Welcome to politics Lee! Enjoy your stay.

I find it hypocritical for you, a Democrat, to take issue with a Republican candidate changing his stance on an issue.

Because the Democrats are the absolute paragons of weak-kneed, flip-flop, not-make-a-decision-on-an-issue-until-they-see-public-opinion-polls, policy.

All this is besides the point that McCain is doing rather poorly and is trying to boost his numbers. Again, refer back to sentence 1.

Lol, I forgot to comment on "Ron Paul -- the only one of the pack of "Ten White Guys" who knew the real reasons why we were attacked on 9/11."

The real reasons. Yes, because we had it coming, look how we're dressed.

Just like Thailand being attacked constantly by Islamic terrorists. If only they'd stop meddling in the middle east.

Heralder, it seems to me that the politicians are keenly aware that the public is very angry right now, but they really don't know how to respond to it. The result is that all of them -- Pub and Dem alike -- are all over the map, hoping to hit a chord someplace. Of course there are the real deals -- Paul for the Pubs and Kucinich for the Dems, and those are the candidates who should have our respect at least, even if they don't get our support. Seems to me that Romney is the worst of the lot -- clearly he was one man as governor of Massachusetts but is trying to make himself into something vastly different now that he's seeking national office. McCain is similar, only on the war rather than social issues. Clinton has gone from pro-war to anti once the polling numbers turned around. Obama is better than most, but sometimes he's so nuanced in his replies to questions that he SEEMS to be a political chameleon...

Any way you look at it, this is going to be a very interesting next 12 months...

Heralder, regarding Thailand, they have a "Chechnya problem." Nationally, they are primarily one religion, but they have one province which is primarily another, and that sort of thing always leads to tensions. It's sort of like the situation in Iraq where politicians put a country together seemingly with little regard for ethnic realities.

I agree with your statement...which is essentially what I was trying to say in my post, though with a little less eloquence and a little more sarcasm.

As far as Thailand goes, I'm aware of the cause of the problems there, which is why I attributed it to "meddling" in the middle east. The point being that that isn't true, nor is Ron Paul's statement.

It's about how we're dressed, Heralder? While some may find your fast-food uniform somewhat tacky, I don't really believe that's a valid concern. No, it's more about what we do, not how we're dressed.

Ask Michael Scheuer, a "22-year CIA veteran. He served as the Chief, 1996 to 1999, of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka Alec Station), the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004. He was also in charge of drafting the original rendition process (Swiss senator Dick Marty's report on U.S. rendition facilities in Europe) under Clinton.[citation needed] He resigned from the CIA in 2004. He is currently a News Analyst for CBS News as well as a Terrorism Analyst for the Jamestown Foundation's online publication Global Terrorism Analysis.

In his 2004 book "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror", Scheuer offers the following (as quoted in this Slate review)

Osama Doesn't Hate Our Freedom: The fundamental flaw in our thinking about Bin Laden is that "Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than what we do." Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands. It's American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Qaida, not American culture and society.

How is the United States threatening Muslim lands? The post-9/11 crackdowns on Muslim charities have effectively ended tithing, which is one of the five pillars of Islam; our casual denunciations of "jihad" sneer at a central tenet of the Muslim faith. America supports corrupt anti-Muslim governments in Uzbekistan and China, "apostate" governments in the Middle East, and the new Christian state of East Timor. And, above all, it continues to house occupying forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bin Laden isn't a loose cannon trying to bring the world to Armageddon. He's an eloquent and rational actor, more CEO than gangster. He often blames Muslims for their failure to repel Western invaders. His analyses of al-Qaida's victories and defeats are often more cogent than Western leaders' tirades against him.

When evangelicals like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson hold forth on foreign policy--usually with encomiums to Israel and denunciations of Islam--Muslim thinkers tend to conflate their words with the official positions of the U.S. government. There's no separation of church and state in Islam, and Muslims assume the same applies to America. So every time Falwell inveighs against the "terrorist" Prophet, the hate might as well be coming directly from George W. Bush.

It's apparently easy to ignore Giuliani's asshattedness - since all of the other Republicans candidates except Paul wear the same hat.

Speaking of hats, I'd go on but you have serious french fries to manage, so straighten up that paper hat of yours and get to work!

Hey! Maybe Rudy will come by and give your fry team a big thumbs up! Be sure to kiss his ring, and ignore the fact that one of the highest-ranking Republican contender for President has his head up his ass on the root cause terrorists attacked us on 9/11.

Good note, Lee. And that's exactly what Binnie told us but apparently we just refuse to take him at his word because that would bring our policies and agenda in the mideast into question. Much better to say that he's "evil" and that's why he attacked us.

I still think the main reason that AQ hasn't been able to pull off any major attacks lately is because we've blocked their funding streams, but it's worth considering that we've also withdrawn our troops from Saudi Arabia, which was his demand.

BTW, if you have cable, check out that show on the National Geographic Channel, Final Report, about how bin Laden escaped.

I believe Ron Paul in one of his debate answers quoted or made reference to CIA information on the root causes of AQ terrorism.

I don't know if he was referencing Scheuer's opinion, or some other CIA source, but maybe a Ron Paul supporter who knows more will cite Pauls' source.

Firstly, I've made this allusion before, the "look how we're dressed" one. It refers to the rape methodology of "Of course she was raped, look how she was dressed." not the "they attacked us because of how we actually dress." Apparently they reserve the latter for thier own women. In other words naturally something bad happened to her, she provoked it!

Part of the problem here is this Lee:

By saying "We provoked the 911 attacks"
You are also saying "They were a justified response".

Were they a justified response, Lee?

I have a little more to say on Mr. Scheuer's quote, but I'm otherwise occupied at the moment. I'll be back.

While it's difficult to argue with someone of Scheuer's experience and background I still take issue with a few things he said:

How is the United States threatening Muslim lands? The post-9/11 crackdowns on Muslim charities have effectively ended tithing, which is one of the five pillars of Islam;

Misplaced blame. Why have we been cracking down? Because extremists have been using charities as a cover to funnel funds to terrorist groups. Yet, it's our fault for trying to stop that, not fault of those financing said groups?

So ultimately, this is not a threat by the United States on Muslim lands. As Ron Paul might say, and hence you should agree: The Muslims are at fault for Muslim charities being shutdown.

our casual denunciations of "jihad" sneer at a central tenet of the Muslim faith.

So sad, that we as Americans aren't more culturally sensitive to Muslim HOLY WAR. I still say it's better to denounce and sneer rather than behead and blowup.

America supports corrupt anti-Muslim governments in Uzbekistan and China, "apostate" governments in the Middle East, and the new Christian state of East Timor.

...insinuating they would like us more if we just supported corrupt Pro-Muslim governments. Well, duh.

And, above all, it continues to house occupying forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

...once again ignoring the cause of such.

Bin Laden isn't a loose cannon trying to bring the world to Armageddon. He's an eloquent and rational actor, more CEO than gangster.

Yes, if eloquent and rational is defined as mounting a vicious and destructive attack on American civilians and not expecting a response.

Granted, I never had him pegged as a loose cannon either...but the adjectives "eloquent and rational" seem very out of place.

Let's settle on Violent Religious Zealot.

He often blames Muslims for their failure to repel Western invaders.

Meaning he get's pissed when people aren't as extreme as him, got it.

His analyses of al-Qaida's victories and defeats are often more cogent than Western leaders' tirades against him.

I guess it's just those Western leaders' tirades that have had him holed up in a cave for years afraid to come out. He can analyze all he wishes (if he's still alive) ... it won't undo the damage he's done to Mulsims the world over.

And wow, I just realized how off topic we are in this thread. Sorry.

Scheuer:

How is the United States threatening Muslim lands? The post-9/11 crackdowns on Muslim charities have effectively ended tithing, which is one of the five pillars of Islam;

Heralder: "Misplaced blame. Why have we been cracking down? Because extremists have been using charities as a cover to funnel funds to terrorist groups. Yet, it's our fault for trying to stop that, not fault of those financing said groups?"

A mature approach would be to not worry about blame, and to instead get past the "hey, it's not our fault" crap and realize that our actions have consequences - and then to look at how we can change our actions or reduce the negative consequences.

Maturity. It is sadly lacking from Republican responses to terrorism threats. Giuliani's response to Paul's answer at the debate epitomizes that same lack of maturity.

A mature approach would be to not worry about blame, and to instead get past the "hey, it's not our fault" crap and realize that our actions have consequences - and then to look at how we can change our actions or reduce the negative consequences.

Not worry about blame? That's rich coming from the fingers of someone who manages to blame everything wrong in the world on Bush or Bush 'Doctrine' ... or failing that, Republicans.

All actions have consequences, Lee. Ask the Islamic extremists that are being eradicated by the thousands.

But none of this really addresses the questions I asked, which was:

'By saying "We provoked the 911 attacks"
You are also saying "They were a justified response".'

Were they a justified response, Lee?

Maturity. It is sadly lacking from Republican responses to terrorism threats. Giuliani's response to Paul's answer at the debate epitomizes that same lack of maturity.

Apparently a mature response to terrorism threats is throwing alot of meaningless paperwork before congress just to make a "statement".

Giuliani, I got the impression, was a tad bit flabbergasted that a fellow Republican was apologizing to terrorists for them attacking us.

"'By saying "We provoked the 911 attacks" You are also saying "They were a justified response".

Nope - that's just more Republican immature logic. Something I'd expect to hear out of Giuliani or Romney.

Example: Let's say you punch me in the mouth after I called you immature. The fact that I provoked you doesn't justify your response, but it doesn't negate the fact that I provoked you either.

If I want to avoid being punched in the mouth again I need to recognize what I did to provoke you. I may still choose to call you immature, but if I do then I do so with the knowledge that I may get punched.

Fatheads like Giuliani refuse to acknowledge that our actions triggered a response, and therefore under his fathead leadership we'd get more of the same, or worse.

That's insane - putting someone in power who refuses to recognize the true reasons we were attacked is absolute insanity.

Ok, thanks for the response. Your analogy makes sense, and I'm inclined to agree on some respects.

The proposed reaction to being punched for an unjust reason I believe is where the gap is forming. Ron Paul wants to lay on the ground and show his belly like a dog, hoping that the guy that hit him will not see him as a threat and leave him alone.

Or better yet, if Ron just shows him proper respect and gives him his lunch money, it may buy Ron some safety for the future.

Another option is that we spit out the blood and smile, be likeable, maybe we can be friends and then you'll only punch other people.

All are weak and ineffective responses to an unjust action.