It's entirely possible to be enraged about the events of 9/11 and yet to still be essentially the same person. I'm the same person I was prior to 9/11, but if I were to listen exclusively to Bush and Cheney's hype, there would be plastic film duct-taped to every window in my house. Come on, aren't we arguing trifles here?

And as to the "where's my gun?" Kerry statement, remember: John Kerry was in combat. Bush was not. Thank goodness that wise people don't act on first impulses but think things over.

Bush makes the claim that the same intelligence was made available to the Senate Intelligence Committee, but I would bet dollars to donuts that far more intelligence passed over Bush's desk than made its way to the Intelligence Committee. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the White House resisted the creation of the 9/11 Commission.

I also find it ironic that Bush would call anyone else naive when he seems to be the doe-eyed one on the political scene. He is naive to believe that he could do it without the other nations' consensus in Iraq, and now U.S. representatives are in Kyoto with hat in hand trying to get donations from the world community to rebuild Iraq.

If Bush's best stratagem in this election is to pull Kerry's quotes out of context, then I submit that he is in trouble.

Here's an analysis of the piece from the LA Times: The Man Who Was Unchanged



The author does a nice job of summarizes what I feel: not that Kerry's goal is wrong, but his methodology is both out of date and dangerous.

It would have been fine in the 1990s (and was, I guess since Clinton's policy was similar). But we see where those tactics got us in the 1990s...

I know you or Bela is never going to accept this, but Kerry's approach to this is not simply a law enforcement paradigm. This claim is a gross oversimplification of his approach. Max Boot's perspective is just as simplistic. Take the global test and the times article and you would paint an image of Kerry as Elliot Ness, tracking down Bin Laden with a band of Treasury Agents. That simply isn't accurate, nor is it in any way truthful.

Kerry's 2/24 speech at UCLA is probably his most significant in detailing his approach to the war on terror. I encourage anyone interested to read it.

I see 5 tools in his approach (military, law enforcement, alliances, intel, and finance contro), not one. 6 if you include the non-proliferation efforts (which he does in the speech). 7 if you take into account the ideological efforts:


8 if you include a renewed focus on Homeland Security.

Finally, if law enforcement were his only tool to be used, why propose adding 40,000 troops to our active military?

In the end, I don't know that his approach is perfect, but I think it has more potential than the seeming one dimensional approach our current administration is taking. And it is most definitely more than a sequel to the Untouchables, as my Bush supporting friends here at AD would have you think.

Doc

Actually, yes I can and have explained it to you, as have others using Kerry's own words. Kerry has shown himself to be incapable of fighting the war on terror successfully, because he doesn't really understand the war on terror. When a person states that they want terrorism to become a nuisance, I'd ask how many innocent US civilians killed do we consider an acceptable nuisance. Two a year? 100 a year?



Those are John Kerry's words. He realizes now that he needs to say other things to convince people that he will act one way so he can get elected, but he isn't fooling me.

Those things you and Doclotus listed as Kerry's "tools" are already being used by Bush, in fact Kerry wants to roll back some of the things being used today to fight terrorism - the Patriot Act to be specific. And I didn't say Kerry wouldn't actively pursue terrorist. I said, I don't believe Kerry will pursue terrorists like Bush.

Bush replied to Kerry's statement above was:



I personally think Bush's way is the right way. So does 50% of the country.

Have you forgotten that your candidate said that he didn't think the war on terror can't be won fairly recently? Have you forgotten that your candidate isn't concerned with Osama Bin Laden and as recently as the third debate he has realized that wasn't a smart thing to say and tried to lie his way out of it?

Kerry's nuisance statement is a convenient soundbite for his opponents to use against him, and in reality it doesn't mean anywhere near what you or the GOP are equating it to. So I'll ask you Bela, do you seriously and honestly believe that some day in the near future (under Bush's direction) we will have invaded every country and killed the last terrorist? That one day we can say "Mission Accomplished" and be done with this?

In my opinion, that shows lack of understanding of the war on terror because we aren't fighting the Germans in WWII here, we can't win by conquering territory or killing large numbers of the enemy. Terrorism is an idea and a tactic. When in history has anyone ever been able to kill an idea, just show me one instance.

So Kerry is 100% right, there will be a day when we have made enough progress that people aren't concerned about terrorism anymore, even if it still exists. In all likelihood terrorism will always exist until the day that extreme elements of islam die out, the conflict between Israel and Palestine is resolved and the countries in the middle east don't have reason to hate the US. I certainly don't see Bush doing anything to help out in that area, in fact he is probably making it worse.


Bush is Not using all of those tools. His approach has been to go after nation-states, and not terrorist cells. That is huge difference number 1. Secondly, Bush is an abysmal failure when it comes to diplomacy, American hatred among other countries in the world is at an all time high right now, do you really think that fosters the sense of cooperation necessary to work together on a common problem? Bush can tout his "coalition of the willing" all he wants, but the simple fact of the matter is that you cannot engage Al Qaeda on the battlefield and countries like Poland (whom he constantly refers to aren't going to provide much help... no offense to any Poles here of course), they won't fight you there. You have to engage them with intelligence to track them down, use special forces to go after them, cut off their money supplies, form tight relationships with other countries to help out and the ultimate goal is to infiltrate their organization... oh wait, our government blew the cover of an operative we had inside just for political points There is also a military component, but I don't think it involves stationing troops in every hostile country in the middle east.

I would definitely NOT say we are better off under Bush. The Patriot Act is dangerous, and I am immensely disappointed that my representatives voted for it. It is a complete violation of our civil rights, and there have already been a handful of cases where it has been abused. There are portions of it that are necessary, but as it stands today it needs to be scrapped.

Oh, and one more thing... which candidate wants to utilize the hard work and analysis of the 9/11 commission and implement their recommendations? It certainly isn't Bush.


I guess we'll just have to wait and see who is right on November 2nd, but with the way things are going I'm predicting that even if you still think you are right Bush will be packing up and moving back to Crawford, TX.

Thats the perfect way to say it... what do u think the siituation was before 9/11? Exactly that. Before 9/11 the USA still had attempted attacks but the defenses took care of them so people could live in peace feeling safe... and thats what has to happen again.

The country as a whole, especially economically, will never recover if the American public every day gets blitzed with some new vague terror warning to panic everyone... look at this summer. "We think terrorist might try to attack in the summer, likely July or August, in a city somewhere, with a rental van." Well thanks for narrowing that down chief. Let me summarize....

So you think, possibly, maybe, you're not sure, that sometime in the future, possible in a 2-3 month period that someone, somewhere, might attack, possibly with a rental truck........ so just be on the lookout for rental trucks...you know how few of those there are.

A country can not poster in a environment of fear... that doesn't mean u become arrogantly nieve or dismissive of possible threats.... but u get your defenses to do their job like they're supposed to & not panic the public with what amounts to "cover your *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***" political warnings so u can say we warned people of something somewhere at some time. Cause thats *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** thats no good for anyone........

Maybe this is where we reveal our fundamental differences, Beladonna. According to your statement, you believe its possible to have 0 US civilians killed under this framework? Do you believe we will achieve some mythical D-Day against those usings acts of terror? If true, that to me reveals a far greater lack of understanding of our world today and how terror is utilized within it. The war on terror unfortunately isn't a zero-sum game.

Maybe Kerry shouldn't have characterized reducing terror as a political tool to acceptable levels as a nuisance. Certainly I think even Kerry would agree a person being killed in a terrorist act is hardly a nuisance. But using that one statement to mischaracterize his entire worldview on terrorism is spin of the highest order. I would argue that its intellectually dishonest as well but I think you believe it. I gave our president the same pass over misusing intelligence for pursuing the war with Iraq.

I have no problem if you disagree with that statement. But I also think its consistent with the UCLA speech I cited. He doesn't discount the military as a weapon in that war, but I think he is 100% accurate in stating intelligence & law enforcement will be critical tools to be effective in this battle.

Why? A Bradley can't shut down an offshore bank account. A tomahawk pointed at Indonesia won't get them to cooperate with our intelligence agencies to identify cells and destroy them. Sometimes that will be achieved by putting them behind bars, sometimes it will be by granting their wish and sending them to Allah. The difference here is that you have to use all of the tools at your disposal and I disagree with you wholeheartedly that Bush is using all of them. Quite frankly, he can't. When most of the world reviles you, its hard to get cooperation, and that's one of the foundation tools that Kerry advocates.

This difference was unexpectedly highlighted last night during the debate:



Ad Populem arguments unfortunately doesn't make any way "right". More than 50% of the country has been wrong on other issues as well. There's no question that sledgehammers have a role in combating terrorism, it just shouldn't be the only implement in the toolbox. Some smart guys in Israel seem to agree.

Doc

No I haven’t. What does that have to do with Kerry not understanding what the war on terror is all about?



The interesting thing about this is Bush followed his “I’m not worried about Osama" with “Osama better worry about us”. Yes, it was a stupid thing to say. We should worry about Osama. But it highlights one of the big differences in Kerry's logic compared to Bush's. Kerry seems to think the global war on terror is about Osama while Bush understands that it's bigger than Osama.



I think you read way too much into my posts CJ, per usual. I never said I believed anything close to what you’ve implied.



Well, that was a very nice thing to say. First, place words IN my mouth and then tell me how unintelligent I am for not saying them.



Prove it.



Prove that he has not gone after terrorist cells.



CJ, the Coalition of the Willing is a group of countries fighting a battle in the war on terror – Iraq. It’s important not to mix them up with the countries who are fighting the Global War on Terror. More important not to dis them in front of the entire world, an action in which Kerry seems to take pride. When it comes to the Global War on Terror, most countries are, how’d you put it, “engag[ing] them with intelligence to track them down, us[ing] special forces to go after them, cut[ting[]off their money supplies, form[ing] tight relationships with other countries…”

If it is untrue that most countries are working with the US on the Global War on Terror, please enlighten us.



I think the work and analysis of this committee should be commended. But, I’d rather have a leader who will analyze the report and implement those things which are needed rather than take it at face value.



You may be right, CJ. If that’s the case, it will be extremely painful to watch our country spiral downhill under a socialist regime.

Bela, I can understand and appreciate that you truely believe that Kerry has no clue what he is doing as far as the terrorism and foreign policy goes. You have come to that conclusion in your mind somehow and I am not going to delude myself into thinking that even though I feel you are wrong, you'll change your mind about it. We will just have to agree to disagree and in 2 weeks it won't matter anymore (hopefully)

Where the problem comes in is suggesting Kerry doesn't know what he is doing as a fact when you don't make a convincing case to support it. What you have offered so far is a few out of context quotes and you have basically attributed the same spin to them that the Bush/Cheney campaign does. I don't think I'm out of line saying that we need to dig a little deeper than that. As Mrs. P famously said once "context is everything". It is easy to get hung up on the words and miss the message with all the sounbites flying around.

The other thing I think we have going on here is probably fundamental differences in how the war on terror should be fought. It is off topic for this thread but I have started another thread dedicated to that subject and I'd encourage you to share your views there.


Again I think this is going to come down to our differing opinions on how the WOT should be waged but I'll give it another shot.
1. Appropriate use of the military: Clearly the military is an important component of the WOT, but opportunities need to be seized when they are available. As proof that Bush doesn't understand this, I'll cite the example of allowing Bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora. Instead of using our military forces which were available to do the job, Bush had the locals go in and attempt the job for us. We all know the result, Bin Laden is still at large. This shows a lack of understanding of just how important it would have been to capture or kill Bin Laden, it would have been a huge blow to terrorism. Our guys shoudl have gone in and done the job, you never send in inferior forces for something that important. Might he have gotten away anyway? Possibly, but we'll never know because we never tried.

2. Appropriate use of Intelligence: Intelligence is also vital fighting the WOT, and probably the holy grail of the intelligence community would be to infiltrate Al Qaeda. We did that, go Intelligence. Then, Bush decided he was going to out the guy on the inside to score political points at home and prove we still had a threat. How can anyone possibly condone that and say the person who makes that decision understands the larger picture? Here is a quote from the article:

Incidently, this also caused a British operation to go bad as well.

3. Appropriate use of diplomacy and international cooperation: Another vital tool we have at our disposal is the resources and cooperation of our allies and countries which may not be allies but wish to cooperate. I need only cite the fact that in the court of World opinion Bush is more dangerous than the countries on the axis of evil. We have had large falling outs with Germany and France over Iraq and several coalition countries have pulled out or suffered political hits back home. We went from a record amount of goodwill after 9/11 to record hatred.

It is impossible to get international cooperation to fight terrorism when you are not well liked and your every action burns more of our allies. I can hear people's wheels turning now, ready to go off on France and Germany but regardless of what you think about them we need all the friends and cooperation we can get to win this war.

The way in which the Bush administration and Bush personally has approached diplomacy and foreign relations is a disgrace to our country and never has there been a president (that I can remember) that has approached foreign relations like a teenager rebelling against his parents. Again this shows a complete lack of understanding for the way in which the war on terror must be fought and won.

4. Understanding the driving force behind terrorism: There are two things going on here. First, it is clear that Bush still thinks that going after nation states is more important than going after terrorists themselves. This has been proven by our actions in Iraq and if we get another 4 years of Bush I have absolutely no doubt that things will heat up and possibly come to blows with either Iran or Syria. There are terrorists operating either covertly or overtly in about 60 countries including our own - should we just start invading a country a month until we kill them all and force Democracy down their throats? Terrorist groups are small, so we need to use our military in small groups in concert with our intelligence and foreign cooperation.

Secondly, Bush has numerous times made speeches where he implies that we are fighting some kind of "Holy War" with the war on terror. He did it a few times after 9/11 and he did it again last night during the debates. For someone to say something like that proves they have zero understanding about why these people hate us, why they want to kill us and what motivates them. We absolutely cannot make this a war of religion, it would be fatal.

There are probably many more things I could go into here, but I'll stop there for now.


Regarding the 9/11 report, sure I'd like to have a leader that will analyze and study it as well. But frankly Bela, how long does Bush need? I mean seriously. I read the thing in a few nights directly after it came out and I'd say that 90 to 95% of the stuff in there was right on from my perspective. Surely Bush was given advance copies of the thing and was more familiar with the subject matter than I was. Even if he didn't understand it he has tons of experts at his disposal to talk him through it. So how long does he need to implement anything? It is coming on a few months now, maybe close to 6, I can't remember.

Just days after the thing came out Kerry stood up and said that he would implement the recommendations in full and call a special session of Congress to do so if necessary. To me this seems like a very presidential thing to do. So how did Bush respond? He said he would study the report. If he really wanted to trump Kerry he could have studied it, said we are going to do A, B, and C but not X, Y and Z and Senator Kerry is naive to think X, Y and Z are good for the American people. He would have then immediately gotten Congress working on the recommendations. What has he done? Nothing. I personally think he just doesn't care and is glad that whole thing is behind him. He did after all try and thwart them at every turn.

Speaking of spinning, There You Go Again! The thing that was most lacking in the debates is that Bush didn't refute this Kerry/Edwards myth, and let Kerry get away with mentioning it multiple times. Probably because you can't discuss something this complex in a 90-second rebuttal.

- Kerry and Edwards - we let Bin Laden go, we 'outsourced the job' in Tora Bora

- Reality - We did in 6 weeks what the British and Russians couldn't do in 150 years, there was conflicting intel about whether Bin Laden was even there, and Kerry just wants a stupid soundbite. We could have flooded Afghanistan with roughly 150,000 troops like the Soviets, but at the risk of causing a nationalist reaction. So, the United States instead used special-forces troops, precision-guided bombs and indigenous forces. And we blew those forces in Tora Bora to smithereens.

I remember reading these at the time, but my only Kerry quote source that I have time to get to this afternoon is from this column. - apologies for the biased source, but I'll let the author make a few points for me as long as I'm quoting. My emphases added.



Oh well, I guess these are the types of inconsistencies we should expect from the guy to said "I wish there was a delete button on Lexis/Nexis." But NOT the type of inconsistencies we need in defending our country.

The simple fact of the matter is Carlito, I'm not going to try and defend every single word that comes out of Kerry's mouth because I don't necessarily agree with everything. I realize I may have been giving that impression, and it is going to stop.

Regardless of what Kerry said back in 2002 this was a military blunder and we should have focused a little more effort on wrapping things up in Afghanistan. Would it have killed us to wait a few months to head into Iraq? Saddam hardly had nukes pointed at Washington and I think the administration probably knew that given what we know now. It was (and still is) important to get Bin Laden, probably more so than anything else we could have done at the time because it would have been a symbolic victory. How quickly do you think a replacement would have stepped up after we brought all our force to bear and killed him? But now, he is apparently still alive and the very fact that he is stengthens his cause because he has defied the US.

I notice you declined to comment on my other points by the way. Should I take that to mean you agree?

Now all of this briefs well but isn't entirely true. The biggest assumption of them all is that OBL was even in the Tora Bora region. Nobody knows that for sure. Certainly not Senators Kerry and Edwards, unless they’ve been holding out on us.

It also briefs well to repeat the line that we 'outsourced Tora Bora to warlords'. Now if it were politically expedient to the Democrats, they surely wouldn't refer to our Northern Alliance allies as warlords. But it sure spins better for them this way.

Truth be told, the Northern Alliance troops were essentially being led by our Special Forces teams from the 5th and 20th SF Groups. While OBL may have been in Tora Bora (the Brit SAS thought so), and mistakes my have been made (as they always are in war).........for the Kerry/Edwards cabal to simply repeat this soundbite assures me that they either have no more of a grasp on the WOT than Bush, or they think the American people are mindlessly numb sheep.

CJ, first I will ask you to read again my posts on this thread. I have purposefully tried to stay away from posing my position as fact, as you suggested. With determination, I try to preface my statements with terms like, I believe, I don’t believe, I think, I don’t think, or I’ll state that this is my opinion. Using these terms does not make my assertions statements of fact.

You state that my opinion isn’t supported, but I would disagree. I provided Kerry’s own words to help prove my point. I provided quotes from Kerry from early life to present, where he has stated his stance on the use of our military and I can provide many more. He says now that he would never allow another country veto power over our right to protect ourselves. I don’t believe that, because in the next breath he tells us that we have to pass some global test.

The following explains it better than I:



Kerry seems to believe the war on terror is tilted more toward a law enforcement issue. He’s repeated this claim numerous times since 2003. I believe it is much more than that. I believe to go back to this mindset is dangerous. Kerry seems to believe that we should accept a certain amount of terrorism as a nuisance – at least that’s the message his words relay. That is unacceptable to me.



Then I would ask that you cease using the same spin of Kerry/Edwards and the DNC. Like the stuff below.



I think DTOM provided a good explanation for what really occurred, but here is more information from factcheck.org.





That isn’t how it happened, CJ. Bush didn’t out anyone. It’s great spin, but much like Tora Bora, there is only a shred of truth to it.

The disclosure of Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan

BLOWN COVER?



CJ, Bush used diplomacy beautifully when going to he UN Security Council for Resolution 1441. The country bragged on what a wonderful job he’d done. But then, a portion of this country and those nations who had agreed to 1441 realized that Bush was serious. It’d been business as usual until Bush held the UN’s feet to the fire.

We know now why France didn’t want to take Saddam out of power. We also know that Germany and France want nothing to do with Iraq, period.

Many believe France and Germany’s actions are Bush’s fault. I beg to differ. They are the ones who started turning things personal. Name calling, power plays. Just look at them today, workng against us in Afghanistan. The world calls for us to turn over authority to an international body and when we try, we are shot down.

No, we can’t lay all the blame for international discord at Bush’s feet. All those nations had their agendas and they stuck with them. I am thankful this president’s agenda was about liberty and security and not some selfish desire to profit from the mouths of starving and abused Iraqis. That doesn’t mean this president is blameless, CJ. But to lay all the blame at his feet is wrong, in my opinion.



CJ, your assertion that Bush thinks he should go after nation states is more important than going after terrorist is just that - a statement. You haven’t proved it. Do we know that Bush is approaching this war differently? Yes. Has he stated that we will go after nations that sponsor and harbor terrorist? Yes. Has he actively pursued terrorist in Afghanistan and Iraq? Yes. Is he working with other countries in the Global War on Terror, providing resources to include money, man power, intelligence? Yes. Has he stopped pursuing terrorist to pursue nation states? No.



CJ, You’ll have to cite examples of this to me. I have seen Bush do just the opposite, so I need to see proof.

To the 9/11 report recmomendations:

Bush Administration Actions Consistent with 9/11 Recommendations

This is an extremely important point, and it gets misunderstood constantly. There were numerous strategic and tactical reasons why this had to happen when it did---which is the very reason it was done when it was.

1. Concern over invading in the hot summer months, primary amongst them being realization that chemical weapons could be deployed against us, and that the chem suits in hot weather imposed numerous difficulties (leading directly to increased fatalities). These concerns were strong enough that delay might have meant postponing action until the following year.

2. The financial reality of the fact that we could not sustain the military buildup over an extended period of time.

3. Concern that maintaining a large troop deployment in Iraq would still detract from the other WoT efforts, combined with

4. The war winding down in Afghanistan, meaning that deploying troops into Iraq really had no or little impact on efforts there.

There were also several political realities which made delay difficult (Saddam would likely find a way out of being invaded, given enough time). So, you have numerous reasons not to delay, and really no compelling reason to do so. All we really have is people looking after the fact, and saying we didn't catch UBL. No cause and effect, just a result. Nothing to say that we still wouldn't have captured him even if we hadn't gone into Iraq. Nothing showing a reduction in military capabilities in Afghanistan (yes, I've seen the reports of spec ops troops...but nothing showing an impact on ability to achieve current military goals).

I'd like to address #4 in particular--Had we gotten Osama bin Laden? Nope. Was there still more work to do in Afghanistan? Yep. Is there still, now in October 2004, work to do in Afghanistan? Yep. Are our troops now too engaged in "liberated" Iraq with insurgent forces and opportunistic, Islamic fanatics to do a proper job anywhere else in the world and especially in Afghanistan? Yep.

In elementary school, students are taught to finish one task before beginning another. George W. Bush was apparently absent that day.

The difference being, of course, that in elementary school they don't have to deal with global geo-political issues and world-wide strategic military decisions

Again, as I stated before, its easy to look at the result (no UBL), and draw inferences about the cause. But, those are just that....inferences. I haven't seen anything that substantiates that the result would have been any different had we not gone into Iraq. I have heard military leaders state it had no impact. At the very least, I think it requires a good deal more substantiation than I've seen to make this assumption.

I just love the whole "take every comment and shift it to it's extreme" stance taken by the Bush Administration and which, Amlord, you seem to have adopted. Can you point to where someone in this thread called Kerry a visionary? Everything is not black and white -- the problem with this Administration is that they failt to recognize this fact. Not everyone who has a good understanding is a visionary and not everyone who does not have a good understanding is a complete buffoon. You seem to be suggesting that everyone's view of the world seems to have shifted after 9/11 except Kerry's.

I seem to recall the Bush Administration's record when it came to dealing with terrorists and those who harbor them prior to 9/11. Immediately prior. I seem to recall that this Administration gave quite a large sum of money to the Taliban just prior to the attacks.

Sure, we can dissect Bush's statements denying that he ever said some of the things that he actually said or did some of the things he actually did and give him the benefit of the doubt. Too bad for Mr. Bush, his own statements and actions show his record on these issues. The track he has taken is not the same one he is advocating now (unless you count the Saudi's). He simply cannot be believed.



Nothing to substantiate? How many American soldiers have died in Iraq? Is that not substantial? There is nothing to substantiate the idea that we might actually have captured Osama Bin Laden had Bush not removed troops from Afghanistan so that he could invade Iraq? Yes, some, if not all, of those same soldiers might have died fighting in Afghanistan instead of Iraq, but they would have died fighting the people who attacked us -- there is a legitimacy there and that is substantial. You don't think increased troops in one occupied country would have had an impact? That seems to defy basic logic. If all the troops currently in Iraq were combined with the current forces in Afghanistan, there would most certainly be an impact. And there would most certainly be an impact on the legitimacy of our "War on Terror" if we actually kept to the plan of fighting the terrorists who attacked us. And the Bush Administration can try and try to paint the picture of Saddam being somehow connected to Al Qaeda and, therefore, 9/11, but it is certainly going to require much, much more substantiation than, apparently, exists to make that anything other than an assumption. To quote Kerry, "he took his eye off the ball", which, if some are to believed, was what he always intended to do.

I am going to let the other comments stand, because I don't really see any point in rebutting them when we apparently disagree on some very fundamental things regarding the war on terror. I would still encourage you to share your thoughts in this thread about the right way to win the war on terror.

I do want to respond to this though:

As I stated, directly after 9/11 Bush equated the war on terror to a crusade several times and I'm assuming he was probably told to stop using that word.
From Vote Smart.org on 9/16/2001.

Call it a slip of the tounge if you like, but a smart and historically conscious president would know that this is possible THE worst word he could have used to describe the WOT.

He uses it again here on 2/16/2002:


And finally, implies yet again in the 3rd Presidential Debate:

Unleashed armies of compassion? God wants everyone to be free? It is part of my foreign policy? How exactly do you think that plays to muslims and especially to those who support Al-Qaeda?

If our president actually understood the first thing about the roots of this conflict, he would understand that the words he spoke on three different occasions are probably the worst words to describe the mission or his feelings. If we make this a religious conflict, we lose, period. It shows lack of worldliness and culture, two things I think are extremely important for the leader of our country to exhibit.

Thanks, Cube Jockey. I've got to agree with you. If "naive and dangerous" words are the criterion for not having a man in the White House, it can reasonably be argued that George W. Bush has no business being there.

In addition, to call these fanatical thugs "enemy combatants" is to assign to them more respectability than they deserve. They are criminals, not members of any respectable army, and certainly not the representatives of Islam they imagine themselves to be. They need not be encouraged further in this line of thinking, especially by our President.

If this is not a shining example of the pot calling the kettle black, then I don't think one exists. How many times have the words of Bush been parsed, taken out of context, failed to be viewed within the broader context, etc. over the last few years. In fact, when have they not? So, for anyone from that side to suddenly take affront at perhaps having the tables turned is basically laughable...wait until its happend a few thousand more times, and then maybe you'll have some ground to stand on. Until then, you're protesting from shaky ground....I'd say about 11.9 on the Richter scale.

Speaking of context and such, I think you are leaving out a lot of it even in this response. Let's remember that the Democrats just got over eight years of their president being attacked constantly, and almost entirely baselessly. The Republican base was in murderkilldeath mode from 1992, and it didn't really stop after Bush was elected. Remember how so many Republicans loved to blame Clinton for stuff even after he was out of office? Heck, I've seen folks here at AD basically blaming Clinton for 9/11 - and this kind of rhetoric was leveled by people up in the heirarchy of the party too, not just ananymous internet debaters. (You may also recall that Democrats did not do the same thing after the first WTC attack - there were no Democrats blaming GHW Bush for that one...) You make it sound like it's just 'medicine' for all the ABB stuff - but just remember that that ABB stuff has a precedent as well. I could as easily say that Republicans shouldn't complain about Dems being overly critical of Bush - given the previous eight years...

The fact is, however, hypocricy should be countered, whether or not its your 'turn' to do it. A president's words should be examined. Power should be questioned - indeed, in a democratic republic it must be. If politics can be seen as a sort of game, then it is the role of the opposition party to question the motives and intents of the president. It is the role of the party faithful to offer defense, to get indignant. Truth seekers will hopefully not be deterred or distracted by such games. Over the last four years, we have seen more than a few Republicans realizing that Mr. Bush is too far left in some areas, and too far right in others, for their taste. The actual left (as opposed to the modern Democratic party) realized long ago that Clinton was peddling us 'Republican-lite' and we spent eight years offering real critique to Clinton - as opposed to the endless attacks on him, his wife, and his daughter, from the right.

The reason I guess your answer here bothers me is that it's a bit of a cop out. We can trade this kind of comment going back into modern history. If there is an accusation leveled, we can look at it, examine it, try and find the truth. We can do this without negating the other side's response. I don't really find it 'laughable,' as you put it. After the last four years, both sides have the ground to stand on in this type of divisive name-calling.

Baselessly?

Impeached
Disbarred
Lied to a grand jury
Accused of rape and sexual harassment
Accepted improper political contributions from foreign governments
Pardoned Puerto Rican terrorists to help his wife win a Senate seat
Kept FBI files on enemies

Quark,

Yes, this is something that both sides are guilty of...I did not mean to imply otherwise. Rather, I was trying to as you suggest...focus on examining what was said and whether it was justified. As such, I'm not negating any of the comments here, except for the ones that seemed to be finger-pointing that this isn't 'fair'. Also, as I have stated in defense of some of Bush's comments, I do think that examining what anyone says without taking a look at the full context of why they might have said it is ignoring the complexity of the environment political comments are made in. I think this applies to comments from anyone (although I think the President...any President...has many more issues that must be considered in this context, as they are involved in far more issues than anyone else).