Don't worry, he'll drop HUD and Education soon enough, and that will still be a net loss of one agency.

Oh, grow up. This is no longer the Libertarian Navel Gazing Debate Club. We have been attacked on our own soil and taken six thousand CIVILIAN casualties in three hours. No doubt you believe the NWO staged the whole thing just to get their hands on your guns. Well, obsessive one, the world doesn't revolve around your guns. For Pete's sake, if you haven't sealed some up behind the drywall in your basement, or in some self-store unit, you're not prepared anyway. Think less about your guns and more about what you can do to support this country in getting its revenge.

I'll wait and see what ACTUALLY happens.

All this speculation of what will do is just that PURE SPECULATION.

The only thing that worried me about the presidents speech is that he seemed to think that Islam is peace loving. Now that causes me concern, for anyone who knows history and the state of affairs in the Middle East knows that this is not true. Islam has been spread by the sword under the threat of death. No one may denounce Islam or leave it. It really upsets me that our President seems to know so little about Islam. We do not want to make this a religous war, and that is a fact. But we have to face the truth or we will not know who our enemy is. I say that every mosque in the USA and every Islamic University Association has some radical fundamentalists in it. And our government should be checking out things now, and not later after it happens. Some of us will have to die, before our government gets the message.

The only thing that worried me about the presidents speech is that he seemed to think that Islam is peace loving. Now that causes me concern, for anyone who knows history and the state of affairs in the Middle East knows that this is not true. Islam has been spread by the sword under the threat of death. No one may denounce Islam or leave it. It really upsets me that our President seems to know so little about Islam. We do not want to make this a religous war, and that is a fact. But we have to face the truth or we will not know who our enemy is. I say that every mosque in the USA and every Islamic University Association has some radical fundamentalists in it. And our government should be checking out things now, and not later after it happens. Some of us will have to die, before our government gets the message.

You wrote: "It really upsets me that our President seems to know so little about Islam."

Are you suggesting Bush is ignorant? I thought that was the Liberal line. Is it possible he has well informed input on the Islamic faith?

Bush was extremely careful in picking his words, which basically boil down to the assertion that good teachings exist in Islam. Yes they do (in an earthly sense). The other side which Bush said nothing about, was that there are also a whole passel of evil teachings.

Also as I understand it, the majority Islam practice of today isn't the same as that of Mohammed's day, or as that of the Taliban. In the sense that the Taliban, etc. want to drag Islamic practice back out of what progress it has made towards modern values, the course of its practice could be theorized to have been "hijacked."

I differ with Bush's amillenial Methodist Christian eschatology which sees the world as simply getting better and better with time, and believe it inevitable that majority Islamic practice, sooner or later, will go back to its primitive roots. However for the time being it has seen a mitigation which I hope lasts as long as possible when the terrorists have been rooted out.

Bush did about as well as he could with an EXTREMELY ticklish situation. We have a huge domestic fifth column of Muslims which Bush, understandably, wants to keep as quiet as possible, as long as possible. Let Christian preachers and commentators inveigh against Islam; that's not the President's job.

"Don't worry, he'll drop HUD and Education soon enough"

You're kidding right? I mean do you have any evidence of that? I sure would like to see it happen but I doubt it will.

Good lecture, right attitude.

I think emotion and rage are being replaced by clear thinking and a recognition of, at least, the scope of what we are facing. I have been persuaded that there actually could be widespread abuse of domestic policy under the guise of war powers. However; I am equally persuaded that we must not be so afraid of the government that we not support legitimate acts to minimize further attacks.

If we are to accept tighter restrictions or inconvenience then it must be in support of the “war effort“ and NOT general criminal investigations. In my mind that means revitalizing the CIA and its ability to gain on the ground intelligence in foreign countries and giving the FBI the authority and tools required to track groups associated with terrorist activities and to stringently restrict entry into the country for a significant period of time. Any crime that has NO terrorist connotation should not fall under whatever “war powers” the FBI is granted. However, we should never give domestic police organizations “war powers”. The terms war and crime are very different terms and how they are fought should also have different strategies and tools.

I hope the administration is wise enough to see the difference and also strong enough to veto and anti-terrorism bill that tries to slip through more power for anything other than the terrorism.

Grow up? hmmm that was an interesting point. First off you must realize that Don Loucks was a Major in the United States Air Force, flying F-111 fighter bombers defending our great Nation. I say to you sir with this old addage, "None are so blind as though who will not see". There is nothing in this column stating anything anti american. What is being said is this.. Are we ready to sacrifice our rights granted to us by God (NOT THE CONSTITUTION) just to make some feel better at home? What is going to happen with this agency when our honest President Bush leaves office? Do you actually think thid agency will be dismantled? Not likely my friend. It will be used to control your every day lives. Think before you speak my friend, we are all in this together and everyone needs to see where this country is going in the future.

You may be willing to scarifice your rights so that you can feel comfortable sitting at home in front of your TV. But, I for one will fight for freedom anyone across the globe, inclduing the freedom of this country that our forefathers and many Men and women fought so hard to keep.

I sincerely hope sir you sleep well at night.

By the way, your nickname seems very fitting -- Red Nation

, until he announced the creation of yet another federal bureaucracy: The Office of Homeland Defense.

Step-up, step-up.......PAPERS.......PAPERS
......everyone must have their papers ready!

Seems like I've heard this in a movie before.
This time we don't even need subtitles!


 

Exactly!!!!!!!

I posted this last night, but I think it got lost in all the commotion. BTW, as I was reading this thread, "Hack" was on Fox News saying essentially the same thing, i.e., "they're in our midst". He pointed out that one of the killers was US Special Forces, and that they'd just uncovered bint Laden's manual for infiltrating the US. It was a "how-to" book on how to become part of the fifth column.

Please take a few moments to read what I wrote last night, I think it's something we're all going to have to come to terms with, and soon.

Here's what I wrote:

Let's take what we already know, and "look over the next hill."

While we would be foolish to assume that we won't continue to receive more of the same type of assault we've already received, it would likewise be folly to anticipate nothing but "more of the same." That would be tantamount to a Civil War syle "line of fire" direct frontal assault, and out of character for the type of enemy we've got.

So, what do we know?

Well, in the broadest sense, we know that the enemy wants to destroy us. And, we know that they favor assymetrical warfare tactics. That means "different" tactics that leverage their weakness against our strength.

So, instead of "bigger and badder" airplane attacks, we should be on the lookout for attacks against our water supplies, transportation infrastructure (rail, tunnels, bridges, etc.) and so forth.

But those are still "mere" tactics. Let's speculate for a moment on some potential strategy scenarios.

GWB has become a statesman overnight, and a grand statesman at that, made of the same stuff as Teddy Roosevelt and Winston Churchill.

Thus, the enemy can be expected to do anything and everything to humiliate the President, in order to demoralize the nation's will to fight.

Is this possible? Are there any factors that would give them the ability to humiliate the man who has united the nation like no one in its history has ever united us?

Yes. And its frighteningly realizable for them, and as obvious as it should be to us, it's even more obvious to them -- and I believe they've had this strategy up their sleeve since prior to the events of last week.

One of the key points of Bush's speech is the loyalty and friendship of Arabs and Muslims living in the US, and in other countries. I'm going to focus my analysis on those living in this country, because I believe that's what the enemy will be focusing on too.

To paraphrase the administration's position, we are not to indulge in any fear, distrust, or suspicion of our "friends and neigbors" of Arabic extraction or the Muslim religion.

The basis for this sentiment is the idea that the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims living in the US are patriotic, loyal Americans, no different from any other American.

The problem is that no matter how many Arab/Muslim people pose no threat whatsoever, the government has already uncovered the existence of a fifth column.

It's one thing to walk down a crowded street of strangers. It's something entirely different to walk down a crowded street of strangers, and know that among the thousands of people minding their business, peacefully going about their lives, there is one individual in the crowd -- indistinguishable from any other person on the street -- who will kill you if he can get the drop on you, and then quickly blend back in with the crowd.

This is not racism, this is not bigotry, this is not paranoia. This is how wars are fought.

The enemy knows that the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims in America are not his friends, and would do nothing to further his cause.

So, what can we expect?

If the enemy is planning on this strategy -- which I fully believe he has been from the start -- we can expect him to do things that will create a situation in which it becomes impossible to trust our "friends and neighbors."

All the enemy has to do is begin an overt "call up" of fifth column sleepers. And I'm not talking about "those folks who moved in last year, but kept to themselves."

I'm talking about sleeper agents who were actively engaged in social and commercial activities with the non-Arab/non-Muslim world.

When that happens, instead of hearing stuff like, "they seemed kinda strange, always kept to themselves, I always wondered about them," we'll be hearing words blurted out in abject terror. Words like, "My God, I thought he was my best friend! We worked together, played together, had each other over for dinner, he was the last one I'd ever suspect of anything like that!"

When that happens, the President's request will ring hollow. Those who accepted it, who took it to heart, will feel not just disappointed, confused, and wounded -- they'll feel betrayed.

And once that feeling of betrayal takes root, it will become difficult, if not impossible for Bush to lead the nation where it must be lead in time of war.

This, I fear, is what's being planned as we speak. I hope and pray that GW and his advisors are ahead of us on this, and have anticipated it from the start, and have a "Plan B" to roll out when it happens.

And by the same token, I hope that it is something other than a domestic "iron fist", which is something that we can realistically expect to happen in any other country under similar circumstances.

These really are the times that try mens souls.

This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.

Here's my problem, what does the President mean by "pluralism"? Does he make a distinction between cultural pluralism and religious pluralism? As a Christian, I think the world would be infinitely better off without the cult of Islam. I believe true Christians should actively seek to eradicate the idea(s) of Islam (and all other false religions) without eliminating followers. I understand that this is offensive to most people and especially to true Muslims, who seek to eradicate Christianity. I don't care. The choice is simple. We can choose enmity with God and His Truth, or enmity with the mankind and I choose the latter. I think cultural diversity is a rich gift from God. But He provided us with only one Savior and Lord, namely Jesus Christ, and we must follow Him or the "world" and "civilization" will self destruct.

A good explanation of pluralism:

...What do I mean by the term "pluralism?" Pluralism is a surprisingly slippery word in current discussion. On the one hand, it can refer to the empirical fact that we live in a more culturally and religiously diverse country. On the other hand, it can refer to the viewpoint that asserts that no particular ideological or religious claim is intrinsically superior to another. It is the latter sense in which I am using the word. What are the implications of such a view? There are many implications, both moral and religious, but if we limit our discussion to the religious realm, "pluralism" entails that no religion has the right to pronounce itself true, and the others false or even inferior. In other words, if pluralism is true then the scriptural claim that Jesus is the only Lord and Savior (John 14:6; Acts 4:12) must be rejected as intolerant and unreasonable. Of course, "pluralism" is closely associated with relativism since if no religion has the right to pronounce itself true for all people, then it must be said that no one view can be correct. It is also closely associated with what has been dubbed "post modernism," that is, the outlook that questions whether truth is accessible and knowable in any strong sense of the word.

saturday afternoon bump for freedom!

If this starts to happen, then WWII-style internments, or at least deportations, will suddenly come back into vogue.

...What do I mean by the term "pluralism?" Pluralism is a surprisingly slippery word in current discussion. On the one hand, it can refer to the empirical fact that we live in a more culturally and religiously diverse country

This is close to what Bush has in mind. It's a kind of politically manifested mutual tolerance between religious bodies with differing beliefs, as all participate in the political process. It does not forbid Christians preaching the gospel to Muslims, or Muslims preaching Islam to Christians, or Jews preaching to both, etc. It might mean, for example, absent some associated civil threat, Christians will not try to zone a Hindu temple out of a predominantly Christian city or vice versa. In practice, of course, Christians end up "taking it on the chin" the most in such potential political conflicts.