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.
>>>You cheer American deaths. You cheer Iraqi civilian deaths........you are in league with the terrorists<<<
Isn't that rollingrock's line? Or razorback's? Either way.....you stole it and if you have to steal lines like that you don't have much do you? So debating you is obviously a waste of time but I still have to ask: If I really cheer american and Iraqi civilian deaths, then why have I spent the past 4 1/2 years on this board pissing on George Bush and his idiotic war? If I want more American and Iraqi civilian deaths wouldn't I be more like you.........rooting for more troops to stay longer? By your definition, it's a guaranteed 100 cheers/month for dead US soldiers and who knows what the number is for civilian Iraqis.
Just to be clear.......that's what YOU support. Me....I didn't want them in Iraq in the first place so I'm 3,700 American lives ahead of you in this discussion. So you know....
>>>but you do have contempt for the mission don't you?<<<
What part of this is hard to understand?
The opposing side recognize the threat but disagree with the tactic of invasion and mass murder
>>>The road to victory in the GWOT is the destruction of regimes that aid and abet Islamofacists,<<<
Like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?
>>>explain to me how it is different from the old McDonald's signs proclaiming how many hamburgers they had sold?<<<
By that definition, anyone who reports troop deaths in Iraq is a terrorist cheerleader, including Fox news.
5 U.S. Soldiers Dead, 3 Missing After Attack in Iraq's 'Triangle of Death'
More than 3,380 members of the U.S. military have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271754,00.html
There's also a difference in bragging about how many hamburgers you've sold and reminding people that americans are dying in large numbers fighting a war many republicans now admit is a lost cause.
So now you've identified yourself as someone who can't tell the difference between fast food statistics and war casualties but also someone who care deeply about the troops. Nice presentation.
Get a grip would you. Pointing out that troops are still dying at a steady pace is not cheering, especially not when the couch warriors here keep talking about how incredibly well the surge is working. In fact, one could argue that war proponents like yourself are cheering on the enemy in their own way by insisting US troops stay put in a no-win situation, providing terrorists in Iraq with what they want the most: Human, US targets.
>>>we are in danger of losing this war because we are not united in realizing the danger we are in<<<
One of the few things I can agree with Bush on is that the w.o.t. is not a conventional war. It's essentially a war against gang activity. No ordinary gangs to be sure but same principle where organized groups with criminal intent mix and mingle with law abiding citizens. And therein lies the problem with unification imo.
Your side believe the road to victory is paved with dead muslims and successful invasions of muslim countries. The opposing side recognize the threat but disagree with the tactic of invasion and mass murder in order to root out a tiny fraction of the muslim population.
Doesn't seem like an overly complicated distinction but you keep having problems with it, mistaking criticism of the overall strategy as contempt for the mission.
>>>raising to at least 19 the number of American troop deaths in the first week of August.<<<
That number didn't last long.
26 U.S. Troops Killed In 1 Week In Iraq
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/07/iraq/main3140063.shtml
Looks like you're trying to engineer your own little comfort corner here by making criticism of Bush's war impossible. First you limit "reliable sources" to The Weekly Standard and the WSJ and now you've gone a step further and call print media lies and distortion unless it's a transcript.
Just so happens though that I have a transcript here.........a Fox news production no less.
GINGRICH: Now, you look at the ruthlessness, the aggressiveness, the energy that we put into that war, and here we are 5.5 years after 9/11, and the fact is I would argue we're losing the war around the world with Islamist extremists and they are, in fact, gaining ground.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,277454,00.html
Phony transcript?
>>>got it -- Newt means WIN THE GWOT beginning with Iraq<<<
Sorry......you got it exactly backwards. He says Bush's version of the GWOT is phony and it's being LOST because of Iraq:
Washington - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday the Bush administration is waging a "phony war" on terrorism, warning that the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept. 11, 2001.
A more effective approach, said Gingrich, would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil and some of the regimes that petro-dollars support.
"None of you should believe we are winning this war. There is no evidence that we are winning this war," the ex-Georgian told a group of about 300 students attending a conference for collegiate conservatives.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/08/03/newt0803.html
Already told you. I think he means the w.o.t. is phony because we're told Iraq is the epicenter of it as if we'll be safer once some kind of military victory is declared there.
I also think he means it's phony because Bush has grossly misrepresented the complexity of the war by doing his flight jacket photo ops. at military bases once a month for almost 4 years now, saying the exact same thing each time.
Ask the average american how the war on terror will be won and they'll tell you it will be won by our marines hunting down the evildoers one by one and bringing them to justice.
Still not clear on what Newt means about phony?
>>>I will put you in the "A" camp<<<
Hmm......aren't you trying to pound square blocks into round holes now? I referred to "the real w.o.t." which is plain english for a war that's both real and necessary. Just not in Iraq. So what's the problem hap?
Your take on the A camp's view:
A - the war on terror is a phony war as in "not necessary"
>>>what do you think "phony" means ??<<<
What do you think it means? I think it means that he's an honest enough republican to admit that calling Iraq the central front on the w.o.t. is phony since it's got little or nothing to do with the real w.o.t. I'm sure you agree completely with that.
New Yorker: "CIA tortures prisoners"
New Yorker: CIA Tactics Amount To Torture
Aug. 5, 2007
(CBS) The Central Intelligence Agency used "enhanced interrogation techniques" synonymous with torture while interrogating September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, according to a New Yorker article that appears on newsstands Monday.
After Mohammed's capture in Pakistan in 2003, the CIA detained him at one of several secret overseas prisons, known as "black sites," and subjected him to unusually harsh treatment, according to the article.
It was under these interrogation methods that Mohammed confessed to 31 criminal plots, including the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was captured in 2002 in Pakistan and beheaded, Jane Mayer reports in the New Yorker.
Mohammed's interrogation was part of a fine-tuned CIA protocol of psychological coercion against al Qaeda figures, according to sources familiar with an International Red Cross report, Mayer writes.
"The Red Cross went in and got to interview these people for the first time," said Mayer on the CBS Evening News. "What these people described was hanging from the ceilings by their arms and being water-boarded, partially drowned, put on leashes and knocked into walls and basically deprived of all kinds of sensory imagery for years."
At a hearing in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Mohammed said his testimony was freely given, Mayer adds, but he also said that he had been abused by the CIA.
"He was certainly coerced," Mayer told Russ Mitchell on Sunday. "These were certainly very coercive techniques. The problem with them is that you can't really tell what's reliable, what's the truth, what's not after somebody has been through these things."
Mayer's article further described the CIA program of physical and psychological abuse as completely regimented and deliberate.
"There have always been mistakes made in the past when prisoners have been abused in wars," Mayer told Mitchell. "But this is the first time it's been done on purpose."
The program was suspended last fall, following a Supreme Court ruling, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which ruled that all U.S. detainees must be treated in a manner consisted with the Geneva Conventions.
In an E-mail to CBS News the CIA responded that the article "recycles old allegations" and concluded by saying "the United States does not conduct or condone torture."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/05/eveningnews/main3135427.shtml
Dianne Feinstein accommodating Bush again. Somehow this "extreme San Francisco liberal" as fox news likes to call her flies under the radar of her own constituents. Absolutely amazing how she got reelected out there considering her positions and her votes lately.
Feinstein supported the Iraq war resolution in the vote of October 11, 2002; she has claimed that she was misled by President Bush on the reasons for going to war. However, former UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter has stated that Feinstein in summer 2002 acknowledged to him that the Bush administration had not provided any convincing intelligence to back up its claims about the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction.
In May 2007, Feinstein voted for an Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill which continued to fund the Iraq occupation without firm timetables for withdrawal.
Senator Feinstein was the original Democratic cosponsor of a bill to extend the USA PATRIOT Act. In a December 2005 statement, Senator Feinstein stated, "I believe the Patriot Act is vital to the protection of the American people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein
>>>The dems are in an untenable position- military success means they fail<<<
Don't know about you but failure for the dems is ok with me. They've worked hard trying to earn failure fair & square. So if you don't mind........how is military success/Reid & Pelosi failure defined these days? What will have to happen in Iraq to call it a military success?
Taps run dry in Baghdad
Taps run dry in Baghdad heat
Electric grid can't power purification and pump stations
By Steven R. Hurst
Associated Press
BAGHDAD — Ahmed Aidan sells bottled water from his small grocery in a west Baghdad neighborhood, and he's lucky he does.
Ibtisam Hashem, 12, carries water to her family's home in Baghdad, Iraq, on Thursday.
Karim Kadim, Associated Press
The capital is suffering through a water shortage, linked to the crippled electric grid that doesn't deliver sufficient power to run purification plants and pumping stations.
"The situation is desperate. We've been getting tap water only one hour a day for a week now," Aidan said. "We've gotten only one hour of electricity a day for the past four days. And the water we get during the night is muddy and undrinkable."
Vast sections of the Iraqi capital had been without running water for 24 hours Thursday night, compounding the urban misery in a war zone amid the blistering heat at the height of the Baghdad summer. Residents and city officials said large sections in the west of the capital had been virtually dry for six days.
Baghdad routinely suffers from periodic water outages, but residents described the current bout as one of the most extended and widespread in recent memory. The problem highlights the larger difficulties in a capital beset by violence, crumbling infrastructure, rampant crime and too little electricity to keep cool in the sweltering weather more than four years after the U.S.-led invasion.
Jamil Hussein, a 52-year-old retired army officer who lives in northeast Baghdad, said his house has been without water for two weeks, except for two hours at night. He says the water that does flow smells and is unclean.
Two of his children have severe diarrhea that the doctor attributed to drinking what tap water was available, even after it was boiled.
"We'll have to continue drinking it, because we don't have money to buy bottled water," he said.
Adel al-Ardawi, a spokesman for the Baghdad city government, said that even with sufficient electricity "it would take 24 hours for the water mains to refill so we can begin pumping to residents. And even then the water won't be clean for a time. We just don't have the electricity or fuel for our generators to keep the system flowing."
Noah Miller, spokesman for the U.S. reconstruction program in Baghdad, said that water treatment plants were working "as far as we know."
"It could be a host of issues. ... And one of those may be leaky trunk lines. If there's not enough pressure to cancel out that leakage, that's when the water could fail to reach the household," Miller said.
He said that there had been a nationwide power blackout for a few hours Wednesday night that might be causing problems for all systems that depend on Iraq's already creaking electricity grid.
He blamed the outages on provinces north of Baghdad and in Basra in the far south where officials failed to cutback as required when they had taken their daily ration of electricity.
"It takes a long time to bring the power back up (to the grid's capacity and demand)," Miller said.
In the meantime, Iraqis suffer in brutal heat. It was 117 degrees in the capital Thursday, down from 120 the day before. With the power out or crackling through the decrepit system just a few hours each day, even those who can afford air conditioning do not have the power to run it.
Many Baghdad residents have banded together to use power from neighborhood generators, but the cost of fuel and therefore electricity is skyrocketing. Diesel fuel was going for nearly $4 a gallon on Thursday.
As expected in the midst of a water shortage, the cost of purified bottled water has shot up 33 percent. A 10-liter bottle now costs $1.60.
"For us, we can buy bottled water. But I'm thinking about the poor who cannot afford to buy clean water," said Um Zainab, a 44-year-old homemaker in eastern Baghdad. "This shows the weakness and the inefficiency of government officials who are good at only one thing — blaming each other for the problems we are face."
The pace of the mayhem that saw 142 killed or found dead nationwide on Wednesday tapered off Thursday, but a suicide car bomber slammed into an Iraqi police station northeast of Baghdad and killed at least 13 people, police said.
Most of the dead were policemen and recruits lining up outside the station in Hibhib, the same small Sunni town near Baqouba where al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. airstrike more than a year ago. The area is considered a stronghold of both al-Qaida-linked militants and Saddam Hussein loyalists.
Fifteen were wounded in the attack, a police officer said on condition of anonymity out of security concerns.
A total of 58 people were killed or found dead across the country Thursday, according to police and hospital and morgue officials.
The U.S. military announced three more soldier deaths: two killed in a mortar or rocket attack Tuesday, and another killed in a roadside bombing Wednesday. At least 3,659 U.S. military personnel have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes seven military civilians.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday he is more optimistic about improvements in Iraqi security than he is about getting legislation passed by the bitterly divided government.
"In some ways we probably all underestimated the depth of the mistrust and how difficult it would be for these guys to come together on legislation," Gates said.
His remarks came as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa Party asked the country's largest Sunni Arab bloc to reconsider its withdrawal from government to save Iraq's national unity government.
All six Cabinet ministers from the Iraqi Accordance Front quit al-Maliki's Cabinet a day earlier to protest what they called the prime minister's failure to respond to a set of demands.
Among them were the release of security detainees not charged with specific crimes, the disbanding of militias and the participation of all groups represented in the government in dealing with security issues.
Washington has been pushing al-Maliki's government to pass key laws, including measures to share national oil revenues and incorporate some ousted Baathists into mainstream politics. But the Sunni ministers' resignation from the Cabinet — not the parliament — foreshadows even greater difficulty in building consensus when lawmakers return after a monthlong summer recess on Sept. 4.
AP writers Kim Gamel and Sameer N. Yacoub contributed to this report.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,695197342,00.html
>>>if we Americans get to keep more of our own money we could afford our own bridges.<<<
Exactly......and no wasteful government inspections please. The system is self cleansing. If a bridge fails, the people who built it will obviously not build the new bridge.
>>>288 of us who support Bush and only 36 who support the Democratic Congress.<<<
Latest desperation act by Bush republicans who can't take any more of their hero being battered. So they compare Bush's poll numbers to that of the democratic congress. Every day now and everywhere there's a Bush friendly blogger. Another moronic argument from the right fringe that means exactly nothing in the real world.
"Such was the case with the most recent Diageo/Hotline poll in which the sample was asked whether they would support a generic Democrat or a generic Republican for president if the election were held today. Forty-seven percent chose the Democratic candidate while 29 percent went with the Republican. For those English majors out there (don't worry, The Fix is in your ranks), that's an 18-point differential."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/04/parsing_the_polls_is_the_white_1.html
That poll is from April 7th. Saw a more recent one where the democrat's lead has grown to 52% over 18%.
>>>3 options: Private insurance/emergency relief, private charity<<<
Private insurance........maybe the same ones that currently manage "the best health care system in the world"? Or private charity......like the Red Cross?
"Disaster Strikes In Red Cross Backyard
Charity Fails To Get A Grip On Criminal Scandals At Local Chapters"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/29/eveningnews/main516700.shtml
>>>or move to a state that better manages disasters.<<<
You mean move to a state that has higher taxes since that's how they finance local disaster relief? Doesn't sound like a move most republicans would recommend.
>>>Storm relief should be up to state and local governments.<<<
Always is until they run out of resources. Then what?
>>>Fox Network poll two weeks ago, 89% who participated want to end the war, bring our troops home. Interesting. Maybe the country really did elect those Dems to do just that, hence the ratings now<<<
That was exactly my point. The dems aren't judged on how they handle the war except for their efforts to end it. So they lose with both sides now - war supporters and opponents. Surprised they even have 3%....
>>>Only 3% of Americans approve of the Democratic Congress’s handling of the war. Bush is at 24% in this category.<<<
Right. And only 3% of americans approve of dogfighting. Michael Vick fans are at 24% in this category.
>>>The plane that hit was a missile that looked like a Boeing and wasn't<<<
A missile that looked like an American Airlines 757, carrying American Airlines flight 77's flight data recorder onboard?
>>>If you look at the flight data recorder from AA77 what you will determine is that it did not hit those light poles<<<
Help me out here. They found the flight data recorder from AA77 on the crash site but AA77 didn't crash on that site? Or it did crash on the site but didn't hit the light poles?
>>>I can understand why some people lump all of us together as nut cases<<<
I don't know that that's true but why is there so little substance behind all these theories? Nobody who advances a well reasoned theory about anything - 9/11 plots or otherwise - will be called a nutcase.
For example, insisting that the plane that crashed into the Pentagon was not AA 77 but a US fighter jet doesn't really represent a well reasoned theory since:
1. DNA from AA 77 passengers were recovered from the crash site
2. Easily identifiable parts from an American Airlines 757 were recovered from the crash site.
3. AA 77 was tracked by radar from the moment it took off from Washington until just moments before impact and those who insist it didn't crash into the Pentagon can't explain what happened to it.
4. It ignores a boatload of witnesses and above all.......it ignores the fact that getting thousands of people to cooperate and cover up a story like this is simply impossible.
The Pentagon is bordered by Interstate 395 and Washington Boulevard, on the side where the impact occurred. Steve Riskus witnessed the plane crash into the Pentagon, as he was driving along Washington Boulevard and stopped to take photographs moments after the impact.[21] Mary Lyman, who was on I-395, saw the airplane pass over at a "steep angle toward the ground and going fast" and then saw the cloud of smoke from the Pentagon.[22] Jim Sutherland, also on I-395, witnessed the plane pass 50 feet overhead, heading in a straight line into the Pentagon.[23] Mary Ann Owens, of Gannett News Service, was stuck in traffic near the Pentagon when she saw the airplane pass 50 to 75 feet overhead and crash into the Pentagon.[24] Another witness, Daryl Donley, saw the crash as he was driving on Washington Boulevard. Among debris that was scattered as the plane crashed, he found a "scorched green oxygen tank marked 'Cabin air. Airline use'" on the road.[24] Mr. Donley also had a camera with him, and took some of the first photographs after the crash.[25] USA Today reporter Mike Walter, while driving on Washington Boulevard, also witnessed the crash.[26] He recounted to CNN, "...looked out my window. I saw this plane, the jet, American Airlines jet coming. And I thought, this doesn't add up. It's really low. And I saw it. It just went — I mean, it was like a cruise missile with wings, it went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon. Huge explosion."[13]
Lloyd England's taxicab hit by a lightpole as American Airlines Flight 77 passed low over Washington Boulevard and crashed into the Pentagon.Terrance Kean, who lived in a nearby apartment building, heard the noise of loud jet engines, glanced out his window, and saw "very, very large passenger jet." He watched "it just plow right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke everywhere."[27] Terry Morin, who worked at the nearby Navy Annex, saw the airliner pass 100 feet overhead, moments before it crashed into the Pentagon.[28] Passengers aboard a Washington Metro train heading to Ronald Reagan National Airport also saw the crash and explosion, including Allen Cleveland who explained [he] "looked out the window to see a jet heading down toward the Pentagon."[14] AP reporter Dave Winslow recounted, "I saw the tail of a large airliner. ... It plowed right into the Pentagon."[29] Tim Timmerman, who is a pilot himself, noticed American Airlines markings on the aircraft as he saw it hit the Pentagon.[30] Marine Commander Mike Dobbs, who worked at the Pentagon, was on an upper level of the outer ring, looking out the window when he saw the crash.[23] Other drivers on Washington Boulevard, Interstate 395, and Columbia Pike, as well as people in nearby locations such as Pentagon City, Crystal City also witnessed the crash.[22]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77
Almost seems like those who keep these things coming have the attitude that it's their duty to call it to everyone's attention but they are under no obligation at all to make any of it seem plausible. Possible is good enough and then it's up to each and everyone to work up their own theory of how it could have happened. Wouldn't call it nuts but I would call it a poor attention getter. Most of us have enough to do keeping tabs of known crimes by this administration.
>>>or perhaps speed and weight overcome the plane being hollow?<<
You can break a lot of things by hand using a hollow aluminum pipe. Accelerate it to 500mph and even more things will break. Above all though, for me......the multiple videos that exist of both towers being hit by 757's overcome any physics lesson you throw at me.
>>>are planes sturdy enough to cut through steel beams?<<<
Depends. Think of it this way.......put a 2x4 wood piece across two saw horses with about 5' between them. Start to beat softly on the wood with a sledge hammer and nothing much will happen. Beat a little harder and you may start to see some damage. Beat real hard and you'll break the wood in half.
"Note that the kinetic energy increases with the square of the speed. This means, for example, that if you are traveling twice as fast, you will have four times as much kinetic energy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
makes sense...
That's the latest on the conspiracy front now........no airplanes hit the towers?
Pretty convoluted reading but doesn't that order apply strictly to those who give financial aid to the enemy in one form or another?
I googeled it and found nothing. Got any official language describing what you're talking about?
>>>poor Gonzales, he's just a victim of partisan politics<<<
"WALLACE: We invited White House officials and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to defend Attorney General Gonzales. We had no takers.
ALTER: Well, it is a pretty good bet if the White House did not send anybody out to defend him to FOX News over the weekend that, you know, he is down to his last few bullets. And I think the next 48 hours will tell."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20052935/
So what's the deal here eddy?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=21671042
>>>Their eight day visit and upbeat assessment ignores other plausible explanations<<<
It also ignores the fact that Iraq for all practical purposes has been destroyed and has been abandoned by most people who make up a civil and viable society. So what if there's nominal progress here and there? All that's left is a giant oil field and millions of welfare candidates. What's the value of "victory" here?
"Here's a very tragic story, Wolf. Eight million Iraqis -- that is about one third of the population of that country -- have no water, sanitation, food or shelter and need emergency aid. Now, this isn't some report from Nancy Pelosi's office or some left-wing ideologue. This was done and compiled nationwide in Iraq by two major relief agencies.
The report says the violence in Iraq is masking a humanitarian crisis that has worsened since the U.S. invasion and addressing thing crisis could make the other crisis worse.
Among other findings in this report, 70 percent of Iraqis like access to adequate water supplies. Ninety percent of the country's hospitals lack basic medical and surgical supplies. Forty-three percent of Iraqis live in absolute poverty. That's defined as less than $1 a day. And more than half of them don't have a job. Child malnutrition rates are at 28 percent, up from 19 percent before the U.S. invasion. And there are two million internally displaced people, many of them with no access to food. Another two million are refugees that have gone to other countries.
This report suggests that Iraq's government, along with coalition nations, U.N. agencies and international donors, can and must do a lot more to attack this problem.
However, don't expect any immediate response from members of the Iraqi government. You see, they're on vacation. They left today for a month long summer recess. No doubt they'll have plenty to eat and drink, too, while they're away on holiday.
Here's the question -- what does it say about the state of Iraq if almost a third of the population has no water, sanitation, food or shelter?
E-mail caffertyfile@cnn.com or go to cnn.com/caffertyfile.
You don't hear a whole lot about that part of the story -- Wolf.
BLITZER: You know...
CAFFERTY: It's horrible.
BLITZER: ...and you don't hear a lot. But you mentioned it -- four million refugees. Four million people displaced from their homes. Two million have left the country. Two million are roaming around elsewhere. And what's really happened, if you take a close look at this, there has been this ethnic cleansing in a lot of parts.
CAFFERTY: Oh, yes.
BLITZER: The Shiite neighborhoods, the Sunnis left. Sunni neighborhoods, the Shiites have left, because it's simply too dangerous.
CAFFERTY: Yes. And a lot of people left the country of their own volition. Many of the intellectuals, the college professors doctors, scientists, those who had the means to get out left a long time ago. And the brain drain on that country has been enormous as a result. There's nobody left in that country except people living at or below the poverty line -- refugees, fighters, soldiers and terrorists. I don't know what else is left there."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/30/sitroom.02.html
>>>I'm no big fan of AG, but this whole uproar is purely partisan politics<<<
Am I a partisan for asking why AG would go and see a near unconscious Ashcroft in his hospital bed for approval of the surveillance program after Ashcroft had already been relieved of duty and replaced with Comey?
>>>Only those who have already entered Heaven have a sinless nature.<<<
What's the deadline? Can someone spend a lifetime of raising hell on earth and then as the end approaches with old age choose a new path and ask for forgiveness and a pass to heaven?
Republicans chicken out out of you tube debate
Giuliani, Romney opt out of GOP YouTube debate
July 29, 2007
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Rudolph Giuliani and Mitt Romney are skipping the CNN/YouTube debate of Republican presidential hopefuls in Florida in September, their campaigns said Friday.
Romney formally dropped out of the Sept. 17 debate in St. Petersburg, and a campaign aide said Giuliani is "unlikely to participate due to scheduling conflicts."
Only Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas have confirmed they will take part in the debate, sponsored by CNN, YouTube and the Florida Republican Party.
The absence of two of the top Republicans raises the question of whether the Republican version of the unconventional but popular forum will be rescheduled, or even scratched.
CNN is attempting to salvage the event. "We're working with the campaigns to resolve any scheduling issues," CNN Washington bureau chief David Bohrman said in a statement.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-nat_youtube_bdjul29,1,197047.story
3 years ago;
Bush Likely to Bow Out of 1 Debate
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3586-2004Sep7.html
Sums up the modern republican. Shout slogans all day about fighting islamic extremists till their last drop of blood has been dispensed but can't find enough courage to show up at a political debate because the format is too unfamiliar and unpredictable. Way to lead Rudi. Even Dennis Kucinich has more guts than you.
>>>What difference dos it make who he is??..........Why not comment on the ideas he expressed??<<<
Amazing mindset but not really surprising. You don't think there's a difference in credibility between a blogger - conservative or liberal - and an established news source? Ann Coulter for example wrote not too long ago that the Watergate scandal was much ado about nothing and all about political games by liberals. She and other bloggers can express "ideas" and "facts" like that because there's no accountability. They write what their readers want to hear and they often do it with little or no regard for accuracy.
Going by what you say you would read anything I post about Iraq and not care one iota if it was written by Michael Moore, Al Franken or Bob Novak. You would just absorb the ideas and "facts" at face value.
>>>The point is that you and your ilk are not worth the extra effort involved in posting the link<<<
But we're worth the effort of posting the story itself........arguably a greater effort than adding the link at the end....?
>>>So why did the FBI sit back and watch him stuff documents in his shorts and leave the building? Can you answer that?<<<
No I can't because that's not what appears to have happened. Best I can tell from this account there were three separate visits. Two where according to the FBI he was under "constant supervision" and then the third meeting where there seems to have been a lapse in supervision and that's when the crime took place.
"On December 20, 2006, more than a year after Berger plead guilty and was sentenced, a report issued by the archives inspector detailed how Berger had perpetrated the crime. Inspector General Paul Brachfeld reported that Berger took a break to go outside without an escort. "In total, during this visit, he removed four documents ... Mr. Berger said he placed the documents under a trailer in an accessible construction area outside Archives 1 (the main Archives building)." Berger acknowledged that he later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.
It states that the FBI or the Department of Justice never questioned Berger about two earlier visits he made on May 30, 2002 and July 18, 2003, when he reviewed White House working papers not yet inventoried by the National Archives, and speculates that, had Berger previously been entirely successful in actions at which he was later caught, "nobody would know they were gone." It also contains the FBI's statement as to why they concluded there was no exposure on those dates: "Berger was under constant supervision"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger
Any particular reason you cut this sentence out at the end? Except for the fact that it undermines your argument I mean...
"It also contains the FBI's statement as to why they concluded there was no exposure on those dates: "Berger was under constant supervision"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger