Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by skunk, Jun 23, 2004.
The first six paragraphs seem dead-on. I am somewhat skeptical of the remaining, but that might just be blind hope...regardless, thanks for the link...
Thanks for the link.
What you posted doesn't seem much different than what many "plain Joe's" have been saying.
The shame of the above words is that some take a shift of Mid-East policy away from one of engagement to a more passive or quiet role is a sign of weakness.
The only reasons that I see for our policies in the Mid-East is two fold. The biggest being for a stable source of oil. The second being our support of Israel. We play lip service when Israel goes out of bounds of what most would consider to legitimate defending of their right to exist. The world turns it back on the issues created when the State of Israel was created.
Power needs an foe to justify its existence. GWB campaigns as a "War President" even if he had to invent the whole thing himself.
Really, what is the complaint of the muslim terrorist? That we have our noses too much in the middle east. You know what, I and probably every other American agrees.
[I do not like terror. I do not condone terror. I do not think terror is justified. yadda yadda yadda..]
But instead of trying to find ways to get out of the middle east like better fuel efficiency and better negotiation between Isreal and Palestine some people want to just stick their noses in it even more. That is a mistake.
An interview with anonymous,
They tried that, while Sharon and Arafat was still at the so call peace table someone went and blew up a bus full of kids. You can't negotiate with terrorist you simply blow them away.
Another interview with "anonymous" on NPR:
Are we serious?
" the book, "Imperial Hubris," the author is identified only as "Anonymous""
Courtesy of Douglas Jehl of the NYT, the masters of slanderous "anonymous innuendo". The liberal intelectual elitist eats this up no questions asked.
What is wrong with this picture?
The hardcover battle rages on.
Do some research before you spew "your" venom.
Yes I'll get right on it. The research of "Mr Anonymous".
"spew "your" venom"
nice choice of words.
Did you come up with that by yourself or did you have to "research" it?
Here you go jonny,
Memories of home or wish you were there.
You are either going to get banned or put on peoples ignore list so why don't you try the link.
Lots of people just like you.
and which part of his analysis do you think is incorrect? and your reasons?
I doubt he's even read or listened to the interviews. Trolling isn't about reasons.
So nothing bothers you about another anonymous slamming of the administration by the NYT. Does'nt it seem just a triffle slanted.
Perhaps you would like to put a plug in for Bob Woodward and how he is a jourmalist.
You encourrage thought correct. Well think!
Think past your liberal elitism that labels anyone who disagrees with you as stupid and ignorant.
you're not responding to anyone's comments, you're merely blathering and spewing ill-formed thoughts from what is clearly a biased and presupposed position. these kinds of comments are not welcome here.
you are welcome to enter into a reasoned, informed and fact-backed debate. you are mistaken when you imply rightist viewpoints are not welcome here, there are many who can argue from the right intelligently.
i invite you to counter the arguments given to you, in the manner which i've described. otherwise, i and others will have no choice but to ignore (tm) you. it's your choice.
behave like an adult and you'll be treated like one.
Johnny, if you read the full article, you will see that the "slamming" is of both parties, including the Clinton administration as well as the Bush one. It is also critical of (now former) CIA director Tenet who served under both Administrations, not to mention other Agency employees and policy wonks who are not necessarily have Partisan ties...
As far as the author being "anonomous", as he is still with the CIA, it is policy to not divulge his name...but as someone in a position of "in the know" as a long-time employee of the CIA, I tend to give his opinion some credibility, although that does not mean it is gospel...and indeed w/in this thread we are discussing its' potential validity.
To dismiss this as merely an attack on the Bush Administration seems a defensive and emotionally-based response, as although it does criticize it, the real concern seems to be the safety of the US vis-a-vis Al Qa'ida and relatedly, trying to head towards a more pragmatic policy with regards to the WOT. It is not about Partisan Politics. Informed dissent is always necessary in an ever-changing world, with the needs for nuanced Policy, as well as a facet of our Political System.
As far as your "looking past Liberal Elitism...", supposedly directed at IJ...please try not to resort to personal attacks. IJ may be more Liberal to you (as are many on this board), but he is also thoughtful, intelligent and well-reasoned in his arguments, which again transcends partisan allegiance...and I deeply respect his opinion, as I do many others, although we do not always agree. I apologize to you, but your posts here so far have made you look "stupid and ignorant", and that has nothing to do with not being Liberal-minded...this sentance certainly does not help:
...Although perhaps you were being ironic...
In any case, I will (as will many), be glad to have a reasoned-debate here with you, if you would like...the ball is in your court.
Like I said, doesn't know, doesn't want to know. I can argue honest disagreements all day long -- but willful ignorance is something I simply cannot comprehend.
uhuh an example of unbiased source here?