That is all you have in the way of rebuttal, Jim? The same tired ad hominem attacks claiming that the right-wing is stupid/redneck/illiterate/white trash? Weak. Sometimes I think you leftists take recycling a little too far. How about some new rhetoric?

By the way, Mr. Super Intelligent Liberal, "that's" is a contraction meaning "that is" not "that has."

Posted by: tommy

Ah, ya see Tommy. That's why we didn't want Disney airing that mockumentary, no matter how hard Gov Jeb Bush (R-Disneyworld) was leaning on them to do so. It just confused you folks who looked at that official 9/11 Report and said "Ah, that's got too many big words. I'll just get another Clancy and wait for the movie."

Certainly beats the Clinton Administration's bin Laden policy: "Lets not get him at all."

Guess gettin Bin Laden is just too tough for fightin’ George. Funny, because he keeps on saying our very future & survial are on the line. If thats the case he is not fighting all that hard.

So you really think that our survival depends on capturing Bin-Laden? That's the "magic bullet? If that's the case, you are not thinking all that hard.

Yesterday, while I was guest blogging at The Carpetbagger Report, a commenter asked about conservative reaction to Bush's 9/11/06 address. He wondered if Bush's "guaranteeing ......

Guess gettin Bin Laden is just too tough for fightin' George. Funny, because he keeps on saying our very future & survial are on the line. If thats the case he is not fighting all that hard.

OK, let's see what that'll require, at minimum:

1 - Substantial boots on the ground of coalition forces in the Pakistani tribal areas (which Pakistan's own army recently retreated from, having suffered troop losses by the hundreds) where bin Laden is surely hiding. (If he's still alive.)
2 - Shoring up Musharraf's authoritarian regime, due to inevitable Islamist uprisings and coup attempts 1) will cause.
3 - Creating yet *another* front in the war against Al Qaeda.
4 - Creating yet another magnet for Al Qaeda recruitment and jihad-- perhaps the most dangerous, as the Pakistani tribal region is accessible by Islamists in Afghanistan, the disputed Kashmiri region, *and* the hardcore Islamists in the former Soviet Union, including Chechenya.
5 - Holding back India from entering this fray, or using it as a rationale for pushing into Kashmir, and preventing any counter-attack from Pakistan. Oh yeah, India and Pakistan have nukes, so you know, the consequences for blowing this is are extreme.

So, which person who criticizes Bush for not getting Bin Laden yet wants to sign up for this plan? Anyone?

Yes, I used the Brady bill as one example and your response in no way invalidates my argument. In fact, it strengthens it! Thank you for proving my point!

The left did not criticize Bush Sr. for not taking out Saddam. To the contrary, most on the left agreed with Bush Sr. that the alliance that he had constructed was built on the agreement that we would expel Saddam from the soverign country that he had invaded, period.

Well, then I guess you better explain all of that to the leftists who are saying "we were better off with Saddam."

Nonetheless, whatever opposition there was, came from the left. And it seemed to me that whatever critical thinking there was, even if it led to hopeful assent, was also coming exclusivly from the left. And I think that speaks very badly of the performance of the right.

Please. I can point you in the direction of Steve Sailer, Buchanan, and a horde of other paleocons who, like myself, didn't support this war.

I think your solution for Iraq is not well thought out. Take out Saddam and leave chaos in our wake.

But I thought you just said the Democrats agreed that Saddam needed to be gotten rid of. What was the United States going to do? Abolish sanctions? Those same sanctions that were continuously lampooned by many people on the left for their effects on Iraqi civilians? Leave them in place? What was the left's long-term plan for dealing with Saddam?

I think your solution for Iraq is not well thought out.

Oh yes! Moving quickly to accomplish peacefully exactly what the Iraqis will accomplish with civil war instead wasn't a good idea at all.

Making hard decisions and sticking to them is an admirable quality, when the hard decisions that you have made are the correct ones. When they are bad decisions, then sticking with them leads one over the cliff.

The left cannot even admit when it has made the bad decisions. The left pretends they never made any bad decisions when those decisions are unpopular. If you believe the average left-winger, the left never supported the war at all. I'll give Bush credit for sticking to his decisions, even when it wasn't the most popular thing to do. Simiarly, I give those leftists who always opposed the war credit for sticking to their decisions even when they weren't popular. Mainstream Democratic politicians were rarely among that former group.

anjin-san,

I keep seeing “Bin Laden is dead/probably dead” popping up in arguments made by Bush supporters.

Very few on the right believes bin Laden is most likely dead. Most believe he is probably in northern Waziristan, where he is beyond our grasp. I have seen some leftists who believe he is hanging out at the Crawford Ranch in Texas or at an undisclosed location with Dick Cheney. I also have seen some leftists who believe that sticking more troops in Afghanistan will somehow allow us to catch bin Laden even though he is probably in Pakistan.

Tano again,

“We are used to a peacetime system in which Congress enacts the laws, the president enforces them, and the courts interpret them. In wartime, the gravity shifts to the executive branch.”

That was true for Abe Lincoln during the Civil War and for FDR during World War II. That is true of practically any war. Abe Lincoln and FDR both employed tactics that were far more authoritarian than anything Bush has ever proposed, let alone gotten.

anjin-san again,

Given Bush’s miserable job performance

We haven't seen a single al-Qaeda operation on American soil since 9/11. Under Clinton we watched as al-Qaeda went from attacking our overseas embassies, to attacking our military interests, to attacking our nation directly. All this while Osama was safe and snug in Afghanistan. All while al-Qaeda openly operated training camps in the country. All while the Clinton administration did practically nothing. Lawyers in the Clinton administration fretted over what kind of tape they could safely and comfortably apply to bin Laden in the event he was captured. They even demanded that a special chair be developed for bin Laden's comfort in the event he was captured. That was the kind of leadership we had under Clinton.

BTW, what, exactly, would you do differently to capture Bin Laden? Do you have some suggestions as to how to handle the WOT,

That is what I keep asking the Democrats. They whine "we still haven't caught bin Laden!" I have to ask "what would you do about it? Are you going to invade northwestern Pakistan in an attempt to get him?"

The Democrats don't seem to have any strategy at all.

To address this quote:

“Americans are puzzled over why so many people in the world hate us.”

I think everyone needs to read the following article. It should make it clear that the jihadists have hated us for a very long time. They hated us even when the US was a country of little international significance and perhaps provide an answer to those who are still asking, "why do they hate us?"

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=22314

You are seriously quoting the Brady bill to me after Bush has worked so hard to flush it? Day is night, black is white....

Posted by: Pug at September 12, 2006 09:28

My friend, if you read my commentary carefully, you'll see that I wasn't speaking of particular incidents, or quoting anything said by the characters in the docu-drama. What I am saying is that the attitude of the “Clintonista” bureaucrats smacks as being very accurate indeed!

Why? Well because it is the same abhorrent, elitist, condescending attitude that the Democrats have today, particularly in the Senate.

I mean for God's sake, how can we possibly be even debating wether the NSA should not be listening in on conversations of known terrorist suspects from overseas to America, and make all the big stink and all the hooplah the Democrats have made about it, because of some "legal technicality" about FISA courts, when the lives of thousands may hang on the outcome of our acting on it?!?! Or Harry Reid gloating about how the Democrats had "killed the Patriot Act"?!?!

Their actions speak louder than words! It would seem the Democrats are far more concerned about the rights of the terrorists, than in saving the lives of those whom they intend to kill:...us!!!

Insofar as to their "attitudes" the ABC docu-drama was very accurate indeed concerning the arrogant, "do-nothing," Clintonistas!!!

Althor