Yup. Thanks for the input. We'll just watch and see. What a mess.

. . but let's not forget the word 'radical'. The 'radicals' in our history did not prevail when their cause was 'wrong'. Example: Kill all people who work for the Federal Government; Kill Americans to make a political point (remember the bombing in Atlanta?) We do not consider the use of the Atom Bomb ‘radical’ - but. . . .

My fear is that we will turn a deaf ear to those leaders who do not believe in the radical interpretation of Islam and only react to the radicals. (However, we must not ignore the radicals but listen carefully – as their following is growing) McVeigh was not an ‘Arab’. . but a radical American. He certainly didn’t represent all Americans.

I feel that because of our lack of knowledge of the cultures of the Middle East - it is difficult for us to understand the underlining reason for some of the hatred towards the west - which began long before Iraq and the current fear of Al Qaeda.

I think before it becomes a religious conflict we'll have a much broader war over oil. I see a very bad scenario on the horizon beginning with Iraq and not stopping until the House of Saud as fallen. Perhaps the hatred between the Shiites and Sunni (remember also, the Iranians are not Arab which adds some fodder) perhaps will buy some time for Saudi Arabia. Of course given the dynamics what's taking place I could be all wrong. I hope so.

From the Christian Science Monitor:

Read this!

I still remember Walter Cronkite's editorial during the Tet Offensive stating that the Vietnam War was not winnable.

http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/Cronkite_1968.html
It's a good read. He called the situation a stalemate. We weren't defeated, but we couldn't win outright, either. A lot like the current situation. Unfortunately, the difference now is that there is no enemy state that we can have peace talks with, like there was in Vietnam.

David's Mom--thanks for your article as well. I found it interesting to compare the two articles, written almost 40 years apart.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

. . and we still haven't learned the lesson. Let's hope that we find someone to speak for both sides.

. . the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could. (Walter Cronkite)

I share the same concerns. Will executive order 9066 or something like that happen again?

Oh my God - I sincerely hope not!

That thought just rocked me! There are many Muslim congregations here in the states that have taken an active role in the 'war on terror'. The extremists/fundamentalists do not represent all of Islam - just like the KKK did not represent all of Christianity. The problem is that in our country, we have difficulty accepting minorities as Americans. I had many Japanese friends who were interred. This was a tragedy in the category of 'slavery'. I sincerely hope that we do not panic and start seeing a terrorist behind every 'brown' skin! . .then they have won. I think we have the technology today to determine who may be an enemy and who isn't. Frightening thought cyclist - but an important consideration when determining the reaction of the American people to a threat.

was a reaction based on fear by our leaders at that time. I sure hope we have that silver bullet technology that you mentioned to determine who is and who is not a terrorist. We sure didn't have for 9/11. We are approaching an election year and those seeking office will say anything to get elected; up to and including evoking fear to do it.

Good discussion!!!!

I'm not sure the 'silver bullet' is that protective - but we have the surveillance technology to know when and where a citizen who is suspected of 'cell' activity goes to the bathroom! You're right about the fear factor. Let's hope calmer minds prevail.

I honestly think we begin by replacing the politicians who are so invested in this country's worst decision ever (my opinion). The crafters of the current Iraq policy are so personally invested that they will never admit the mistake of toppling the government of a country that had not attacked us while engaging an enemy in another country; an enemy who had attacked us.
The Iraq study group has new ideas that are being ignored currently. We must reduce our footprint in Iraq so we are not defacto occupiers. We must become advisors in the background as Maliki's government does the heavy lifting. We must stop letting VP Cheney work counter to the Sec. of State on matters of diplomacy. We have to bring Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Afghanistan, Turkey, and Pakistan to the table to develop regional solutions. Gone are the days when we truly believed we could dictate policies and government structures in the Middle East.
We have to knock off the "Iran is funding Shiites so we need to get tuff with Iran" junk. This is junk because the MAJORITY of US troops are killed by Sunni militias who are CERTAINLY not funded by Iran. We don't hear talk of the base of Sunni support because it is not currently politically expedient to point fingers at Saudi Arabians.
Before this can happen, we need more republican leaders to put the national will before loyalty to their president; in essence, treat Iraq like immigration, so that we can remove the vast majority of troops out of their roll as babysiters and nation builders. There will be great disagreement of many of my points here in Fayette County and on this board, but that does not change the REALITY of the will of the MAJORITY of Americans; a majority that includes me. I've read much of your writings and I appreciate your civility. God Bless,

Kevin "Hack" King

Lots of postings but you carefully avoided the central point that the Iraq war has created more terrorists; although you did say twice that Bush had predicted the increase. Sure, after the facts were well established. It’s awfully easy now to predict that things will get worse. To continue a strategy that increases the number of enemies seems absurd to me but if it somehow gives you comfort, then by all means go with it.

Nevertheless, it is as futile for me to try to change your mind as it is for you to try to change mine. Regardless, the American people, by a vast majority, agree with me that the war is and has been a disaster and I predict the Republicans will pay dearly for it in the next election as they so richly deserve. Every cloud has a silver lining.

-------------------
“Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.” William E. Gladstone

This is the same William E. Gladstone who opposed the abolishment of slavery in the U.S. while setting on his perch in the British parlament. Obviously a "clear thinker". What a butter head.

I was wondering where that goofy quote came from but didn’t care enough to look it up. It makes a little more sense in that context since liberalism at that time would have meant freeing yourself from the government. Now it means wanting the government to take care of every aspect of your life for you.

Maximus

"the Iraq war has created more terrorists" -- Is that like saying that Katrina created more criminals? Poverty creates more criminals?

I do wonder why "crime rates fell about one third between 1934 and 1938 while the nation was struggling to emerge from the Great Depression and weathering another severe economic downturn in 1937 and 1938."

________________________

According to Aristotle it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, fleas from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, and so forth.

In the 1600s the prevailing wisdom [known as "spontaneous generation" (a theory also known as Aristotelian abiogenesis)] was that maggots formed naturally from rotting meat.

Alexander Ross wrote: "To question this (i.e., spontaneous generation) is to question reason, sense and experience. If he [Sir Thomas Browne] doubts of this let him go to Egypt, and there he will find the fields swarming with mice, begot of the mud of Nylus, to the great calamity of the inhabitants."

The Italian Francesco Redi, who, in 1668, proved that no maggots appeared in meat when flies were prevented from laying eggs and the "prevailing wisdom" slowly began to crumble.

Then in 1683 Antoni van Leeuwenhoek discovered bacteria, and it was soon found that however carefully organic matter might be protected by screens, or by being placed in stoppered receptacles, putrefaction set in, and was always accompanied by the appearance of myriad bacteria and other simple organisms.

In 1768 Lazzaro Spallanzani proved that microbes came from the air, and could be killed by boiling.

Yet it was not until 1862 that Louis Pasteur performed a series of careful experiments which proved that organisms such as bacteria and fungi do not appear in nutrient rich media of their own accord in non-living material, and which supported cell theory. Pasteur had demonstrated that organisms do not generate spontaneously in nonliving nutrients, the very basis of evolution, which is now the "prevailing wisdom."

Using similar logic, I can say that the war in Iraq did NOT spontaneously generate new terrorists.

Saudi and Israeli studies show that most foreign fighters were not terrorists before Iraq war.

And because I know you automatically discount any studies not done in America, Denise :
Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground, CIA Advisers Report

From the two year old CSM article:

However, interrogations of nearly 300 Saudis captured while trying to sneak into Iraq and case studies of more than three dozen others who blew themselves up in suicide attacks show that most were heeding the calls from clerics and activists to drive infidels out of Arab land, according to a study by Saudi investigator Nawaf Obaid, a US-trained analyst who was commissioned by the Saudi government and given access to Saudi officials and intelligence.

Those ‘clerics’ and activists would rather be sending them to America. Right now their main concern is to keep the infidels out of Arab land. Let’s hope we can keep it that way!

He [Mr. Flynn] says the recent attacks in London [2 years ago] show how patient Al Qaeda has become, using the three cell approach: The first cell is the leadership cell, the second cell is the reconnaissance team, and the third is the 'action' team.

And two years after this article was written, how are those ‘action’ teams of terrorist scum doing in London?

From the two and a half year old Washington Post article:

Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats.

And an excellent place to kill them.

To sum it up for you, bas, if not for the evil Bush those peace loving Saudi, et al, terrorists would never have thought of attacking us, especially on our own soil.

Maximus

Of course you'll consider any article I put up in support of my position "lame", because they don't support your pre-conceived notions Maxipad, you bloody fool.

You're welcome to cling to your delusion that things have improved in Iraq since those articles were written, but those of us based in reality think otherwise.

Of course you'll consider any article I put up in support of my position "lame"…sniff, sniff.

Did I hurt your feelings, bas? I’m sorry, I’ll try again: Those were VERY nice 2 year old articles you linked, little bas. I’m very IMPRESSED with your ability to surf the internet. And Bush should never have made those peace loving terrorists want to hurt us.

Do you feel better now little bas?

Maximus

My response to Locke may help all of you understand where I am 'coming from'.

No Locke, you will not change my mind and I will not change yours.

I know that Iraq is a mess, I have never said otherwise. It's a war, war is a mess.

The difference between us is, right, wrong or otherwise, that I feel strongly that we must be proactive and to go after these terrorists' nests wherever we can find them. Right now, we are finding several of them in Iraq.

I understand the clambering of the left to leave (I do NOT understand or agree with Harry Reid saying we 'lost' months ago - even if he feels that way)and I understand the concerns of all over the deaths of Americans. I just disagree that we should leave ESPECIALLY if the perception is that "We Lost". We cannot afford that perception - or reality.

I also believe that what we are doing is helping us as well as the middle east in the long haul, and is worthwhile for many reasons, and is a long (25 years or more), tough road. I do not mean to trivialize the deaths of our soldiers by pointing out that the loss of four thousand troops in four years of hostile combat is remarkably low.

It saddens me to see how weak we are and how badly we lack resolve in our 'instant gratification society'.

No one likes war Locke - no one.

I am surprised you would hope to benefit from this mess. I can only assume what you mean is that maybe at least you will find something you deem 'worthwhile' that will come from it. (i.e. the democrats will put the country back on the right path, yada, yada, yada.)

I view war like I view religion or family - it should transcend politics. Needless to say, it doesn't.

One thing is certain, to some degree or another, we have given the greatest opportunity one human can be given, to millions of Iraqis. What they do with it ultimately depends on them.

I too am frustrated with the apparent slow pace at which Iraq is building it's police and military and securing the country but I have several friends still there that swear they are actually making good progress. Truth is - I really don't know, and I don't know what to compare it to. We took a very long time here in America and it cost us millions of lives.

I do know this, as Iran sees us (Harry Reid et al.) declaring that "we have lost", arguing about how to leave, and lacking any real resolve as a nation to 'see it through' we have embolden and empowered Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Hamas, Hugo Chavez and a host of bad actors.

I would have preferred going in with overwhelming force and firepower and winning at any cost. Water under the bridge. Now, I support a troop build up that grows until we have enough boots on the ground and for however long it takes to have Iraq on it's feet.

All of that being said, while any loss is tragic, I am thankful we have lost an extraordinarily low number of troops, relatively, for being in a fourth year of war and combat.

None of the very long list of democrats (or republicans) who supported Operation Iraqi Freedom would have, on their most optimistic days, envisioned that we would only lose 4-5 thousand in the first year, let alone in a four year operation.

Either way, when we leave Iraq, the problem of global terrorism and the desire of radical Islam to attack the great Satan will still be with us. To believe otherwise, in my opinion, is to either misunderstand or underestimate the intent, the veracity, and the religious dogma driving these Islamic Fundamentalists.

They don't just want to convert you - they want to kill you. Anyone who is not a Muslim, up to their standards, is an infidel and can be, and should be, beheaded.

If WWII had been covered by the Modern Media: Great Video

I respect your clarifying that, “The difference between us is, right, wrong or otherwise, that I feel strongly that we must be proactive and to go after these terrorists' nests wherever we can find them. Right now, we are finding several of them in Iraq.” A difference between us is that numerous studies by US agencies and other countries have concluded that our presence in Iraq creates more terrorist than we are killing. I don’t think you stance addresses that and I perceive it to be a fatal flaw in your logic. This makes your argument less convincing to me.

I agree that we have not lost. Further as you say, even if we have, Reid, in his position, should not have said it. However, I believe we are in a stalemate and some other strategies need to be employed. As long as America is in the fight, it is not lost.

You commented “I am surprised you would hope to benefit from this mess.” Let me clarify. This whole episode was terribly mismanaged from the beginning by the administration supported by the Republicans and some Democrats. If the Dem’s can use it to their advantage, that is just the price of accountability to me. If other Democratic candidates uses Hillary’s support for the war against her, that suits me too.

Finally, as to your statement: “I support a troop build up that grows until we have enough boots on the ground and for however long it takes to have Iraq on it's feet”, well I just respectfully disagree. I can’t support sending more and more troops to follow a failed strategy by a rigid administration which is seemingly unwilling to acknowledge a change of course is needed. I have other fears also the first is that the Iraqi’s will never reconcile as seen in their failure to implement any of the political benchmarks that they themselves approved. Secondly, if the Iraqi’s do get their act together, they will inevitably align with Iran.

So we disagree.

I find myself in a majority position, as you can imagine an unaccustomed place for me. Although it’s a long time until the election, your party seems to me to be following a path of intransigence which doomed the 70’s and 80’s Democrats.

The grist of history is ground exceedingly fine.

-----------
“Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.” William E. Gladstone

Us : near 4000 and 30,000. Them over 100,000 and 500,000, plus millions displaced.
Plus 100,000 of ours with swollen brains from blasts--ruined for life.

Christians don't want to convert Muslims, just eliminate them!

Congratulation! Your latest spouting and copying has tied Denise for length.

Both of you now have had one comment about 40 inches long by 6 inches wide.

They make no sense to me but I guess it is because I don't read them.
The ribbon on your typewriter probably should now be changed. That last one was so long that I actually could see it coming in the air as I sat here!
The terrorists in Iraq do not want a sanctuary. They want to blow up stuff and people.

"They make no sense to me but I guess it is because I don't read them." -- Well . . . what can I add to that?!

You're right, Mixer, this thread is out of control. Didn't it start out about Libby? I think I might have accidentally posted my reply to Locke under someone's universal health care post.

Hope things are going well in Columbus.

Maximus

Most of these well known politicians have troubles with their children. Nancy and Ronaldo wished often they could ship Patty to another country, and somewhat less their son.
Bush II did keep his two out of jail for using false ids to get liquor, but they are a pill to keep under wrap.
I think Gore's kid was the one who got run over with a car when he was just as kid and nearly died. I don't know if he ever got through Harvard. Probably the same way Bush II got through Yale---building libraries.
They simply don't spend enough time with their kids and hire it done.

"Border Patrol Agents Sentenced to Prison" (October 20, 2006)

Two U.S. Border Patrol agents were sentenced to prison terms of 11 years and 12 years for shooting a drug-smuggling suspect [an illegal alien whose van was carrying 800 pounds of marijuana] in the buttocks as he fled across the U.S.-Mexico border.

At trial, Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof told the court that the agents had violated an unarmed Aldrete-Davila's civil rights.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it is a violation of someone's Fourth Amendment rights to shoot them in the back while fleeing if you don't know who they are and/or if you don't know they have a weapon," said Kanof.

Kanof dismissed Ramos' testimony that he had seen something shiny in the smuggler's hand, saying that the agent couldn't be sure it was a gun he had seen.

[Ramos is an eight-year veteran of the U.S. Naval Reserve and a former nominee for Border Patrol Agent of the Year.]

Further, Kanof argued, it was a violation of Border Patrol policy for agents to pursue fleeing suspects.

"Agents are not allowed to pursue. In order to exceed the speed limit, you have to get supervisor approval, and they did not," she told the Daily Bulletin.

The U.S. government filed charges against them after giving full immunity to Aldrete-Davila and paying for his medical treatment at an El Paso hospital.

"How are we supposed to follow the Border Patrol strategy of apprehending terrorists or drug smugglers if we are not supposed to pursue fleeing people?" said Ramos, who noted that he only did on that day what he had done for the previous 10 years.

"Everybody who's breaking the law flees from us. What are we supposed to do? Do they want us to catch them or not?"

"This is the greatest miscarriage of justice I have ever seen," said Andy Ramirez of the nonprofit group Friends of the Border Patrol. "This drug smuggler has fully contributed to the destruction of two brave agents and their families and has sent a very loud message to the other Border Patrol agents: If you confront a smuggler, this is what will happen to you."

_____________________________

“Imprisoned Border Agent Beaten by Fellow Inmates” (February 6, 2007)

The Department of Justice has confirmed imprisoned former Border Patrol agent Ignacio "Nacho" Ramos – sentenced to 11 years in the shooting of a drug smuggler – was treated for injuries after reporting he was beaten in a medium-security facility in Mississippi.

"Mr. Ramos was evaluated by medical staff at the institution who determined he had sustained some bruises and abrasions. The injuries sustained were minor in nature."

However, Ramos's wife and father-in-law told WND the former agent said in phone calls to them the assailants "got me pretty good," explaining he was assaulted by five Hispanic men with steel-toed boots – likely illegal aliens – who cussed him out in Spanish.

"They kicked me in the head, they kicked me all over the body. I'm all bruised and very sore," Ramos reportedly said, adding he bled from his left ear.

The prison attack came immediately after the airing Saturday night of a segment on Ramos and Compean by the "America's Most Wanted" television show.

"No security came to his rescue," the jailed Border Patrol agent's wife told WND. "Another inmate came and got him and said 'Hey, dude, let me help you up.' The other inmate walked my husband over to security."

Ramos [has] three sons, aged 7, 9 and 13.

_____________________________

"Border Patrol agent 'languishing in solitary'" (June 22, 2007)

A congressional aide who visited Ignacio Ramos in prison said the convicted Border Patrol agent appeared emaciated, losing more than 30 pounds in solitary confinement.

Ramos, who is appealing his 11-year sentence for the non-lethal shooting of a Mexican drug smuggler, has been in a "special housing unit" since he was beaten by inmates in February at the medium-security Federal Correctional Complex in Yazoo City, Miss., said Tara Setmayer, spokeswoman for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.

"He was very happy to see me, but, overall, he was very emotional," Setmayer told WND. "He is demoralized. Languishing in solitary for 135 days takes its toll on anyone."

The men who bloodied Ramos with kicks from steel-toed boots are in the same unit, Setmayer said.

Although the prison tries to make a distinction, she noted, "the protective measures are punitive, so he suffers all of the same restrictions as those there for disciplinary reasons."

Setmayer said her office has been "stonewalled" by the Department of Justice in an attempt to get details of Davila's immunity agreement and of a second attempt by him to deliver a load of marijuana across the border.

_____________________________

"48 Lawmakers Ask for Pardons for Agents"

In a last-ditch effort to stop the incarceration of two U.S. Border Patrol agents convicted of the nonfatal shooting of a Mexican drug smuggler, 48 congressional representatives have sent a letter to the president pleading for a pardon.

The letter, dated Dec. 6, follows a slew of others already sent to the White House and U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asking for an independent investigation and pardon into the case.

The White House has not responded to the letters. Officials could not be reached for comment.

"We submit this letter, in the spirit of reconciliation and pardon that is such a part of this season, asking you personally to commute the sentences of U.S. Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean," the letter to the president states.

Ramos and Compean were each sentenced in October to more than 10 years in federal prison. They are required to surrender themselves for incarceration Jan. 17.

_____________________________

"Official: Mexican Drug Runner Shot by Border Agents Smuggled More Drugs Into U.S." (March 01, 2007)

The Mexican drug runner whose testimony sent two Border Patrol agents to prison for shooting him in the buttocks brought drugs into the United States more than once, thereby diminishing his credibility as a witness in the investigation, according to a California congressman.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., presented new evidence in a Capitol Hill press conference Wednesday that revealed what he says was U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton's deliberate attempt to mislead the public about Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila's involvement in the transport of a second load of drugs in October 2005.

But the Drug Enforcement Agency found that Aldrete-Davila brought in another vanload of drugs into the United States while he waited to testify against the agents. Some reports say he stashed up to 750 pounds of marijuana at a house in Clint, Texas.

Rohrabacher said Sutton knowingly presented a false picture of the primary witness in the case.

"The U.S. Attorney's Office presented to the jury and presented to the public as if this guy Davila was a benign, hapless Mexican man who had just been recruited to drive a truck in order to raise money for medical expenses for his mother," Rohrabacher told FOXNews.com.

"Had the jury known that there were indications that he was a professional and he lied to his handlers even after they had granted him immunity for the first time, his testimony would have been worthless and it also suggests that he was more likely to have been carrying a weapon."

Aldrete-Davila was given immunity by the U.S. government and also received a border crossing card to come to and from Mexico to get free medical care in the United States for a bullet lodged in his body. Rohrabacher's office said it's unsure how many times Aldrete-Davila crossed the border during this time.

But the congressman says evidence has emerged that Sutton's office was notified by the DEA of Aldrete-Davila's direct involvement in the second offense but that it was ignored.

Champions of Ramos and Compean have asked President Bush to pardon the two agents, but to no avail.

A Justice Department lawyer on Wednesday told FOXNews.com that so far, the agency had not received any petition for clemency for either of the agents.

But in order to be eligible for a pardon approved by the Justice Department — which makes pardon recommendations to the president — five years must have elapsed from the day an individual was released from prison. Commutation is a shortening of one's sentence, but in order to be eligible for that, the person serving the sentence cannot be legally challenging his case.

However, the president can also make either decision on his own, regardless of the Justice recommendation.

Friends of the Border Patrol on Wednesday called for the firing of Sutton, along with other assistant U.S. attorneys who helped prosecute Compean and Ramos for what it calls "the malicious prosecution" of the two ex-agents and for "hiding key evidence from and lying to the American people, as well as harboring, aiding and providing comfort to a known drug smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, who illegally entered the U.S. from Mexico, assaulted Agent Compean, brandished a firearm towards two federal agents, resisted arrest and transported narcotics across international boundaries on multiple occasions."

The prosecution in the case says Aldrete-Davila did not have a gun, even though at least one of the agents thought he saw what could have been a weapon in his hand at the time of the shooting.

Friends of the Border Patrol also called for the resignation of Judge Kathleen Cardone, who it says "did everything possible to aid the prosecution in this witch-hunt, including sealing evidence and testimony that clearly would have damaged the credibility of the government's case and their alleged 'victim.'"

_____________________________

Mexican Consulate (02/13/07)

The Mexican Consulate played a previously undisclosed role in the events leading to U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton's high-profile prosecution of Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who are serving 11 and 12 year sentences for their role in the shooting of a drug smuggler.
_____________________________

"Bush Pressed to Pardon Border Agents" (July 3, 2007)

Two California congressmen, one of whom introduced legislation this year calling for a congressional pardon for two U.S. Border Patrol agents, say that if President Bush can commute the sentence of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, he can order pardons for the agents.

"If the president of the United States is going to commute the sentence of Scooter Libby, he should immediately accompany that with a pardon for Border Patrol agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos," said Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican and 2008 presidential candidate.

In January, Mr. Bush told reporters in Texas he would review the case, but he has been silent on the matter since then.

Robert S. Bonner, former commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection who helped organize the agency in 2003 as a part of the Department of Homeland Security, has called the lengthy prison sentences "too severe."

Mr. Bonner, a former federal judge and prosecutor, is the highest-ranking current or former Homeland Security official to publicly criticize the prosecution and conviction of the agents. In an interview, he said, "I hope that they will be substantially reduced."

More than 50 members of Congress have asked Mr. Bush to pardon or commute the sentences of the two agents, calling the prison sentences "a travesty of justice."

Leaders of the Border Patrol's rank-and-file agents unanimously voted a no-confidence resolution against Chief David V. Aguilar, citing his willingness to believe the "perjured allegations" of criminal aliens over the words of his own agents. The no-confidence resolution was approved by all 100 leaders of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC).
_____________________________

See the Daily Bulletin (Ontario, Canada) for more articles.

If we can assume for a minute that the Mexicans were shot in the back as they ran, and had not shot at the guards, what would it say to other guards and the Border Patrol, if they had been found totally innocent?
It would say: if you see one, you think, shoot them!
I know some don't care about that since there are some coming in who are criminals other than the border violation.
I want you to know though, I would dread crossing the Canadian border if I knew they could just shoot me whenever they pleased.
Don't worry, they will be pardoned when it blows over.

They should have never been prosecuted. Pardon them NOW!

If WWII had been covered by the Modern Media: Great Video

It is the year 2009, and fed up with all the lies on both sides, the American people get a law passed which makes it a capital offense for a politician or any person in public life to tell a lie. Bill Clinton, Scooter Libby, and Bush are the first three politicians to fall victim to this new law. They are to die by firing squad. Clinton is to go first.

Bill Clinton is placed against the wall, and just before the order to shoot him is given, he yells, "LOOK, A HURRICANE!" The firing squad falls into a panic and Bill jumps over the wall and escapes in the confusion.

Scooter Libby is the second one placed against the wall. The squad is reassembled and Scooter ponders what his old adversary Bill has done. Before the order to shoot is given, Scooter points and yells, "TORNADO!" Again the squad falls apart and Libby slips over the wall thus making his escape.

The last person, George W. Bush, is placed against the wall. He is thinking, "I see the pattern here, just scream out a disaster and hop over the wall." As the firing squad is reassembled and the rifles rose in his direction, he smirked his famous smirk and yells, "FIRE!"
.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

Yes - the lost records were found. And what did they prove? Fingerprints on the records? Hmmmmm. For those who still support those in our government who lie about substantive issues regarding our safety and security. . . God bless you. I just can't get it in my head that getting a bj is a substantive issue for the safety and security of our country. (Yes - he lied) Rape? (Was Clinton convicted of this?) Who? When? Where? As history unfolds the weaknesses of our leaders - we won't find anyone clothed in 'white'. If we judge our leaders by their 'works' - what they did for our country and the world - the comparison between Bush and Clinton won't even be a contest.

What was it that Bill Clinton 'did for America' that you are referring to? I hear liberals say that often.

I must have missed something. Did you happen to read the entire blog here? Do you even know who Vince Foster was?

Did you want to challenge any one of the truths I listed in the dozens and dozens of facts?

Perhaps you missed all of the questions on the three tests I gave Maximus?

Maybe you didn't read them?

Did you want to challenge Denise's claims?

Other than gumpish, knee-jerk, normative opinion, do you have ANYTHING to back up all of your assertions or challenge those of the conservative bloggers here?

Try being specific.

If WWII had been covered by the Modern Media: Great Video

I hear liberals say that often. Hearing and comprehending are two different activities. No need to repeat what you have already 'heard' and have difficulty 'comprehending'.

Did you want to challenge Denise's claims? Claims/opinions are not facts. Just responding with my own opinions. Bush's latest action has put 'conservative bloggers' on the defensive. No need to denigrate another's opinion.

What was it that Bill Clinton 'did for America' that you are referring to?
Let's try peace; worldwide respect for American democracy; a balanced budget; - no point in going further - since you have the 'conservative' talking points taped to your computer. True conservatives have bailed from Bush's sinking ship. Look at the polls. This administration has not followed the 'true conservatives' strategy for 'good government'. This administration is not 'all bad' - but their strategy for governing the American people - as if they are just 'followers' has failed. We are not 'followers' - but until we have more than 33% of eligible voters vote - we will be victims of this type of elitist arrogance again.

Before my Treo dies, I wanted to cut and paste a blog I did for the liberals to read and contemplate (think about Gump). While many of you claim defeat in Iraq and count on a disaster for America and Iraq to help further your cause, I think you should reflect on what your party was saying just a few short years ago. Now some of you, like GUMP, has declared that going in to Iraq was a mistake. After you read Hillary, Edwards, Bill, Nancy, Harry, et al., I want you to try to convince me that you were telling all of those democrats and republicans what a bad idea Iraq was. The question is this, now that we are in it up to our eyeballs what are the options? What is the cost of withdrawl? Why doesn't JeffC support it? What happens in Iran, Syria, and North Korea when we 'cut and run'? read and enjoy. If you don;t take the time to read it - don;t bother commenting.

_____________________________________________________________

"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

President Clinton
National Address from the Oval Office
December 16, 1998

YOU SAY: That's not a mistake; it is very possibly a high crime or misdemeanor.

CNN Said: How did Hussein intend to use the weapon, once it was completed?

HAMZA: Saddam has a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical. According to German intelligence estimates, we expect him to have three nuclear weapons by 2005. So, the window will close by 2005, and we expect him then to be a lot more aggressive with his neighbors and encouraging terrorism, and using biological weapons. Now he's using them through surrogates like al Qaeda, but we expect he'll use them more aggressively then.

Dr. Khidhir Hamza, former Iraqi Nuclear Scientist for 20 years
Interviewed on CNN
October 22, 2001
http://www.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/22/hamza.cnna/

AND MORE CLINTON:

"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.

What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

AND

"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
September 13, 2001
http://www.wavsource.com/news/20010911a.htm

AND

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."

Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10145&dbname=2002_record

AND

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

AND

Senator John Edwards, when asked about "Axis of Evil" countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea:

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
During an interview on CNN's "Late Edition"
February 24, 2002
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/24/le.00.html

AND

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
September 27, 2002
http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html

AND

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

AND

Congressman Gephardt links Saddam with the threat of terrorists nuking US cities:

BOB SCHIEFFER, Chief Washington Correspondent:

And with us now is the Democratic presidential candidate Dick Gephardt. Congressman, you supported taking military action in Iraq. Do you think now it was the right thing to do?

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, D-MO, Democratic Presidential Candidate:

I do. I base my determination on what I heard from the CIA. I went out there a couple of times and talked to everybody, including George Tenet. I talked to people in the Clinton administration.

SCHIEFFER:

Well, let me just ask you, do you feel, Congressman, that you were misled?

GEPHARDT:

I don't. I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening. And it was on that basis that I voted to do this.

Congressman Richard Gephardt (Democrat, Montana)
Interviewed on CBS News "Face the Nation"
November 2, 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/03/ftn/printable581509.shtml

AND

"We have not reached parity with them. We have the right to kill 4 million Americans -- 2 million of them children -- and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons, so as to afflict them with the fatal maladies that have afflicted the Muslims because of the [Americans'] chemical and biological weapons."

Islamic terrorist group "Al Qaeda"
June 12, 2002
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP38802

AND

"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html

"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/

AND

"Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998,/strong>
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html
AND

"Ten years after the Gulf War and Saddam is still there and still continues to stockpile weapons of mass destruction. Now there are suggestions he is working with al Qaeda, which means the very terrorists who attacked the United States last September may now have access to chemical and biological weapons."

James P. Rubin, President Clinton's State Department spokesman
In a PBS documentary titled "Saddam's Ultimate Solution"
July 11, 2002
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/saddam/

AND

"Dear Mr. President: ... We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Sincerely,

Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.

Letter to President Clinton
Signed by Senators Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others
October 9, 1998
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20statements/levin-10-9-98.html

AND

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President
Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club
September 23, 2002

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,797999,00.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/24/1032734161501.html

AND

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

AND

"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix
AND
"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.

13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix
AND

"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. ...we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix

WMDs found : http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

and

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998:

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton) states:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/980929-in2.htm

AND

Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."

President Clinton
State of the Union address
January 27, 1998

http://clinton5.nara.gov/textonly/WH/SOTU98/address.html

http://www.usemb.ee/union98.php3
YOU SAY: Why should the American citizenry accept any other level of performance from its Executive Officer?
((Did this intelligence all come about under the six months that Bush was in office or was it inherited by Bush from the previous 8 years of the Clinton Administration? – Who appointed George Tenet – oh yea- Clinton did back in 1997.))
YOU SAY: To date, no one has defined what it will look like when the job is "done". No one has consistently defined what "job" our brave service men and women were sent to do and no one has ever explained how to determine if the troops were "successful" in doing that job. With respect, I don't know how one can commit the troops to victory without defining all of those things.
We have to define success every day for you democrats don’t we? – HERE yet again is the White House Version:

• Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
• Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
• Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.
YOU SAY: So, for my part, the administration has simply failed to give me a good reason to support the Iraqi war such that I could support continuing to put our troops in harm's way; that's not a lack of will as much as it is the lack of a well-defined mission -- including an exit strategy.
Exit Stratagy of the Democrats: Harry Reid Says “The Iraq War is LOST”.
YOU SAY: I understand your point and I truly appreciate the experience that you bring to the discussion but, I have to say that there is no easy way to clean up a mess that someone else made and it simply isn't acceptable to me to just let the mess go unabated.
Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist Mike Luckovich explained in a National Public Radio interview why Vice President Dick Cheney provides such good red meat for satirists. Luckovich said, "First of all, he's sort of a colorless and seemingly humorless individual, and something about that type of person is sort of fun to caricature. And he's always so certain when he talks, like when he's on 'Meet the Press' -- 'Well, we'll be greeted as liberators, Tim.' You know, he's so certain, and then he's just completely wrong... " [Emphasis added.]

Just completely wrong? Recently I received the following letter from a soldier who served in Iraq:

"In April 2004 I was in the first push through Fallujah after the four American contractors were murdered, desecrated and hung from a bridge. I was critically wounded after I was shot through the hip in a firefight and nearly bled out on the battlefield. It was six months before I was able to walk semi-normally on my own more than 20 feet unaided by crutches or a wheel chair. In December of 2004 I was medically retired, and even now over two years later I still cannot run and I honestly don't think I will be regaining that ability in this lifetime.... Well I have had multiple people ask me about what I think about everything going on over there and I always respond the same way.... I reach into my wallet and pull out a card and let them read it. It speaks for itself; I don't need to say a word. I received this shortly after the invasion in 2003, a young boy walked up to me with his father who was standing behind him with his hands on his shoulders and just reached out his hand and gave this to me.... Sure there are those who want us dead and gone and will do anything to get rid of us, but they are a minority."

The soldier enclosed a copy of the card. It has a big heart on the front, and inside it reads: "Thank you George Bush. Thank you American soldiers. Thank you Marines [sic] soldiers. To save us. We are so grateful. Your friend, Ali Ahmed. An Iraqi boy, 9 years old. 2003.4.15 Wedensday [sic]."
______________________________________

Okay, so that's one soldier. But a reporter from The New York Times saw things the same way. On April 10, 2003, John F. Burns filed this story from Baghdad:

"Saddam Hussein's rule collapsed in a matter of hours today across much of this capital city as ordinary Iraqis took to the streets in their thousands to topple Mr. Hussein's statues, loot government ministries and interrogation centers and to give a cheering, often tearful welcome to advancing American troops.

" ...Army and Marine Corps units moving into the districts of eastern Baghdad where many of the city's 5 million people live finally met the kind of adulation from ordinary Iraqis that American advocates of a war to topple Mr. Hussein had predicted....

"Much of Baghdad became, in a moment, a showcase of unbridled enthusiasm for America...

"American troops, but almost as much any Westerner caught up in the tide of people rushing into the streets, were met with scenes that summoned comparisons to the freeing of Eastern Europe 14 years ago....

"Shouts to the American soldiers of 'Thank you, mister, thank you,' in English, of 'Welcome, my friend, welcome,' of 'Good, good, good,' and 'Yes, yes, mister,' mingled with cries of 'Good, George Bush!' and 'Down Saddam!'...

"A middle-aged man pushed through a crowd attempting to topple a statue of Mr. Hussein outside the oil ministry with a bouquet of paper flowers, and passed among American troops distributing them one at a time, each with a kiss on the cheek.

"A woman with two small children perched in the open roof of a car maneuvering to get close to a Marine Corps unit assisting in toppling a Hussein statue outside the Palestine and Sheraton hotels, the quarters for foreign journalists, wept as she shouted, 'Thank you, mister, thank you very much.'...
__________________________________________________

Gen. Georges Sada, the No. 2 ranking general in the Iraqi Air Force, said the same thing when I interviewed him Feb. 9, 2006.

I said, "You said the president did the right thing in invading Iraq -- "

"Excuse me," said Sada, "you say invading, I always say liberating.... In most provinces of Iraq and Kurdistan, the forces were received with cheers and flowers, in the South, it was the same thing in my province." The people living in the Sunni triangle did not consider Americans liberators, he explained, because Sunnis ran things. "When they found that this is all gone, of course they didn't like it."

The Iraqis show more optimism about their country than Americans show about theirs. According to a November 2005 American Research Group poll, 31 percent of Americans believe their household financial situations will improve over the next year. But, according to a December 2005 ABC News poll, 69 percent of Iraqis expect their lives to improve in the coming year.

"A free, democratic Iraq, an example in the Middle East"
Some have described the situation in Iraq as a tightening noose, noting that "time is not on our side"and that "morale is down." Others have described a "very dangerous" turn of events and are "extremely concerned."
Who are they that have expressed these concerns? In fact, these are the exact words of terrorists discussing Iraq -- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his associates -- who are describing their own situation and must be watching with fear the progress that Iraq has made over the past three years. (We have since killed Al Zarqawi in Iraq).

If WWII had been covered by the Modern Media: Great Video

. . .but those of us who have kept up with this topic for the past six years know the positions of the individuals you have quoted. We now know who was 'right' and who was 'wrong'. Where do we go from here? What is our strategy? What is our goal? Iraqi's came out in droves to vote - and we thought, according to the media reports of our leaders opinion, that the job was accomplished. For months this administration refused to call the chaos in the Middle East - a civil war. We don't seem to be succeeding with so-called diplomacy to get other Arab nations to assist the existing government in Iraq. Iran is flexing its muscle. (and some of the soldiers who have returned want to go back to support their buddies - but don't have a clear idea about their mission. . .and they never mention 'politics') They say they are clearing roads so that oil trucks can travel on them - and then they move on. These young men and women are now being accused of shooting 'civilians'. God, with no clear understanding of who the enemy is - are we surprised at this? In the meantime, terrorist cells are popping up in unexpected places in the western world. We don't need any more cut and paste information - we read the papers too. Where do we go from here?

News Flash - WAR IS HELL. You are a very condescending person - do you somehow think you are the only one reading newspapers or following this conflict? Apparently you have a short memory or your own comprehension problems.

No one was right - but that's water under the bridge - so now you are asking the question I have been asking but all I get is:

"Bush lied and troops died"

"We have LOST this war"

and all the other liberal talking points, rhetoric and hypocrisy.

When we can move beyond that "holier than thou" finger pointing and the ridiculous calls for an immediate and complete withdrawal we can move forward.

Would you put a sign in your yard saying when you will be gone and when you will turn off your alarm? Why then do you need a timetable?

The truth is we do not have the political will or the intestinal fortitude to fight or win a war back here in America - not the military, not the leaders, the civilians are the problem - particularly, the hippies and ex-hippies who dodged Nam and need to justify their cowardly ways.

In WWII, people sacrificed and were a part of the war effort.

I would bet there isn't anyone here who did a single thing today any different than they would if we were there or not there. We are simply not invested, there isn't any 'buy in' and it hasn't hit home that we are at war with terrorism. Nor has the connection been made between the war on terror and Iraq to the satisfaction of democrats.

That's all for now .... signal is in and out and typing on here is not going great.

If WWII had been covered by the Modern Media: Great Video

You evidently are tired -as am I. I don't think you read my blogs - since your comprehension is good. We elect leaders to develop strategies to serve and protect us. You are an articulate individual - and I am sincere in asking for your opinion - not cut and paste articles which I have seen before. What are your thoughts? It is true - the American public does not have the will to do what? We have not been asked to cut down on gas consumption because of the war; plant 'victory' gardens; etc., etc., etc. We have given our sons and daughters in an effort to 'bring democracy to Iraq' and keep the terrorist out of our country'. We are fearful, we are suspicious, we are (some of us) willing to give up some liberties - for what? Who is the enemy? All Muslims? Al-Queda (yes); Arab doctors? Share your thoughts on what you have read. Your understanding is important to the discussion - but don't assume that because we have a different understanding/interpretation of the 'facts' - that we are unaware of them. I was a youngster during WWII; a school-aged child during Korea; and an adult during Cuba and Nam. Our last two sitting presidents are both accused of 'dodging' the military. Clinton did not go; Bush went and did not serve. So what!! Certainly thinking people can look at the facts as they are today - and PLAN to work coopertively with our allies and to move ahead. . .to???????

So, you will not address any of the MANY FACTS in this blog thread. And yet, you think WE ignore the 'Facts' and that our 'opinions' are not based on facts? Okay - read on.

Your opinion that we had a 'worldwide respects for America', who was respecting us that does not now? Al Qaeda?

The budget was balanced by the conservative congress and the contract for America but Clinton did indeed submit a budget (so I assume you will vote for Newt Gingrich for President).

But let's examine your two 'FACT BASED' assertions with PREVIOUSLY posted and ignored information and facts.

Those cuts in Clinton's budget that you like so much came from here:

709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) PERSONNEL.

293,000 RESERVE TROOPS.

EIGHT STANDING ARMY DIVISIONS

20 AIR FORCE AND NAVY AIR WINGS WITH 2,000 COMBAT AIRCRAFT

232 STRATEGIC BOMBERS.

9 STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES WITH 3,114 NUCLEAR WARHEADS ON 232 MISSILES.

500 ICBMs WITH 1,950 WARHEADS.

FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND 121 SURFACE COMBAT SHIPS AND SUBMARINES PLUS ALL THE SUPPORT BASES, SHIPYARDS, AND LOGISTICAL ASSETS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN SUCH A NAVAL FORCE

I guess you didn't bother to notice that since we didn't need them at the time - after all, who cares what happens in the future or what the little old Al Qaeda was doing to us during his intern escapades:

1993 World Trade Center Bombing
1996 Khobar Towers Bombing
1998 Embassy Bombings
2000 USS Cole Bombing

Yep, ignoring Al Qaeda and the terrorists sure worked well didn't it?

Did you happen to notice this:

Average number of soldiers killed per year under the following administrations:

Clinton: 938
Bush : 789

Or care to comment on this:

Black unemployment is lower under Bush than under Clinton and the stock market continues to break record highs.

The good old days indeed. If you are not a soldier or a black looking for a job maybe.

Let's talk facts about prosperity. Here's a little quiz for you:

Multiple Choice:

Black unemployment was lower under: A) Bush or B) Clinton?

The Stock Market was highest under: A) Bush or B) Clinton?

Interest Rates were lowest under: A) Bush or B) Clinton?

The United States National Debt, as a percentage of the GDP, was lower under A) Bush in 2004 or B) Clinton in 1994

The economy's growth rate has been better under Bush than the average of the 1980s and 1990s. A) True or B) False?

The current economic growth rate for 2006 is 3.5% The average economic growth rate for the 1990s under Clinton was 3.3% and this was during the irrational exuberance of the dotcom bubble. A) True or B) False?

Real After-Tax Income Has Risen 15.0 Percent Since January 2001. A) True or B) False?

The number of homeowners in the United States exceeded 73.4 million, the most ever (as of 2004). And for the first time, the majority of minority Americans owns their own homes. A) True or B) False?

Now, when you are finished hiding behind propaganda and emotion and want to discuss the facts - post them.

If WWII had been covered by the Modern Media: Great Video

I wrote this almost exactly a year ago.

Libby's Indictment

Both Libby and Clinton lied to the grand jury. A lie is a lie. I look at the reason for the lie. Clinton lied to cover up a marital indiscretion that was injurious to Monica, Hillary, Chelsea and him. The result? Shame and dishonor to Clinton and the presidency of the US and Monica - embarrassment for Hillary and Chelsea. Libby lied to cover up an attempt to discredit Wilson, who was critical of the administration. This individual’s criticism is found to have been based on fact. (There was no immediate danger of Saddam having WMD.) The result of the misinformation from this administration that Libby was trying to cover-up by discrediting a critic? 2000 dead Americans; thousands injured or maimed for life; the largest deficit in the history of our country; lack of international respect for the United States; the lowest approval rating for a sitting President of the US by US citizens in our history. You do the math. The American people are making the connection between Libby's lie about the 'outing' of Wilson's wife's employment - and the war in Iraq. One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to figure this one out. Over 70% of American citizens have figured it out. Cover-ups are the downfall of administrations. Stay tuned.

The justice system works. I sincerely wish that I could now say that my opinions about the current administration were wrong - and that now our country is enjoying world-wide respect; our mission in Iraq was successful; we have calmed the chaos in the Middle East; Americans are better off than they were a year ago; (there are no citizens sleeping under bridges; no home foreclosures; etc.). No manner of reciting 'talking points', or misinterpreting statistics can change the reality of our situation today. It's time to look at the truth - not through the glasses of 'conservatives' or 'liberals' - but through the glasees of concerned 'citizens' who want to get our country back on track!

If I were you I would bury that year old diatribe. It was inaccurate then and it's inaccurate now. Regarding your sadness that the Presidency is no longer being "respected", you seem sincerely concerned about world opinion of us.

Who do you hope will look up to us that does not?

Who looked up to the President, other than Monica Lewinski and a host of molested women, that no longer does?

Try interjecting a few facts with your liberal talking points.

You do know what facts are don't you? Try reading Walter Williams column on the right of this blog if you don't.

If WWII had been covered by the Modern Media: Great Video

You asked about who no longer respects us? How about Ireland for example?

In the 1960s, JFK went to Ireland and a half million Irish turned out to cheer him.

In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan went to Ireland and a million Irish turned out to cheer him.

In the 1990s, Bill Clinton went to Ireland twice and each time a million and a half turned out to cheer him.

In 2004, the Crawford Coward made a quick re-election trip to Ireland to convince Irish-American voters he "cared" about Ireland. A half million people turned out to PROTEST his visit. This spooked the Boy in the Bubble.

The next time he visited Ireland (G8 summit, I think), he was so scared that he insisted that the roads be cleared of people for his trip from the airport to his hotel. He travelled inside an armored personnel carrier, for crying out loud! Just like a third rate dictator in some Banana Republic.

The crowning touch: a trip to Russia a year later. Air Force One had to stop to refuel in Shannon Ireland on the return to Washington. Even though they landed at four in the morning, something like 800 protestors stood at the front gate of the Air Force base where the president's plane was refueling. Even though there was no way on Earth that President Weak 'n Stupid could see these protestors, these folks cared enough to get out of bed just to protest the president's PLANE!

That, Mixer, is the type of damage the next President will have to repair.

George W. Bush has weakened America.

Ireland. we have probably lost them forever.

Not sure how we will cope, I guess they will go to the dark side and team up with al qaeda now.

I bet that's where those Glasgow Muslims hatched their plot. Maybe when we nationalize health care we can get more Islamist Dr.s here to help make up the shortfall.

Got to go battery almost dead on the road - dark - treo.

Verizon good. night night bas.

mix

If WWII had been covered by the Modern Media: Great Video

You and Denise are to be congratulated for your persistence in expounding the party line. The facts stated below are what count today:

Republicans are abandoning the president, which has dropped his job-approval rating below 30 percent -- his lowest mark ever in the survey.

President’s Performance:
Approval: 29%
Disapproval: 66%
(Wall Street Journal Poll)

But he isn’t the only one whose support is on the decline in the poll. Congress’ approval rating has plummeted eight points, bringing it below even Bush’s. And just one in five believe the country is on the right track, which is the lowest number on this question in nearly 15 years.

The American people are opening their eyes - and they don't like what they see. They are listening carefully to rhetoric and 'facts' as expounded by the 'right' - and they don't like what they hear. You and others are entitled to your opinions about the status of our country and our current leaders. But the majority of citizens are leaving the politics of rhetoric, lies, manipulation of the Constitution to benefit the elite few. . . .and looking for leaders who will implement our government in a manner that is fair to all citizens - not a selected few of an elitist class. Let's get beyond the 'Monica' thing - and deal with some of the realities of over 3000 dead Americans; hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis; activities 'allowed' without regard to the Geneva Convention; the growing financial burden being placed on the middle class - while those earning over $200,000 get a tax break; the non-implementation of our immigration laws so that certain 'industries in this country can benefit from cheap labor; etc., etc., etc. Don't waste your time re-posting your talking points. The majority of Americans are with me on this one. This goes beyond Democrat/Republican/Red State/Blue State/liberal/conservative. We are Americans who need to direct our leaders to tackle the issues of this country cooperatively - the in-fighting is destroying us. Divided as a nation - we will fail. United - we will win. We're getting there - despite the rhetoric on the blogs

Who do you hope will look up to us that does not?
We as a people need to 'look up to ourselves' (be proud of what issues we are dealing with at home and abroad) - the polls indicate that we are not proud at this moment with where our leaders are taking this country. The other countries have shown their 'respect' by not joining us in our current path. It was demeaning to have the president of our country have to return to the United Nations to request assistance after telling the world that we did not need them to assist us in our endeavors in the Middle East. We're not going to change each other's minds in this discussion. I was not wrong then - and apparently 66% of the American people agree with me now.

While you were citing the popularity contest you forgot one:

The Democrat controlled congress has a lower approval rating the the President.
In fact, your Democrat controlled congress has the lowest approval ratings ever measured.

According to USA Today, a new Gallup poll has Congress now pulling the lowest approval ratings EVER:

Just 14% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress.

This 14% Congressional confidence rating is the all-time low for this measure, which Gallup initiated in 1973.

The previous low point for Congress was 18% in 1991 through 1994.

Remember the House banking scandal and the health care debacle in 1994 that got the Dems thrown out of congressional control for the first time in 50 years?

Pelosi and Harry Reid are wishing they had those numbers right now.

Click here for more information on this poll.

How do you say it Davids mom (sic) .... oh yea, Trump Card!

I'm still proud that you posted your first fact ever! David would be proud too!

If WWII had been covered by the Modern Media: Great Video

This was in my comment. Where did I leave out the fact that the Congress has lost support?

But he isn’t the only one whose support is on the decline in the poll. Congress’ approval rating has plummeted eight points, bringing it below even Bush’s. And just one in five believe the country is on the right track, which is the lowest number on this question in nearly 15 years.

Trump card? One fact? Dear Mixer - it's the only fact that counts! I enjoy watching you trying to overcome the obvious. Have fun. I'm going to leave you alone now. Point made.

If you really believe your idiotic idea of a trump card (“Bush – over 3000 dead”), then you must believe that Lincoln was the worst president in U.S. history – over 600,000 Americans dead.
__________________________
Stop Global Whining

LOL! But I guess that's all you can say. I'm out of here! Have a great day!

"... he isn’t the only one whose support is on the decline in the poll. Congress’ approval rating has plummeted eight points, bringing it below even Bush’s.

If you go back and look that was a blog topic I started a few days or so back.

Then, magically, you apply that disapproval back to the 'right':

The American people are opening their eyes - and they don't like what they see."

Uh, they don't like your democratic controlled congress mom.

In fact, the only time their ratings were ever close to this level - it was the last Democratically controlled congress.

????????????? Uh, thanks?!?

You admit the democrat congress has these low ratings, and then, you blame 'Bush' and the 'right' for the Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid show being rejected by the people?

Amazingly convoluted logic mom.

And please, I am probably old enough to be Maximus' father - before you comment on my reading comprehension, learn the difference between 'Mixer' and 'Maximus' would you please?

Also, I confess that I do not usually read all of your blog since I first look for to see if you respond to the topic before attempting to get you back on track. I will attempt to do a better job in the future since you have now attempted to use data in your discussions.

Keep using data!

If WWII had been covered by the Modern Media: Great Video

. . .an oxymoron.

Davids (sic) Mom, Moron = Synonyms

Wow, are we having fun now?

If WWII had been covered by the Modern Media: Great Video

I've been enjoying the posts.

DM = Dollar's Mom ~~~~

Don’t insult my friend Mixer by getting us confused.

Your nervous “LOL” is obviously used to cover your confusion and lack of self confidence due to your lack of knowledge. Tell me, is the number of dead the gauge you use or not?

Maximus

__________________________
Stop Global Whining

and dollar needs more lunch muny to.

If WWII had been covered by the Modern Media: Great Video

It's been fun!

This time I laughed so hard a cheerio came out of my nose. That hurt. I’m just sitting here trying to enjoy a midnight snack…

Maximus

My gauge? The number of lies told and now revealed. What's yours? . .and what's your base of knowledge that makes you right and 66% of the American people wrong? I wish that we were 'winning' the hearts of the Iraqi people after their election; I wish that our economy was truly 'great' with a budget that was not terribly out of whack; I wish that our president could travel to countries that were once our heartfelt allies without being confronted with protestors - but that is not the reality of today - and the American people are sick of it. I'm not confused.. . are you?
I’m not trying to insult your friend or you.

“The number of lies told and now revealed”. How many and what are they? If you’re going to spew the same leftist rhetoric of WMD “lies”, make sure you include a list of your favorite democrats who said the same thing. Were they all lying?

What 66% are talking about, the 66% that supported the invasion of Iraq? Bush’s failure has been his inability to keep that majority focused on the importance of the mission.

Winning the hearts of the Iraqis? The Iraqis are going to have to stand up for their own freedom at some point. At least they have a chance now.

You wish our economy was truly great? What part do you not like, the 4.5% unemployment rate? Anyone who wants a job has one. The low inflation rate, the productivity gains, increased earnings, record tax receipts? Please explain.

And of what allies are speaking?

Just a bunch of mud-slinging, dm. Try arguing a point! Pick an issue, make a point, and try to back it up.

Maximus

__________________________
Stop Global Whining

Since you don't seem to know which 66%, here is the latest poll:

Support for the Iraq War and Bush

And since you don't seem to know who our allies once were:

Decline in Support for the United States

-----------
“Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.” William E. Gladstone

But it was a rhetorical question, and when I went back and looked at the number from 2003 it was actually 76%.

Overall, 72% favor the war, down slightly from 76% on Thursday…

So what makes you lefties so sure that the 66% are right now, even though the 76% were so wrong then?

A few choice tidbits from the other poll you linked:

“And the United States is the nation blamed most often for hurting the world's environment, at a time of rising global concern about environmental issues.”

Of course, America is to blame for global warming and every other perceived or real ill in the world.

“While many around the world fault American ideals, there is still considerable admiration for U.S. technology and a strong appetite for its cultural exports.

Despite near universal admiration for U.S. technology and a strong appetite for its cultural exports in most parts of the world, large proportions in most countries think it is bad that American ideas and customs are spreading to their countries.”

All of our stuff is bad, but they can’t get enough of it.

Now, do you want to answer the questions about the economy for her?

Maximus

__________________________
Stop Global Whining

The marvelous point of an open debate is that anyone can join in. Why should I be the only one expressing an opinion? And if another expresses my opinion, why should I repeat it? You do understand that, don't you?

The reason that 76% of Americans supported the war when it started and 66% are against it now is a direct result of the massive incompetence of the administration's handling of the war. Who would have ever suspected that the Republicans would be so hapless in managing the invasion. It was beyond most peoples imagination that the administration that you support so slavishly could have possibly been as inept as they have shown themselves to be. Now, after the proof of the incompetence has been so graphically revealed, most Americans are shocked and are withdrawing support, leaving Bush and Cheney with only the support of their sycophants.

------------------
“Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.” William E. Gladstone

The administration I so slavishly support? Like I’ve said before, Bush’s inability to rally the nation is a big part of the war’s slow progress. That said, the idea that that we can’t win, are not making any progress, and should just pull out is ludicrous. The objective is to keep terrorism out of the U.S. while killing as many terrorists as possible. It seems to be working pretty well so far.

Maximus

I’ve heard that argument before. It’s the “puppy dog” theory of terrorism. They will follow us home like a stray puppy dog. A ridiculously silly argument of course, since there is absolutely nothing that we are doing in Iraq that precludes any of them from coming to the US. In fact, there are several studies showing that our presence in Iraq is dramatically increasing the number of terrorists. A vast recruiting place for al Queada, which, by the way, was not in Iraq before we overthrew Saddam. It is a simple equation to see that increasing the number of terrorists heightens the likelihood of some of them coming here. Can you refute that with either facts or logic?
--------------
“Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.” William E. Gladstone

For you Locke:

"...there is absolutely nothing that we are doing in Iraq that precludes any of them from coming to the US.

I disagree. I think most of the al qaeda terrorists are so busy in Iraq making sure Harry Reid is correct, that they are a little busy 'circling the wagons' to come to the US. We are killing them by the handfuls as I am sure you are aware. Some of us ('nuke them and drill for oil through the glass' types as you call us), think the fewer the better and giving them a forum for their 'jihad' in Iraq prevents those in search of 72 virgins from having to come here to find them.

Of course, we also have other measures in place to prevent them from coming to America thanks to the Bush administrations policies.

In fact, there are several studies showing that our presence in Iraq is dramatically increasing the number of terrorists. A vast recruiting place for al Queada (sic), which, by the way, was not in Iraq before we overthrew Saddam.

Do you think that perhaps the al qaeda were scattered among us world wide and have all now gathered in Iraq for 'jihad'? Or perhaps you think they only organized after 2003? Hummm, sounds like a fight them there and not here strategy.

It is a simple equation to see that increasing the number of terrorists heightens the likelihood of some of them coming here.

Wow, well said! So the fewer of them there is, the less likely we are to get attacked? I coulnd't agree more!Hey, I know a place where we can find them before the find us- let's go!

Can you refute that with either facts or logic?

(Refute what?)

In Columbus now, Enigma is here too. I will be on and off for a while. Blog on brothers!

If WWII had been covered by the Modern Media: Great Video

I just doubt that there are any facts for you to base your disagreement on. The war in Iraq has increased the number of terrorist and therefore their threat.

Refute what? Refute this:

Report: Global terrorism up more than 25 percent

US intel report: Major increase in terrorist incidents

U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat

CBS: Bush created 'safe haven' for terrorism with Iraq invasion

----------------
“Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.” William E. Gladstone

I'll make a post to your last two here:
“A ridiculously silly argument of course, since there is absolutely nothing that we are doing in Iraq that precludes any of them from coming to the US.”

Umm, okay, I might not be a terrorist “expert” like Paul Kurtz, but it is my belief, now try to follow this, that Islamic terrorists would like nothing more than to kill Americans on American soil. Why haven’t they if there is absolutely nothing that we are doing to keep them from doing that? My guess is that they are a bit busy elsewhere right now.

No link to al-qaeda in Iraq? That’s not what a 1998 U.S. indictment of bin-laden said.
read paragraph 4 in the body of the indictment.
But we don’t want to dredge up any “mistakes” from the past administration. It angers certain people around here.

From you CNN link:
“Incidents in Iraq accounted for nearly half of the 14,000 attacks and about two-thirds of the more than 20,000 fatalities worldwide.”

From your CSM link:
”More than half the fatalities from terrorism worldwide last year occurred in Iraq”

I agree, there are a lot of terrorists in Iraq. Let's keep killing them.

From your CBS/Paul Kurtz link:
"Prior to our invasion of Iraq...Iraq was not a fertile ground for terrorist activity," but that now "we have a safe haven in Iraq for terrorists."

We’ve created a safe haven for terrorists? Got tell that to Al-Zarqawi, Uday and Qusay, and Saddam, and hundreds of other dead terrorists.

Go tell that to the American Warriors!

I love this stuff!

I agree with these articles for the most part. No one ever said that terrorism wasn’t on the rise (except for John Edwards of course).

These support my contention that we are involved in a world wide war on Muslim Extremists, 'Islamists' I think is the buzz word of the day.

From your first (CNN) article:

Meanwhile, al Qaeda and other groups, including Islamic guerrillas and Kurdish separatists fighting the Turkish government, are fighting to establish sanctuary in Iraq amid the chaos, Urbancic said. The report accuses Iraq's neighbors Iran and Syria of fueling violence in Iraq by providing weapons and training to militant groups and allowing fighters to cross into Iraq to attack American troops.
The report also singles out their support for Lebanon's Hezbollah, the Shiite militia that fought a month long war with Israel in 2006. Urbancic called Iran "the most dangerous enabler of terrorism in that region."

Wow, good stuff! I agree whole heartedly!

From your second (Christian Science Monitor) article:

More than half the fatalities from terrorism worldwide last year occurred in Iraq, … "There's no question that the level of terrorist attacks in Iraq was up substantially," … Knight Ridder also reports that the new definition was used in 2004, but 2005 was the first year that analysts had more time to use the new method.In past years, only terrorist attacks that involved people from more than one country were counted. But officials realized this would, for instance, leave out incidents like the one in the Philippines where terrorists sank a ferry killing 132 Filipinos.

“…Some successes noted

Despite the overall increase in international terrorism, there were some successes in the past year, the report indicated.
The plot to bomb trans-Atlantic airliners last year was foiled, and no major terrorist attacks occurred in Europe in 2006.
The total number of attacks declined in Indonesia, Pakistan and India, despite attacks on commuter trains in the Indian city of Mumbai that killed more than 200 people in July.

I especially like that they realized that attacks were occurring throughout the world and were not by any stretch of the imagination all because of the Iraq conflict and establishment of democracy.

From the third article, from the Washington post, (although a bit obsolete) was also good:

Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir.

The data provided to the congressional aides also showed terrorist attacks doubling over the previous year in Afghanistan, to 27 significant incidents, and in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, where attacks rose to about 45, from 19 the year before. Also occurring last year were such deadly attacks as the seizure of a school in Beslan, Russia, by Chechen militants that resulted in at least 330 dead, and the Madrid train bombings that left nearly 200 dead.

Wow, do you think the Chechen militants are upset over our ‘occupation’ of Iraq? I certainly hope not!

You know Locke, you seem like an intelligent guy, so tell me, how do you feel the appeasement process worked in regards to the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, the 1996 Khobar Towers Bombing, the 1998 Embassy Bombings, and the 2000 USS Cole Bombing?

Did you notice the time between the attacks went from 3 years apart, to two years, to 18 months to one year on September 11, 2001?

Finally, after 9-11, the United States and at least 40 other countries responded:

Countries still today with us on the ground in Iraq: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.

Countries that have withdrawn and dates of withdrawal:

Nicaragua (Feb. 2004); Spain (late-Apr. 2004); Dominican Republic (early-May 2004); Honduras (late-May 2004); Philippines (~Jul. 19, 2004); Thailand (late-Aug. 2004); New Zealand (late Sep. 2004); Tonga (mid-Dec. 2004) Portugal (mid-Feb. 2005); The Netherlands (Mar. 2005); Hungary (Mar. 2005); Singapore (Mar. 2005); Norway (Oct. 2005); Ukraine (Dec. 2005); Japan (July 17, 2006); Italy (Nov. 2006); Slovakia (Jan 2007).

“By the end of 2004, the U.S. government claimed that two-thirds of the top leaders of al-Qaeda from 2001 were in custody (including Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, Saif al Islam el Masry, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri) or dead (including Mohammed Atef). Despite the capture or death of many senior al-Qaeda operatives, the U.S. government continues to warn that the organization is not yet defeated, and battles between U.S. forces and al-Qaeda-related groups continue.

From your fourth (New York Times) article:

Previous drafts described actions by the United States government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, … It is unclear whether the final draft of the intelligence estimate criticizes individual policies of the United States, but intelligence officials involved in preparing the document said its conclusions were not softened or massaged for political purposes.

They knew it would get worse before it got better – Bush said as much. We will come back to this in a bit.

National Intelligence Council report completed in January 2003, two months before the Iraq invasion. That report stated that the approaching war had the potential to increase support for political Islam worldwide and could increase support for some terrorist objectives.

“Since the Sept. 11 attacks, America and its allies are safer, but we are not yet safe,” concludes one, a report titled “9/11 Five Years Later: Success and Challenges.” “We have done much to degrade Al Qaeda and its affiliates and to undercut the perceived legitimacy of terrorism.”

That document makes only passing mention of the impact the Iraq war has had on the global jihad movement. “The ongoing fight for freedom in Iraq has been twisted by terrorist propaganda as a rallying cry,” it states. The report mentions the possibility that Islamic militants who fought in Iraq could return to their home countries, “exacerbating domestic conflicts or fomenting radical ideologies.” Oh no! Following ‘us’ home?

In early 2005, the National Intelligence Council released a study concluding that Iraq had become the primary training ground for the next generation of terrorists, and that veterans of the Iraq war might ultimately overtake Al Qaeda’s current leadership in the constellation of the global jihad leadership.

(Let’s fight and kill them there and not wait on them to come here!)

But the new intelligence estimate is the first report since the war began to present a comprehensive picture about the trends in global terrorism. “New jihadist networks and cells, sometimes united by little more than their anti-Western agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge,” said Gen. Michael V. Hayden, during a speech in San Antonio in April, the month that the new estimate was completed. “If this trend continues, threats to the U.S. at home and abroad will become more diverse and that could lead to increasing attacks worldwide,” said the general, who was then Mr. Negroponte’s top deputy and is now director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
The panel investigating the London terrorist bombings of July 2005 reported in May that the leaders of Britain’s domestic and international intelligence services, MI5 and MI6, “emphasized to the committee the growing scale of the Islamist terrorist threat.” More recently,the Council on Global Terrorism, an independent research group of respected terrorism experts, assigned a grade of “D+” to United States efforts over the past five years to combat Islamic extremism. The council concluded that “there is every sign that radicalization in the Muslim world is spreading rather than shrinking.”

Okay Mr. Locke – now, what are we to do about this growing threat to freedom and democracy by Muslim extremists? Go home and wait for them?

And finally, your last article from a CBS morning show:

Thursday morning CBS News's Early Show criticized President Bush's latest justification for the Iraq War as being the first line of defense against al Qaeda, by citing an upcoming Senate Intelligence Committee report which states that the administration was warned before the invasion that a US presence in Iraq would actually increase terrorist influence.

As I pointed out in a previous comment, Bush said it would and the reports back this up.

Analyst Paul Kurtz expanded on this criticism, saying, "Prior to our invasion of Iraq...Iraq was not a fertile ground for terrorist activity," (Insert list here of democrats supporting the invasion of the 'head terrorist', Saddam Hussein) but that now "we have a safe haven in Iraq for terrorists." The administration, says Kurtz, is trying to have it both ways.

Now, somehow, this Paul Kurtz ‘analyst’ decides in his criticism that Iraq is a “safe place for terrorists”. Is that like a ‘sanctuary city’ for illegals? Wow, would you want to be a terrorist in Iraq right now? I somehow think not

I Have to run but thanks for the GREAT articles.

If WWII had been covered by the Modern Media: Great Video

Noun
1. sycophant - a person who tries to please someone in order to gain a personal advantage

crawler, toady, lackey
apple polisher, ass-kisser, bootlicker, fawner, groveler, groveller, truckler - someone who humbles himself as a sign of respect; who behaves as if he had no self-respect

adulator, flatterer - a person who uses flattery
goody-goody - a person who behaves extremely well in order to please a superior

Just in case:

ostentatious

oh - ess - tee - ee - in - tee - ay - tee - eye - oh - you - ess.

Tomorrow, we cover :

con·de·scend·ing

Monday we examine the difference between the names:

MAX - I - MUS and MIX - ER.

Ayez une maman merveilleuse de nuit!

If WWII had been covered by the Modern Media: Great Video

Congratulations on your discovery of a dictionary and thesaurus, but I think you posted in the wrong place… again.

Maximus

...didn't you. You guys are just too much fun!

There has been one other problem with the administration of this going on six year, unsuccessful war and that is the military leaders themselves.
Just today I saw the General on the ground (two stars) saying that to leave Iraq now would be a "mess" as he put it and that they would need an indefinite amount of time.
That clip was played for Mr. Gravel, a Presidential candidate who plainly said: (in so many words)
This is another example of how the military sucks up to the administration and some others. I would bring that general home immediately! Then I would hire one who was not afraid to tell me the truth.
Think back about how many have got the third or fourth star for sucking up!

Watch Maxipad change the subject now.

Jeez, Locke, you and Davids Mom are absolutely beating Maxipad to a bloody pulp. If this was a boxing match the ref would've stopped it 4 rounds ago!

Anyone who watches Fox 5 or any talk show knows the answers to your questions. Those who read more need not ask the questions. Have a good day.

but you apparently do not.

“Those who read more need not ask the questions.” Huh? That makes no sense. Are you saying that if you read a lot you don’t need to ask questions? Or maybe if you just read all the leftist blogs that tell you exactly what to think you don’t need to ask questions.?

Maybe bas is right for once. Arguing with someone who is incapable of answering a simple question or two is a bit foolish. Glad you're enjoying it, bas.

Maximus

__________________________
Stop Global Whining

You're making Maxipad look like quite a bloody fool.