You, thank God you wrote back   I'm fixing my garbage disposal and this gives me an excuse to take a break, lol.

Stated by whom? Everything I've read leads me to believe "they hate us" is linked to the real or perceived effects of our foreign policy and has nothing to do with our own freedoms

The basic disconnect we might have in this is that I would go so far as to yes foriegn policy could cause them to hate us- -- I just don't think we should change things because people hate us or that because there is a cause-and-effect that we are in fact to blame. Let me be as precise as I understand it. We value free market capaitalism, for example. We make deals to do business, some people don't like that. So they want to fight. Then fight them. Don't change our core values because others hate that about our society. (as a minor, easy example)

UBL -- he hates that the House of Saud isn't fundamentalist enough. He's really pushed over the edge when during Saddam's invasaion of Kuwait the Saudi's have "infidels"  (i.e. US) in the land of mecca. He sees these Arab leaders as sell-outs and corrupts then morphs with the creation of Al Queada to wanting The West and its influence (anything that is not Sharia: womens rights, religious freedom, gay rights and every cause that is LIBERAL in nature, ect) out of the land of Islam. -- Cause and effect. We we're there he hated it so he turned terrorist. So what? Why in the hell should we go? He wasn't going to usher Arabia into a new time of peace and freedom -- he was going to turn it into Taliban-esque.

Iraq is now a proxy war with Iran. Iran says quite clearly they want to melt the Jews and make a fundamentalist state from India to Spain. Our foriegn policy doesn't jib with this so they push. So what -- their foriegn policy shouldn't jib with us. We should be fighting them.

Granted, I don't read as much news as I used to, but my understanding is that the arrests in the UK stemmed directly from information acquired by the Pakistani government following some arrests they made. Certainly awareness has changed following 9/11, but that doesn't require a slacking of constitutional rights.

My understanding of the story is simple. Telephone intercepts between US & EU to Pakis lead to arrests. The Pakis did the interrogation. To say the Pakis use 'coerced' interrogation is a not a methaphor: its a synanym (please excuse my spelling I'm typing one handed with a sandwich). They bleed that info out of them.

What Constitutional Rights 'slacking' are you talking about? The Patriot Act was passed into law. The scope of those acts is so huge you have to be specific. For example: I never thought FBI agents writing their own warrents instead of going to a judge was okay -- that freaked me out. However the idea of NSA phishing never caused me to lift an eyebrow. One was struck down, the other upheld -- but if your view of exactly what a particular amendment reads differs from a judge or appeals court then we're left at an impass as it then means you think the federal judge was 'wrong' in their understanding of the constitution. I don't know know how to argue that.

Better to choose more effective methods that don't leave us with regrets. The internment camps distanced us from a significant resource we could have used to fight the war more effectively.

Still monday morning quarterbacking here. The mindset that led us to Manzinea was specific to the fear of that time. That mindset instigated an often brutal war-fighting policy. All we know for sure is: We Did Alot of Mean Things and Germany & Japan surrendered. To pick and choose the palatable things is a luxury of historians after the fact.

My main point is this -- we survived in tact as a nation after that, and went on to grow even more progressive. I'm not saying internment is okay. I'm saying the "sky is falling and this is the end of America if we compromise or favor security over unfettered freedom" school of thought isn't born out by history.

Likewise, following 9/11, instead of embracing immigrant communities that could have provided us with the knowledge, personal contacts, and language skills we desperately needed, we went back on our word, used bait & switch tactics on them, and adopted a general attitude that made them less likely to trust us. Not only do such approaches hurt our ability to move against our enemies, but they are also a strike against us on the heart-and-minds front.

You're more up on this than I am? We instigated a policy that resulted in foiled terror attacks. Most Iraqi's were dancing in the street when Saddam fell (obviously they were here instead of there for a reason). Our freedom of religion allows Whabbists schools to operate even though they preach inntolerance. We knew there were sleeper agents here in America, look at the California and Oregon arrests. We seem to be doing much better on this front than in Iraq.

For the record, I have no more faith in the DNC to safeguard the Constitution than I do the GOP (not that that probably surprises you).

I'll vote DNC when the time comes (unless maybe Condaleeza Rice runs) but I won't be happy. My favorite guy was Lieberman and he wasn't radical enough to get to stay in the party. Guliana (sp) is moderate enough GOPer (practically a liberal on social issues)that I could stand to vote for him--but I doubt he'll win the primary.

Sweet mother of Moses that was vivid

Good luck with that. Remember -- Kalid Sheik Mohammad last for 2 minutes and 40 seconds.

Eh, if your saying government bureaucrats are interested in CYA, no matter party, politics or perssuasion--how I'm gonna argue that with a straight face?

If you believe the threat is smoke and mirrors without substance or that pre-9/11 government structures were more than capable of handling it (without, say the CIA being able to talk to the FBI) then I'm a little lost.

I like high ground -- good tactical advantage there. Moral high ground often strikes me much like beauty -- it's subjective, nebulous, shifts often and is mostly useless in a tactical sense -- but should we have mean needlessly antagonistic? No.

I guess it depends on what you mean. Should we have sent undercover agents into mosques (specifically whabbist) well, I'm for that. If you're suggesting "racial profiling" at airports was a finger in the eye or something then you lost me there too, those "blond blue-eyed Chechens and smiling Asians" never really showed up. I'm for running our airlines like the Isralie's do their's --- but you maynot be talking about that. I'm not sure I'm up on these great arab-american outrages you're talking about.

That doesn't mean they don't exist -- just that I'm not intimately aware of what you're referring to.

Well yes and no. By that I mean I think what you're saying is right but I'm infering different lessons.

Without America we'd have an Imperialist Japanese victory. With Japan not tied down in the multiple Pacfic theatres Russia would have found itself in a 2-front war.

Considering Russian tactics were "throw people at 'em" I think it very fair to say that a 2-front war would have been more than they could have handled. Ergo -- no America no victory even with Hitler trying despartely to ruin his own country.

No, that I completely agree with which is why WWII anologious can only be theoretical or mindset and not tactics per se.

I'm waiting for a Night of the Long Knives. Having gotten in to power is the extreme right now like the SA to be taken out? Or is it the moderates who, having helped win independant voters are sacrificed?

The GOP has some real problems with its base. Most base hate Bush for his policy on the border. Most voters are moderate--but to win the primary they'll have to run far-right. Our economy is very robust which pleases corps, but it's robust at the cost of middle-class--unlike Clinton's good years--who form the voting bulk.

The DNC should be sitting pretty -- but it's not, correspondingly anyway. These November elections shouldn't be a fight they should be a sweep but they won't be even if DNC pulls it out.

It's like they completely forgot Clinton's rule of "triangulation from the middle."

It would be fairly easily to move this country left in increments starting from the center. Instead people keep wanting to knock a "left turn" out of the park in one fell swoop. For example, gay marriage. Rightly or wrongly people are all crazy about this. Okay -- don't run a campaign on losing ideas. Get in power then strengthen civil contracts to the point their de facto marriages in all but that name. It's like people in power are listening to the wrong talking heads.

I find myself frustrated.