Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
>>>Others of us want the troops to stay so the sacrifices will not have been in vain.<<<
In defiance of of a massive amount of military expertise who keep telling you Iraq can't be fixed militarily. According to them you're asking soldiers to stay and fight a war they can't possibly win. Or more to the point........you're asking for more soldiers to die in vain so your political emotions can be satisfied.
"It's time for the U.S. to get out of Iraq -- because the insurgency cannot be defeated by the force of American arms. Who says so? Why, the U.S. military leaders on the ground in Iraq, who flat-out contradict Bush administration claims that the war against the insurgency is being won."
http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/06/no_military_sol.html
>>>I think the officer was correct, but I don't know why liberals would not be opposed to this kind of police entrapment.<<<
Entrapment??
"Undercover cop, Dave Karsnia, is sitting on the john in a bathroom stall looking for men using known signals asking for sex. Officer Karsnia writes in this police report, "I could see an older white male with gray hair outside my stall." That turned out to be Senator Craig. He said, "Senator Craig would look down at his hands, fidget with his fingers and look through the crack of my stall." He was able to see Craig's blue eyes as he looked into the stall. Then the officer says Craig entered the stall beside him and placed his roller bag against the front of the stall door. From the officer's seated position he could observe the senator's shoes and ankles. And then, according to the officer, Craig tapped his toes several times and moved his foot closer to the officer's. The officer says he moved his foot up and down slowly. He says the presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the officer's left foot, which was within his stall area. Then the officer writes, "I saw Craig swipe his hand under the stall divider for a few seconds. I was only able to see his fingers on my side of the stall divider. I could also see Craig had a gold ring on his ring finger as his hand was on the stall divider. I held my police identification down by the floor so that Senator Craig could see it," and Craig then supposedly said, "No" as the officer moved to arrest him. Craig showed the officer his business card and said, "What do you think about that?
Now, all of that was in the police report. This is the plea agreement Craig signed admitting to his guilt. There are five things Senator Craig admits to. One, it says he has reviewed the arrest report. Number two says he understands the charges. And number five says, I now make no claim that I am innocent of the charge. In other words, he's guilty and Craig clearly signed it. So, Wolf, either he admitted guilt to what happened in that rest room or he perjured himself."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0708/28/sitroom.03.html
>>>this pervert will resign and be charged, as the GOP does not defend such action.<<<
You got part of that right......sort of. You should have said: "The GOP does not defend such action once it becomes public". So long as it's an internal GOP affair they actually work pretty hard at defending it.
"WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 — Top House Republicans knew for months about e-mail traffic between Representative Mark Foley and a former teenage page, but kept the matter secret and allowed Mr. Foley to remain head of a Congressional caucus on children’s issues, Republican lawmakers said Saturday.
Among those who became aware earlier this year of the fall 2005 communications between Mr. Foley and the 16-year-old page, who worked for Representative Rodney Alexander, Republican of Louisiana, were Representative John A. Boehner, the majority leader, and Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Mr. Reynolds said in a statement Saturday that he had also personally raised the issue with Speaker J. Dennis Hastert.
“Despite the fact that I had not seen the e-mails in question, and Mr. Alexander told me that the parents didn’t want the matter pursued, I told the speaker of the conversation Mr. Alexander had with me,” Mr. Reynolds said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/washington/01foley.html?ei=5070&en=a6710d6a0495379c&ex=118...
>>>I am not the judge of George Bush's Christianity -- God is<<<
Maybe you misunderstood my question. You said:
"Arrogance is not a trait that a Christian should exhibit in his or her life"
So I ask........why then did the Christian Coalition pick as their new leader a man that has made arrogance his trademark? Maybe the Christian Coalition doesn't have a whole lot to do with true Christian values?
>>>No Bible believing Christian I know of ever even considered in his wildest dreams that George Bush would become the head of the American Christian Church<<<
I didn't say that. I said he was the leader of the Christian Coalition which thankfully is a different animal than the American Christian Church.
"Pat Robertson's resignation this month as president of the Christian Coalition confirmed the ascendance of a new leader of the religious right in America: George W. Bush.
For the first time since religious conservatives became a modern political movement, the president of the United States has become the movement's de facto leader -- a status even Ronald Reagan, though admired by religious conservatives, never earned.
"I think Robertson stepped down because the position has already been filled," said Gary Bauer, a religious conservative who challenged Bush in the Republican primary. Bush "is that leader right now.'
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1224-02.htm
>>>Arrogance is not a trait that a Christian should exhibit in his or her life.<<<
Having said that, do you feel that George Bush makes a good ambassador for Christians?
"It happened quietly, with barely a mention in the media. Only the Washington Post dutifully reported it.[1] And only Kevin Phillips saw its significance in his new book, American Dynasty.[2] On December 24, 2001, Pat Robertson resigned his position as President of the Christian Coalition.
Behind the scenes religious conservatives were abuzz with excitement. They believed Robertson had stepped down to allow the ascendance of the President of the United States of America to take his rightful place as the head of the true American Holy Christian Church.
Robertson’s act was symbolic, but it carried a secret and solemn revelation to the faithful. It was the signal that the Bush administration was a government under God that was led by an anointed President who would be the first regent in a dynasty of regents awaiting the return of Jesus to earth. The President would now be the minister through whom God would execute His will in the nation. George W. Bush accepted his scepter and his sword with humility, grace and a sense of exultation.
As Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court explained a few months later, the Bible teaches and Christians believe “… that government …derives its moral authority from God. Government is the ‘minister of God’ with powers to ‘revenge,’ to ‘execute wrath,’ including even wrath by the sword…”[3]
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm#_ednref1
>>>Waste your vote on him then.<<<
Didn't say a word about supporting him. What I said was:
1. All things considered, ruling Edwards out as a viable candidate may be premature. You cite lack of integrity as the deal breaker but if lack of integrity was disqualifying for presidential candidates, who'd still be in?
2. Your description of a man who's made a career out of ruining people's lives for personal gain is not supported by official records.
That's all. Other than that.......if you had read anything I've posted in the past you would know I dump on both parties. Maybe not equally since one party has evolved into a christian cult and deserves special dumping but dumping on both sides nonetheless.
>>>He is a snake oil salesman in a suit, a liar and a hypocrite<<<
Sounds like a fair description for any candidate from either party.
>>>He's in bed with big business<<<
All candidates are but few if any except Edwards have sued big business for hundreds of millions.
>>>(the kind that exploits people)<<<
Is there any other kind of big business?
>>>AND he is in bed with blood sucking, high powered attorneys.<<<
All candidates are in bed with blood sucking, high powered attorneys. The only difference is party affiliation.
>>>He makes his money by making other people suffer. He is a destroyer of other peoples wealth and the only way he can obtain it is through other peoples suffering.<<<
I read the full summary of his legal career and can't find anything to substantiate that. To the contrary, it looks like he's provided relief for suffering people making those responsible for the suffering share a pittance of their assets.
"Edwards' first notable case was a 1984 medical malpractice lawsuit. As a young associate, he got the assignment because it was considered a losing case; the firm had only accepted it as a favor to an attorney and state senator who did not want to keep it. Nevertheless, Edwards won a $3.7 million verdict on behalf of his client, who suffered permanent brain and nerve damage after a doctor prescribed a drug overdose of anti-alcoholism drug Antabuse during alcohol aversion therapy.[13] In other cases, Edwards sued the American Red Cross three times, alleging transmission of AIDS through tainted blood products, resulting in a confidential settlement each time, and defended a North Carolina newspaper against a libel charge.[12]
In 1985, Edwards tried a case involving medical malpractice during childbirth, representing a five-year-old child born with cerebral palsy whose doctor did not choose to perform an immediate Caesarian delivery when a fetal monitor showed she was in distress. Edwards won a $6.5 million settlement for his client, but five weeks later, the presiding judge sustained the verdict but overturned the award as being "excessive" and that it appeared "to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice," adding that in his opinion "the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict." He offered the plaintiffs half of the jury's settlement, but the child's family appealed the case and settled for $4.25 million.[12] Winning this case established the North Carolina precedent of physician and hospital liability for failing to determine if the patient understood risks of a particular procedure.[13]
After this trial, Edwards gained national attention as a plaintiff's lawyer. He filed at least 20 similar lawsuits in the years following and achieved verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million for his clients. His fee, as is customary in "contingency" cases, was one-third of the settlement plus expenses.
For their part in this case, Edwards and law partner David Kirby earned the Association of Trial Lawyers of America's national award for public service."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards
>>>The guy doesnt have a chance in Hell of becoming President.<<<
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Edwards leads in latest Iowa poll
"Democrat John Edwards is banking on Iowa to boost his nomination hopes -- as it did four years ago -- and a new poll out today gives him more hope that he might just be on the right track.
The former US senator from North Carolina led among likely Iowa caucus-goers surveyed with 30 percent, compared to 22 percent for Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, 18 percent for Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, and 13 percent for New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/08/edwards_leads_i.html
Unless you think Obama amounts to more than media circus material, people will be choosing between Hillary and Edwards and whoever will lead God's warriors once Bush signs off. How do you write off Edwards that easily considering the number of voters who consider either Hillary or any republican an impossible choice?
Powerful response eddy. Hard to argue with you when you're at your peak.
>>>Interesting that you chose to pimp the "72% of people won't be affected by the report" line. How about this line:??
"47 percent -- feel that the military is making progress in Iraq, "<<<
Just a matter of sorting the wheat from the chaff. The 70-72% figure is consistent. That's the crowd that's had enough and won't buy another used car from George Bush. 47% may have feelings about military progress but that progress amounts to what? It should amount to Maliki getting his house in order but it's not. Even Bush admits it which makes military progress a temporary victory that's meaningless in the big scheme of things.
>>>So, the meme has shifted from " the surge is a failure " to " well, what about the political situation. Dontcha think there MIGHT be a connection between the 2??????<<<
See above..
>>>Also funny how you discount members who were opposed to the war changing their tune after visiting there as a "dishonest political stunt"<<<
Wasn't referring to house members but to desperate Bush whores.
..."an advertising blitz from Bush supporters determined to remain on offense. A new pressure group, Freedom's Watch, will unveil a month-long, $15 million television, radio and grass-roots campaign today designed to shore up support for Bush's policies before the commander of US forces in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, lays out a White House assessment of the war's progress."
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=22305194
>>>Your myopia is comforting because I know I can always count on you taking the wrong side of every issue<<<
Ok, so let's compare score cards. I have spent the past 3 1/2 years calling Bush a tragic figure who'll end up being supported by less than 30% of the country while you've bit my ankles all the way from 90% to 28%.
I've also spent the past 3 1/2 years calling the Iraq war the biggest foreign policy fiasco in US history while you're still calling it a miracle waiting to happen.
Looks to me like you can't even be on the right side of recalling your own history.....complicating your argument.
I did read it. Doesn't change a thing. What you and the author of that story call a momentum shift is nothing but statistical noise and political spin in the face of massive public opposition. Trust me........you'll need a lot more than a dishonest political PR stunt to shift momentum that involves a pissed off 75% of the electorate.
Also.......the article is completely silent on the fact that everyone who reported military progress quickly added that such progress is meaningless as long as political chaos continues.
And then this just in:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- One of the Senate's top Republicans has called on President Bush to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq by Christmas, telling reporters Thursday that a pullout was needed to spur Iraqi leaders to action.
Sen. John Warner of Virginia, the influential former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he has recommended that Bush announce the beginning of a U.S. withdrawal in mid-September, after a report is released from the top U.S. officials in Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/23/warner.iraq/index.html
>>>Continue the war as authorized by congress that most voted for<<<
Wasn't there something in that war authorization that required him to exhaust all diplomatic efforts and to go to war only to protect the country from an imminent threat?
Momentum Shifting To GOP In Iraq Debate
????
"The poll indicates that most of America's mind is made up about the war -- 72 percent said the report will have no effect on their view of the war."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/16/poll.iraq.report/index.html
>>>I like Matthews. I think he's a fair journalist -- in an "unfair and unbalanced" journalistic world.<<<
He's pretty fair now but he suffers a lot from his behavior in years past. Too many viewers remember how he turned the Hardball studio into a republican convention 5 days a week leading up to the 2000 and 2004 election. Pretty disgusting to watch him sit there and brag about fairness and balance while breaking bread all week with GOP senators and strategists and crack up over old Clinton jokes. The Daily Kos crowd wouldn't tune him in if he was the last political show on TV.
"What's he going to talk about a year from now, the fact that the war went too well and it's over? I mean, don't these things sort of lose their--Isn't there a fresh date on some of these debate points?"
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, speaking about Howard Dean--4/9/03)
"We're all neo-cons now."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)
"We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 5/1/03)
"Why don't the damn Democrats give the president his day? He won today. He did well today."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2842
>>>Funny, NBC just can't find a spot for a conservative anywhere on their schedule, but yet another liberal like Olbermann, no problem.<<<
One of the most idiotic opinions seen here in a while. Olbermann is a liberal grain of sand in NBC's desert of conservatives. How do you not know this? MSNBC's current lineup of political hosts features fascist Tucker Carlson, former republican congressman Joe Scarborough and self proclaimed Bush supporter Chris Matthews.
Not even 3 against 1 is enough advantage for you cowards anymore?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/
The New Face Of Terror
Sunday, August 12, 2007; B04
Meet the New Face of Terror
By Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank
The last thing that seven Iraqi policemen at a checkpoint in Ramadi in late July saw was a woman approaching them. Seconds later, she detonated her explosives vest, killing herself and everybody else at the site. Just two weeks earlier in Pakistan, some would-be female suicide bombers were less successful in martyring themselves. When government forces stormed Islamabad's Red Mosque, several women were among the die-hards hoping to make a stand. "We wanted to carry out suicide attacks . . . but we didn't have sufficient explosives," one woman later regretfully told the BBC.
Surprised? Don't be. Female participation in jihadist groups and operations has grown alarmingly in recent years. And unless we come to terms with the phenomenon, female Islamist militants might be an important part of our future.
Islamic puritans used to uphold a strong taboo against women's active participation in the holy struggle. In al-Qaeda's training camps in Taliban-run Afghanistan, wives were kept segregated from men, and the women's primary role was to groom their sons to follow their fathers. Moreover, many al-Qaeda members are rabid misogynists; just recall the will of the lead 9/11 hijacker, Muhammad Atta, which insisted that no women attend his funeral or visit his grave.
But since September 2001, women have become increasingly involved in Islamist terrorism. The most important underlying factor behind this troubling new trend is the jihadists' deepening sense that they are engaged in a total war against the United States and the Muslim regimes it supports. Remember, Osama bin Laden used to be a relatively lonely voice, arguing that Islam was facing an existential struggle to defend itself from the aggressive United States.
But the U.S. occupation of Iraq has convinced a vastly larger circle of militants worldwide that bin Laden's paradigm is the best way of explaining their world. All's fair in total war, many jihadists have concluded, so al-Qaeda ideologues have dropped many of their objections to women playing a more active role in their struggle. Meanwhile, women from Pakistan to Iraq to Belgium have been galvanized by images of Muslims being victimized by U.S. forces (images shrewdly amplified by al-Qaeda's propaganda machine) and have felt drawn to fight -- even as suicide bombers.
The key here is the deeply held belief in the Islamic world that Muslim lands are under attack, which lets clerics bless extraordinary actions in the name of self-defense against a rapacious West. This concept was central to a 2003 fatwa by the influential Egyptian scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi that sanctioned female suicide bombings, arguing that "when the enemy assaults a given Muslim territory, it becomes incumbent upon all its residents to fight against them to the extent that a woman should go out even without the consent of her husband."
Meanwhile, al-Qaeda's ideologues have taken Qaradawi's logic one step further, issuing their own online injunctions urging women to martyr themselves on any front of the "global jihad." In particular, al-Qaeda's Saudi branch launched the al-Khansa Web forum in 2004, depicting an idealized Muslim woman holding "a wild machine gun which does not rest as long as her religion is humiliated and the land is taken."
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this new phenomenon is the use of female bombers. As a tactic, this makes good sense: Women are less likely to be searched at checkpoints or borders and can hide explosives under their Islamic dress. But above all, it is the shock value of such attacks that is attractive to the militants' leaders. After all, they are out to get the maximum publicity for each attack.
One particularly worrisome growth area here is the rising number of Muslim women brought up in the West who have participated in terrorist operations -- ironically, it seems, as a result of their greater expectations of gender equality in all spheres. Strikingly, al-Qaeda's second-ever female suicide bomber was Muriel Degauque, a 38-year-old Belgian convert to Islam who traveled to Iraq in late 2005 to conduct a suicide operation. (Degauque triggered her suicide vest as a U.S. patrol passed her in Baquba, north of Baghdad, in November 2005, killing herself but no U.S. soldiers.) Similarly, the wives of the members of the so-called Hofstad group, which has been linked to the assassination of the controversial Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam in 2004, engaged in target practice, and one female member of the group even accompanied her husband on an unsuccessful mission to kill the feminist parliamentarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali. And al-Qaeda's only alleged senior female operative is Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani American who studied neuroscience at MIT and worked in the United States before she disappeared in Pakistan in 2003.
Beyond Europe, some women have launched terrorist attacks simply to seek revenge, such as many of the so-called black widow suicide bombers in Chechnya and some female recruits to al-Qaeda in Iraq. Unlike bin Laden, who has been hesitant about calling for women to fight, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the late leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, explicitly sanctioned female suicide bombings. In September 2005, in the Iraqi town of Tall Afar, the Zarqawi network used a woman in a suicide attack for the first time. Two months later, Zarqawi launched an attack against three American hotels in Amman, Jordan, killing some 60 people. One of Zarqawi's bombers was Sajida al-Rishawi, an Iraqi woman who had seen three of her brothers die in Iraq. (She was captured by Jordanian authorities after her explosives belt failed to detonate.)
To date, Farhana Ali, a researcher at the Rand Corp., has documented about 10 female terrorist attacks in Iraq and adds that Web sites and forums suggest that many more women are fighting alongside the insurgents. Keen to bulk up his ranks quickly, Zarqawi calculated that using female operatives could shame men into volunteering for suicide missions, and his replacements seem to agree. By being willing to use women, al-Qaeda in Iraq instantly doubled its potential number of recruits.
Increasingly, that logic is winning over the broader world of Islamist militancy. Kashmiri terrorist groups, such as Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba, have given women more military tasks in the past few years, including suicide attacks. In Somalia, female suicide bombers have been deployed twice in the past year. Two women blew themselves up in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, in March 2004, one detonating her bomb in a toy store. And in May 2005, two veiled women drove up behind a tourist bus in central Cairo and fired shots into its back window before turning their guns on themselves.
Chilling as all this is, female suicide bombers still account for only a handful of the hundreds of suicide attacks conducted by radical Islamic groups each year. The main way that women have played a greater role in such operations is by taking on auxiliary functions -- running Web sites, managing a cell's finances, helping with logistics, even urging on their husbands a la Lady Macbeth. Last summer, for example, Cossor Ali, a young British woman of Pakistani descent, was charged with withholding knowledge of her husband Abdullah's involvement in a plot to blow up as many as 10 American airliners. Her case shows that women can play important support roles even as "stay-at-home" wives if they share their husbands' radical ideology. Or consider the work of former CIA officer Marc Sageman, who profiled about 400 male Islamist terrorists and found that 73 percent of them were married. Presumably, many of those wives support their spouses' line of work.
Malika el-Aroud is a case in point. She is the Belgian-Moroccan widow of the al-Qaeda operative who assassinated Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, just hours before 9/11. Aroud traveled to Switzerland after the U.S. invasion toppled the Taliban. Although she had played the traditional wife's role in Afghanistan, segregated from her husband's colleagues and unaware of her husband's impending mission, she took on a much more assertive role back in the West, visiting al-Qaeda prisoners in European jails and running a pro-al-Qaeda Web site. When one of us met with Aroud in her Swiss chalet last year, she did not disguise her violent views, which outlined -- for want of a better term -- a neofeminist militant jihadism. Because of the war in Iraq, she told us, "even us sisters should all rise up and go to the airports and clearly declare we are going to fight." Aroud was convicted last month of terrorism offences in Switzerland. But there are plenty more like her.
bergenpeter@aol.com cruickshank@juris.law.nyu.edu
Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank are fellows
at the New York University Center on Law and Security. Bergen is also a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of "The Osama bin Laden I Know."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/09/AR2007080900676.html
>>>Cheney, Bush and all PNAC members, media moguls and corrupt cronies....die a slow death you MF's<<<
Just curious........how do you feel about those who voted in favor of a second term for these bastards? Those who did cast their votes with full knowledge of the lies that led to the war and with full knowledge of how it was being fought since Abu Ghraib broke about 8 months before the election.
Remember this?
So here we are 3 1/2 years later and about half of those numb skulls have now figured out what the rest of the world already understood in 2004. As for the other half......how do you say it politely? An odd lot that's noisy, angry and socially challenged?
>>>You liberals on the other hand were for the war, against the war, didn't believe in a war, don't believe in any war, etc..<<<
BS. Everyone except forever pacifists and maybe som Ralph Nader types were onboard for the REAL w.o.t. Sane, informed citizens (those you call liberals) got off once the bogus Iraq mission was announced and as much as you have to hate it.......they were right and you were wrong and still are.
"More than 90 percent of persons surveyed in polls have regularly expressed approval of the insertion of ground troops into Afghanistan."
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-1542874_ITM
>>>what are you trying to say? The liberals/greens won't let us drill for oil in our own country. Where do you think we are going to get it?<<<
Wrong angle. Look where the oil is coming from: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.....
About the same amount from the Saudis and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. So why must the Saudi oil be secured by Bush romancing prince Abdullah while Venezuela's oil is secured by assassination plans for Chavez and GOP thugs screwing with Venezuela's elections?
You could point to geographics but if we manage to have military bases in Cuba without love fests with Castro, why can't we have military bases in Saudi Arabia without Bush crawling all over Saudi princes? Just asking.
>>>Do you have estimates on Saudi funding vs. Iran & Syria?<<<
Don't know that any such statistic exists. For starters you can look at the composition by nationality of the insurgency which is 45% Saudi, 15% Syria & Lebanon and Iran apparently too small a number to register. Each of these "soldiers" are recruited, funded and transported to Iraq by their respective country. Which means Saudi Arabia is the biggest sponsor of anti US forces in Iraq since they supply and fund three times as many insurgents as Syria and Lebanon combined and probably 10 times as many as Iran.
Last week when U.S. military spokesman Bergner declared Al Qaeda in Iraq the country's No. 1 threat, he released a profile of a thwarted suicide bomber, but said he had not received clearance to reveal his nationality. The bomber was a Saudi national, the senior military officer said Saturday.
The fighter, a young college graduate whose mother was a teacher and father a professor, had been recruited in a mosque to join Al Qaeda in Iraq. He was given money for a bus ticket and a phone number to call in Syria to contact a handler who would smuggle him into Iraq.
Askari also alleged that imams at Saudi mosques call for jihad, or holy war, against Iraq's Shiites and that the government had funded groups causing unrest in Iraq's largely Shiite south.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-saudi15jul15,0,3132262.story?page=1
>>>And even though officials are sensitive about the Saudis I don't believe it's because of anything sinister.<<<
Oh, absolutely not. Sinister......Bush/Cheney? I just can't even say it in the same sentence. Other than that, this may play a role too:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import....
Point was.......you crapped on Syria and Iran but didn't mention the Saudis at all even though they outnumber all other insurgent nationalities combined 2 to 1.
If you don't work for the Bush WH, you sure talk and act like one of them...
"U.S. officials remain sensitive about the relationship. Asked why U.S. officials in Iraq had not publicly criticized Saudi Arabia the way they had Iran or Syria, the senior military officer said, "Ask the State Department. This is a political juggernaut."
Last week when U.S. military spokesman Bergner declared Al Qaeda in Iraq the country's No. 1 threat, he released a profile of a thwarted suicide bomber, but said he had not received clearance to reveal his nationality. The bomber was a Saudi national, the senior military officer said Saturday.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-saudi15jul15,0,3132262.story?page=2
>>>And it is a fact that foriegn or not the insurgents are being funded by Syria and Iran.<<<
See........there it is again. Another Fox news/White House slogan that makes you look ignorant. Can't you stop yourself?
"Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia, according to a senior U.S. military officer and Iraqi lawmakers.
About 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia; 15% are from Syria and Lebanon; and 10% are from North Africa, according to official U.S. military figures made available to The Times by the senior officer. Nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis, he said.
Iraqi Shiite lawmaker Sami Askari, an advisor to Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, accused Saudi officials of a deliberate policy to sow chaos in Baghdad.
"The fact of the matter is that Saudi Arabia has strong intelligence resources, and it would be hard to think that they are not aware of what is going on," he said.
Askari also alleged that imams at Saudi mosques call for jihad, or holy war, against Iraq's Shiites and that the government had funded groups causing unrest in Iraq's largely Shiite south."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-saudi15jul15,0,3132262.story?coll=la-home-center
At least he's trying to fix it....right? With the iron fist the GW Bush legend is made of.....
>>>Very few of the insurgents are Iraqi.<<<
"While it is not known how many of those resisting the U.S. occupation in Iraq are from outside the country, it is generally agreed that foreign fighters make up a very small percentage of the Resistance. Major General Joseph Taluto, head of the 42nd Infantry Division, said that "99.9 per cent" of captured Resistance are Iraqi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency
See what happens when you only listen to those who tell you what you wanna hear? You end up looking ignorant.
>>>Again, I believe you are seriously misreading the polls.<<<
You can keep saying that but how do you read these numbers as anything other than a desire by at least 71% of americans to have most troops out of Iraq by April 2008?
More than seven in 10 favor removing nearly all U.S. troops from Iraq by April
So 71% don't want the troops out tomorrow but does it really sound like they wanted another vote in support of Bush's unconditional war funding? I submit that YOU are seriously misreading the political landscape here if you think the democrat's voted as they did "to avoid public scorn". They probably lost another 2-3% instead and the only reason they didn't lose more is that they're already down to friends, family and loose acquaintances for political support.
>>>I do not know what poll you get your number from or its methodology<<<
I gave you the link...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-09-bush-poll_N.htm
>>>What they did to avoid more scorn from the public was to vote in favor of the president's program a week or two ago.<<<
Don't follow your reasoning here. How did they avoid scorn from the public by siding with Bush on a war that more than 70% of the population want no more of?
More than seven in 10 favor removing nearly all U.S. troops from Iraq by April.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-09-bush-poll_N.htm
>>>I personally think that the dems decided they had better do something the public approved of or their chances in the next election were toast.<<<
And just what might that be? Haven't seen anything they've done that a majority of the public approves of. They keep talking about pulling out of Iraq which sours the right and then they fund the war unconditionally and piss off the left too.
>>>The democratic party is firmly in the control of the party's far left wing, and I believe that mindset is firmly rejected by the mainstream of America.<<<
Far anything is rejected by mainstream america. Left or right........doesn't matter. But how do you figure the far left wing is in control of the democrats just weeks after they gave Bush everything he wanted to continue a war almost 75% of the population disapprove of now? That figure probably approaches 95% among democratic voters who were completely ignored by their congressmen and senators. That's firm control by the far left?
>>>I agree that Bill Richardson is the most electable of the democratic nominees<<<
Depends on what most electable means. If it only means political positions.....maybe. If it means ability to convey those positions to voters and translate it all into votes........I don't think he'll ever get past 10%. He's a lousy speaker and he just plain lacks the energy to push him past the rockstars. I like him but why do I always feel like he'd rather be napping when he speaks in public?
You didn't answer the question......as usual. Simple question that goes to the core of what you squawk about here every day. Just do your best and say something...
If they have no country, what makes you think the war against them can be won in Iraq?
>>>don't you mean 'choose' gay lifestyle?<<<
Mary Cheney.....Dick's daughter, campaigned for her dad and the republican ticket in 2004 - as a lesbian.
Knowing full well she was targeting a political base that hate everything about gays and their lifestyles she decided that gay was the way to go to win the election. I can't figure this out but maybe you can...
Good questions. Many of which have been asked repeatedly by Bush critics on this bord. So maybe you can become the first Bush supporter here to understand that being critical of Bush doesn't equal love for terrorists and democrats? Totally impossible concept for all the others including a guy from Arkansas with an IQ of 140 (he measured it himself so we know it's a good number).
>>>The war is against radical, violent, islamic extremists that have no country.<<<
If they have no country, what makes you think the war against them can be won in Iraq?
You're so saturated with fear that logic and reason has no place in your thought process anymore. Just about every post you make here contain the words "radical, violent, islamic extremists". Some politicians like guys like you though. Not in a respectful kind of way but they like you because you're easy to exploit.
>>>In light of the first two paragraphs, why do you conclude that we need a military?<<<
I think she said......we need the military for smart, legitimate operations engineered by smart leaders. In contrast to using the military for stupid, illegitimate operations engineered by stupid leaders. I agree.
>>>Look at this Nosey guy now known as Razorbucks
and scared to even publish his age these days....<<<
He's scared of a lot of things.......including posters who ask questions about his ramblings. I ask him something every other day and never get a peep in return.
>>>If liberals wanted to win this war, they'd be united and we would stand and likely could have demoralized the enemy<<<
Support for the war in Iraq stands at around 28% now with 72% opposing it. 72% of americans are terrorist appeasing liberals in your opinion?
More than seven in 10 favor removing nearly all U.S. troops from Iraq by April.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-09-bush-poll_N.htm
Weekend quiz for friends of Bush. From his press conference Thursday. Any holes in this story or just another reason to admire his vision?
"I recognize there's a debate here in America as to whether or not failure in Iraq would cause there to be more danger here in America. I strongly believe that's the case. It matters if the United States does not believe in the universality of freedom. It matters to the security of people here at home if we don't work to change the conditions that cause 19 kids to be lured onto airplanes to come and murder our citizens."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070809-1.html
>>>The moral bankruptcy is widespread on your aisle.<<<
When you get a chance, check your own aisle and learn more about moral bankruptcy. You seem unaware but you have some of the best moral bankruptcy teachers in the industry..........hands down.
"Republican legislator Ted Klaudt was charged with raping girls under the age of 16.
Republican city councilman Joseph Monteleone Jr. was found guilty of fondling underage girls.
Republican congressional aide Jeffrey Nielsen was arrested for having sex with a 14-year old boy.
Republican County Commissioner Patrick Lee McGuire surrendered to police after allegedly molesting girls between the ages of 8 and 13.
Republican prosecutor Larry Corrigan was arrested for soliciting sex from 13-year old girls.
Republican Mayor Jeffrey Kyle Randall was sentenced to 275 days in jail for molesting two boys -- ages ten and 12 -- during a six-year period.
Republican County Board Candidate Brent Schepp was charged with molesting a 14-year old girl and killed himself three days later.
http://www.armchairsubversive.org/
Nicely summed up.......but who's held accountable?
>>>Hans Blix, knowing the importance of his words and being opposed to the invasion, nonetheless reported to the U.N. that Saddam was NOT in compliance<<<
Too bad the morons running the country read his report the same way you did. Every slightest suggestion of non-compliance was turned into a prime-time speech by Bush on why war was the only hope while one clue after another of a massive intelligence failure were ignored and kept from the public.
"HANS BLIX, Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), said that since UNMOVIC’s twelfth quarterly report had been finalized 10 days ago, a number of relevant events had taken place. Since 27 November 2002, when inspections in Iraq had resumed, relatively few difficulties had been faced relating to process, notably, prompt access to sites. That might well be due to the strong outside pressure. Some practical matters had been resolved at meetings in Baghdad. Initial difficulties raised by the Iraqi side about helicopters and aerial surveillance planes operating in the no-fly zones had been overcome. Inspectors were now able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance.
Intelligence authorities had claimed that weapons of mass destruction were moved around Iraq and that there were mobile production units for biological weapons. No evidence of proscribed activities had been found so far. Iraq was expected to assist in the development of credible ways to conduct random checks of ground transportation. Inspections are continuing in the area of Iraq’s programme for Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs). Inspection teams had examined building structures for any possible underground facilities and penetrating radar equipment had been used. No underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage had been found so far.
In conclusion, he said that, while cooperation could and was to be immediate, disarmament and its verification could not be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. That would not take years, or weeks, but months. In accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system were to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programme."
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7682.doc.htm
You think maybe Blix was opposed to the invasion because he had good reason to believe Iraq was not a threat? Like arch conservative Bob Novak?
"NOVAK: I said several times on this network that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
BLITZER: How did you know that and the President of the United States, Vice President of the United States were convinced that there were?
NOVAK: Because my sources. I don’t run my own CIA. My sources didn’t think there were — in the military, people I trusted. And the indication of the inspectors indicated there was no weapons."
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/23/novak-had-better-sources-than-bush-on-iraq/
>>>and George doesn't have a "Monica" problem.<<<
No he doesn't and I'm pretty sure you don't think he has any problems. In fact.......you've called him "brilliant" here on more than one occasion.