Well the scumbag, Osama, has spoken again.

What would my friends across the aisle like to do?
A. Allow the Patriot act to expire?
B. Nothing, he's just blowing hot air.
C. Awww, he's harmless, if we could only just give him a hug.

I eagerly await your enlightend responses.

D. Buy more duct tape.

It should be made clear to all that espouse UBL's "religon" that if we US civilians are attacked again, including overseas, we are going to stop worring about collateral damage and get 'em all with increasing ferocity after each attack. This tactic worked against hitler and will work again.

He offered a truce. Forgive and forget.

I wonder if Lowe's will take that case of duct tape back without me having a receipt?

I wonder why he offered a "truce"? Could it be that we are winning the war? Not according to some. I believe we are. The policies which have been enacted since 9/11 while not always popular, are apparently deterring attacks. Regardless of what this nutjob says. I found it curious from what I heard and read, he states European security measures were easily breeched. I don't believe he said the same about US policies. Hrm

Donate it to Idiot's wife -- bet she'd have a use for it!

You're right. No attacks here since the anthrax letters and no proven Al Qaeda attacks since 9/11.

How much credit Bush & Friends deserves (or doesn't) for the lack of attacks on our soil these last four years will be a question I'll leave for others to argue. The proof is in the puddin' for me. This has been the one area that I've stuck by Bush and will continue to do so.

Now, before Id lists a bunch of links showing all of the DHS faults , I'm not saying it's perfect. But for whatever reason, even if it's dumb luck, we've avoided attacks while other parts of the globe have not.

Negotiate. Same as we're doing thru backchannels with the Iraqi insurgents in a war the powers that be admit cannot be won militarily. Same as we did, and continue to do, with the Soviet Union and Communist China, to end the Cold War. Same as we're doing with North Korea in a war that's been on pause for 50 years. Same as Israel has been forced to do with its Arab neighbors.

Or we play whack-a-mole and fight an asymmetric war for decades, spending vast national treasure and thousands more American lives (potentially hundreds of thousands or millions) to vanquish an enemy willing, if not eager, to die for its cause. Meme wars are won by principle, not force, in that only ideas can dominate other ideas. If peace is diminished as an idea central to democracy then we may win all the battles but still fail in the war.

The "big stick" always remains an option. So should "soft talk".

Do you think during those negotiations, they would be kind enough to give up and face prosecution for the crimes against humanity?

For some reason I doubt it.

Soft talk: Aw come on Mr. Bin Laden please come out from under the rock you are hiding. We just want to talk to you. We know you are an evil man, but we want to see if we can work it all out so that at the end of the day we can all hold hands and sing Kumbya.

I'm sorry my esteemed peer. I just don't see that happening. Until your side can come up with a more viable option, I'll stand beside my Commander-In-Chief and faithfully and dutifully execute the orders.

I question how we negotiate with Al Qaeda. What exactly is their goal that they are negotiating towards? The only goal I've ever heard them state was the destruction of the West.

Did we demand the Soviet or Chicom leaders surrender to face charges of crimes against humanity? Does twisting intelligence to foment casus belli to launch a discretionary war that has killed tens of thousands of innocent people constitute a war crime? Was America not also founded on the evil of genocide and slavery where all men were equal as long as they werent red or black? Will you still stand by your commander-in-chief if she initiates peace negotiation with Islamic extremists?

Is our moral vision only binary - good vs evil - or must we navigate an ethical existence with many shades of gray?

S - the "goal" bin Laden mentioned was rebuilding Afghan and Iraq. The "goal" we are pursuing with great effort, is rebuilding the Middle East. Our results to date have been problematic at best. "Rebuilding" would serve as the kernel of common cause in any negotiations.

IF the SHE you refer to is the Senator from NY. I will very quickly put in my retirement papers, that way I won't be charged with deriliction of duty. I am kidding of course, I am planning serving my country for as long as I can. I made through one Clinton, I suppose I can make it through another.

Personally I like the Good vs. Evil realm.

You are either with US or against US.

Bin Laden is turning into a philanthropist all of a sudden by wanting to rebuild Iraq/Afghanistan? Not buying that for a second.

I can picture it now. Al Qaeda's representatives show up at the negotiation table......with a bomb and a few pounds of ball bearings strapped to their chests.

We demanded unconditional surrender from the last country that struck such a grievous blow on our soil and would accept nothing less. It troubles me that we would accept anything less now, whether the enemy is a country or a band of terrorists.

@cf - good v. evil - we kill'um bad guy - makes for great video games but tortuously difficult realpolitik.

@S - would you risk al Qaeda shows up at America's dinner table with a few pounds of bio-weapons?
In the long term, the cost/benefit ratio for both sides favors compromise...another democratic ideal.

Negative. Kill'em where they stand. Current policies have been adequate at keeping them away from my dinner table so far. I'm not ready to compromise with these nutjobs, walking around with bio-terror weapons.

Soft Talk: oh sure come on in mr. Al Queda, come to Washington. Let's sit down and have a nice cup of tea. What's that you don't want to take off your jacket. Ok, it does look at bit..................*********BOOM********

eco, I guess our difference in opinion boils down to the fact that I can't bring myself to trust the terrorists will uphold their end of any compromise.

@cf - Sounds like you'd be ready to compromise after al Q used WMD here. With enough intransigence on both sides, we can achieve a state of truly Orwellian perpetual war.

@S - Islamic extremists also depend on "moral superiority" to advance their cause. The pacifist tenets of Islam would act to their greater disadvantage if a compromise were breached w/o provocation.

I haven't been real impressed with the pacifist tenets of Islam and how they've reacted to terror acts. I would like to see a little more condemnation and a lot less silence.

Radical Islam is cultivated in mosques around the world. Why aren't these radical clerics weeded out by the pacifists before they can poison the minds of young men. (I'm sensing a comparison to the troubles in recent years within the Catholic Church.)

The better comparison would be to the neo-con 'clerics', backed by Christian fundamentalists, who poisoned the collective mind of our nation with false cause for war in Iraq. American "pacifists" who dissented against the radical premise of pre-emptive war were suppressed by accusations of disloyalty and treason, as you and I previously discussed.

An energetic extremist minority, be it Bolshevik, Nazi, Islamic or Christian, can all too often become the ascendant ideology, with consequences that are horrifically Pyrrhic.

There's only like five words in that sentence that I understand.

Negotiate with al Qaeda, here's a billion dollars please stop being a terrorist organization.

Then what, next week it will be Hamas then Hezbollah and so on.

Bin Laden would love a truce it would give him time to reorganize.

I think a better why to go would be more black opps build up the CIA and cut them loose.

@U - last week we were buying off Afghan warlords. This week its Iraqi insurgents. Next week its al Qaeda. Bribes are a time-honored tradition in international diplomacy. Ask Ollie North about his 'horse-trading' black ops with Hezbollah's Iranian masters. Recommend "Jawbreaker" for background on how the CIA used backpacks of cash to defeat the Taliban. Then think twice the next time you hear the cliche that we dont negotiate with terrorists. Thats just a bumper sticker slogan for domestic consumption.

@S - this will help you overcome that difficulty.

HUH? Where did you get that? If you read: "I'm not ready" literally, then you apparently have not been reading my stands on these TERRORISTS. WE DO NOT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS.

I know you are going to throw all sorts of "examples" well don't bother, I don't care. Radicals, be them muslim, israeli, russian, etc. must be held in check, outside the US.

We have enough problems within our own borders that we need to remain diligent in keeping out the undesireables.

Yeah cf, I did read you "literally". Apologies for my poor interpretive dance appreciation. Acknowledging all those "examples" to the contrary I shouldnt bother throwing, indicates "WE DO NOT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS" shouldnt be taken literally either.

re: al Q sending suicide bombers to the negotiating table -
Contacts between belligerants are traditionally handled thru intermediaries until an inked deal is within reach.

let me tell you something, the only reason we havent been attacked yet is they are not ready to, when there ready all hell will break lose, bush or anyone else will stop it, as long as the borders open like it is , we are going to get attacted .