Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Are you a liberal based on principle or a liberal based on comformance or likeness of someones written definition or a liberal simply based on opportunity, projected image or popularity.

I'm a liberal based on principal -- I believe that there are things that the private sector does a poor job of taking care of and in those cases, we need government. I also believe in conservation.

I disliked Bush's tax cuts, because they created deficits which made it hard for the Government to spend on things that need to be addressed (such as infrastructure). I also dislike Bush's lack of interest in promoting energy conservation. I worried that the invasion of Iraq was foolish, unless he was prepared to invest a lot in supporting Iraq (or was prepared to get out quickly), because I was afraid of a quagmire.

There have been some things of Bush's that I have supported. I work for the Food and Nutrition Service at USDA and we oversee the nutrition assistance programs such as Food Stamps and school meals. Generally, Bush's policy has been pretty good -- the administration has supported outreach for food stamps as a supplement to low wages to help the working poor get by. And in my 18 years with FNS, the first Under Secretary that Bush appointed (who we had for 5 1/2 years) was the best Under Secretary that I've worked under (the two Clinton appointees were awful).

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Actually, your way and the Bush way were tried, and neither succeeded.

Who said anything was guaranteed to succeed? You're an adult, Dave. You know by now (presumably) that not everything works out, and that you can't do everything you try to do.
However, actions do not exist in a vacuum. The alternate approach I put forth -- and which you dismiss in favor of some pseudo-Bush approach (your consistent claims that his was 'the only option we had'), while failing like all others to achieve one of its goals, most certainly can not be said to have failed to achieve the goal of limiting the cost in both money and moral coin, as well as the loss of life and damage to infrastructure. Those are all goals, too.
In fact, the pursuit of those goals -- even to the expense of achieving the one that single one that your and the President's approach exclusively focused on -- is what the civilized consider 'justice'. There are cliches like 'Innocent until Proven Guilty' and 'Let Ten Guilty Men Go Free Rather Than One Innocent Man Hang' that strongly hint that justice was once the root of the American way of thought, too.

Claiming that bribery failed because we acted like bullies is disengenuous and you know it.

Actually, I never made that claim.
I wouldn't even say, in fact, that it has failed in any kind of global way. No innocents have died because of it, and only vanishingly small amounts of time and money -- and almost no good will -- have been lost over it.
So no. It's your approach that has failed in its totality (though in fact, its very implementation bespoke of a failure of justice). The jury is still out on the approach that we recommended; but actually, it seems to be doing pretty damn well in terms of overall achievement.

Originally Posted by playwrite

So, in other words, if pbrower2a or any other liberal refuses to fit the kookie's definition of a liberal only being a Bush-hater, then he is adrift and made sport by every wind of others' definitions or that he is an opportunist only concerned about his own projected images and/or popularity.

I can only imagine all the disappointments your world must provide you each and every day - very sad.

Playdude, you're such a knuckleheaded kookie, can't you see there is now four types of liberals on KIA's list of possible choices. What's your choice? Hint: Don't even try to proclaim being a liberal based on principle. You already earned the knucklehead label failing to meet a basic qualification for that one. BTW, you just earned the kook label by responding kookie to three more options or choices that you may choose from as well.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Are you a liberal based on principle

Precisely. I believe in democracy, government that obeys the laws that it makes, WYSIWYG practice, equal opportunity, human rights, due process, non-violence, separation of powers, political competition, fair play, rejection of corruption, peace as the goal...

Dubya has nothing to do with those principles except to mock them in practice.

I refuse to debase the word conservative by attaching it to Dubya. If you do, then you besmirch it far more than I can.

or a liberal based on comformance or likeness of someones written definition or a liberal simply based on opportunity, projected image or popularity.

Incomprehensible rubbish!

Originally Posted by playwrite

So, in other words, if pbrower2a or any other liberal refuses to fit the kookie's definition of a liberal only being a Bush-hater, then he is adrift and made sport by every wind of others' definitions or that he is an opportunist only concerned about his own projected images and/or popularity.

I can only imagine all the disappointments your world must provide you each and every day - very sad.

Thank you immensely.

It may be hard to believe but I didn't want to hate Dubya. I wanted him to be a fine President and succeed in making a better America even if such contradicted my political biases.

I had my misgivings, but I hoped at first that he would grow into the job. I never expected him to become a liberal, but he could at least run an honest administration, one in which nobody had any questions of his personal life. We had a script for the Presidency, and in general, ideology did more to color the techniques than to create failure or success. Like most liberals, I had low expectations of him as President, but he could have fulfilled those expectations adequately. But he failed even those.

... It's ironic and amazing. The people who profess to have me figured out are furthest away from understanding me, and the ones who make no such pretense seem to have far better insight into me.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I'm a liberal based on principal -- I believe that there are things that the private sector does a poor job of taking care of and in those cases, we need government. I also believe in conservation.

I disliked Bush's tax cuts, because they created deficits which made it hard for the Government to spend on things that need to be addressed (such as infrastructure). I also dislike Bush's lack of interest in promoting energy conservation. I worried that the invasion of Iraq was foolish, unless he was prepared to invest a lot in supporting Iraq (or was prepared to get out quickly), because I was afraid of a quagmire.

There have been some things of Bush's that I have supported. I work for the Food and Nutrition Service at USDA and we oversee the nutrition assistance programs such as Food Stamps and school meals. Generally, Bush's policy has been pretty good -- the administration has supported outreach for food stamps as a supplement to low wages to help the working poor get by. And in my 18 years with FNS, the first Under Secretary that Bush appointed (who we had for 5 1/2 years) was the best Under Secretary that I've worked under (the two Clinton appointees were awful).

Thank you. I finally see some liberal finding something good to say about the Bush administration... slight as the praise is, but apparently valid. One must look deeply to find something to praise other than "he gave me what I asked for (a road, a tax break, a sweetheart deal with public resources, or a contract)".

It still comes with reasoned criticism of the rest of the package. Well-deserved criticism, of course.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I wouldn't even say, in fact, that it (bribery) has failed in any kind of global way. No innocents have died because of it, and only vanishingly small amounts of time and money -- and almost no good will -- have been lost over it.

Bribery has played a significant role. For quite some time, the largest receivers of US foreign aid have been Israel and Egypt. Since that policy has been in place, we at least haven't had as many overt 2GW wars involving these powers.

But a foreign policy based on bribing autocratic cultures entrenches the autocratic cultures. Honest officials would simply not accept the bribes. Officials more concerned with honoring US demands in order to keep the money flowing are unlikely to truly reform a culture by the scale one might expect in a 4T.

I have recently found myself increasingly reluctant to miss reading any of your posts... here's a good reason why:

Originally Posted by The Rani

Also, I would say that if you are expecting the 4T to be filled with honor, dignity, and cultural renaissance, you are seriously kidding yourself.

It is an odd thing liberals constantly do in these threads, which is that they never miss the opportunity to read a CRISIS in nearly everything, believing, I gather, that the so-called coming "regeneration" hinges entirely upon something really bad happening (ie., The Crash of '29). And then, yes, viola!, a magical Shangri-La moment occurs, a New Age of Aquarious is ushered in by the glorious Gray Champion! Who just happens to be, one notices, a liberal and a Democrat (and never, Good Gawd, a conservative Repub), btw.

It's the Eric Meece-approach to the "cycles of history." And quite a comical approach at that.

Analyze this, Rani:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2007120101816

Originally Posted by The Rani

Well-said. A lot of people on this forum make inaccurate personal assessments based on a lack of information, yourself and playdude included.



Instead of declaring somthing "rubbish" because you can't or don't understand it, why not ask for a clarification? Assuming you really want to understand, of course, which may be an incorrect assumption.

Here's what I thought made sense:

Are you a liberal based on principle

and what didn't make sense:

or a liberal based on comformance or likeness of someones written definition or a liberal simply based on opportunity, projected image or popularity.

The "word" conformance didn't pass my spell-checker, as might conformity. If anything, considering the world that I come from, with its overload of stale traditions and empty sentimentality, liberalism is rebellion.

The only "opportunity" has been to find something more satisfying than what was available. Anyone who wishes to sell out (which I consider the definition of opportunist) can find more money in serving illiberal causes. There's more money to be had from breaking strikes than from supporting them, which explains why many fascists are renegade socialists like Mussolini, Goebbels, and Doriot.

What projected image? I can only think of the psychological meaning of projection, in effect the tendency to accuse others of one's vilest impulses as an attempt to make oneself wholesome. I once heard a convicted bank robber state that "The banks are the biggest thieves" as an excuse for robbing banks. How often have you heard people say that Jews are greedy and materialistic? Almost invariably I find that someone who says that is inordinately greedy and materialistic. (I don't find Jews particularly greedy and materialistic unless they are in an overtly money-driven environment in which anyone in it can survive only as a greedy and materialistic person... irrespective of origin!)

Popularity? One chooses one's own crowd or choses none, and as a rule one chooses a crowd that one must change least to fit into. My values preclude joining some totalitarian cult, the drug world, NAMBLA, or a Michael Vick fan club.

One final indicator of the miniscule thought put into KIA67'a rant is that although it reads like a question it lacked a question mark.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Playdude, you're such a knuckleheaded kookie, can't you see there is now four types of liberals on KIA's list of possible choices. What's your choice? Hint: Don't even try to proclaim being a liberal based on principle. You already earned the knucklehead label failing to meet a basic qualification for that one. BTW, you just earned the kook label by responding kookie to three more options or choices that you may choose from as well.

I realize it has been a few days so you may have forgotten your original penultimate definition -

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Kiff, liberal means one who is etremely anti-Bush to the point of being irrationally destructive in my personal dictionary. I suggest you read it, memorize it and learn how to cope with it from this point forward. So, with that definition now available for the Liberal public consumption, Mustang was viewed by me as being a liberal poster as well.

I would think that most who were attempting to follow you may have believed that your "four types" were just a multi-faceted hydra of the Bush-hater that terrorizes you in your bizarre world. I suggest laying off that ether you carry around in the trunk of your car (ala Hunter Thompson on his way to Vegas) or your hydra could morph into a Medusa perhaps with Hillary at its center! I don't think your ticker or your neurons would survive the shock.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Well-said. A lot of people on this forum make inaccurate personal assessments based on a lack of information, yourself and playdude included.

Do you really believe we need to wait to hear a chorus that "ding dong the wicked witch is dead" or perhaps your screams that you are melting?

Originally Posted by zilch

I have recently found myself increasingly reluctant to miss reading any of your posts... here's a good reason why:


It is an odd thing liberals constantly do in these threads, which is that they never miss the opportunity to read a CRISIS in nearly everything, believing, I gather, that the so-called coming "regeneration" hinges entirely upon something really bad happening (ie., The Crash of '29). And then, yes, viola!, a magical Shangri-La moment occurs, a New Age of Aquarious is ushered in by the glorious Gray Champion! Who just happens to be, one notices, a liberal and a Democrat (and never, Good Gawd, a conservative Repub), btw.

It's the Eric Meece-approach to the "cycles of history." And quite a comical approach at that.

Yes, we freemen who: advocate for progressive political reform; favor concepts of maximum individual freedom as possible (esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties); favor freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression (a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers); convinced of representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies; free of prejudice or bigotry; open-minded and tolerant; and characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts (see KIA language lesson above) -- yes, we do tend to be realistic about difficulties, if not evils, perpetrated by those unlike us. But, at the same time, we are also optimistic about our ability to eventually win out and eventually obtain a good future.

I guess that comes from being able to lay claim to all those progressive GCs that preceded us, at least the good ones. And perhaps as important, our not having a George W. Bush in our ranks - that would clearly put a clink in one's optimistic armor! And perhaps that is one of the sources of your dourness?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Not all that different from the Second Coming believers, now that you mention it!

Yeah, so much for "separation of church and state," eh?

"We can talk all we want about freedom and opportunity, about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but what does all that mean to a mother or father who can't take a sick child to the doctor?" --Leading liberal Democrat Presidential Candidate (unveiling her mandatory government health care plan)

Originally Posted by playwrite

Yes, we freemen who: advocate for progressive political reform; favor concepts of maximum individual freedom as possible (esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties); favor freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression...

And, like a used car salesman, you talk out both sides of your mouth at the same time.

Liberals maximize Big Government. And to hell with "freedom and opportunity, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It may be hard to believe but I didn't want to hate Dubya. I wanted him to be a fine President and succeed in making a better America even if such contradicted my political biases.

I had my misgivings, but I hoped at first that he would grow into the job. I never expected him to become a liberal, but he could at least run an honest administration, one in which nobody had any questions of his personal life. We had a script for the Presidency, and in general, ideology did more to color the techniques than to create failure or success. Like most liberals, I had low expectations of him as President, but he could have fulfilled those expectations adequately. But he failed even those.

I agree.

If you substituted "Bill Clinton" for "Dubya," I somehow doubt that the favor would have been returned. The knives were out for him once it became clear he had a real chance to win the election.

That is the real difference between liberals and the authoritarian thugs who besmirch the name of conservatism.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Here's what I thought made sense:



and what didn't make sense:



The "word" conformance didn't pass my spell-checker, as might conformity. If anything, considering the world that I come from, with its overload of stale traditions and empty sentimentality, liberalism is rebellion.

The only "opportunity" has been to find something more satisfying than what was available. Anyone who wishes to sell out (which I consider the definition of opportunist) can find more money in serving illiberal causes. There's more money to be had from breaking strikes than from supporting them, which explains why many fascists are renegade socialists like Mussolini, Goebbels, and Doriot.

What projected image? I can only think of the psychological meaning of projection, in effect the tendency to accuse others of one's vilest impulses as an attempt to make oneself wholesome. I once heard a convicted bank robber state that "The banks are the biggest thieves" as an excuse for robbing banks. How often have you heard people say that Jews are greedy and materialistic? Almost invariably I find that someone who says that is inordinately greedy and materialistic. (I don't find Jews particularly greedy and materialistic unless they are in an overtly money-driven environment in which anyone in it can survive only as a greedy and materialistic person... irrespective of origin!)

Popularity? One chooses one's own crowd or choses none, and as a rule one chooses a crowd that one must change least to fit into. My values preclude joining some totalitarian cult, the drug world, NAMBLA, or a Michael Vick fan club.

One final indicator of the miniscule thought put into KIA67'a rant is that although it reads like a question it lacked a question mark.

You get serious props from me for unpacking that mess and forming a coherent response to it.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Oh come on ... you read brilliance into playdude's posts, but see KIA's as confusing? Both are written with equal quantities of spelling errors and bad grammar.

Intellectual brilliance is not intellectual authority. One can be simultaneously brilliant and either insane or morally bankrupt. Consider the late neo-Nazi William Pierce as a prime example.

Face it. Liberalism has a superb track record for solving the ethical problems of societies. Establishing a social order is far more complicated than determining what is appropriate conduct for people. Dullards can lead honorable lives with a little watching because the ethical precepts of the major religions are as suitable for people of low intellectual development (remember that an adult with an IQ of 60 has the usual development of a twelve-year-old child), and twelve-year-old children can adhere to the Ten Commandments very closely so long as they don't try to 'game' them . One shelters the dullard, of course, from those who would exploit his intellectual gaps for destructive purposes, such as the enticement that going along for a ride with some criminals would be an 'adventure'.

Liberalism works as fascism, feudalism, and communism fail at every level of moral conduct. We didn't have to subject, let alone enslave, the Germans and Japanese after World War II; we only had to divest them of any attitudes that subjection and enslavement of others would do even the would-be masters as much good as harm.

But liberalism is complicated. Think of the Bill of Rights as a sort of Ten Commandments:

I. Thou shalt not establish any state Church, prevent people from worship as their conscience dictates, nor impede the free expression of speech, the press, or of peaceable assembly

II. Thou shalt not deprive people of suitable means of self-defense

III. Thou shalt not compel people to give quarter to soldiers but shall instead provide soldiers the appropriate quarters and victuals

IV. Thou shalt not perform unreasonable searches and seizures.

V. Thou shalt not perform summary trials; thou shalt not inflict double jeopardy; thou shalt not compel self-incrimination; thou shalt not seize private property without due compensation

VI. Thou shalt offer the defendant a speedy trial and the right to a spirited defense, including the right to the same methods in which to obtain testimony and evidence in defense.

VII. Thou shalt make jury trial available in civil cases and ensure that in any such trial the process shall be the common law.

VIII. Thou shalt not insist upon excessive bail, lest incarceration while awaiting trial become a greater sentence than that of the offense itself.

IX. Thou shalt not take away rights that people already have as tradition (example: the rights to travel or change employment, even though such not be mentioned in these precepts)

X. Thou shalt not usurp the powers of the States (except to deny them powers specifically denied in the Constitution) or of the People.

A later one:

XIII. Thou shalt not permit compulsory labor (especially slavery) in any form except as due punishment for crime.

That is a liberal document translated into KJV language. Those are the among the ultimate laws of the United States, and they are not to be evaded or gamed.

... We don't pick people off the street to determine whether these Commandments are being obeyed or not. Think of Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

That is a liberal document translated into KJV language.

Very nice. Is that your own translation?

Originally Posted by The Rani

I guess you aren't quite sad enough yet ...

Ah, yes, those were the days....

The days before I came to the realization that I was dealing with someone who needs to avoid Dorothy's water bucket at all costs!

And you stay away from Toto too!

Originally Posted by zilch

And, like a used car salesman, you talk out both sides of your mouth at the same time.

Liberals maximize Big Government. And to hell with "freedom and opportunity, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

One would think you have gained a little more observational power over the last few decades. Those leaning to the liberal side have been found to be pikers compared to the likes of what you consider “conservatives.”

Even if we exclude the current bozo-Con in office, your Cons clean the floor with the puny Libs' efforts in –

Percentage growth in Total Federal Spending 1962-2001: Libs 6.96%; Cons 7.57%

Percentage growth in Non-Defense Federal Spending, 1962-2001: Libs 8.34%; Cons 10.08%

Yearly budget deficit, 1962-2001 - Libs $36 billion; Cons $190 billion

Increase in National Debt, 1962-2001 - Libs Total debt increased by $0.72 trillion
(20 years); Cons Total debt increased by $3.8 trillion (20 years)

and my favorite –

Non-defense Federal Government Employees 1962-2001 – Libs Rose by 59,000 (16 % of total rise over 40 years); Cons Rose by 310,000 (84% of total rise over 40 years)


And, of course, if we included what the current monkey in the White House has wrought, you’d be screaming “uncle, uncle, my boy’s a monkey’s uncle!”

The only question is – have you been "con’d" all these years or are you a part of the "con job" hoisted on so many unobservant Americans?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Intellectual brilliance is not intellectual authority. One can be simultaneously brilliant and either insane or morally bankrupt. Consider the late neo-Nazi William Pierce as a prime example.

Face it. Liberalism has a superb track record for solving the ethical problems of societies. Establishing a social order is far more complicated than determining what is appropriate conduct for people. Dullards can lead honorable lives with a little watching because the ethical precepts of the major religions are as suitable for people of low intellectual development (remember that an adult with an IQ of 60 has the usual development of a twelve-year-old child), and twelve-year-old children can adhere to the Ten Commandments very closely so long as they don't try to 'game' them . One shelters the dullard, of course, from those who would exploit his intellectual gaps for destructive purposes, such as the enticement that going along for a ride with some criminals would be an 'adventure'.

Liberalism works as fascism, feudalism, and communism fail at every level of moral conduct. We didn't have to subject, let alone enslave, the Germans and Japanese after World War II; we only had to divest them of any attitudes that subjection and enslavement of others would do even the would-be masters as much good as harm.

But liberalism is complicated. Think of the Bill of Rights as a sort of Ten Commandments:

I. Thou shalt not establish any state Church, prevent people from worship as their conscience dictates, nor impede the free expression of speech, the press, or of peaceable assembly

II. Thou shalt not deprive people of suitable means of self-defense

III. Thou shalt not compel people to give quarter to soldiers but shall instead provide soldiers the appropriate quarters and victuals

IV. Thou shalt not perform unreasonable searches and seizures.

V. Thou shalt not perform summary trials; thou shalt not inflict double jeopardy; thou shalt not compel self-incrimination; thou shalt not seize private property without due compensation

VI. Thou shalt offer the defendant a speedy trial and the right to a spirited defense, including the right to the same methods in which to obtain testimony and evidence in defense.

VII. Thou shalt make jury trial available in civil cases and ensure that in any such trial the process shall be the common law.

VIII. Thou shalt not insist upon excessive bail, lest incarceration while awaiting trial become a greater sentence than that of the offense itself.

IX. Thou shalt not take away rights that people already have as tradition (example: the rights to travel or change employment, even though such not be mentioned in these precepts)

X. Thou shalt not usurp the powers of the States (except to deny them powers specifically denied in the Constitution) or of the People.

A later one:

XIII. Thou shalt not permit compulsory labor (especially slavery) in any form except as due punishment for crime.

That is a liberal document translated into KJV language. Those are the among the ultimate laws of the United States, and they are not to be evaded or gamed.

... We don't pick people off the street to determine whether these Commandments are being obeyed or not. Think of Oliver Wendell Holmes.

PB, if you were to pull your head out, so to speak, and pay attention or look closely at the arguments, debates and fundamental clashes being waged with certain posters who are often the recipients of a "so-called liberal" label or tag. You would've have observed a strict Right libertarian defending the individual rights of people, the principles or commandments as you pointed out above from people who portray themselves as being liberals.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Even if we exclude the current bozo-Con in office, your Cons clean the floor with the puny Libs' efforts in –

Percentage growth in Total Federal Spending 1962-2001: Libs 6.96%; Cons 7.57%...

Hey, and you forgot to mention the liberal LBJ's massive tax cuts for the rich and his murdering millions of "gooks" while slaughtering 50,000 junior members of U.S.A.'s vast military industrial complex. Or conservative Richard Nixon's implementing Earth Day, EPA, OSHA, RCRA, imposing wage and price controls, indexing Social Security for inflation, and creating Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Hey, the ultra-conservative fascist Nixon even advocated gun control and eradicated the last remnants of the gold standard, too!

p.s. What I'd like to see is a fourthturning version of trends in federal debt, deficit spending, federal tax reciepts, military spending, as a % on the GDP, etc... That 4T report would run from the day of creation (FDR's 1933 New Deal) to the present (including the 20 years Democrats held the White House and forty years they held the nation's purse strings. All told, from 1933 to 1994).

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Who said anything was guaranteed to succeed? You're an adult, Dave. You know by now (presumably) that not everything works out, and that you can't do everything you try to do.

I agree that perfection is unachievable, but the appearance of disinterest in pursuing an active response to capturing or killing the perpetrator of an atrocity as great as 9/11 is unacceptable and dangerous. Osama cannot be ignored away, though Bush has declared that as his intent.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

... However, actions do not exist in a vacuum. The alternate approach I put forth -- and which you dismiss in favor of some pseudo-Bush approach (your consistent claims that his was 'the only option we had'), while failing like all others to achieve one of its goals, most certainly can not be said to have failed to achieve the goal of limiting the cost in both money and moral coin, as well as the loss of life and damage to infrastructure. Those are all goals, too.

Don't get me wrong, I find the use of bribes fully acceptable in cases where the level of response can be held relatively low or as a secondary reponse at any time. In the case of Osama, it had been tried for a long time prior to 9/11. The magnitude of the event made this response look anemic, and continuing this as our sole response would seem like the act of cowards and weaklings - neither of which was an acceptable impression to project at that time.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

... In fact, the pursuit of those goals -- even to the expense of achieving the one that single one that your and the President's approach exclusively focused on -- is what the civilized consider 'justice'. There are cliches like 'Innocent until Proven Guilty' and 'Let Ten Guilty Men Go Free Rather Than One Innocent Man Hang' that strongly hint that justice was once the root of the American way of thought, too.

There are three problems with your argument:

1. Osama fully took credit for the act, making his innocence highly unlikely
2. We have video to confirm his glee at success, pushing the likelihood of innocence far below the threshold of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'
3. Acts of war are not crimes in the normal sense, since the implications are many orders of magnitude greater than even truly atrocious crimes.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

... Actually, I never made that claim (that bribery was a sole remedy)*.
I wouldn't even say, in fact, that it has failed in any kind of global way. No innocents have died because of it, and only vanishingly small amounts of time and money -- and almost no good will -- have been lost over it.

Again, it's fine to suit many purposes, and preferable for most of them. It just fails the 'seriousness' test as a response to an outright attack.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

... So no. It's your approach that has failed in its totality (though in fact, its very implementation bespoke of a failure of justice). The jury is still out on the approach that we recommended; but actually, it seems to be doing pretty damn well in terms of overall achievement.

My approach has not been tried, and cannot be tried now for obvious reasons. Your approach is fine and admirable and kudos when it works, within the limitations mentioned above, of course.

* my words not Justin's

Originally Posted by The Rani

Maybe the truth of the matter is that Osama hasn't really caused us enough pain to get seriously motivated to kick his ass ...

psst... the dirty little secret is that we've been kickin' the living sh-t out of osama's terrorist troops ever since 9/11. but we citizens don't get to see much boom boom, hence no parades and rah rah.