How are you using that word, "fact"?

Well, at least I came close that time.

But, given Israel's track record, it's pretty obvious who the majority of victims of those bombs are going to be. Nor has the obvious escaped everyone in the U.S. gov't:

But some State Department officials have sought to delay the approval because of concerns over the likelihood of civilian casualties, and the diplomatic repercussions. The rockets, while they would be very effective against hidden missile launchers, officials say, are fired by the dozen and could be expected to cause civilian casualties if used against targets in populated areas.

Which, we know, Hezbollah tends to operate within. So it's a good bet that these bombs will kill more civilians than Hezbollah ... as has been the case during the entire war, even with (supposedly) precision-guidance munitions.

Each rocket contains 644 submunitions that kill enemy soldiers operating artillery in the area. * * *

After the Reagan administration determined in 1982 that the cluster munitions had been used by Israel against civilian areas, the delivery of the artillery shells containing the munitions to Israel was suspended.

Israel was found to have violated a 1976 agreement with the United States in which it had agreed only to use cluster munitions against Arab armies and against clearly defined military targets. The moratorium on selling Israel cluster weapons was later lifted by the Reagan administration.

But I'm sure that Israel would never do anything like that today.

You say "stupid," I say "obvious" ... let's call the whole thing off?

Oh, troops. Well, Afghanistan, obviously. Pakistan, arguably–the NW Province is scarcely under Pakistan’s control, assuming of course that Pakistan is our good and loyal friend (cough).

the fact of the matter is, that we'd not ahve managed to control, or even monitor that area of the world, the already dealt-with Afghanistan included, with Saddam still in place.

our shipping Israel bombs to kill more civilians

Just when you start sounding like an intelligent person, you say something really, really stupid.

Zelsdorf, I thought we already occupied Afghanistan, in name at least ... As for Pakistan, sure they're "nuclear armed." So are we, and I daresay our bombs are bigger.

The downside to sending troops into the NW Province is of course the PR disaster & consequent inspiration of our enemies, additional recruitment, etc. Now, with the Iraq FUBAR and our shipping Israel bombs to kill more civilians, I'm not sure how much that matters ... but it's a factor. And it's certainly possible to imagine Pakistan with an even worse gov't than it now has.

But see this item for a reminder that the existing regime is an uncertain ally at best.

Go down to bottom for updates. British authorities have twarted a 9/11 kind of attack. The terrorist plot involved airplanes and homemade bombs made out of liquid, so it was easier to get through security in the airport. I will...

The "stink" is about the alleged violation of the law in so doing, not the intercepts or tracking themselves. (The Swift program's legality was less in question, IIRC.)

As for getting out of Iraq, sure. So what? The Iraqi gov't thinks we should get out. The White House keeps promising withdrawals (indeed, thought we would be *gone* within 3 months of the invasion). You can argue whether Iraq is FUBAR or not, but it's highly dubious that we can accomplish much worthwhile at this point.

Myself, I don't think you walk into a country, trash it, & then say "oops" and leave. We at least should be committed to training the Iraqi army. But our gross mismanagement of the occupation has made even that a doubtful prospect.

Are you seriously trying to say that the democrats aren't the ones arguing for a rapid withdrawal from Iraq or raising the biggest stink about NSA international intercepts or SWIFT financial tracking?

Lets see. The 'six for 06' calls for "begin the phased redeployment of US forces from Iraq in 2006. " Now admittedly this could mean nothing (troops are constantly being redeployed from Iraq, the total number goes up and down depending on events on the ground), or it could be exactly what Lamont and company are saying, immediate withdrawal.

And if you missed the democratic office holders comments on the NSA intercepts and SWIFT finance tracking, you need to get out more.

I know you may not like the implications of the democratic positions on these issues, but that won't go away by closing your eyes.

To the extent you're right, I think it's rhetorical overstatement, b/c "military" has been identified with the Iraq fiasco. As you imply, if we asked any of those people whether they really think LE should be the sole tool, they would be unlikely to agree.

The problem with the LE paradigm is that it’s reactive. Cops seldom stop crimes from happening; they wait for the dead bodies and then go about trying to gather evidence for the trial.

See, you're stuck in pre-9/11 thinking! (I never get a chance to say that.) I'm not talking about everyday "cops"; I'm talking about joint CIA/FBI counterterror units that would go after Qaeda the way we went after the Mafia, except moreso. There's no reason to expect that such agents would be "reactive."

And, lord knows, the occasional well-aimed airstrike or Special Ops raid is a tool in the box. But the "war" paradigm creates all kinds of problems. Even in our actual war in Iraq, the insistence on fighting a "war" rather than a counterinsurgency has cost us dearly.

Troups? I don't think that circus acts are really going to help us. Just like a Republican to turn this important issue into a joke ...

Oh, troops. Well, Afghanistan, obviously. Pakistan, arguably--the NW Province is scarcely under Pakistan's control, assuming of course that Pakistan is our good and loyal friend (cough).

In general, military force is needed where there's either (1) state-sponsored terror that we can't oppose without going to war, or (2) a failed state that gives terrorists a base either willingly or through impotence. Where stable, non-terror-sponsoring states exist, we can use law enforcement and intel agencies to good effect.

Of course, "Islamic terrorism" is a misnomer. Hezbollah has an terrorist wing, but calling them part of "Islamic terrorism" is rather like calling the IRA's terror wing "Catholic terrorism." So I wouldn't favor, at present, the U.S. occupation of Lebanon or Iran, even assuming that we had the wherewithal (which we don't, thanks to our fool's errand in Iraq).

All the writers quoted in the post seem to be arguing that ONLY a law enforcement paradigm is worthwhile. Now, Daalder certainly doesn't believe that. Presumably, Marshall has better sense, too. But it seems to be the thrust of their anti-Bush argument.

Part of the backlash against Kerry's statement was political grandstanding. Much of it, though, was legit. The problem with the LE paradigm is that it's reactive. Cops seldom stop crimes from happening; they wait for the dead bodies and then go about trying to gather evidence for the trial.

Counter-terrorism will obviously involve a great deal of police work but the goal is actionable intelligence not prosecution. The mindsets are very different even if the tools are similar.

Where at the moment would you appprove of deployment of troups in the war on Islamic Terrorists?

And would your fellow leftists approve?

But wasn’t it the left complaining about the US tracking terrorist financing and terrorist communications just a short time ago.

No, it wasn't. Andrew, the new conservative poster over at ObWi, will explain the relevant distinctions to you:

Yes, I'm all for the things mentioned in the first quote, as I suspect are most Americans. However, I think I'm safe in declaring that we'd like those actions to be taken in accordance with the Constitution. I suspect that, when it comes to this area at least, I can get some love for my strict construction views on the Constitution: that just because the President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, that doesn't grant him carte blanche to run the war however he likes. If he's got some ideas for some good anti-terrorism programs, then he needs to run them by Congress just like any other program. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I didn't have a problem with the President making some unilateral decisions. Five years later is way too late for him to be bringing the senior branch of government into the play.

Remember the kind of thing that conservatives used to believe? Like, unfettered power in gov't hands will be abused?

Remember hearing "checks and balances" in 7th-grade civics class?

This administration has consistently refused to treat Congress (or the courts, for that matter) as coequal branches of government. And, those branches being packed with Republicans, Bush has mostly gotten away with it. With horrible results.