And what makes you think I don’t like the 101st? I love the right wing bloggers and there’s many I consider friends. I love having my veiwpoint challenged. I think that’s how you learn and refine your opinions.

I also think that buying into the notion that the AQ and by extention, all Muslims, want to kill us for simply existing on the face of the earth, also plays into Osama’s hands. Encouraging Islamophobia in general only wins his side more recruits and encouraging it at home against our fellow Americans who happen to be Muslim, only increases the risk that some domestic cell will form in response to the taunting.

As far as the corporate factor, I wasn’t thinking about oil. I was talking about WalMart and CocaCola and a Burger King on every corner. As far as oil, the current situation couldn’t be better for profits. As long there’s turmoil, the prices are high. If Iraq had indeed settled into a stable and happy little democracy, they would be pumping at great capacity and we would be paying a lot less at the gas pump. When you look at in those terms, the theory that this mess in Iraq is a result of planned incompetence has a lot more creedence in my book.

And as far as Bush, whether he’s a good or bad person is too subjective a judgment for me to make. All I know is that he’s a terrible president that has caused our country almost irreparable damage. The current climate, that is tearing us apart, was essentially created by him and his handlers in order to win elections. It didn’t happen in a vacuum. I don’t think Bush is an evil person who takes delight in the death he’s caused but I do think he’s so insulated from the real world that he doesn’t comprehend the real life consequences of his actions. I have to believe anybody would do a better job.

Hallliburton:
overcharged or presented questionable bills for close on $1.5 billion, almost four times the previous amount disclosed.lost 12 giant pre-fabricated bases worth over $75 million destined for the troops. The bases could have housed as many as 6,600 soldiers. billed $152,000 to provide a movie library for 2,500 soldiers billed inconsistently across the board. Video cassette players, for example, were said to cost $300.00 in some instances, and $1000 in others. Likewise, the company charged $2.31 for towels on one occasion and $5 for the same units on another.

What about the “scrap metal” we armed the Iraqi police with?

American contractors who won bids to supply the Iraqi army are giving us only “antiquated weapons produced in Eastern Europe.� The contractors get this Soviet-era garbage at rock-bottom prices, as Eastern European countries that just joined the European Union scramble to modernize their armies. “This allows them to pocket what’s left over from the massive appropriations set aside to modernize the Iraqi army.� Our troops, then, wield “scrap metal� for weapons, while the resistance, the militias, and the jihadists are better armed even than coalition troops.

Frankly, I don’t see much difference between this Islamic wingnut and our own 101 Fighting Keyboardists.

You directly compare bloggers you don’t like to the terrorist leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. So answer me a question from that lofty perch of moral superiority: How many bloggers lead militant terrorist organizations that saw off innocent people’s heads for propaganda videos, and have killed thousands of innocents in terrorist bombing against civilian targets?

What was that answer again?

Yet you’re claim you’re NOT indulging in comparitive political demonization and moral equivalency games. Heh. You’re either doing exactly that, or you’re not saying anything at all.

I agree more with Eisenhower’s view of the military-industrial complex. It’s not necessarily that evil men are in charge and trying to take advantage of us, it’s that the people in charge have been conditioned to view the world through a militaristic viewpoint. Sure there were bloodsuckers waiting to make a pretty penny on Iraq but for the most part they are axilluary.

I think the distinction is critical. If Bush is a bad person then it can be fixed by getting good people in office. If he’s a good person, then obviously “the road to hell is paved by good intentions.” I think he’s an average person, and it’d take a saint to be able to be a great president in the current climate.

More importantly though, they are lying about their reasons. They don’t care about Palestine, no one cares about Palestine. I’ve read lots of commentary that points out Palestinians are hated by everyone over there. All they care about is expunging the area of Shiites and creating a Sunni caliphate.

Bin Laden knows that while the west is in the Middle East this won’t happen, but also that he needs us there to try to create a violent populist movement. He’s said before (in the late 90s) that his goal was to try to get us to get so involved in the region that we would be bankrupted and pull away from the world stage, then he’d use that victory to rally the area under his banner.

The main reason he is so angry at us is for Gulf War I. He wanted to repel Iraq and replace its government with his own Taliban style one. Because Saudi Arabia let us come in instead (and their country was more sectarian) he decided to try to overthrow their government as the first victim and they’re still trying. Obviously Afghanistan ended up becoming the first, but it is too isolated to be that important; which Iraq opening up as a possibility again has solved nicely.

In the large view, the US and Israel are most important to them to use as playing pieces to control their fellow Muslims. I am not aware of but wouldn’t be surprised if his caliphate plans said Israel had to be destroyed once the Islamist supercountry was formed.

In any case, I think both the base point that both Al Qaeda and “Fighting Keyboardist” mindset is similar is correct inasmuch as they both believe 100% in their worldview and rationalize behavior around it. Like CS I don’t think Bush is malevolent at all, but he does seem to think that the ends justifies the means. Comparisons are so frustrating though: Al Qaeda wants to kill millions of people and Bush wants to save millions of people. That has to be reminded, but so too does the idea that (in my opinion) the way he’s doing it might kill them anyway.

Tully, I think the chickenhawk reference is what is really stinging you but again, if the wings don’t fit, don’t wear them. However, it’s a still a valid point that the able bodied supporters of this folly are not lining up to put their own butts on the line when it’s clear that our military could use all the warm bodies they can get. But as you say, it was a peripheral point and even if you take it out, there is still no difference in the rhetoric. And I’m baffled how a simple statement of fact can be cast as moralizing. Do you deny that these policies cause suffering and death among innocent civilians? I believe the war supporters use the term collateral damage to describe it. Pretty words don’t make the carnage less ugly.

And yes CStanley, I’m long on record as thinking that Bush is more dangerous than the terrorists. He’s robbed us of our civil rights and our safety at home and he has lied to us consistently in the last six years. He lies reflexively. He lies about things that are easily refuted by the public record. Take just for instance his insistence that he never said, “stay the course” after using the term repeatedly for years. Do you really think a man that would lie about the most mundane matters wouldn’t lie to you about his real agenda? The terrorists may be horrible people who want to kill us and rob us of our freedoms, but at least they’re honest about their bad intentions. And Bush has already done more to destroy our system of government in the last six years, than all the terrorists in the world could have hoped to do in a lifetime.

But contrary to what you and Tully may think, CStanley, I’m not ascribing moral value to either stance.

I read it. Shall I quote your closer?

Frankly, I don’t see much difference between this Islamic wingnut and our own 101 Fighting Keyboardists. Change a few a words and the rhetoric is exactly the same. And so is the human suffering that their policies promote.

Nope, no moral equivalence assignations there! (Pull the other one.)

However if you want to ascribe moral values, then I find both positions equally bereft. I see nothing moral in mass death and destruction, no matter who pulls the trigger or what justification is used for such barbaric methods to settle disputes.

Meanwhile though, it is fine to believe that the US administration has only used a series of false justifications to hide base ulterior motives.

Thanks, because that’s exactly what it seems like, since we went to war:

To prevent a mushroom cloud over Washington
Because Iraq and Al Qaeda are allies
He has thousands of liters of anthrax and nerve gas
because he’s a tyrant
because of the oil

By all means, read the whole thing.