US Domestic Debate thread

Austin · Post by **Austin** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:54 pm

Dirt wrote:
Mr. Fed wrote:Bush tonight:

Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those ex-a-gger-ations.
Bush two years ago:

I don’t know where he is. Nor — you know, I just don’t spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I....I truly am not that concerned about him.
Source.

Maybe he isn't concerned, but he is worried?
Flip-flop.

Actually I think his comments were more of a 'showing confidence' thing. If he screamed "no Osama, not in the face! Not in the face!" I don't think that would have sent a very good message.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:58 pm

Just weighing in that I don't see anything wrong with mentioning Cheney's daughter again. She has long ago made her sexuality a public thing when she was the public gay outreach coordinator at Coors. It was her job to be very publicly gay, nobody outed her here. I happen to have a ton of gay friends and all of them so far have not had a problem with how the Dems have invoked Mary.

I think a lot of the conservatives freaking on this are probably homophobic (I'm not saying that about anyone on this forum to be sure) and still see being gay as something not to be talked about like drug addiction and other "defects." If Kerry had outed someone who wasn't ready to be known as gay I would be with you, but in Mary's case that argument isn't even operable.

Was it SNL where they would do the skit that whenever they said cancer they would whisper it?

Edited to add that my sister who is also a lesbian went to school with Mary at Colorado College. She even partied with her, but per my sister Mary is truly a conservative at heart.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:11 pm

Poleaxe wrote:Kerry needs to stay away from the religion questions. He's completely unbelievable when he answers them.

That's absurd. Kerry is a very faithful person whose religion is a core component of his person. Just because he doesn't gush about his buddy Jesus does not make his faith insincere. I found his comments about religion moving and on the mark.

Portion of post removed because it does not accurately reflect my views, and was posted in anger. I apologize if my comments caused anyone harm.

Two Sheds · Post by **Two Sheds** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:13 pm

"And I WILL...keep talking. Even though many don't want me to - people like General Shinseki..."

Hehe. That cracked me up as well. Pretty funny.

I don't like the guy they have doing Bush on SNL now. He's no Will Ferrell--not even close.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:18 pm

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:27 pm

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:38 pm

Just weighing in that I don't see anything wrong with mentioning Cheney's daughter again. She has long ago made her sexuality a public thing when she was the public gay outreach coordinator at Coors. It was her job to be very publicly gay, nobody outed her here. I happen to have a ton of gay friends and all of them so far have not had a problem with how the Dems have invoked Mary.

If Cheney's daughter was the one running for office, I might agree. I think the reason people are up in arms is that there is no REASON for them to bring her into this other than to imply that Bush/Cheney don't even support Cheney's own daughter. What evil bastards!

That's just wrong, and I haven't seen a pundit yet who thought it was a good idea in either the Edwards debate or this last one.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:41 pm

The GOP had no objections to bringin up Teresa Heinz and her sizable fortune even though she's not the one running for office and none of her money is Kerry's.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:42 pm

YellowKing wrote:
That's just wrong, and I haven't seen a pundit yet who thought it was a good idea in either the Edwards debate or this last one.

how about Andrew Sullivan?

keep getting emails asserting that Kerry's mentioning of Mary Cheney is somehow offensive or gratuitous or a "low blow". Huh? Mary Cheney is out of the closet and a member, with her partner, of the vice-president's family. That's a public fact. No one's privacy is being invaded by mentioning this. When Kerry cites Bush's wife or daughters, no one says it's a "low blow." The double standards are entirely a function of people's lingering prejudice against gay people. And by mentioning it, Kerry showed something important. This issue is not an abstract one. It's a concrete, human and real one. It affects many families, and Bush has decided to use this cynically as a divisive weapon in an election campaign. He deserves to be held to account for this - and how much more effective than showing a real person whose relationship and dignity he has attacked and minimized? Does this makes Bush's base uncomfortable? Well, good. It's about time they were made uncomfortable in their acquiescence to discrimination. Does it make Bush uncomfortable? Even better. His decision to bar gay couples from having any protections for their relationships in the constitution is not just a direct attack on the family member of the vice-president. It's an attack on all families with gay members - and on the family as an institution. That's a central issue in this campaign, a key indictment of Bush's record and more than relevant to any debate. For four years, this president has tried to make gay people invisible, to avoid any mention of us, to pretend we don't exist. Well, we do. Right in front of him.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:47 pm

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:54 pm

YellowKing wrote:
Just weighing in that I don't see anything wrong with mentioning Cheney's daughter again. She has long ago made her sexuality a public thing when she was the public gay outreach coordinator at Coors. It was her job to be very publicly gay, nobody outed her here. I happen to have a ton of gay friends and all of them so far have not had a problem with how the Dems have invoked Mary.
If Cheney's daughter was the one running for office, I might agree. I think the reason people are up in arms is that there is no REASON for them to bring her into this other than to imply that Bush/Cheney don't even support Cheney's own daughter. What evil bastards!

That's just wrong, and I haven't seen a pundit yet who thought it was a good idea in either the Edwards debate or this last one.

What if Cheney's daughter is paid staff for the campaign? And there was context to bring it up in the debate considering her dad is part of an admin that is pushing the federal bigot amendment. As far as pundits go I saw plenty that said it was appropriate to bring it up, but of course I probably read different punditry than you understandably.

And if Ms. Cheney has a beef with her daughter being used as a political prop where was she when Allan Key's went ape-shit on her daughter? Oh yeah, he's a republican.

Mary Cheney is the Director of Vice Presidential Operations for this campaign. She's previously worked as a personal aide to Dick Cheney on the 2000 campaign. Cheney also worked for the Colorado Rockies and Coors Brewing Company where she was as I already mentioned very publicly gay.

Aides said Mary Cheney's role in her father's campaign could not be overstated. She is in charge of planning all his campaign events, including their location and content. She travels with him on almost every campaign trip; she's his closest confidante and adviser; and she's in charge of keeping his statements in line with the president's themes.

"Her role is vital," Mr. Simpson said. "She is behind everything happening; she is the energy force."

What's more, he said, she was an indispensable filter for noise of other advisers, pollsters and consultants. "She clears the air,'' he said. "She can clear out the garbage faster than anybody I have ever seen."

Ms. Matalin said campaigning left little time for debates about policy, including the question of gay marriage.

Link

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:28 pm

Dirt wrote:The GOP had no objections to bringin up Teresa Heinz and her sizable fortune even though she's not the one running for office and none of her money is Kerry's.

In case you hadn't noticed, Theresa is on the campaign trail.

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:29 pm

Fireball1244 wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:Kerry needs to stay away from the religion questions. He's completely unbelievable when he answers them.
That's absurd. Kerry is a very faithful person whose religion is a core component of his person. Just because he doesn't gush about his buddy Jesus does not make his faith insincere. I found his comments about religion moving and on the mark.

I wanted to reach in and strangle Bush when he said something to the effect of "I would never try to impose my religion on other people." THis from the monster who tried to use the Constitution of the United States to bludgeon homosexuals just because his pathetic, Jesus-for-Idiots religion done taught him that "homosexuals is bad."

So you have insight into Kerry's personal beliefs? Cite please.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:30 pm

Poleaxe wrote:
Dirt wrote:The GOP had no objections to bringin up Teresa Heinz and her sizable fortune even though she's not the one running for office and none of her money is Kerry's.
In case you hadn't noticed, Theresa is on the campaign trail.

So is Cheney's daughter, as Enough ably demonstrated.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:39 pm

That's one thing about the Clintons. They didn't put their daughter on the campaign trail. Sure, she paraded around somewhat, but that's to be expected.

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:40 pm

I have two reactions to Kerry's comment about Mary Cheney, one positive and one negative. I think this issue very much needs a personal face put on it to demonstrate that gays are part of the fabric of America, that they exist and will continue to exist in families all across the country (including, gasp, families who are Republican), and they are very much affected by the homophobic policies of the Bush administration. My negative reaction, which I must admit was much more immediate and visceral, was that the invoking of Mary Cheney in Kerry's answer may have been a subversive attempt to pander to homophobic voters who would be turned off by learning that the Vice President has a lesbian daughter.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:06 pm

Poleaxe wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:Kerry needs to stay away from the religion questions. He's completely unbelievable when he answers them.
That's absurd. Kerry is a very faithful person whose religion is a core component of his person. Just because he doesn't gush about his buddy Jesus does not make his faith insincere. I found his comments about religion moving and on the mark.

I wanted to reach in and strangle Bush when he said something to the effect of "I would never try to impose my religion on other people." THis from the monster who tried to use the Constitution of the United States to bludgeon homosexuals just because his pathetic, Jesus-for-Idiots religion done taught him that "homosexuals is bad."
So you have insight into Kerry's personal beliefs? Cite please.

Anyone who's followed him closely in this campaign and before can see that he is a faithful person who attends church regularly, and whose speeches will often include Biblical allusions. In my book a quiet faith is worth ten times the value of a public and audacious one.

Eco-Logic · Post by **Eco-Logic** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:10 pm

Kerry won the first debate.

Bush won the 2nd debate.

Last nights debate was a tie.

Bush missed a ton of chances to slam Kerry's face into the pavement.

What does Kerry not understand about generic drugs from Canada? Didnt' Cheney pretty much close that book when it was brought up by Edwards? The government is taking the appropriate steps to ensure the safety of those drugs. The U.S. authorities have never prosecuted individual Americans for importing drugs for their own use so any rhettoric that the adminsistration doesn't want it to happen is hog wash. It would be irresponsible for the U.S. Government to outright allow the importation of drugs with no regulation/restrictions to ensure the drugs are in fact what they're labled as.

I have no idea why Bush didn't address this last night when Kerry brought it up again.

Also, when Kerry said "KERRY: Yes. When the president had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped.", why the hell doesn't Bush respond to this? Tommy Franks has closed that book already as well.

In regard to Kerry's statement about Bush not worrying about Bin Laden. It was taken out of context of course.

"Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network is -- his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I've mentioned in my speeches, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death, and he himself tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. . . . I truly am not that concerned about him."

Makes perfect sense.

jblank · Post by **jblank** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:19 pm

Eco-Logic wrote:Kerry won the first debate.

Bush won the 2nd debate.

Last nights debate was a tie.

Bush missed a ton of chances to slam Kerry's face into the pavement.

What does Kerry not understand about generic drugs from Canada? Didnt' Cheney pretty much close that book when it was brought up by Edwards? The government is taking the appropriate steps to ensure the safety of those drugs. The U.S. authorities have never prosecuted individual Americans for importing drugs for their own use so any rhettoric that the adminsistration doesn't want it to happen is hog wash. It would be irresponsible for the U.S. Government to outright allow the importation of drugs with no regulation/restrictions to ensure the drugs are in fact what they're labled as.

I have no idea why Bush didn't address this last night when Kerry brought it up again.

Also, when Kerry said "KERRY: Yes. When the president had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped.", why the hell doesn't Bush respond to this? Tommy Franks has closed that book already as well.

In regard to Kerry's statement about Bush not worrying about Bin Laden. It was taken out of context of course.

"Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network is -- his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I've mentioned in my speeches, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death, and he himself tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. . . . I truly am not that concerned about him."
Makes perfect sense.

But Eco, Bush and Cheney are ignoring the fact that most of those drugs, are already made here. If they are safe for Canadians, they are safe for us. Besides, shouldnt they be just a bit embarrased that our citizens are forced to go to Canada, just to afford their medications?

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:19 pm

Bush promised the American people Osama bin Laden, dead or alive. Regardless of whether or not the War on Terror (TM) is about 1 man, 9/11 was: Osama bin Laden. Bush, as our leader, our Commander-in-Chief, owes it to us to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. PERIOD

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:24 pm

But Eco, Bush and Cheney are ignoring the fact that most of those drugs, are already made here. If they are safe for Canadians, they are safe for us. Besides, shouldnt they be just a bit embarrased that our citizens are forced to go to Canada, just to afford their medications

Why should they. The continuing record profits of the Pham companies is demonstrative of how well our economy is doing.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:26 pm

Just noting that I am voluntarily backing out of these conversations from now on. I don't mean to ignore any of the comments directed at the quotes of mine, but I've addressed all of those points countless times in the past and am not doing it anymore.

Lata.

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:27 pm

Fireball1244 wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:Kerry needs to stay away from the religion questions. He's completely unbelievable when he answers them.
That's absurd. Kerry is a very faithful person whose religion is a core component of his person. Just because he doesn't gush about his buddy Jesus does not make his faith insincere. I found his comments about religion moving and on the mark.

I wanted to reach in and strangle Bush when he said something to the effect of "I would never try to impose my religion on other people." THis from the monster who tried to use the Constitution of the United States to bludgeon homosexuals just because his pathetic, Jesus-for-Idiots religion done taught him that "homosexuals is bad."
So you have insight into Kerry's personal beliefs? Cite please.
Anyone who's followed him closely in this campaign and before can see that he is a faithful person who attends church regularly, and whose speeches will often include Biblical allusions. He's not one of those over the top evangelical types who make it a point to point out when they refer to the Bible or prattle on about how much they love them some Jesus, but in my book a quiet faith is worth ten times the value of a public and audacious one.

I'm sorry, but bullshit detector goes off when he talks about religion. I would be curious to hear what some of the other people around here think.

jblank · Post by **jblank** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:28 pm

Dirt wrote:Bush promised the American people Osama bin Laden, dead or alive. Regardless of whether or not the War on Terror (TM) is about 1 man, 9/11 was: Osama bin Laden. Bush, as our leader, our Commander-in-Chief, owes it to us to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. PERIOD

I agree, and early on, OBL seemed to be the one whose heart we wanted on a silver platter. Bush was telling the truth though, at that point, he wasnt thinking about him too much, because Iraq was becoming the focus.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:31 pm

Just noting that I am voluntarily backing out of these conversations from now on.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:36 pm

Exodor wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:
Dirt wrote:The GOP had no objections to bringin up Teresa Heinz and her sizable fortune even though she's not the one running for office and none of her money is Kerry's.
In case you hadn't noticed, Theresa is on the campaign trail.
So is Cheney's daughter, as Enough ably demonstrated.

And one other thing I forgot to add on this subject. It was VP Cheney who first brought up the fact Mary is gay with his "We have a gay daughter," comments earlier in the campaign. It was only after this that we saw Edwards and then Kerry bring the subject up.

St. Mark · Post by **St. Mark** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:36 pm

I was passively listening to the debate while doing some work online. The only thing that made me turn my head towards the TV screen was when the President said, "Don't get a flu shot."

Tareeq · Post by **Tareeq** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:39 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:Just noting that I am voluntarily backing out of these conversations from now on. I don't mean to ignore any of the comments directed at the quotes of mine, but I've addressed all of those points countless times in the past and am not doing it anymore.

Lata.

And from what archive are we to dig these truffles of wisdom?

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:48 pm

Tareeq wrote:And from what archive are we to dig these truffles of wisdom?

None - that's part of the problem. And I'm not implying any particular correctness to my opinions. It's just that the constant repetition of them is starting to feel like I'm just shoveling shit into the tide.

I'm getting weary of having to clean my pants.

Eco-Logic · Post by **Eco-Logic** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:51 pm

So you think the US has captured or killed 75% of Al Qaeda leadership by backing off?

That is absurd. It's quiet obvious we're still going after Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:55 pm

Poleaxe wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:Kerry needs to stay away from the religion questions. He's completely unbelievable when he answers them.
That's absurd. Kerry is a very faithful person whose religion is a core component of his person. Just because he doesn't gush about his buddy Jesus does not make his faith insincere. I found his comments about religion moving and on the mark.

I wanted to reach in and strangle Bush when he said something to the effect of "I would never try to impose my religion on other people." THis from the monster who tried to use the Constitution of the United States to bludgeon homosexuals just because his pathetic, Jesus-for-Idiots religion done taught him that "homosexuals is bad."
So you have insight into Kerry's personal beliefs? Cite please.
Anyone who's followed him closely in this campaign and before can see that he is a faithful person who attends church regularly, and whose speeches will often include Biblical allusions. He's not one of those over the top evangelical types who make it a point to point out when they refer to the Bible or prattle on about how much they love them some Jesus, but in my book a quiet faith is worth ten times the value of a public and audacious one.
I'm sorry, but bullshit detector goes off when he talks about religion. I would be curious to hear what some of the other people around here think.

Pretty fucking low to accuse someone of lying about a religion they have practiced their entire life, and in which they have been very active.

jblank · Post by **jblank** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:58 pm

Eco-Logic wrote:So you think the US has captured or killed 75% of Al Qaeda leadership by backing off?

That is absurd. It's quiet obvious we're still going after Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

How? By diverting resources from the original OBL mission in Afghanistan to Iraq? By all accounts I have seen, little progress is being made in the pursuit of OBL.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:00 pm

Eco-Logic wrote:So you think the US has captured or killed 75% of Al Qaeda leadership by backing off?

That figure should be "75% of known al Qaeda leaders as of September 11, 2001." We do not know if/by whom those positions are now filled or how much actual damage we've done to the organizational function of al Qaeda.

That is absurd. It's quiet obvious we're still going after Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

There are more police on Manhattan Island than there are troops searching for Osama Bin Laden and his organization.

No one can deny that Bush redirected the military of the United States away from the man who attacked us and thrust far more effort into the war on Iraq.

And no one can claim that Iraq had anything to do with the horrible attack of September 11. There is no evidence of that whatsoever.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:00 pm

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:02 pm

jblank wrote:
Eco-Logic wrote:So you think the US has captured or killed 75% of Al Qaeda leadership by backing off?

That is absurd. It's quiet obvious we're still going after Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.
How? By diverting resources from the original OBL mission in Afghanistan to Iraq? By all accounts I have seen, little progress is being made in the pursuit of OBL.

Not only that, but Al Qaeda membership has greatly increased since the war in Iraq.

Eco-Logic · Post by **Eco-Logic** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:23 pm

I'm personally more inclined to take General Frank's word regarding whether or not troops were diverted from pursuing Bin Laden than Fireball1244...

75% of known Al Qaeda leadership has been captured. Period.

Of course new, unknown leaders exist. However, if you some how think we're not pursuing them, or we're some how incompetent because there are Al Qaeda leaders we're not aware of, I don't think you understand at all the War on Terror and how deep the terrorists are rooted around the entire world.

It’s silly at best to try and spin the fact that we’ve caught 3 quarters of the known Al Qaeda leadership as anything but a positive. Yea, it flies in the face of your “Iraq did nothing but divert troops and pressure from the War on Terror”, but it’s factual.

jblank · Post by **jblank** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:27 pm

Eco-Logic wrote:I'm personally more inclined to take General Frank's word regarding whether or not troops were diverted from pursuing Bin Laden than Fireball1244...

75% of known Al Qaeda leadership has been captured. Period.

Of course new, unknown leaders exist. However, if you some how think we're not pursuing them, or we're some how incompetent because there are Al Qaeda leaders we're not aware of, I don't think you understand at all the War on Terror and how deep the terrorists are rooted around the entire world.

It’s silly at best to try and spin the fact that we’ve caught 3 quarters of the known Al Qaeda leadership as anything but a positive. Yea, it flies in the face of your “Iraq did nothing but divert troops and pressure from the War on Terror”, but it’s factual.

I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree my friend, but keep in mind, we pulled a HELLUVA lot of resources out of Afghanistan, at a time where we were allegedly close to capturing or killing most of the top tier AQ leadership, including OBL. We will never know how much they have truly regrouped, nor will we ever know how many new terrorists have been created by our actions in Iraq. I hope you are right and I hope that we are close to disembodying AQ as a legitimate terrorist network, but the information I have seen paints a different picture unfortunately.

Eco-Logic · Post by **Eco-Logic** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:30 pm

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:
jblank wrote:
Eco-Logic wrote:So you think the US has captured or killed 75% of Al Qaeda leadership by backing off?

That is absurd. It's quiet obvious we're still going after Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.
How? By diverting resources from the original OBL mission in Afghanistan to Iraq? By all accounts I have seen, little progress is being made in the pursuit of OBL.
Not only that, but Al Qaeda membership has greatly increased since the war in Iraq.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that we've taken the war to their backyard and are relentlessly pursuing them. Nah, that must be coincidental.

We're at war. Numbers typically increase on both sides during a war.

US Military Numbers Rising
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,1 ... force-a.nl

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:32 pm

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:33 pm

If you still believe capturing Osama Bin Laden is THE goal of the War on Terror, then you don't understand the War on Terror.

Even if we have not captured Bin Laden, we have apparently made it difficult if not impossible for him to rally his troops in the same ways he did pre-9/11. We haven't seen video footage of him, we've only heard a couple of audio tapes. Assuming he is still alive, the guy has gone way underground. Certainly that's not as good as having his head on a platter, but it's definitely better than having him able to conduct his operations with impunity.

Back when we were taking out the Taliban, a reporter was talking about how the enemy was hiding tanks and things in cities. One of the commanders replied, "If they're hiding them, they can't be using them." I feel the same way about Bin Laden. I think we'll get him sooner or later, but he can't possibly be very effective when he's having to change positions every day while making extremely limited communications.

You may argue that Al-Qaeda missions are still being carried out, and that's certainly true. And they'll still be carried out long after Bin Laden is dead.

You're saying it's good that we had Osama bin Laden surrounded at Tora Bora and let him just waltz out of there along with Mullah Omar?

Don't buy into the Kerry propaganda. There is no real proof that Bin Laden was in Tora Bora. Kerry also likes to talk about how we "outsourced" the hunt for Bin Laden to Afghan warlords. What we did is attempted to use Afghan troops who knew the terrain and area rather than have our own troops stumble into bloody ambush after bloody ambush. It was the same "outsourcing" we used to actually topple the Taliban, and I don't think even Kerry would argue that wasn't a good idea. It was incredibly effective and minimized US casualties.