News-Record.com

Funny how the press refuses to cover something, then claims it must not be happening, because if it was it would be reported in the press.
Those that think we've somehow "forgotten" about bin Laden haven't a clue.
Just because the government doesn't scream it's secret military operations from the rooftops doesn't mean that they aren't being undertaken.
There's a helluva lot of Special Forces soldiers down at Ft. Bragg that would take exception to Mr. Wickham's biased and uninformed hypothesis. They serve mostly in Afghanistan prosecuting the war there on many fronts, most of which are currently ignored by the press.
Do not, I repeat, do not judge anything having to do with the war in Iraq or Afghanistan by what's reported in the press.

Mr. Appel,
First you must remember that liberals never let facts get in the way of their version of the truth. I think that Clinton had BL handed to him on a plate! 9/11 may not have happen if he had taken BL.I have a question for Mr. Johnson, your paper and lte have many times bashed Bush saying he lied over WMD. Then why did Bush send 150,000 people to Iraq to prove him wrong?????

Today's story, "Senior al-Qaida member killed," indicates that the top terrorists haven't been forgotten.

I'd guess that an "all-out effort" of a sort is being made to capture or kill bin Laden. Obviously, we can't send 150,000 U.S. troops into Pakistan looking for one man, but clearly bin Laden is under enough pressure that he can't safely venture out of his cave.

Allen,

Though I disagree with Bush on how he's conducted the war, I am impressed that he has a big picture outlook on the entire scope of things and realizes that we must not only go after the little rats such as Bin Laden, but also send a message to the big ones that the potential terrorist behavior against us nor the support of it will be tolerated.

I believe our next target needs to be Iran and Syria. Israel has already postured that the ability to manufacture WMD's (nuclear weapons) in Iran will not be tolerated by them. I love those Israelis and their guts. I only hope that our country will not give in to those naysayers whose knees are wobbly at this time, and will continue to pursue this matter of ridding the world of terrorists who desire to kill us and destroy our way of life.

W 43 is completing what W 41 and Colin Powell should have done in 1991 in Iraq and what Clinton should have done in Somalia when we lost 18 troops and Slick Willy tucked tail and ran. Bin Laden capitalized on this putative American weakness and launched the 2001 attacks against us under the assumption that we would not retaliate. How little did he underestimate our resolve.

Jon,
If you can belive the news, Iran is there.
Mr. Johnson is good a making rash statements, appears he not very good at answering question.

Doug,

Just as we have the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 and T Roosevelt's corollary to this doctrine in the early 1900s, we now have the Bush Doctrine of 2001. This doctrine, though not officialy acknowledged, tells the world that the US will preemptively deal with any threats to our national security preventing them from the possibilities of occurring, be it in a military fashion or otherwise.

Unless we act against the likes of Iran (hopefully bilaterally, but if necessary, unilaterally), as a result of it's capabilities of producing nuclear weapons, in a military fashion it's only a matter of time before we'll being experiencing a nuclear attack on our country, not from Russia, China, but from terrorist organizations given access to this terrible weapon of war.

This is the big picture view that I strongly give credit to Bush and his administration that fully understands this threat. Drawing a line in the sand and saying "don't cross it" (like Albright and her ilk in Clinton's administration always employed) just doesn't impress these terrorists and Bush gets it.

I don't agree with this administration on most things, but this one area I say, thank you Mr. President for holding the course.

I've always been impressed that in a matter of 3 months, our troops in Afganistan conquer a nation that the Soviets were unable to accomplish in a decade of war.

We've won in Iraq, pure and simple, provided we resolve to see this to the end. As there were insurgencies against our troops in Germany after WW2, so we find ourselves on the defensive against a small and determined force.

Why doesn't the Iraqi people help to "snuff out the insurgency?"

I believe the Iraqi people are assisting in a vital capacity, but at the same time are apprehensive about the victor's (us) resolve to complete the mission and hold firm. When they are constantly bombarded by our press' bemoaning of the war and certain US politician's cry to withdraw, causes them to pause and consider the ramifications of the possibility of us pulling out before the job is completed.

Jon:
I agree that we ought to finish what we've begun but I also believe our strategy and priorities remain flawed.
If there actually had been a well-thought-out plan for post-invasion Iraq, it's likely that many of the current problems would not be as widespread and as serious.
Also, if the U.S. had desployed more troops in the beginning to seal Iraq's porous borders, some chaos and bloodshed could have been avoided.
For the present and the not-so-distant future, the idea that fewer U.S. troops might mean greater peace in the long run also merits discussion.
They are the targets, the symbolic magnet that draws terrorist attacks.
The people of Iraq need to assume greater ownership of their security, sooner rather than later.