um ... no. All one has to do is read any of the many communiques issued by al-Qaeda leaders and propagandists over the past several years to see exactly what they want. The message is quite consistent, direct and widely shared. Haven't you ever read these missives Reed?

It's very simple: they want us to leave. Now, which specific place they want us to leave most depends on which leader is speaking. Sometimes it is Iraq they want us to leave; sometimes it is the land of the two holy places. More often and more gnerally it is the whole land of Islam - the lands which have traditionally been ruled by Muslim peoples. They want us out ... it's not so hard to understand.

The only thing they didn't count on, perhaps, is that American don't read and don't pay attention. There is no ingenious rope-a-dope stategy, no secret long-term plan. It's more simple and obvious than that. They assume that if you kill a bunch of people, and then send a note or tape to the countrymen of those people and say, "get the hell out of my country", then eventually the people you send the note to will say, "yeah, it's not worth it. Let's get the hell out of there." The only thing they didn't count on, perhaps, is that American don't read and don't pay attention. No matter how many notes they send, a lot od Americans remain in the dark. It must be a bit mysitifying to them that no matter how many times they tell us precisely what they want, a number of American "thinkers" will run around bitting their fingernails and say "What does al Qaeda want."

Where both Cheney and some liberals like you seem to agree, Reed, is in your common assumption that since al Qaeda and its spinoffs are so damned evil and "subhuman", then whatever al Qaeda wants, we should do the exact opposite. Cheney thinks they want us to leave, and so argues we should stay. Some of the administration opponents have developed the oh-so-clever line that al Qaeda really wants us to stay and spend ourselves to death, and so we should leave.

Maybe you're both wrong. They want us to leave, now, and we should leave.

It may also be important to ponder that the wish to get the holy places of Islam cleansed from infidels is widely shared, that what often is labeled as al-Qaeda ideology, extremist views or terrorist demands to a certain extent is shared by mainstream Arabs (and also mainstream Muslims around the world). The connection to generic anti-imperialism currents also oughtn't be underestimated.

The way the occupation of Iraq has been (mis-) handled, it's not surprising if the locals there want all and every foreigner to disappear. That, however, doesn't relieve the occupation forces of responsibility for the security of the civilians. Also if they leave, the blame for detoriating security will rightfully fall on the former occupants. It's their duty to ensure intensely promote stabile conditions and security.

/Tuomas

Of course, it's Cheney himself who is sapping the will of the American people to oppose al-Qaeda. That's why they love him and Bush so much. Osama even made an election eve statement to help Bush in 2004!

Cheney and Bush are far greater enemies to our way of life and core values than Osama and al-Zarqawi could ever have hoped to be. They praise Allah every day for giving them Cheney and Bush!

The soldiers will determine the election by either succeeding in Iraq, and proving Bush right, or failing, and vindicating congress.

Hillary's future, and Pelosi's for that matter, depend on the results in Iraq. The soldiers better not accomplish their mission in the next several months or the course of the 2008 elections will swing wildly.

No resolutions from congress will matter. We can only pray for the result we desire.

It's very simple: they want us to leave.

It is not that simple. The idea that the "far enemy" must be struck now developed amongst groups who insisted upon the primary importance of the "near enemy". Fawaz A. Gerges focuses upon this element in his book "The Far Enemy" where he speaks of the importance of Mohammed Abd al-Salam Faraj:

If Qutb provided an overarching intellectual architecture for the contemporary jihadist movement, Mohammed Abd al-Salam Faraj (who coordinated the 1981 assassination of President Sadat and was the ideologue of the Jihad Group, which later evolved into Tanzim al-Jihad (widely known as Egyptian Islamic Jihad) translated the meanings of jihad into operational terms. While Qutb produced an ideological manifesto, Faraj was an activist who preached jihad in local mosques, recruited jihadis, and plotted underground to overthrow the regime along lines similar to those of the Islamic revolution in Iran. Faraj, whose colleagues describe him as a fiery and charismatic orator, defined jihad in a small booklet titled “al-Faridah al-Ghaibah,” or “Absent (or Forgotten) Duty,” which became the bible and operational manual of all Egyptian jihadis in the 1980s and 1990s, including the two leading organizations – Jihad and its much bigger sister, al-Jama’a al-Islamiya.

Several points are worth highlighting about this critical document. To begin, the title of Faraj’s booklet refers to the jihad duty, which is no longer observed and is even contested and denied by some ulema. He aimed at reviving jihad by reminding Muslims of the significance of this concept to the establishment of an Islamic government, to which all Muslims are obliged to strive. Here Faraj presented a new idea: that jihad was the way to establish an Islamic state, while the classical conception of jihad required the existence of an Islamic authority to do so. Next, Faraj makes the case for jihad as a personal, not just collective, duty because now the near enemy (Muslim rulers) occupies the country. Historically, the classical view held that jihad was a collective duty that could be activated only if outside enemies threatened or invaded Muslim lands. But Faraj turned the classical view on its head and asserted that present-day Muslim rulers, particularly Egyptians, forsake their religion by not applying the Shariah and by taking unbelievers as their allies: “The rulers of these days are apostate. They have been brought up at the tables of colonialism, no matter whether of the crusading, the communist, or the Zionist variety. They are Muslim only in name, even if they pray, fast, and pretend that they are Muslims.” Therefore, waging jihad against these apostates is a personal duty of every Muslim who is capable of fighting, until the former repent or get killed.

The importance of Faraj’s operational dictum does not lie in defining jihad as an individual and permanent obligation and refuting the classical view regarding the collective and defensive nature of jihad. Qutb and others had already made that argument very eloquently and powerfully. Rather, Faraj posited a new paradigm, assigning a much higher priority to jihad against the near enemy than against the far enemy. According to Faraj, a young activist who came from a middle-class family and who graduated from Cairo University with a degree in electrical engineering, not even liberating Jerusalem (the occupied Palestinian capital and the most important place for Muslims after Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia) takes precedence over the struggle against local infidels. Why? Faraj advances three arguments in support of his position. First, “fighting the near enemy must take priority over that of the far enemy.” Second, liberating Jerusalem must be waged under the banner of Islam, not the internal impious leadership, lest the impious leaders be the main beneficiary of such a victory. And finally, the colonial presence in Muslim lands is the fault of these Muslim rulers. Faraj concludes by saying that jihad’s first and foremost priority must be to replace these infidel rulers with a comprehensive Islamic system. Any other external agenda would be a waste of time, Faraj said.

There was considerable debate inside Al-Qaeda about whether attacking the U.S. would help or hinder the primary goal of defeating the near enemy. The die has been cast but the game is not simple.

Laura, you are correct about America being blamed if Iraq descends into chaos. Democrats are walking a minefield here, because if they force the troops home early and there is a bloodbath in Iraq -- they will be blamed in the next election. The ghosts of Vietnam still loom over the party. They've got to be very careful of not overplaying a hand here.

Indeed, it is not simple, when there is still disagreement, even among Islamist scholars and activists. Sudan has a fascinating such character named Hassan al-Turabi. With this man, who can make the Borgias and Machiavelli look like characters out of The Dukes of Hazzard, I use fascinating in several senses of the word, including the deadly fascination with which snakes are claimed to hypnotize birds (they really don't, but it's a good image).
al-Turabi is variously heading political parties, being speaker of the parliament, or in Sudanese jail. While he usually allies with some opponents of the main Islamist leadership, in the best Ferengi tradition, he occasionally builds coalitions just to keep everyone confused.

While the Sudanese Islamists are brutal to Africans, for whatever cultural reasons, the leadership "ins" don't tend to kill the "outs". They may put them in comfortable jails with outside communications.

This contradictory man has made controversial rulings on Islamic thought. Many believe that he believes, once Islamic government is in place, of a fairly liberal interpretation of Sharia. For example, he is perfectly willing to have non-Muslims live under Islamic rule. Getting that government into place is another matter.

Let me say, before I get much further, that al-Turabi was al-Qaeda's sponsor in Sudan. The 9/11 Commission Report is probably accurate in suggesting al-Qaeda operations in Sudan shut down by 1998, for that was the time al-Turabi was again jailed.

Since he apparently cannot survive without controversy, he also disputes theology with bin Laden. He has been reported to have argued against the strict interpretations of ObL, arguing that arts and music should be permissible under Islamic rule. He also speaks for the rights of women and their integration into society. At various times, he has been said to be for and against and neutral about women wearng the headscarf. I might note that while Sudanese Arab women do wear a head-to-foot garment, it is often brightly colored and form-fitting.

At a 1994 30-nation conference in Khartoum, he

... called on Christians and Muslims to form a coalition to offer an alternative model of society and to suggest a new political world order...

At the end of the above conference, President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan announced the revocation of the Missionary Act of 1962. This Act, whose official title is the Foreign Missionary Societies Act, subjects public Christian activities to close government supervision. It forbids the construction of churches without government permits, and requires missionary groups to obtain a licence to proselytize (the licences specify a limited geographical area where the groups may
operate). It also requires foreign missionaries to obtain special permits, which have in practice been hard to obtain and easy to lose.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Non-binding resolutions may be only symbolic, but I believe that straightforward investigations of the quagmire (and other violations of Constitutional principles, statutes, and ethics) should begin, but not be framed as hearings on impeachment. As the truth comes out, I believe support will build; impeachment hearings can begin when the support is obvious.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

The "surge" will fail, not due to any failure on the part of our troops, but simply because the insurgents will melt away in Baghdad, and re-surface elsewhere where our troops are thinner. It's what insurgents do; it's classic guerilla warfare. You don't fight your opponent where he's strong, you fight him where he's weak. In two years there will still be fighting in Iraq. Whether we will still be there is the only question.

How on Earth will anyone know that success has been achieved? What was the objective?

global citizen

Funny you should bring this up ... "a hunter and a Harvard professor, for all their likely political disagreements, share a commitment to the Constitution, freedom of the individual, the equality of women and tolerance of different religions."

It is really comical. I can think of one hunter (you know -- the one who shot his friend in the face while trying to shoot birds with clipped wings -- that one!) who pisses on the Constitution on a daily basis! Then there's freedom of the individual (read Habeas Corpus, spying on Americans, etc) the equality of women (unless they are, you know -- lesbians, with the exeption of his daughter, of course), and tolerance of different beliefs in any way shape or form! Yep, you are surely unintentionally joking about our "other-piorities" hunting VP!

And this:

"Why do our provocateurs serially fault their own country in a time of war?

Such perversity earns instant attention. Consider the understandable uproar over Sen. John Kerry's recent characterization of America as a "pariah."

You sound more like the big Dick Cheney every time you post. He says Nancy Pelosi is helping AlQaida, and you say John Kerry is a provocateur for speaking the truth about our perception in the world thanks to this regime's horrible actions.

This war was not started for the sake of our country. It is a huge mistake, and we will not know the complete cost for years.

Stop trying to carry this regime's water by saying that speaking the truth is unpatriotic (and before you respond that you did not use that particular word, I will remind you that you DID use the words "war provacateurs," which is worse than unpatriotic).

If you believe that evoking 911 to get people on board for something that has NOTHING to do with this pre-emptive, illegal, and fatal war; then I want to say to you that you are a part of the problem -- not a part of the solution.

Jan Knaus

A convenient simplification of some of Mao's theories on guerilla warfare is "when the enemy is strong, we retreat (or build strength; when the enemy is weak, we attack." Further, given the current preoccupation with timetables for short-term victory, remember the title of Mao's book of concepts, On Protracted War.

Given that Iraq is more an urban insurgency than Mao's marches through the Chinese farmland, also consider Marighella's Minimanual for the Urban Guerilla. These various references show that insurgencies, in general, do not lend themselves to quick solutions.

To the extent that US involvement can measurably improve the capability of Iraqi security forces to protect the population, something may be accomplished. It is futile, however, to surge American troops with the primary intent of pacifying and holding areas, because after we leave and have not prepared Iraqis, there is nothing to continue holding.

I speak of a period of months, not years, to prepare Iraqis, and decide if there is enough of an Iraqi, rather than a provincial or ethnic/religious, identity that national-level security forces can work. There is nothing that will prevent civil war, but appropriate forces can reduce it -- if appropriate forces are possible.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Exactly. But why is this so slow to develop? Is this a deliberate decision to avoid investigatory oversight, or is the slowness which I perceive just the normal Congressional pace? Can't this be accelerated. After all, Iran is a crisis currently unfolding, right?

Mr. Hundt,

While there is an element of truth in your statement:

Elevated into a titanic global opponent by the rhetoric of a contest of national will, Al-Qaeda is lifted to a level of prominence, and probably fund-raising and recruiting, that it could not reach on its own.

The rhetoric Cheney employs uses the logic of tribes more than it embraces a national identity. Christopher Coker more clearly expresses what a "national" will looks like when he said:

Unethical practices will not make good the problems that the US military is currently experiencing, any more than a guerre revolutionnaire helped the French in Algeria. The problem is one of political will, and the latter-not a relaxing of ethical constraints- is what ‘cultural ruthlessness’ surely means.

The notion that our response 'put Al-Qaeda on the map' is a misrepresentation. Al-Qaeda put itself on the map by successfully striking us. What Cheney is expressing is that only big people could have done us so much harm. The shame of being struck by little people would be too much to bear. Cheney feels compelled to shore up his feelings of unworthiness by raising the spectre of Al-Qaeda as a legitimate explanation for his failure.

Taking the diametrically opposite point of view is not a matter of trivializing the people who attacked us. I stand with DanK's in his objection to the use of words like "subhuman". Treating the group as criminals doesn't require such a qualification.

If exploring what Al-Qaeda's "real" strategy is considered important, then it seems to me that two big problems should be acknowledged from the get go.

The book I refer to upthread by Fawaz A. Gerges, starts with criticizing how little of an account the 9/11 Commission is able to give of the central policy making that went on before the nine eleven attack. We just get a view of the tactical elements. For all the talk about these plot hatchers, 5 and a half years doesn't appear to be enough time to reveal their actual process.

The second problem is one that entangles the administration's narrative along with many who struggle against it: How does Al-Qaeda actually function?

Much emphasis is given now to how Al-Qaeda once again has "command and control" in Pakistan/Afghanistan. Some consideration should be given to those who question this model. Russ Marion & Mary Uhl-Bien write:

As a result,, al-Qaeda represents a highly adaptive learning organization that, in many ways, keep one step ahead of the more sophisticated and developed western nation that it opposes. In as sense, it is like bacteria that manage to work around the best efforts to to eradicate them. This is important to understand, because the use of traditional leadership pardigms to view al-Qaeda may result in inappropriate reactions and responses. Complexity perspectives tell us that going after al-Qaeda's top leadership would not be enough to take care of the problem, and might even create a catalyst to further energize the system. While bin Laden is a charismatic leader (Eggen&Dobbs, 2002) he did not make himself so central to the al-Qaeda network that innovation is restricted to his vision or movement would die with his demise.
Instead, the present anlysis shows that al-Qaeda is the product of interaction capital and is not the brainchild of an individual. Its strength does not reside in its leaders, although its leader tags were important to development and fitness. Its strength resides in its complexity. This highlighted by the quote at beginning of this article (from al-Qaeda apologist Saad Al-Fahih):

If bin Laden was not there, you would have another bin Laden. You would have another name, with the same character, with the same role, of bin Laden now. That's why we call it a phenomena [sic] not a person

Kiwi has done this before. How about at least some quotation marks Herr von Huber?

First of all, the support for impeachment is obvious now. 57% of the American people want the Bush presidency to end today, according to a Gallup last week.

Second of all, whatever happened to leadership? The national Dems run a great risk of expiring as a party because of their unwillingness to make even the most trivial move until they're convinced it's "safe" politically.

Sometimes, the greatest risk lies in not taking any risk at all. As much as I despise Cheney and the neocons, at least they're willing to do what they believe in, however stupid and heinous it is.

Cheney is a disaster but I don't see what you think is the alternative. Al-Qaeda wants a fanatical Sunni Islam realm from at least the Gulf to Afghanistan. The failure to send adequate American forces into Tora Bora seems to be the biggest disaster.

Bin Laden killed 200 people at American Embassies and about 3,000 Americans before we removed Saddem. We may not be able to fight Al-Qaeda in a conventional war do you think we can stand aside and wait to see what else they do?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

From your post above: No resolutions from congress will matter. We can only pray for the result we desire.

Well, that's fascinating, but...if the nation ten years from now finds itself in the same situation in Iraq that it finds itself in now, or in other words the same situation that it found itself in 3 years ago, will Kiwi von Huber still be spouting empty slogans like "We can only pray for the result we desire?" If your answer is yes, how about 20 years from now? 30 years? And if you are able-bodied, of military age and not a veteran or currently in the military, don't your options include a whole lot more than just "praying?"

By the way, that Santayana quote is not only hackneyed, it's clearly false. Remembering the past is no guarantee that mistakes won't be repeated, and "forgetting" the past doesn't guarantee that you WILL repeat previous mistakes.

Like most of George's pablum, it sounds better than it is.

Lacking the 60 votes in the Senate necessary for removal, it's probable that the best strategy for doing the public's will is to use the impeachment proceeding and the development of criminal charges as a lever to force Bush and Cheney's resignations--a kind of plea bargain that calls for them to give up their "public service."

Can you imagine that happening, though? Give up power in the face of a challenge from Congress?  Isn't Congress, in their eyes, just another focus group?

I think that Howard is right that there are vital issues that would not come out in impeachment, and that you are right that impeachment wouldn't happen today; the two might conceivably mesh, if a host of hearings exposed the thoroughgoing corruption of the constitution to public scrutiny. 

Relax. "Pray" was just a figure of speech. You can hope, wish, imagine, dream, I don't care.

My point remains the same. If you believe, like the majority of the congress does, that the war in Iraq will result in defeat for the country, you are fully invested in such a defeat, you own it, and you better "hope, wish, imagine, dream etc." it happens.

If our soldiers "win" or are otherwise successful in Iraq, the Democrat party will face decades of landslide defeat at the ballot box.

Assume that is achieved. How, then, does that goal reduce the threat of terrorism to the United States, which was presented as a major justification for the invasion of Iraq? For that matter, how did the Baghdad murder rate under Saddam compare with that of Watts?

Would you care to speculate on the effect on known Jihadis had CENTCOM not been distracted from Afghanistan operations by the ramp-up to Iraq?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Well, you're right that the exact wording might be of interest, but you could have looked it up too, no? My point was that the political risk of impeachment is far less than the Dems fear. Certainly far lower than the Republicans faced when they impeached Clinton, whose approval ratings started in the 50s and increased during the proceedings. Even so, the Repubs were able to "win" the White House after their unpopular impeachment circus.

Naturally, impeachment of Bush and Cheney would have to come after the (promised) investigations had begun unearthing the tale of their criminality.

My point is that the Dems have to adopt a strategy that calls for dislodging these crooks from office. Whether it's successful in the end or not, pursuing it can only help them in 2008. Of course, they probably won't, since they usually just do what the Republicans con them into doing.

As for comparing me with Cheney, I'm both offended and complimented. Cheney is loathesome both as a human being and as a fascist ideologue, but he is extraordinarily effective, never apologizes or admits a mistake, is politically ruthless, and is never cowed by opposition criticism--qualities the Dems would do well to emulate.

The idea that "simple will should dictate whatever is to be done," which you deride me for promoting, is also called democracy. While the majority isn't always right, it really doesn't take much political courage to do what they want.

Can I imagine them resigning? Sure, assuming they are as guilty as we believe. Faced with the choice between penurizing, months or years-long trials, followed by jail time, or a quick chopper trip off the Whiote House lawn, which would you do?

Besdies which, even if the didn't resign, the information dredged up byu preliminary investigations would only help the Dems in 2008.

And the fact is, what else should they be doing? Spending all their time crafting social legislation that Bush will veto anyway? Talk about non-binding resolutions!

Mr. CVilleDem:

Perhaps you would benefit from setting aside the name-calling for a moment, and considering the thoughts of David Limbaugh. He noted the comments of VP Cheney and observed:

"Precisely what did Dick Cheney -- the public servant who Democrats may, with impunity, stoop to any depths to slander -- say to make House Speaker Nancy Pelosi so indignant? Well, he issued his assessment of the Democrats' legislative proposals to emasculate our current offensive in Iraq.

Cheney said, "Al Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will … " and cause us to "quit and go home. … That's their fundamental underlying strategy. … If we adopt the Pelosi policy … we will validate the strategy of Al Qaeda. I said it, and I meant it."

What's wrong with that statement? If Cheney believes the Democrats' cut and run policies will benefit Al-Qaeda, doesn't he have an obligation to warn us? Not according to Pelosi, who said Cheney was questioning her patriotism.

Not once did Cheney suggest the Democrats were unpatriotic. He said, "I didn't question her patriotism. I questioned her judgment." Likewise, President Bush recently made clear that he didn't view the Democrats' proposals to withdraw from Iraq unpatriotic.

But if accusing your political opponents of playing into the enemy's hands constitutes an attack on their patriotism, the Democrats' hands are hardly clean either.

How many times have we heard Democrats say that President Bush's policies in Iraq are the best terrorist recruitment tool we could have possibly given to Osama bin Laden?

Have you ever heard President Bush whine that Democrats were questioning his patriotism? No, perhaps because Bush is quite secure about his own patriotism."

Excellent analysis of VP Cheney's observations. Don't you agree?