Please spend as much of your time as humanly possible putting your plan in action. Sounds like a really effective srtatergy to me, buddy. Good work!

“I remember Rummy’s words and I totally agreed with him. He did say Saddam. So what? My first thought on that morning was Iraq. Not Bin Laden.” This statement represents clear differences in the viewpoints of someone like me and someone like you. In the minutes after the planes hit the towers, I knew without a doubt what entity had attacked us, as did many folks on both sides of the aisle. I was well versed on the propaganda and hateful preachings of bin- Laden and his history of attacks on American interests. I also knew that he had fought Soviet forces in bloody battles in Afghanistan. My knowledge of al- Qaeda was advanced on 9/10/01, yours was probably limited or nonexistent. This would explain your initial feeling that Saddam must have been involved with the attacks on our soil. It showcased your lack of understanding, much like some of your writings on this blog showcase your current lack of understanding.

“SHOULD WE GO AFTER terrorists?

What a dumb question.”

My point (obviously lost on you) is that we can’t “go after” (militarily) every terr’st in every country in the world. We need to concentrate on the ones whom pose a threat to us. Let me try to give you a more simple analogy, as one is obviously needed….

Should the U.S. chase down and prosecute every pedophile, drug dealer, and bank robber in the world? These criminals present a threat to America in that they potentially could move here and commit their crimes. So, our strategy must be focused on stopping THESE people from directly committing crimes against OUR people. I’d say the strategies should include concentration on immigration, border security, and international child pornography rings. THEY represent the threat to US. Just as the morning of 9/11/01, OSAMA BIN LADEN AND AL-QAEDA had represented and proven their threat to US.

Cookies, milk, hand-holding, and song? That is pure (r)epuke propaganda. Just when you were beginning to make some sense in your other posts, you bring the same ol’ sorry song and dance to this one. Good grief.

This to say, money changes a lot of hands and gets seen by a lot of people. If you want to send a message, you could do worse than stamping it or writing it on money you’re going to spend anyway.

Here’s a little protest that won’t cost you a thing. Take out your Ones and write the word “OFAMA” on each one. That’s right; it’s not misspelled. Then, if asked what it is, you can smile and say, “That’s a Buck Ofama.”

“Where’s George” has nearly a billion dollars in marked bills in circulation. Imagine what just a few thousand Buck Ofama bills could achieve. Sooner or later, the media would get wind of it, and it would explode.

Grass roots guerrilla warfare. It doesn’t get any better. :)

So in my humble opinion, George Bush doesn’t fit the anti-war left’s caricature of this little Hitler with fangs dripping blood, just wanting to go after Saddam irrationally and get revenge for the attempt on his daddy’s life just doesn’t hold water. As they say in Indonesia… that dog just don’t hold water…

SHOULD WE GO AFTER terrorists?

What a dumb question.

NO. Let them live free and cause death and destruction everywhere they go- where free people live and prosper. That is the liberal view. Let’s try to get along with them. Let’s serve them cookies and milk and hold hands and sing together. As they stab us in our backs, chop our heads off, blow up buildings and cafes and wedding halls where young couples just exchanged vows; as they trick their own disabled citizens into wearing cool vests laden with bombs and use them as bombs.

The free world must be willing to sacrifice millions of people in order to appease these zealots. A fair exchange. If only all people would except this mindset, there would be peace.

THAT is the liberal way.

No thanks.

Now, you made a mistake on your point about Bush “coming out” (that sure sounds weird) about intentions to invade Iraq in Oct01. Of course he wouldn’t come out and say it but there are several aides that were with him have stated it is true. These people said that immediately after 9/11 (we’re talking days here), Rumsfeld wanted to “hit Saddam and bin Laden”. He said that on 9/11/2001…

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.html

The fact that you “couldn’t find” this info on the internet(S) boggles the mind. I don’t agree with your politics but you’re no dummy.

The Germany example doesn’t hold, either. Saddam wasn’t marching through Europe murdering millions. (And don’t gimme the Kurds. Shit on that level goes down all over the world everyday, sadly). Our forces crushed their “army” and “elite republican guard” It didn’t take long, a very impressive and decisive victory. Those “professional soldiers” couldn’t hold a candle to our U.S. Armed Forces. What goes on there now (in my humble opinion) is more terrorism than warfare. Our soldiers are chasing down murderous terrorists. But there are murderous terrorists throughout the world. We can’t take them all out, actually perhaps we could- the American military has proven it’s dominance time and time again), but should we? As I stated before, I truly value your opinion on matters of war, for you have actual real life experience in the military, I do not. I am tuly looking forward to your response, should you deem one appropriate.

PEACE

When Texas has weather we NH people don’t like the thought of paying for the damages. If Texas people ASKED for help, many of us would gladly DONATE to the cause. I believe most donation drives have far exceeded everyone’s expectations in regards to money taken in…look at the tsunami as an example.