Friday, August 11, 2006

THE FREEDOM REPORT * NO MORE BUSHMEN! NO MORE WAR!

As the Native Americans reminded us: "No tree has branches so foolish as to fight among themselves."

You can reach my Home page at: LYDIA CORNELL

And to discuss SPIRITUAL SOLUTIONS to the world crises, along with some amazing prayer miracles in the next few weeks, please check out RADICAL PRAYER at my other blog THE PEACEMAKERS * LIGHT OF TRUTH

When I went on the USO tour of Beirut to visit the Marines, terrorism was in its infancy. This was right before the first major "truck bomb suicide attack" against U.S. Peacekeeping Forces. US Magazine published my "Beirut Diary" when I returned, and I did Good Morning America. We visited aircraft carriers USS INCHON, USS SUMTER AND USS SHREVEPORT.

Ambassador Joe Wilson, ex-CIA agent Larry Johnson, me and Jack Carter at Doug Basham's Progressive Talk fundraiser in Vegas. (June 2006.)

Hi Everyone. You can now leave comments here; we are experimenting with new websites, so please forgive the confusion. I am still on a spiritual retreat. This blog is back up and I will check in periodically.

GEORGE W. BUSH OUT-TRICKS RICHARD NIXON!

The BRAD BLOG congratulates George W. Bush for outlasting former President Richard M. Nixon in office!

It has been no easy feat to out-slick Tricky Dick, but with the help of a compliant rubber-stamp congress and a castrated roll-over media, Bush has managed to get away with a contempt for his country in a way that Nixon could only have dreamt of. As the legendary and mysterious Freeway Blogger has previously pointed out, we're all wearing the blue dress now...
BRADBLOG.com



Gibson Converts to Judaism: Changes Name to Mel Gibstein

Reuters - In his boldest bid yet to apologize to the Jewish community, actor Mel Gibson today announced that he had converted to Judaism.

The news took many Jews aback, since conversion to Judaism is a demanding process that can take months or even years of study, and Mr. Gibson accomplished the feat in a record time of forty-five minutes.

But a spokesman for the "Lethal Weapon" star explained how Mr. Gibson pulled off his lightning-fast conversion: "This is Hollywood -- a lot of things can be done by special effects."

Moments after his conversion to Judaism, Mr. Gibson paid a visit to the registrar's office in Los Angeles County and had his name legally changed to "Mel Gibstein" in a show of commitment to his new chosen faith.

Then it was off to Malibu, where the 50-year old actor was bar mitzvahed on the beach in a small, private ceremony.

"Today, I am a man," Mr. Gibstein said before a gathering of friends and well-wishers from the local watering hole Moonshadows. "A Jew man!"

Mr. Gibstein, whose Lexus LS sedan now sports a license plate reading "LCHAIM," said that he was "thoroughly enjoying being a Jew" and vowed to only shop wholesale from now on.

The actor added he would begin production of a new film, "Mad Matzoh Beyond Thundershalom," as soon as he kicks his drinking problem.

"I am really committed to reheeb," he said. "I mean rehab." (story sent by my friend Michael Levy)

Open thread. Please comment on the Mideast Crisis and on LIEBERMAN LOSING THE PRIMARY!
Lieberman losing is a good sign for peace lovers everywhere. We are not going to let them get away with endless war.

Every great statesman and spiritual leader knows that you can't fight fire with fire. Fighting our enemies embodies them with power, attention and new life. Withdraw forces, trust that the Iraqi people will find their way much faster than they will if we stay in Iraq attracting suicide attacks! Why are (bush-cheney-rove) such control freaks? Why are they playing God? They don't trust the Iraqi people to manage their own country? There is a higher power and everyone has access to it. It is not helping anyone to keep our troops in Iraq. In fact, OUR VERY PRESENCE IS CAUSING HELL TO BREAK LOOSE!

We need to understand our enemy. We need face-to-face dialogue with the "Other." Bush and Condi have to let down their macho pride and sweet talk Syria. We should be charming our enemies, getting to know them and doing everything in our power to prevent more children from being killed.

The more I obsess over a problem, the more I bring it into my life (because I’m thinking about it all day long.) The very thing I don't want is attached to me like a ball and a chain simply because I can't let it go. The less I diet, the more weight I lose. The less I nag my husband, the more agreeable he is. We give our enemies life, we empower them, validate and give them "body" by fighting them! That's why Christ said, "Resist NOT evil." Whatever you strike out at, only hits you back harder. When I expect the best in people and see the good in them, the good is all I see. (They rise to the occasion.)

Here is the commercial-free unedited version of the radio show I did in June for Doug Basham's Progressive Talk in Vegas. Doug is one of my favorite people and a fantastic, brilliant host!
  • DOUG BASHAM PROGRESSIVE TALK
  • See more pix:
  • DougBasham.com




  • LOVE & PEACE! xo, Lydia



    Getty Images

    HOW TRUE. I love what BRADBLOG has up on his front banner: "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people
    who count the votes decide everything." - Joseph Stalin

    449 comments:

    1. Joe lost...so it seems average americans are not all for an optional unecessary war after all....

      ReplyDelete
    2. And with NEY resigning for his illegal activities...and Delay being forced back on the ballet. Even though he said he will support a write in canidate, looks like Roves stragety has a few flats...

      ReplyDelete
    3. But if Lieberman continues in his head-up-his-ass, moves he would make a perfect choice to replace dumsfeld after the dems take the house and hold hearings like congress is supposed to do, unlike the "K Street" repugs do not do, except to give their clients...er I mean campaign supporters a mouth piece to advocate what they already paid for...laws their lawyers wrote for them

      ReplyDelete
    4. BTW McKinney also lost....two wins for the progressive movement.....which believes the congress is supposed to represent the people....not enrich them selves and grab power....while ignoring the law they expect the rest of us to uphold.

      ReplyDelete
    5. BTW here is what Pat Lang thinks about how well Hezbollah was doing. This does not mean he agrees with their motives. He is just making a comment about their strategy and tactics;

      An End To Militias

      We have tended to think of Hizbullah in terms of mobs of men marching around Beirut in odd looking uniforms carrying yellow flags. We are now learning that reality is more like this fellow on the left. The big war in the south of Lebanon is not over yet. We have yet to see a really serious Israeli ground effort there, but based on what has happened so far, I think we have to rate the Hizbullah army as a serious ground force. It is said that the Hizbullah army was trained by the Iranians but, I think that in a more profound sense they were trained by the Israel Defense Force. Clausewitz maintained that the best school of war is war itself. This is a variant of the old saw that claims that "whatever does not kill you makes you stronger." The Hizbullah army fought the IDF for many years. Throughout that time the Hizbullahis (or Hizbalians according to POTUS) observed the methods and "style" of the IDF. Israeli soldiers returned from Lebanon express surprise that the guerrillas look and dress like them. They should not be surprised. It is a kind of compliment.

      On the other hand you have these guys, seen here observing a demonstration. The Lebanese Army is a force of "asphalt soldiers." They have never really fought anyone and their governments have carefully avoided putting them to that test. They are a mixed group in confessional terms, although the command of the force has always been entrusted to a Maronite Christian under the terms of the National Accord.

      Israel has said that it is one of its war aims to have this force move to the south where it would occupy the border country and "control" the Hizbullah army after disarming it with the "assistance" of an international or possibly interplanetary force from outside Lebanon.

      The Lebanese government has now offered to send 15,000 of these perhaps fierce, but certainly untested, tigers to accomplish this stated Israeli desideratum in return for Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. The Israelis no longer seem as charmed by the prospect.

      Why?

      1- The Hizbullah army command does not seem concerned at the prospect of 15,000 Lebanese Army troops in their area.

      2- What will be the re-action of these 15,000 soldiers when confronted with the idea of actually fighting their own countrymen who are in arms against a common foe?

      3- The most frequently heard suggestion for consolidating armed force under the Lebanese government has been the incorporation of the militias (read Hizbullah) into the Lebanese Army. The Lebanese Army has nicer uniforms, and the survivors of the fights in Bint J'bail and Aita al-Sha''b will look good in them.

      That will take care of the Israelis' problems?

      Pat Lang

      ReplyDelete
    6. And another article where he rates them against other middle east "guerrilla's"

      "An Arab Guerrilla Army"

      "Hizbullah is proving to be something altogether new, an Arab guerrilla army with sophisticated weaponry and remarkable discipline. Its soldiers have the jihadist rhetoric of fighting to the death, but wear body armor and use satcoms to coordinate their attacks. Their tactics may be from Che, but their arms are from Iran, and not just AK-47s and RPGs. They've reportedly destroyed three of Israel's advanced Merkava tanks with wire-guided missiles and powerful mines, crippled an Israeli warship with a surface-to-sea missile, sent up drones on reconnaissance missions, implanted listening devices along the border and set up their ambushes using night-vision goggles.

      NEWSWEEK has learned from a source briefed in recent weeks by Israel's top leaders and military brass that Hizbullah even managed to eavesdrop successfully on Israel's military communications as its Lebanese incursion began." Newsweek

      ---------------------------------------------------------------------

      There have been Arab guerrilla armies before. The "Arab Revolt" against the Turks in WW1 was in part a campaign fought by Beduin guerrilla forces and in part a conventional war fought by "regular" units of infantry, cavalry, etc. led by former Ottoman officers of Arab extraction and advised by the British and French.

      In the Iraq of the '20s and the Syria and Palestine of the '30s Arab guerrillas fought colonial and Zionist forces for years. In the end they all were defeated by the application of technology, western methods of warfare, and police methods imported by the colonial powers from such places as India and Ireland.

      The Lebanese Hizbullah "Arab Guerrilla Army" is something different. What Newsweek describes is a force in transition, a force becoming a real army. Vo Nguyen Giap wrote in "People's War, People's Army" that a national resistance movement's armed force must "evolve" from political agitprop activities to guerrilla war and eventually to the status and capability of regular armed forces if it is to succeed in defeating its enemies and seizing " a place at the table" in its country's future.

      Some will say that Hizbullah's army is not a "national force." They will say that it is merely a cats-paw of the Iranians and the Syrians. They will say that the money and the equipment are Iranian. This is all true, but the polling today in Lebanon indicates that the Lebanese (both Christian and Muslim) believe Hizbullah's army to be a national force. I would welcome comments in regard to that polling.

      I think that the Lebanese/Israeli war is pounding the "arch" of Lebanese society with a hammer, driving the "keystone" into the arch and tightening the fabric of cohesive national resistance to Israel. That keystone is now painted with a yellow flag.

      Pat Lang

      The website Sic Semper Tyrannis 2006, has very good non-partisan analysis of the situation in the Mideast. They also have good articles about the military and intel matters in general, having spent they majority of their lives in those realms

      ReplyDelete
    7. Chris Matthews said "we have a winner....Ted Lamont"

      ReplyDelete
    8. Too bad..Soo sad..for Lieberman


      Naa Naa Naa naa good bye

      Naa Naa Naa naa good bye

      Joe don't let the door hit you where you speak from....

      ReplyDelete
    9. Al Gore has a movie called "Inconvenient Truth" which is about the causes of Global Warming and the problems that result from it. There is a parallel in the situation we now find our country in. This is our aiding Israel in it's actions in response to Hezbollah. The results of this situation might be something we can call "inconvenient consequences". By this I mean situations we could find ourselves in, because we did not stop to think about the fallout of aiding Israels military action and blocking a cease fire it .

      One situation has already started, the insurgency in Iraq is growing again. They have been aided in their recruiting because young Iraqi men are more willing to join the insurgency to fight Americans. This is because the American Government is supplying the Israelis the bombs that they drop on Muslims in Lebanon. So we can expect the violence against American military forces to escalate in the near future. Thus the longer the combat stretches on, the more dangerous duty in Iraq becomes. From both the Sunni insurgents and the Shite militias, who would come to see that attacking an ally of Israel is their contribution to the forces fighting Israel.

      And it does not just involve danger to soldiers in a combat zone. The raised tensions are spilling on to the Arab street. In Cairo, Riyadh, Islamabad, Ankara, Muslims are venting their anger against the actions of Israel, and the US support of Israel. These cities are the capitals of countries which we consider our friends in the region. But given the anger the leaders must balance their streets again our foreign aid. The rulers must allow the masses to vent their anger, but in a controlled way. Otherwise the anger for Israel and the US could spill out on to their own countries. This could result in mass actions where the people demand their rulers side with Lebanon,(and Hezbollah) which would put them at odds with us.

      If this mass action begins in those Muslim countries, one of the the inconvenient consequences, could come in the form of Egypt who tears up their peace treaty with Israel. This would change the situation in the north because Israel would have to position forces in case Egypt decides to attack. The Gaza strip would become much more volatile because the Hamas would accept open support from Egypt, which would destroy the blockade Israel has attempted to encircle Gaza with to keep more weapons out. Egypt could give Hamas, aid support both militarily and economically. They could become a safe haven from which Hamas would have a much larger stage from which to launch attacks upon the country of Israel. The entire southwest border of Israel from the Red Sea, to the Mediterranean would become much hotter for Israel and would require more guards, and monitoring. However Israel has dealt with a very antagonistic Egypt before, so this would not be a disaster.

      Turkey quiting NATO and becoming a true thorn in the side of Europe, and demanding both NATO and US bases close down and their forces evacuate the country. This would deny the US an airbase we have used for decades, and create a much larger problem in Iraq if Turkey were to decide to attack the Kurds who use Iraq as a safe haven in Hezbollah style attacks on Turkey. As bad as Turkey turning toward the more radical trend in Islamic states would create severe problems for the US but like the loss of Iran in 1979, the loss of Turkey as an ally could be overcome.

      The fall of the house of Saud in Saudi Arabia could be debilitating for allies of Israel. The new rulers of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia could decide to change who they are willing to sell oil to. They also could decide to use the Euro or some other currency to price oil in, thus undercutting the dollar on the world market. the effects of this would ripple through out the worlds economy. This is the first scenario which could be called a disaster, because there exists no replacement for the oil the Saudis put on the world stage everyday. thus the loss of the kingdom to radical extremists would undermine the worlds economy, and create many tensions, along with the realignment of who accepts the Saudis demands, and those who do not.

      Each of these scenarios are bad, real bad for the US and Israel. However bad these scenarios might be, they pale in comparison to the scenario that could play out in Pakistan. Pakistan is an unstable country which makes it the most dangerous for several reasons. Pakistan has the Taliban and their supporters holding control over significant portions of its territory. The intelligence agency actively supports the Taliban and has been accused by Armed Karzai of actively training the Taliban while the Taliban makes a resurgence in the war in Afghanistan. If the street turns on Musharraf, he would have a dangerous choice to make. One that has far ranging consequences for the US.

      If Musharraf turns to actively supporting the enemies of Israel, thus supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, but most important the Taliban, and Osama Bin Laden, we would find our situation in Afghanistan very precarious. We would lose their support in fighting elements when they cross the border. Pakistan would become an OPEN safe haven for the Taliban just as it did in the Soviet invasion. They would have a place to retreat to, recover, resupply, and re-attack. if that was all he or those who overthrow him do, we might be able to overcome that situation. IT would be much harder if our forces in Iraq are trying to fight to hold their bases, or fight their way out of Iraq. However our military has always been able to improvise, adapt and overcome many dire situations.

      the real danger that Pakistan would pose if it flip allegiance to the Taliban ET AL would be the very fact the possess nuclear weapons, and missiles. The Nuclear weapons are thought to include some made of plutonium, which is the more desired warhead for deployment on a missile. The longer range missile could reach Israel, and their uranium based bombs could be air delivered, or smuggled into Israel or even the US. A militant Pakistan which would automatically posses nuclear weapons upon the militants taking over, would be the most disastrous result of this fallout of the ripples that the war between Israel and Hezbollah has begun. Just as a disturbance off the coast of Africa can become a raging hurricane upon crossing the Atlantic, if the conditions are right. The disturbances in each country caused by the masses reactions to the situation between Israel and Hezbollah, could become a raging storm which leads to changes in internal leadership, and the resulting change in alliances outside the country. And Pakistan is the worst "hurricane" we could face from this ripple that is spreading through out the region.

      The longer the situation between Israel vs Hamas and Hezbollah(and by association Lebanon) remains as explosive as it is right now, these scenarios have a chance to become reality. The questionable gains the neo-cons desire from Israel's destruction of Hezbollah are doubtful without much more massive destruction of the areas that Hezbollah operate in Lebanon. The desire of the neo-cons to enlarge the conflict to get Syria and, or Iran involved, raises the possibility of a mass uprising of the Muslim peoples against Israel, the US and those governments that the US props up in the region. Both these desires raises the possibility of an inconvenient scenario, which would have devastating consequences for the US in the region of the middle east, let alone our homeland.

      ReplyDelete
    10. Hey what happened to the Freedom Blog? Is this the "All clif all the time blog"? Please more cut-and-paste; I must have more massive cut-and-pastes.

      ReplyDelete
    11. Okay Joe Lieberman lost. He was the last decent democrat since Patrick Moynihan. Now you folks have only loonie leftists like chuckie rangel, barbara boxer, and robert byrd.

      This is an outrage! I blame Diebold.

      ReplyDelete
    12. BTW foole, I only added two posts from Pat Lang. But do continue to be dishonest and distort reality to your liking, repugs are Soooo good at that.

      ReplyDelete
    13. Fantasy Foole said...

      Hey what happened to the Freedom Blog?

      Do not know.

      Is this the "All clif all the time blog"?


      No fooles are allowed...otherwise you would not be here.

      Please more cut-and-paste; I must have more massive cut-and-pastes.

      Wait...TT will be here soon with the Iowa chicken hawk, or Mann the anorexic Nazi, or some reichwingnut bloviation which was about 1/2 of his posts....

      Or dolt can cut and paste from the website we debunked here as not entirely accurate or honest, seems they are about as much about cut and paste as you claim I am.

      ReplyDelete
    14. Fantasy Foole said...

      Okay Joe Lieberman lost.

      RIGHT couldn't happen to a better backstabbing candidate



      He was the last decent democrat since Patrick Moynihan.


      Far from it son, Paul Wellstone was a very good democrat, so is Russ Feingold and so was Bob Kerrey among others but in your delusional fantasy world anybody who does not goose step in line with you is no good right son?




      Now you folks have only loonie leftists like chuckie rangel, barbara boxer, and robert byrd.


      Only loonie to a reichwingnut...like the foole

      This is an outrage!


      Not to the voters of Connecticut

      I blame Diebold.

      blame who you choose, but the voters of Connecticut have expressed their choice...too bad for you wingnuts they didn't drink the kool aid you want them to.

      ReplyDelete
    15. Ahhh... good to be back on eBlogger.

      I think if we (including me) keep things civil, Lydia might leave it here.

      I have a couple of thoughts on the MidEast and the CT elections, and I'll post them tomorrow night if this blog is still up.

      ReplyDelete
    16. Bernard Lewis thinks MAD may not work with Ahmadinejad

      Bernard Lewis is said to be the greatest living Western scholar of Islam, someone with deep sympathy for the Muslim world, without forgetting its dark side. Writing in the Wall Street Journal online edition today, Lewis now expresses deep concern over an apocalyptic Iran armed with nukes.

      It seems increasingly likely that the Iranians either have or very soon will have nuclear weapons at their disposal … The language used by Iranian President Ahmadinejad would seem to indicate the reality and indeed the imminence of this threat.

      Would … the … fear of mutual assured destruction, restrain a nuclear-armed Iran from using such weapons against the U.S. or against Israel?

      ...The phrase “Allah will know his own” is usually used to explain such apparently callous unconcern; it means that while infidel, i.e., non-Muslim, victims will go to a well-deserved punishment in hell, Muslims will be sent straight to heaven. ... the threat of direct retaliation on Iran—- is … already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today…

      ... Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the U.S. about nuclear development by Aug. 22.

      What is the significance of Aug. 22? ... This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to “the farthest mosque,” usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world.

      It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.

      This is alarming. It seems clear that other nations should be ready for some kind of Iranian strike on August 22. The best current guess is that Iran does not yet have a nuclear device, based on the public record, although Tehran could have the ingredients of a dirty bomb. Iran’s neighbors, like the Saudis, are beginning to arm themselves with anti-missile systems. They should put themselves on high alert very soon.

      It is even possible that Iran may send a team of suiciders with a dirty radioactive device to Lebanon, to place in the path of Israeli troops. There is no foolproof defense against such a move – they could simply load up a small ship or plane with a simple device. However, there is no evidence in the public record that the Iranians have actually tested a radioactive device, though they could have exploded a mockup. If there is any Iranian attempt to strike at Israel or US forces, it would be a nuclear asus belli . The Iranian regime would be rapidly destroyed, and achieve its eagerly-sought martyrdom, taking along innocent bystanders.

      Ahmadinejad may be mad, but he’s cleverly mad. Today’s Iranian proxy war on Israel was cleverly designed, both strategically and tactically. The mullahs may therefore wait a few years until they have their nukes all lined up. August 22 comes once a year, and 2006 may not be the time they choose. Or they might fire their long-range missiles at Tel Aviv or even Jerusalem on August 22. GPS-guided missiles could be devastating. However, no doubt Israel has make it unmistakably clear what kind of action would trigger massive retaliation. The Syrians at least are not eager for martyrdom.

      Hitler overreached when he attacked Russia. Ahmadinejad may also overreach. It fits his malevolent paranoid style. The big question today is how many people he will take with him if he does overreach.

      If the Bush doctrine of nuclear preemption is ever justified, it would be in cases like this. But there are no easy answers. We are just lucky to have a tough-minded administration in Washington, and not the flabby thinkers of the Carter and Clinton years.

      James Lewis 8 08 06

      americanthinker.com
      /comments.php?
      comments_id=5795

      ReplyDelete
    17. Looks like Lieberman lost last night, that says that Americans are fed up with Bush and his war and corrupt policies and want a change.

      BTW anyone see Donny Deutche, last night, he said that 1/3 of Americans belive the Bush Administration might have been behind 9/11 and that 2/3 of our country has completely lost faith in our government.Looks like the writing is on the wall for you repugs, america has woken up and is sick and tired of you guys and is ready for a change.

      ReplyDelete
    18. TT said I think if we (including me) keep things civil, Lydia might leave it here."

      I think being civil is a good plan TT, but I have to ask, why were you so afraid to come over to the other Blog,, Volt wasnt?, I just dont get it.

      ReplyDelete
    19. Not much to say about Lieberman the incumbant repug chickenhawk losing i see or the fact that 1/3 of Americans belive the Bush Administration might have been behind 9/11 and that 2/3 of our country has completely lost faith in our government?

      ReplyDelete
    20. Good to see Tiny inTellect is back to HIS cut and pastey boy routine.....

      And about Mr Lewis. NOT every one see's him as a sage...but instead an appologist for western imperialism inh the middle east, which has happened since the end of WW1

      As these quotes from an article about lewis shows....neo-con repug appologists are still just that...appologising and attempting to legitmise western imperialist adventures in the middle east....

      Some thing they would decry if the tables were reversed....


      It would appear from the fulsome praise heaped by mainstream reviewers on Bernard Lewis's most recent and well-timed book, What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response (Oxford University Press, 2002), that the demand for Orientalism has reached a new peak. America's search for new enemies that began soon after the end of the Cold War very quickly resurrected the ghost of an old, though now decrepit, enemy, Islam. Slowly but surely, this revived the sagging fort1unes of Orientalism, so that it speaks again with the treble voice of authority.

      The mainstream reviewers describe Bernard Lewis as "the doyen of Middle Eastern studies," the "father" of Islamic studies, "[a]rguably the West's most distinguished scholar on the Middle East," and "[a] Sage for the Age." It would appear that Lewis is still the reigning monarch of Orientalism, as he was some twenty-five years back when Edward Said, in his Orientalism, dissected and exposed the intentions, modalities, deceptions, and imperialist connections of this ideological enterprise. This Orientalist tiger has not changed his stripes over the fifty-odd years that he has been honing his skills. Now at the end of his long career-only coincidentally, also the peak-he presents the summation, the quintessence of his scholarship and wisdom on Islam and the Middle East, gathered, compressed in the pages of this slim book that sets out to explain what went wrong with Islamic history, and that has so mesmerized reviewers on the right.

      Lewis's scholarly mask slips off rather abruptly when he appears on television, a feat that he accomplishes with predictable regularity. Once he is on the air, his polemical self, the Orientalist crouching tiger, takes over, all his sermons about objectivity forgotten, and then he does not shrink from displaying his sneering contempt for the Arabs and Muslims more generally, his blind partisanship for Israel, or his bristling hostility toward Iran. One recent example will suffice here. In a PBS interview broadcast on 16 April 2002, hosted by Charlie Rose, he offered this gem: "Asking Arafat to give up terrorism would be like asking Tiger to give up golf." That is a statement whose malicious intent and vindictive meanness might have been excusable if it came from an official Israeli spokesman.

      http://www.counterpunch.org/alam06282003.html

      ReplyDelete
    21. And the american thinker is another reichwingnut propoganda site....

      ReplyDelete
    22. BTW Tiny inTellect if you want to be CIVIL on a blog...discuss the topic of the BLOG..and don't cut and paste opposition propoganda like you do REGULARILY...otherwise you another STUPID troll trying to diosrupt the BLOG for political reasons...

      ReplyDelete
    23. Cliffy,did you get drummed out of the army for talking to yourself?

      ReplyDelete
    24. You're damn right Mike that 9-11 crap WAS an inside job,we all know it was,you code pink boys are just a little slow on the uptake.

      ReplyDelete
    25. hey genius you are capable of reading arent you? it is 1/3 of all Americans that think The Bush Administration were somehow involved in 9/11, and it wasnt me that said it it was Donny Deutche, 1/3 of Americans, thats 100,000,000 people that think these guys are so corrupt that they could actually be involved I dont think thats a code pink Genius, and thats not even taking into account the 2/3 of all Americans who have completely lost faith in our government, thats 200,000,000 in case you arent smart enough to figure it out that are sick and tired of you clowns and your corrupt self serving policies and evil agenda's and that was clearly evidenced by Lieberman losing last night which is only the first of many the Country is sick and tired of the Neo Cons and your time is just about up, your reign of evil is almost over.

      ReplyDelete
    26. Who is this Douche guy? How does he know all this stuff? Do you think it was an inside job? Are you one of the 1/3rd.?

      ReplyDelete
    27. Or are you just ignorant? Which is it?

      ReplyDelete
    28. ...the Country is sick and tired of the Neo Cons and your time is just about up, your reign of evil is almost over.
      -mikey

      Perhaps, synaptically-challenged one, you forget that Carl Rove controls Diebold and Diebold decides who gets elected. Bwahahaha.

      ReplyDelete
    29. Clif, when Lydia appoints you as the board moderator, let me know.

      She did write that A) this was an open thread, and B) that she invited comments on the Middle East. So what's your beef?

      The article I posted was about the Middle East, and you are the last person to complain about cut and pastes. You are the king of those.

      ReplyDelete
    30. FF, I checked and the expiration is not until August of 2008. Maybe she renewed today.

      ReplyDelete
    31. TT said "FF, I checked and the expiration is not until August of 2008. Maybe she renewed today."

      what is that supposed to mean Troll Tex, were you going to buy it and pull the plug on the site.......I thought you like it here so much?????

      ReplyDelete
    32. Mike, I was responding to FF on another forum.

      ReplyDelete
    33. I know exactly what you were refering to Troll Tex, Lydia's Domain Name........and like usual you didnt answer my question, so i'll ask it again:

      what is that supposed to mean Troll Tex, were you going to buy it and pull the plug on the site.......I thought you like it here so much?????

      ReplyDelete
    34. ...and no, Mike, I wouldn't do such a thing. It was a lighthearted exchange.

      Even if I wanted to, which I don't, I would be in the wrong legally.

      Take it easy pal.

      ReplyDelete
    35. Looks like someone beat you to the punch with buying that Domain Name Slick!!

      LOL :D

      ReplyDelete
    36. So you say TT, I guess I have no choice but to take you at your word.

      ReplyDelete
    37. Mike, the name "Lydia Cornell" has trademark protection since she is a public figure. Lighten up.

      ReplyDelete
    38. one thing TT buy someone's domain name out from under them on the sly wouldnt make you in the wrong legally, it would make you morally wrong, something many repugs dont seem to have much of a problem with.

      ReplyDelete
    39. i'll be back later tonight, as for lightening up, I think i've done that considering I almost died a few days ago, that changes your whole outlook on life and makes you realize how precious it is.

      ReplyDelete
    40. Mike said

      "I almost died a few days ago,"


      Mikey

      Consuming 13 bags of Cheezies, 4 Whoppers, 107 Gummie Bears, a carton of Joe Loui's, 2 garlic pizza's, 7 chocolate milkshakes, 28 pickled eggs, 3 fish burgers, 15 jelly donuts, bucket o chicken, 3 sacks of onion rings, and 9 Jamaican Patties, would most certainly bring me closer to God as well......my condolences!

      ReplyDelete
    41. Seems Lydia just cant get enough of Johnny Moo Moo.

      BTW Lyd, you forgot to mention my name on Doug Basham.....Im a little sad as I thought I was your favourite Atheist?

      Maybe next time?

      ReplyDelete
    42. what did she say on Basham johnny, I heard the beginning and they were both great, but it kept cutting out on me, I think my dial up connection was too slow.

      ReplyDelete
    43. Hey Mike,

      Good to count you among the living. Tell us about it when you feel up to it.

      Yeah Carl Rove pulled up in a Wonder Bread truck and wanted to buy Ms. Cornell's site, but I talked him outta it.

      Where's wharf? Still making rhymes and eating worms perhaps?

      ReplyDelete
    44. Thanks FF, thats actually pretty decent of you on all counts, btw I didnt know you and Karl were so tight.

      as for the accident, I got hit from behind on my motorcycle by a drunk in a car, I flipped over the handle bars and the bike was flipping through the air and gonna land on me till I twisted my body and flipped to the side, I struck my back on the spoiler of a car flipped over that car and hit my back and head on the car in front of that and landed under the second or would that be the fourth car.

      luckily for me I hit the second car with my head (i'm pretty hard headed) and lucily for me i'm a tough person to hurt as well.

      as for Worf I have no idea where he is at the moment, but he did make it very clear he would never post on this blog again.

      BTW FF, any idea why both sites went down the past two days, do you think the domain name expiring had something to do with it, what happens to a site when the domain name expires?

      ReplyDelete
    45. clif said...

      "Joe lost...so it seems average americans are not all for an optional unecessary war after all...."

      Hey cliffy,
      Is it "average americans" or party loyalists who usually vote in primaries?

      And I congradulate the dem party for having such a large tent. Joe was a dyed in the wool lib and toed the party line on everything BUT the war on terror.

      I guess it's now official, You can't be a dem if you actually love your country.

      ReplyDelete
    46. btw clif, whattaya think it'll mean for the lib base when Lieberman wins the nov. elections as an independent?

      ReplyDelete
    47. Volt, you made a good point that it is party loyalists that vote in primaries, but your second point that if you dont support the war you hate your country is a bunch of BS.

      I am strongly against the war in iraq, not the war on terrorism, and I love my country and strong on national defense and securing our borders and ports.

      ReplyDelete
    48. Aw mikey, "hate" is such a strong word.

      I guess a better way of saying it is that dems put partisan politics and their agendas BEFORE their country.

      ReplyDelete
    49. Dolty boy the party which put politics ahead of the country IS the repugs where they HAD delay who earned his nickname by squeezing every repug to VOTE the party line or facerecriminations, something he was called before the ethics committee in congress.

      And I wonder why 13,000 people registered to vote in the primary in conneticut if ti was JUST hardliners?

      ReplyDelete
    50. BTW today in 1974 the crook Nixon had to resign...HAPPY GET RID OF REPUG CROOKS DAY

      ReplyDelete
    51. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      ReplyDelete
    52. Volt said "Aw mikey, "hate" is such a strong word.

      I guess a better way of saying it is that dems put partisan politics and their agendas BEFORE their country."

      agreed, hate is a strong word, but if your being honest with me, then it really must be a matter of perspective, because from my point of view it is the repugs that put partisan politics and their agenda's before their country, I feel that with every fiber of my being and i'm the farthest thing from a partisan or political person.

      I am all for keeping us safe and Bush has done nothing to do that, he has practicly abandoned Afghanistan, the war on terrorism and the search for Osama (the guy that attacked us) to invade an oil rich country that had nothing to do with the terrorists who attacked us for his self serving reasons. He has done nothing to secure our borders and ports in the 6 or so years he has been in office despite every other word out of his mouth being that he is out to protect us and keep us safe.

      in fact he has not only not done anything with our ports but he sold port security to a middle eastern country not the wisest thing to do particularly from people claiming muslims should be converted or exterminated.

      Lastly not only has Bush DONE NOTHING TO KEEP US SAFE, but he has circumvented defied and and and trampled on the Constitution all in the name of keeping us safe while in fact we are much LESS SAFE due to his foolish policies.

      ReplyDelete
    53. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      ReplyDelete
    54. And dolty boy, joe the traitor has an uphill climb in his attempt to ignore the VOTERS. The democratic senators and house members will stand with the PEOPLE and the choice they make at the ballot box. You do remember the PEOPLE are the ones who are supposed to make choices as to who actually gets to serve...With 60% of the American electorate against the war Joe has a built in handicap

      ReplyDelete
    55. Guess Coulterguist is not just a plagerist, but some of IT's footnotes are as full of BULLSH*T as IT is

      ReplyDelete
    56. But as they say in the repug world..bullsh*t in bullsh*t out, the stupid minions will eat it up anyway....

      Hell look at the ones we got here for example who still defend the lying plagerist

      ReplyDelete
    57. See dolty boy,

      with comments like this..it is going to be harder to spin the fringe elements...60 % is a majority....bigger than bush ever got too.

      With new polls that show that 60% of Americans are against the war, no longer can Karl Rove, Mehlman and the Repuglican talking heads label the anti-war Democrats as "fringe" candidates who represent their party's "extreme wing." Not only do these candidates like Lamont speak for most of their party, but they speak for most of America as well. Polls now prove that to be against the war is to be firmly in America's mainstream. It is war-mongers like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove and Mehlman who are statistically out of touch with mainstream America.

      ReplyDelete
    58. Also dolty one...don't think Joe has solid support if Lamont can carry Joe's hometown...

      Lamont rolled up lopsided margins in the Farmington Valley, Litchfield County, the lower Connecticut River Valley and scattered suburbs around the state. He won Hartford and Lieberman's hometown of New Haven, which first elected Lieberman to the state Senate in 1970.

      ReplyDelete
    59. Clif said "it is going to be harder to spin the fringe elements...60 % is a majority....bigger than bush ever got too.

      With new polls that show that 60% of Americans are against the war, no longer can Karl Rove, Mehlman and the Repuglican talking heads label the anti-war Democrats as "fringe" candidates who represent their party's "extreme wing." Not only do these candidates like Lamont speak for most of their party, but they speak for most of America as well. Polls now prove that to be against the war is to be firmly in America's mainstream. It is war-mongers like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove and Mehlman who are statistically out of touch with mainstream America."

      great points Clif, thats exactly what I said last night when I reposted what Donny deutche said.

      ReplyDelete
    60. Just checking in.

      Did anyone hear Bill O'Reilly today going on and on about dems smearing Lieberman, after O'Reilly did the same thing to every other dem?

      I happened to sneak a minute of radio time against my teacher's wishes.
      Love later,
      Lyd

      ReplyDelete
    61. No Lydia..if I have a choice between root canal with no anesthetic and listening to Bill O'Liely, well I'll have to think on that one for a while...

      ReplyDelete
    62. that's funny Clif. I'd rather have root canal too.

      ReplyDelete
    63. Don't know if Bush knows about it...but at least they are doing ONE thing right...

      Nuclear specialists move uranium

      U.S. and international officials completed a covert operation yesterday to remove 90 pounds of easy-to-handle uranium from a research facility in Poland that was vulnerable to theft by terrorists, according to Bush administration officials.
      "We are in a race against time in preventing terrorists from getting their hands on this kind of material," said Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), who took part in the uranium-removal operation.
      "There is more to be done, and our people are working around the world to help secure this material," he said in a telephone interview from Warsaw.

      ReplyDelete
    64. "The defeat of Hezbollah would be a huge loss for Iran, both psychologically and strategically. Iran would lose its foothold in Lebanon. It would lose its major means to destabilize and inject itself into the heart of the Middle East. It would be shown to have vastly overreached in trying to establish itself as the regional superpower. The United States has gone far out on a limb to allow Israel to win and for all this to happen. It has counted on Israel's ability to do the job. It has been disappointed. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has provided unsteady and uncertain leadership.... His search for victory on the cheap has jeopardized not just the Lebanon operation but America's confidence in Israel as well."

      Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, August 4, 2006

      ReplyDelete
    65. "But the administration now has to admit what anyone -- including myself -- who believed in the importance of getting Iraq right has to admit: Whether for Bush reasons or Arab reasons, it is not happening, and we can't throw more good lives after good lives.... But second best is leaving Iraq. Because the worst option -- the one Iran loves -- is for us to stay in Iraq, bleeding, and in easy range to be hit by Iran if we strike its nukes.... We need to deal with Iran and Syria, but from a position of strength -- and that requires a broad coalition. The longer we maintain a unilateral failing strategy in Iraq, the harder it will be to build such a coalition, and the stronger the enemies of freedom will become."

      Thomas Friedman, New York Times, August 4, 2006

      ReplyDelete
    66. Looks like two more traitorous rats have jumped off the sinking ship USS Neo-con commanded by George the Dumb and navigated by The Dumsfeld

      ReplyDelete
    67. BTW both Kuwait and Kurdish Iraq have had large anti Israel-American rallies decrying, Israel's bombing of many civilian areas..and the US government tacit support both by delaying a cease fire..and resupplying of bombs,

      This is the same Kuwait where I was greeted as a hero and they shook our hands and said god bless America, god bless George(HW) Bush, now they decry his son and GWB's actions...


      If we are losing the Kuwaiti street and Kurds...we are going to find it harder to achieve much in the region, because up to the middle of July they were our strongest allies, and supporters.

      ReplyDelete
    68. as for the accident, I got hit from behind on my motorcycle by a drunk in a car, I flipped over the handle bars and the bike was flipping through the air and gonna land on me till I twisted my body and flipped to the side, I struck my back on the spoiler of a car flipped over that car and hit my back and head on the car in front of that and landed under the second or would that be the fourth car.

      luckily for me I hit the second car with my head (i'm pretty hard headed) and lucily for me i'm a tough person to hurt as well.

      -Mike

      Jaysus, Mike. You must be a tough guy. Tough and lucky. You're still smartin I'm certain.

      The Lord must have had plans and decided to keep you around. Maybe he wants you to become a Republican.

      ReplyDelete
    69. Republicans [in a 2004 poll] agreed that America is generally fair and decent, 83 percent to 7 percent. Eighty-one percent agreed that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.

      By contrast, Democrats were nearly split, with only 46 percent agreeing that America is generally a fair and decent country, and with 37 percent saying America is not a generally fair and decent country. Only 48 percent of Democrats said they thought that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.

      Democrats constantly complain that the nation has never been so divided, but consider that half of them think the statement that America is a good country is a divisive remark.

      So remember: When you vote Democratic, you're saying NO to mindless patriotism. This country isn't so great!

      The free world, which is rapidly boiling down to us and Israel, is under savage attack. Treason is rampant in the country. True, Democrats hate Bush, but they would hate anybody who fights the war on terrorism. It is a hostile world, and there is now a real question about the will of the American people to survive.

      -Ann Coulter

      So it appears that I was being a bit unfair: There is actually a slim majority of liberals who love their country.

      ReplyDelete
    70. Mike said

      "what did she say on Basham johnny,"


      Ludia and Doug were chuckling about doing it "doggy style" with Ann Coulter.

      She did mention the story about the young man who had a choice between going to jail or going to Iraq; I forget who told that story?

      And she kept barking "choose love not fear" stuff and how this alone will save the world.

      Pretty much all the usual rhetoric we discuss on the blog.

      .........

      BTW, sounds like your pain and suffering could be worth a cool fifty thousand.......party time!

      I cant stand tail-gaters.

      ReplyDelete
    71. Never fear Lieberman lovers:

      The Republican party and its multi-billionaires will have plenty of money to pay for Liebermans Democratic spoiler attempt.

      Lieberman has been on all the shows crying about he is trying to "save" America from partisan politics.

      If Lieberman is so concerned about partisan politics, why did he spend 18 years doing nothing?

      Did the problem arise the day he lost election?

      Lieberman fired all his campaign staff as if it were their fault he was hugging around Bush every chance he had.

      Now the day after Lieberman loses, we are suddenly hit with a " major terror alert".

      How convenient to scare Americans who are against the war and voted a candidate in the primary with the same belief.

      How elaborate that many officials say this one is the "Real Deal".

      Maybe that is because all the other "terror alerts" were phony?

      Only in Bush's world do we see fear used to control elections.

      This is Bush's America.

      ReplyDelete
    72. Larry said "How convenient to scare Americans who are against the war and voted a candidate in the primary with the same belief."

      This is proof that you are insane. If they wanted to help Lieberman, they would have done this on Monday.

      ReplyDelete
    73. TalllTexan,

      This photo, taken by an unbiased "freelance Lebanese" journalist, is begging for a caption.

      I'm thinking:

      "The Quiet Woman"
      "The Perfect Liberal"
      "Nice Day For A...White Wedding"

      ReplyDelete
    74. Mike,

      Glad to hear you're ok.
      An accident like that could've killed you, big fella!

      ReplyDelete
    75. Fantasy Foole quoting a plagerist and dishonest author as proof only shows how desperate you are...coulterguist is not believed except by the backwash any more

      ReplyDelete
    76. LONDON -- British authorities said Thursday they thwarted a terrorist plot to simultaneously blow up several aircraft heading to the U.S. using explosives smuggled in hand luggage. Security was raised to its highest level in Britain, and carry-on bags were banned on all flights. Huge crowds backed up at London's Heathrow airport as officials searching for explosives barred nearly every form of liquid outside of baby formula.

      Police arrested 21 people, saying they were confident they captured the main suspects in what U.S. officials said had the earmarks of an al-Qaida plot.

      U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the terrorists planned to use liquid explosives disguised as beverages and other common products and set them off with detonators disguised as electronic devices.

      The extreme measures at a major international aviation hub sent ripples throughout the world. Heathrow was closed to most flights from Europe, and British Airways canceled all its flights between the airport and points in Britain, Europe and Libya. Numerous flights from U.S. cities to Britain were canceled.

      Washington raised its threat alert to its highest level for commercial flights from Britain to the United States amid fears the plot had not been completely crushed. The alert for all flights coming or going from the United States was also raised slightly.

      Two U.S. counterterrorism officials said the terrorists had targeted United Airlines, American Airlines and Continental Airlines. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.

      A U.S. intelligence official said the plotters had hoped to target flights to major airports in New York, Washington and California.

      British Home Secretary John Reid said the 21 people were arrested in London, its suburbs and Birmingham following a lengthy investigation, including the alleged "main players" in the plot. Searches continued in a number of locations.

      The British Broadcasting Corp. said police were evacuating homes in High Wycombe, a town 30 miles northwest of London, near one of the houses being searched. Police refused to confirm the report or to discuss any details of the searches.

      The suspects were "homegrown," though it was not immediately clear if they were all British citizens, said a police official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case. Police were working closely with the South Asian community, the official said.

      The official said the plotters intended to simultaneously target multiple planes bound for the United States.

      "We think this was an extraordinarily serious plot and we are confident that we've prevented an attempt to commit mass murder on an unimaginable scale," Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Stephenson said.

      Prime Minister Tony Blair, vacationing in the Caribbean, briefed President Bush on the situation overnight. Blair issued a statement praising the cooperation between the two countries, saying it "underlines the threat we face and our determination to counter it."

      White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush also had been briefed by his aides while at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, where he has been on vacation.

      "We do believe the plot involved flights from the U.K. to the U.S. and was a direct threat to the United States," Snow said.

      While Snow called the plot a serious threat, he assured Americans that "it is safe to travel."

      Chertoff, the homeland security chief, said the plot had the hallmarks of an operation planned by al-Qaida, the terrorist group behind the Sept. 11 attack on the United States.

      "It was sophisticated, it had a lot of members and it was international in scope. It was in some respects suggestive of an al-Qaida plot," Chertoff said, but he cautioned it was too early in the investigation to reach any conclusions.

      It is the first time the red alert level in the Homeland Security warning system has been invoked, although there have been brief periods in the past when the orange level was applied. Homeland Security defines the red alert as designating a "severe risk of terrorist attacks."

      "We believe that these arrests (in London) have significantly disrupted the threat, but we cannot be sure that the threat has been entirely eliminated or the plot completely thwarted," Chertoff said.

      ReplyDelete
    77. Larry I do accept the "plan" was real. The majority of the planners arrested in England..and PAKISTAN were Pakistanis, just as the majority of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudis, seems the citizens who live inside "allies" of the US seem to be very interested in doing severe damage to the US and Great Britain.

      NO Iranians were arrested either today or in connection with 9-11, no Iraqi's...but the implications of who is trying to attack the US is LOST on the NEO-CON fooles and their babbling minions.

      Al Qaeda is a Sunni Fundamentalist terror organisation. They do not recruit Shites who they see as being heretics. They recruit in Saudi Arabia...Pakistan..Egypt..Jordan...Kuwait
      Afghanistan...among other SUNNI dominated places.

      The WAR in Iraq was a diversion from the war on Sunni fundamentalist terrorism...and as the arrest of PAKISTANI terrorists shows, Iraq is taking personal, equipment and money from the true war against Al Qaeda....

      Saddam was not working for or aiding Al Qaeda. Yes he was a despot who killed many people but he was NO worse than the SHAH of Iran......

      So the spin and lies which sent us into Iraq...as a front against the terrorists of 9-11 was wrong, FACTUALLY and militarily. This means it took from the war on 9-11 terror...

      And is a severe strain today because ..the invasion opened a NEW front for the terrorists to exploit, something they have done very well. Now instead of facing the full brunt of the US military...they were able to hide in Pakistan recoup from their 2001 losses...and have returned to that battlefield...but also have been GIVEN a larger training ground in Iraq from which they can recruit...train...and bog the US military down.

      ReplyDelete
    78. Where is that erudite WORF.

      I guess we'll see him at the fish fry!

      ReplyDelete
    79. Cliffy,all you ever do is complain and bitch about how Iraq or the war on terror is being handled but never and I mean never have anything constructive to add,oh yea except maybe bring back some general who was fired or drummed out in the last five years and who just by happenstance happens to be a Dem.Its no wonder the majority believes and rightfully so,that the Dems cannot and will not protect the country.

      ReplyDelete
    80. BTW,where is your exalted ruler,that 32nd degree B.S. artist wufeus?

      ReplyDelete
    81. Sen. Joseph Lieberman's narrow defeat in Connecticut's Democratic primary on Tuesday tells us something important about his party. Mr. Lieberman, who has made it clear that he is running in November as an independent, can argue plausibly that his loss represented the judgment of only a sliver of the electorate: Connecticut, where most major party nominations are decided by party conventions, has a tradition of low participation in primaries, and less than one-sixth of the registered voters took the trouble to cast their ballots in this contest. The winner, Ned Lamont, thus got the votes of less than one-tenth of Connecticut voters.


      Still, this was a well-publicized contest, and one in which Sen. Lieberman's opponents had reason, from their point of view, to target him. And not just for his staunch support of the American military action in Iraq. On a number of issues, Mr. Lieberman has been at odds with large constituencies in the Democratic Party...




      The working class Democrats of the mid-20th century voted their interests, and knew that one of their interests was protecting the nation in which they were proud to live. The professional class Democrats of today vote their ideology and, living a life in which they are insulated from adversity, feel free to imagine that America cannot be threatened by implacable enemies. They can vote to validate their lifestyle choices and their transnational attitudes.


      In the mid-20th century the core constituencies of both the Democratic and the Republican Parties stood foursquare for America's prosecution of World War II and the Cold War. Today, as the Connecticut results suggest, it's different. The core constituency of the Republican Party stands foursquare for America's prosecution of the global struggle against Islamofascist terrorism -- and solidly on the side of Israel in its struggle against the same forces. The core constituency of the Democratic Party wants to stand aside from the global struggle -- and, as the presence of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton at Mr. Lamont's side on election night suggests, is not necessarily on the side of Israel. It's not your father's Democratic Party.

      ReplyDelete
    82. From Juan Cole's Blog, who studies the region,

      "A String of attacks that will continue and become stronger"

      The failure of the Bush administration to take the threat of Bin Laden and Zawahiri seriously and to capture them continues to leave Americans and others at risk.

      British authorities have arrested 21 members of a terror cell, apparently British-born or British-bred persons of Pakistani or South Asian origin. They were planning to hijack 6 to 10 American planes at Heathrow Airport in London, and to bring on board liquid-based explosives that they would mix while sitting in their seats.

      Regular readers know that I believe that Ayman al-Zawahiri has been recruiting terrorists in Britain, using al-Qaeda-affiliated radical Pakistani groups such as Lashkar-e Tayyiba or Jaish Muhammad. Al-Zawahiri had in his possession the suicide statement tapes of Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer. Many UK Muslims of South Asian origin are from Mirpur in Kashmir, so these Kashmir-oriented affiliates of al-Qaeda have special appeal to them. (South Asian Muslims tend to feel that Kashmir was illegitimately grabbed by India and is being oppressed by a Hindu state.) Why did al-Zawahiri have these tapes in his possession, and why was he commenting on them?


      Seems that both the London subway bombings and today's plot have very direct and strong links to Pakistan....you know the country who is building a reactor to MAKE plutonium....

      think if the terrorists who have bases in Pakistan got their hands on the plutonium...or worse a bomb made from it could be a problem?

      ReplyDelete
    83. Did anyone see Lamont's acceptance speech,standing directly behind him were Sharpton and Jesse Jackson,talk about mainstream america.Does any one know if Sharpton or Jackson have actual jobs? I know Jackson about every two or three years blackmails (thats not a racial term) some cororation out of a couple million but other then that just what do these two guys do?

      ReplyDelete
    84. Clippy who cares...your diverting FROMN the FACT that the TERRORISTS are PAKISTANI"S

      Hell we don't complain when georgie brings in Jeff Gannon....

      ReplyDelete
    85. Lieberman LOST get over it.

      ReplyDelete
    86. Cliffy,I could care less if Lieberman won,lost or tied.It was a democratic (oops..I mean code pink)primary.Its was'nt a gereral election but if Lamonts win does in fact mean that the party is making a sharp left turn I'd welcome that with open arms.You shortsighted people are the first to say history repeats itself but you forget when you turned your party over to the McGovernites and Gene McCarthy it resulted in getting you asses kicked in about 30 years of elections when americans realized the libs could not and would not protect them.I harkin back to two strong willed,america first democrats Jimmy Carter and Mike Dukakis.

      ReplyDelete
    87. Of course that loose cannon running Iran would like nothing better than see a Lib in the whitehouse,they remember when they held about 50 americans hostage for over 400 days and the "warrior" Carter did nothing but go on T.V. in a cardigan sweater crying about a malaise in the country.

      ReplyDelete
    88. Dusty seems you a wee bit deluded...about IRAQ and the optional war started by the GrOPer, Dead Eye and Dumsfeld....

      so I'll let Mark Smitt who wrote an excellent article about this speak for me as I agree with his analysis;

      Vietnam Analogies Everywhere!

      The Vietnam War was a long one, so those devoted to finding exact historical parallels can usually find something to fit into their proof that the nomination of Ned Lamont is a disaster for Democrats.

      Jacob Weisberg mines 1972, as usual: "In 1972, the Democrats repudiated their flawed Cold Warriors and chose as their standard-bearer a naive and honorable anti-war idealist...In a similar way, the 2006 Connecticut primary points to the growing influence within the party of leftists unmoved by the fight against global jihad."

      section break

      (Earlier in the piece, Weisberg makes clear that the Cold Warrior "repudiated" in 1972 was Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson. I’m going to make it my special mission to knock this one down as often as I have to: Scoop Jackson wasn’t "repudiated" or robbed of something legitimately his. He just, like dozens of Senatorial would-be-presidents before and since simply Didn’t Get Any Votes. He’s not a martyr, just a guy who No One Voted For. A lot like Joe Lieberman in fact, although Saint Scoop’s performance in 1972 fell short even of Joe’s famous "three-way tie for third place." -- more conventionally known as "fifth place.")

      Like McGovern’s naively isolationist supporters, who didn’t appreciate the actual Communist threat, Weisberg says that Lamont supporters and other anti-war Dems "see Iraq purely as a symptom of a cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11, as opposed to a tragic misstep in a bigger conflict."

      I think it’s fair to call Vietnam a "tragic misstep" within a larger Cold War conflict, and probably fair to say that some McGovernites let the tragedy of Vietnam blind them to the obligations of American strength in the postwar conflict.

      But is Iraq really a "tragic misstep in a bigger conflict"? As opposed to "a cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11"? Read the history of Vietnam, and it’s hard not to be somewhat sympathetic -- within the limits of what men like McNamara knew and assumed, you can see how each little step made sense to them at the moment, and before you know it, you’ve got 50,000 dead and no way out. But Iraq is not a "misstep" in the same way, or series of missteps. It was a very considered, aggressively sold choice to pursue a war that had little to with "the fight against global jihad," for reasons that we may never fully understand. It is a perfectly reasonable position to support ending the U.S. involvement in Iraq as quickly as possible, while strongly advocating the sort of engagement in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere that would be part of "the fight against global jihad," if you want to put it that way. As Kevin Drum pointed outthe other day, General Clark’s proposal on this from a couple years ago was good, so are any number of others, including Peter Beinart’s. Yes, we should make full use of American power -- economic, cultural, military, and the power of example.

      The Wall Street Journal, on the other hand, did a wonderful thing this morning: They realized that the history of Dems and Vietnam is not reducible to 1972. The Lamont victory is not the McGovern nomination, but "arguably the most important victory for the American left since the Watergate rout of 1974." YES! That’s the metaphor we’re looking for: 75 new Democrats elected to the House, many of them from Republican districts which they held for many years, a group of serious, hard-working non-extremists like John Murtha, George Miller, and Chris Dodd.

      Ah but that’s where all the trouble began: "If Democrats retake Congress, we will be back where we were in Vietnam circa 1975. Early that year the Congressional left blocked funds for our allies in the government of South Vietnam...within weeks... the last American helicopters were leaving Saigon [and] the Soviet Union was clearly emboldened to assert itself via proxies from Afghanistan to Central America."

      The stab-in-the-back theory! Ah, if only we had just stuck it out for a few more years in Vietnam.

      But I think the Journal is right. This is more like 1974 than 1972. And 2008 will be even more so. In 1974/75, everyone understood that U.S. involvement in Vietnam, a decade after Tonkin, had to end. That’s where we are with Iraq, and the only people who don’t seem ready to be part of figuring out how to end it are George Bush, Joe Lieberman and the Wall Street Journal editorial page. But folks like Weisberg, who see everything as 1972 all over again, aren’t making it any easier to get to that point.

      and unlike clippy I do post the links

      http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/aug/10/vietnam_analogies_everywhere

      Besides except for Lamont's stance on Iraq..he is probably as much a moderate democrat as Loserman is, but instead of hanging out in DC for the last two decades...he was working in the private sector...

      ReplyDelete
    89. BTW dusty, since the terrorists were basically Pakistani, or British citizens of Pakistani decent...Iraq is a red Herring here...because it is the wrong country...the terrorists are not coming from there...and our tactics in Iraq (or Israel's in Lebanon)would be frowned upon in London.

      the citizens of London would proly not like an air assault on a row of town houses because a terrorist lived in ONE flat...

      ReplyDelete
    90. Cliffy,again you're shortsighted.You make my point for me.What happened to the dems after 1975? We thank you guys everyday.We thank you for bringing foward not the party of Nixon but the true conservatism of Reagan.Think back,why on earth did Iran release the hostages the day Ronnie was put into office? Because they knew damn well they were about to see a bunch of B-52's flying over them,something that wuss Carter woul'nt think about.To this day Muslim extremist view american liberals as weak.OBL said so during the Clinton years,you certainly cant think this guy in Iran does'nt want a Lib in the whitehouse,that will be Katy bar the door.

      ReplyDelete
    91. Like it or not,mainstream america and the mideast view the american liberal as weak on defense and protection of their land.It just a fact,nothing more.All the B.S. and left wing postings you put up does'nt change that one bit.I was watching some lib talking head on T.V. the other day and she was adament that the U.S. focus has to be on dialogue with the Islamofacist,meaning Syria and Iran,two countrys that want the distruction of Israel and to kill us.Mainstream america aint buying that crap.The limo liberals in Conn.may buy that,but Bubba in South Carolina is'nt.

      ReplyDelete
    92. That is complete BS that liberals or Dems are weak on defense that is the partisan spin Rove uses to deceive the masses and Bubba in SC to vote repug, everyone here is for weeding out the true terrorists and securing our borders and ports and saying anything different is a dishonest lie.

      I am all for keeping us safe and Bush has done nothing to do that, he has practicly abandoned Afghanistan, the war on terrorism and the search for Osama (the guy that attacked us) to invade an oil rich country that had nothing to do with the terrorists who attacked us for his self serving reasons. He has done nothing to secure our borders and ports in the 6 or so years he has been in office despite every other word out of his mouth being that he is out to protect us and keep us safe.

      in fact he has not only not done anything with our ports but he sold port security to a middle eastern country not the wisest thing to do particularly from people claiming muslims should be converted or exterminated.

      Lastly not only has Bush DONE NOTHING TO KEEP US SAFE, but he has circumvented defied and and and trampled on the Constitution all in the name of keeping us safe while in fact we are much LESS SAFE due to his foolish policies.

      ReplyDelete
    93. saying that rpugs are strong on national security is an utter joke, Bush has done absolutely nothing to make our country safer, Katrina has shown that our country is woefully unprepared for a disaster, natural or otherwise. Also in close to 6 years in office Bush has done absolutely nothing to secure our borders and ports.

      ReplyDelete
    94. Well dusty If you clowns were SO strong on security ..why did the foole who claims to be the decider...decide NOT to raise the threat assessment after HE was briefed that Osama was determined to attack the US...instead of telling the CIA briefer he"covered his ass"

      If he had done HIS job in Aug 2001. we might have caught one or more of the hijackers...as the British did TODAY

      ReplyDelete
    95. Mike you are woefully ignorant.Maybe I missed it but have we had another terror attack on our soil since 9-11? And was'nt the gov and mayor as much responsible as Bush was in New Orleans?To this day I still dont know how anyone can stop a hurricane,hell maybe Howard Dean can.And please tell two freedoms that YOU personnaly have been denied since 9-11,I mean you.

      ReplyDelete
    96. Yea Cliffy and If Clinton had taken OBL when offered him maybe 9-11 would'nt have happened at all.I'll save you the trouble,you're going to say that never happened and you'll quote some left wing web site and constantly refer to that joke 9-11 panel.

      ReplyDelete
    97. You mean the panel Dumsfeld and the DOD decieved?

      ReplyDelete
    98. Why the hell cant you people face the fact that the average american and the mideast do view you libs as weaklings.It may not be true but perception is everything and its a perception you guys have nurtured through the years and have done nothing to change it.You libs have never met a war you could'nt find a reason to run from,and like it or not these extremist in the mideast know that.

      ReplyDelete
    99. Later Mike and dusty dinner calls...

      ReplyDelete
    100. From the LA Times:

      December 5, 2001

      Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize

      Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn't respond.


      By MANSOOR IJAZ
      President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

      I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

      From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

      Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

      The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

      As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

      Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.

      The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.

      But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.

      In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.

      Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.

      Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.

      The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.

      Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.

      But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.

      Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.

      And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

      The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.

      Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.

      *

      Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is chairman of a New York-based investment company.

      http://www.infowars.com/
      saved%20pages/
      Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let
      _bin_laden.htm

      ReplyDelete
    101. How convenient, Rusty, that Cliffy, suddenly decides to have dinner in the middle of the afternoon.

      ReplyDelete
    102. Well, if anyone wants the real lowdown, the real deal, as it were, tune into the John Batchelor [radio] Show tonight at 10 PM ET, AND 9 PM ET on XM channel 124.

      There are also links to his audio feed which I'll provide upon request.

      ReplyDelete
    103. Rusty said "Mike you are woefully ignorant.Maybe I missed it but have we had another terror attack on our soil since 9-11? And was'nt the gov and mayor as much responsible as Bush was in New Orleans?To this day I still dont know how anyone can stop a hurricane,hell maybe Howard Dean can.And please tell two freedoms that YOU personnaly have been denied since 9-11,I mean you."

      well Dusty, we havent had a major hurricaine since strike the USA since last year also can Bush claim credit for that, as for Katrina, the Governor and Mayor were not EQUALLY responsible, that is the federal governments job, namely FEMA who were woefully unprepaired.

      You do however have a point that there is plenty of blame to go around and the governor and mayor were at fault as well.

      My point is that in Florida a state with much more wealthy citizens and the Bush's brother Jeb is governor of, I heard they declared it a disaster and sent aid before
      the Hurricaine even hi, whereas with Katrina there was no urgency to help at all, Bush did not even postpone his vacation or photo ops or fund raising or cake eating to help or even show a modicum of interest or pretend that he cared and that was blatently obvious.

      ReplyDelete
    104. Dusty said "Why the hell cant you people face the fact that the average american and the mideast do view you libs as weaklings.It may not be true but perception is everything and its a perception you guys have nurtured through the years and have done nothing to change it.You libs have never met a war you could'nt find a reason to run from,and like it or not these extremist in the mideast know that."

      No Dusty it is Bush that has cut and run from the war on terror, Lydia, Worf, Clif, Larry, and myself have all stated we wanted to see the true terrorists exterminated, and what does Bush do, he pulls the majority of our military out of Afghanistan and disbands the CIA unit whose job it was to capture Osama and invades an oil rich country for self serving reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with attacking us.

      you repugs have never addressed the fact that it was Bush that abandoned the war on terror either or that he has done nothing to secure our borders or ports.

      NOW WHO IS WEAK ON NATIONAL DEFENSE, since you guys control all 3 branches of government I can confidently say it is the repugs who are weak on national defense.

      ReplyDelete
    105. O.K. Mike,once again.Has there been an attack on american soil since 9-11? If there has'nt how could the war on terror been abandoned? I would think if Bush and the boys have forgotten about terror something would have gone boom over here.And oh yea,give me two personal freedoms you have lost since 9-11,I mean two things that have directly affected you.

      ReplyDelete
    106. While we're at it let me ask you another question.The Brits have arrested,I think,24 people involved in the plot to blow up these planes.Now just hypothetically suppose one of these people that were arrested has suspected information about another terror attack about to happen.What type of questioning should this suspect be subjected to?Waterboarding?Pull his finger nails out? Sleep depprevation?Electrical shock? Burned with a hot poker? Or should he be asked just his name,rank and serial number? Your call what should happen?

      ReplyDelete
    107. TT since you want to QUOTE from Mansoor Ijaz, here is his MOST recient article, kind of fits what I have been saying don't ya thunk?

      PLUTONIUM OVER GROWTH IS DANGEROUS
      by Mansoor Ijaz
      Financial Times
      August 1, 2006

      Nuclear terrorism is perhaps the most important threat the world faces today. Few countries carry greater risks of allowing terrorists to get their hands on illicit nuclear materials than India and Pakistan, notwithstanding the safety records of these south Asian nuclear powers. Pakistan's case is particularly troubling.

      In a poor country of 166m, there is not enough money to build schools for educating Pakistan's largely illiterate population or feeding its undernourished children. But there is enough, it seems, to build a modern plutonium reactor that will churn out 15 to 20 times more plutonium for bomb-making than the country can ever use.

      The danger for the rest of the world lies in radical Islamists – of which there are many in Pakistan – getting hold of a growing and readily available source of radioactive materials that can be easily transported and shaped into less detectable, miniaturised configurations. To maintain Pakistan's support in its war on terror, the Bush administration has looked the other way while this dangerous nuclear development took place. That its man in Islamabad, Pervez Musharraf, was an assassin's bullet away from handing Pakistan's future to the very radicals the US is trying to eradicate does not seem to have mattered much in Washington.

      Satellite photos show that a new 1,000 megawatt plutonium reactor is being built adjacent to the existing 50 megawatt Khushab district reactor that will produce enough plutonium (about 200kg) for 40-45 weapons per year, or about 15 to 20 times what is produced today. Construction on the reactor appears to have begun in 2000. It is still a few years from completion, hindered by the dismantling of the illicit black-market nuclear network run by Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, Pakistan's atomic father, several years ago.

      The drive for nuclear cores that can be more easily fashioned into complex warhead designs may be Pakistan's overarching military objective, but it brings with it a plethora of dangerous scenarios that brittle governments, such as Gen Musharraf's, are ill-equipped to handle. The most troubling is one in which Islamabad's political manoeuvring to keep its neighbour, Afghanistan, in check by supporting a resurgent Taliban spirals out of its control. Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Taliban commander Jalaluddin Haqqani and others who hopscotch across the Afghan-Pakistan border are as capable of transporting processed plutonium into the wrong hands as they are of running guns and heroin.

      Pakistan has successfully walked the anti-terror tightrope since September 11 2001 because Gen Musharraf has sought to be all things to all people. But what if he is gone tomorrow? Who insures the world against Islamists wresting control of a nuclear programme that is populated with some of the brightest, most radicalised minds in the Muslim world who still deeply resent the US dethroning of A.Q. Khan?

      The new reactor also raises serious questions about the underlying motivations of the US-India civilian nuclear arms pact – passed by the US House of Representatives last week – that will bring American nuclear technology to India's atomic power industry. Improving India's civilian nuclear safety standards and transparency of operations is a laudable goal in providing for that country's energy needs and renovating its decrepit reactors. But if Washington thinks giving India nuclear technology is appropriate compensation for looking the other way while Islamabad builds its mega-plutonium plant – enabling India to build 40-50 nuclear weapons a year to match Pakistan – it risks dangerously escalating a regional arms race and destroying economic growth in the process.

      If his army hawks insist on finishing Khushab II, Gen Musharraf can at least ensure that it starts up operations with full international safeguards in place that match those agreed to by New Delhi under the US-India nuclear pact. These include inspections that ensure fissile materials are safeguarded and accounted for at all times. He can change the dynamics of south Asia's arms race by championing a new fissile materials cut-off treaty – forbidding the production of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium – and prodding George W. Bush and Manmohan Singh, India's prime minister, to do the same.

      Pakistan's erroneous decision to build Khushab II – and the US plan to fuel India's nuclear power plants as a counterbalance – should not be permitted to put the rest of the world at risk at the hands of extremists.

      http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mansoor_Ijaz

      ReplyDelete
    108. Tiny inTellect said;



      How convenient, Rusty, that Cliffy, suddenly decides to have dinner in the middle of the afternoon.

      hey when a couple of brothers ride up and offer to buy you a meal, you go,

      ReplyDelete
    109. The war on terror was in Afghanistan, those were the people who attacked us, Iraq had nothing to do with attacking us, the invasion of Iraq and the push to invade Iran is about nothing more than overthrowing USA hostile governments so American energy companies and the elite can make fortunes developing their vast oil and natural gas reserves and break the back of OPEC by increasing the supply of oil and permanently lowering the price which would be great for our economy.

      And just because there hasnt been a terrorist attack doesnt mean Bush can take credit for that, we havent had an attack in our entire 200 year history, by your standards Clinton deserves credit for no attack as well, Bush's policies of occupying Iraq and Saudi Arabia have created more hate and caused more moderate Muslims to hate us and have made us less safe regardless of weather there has been a terrorist attack.

      ReplyDelete
    110. dusty said;

      .Has there been an attack on American soil since 9-11


      ANTHRAX son,

      but of course they never solved that one ... and that perpetrator escaped also

      ReplyDelete
    111. dusty IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TORTURE DOES NOT WORK so I would leave it to the British who seem to be better than the neo-con idiots AT PREVENTING terrorism

      ReplyDelete
    112. Oh and BTW dusty I live in middle America and the little black "W" squares have dissappeared here, and a lot of people scowl if you mention the GrOPer's name.

      They realise they were SOLD a bill of goods, and unfortunately they bought it.

      ReplyDelete
    113. Dusty said;

      The Brits have arrested,I think,24 people involved in the plot to blow up these planes.Now just hypothetically suppose one of these people that were arrested has suspected information about another terror attack about to happen.

      hopefully the British will do better than Dumsfeld and Dead eye did with Chalibi...and HIS great but false intell both dead eye and dumsfeld bought HOOK, LINE and SINKER.

      ReplyDelete
    114. LONDON -- British authorities said Thursday they thwarted a terrorist plot to simultaneously blow up several aircraft heading to the U.S. using explosives smuggled in hand luggage.
      -clippy

      Okay, now I'm confused because mikey moore clearly told us that "there is no terrorist threat...It's a lie". I say we take his word for it and immediately halt all terror countermeasures in airports and elsewhere.

      But if this really was a terror attack, I suspect George Dubya Bush; this has Carl Rove's fingerprints all over it.

      ReplyDelete
    115. Why cant you guys ever just answer a diect question? How would Cliffy and Mike gleen information about another terror attack from these guys? How far would you be willing to go? I sure your answer will make my point why most americans and Muslim's view you libs as weaklings.
      And Mike,you never did answer that personal freedom question.Did you?

      ReplyDelete
    116. Dusty, i'll answer both questions in about 20 minutes or so I have to meet with the insurance adjuster about the accident right now,

      ReplyDelete
    117. dusty said;

      I would think if Bush and the boys have forgotten about terror something would have gone boom over here.

      Well they had a plan up, in operation, and almost finished. Fortunately for both sides of the Atlantic, Bush and his CIA and FBI were not in the lead otherwise the first clue would have been thereports of Planes missing over the Atlantic....

      Like after Bush was given a daily brief titled ""Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US,"

      and HERE is the transcript of that brief;

      The following is a transcript of the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Parts of the original document were not made public by the White House for security reasons.

      Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

      After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a -- -- service.

      An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told - - service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.

      The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S.

      Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in ---, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.

      Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveyed our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

      Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

      Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

      A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

      We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

      Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

      The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

      http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/


      After Bush got the briefing, did he ask the FBI what they knew?...the CIA?

      No here is what Bush did;


      Ron Suskind's "The One Percent Doctrine" is out this week, and the Washington Post's Barton Gellman says it's full of "jaw-dropping stories" about the Bush administration's war on terror.

      Or lack thereof.

      We've known for years now that George W. Bush received a presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, in which he was warned: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." We've known for almost as long that Bush went fishing afterward.

      What we didn't know is what happened in between the briefing and the fishing, and now Suskind is here to tell us. Bush listened to the briefing, Suskind says, then told the CIA briefer: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."

      http://www.smirkingchimp.com/viewtopic.php?topic=66124&forum=19


      See in August 2001 they Administration was trying to think of ways to revive star wars, for the benefit of some of their campaign contributors...who made a bundle off of it during Reagans stay at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue...but never GOT IT TO WORK!

      Seems they were more about star wars and not stopping Terrorism, and we know georgie was all about the terrorist brush on his ranch...he spends so much time attacking brush there it MUST be connected to his war on terra

      ReplyDelete
    118. dusty, in stead of chicken hawk techniques, which have been proven NOT to work, as those you listed...I would prefer the British use the techniques they KNOW do work.... since they are holding the suspects...and interrorgating them.

      and they do seem quite capable

      ReplyDelete
    119. Well fantasy foole, since Micheal Moore does NOT post here why don't ya go ask HIM instead of asking us to channel him?

      ReplyDelete
    120. Fantasy Foole said;

      But if this really was a terror attack, I suspect George Dubya Bush; this has Carl Rove's fingerprints all over it.

      NO son, it was not INside the US, however if it was inside they proly would have ignored the signs like they did in AUGUST 2001

      ReplyDelete
    121. I do wonder if the idiots in charge are going to call for the resurection of the CIA section ...DEDICATED to catching Osama..............NOW?

      ReplyDelete
    122. BTW dusty here is a good answer to you STUPID question about torture techniques....

      Although the details of the UK plot to take down 10 U.S.-bound jumbo jets are still sketchy, the administration and its supporters are sure to point to it as more proof that America and the world need to stay the course in their global war on terror. But, of course, it proves no such thing.



      At the core of the administrations’ war on terror are two strategies, neither of which appear to be particularly relevant in this particular case. One is the notion that we can best win the war on the offense — that should “fight them over there so we don’t need to fight them over here.” That’s what the Iraq War, and Bush’s support for Israel’s fight against Hizbollah, are all about.

      But as far as we know, the plotters in the UK were homegrown — all were British citizens. Taking the offense in this war — by which the administration means using military force — is worse then useless. For who are you going to bomb? Safe houses in High Wycombe or Birmingham?

      What appears to have cracked this case is not a war strategy or military offensive, but good intelligence, skilled detective work, and months of careful surveillance — the kind of traditional law enforcement strategies and defensive measures that Bush and his administration have always shunned.

      This apparent success also undermines the second core element of the administration’s war on terror — the notion that effective counter-terrorism action requires ignoring established procedures and the rule of law. As the Brits have shown, there is no need to subvert the law, or civic liberties, to conduct effective counter-terrorism operations. And when the UK government found that some laws (e.g., on the duration of detention) might interfere with effective investigations and actions, it has sought to change the law through established parliamentary procedures rather than to ignore it as Bush has been wont to do.

      We still live in a very dangerous world, where evil men concoct evil plots aiming to inflict “mass murder on an unimaginable scale.” But that reality should not be mistaken for justifying the ill-conceived strategies Bush has touted to deal with this danger over the past 5 years.


      http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/americaabroad/2006/aug/10/not_good_for_war_on_terror


      Seems the work the british did do worked, and it did not intail techniques the US used in Iraq,, before that country collapsed into a civil war.....

      ReplyDelete
    123. As for freedoms we have lost Dusty I would say the the right to assemble and express your self as evidenced by Cindy Sheehan being arrested, as well as the right to privacy since everything we do from phone calls to the Internet to financial tranaction are being monitored, which to me is akin to soldiers or government officials invading or home since talking on the phone or computer is usually done in the privacy of ones home.

      but the real point Dusty is not the freedoms wehave lost as of right now, but it is where this could lead and what this information COULD BE USED FOR DOWN THE ROAD, it could be used to get dirt on political enemies, to sway elections, to set people up, learn voting preferences, to convict people with out evidence etc....

      and lastly all these freedoms we have given up and all the possible future threats to freedom have not resulted in one conviction on terorism.

      GWB said the terrorists hate us for our freedom and yet he is willing to give up those very freedoms that make us special and surender and let the terrorists win. I for one am not willing to give up my freedom or privacy to let uncle government protect me, What happened to

      "Give me liberty or give me death"
      Patrick Henry
      or

      "those that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"
      Ben Franklin

      ReplyDelete
    124. Now Dusty regarding torture, that is a slippery slope, the Bush Administration is saying the same thing regarding circumventing the Geneva Convention and torture as they are saying regarding their defiance and trampling on the Constitution and personal freedoms and that is basically "Trust us, we are trying to protect you and have your best interests at heart"

      yet they have not given anyone a reason as to why we should trust them and how what they are doing protects us.

      There are 3 branches of government, not one that is a sole dictatorship, and there needs to be oversight, torture is a slippery slope and in general we should never condone torture, leaving it up to one branch to subjectively decide if it is warranted is a dangerous practice, if however there were some form of oversight where the executive branch presented clear and conclusive evidence to a judge and or congressional committe that a specific person is a terrorist and that numerous lives could be saved by relaxing the interogation standards somewhat only with authorization, then it might be warranted for a specific person or specific group of people, but to issue a blank check and say that the Geneva Convention does not apply and torture is ok and can be used at will is immoral and illegal and a dangerous practice.

      But as I said before there would have to be clear and conclusive evidence presented and there would have to be authorization only for a specific incident and for a specific person and it would need to be clear what is reasonable and what is not during the interogation.

      ReplyDelete
    125. No one answered my post about Clinton giving up Osama in Sudan. Changing the subject, perhaps?

      Clif said: "After Bush got the briefing, did he ask the FBI what they knew?...the CIA?"

      From pure memory, I know that he had the FBI launch 47 full-field investigations. What more did you want him to do? What he asked other three-letter agenecies to do is classified. What did you want him to do, go there himself and make any investigation impossible because of the massive security that surrounds him.

      BTW, Clif, what you conveniently omited from that the PDB to which you refer suggested hijackings in the traditional sense, as in, "Take me to Cuba," or "Release these prisoners." You forgot about that, didn't you?

      Massive attacks since 9/11 were not prevented in Madrid nor in London, but there has been no massive terrorist attack since 9/11 in the United States.

      No, Clif, since you are so fond of the phrase "Attack the messenger," why don't you refute the points made by Ijaz in the article I posted instead of posting another one of his that had nothing to do with the subject.

      ReplyDelete
    126. Tiny inTellect the PDB I posted was a transcript of the actual briefing.....

      It was NOT my words...but the ones BUSH heard...before dismissing the briefer...caustically and basically ignoring it...because if he had asked the CIA and FBI to bring everything TOGETHER to him, somebody might have figgered it out...instead HE JUST CUT BRUSH...

      NICE try at spinning the actual document as my words, not the real briefing he heard

      ReplyDelete
    127. BTW Clinton was offered Osama if Sudan could expell him to his HOMECOUNTRY...Saudi Arabia, but the Saudi's refused to take him....

      That is the ONLY verified offer Clinton ever got...spin by limpballs..and repug idiots not withstanding

      ReplyDelete
    128. No TT he did not have to go in, but REQUEST a full top down scrubbing of information, which would have brought the flight school intel foward, above the middle level managers who ignored it in the FBI...and Bush could have had Richard Clark become the point man for everyone to give all info on Osama and any terrorist related material...

      There is a hell of a lot he could have done IF HE HAD BEEN INTERESTED.....

      But as usual he WAS NOT.

      ReplyDelete
    129. Tiny inTellect said;

      No, Clif, since you are so fond of the phrase "Attack the messenger," why don't you refute the points made by Ijaz in the article I posted instead of posting another one of his that had nothing to do with the subject.

      I did not attack the messenger...instead I brought an article which is REVEALANT to today...right now with the problems of nuclear proliferation we have TODAY......your the one that KEEPS GOING back to ..."BLAME CLINTON" the only thing the repugs have...given the fiasco Bush ET AL have made....

      ReplyDelete
    130. Tiny inTellect you missed this relevant paragraph from the PDB of AUGUST 6 2001....


      The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related.

      And Bush does not ask for a briefing...


      CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.


      think Georgie boy might have asked them to get their Intel to somebody like Richard Clark and see if they really had something?

      No the IDIOT wanted to CUT brush and RUN every day, while he was on his 30+ day vacation...instead of doing the job he WAS hired to do.

      Give it uup...he had been given a briefing about an attack that was planned by somebody who had attacked the US in the past...and HE DID NOTHING.

      until 9-11-2001...when he read "My Pet Goat"

      ReplyDelete
    131. See Tiny inTellect your such an GOP operative you can't stand the fact that bush BLEW it, (and I don't mean Jeff Gannon there), he screwed up about 9-11 as bad as he has in Iraq.....

      ReplyDelete
    132. But do continue to attempt to spin it as Clinton's fault...since that has been one reichwingnut mantra for ALL of Bush's numerous failures....

      See if Clinton hadn't have gotten his blowjob...the repugs wopuldn't have been forced to ignore their congressional responsibility of investigation of threats and oversight of the Executive Branch on how well they were defending the country instead of drooling over the daily spin of Ken Starr...

      And if Clinton had not gotten a blowjob..they would not have had to keep a dead investigation going until he actually got a blowjob....


      And they would have had to do their jobs in congress...instead of posing for TV cameras..outraged, people like Gingrich...who was as guilty as Clinton, and Livingstone of LA. who lost his bid for speaker because he was guilty as Clinton...Or Hyde ..who had an adulterous affair....seems not only are they MIA in homeland security in the 90's...but HYPOCRITS to boot

      ReplyDelete
    133. Just posted a shocking article about mel gibson on the blog.

      (once a day I check email but I'm not supposed to be blogging during this ministry class.)

      ReplyDelete
    134. Tiny inTellect said;

      .....one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.


      clif said;

      IRAQ 2003-present

      ReplyDelete
    135. See Tiny inTellect...what Clinton did or did not do...does NOT change the fact Bush was given a briefing...dismissed the briefer rudely...and basically ignored the briefing's contents...until it interrupted his reading assignment on 9-11-2001, and then he persistantly stuck to the book for SEVEN minutes.....after he was told about the SECOND attack in NYC.

      ReplyDelete
    136. I think it would be safe to say that both Clinton and Bush are gulity of negligence regarding terrorists and ignored intelligence.

      As for the cowardly civilian killers who were caught today, Im all for red hot pins under their fingernails and eyelids.

      And Mike, I have never heard Lydia approve of exterminating terrorists.


      Cliff

      I dont know man, maybe Pakistan should not be allowed to produce plutonium after todays fiasco? Also, I believe Canada should send at least 3 divisions to Afghanistan instead of a couple of battalions.

      I have never understood small battle groups. Im a firm believer in full scale, well prepared assault with plenty of reserves......complete the objective as quickly as possible and get out.

      ReplyDelete
    137. Good job today Rusty and TT....

      ReplyDelete
    138. Seems Lieberman had a hacker at his site.

      http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2298417

      Maybe Lydia really did have a hacker? A sad attempt to stifle freedom of speech on this blog is nothing more than someones warped desire to take away our right to express our thoughts......a communist?

      ReplyDelete
    139. Not always a communist...Johnny,...hitler and goebbels made sure their speech was heard..and not their opponants....

      And Hitler was as much an anti-communist as anybody in the 20th century

      ReplyDelete
    140. Joe Lieberman's site wasn't hacked. Joe Lieberman spent $15.00 on a website whose server was shared between 73 other websites and in the wee hours of the morning of the election the server crashed. Instead of frantically trying to get his website up to accomodate his constituents......Joe officially because a Rovian Manipulator by using the down website as a REASON TO ACCUSE THE LAMONT TEAM! Typical tactics of a republican for sure.

      It backfired on him. He lost.

      Funny how Karl Rove called Lieberman to tell him after the election that he's there for him. The right wingers are saying this call never happened. Uh huh.

      The fact that Joe Lieberman is more loved by the GOP than the republican running for the republican ticket for Connecticut in November IS THE REASON WHY DEMOCRATS AND LIBERALS DON'T WANT JOE AROUND!

      If Joe wants to be a republican, he can......JUST CHANGE THE LETTER AFTER HIS NAME.

      ReplyDelete
    141. Johnny you would have to study the complexities of battling insurgents in their HOMELAND...like the Germans attempted to do against the French resistance...or Tito and the Yugoslav resistance, during WW2...More troops would have done little to aid the Germans...because they did not have enough to watch everyone all the time, and the insurgents WAIT until they are not being watched to strike, The Resistance did it in WW2 and almost every insurgent movement since has followed a similar scenario.

      in Iraq we have 135,000 soldiers watching 35,000,000 people



      California has about the same number of people 33,871,648(200 census){wiki}but...about
      708,000 (as of 2000)sworn law enforcement personnel.....

      • As of June 2000, nearly 18,000 State
      and local agencies employed the
      equivalent of at least 1 full-time sworn
      officer with general arrest powers.
      These agencies had more than 1
      million full-time employees.
      • State and local agencies had
      708,022 full-time sworn personnel and
      311,474 full-time civilian employees

      http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/csllea00.pdf


      counting Iraqi military personnel and police forces...they are behind the level we maintain in this country


      Wonder why California is a bit more stable than Iraq?

      ReplyDelete
    142. And remember Johnny, as soon as anything, like what is happening in Baghdad, breaks out here...Like the LA riots of 1992...they call out the National Guard...upping the number of people, dedicated to security on the street, until they gain the upper hand...

      ReplyDelete
    143. If you are not going to put enough people in for security, until you have control of the situation...

      you by defualt ceed the situation to those who desire anarchy..

      which was what happened in Iraq in 2003 after "Mission Acomplished" was declared...

      but NO security provided(except for the MINISTRY of OIL).

      ReplyDelete
    144. Report: CIA unit that hunted bin Laden closed
      N.Y Times says officials don't see al-Qaida as hierarchical as it once was

      July 5, 2006

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13699308/


      Terror plot appears linked to al-Qaida, Pakistan
      London plotters had made martyrdom videos to be aired after attacks

      August 10, 2006

      Incompetence?

      Looks like it to ME

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14292276/

      ReplyDelete
    145. Cliff

      I cant dispute Hitlers massive problems with the partisan movement between 42-45 ,( especially with Tito) but German forces were far too stretched to combat this problem effectively....Iraq is much smaller!

      And remember Cliff, the Germans were very effective in squashing Polish resistance......not counting Stalins comical aid.

      Long, drawn out wars, dont make sense to me; neither does Chamberlain!

      ReplyDelete
    146. Actually Cliff, a fellow Canadian recently indicated to me that we should stop immigrating Muslims as they are being bred here for terrorist purposes.

      Do we expell all for the wrong actions of a few?

      ReplyDelete
    147. Johnny look at the stats I posted about California vs Iraq.....they did not even attempt security thus they left a vacuum which the insurgents and shite militias filled real quick..which was the first step toward what we have today...BTW I never mention Poland because the Germans were ruthless about security there, (probably because of Polands location vis a vis Germany)

      ReplyDelete
    148. Johnny that is one of the BIG questions

      Do we throw Paula Abdul and John Zogby out of the country...because they are Muslims?

      Do we disown OUR ambassador to Iraq because he is a Muslim?

      ReplyDelete
    149. Time is reporting that it was the NSA that gave the Brits the initial tip off about the budding terrorist operation. Way to go!

      ReplyDelete
    150. MIKE -- I can't believe that accident you were in, in which you almost died!

      Please send me an essay and I'll post it on the spiritual blog. I'd like to hear what happened.

      God Bless you,
      Lydia

      ReplyDelete
    151. MIKE -- I can't believe that accident you were in, in which you almost died!

      Please send me an essay and I'll post it on the spiritual blog. I'd like to hear what happened.

      God Bless you,
      Lydia

      ReplyDelete
    152. Johnny, Hitler problems with Tito should have warned them before they invaded..what problems they would encounter...and they should have planned for them, Just as Gen Shensiki tried to warn congress when he stated we would need 300,000 or more soldiers for stability...

      ReplyDelete
    153. Yea Mike us progressives MUST live right, as we both have had rather bad accidents...AND GOD kept us around...

      ReplyDelete
    154. Cliff said

      "Just as Gen Shensiki tried to warn congress when he stated we would need 300,000 or more soldiers for stability..."

      At least Cliff!

      However, the problem with partisans on the Eastern Front was Hitlers numbskull decision to label them sub-humans, thus murder them despite their overwhelming approval of Nazi occupation.

      ReplyDelete
    155. Hey I just heard an interview on talk radio by Al Rantel with Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim and active PLO terrorist, who became a Christian.

      The Islamists have placed a $10 million bounty on his head for the crime of writing this book:

      Why I Left Jihad: The Root of Terrorism and the Return of Radical Islam

      The reviews are excellent. Here's an excerpt from one:

      It is difficult to remain unmoved when confronted with the account of how, from childhood, the hatred of Jews is described as having been his "education" and how he grew up believing that it was a righteous thing to hate and kill Jews.

      The book describes how Walid's life was turned upside down, when through his studies, he discovered that "..everything that he had been taught about the Jews was a lie..."

      The context surrounding this profound change of heart/mind, and what is cited as an "addiction of hate", presents the reader with a series of events encompassing Walid's attempt to convert his wife to Islam.

      The book narrates how his wife refused to accept the validity of Walid's virulent hatred of the Jews and how he recounts her saying "show me in the Bible the bad things the Jews did". To accommodate her he then began to diligently study the Bible, factual history and other sources in order to substantiate his indoctrinated hatred.

      What transpired becomes the platform for this excellent study, which is not only an autobiographical account of Walid, but also a detailed investigation into anti-Semitism, the Middle East, Christianity and Islam itself.

      As the book progresses the writer declares that "...I am no longer a terrorist. I am a Christian, dedicated to peace and truth..."

      Indeed, the entire message of this book cited as being written with the declared intent of bringing love and truth to anyone who is prepared to listen.

      The brutal yet gripping honesty of the writer's involvement in terrorism, hatred of the Jews, and his uncompromising look at almost all the fundamental tenets of Islam is often quite disturbing.

      ReplyDelete
    156. Well Tiny inTellect since the terror plot was hatched by people LIVING in Britain and Pakistan...the NSA by law has the responsibility to track their conservations...especially the ones coming out of Pakistan..where Al Qaeda and the Taliban seem to be based right now.....

      so hopefully the Bush administration is focused on Osama AGAIN(and Bush has time to think about catching him),, and Bush will instruct the CIA to open back up their section which tracked him and his lieutenants, which could aid in finding other plans like this...

      ReplyDelete
    157. Cliff

      May I ask your solution to the Iraq problem prior to invasion?

      ReplyDelete
    158. Johnny said;

      However, the problem with partisans on the Eastern Front was Hitlers numbskull decision to label them sub-humans, thus murder them despite their overwhelming approval of Nazi occupation.


      seems what Bush, Dead eye and Dumsfeld did in Iraq....by ignoring the Geneva convention for innocent civilians...and throwing them into Abu Ghraib, where they went in innocent civilians, and came out Particins who no longer likes the US

      ReplyDelete
    159. It's been verified by both the americans and brits that it was indeed the NSA call monitoring that initally spotted this terror attack.What do the bleeding hearts have to say about that.I'm guessing they feel these poor people's rights were trampled on.Another sign of left wingers being weaklings when it come sto protecting the average citizen.

      ReplyDelete
    160. They have no "solution's" Johnny,just finger pointing and Monday morning quarterbacking.

      ReplyDelete
    161. Johnny working closer with INTERNAL opposition parties(like we did with the Kurds), tighting the screws on Saddam..like a country wide NO FLY zone(until he lived up to every UN requirement)....and telling him that is the good news.

      Listening top people like Gen Zinni who had much expierence with Saddam..and closing the noose but not so quick that a true opposition could not arise which we could aid, both openly and covertly. And when the opposition arose offer them support of logistics, Special Forces..and funding

      ReplyDelete
    162. Thank god conservatives have the balls to protect american citizens.Cant you see a guy like Kerry being president,there would be things blowing up every other day.Weaklings when it comes to the security of america.

      ReplyDelete
    163. Dusty Simpleton said...

      It's been verified by both the americans and brits that it was indeed the NSA call monitoring that initally spotted this terror attack.What do the bleeding hearts have to say about that.I'm guessing they feel these poor people's rights were trampled on.Another sign of left wingers being weaklings when it come sto protecting the average citizen.

      6:29 PM

      YO stupid read my 6:23 post..and you would not look so DUMB

      ReplyDelete
    164. Johnny, the Time article can be found here.

      ReplyDelete
    165. LONDON --British police said Thursday they thwarted a terrorist plot, possibly just days away, to blow up U.S.-bound jetliners over the Atlantic and kill thousands. Chilling accounts leaked by investigators described a plan on the scale of 9/11 that would use liquid explosives concealed as sports drink bottles and common electronic devices to bring down as many as 10 planes in a nearly simultaneous strike.
      -British: Thwarted plot involved 10 jets

      There is no terrorist threat...It's a lie.
      -michael moore, lib hero

      Thank God the British, like most folks realize mik al moore is a fool at best, or an evil traitor who roots for our enemies at worst. Hmmm, also I haven't heard from that quisling george galloway lately.

      Otherwise several thousand innocent British and Americans would have just been blown into little bits over the ocean.

      Meanwhile in America, the libs are intent on punishing any Democrat like Lieberman with the balls to fight back against the vicious Islamofascists.

      ReplyDelete
    166. Cliffy,is it because Zinni and Shensiki are dems that make them such great generals? Would there be any good conservative generals?

      ReplyDelete
    167. Dusty Simpleton said...

      Thank god conservatives have the balls to protect american citizens.Cant you see a guy like Kerry being president,there would be things blowing up every other day.Weaklings when it comes to the security of america.
      Pure repug BULL, what he eats and the extrudes from his mind

      Sh*t in Sh*t out

      ReplyDelete
    168. TT if the NSA is listening on calls OUTSIDE the US they are doing their JOB as intended by congress....

      ReplyDelete
    169. Cliffy,you're the idiot,it was you a month ago crying about the NSA infringing on american rights.Here they are helping save thousands.You are a quisling.Weak,really weak.

      ReplyDelete
    170. You friggin dope Clif,they were listening on calls from the U.S. to England.

      ReplyDelete
    171. Britain's MI-5 intelligence service and Scotland Yard had been tracking the plot for several months, but only in the past two weeks had the plotters' planning begun to crystallize, senior U.S. officials tell TIME. In the two or three days before the arrests, the cell was going operational, and authorities were pressed into action. MI5 and Scotland Yard agents tracked the plotters from the ground, while a knowledgeable American official says U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group's communications.

      http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html

      TT the relevant paragraph which shows the NSA was tracking suspected terrorists in foriegn countries...what they are supposed to DO

      ReplyDelete
    172. Cliffy,you libs are pussies,wussies,weaklings,whatever and would sell out your country in a heartbeat,you know that old "better red than dead" thing.That stupid ass chicken hawk crap does'nt fly,in fact it never really did.You people are view as weak.

      ReplyDelete
    173. Bull Stupid they were listening between england and pakistan where they terrorists were traveling

      ReplyDelete
    174. And your toe idiotic gutless chicken hawk, because you want them to WASTE valuable resources checking out billions of calls here which they do not have enough resources to do...just because you think thta is what Rove wants

      ReplyDelete
    175. Rusty said "Cliffy,you're the idiot,it was you a month ago crying about the NSA infringing on american rights.Here they are helping save thousands.You are a quisling.Weak,really weak."

      You show me how spying on Americans has saved lives no less foiled a terrrist plot in Britain, i'm all ears smart guy?

      ReplyDelete
    176. Only weak to those TOO GUTLESS to actually sign up themselves

      ReplyDelete
    177. So your willing top accept anything even if ti DOPES not work in reality because of the enormity of the task...and resources required.

      Hell you neo-cons didn't want to even secure Iraq AND LOOK AT THAT MESS

      ReplyDelete
    178. But continue to show HOW stupid you are as to how things do work..

      Did you EVER have a top secret clearance...

      Have you ever been trained in counter intelligence..

      Have you ever even left the trailor park?

      ReplyDelete
    179. BTW Dusty you never addressed my post on how Bush is weak on terrorism as he has done NOTHING to catch the real terrorist vwho attacked us and has done nothing to secure our borders or ports against terrorists in the approximately 6 years he has been it office, it is an utter joke to say Bush and the repugs are tough on terrorism, thats like a cop walking into a house of innocent people and gunning them down and then claiming he is protecting the public from criminals and fighting crime and is tough on crime, its laughable.

      ReplyDelete
    180. Johnny, I posted a response to you but it got deleted, i'll try to repost it.

      ReplyDelete
    181. So, Dusty, let’s see if you can keep up here, and answer a few questions in a way that’s both logical and positive for the draft-dodging, budget-busting ChickenHawk with Delusions of Grandeur, President Jr

      How is W keeping us safer from another al-Qaeda attack by shutting down the CIA unit devoted to capturing or killing Usama bin Laden? Also, if the Dems wish to give the GOP all sorts of fits and starts, every dem running for office needs to challenge their GOP opponents to pledge to get that CIA unit up and operating again

      Just how did deposing a secular tyrant in Iraq, and replacing him with religious fanatics eager to develop closer ties to their clerical brethren in Iran, keeping us safer from “Islamofascists”?

      The really funny thing here is that by election day-AKA The GOP’s Day Of Reckoning-this little stunt by the Administration will be a hazy memory for most people, kind of like all that taunting and gloating from the now rapidly dwindling number of starry eyed True W Believers

      Looks like the Brits have learned that “fighting them over there so as not to fight them over here” doesn’t do much to protect London from terrorist attacks, both attempted and successful

      And meanwhile, the carnage in Iraq continues unabated, and that’s not going to get any better for W because of this situation

      Come to think of it, neither is your trolling going to win anybody back to Dear Leader’s side, no matter how fervently you desire otherwise

      And really, doesn’t it just suck knowing you do NOT represent the political or social mainstream in this country, and that the overwhelming majority of the US public disapproves of W’s job performance?

      And the closer to the November elections we get, the more anything terrorist related is going to be seen as the Karl Rove BS strategy it obviously is

      And because W’s overextended the military in his Iraq quagmire, he has NO troops to spare for an Iran and Syria invasion & occupation. Not that Russia and China would let him do so under any circumstances anyways, and especially because there’s no way the US public would back expanding this “catastrophic success” from Iraq into a broader conflict

      And there’s an easy way to bear this out-Lets just start asking the public if they’d back such an idea

      And my goodness, I thought when he wasn’t indicted for deliberately outing Valerie Plame in a hissy fit of political pique, that Karl Rove would be able to pursue his permanent one party rule with nothing holding him back from trouncing us liberals with the National Security card

      Looks like Rove’s unable to right the rapidly sinking USS GOP since his nonindictment, and appeals about banning gay marriages aren’t fooling anyone this time, not when it doesn’t put money in peoples pockets, a roof over their heads or food on their table

      And, of course, there’s that point I mentioned at the start, how it’s going to be impossible for the GOP to use terrorism as an electoral motivator considering how W shut down the CIA unit devoted to catching or killing Usama bin Laden

      Yeah, good luck to spinning that into a positive come November

      And while you’re irrationally buoyed for W because of today’s latest terrorist BS, just remember how quickly those feelings dissipated after

      Udai & Qusay Hussein were killed

      Saddam Hussein was deposed

      Saddam Hussein was captured

      Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed

      Sorry Dustyt, the GOP’s got NO more cards to play military wise, or in terms of keeping the US safe from another bin-Laden approved attack, the numerous ethical scandals and legal problems hitting the GOP at the state & national levels and putting future generations of US taxpayers in debt to raid the US treasury on behalf of its corrupt campaign contributors & corporations

      And NONE of those situations is going to get better leading into the November elections

      That’s the reality Karl Rove’s got to deal with, and he’s about to get a major, and LONG overdue Karmic BitchSlap

      ReplyDelete
    182. And that is not with standing the unfolding corruption in Ohio, and Kentucky as well as the Harris debacle in Florida

      ReplyDelete
    183. Or the problems faced By Sanitaruim, in PA, Dewine in Ohio, Talent in Missouri, Burns in Montana, among others

      ReplyDelete
    184. Or the problems which are befalling the repug K street project especially those who sucked up to Abramoff...like Delay and Ney, or Cunningham and those who followed his lead....that ain't going away..the voters remember crooked people

      ReplyDelete
    185. Looks like dusty ran away with his tail between his legs because he didnt have any reaql answers, just rhetoric and spin.

      ReplyDelete
    186. Like I said Mike he eats repug spin which is basically the Bullsh*t they think the red states will swallow, thus he can only extrude from his mind what he puts in

      Sh*t in Sh*t out

      ReplyDelete
    187. Cliff said

      "Johnny working closer with INTERNAL opposition parties(like we did with the Kurds), tighting the screws on Saddam..like a country wide NO FLY zone(until he lived up to every UN requirement)....and telling him that is the good news."

      Perhaps Cliff. I have suggested similiar ideas ( particularly a C.I.A backed coup), however ten years is a long time and Saddam simply scoffed at the U.N requirements....not to mention it's weak standing!

      How many more wasted Iraqi lives are acceptable before the time period of your suggestion becomes a reality?

      ReplyDelete
    188. Jophnny we did little in those ten years to actually foster a true insurrection against Saddam...we could have used Kuwait to stage from...and really supported real opposition, not players like Chalibi who was under inditement when he was selling dead eye his Bill of goods,

      in fact NOW Chalibi is being investigated by the FBI for the possibilkity of being an Iranian agent ALL ALONG

      Which means he wanted the hard line Shites to take over after we knocked Saddam off, and it looks like he is gonna get what he wanted...a shite dominated Iraq with peoiple like sistani and al sadar calling the shots

      ReplyDelete
    189. Cliff

      Do you remember General Dirlewenger? He was so brutal on partisans that even Hitler was disgusted; eventually he was court martialed.

      I probably spelled the name wrong as I am working from sponge memory.

      ReplyDelete
    190. See johnny, Chalibi was convicted in abstensia in Jordan for some kind of Bank fraud, seems that dead eye should have checked Chalibi out a bit more...

      ReplyDelete
    191. Cliff said

      "Jophnny we did little in those ten years to actually foster a true insurrection against Saddam"

      Ive heard this many times and it does trouble me.

      Why did God have to make me a moderate? Couldnt he have made me a simple millionaire instead.....

      ReplyDelete
    192. Oskar Dirlewanger, johnny is that the man?

      ReplyDelete
    193. From what I knew he was not court martialed but had to fight on the russian front and against the polish uprising, he was killed by either fellow prisoners, or polish guards after being captured by the allies in Germany

      ReplyDelete
    194. I am interested in your deleted post Mike.....stop pressing the wrong buttons will ya...lol.

      ReplyDelete
    195. Johnny said;

      Why did God have to make me a moderate? Couldnt he have made me a simple millionaire instead.....

      Johnny he made all of us simple...the millionaire part he left up to us

      ReplyDelete
    196. Exactly Cliff, he fought the Polish uprising, but I forget how he died? One thing for sure he was an ex-crimial and very brutal.

      ReplyDelete
    197. How would you know this Cliff?

      ReplyDelete
    198. Johnny he was a criminal before he got in the SS, in fact he got some old friend to get him out of a consecration camp, and into the SS,

      My old ROTC Professor of Military science, had us research him and a few others as examples of what an officer was NOT

      ReplyDelete