(1) You have a lot nerve showing up again without telling us your background when it comes to defense and intelligence matters. This thread started with a comment by John Lehman and I have worked for John Lehman.

(2) There is far less to this NYT explosive story then meets the eye. Nobody know when these explosives were taken. There are literally hundreds of caches of such materials all over Iraq that we don’t even know about. So until you tell us what your background is please spare us the MSM rendition of events. We don’t care if you have little or no actual experience in defense matters but you ought to tell us that you are just offering your opinion.

The International Atomic Energy Agency publicly warned about the danger of these explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told United States officials about the need to keep the explosives secured…

60 Minutes is involved and, IIRC, they broadcast on Sundays…

So, in effect, you’re saying that some of the things we’ve done horribly wrong were planned?

- the general looting

- not securing the spy headquarters

- not guarding a famous Iraq nuke facility

- not securing the borders in one way or another

- the flypaper “strategy”/excuse

- Abu Ghraib

When you see a list like that, with many more in the wings, you have to ask, “what exactly is their strategy?”

The better, related question is who’s in charge now? And, is the person in charge now following the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission or his he making the choice that cheap labor is more important than following through on the false belief many have that he’s keeping them safe? See this from Michelle Malkin.

And, while the 9/11 Report is interesting, the Staff Report is where the scary stuff is. See my discussion of Chapter 3 of the Staff Report here. Is Bush doing his best to correct mistakes made in the past? Key quote: “abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity”

I think that spreading freedom and democracy and making him look weak by demolishing his ability to operate and by whacking states that support terrorism make sense.

The problem, of course, is that we don’t have enough money and troops to spread enough freedom and democracy. We would have trouble even invading another country right now due to the weak position Bush has gotten us into: low public support for another war, low world opinion for another war, etc. etc.

We need “force multipliers.” Like encouraging states to stop spreading hatred to their people and around the world, discrediting religious extremists, cutting off money, encouraging respect for America, etc. etc. Military force is fine, unfortunately I don’t think it’s a mischaracterization to say that that’s Bush’s primary focus. I don’t think it’s unfair to say that he really doesn’t get that things like image and ideology matter.

Note to my fanclub: I expressed these same doubts before the war on my blog or others, perhaps dailypundit.com or command-post.org.

Gunny: Be sure there’s cover on your left flank, and don’t go near suicide hill…

PFC, interrupting: But thats the shortest way, Gunny, and besides, the sniper there is long gone.

Gunny: He’s KIA? Someone got him?

PFC: Gunny look, nobody’s seen the guy in ages, he’s gotta be dead.

Gunny: Here’s the deal; show me the body then do what you want. Otherwise…

Then again, who am I to talk. I’ll believe Hoffa was really hit when they send me the invite to the viewing.

It was supposed to be funny. Glad you liked it.

If Bush supporters have Emily-Latella-at-five-years disease, it seems to me that Kerry supporters have an as-yet-to-be-named disorder that causes them to claim that whatever random ideas float around their heads would certainly have worked better than whatever Bush did. Maybe some of them are right, but getting them to spill the contents (not literally, of course) is like pulling teeth. And those that have laid out a plan have left me unconvinced.

Still, the question of how to reduce the cult-hero status of Osama is an good one. I think that spreading freedom and democracy and making him look weak by demolishing his ability to operate and by whacking states that support terrorism make sense.

If you have specifics regarding how propaganda can be used to accomplish this, please fill us in. But let’s leave the cheese-eating surrender monkeys out of it. One topic at a time – it’s all my five-year-old-equivalent brain can handle.

How can anyone possibly care if he is alive today? There may be some political advantage to Bush to keep him “alive” for the time being, but that’s all. I think that Lehman is toting water for my president, and that’s fine with me. It wouldn’t surprise me that Bush throws down the gauntlet to OBL after he is reelected. “I told the world I wanted you dead or alive. I’m happy that you’re dead.”

Bin Laden doesn’t matter any more. He already did his damage in the 90’s when pantload Berger kept urging Clinton not to take him out. During that time he trained thousands of terrorists who are in place all over the world today. They are his legacy and we’ll be fighting them for a long, long time to come. Past Bush, past Hillary or Guliani, past whomever is to come.

(The 80’s are okay, tho. That was a Republican decade)