Codswaddle. We will bomb them back into the stone age, using tactical or strategic nukes should the need arise.

And you see absolutely nothing wrong with that, do you?

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2244185020070822?src=082207_1554_TOPSTORY_lessons_of_war

The short version: not even half the projected number of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles will make it to Iraq in a timely fashion because its simply "most cost effective" to ship them by sea than airlifting them in.

The Pentagon was projecting having 3,900 available. They'll be lucky if they get 1,500 before winter.

Any wonder why "supporting the troops" has become such a joke?

How dense can you be?

Something you should ask of yourself. The consequences of nuclear war are not confined to just the hypothetical Ground Zero.

Or do you really want our children to inherit a barren wasteland of a planet?

I no longer pity you, as you are beneath even that.

That he doesn't know exactly what was done.

We all know one key fact, courtesy of President Bush himself: the US government has undertaken covert surveillance of suspects without obtaining legal warrants to do so either before or after the fact as they are legally obligated to do under the FISA statute.

Ergo, the Bush Administration has been behaving in an illegal manner.

Simple even for you, eh?

Read Michael Isikoff's report on it in the current Newsweek:

Given Isikoff's history? Are you sure you want to hang your hat there?

In any case, the underlying points Titus Pullo tries so mightily to make have some traction. It was indeed a lucky confluence of circumstances, choice of targets, tactics, and official inattention that allowed the Bin Laden network to inflict the damage they did. Its long odds against a second such attack being successfully mounted in the near future; there's only one other instance of the successful hijacking of multiple aircraft at the same time, and that was back in 1971 when such hijackings were still in style.

However to suggest the 'Al Qaeda' network is any greater danger today than it was ten years ago is a tad silly. Yes, they got lucky once. But by and large the network is nowhere near its organizational potency it previously was. Bin Laden remains at large thanks to policy decisions back in 2003, but his influence is modest at best now.

We likely have more to fear from over-reaction from our own government in the service of dubious motives than another 'major' terrorist attack taking place. Hence the extreme concern recent legislative and executive actions have caused. Titus naturally rejects concerns over 'lost' civil liberties only because it is an abstract discussion for the majority of us; no doubt his tone can/will change should matters turn south and he's caught up in one sweep or another.

Of course by then the United States will have ceased to be. Perhaps Titus can take comfort in that, just as his namesake did when his patron Gaius Octavian declared himself emperor of Rome.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051217.html

Welcome to the Information Age, shooter. You are officially under the microscope.

That is the current state of the law.

I'm afraid I only speak adult English. I simply can't dumb it down sufficiently to his maturity level.

Preposterous?

The only point you have is atop your head. Poor fool.

Last week, I participated in a three day meeting here that included six of the most senior Iraqi Sunni and Shia religious leaders.

This happened in Egypt, not Iraq. Realistically, its questionable how much impact this development will have on the Sunni-Shia-Kurd civil war at this point.

You must really be desperate for relevancy if you're ignoring something as basic as geography.

At least back then we knew what we were fighting against and why.

I have to wonder if these space cases at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and the various 'experts' enabling them have thought about what will happen if/when/should Allawi actually be installed. I mean, what happens if the Allawi government tells us to leave.

Will the Democratic leadership really stand on principle and deny the President his (doubtless unqualified) choice, whoever or whatever that choice ultimately proves?

Cynicism leads me to think they'll approve whoever President Bush sends.

But that slender thread of irrational hope let's me think they'll actually start governing here.

I assume he will if it is at all possible, "gentleman's agreement" with Reid or no.

Fair enough. What would or could Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi likely or possibly do in response?

Seriously. In light of the outright violations of the Hatch Act, is the now-former AG more vulnerable to being prosecuted as a private citizen?

I needed a good laugh.

This is great the democrat traitors in congress have ILLEGALLY AND UN CONSTITUTIUONALLY hounded out of officce the most best and hardest working and most trusted and trustworthy attorny general we've ever had in this nation up to this point in time.

Yes, yes, yes. So sad about Janet Reno. Though what this has to do with Gonzales, I've no idea.

Glenn, do you think you'll ever get this fired up about someone who is planning acts of terrorism on the USA?

Will you?

I know the answer so don't bother yourself.

Nor should you.

You do realize one is capable of thinking and commenting upon more than just one topic, right?

Namely, how likely is it that Craig actually will resign?

He's already been stripped of his Committee assignments and his home state wants him out. We hear a lot of talk about GOP 'loyalty', but what precisely does Craig have to be loyal to now?

This kind of problem arises only if one has standards.

Shooter is making even less sense than usual. Is he affirming Glenn's point about the derth of sincere belief and practice within the GOP of the 'standards' they publically claim, or arguing against it?