Lynn Robb: good comments and I agree with most of it. As a centrist, I also believe in non-dependency on oil. But we should not automatically think that islam does not play a role here. With or without it's massive geo-political influence (due to sitting on top of so much oil), the extreme right-wing of Islam would be planning and waging Jihad, just as it is doing right now, because this is their interpretation of their Ku'ran. And these people are dangerous.

The real task for us is to determine what procentage of the islamic population across the globe is being radicalized, and I believe that most people would gasp in horror at the true percentage. Well over 70% of so-called palestinians are for Jihad and support Hamas. And this is just one barometer out of many for the neo-conning of the islamic world. Provocating them (neo-con approach) is fanning flames that are already way too hot. Coddling them (liberal approach) is just as dangerous. Set them clear boundaries and let them know that they will pay dearly, should they cross these boundaries. And forget not, these people are confirmed murderers.

As for the 9-11 minifilm, I have not seen it yet. It has yet to be broadcast here in Germany. Does anyone out there know of a download link for the film?

"Islam is not the cause of our travails. Our dependence on oil is." Mark Greene, Unity '08 - 9/13/06

"We have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology."
President Bush - State of the Union Address, 2024

***
Then why aren't we buying/borrowing/stealing/developing Brazil's bio-fuel technology?

* Brazil supplies 40% of its transportation needs through sugar-beet ethanol.
* They will become energy independent in calendar 2024.
* The U.S. imports 60% of its oil.

* It takes 1 "energy unit" to produce 1.3 units of corn ethanol (U.S. program).
* It take 1 "energy unit" to produce 8 (EIGHT!) units of sugar beet ethanol (Brazil's program).

* The U.S. government taxes imported sugar beets
* The U.S. also has a 54 cent per gallon tax on imported sugar ethanol.
* The U.S. government subsidizes domestic corn.

"That is REALLY stupid" Thomas Friedman - Op Ed Columnist -NYTimes

"Dumb as We Wanna Be" (subscription required)
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/09/20/opinion/20friedman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fThomas%20L%20Friedman

Maybe sugar-beet ethanol isn't the "whole solution" - but it sure looks like it could be a big part of it...

****

Visit the Unity '08 Platform Focus project. No programming experience necessary!!

http://unitysupporters.com/wiki/?title=UnityWiki:Community_Portal

I do not believe keeping a military presence in Iraq would accumplish much if anything. In fact I believe that it is hindering more than helping. However that being said, I do believe that we do have an obligation to help rebuild, but only if requested by the government of Iraq and only to the extent to which they request.

"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
- Anne Lamott, author

I'm with you Lynn. Cutting and running is not the answer although because George Bush has alienated so many people, all most Americans can think about is an exit strategy.

Iraq (at least the way we did it) was a mistake. However, while I agree we need to kick our oil habit that will take decades and until then, the entire global economy (not just the US) remain hostages to oil. Besides, even if we could walk away, the end result would be 2 or 3 or more hostile nations with nuclear weapons within the next 20 years. They won't need missiles - they can use shipping containers.

We simply must win. We have no real choice in the matter and the butcher's bill will only grow larger with time.

But the answer cannot be just killing them. Iraq could has been a bold and proactive step toward reform in the Middle East had it not been bungled at every turn. But we must continue to try. The fate of civilization hangs in the balance until we find a way to get Muslims to care more about the next 10 years than the last 1,000.

I too am a proud citizen of western civilization. The liberal ideas of freedom, equality and tolerance that we have created should apply world wide. I don't want to destroy Islam. How Muslims worship and how they choose to live their lives is none of my concern. All I demand is the same consideration in return. BTW, everyone (whether you love or feel PC guilt about western civilization) should read "While Europe Slept" by Bruce Bower. The eventual victory of the values we hold dear is by no means assured.

Back to the "The Path to 9/11" - I have two points. First, I've read the 9/11 report and (despite the short video on Slate that pointed out the inaccurate scenes) found the show to be very accurate in spirit if not in every detail. The filmmakers tweeked the story to increase dramatic tension and to simplify and clarify the narrative line. They did not rewrite history for political purposes. If "the Path to 9/11" is hard on Clinton and easy on Bush, it's only because Clinton screwed up our foreign policy vis-a-vis Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda from 1993 to 2024 while Bush only screwed up from 1/20 to 9/10. I'd love to see an equally balanced and fair "The Path from 9/11" which, no doubt the Republicans would protest and the Democrats would cheer. After all, the recent Taliban funeral incident proves that the Democrats have no monopoly on timidity and inaction.

Second, and please don't take this as a criticism Lynn, Americans simply must get over our television induced need to quick and clean answers. We like everything tied up neat and tidy by the end of the show and we look at history as it plays out around the world with all the depth of 90 seconds of “Previously on 24.” We will never win over their hearts and minds until we understand that their grievances and cultural biases go back 10s, 100s or even 1,000s of years and that the ramifications of our actions will resonate around the globe for 10s, 100s or even 1,000s of years. Foreign policy isn’t a game of checkers – it’s chess – on a 3 dimensional board – with 50 players – in a fog so thick you can’t see half the the moves. We must not grasp at the first easy solution that tempts us. We must play a long game and look many moves ahead.

I hope we win.

--Vern

"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people."
- Vice Adm. H.G. Rickover

Lynn-

You are spot on here. Islam is not the cause of our travails. Our dependence on oil is. Root causes and ultimate effects are the only sound basis for effective planning.

Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle

Please forgive this short history lesson, but it will put my point in context.

From the 1850's through the 1880's the British Raj and Imperial Russia fought a war of attrition on the plains of Afghanistan. This conflict-of-no-possible-resolution used and abused the Afghanis past the point of any forgiveness. It also produced some of Rudyard Kipling's most ironic poetry. "The Young British Soldier" could have been written yesterday. It is not pretty, but it is highly instructive.

The United States took up the British imperative and helped create the monster that is Osama Bin Laden in the name of fighting the cold war. "Let's let the Afghanis kill the Russians for us." Not a bad idea, except the Mujahadeen we chose to back also had an almost unlimited family fortune and a burning zeal to be the next Caliph.

Somehow in the interim between the breaching of the Berlin Wall and 9/11 the radical Islamists, children of the Euro/Soviet conflct of the 1980's and the Anglo/Russian conflict of the 1880's, finally came to a thoroughly un-holy maturity. The current conflict in the Middle East is the best possible example of the axiom "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

As a moderate, I simply cannot accept "cut and run" as a solution. Why has no one ever proposed "subdue, rebuild and marginalize." I subscribe to the civilized notion that if we break it was must repair it, and we most certainly have broken Afghanistan and Iraq. Personally, I would have bypassed Baghdad and gone straight for Teheran, but what do I know. I was just a British Colonial History major in college.

The Euro-centered civilized world, of which I am an unrepentant and upstanding citizen, simply does not have the resources to change the hearts and minds of the majority of the population Middle East. Why can we not accept that we are not universally adored and plan accordingly? The Middle East has only one thing on which the Western world depends--oil.

To me this says that weaning ourselves from oil dependence should be the Number 1 goal of every scientist, economist and politician in the Western world.

The mistake was changing policy to seek and destroy wherever they may be... before 9/11 we understood there would always be people trying to destroy us hiding in places we could not go... this change in policy was a big mistake... Come back to reality and defend the homeland using our navy and airforce to take the enemy out as required... with todays technology there is no reason whatsover to have our boots on the ground except to destroy the enemy. - Earn Snyder
Author "$aving the bureaucracy - Killing the beast"
Modern Progressive Independent
www.appyp.com/fix_main.html

I skipped it intentionally....but now I may catch a rerun. I was very annoyed with Disney's attempts to drag school children into this audience in a particularly political season. My other D friends haven't let-up.

Koppel On Discovery was a great alternative....my first chance to see some of the names that have popped-up on this website and hear some of their views on post 9/11 security. Particularly Anthony Zini.

Bill"for what we are together"

Linda-

I would have to disagree. As a dedicated anti-Republican, and after hearing all the hype leading up, I was prepared to be outraged by the inaccuracies and embelishments. I was pleasantly disappointed...

I think the program was very well done - thought the disclaimer was a bit strained as this was obviously intended to be a documentary notwithstanding the admissions of composite charachters, time compression, etc. Overall I thought the effect was powerful - appropriately depicting the weaknesses of the Clinton administration in taking advantage of certain opportunities and most powerfully outlining to me the primary messages:

1) The battleground before and after 9/11 was and should have been Afghanistan, and
2) Iraq was an unneccessary and destructive diversion of manpower and military resources.

While I am a big fan of Bill Clinton as an intellectual and humanitarian, a politician and a diplomat, he hamstrung himself early on by going after the gays-in-the-military issue and a Cheney-like approach to nationalized health care when he'd been elected by less than a majority. You must first have and consolidate political power before you attempt to use it. These two early over-reaches in the face of a determined opposition that hated him viscerally and irrationally weakend him from the start. His zipper problems later on only sealed up his inability to act strongly and decisively when the opportunity presented itself.

That said, the program also very well portrayed the insanity of the early Bush administration in moving Clarke out of his appropriate role, at the same time illuminatin what would become a hallmark of team Bush. While Clark was a hawk in a cage full of doves, Clinton kept him in place to provide balance, occasionally with some effect. Bush, on the other hand, has doggedly expunged everyone who is not a true believer, from Clarke and Powell to his early Treasury Secretary (name eludes me). This administration has made no effort to achieve anything resembling balance, and as a result there is none.

In the end Tenet, Berger, Albright to a degree, Rice and others come off looking bad, which is appropriate. One can only fairly lay the condition of our nation on 9/11 majoritively at Clinton's feet. Just as we can only ascribe our current unsafe (and rapidly deteriorating) condition squarely to Bush and his cataclysmic failures.

I liked the program and am glad it was aired.

Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle