Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jun 18, 2005.
i noted that the AP wasn't as shy this time around...
I sense quite a good head of steam building up. Bush should be worried.
Same material I posted on Wednesday, from the LA Times article. AP might be less shy this time around, but apparently it did take them four days to catch up to this story.
it's getting hard to keep track of all this damning evidence. for those of us who care, anyway.
Damn that damning evidence!
Perhaps if we all shut our eyes, it'll go away.
What do you know? It works! It really is more fun to be a Republican!
Yeah, but we all know what a commie rag the LA Times is. You need to get these things from RELIABLE sources - like the Washington Times or Drudge.
Right, which is why I generally include a caveat with everything I post from the Times these days, just for those people who are in need of a reason to disbelieve it.
People know, they don't care. More damning evidence that will pass by unnoticed. I actually know people that still say we attacked Iraq because of 9/11. Gee, wonder why that is...
certainly, it couldn't be because of what bush is saying, as recently as yesterday:
he's wrong, i don't agree.
I don't know, I don't think there were a lot of terrorists in Iraq before the war, but there certainly are now. Of course, I wouldn't necessarily claim that as a victory for him. Considering according to some people within the Bush administration, we're making more terrorists than we kill.
He did say we'd take the fight to them.
As for the rest of it:
this is the part that gets me. Is he talking about the terrorists, the Democrats, blurring the line between the 2 again, or just reaching since he knows people are still pissed and getting more so over the failings in Iraq? I don't think he gets that you can be glad Saddam's gone, support the troops, but still have issues with how this war was waged. I'm still wondering where Bin Laden is and why he hasn't been the priority all along.
Its clear Bin Laden wasnt a priority,Iraq was. Saddam had tried to kill Bush sr. Bush Jr was going to get the Thug even if he had to take the whole nation into a 300 billion dollar War. Proves to me that Congress can be made to look like the idiots they are.
Notice how the first part is couched to present those who disagree with the President as not supporting the removal of Saddam Hussein (i.e. "supporters of Saddam.") It couldn't be that the universe of folks who opposed Bush's decision include those who wanted Saddam removed from power by other means than a US invasion and is not limited to those who supported Saddam's continued rule. Bush is still trying to paint all those who opposed him as supporters of Saddam.
As to the second part of the sentence, the only problem is that he, not the terrorists, has now made Iraq "a central front" in the war with al Qaida where none existed before. Because Bush decided to place targets on the back of over 100,000 US citizens and place them in easy reach of al Qaida, while giving them the best recruiting device they could possibly have asked for, we therefore should rally behind his strategy to fight them. This while every sane person in the world is saying the strategy is not working.
Quite a sentence!
are there? there's an insurgency, sure, but how many of them, prior to the invasion, were actively plotting against the US?
i don't know the makeup of the insurgents, but i suspect they're mostly ordinary iraqis. when the administration claims there's a large percentage of foreign fighters, i'm skeptical. if the administration does indeed know the real makeup, i don't think they're saying.
I think there's probably a reasonable number of foreign fighters, just judging by the personal talk I heard and heard through people I knew of Muslims as far flung as Morocco talking about how they would go to join the fight. I don't really think the US government's claim that there are foreign fighters exhonorates them significantly. It's condeming. It shows that the US created a vacuum that has sucked in violence. Lacking a 'front-line' in the war on terrorism, we created one for ourselves, at the expense of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
a fascinating observation. iow, rather than adopt to changing times and fight a frontless war, the administration tried to change the rules to something they could understand.
question is, is it working?
i suppose the answer could be 'yes' right up until the next terrorist attack.
I would say it's not working at all, but that's just me. We're dropping allies left and right. The US population is getting sick of it. We're theoretically committed to a regime that can't defend itself. And at the current rate, 3 US soldiers are dying every day, plus contractors, plus NGO workers, plus journalists...
Meanwhile, we're not really doing anything to combat terrorism in the broader world and lack the resources to do so because our resources are committed to Iraq.
Perhaps I should have said "terrorists". Because they hate America for our freedom. And they're going to get our brand of freedom whether they want it or not.
Not that I am hoping this will go away, but whatever happened to Tom Delay?
His resignation is still in the works I hope. He has been laying low lately. I guess that there are proceedings underway.
The criminal case against some of his associates proceeds. It will take a while, but it will come to a head before the '06 elections. The Dems obviously are hoping that it starts in early to mid '06 and peaks during the summer.
And the House Ethics Committee is also investigating, IIRC.
I thought that got stalled again... I'll have to look I guess.
Yeah, not going anywere fast.
Oh, and by the way, the Downing Street Memo might have been forged... so sez Rush.
Maybe they can get Dan Rather to authenticate the documents.
After all these documents were typed up by the reporter, and the originals destroyed, in an effort to "protect the source."
Just another case of the documents may be fake, but it's the content that are important.