Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sat 12/04/2004 View Fri 12/03/2004 View Thu 12/02/2004 View Wed 12/01/2004 View Tue 11/30/2004 View Mon 11/29/2004 View Sun 11/28/2004
1
2004-12-04 Home Front: WoT
Ex-CIA official: We will lose terror war
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by tipper 2004-12-04 3:46:18 AM|| || Front Page|| [11 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 The United States will ultimately lose the war on terror because of its policies in the Middle East and because of concerns over the human rights of militants worldwide ....

That's an extremely fair statement as far as it goes but it fails to take into consideration the societal changes that will ensue as it becomes apparent that we're losing. Since a loss would entail the Islamization of the United States, I'd wager that we'll see F117s bombing mosques in San Francisco before we'll "lose" the War on Terror. What he really means is that our current kid gloves policies will prolong the war and make it far bloodier (on all sides) than is necessary. That's a shame but that might well be the price humanity must eventually pay for our unwillingness to apply overwhelming force.
Posted by AzCat  2004-12-04 5:38:12 AM||   2004-12-04 5:38:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Pathetic idiot, so the militants are somewhat better than US in human rights and when US saved Muslims in Kosovo, helped muslims fight Soviet Union, etc doesnt count. What outside country ever helped Muslims and Arabs?
Posted by anon2 2004-12-04 5:48:45 AM||   2004-12-04 5:48:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Like Richard Clarke and Joe Wilson before him, "Anonymous" finds himself slipping out of the headlines, and says something provocative to get more ink. "Notice me! Notice me!" he cries, stamping his tiny feet in impotent rage.
Posted by Mike  2004-12-04 6:42:52 AM||   2004-12-04 6:42:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 He said the war on Iraq, unpopular in the Muslim world,...., and the continuation of "tyrannical" regimes in the Arab world. - This is such a jumbled mishmash of ideas its hard to know where to start to analyze it. Bottom line is AQ may be popular, but then so was Che Guevara after he was dead. The issue is AQ's capacity to launch terrorist attacks and that seems severely limited outside the Arab world.
Posted by phil_b 2004-12-04 7:10:17 AM||   2004-12-04 7:10:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 good point, Mike. Speaking of slipping out of the limelight: Anybody hear anything new about Sandy Berger's stealing classified documents by slipping them in his pants? Nope? This is gonna be a whitewash unless if we can keep the heat on
Posted by Frank G  2004-12-04 8:52:34 AM||   2004-12-04 8:52:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 What about ME! Doesn't anybody care what I have to say about anything!
Posted by Hans Blix 2004-12-04 9:22:50 AM||   2004-12-04 9:22:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 One word: fucktard.
Posted by Sobiesky 2004-12-04 9:35:23 AM||   2004-12-04 9:35:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 With pinheads like Soooler we would lose the war on terror. This guy was only an anal-ist, the media treats him like he really mattered.
Posted by Capt America  2004-12-04 10:12:30 AM||   2004-12-04 10:12:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 "Scheuer, who resigned last month from the CIA because of the agency’s refusal to allow him permission to grant media interviews." After 20 years in the business I can tell you that NO SANE agent wants to do interviews with the press. This guy sounds like one of the many LLLs that the CIA needs to cut loose. You can't conduct analysis or investigations through the press. I think Mike hit the nail on the head.
Posted by Cyber Sarge  2004-12-04 10:15:24 AM||   2004-12-04 10:15:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Nothing worst than a guy who always talks about losing, like a traitor. Even if we did have a problem in foreign policy, the CIA should be smart enough to guide us. He wrote this book awhile back, but I think the US has gained momentum with electons coming, Fallujah pacified, and even Hamas accepting a ceasefire. The title of the book is telling, and scaring Americans and planting doubt is how he can get more sales.
Posted by Shiter Chaimble5991 2004-12-04 10:18:08 AM||   2004-12-04 10:18:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Whoever put this guy in charge of Binny needs to be fired too. He was clearly not tempermentally or intellecutally suited for the job.
Posted by JAB 2004-12-04 10:47:28 AM||   2004-12-04 10:47:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 There is always one line which exemplifies the core of the entire message. This is it, ""They’re attacking us because of our unqualified support for Israel." America is far better off cleaning house of the U.N. types lurking within our national security agencies.

With Bernie Kerik at the helm of Homeland Security, a man who does NOT share the pro-terrorist views of the EX-CIA man, house cleaning has yet to begin!
Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-12-04 11:15:45 AM||   2004-12-04 11:15:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 With Bernie Kerik at the helm of Homeland Security, a man who does NOT share the pro-terrorist views of the EX-CIA man, house cleaning has yet to begin
Just because Scheuer states unpopular truths, it hardly means he has "pro-terrorist views." The example you quote as being all telling of Scheurer's "pro-terrorist" message ie. re: AQ hating us because of our unqualified support of Israel makes no sense. Arabs hate Israel and from their point of view, the US gives Israel too much support. Bin Laden has reiterated this message over and over again. So how is Scheurer lying or being "pro-terrorist? As painful as it is to see in print, he's on the mark when he says Bin Laden is not attacking us because of our freedoms and life style - that's a bunch of State/WH feelgood bull. AQ is attacking us because of our policies, and since it's unlikely we will or can change our policies in the near future, we will ultimately lose the war. We will not have the numbers or the passion. Bin Laden will be able to recruit an unending supply of terrorists because his message will resonate more clearly with Arabs/Muslims because it's believable to them. You may not like to hear what Scheurer says, but he's hardly "pro-terrorist." Actually he's the type of guy that the CIA should have kept on. He's not a yes-man or a standard bearer for whichever party is in power. I read his book, and Scheurer is hardly an appeasement, milque toast kind of guy. In fact, he was very very critical of Clinton's regime.

As for Bernie Kerik, the guy has some baggage, so I'd hold back on your rah rah until you see this guy on the job for a while. Google Ellis Henican's article on Kerik for example.
Posted by Glomosing Crong7327 2004-12-04 12:51:39 PM||   2004-12-04 12:51:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 yeah, Ellis is the voice of reason. Dem hack is more likely
Posted by Frank G  2004-12-04 12:56:37 PM||   2004-12-04 12:56:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Mr. Glomosing

(1) Has the US scored any successes against Al Qaeda in the last three years? What were they? Conversely, what successes has Al Qaeda scored against the US since 911?

(2) My understanding of President Bush's policy toward the Arab-Israeli dispute is that the US will support a two-state solution if the Palestinians stop their terror attacks. What part of that policy do the Arabs regard as excessive support of Israel?
Posted by Matt 2004-12-04 1:09:53 PM||   2004-12-04 1:09:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Ellis is the voice of reason. Dem hack is more likely
So you believe that Hennican wrote lies about Kerik because he's a Democrat and discrediting Kerik helps his presidential candidate...oops, the election is over isn't it, so what does Hennican have to gain? OTH, you believe that journalists who only wrote sentimental goo-goo stuff about Kerik's abusive childhood were telling the gospel truth, because they, of course, are non-partisan. Yah, right...
Posted by Glomosing Crong7327 2004-12-04 1:12:28 PM||   2004-12-04 1:12:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 "Mr Glomosing" has a woodie for Kerik. Fine - post it on a thread about Kerik.

This article, this thread, is about EX-CIA fuckwit Sheurer. He jes' be tryin' to hawk his retirement book, ju know, mayne? He's EX for a damned good reason: he's an incompetent hand-wringing self-aggrandizing toolfool of the Camelot II Clintoon Era - in the "great" recent tradition of Dickie Clark, et al.
Posted by .com 2004-12-04 1:25:46 PM||   2004-12-04 1:25:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 AQ is attacking us because of our policies, and since it's unlikely we will or can change our policies in the near future, we will ultimately lose the war. We will not have the numbers or the passion.

Your statement assumes that US policy is static with respect to fighting terrorism. A few more 9-11s and I'd wager there'll be a rather noticeable sea change in exactly how the WoT is being fought.

"No. It can’t be won. We’re going to eventually lose it. And the problem for us is that we’re going to lose it much more quickly if we don’t start killing more of the enemy."

Although he, too, mistakenly posits a static policy, Scheuer is essentially on the money. We need to start killing the terrorists at an accelerated pace. Iran must be toppled, other Mid-East terror sponsors must undergo regime change and known jihadist concentrations need to be eradicated, be they the Janjaweed, JI or other groups.

Terrorism has a substantial genetic component. Its networks rely upon familial ties for security and its doctrine is transmitted through relations and their acquaintances. The sooner we kill off a substantial portion of those who promote terrorism, the more quickly that sort of mindset will no longer be biologically propogated or taught.

We need to attach a serious price tag to preaching jihad. Whether it be targeting imams who advocate militant Islam or simply wiping out entire factions like the Janjaweed, only when the general population sees that participation with such factions brings hasty and unpleasant DEATH will things begin to change.

The West continues its mistaken mantling of violent jihad with the sanctity of religious privilege. Only when the American administration's fundamentalists overcome their aversion to criticizing or acting against Islamic fundamentalists are things going to improve.

The United States has undergone a sufficient degree of erosion in its separation of church and state whereby it is no longer able to make clear distinctions about just how poisonous theocratic authoritarianism is to personal liberty and freedom in general. When this administration finally gets over its own over-inflated sense of religiosity and sets about protecting Americans, one and all - instead of merely their own ideological kith and kin - then we'll see some forward progress.

Until then, we'll see this restrained and politically correct crippled approach to killing those who most dearly want to murder us. Not exactly a recipe for success, is it?
Posted by Zenster 2004-12-04 1:38:45 PM||   2004-12-04 1:38:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Oh, by the way, Cyber Sarge has it right;

Scheuer, who resigned last month from the CIA because of the agency’s refusal to allow him permission to grant media interviews ...

This sort of "glamour" mentality about a post that requires the utmost of discretion is nothing more than grandstanding. It has no place in our intelligence community.
Posted by Zenster 2004-12-04 1:42:03 PM||   2004-12-04 1:42:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Bottom line.
If the British (1940)fought against the Luftwaffe, rather than against Nazism, the Third Reich would rule the World now.
Posted by gromgorru  2004-12-04 1:55:39 PM||   2004-12-04 1:55:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Matt, terrorist actions by AQ are 5 years in the planning, so the verdict is still out regarding AQ's "failure" to strike us again.

As for the US success story you will likely claim in Afghanistan - it's tentative at best there-we've disrupted obvious AQ training camps, but in return for the warlords' "co-operation" in the WOT, we had to allow the warlords to cultivate their poppy crops which causes huge negative effects on our society. The Afghans are primitive agricultural type tribes, they are not rocket scientists. The Taliban curtailed poppy field agriculture when they were allied with AQ. Now we allow poppy fields to flourish to the detriment of our society but we've driven the Taliban/AQ underground or to Pakistan. Mixed victory, I'd say. As for Iraq, do you think a viable democratic government will ever exist there? I doubt it. Consider that Europe,just a stone's throw away, has had democracy in place for thousands of years, yet somehow the ME countries, apart from Israel, have managed to avoid democracy. It's not like Arabs don't read newspapers that they have never heard about democracy. In Iraq we deposed a wacko dictator but I suspect we will ultimately need to install a benign one, like Allawi, to keep the restive Iraqi masses from killing each other and blowing up their oil pipelines. If we don't install a guy like Allawi,who can rule with an iron fist, we'll have 150,000 troops there forever and the Iraqis on the US taxpayer tit for the same length of time. That's not exactly a success story, either way.

Like it or not what Scheurer says is true. We will lose the war on terror, maybe not today but perhaps 25 years from now and perhaps through a combination of terrorist intimidation as well as exploding population of "true believers" gaining political clout in various Western democracies.

Unless we see drastic changes in our policies, there are too many factors against our being victorious. For one thing, we have civil rights laws in place and activist judges in Western democracies that are in conflict with being more ruthless than the enemy to win wars. That's not going to change while the ACLU and JAG are around. For another thing, our country uses considerably more fossil fuel energy than we have resources, so we are dependent on resources that are in Muslim dominated countries. We are unwilling to become energy efficient. We are unwilling to drill for oil in our own country, nevermind even build new refineries. We are unwilling to pay high prices for the gas and oil owned by ME countries. We need to support Western friendly tyrants in these Muslim countries[not religious mullahs like Bin Laden would like]in order to get access to the fossil fuels. That's not going to change. Thirdly, we will continue to support Israel because the alternative is what...no Israel? That's not going to change. And lastly, tribal loyalty, which goes hand in hand with religious identification, runs deep in Muslim societies. GWB is not going to change those 'tudes with either high tech might or with free elections. In Iraq the people will "vote" along tribal lines, not for the best man. That's not a democracy.

As for Bush's support of a 2 state solution for Israelis and Palestinians, how is that supposed to make the Arabs feel warm and fuzzy about the USA? Here's what the Arabs see -the main donor of foreign aid to Israel each year since its founding has been the USA. The main donor of military technology to Israel all these years has been the USA. In every war with an Arab country the US has supported Israel.

A 2 state solution is a nice equitable sounding concept but it cannot supplant memories of US policy/behavior, which in Arabs' minds are patently unfair and biased in Israel's favor. It's the Arabs'perception (or misperception) of reality that is key to neverending hatred of the USA.

To believe that giving Afghans and Iraqis free elections and Palestinians their own state are answers to making the USA and US interests safer from terrorism is pretty naive, I think. Being realistic is not being pro-terrorist, btw.
Posted by Glomosing Crong7327 2004-12-04 2:38:24 PM||   2004-12-04 2:38:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 So, if I hear you correctly, not only are our current policies doomed to failure, but there are no policies we could adopt that would afford a chance for success?
Posted by Matt 2004-12-04 2:51:26 PM||   2004-12-04 2:51:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 GC7327: "It's all over. There's no chance to prevail. All successes are mirages or lies."


I reject that, and you. Pessimism to the point of psychosis is not my cup of tea Jack Daniels, and you offer no alternatives.
Posted by Frank G  2004-12-04 2:58:39 PM||   2004-12-04 2:58:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Sounds like "slumming" (remember him/her?)...
Posted by .com 2004-12-04 3:01:11 PM||   2004-12-04 3:01:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 yep
Posted by Frank G  2004-12-04 3:06:04 PM||   2004-12-04 3:06:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 The head of the CIA team that hunted bin Laden until 1999, Scheuer said the United States needed to change tracks from viewing al-Qaida as a terrorist movement to seeing it as an insurgent group so it could recognize the order of battle that would allow the recognition of the organization’s structure and composition.

Well, he had his chance, AND FAILED.

Should point out that MOST of those chances happened during Clinton's watch.

More on Crong later. However, I think that success will not come if we indulge in co-dependent behavior to make people feel good or to make them like us, to kick our friends to make THEIR enemies like us, to change our SUCCESSFUL way of life to make them comfortable with their UNSUCCESSFUL way of life, and to violate OUR sense of fairness by indulging in patently unfair behavior to make them think we're being fair TO THEM.

Crong's long on criticism, but short on constructive alternatives, mainly because s/he knows nothing is perfect in this world, and thus can find something to criticize that we would agree with, since we're the true realists. S/He knows what WE rantburg regulars would recommend, but we, of course, don't know what S/HE would recommend.

Well?
Posted by Ptah  2004-12-04 3:34:06 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]  2004-12-04 3:34:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Sounds like we're winning, and someone's upset with the progress. There's no one so disillusioned as an "analyst" whose pet theory has been totally debunked. Sour grapes always give a person a bellyache. The "conventional wisdom" has been debunked (VDH talked about that on NRO), and those that continue to want to push it are getting pretty mean-spirited. "We" - the "unwashed masses" don't understand just how "brilliant" these self-declared intellects are, and they're PO'd. Maybe they should go peddle their message at the UN, another center of unbelief.
Posted by Old Patriot  2004-12-04 3:43:50 PM|| [http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]  2004-12-04 3:43:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 I invoke Lileks' Maxim: if Patton were alive today, he'd be slapping civilians. There is only one way we can "lose" this war: by a failure of will.

Right now we are trying to solve the problem with a minimum of violence and a maximum of optimism over Arabs'/Muslims' capacity for self-improvement, on the theory that if their culture can be introduced to democratic self-government and thus prosperity, the hatreds which propel their aggression will abate.

That is the theory, anyway. It may be correct, or it may not be. We will not know unless we test it, and that is what we are doing right now.

But if our experiences in Afghanistan and/or Iraq end up convincing us that there is no point in trying to reform these sick puppy cultures, then future terrorist attacks will trigger a response far more violent than these present wars of liberation and reform: we will see wars of conquest and subjugation, or even a war of outright annihilation.

In extremis, we could conclude these proceedings quite abruptly and permanently with a 20-minute "war" that would eliminate some 20% of the planet's population. My own guess-- and it's only a guess-- is that someday, that is indeed what it will come to.

But not now. We've got a lot of trying left to go, before we have any basis on which to abandon less drastic measures.

As for Scheuer, I'm glad to see him and his ossified, pre-9/11 "they hate us because of our support for Israel" thinking unemployed.
Posted by Dave D. 2004-12-04 4:00:12 PM||   2004-12-04 4:00:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 The odds of our losing would be much, much higher if Scheuer were still at his old job.

Remember, folks, it was his job to get bin Laden before 9/11! This guy failed horribly, and his failure led to the deaths of 3,000 Americans.

If the press were sane, they'd be asking him how he screwed up, and what he plans to do in restitution.
Posted by Robert Crawford  2004-12-04 4:12:10 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com]  2004-12-04 4:12:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Typical LLL. "Because of Israel. . ."

"What if it's not Israel?" http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull%26cid=1101874928275

login: bugsy1
password: jp1234
Posted by SR-71 2004-12-04 4:16:18 PM||   2004-12-04 4:16:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 But if our experiences in Afghanistan and/or Iraq end up convincing us that there is no point in trying to reform these sick puppy cultures, then future terrorist attacks will trigger a response far more violent than these present wars of liberation and reform: we will see wars of conquest and subjugation, or even a war of outright annihilation.

In extremis, we could conclude these proceedings quite abruptly and permanently with a 20-minute "war" that would eliminate some 20% of the planet's population. My own guess-- and it's only a guess-- is that someday, that is indeed what it will come to.

But not now. We've got a lot of trying left to go, before we have any basis on which to abandon less drastic measures.

Really well said, Dave D. I've long maintained this exact same scenario, although perhaps not quite so tersely. For such a stance, I've been accused of a "kill 'em all" attitude. I think you're right on the money and that Islam must either straighten up or fry up.
Posted by Zenster 2004-12-04 4:25:34 PM||   2004-12-04 4:25:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Odd that so many of you are outraged with Scheuer for speaking the truth and not with the politicians you have elected in the past who have failed you and the 3000 9/11 victims because of their self-serving agendas. For example, it's laughable that you blame Scheurer, not Clinton, for whom many of you voted in 2 straight elections, for the failure to nab Bin Ladin. Unless I'm mistaken, Scheurer could not negotiate with another sovereign nation, Sudan, to get custody of Bin Laden. Taking offense at Scheurer having the "audacity" to besmerch Arabs'/AQ's/Bin Ladin's well known love of Jews and Israel is pretty humorous, too. Oh my, perish the thought that Arabs hate Israel and in turn, the USA for supporting Israel. That's not true at all.

If any of you cared to google interviews with Scheurer or even do something radical like read his book, you'd discover that Scheurer is pretty right wing in the remedies he suggests to win the war on terror. He says the choice is basically between winning the war decisively or fighting endless wars and risking ongoing losses. He advocates overwhelming force, without painful hand wringing about how such action would look to UN/Nato allies. He advocates curtailing Geneva Convention rights to captured insurgents. He advocates unilateral force,not coalitions of the willing or UN sanctioned forces, likening GWB's need for coalition pals to a teenage girl needing girlfriends to accompany her to the bathroom. I repeat, Scheurer is not a passive milque-toast type, so I don't see why he is under attack by RB'ers. Perhaps Zenster is the only one who understands what Scheurer is advocating. Scheurer says we can take the long route and still lose or take the short route and have a good chance of winning.
Posted by Glomosing Crong7327 2004-12-04 5:02:42 PM||   2004-12-04 5:02:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 The enemy controls the propaganda war through its dominance of the insitutional media culture. This is how such utter bullshit as "the main donor of foreign aid to Israel each year since its founding has been the USA" has become so prevalent in the Arab world.

US military and large-scale economic aid to Israel did not begin until after the 6 day war of 1967, when it was obvious that the failure to offset Soviet aid to the Arab regimes would result in genocide. It is a fact of history, for example, that Israel did not use a single American-made combat aircraft in the '67 war. The American tanks they used then were either bought as scrap and refurbished (Shermans) or provided by West Germany as reparations.

In fact, West Germany and France were Israel's leading benefactors in every respect until after the '67 war. The US did not support Israel in the 1956 war, at all. The Eisenhower administration joined the Soviet Union in denouncing the concurrent Anglo-French Suez operation and eventually forced a total withdrawal of victorious Israeli forces from the Sinai.

Today, the oil tick regimes have taken the place of the Soviets in aiding and abetting the genocide forces. Their wealth has also given them control of a large part of the academic community as well as the institutional media.

What is required is not a change in policy but a change in our society. I think that is what Scheuer is really getting at. The media-based nature of the current conflict must be recognized, the role of media in undermining the necessary actions and in spreading jihad propaganda must be analyzed and understood. Most importantly, the leadership of the West must understand that the alternative is defeat and the end of the cycle of progress that started with the Enlighenment of the 18th Century, and they must act accordingly.

Gideon-Phoenix must be instituted on a massive scale, with the entire propaganda and financial support network of the terrorist movement as potential targets.

Lawyers will yelp, as will orthodox institutional media. Fine, let them join their clients on the ash-heap of history.
Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2004-12-04 5:03:29 PM||   2004-12-04 5:03:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 I should clarify the I am with Crong on this. I am fully aware that he was stating Arab views, and not endorsing them.
Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2004-12-04 5:09:03 PM||   2004-12-04 5:09:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 There is only one way we can "lose" this war: by a failure of will.

"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! -- All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a Thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

- Abraham Lincoln -

Posted by Zenster 2004-12-04 5:26:44 PM||   2004-12-04 5:26:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Good quote, Zenster.

I find the notion of us "losing" the war, in the sense of our enemy prevailing against us no matter how hard we fight, to be just plain silly; as I said above, if Patton were alive today he'd be slapping civilians.

And I find the notion that we're "losing" because our present methods aren't yielding the desired results quickly enough, equally silly. If what we're doing doesn't work, we'll use a bigger hammer.

But the potential for losing this conflict through a failure of nerve-- by literally talking and hand-wringing ourselves out of victory-- is huge. We "lost" that way once before in my lifetime, and we're still suffering for it thirty years later.
Posted by Dave D. 2004-12-04 5:44:07 PM||   2004-12-04 5:44:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 The only hubris involved is on the part of this pathetic Clintonite who thinks that anyone should care what he thinks.
Posted by RWV 2004-12-04 10:29:28 PM||   2004-12-04 10:29:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Scheuer, don't let the screen door hit ya.
Posted by 2b 2004-12-04 10:50:17 PM||   2004-12-04 10:50:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 AQ is attacking us because of our policies

See, the problem is that AQ will continue attacking regardless of whatever foreign policies we might have. If it's not one thing, it will be another. Ultimately it is because they hate the west.
Posted by Phitle Craviter4997 2004-12-04 11:54:23 PM||   2004-12-04 11:54:23 PM|| Front Page Top

23:56 RWV
23:54 Phitle Craviter4997
23:41 Don
23:34 Zenster
23:34 Mufti Desai Knows All
23:29 FlameBait
23:26 Robert Crawford
23:25 Robert Crawford
23:23 ed
23:19 ed
23:15 lex
23:10 Barbara Skolaut
23:08 Phil Fraering
23:06 ed
23:01 Zenster
22:59 ed
22:57 Aris Katsaris
22:50 2b
22:49 Tom
22:46 Korora
22:45 FlameBait
22:40 .com
22:39 lex
22:39 ed









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com