[Alberta's Child]

I've wondered about this myself, and as each day goes by without any sign of Osama bin Laden I sometimes wonder if the U.S. hasn't reached out and cut a deal with him or his surrogates.

At any rate, the fact that we've gone almost four years since 9/11 without a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil is not necessarily an indication of any kind of success. On September 10 of 2001, one could have stood up and said (truthfully) that there hadn't been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil in either five years (if you want to count TWA Flight 800) or six years (Oklahoma City).

[frogjerk]

These don't count as attacks or potential ones on American soil?:

1993 (Oct.): Killing of U.S. soldiers in Somalia.
1996 (June): Truck bombing at Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killed 19 Americans.
1998 (Aug.): Bombing of U.S. embassies in East Africa; 224 killed, including 12 Americans.
1999 (Dec.): Plot to bomb millennium celebrations in Seattle foiled when customs agents arrest an Algerian smuggling explosives into the U.S.
2000 (Oct.): Bombing of the USS Cole in port in Yemen; 17 U.S. sailors killed.

[wvobiwan]

A deal?! We're killing Al Queda every day - what kind of deal would we have with UBL?

[Political Junkie Too]

I've wondered about this myself, and as each day goes by without any sign of Osama bin Laden I sometimes wonder if the U.S. hasn't reached out and cut a deal with him or his surrogates.

Whatever happened to the theory that Bush secretly made the ultimatum that if another attack occured in the United States, he'd nuke Mecca? I remember an article speculating that Bush would do what Israel secretly did to Egypt, that is, to let them know that if another attack occured, they'd blow up a dam that would flood half of Egypt in retaliation.

Jan. 7 2005: Has U.S. threatened to vaporize Mecca?

-PJ

[trisham]

I've wondered about this myself, and as each day goes by without any sign of Osama bin Laden I sometimes wonder if the U.S. hasn't reached out and cut a deal with him or his surrogates.

*************

What a despicable thing to say.

[pepsionice]

America isn't being spared...its simply a tougher land to organize and enter. But that won't last forever. These Saudi nuts have the funding to play this game out. There is no doubt that they will eventually figure out a way to enter and a way to creat a threat to America. They can even cause havoc by just bombing American businesses in Europe if they really get desperate.

[oh8eleven]

...and as each day goes by without any sign of Osama bin Laden I sometimes wonder if the U.S. hasn't reached out and cut a deal with him or his surrogates.

Spoken like a true Canadian.

[wtc911]

Here you write: "I've wondered about this myself, and as each day goes by without any sign of Osama bin Laden I sometimes wonder if the U.S. hasn't reached out and cut a deal with him or his surrogates."

On another thread you implied that you believe that the WOT is being prolonged by us for corporate purposes.

Cut a deal with OBL? Where do people like you come from?

I find both your implications worthy of a call-in to Air America and about as rational. I think that you can take the girl out of Canada but it is clear that you can't take Canada out of the girl.

[andyk]

On September 10 of 2001, one could have stood up and said (truthfully) that there hadn't been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil in either five years (if you want to count TWA Flight 800) or six years (Oklahoma City).

I think embassies are considered US soil. The US embassies in Kenya and Nairobi were attacked in 1998. Also, I don't know about maritime law, but one could argue that the 2000 attack on the USS Cole was an attack on the US.

[Sam the Sham]

People who talk about the 'protesters' beating America in Vietnam have misunderstood as completely as Brezhnev did.

In December, 65, LBJ's economic advisers flatly told him that he could have three of the following four things.

1. A major increase in domestic spending (i.e., Medicare, War on Poverty).

2. A major war.

3. No tax increase and therefore a booming, full employment economy.

4. No inflation.

LBJ tried to have it all. And because of this inflation started to take off in the late 60s and surged to 10% plus well before the oil crisis. That's the level at which people on fixed incomes are going to be screaming bloody murder. Nixon had to end inflation. Economically, a perfect storm situation was brewing because this coincided with the emergence of Japan as the primary exporter and the entry of the main cohort of the baby boom with their worthless liberal arts BA's into the work force, depressing entry level salaries from 60's soaring levels. He pursued deflationary measures, abandoned the Bretton Woods "gold standard", and decided to get out of Vietnam. The reasons for getting out of Vietnam were economic, not political.

After all, if the peace movement was so powerful why wasn't it the dominant political force of the 70's and 80's ? Why couldn't it put McGovern into the White House or keep Reagan out ? Once horror stories about college graduates parking cars or waiting on tables filtered back on campus, didn't the counterculture and the student left collapse pretty quickly ?

Brezhnev thought it was the peace movement. He therefore decided to put the Soviet Union on what amounted to a total war footing to build a military that would intimidate a craven West. He poured vast sums into Soviet proxy states in Africa and Asia. He built a huge blue water navy from scratch. He made a mistake that ran the Soviet economy straight into the ground because he overestimated Western pacifism and defeatism. One might say that the decisive battle of the Cold War was over deploying the Pershing missiles and the reelection of Reagan, Kohl, and Thatcher and the total defeat of the European and American no-nukes protesters.