KRC

Yeah, I am sure that was it.

The Libertarians fully understand this principle and have worked hard to get people to run on the local level.

You can still publically decry the war. The problem arises when it is aimed at the people serving.

It is NOT impossible. You can be against the war but still support the troops in may ways. If you are a pacifist, then you are correct, but just being against this war does not eliminate you from being able to support the troops.

Ballot access is the first step. The more you see the Dims implode and the Reps to stupid stuff while in power, you will see more people look outside "A or B." It has already started and I see it continuing. The Dims are doing nothing to fix themselves and the Reps are making things worse. The problem with the third parties is that the most vocal are the ones who are the most extreme in ideology. The third parties need to promote the moderates. Saying "Bush Bad" or "Dims Bad" is not going to cut it (as evidenced by the pitiful display by the Dims in 2004). You need a solution. The Dims refused to supply a solution to the Republican agenda, which is why they failed. The thrid parties are victim to the same mentality. They rip the Dims and Reps, but are not providing the solutions which will sway the public in their favor. The next few election cycles will be interesting. Third Parties have a golden opportunity to make a difference. It is up to them to properly seize that opportunity.

Well, I guess as long as you eliminate arms sent to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan among others before Bush II ever took office. Ummm...I am not the one who switched it from international to domestic. You were. You were the one bringin up port security, not me. You are the one who brought up border security, not me. You are the one who brought up nuclear plant security, not me. You are the one who brought up Congressional oversight, not me. I addressed the points that you raised. As far as bin Laden, I have answered this repeatedly in this thread, but I guess I have to answer it yet again. You said that it was no longer the priority of the adminstration to go after bin Laden because a couple of soundbites said that. I have said repeatedly that the priority of the administration is to fight terrorism, not fight just bin Laden. I am not sure if you realize, but there is more to terrorism than just bin Laden. It doesn't make a good soundbite, but that is the way it is. Clear enough or do I need to repeat it yet again? THE ADMINISTRATION IS FOCUSED ON FIGHTING TERRORISM, NOT JUST BIN LADEN. IT HAS BEEN THAT WAY SINCE THE BEGINNING. Chris, you are letting your hatred of Bush cloud your thinking. You are better than this. I know you hate Bush (and there is nothing wrong with that), but you are making absolute statements that have no basis in fact. Can more be done to protect the US, here and abroad? Yes. There is no question. Saying that NOTHING has been done is just flat-out wrong. Also, you cannot make sweeping changes to the entire structure of the government along without spending trillions of dollars instantly. 3 1/2 years is not a lot of time in the world of the government. You think the lefties have their panties in a bunch now over the deficit, imagine the heart attack they would have with the trillions of dollars you want to spend immediately. You also have to realize that even if you were able to spend that money immediately, you do not have the infrastructure in place to spend that money effectively. It takes time to put that infrastructure in place. That is what is being done.

I do not think that the Libertarians have, but the Greens only shot was with Nader. After that, they fell apart which negates any clout they would have had after 2000. I know that the Greenies have been falling apart in other states, as well, which is why Nader had to switch parties from state to state in 2004. He couldn't even get on the ballot in PA, because there is a rule that you cannot register with one party when you are on the ballot with another party in another state. It would not suprise me to see more coalitions between third parties. It is happening here in PA regarding ballot access. By keeping it simple, there is a better chance of getting agreement between the parties along with it improving the chances that it will pass through the Legislature. The Libertarians, Greens, and Constitution parties are working together to get the law passed. There is no way that the coalitions will be permenant, but on individial issues you might see it happen.

How do the Greens have more clout than the Libertarians? The Libertarians are the third largest party in the country and are continuing to grow.

Port security, border security and protection of nuclear and chemical plants are all addressed in the National Strategy for Homeland Security, but here are a few items to placate you: -He has increased funding for border security by $9 billion -He created the Container Security Initiative to address shipping containers -Created the National Targeting Center to identify high-risk passengers and shipping vessels -Increased funding for the Coast Guard for additional vessels and specialized task forces -Created the Proliferation Security Initiative (while this usually is handled on items outside of the U.S., it can also be used on vessels headed towards the U.S.) So, port security is NOT non-existent. -Increased funding for the Coast Guard for additional vessels and specialized task forces -Created the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System to verify foreign student activity -Created a program using biometrics to verify the identity of foreign travelers -Protection barriers have been relocated to provide better protection -The number of guards at each plant has increased -Guard towers have been added No different from any other administration. Were all administrations inept, or just Bush II? I am guessing that you are referring to the prisoners captured and interrogated by the CIA. The WH has informed congressional committees of the intelligence gathers, but only to the top Rep and Dim from those committees. The reasoning was to prevent leaking of the prisoner locations. So, to say that they failed to notify is wrong. Did he have a nice little press conference to discuss TS information? NO. The Red Cross was there. I guess they are not good enough for you? They blasted the conditions, so obviously it was not a controlled inspection. The actions were suspicious. They did nothing illegal by calling them “enemy combatants.” The problem is the justification used to call these people “enemy combatants.” Of course, we all know that we need to see IMMEDIATE results from any action. Anything that takes longer than the length of a sitcom is lost on the American public. Hot Pockets, anyone? Can more be done? Absolutely, but to blame Bush solely for this is disingenuous at best. They are moving at the speed of government. Do you expect that things will be done at the drop of a hat? You need to write the legislation, and then propose it to Congress. It then needs to go through committee, where members of Congress tack on pet projects. Then members of the committee need to fight over the pet projects added to the bill. It then makes it to the floor, where continued debate happens and additional pet projects are added. You then need to debate the additional pet projects until you come up with a compromise. It then goes to the Senate where it needs continued debate and opportunities for pet projects to be added. Of course, all of this is done when Congress decides not to take another vacation. Once it passes Congress then the President signs it. Then, it is up to a bloated bureaucracy to implement the proposals, which takes additional time.

The Libertarian Party is growing but not all states are at the same level. Some states have strong parties while others are whithering on the vine. There are also problems on the National level, but that is a different story. I can only speak about the Pennsylvania party. We are the 4th strongest party in the country and are undergoing some revitalization. Things are being restructured a bit and there is new emphasis on getting the county parties stronger. Bucks County has fallen apart, but it is being put back together. Montgomery County seems to be strong and Philly is coming into its own. These three are important becuase it encompasses Philly and northern/western suburbs. I am not sure about Chester and Delaware counties. One thing that will hopefully help the situation is that all of the minor parties in PA (Libertarian, Green, Constitution, etc) are getting together to try to change the ballot access laws. As you know, Third parties are held to a different standard then Reps and Dims. The ballot access is FAR more restrictive for third parties. We are hoping to have Legislation introduced shortly to change that to make sure it is a level playing field. We have learned the lessons of past attempts at this, and I feel that we have a pretty good chance this year. All this is necessary in order to increase the size of the Libertarian Party and to make it more viable.

Why is it a topic for a different thread? We are discussing terrorism in this thread. Explain, in detail, the ineptness of the GWOT and how you would change the CT strategy being employed.

How do you see this as a difference between al-Zarqawi taking over and one of bin Laden's sons taking over? Do you think that al-Zawahri will travel with bin Laden's son, but would not travel with al-Zarqawi? Communication is always the biggest problem with any terrorist organization. That is why the structure is compartmentalized. Each "compartment" acts on its own with little contact up the chain of command. That is what makes it difficult to connect the higher-ups with any terrorist action.

I see al-Zarqawi leading his own competing group only if he is not made leader of AQ. When bin Landen passes, I see him wanting to combine his group with AQ with al-Zarqawi as the leader. He might be able to work out a deal with al-Zawahri to accomplish this if, for some reason, al-Zawahri feels that one of OBL's sons is not capable or not ready to assume command. If combining the groups does not work out, or if al-Zawahri puts one of OBL's sons in charge, then I see al-Zarqawi's group breaking their pledge to AQ and competing against AQ. IMO, al-Zarqawi will play second fiddle to bin Laden, but he will not play second fiddle to one of his sons. All of these items you have mentioned in your posts.

Why would I care about defending the President? Again, I don't care what he says, just what he does and I see no change in how he is executing the GWOT. He is going after the system, not the individual. That was what he was doing from the beginning, and it has not changed. You want to focus on press conferences, I want to focus on his actions. His actions have been consistent. I may not agree with his actions, but they have been consistent which is counter to your argument of "bin Landen is no longer a priority of this administration."

While al-Zarqawi may be a good field commander, I see him wanting more. I see him wanting to be commander. al-Zawahri, I think, wants to be a second fiddle as you mentioned. He seems to be comfortable in that role. He can command, but is not the figure-head of the organization.

Since I never said nor implied that, I am not sure why you feel it necessary to put words in my mouth. You seem to want to focus on soundbites and press releases, while I prefer to watch the actions of the administration to determine the true mission. You seem to think that AQ is designed like a corporation, where everything relies on the chain of command. In reality, it is more like a conglomeration of individual smaller corporations. Most of Al-Qaeda's membership is drawn from Gamaya al Islamiya, Al Gamaya Al Islamiya, Groupe Islamique Armee, and the Groupe Salafiste pour la Predication et le Combat. Al-Qaeda also has close ties with Jaish Aden Abin al Islami, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, the Abu Sayaaf Group, Jemaah Islamiyah, al Jamaa essalafya lid Daawa wal Q it al, en Nahda, Sipah e Sahaba Kashmir, Hizb-al-Islami, Harakat ul Mujahideen, Harakat-ul Jihad, and members of several small Islamist parties from Tunisia, Libya and Morocco along with several other groups I have not mentioned. Removing bin Laden will take away some of the funding, unless he has set things up in such a way that his fortune is available for AQ after he passes. Otherwise, they will just have to rely on the contributions from various charities funneling money to them. Removing bin Laden could possibly result in Abu Musab al-Zarqawi taking control, or possibly Ayman al-Zawahri. I am not sure if al-Zawahri wants it, while I know that al-Zarqawi want to be the man. In any event, the groups and cells will still function as they did.

I think it is Rt. 30 near Lancaster. I remember taking the Intercourse exit when I was visiting one of our vendors near Bird In Hand, PA.

Again, an effective CT strategy does not revolve around one person. It never has and it never will. While the capture of bin Laden will make for good ratings, sell newspapers and give good soundbites to the Hot Pockets bunch, in the overall scheme of things it is relatively minor. You need to address the system in which they operate. If you cut off the head, the body will still be deadly. You have to think big picture, Chris.

...or it could be that an effective counterterrorism strategy does not revolve around one person.

Must be, since there is no way MoveOn.org would lie to me.

This can't be right. All I hear is that Bush has diverted all resources from the GWOT to the war in Iraq to avenge Daddy, to increase profits for Haliburton, and to steal all of Iraq's oil. I guess the reason why we haven't nabbed the last two is because Bush hasn't mentioned bin Laden's name in a while. You can't go after him unless you mention his name in press conferences.

Sleeping? Weak excuse.

I imagine it is pretty scary.

CNN Thingy

I am suprised Darin did not jump on this. Slacker.