Free Republic

No matter what the insult, some people think that there's no reason to fight. How far away the knife may be from cutting their throat never occurs to these people. War is a horrible thing. The wise man raises his weapon with a heavy heart. Anybody lusting for war is a fool, but those who will fight for nothing believe in nothing. These @$$#oles would rather see their own children be killed by the El Quaeda than nip their schemes in the bud, because to them a terrorist's life is still a life, even though to any sane person a terrorist is cancer to a healthy world.

Since there are no men here, how many of you have had sex with my husband?

Is there no shame in the Clinton household? Or the publishers of this piece of trash? I don't give a hoot what she thinks. Why are her opinions more noteworthy than those of the friends I have in New York who saw the WTC burning? This "celebrity reaction" $#it is nothing more than beating a dead horse. I suppose that the rescue workers who are doing the real work at Ground Zero are as weary of celebrity visits as the rest of us are of hearing their opinions about it. We don't need paparazzi kvetching to bring the human side of this attack close to home.

I am still amazed with the under 30 crowd and the "liberals" not even close to having a clue that the "rights ' we have in this country also come with "responsibilities".
You don't have to worry about all of the under 30 crowd forgetting that we have responsibilities that go hand in hand with preserving our rights. Many of our fathers were Korean or Vietnam veterans. Most of our grandfathers were WWII veterans. We have heard the stories. We've listened. Whatever happens, there are many of us who will never forget! There are things that are more important than our individual lives, like preserving the rights and freedoms of this country for our children and grandchildren. Don't worry, sarasmom, there are a lot more of us who won't forget than you may believe.

With Clinton, you were either with him or you were against him. And if you were against him, his cronies would make your life miserable if they could. For most of us though, Clinton made us miserable all the time without even trying.

If you didn't already know, the US embassy in Afghanistan has been abandoned for years, so this was just another empty victory for these Taleban idiots. The video of this was little more than a bunch of morons throwing rocks at an empty building, kind of like Gore supporters beating up on Clinton.

There's no one to fight against. No one who doesn't also have nukes.

Clinton would have had some heads rolling by now.

Not that it's a good thing, but the nuclear missiles Pakistan does have can't go far enough to hit Europe or the United States. They're the least stable and at last count were at least saying the right things. And there's no more certain way to get your country turned to radioactive grit than to hurl a missile at anybody else, since other countries that have them wouldn't likely give another chance to fire one off before lobbing a couple dozen of their own.

Clinton rolled numerous heads when he was in office, but it didn't seem to do a damn thing to stop civil unrest in the countries attacked and except for Slobodan Milosevic, every leader he attacked while in office is still in power. Those couple of missiles he lobbed into the middle of nowhere to hit the terrorist camps were nothing more than a day at the office for people who have been at war for 20+ years. If shooting off some Cruise missiles and then walking away is how you get results, why is bin Laden still out running around from cave to cave? Yep, that Billybob Clinton sure was effective in stopping the proliferation of terrorism in its tracks. And as for the remainder of your attacks on Bush, can you think of anything else that could have been said? On the anniversary of the embassy bombings, Clinton said, "We have increased pressure on the Taliban in Afghanistan to deliver suspects in the embassy bombings." (source) That sounds a whole lot different than what Bush said, eh? And when exactly was it that Hillbilly Clinton made all those Taleban heads roll?

The evidence is also by its nature the trail that leads to bin Laden, so we're probably not going to find out anyway. Whether there is a trail that leads to him for this attack or there isn't, we still want him for other attacks he has made and nobody seems to be shouting for that evidence. We don't get evidence for grand jury investigations released to the public either, and this case takes on much the same nature. It's not an obligation of the government to give us information that compromises an ongoing investigation.

Besides, Osama bin Laden could be another Carlos the Jackal, who was accused of being behind every terrorist attack until the time he was apprehended. Carlos was guilty, just as bin Laden is guilty. But could it be that Saddam Hussein is sitting in one of his 115,698 palaces, enjoying his success and plotting the next one? Who knows? But the Taleban's screams for proof of bin Laden's complicity are simply for show, since no matter what proof we give them they'll deny the veracity of that evidence. Well, we all know we're getting into a big ugly mess that will get worse before it gets better.

I wonder what Dan Rather thinks...HA!

Oops, again.
Apologies to my slip-up in wording. It is ex post facto, just don't condemn me for it ipso facto.

Apologies to my slip-up in wording. It is ex post fact, just don't condemn me for it ipso facto.

As a "Federal terrorism offense," the five year statute of limitations for hacking would be abolished retroactively -- allowing computer crimes committed decades ago to be prosecuted today...

Isn't there a little thing called the Constitution of the United States of America that contains a clause prohibiting the creation of ipso facto laws. It has always been my understanding that changing the wording of a law in any way basically creates a new law, and if hopping on one leg was legal yesterday and illegal today, I couldn't be prosecuted on evidence that I hopped on one leg in the past, even if the statute of limitations for hopping on one leg were unlimited. A statute of limitations, cannot go back to before the day a law was enacted. A$#croft is really outdoing himself for striking while the iron is hot to usurp our civil liberties. It almost makes me miss Janet Reno...
What's next, will jaywalking be classified as "deliberate obstruction of mass transit" and punishable by life in prision?

Traditional means of warfare won't have much effect on Afghanistan. For a prolonged bombing campaign, there has to be something worth bombing. Afghanistan lacks many traditional targets such as bridges, water treatment plants, power plants and factories. Most of its people live in rural environments. If you blast apart a house made of stones, it's easy to stack them up into a house once again. Likewise, the country is a disaster waiting to happen for ground troops and armor. No ground is better to hold than any other, and the mountainous regions to the north are as rugged as any terrain on earth. They know them and, short of Russian intelligence assistance, we mostly don't. And how much would a conventional war help us to combat terrorism?

Wow! I never thought I'd see the day professional sports would stop for any reason, least of all 20,000 fans demanding to stop a game for a political speech. Could it be that some may finally realize that sports isn't the most important thing on earth and that ATHLETES AREN'T HEROES.

What would Bill Maher have to say about anything that has any value at all? This was a good post, because I, too, immediately thought of Clancy's scenario in Debt of Honor. Soldiers shouldn't be used as a police force, no matter how tempting it may be to solve the border situation. Terrorists probably aren't likely to be caught running through the desert into Arizona, anyway. Several of the 19 terrorists on these planes came into this country with either legitimate or forged passports. What good would it be to stick a soldier on the Rio Grande to stop them?

Hey, the Israelis did a pretty good job of kicking Syrian ass in 1967, eliminating opposition from most of the Arab world in just six (count 'em--SIX) days. This time around, though, in our situation with Afghanistan, I don't see what bombing the hell out of the country from Kabul to Jalalabad would do except create greater resentment among the Afghanis. If you bomb them to the Stone Age, they'd start over again at last week.

It's not too hard to believe that Osama bin Laden's ties would extend to another group of Muslims being oppressed by a regime of white Christians. While this report contains largely unconfirmed allegations, verification of its basic points would not surprse me.

Originally, the Carter administration provided the means for Afghani guerillas to obtain Soviet made equipment that could ostensibly have been thought by any casual observer to have been procured from the battlefield. It had been originally advised to Carter mere days after the Soviet invasion that with our assistance, Afghanistan could become the Soviet Vietnam. In 1986, the Reagan administration, by way of the Department of Defense, gave Stinger missiles to the guerillas to aid in their fight. Osama bin Laden came to the fight in the early 1980's and with his knowledge of building trades created roads, hospitals and training camps. This was much financed by his own money, being the case that he is the son of the personal builder of the King of Saudi Arabia. In the minds of Muslim extremists, this adds to his status as a hero. Given what he had done to contribute to the cause, there was probably not much reason for U.S. Intelligence to fear he would develop into a threat. After the Soviet pullout in 1989, the U.S. washed their hands of the guerillas, leaving the region with a highly resilient, well-trained group of political dissidents. While it can't be said that we deliberately created a monster, the U.S. certainly had a major role in aiding the Afghanis in learning modern ways of engaging in covert warfare. This brings to mind the Law of Unintended Consequences, which states that for every result you intend from an action, there are at least two which you did not imagine. Though it is arguable as to whether we taught them to how to engage in terrorist-type actions, it is certainly clear that we aided the Afghanis in obtaining the mindset that there was no power on Earth which could not be overcome through appropriate planning and action. We didn't make them terrorists, but we certainly helped to make them resolute fighters in opposition to seemingly insurmountable odds. At least, in this way we helped seal the fates of the victims in Pennsylvania, Washington D.C. and New York City. There's plenty of sadness to go around, but it's hard to lay blame on our government as it was impossible to foresee the result of their actions. In doing what they felt was right, they set in motion a terrible wrong. I am frightened to imagine where else this might lead. I just refuse to give up my Constitutional rights to subdue our enemies. If we do this, we lose. Let us pray for wisdom among our current leaders.

Hip, hip, hurrah!

So which is it? Do we give up our guns or do we arm principals and teachers who have CCW permits? Is that in the best or worst interest of our nation? Which side of the fence do presumed liberal teachers with CCWs fall? Am I missing something here?