So you're saying that George W. Bush should stop coddling the Saudis? Or are you saying he should stop wasting military, financial and political resources on occupying Iraq and put them to use pursuing terrorists? Do you think if he had done that, those folks in Madrid would still be alive today? I shudder to think the judgement history will have on this administration: an administration that pursued missile defense instead of Bin Laden in 2001, an administration that was cutting checks to the Taliban in March of 2001, rewarding its anti-drug efforts while ignoring its terrorist activities, an administration that was too busy catering the favor of Saudi Royalty to pressure them to curtail their support of Al Qaeda, an administration too busy fund-raising to attend the funerals of their war dead...

Since the Clinton Administration did very little to fight terrorists, I appreciate the implication of your criticisms: that only grownups (Republicans) an be expected to fight against our enemies.

For the subject of funerals, see: http://www.randomjottings.net/archives/000171.html

As for the importance of Iraq, the terrorists have answered better than I could. THEY know it's a potentially mortal blow to the rot that produces them.

Madrid: You are a FOOL to think appeasement will stop terrorism. President Bush has repeatedly said that the war will be long and difficult. Get used to it.

And I have not forgotten that in the summer of 2001 most of Bush's Natl Security appointments were still blocked in the Senate by YOUR scoundrel party.

Your implication that the USA can't fight on multiple fronts is typical leftist malaise-think. We are fighting around the globe, occupying Iraq, building missile-defense, and growing our economy all at the same time. And our military capabilities are GROWING. Get ready to weep, 'cause you ain't seen nuthin' yet.

You know, it would have been shorter for you to post "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

You failed to address the duplicity of the current administration's relationship with the Saudis.

You failed to address the current admininstration's support of the Taliban through the Summer of 2001.

You failed to address this administration's failure to prioritize anti-terrorist activities before 9/11. Instead you offer the red-herring that the Dems somehow blocked NSA appointments. How about some proof? Most NSA positions aren't subject to review. I've noticed you prefer to site your own posts as evidence of your statements. This might work on the FreeRepublic, but that dog won't hunt here.

As for accusing the Spaniards of appeasement, perhaps they think, correctly, that their military resources can be better used going after terrorists. Last I checked, they were INCREASING their troop commitment in Afghanistan.

Lastly, let me point out that the folks who TRIED to blow up the WTC during the Clinton administration were brought to justice and put on trial, as were the Oklamahoma City bombers. John Ashcroft can't even turn up who leaked a CIA operative's name to Bob Novak. No wonder the anthrax mailer and Osama are still at large.

In short, John, you offer little to support your point of view but name-calling ("FOOL" "scoundrel" "leftist-malaise") and a deep reverence for your own prior postings as touchstones of moral truth. Perhaps as your rhetorical skills develop, you'll be able to attract more responses here.

I shouldn't use terms like fool, but your hectoring tone was very discourteous in a visitor and called forth a like response.

If I didn't address every point, it's because I don't have answers to every point, not because i didn't hear you. It's possible I might learn something from you. But I shan't make the effort when YOU show no interest in learning something from me. The reason I referenced my own post was that I quoted someone who actually knows the answer. Professor Dauber specializes in Presidential Rhetoric and Tradition. You should LEARN from her (or come up with a really good counter-argument.) There are good reasons for not going to the funerals. And the President often visits the families of the dead, and also often visits wounded soldiers. (And doesn't exploit this for publicity.)

And there's nothing wrong with referencing my own posts, It's a good way to avoid repeating complicated arguments. If you think my thoughts have no value, there's no point in you debating me at all.

I wasn't calling the Spaniards appeasers, i was calling you an appeaser, for suggesting we shouldn't do things that anger terrorists. I feel just the opposite.

BOTH administrations failed to realize before 9/11 that we were at war. Both were soft on the Saudis and the Taliban. Arresting the WTC bombers is not impressive because we know now that this was not a crime, but an act of war. But either administration would have done the same. The strong circumstantial evidence for the involvement of islamic terrorists in Oklahoma City wasn't followed up. Knowing what we do now, it should have been.

But I'm not doing a lot of finger-pointing at the Clintons. That doesn't help our country. And you guys didn't start finger-pointing until election year.

And several terror-supporting nations are developing ballistic missiles. Missile-defense is part of the WoT, and Bush was addressing that important terror threat before 9/11.