Archive for Thursday, September 28, 2006

Former secretary of state critical of how Bush has handled events

September 28, 2006


When Madeleine Albright first arrived as the U.S. representative to the United Nations in 1993, she spent days, weeks, talking about Iraq.

The Gulf War had ended, and the U.N. was then charged with enforcing the myriad resolutions that came out of the conflict.

No more weapons of mass destruction. No more prisoners of war. No more torture.

"We talked about Iraq all the time," the former Secretary of State told a packed house at the Lied Center Wednesday. "So I have to say I understood the why of the war."

But even if Iraq did still have weapons of mass destruction in 2003 - none have been found - she still didn't see the threat Iraq posed to the U.S., Albright said.

"I understood the why, but not the why now. And I didn't understand the what next," she said.

"I think the war has been terribly mishandled," she said.

Or as she said in her new book, "The Mighty and Almighty": "I'm afraid Iraq is going to go down as the greatest disaster in American foreign policy."

Wednesday, Albright spent an evening speaking to Steven Jacques, the Dole Institute's first Democratic Senior Fellow, and a Lied Center crowd about dozens of topics, from Iraq and how the Clinton Administration responded to terrorism, to the high heels that North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il wore during their meetings.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright speaks as part of the Dole Lecture Series Wednesday evening at the Lied Center. The two offered opposing views on U.S. involvement in the Iraq war.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright speaks as part of the Dole Lecture Series Wednesday evening at the Lied Center. The two offered opposing views on U.S. involvement in the Iraq war.

Albright was President Bill Clinton's Secretary of State - the first woman to hold the office - from 1997 until 2001.

During her talk about the Iraq war and U.S. foreign policy, Albright specifically referenced a leaked Iraq intelligence report that, in places, suggests the war there is strengthening terrorism.

"It's making things worse," she said of the Iraq war's influence on terrorism. "There are more and more terrorists."

Across town, Gen. Richard Myers, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a crowd that the leaked portions of the report shouldn't be taken out of context.

Myers said he had not read the report.

"It shouldn't be surprising that violent extremists, al-Qaida in this case, would rally to the sound of the cannon. They'll do that," he said.

"It doesn't mean that if we quit the sound of the cannon, there wouldn't be people rallying to the cause, nor would we be any safer."

Albright did say that she thought the Clinton administration did everything it could to battle and prepare for the threat of terrorism during its eight years in office.

"I personally feel we did everything we could," she said.

Former Clinton Administration Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's full conversation at the Lied Center Wednesday night. This includes questions from several audience members and an introduction from Dole Institute of Politics Director Bill Lacy.


She said that the administration never had "actionable intelligence" to strike at Osama bin Laden, and carpet bombing an entire area wasn't an option at the time.

And Albright insisted that Clinton administration officials, including herself, briefed the incoming Bush administration extensively on terrorism threats.

She then read a portion of the 9-11 Commission findings that detailed the terrorism strategy that the Clinton administration left for the Bush administration.

"They both were very surprised," Albright said of the terrorism threat in the world. "I don't think they saw it as that big a thing."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had previously challenged the Clinton administration on its terrorism record after Clinton defended his handling of the threat during a Fox News interview.

Rice said that the Bush administration fought terrorism in its first eight months at least as much as the Clinton administration.

Albright disagreed.

"The record shows they actually didn't do a lot," she said.

But the bottom line, Albright said, was that the Iraq war hurt the U.S.'s standing in the world.

It hurt our moral authority and our tactical authority, she said, and bred terrorism where it didn't exist before.

"That's the story," she said. "That's what the problem is. The war in Iraq is making America less safe, not more safe."


prioress 11 years, 7 months ago

Here's a Democratic slogan...."We won't send suggestive emails to 15 year old male pages."

Careful there, little one. Do you want to bet you are 100% right? People are weak and sensuality is seductive. Sin is not exclusive to either party, and those who suggest so are wrong.

KS 11 years, 8 months ago

Does this position come as a surprise to anyone? Monday morning quarterbacking. They had their chances and didn't do anything about it. It's called covering your back side on your legacy.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 11 years, 8 months ago

Clinton's and Albright's foreign policy was bad-- BushCo's is orders of magnitude worse.

Dani Davey 11 years, 8 months ago

I had a long rant defending Clinton but I'm going to bite my tongue cause I know whatever I say, it won't matter to the conservatives on these boards.

Let me just say that the Secretary was a pleasure last night and I agree with her 110%. I think it's a shame we can't have that kind of brilliance in our leadership ranks anymore.

christie 11 years, 8 months ago

The lesser of 2 evils Marion:

The Wacko Waco gun owners surrender to the F.B.I. for weapons violations or you barricade yourself in an underground bus and burn to death along with women and children when your not built to code building burns as the result of using oil lamps all over the place.

Really now how simple is it.

Becca 11 years, 8 months ago

I agree with Madeline Albright completely. And if that makes me a blood-sucking Democrat, then so be it. I don't have to justify anything.

3e8 11 years, 8 months ago

Maybe in 1993 she did nothing more than help her boss kick the can down the road to let somebody else deal with it later. I bet she's smart like that!

sweetiepie 11 years, 8 months ago

She addressed Rwanda several times last night. That is only one of the major differences between the Clinton White House and the current White House: the Clinton people admit when they made mistakes. The Bush people don't believe they are capable of making mistakes.

lunacydetector 11 years, 8 months ago

what, no mention of the genocide she easily dismissed at the time, going on in rwanda?

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago

Perhaps you should consider that what she said is the truth.

She was as close, or closer, to the realities of that time as anyone else, and although interpreting reality is often subjective, her read on Iraq is certainly valid.

Perhaps you might focus on the possibility that the Iraq war is truly the "biggest disaster in American foreign policy," and ponder what that means in the near and distant future.

Sacerdotal 11 years, 8 months ago

She makes a point worth discussion: ""I understood the why, but not the why now. And I didn't understand the what next," she said."

Saddam was evil (a large club of felons world wide) but was pretty well bottled-up. The invasion was timed so Bush could give a victory speech to help with the next election cycle. Perhaps, we needed to invade Iraq, but not necessarily in Spring 2003. The phony buildup, the "get out of town Saddam and your sons" rhetoric was staged and timed for political reasons.

DaREEKKU 11 years, 8 months ago

I agree with Madeleine Albright 100%. Any time the Republicans screw up and other people call them out on it it's quickly dismissed as "the Liberal Left Slanted Media at it again!" You guys are on a sinking ship, start holding your party accountable.

Christine Pennewell Davis 11 years, 8 months ago

well I think everyone should give up their day jobs and run for office how about that. It seems everyone on here is an expert so why not do the job yourselves. And every president has many points in which they failed, at least, according to the other side.

justthefacts 11 years, 8 months ago

"Name calling is just part of the process of having fun."

The people who think that sort of thing are the reason that all too soon the US (and any other country where that mentality prevails) will not be respected by anyone. Not to mention making the world a darker sadder place to live.

Bullies, anonymous or in person, are to be pitied but isolated, not applauded or emulated. The source of all hate enjoys it when human beings learn how to act hateful towards others.

If anyone wants to make or see a change in the world that really matters, perhaps it would be wise to first fight any such tendencies in yourself.

jafs 11 years, 8 months ago

One of the things that is most discouraging to me about politics these days is the anger and name-calling, which seems to come from both sides, although there seems to be a bit more coming from the right than the left. When did we substitute cat-calls for intelligent debate in this country? Why is there so much anger, especially towards "liberals", which now appears to be a curse? All politicians are human and fallible, all administrations make mistakes, etc. I would like to see more substantive debate of issues - how do various policies affect this country, both domestically and internationally? What kind of country do we want to live in? Why is America hated so much? A woman in Lawrence just committed "suicide by police officers" - she was apparently in dire financial straits and had medical issues - with no ability to declare bankruptcy and no health insurance. The top 1% of this country's wealthy are worth more than the bottom 90% combined. The war in Iraq (regardless of whether one agrees with it) is costing in the hundreds of billions of dollars, and yet the troops aren't adequately outfitted. The oil industry is being subsidized, and social programs to help out the folks who need them are being cut. Can we discuss these problems please?

jafs 11 years, 8 months ago


It appears that President Bush lied to Congress (at best misled them) regarding intelligence reports on Iraq before the war. This lie may be costing America countless lives and goodwill around the world.

If I remember correctly, Clinton lied about having sex.

There don't seem to be any negative consequences for the current president, despite the fact that his lies have had much more of a negative impact on the country.

Rationalanimal 11 years, 8 months ago

There's nothing quite like screwing-up on the job while you had it, and then sit back and criticize the people who have to fix your screw-up. Clinton and his staff are clearly worried about how history will view the job they did

Sacerdotal 11 years, 8 months ago

Clinton and his staff are clearly worried about how history will view the job they did.

True, but, in the long run, I'll take President Clinton's legacy over the one on which BUSHCO is working.

jafs 11 years, 8 months ago

I would imagine all presidents are concerned about how they are viewed in the light of history.

Becca 11 years, 8 months ago

Way to go, Jafs! You couldn't be more right.

regularjohn 11 years, 8 months ago

I want to know macon47's thought's on this issue.

bjamnjm 11 years, 8 months ago

Anyone remember, "the vaste right-wing conspiracy"? Anyone remember how difficult it was for President Clinton to admit sort of, kind of, almost, possibly, not really, that he may have had an inappropriate relationship with that cigar gal? Anyone remember when he popped a round of cruise missiles into Afganistan and did nothing else b/c opinion polls showed the American people thought he took that action to remove the spotlight from the Monica L. saga?Remember all the Clinton admin. insiders who mysteriously died of natural causes just as they were about to be questioned by the FBI?

People take themselves to seriously such that it's difficult to see the merit of another opinion or the flaw in their own. Past and present administrations have blown opportunities to do good, have secret agendas, lie, cheat, steal and occasionally do something right. I doubt if Presidents Clinton or Bush were or are as good or as bad as people think.

acg 11 years, 8 months ago

"That is only one of the major differences between the Clinton White House and the current White House: the Clinton people admit when they made mistakes. The Bush people don't believe they are capable of making mistakes."

And sweetiepie wins the prize for the best comment on this thread so far today.

justthefacts 11 years, 8 months ago

A. I was at the event last night, and heard every word. While I am personally a registered Republican and generally very conservative, I thought it was interesting and thought provoking. I wish more people would have been there, but it was a pretty full house. It is never a good idea to only listen to those with whom one agrees.

B. Whether you agree or disagree with Ms. Albright, President Bush, or any other politician, she made one point that is painfully obvious to anyone who has the ability to step back and look at things without prejudice; The current atmosphere in DC is toxic. There is no room for anything remotely resembling statesmanship or civility. The bickering and name calling and mud slinging has replaced the civil debate and problem solving. And with that comes a loss of respect and the power to influence anyone else, at home and world wide.

C. I personally believe the same is true in the state of Kansas and on these boards.

Instead of sticking to facts, or clearly realizing that personal opinions are usually based upon personal bias (not God given infallibility) people on both sides of the debate act as if they are without fault or flaw, and that anyone who dares disagrees is a miserable miscreant without the right to live. This type of uncivil behavior points up the loss of the ideals of democracy that once made our nation great. We are losing the will and ability to allow and celebrate differences of opinions without losing respect for the humanity and dignity of others. This alone may bring down our nation. We have become just another whining collection of malcontents blaming everyone else for the problems in our lives.

Please, everyone, try to remember that whether you love or hate the person, or their message or behavior, everyone is worthy of being treated with respect. Not because they earned it or you want to give it. But rather, because as you treat others, so shall you be treated.

Rationalanimal 11 years, 8 months ago

The evidence that the Clinton folks missed opportunity after opportunity to address OBL and al-Q before 9/11 is incontrovertable. As a matter of historical fact, the Sudanese government told the Clinton people they had OBL and wanted to get rid of him, Clinton, which would include Madam A said "no thanks". So for Clinton and his staff to now be running around criticizing the Bush Administration policies is not only hypocritical, but knife's America's efforts in the back as a price for their attempt to skew the historical view of facts. I don't agree with many Bush decisions, but this political back-biting and childish blame game which is principally being fanned by Democrats is done at the expense of undermining the ability of men and women wearing the uniform of the United States military to do their job, kick butt. In essence, it directly causes more Americans to die.

Godot 11 years, 8 months ago

"But at least Clinton had the GUTS and courage to admit that he tried to kill bin-Laden and failed to do so. He admitted he made mistakes, "

ummmm, according to the guy in charge of the bin Laden unit in the CIA, Mike Scheurer, Clinton specifically ordered them to NOT kill bin Laden. Dick Clarke makes that observation, as well.

I remember news articles back then that reported that the Clinton administration did not condone, and would not order, assassinations.

I think Clinton is mis-remembering.

justthefacts 11 years, 8 months ago

Conserveatives make stuff up, Democrats name call, and nothing is ever decided, agreed, or done about joint problems. Name calling and personal attacks solve nothing and only further the growing divide that keeps the real problems from being addressed. Stick with facts, when you can, and be quite clear that opinions are highly subjective and rarely 100% based upon pure fact.

Ms. Albright said, last night, that she personally goes up to thank any person in uniform that she sees (usually in airports). Many or so young they do not know she is, and look at her askance, but she got a round of applause with her words of gratitude for the job the military is doing. Despite her personal opinion (which she said she sincerely hopes is wrong) that the Iraq war will go down as the biggest policy mistake America has ever made (with a negative impact on our reputation as a respected world-wide power, even larger then Viet Nam), Ms. Albright did not spend the entire evening praising the Clinton administrations' choices and ridiculing everything Bush has done or said.

Just curious, how many other posters were actually in attendance at the event being discussed?

truth_serum 11 years, 8 months ago

BOTH the Clinton and Bush administrations can share in the blame for 9-11.

But at least Clinton had the GUTS and courage to admit that he tried to kill bin-Laden and failed to do so. He admitted he made mistakes, UNLIKE the current occupant of the White House whose lack of HUMILITY, stubborness, lack of REALITY, lack of war PLANNING, lack of concrete GOALS all of which has caused thousands of American soldiers deaths, thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths, which has also resulted in a byproduct of a potentially nuclear Iran and Syrian fed Hezbollah.

If the masters of deceit... Fox news, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove fed conservatives want us to take a trip down the missed opportunities OBL memory lane, we should ask them to explain two of BUSH's biggest missed opportunities of all:

  1. The August 6, 2001 security warning, "Bin-Laden Determined to Attack Inside the US"


  1. How the US let Bin-Laden escape at the battle of Tora Bora in December 2001

In both instances, BUSH and company were NEGILENT!!

Bush, Cheney, and the Republican controlled congress, most of which have NEVER served militarily sound like a bunch of parrots, reapeating the same irrational BS everyday, every hour on the hour. Meanwhile our troops who are stuck in Bush's foreign policy quagmire are his sacrificial lambs!!

GOPConservative 11 years, 8 months ago

If Bush had taken the time to thoroughly plan the invasion, we would have won the war in Iraq.

He should have made sure that he had an enough international peace-making troops to provide security after Saddam was toppled. He should have made sure that all the materials were stockpiled in Kuwait for a quick return of electric power and other services. He should have made sure that other key democracies were on board and participating. He should have utilized Saddam's Army rather than sending them home with their guns and IED-making materials but without their pay and pensions. He should have allowed the weapons inspectors to finish their job so that his invasion could have been based on something other than WMD. In short, he should have listened to the experts and should have taken the time to do it right.

As a result of Bush's rush to war and poor planning, our goals for Iraq will not be reached. It has become nothing more than a meat grinder for American soldiers and the 100-plus innocent women and children who die each day due to Bush not listening to military planners and experts. Sadly, it is getting worse each week.

Iraq has become all about borrowing money from the Chinese Communists to piss away to Halliburton and the other tax-sucking monopolies.

This rip-off of the American taxpayer and the obligation of future generations to pay interest to the commies for all this waste and carnage is primarily Bush's fault, but it is also the fault of Bush's supporters in Congress such as Jim Ryun.

I have to laugh that with the election looming, Ryan sudden claims to be a fiscal conservative even though he supported the largest deficit and greatest fiscal liberalism in American history.

Of course, Jim also was one of the main recipients of the money Jack Abramhoff stole from the Indian tribes, receiving funds not only for his campaigns but also for a nice home in Washington that Jack sold to Jim for hundreds of thousands less than market value.

I'll sure be glad when Ryun and all the other liberal socialist crooks are kicked out of office this fall, and America can start to establish a foreign policy that will reduce the threat of terrorism rather than throwing gasoline on the fire.

Godot 11 years, 8 months ago

GOPconservative, the only way anyone can "thoroughly plan" an invasion is to have 20-20 hindsight, as you clearly do.

Shardwurm 11 years, 8 months ago

I didn't read all the posts but just wanted to say that Madeline Albright is still HOT!

Rationalanimal 11 years, 8 months ago

holygrailale said:


The 'Clinton was offered Bin Laden by the Sudanese" is an old Sean Hannity hoax....'

It is the job of the American Military to defend the nation and to 'kick butt while doing it."

First, be careful holylib, your indirectly admitting you listen to Sean Hannity. That could deflate esteem you're held in amongst your buddies down at the Boog Pig.

Second, the military has never indiscriminately "kicked butt." They get their orders and then start the kicking. Suprised you didn't know that.

Last, (and I don't know why I'm even wasting my breathe by saying what I'm about to say since being a liberal/socialist requires the ability to stare black and white reality in the face and deny its existence) the Sudanese Govt, as a matter public historical record offered to hand OBL over to Clinton. Clinton and his staff, including J. Reno and Madam A came up with the brilliant policy to treat OBL as a criminal rather than head of an enemy organization waging war on the United States of America. Thus, Clinton said "no thanks" and decided to, oh I don't know, wait to arrest OBL until he was inside the borders of the U.S.A.

truth_serum 11 years, 8 months ago

Godot, thanks, I'm aware of Michael Scheurer's accusations against Clinton...I READ his book Imperial Hubris.... But did you also know that Scheurer stated a number of other arguements that the United States cannot fight an EFFECTIVE war on terror because the BUSH administration doesn't even UNDERSTAND or is unwilling to COMPREHEND how U.S. foreign policy impacts the Islamic world.

He argued that the U.S. government doesn't comprehend that we have a perception problem, and that the invasion of Iraq, as well as our policies towards Israel and Palestine, fuel this perception problem which drives anti-American sentiment, which therefore breeds TERRORISM.

Scheurer also claimed that Bush II, Clinton and Bush I before Clinton all identified Islamic militancy as being based on the hatred of Western democracy and freedom, and that's clearly NOT the case.

Universally in the Muslim world, American foreign policy in several specific areas is hated by Muslims, i.e., US policies towards our support for Israel, US ability to keep oil prices low, or low enough to satisfy Western consumers, US support for Arab TYRANNIES from Morocco to the Indian Ocean, and US support for Putin in Chechnya.

Halloweenie 11 years, 8 months ago

Madeleine Albright is one very unattractive-looking woman!


Rationalanimal 11 years, 8 months ago

P.S. to my previous post:

To Clinton's credit, he may have been expecting the little Cuban boy to try a refloat to the U.S.A. aboard the U.S.S. Minnow with OBL aboard. That's probably why he didn't take the Sudanese up on their offer. I'm sure a fairy god mother fits in here somewhere.

ConcernedAmerican 11 years, 8 months ago

Dateline or CBS did a story the other night about 12-15 year old girls who use the anonymity of the internet chat rooms, AOL, etc. to backstab and downright trash each other and disparage other girls to their peers and the general public. They do not even realize they are doing it, it becomes a game to them.

You know what, you all sound like a bunch of teenage girls. Why doesn't Lawrence hold real town meetings where these issues and more could be discussed, debated and reasoned with face to face encounters? Real people talking with each other about real world concerns. Everything is black or white. Various shades of gray are much easier to live with.

Halloweenie 11 years, 8 months ago

I think Madeleine's still upset that Bill never came at her with a cigar in his hand!--Or anything else in his hand for that matter!

truth_serum 11 years, 8 months ago

To Conservativeman, my apologies and THANK YOU for your service. I'm grateful for it. Although you may laugh, I did serve my country two years as a peace corp volunteer in a remote region in Tanzania in a Sustainable Agriculture program trying to assist local farmers, the idea being to sustain themselves independently. I missed being drafted to the Vietnam War by one year, I registerd f at the local selective servce office, on Mass. St. (I think, been too long I can't remember) received my draft ID number and draft card and had I been called I would have served.

I appreicate having rational and respetful diaglogue even though we may disagree on the issues. As for me, I'm an old time Hubert Humphrey liberal. We all can agree and disagree and avoid the name calling, although sometimes I get caught up in the moment and have to be reminded of this fact. thanks.

Sacerdotal 11 years, 8 months ago

Please, everyone, try to remember that whether you love or hate the person, or their message or behavior, everyone is worthy of being treated with respect. Not because they earned it or you want to give it. But rather, because as you treat others, so shall you be treated.

How true, as the TEACHER said to the Essenes so many years ago. We need to elect more statesmen (like Bob Dole) and fewer rabid politicians.

justthefacts 11 years, 8 months ago

I didn't see that show Concerned American, but I think the analogy may be appropriate. And I think that theory may in part explain (to me anyway) the rather obvious increase in the number and ferocity of bad mannered personal attacks anonymously being made on other people.

Perhaps all this communication technology has helped people forget that use of sarcasm, put-down "humor", and other uncivil behaviors is impacting another living breathing human being. Arguments are rarely won or minds or hearts changed/softened by engaging in name calling. And - again in my personal opinion - those who regulary do such things, and actually enjoy the pain they try to inflict on others, only show their lack of personal comfort or happiness with their own beliefs or life. It reminds me of junior highschool way too much; it does seem slightly juvenile (not to mention just plain old mean) to try to bully people you have never met in person.

Maybe, if we did all get off the internet, and meet face to face, people would stop being so quick to try to be hurtful. And then, just maybe, some group consensus might be reached and some problems on their way to being solved!

Halloweenie 11 years, 8 months ago

Sac, your post is silly.

Respect is indeed earned.

I would not respect a murderer simply because I myself would want to be treated with respect.

Get a grip!

ASBESTOS 11 years, 8 months ago

HGA this is yout source??? You have GOT to be kidding!

MediaMatters???? Yeah that is objective and in context.

The transcript:

The video:

The point being Graile is that if there is not prosecutin of Armitage, there is nothing here fro this case. regardless of how many left wing blogs you cite. Your informations is no better that what you would shovel off the floor of a hog pen.

And that reference to Joe Wilson, If you look closely and read EVErRTHING, the report you are so fond of also states the Joe Wilson was the first to out his wife, AND he did screw up with his missin to Niger.

So why are you only telling one side of the story.


THIS LINK IS ABOUT Madeline....not the Plame issue.

That is how crappy you guys are. You can't een stay on target.

You posted to the wrong thread

Please stay on topic.

truth_serum 11 years, 8 months ago

I agree with you Concerned American! I would relish the thought of intellectual town hall meetings to have a rational discussion and debate the issues and hold elected officals (from the White House to the governor's house) ACCOUNTABLE for their actions and decisions. But how many 'concerned' citizens would attend? How many would care?

I'm dubious, most people are too concerned with their golf games, Friday night football, hunting trips, shopping at Walmart to care at all.

There's no real national SACRIFICE with respect to Bush's Iraqi war. The war is a 60 second blip on the evening news. Politicians nor the US public doesn't have the will nor the guts for any real sacrifice. If we're serious about this then why don't we have a national draft and have more than just national guard volunteers serve? If this war affected EVERYONE EQUALLY, trust me, the US would have a change of leadership!

verity 11 years, 8 months ago


Thank you for your posts. I wish I could have said it so well.

GOPConservative 11 years, 8 months ago


"GOPconservative, the only way anyone can "thoroughly plan" an invasion is to have 20-20 hindsight, as you clearly do."

You must have been in a coma when Bush was rushing to war. Either that, or you weren't paying attention.

Everything I said that Bush should have done was recommended by respected authorities on Iraq, including many of our own military planners and foreign policy experts.

Was it incompetence or was it because the Neocons knew that if they allowed the weapons inspectors to finish their job, they would lose their main justification for rushing into war?

Personally, I believed then and still believe that a carefully-thought-out plan of action could have been sold without using WMD as the justification.

Bringing democracy to the Middle East is a worthy goal. It could have stood on its own merit.

Many world leaders would have joined the effort, but they were shut out of the discussion. If Bush had sought consensus, that in itself would have shown that democracy involves participation and broad discussion, not unilateral action by a minority at the expressed disagreement of the majority.

Creating civil strife is not the way to fight terrorism. As we have seen throughout American history, fighting terrorism is combination of a fair foreign policy and good intelligence.

An all out war through unilateral invasion and occupation has only served to inflame the Arab world. In fact, it has inflamed the entire world.

The British use of intelligence to stop the plot to blow up planes over the ocean is an excellent example of the kind of intelligence America should have been using in the eight months leading up to 9-11.

Of course, good intelligence and a fair foreign policy work doesn't produce as much pork for Halliburton and the other tax-sucking defense contractors.

America has been going into deep debt and has lost nearly 3,000 brave soldiers. Ten times that many are permanently injured with brain damage and missing arms and legs.

All this suffering has only served to allow the tax-sucking defense contractors to sell more products and services at inflated prices.

Bush's "war on terrorism" is war to create more terrorism. More terrorism means more pork for the industries that currently control both the legislative and executive branches of our government.

Meanwhile, the American soldiers and the people of Iraq are bleeding to keep the money pouring into the pockets of the defense contractors. Meanwhile, our children and grand children will face a debt of monsterous proportions.

truth_serum 11 years, 8 months ago

To conservativemman...FIRST of all my post reflected the thoughts of former CIA bin Laden station chief, Michael Scheurer as stated in his best selling book, Imperial Hubris and your parroting the very SAME rhetoric he states as to why we're NOT winning the war on terrorism. I happen to agree with some of his ideolgoy and thoughts.

And I'll ask you the same question that I ask my sister who parrots the same war on terror misinformation...."are YOU willing to enlist and serve in Iraq? are YOU willing to sacrifice your son or daughter?" Funny thing, when I ask her this she immediately shuts up her pie hole.

justthefacts 11 years, 8 months ago

My deceased father-in-law fought in WWII (in Normandy). He was a quiet gentle intelligent man. He thought, after that experience, that every time a country was in a war, whatever happened to one of the soliders, be it a hang-nail, loss of a limb, or death) should be inflicted on a person (of any age) back "safe" in the homeland - chosen by pulling random names out of a fish bowl. He thought that might slow down the war like urge to "show them a thing or two" with a show of force that cost nothing but tax dollars. In other words, when death or disfigurement is personal, we tend to take it more seriously.

The same is true of other types of war or attacks. I find it interesting, and somewhat dismaying, that so many of those who argue so stridantly against the Iraq war think nothing of venting their spleens and being hateful towards all who disagree with their slightest word or thought.

There are some things worth fighting for or over. We all have lines we will defend. The lines may differ, and what we are willing to do to provide a defense may differ. But the one thing we all have in common is that we shall all one day face death. Being hateful to other people does not improve their ability to understand or agree with you. It would really help convince people of your veracity or the nobleness of your goals if you did not behave in the manner you are decrying. Being anonymous should not be an excuse to be passive aggressive, snide, derogatory or mean to other people. If you would not say something to someone's face, then you probably should not say it to them on line or on a blog.

Part of the reason we have wars is because people did not, or would not, learn to get along together. It starts and ends here at home people. Argue and debate and spin facts all you want. But please remember that we are, for the most part and/or moment anyway, all living in the same country. If we want to stay in one piece, we are going to have to re-learn how to "play nice, share the ball." And fast.

bjamnjm 11 years, 8 months ago

I think some of these comments about borrowed money are a big deal. We have borrowed so much from so many countries like China, Taiwan, Japan, Germany, etc., etc., etc. Undoubtedly, these lenders will want to manipulate us, the borrower. For example, what if we intended to stand in the way of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan? The Chinese may demand immediate payment in full. Also, I wonder about the war in Iraq, is it our interests being served by this war or someone elses? Unfortunately, I think Iran, China and Russia will be the biggest winners when we finally leave there. Owing huge debts to so many countries may be exactly why our nations foreign policy appears so confusing to us. Our foreign policy cannot be consistent or in our best interest b/c now we have to represent the interests of so many other countries.

The only part of this I know for sure is the deficits, the rest is my hypothesis. Perhaps, what our nation needs to do is get back to basics. We need to figure out what is important and what isn't. Anymore, it seems whether Democrat or Republican our government has been hijacked by special interest groups after nothing but power. What happened to a desire to serve? I hope everyone votes this fall and in 2008.

truth_serum 11 years, 8 months ago

To Conservativeman, my apologies and THANK YOU for your service. I'm grateful for it. Although you may laugh, I did serve my country two years as a peace corp volunteer in a remote region in Tanzania in a Sustainable Agriculture program trying to assist local farmers, the idea being to sustain themselves independently. I missed being drafted to the Vietnam War by one year, I registerd f at the local selective servce office, on Mass. St. (I think, been too long I can't remember) received my draft ID number and draft card and had I been called I would have served.

I appreicate having rational and respetful diaglogue even though we may disagree on the issues. We all can do this and avoid the name calling, although sometimes I get caught up in the moment and have to be reminded of this fact. thanks.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 8 months ago

Additinally if the case is as you state, why has the media dropped it like a hot potato. The media is one thin the BushCo does not control.

Go to this blog and read the "Crank at work on a Wednesday".. It is a perfect analysis of you yahoos.

jonas 11 years, 8 months ago

"Former secretary of state critical of how Bush has handled events"

I confess to being deeply surprised by this.


fliesinyoureyes 11 years, 8 months ago

We've already lost the war on terror. If we stay in Iraq, al qaeda will contine to grow as it has been. If we leave, al quaeda will claim victory. Either way, we've ALREADY LOST and attacking Iraq was the thing that did it.

If Madeline Albright or Mickey Mouse criticizes the this move, who cares.

We should be thinking about the big picture, and that is how to address the problem between Israel and Palestine. Bush and every US president thereafter should call for a World Summit to mediate the differences between Israel and Palestine. I know it sounds childish and stupid, but if it takes 1000 world summits to make the peace work, isn't that better than where we're going now? Countries are building concrete walls around their borders because NO ONE IS SAFE. People throughout the entire World are terrified... terror has already won.

Peace between Israel and Palestine is the only thing that takes us off this path of destruction.

Clinton at least understood that.

Godot 11 years, 8 months ago

"Or you can listen to your generals and ranking officers on the ground when they tell you they need more resources and that fighting this war "economically" (Rumsfeld's brainchild) was a bad idea due to the high possibility of post-conflict insurgency."

Funny. The people who were against the war in the first place are now complaining that we did not go in with enough force.

Rationalanimal 11 years, 8 months ago

holyskipper of the USS Minnow posted:


The 9-11 Commission found no evidence of any such offer from Sudan to the United States regarding Usama Bin Laden.


"No one involved in the 1996 negotiations apart from former officials of Sudan -- a country that the U.S. State Department has designated as a state sponsor of terrorism every year since 1993 -- has verified the claim that Sudan offered bin Laden to the United States. In light of this lack of evidence, the 9-11 Commission "Staff Statement No. 5," issued in March, rejected the Sudanese claim:

Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."


So sayeth your own government.

The origins of the hoax can be found on that page as well."

You're own citation shows you're inability to put aside you're political biases and objectively face reality.

  1. The 9-11 Commission contained a partisan group of witch hunters, including folks from the Clinton Admin.

  2. The Sudanese officials are on the record of saying they offered OBL to us. Considering their interest in incurring the wrath of the Muslim world by saying for the record they we're willing to help America just doesnt suppor their lying. In any event, I thought libs like you'reself are all about understanding our enemies and giving credibility to there point of view.

  3. The webpage you cited (aside from the fact it is left-leaning website), has Clinton on record saying: "[a]t the time, 1996, [OBL] had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him..." This statement unequivocally establishes that Clinton could have brought OBL to the U.S., but decided not to.

  4. The 9-11 Report you cite says they cannot find that Clinton could have gotten OBL b/c the Clinton Administration denies they had access to OBL. We'll, thats convenient now isnt it. Clinton folks denying they couldve taken OBL to a highly partisan group of witch hunters.

  5. Lastly, you're bias in conveniently applying standards of facts and rumor demonstrates the inability to face black and white reality. Im sure you bought hook line and sinker the Madam A rumor that Bush had OBL locked up somewhere and was waiting to report that just days before the election.

  6. And yes, Ive deliberately made grammatical errors for you to entertain you'reself with (kind of like a liberal scavenger hunt when you dont have anything of logical value to add). Assuming that I was homeschooled, which I wasnt, why is that so bad you elitist snob.

Godot 11 years, 8 months ago

truth_serum wrote :"Universally in the Muslim world, American foreign policy in several specific areas is hated by Muslims, i.e., US policies towards our support for Israel, US ability to keep oil prices low, or low enough to satisfy Western consumers, US support for Arab TYRANNIES from Morocco to the Indian Ocean, and US support for Putin in Chechnya."

I think there is more to it than that. I think they abhor our culture, for instance. However, if you are correct, then it is clear that there is nothing we can do to mollify the Muslims without destroying our economy and abandoning several countries on our very short list of sort-of-allies.

fliesinyoureyes 11 years, 8 months ago


I agree with that statement, and I do not favor appeasement. I'm well-versed in the path that led us to WWII.

I also acknowledge that al qaeda bombed the WTC the same year that Arafat and Rabin shook hands on the White House lawn.

But the one thing all Arab states at odds with Israel have in common is that they're fighting for the rights of Palestinians.

To my recollection, no one has ever really appeased the Palestinians.

The hard truth that I wonder about is maybe the Israelis should give the Palestinians their country back. Zionism didn't really begin in its current form until the 1800's. This is not a thousand+ year-old fight as everyone claims.

I'm not anti-semitic. I wish peace and happiness for Israelis. But they probably ain't ever gonna get it like this. And neither will anyone else.

Wouldn't we all welcome the Israelis with open arms if they migrated to the U.S. - the only place in the world who seems to value their right to exist?

truth_serum 11 years, 8 months ago

Hello Godot, perhaps IF we, (U.S.) can at least try and make some corrections or revisions to our current foreign policies and I'm NOT talking appeasement this would at least be a start.

Of course most of the Muslim world hates our culture, but our culture is NOT the real issue.

We do not have to 'abandon' our critical allies, i.e., Israel. As a previous post by fliesinyoureyes indicated, we have to find a workable solution (with legitimate partners, NOT Hammas or Hezbollah) to the Israreli and Palestinian question. But to continue our present course and ignore this reality will lead to more terror and more insecurity.

I'm an avid reader of the on-line version of HaAretz, if interested...

fliesinyoureyes 11 years, 8 months ago


Yes it is too much for anyone to ask of the Israelis. But if I were one of them, I would leave.

My ancestry traces back to Sweden. I will be there before the U.S. collapses. I'm not going to let my children join nor fight the bigot hoards that will control this area when rule of law vanishes. Come to think of it, home is where you lay your head. It's dirt.

Torture, bigotry, racism, imperialism, abandonment of habeus corpus, rigged elections, personal privacy invasions, voting rights for illegal citizens... these are not the things our ancestors fought and died for. It is not the dirt we build our houses on that makes us a great nation.


ASBESTOS 11 years, 8 months ago

Here ya go HGA, the end of the "Plame game"

"It now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously. (Italics added.)"

End of An Affair," Washington Post August 31, 2006, accessed September 24, 2006.

IT was Joe WIlson that outed his wife, and he as the story stated, "Falsely stating" the Niger issue he had "debunked" the Iraq yellow cake deal.

SO you are wrong those 2 accounts. Joe Wilson outed his wife first, not the BUsh Admin, and Joe Wilson did not debunk the Iraq yellow cake deal.


As for her being in Deep cover or a covert agent.

From the Washington Monthly:

"Fred Rustmann, a former CIA official who put in 24 years as a spymaster and was Plame's boss for a few years, says Plame worked under official cover in Europe in the early 1990s - say, as a U.S. embassy attache - before switching to nonofficial cover a few years later. Mostly Plame posed as a business analyst or a student in what Rustmann describes as a "nice European city." Plame was never a so-called deep-cover NOC, he said, meaning the agency did not create a complex cover story about her education, background, job, personal life and even hobbies and habits that would stand up to intense scrutiny by foreign governments. ....Though Plame's cover is now blown, it probably began to unravel years ago when Wilson first asked her out. Rustmann describes Plame as an "exceptional officer" but says her ability to remain under cover was jeopardized by her marriage in 1998 to the higher-profile American diplomat."

jafs 11 years, 8 months ago

Well, my previous post seems to have had a little effect on the discussion - thanks to all who are attempting to act with civility! I think that Clinton looks better each year in hindsight - as I recall, we had very high employment, a budget surplus, were not at war, and used our military to help prevent genocide. That sounds pretty good to me. We currently have lower employment, a huge budget deficit, are at war (in a war that will probably take a long time), and are draining our military resources. That doesn't sound as good to me. And, if you add the many violations of our Constitution and civil liberties, it's not even close. The thing that's really hard for me to understand is that the current administration isn't even acting in accordance with traditionally conservative values. Values like balanced budgets, an adequately prepared and outfitted army, lack of subsidies, etc. I would think that true conservatives would be outraged, and yet they don't seem to be. GOP conservative - I seem to agree with your posts a lot - are you really conservative? I would probably have to be described as liberal, although I have some other ideas as well.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 8 months ago

And from the July "05 Wasnington Times:

" A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee. "She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times."

" "Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. ... The agency never changed her cover status." "


" In addition, Mrs. Plame hadn't been out as an NOC since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, married Mr. Wilson and had twins, USA Today reported yesterday. The distinction matters because a law that forbids disclosing the name of undercover CIA operatives applies to agents that had been on overseas assignment "within the last five years." "She was home for such a long time, she went to work every day at Langley, she was in an analytical type job, she was married to a high-profile diplomat with two kids," Mr. Rustmann said. "Most people who knew Valerie and her husband, I think, would have thought that she was an overt CIA employee." "

This is so over!!!


Joe WIlson Outed his WIfe.

Joe WIlson DID NOT DEBUNK the IRAQ yellow Cake issue>

Valrie Plame WAS NOT a Covert Agent.

And finally...

The final case is NOT OUT YET HGA. Because Armitage was the "primary source" it woudl be the State Department then.


Bellylaughs and guffaws here!!!

ASBESTOS 11 years, 8 months ago

Ya GOTTA read this, it is the BEST in political satire from a former Lawrence resident and graduate from KU with a Degree in Music Composition.

It is priceless from his view on torture, his point on "growing up politically", to his latest rant with very good articulation on how the political atmosphere pull at the strings of the 20-30 somethings and the effect on their lives.

It is priceless whether you are a dem or a republican, but BEST if you are truley an independent.

But it is priceless!! IT will make you laugh!

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago


You are completely, totally wrong about Sudan offering Osama bin Laden to the United States. If you will dig a little deeper, you will discover that the Sudanese were only interested in sending OBL back to Saudi Arabia . . . to be pardoned. The Sudanese would never have handed OBL over to a hostile country.

Israel stole most of the land that comprises Israel from Palestinians during and after the 1948 war. The Palestinians were panicked into flight; they deserted their homes, offices, schools, farms, villages, schools, and businesses and fled to escape rumored Jewish atrocities.

When the initial tumult subsided and the Palestinians tried to return to their homes, offices, schools, farms, village, schools, and businesses, they were prevented from doing so by Israeli security forces. They were forced to return to makeshift refugee camps, which became home to generations of Palestinians since.

Israeli Jews are thieves. They stole Palestine from the Palestinians, and no rationalizing can cover up or mitigate their crime. They are the cause of unrest in the Middle East, and it should be apparent to thinking Americans that we have no business supporting Israel.

The other side of the coin is that Muslims are far too absorbed in their vile religion. Islam is a disgrace, an insult to human intelligence and initiative.

A pox on both their houses.

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago


You are wrong. Jews did not buy, or legally annex, or negotiate for Palestinian land. They stole it.

If you owned a farm, and some grave circumstance led you to flee with your family to safety, and when the danger died down and it was safe for you and your family to return to your farm, you were prevented from doing so by armed forces who turned you away so that you had no recourse but to go live with relatives . . . in Texas, and you found out later that people allied with the armed men were living on your farm, working your land, living in your home, and they constantly, relentlessly kept you from returning to your former home . . . would you be correct in calling them thieves?

The truth will set you free.

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago

You are incorrect. At best, only a few thousand Jews were forced to leave Arab countries, and were welcomed in Israel.

But Palestinians were forced into refugee camps by the hundreds of thousands.

Perhaps you might read "Israel/Palestine" by Tanya Reinhart (Seven Stories Press - 2002) for a more complete understanding of Israeli perfidy against Palestinians.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 8 months ago


"You are wrong. Jews did not buy, or legally annex, or negotiate for Palestinian land. They stole it."

No the Jews did not steal it, if anyone "stole it" it was the United Nations or League of nations. THEY were the ones that carved up the middle east. SOmething you re-writers of history forget. THe US did not carve up the middle east, the Brits, The French, and the Allies of WWII.

The US was busy rebuilding Europe, and Japan.

Revisionist history and bad revisionist history at that from you Xeno.


"But Palestinians were forced into refugee camps by the hundreds of thousands."

Well partly correct. YES, the UN did kick out what they deemed "tribal groups" that had no country affiliation or affiliations with Lebannon and Egypt, and gave the land to the Jews for Europe and those settled in Isarel. IT was also the Middle Eastern countries that "turned their backs" on their fellow muslims at the time as well. NONE of the MIddle east countries wanted to take in the Refugees, no provide them land.

Essentially the Paliestinians were the "illegal aliens" of the Middle East, and you see how welcoming they were those illegals. IN FACT, most middle eastern leaders at the time called them squatters.

It was only until they found that they could squeeze the UN after the British massacers of those tribalsists, that the Middle east countries started petitioning the UN for money, that they never intended to help out the Palestinians out.

This is NOT just an Israel, or US, problem onyl. The world has forgotten that.

Anyway before that it was part of the Ottoman Empire and Egypt and Lebanon neither had ownersip of it.


Please learn your history.

ANd go to the Skymuse blog. It is great!

ASBESTOS 11 years, 8 months ago

"The truth will set you free."

You are correct, but why are you still in the box?

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago

If you insist on defending Jewish thieves, so be it. Your interpretations of history are wrong, but can be expected from those of your political persuasions.

I have to edit my work, and have no more time for you.

Godot 11 years, 8 months ago

"If you will dig a little deeper, you will discover that the Sudanese were only interested in sending OBL back to Saudi Arabia . . . to be pardoned. The Sudanese would never have handed OBL over to a hostile country."

If you are right, then we have yet another example of our former president "coloring" his stories. There is a recording of him declaiming that he was offered OBL by the Sudanese, and that he refused. That is not a myth, the recording exists.

Either Clinton was making up that story to impress his audience, or he really did let OBL get away. Which was it?

ASBESTOS 11 years, 8 months ago

Xeno the clueless:

"Your interpretations of history are wrong, but can be expected from those of your political persuasions."

Oh and your brilliant interpertations are NOT from YOUR particular brand of "political persuasions". Good retort, but hardly factual since all the history of Israel is avaiaible online. It is right there, the only thing stopping you is your "political persuasions".

You said it right, "the truth will set yu free". Now take some of your own medicine, and educate yourself.

The way i presented the history of Isreal is correct, to deny it is to deny the truth.

The truth is, this wasn't a mess of the US's making.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 8 months ago

"Godot reports a tape of Clinton disclaiming that he was ever offered Usama Bin Ladin and, in the next breath, insists that this proves that he was offered Usama Bin Laden by the Sudanese."

Sorry HGA but that is in fact the case. Pres. Clinton stated in his dust up with Chris Wallace that very fact that Sudan offered him up and the Saudias wouldn't allow it to go forth.

The other one was out of the Clinton camp when they were talking about the ABC movie "the Path to 9/11" where they state they never had the offer to Pres. Clinton was stating that he never had UBL offered from Sudan.

BOth are out of the Clinton Camp, and surrounding Pres. Clinton defending himself first with the ABC TV show, then the Chris Wallace blowup where he contradicted his very PR people.

That's why you guy's don't know what you are talking about, your leaders don't either.

Bellylaughs and guffaws and pointing fingers.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 8 months ago

"Either Clinton was making up that story to impress his audience, or he really did let OBL get away. Which was it?"

And essentially and factually Godot is correct. ALL this is in recent statements.

Godot 11 years, 8 months ago

HGA wrote: "Godot reports a tape of Clinton disclaiming that he was ever offered Usama Bin Ladin and, in the next breath, insists that this proves that he was offered Usama Bin Laden by the Sudanese."

HGA, the word I used was "declaiming."

look it up.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 8 months ago

Sorry dear, but when is Armitage getting prosecuted for the deed then?

That is the point.

middleoftheroader 11 years, 8 months ago

and that "culture of corruption" works in both parties... when one slings mud to his opponent his opponent now has mud to sling back

middleoftheroader 11 years, 8 months ago

and there is no way i'd ever want my children to be crossing a street anywhere Nixon

jafs 11 years, 8 months ago

The situation in the middle east is a terrible tragedy, and one which threatens our security in a major way. My understanding of the formation of Israel was that it was done by the UN after WWII, and with little or no regard for the existing Palestinian population. With that beginning, how can we expect anything other than what we have today? If we continue to support Israel militarily, we continue to antagonize the Arab nations in the middle east. We must find a solution, rather than continuing to perpetuate war and destruction, and in my opinion we must acknowledge the injustice done to Palestinian occupants. This doesn't negate or minimize the atrocities of WWII or justify suicide bombings. It simply would be an attempt to solve the problem.

fliesinyoureyes 11 years, 8 months ago

I made some comments yesterday that I'd like to retract. What I'd like to suggest to my fellow citizens is that you take a long, hard look at Islamic Radicalism. If you do not understand at least the basics of Islamic Shariah, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

I've been guilty of speaking from ignorance on this subject my entire life, but now - after an 18-hour cram of the basic tenets of Islamic Radicalism - I'm now just beginning to understand what this war is actually about. To those who laugh, you'd be surprised how quickly you learn when you actually decide to cast away your ignorance.

You would all do western civ. a favor by becoming objectively educated on Islamic Radicalism. Despite popular opinion, it's not simply a buzzword invented by Bush neo-cons (a camp I do not subscribe to).

I am a humanist, and I value freedom of religion. And I say anyone who values freedom of religion as we understand it needs to become enlightened to the threat posed to such a society by Islamic Radicalism.

jafs- initially the Palestinians actually agreed to 1948 boundaries, but quickly recanted.

I still think Israel could do us all a favor and emigrate to the U.S. That appeasement would solve the post-48 crisis, but it would not free the western world from the threat posed by Islamic Radicalism. This is an ideological battle best fought through enlightenment.

As long as we allow "fear" generated by violent, public demonstrations of Islamic Radicalists to dominate our policies and actions (which is happening worldwide - see NATO's decision - announced TODAY - to limit military options on the ground in Afghanistan) we will be losing the war on "terror".

Suddenly, I agree in principle with Bush's 5-point plan:

  1. prevent attacks before they occur;
  2. deny terrorists weapons of mass destruction;
  3. deny terrorists sanctuary;
  4. prevent terrorists from gaining control of any nation;
  5. promote democratic reform, respect for human rights, and enforcement of the rule of law in the Middle East to undermine the ability of terrorists to recruit new followers.

The Iraqi civilians are being murdered by Islamic Radicalists. They are the true criminals in this situation, not the U.S. All we've done is knock out the Baathist regime- a subject of debate all it's own. We are currently in a tooth and nail fight in Iraq on Bush's 3rd, 4th and 5th points. It's not fun and we should not like it. But we should not recoil in cowardice like I have myself been guilty of.

I've come to these realizations not through any propaganda by Bush neo-cons... but through newfound, objective understanding of Islamic Radicalism.

Free people should become enlightened! Yesterday, I was a self-proclaimed casualty of this war. No longer!

fliesinyoureyes 11 years, 8 months ago

ps- I still feel we should be doing the entire world the favor only the U.S. can do - calling for a publicly-televised world summit for negotiations between Israel and Palestine. Bring Hammas to the table since the Palestinians have "elected" Hammas. Israeli leaders must stand up to the threat of assassination to join this summit. Palestinian leaders should be given a voice. If they truly value peace, they'll show. If they don't, then let the world will see.

Godot 11 years, 8 months ago

Good job, fliesinyoureyes, beautifully said. Now, prepare for attack.

Godot 11 years, 8 months ago

fliesinyoureyes has a great idea about relocating the Jewish state to the US.

Give them most of Kansas. If they could do for Kansas what they have done for that little slice of desert, we would be very fortunate to have them in our state. And think of the billions in foreign aid we would receive.

That is an idea worth exploring.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 7 months ago

Armitage is TILL not charged HGA.

How would THAT be "having my hat handed to me"? No way, all you produced is old news and nothing after the Armitage disclosure.

Again, the investigations is STILL active, and IF Plame was truely under the protection of a particular law, Armitage was the one that "outed" PLame,...and her big mouthed husband "outed" her before that.

You are splitting hairs, and if there was anything here...

Do you think for one minute that the National Dems would be jumping on it? Why are they so silent on it if it is such a story and breech of law???

Where are your DNC leaders on this?

ASBESTOS 11 years, 7 months ago

WHy I don't pretend logic, besides what are you,... jealous?

I say what I say. What you think of it is YOUR problem if you can't properly analyze an event, issue, or process.

Besides what YOU think avout ME is not what this thread is about, nor is it relevant to it. Your pride or sense of where you are in the mental food chain is no concern of mine and neither is where I am in all that either. If that is the best you can debate, Oh well!

Please stay on topic. And the Topic is:

Just how goofy is Madiline, and how out of it are the far left libs.

xenophonschild 11 years, 7 months ago

Pouring good money after bad. Not just a few buckets, or even stream, or even a river, but an ocean of money . . . and prestige . . . and credibility.

Yes, there is a war against extremists headbangers-for Allah. But wars have to be fought wisely. Your cause may be just, but if your leaders are stupid (read: brash, ignorant, stubborn, unsophisticated, unqualified, "profoundly mediocre"), then mistakes- like invading the wrong country - will muddy your efforts and sap your strength and ability to prosecute the war properly.

The saddest - and most maddening - thing is that we have to wait more than two more years to get rid of the idiot Bush and his congerie of incompetents. It is perhaps foolish to hope that Iraq can avoid civil war that long, and that the Taliban won't seize on our predicament in Iraq to stage a comeback in Afghanistan.

No matter what your political ideology, all we can do is wait and hope.

BTW, what does the Catholic Church and the Republican Party have in common?

ASBESTOS 11 years, 7 months ago

"BTW, what does the Catholic Church and the Republican Party have in common?"

Your not liking either one?

OH, other than that.

xenophonschild 11 years, 7 months ago

Suggest you wait until Democrats regain control of Congress in November; then you will discover that this sorry affair "has legs," and Republicans will be punished for their lies and various malfeasances.

Those of you who give allegiance to fundamentalist Christian conservative Republicans need to worry how far up the chain of command punishment will go, and who will turn on his associates and finger the guilty to save his own skin. Remember, many Democrats have not forgotten Republican lies and vitroil against the Clintons . . . and Republicans birds have a way of coming home to roost.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 7 months ago

"Republicans will be punished for their lies and various malfeasances."

That is the Democratic National Strategy for leading this country??? Revenge?

You are positively psychotic and living in a deram world or totally insulated from reality.

Do you actually think with all the major issues on the table and the challanges facing this country that "investigations" for non violations are the answer?

Revenge...start by digging 2 graves.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 7 months ago

Naw, they were in "revenge' in the Clinton administration. Had to be with Begala and Cariville and lies and propagenda and other poo that came out of their mouths.

Did you ever notice those 2 cannot appear by themselves on shows with an opposite take than they have???

BTW, the last 5.5 years has been on the Economy, knocked down the defecit to 1/2 of what the dems said it would be, and fight the wat of Terror. The Dems only bitch about it.

There are a lot of thing to fault the Repubs for, namely Port and Border security, and those stupid Repub Senators that bandi the "Comprehensive Immigratin Reform Bill"

We tried that in '86 without enforcement and look where it got us. The 2006 is just a rehash of the '86 immigration reform bill.

Godot 11 years, 7 months ago

I do not want to hear this "war" called the "war on terror" any longer. It is a war with radical Islam. Call it what it is.

And, the "war in Iraq," is no longer. What is going on now, on the part of the US, is an effort to build a democracy in Iraq, and establish some semblance of peaceful existence for the citizens while struggling against outside, invading forces from an organization that is not a country, but more like a brotherhood, whose goal is to ignite a civil war so that they can take control of the country, its' people, and its' riches, to provide a base for operations so that they can continue their jihad against all who are non-radical Muslims.

How does one make that into a soundbite?

ASBESTOS 11 years, 7 months ago

The greater muslim community must wage jihad on those radical extremist muslims that have defiled Islam.

How is that?

xenophonschild 11 years, 7 months ago

Again, just a trifle disingenuous. Where were the "people are weak and sensuality is seductive" thoughts when Republicans were howling after William the Great for dallying with an intern . . . another consenting adult?

"Sin is not exclusive to either party." Quite right. When Democrats sin, the fundies foam with sanctimonious self-righteousness, calling down imprecations and invective upon the sinner.

We merely want to remind them that turnabout is fair play.

Vile, disgusting, morally-reprehensible Republican swine!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.