A thermo-nuclear attack is lurcking? I thought that this threat would only be the result of electing a Democrat President in 2004? Does our Republican Administration confirm its inability to protect the United States?

Let's rush, stop shopping, dining out, entertaining ourselves and flying, let's dump our stocks and investments, and stuff the cash in an bunker burried in our back yard. We will may be dead, but not broke.

Instead of weakening Bin Laden's terrorist network, our President's insane policies have strengthen the organization, created mayhem in Iraq, "enbolden" extremists by providing them with a pretext to attack us. Al Quaeda's violence is back in Afganistan and rising in Pakistan. Syria and Iran are fighting us in Iraq so they do not have to fight us on their own soil. Who's the ignorant bozo in this picture? Anyone who had the slightest knowledge of the Middle East and of Arabs would have known the desastrous consequences of invading Iraq. George Bush Senior knew better, the U.N. knew better. But Bozo is the decider and he very decidedly decided to screw up.

If we are as vulnerable today as we were the day before 9/11, Bozo should be impeached.

"Holy moly Martha, half of you believe Elvis and Space Aliens assassinated JFK so I guess you'll believe this too."

We all know that Elvis was an alien.

Why is it that whenever I hear someone call the U.S. "The Homeland" I think about another word? "The Fatherland."

I really do feel like we are re-witnessing the Fall of the Weimer Republic. New dictator, same strategy.

The word they're thinking of is "Heimat."

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

Now we get to see if the media will finally wake up. I want the first question at any press conference about this report to be:

"The President has consistently said that we are in Iraq to fight the terrorists there so that we don't have to fight them here. This report clearly shows that to be a failed policy at worst, and at best empty rhetoric. We must continue to fight terrorism here regardless of where our military is. So, what is the President's strategy for Iraq in light of this announcement? Can we stop wasting lives and money on this failed policy? Or at the very least, can we hear what the President's real reasons are for staying in Iraq?"

This question won't convince the President of anything, but it needs to be asked and the issue pounded on in the media to shine light on the lie of his justifications. This is the perfect opportunity to systematically call into question and shout down the false justifications and poorly conceived strategies. The truth needs to be told that it is the President's policies and (lack of) strategy that has lead to defeat. A pull out, far from signalling defeat, is the first step toward "victory."

Terrorists cannot consistently be defeated with a blunt instrument like the military. They must be surgically removed. It's time we converted the energy we've spent moralizing and being outraged over the lies and redirect it to holding the President accountable for results. That is a language even the Republican party understands. By holding the administration's feet to the fire, pressure can be brought to bear on the rest of the Republican party to move to the center, and perhaps we can restore the balance in the country.

The dialogue needs to be "Yes, Mr. President, terrorists are evil. So why are you so committed to a course of action that creates more evil in the world? When can we see a plan that actually reduces evil? You've posited your authority less on the Presidency and more on your moral standing. How, then, do you explain your un-Christian reliance on deceit? How do you explain flawed policies that actually increase the evil we face? Why have your good intentions gone so wrong?"

Again, the President will fail to see the relevance, but his enablers in the Republican party will begin to see their cover disappear and they will be forced to move even farther away from the President politically.

Or is that just "liberal fantasy?"

Seems I'm not the only one who cringes at the use of "Homeland." It's a phrase designed to make you want to get up and salute, the problem being that I don't know which salute to use. However, when I read such a pile of fact starved steaming crap as this so-called "estimate" which could have been written by any high schooler and sounds like propaganda designed to encourage fear rather than inform, the salute I tend to favor is of the one-finger variety.

1) Homeland is a term like Fatherland, designed to reinforce ideas of racial identity, nationalistic fervor, and country-as-personal-property. Its use is reserved for fascists, demagogues, and their apologists. No real patriot refers to their nation with such an imperialistic and exclusionary term, so beware anyone who does.

2) Can we settle on one damn spelling for al'Qaeda? Seriously, we've had over a decade to work on it. It's like Qaddafi all over again...

3) Political documents are meant to obscure, not to enlighten. They reinforce and impel the current agenda, excoriating any previous conflicting agenda whenever possible. Expecting otherwise is like being a creationist waiting for a fossil to finally turn up with Satan's signature on it.

Aren't you thinking of "Fatherland?" That's the one the Nazis used. Anyway, if a "report" this vague and meaningless were offered up in the business world (except perhaps by a stock analyst), someone would be fired, pronto. Ridiculous!

Whatever happened to words like "our country" or "domestic" or "America"? Homeland. That word makes me cringe.

Because it's 99% stick a wet finger in the air bullshit anyhow. Straight up fear mongering nonsensical twaddle printed up by dull flaccid political hacks who can barely follow the words on their own pages. Holy moly Martha, half of you believe Elvis and Space Aliens assassinated JFK so I guess you'll believe this too.

home·land (hōm'lănd')

n.

1. One's native land.

2. A state, region, or territory that is closely identified with a particular people or ethnic group.

3, Any of the ten regions designated by South Africa in the 1970s as semiautonomous territorial states for the Black population. The Black homelands were dissolved and reincorporated into South Africa by the 1994 constitution.