Let Me Paraphrase President Bush's speech tonight:

[Beer and Pizza]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that both you and B&P are overestimating the level of organization of many of these groups. While there certainly are many groups with a very complicated infrastructure like Al-Qaeda and Hamas, they ultimately rely on self-sustaining cells which are able to act without any ouside support whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may forget that the people who join these cells are taught in schools that make them more likely to join. Over a generation, the government could do a good job of educating kids to know the difference between radical and normal Islam and reduce the brainwashed kids available to fringe groups.

What happened to the cells of groups like The Weathermen and other radical groups in the US?

[Exsubmariner]

That was poorly worded. You are correct, there is political capital to be gained with a minority of voters who oppose the war in Iraq. That political capital, however, is NOT the path to Presidential victory in 2008, nor do I believe it is the path to regaining the House or Senate for the Democrats in 2006. I think it is not the keystone issue vocal opponents of it want it to be. The "defeatists" (as President Bush calls them; quotes provided for the sake of arguement) have set themselves up here as targets of ridicule and they are quite justly, in my estimation, reaping what they have sewn. Just as pointing things out about how things are not going well does not necessarily make one a "defeatist," denying there are any "defeatists" doesn't mean that they don't exist.

I'm sorry you feel singled out by the President, DVaut.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]


You may forget that the people who join these cells are taught in schools that make them more likely to join. Over a generation, the government could do a good job of educating kids to know the difference between radical and normal Islam and reduce the brainwashed kids available to fringe groups.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe that is true at all. I have heard numerous accounts of people who have joined such terrorist groups because of personal alienation they have felt due to military harassment in their own lives. Granted, there are certainly many places where schools promote radical islam, but I don't think that they are necessarily the primary cause of its prevalance in the middle east.

[ QUOTE ]

What happened to the cells of groups like The Weathermen and other radical groups in the US?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Weathermen disbanded because their base of supporters were youth who felt discontent with the American government because of our involvement in Vietnam. When we left Vietnam, the base evaporated. There are still hundreds of paramilitary and militia groups in the United States which advocate the overthrow of the US government.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]
"Terrorists fit into the organized crime category. We can severly reduce or stop it with the right techniques, just as we have with domestic organized crime."

Really? Thats news.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please get the attributions right when you quote. I never said that.

[MoreWineII]

[ QUOTE ]
First 7 minutes:

"Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq + Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq."

--------

Next 7 minutes:

"Partsian disagreement = defeatism"

--------

Sendoff to the conservative Christians:

"God is not dead...Merry Christmas"

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd also add:

- Everything we based this war on was wrong. But I, King Georgie, don't care.

- The American people don't really support this war anymore. But, even though I'm elected to represent you, I don't care.

- I have no realistic and clear plan for Iraq. But it doesn't matter, I have enough brain-dead sheep following me that I won't have any problems pushing whatever agenda I want.

- Stutter, stutter. <font color="red">ZOMG THE ENEMY!!! </font> /smirk

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't believe Bush or senior admin officials claimed we were in "immediate" danger. In fact, I remember hearing Bush say we should invade because if we wait till the danger is immediate, we've waited too long. Care to back up your statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that you're correct and that Bush never used that exact phrase. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that on this occassion and many, many others, Bush certainly implied that Iraq presented an immediate and present danger. The specific quote to which you refer is:

"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late," Bush said. "Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

So I guess we needed to invade because, while we weren't in immediate danger, we were in immediate danger of being in immediate danger, or perhaps in immediate danger of being in immediate danger of being in immediate danger. How close do you need to get to "immediate danger" to invade? Given the containment and weapon inspections at the time, I don't think we were remotely close enough to justify the cost that has been, and will be, paid.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no doubt in my mind, however, that on this occassion and many, many others, Bush certainly implied that Iraq presented an immediate and present danger. The specific quote to which you refer is:

"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late," Bush said. "Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

[/ QUOTE ]
Your opinion and his quote don't match. How can he be implying an imminent danger while OTOH saying we shouldn't wait till the danger is imminent?

[ QUOTE ]
How close do you need to get to "immediate danger" to invade?

[/ QUOTE ]
It depends.

[ QUOTE ]
Given the containment and weapon inspections at the time, I don't think we were remotely close enough to justify the cost that has been, and will be, paid.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, that's your opinion.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Given the containment and weapon inspections at the time, I don't think we were remotely close enough to justify the cost that has been, and will be, paid.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, that's your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, and so far it looks as though I'm unfortunately correct. Given what we've paid already in lives and money, and the costs yet to come, I sincerely hope to be wrong in the long term.

[ QUOTE ]
Care to back up your statement?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll do it for him.

Speech from Oct. 7, 2002:
[ QUOTE ]
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet here he seems to indicate the threat is not imminent:
[ QUOTE ]
Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

[/ QUOTE ]
However, I prefer his quote from September 12, 2002:
[ QUOTE ]
We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

[/ QUOTE ]

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
from Oct. 7, 2002:

Quote:
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time.


Quote:
And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups



Yet here he seems to indicate the threat is not imminent:

Quote:
Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.


However, I prefer his quote from September 12, 2002:

Quote:
We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.


[/ QUOTE ]


My take on that, Russian Bear, is just this: had Saddam's regime actually been where it was believed to have been as regards WMD and/or WMD development, then all of those statements would have been appropriate. And since it was widely so believed, those statements were indeed appropriate, even if found somewhat erroneous in hindsight.