Endangering Americans From Inside a Jail Cell?

Over at USA Today's On Deadline blog, a comment by Ray raises the possibility that if Zacharias Moussaoui were sentenced to life in prison, Islamic extremists might one day try to use hostages as leverage to win his freedom.* Earlier this week, Debater on the plantation suggested such a scenario would indeed be likely if Moussaoui weren't put to death.

This idea of Moussaoui being the target of a prisoner exchange is a fairly common argument from those who favor executing the 9/11 conspirator. Let's take a closer look.

If Moussaoui is dead, is it any less likely that terrorists will take Americans prisoner? The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, for one, doesn't think the lack of a prisoner to bargain over is too much of an obstacle for hostage takers.

Even if Moussaoui is alive and ripe for a convict-for-hostage deal, do the followers of fanatical Islam really care about him all that much? Would they go out of their way to rescue him? Given that 9/11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has described Moussaoui as a loose cannon, it doesn't seem terribly likely. (That's in spite of Moussaoui's stubborn insistence that President Bush will pardon him before leaving office.)

Debater Pragmatist observes, Moussaoui "sounds like that co-worker everyone has that you're happy to share credit with ... just so long as you don't actually have to work with him." If any forced exchanges were to be attempted, it's much more likely they'd be aimed at a top-ranking al Qaeda leader, like Mohammed, rather than a second-string foot soldier.

But would a life sentence for Moussaoui set a precedent for future sentencing of convicted terrorists -- ones who might be of more value to organizations like al Qaeda? Ones who might inspire the kind of prisoner swapping so feared? Bottom line: If Moussaoui gets life without parole, should we be worried?

* Ray diverges from the usual direction of the argument by saying that Moussaoui should be denied the "luxury of our prisons" and that the court should "turn him over to the military for lifetime imprisonment ... I'm sure the military would not afford him any luxury."

The contention that prison is somehow luxurious is knocked down by a statement from another reader who says he writes from experience that life in prison is "worse than death." Also undercutting Ray's idea is the simple fact that Moussaoui would still be alive, so it's unclear how this plan would make him any less likely to be used as a pawn.

By Emily Messner |  April 14, 2006; 3:11 PM ET  | Category:  Misc.
Previous: Enigma in an Orange Jumpsuit | Next: Missiles, Pigs and a Punishment Fit for a King


Please email us to report offensive comments.

How did we get to prisoner exchange? I thought we were in no negotiating with terrorists land. This administration certainly has enough invested in the distinction not to toss it away now...

Posted by: Chris | April 14, 2006 03:54 PM

Is it really so hard to see through the transparent schemes of a low-ranking Islamist lunatic?

This idea originated with Moussaoui himself -- not a blog commenter, for heck's sake. He wants to convince the jury that he might escape justice unless he's put to death. And that's because he obviously and desperately craves martyrdom. It's as simple as that.

Of course, it's stupid to imagine that any American government would release the only 9/11 scapegoat in custody for any hostage, no matter how highly-placed. When, exactly, would THOSE politics fly in America? Never! But those who favor Moussaoui's execution are all too happy to play along with Moussaoui's own bid for martyrdom.

What a circus we've allowed this trial to become. Why should any intelligent person take Moussaoui's bid for martyrdom seriously?

Posted by: Playing along with an idiot | April 14, 2006 04:38 PM

Moussaoui is but one of thousands who feel that a click of a button or the flying of a plane into a building, killing hundreds or thousands of innocents, is the way to advance their depraved ideology.

Thats the scary part.

And on that note, Happy Easter/Passover bloggers!

Posted by: D. | April 14, 2006 04:48 PM

This seems like a non-issue to me. Not only would such a hostage exchange never happen, Moussaoui would be pretty low down on the list of desired detainees.

On the flip side, even though I oppose capital punishment for both moral and practical reasons, I don't think the argument that executing Moussaoui will make him a martyr holds much water either, for pretty much the same reason. There are plenty of martyrs already for those who want them, and they tend to be of higher status.

Though the jury will almost certainly sentence Moussawi to death (though, as the judge warned, the appeal will be another matter), I hope they do not, simply beacuse this country should be better than such barbarism. But that's another debate topic entirely! Happy Holidays ;) everyone.

Posted by: james | April 14, 2006 05:12 PM


It all depends on the war we fight and how we fight it.

Here is why I think that is important, because, in a way, people are mirrors and if you smile at them they tend to smile back at you.

However, that said, in reality I see trouble ahead with Moussaoui alive in jail because I agree with the debators that this is just a grant invitation to terrible hostage situation.

Unfortunately, this further sets the tone for the war we are fighting and how we are going to fight it.

Just my opinion

Posted by: Richard Katz | April 14, 2006 05:13 PM

The main problem with executing Moussaoui, is that in one fell swoop we turn a failure (in his eyes, in the eyes of his comrades-in-arms, in the eyes of those who might like to join Al-Quieda, and in the eyes of his "god"), into un unqualified success. He gets to go to heaven as a martyr, and for the potential terrorists, they can rely on America fulfilling their march to heaven, even if they fail. And all we Americans get out of it is, a brief warm fuzzy feeling that we have extracted a justified revenge. Currently he is a looser, in every sense of the word, let him live with his failure for quite a long time, its a far worse punishment for such a true believer than sending to the hereafter, which is exactly what he wants.

Posted by: MIke McAndrews | April 14, 2006 06:00 PM

So if we kill the Islamoid enemy, we only make them matryrs and convince otherwise moderate Muslims to become enraged radical Islamoids?

But if we dare imprison any of the enemy, then we only encourage the enemy to take hostages?

I prefer not to worry about what Islamoids do to us if we enrage them by killing or capturing them, but instead focus on how we can best prevent "moderate Muslims" from seeing the Islamoid Death Cult as a viable alternative to their present failed, backwards, civilization and how best to kill those that are currently the ISlamoid enemy, and how we can best root out 5th Column enemy sympathizers here in the ACLU or over in the Euroweenie Left.

And inevitably, more hostages will be seized and I hope by now we have learned that we cannot let Almighty Victim Families of the Hostages become so empowered that we kow-tow to them to an extent we end up with a failed Presidency (Carters), a near-impeached President (Reagan, Arms for hostages) or be seen as gutless Euroweenies who regularly released Islamoids in return for Euro-hostages. We should also - unfortunately - at least rationally consider repercussions on an enemy civilian population if the enemy rejects Geneva and deliberately targets our civilians by WMD or a mass hostage slaughter if we refuse their demands. Geneva is reciprocal. If they go after our women and kids, we can do the same. That arrangement existed all through the Cold War. It's nothing new or particularly immoral to contemplate. If the Soviets had nuked 6 million civilians in NYC, they knew we would nuke 6 million Russians - little Sovieti babies and warm puppydogs included.

Now, if I was an Islamoid, I'd be far more enraged, seething, frothing at the mouth angry and determined to avenge the death of a big cheese like Yassir Arafat (They all believe the Jews killed him with poison), or the captivity of a Super-Noble Islamic Jihadi like the 9/11 Mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Saddam, for that matter.

Small fish like Moussaoui have little rock star power back in Camel Land, other than what our mainstream media manufactures for his like. He is a D-list wannabe enemy Islamoid who may hate infidels and wanted to kill thousands, but bottom line was a trueborn son of France in his warfighting competence.

But it seems the very ruthlessness of the Islamoids makes hostage taking less powerful a tool than it was in the past. They are thought to plan on killing any hostage anyways, so we psychologically write off anyone in Islamoid hands as likely to be killed anyways no matter what we do. Our soldiers now fight to the death against Islamoids because they figure they are dead anyways if they surrender to anyone other than a uniformed member of a regular Muslim Army.

9/11 and most other Islamoid attacks have happened due to policy and our just being infidels unfit to remain living. Not predicated on avenging this or that Islamoid enemy fighter, or springing such from jail. So they will keep coming at us regardless of whether we kill them, imprison them, or send our Western Civ-hating ACLU lawyers or craven Euroweenie Lefties to lick their boots and blubber for the fearless Mujahadeen fighters to forgive the West for the Crusades and other "root cause" offenses against their noble religion.

One exception is Bin Laden.

I would imagine that if we had Binnie in jail awaiting trial - that we would lose many American hostages - while lawyers swarmed over debates about his precious enemy rights and taxpayers paid US lawyers tens of millions to try and rehabilitate Binnies image prior to trial. Inevitably, given how we all - from Bush to the T-shirt makers in Indonesia have made him a MegaStar, and the liberal Democrats have made him into some sort of White Whale that if only subdued would return the world to a happier universe as Islamoid Jihad collapsed without his mighty brain guiding all events...Americans would be seized and executed regularly as bargaining chips to let Bin Laden go...

So better that one is shot or bombed without trial. Even better if he is seen fleeing US or Pakistani soldiers and gunned down like a dog or seen begging for mercy before a special ops soldier puts a round in his head.

All the crap about martyrdom is exagerated.

Two years later, it's "Arafat who??" in Palestinian politics. In Egypt, the government wisely spread the word that Mohammed Atta was a homosexual who only did 9/11 because he hated and feared women and wished to commit suicide because he dishonored his faith and family with his gayness. An effective smear. Saddam will be in the rear view mirror of Iraqi life as soon as his twitching body finishes voiding it's bowels on the gibbet..as certainly as Uday and Qusay are forgotten but would have been hanging over Iraqi life if they had somehow gotten to the Hague for a 10 year long Slobbo deal.

Posted by: Chris Ford | April 14, 2006 06:20 PM

oh yeah, the terrorist threat.


regarding terrorists...


like I said, terrorists?

if you regard the CIA, BUSH, Rummsfeld, Cheyney and those complicit within the various agencies as terrorists...sure.


how did 12,000,000 illegal aliens get in through our


anti-terrorists response?

there isn't any.

what does that say?

think hard.

think real hard.

how does the president know that he doesn't need to worry about terrorists....

very slowly now....t h i n k ....

maybe, it _was_ a ruse?

have you ever heard that at any point before 9/11, Bush was looking for a reason to go into Iraq?

maybe that's true.

Tony Blairs name might help you to ring a bell........discussing how to incite the Iraqis to attack the United States, a flyover...or whatever, before 9/11.

and who killed that British Diplomat that had a memo that said that there were no WMD before 9/11?

come on sheeple,


Posted by: Bin Laden... | April 14, 2006 06:35 PM

white supremacist?

do we have any in jail?


Posted by: chris ford, | April 14, 2006 06:37 PM

So we, the People of the United States of America, now believe that a guilty man's appropriate punishment depends on what some *other* people might do in the future?

God help us.

Posted by: Mike V | April 14, 2006 06:39 PM

Interesting discussion. Our enemy doesn't need a reason to launch attacks as the supposed 'cause' for terrorism has shifted numerous times even within a small two-year window much less over the course of the past century.

James writes:

"On the flip side, even though I oppose capital punishment for both moral and practical reasons, I don't think the argument that executing Moussaoui will make him a martyr holds much water either, for pretty much the same reason. There are plenty of martyrs already for those who want them, and they tend to be of higher status."

Practically any jihadi who is killed by the so-called Infidels is afforded martyr status and praised. Moussaoui's ties to 9/11 alone elevate him to a higher martyrdom status in the radical Islamic world even if that status is largely exagerated.

I am a supporter of the death penalty in some cases but I would rather Moussaoui get life in prison. I'd rather my tax dollars not go towards a martyr and future posters, videos and statements of that effect.

Posted by: Chad Evans | April 14, 2006 07:12 PM

I think the discussion is rather moot. What is the life expectancy of a child rapist in prison?
What do you think would be the life expectancy of Moussaoui? Accidents happen.
Besides, what is the purpose of the death penalty? Certainly not revenge, since justice is not in the business of revenge. Punishment? Does anyone think that a suicide bomber feels execution is punishment? Deterrent? Does anyone believe that doing him the honor of a public execution would deter other terrorists?

Posted by: Dragoch T. | April 14, 2006 08:48 PM

Anyone who thinks US prisons are somehow a "luxury" gig, or even remotely nice is someone who doesn't know anything about US prisons. This type of idiological ignorance is not excusable either, given that besides the comprehensive ignorance involved in what the conditions actualy are, it also encompasses an ignorance of the problems and issues that go with the US prisons.

Moussaoui isn't going to be in any sort of population where he has exposure to other prisoners, in fact the prosecutors in the case have allready made very clear that were he to avoid the death penalty, he will spend the rest of his life in a very isolated, low contact, low stimulation environment.

The idea of a prisoner swap is no more than a deluded fantasy on his part, much like the rest of his hate filled rants. Anyone who gives this idea serious credibility is doing themselves and the rest of us a serious discredit, and ignores history. This guy isn't a prisoner of war, nor is he a non-violent spy in the midst of a cold war, he's a terrorist, and the US has a serious record of not doing buisness with terrorists, much less letting them go free. So there's no reason to start to get stupid just to argue for the death penalty.

That aside it's clear that if there were a fanatical Islamist view of "hell" it would be getting stuck in a non-privliged industrialized prison in the US for the rest of ones life, with no voice and no one to rant at but empty walls. I think there's more deterrent value in that than executing him.
It seems to me that a greater deterrent to future terrorists to forego the somewhat pleasing idea of exacting a blood vengance on Moussaoui, no matter how much that idea might be emotionaly appealing.

Posted by: Gentry | April 14, 2006 08:55 PM

One thing that is of note in these hypothetical arguments about an important nut like Bin Laden vs. someone who's a marginaly important nut like Moussaoui is quite simple.

Bin Laden's warrant is one of those true rarities in the world, he's wanted "Dead or Alive". Meaning we'd really be just as happy to have him dead than alive, and no one's going to get scolded for shooting him on sight.

He's also subject to summary execution as part of that whole thing, so there never would be any sort of a "trial" or oppertunity for anyone to free him.

I find it pretty creepy and deluded that some of the responders worldviews encompass the notion that Democrats would somehow defend him in any way. It's also treasonous slander that undermines the republic, but then too, America has it's own set of home grown extremist nut jobs to deal with, some of who like to blow up buildings as well.

Posted by: Gentry | April 14, 2006 09:10 PM

"Saddam will be in the rear view mirror of Iraqi life as soon as his twitching body finishes voiding it's bowels on the gibbet..."

lol Chris, your imagination is vivid and graphic!

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | April 14, 2006 09:46 PM

I think we should treat Moussaiou like Fairfax Police treat an unarmed compliant Optemetrist who bet on sports. Just have Fairfax County Detective David J. Baucom lure him out into public then have "highly trained" SWAT Officer Deveal Bullock shoot him right in the chest. Chief Rohrer and District Attorney Horan can wink at each other and just simply tell the public Moussaoui was shot because the SWAT Officer was tired.

Posted by: B. Martin | April 15, 2006 12:06 AM

that would be your chimp in chief...

Bin Laden, he'll show when they need a new tape...

or gibbering drooling bandito...

while Walmart purchases Chevy Chase Savings...and starts swallowing US Banks...cuts a deal with China and you sweethearts strut around talking about killing.........

pathetic, useless posuers....

the body builders that are all chest and arms...

no legs, no back.


Posted by: terrorists what terrorists? | April 15, 2006 01:47 AM

"Painwashing" the Moussaoui jury and us
By Jerry Mazza

Painwashing is brainwashing: repeating the same painful stories over and over again to individuals (in this case a jury) till their resistance to questioning gives in. The hurtful repetition induces a kind of trance. And in the flood of emotionally-charged 9/11 recollections, rational logical questioning of who was responsible for what is disappeared. Repeating the effects of the tragedy becomes a false proof of guilt for the patsy Zacarias Moussaoui. It also attempts to hypnotize the country into the 9/11 trance once again.

It's not unlike stunning the defendant himself with a painful jolt of electric via the alleged stun belt under his clothing, till he does and says what is expected of him, reported in my Online Journal article, Was Moussaoui outfitted with a hidden 'stun belt' at trial?



Posted by: che | April 15, 2006 03:34 AM

"Painwashing is brainwashing: repeating the same painful stories over and over again to individuals (in this case a jury) till their resistance to questioning gives in."

Well lawyers will be lawyers whether they work for the ACLU or the Government. Occasionally, Emily seems to do this to us, and I mean that in the nicest way.

However, regarding the stun belt. I recently had a first hand experience with being jolted with electricity during a medical test (no, not electroconvulsive therapy (ECT)), this was to measure nerve conductivity. I learned two things (at least). 1) This IS torture and anyone who says it's not is out of touch with reality and 2) you grunt and convulse a lot.

So as to your first point, yes, that is SOP, as to your second, someone would of noticed Moussaouri twitching on the stand, don't you think?

Posted by: Richard Katz | April 15, 2006 08:03 AM

There is another troubling thing about so much attention concentraing on the Moussaoui case. Illustrated by blog debates, we get drawn into the notion that the world is primarily engaged in a war of words, Iran being the latest clear example. Ultimately, this might be a dangerous public distraction.

One simple example of the thought centers on opposing strategies. Those of us in the west who read have plenty of information about Islamist strategy and goals. What we're lacking is an equal measure of information about western strategies and goals. Really, beyond the facile and perhaps unrealizable goal of making the ME "democratic", as if this solves all other ills, is about all we get offered up. Even our religions don't give much positive guidance, with their dismal apocalyptic views of future history. Another corrosive effect is that it prolongs the war excessively (now exceeding the duration of WWII), distorting precious civil institutions for a real democracy/republic.

More action with a better coalition, less extraneous talk, or we're heading for a trap of our own making.

Posted by: On the plantation | April 15, 2006 10:06 AM

Why did anyone think that Moussaoui was going to be anything but gleeful and contemptuous while hearing the tearful, angry statements by victim's families? If anything, it added to his feelings of pleasure and triumph.
He and his ilk consider us to be evil, weak, decadent infidels - not worthy of concern and much less than human. They enjoy our pain, our deaths. It's like expecting a cat to feel sympathy for the mouse it toys with and kills.

It is a big mistake to evaluate or posit the actions, behavior, feelings and motivations of these ideological terrorists using the baseline of how WE are, how WE think - they simply don't see anything like we do. Not humanity, justice, society, right and wrong, the value of human life, acceptable behavior/action, the place of religion in society and government, tolerance - NOTHING.

If we put Moussaoui in prison for life, we will be scoffed at as weak and gullible; as suckers who make their own people pay for the daily maintenance of the life of someone who was happily involved in the deliberate killing of thousands of us. That encourages further attacks, since we are weak, foolish and gullible. If we kill him we will receive more respect from them, but they will also use his death as propaganda. Either choice is a recruiting tool - just differing in type. However, should we really start deciding our actions based not on our laws and what we would normally do, but on what others might do or think? The second we do so, we have further lost to them. (actually, we already 'lost' the minute we started changing our country and civil liberties out of fear...rather a wussy bunch Americans are, for all our flag-waving bluster)

They don't view 'losing someone' like we do, at least as far as 'foot soldiers'.
It is The Cause that is important. If Moussaoui was that important a person to the cause, in their view, wuold he have been flying one of those planes? NO.
Valuable terrorists plot and plan and recruit - they don't expend their lives on one small mission. (yes, the WTC attack was 'small' - compared to what they want to do)

I hope he falls down the stairs and breaks his neck, saving us the trouble.

Posted by: then again | April 15, 2006 12:36 PM

this guy is being splashed all over the newspaper right now...

the same reason Bin Laden gets splashed all over the MSM...

it's a distraction.

he's of no consequence, the Rumsfeld elimination is of much more importance as is


international corporations buying the United States unchecked by your congress.

The law against illegal wiretapping came about during the Nixon impeachment process....

do Bush Rumsfeld and Cheyney feel like Nixon happening all over again?

when did Rumsfeld and Cheyney show up? Was it under Nixon?

are they just completing what Nixon was prevented from doing...

creating a monarchy?


Posted by: there is a reason why | April 15, 2006 02:46 PM

Why are we discussing Moussaiou, I have a simple solution, somebody quickly call Fairfax Police Detective David J. Baucom on the phone and tell him that Zaccharious has placed a bet on a football game, he can lure him outside, where Fairfax SWAT can be standing with their fingers on the trigger of their weapons and SWAT Officer Deveal Bullock can shoot him right in the center of the chest, that will certainly get rid of the problem. Then you can guarantee that Chief Rohrer won't say anything, and District Attorney Robert Horan can blame the entire incident on an officer being tired from Deer Hunting. Just link all terrorists to football pools and betting and Fairfax Police will take care of the rest.

Posted by: SWAT | April 15, 2006 05:24 PM

The perversely nostalgic re-hashing of 9/11 by the Moussaoi prosecution and the American media was overindulgent and gratuitous. It will all be forgotten next week, as it was rather forced, and thoroughly anachronistic at this point. Our media and politicians have sucked 9/11 dry of all the political capitol they could, yet they continue to beat a dead horse in hopes that they can get the American public into a hysterical, emotion-driven mindset that is more easily exploited. Just because our country is a democracy does not mean we don't have people in power who wish to run our country from the top down, constantly trying whatever they can to manipulate and exploit the public. This is the main lesson I gathered from last week's circus of 9/11 demagoguery surrounding Moussaoi's trial: THE POST-9/11 ERA IS OVER. WELCOME TO THE POST-POST-9/11. The American public can no longer be manipulated by constantly forcing 9/11 down our throats. Our American politicians are no longer going to be given the benefit of the doubt that they have the public's best intentions in mind (any current poll about Bush tells us this much). The party's over as far as using 9/11 to manipulate public sentiment. If we're really going to re-visit 9/11, then why don't we re-visit the fact that the current powers that be weren't able to prevent it? At least such a re-visitation would actually be constructive, whereas the parade of 9/11 exploitation last week has been fruitless and distractive, not constructive in the least. After all, Moussaoi was going to get the death penalty anyway. NONE of the three-ring 9/11 circus was necessary in the slightest; The reality of the situation was that all the 9/11 nostalgia had little to do with prosecuting Moussaoi, and A LOT to do with thinly veiled propoganda with a political agenda. Being that it was all so inappropriate to the actual trial (even the judge admonished the prosecution for pushing the envelope almost too far), what other conclusion can one make besides the obvious that Moussai's trial has been exploited to create high emotion and hysteria among the American public?

Posted by: ErrinF | April 15, 2006 05:41 PM

ErrinF wrote:
"Our American politicians are no longer going to be given the benefit of the doubt that they have the public's best intentions in mind . . ."

Fracturing public trust was one of the worst outcomes of 9/11. Executive branch, Congress, large corporations, media, bordering foreign nations and former allies -- they all seem to have become vultures picking at the bones of the American middle who they sincerely disdain but systematically exploit.

We can legitimately blame and punish Islamist radicals for the killings and destruction and the continuing threats. We cannot blame Islamists for the internal discord due to lack of efficiency, equity, and truthfulness in our own home culture; honestly, it hasn't always been so sorry when there were better leaders. Katrina was the recent event that was final verification for anyone who held out artificial hopes that power has any love or respect for the meek and unprivileged.

Personally, I'm willing to accept a big dose of humility of the collective ego to get back to the purity of the American vision. The needed changes are bottom-up, not particularly top-down, and my perception is that, somewhat like the 1960s, there is a broad reassessment going on that is going to make the elected members of the federal government pretty irrelevant powers. The invading immigrant hordes have already figured this part out, and have bet their future lives on it.

Posted by: On the plantation | April 15, 2006 06:11 PM

Simply executing him "humanely" plays right into the Jihadis' hands by making him a Martyr (which he also _wants_ to be), while locking him up for the rest of his life makes him a focus for "free our imprisoned brothers" nonsense while he is supported at taxpayers' expense for who knows how long.

I think we need to revive something used to good effect in the Philippines a century ago - the 'American system of execution'...


Posted by: J.H. | April 15, 2006 07:36 PM

His objective is to become a martyr to the islamic jihadist movement, why not simply do what a U.S. General did in the early 1900's, before shooting him in the face cover him in pigs guts and ham, then execute him. This way he believes he is going to hell, which is where we should send that type of evil anyway. Or simply do what the SWAT guy said, let Fairfax Police just shoot him, we can say he illegally bet on the Final Four.

P.S. Momma's don't let your babies grow up to be Optometrists in Fairfax County.....

Posted by: L Berra | April 15, 2006 08:05 PM

Great idea, pig fat. Why not add some dog meat too. Take pictures and publish. Also, tie a shoe to his face with the sole facing and touching it. What a bunch of superstitious dumasses.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | April 15, 2006 08:38 PM

Plantation -

Keep in mind the divisiveness did not start on 9/11. The beginning was the "Stolen Election, Illegitimate Presidency" meme the Lefties tried hammering on the American Public with their willing media collaborators. This was soon followed by the filibuster tactic used on Bush's judicial nominees, and almost successful on Ashcroft.

Then Rove advised Bush that the radical Conservative Base and tax cuts for the wealthy was all Bush had to be concerned with, and the Republicans joined in the divisiveness the Lefties started.

"Katrina was the recent event that was final verification for anyone who held out artificial hopes that power has any love or respect for the meek and unprivileged."

Katrina was all about the media focus on the inadequacy of the Federal government to be babysitters over a city incompetently led, full of welfare parasites dependent on government caregivers to not only provide their shoes but tell them how to tie them - while ignoring the stupidity of people that lived in subsea dwellings in a city and state utterly too corrupt and ill-prepared to cope with being right in the path of a hurricane they were told for the last 40 years was inevitable.

It was a disgrace in showing the world that a section of America was less intelligent, less competent, less civilized than the people in the 3rd world dealing with the Mumbai Flood, the Great Tsumani. No amount of additional Federal babysitting would fix the degraded people and culture (traditionally Democrats, BTW)we found existed in our nation down in Louisiana.

The Federal Gov't had virtually no involvement, in fixing the aftermath of some 2,000 hurricanes, before LBJ decided it was a lovely Great Society piece of pork to proffer.

"Congress, large corporations, media, bordering foreign nations and former allies -- they all seem to have become vultures picking at the bones of the American middle who they sincerely disdain but systematically exploit."

Agree. The middle class is being screwed by the Bushies and their moneymen. And before the Bushies, the Clinton people began selling America out to China, Israel, globalization, and NAFTA. But worse under Bush and the Republicans, which have shown they are just as willing to sell out to special interests as the Democrats were, and even more shameless and unrestrained about it.

We have a massive mess confronting the next President. We have a number on the Left that are enemy Islamoid sympathizers, the 3rd World swarming past our borders, a corporate kleptocracy, Democrats total tools of gov't unions, and Republicans total tools of fatcats. It will be a bigger cleanup than what Reagan was faced with after 4 years of Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: Chris Ford | April 15, 2006 08:38 PM

Zacharias Moussouai has made an honest revelation of his motivations and human values during his trial. Sadly, they belong to a species of psychopathic bigot for whom the West has had no equivalent representative for some centuries. Even more sadly, there are plently more where he came from. And they will continue to kill - or attempt to do so - regardless of the strategies adopted by western governments.

Paradoxically, the west in general - and the US in particular - is locked in a paranoid compulsion to come out of every conflict smelling like roses. And the more its hard-line opponents perceive the paranoia, the more they contrive to wrong-foot the US and its allies.

This one will be won or lost not on the strategy adopted by a US court or a US government: it will be won - or lost - on the basis of the commentaries screamed from the western media.

Having looked closely at the recent form of the journalists reporting on Iraq, Afghanistan and the global jihad I would not risk my slender savings backing our precious western traditions.

Heads they win; tails we lose. Rules of media encounter Folks.

Posted by: Rick Clarke | April 15, 2006 09:00 PM

Chris Ford wrote:

"Keep in mind the divisiveness did not start on 9/11. The beginning was the "Stolen Election, Illegitimate Presidency" meme the Lefties tried . . ."


Maybe I've been looking around too long, but the actual beginning was the sad and traumatic assassination of JFK, with the next giant step towards malevolence being Nixon's Christmas bombing of Hanoi.

These weren't inconspicuous acts; they were in-your-face usurpations of the core values of American people. Now, it has progressed not simply to additions to the list of offensive acts against American inclinations, but to a stubborn lack of ordinary defense and protection of the people and borders of the nation, and a driven agenda to instill the grander concept of the U.S. economy submitting to a globalist scheme to level America to a vacation spot with lots of servile workers for international billionaires flying into Jackson Hole.

There's the rule of unexpected consequences. I deeply respect the wisdom of the American people, and think that the unwise in our leadership will have their hard fall in their time and in the history books.

(I know about the south. Your characterization of our people in New Orleans during Katrina is something I'll want to respond to later, as I am intending to stay quiet on Easter.)

Posted by: On the plantation | April 15, 2006 09:16 PM

The man is the classic patsy. He is mentally ill - deranged. So after a few billion dollars of investigation, we got the psycho and the shoe bomber.

Not as much fun as the hunt for the blue dress.

There is no Alquida and there is no war on terror. Wake up rubes before they completly drain the treasury.

Posted by: ER | April 15, 2006 10:54 PM

We can't wake up the rubes, apparently. They've gone to sleep years ago and are now running [this corner of] the world according to a bizarre and skewed view. All the centuries of voices crying that killing this spiritual leader, that witch, a blasphemer, a heretic, a madman, king, rabble-rouser and where are we? Punishment to die? Aside from the irrational fear and the conflict with our individual wills to survive, it's not really a punishment.

Punishment is to survive long enough to recognize the pointless harm we have caused to strangers, to loved ones, to ourselves. If it is punishment we want, then for whatever this Moussaoui IS found guilty of he should live to ultimately regret. I do not believe, however stoically one preserves outwardly showing emotion, that the true crimes against fellow human beings does not gnaw away at the human spirit. No religion gives amnesty to such criminal behavior.

Our thirst for vengeance is strong. The thirst has been made keener by posturing of "leaders" until we should beg for this man's life. But I deeply fear that the thirst we trust we should feel goes against the cooling hydration we desperately need. If we cannot keep someone securely away from society when that need has been determined, then we are weak. If that is our justification for seeking the death of another human, we are weaker still.

Do we want to be weak but "show" our strength by what we hope to be hurtful violence? I don't want to be part of a society that believes that's okay. I do want to know how the many who express these outraged shouts of hostility look clearly at themselves each morning as they dress to go about their days. Do you never ask "Who am I?" We are supposed to be a better country.

So, are we safer killing someone whose crime is only "sorta near" the crimes of 11 September 2001? Kill someone because we can't get at the criminal minds behind the murders and destruction? That's how it seems, and that's how it's going to seem to everyone else in the world. We're sinking low, and that will give succor to the real 9/11 criminals.

Posted by: Jazzman | April 15, 2006 11:21 PM

I look at the mirror and say, "It's showtime."

Stop worrying about what the rest of the world thinks about the US. There is no perfect solution to this, or any other problem. It's a trait of human nature that you cannot please everyone, everytime. That is why the novelists can continue to make money for as long as humans exist.

Sure, Moussaoui is a nut case, just like all those MFs. Is it better to kill only smart nuts?

Hey, by the way, 41 more Talibon were killed this weekend. Woohoo!

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | April 15, 2006 11:38 PM

when the truth is viewed as a ploy and a ploy is viewed as the truth...

that pisses me off.

this is propaganda:

"Keep in mind the divisiveness did not start on 9/11. The beginning was the "Stolen Election, Illegitimate Presidency" meme the Lefties tried . . ."

a response to information that che released into the media stream, that is actually fact...

I personally know two programmers that were asked to cull voters records to eliminate people from the rolls of eligible voters to reflect ciminal convictions, in certain districts in certain states...Ohio was one of them

they told the people that they were working for that the program wasn't perfect and would also eliminate some people that were eligible voters, they were told to proceed.......

this is illegal.

it is illegal to do voter culling "just before" an election, it is especially _illegal_ before a presidential election.

this mixed with the New Hampshire voting, phone fraud...

along with the early release of "skewed" exit poll information in Ohio that had Kerry ahead strongly....were orchestrated attempts to move the election in a direction to enhance bush's chances of getting reelected...

this and the fact that if you check any websites, newspapers or other daily or weekly publishing news reporting media devices

were _flooded_ with "war" stories, released from the Washington DC "news creating agency" the government that was in power........

not necessarily your government...

that was releasing newsfeeds, stories already prepared and on media "ready to be played" to the media...

which was playing or inserting the stories on the front pages, newscasts, webcasts

like good little citizens.....

that obliterated any mention of Kerry from occuring...

the "war" president was the title bush ran under........

the fact that it was an occupation, that the "war" was in fact a misnomer for coup of the United States by the Defense Department using their



to distract from the grass roots erosion of truth........

as they looted the treasury and made sure that the defense department was well funded into the

New American Century

or we live by and for the military, and we'll let you keep your monied interests if you give us the military...trade...

a favor for a favor...

I think we need to arrest some people.

I think we need to think about people and their agenda, when they release disinformation as if it were the truth...

who claim to be patriots, when in fact they are

disinformationists with a white supremacist viewpoint........



that serve a dark master.

Posted by: there is a dysfunction... | April 16, 2006 01:58 PM




is a chance to scream about a false



play tapes, get headlines.

he's nobody.

shoot him, drag him through the streets behind a taxi...

I don't care.

I imagine that you'd be surprised if he were to die...

and someone else ended up in the box that they buried...

but hey,

children will be children,

and children are easily led.

thanks so much for your kind attention,

and to all of my friends at the agency.

Do your effing jobs, you don't work for a president,

you work for your citizens.............

and you effing country, grow a spine...punks....


Posted by: again, I reiterate... | April 16, 2006 02:06 PM

that included


to elect your current president.

That is well documented.

The fact that he's still

_your president_

speaks volumes about the corruption of congress and the

various security agencies,

that are supposed to protect you

and our country.

I know the agency people are being held from acting either from



and most certainly from stupidity...

but aside from that, with appointed "leaders" in place at the CIA and FBI...

well you run quite a risk...

I'd call NSA, if I were you.


Posted by: the point is that there was an orchestrated effort... | April 16, 2006 02:13 PM

Jazzman provides a wonderful example of someone whose mind is still locked in the "Law Enforcement Mindset".

War doesn't exist.

Only "crimes".

"Crimes" are done by those we ideologically disagree with, in Jazzman's world. No surprise that he would think attacking the Pentagon a "crime", likely no surprise his kind consider FDR, Truman, and the Marines who took Fallujah also to be criminals for taking out enemy in cities.

Jazzman writes:

"So, are we safer killing someone whose crime is only "sorta near" the crimes of 11 September 2001? Kill someone because we can't get at the criminal minds behind the murders and destruction? That's how it seems, and that's how it's going to seem to everyone else in the world. We're sinking low, and that will give succor to the real 9/11 criminals."

There are in fact 2 approaches: We can consider spies and saboteurs (terrorists) as criminals, or as enemy. To my knowledge, no party in war has ever honored the other sides wishes to arrest spies and saboteurs that have completed their mission and returned safely. To the contrary, brass bands play and medals are awarded. We are also (justly so) exceptionally reluctant to hand our soldiers over to the other sides punishment system or the pretensions of the noble Euroweenie "detatched 3rd Party Justice" for what the enemy claims are "crimes" of bombing what they claim was a "Talibani Wedding Party" or killing a carload of civvies running a checkpoint.

We don't consider our own spies and saboteurs criminals, but source of inspiring books and Mata Hari, James Bond-type movies if they succeed and make it back. We don't generally consider the other sides agents "evil criminals", but tend to think of them as unusually courageous and committed combatants risking death and interrogation if caught. So do 3rd countries.

On the other hand, no one is surprised when a country protects it's citizens by bringing captured unlawful enemy combatants violating all rules of war to military justice and typically executes them per Geneva & Hague, or using soldiers to kill and defeat the rest of the attackers who reside in other lands.

What the rest of the world sees, BTW, is a ruthless ideological force that declared in 1996 and 1998 Fatwas that they declared war on the West, particularly America, for corrupting their culture, threatening their religion, propping up oppressive secularists in the Muslim world, occupying their soil, and favoring Zionist interests over a neutral approach. And those Fatwas explained that the citizen taxpayer that "hires" the Western government is also a necessary target, despite Geneva, and that the goal was to have "fearless Muhjahadeen combatants on Jihad" hit targets of state, military and economic value to bleed the affected economies of the West until they are forced to withdraw and leave the destiny of Islamic lands to the Islamic people only under a new Caliphate to replace the defeated Ottoman one.

Now, most of the rest of the world thinks a Caliphate under an Islamoid Cult of Head-choppers is a bad idea, but they don't consider the Islamoids criminals per se, more warriors who hit both military and civilian targets and cross into war crimes in their war to defeat the Infidel and subjugate the Infidel to Allah's Will. This is not generally desired, so 9/11's response by the US to send miliaty to fight and kill an enemy who committed war was understood and supported outside the obvious elements of radical ISlam and extreme Leftists here and abroad who see America as the world's greatest, most evil enemy.

Similar to the response after Japan attacked us. No one thought the Japanese criminal. Just obvious enemy that the US had a right to go after and kill remorselessly until the Nipponese fell.

We do make, pretty much globally, make a moral exception for terrorist groups that prey only on unarmed civilians because they are afraid to fight armed soldiers in legitimate combat...those terrorists that engage in pure, non-strategic terror of butchering helpless hostages or crowds just to delight in death. Which is where many Islamoids have clearly crossed over from wartime spying and sabotage to death cult Islam...That is why such people typically face swift military justice if defeated as war criminals.

And why Geneva spends to much time defining those who should be treated without POW protection (severely punished , even executed) to better spare civilians in wartime. Why Geneva and Hague guides military law in what is forbidden to target (dams, hospitals...new amendments propose adding civilian aircraft, nuke power plants, sport events) to preclude large numbers of civilian casualties. Why poison gas is banned. How rules of lethal military engagement are formulated and applied, what criteria define "excessive use of lethal force causing unacceptable colateral damage".

I have to say for all the time and attention the US public schools put into bad, bad Nazis and Japs being relocated in WWII and the "hopeless quagmire of Vietnam" - they turn out Americans on graduation completely ignorant of war, and the laws of war who lack the mental background to consider a soldier anything but a "criminal". Who lack the academic framework to distinguish between war crimes and ordinary civilian crimes, and what acts by insurrectionists and "terrorists" count as legitimate armed resistance and what crosses over into illegal acts punishable by death if caught. Such people without military knowledge then default to either whatever America's leaders claim military apps are, or form bizarre constructs where they think a Islamoid on Jihad caught with explosives is ideally suited for "justice" by a court set up by laws that do not get into military activities, by lawyers with no experience in or knowledge of war, in front of a civilian jury clueless on matters of war.

For example, our "vaunted lawyer-centric system" trying to decide if a British Muslim caught here with plans to 3 elementary schools in Virginia and distance to nearest police stations and MI-5 confirmed ties to Islamic Jihad and confirmed to have made scouting trips to Jewish-owned businesses in UK - in fact violated any "criminal law". By obtaining school plans and emergency plans in the public domain. His lawyer sensibly would say "no crime" in any US civilian law, let my client go. But under military law, the guy is almost certainly an unlawful enemy combatant scouting future targets.

Posted by: Chris Ford | April 16, 2006 02:46 PM


Clarify something for me: What is the difference between an unlawful combatant and a spy?

This description:

"For example, our "vaunted lawyer-centric system" trying to decide if a British Muslim caught here with plans to 3 elementary schools in Virginia and distance to nearest police stations and MI-5 confirmed ties to Islamic Jihad and confirmed to have made scouting trips to Jewish-owned businesses in UK - in fact violated any "criminal law". By obtaining school plans and emergency plans in the public domain. His lawyer sensibly would say "no crime" in any US civilian law, let my client go. But under military law, the guy is almost certainly an unlawful enemy combatant scouting future targets."

... strikes me as a description of a spy. BTW please see my late reply to your last post in the "Enigma in Orange" topic - I want to get your comments.

Posted by: DK | April 16, 2006 09:05 PM

DK - I read the Saudi editor's frustration. Guess he will be living in his USA digs since he crossed rulers and spoke out against the Islamic genocide in East Timor. I also gave you a brief resonse on the "Enigma in Orange" thread - though I've come to believe that Moussaoui is nothing more than one of the raving, raging Islamoids the Marines encountered in Fallujah that took not the expected 1-2, but normally took 4-5 high velocity rifle bullets to down. No enigma, just an Islamoid fanatic wishing to kill any infidel he can.

As for spies, they are a subset of unlawful enemy combatants,(which includes financiers, logistics, bomb-makers, false ID providers, harborers, lawyers - as well as the actual combat operatives who will do the direct infidel butchering.) and laws are generally written for those that spy on defense information or undertake economic espionage. You can't have any shot at a group of enemy Yemenis serving as scouts to get targeting data outside those areas - like obtaining detailed maps of DisneyWorld's utilities and ventilation systems to plan for more infidel deaths - doesn'y get covered because no financial gain or "defense-related" intel is sought by Islamoid scouts casing civilian targets.

Best you can do is put them under the Fed Gov'ts all-inclusive "conspiracy statutes". Or the dead sure military law covering prosecution just for being an unlawful enemy combatant...though "Enemy Liberties" advocates think that treating them like we treated the Nazis saboteurs will make destroy the US Constitution, make us Nazis ourselves, and breed thousands of new terrorists because they seeh and rage when we are not "nice" to enemy we catch plotting to kill us.

Go Google US Code if you get the time, DK, and see if you can find anything wrong with obtaining intelligence about security arrangements and floor plans of elementary schools and sending that to Pakistan. Other than conspiracy. The Patriot Act wanted to go after targeters using anonymous library resources and the internet to target industries emergency plans and the "worst possible accident" scenarios companies have to file - but we all know what happened when Enemy Rights Advocates found the US was thinking of violating the privacy rights of suspected terrorists....

And civilian sabotage statutes cover things related to defense establishments and war production. Not targeting a thing like the WTC.

You have to get into military law to cover all the acts of unlawful enemy combatants.

Like I said elsewhere, getting a bunch of civilian lawyers and a jury of civilians clueless about war together to decide if an enemy soldier operating outside all laws of war is a "civilian criminal" or not - is like allowing only military tribunals to prosecute people involved in corporate securities fraud or music copyright infringement.

Also keep in mind our civilian laws are intended to punish crimes committed. If by some miracle the FBI had "stopped" Atta & Co before they boarded planes, a feat I find highly unlikely given the "law enforcement after the crime is done and bodies photographed" approach the FBI had prior to 9/11 - what would have happened?

Atta and boys may have been able to say they planned on having flying skills so "pilots couln't fool them" as they peacefully landed at US airports and threatened to blow up planes as a publicity stunt - by threats of bombs they only pretended to have. Some may have suspected they had worse in mind, but it would have been hard to convict...the ACLU defense teams they got would have screamed about "projecting" box cutters were anything more than a tiny-bladed defense weapon meant to control unrulely passengers and keep the hijacking safe so "legitimate Muslim grievances" could have been aired at US airports for a world-wide audience.

In short, likely they would have just got a conspiracy to hijack conviction, with extenuating circumstances that it was a political protest planned, no actual hijacking occured, no person was actuall hurt in any way. Right about now, Atta would have been meeting with his lawyers discussing probation hearings, the likelihood he could be deported to Germany to continue his studies or sent into asylum in Sweden, the UK since deportation back to his native Egypt as a confirmed radical Islamoid would surely mean toooooorrrrttuuuure!! Or petitioning to remain in the US as a refugee fleeing persecution.

Posted by: Chris Ford | April 16, 2006 11:56 PM

look good...

by parodying good towelhead behaviour in order to legitimize the rape of our democracy by


Project for a New American Century.org

preemption is our business,

no matter what you want as a nation,

we're driving, you're not in control...

and the monied are along for the ride.


Posted by: the islamic jihadist efforts to make president bush | April 17, 2006 02:14 AM

CF - "but we all know what happened when Enemy Rights Advocates found the US was thinking of violating the privacy rights of suspected terrorists...."

An interesting point from your statement:

- Define SUSPECTED TERRORIST. If you are talking about someone that has been identified by an agent of the US Government without judicial review to ensure that they indeed meet the threshold of being a legitimate "suspect", then I would say that there is a problem. If we cannot find a way to ensure that domestic surveillance is limited to "true" suspects, then we might as well just allow surveillance on everyone. (I'm sorry, but W or Dick's word isn't good enough for me)

Good or bad?

Is someone a suspect if the call a phone number in database of "suspected" phone numbers?

What if someone calls a suspected country and talks to a family member who, unknown to them, is a "suspect"?

I believe that trying to over-simplify the problem causes more problems than it solves. What are we giving up for the sake of expediency? What happens when surveillance is abused, which is WILL be? If we then throw the baby out with the bath water, then we have nothing.

So, why not work out the complicated process now?

SF Maxim - Slow is fast.

Posted by: AfghanVet | April 17, 2006 11:11 AM


Good questions all. But ignore C.Ford, whoever he is (rumor is he's several folks who tag team). He just likes to throw out the racist/fascist stuff, but has never answered a direct question. Complicated is not his thing. Take care.

Posted by: james | April 17, 2006 03:08 PM

If we are to preserve who we are as a people and a nation the possible actions of a band of psycopaths should be considered irrelavant. The guiding principle on how we decide a suitable punishment for Mr. Moussaoui should be our own traditions, laws and consciences. Mr. Moussaoui has justly earned the death penalty. He willingly participated in a conspiracy that led to the deaths of 3000 people. He actively participted in actions designed to commit mass murder. The only mitagation in his favor is that his actions cannot be directly tied to anyone's death. If he had shown any contrition or regret for his actions then we should consider sentencing him to prison. As it is he openly maintains his allegiance to a group that committed mass murder and wishes to continue commiting mass murder. His own desires to seek martyrdom are as irrelavant as the the desires of those who lead him. The only motivation here should be our concept of justice. Mr. Moussaoui has justly earned the death penalty that awaits him.

Posted by: kchses | April 17, 2006 05:33 PM

Regarding Katrina, Chris Ford wrote:

"It was a disgrace in showing the world that a section of America was less intelligent, less competent, less civilized than the people in the 3rd world . . ."

I've been dealing with north/south bigotry since the 6th grade, when our Yankee geography teacher repeated, at least once a week, that northern people were more efficient and intelligent because of their "envigorating climate."

Southern stereotypes (as cast by superior others) come in many, and often subtle forms. But I now find, in my maturity, they are mainly a source of humor not sensitive grievance.

There is so much that can be expanded upon, but I will try to stick to the degraded image you depict for our "section of America."

First point, Katrina casualties mainly correlated with age. 80% of those who died were over 60 years of age. Now, one can reasonably presume that if you were elderly living in New Orleans, then your were not checking your Fidelity account each day. What human images of Katrina conveyed to me was ageism, then classism. If your were physically immobile, then you were discounted as not worth much effort to pick out and save. Local heroic efforts were the exception. If you were simply poor, then you were left to bake and thirst on elevated interstate highways, with full viewing of your agony broadcast about the world, but never relieved with as much as a simple bottle or water or a defense against thugs.

Second, believe it or not, these meek people are the true embodiment of human survival. I've always been impressed by statistics that show that black people simply don't commit suicide. They may suffer without means, and under constant insult, but, by God, they honor and respect life itself just because it is life. I praise those examples of resilence, and only hope to learn from them.

Third, blaming local government, however lame and corrupt and incapable it may be, is no argument. The moral zealouts may get some joy out of seeing sin city become awash, but that is not the core spirt of Americans. If any institution should focus on the business of anticipating big negative situations, in our grand over-reaching republic, it should be the federal government. They are the know-it-alls and spend-it-alls who should be attempting something ahead of the curve. Their response seemed to consist of abiding by the Iraq War formula for public expenditure, which was to find the largest corporate funnels with filters to pour out their monies. If you didn't happen to be standing below the narrow tip of the funnel at the right time, then screw you.

Posted by: On the plantation | April 17, 2006 06:00 PM

Sorry, Plantation, but the conduct of the people of New Orleans and their leadership was a national disgrace.

Society fell apart in ways we didn't see more civilized people in Kobe Japan, Phuket, Thailand, or the people of Mumbai India behave after similar scale disasters. Local leaders appeared incompetent. Flooded buses, missing cops, panicked statements. Swarms of unattached women and their bastard children just sat or ran their mouths off about others obligations to them. Then Louisiana leaders began demanding 250 billion, conveniently allocated to their family or cronies to dole out.

It was hard to stomach.

Americans in other disasters pulled together and looked good. But not this time.

Not the looting welfare parasites of New Orleans.
Not the leaders of New Orleans, nor their officials.
Not the graft-riddled leaders of Louisiana.

Hopefully the Fed government and Mexican workers can salvage something.

Blame the Fed Gov't for not being everything to all people after local and state failure compounded the core failure of New Orleans lower classes to act like civilized people of a modern nation should. Whatever you wish to choose to deflect from failures at home.

The Fed Gov't seemed to do better in other states in other hurricanes.

Why is that??

Posted by: Chris Ford | April 17, 2006 11:22 PM

Chris Ford asks:

"Why is that??"


As usual with catastrophic failings there are multiple factors. (1) Nature and geography were different from other hurricanes as there was sustained flooding in the N.O. basin. (2) The insularity of federal leaders was/is at a high, consisting of a weak, distracted, conflicted, uncomitted leadership. (3) Bleeding of ready resources, Treasury and manpower, due to the Iraq War. (4) A certain perversity in bureaucracies which childishly presumes that everything is easy if it is done by, assigned to, somebody else.

In short, a big gap in common sense and practical compassion; and perhaps even a political agenda that wanted to condition people to passively accept vistas of unrelieved destruction. The message clearly gotten was that if one lives in a rural or impoverished region, and something big and bad occurs, it's every person for themselves.

It's amazing that the federal government was in such a hurry to make surviving familes of 9/11 millionaires. If N.O. were located in Manhattan, the level of response and recovery efforts from the federal government would have been conducted quickly and on quite a different scale.

Posted by: On the plantation | April 18, 2006 08:05 AM

It amazes me how much this morally-bankrupt and credibility- challenged Bush administration is willing to hand-feed the American people this absolute rubbish that the clearly ridiculous and possibly insane Moussaoui character could ever truly represent a real threat to anyone other than himself. The extent to which, (at the taxpayers expense), his 'trial' keeps us entertained in the absurd comedic 'show trial' for our benefit only serves to underscore the inability of this nation to isolate, capture and put on trial the real terrorists of the world. Bush is getting more mileage out of Moussaoui than we are getting out of him. At the end of the day
we'll throw him in jail and he'll be forgotten. Whats funny to me is that the 'terrorist' organization Moussaoui claimed to represent didn't even know who he was. Like the idiot who tried to ignite his sneakers on the plane Bush will claim victory against 'terra-ists' and make a lot of noise about 'getting those guys'...
What did we 'get'? We got a half-baked clown with smelly feet...and a lunatic even the 'terra-ists' themselves didn't want anything to do with. Some victory.
We didn't get the big dog we were promised, not even the tail of the big dog...We only got fleas. Fleas from some other dog.

Posted by: PJ | April 27, 2006 06:07 PM

I agree with PJ. Bush is morally-bankrupt and credibility-challenged.

I place the blame for Bush on the press.

Somewhere along the way journalism ceased being the voice and conscience of a concerned people and gave him all he needed to run our nation into the ground, as he appears to have done with every venture he was ever involved with.

You guys in the press let us down, he intimidated you and your inability to or unwillingness to step up to the plate left us with this malignant and dreadful legacy of fear amd self-loathing. We didn't deserve Bush. Shame on you.

Posted by: Martin | April 27, 2006 06:22 PM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.


© 2006 The Washington Post Company