Can the War on Terror Be Won?

Less than 12 hours after the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush proclaimed the start of a global war on terror. Ever since, there has been a vigorous debate about how to win it. Bush and his supporters stress the need to go on the offensive against terrorists, deploy U.S. military force, promote democracy in the Middle East, and give the commander in chief expansive wartime powers. His critics either challenge the very notion of a "war on terror" or focus on the need to fight it differently. Most leading Democrats accept the need to use force in some cases but argue that success will come through reestablishing the United States' moral authority and ideological appeal, conducting more and smarter diplomacy, and intensifying cooperation with key allies. They argue that Bush's approach to the war on terror has created more terrorists than it has eliminated -- and that it will continue to do so unless the United States radically changes course.

Almost entirely missing from this debate is a concept of what "victory" in the war on terror would actually look like. The traditional notion of winning a war is fairly clear: defeating an enemy on the battlefield and forcing it to accept political terms. But what does victory -- or defeat -- mean in a war on terror? Will this kind of war ever end? How long will it take? Would we see victory coming? Would we recognize it when it came? Continue to read Philip Gordon of the Brookings Institute, @ Foreign Affairs

Innocent man shares his 20-year struggle behind bars

Williams' troubling story provokes discomfort in a nation that prides itself on a justice system where the accused are innocent until proven guilty. So far, DNA evidence has directly exonerated 208 wrongly convicted people in the United States, according to the Innocence Project. It's unknown how many prisoners now locked up in American jails could be freed by new testing of DNA evidence.
Because the science behind each person's unique DNA signature was new to police in 1985, the key evidence that sealed Williams' fate was the testimony of three eyewitnesses who mistakenly said they recognized him.
"Mistaken eyewitness identification has long been the single biggest factor in the conviction of innocents," said Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project.
"That has got to be important to everybody, because if we can reform identification procedures, it will keep more innocent people out of jail and convict criminals who really commit the crimes."
Back in Georgia, during the ten months since Williams' friends and family welcomed him home with hugs and kisses, he's been taking his time rejoining society, attending electronics classes and dealing with his top complaint: 21st century traffic.
Williams has found a home in a church congregation and plans to join its choir, holding on to the spiritual anchor he formed in prison.
Money is tight for Williams, and, according to the Innocence Project, only 45 percent of those exonerated by DNA evidence have been financially compensated. He expects some compensation from Georgia, although the state has no law guiding such cases.
Regaining his freedom has renewed Williams' belief in the power of prayer, but he said it has done little to repair his faith in the nation's justice system. He wonders how many other Americans are still suffering injustices like his own. Read entire story @ CNN News

Obama-Gore '08 Ticket

From Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic Monthly,

Let the speculation begin. I think Gore realizes that Obama is the only candidate who can break out of the brutal, polarizing, calculating, post-Vietnam syndrome and actually talk to all the country in clear ways about what practically we need to do at home and in the world. Gore would instantly erase the inexperience question over Obama; Obama would instantly erase the stylistic drawbacks of the Gore persona. The three big issues for me in this election are the war, the Constitution, and the environment. A Gore-Obama combo would be extremely hard to beat if those are your concerns.

Gore, moreover, knows what the Clintons would take us back to perhaps better than anyone else. He knows the paranoia of their operation, the Cheney-like secrecy they crave, the pathologies within our political culture they would instantly reignite, the danger that they will breathe new life into a hopefully dying Christianist movement. But the Clinton machine is in full throttle. If Gore wants to help provide an alternative, he needs to intervene before Iowa. He needs to endorse Obama. For the sake of his country.

ABC News Sunlen Miller Reports: How Does an Obama-Gore Ticket Sound? Don't Hold Your Breath. "I can promise you that as president I will have him involved in our administration in a very senior capacity in his role," Obama responded that, "having won the Nobel peace prize and an Oscar that being Vice President again would be probably a step down for him." Read on @ ABCNews