Don't worry.
Be happy.

 

and just what do you think dems and libs are doing? Fairness doctrine? have you heard about it? Are you telling people that dem presidents don't advocate standing behind the leaders at all cost? yes they do! there are these things called history books...go get one

 

If its to thier benefit to align with the West they will. How much could Iraq make from foreign investment in oil? A lot. Western nations have the economic means and expertise to benefit them greatly. We also have the military strength and as has been shown many times in the past the willingness to come to the aid of our allies when needed. The Iraqis are not stupid, they just need to see that they have a much better alternative to what they have known. Once they can speak their minds without the fear of some fanatic piece of **** killing them for it they are gonna realize that they dont have to bend to the will of some nut job cleric who only spews hatred.

 

You sound like a broken record. You don't know where I get my information. I form my own opinions based on what I here from 'all' sides. Conservatism has it's ugly side as well as Liberalism; but, currently, it's Libs that are the cause of many of the domestic problems we have today and are the biggest source of political opposition against the war. I feel it's politically based and would not be there if a Democrat had been in the White House.

Election time is coming up; and, there are a lot of politicians, on both sides, that are bending to liberal affected public opinion in hopes of being re-elected in 2 years.

 

The Muslim extremists are different from the *****, and the communists in two ways:
1)They don't have a traditional brute force millitary to wield in their attempt to dominate the world, but they do have significant (and growing)numbers of people on the ground in almost every nation.

2)They have a very long range goal, which is designed to outlive any and all of its leaders, which is in contrast to the impatient nature of previous imperialists, who needed to achieve their goals before dying or being dethroned.

The sad news is that their strength is greater than previous would be occupiers of our country, and our stomach for war is at its weakest. Their reasons for their actions have not been in keeping with their claims that our foreign policies are to blaim, but rather are in keeping with their tradition of starting civil wars, and creating "Muslim states" in every nation where they have a presence. This tactic is millitarily brilliant, and unbelievably patient. Either we will man up, and take the fight to them, or we will never know peace on our soil. Moreover, it is almost inevitable that we won't see nuclear attacks on our nation. Perhaps then we will be willing to do whatever is necessary to protect our country.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country#Top_sixty


Go on talking about how we just need to kick A$$.

Time will prove your ignorance.

 

Nah, we'll just sit back and let them bomb us. Here's your sign...

 

A.P. Today-- WASHINGTON -

A smorgasbord of Washington insider details has emerged during the perjury trial of the vice president's former chief of staff. No one served up spicier morsels than Cheney's former top press assistant. Cathie Martin described the craft of media manipulation — under oath and in blunter terms than politicians like to hear in public.

The uses of leaks and exclusives. When to let one's name be used and when to hide in anonymity. Which news medium was seen as more susceptible to control and what timing was most propitious. All candidly described. Even the rating of certain journalists as friends to favor and critics to shun — a faint echo of the enemies list drawn up in Richard Nixon's White House more than 30 years ago.

The trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby owes its very existence to a news leak, the public disclosure four summers ago of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity.

A private brainstorm of Plame's in 2002 brought a rain of public attacks on Cheney the following year. Cheney was accused of suppressing intelligence and allowing President Bush to present false information about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Plame's husband, ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson, started the attack. Her unit at the CIA had sent him to Niger in 2002 to check a report Iraq was buying uranium for nuclear weapons. Cheney and the departments of State and Defense wanted to verify that.

Wilson thought he had debunked the report, but Bush mentioned it anyway in his State of the Union address in 2003. The story helped justify war with Iraq.

Wilson claimed Cheney's questions prompted his trip and Cheney should have received his report long before Bush spoke.

Wilson's charges first surfaced, attributed to an unnamed ex-ambassador, in Nicholas Kristof's New York Times column. But Martin testified she felt no urgency to set him straight because Kristof "attacked us, our administration fairly regularly."

But by July 6, 2003, Wilson wrote his own account in the Times and appeared on "Meet the Press" on NBC. After that much exposure, Cheney, Libby and Martin spent the next week trying get out word that Cheney did not know Wilson, did not ask for the mission to Niger, never got Wilson's report and only learned about the trip from news stories in 2003. Cheney personally dictated these points to Martin. She e-mailed them to the White House press secretary for relay to reporters.

When the story did not die, Martin found herself in a bind because Cheney's office was known for disclosing so little. "Often the press stopped calling our office," Martin testified. "At this point, they weren't calling me asking me for comment."

So she had to call National Security Council and CIA press officers to learn which reporters were still working on stories.

Once Martin got names, Cheney ordered his right-hand man, Libby, rather than lowly press officers, to call — a signal of the topic's importance.

Top levels of the Bush administration decided that CIA Director George Tenet would issue a statement taking the blame for allowing Bush to mention the Niger story. Cheney and Libby worried Tenet would not go far enough to distance the vice president from the affair.

Libby asked Martin to map a media strategy in case Tenet fell short.

A Harvard law school graduate, Martin had succeeded legendary Republican operative Mary Matalin as Cheney's political and public affairs assistant. Matalin had brought Martin to Cheney's office as her deputy and trained her.
Martin offered these options in order:
_Put Cheney on "Meet the Press."
_Leak an exclusive version to a selected reporter or the weekly news magazines.
_Have national security adviser Condoleezza Rice or Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld hold a news conference.
_Persuade a third party or columnist to write an opinion piece that would appear in newspapers on the page opposite the editorials.

Not only did Tenet leave unanswered questions about Cheney, his remarks came out late on a Friday, the government's favorite moment to deliver bad news. Why? "Fewer people pay attention to it later on Friday," Martin testified. "And in our view, fewer people are paying attention on Saturday, when it's reported."

As Martin rated their options, putting Cheney on "Meet the Press," NBC's Sunday morning talk show, "is our best format." Cheney was their best person for the show and "we control the message a little bit more," according to Martin.

Next they could give an exclusive or leak to one reporter and she considered David Sanger of The New York Times, Walter Pincus of The Washington Post, or Time or Newsweek.

Plus an official can demand anonymity in return for the favor. "You can give it to them as a senior administration official," she said. "You don't have to say this is coming directly from the White House."

 

Just answer this, would you rather take the fight to them in their backyard or wait for them to bring it to yours?

 

But is it the right back yard? The terrosts came from Saudi Arabia. The terrorists could come today from a number of countries----why don't we just attck them all? Hey,there's Syria, there's Jordan, there's Iran, there's Saudi Arabia, theres...I think this war was contrived.

Let's face it; Colin Powell was set up, along with others. W was going to war, no matter what.

 

I meant that would you rather fight them in the ME or in NA?

 

I see now. How 'bout we do the same to them? Instead of fighting a "traditonal war" against one specific country, let's assassinate them (the terrorists) ---sniper them, knife them, IED them---in short, terrorize them.

TSC

 

All those countries have Iraq bordered; but, we're supposed to accept that Iraq had no terrorist ties and it's neighbors are who we should be dealing with.

Where better to start than in the middle? Ever heard of divide and conquer? I know that's a simplistic way of describing the strategy; but, hey, look who I'm trying to explain it to. Lybia got so scared, that they simultaneously admitted to having, and then gave up their nuclear weapons program.

 

Actually, your second point is wrong. I had a professor who got a VERY special invite from the department of defense along with I believe only 54 others to travel to the middle east with the DOD. She was given a tour, infos, and other fun stuff.

they also taught them about the ISlamic extremists, and something they called the khalaphat) (sp? im sure im way off)that was literally a worldwide plan including detailed plans, time lines, and maps showing how Islam would eliminate ALL others within 100 years. IT is supposedly on the internet as well.

We can't afford to sit back and repeat WWII again....

 

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.


Guys why don't you agree to disagree and move on.

Besides I've already told you guys that you are all both right and wrong.

Sheesh...