And Sketch, why does it follow that if our military and intelligence services know the AQ pecking order in Iraq, they MUST therefore also know the location of OBL?

Explain that or are you really a serious thinker. Quaker at least put forth his own original thought. Explain why.

“You leapt across a great chasm there. Your logic doesn’t follow. You say, in effect, if we are smart enough to have a good idea of the AQ pecking order in Iraq, why don’t we know where the overall head of AQ is. Why do those necessarily follow?”

We disagree, Dugger, that Quaker’s logic ‘doesn’t follow’.

I think your understanding, as you outlined it, is basic, simple and naive considering The Decider’s earlier ‘wanted dead or alive’ proclamation followed by clear lack of interest in OBL months later.

I think your loyalty and faith in The Decider stems from your military background/experience and its requirement that you are committed and loyal, ultimately, to your Commander in Chief.

I think The Decider could openly and clearly break the law and be innocent, in your eyes, as long as he delivered the message properly and in his “ya gots to believe me” way.

Last couple of times we did successful missile strikes, I heard some whining from some lefty quarters that there had been no trial.

Oliver Willis of course has proven since 2001 that he’s no weeny about dealing with terrorists.

It just smells like fish to me.

You leapt across a great chasm there. Your logic doesn’t follow. You say, in effect, if we are smart enough to have a good idea of the AQ pecking order in Iraq, why don’t we know where the overall head of AQ is. Why do those necessarily follow? My understanding is, and I think it perfectly logical, that OBL is ultra secretive about where he is - dealing through a series surrogates etc.

We won major combat operations in Iraq, controlled the turf, and still couldn’t find Saddam for quite a while when he nearby the whole time.

Feel free to have a stab at answering also, Sketch. Or are you just me-tooing from the sidelines?

OK, now it’s your turn to think.

We seem to capture “#2″ with such regularity that we must have some way of knowing who just got promoted. If our intelligence is that good, where’s bin Laden?

Think about that moment Quaker.
If we take out number two, then number three becomes the next number two. IE, there always a number two until there is only one left.

I can help with some of this stuff.

I’d rather see Osama catured, interogated, and put on trial for all the world to see. I want the world to know that we are the good guys—not murderers and cowards like our enemies, but a nation of laws.

THEN, we can throw him in the deepest, darkest solitary cell we can find and let him rot.

Lest not we forgot that violence only begets more violence.

Democrat strategy - Revenge.

That’s the exact opposite of truth. The Republicans loudly extoll revenge, until it gets around to actually administering it. Instead of killing one terrorist, the Republicans bomb a village of folks who have nothing to do with the terrorists in question, aside from having brown skin and facing Mecca to pray.

Democrat strategy - Revenge.

Why do you think the U.S public voted Republican 2004?

I don’t know if actually governing bores members of the Right or if they just suck at it, but I’m astonished out of the entire Right, no one has proven himself even adequate at governing.

How do YOU explain the improbable fact that “Number 2″ has been killed or captured so many times?

We’re really REALLY good at going up, but not all the way up, the food chain.

What’s this “we”? You finally sign up? Do you mean “we” Republicans? You don’t catch anyone.