Skip to main content

The Financial Times has a big front page article about the new US strategy against terrorism: US shifts anti-terror policy

The short version:

In the tactical phase, the US administration gave in to its basest instincts, killed a lot of towelheads, and just about trashed everything it could (international law, the US Constitution, relations with friends). Somehow, it has noticed that this is not working - and the oil is not even flowing.

So we move to the strategic phase, we beg the French, who are not hated so much over there, to help talk to whoever's still alive to kindly ask them to be nice to us?

The very short version:

Bush "I have lost the WOT. Please heeelp me!"

Quotes from the actual article below...


US shifts anti-terror policy

The US is working with Britain and France to undermine the appeal of Muslim extremism by reaching out to moderate groups, in a sign that its counter-terrorism strategy is moving beyond the "war on terror".

US and European officials say the Bush administration's review--expected to lead to a formal declaration of a new national strategy--represents not just a shift to a more multilateralist approach towards foreign policy but also an important development in thinking away from the emphasis on the military.

So, "away from the military" - this is not a war anymore. Who made fun of John "this is primarily a matter of law enforcement" Kerry and the similarly minded Europeans? And who is going to tell the "services"?


Inquiry exposes rifts between UK and US intelligence agencies

The worldwide investigation into the bombings has led to subtle cracks in the close relationship between British and US law enforcement agencies - cracks exacerbated by past differences in investigative approaches - officials on both sides of the Atlantic said.

(...)

One UK official said co-operation between US and UK intelligence officials over the London bombings had been "superb". But he said the UK had a different view of the war on terrorism than the US.

"One of the distinguishing characteristics of [the US] is that they think they are at war, and we don't. It is very difficult to persuade people in London, even after the bombings, that there's a war on. This is a big psychological difference."

So, ther's a war on, but not to be fought with the military. This is so confusing. Are the military with us or against us?


(back to the first article)

Already a shift in language has emerged that reflects the new approach. GWOT "the global war on terror" is being replaced in pronouncements by senior US officials by SAVE: the "struggle [or some say "strategy"] against violent extremism".

(...)

Mr Zelikow's goal, according to a US official who asked not to be named, was to "develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to discredit and demystify extremists' ideology and promote moderate Islamic voices".

(...)

A former senior intelligence official who served in the Bush administration commented: "Conviction has been growing steadily and strongly here that we needed to come out of the tactical phase of this war and into a strategic phase which would include this outreach to the Muslim world and it would make sense to structure this some way with a couple of allies, particularly the French, who understand that world so well."

So, Bush wants to "understand" turrists, er, sorry, Muslims, and wants the help of the French to do it. Flip-flop? Treason? Or "only" hubris?

It's so easy to be gloating about this that it's sad in a way. Now, the cat is out of the bag.

Muslims around the world are pissed. They have seen several tens of thousands of their co-religionists slaughtered in Iraq; they have seen the US trample its supposed values by torturing people around the world and standing by such policies; they have noted that the US are still supporting the failed regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia; they have noted that the only way to influence US policy is by destruction and mayhem, not international diplomacy. Many that were moderates or politically neutral to the West have been shocked by the treatment of Iraqis and others in the past few years, and now hate us with a vengeance. Immigrants in our countries, unhappy with their precarious economic and social situation here, treated with growing suspicion, are feeling a growing affinity with their "oppressed brothers", a number of them turn to radical Islam, and some of them to outright terrorism.

We are all left with the legacy of large scale terrorism as a weapon of choice for a rapidly growing number of disaffected groups in a number of countries in the underbelly of Eurasia, with a limitless supply of recruits, and Europe is on the front lines. And yes, we directly caused it by our disproportionate response.

So yes, Europe will cooperate, and try to reach out to moderates, because that's the only sensible thing to do. And we will keep on helping the FBI and other DHS agencies by providing information and analysis on the various groups, as has been done without a hitch since 9/11.

It would have been nice if the White House had done that (focusing on that information flow and that outreach effort) 4 years ago, instead of throwibng massive amounts of fuel on the fire in the meantime.

But we can note today's political message - Bush admits he has lost the War on Terror and is begging the sissy Europeans for help.

Originally posted to Jerome a Paris on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 03:46 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (4.00)

    European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe
    in the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)

    by Jerome a Paris on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 03:38:05 AM PDT

    •  And don't forget to drop by... (4.00)
      This diary was front paged (in a slightly different form) at the European Tribune, where you can also find:

      Soj's take on the death of Kind Fahd of Saudi Arabia;

      a lighter discussion on the tenth planet of the solar system

      diaries on the Swiss National Holiday and Italian politics

      and more...

      European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe
      in the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)

      by Jerome a Paris on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 03:42:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Torture. (4.00)
        I just watched "Das Experiment."  The similarities to the pictures we have seen from Abu Ghraib are frightening.

        We cannot forget that Americans are now regarded as torturers.  Add it to the list of how the Bush Administration has degraded America's reputation and moral authority.  

        The United States under the Bush Administration is torturing human beings on a routine basis as a matter of policy.

        While it may have gone on before in Central America and elsewhere, it was never the official publicized policy to torture populations like those at Abu Ghraib en masse.

        And we haven't even seen the worst of it, since the DoD is defying a judges order to turn over the most grotesque and revolting of the pictures and video.

        God help us.
        Watch "Das Experiment"

        •  Exactly... (4.00)
          the article said:

          "The US is working with Britain and France to undermine the appeal of Muslim extremism by reaching out to moderate groups, in a sign that its counter-terrorism strategy is moving beyond the "war on terror"."

          The extremists have an appeal because we give them an appeal. The appeal is that we oppress the Muslim people and the example is Gitmo and the torture issue as well as our large presence in Iraq.

          If they want to decrease the reasons why someone would join an extremist resistence group they should start by cleaning up Gitmo and adhering to international standards and our treaty obligations in accordance with the plain language of those treaties.

      •  great diary, Jerome (4.00)
        I planned to write on one this subject today, but, um...you wrote a better one.  And you wrote it first  So I won't.

        My planned title:  

        SO STOPPING TERRORISM ISN'T "WAR," AFTER ALL.

        I would just add these notable items:

        1. The Reagan-appointed judge who spoke at the sentencing of the so-called "millenium bomber" last week ripped BushCo a new one for its idiotic, counter-productive, bull-in-a-china shop supposed terrorism policies.

        2. The U.K. police have now tracked down and captured the bombers who recently struck the underground and bus system.  Sounds kind of like...police work, now?  I mean, their response to the bombing wasn't to invade Egypt.  

        But doughy traitor Karl Rove likes to brag that they "prepared for war" after 9/11.

        Hey Karl!  Look over here, if you can swivel your head on those many chins of yours!

        Karl, baby...You prepared for the WRONG war, you goddamned dope.  And you "prepared" very badly, making things much, much worse.

        But you know that, don't you?  Actually preventing terrorism doesn't matter to you and your boy-King Bush, and it never has.  If so, Bush might have postponed his summer vacation years ago after reading the urgent memo "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE WITHING U.S.."

        No, preventing and punishing terrorism doesn't mean a damned thing to you, Karl.  All that's EVER mattered to you has been to grab as much political power as you can, however you can.

        That's what traitors do, after all.

        •  oops. meant to say... (4.00)
          "If so, Bush might have postponed his summer vacation four years ago after reading the urgent memo "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE WITHING U.S.."

          And this week, it WILL be exactly four years since Bush decided that his personal need to play was more important than the security of this country, and the safety of its citizens.  

          Bin Laden was determined to strike within the U.S.

          And George W. Bush let him do it.

        •  Don't hesitate (4.00)
          to do another diary on this topic a little bit later. It's just too damn important and we need to pound on it - and the points you make are highly relevant.

          European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe
          in the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)

          by Jerome a Paris on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 06:39:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Finally (none)
          the neo-cons have been forced to remove their ideological blinkers for a moment and notice the world for what it really is. A lot of people have had to die to make that happen.

          How long will the blinkers stay off? What will be the next neo-con adventure?

          Stay tuned.

          "nusquam minus quam in bello eventus respondent" --- Hannibal

          by Warren Terrer on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 07:08:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I live in Manhattan-my realities are scary . . . (4.00)
      Of course, we've lost. We lost the day SCOTUS gave the presidency to Bushco.

      But my realities as someone who lives in the middle of Manhattan and lost two people on 9/11 are more basic.

      When are we going to get hit again?

      The bag searches are as bogus as everything else in Bushworld.

      The underground garage in my apartment building is frequently closed to in and out parking. When this happens, you know something is up. Something that we are not being told about.

      I'm sure the government has decided that the American people will "accept" a certain number of casualties in a city like NYC.

      For those of us living right smack in the middle of the bullseye, this is lying, bullshit. This is vintage Bushco deceit from a gang of soon to be indicted criminals in Washington.

      I have a suggestion, maybe Mr. Fitzgerald ought to add homicide to his list of likely Bushco crimes after a lot of innocent New Yorkers lose their lives for Mr. Bush's war on terror.

      •  I'm with you... (none)
        [snip] For those of us living right smack in the middle of the bullseye, this is lying, bullshit. This is vintage Bushco deceit from a gang of soon to be indicted criminals in Washington.

        I have a suggestion, maybe Mr. Fitzgerald ought to add homicide to his list of likely Bushco crimes after a lot of innocent New Yorkers lose their lives for Mr. Bush's war on terror. [snip]

        I too live in a large metropolitan area. Unlike you though, I am pretty sure that my city is not on some terrorist's hit list. But I do feel your fear. I shudder to think what will happen to NYC next. It scares the beejeebies out of me, to be honest.

        I also agree with what you say about Fitzgerald. Unfortunately, I think it will be ruled outside the scope of his authority (and if the Rethugs are ruling on it, it's a slam dunk certainty). It should be within his scope, if he is truly investigating the litany of crimes committed by this administration. Yes, it started with Plame, but that was just the thread that got pulled first. It is now leading to all of the other inter-related threads, and who knows where it will stop. I hope he goes for it. The military actually have a saying for what I hope he does, "It is easier to ask forgiveness than it is to ask permission." Meaning, I hope he goes all the way, and worries about the consequences later, if at all.

        In the meantime, if you need a bolt-hole, let me know. The Casa is a safe zone for those needing refuge / safe haven / etc., 24/7/365(6) . And I mean that, seriously.

        I Support the Separation of Church and Hate...
        Rev Denise Michel
        revdenisemichel@yahoo.com

        by rev denise michel on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 11:32:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  merci bien, Jerome (none)
      I am not surprised.  The rest of my family - Democrats! - are still caught in this mentality of we're at war, the US are the only ones who'll do anything about terrorism, those Europeans are just sitting back and letting us defend them and so forth.  

      I have tried to explain that the French in particular had been dealing with Islamic extremism and terrorism for years.  I suppose there is this mindset that persists, the need to believe that somehow the French aren't tough like we are and therefore can't possibly know what they are doing.  

  •  Yeah, (4.00)
    this is what Bush attacked Kerry for, too bad is was right then and is right now.
  •  French Fries taste better than Freedom Fries (none)
    What Bush and Co. did forget is that Europe has huge experence in combating Terrorists.A B52 or a nuke is not what is needed. If you want to find a needle in a haystack you don't have to burn the Haystack.

    I'm usually drunk at this time of Day.

    by madbernie on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 04:17:14 AM PDT

    •  On the other hand: (4.00)
      Those evil French Fries kills way more americans than the turrists do.

      "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas." -Winston Churchill

      by Johannes on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 04:57:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But this was never about combatting terrorists. (4.00)
      It was about ushering in a new phase of US Imperialism -- an experiment, if you will, in applying the neocon belief that force can be used as a first, rather than as a last, resort. Iraq was the laboratory in which the neocons got to test out new strategies, new weapons, and new tactics, such as torture.

      Unfortunately, the neocons have never doubted that their basic thinking was correct -- that the overwhelming application of US military force would be enough to master any situation. All it needed, they thought, was some refinements that a real war could provide.

      But now, for the first time, their entire doctrine on the use of force has been called into question by people other than their liberal opponents. Within their own camp a debate is probably raging right now on whether to label this is a doctrinal versus a tactical 'readjustment'. The most devout neocons will most likely never question the doctrine itself, and will only view this debacle as a minor tactical shift.

      I look forward to reading the various columns that will undoubtedly appear in the NYT and the WaPo telling us why this is all just a tactical refinement which in no way challenges or contradicts anything that the neocons and their president have been telling us.

      "nusquam minus quam in bello eventus respondent" --- Hannibal

      by Warren Terrer on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 07:32:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Vive La France -- Liberté (4.00)
    Statue of Liberty was donated by ...??
    Who fought King George during our War of Independence?

    Bush :: "Order me some of them french fries please."

    ~~~

    •  In fairness (4.00)
      In interest of fairness, though the French fought beside us in the Revolutionary war, it wasn't out of sheer generosity.  They hated the English, and saw it as a way of damaging them, while gaining a strong trading partner in the colonies.

      The statue though is worthy of French national pride, something we should still thank them for, and I still rankle that this nation made a show of badmouthing France (which I believe still goes on in some circles)

      "You're either with us or against us in the war on terror." - George W. Bush
      "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." - Obi Wan Kenobi

      by Stymnus on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 06:59:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The shift... (4.00)
    from the Global War on Terror® to the "global struggle/strategy against violent extremism" allows for the governments of the West to crack down more internally than ever before...

    People in Eurasia on the brink of oppression: I hope it's gonna be alright... Pet Shop Boys: Introspective

    by rgilly on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 04:21:32 AM PDT

  •  Is Bush offering the 'terra-rists' therapy now? (4.00)
    That 'great american' Dr. Phil might be interested

    That image is from an SNL skit

    Reality is just... a point of view - Philip K. Dick; Beautiful thing, the destruction of words. (from Orwell's 1984)

    by LionelEHutz on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 04:44:00 AM PDT

    •  Dr. Phil (4.00)
      is a joke - a punk-ass-trickster-trick-ass-mark-skank-scallywop.

      I bet he's into leather.

      "While there is a lower class, I am in it. While there is a criminal element, I am of it. While there is a soul in prison, I am not free." - Eugene Debs

      by matthewc on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 06:18:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, well in that case... (4.00)
        I'm sure he's in line for Bush Surgeon General.

        Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -- Margaret Meade

        by ilona on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 08:13:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The French were so right about the war. (4.00)
    I appreciate that they promised to send troops to Iraq- if WMD were discovered. (Also I think that may  have stopped us from planting fakes.)

    Asking for help- better late than never. Now, how to say we're sorry? Open up the no-bid contracts?

  •  I wonder... (3.66)
    ...how succesful any campaign to win the hearts and minds of Muslims can be until Bush and Blair are in jail? It's as if Afganistan had the military might to deter any attack on them after 9/11: "Nah, we won't arrest bin Laden and there's nothing you can to about it." (Well, there's actually were we stand, but for another reason.)

    "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas." -Winston Churchill

    by Johannes on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 04:54:18 AM PDT

  •  I understand you were trying to be humorous (4.00)
    But towelheads?

    Sounds like something you might read by a freeper. I realize that's your point, but I don't think that's appropriate for this web site.

    $0.02

    •  I don't think this was supposed to be humor. (4.00)
      The rethugs dehumanize people so killing them is
      not so distasteful.  The word raghead brings this
      all up by using only one word, and ties together
      all of the other propaganda campaigns they have been running, and similar like-minded pervasive
      hate speech.  The word is used to underscore the
      hatred and greed of the Republican Taliban Pharissees.  At least that's my take.
      •  This would... (none)
        This would sit far better with me if the offensive word (and I won't repeat it) were in quotes to indicate it's not the poster's own feelings on the matter.  As much as WE will understand it, those who are neutral or on the other side will interpret it more literally.  And that's the last thing we need.

        "You're either with us or against us in the war on terror." - George W. Bush
        "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." - Obi Wan Kenobi

        by Stymnus on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 07:05:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Folks on the other side? (4.00)
          You're worried about what they think?  Let me put it to you this way, they'd probably get all confused, "Dang, it talks like a lib pansy exceptin for it says raghead which is good Murkin-like talk."
          •  Yes, I am. (none)
            Yep.

            I'm not worried about the hard core types.  They'd lambaste us even if we completely agreed with them (probably call us flip-floppers in the process).

            I'm talking about the press.

            I'm talking about the middle folks, those on the fence.

            I'm talking about wary Republicans that don't know any better, who are getting sick of their own party.

            People we can convert.  I don't want to convert anyone that would praise us for the use of dorogatory statements about those in the gulf.

            So, yep.

            "You're either with us or against us in the war on terror." - George W. Bush
            "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." - Obi Wan Kenobi

            by Stymnus on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 09:43:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  That is exactly as I took it.... (4.00)
        you can use one simple word to reflect the idiotic thinking of Bushies and Kool-aid drinkers without going into the whole long explanation of why their concepts are totally bogus.  It's like a snark-in-a-word.

        I got this totally the first time I read it. I don't think Jerome needs the "word police". I think people need to look at the overall concept he is explaining.

        JEROME obviously isn't calling people "towelheads"; he's mocking the people who would / do.

    •  As put above (4.00)
      this symbolises in a nutshell the White House de-humanising approach, and it is obviosuly a qualifier nobody on this site shares, and certainly not me.

      I am open to suggestions as to how to amend this sentence if you think this clarificatino is not enough.

      European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe
      in the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)

      by Jerome a Paris on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 06:00:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I guess I'm confused. (none)
        You start off with:

        The Financial Times has a big front page article about the new US strategy against terrorism: US shifts anti-terror policy

        The short version:

        In the tactical phase, the US administration gave in to its basest instincts, killed a lot of towelheads, and just about trashed everything it could (international law, the US Constitution, relations with friends). Somehow, it has noticed that this is not working - and the oil is not even flowing.

        So we move to the strategic phase, we beg the French, who are not hated so much over there, to help talk to whoever's still alive to kindly ask them to be nice to us?

        This reads to me as if it is your summary of an article in The Financial Times; not, as you imply in your response to my comment, a White House attempt to de-humanize people.  Or, are you suggesting The Financial Times would use the epithet "towelhead?"

        A suggestion?  I don't see how your diary would be harmed in any way by substituting the word "people" for "towelhead."

        •  It is indeed my summary (4.00)
          as there is little in the FT article that relates strictly to what is in my summary, which is an interpretation with more background.

          So it is me who says that the White House "strategy" so far has been to kill towelheads. I still think that this is a correct description of the White House thinking. It is obviously not a correct description of the people of Iraq or other countries, but it IS how they are seen by a number of people in the West (not to target only the US - we have the same over here). Not using the word does not eliminate the underlying reality, which is racist.

          European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe
          in the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)

          by Jerome a Paris on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 07:05:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Huh (4.00)
            What an odd justification.

            "Not using the word does not eliminate the underlying reality..."

            I would have hoped you would say:

            "Unecessarily using a racist term for a group of people helps perpetuate racism, so I will change it simply to 'people'".

            I wonder - do you use the same logic for that 6-letter "N" word?  Because not using the word does not eliminate the underlying reality of racisim against people of African ancestry.

          •  N'importe quoi (none)
            It's downright ridiculous to sum up the Iraq war as "killing towelheads" for "racist" motivations, no matter where you stand on the issue. This sort of oversimplification hardly explains the actual and multiple reasons which led to this conflict.

            Furthermore, Your free-spirited use of racial slurs is typical of a certain kind of French left (Charlie Hebdo comes to mind) that is eager to put these words into the mouths of its political opponents, even when most of the latter avoid resorting to such vocabulary in public. It comes off as juvenile provocation and nothing more, and it's tiring to find racist terminology used so freely by certain patronizing leftists.

  •  How much of this is only a PR campaign? (4.00)
    I haven't seen any changes in practices yet. We are still violating international legal and moral standards in our treatment of detainees, torture is still defended, war plans for Iran are being drawn up, etc. I wonder if this is only Karen Hughes attempting to put a velvet glove on the Bush fist.

    It is a very mixed blessing to be brought back from the dead.

    by Steven D on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 05:22:49 AM PDT

    •  True, but (4.00)
      the acknowledgement that the "War on Terror" failed is a major political event in the US and should be exploited as such by the Dems.

      "understanding" the Muslims?
      acknowledging the superior knowledge of the French??
      reducing the role of the military?

      This screams: WE FAILED and this needs to be used against the White House

      European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe
      in the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)

      by Jerome a Paris on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 05:55:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We're not at war any more (4.00)
        that's a very serious admission on the part of the Bush administration.  A lot of things can be justified if you are at war.  The courts have upheld special powers for the executive -- that's why you are only at war if congress declares war.
        •  Exactly... (none)
          If we're not at war, then why the heck have the provisions of the PatriotAct been made permanent?

          Yeah, I know: stupid question.

          Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -- Margaret Meade

          by ilona on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 08:01:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If we're not at war... (none)
            [snip] We're not at war any more -- that's a very serious admission on the part of the Bush administration.

            And

            If we're not at war, then why the heck have the provisions of the PatriotAct been made permanent? [snip]

            OK, lemme get this straight... BushCo claims we're no longer at war, but still made most of the Patriot (sic) Act permanent, and still haven't announced when the troops are coming home?

            When the troops get back here, then I will believe we're no longer at war.

            When the Patriot (sic) Act is unacted (OK, I admit it, I can't think of the right word rght now, but I know there is one), then I will believe we're no longer at war.

            When people stop getting killed, in our name, because they are different (no matter where they are), then I will believe we're no longer at war.

            Until then, it just looks like yet another attempt to deflect us from the real sh*t passing as 'governing' by this bunch of wingnuts.

            JM5CW...

            I Support the Separation of Church and Hate...
            Rev Denise Michel
            revdenisemichel@yahoo.com

            by rev denise michel on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 11:54:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  100% (none)
      Condi is Cheney in drag
  •  Long term damage will be... (4.00)
    that history will show us as the true terrorists.  We destroyed thousands of lives in lands far away occupied by real people who did nothing to us.  The history books for other countries will be markedly different than our own in showing that.  I'm sure they already do in many other respects, but this little murderous crusade will surely go down as being very much like... no, I won't say it.  

    We started the war in a blatant snub to the rest of the world.  We created a true terror organization and provided them the best training ground they ever dreamed of.  We even have THE biggest terrorist as ruler of this great land.

    terrorist

    adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

    Sound like anyone we know?  Political weapon using terror.  I'm pretty sure the people of Iraq have been quite terrorized by Chimpo's stupidity and efforts to "save them" and provide them "democracy".

    Well, if their democracy and democratic process is anything like our own has developed over the last administration's life cycle, they were better at least knowing they had a dictator in power.  He didn't lie to them about being a dictator.

    Healing BEGINS with impeachment...

    by valeria on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 05:27:42 AM PDT

  •  Not So Fast (4.00)
    Britain and France should demand George Bush's and Dick Cheney's immediate resignations as a sine qua non for any assistance whatsoever.

    As long as Bush and his flunkies are in charge, and making any decisions whatsoever about the GWOT/ SAVE/ FUBAR, they will make decisions that violate civil rights and kill people, not to mention worsening the terrorist problem that affects London and Paris as surely as it does us.

    Public admission of guilt and restitution is a necesary first step here;  if the Brits and French don't require it before they do anything else, they're suckers-  not to mention much worse politicians than I thought.

    •  That Would Leave Dennis Hastert As President (none)
      And he'd be able to run for another term in 2008.

      Good thing/bad thing/makes no diff?  Hard to say, but putting that musclebound, provincial homunculous in the WH for possibly another 7.5 years is presumably not something Europeans would want.

      "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

      by JJB on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 05:46:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Struggle Against Violent Extremists (4.00)
      Begins at home!
  •  Oh, that tactical phase. It'll get you (4.00)
    every time.

    Although I am very suspicious of everything the Bush Admin. says or leaks intentionally about what it is thinking and doing, this seems believable because things are so terribly bad in Iraq.

    I share with you, Jerome, some degree of schadenfreude that this group of people has to ask for help from FRANCE.

    [By the way, wasn't Philip Zelikow (who is, according to the FT article, an assistant to Condi) one of the members of the 9/11 Commission? The same commission that conducted hearings, in which Condi was required to state that the August 6, 2001 PDB said "Bin Laden determined to attack in U.S."? If this is the same person, he should not be employed by one of the people whose actions he was investigating, not even after the fact.]

    While this seems like an improvement on what they have been doing, I am struck by the fact that the Bush administration ALWAYS thinks in terms of manipulating people. It never occurs to them to BEHAVE BETTER.

    Why are Democrats helping to destroy the middle class?

    by lecsmith on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 05:29:06 AM PDT

    •  Zelikow interesting case (none)
      Zelikow was the staff director for the 9/11 commission. Your 'conflict of interest' is more serious than you realized. He actually served in the transition staff in the NSC, working for Condi, back in 2000/2001.  He recused himself from all issues specifically related to his work inside the Bush NSC transition team.

      Zelikow has a lot of real credentials behind him, with some quite solid intellectual / academic work.

  •  It is striking how rapidly and effectively (4.00)
    the British have dealt with the London bombings through police work and shared intelligence.

    When the Republicans saw the savagery of 9/11, they descended into savagery. When the British saw the savagery of the London bomb attacks, they did police work and will soon be able to prepare indictments. Which strategy has been more successful?

    Why are Democrats helping to destroy the middle class?

    by lecsmith on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 05:42:34 AM PDT

  •  Performance Indicators (4.00)
    If this indeed represents a real shift in policy, could it be that someone has noticed that the Brits have been very quick to arrest (with the cooperation of European allies) those involved in the July 21 incident?

    Makes us look like pikers:  how many of the Gitmo detainees should have never been there in the first place, and how many others played no significant role in al Queda or the Taliban?  How many are being framed in the travesty of justice which appear to be the order of the day?  (See Steven D's diary at http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/31/203425/148

    And a similar line of questioning applies to detainees in Iraq.

    On another point, the impact of the model which the Administration has provided to the rest of the world has its own negative impacts.  Thailand-where I live-is struggling with an internal Muslim problem.  Although the roots of this lie in government policy shafting the southernmost Muslim provinces and blatant human rights violations, the government response follows right in the Bush model:  "muscular", supported by botched intelligence.

    •  A Couple Of Months Ago (4.00)
      I read (probably in a Sy Hersh article or interview) that we are holding on to a lot of people at Gitmo/Baghram, etc. that we know to be innocent, but who we daren't release because we've tortured them and we're afraid of the reaction once they're let go and talk about what was done to them.

      Yet one more reason why torture is a lousy idea, apart from any humanitarian considerations.

      "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

      by JJB on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 05:57:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Parsing 'significant' (none)
      [snip] and how many others played no significant role in al Queda or the Taliban? [snip]

      I'm concerned with the word 'significant.' It's like trying to be a little bit pregnant. Either you are or you aren't. So, either the detainees were either part of / allied with / abetting al Qaeda or the Taliban, or they weren't. How significant a role they played is irrelevant. The fact that they played a role at all is the determining factor here.

      No, I do not advocate harsh punishment for the way-down relatively unimportant (in the grand scheme of things) folks, but I do hope punishment, across the board, appropriately fits the crime (proven crime, not just alleged crime, that is).

      JM5CW...

      I Support the Separation of Church and Hate...
      Rev Denise Michel
      revdenisemichel@yahoo.com

      by rev denise michel on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 12:14:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  London Bombing (none)
    I think this is the significance of London Bombing. The europeans now are serious about war on terror and decide to put Bush in line. They know keep raising the rethorics will kill us all.

    From now on I think The european want to have a say on everything labeled 'global'.

    •  We've been serious for 10 years (4.00)
      about terrorism.

      There were waves (as in 5 to 10 terror attacks) of terrorist attacks in the Paris metro/streets in 1986 (twice) and 1995, with various other episodes in between - so please stop saying that we didn't take Islamic terrorism seriously. We ALWAYS DID (at least since the late 80s).

      Let's stop saying that there was any sense in what this White Houe did against terrorism.

      European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe
      in the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)

      by Jerome a Paris on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 05:57:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  maybe (none)
        But the EU plays a second fiddle and let Bush screws up a lot of necessary steps to quell terrorism over Bush politics.

        Now that people has died in Europe, I think european will not accept Bush plays politics with intel information, larger media rethorics, or more strange diplomatic/geopolitical move on behalf of 'civilized world' (ie. Bush is lumping together everybody he can finds in his cowboy crusade against jihadists.)

      •  So serious... (none)
        That France pardoned and set free Anis Naccache, the lebanese terrorist whose liberation was demanded by his colleagues responsible for the 1986 bombings. Naccache was previously in jail for the attempted assassination of Shapour Bakhtiar, the last prime minister of Iran under the Shah. Bakhtiar was later beheaded at his flat in Suresnes in 1991 by another terror team. Two of the its members fled to Iran while a third was acquitted.

        France is more cynical than the US could ever be regarding terror. Trade comes first.

  •  Wanted: A Strategery (4.00)
    "Conviction has been growing steadily and strongly here that we needed to come out of the tactical phase of this war and into a strategic phase which would include this outreach to the Muslim world..."

    If the speaker was meant to be taken seriously(sometimes a risky assumption!) then we've been given a precious insight into the fundamental incoherence of what has passed for policy-making in the Bush Administration.

    Strategy is supposed to guide tactics.  You don't move from a "tactical phase" to a "strategic phase"--this makes no sense whatever. One's tactics are always a function of whatever strategic goals one has adopted. Again, if the "senior intelligence official" is on the level here, his statement indicates that Bush & Co. have never had a strategy but now they'd sort of like to develop one. And they're looking to the cheese-eating surrender monkeys for help.

    So, who gets to be the last American in Iraq to die for a mistake? That's to use the words of that French-looking guy (remember him?) who suggested a law-enforcement strategy for dealing with terrorist groups.

    Most people never have to face the fact that in the right time and the right place they're capable of anything. -- Noah Cross

    by angry blue planet on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 06:10:31 AM PDT

    •  Should be onvious (4.00)

      Bush strategy: electoral politics

      Bush tactic: everything else.

      -That is why he doesn't seem to mind Iraq keeps getting worst despite his playing politics.

      -He doesn't mind lying or breaking the laws as long as he wins the politics.

  •  Winning Was Never the Plan (4.00)
    Bushco never planned to win this "war" on terror. Someone else originated the notion that this whole fiasco in Iraq had one goal: to take Iraq's oil supplies off the market for the next several years.

    Saudi Arabia's oil fields are approaching exhaustion (say 20 to 30 years.) With China's economy, that figure is going to shrink to less than that. As the Saudi fields start to reach the critical point (keep in mind: there's a point at which it requires more than a barrel of oil's worth of energy to extract a barrel of oil. At that point, the field becomes useless, even if there's still oil in it.) the price of gas will creep up, higher and higher.

    Then the Iraq fields will reopen, finally. Surprise, the gas prices will dip slightly, and then continue to creep up some more.

    Sure, there's lots of ways around the oil problem. How about hydrogen? A bullshit, unproven, unsolved technology. No wonder Bush is pushing it. After several years of farting around with it, the scientists will do just like the SDI scientists did in the 1980s. "Success is just around the corner." And success will be just around the corner as long as those scientists need to pay their bills, and put their kids through school and actually want to not have to go around begging like lepers for funding.

    The energy "crisis" could be solved in a matter of months, using existing infrastructure, with almost no modifications, and provide a clean-burning fuel.

    Alcohol stills using biomass could provide an endless supply of fuel to run a car. It's cheap, easy to make, can be made locally, can be put into gas tanks in cars, can be stored in gas station tanks as well, and has an equivalent energy to that of oil. (Sure, it's less. But it fulfills the major requirements for a fuel: it's renewable and local, therefore, reliably available.)

    This whole war was a set-up to make sure Bushco and their friends and business associates in Saudi Arabia (remember, the country so many of the 9/11 terrorists came from) can keep going to the bank for as long as possible.

    •  Question about biomass fuel. (none)
      Given that we will never run out of the need for fuel (unless, of course, we revert to a nineteenth (or even earlier era) type of society) that means that over time, we will have to grow a huge amount of the plants that are used to produce the fuel. Is there enough agriculture in the US to allow us to indefinitely produce the plants needed to produce the fuel or will we at some point reach a time when all such fields are laying fallow?
      •  Probably not (none)
        Agreed, Malthus will have the last laugh, invariably. Eventually, you will run out of land to grow crops on for biomass conversion.

        The notion of using just biomass is just as faulty as the notion of using just oil. Or depending on it for any majority of your energy needs at all.

        I suggest biomass conversion not as some cure-all, but as an immediately available solution that will clearly show people the necessity and convenience of a multipronged energy system.

        There's also wind power (North Dakota, from what I've read, could supply about one-half of the electricity needs of the country by harvesting its wind), solar power (How much of the Southwest is useless for farming crops. Heck, perhaps you could put in giant ocean water purifiers powered by the sun, and eliminate the drought they've been having for the last ten years), methane, biomass, even nuclear and coal could have a part. Can coal be used in the place of oil for fertilizers and pesticides?

        But this fanatic devotion to oil is killing us all.

      •  The answer is "no" (none)
        We will - at some point - reach a Malthusian crisis.
    •  Alcohol (none)
      Alcohol is essentially bio-solar.  Instead of generating energy with solar panels you use plants to do it and then harvest and process them.  This process is not terribly efficient and requires large amounts of land.  If we tried to meet our current energy needs with alcohol we would probably not have anything left for food.  Consider that a human body is not a terribly powerful piece of machinery.  If you run full speed on a treadmill you might get near 1 kW of power output.  A small car by contrast might have a 75 kW engine with larger vehicles ranging over 200 kW.  Yet the whole American midwest probably only feeds about 1 billion people (I'm accounting for exports).  Of course a human body "runs" all the time while a car is only running maybe 2 hours a day or less but still I have to say that I really doubt that the current car crazy American way of life can run on alcohol.
    •  Just one problem (none)
      It takes energy to create that biomass.  Tractors that run on oil and oil based fertilizers.   A recent study found that more fuel was used in creating ethanol than was saved in using it.  

      The only solution I see that will help us when the oil starts running out is a major investment in fuel cell technology and painful changes in our lifestyle.  No more cheap wal-mart goods without supertankers/trucks/trains to deliver them from China.  No more imported fresh vegetables and fruit year round - except for the very wealthy.  And, most painfully, no more commuting from a comfortable suburb to a remote job location.  And that's just for starters.  

      •  And, soils are so depleted from (none)
        "green revolution" chemicals that they are essentially hydroponic gravels that simply hold up the plants while nutrients, pesticides and herbicides are poured on.

        A shift in the nature of farming must occur to restore the damaged soils everywhere.  The next "Green Revolution" is going to be lower tech, sustainable farming methodologies.... if we live that long.  The jump is going to be hard to make; requiring a disavowal of corporate farms, feed lots and factory chicken.  

        •  already happening (none)
          but below the radar of corporate commerce. there are people who are working to save seeds, use sustainable and organic methods, buy and sell locally, and those are the seeds of the future.

          people in poorer countries have known how to do this as well, and activists work to keep GM seeds, etc. from overtaking traditional farming methods.

          btw, I read in Nat'l Geographic, in their Future of Oil issue, that if there were solar panels on the tops of the roofs of the bldgs in larger cities, there would be enough energy to power the entire country's grid off that energy.

          that's not the same as fuel consumption, but it alleviates some of the use of oil and gas in static sites.

      •  Yes, it takes energy to make biomass (none)
        But that energy is mainly sunlight, which is renewable.

        The eventual "oil peak" which has been predicted as being right around the corner for about the past 30 years, isn't the real problem. There's energy all over the place. Methyl hydrates on the ocean floor can supply U.S. energy needs for over 1,000 years. But how to get them off the ocean floor? Consider it to be a variant of the Apollo Project.

        Some problems actually do disappear when you throw enough money at them. Those problems are almost always technical problems. How to get to the Moon. How to feed more people on the same area of land. How to cure a disease.

        I'm still willing to bet on the creativeness of the human being.

        •  Sunlight is not enough (none)
          I can't explain it as well as Wikipedia, but here is a link:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_as_a_fuel

          Check out the sections on Energy Balance.  Bascially, you have the right idea about energy resources... that energy on the ocean floor is a good example. They could supply our energy for centuries, and we could bring them up today, but it would take more energy to bring them up than we would get by using them. Technology will solve a lot of problems, but no until we have an administration that seriously considers it necessary to invest in alternative fuel technoligies.  Our administration is focused on how to get more oil out of the ground, not how to free us of oil dependence.  It took a massive effort to get to the moon, and it will take a massive effort to make alternative fuel technology work.  Let's hope that people come to their senses nad vote in an administration that is willing to make that effor.

  •  It is too late (none)
    Damage has been done.  My father said did you know WOT  was all for show for 2004 elections.  Now the elections are over,  they decided to go back to reality but after so much damage has been done.

    What I demand is ACCOUNTABILITY!!!!

    Stop Corporate Influence; buy DEMOCRACY BONDS!!! http://www.democrats.org/democracybonds.html

    by timber on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 06:29:26 AM PDT

  •  Wow, Bush really is worried about 2006... (none)
    ...changing the Bushco corporate slogan a year out and apparently setting up the pull out of alot of troops by the 2006 mid terms. Of course, I don't expect anything to really change. Afterall, there's what Bushco says and what Bushco does and they're rarely the same.

    This is just new smoke being floated to try and obfuscate the piss poor performance of Bushco with regard to anything, before the 2006 mid terms. They know hiw polling numbers spell DOOM, however, since they don't do polls, they obviously can't admit that. Instead, "It's 'bout learnin'. Learnin's gooder. We can't expect to do gooder if we don't learn, ya see? Expect to hear words like that leading up to 2006. We'll be pulling people out of Iraq because of our great success there. Nevermind the civil war going on. That's just because the Iraqi people rejected democracy, those savages. They just can't see how good Bush is to them, like 'muricans can.

    That's all any of this is. I don't really expect anything to change, just the rhetoric for re-election..

    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it. -Tom Paine

    by Alumbrados on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 06:57:51 AM PDT

  •  Why you... (none)
    You cheese-eating surrender monkey!  If we embrace multilateralism, the terraists will have won!
    •  And the winner is.... (none)
      [snip] Why you... You cheese-eating surrender monkey!  If we embrace multilateralism, the terraists will have won! [snip]

      OK, it's official. You win the 'Snarkie' (awarded for the best snarky comment said with tongue firmly in cheek, and that will also be misunderstood by lots and lots of people). It's a hard award to win. The standards are really, really high. But you met that standard, and it is yours!

      Congrats {Standing OOOOOOOOOOOO}...  ;~}  

      {Standing to salute and clap}... ;~}

      We now return y'all to the really important stuff being said on this diary (no sarcasm intended).


      I Support the Separation of Church and Hate...
      Rev Denise Michel
      revdenisemichel@yahoo.com

      by rev denise michel on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 12:55:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I wouldn't bet on it (4.00)
    The bush administration hasn't changed their entire approach overnight - just the way they are selling it to the people. They realize that the people aren't buying the "War on Terror" meme, so they changed it.  Unfortuneatly, that doesn't mean that they believe any less that the right way to fight terrorism is to kill lots of muslims.  I would think by now that the world, including the Financial Times, would have figured out that bushco are not the straight talking people they pretend to be, and that as long as their is profict for their contributors in fighting wars, they will continue to do so.  
  •  As long as the US continues to... (none)
    ....take an unequal approach to the Palestine-Israel conflict, Muslims all over the world will view the US with complete distrust, regardless of its efforts to align itself with France.

    It's gotten so bad now, any Muslim seen to be working with the US government is labelled a 'Karzai' or 'Allawi', both of which have evolved into derogatory terms.

    •  The idea (none)
      that all muslims see the Isreali/Palestinian conflict in the same way is a patently ridiculous as the idea that all Isrealis (or Palestinians) see it the same way. And they very very clearly dont.

      Remember: there's no sense in talking to them. Talk to your base first, the middle second, and the amoral and lying right never.

      by cdreid on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 08:21:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is not as ridiculous as you may think (none)
        You would be surprised how Muslims from Africa all the way to the Far East follow the Palestine issue closely to the extent that it influences the way they view the world.

        So here lies the problem:

        The huge majority of Muslims believe that US has put negative pressure on the Palestinians to give up many of its basic demands whilst arming Israel and demanding very little from it.

        Israel can pretty much do as much damage as it wants to the Palestinian infrastructure with little criticism from the US whilst any attack by a Palestinian is met with sharp language and threats from a multitude of US politicians.

        •  I dont disagree (none)
          that Muslims as a rule have a dim view of the US. Who can blame them, regardless of the Palestinians and Israel. This country is in effect waging another crusade.

          My point was simply that you cannot assume muslims view the Isreali/Palestinian conflict identically any more than you can assume that Isrealis do. They simply dont.

          Remember: there's no sense in talking to them. Talk to your base first, the middle second, and the amoral and lying right never.

          by cdreid on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 02:36:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  But of course the French were right! (none)
    the War on Terror is lost, the French were right

    No one knows more about losing wars than the French...

    [/snark]

  •  It's a bad message. (3.50)
    "Bush has lost the war on terror" is a bad message to try to push out there.

    Like it or not, Bush is our Commander-in-Chief and if he loses something on the international scene the country loses as well.  Saying Bush has LOST the war on terror tells people we believe that the United States has lost the war on terror.  I'm not ready to say that, and I don't think that's what happened.

    What has happened is that Bush has REALIZED THE DEMOCRATS AND EUROPEANS WERE RIGHT, and has come around to the notion that, like the Cold War, a War on Terror must be fought with ideas and policies and not usually with arms.

    And I, I, I, I - turn up the radio. Lies, lies and propaganda. I - gonna tell you what I need. Life, life without surrender

    by nightsweat on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 08:00:59 AM PDT

    •  but he has lost: (none)
      -Global terrorist attacks have increased since he has commenced his war on terror
      -Iraq and Afghanistan are a great big bloody mess
      -People in general are no safer after setting in motion all his misadventures
      -Both the US and Europe are trying to strip away freedom from its people in the name of fighting terrorism
      -Bush has created more terrorists through his futile attempt to suppress populations with bloody force
      -The fact he has to rely heavily on Psy Ops to convince people he is winning indicates he is losing
      •  In this context (none)
        You might as well ask the Republicans to please eat our collective lunches if you put that message out there.  We'd come across as defeatist and ineffective.

        Yes, I think Bush has made a dog's lunch of the whole WOT thing, but the US has not lost the war on terror.  Our President has used the wrong tactics, and lost battles but the war is not lost.

        A little strategic thinking is in order (on both Bish's and our part) here.

        And I, I, I, I - turn up the radio. Lies, lies and propaganda. I - gonna tell you what I need. Life, life without surrender

        by nightsweat on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 09:27:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  So (none)
    The "new strategy" is.. to get the nations of the world to intercede. Through Diplomacy. At the very same time Bush appoints an outright raving wingnut Loon to the UN.

    Sometimes its hard to concieve how Bush could possibly be more incompetant if that were his goal.

    Remember: there's no sense in talking to them. Talk to your base first, the middle second, and the amoral and lying right never.

    by cdreid on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 08:17:29 AM PDT

  •  For all sad words of tongue or pen... (3.66)
    ...the saddest are these: "The French were right."  

    I yield to no one in my dislike of the French, dating back ten years or so to an unpleasant co-production I did with a  French animation studio.  It is my considered opinion that the universe is expanding because all matter is trying to get as far away from the French as possible.

    So it pained me to find myself agreeing with the French, even cheering them on, in the runup to the Iraq War.  For that alone, I will never forgive the Republicans.  

    But don't get cocky, France.  You were right about Iraq.  And I'll give you pasteurization.  But that's it.  

    And Brie.  I like Brie.  But that's really it.

    Oh, and thanks for taking in Dexter Gordon.  

    Okay, that's definitely it.

    Ya bastards...

    "Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart." -- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan

    by Roddy McCorley on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 09:06:27 AM PDT

  •  I wonder when someone is going to tell Chris (none)
    Matthews that the WOT is lost!
  •  I wonder when someone is going to tell Chris (none)
    Matthews that the WOT is lost!
  •  I wonder when someone is going to tell Chris (none)
    Matthews that the WOT is lost!
  •  France, learn from history! (4.00)
    With all due respect, I think you are not understanding the real message. THIS is the very short version:

    Of course you're going to help me, heh heh, because you believe that's the sensible thing to do.

    Bush asks the world for help and -- wait for it -- sends John Bolton to collect. Jerome a Paris, you hear the words and you believe them because they reflect your rational view of the world. Please look at the past and current deeds of this administration. Learn from history.

    France is being invited to walk down that same path that so many sensible Democrats have trod. I do not mean to offend, but you do know what we call them, do you not?

    I used to live in the United States of America. Now I live in a homeland.

    by homeland observer on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 09:40:38 AM PDT

  •  "WOT" NOT LOST (none)
    until we sign the peace treaty and surrender our weapons?

    Is anyone following the money in this sad affair, by the way--is there now a large enough slush fund to share with a larger coalition of the "willing"?

    Rhetoric. It's hard in e-mail to get the tone right, but I'd like to add that some of our basest, most prejudiced citizens invented a shockingly repulsive term:  "sand n*gger"....

    You might recall that in the first Gulf War there was a sane young man in boot camp who got into trouble for complaining that his commander kept talking about "towelheads."

  •  French anti-terror policies are ages ahead of US. (none)
    And contrary to the popular opinion, they don't fight terrorists by appeasing them.

    Of course, they are careful enough to balance it with diplomacy and avoid injecting racism into it.

  •  Of course the French were right, (none)
    that is why they spoke for me during the United Nations debates leading up to this fiasco!
  •  One of the interesting things about France (none)
    Is that since the beginning of the Iraq war, and the war on terror, France has not had any terrorist attacks on French soil, so to speak.

    The Bush inspired anti-French attitude was just another Rovian smear campaign, this time against an entire nation.

    In actuality it was the Bush Administration fit the description of the "Axis of Weasels" that FOx used to describe those who opposed the U.N. supporting the invasion of Iraq.

    France,Germany and Russia came to agreement with the U.S. to sign resolution 1441 and send in inspectors, and in this agreement the U.S.agreed to not start military action until the U.N. inspectors came back with their first report to the U.N. scheduled for June of 2003. France, Germany and Russia all agreed that something needed to be done about Iraq, however, in order to deal with some domestic national problems they would have in going to war in a Muslim nation, the needed the Bush Administration to agree to send inspectors in, and in doing so exhaust diplomatic efforts to get Saddam to co-operate, and then this would lessen any domestic issues they would face.

    After all,France, has the largest Muslim population in Western Europe, having twice the percentage of Muslims as the U.S. has. Germany has a considerable number of Muslim guest workers, and Russia has its Checnya problems. In  order to  minimize domestic Muslim reaction to the invasion of a Muslim nation, these three nations, all on the Security Council at the time, had to have exhausted diplomatic measures, had Saddam be seen as obstructing, or not co-operating with the inspectors. The U.S. gave these three nations assuraces in order to get them to agree to resolution 1441, and then as usual with the BUsh Administration, betrayed allies who were willing to assit the United States as long as the U.S. took their domestic needs into consideration while doing so. As usual, the Bush Administration has no problem with betrayal, whetther it is to out a CIA agent who disagrees with them politically, of in betraying nations who expect give and take in issues of international affairs, particularly when it comes to use of  military force. The Bush Administration simply expected the French to expose itself to the kind of terrorist atacks that have been recently occuring in London, without the U.S. at least doing everything possible to show the world that there was really NO other way to deal with Saddam's regime but war. THe final report of UNMOVIC stated that it was not possible for the inspectors to do the job they were sent to do because of obstruction and non-co-operation from Iraq, which Iraq agreed to do in the first place. Had Bush waited a few more months, the French, the Germans, and probably the Russians would haev more than likely joined the coalition in Iraq, But this was not the intention of the Bush Administration to begin with. They wanted to alientate these three nationsin order to not have to share in the contracts for rebuilding, and thus the companies geting Bush no bid contracts could drain the government dry.

    In the end, not taking part in the attacks on Iraq have left both France and Germany pretty much ignored by Al Qaeda. It has only been the larger members of the "Coalition of the Willing" who have been exposed to terrorist attacks.

    I find it amusing that some right wing buffoon said on the day Paris was chosend for the Olympics, that now the French will know what it will be like to deal with Al Qaeda.

    But in fact, even if this war on terrorism continues into the period of the Paris Olympics, it is more likely that any attmpt by terrotists will resemble the events in the 1972 Olympics, where the teams of just one nation were targeted.
    Paris itself will more than likely itself be left alone.

    If actiities that were merely discriminatory towards Muslims were al it took to be targeted by AL Qaeda for terroist attacks on French citizens, France would have already been attacked because of the recent laws outlawing the wearing of overtly religious clothing and jewelry. However, this legislation did not meet some invisible threshold that sets off terrorists.

    Germany, to my knowldge has not seen any Al Qaeda sponsored terrorist attacks, and only Russia has had problems due to its internal problems with Chechnya. But again, these atacks come as a result of issues related to national sovereignty, not domestic policy.

    Terrosist seem to respond only to what they view as western attacks on sovereign Muslim states, even against Muslim states that Al Qaeda itself does not approve of, such as the secular state of Saddam Hussein, and even secular nations like Syria. Prior to the attack on Iraq, Both Iraq and Syria were higher priorities on Osama Bin LAdens hit list than the U.S. Fundametalist Muslim Groups like Al Qaeda abhor the Bathist Socialist states, and among Fundamentalist Muslims, the word "Socialist" is used very much in the derrogatory way neo-cons and fox news use the word "liberal". Secular socialism is a very maor no-no to fundamentalist Muslims, even those who are not terror oriented. Socialism, as defined by modern politics is just not very Islamic, even though the Islamic state as defined in the Quran, has some rather strong socilat elements. Or more socially reponsible elements, where the wealthy are obliged to care for the poor by means of a religiously mandated tax.

    Anyway, I am rambling. Nations that did not approve of the invasion of Iraq, at least the one that George Bush launched, have been left relatively unscathed by Islamic terrorists, even though they have large Muslim populations with some axes to grind against their adopted nations.

    Even the Netherlands, another member of the coalition off the willing, has seen some acts of terrorisms against individual citizens. For far anti Muslim behavior than the French have indulged in with its headscarf legislation.

    It appears that Al Qaeda may be taking a "hands off" approach in directing attacks against nations that did not join this coalition, even though these nations have engaged in things that could easily be described as anti-Islamic.

  •  The French learned in Algeria (none)
    that if you focus just on killing the terrorists and their leaders, you lose the war because you lose the people.  Dick Clarke said that when people asked him after 9/11 what to read regarding fighting terrorism, he told them to go find a copy of a documentary on the Battle for Algiers.  Although the French killed many terrorists, new leaders that they had never heard of kept coming.

    People, whether in the Islamic world or here at home, usually follow whomever can give them a sense of hope.  Unfortuately, in the Islamic world, that is often groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.  Too many people here at home still believe in trickle-down.

  •  Blues for Allah (none)
    Daily Kos: Allah save me from GSAVE (Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism)

     Calling a spade a spade
    While Bush's PR team minces words and won't say it out loud  his subordinates and the right wing pundits spell it out: Bushies are in war against "Islamofacism" or Islam for short.

    GOP representatives aren't mincing words
    Pick Republican congressman Tom Tancredo's recent pledge to nuke Mecca if the US had another 9/11. Mecca is located in a friendly country and would only be targeted because it is a holy place for ALL Muslims. Days later Vice President Cheney repeated the threat, with a slight change: he would nuke Iran. Cheney didn't mention any concern with identifying the nationality of the US attacker.
    The Muslim are not stupid They can see perfectly well where this is heading and some fear the worst. Just like Cheney, some of the Muslim have little faith in our peaceful disposition... The bigoted GOP rethoric just gave a powerful motive for the current 1.3 billion muslim to support "violent extremism": self preservation

    Educated Muslims are starting to act on their fears
    Despite disagreeing we need to pay attention to those fears of religious persecution: Anger and outrage can motivate "young" muslims to do the worst, we ignore it at our own peril. We have just had a BIG WAKE UP CALL in 2004:

        Pakistan Nuke 'Father' Confesses to wanting to help other Muslim countries become nuclear powers...

    If being anti-child-sodomy is now considered the partisan position, then I'm going to be the biggest f---ing partisan on the planet.. - Hunter

    by lawnorder on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 02:02:54 PM PDT

  •  Hey Jerome ? (none)
    A site /org similar to your eco-friendly fund:

    http://www.chicagosolarpartnership.com/welcome/incentives.htm

    Mission Statement
    To form a partnership which builds on the strengths of each of the sponsors to maximize the number of photovoltaic installations within the City of Chicago. In addition, we strive to make the Chicago Public Schools the leading school system in solar energy and environmental technology education.

    Benefits Of Establishing Formal Partnership

        * Recognition of Chicago as a leader in innovative technology.
        * Collective demonstration of our commitment to a cleaner environment.
        * Lower air pollution emissions.
        * Enhanced curriculum at Chicago Public Schools.
        * Lower energy costs at installation sites.
        * Creation of high-technology jobs in Chicago.
        * Lower manufacturing costs for photovoltaics.
        * Promotion of sustainability.

    Vision
    The Chicago Solar Partnership strives to promote solar energy as an alternative to more traditional forms of energy. We look ahead to a time when every new building has a solar roof, and renewable energy is the norm, not the exception. We believe that schools are the ideal place to begin the transition because, like schools, renewable energy systems are an investment in the future. The children at these schools will live in a healthier world thanks to non-polluting renewable energy...

     ComEd Solar Electric Incentive Program
    Available to individuals and organizations located in the city of Chicago who are also eligible to apply for funding under the Renewable Energy Resource Program. Solar electric systems or panels purchased from Spire Solar Chicago between 1 and 50 kilowatts of direct current name plate capacity are eligible for rebates of $1250.00 per kilowatt for systems purchased in 2003 and $1000 per kilowatt for systems purchased in 2004 (subject to availability - while funds last.) For more information, please call the PVincentive hotline 773-638-1543.

    To be eligible for the program, buildings must be located within the City of Chicago and have an active ComEd account. The solar energy systems can be used for residential, commercial or industrial buildings, and can be added to existing, renovated or newly constructed homes or businesses. Under the incentive program, all solar energy systems will be installed by...

    The ComEd Wind and Photovoltaic Generation Program
    This innovative program allows ComEd to provide incentives to you for installing wind and solar technologies at your home and business. In the process, we are teaming up with customers to help preserve the Illinois environment.

    The Wind and Photovoltaic Generation Pricing Program provides financial incentives to participants who have installed photovoltaic or wind turbine systems on their premises that are under 40 kW in capacity. These include the purchase of any excess electricity your system may produce, and an annual payment based partly upon the amount of electricity you receive from ...

    If being anti-child-sodomy is now considered the partisan position, then I'm going to be the biggest f---ing partisan on the planet.. - Hunter

    by lawnorder on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 02:06:35 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site