Al-Qaida thrives, grows as U.S. spins its wheels

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Iraq
    June 30, 2008 11:46 p.m.

    Well, Iraq may not be as stable (yet) as it will be, but at least the rape rooms and the torture chambers (real ones,not waterboarding)are gone. So are Sadam and his sons who murdered millions of his own people. Iraqis voted for the first time too. How long did it take for USA to become stable after the war of independance? We still have challenges and so will Iraq. By the way, is NBC still reporting that we lost the war in Iraq?

  • jR
    June 30, 2008 9:22 p.m.

    IRAQ is not stable, you need to take your sun glasses off and see the reality the war is still going on and the American setup government is a failure, puppets that have lose strings just like the Bush regime

  • Freedom to think
    June 30, 2008 6:58 p.m.

    Liberals think we are in a horrible mess. I have a suggestion. Move to Cuba! You would love it there! And most of us don't really care if you liberals laugh at us. We don't want your approval, in fact to have your approval would be very embarassing. If you don't like Utah, leave, please! Just because most of us don't agree with your clouded views of life, it doesn't mean we don't think. If you disagree with a liberal, you must be too stupid to think for yourself. Yet Al Frankin doesn't do your thinking for you? LOL The rest of us are laughing at you! Can you hear it?

  • it is
    June 30, 2008 4:26 p.m.

    getting more and more of a hoot to listen to the shrill voices of the soon to be in the wilderness arch conservative branch of the republican party who infest utah and make it a laughing stalk. you've had your day and what a horrible mess we are in, see ya..

  • Religion and Politics
    June 30, 2008 3:01 p.m.

    Otherwise sensible, reasonable, thoughtful individuals tend to turn off their brain and simply speak or act according to instructions when it comes to religion and politics. It is just too overwhelming for many humans to actually think through all aspects of an issue and make a choice based on their God-given sense of reasoning and intelligence.

  • New York Times
    June 30, 2008 2:19 p.m.

    Their agenda is for Socialism/Communisum. Any other political news is printed with a liberial-elitest negative slant, and for the most part called "political claptrap" by knowledgable Americans.
    Can you visualize China's largest newspaper printing pro-democratic news? Only in America!

  • The Surge
    June 30, 2008 1:59 p.m.

    Yes, the surge has created some very positive things in Iraq. It reminds me of how nice I thought my neighbors porch looked after I spent the entire day cleaning it with my brother after we had put a paper bag full of dog poop on it and lit it on fire. We have a moral responsibility to clean up the mess in Iraq but whatever postives come from that cleaning do not justify the mess in the first place. Could we have gotten the same result with a concerted international effort (at a time we actually had international support and respect) and increased fly-overs and inspections while our military efforts focused on Afgahnistan/Pakistan? I think the answer is a resounding yes. McCain has been a large part of the surge effort. It is not an effort that the Bush administration should take any credit for. Others much more competent have had to clean up his disaster behind the scenes. And don't be surprised when Iraq is simply a democratic muslim state voting

  • Observer
    June 30, 2008 1:59 p.m.

    8 years and Bush and his cronies still can't catch a crippled guy with bad kidneys.

  • re wake up america
    June 30, 2008 1:38 p.m.

    I think you are right! Certain "officials" have wanted into Iraq since 1991, they was pressure on Clinton, and luckily he kept us out of there. But yeah, it was wayyyyy to tempting for W to do something daddy couldnt do-get Sadam.

  • re rigderunner
    June 30, 2008 1:36 p.m.

    please never run for any sort of office, ha.

  • Anonymous
    June 30, 2008 1:13 p.m.

    So for some of you folks it's the source of the information that troubles you. I certainly hope you consider your sources when you read the insidious 'information' so often circulating throughout the internet.

  • Bush took eye off ball
    June 30, 2008 12:58 p.m.

    You can never hit a ball you can't see - an old baseball phrase. American took it's eye off of Bin Laden - thanks to our ill-advised misadventure into Iraq. Pretty simple really. Had we not gone to Iraq we most likely would have already found and killed Bin Laden and his bunch of thugs. But here we are - embroiled in a self inflicted civil war in Iraq while our real enemy grows stronger in Afghanistan. Bush will forever be remembered (along with Lindon Johnson and Vietnam)as the president who got us into another un-winnable sink hole.

  • New Yorker
    June 30, 2008 12:21 p.m.

    The New York Times is only believed here in the city of New York. No credibility anymore regardless of your political slant.

  • Obama too young? So what?
    June 30, 2008 12:16 p.m.

    I'm so tired of the "Obama has no experience" cries, that he's young and "wet behind the ears".

    Yes, Obama has only served one term in Washington, having gotten most of his political experience in the Illinois state legislature.

    Many inexperienced statesmen have successfully led our country in the past. In fact, off-hand I can think of a president who also only served one term in Washington before running for president, whose primary experience in politics came from work in the state legislature (Illinois, as it happens). He was an upstart who wanted to change things, and who ended up guiding this country through the very worst of times and truly changing the United States forever. His name was Abraham Lincoln.

    Discount Obama if you wish, but don't rely on "inexperience" as a way to do so. It's not a reliable indicator of success.

  • Typical Poster
    June 30, 2008 11:32 a.m.

    The New York Times has never agreed anything thing with George Bush the past 7 yrs. So why should we be surprised about this article. After all, it was the NYT that concluded the Iraq was in a civil war (ref: Thomas Friedman).

    RE: timj

    Posters like you always meet someone (a veteran, soldier, etc.) that somehow matchup perfectly with the article at hand and your views. It is surprising how many misinformed individuals continue to confuse the reason why the US went into Iraq in the first place. For some reason, if Iraq never would have ocurred the liberals in the country would be giving the fire hose treatment to President Bush concerning Afghanistan.

    If liberals believe that it is such a mess--why would you want a rookie like Obama in there to try to fix what you percieve as the problem? Obama might be a good public speaker but he isn't the wisest man in the room. I can hardly wait for my schadenfreude moment with liberals if Obama ever becomes president and messes up. Democrats are never good for anybody except themselves.

  • No, Iraq is not a disaster
    June 30, 2008 11:19 a.m.

    Saddam Hussien is gone, a stable, democratically-elected government is in place, and the armed forces of said government are beginning to take the place of US forces throughout the country.

    You know, you libs need to put down your 2006 playbook. The Surge worked. Even most Democrats in Congress admit it.

    While 4,000 dead soldiers are a tragic price to pay, it's tiny compared when compared to our previous efforts to overthrow tyrants and spread democracy.

    Heaven knows what you modern lefties would have said had you been writing the headlines on June 7, 1944.

  • McCain is not Bush??
    June 30, 2008 10:52 a.m.

    I thought his name was actually McBush.

    In any case, I won't be voting for him. The sad thing is that I won't be voting for Obama either.

    Its the same problem every election.

  • Barak Hussein Obama
    June 30, 2008 10:51 a.m.

    Not only am I younger and more smarter and better edumacted than John McCain but I could easily beat him at one-on-one Basket-m-ball even if I gave him 10 points start .. vote BO ..

  • Willie
    June 30, 2008 10:44 a.m.

    It's a proven fact that The New York Times can't be trusted.

  • To I Agree--Stipulated
    June 30, 2008 10:12 a.m.

    I must ask the question, what is worse--a borderline senile seventy-year-old with a young, able vice-president or a young, charismatic forty-year old flip-flop, flim-flam artist who is beginning to see the handwriting on the wall and is trying through lies, deception and denial of his previous leftist voting record to become a moderate. He will do or say anything to be elected and, therefore, can't be trusted to tell the truth about anything.

    Also, it is obvious from the article written by Mark Mazzetti and David Rohde of the NEW TIMES NEWS SERVICE that they salivated at the thought of belittling and denigrating the U.S. efforts to capture OBL. One should consider the source, the leftist propaganda machine, and take the entire article with a grain of salt.



  • Rich
    June 30, 2008 10:00 a.m.

    As for "I agree...stipulated,"

    Those who use pejorative names to describe those with whom they don't agree usually deserve those same labels. Get real! Bush is not an idiot; McCain is not senile. Bush was never a cocaine addict. And learn how to spell cognitive while you're at it.

    Let's use some logic here. Granted, the U.S. has made mistakes in the war on terrorism. Mistakes are made in all wars because humans, particularly criminal humans, are unpredictable. Now, which presidential candidate will fight the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Will Obama authorize the huge expense, the additional losses of life, the risk and the resources necessary to defeat the terrorists? I doubt it. Will McCain? Again, I doubt it, though he is probably more likely than Obama to finish the job that Bush started. Keep in mind that Bush's War has resulted in the deaths of many terrorists, mostly in Iraq. And it has kept the terrorists off our shores. If Obama or McCain pull our troops out of the Middle East and fail to leave enough resources for the freedom lovers remaining behind, expect Al Quaida to try to detonate a nuclear weapon in NYC or Washington.

  • McCain is not Bush
    June 30, 2008 9:52 a.m.

    John McCain is not Bush, any more than Bush is Reagan. Those who equate voting for John McCain to voting for another 4 years of Bush are just trying to stir up support for B. Hussein Obama.

    Obama does NOT have the experience to lead the greatest nation on earth, which also happens to be the largest corporation on earth. He has ZERO experience and is completely UNQUALIFIED for this critically important job while we're AT WAR. John McCain, while I'm not a fan of his more liberal viewpoints, has FAR MORE experience to deal with all of this. The prospect of a wet-behind-the-ears Obama actually getting the reigns of the United States is VERY SCARY.

    Please, please PLEASE don't even consider baby Obama, even if you're a liberal! There's just too much at stake for a beginner!!!

    Last, I am incredibly disappointed in Bush for his domestic big-government policies and spending, his lack of spine when dealing with those across the aisle, and his total lack of international leadership. It's time to get a Republican with some backbone in the office, it's time to elect President McCain.

  • To KS
    June 30, 2008 9:42 a.m.

    Please don't let Rush or Sean think for you.

  • I agree...stipulated
    June 30, 2008 9:29 a.m.

    I agree...stipulated. Bush has failed to finish the job on terrorism and is a certifiable idiot. I actually voted for McCain in the Michigan primary before Bush won the Republican nomination prior to his first election (99 or 00). I thought then, and am sure now, that the guy did not have what it took to be an effective president. Sadly time has shown this to be correct. I don't say these things lightly, I want to respect our leader, but he has little about him to respect. He is a former alcoholic and cocaine addict and apparently these addictions damaged his cognative abilities. He can not speak clearly, he is unduly influenced by those around him and the actual results have been disasterous.

    I think John McCain is borderline senile. It is a medical fact that cognative abilities decline rapidly after age 70 for most people. He has made several notable gaffes. I just think he is too old and will likely die in office from a melanoma relapse. Anyway, I don't think he has much chance to win. So let's get behind Obama and help him be successful. His success will be our success.

  • Conservatives Against Bush
    June 30, 2008 9:17 a.m.

    I am former military and as conservative as they come. I'd rather move out of this country than vote Democrat. But I do think. I do expect the leader of my party to have integrity, intelligence, and wisdom. George Bush is the worse thing to have happened to the conservative movement in history!!! I am ashamed of my fellow Republicans who stand by such a failure of a President just for the sake of their party. I am willing to speak out against his incredible ineptitude FOR the sake of my party. I have renewed hope and faith with John McCain but I hope he has the strength to distance himself from Bush through this election. There is nothing positive that can come from positioning himself at all close to Bush. Wake up Republicans and have some integrity rather than just supporting Bush because he is the leader of our party. He has been a disaster of great magnitude and his incredible lack of judgement and ability to listen to and consider ALL critical information has resulted in unnecessary deaths of our bravest and finest young men and women. I am sickened by Republican leadership and so should you!!

  • @ It's Understandable
    June 30, 2008 9:14 a.m.

    Wait, you think 4,000 dead soldiers and no real progress isn't a disaster?

  • Timj
    June 30, 2008 9:07 a.m.

    Matthew--
    You're right. Either of our two choices this year will be much better than G.W. Bush.
    Something to be grateful for.

  • Tony
    June 30, 2008 9:04 a.m.

    Priceless.

    George "W" (The W stands for Worst Ever) Bush proves himself to be grossly inept in every way possible with regards to being a "president", has stood by while allowing gas prices to skyrocket (Gee, don't the Bush's have VAST amounts of stock in oil companies?)which have helped ruin the economy, drive up unemployment, export jobs overseas, ignore a growing illegal immigration problem, involve us in muliple conflicts worldwide that either could have been implemented with much more competence and or weren't needed at all, and turned just about the whole world against us.

    We are talking about an idiot who says so many innane things that a daily calendar has been made every year since he took office making fun of his "Bushisms" (Do you realize how many stupid things you have to say to support 8 years of 365 daily quotes?), thinks he's the supreme ruler of the entire world, thinks that he's been chosen by God to spread democracy to other countries (Whether they want it or not) and this is all somehow CLINTON'S fault????

    Like I said, priceless.

  • Moto X
    June 30, 2008 8:58 a.m.

    Whichever party you affiliate with there can only be one conclusion from this, and that is the government is very inefficient at whatever they try to do.

    Anyone that supports more government for ANYTHING or believe that these beauacracies could actually be useful has no logical thought process.

    80% of the US government should be eliminated and then maybe we could get something done. All members of congress should be allowed one term. The longer these people remain in office the less "good" gets done. We need people that have an interest in doing something constructive instead of positioning themselves for more power on their next committee appointment.

    Both parties are guilty, one just slightly less than the other. Ridiculous.

    Wake up people--throw them ALL out. Lets start over.

  • Re: Maybe we need another approa
    June 30, 2008 8:55 a.m.

    We actually are actively working on the nuclear power/hydrogen thing. Look up the Nuclear 2010 program. It will use new reactor designs which will eliminate the need for uranium enrichment, thus significantly decreasing the already low (4 cents/kwh) cost of electricity from a nuclear power plant.

  • Wondering also
    June 30, 2008 8:51 a.m.

    Amen to "Wondering"! We all know where the NYT stands and that is far far left, so why use them as a source of news for ANYTHING?

  • KS
    June 30, 2008 8:38 a.m.

    Looked at the headline and realized immediately this is an New York Times story. Didn't bother to read any further. I like my fairy tale reading with pictures

  • Matthew
    June 30, 2008 8:40 a.m.

    I really, really hope that I'm right when I say that either of our two choices this year will be much better than G.W. Bush. What a disaster. I realy feel sorry for those that can't give up their support for him. They are textbook cases of Cognative Dissonance at work.
    It truly speaks volumes about the strength of our society and system of government that we have been able to survive seven-and-one-half years under the "leadership" of G.W. Bush and his chicken-hawk cronies.

  • OK
    June 30, 2008 8:37 a.m.

    So if we know where Al-Qaida is located--why don't we just go bomb the heck out of the mountians and end this thing? OR maybe you should ask this question, are we the greatest nation or not? If we are then no one would mess with us. It is sad, but I question that everyday. "God Bless America" Does anyone have an answer?????

  • CougarKeith
    June 30, 2008 8:36 a.m.

    Major Problem: PAKISTAN HAS NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES, AFGHANISTAN did not! As I have keenly WARNED IF Democrats get the White House you WILL SEE A MAJOR TERRORIST ATTACK on US SOIL AGAIN IN THE FIRST 2 Years of His Presidency! Sadly whenever you Compromise with evil, Evil sadly does win!

    I came out of the "Civil Defense Drill" era in schools, and grand children and youngest children will have deal with "Terrorist Defense Drills" in their schools which will be similar to what we did for Civil Defense. Ronald Reagan took his defense model from the Book of Mormon believe it or not, a man (Or Character if you wish) named Captain Moroni. A powerful military is the best way to keep the peace.

    McCain is a poor choice too, but we "the republican party" put him there?

  • Invade
    June 30, 2008 8:33 a.m.

    Barack Obama wants to invade Pakistan, with or without their permission.

  • Funny
    June 30, 2008 8:31 a.m.

    Neo Cons bash Obama as wanting to negotiate with terrorists, like Kim Jong Il. Then Bush eases restrictions on North Korea. But that's not negotiating with terrorists?

  • It's understandable
    June 30, 2008 8:25 a.m.

    After having been so wrong in predicting disaster in Iraq, the NYT tries its hand at predicting disaster in Afghanistan.

    The only thing that will change this dynamic is the election of Barack Obama. Not because Obama will do anything differently or better than George Bush, but because he is a Democrat the Big Media types such as Hersh will automatically start looking on the bright side.

  • Tom Paine
    June 30, 2008 8:17 a.m.

    The facts are these. Bush has not finished the war in Afghanistan and has mucked up the war in Iraq. He's made Al Qaida stronger and hasn't captured or killed Osama. Those are facts regardless of who prints them. Now you may not like those facts, but they are facts nonetheless. Bush and his gang of neocons has had 8 years of rule and they've failed on every front. Now they want to go into Iran. We have a village idiot for a president, and a gang of clowns advising him. Anyone who wants more of the same failure is delusional and should run down and vote for John McBush McCain.

  • Timj
    June 30, 2008 8:15 a.m.

    "The New York Times up to it's usual junk. They know so much but why aren't they in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of their comfortable air conditioned offices in New York."
    This past week I was visiting with extended family and met an army guy. Extended family was surprised when he said he's voting for Obama. "We're not doing much good there," he said, about Iraq.
    And then there are the stats of which political campaigns have gotten money from people in the military (Paul and Obama, who both favor pulling out from Iraq, got the most money).
    Sounds like the New York Times is saying the same stuff that people in the military are saying.

  • Maybe we need another approach
    June 30, 2008 8:09 a.m.

    Maybe we need another approach. Let's be clear first...these are despicable people and I don't like their religious views. BUT, if our goal is to not be hurt by them perhaps we can look at WHY they hate us. The why part is easy...they don't like our culture, they don't like our success, they don't like our power and influence, and they don't like our foreign policy (ie, support of Israel). I believe that radical Islaam will fail, if left to its own devices. People do not want to be so restricted in their lifestyle, even poor, uneducated people. We "bump up" against these people because the world economy we have is built on petroleum. If we subtract the need for petroluem (at least from their regions...) we stand a chance of letting them be as they will. We could do this, the solution is known (hydrogen replacing petroleum, with nuclear power to supply the electricity for hydrogen extraction and production). This would take some time, but it is doable within 10 years. If all the world powers did this, these folks would become unimportant, worthless nomads fighting and killing each other in the sands of Arabia. Nice thought huh?

  • Wondering
    June 30, 2008 8:00 a.m.

    If I had wanted to subscribe to the New York Times I would have done it myself. Is the Des News short of writers?

  • sob
    June 30, 2008 7:59 a.m.

    the only thing and i mean the only thing that will bring peace in the middle east is a u.s. brokered, and maintained peace agreement between isreal and the arabs that brings security and peace to both sides.
    this is like getting mormons and baptists, or necons and liberals to agree on fundamental principles of both religion and governance, but only this will defuse the anger enough to take away the base of hatered of the radicals on both sides of the question.
    we say we are fighting evil, so do the muslims, so did the yankees and the confederates. the irgun was considered a radical terrorist group by the british when they fought the jewish state.
    there has been virtually nothing but window dressing from washington for 8 years, that has to change. we learned in viet nam, you don't kill enemies fast enough to prevail, but you do convince them to give in when they see improvement is their lot by embracing democracy.

  • jr
    June 30, 2008 7:59 a.m.

    Getting ready to enlist your children if not grandchildren because if Bush brings on the 3rd World War no one will be exempt as the battle will come to roost right on your doorstep folks of the Bush alliance

  • Bob G
    June 30, 2008 7:54 a.m.

    Why are we chasing dissidents around the globe? Just bring our military back home and put them on border defense like most other countries have. Isn't defending our borders a military objective? Americans don't object to border control and are willing to abide by it even if there are delays. With so many countries around the world that don't like US policy invading their country they have a right to defend their homeland. Just as americans want thier homes protected from foreign nationals coming in and dictating what our laws and their rights are. Border control is suited to the use of military personnel with military laws and rules employed. Border control is not a civil matter but a military matter with military enforcements. Bush or any administration will ever gain the upperhand in this World War on terrorism, it is a never ending battle. All we can do is protect our borders and punish with death those that try to invade or harm us. The US constitution and government policies do not apply to all nations and all peoples of the world, they only apply on US soil. Homeland security can be used effectively internally and at our borders.

  • Koolaide from Guiana
    June 30, 2008 7:50 a.m.

    Nice analogy but could you be a little more specific by stating examples like where Seymor Hersh was wrong in his middle east reporting and comentary?

    I'm intersted in your opinion

  • Timj
    June 30, 2008 7:45 a.m.

    "I'm not too happy about Bush but how is this article supposed to derail my support for McCain?"
    Well, see, right now we're inside Iraq. Which is silly, really, since Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.
    Obama was wise enough to see this before we went in.
    McCain wasn't.
    McCain wants to leave our troops in Iraq.
    Obama wants to pull them out...but he is also willing to attack targets in Pakistan (al Qaeda targets). Osama bin Laden's friends (and possibly bin Laden himself) are still hiding in Pakistan. Bush is unwilling to go after them, and I doubt McCain will go after them.
    Obama understands that we need to go after the real enemy. That's difficult, with our troops currently involved in this endless war in Iraq.

  • There is no Bin Laden
    June 30, 2008 7:42 a.m.

    Exasperated ... "The increasingly plausible likelihood of a nefarious grand design" is the key phrase. It was a long a painful journey for me to conclude that the whole grand design is the Caspian Basin, which lends even a more plausible likelihood that 9-11 was in fact part of that nefarious grand design.

    The Bin Laden boogey man is part of the plan until the oil mission (not the capture or killing of Bin Laden) is accomplished. GWB himself declared on more than one occasion that it wasn't important whether Bin Laden was ever captured or killed. This after saying that we will hunt him down to the ends of the earth after 9-11.

    So even though it doesn't matter whether this ghost is ever captured or killed the drum beat continues to keep his face at the forefront of this so called 100 year war on terror. Dick Cheney said it is not a matter of if but a matter of when we have a nuke go off in this country yet we leave our borders open. This ghost defeats the most sophisticated technology and alludes the greatest army known to man from a cave?

    Not buying it.




  • GatewayToNevada
    June 30, 2008 7:27 a.m.

    Wake up America -

    "According to Seymor Hersh..."
    Well, there's your problem right there. Getting news from Hersh is like buying koolaide from Guiana.

  • Sparkes22
    June 30, 2008 7:25 a.m.

    To Ridgerunner,

    You obviously don't give talking with your enemy any merit, despite the fact that this administration's most recent and significant diplomatic triumph was the result of talking with the one of the three members of the "Axis of Evil."

    Last week North Korea blew up their cooling tower and gave signs that they are willing to move towards peace and accommodation with their neighbors and the West. Is the situation perfect? No, far from it. There is still hard work and vigilance ahead.

    But, and this is important, the Bush administration made progress after they followed one under-Secretary of State and began a direct dialog with the North Koreans.

    If in Obama is a pansy for wanting to negotiate with our enemies, then please put George W. Bush and Condi Rice in that same category.

    My hat is off to the Bush administration for trying and succeeding at a more peaceful, fruitful approach.

  • Thought
    June 30, 2008 7:23 a.m.

    I believe that Bush had plans to go into Iraq before 911. However, I believe that Bush really wanted to make a full out attack on the Terrorist but the liberal democrats in congress that stop him are guiding this war to be a lot like Vietnam. We won several wars prior to it because we fought them differently. We took over the country and not groups. Then we rebuild that country and give it back. When will we face the fact that Clinton is to blame for this mess and not Bush? If Clinton had done his job then Osama would have been captured long ago. Thanks a lot Clinton!

  • Re: Timj
    June 30, 2008 7:18 a.m.

    I'm not too happy about Bush but how is this article supposed to derail my support for McCain?

    If anything it solidifies my opposition to Obama because of his weak anti-terrorist strategies.

    Coming from a military background McCain will take care of Bush's mess.

    Obama will attempt to bring troops home and in the mean time watch mass murdering, tribal dissent, and more terrorist camps thrive in the middle east. He'll do nothing and then pass on the next Sept 11th to the next president 4-8 yrs down the road.

  • dell
    June 30, 2008 6:31 a.m.

    More one sided journalism from the NYT. So they found a few frustrated people and let them vent, then put it in print. Blah, blah, blah.

    Did the authors ever consider including a discussion of the repercussions of American military missions that were not authorized by the government of Pakistan? The issue seems more complex than they present, there's no perspective from the Dept of State, which I'm sure had a significant influence on decisions. Where's the pros and cons of unwanted operations in a country that we're not at war with? Where's the discussion of ways that were tried and not tried to persuade the Pakistani government to allow US independent operations?

    Instead all we get is another "Bush screwed up" whine journalism that has become the now lower standard.

  • Timj
    June 30, 2008 6:30 a.m.

    Anyone who supports still supports Bush, or is planning on voting for McCain, needs to read this article.
    The enemy is at large...in Pakistan.
    So why are we in Iraq?

  • LDSNANA
    June 30, 2008 6:17 a.m.

    The New York Times up to it's usual junk. They know so much but why aren't they in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of their comfortable air conditioned offices in New York.

    The media for the most part is nothing but a bunch of half truth reporters.

  • We need leadership at the top
    June 30, 2008 5:57 a.m.

    President Bush has shown absolutely NO leadership on this or any other issue in the last three years.
    His entire presidency is turning out to be one giant miscalculation.

    Very, very sad.

  • susan
    June 30, 2008 5:44 a.m.

    Poor Bush. He has been in many battles. One with Al'Qaida, and one is with the nutheads here at home.

  • GWB
    June 30, 2008 5:25 a.m.

    But as McCain advisor Charlie Black said about a new terror attack "certainly would be a big advantage to him (McCain)."

    That is the apparent GOP strategy to retain power, leave al Qauda alone and when there is a terror attack tell the people that they need to elect Republicans to fight future terror attacks.

  • Wake up America
    June 30, 2008 5:07 a.m.

    It is my opinion that we never should have lost signt of Afghanistan and invaded Iraq.

    I also believe that President Bush wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11

    According to Seymor Hersh in an article in July's New Yorker magazine we now have special forces troopers on the ground in Iran.

    What are they doing there? They are supporting the opposition forces ub Iran, They are providing weapons, money, communication gear and training.

    They are indirectly involved in bombings, kidnapping and assination of high value targets.

    It seems to me that the Bush/Cheney forces, the neo cons, the boys from the project for a new American century and the friends of Israel are salivating for an event that would give them the reason to bomb Iran.

    An event will occur probably aritifically created which will justify the above pressure groups to bomb Iran and I know you will not like the consequences.

    Iran will respond by closing the straits of Hormutz depriving Europe of much of its oil and we will respond by sharing our oil from Venezuela, Mexico and Canada.

    You will look back on days of 4 dollar a gallon gas with fond memories.



  • Bob M.
    June 30, 2008 3:52 a.m.

    Where's Osama? That's a very important question. It was rumored that Bin Laden had to have necessary kidney dialysis to prevent kidney failure. How do you get necessary kidney dialysis in a cave in Pakistan?? Inquring minds want to know!! How do you do it with the stresses and strains of fighting a war and being moved from Tora Bora to western Pakistan? Hmmmmm..........

  • Ridgerunner
    June 30, 2008 3:18 a.m.

    Obama wants to "negotiate" with terrorists. Gee, if we would just get to know them, and be nicer to them, maybe they wouldn't keep trying to kill us!
    Liberal views of war reminds me of a woman I know whose live in boyfriend beats her. He tells her that if she just wouldn't irritate him so much, he wouldn't have to beat her. Death to the infidels! The attacked us (many time before anyone did anything to stop them) remember? GWB is right about how to deal with these murderers. There is only one good reason for war: to stop evil! Liberals have no hope whatsoever of remaining free, unless kept so by far better men and women than themselves!

  • Exasperated ...
    June 30, 2008 1:20 a.m.

    It's nearly election time. Let the "Get Osama" sweepstakes resume in earnest.

    Shakespeare himself couldn't do justice to the tragicomedy of this country's War on Terror. To continue to couch the failures, miscalculations and missed opportunities as a colossal botched job neglects the increasingly plausible likelihood of a nefarious grand design accounting for the same.

    To wit, we can't close the deal on two wars against countries that were already broken when we invaded, we can't so much as catch a whiff of the most conspicuous man on the planet, we can't rebuild the basic infrastructure of the country's we've demolished, we can't gin up cases against the so-called "worst of the worst" held at Guantanamo Bay let alone decide on a proper forum to try said cases, and we can't even properly pillage the natural resources of the most oil-rich country on the planet as promised.

    Even a broken watch is right twice a day. But the same can not be said for the United States' execution of its wars abroad. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, even if you're among the increasing minority who believe the wars are justified.

    Wake up, America.