To me the above signifies what is so frustrating about trying to wade through your ramblings the past few days. You seem to be writing under the assumption that the Newsweek story was the most important contributor to the problems manifested in the riotings and such. To focus mainly on the Newsweek piece ignores the very real problems we face over there.

As someone else has pointed out, it's like the administration has doused the area in gasoline and now gets upset that someone comes along smoking a cigarette.

Pat25, I guess the concept of being at war with terror and having the Prez fire his chief military/civilian operative doesn't seem incongruous to you? I know, I know. Well he got rid of Tenet, the chief spy guy in time of war. Sacking the Secy of Defense in time of war to take the heat off the Oval Office is so… is so… Clintonian, I can see why you think that was a viable option. Hell, maybe if W had fired Rumsfeld, it might have injured his chance at a 2nd term? And there’s the root of all this: you guys still can’t accept the outcome of the 2004 election. Who said “48% voted against him”? LOL.

(O/T…The mandate is even larger if we take the conventional Silent Majority of voters who didn’t show up to the polls and count them as Bush votes because their silence connotes support in the great tradition of English common law. But I digress.)

Rumsfeld didn’t deserve to be fired. Secy Powell didn’t deserve to be fired. VP Cheney didn’t deserve to be fired. Paul ONeill swimming in the tide of ending 3rd world debt with Bono, however, did deserve to be sacked. So did the past World Bank prez.

At best, firing Rumsfeld would have been symbolic. And played right into the hands of the enemy, as the Newsweek story did ever so well.

Bush should have fired himself after 9/11. What was the title of the Presidential Daily Breifing? Oh, yes, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States". Bush must have been crunching his Froot Loops and didn't hear Condi read it to him. But of course, none of those people deserved to be fired because this was only an historical document...well, now, it is an historical document. Historical in the fact that Bush and his cabinet turned their backs on one of the final warnings available before almost 3,000 people died.

shawnq, the heart of this story IS Newsweek. People who wish to demur, defuse, and minimalize it's impact are some of the same people looking to politically profit off a failed Iraq/Afghanistan prosecution of the war on terror. It isn't prisoner abuse allegations.

It reminds me of the game played by the spin doctors during the Rather memo fiasco... their line was "well, maybe the memo was fake, but Bush went AWOL".

It doesn't matter if facts and truth get in the way of opinions --you go right ahead and opine that Newsweek isn't the issue, something else is.

Yes, folks, 41 P&R posts and 1 Real Life post. I guess someday, this "manly" man will venture into a sports thread and post something there. I guess he already posts in those threads using his real screen name.

And there it is, bobby... Bush knew about the WMD being a set of jet airliners aimed at various targets in the US and that they would be used on 9/11 at the World trade Center bldgs, the Pentagon, and... where else? the Sears Tower? the GM's RenCen in Detroit? the White House? the Capitol?

Wow, the air must be pretty thin in your part of Texas.

Did you not watch, read or listen to anything the Commission and Congress did on the 9/11 disaster? Hey, by your reasoning, maybe we should also hoist BubbaBill up the pike for missing out on OBL the 3-4 times he had the chance to end the terror. Wait, we don't have those historic documents because Sandy Berger stuffed em in his pants before running out of the Archives. Or maybe we can go back to the British PM in the 20thC who allowed British troops into Afghanistan... cause the imperialism of then, led to the chaos of today, right? LOL

Well, since airplanes were mentioned in the "historical document", and airplanes do tend to take off and land at airports, WHAT did the administration do to increase security measures at America's airports? Nothing. They set back and let it all happen while Bush sat at a school in Florida for 7 minutes like a deer caught in headlights and enjoyed looking thru MY PET GOAT.

BTW, the millenium attacks were prevented during the Clinton administration...something you rightwingnuts tend to forget.

[ May 18, 2005, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

Christians would get upset, some would even scream about it. But they wouldn't riot like a bunch of foaming-at-the-mouth wackos killing dozens of people in the process.

Bobby, maybe the Prez team was getting things set, assessing the threat, making the preparations needed to arm AF1 aloft. Srambling back up fighters to escort? Don't think for second the gears weren't moving at full tilt. And what the heck was he supposed to? Stand up in the classroom and scream to the kids, "We're all going to die!"

Gheez, damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's monday morning quaterbacking by your political adversaries anyway you move. Being Prez must suck immensely.

And you're right. I forget about the Millenium LAX effort... wasn't the infamous Sandy Berger in the middle of that effort at the WH?

But that was a slide and shuffle move. I think my question was why BubbaBill didn't peg OBL the 3-4 times he had the chance to? And why wasn't he held accountable?

I think the U.S. is strong enough to fire grossly incompetent leaders such as Rumsfeld. But I see you disagree. No biggee.

As for your comparisons to Clinton, a couple of things there. You referred to the bombing of an aspirin factory as an example of the Clinton Administrations blunders in this thread or another. So I see you set the standard for the Bush Administration really high. eek! But they couldn't even reach that standard as one can tell from their gross ineptitude with their pre-war intelligence and their handling of the war. Also, Clinton is one of my least favorite Presidents for various reasons. But all I can say is that each day Bush is in the White House, he's making Clinton look like the best and most honest President ever. Not an easy task in my book, but Bush appears to be doing it without breaking a sweat.

Yes, I couldn't understand how 51% could reelect the worst President ever, but it honestly took me only a week to get over it. It really did. Those things happen.

And your "Silent Majority" thing sounds so Clintonian. Or more like Bushesque. Where do people come up with this stuff?

It's fine that you want to trash Newsweek over their error. But to then become an apologist for the Bush Administration when their actions are much worse than Newsweek is mindboggling.

Okay, I think I dabbled enough in the P&R section for a month or so. Back to the sports threads.

[ May 18, 2005, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

You know, I can’t tell which thread is about what anymore.

To get back to the original message of this thread and Newsweek….

The dems really should have learned their lesson from the Clinton days, it’s called blind hate. Not everything he or W did was all bad or all evil. Heck if anything billybob is the dems problem right now because he wont remove his mug from the cameras long enough for the party to move on without him… or his wife.

In the end this just turns people off to the Nth degree and they just stop listening to the ramblings of the left. It’s sort of like posting stories about condi reading something to W and then… but I digress…

The underlying problem with what newsweek did was put Americans in danger. Bottom line. You don’t have to pro-anti war to see this. To me, that is dangerous when a news agency is publishing a story to come across as true and factual when really they are not. This can be from either side of the isle. The insurgents take little lines like “toilet flushing” and use it to incite riots. To have an error like this and go with it is not excusable in the slightest.

That is where the blind hate comes in. No matter how factually true or untrue a story, rumor, or chalkboard writing is… it’s fine by you guys. It’s anti-w it has to be good. In the end it’s merely his fault, forget newsweek’s responsibility.

IF newsweek was the boiling point of the riots, they should be ashamed of themselves for what they did. They could have put the work of good people back years because of the irresponsibility and crappy journalism. They could have aided the insurgents (who the masses are growing tired). That my friends is Unamerican.

And why? Because they despise W? Because this reporter hates him? Because they don’t support the war? That is not their job.

There is one thing I have faith in, and that is the American consumer, who will not buy this rag again for a very long time. I hope they go bankrupt. I hope this reporter gets assigned to Kabul. I hope the editor gets fired and never gets another job. These people are nasty humans.

Look, PhillylosttoCardstonight, I'll say this, no, blind hatred of W isn't helpful. Years ago on this board I actually posted a thread inquiring about good things W had done. I did not believe he should have been seated in office in 2001, but I can say I did try, more than once, to give him the benefit of the doubt. On every level, including the basic fact THAT HE LET 9/11 HAPPEN, he simply does not merit anything other than symbolic respect because he's the elected president.

First and foremost, he is a pathological liar, and surrounds himself with liars, neocons who don't give a damn what effect their world-domination fantasies have on America now and in the future, and religious nutjobs. Not an inspiring crowd by any measure, and about the only one who merited respect, Colin Powell, IS GONE.

But look, if W decided tomorrow to stop blatantly lying--for example, claiming Social Security was going "bankrupt" when he knows full well it WON'T, etc.--then I'd start backtracking. But with everything from this man it's lies and duplicity. I was no fan of Raygun OR W's father, and like Clinton they did periodically lie (Iran-Contra, W's daddy's dealings with Saddam, etc.), but MY GOD, W is f*cking pathological. AND he's SURROUNDED by liars! His press official couldn't even tell the truth about whether or not W was notified during the evacuation last week! First he said W was, then he said he wasn't.

We get nothing but lies and duplicity, and not just about getting d*cks sucked. Hell, if he had a parade of whores--including male ones like Gannon-Guckert coming and going, and was boozing again, and even hit a line of cocaine, I wouldn't care, so long as he wasn't hooking up with Al Qaeda agents or mafiosi, etc., and my tax dollars weren't being used.

But we get nothing but lies about everything from this man. Today he and the generals admit Iraq is a mess. DUH!!! It took you this long to figure that out? You didn't know this--is that a lie or just BS?

A couple of weeks ago, we got concrete proof, a smoking gun, in the form of that British government memo, that in fact, he and the neo-cons were planning to attack Iraq war WELL before they said they were. Blair-Lapdog hasn't denied the memo's authenticity OR the truth of what he said; in fact, Lapdog just kept silent about it, and barely held onto his post and government. W's ex-pup Paul O'Neill have already told us that what the memo said was true. So why doesn't W just say, "See, I wanted Saddam the f*ck out of there, and I (or Cheney or Rummy or whoever) planned this war from day 1, and after 9/11, Afghanistan wasn't enough, I WANTED SADDAM OUT EVEN IF HE DIDN'T HAVE WMDS or AL QAEDA LINKS, I wanted his sassy, obnoxious, obstructionist, oil-well controlling ass out of there at all costs! And no matter what happened afterwards--cause we really didn't give a damn and all this 'democracy' and 'freedom'* stuff was Wolfowitz's bullsh*t, we got his ass out of there." Just tell us the truth, stop all the double-talk and let the cards fall where they might.

Then I'd start acting like W was worth giving the time of day, religious nutjob theocrats trying to take over his (your) party or not.
--
*Provisional, depending upon the country (cf. Haiti, Venezuela, Uzbekistan).

[ May 18, 2005, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Then I'd start acting like W was worth giving the time of day, religious nutjob theocrats trying to take over his (your) party or not.....

Good line, Fantamos, as a matter of fact, an excellent post. Sadly, the Republican party has already been taken over by "religious nut-job theocrats". It's too bad the Republican party hasn't learned from the failures of the Democratic party. Yup, I said failures by the Democratic party. The lesson Republicans need to learn is a party is at its best when moderates are in control, whether it be Republican or Democrats. When a party panders to fringe groups within that party, it is the death of the party. A majority within that party is not possible due to the efforts spent courting the fringe. Fringe is fringe for a reason...not enough folks buy into the fringe beliefs, which is why it's considered fringe. Also, a majority platform is prevented by catering to the whims of fringe groups. Democrats have been soooo guilty of this practice for the better part of three decades, and look at the toll it has taken on the party. It would be of the best interest of Republicans to begin to distance themselves immediately from these so-called religious theocrats whom have consumed the Republican party. According to the Chicago Tribune, President Bush's popularity rating has fallen to all-time lows. Perhaps the religious right have stopped praying for Bush. They sure are one fickle group, and there is great danger anytime one fickle group is catered to.

In her column today, Molly Ivins notes some of the abuses of The Koran which have been accused including:

Speaking of columns, here are two more on this topic, which is, to reiterate, Newsweak's sloppy reporting of something that most likely never occurred. If you don't like this writer's opinions, at least give her credit for revealing the facts of Newsweak's record with Isikoff. Then consider this writer's unique perspective on the issue.

Some have sought, predictably enough, to turn this thread into yet another critique of the Bush Administration. Fine, spin and divert as you will, tiresome as it and the repetitive arguments are. But the issue of how a supposedly reliable news organization REPORTS the news is entirely separate from any alleged irregularities by anyone in MAKING it.

I'd like to hear some of the other lawyers' thoughts on whether or not the government could sue Newsweak for libel. Mind you, I said "could," not "should," which is a totally different question. But I think Newsweak's misconduct satisfies the NYT v. Sullivan standard for libel, and damage has clearly been done to the "trade name and reputation" of the US. Essentially, can the government mount an action for trade libel or abuse of "commercial speech" in the facts of this case? I honestly don't know and it might set a dangerous precedent, if not make way for the return of suits in lese majeste,* but how do you stop this kind of sloppy reporting when it causes actual damage as it did here and abroad?
_____
*Although those are in personam and we have no personam regis in the US.

Well thank god someone else* can think around here gmginsfo.

What a great post! Right behind you on that one.
--------------------
*Meant to be not me.

OMG, we're quoting Molly Ivins! What's next? Pat Buchanan quotes? LOL

I am quoting the facts in her editorial. Facts are facts...care to dispute them or are you going to keep up with the snide remarks?

I think something that is overlooked when it comes to this media 'creating' stories issue is the Bush Administration itself.

It has created all these secretive military prisons that have been sketchy since day 1, they do NOT share much information on these areas, who is detained, why, etc other than general statements. Just in the whole spectrum, the Bush Administration is very tight lipped, it does not like to share things, the President hardly holds any press conferences, doesn't take tough questions, etc.


Having all this mystery, unanswered questions leads the media into trying to dig up things themselves, where there is obviously going to be mistakes every now and then.

I think the big problem with the whole prison scandal is that they knew about it.......but they kept it secret from the media/public. If they had just reported it, took action from the get go, etc.......there would not have been such a huge deal (it still would have been big, but it also wouldn't look covered up and the Defense Dept wouldn't be on the defense, no pun intended).

links edited so they actually work.

bobbyDearest, Ivins wouldn't know a fact if she saw one on the end of her nose. What next, going to quote National Enquirer for credible source points? LOL.

And as queen of the snide remarks, you got a lot of room to talk...um, spin... um, post.

Thanks, JQ* - I was worried about them when I posted before work today since my homie was actin' kinda crazy and I didn't get a chance to check until my lunch now. Mea culpa.
_____
*"Great minds link alike?" :cool:

As you say, you were in a hurry. It's important when pasting a link into the URL window to make sure the initial html:// is deleted before hitting ok. Otherwise, you wind up with two of them and evidently computers are still too stupid to figure it out.

How exactly would Newsweek be liable to a government that not only reviewed the story (via the Pentagon) and did not have any issues with it BEFORE publication, but was also the employer of the original source?

And let us remember that Newsweek has ONLY retracted the statement that the Koran abuse was confirmed in a government report, no that the Koran abuse didn't happen at all.

And I still fail to see a link between Newsweek's admitted error and the deaths - how can anyone say that those in power who exploited the Newsweek story would not have simply used one of the many other stories on Koran abuse that have been published in the last 2 years? Or any of the other known abuses of prisoners both in Iraq and at Gitmo?

Again, I am not saying Newsweek was correct going forward on the story, but to assign the magazine so much blame simply ignores the realities in the Middle East - it simply does not take much to generate anti-American sentiment in that region.

Maybe newsweek can just start using Al-Jazerra's (however you spell it) as their source and use the "detailed" accounts of terrists as true?

Plain and simple you hate W, you believe this. Blind hate...

Pointless.

Funny you mention Al Jazeera........

They are one of the very few (and pretty much only major) independent Arab news station out there. The rest are government run.

People knock Al Jazeera as being biased towards the Arab world...........but what do you think the U.S. news is? U.S. news is not exactly the defender of the Arab world.

I'm completely... indepen.... wha....

Worst, dumbest, most moronic, idiotic.. out of touch... stupid... what are thinking...

Comments i've ever seen from you lefties...ever..

I know you have out of touch views, but to even consider something like that.. yikes.

PhillyFan, is the view "out of touch" simply because you disagree with it? That is the beauty of a view...it is correct in the eyes of the beholder. Why is it that anyone whom has a different view than yours is always incorrect? Do you only see black and white, or do you also see shades of gray?

I'm a lawyer, but this is not my area of expertise. I seem to recall from my law school days that truth is the ultimate defense in such matters (libel, slander, defamation of character). Well, even if not, any suit would open the government to a rather extensive discovery process and something tells me Rumsfeld et. al. would shy away from all that.

Come on, you quote William F. Buckley, who's advocated tattooing gay people with HIV and quarantining them, and Ann Coulter, a serial plagiarist, who "jokingly" urged the killing of fellow Americans? Gmg, you can do better than this! At least find some GOPers who aren't raving anti-gay, plagiarizing fanatics. I know there are some out there--that *you* would consider decent sources of commentary.

I take exception to this. I would not be in the US if it was not for the US Army. I have ultimate respect for our military institutions. What I have no respect for are politicians who sit in Washington, have no skin in the game (so to speak), yet who send our troops on politics-based adventures or force our military to not "serve well". I blame the politicians, I do not "America", I do not blame the military.

I live in one of the epicenters of what you'd call "blame America 1st" territory (Blue America), am an ardent Democrat, yet I have never seen or ever known one person sneer at a yellow ribbon or flag. Why would we?? It's more likely that our brothers or sisters or neighbors or cousins are the ones who fight the wars. It's the sons and daughters of mill workers and laborers who fill the ranks of the military. It's the high schoolers too poor to go to college. (BTW, how many members of the pro-war GOP elite have any skin in the Iraq game? Yeah, right.)

Maybe we in Blue America have ideals and believe that America should live up to certain standards, truth, honesty, honor, responsibility. When we see politicians push our country beneath those standards, we blame THEM, not the country. But the other side of the aisle sees ideals as antiquated notions. For them, everything about our country can be reduced to sentiment no more deep than the mindless lyrics of a Toby Keith song.

Sorry, I'd rather hold my country to certain standards and rail against the politicians who drag us down and the policies they enact than excuse something that is wrong or immoral even if "my" president stands for it. By calling people critical of politicians or policies "Blame America" or "anti-American" you are simply name-calling in order to quiet critics of the administration and are feeding into the entire GOP mindset of quashing debate. (I suppose we on this side of the aisle have to come up with a similar neutralizing catch phrase. At a minimum we should start asking folks on your side why is that they hate open dialogue so much? Why do you hate free speech? Why do you hate the 1st Amendent? Why do you hate democracy?)

"Blame America"? Bull sh*t. :mad:

One of my long time friends back from the fraternity days is in the reserve and just got back from Afghanistan. He is one of the people you label as the blue Americans that sneer at the people that have the yellow ribbons and support our troops signs, etc.

Why?

Because going out and buying a magnetic yellow ribbon when you're at the check-out line at Wal-Mart does not make you a good American. Many of these people are all about the war and such, but would not even DARE send themselves or their child. There are much better ways to actually 'support' the troops other than slapping a magnet on your bumper or putting a yard sign in your grass. Extension of health benefits and other benefits have come very slowly....even, gasp, Republicans have been stingy in doing these sorts of things. That's how you can truly support your troops.

What? But...but HE says WE'RE the "bullies"! This can't be! It can't actually be the hypocrite himself who is the bully here!!!

Aquaman & Illini, the Michael Moore theatrical question doesn't work anymore --namely, so why won't YOU send your son or daughter in harm's way Mr GOP Congressman.

Because the question sidesteps an important point that gets glossed over in the rush to place the rhetorical challenge: In America, since 1973 (?), we have had a VOLUNTARY military service option. OPTION. VOLUNTARY. YOUR CHOICE. FREELY MADE DECISION.

If a citizen freely chooses to enlist in a military profession, serves, and is placed in harm's way... well, that was kind of, sort of, like maybe implied in enlisting. Don't ya think?

If it wasn't, the recruiter should be imprisoned for fraud. Why do men and women enlist? Lots of reason probably but one of them is not to avoid armed conflict, is it? Or did I miss something in the welter of logic?

So, if someone freely chooses to enlist and be subject to the military responsibilities inherent --even if hopefully avoided-- in being part of the armed services... why is it that anti-war types still fume that others don't serve?

I know, it's cause this isn't a just war. This is a Bush family jihad against the guy who threatened GWB's old man... I've heard that irresponsible rag from conspiracy nuts before.

But the issue remains... men and women freely chose to enlist, it's been a voluntary option since 1973, and using military force abroad doesn't invalidate that it was a free choice.

The rhetorical question was rightly put to use in the VietNam war that Kennedy and Johnson decided to lie and get us into when the French cut the field. It was used to great benefit there by the anti-war types of that era... but then it was conscription for part of the era.

It's like the chickenhawk thing that others like to throw around here... it just doesn't apply. It’s shift and shuffle. Smoke and ochre. Hokum and mirrors.

The free choice option for military service vitiated the question's relevancy.

But you are right on a very important point: we should be doing a hell of lot more to help support the troops. Better armament. Higher force levels in theatre. Better care of dependents back home. Better pay. Better weapons systems. Better post-enlistment education options. The very very best medical care for the wounded. In that regard, we continue to let our soldiers down and it needs to change dramatically and fast.

JIPster, you ain't no bully... that's RazorBack's claim to fame. Pay better attention.

Well, when you are a middle-class kid who can't qualify for government college assistance and you have the option of a fully-paid college education being waved in your face by the government and there is no possible way for you to go to college since mommy and daddy aren't able to pay for it, it takes away from the argument that the military is an absolute volunteer opportunity.

And why do people who support the war not enlist?

And why are they such cowards that that wont even say why they choose not to fight for their county?

[ May 20, 2005, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

That was certainly my situation, but even then, my decision to seek a Navy commission was my own. I could have worked another job, extended my time in school, spent less $$ on partying, but I didn't. I chose to compete for a NROTC scholly and am proud to have served my country.

Having less $$$ reduced my range of choices, but it was my choice all the same.

RazorBack, you're back the the chickenhawk thing... that line just don't cut it guy. Enlisting is an option. Freely made. Voluntary. It worked when conscription madated service; but not now. Sorry.

Im not "back" on it, I never left it, and I wont until you answer. I realize the military is voluntary. Simple question (even for you):

Why dont your volunteer to help your country in this time of need?

Hey, wait... isn't this about Newsweek not doing enough to atone for its sins and falsehoods? How'd it become an adjunct of the chickenhawk thread... RazorBack??? You've been a bad boi beyond the Bully crap.

Evade and distract...evade and distract. Is this the second part of "slide...shuffle...spin"?

Nope Bobby, just a straight forward observation... no slide, no shuffle, no spin... that's your MO.

What I am saying has nothing to do with pressuring someone to enlist.......

I don't think a Senator should tell their kid to go into the military just cause he supports a war.

What I'm saying is that if many sons or daughters went to their parents who are all gungho about the war.....and said they wanted to go to Iraq, many of them probably wouldn't be all for it and would discourage their son or daughter from going. I don't know many parents who WANT their kid to go to Iraq, do you?

I think just a general problem Americans have is they have no reality of war. Not only has there not been any wars in the U.S. for quite some time (ask a European who was around for WW2 and you'll find differing opinions on war). Look how devastated America was after 9/11. That's a day in the life of a war torn country. Think we can handle that? I wouldn't say so.

But other than that, many European countries still have (or recently had) required or strongly encouraged activity in the military. It's extremely common to find people who have been in the military......it's a normal thing. Rich or poor. And then in the U.S., the military is typically for the lower class. Of course, not everyone is that way, but stereotypically, the military is for the poor in the U.S. And what do we know about class systems? The upper class typically isn't looking out for the lower class. And in this case, how many very wealthy people have close family and friends in Iraq or Afghanistan? Probably not many.

FT, I offered AC's op-ed for its facts concerning Isikoff, leaving each to form his own opinion from them; WFB, the opposite. I can tell AC's humor apart from her seriousness and dredging up that joke about 911 just doesn't faze me, even if it "Razes" others' selective sensibilities.

As for WFB's tattooing idea of so long ago - what, 20+ years? - well, we're all entitled to a few "youthful indiscretions," eh Bill Clinton? even when we're not so young. Maybe WFB was "three nautical leagues off the coast, outside territorial waters" smoking pot when he came up with that one. At least it beats being thrown into a Cuban concentration camp, eh Tio Fidel?

PS to GJ: My situation exactly, helped in no small part by a draft lottery number of 8. But it did pay for the rest of college and all of law school - and taught me a lot about living with people I'd never been exposed to before and how to get along better in the world. In all, a good thing! Now go on, get along, li'l Jamie! Skedaddle!

[ May 20, 2005, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]

Illini, thanks for the clarification.

Hmmmm. I think there are many Americans who DO have a good sense of what war is about. How could you not in today's world of virtual simulations, starkly realistic war movies, and all the open debate about military service? How could you not in the wake of the 1st Gulf War?And how about the constant coverage of vet stories --from all wars. It permeates our culture and society.

I personally know of people who have made the decision to enlist, who serve in the Guard, and who have had to vote in Congress on approp bills to keep the war prosecuted. And unlike what passes for truth for some here, the people I know who voted in Congress, the parents who have sons in the Guard serving right now, and those three guys I know who enlisted --did so with careful thought and reflection. In fact, one of the enlistees even prayed --I know some here hate it when God get's into personal decision making, but that's the truth. Not a one of those enlistees nor the Guard are "lower class". One's a doc's son, one's a newspaper publisher's son, one's parents are dead but they were upper middle class, and one comes from a military family proud of its heritage and patriotism. Make that five... one Guard guy I know is in Afghanistan right now as a private contractor helping train national police.

The chippy Chris Matthews' line that people were gungho and trigger happy to go to war... that we needed more leaders like the reluctant-to-go-to-war HHH of the 1960's-- don't appreciate the agony that goes into making those decisions or the realities of the commitment.

I don't know how anyone could NOT have a good sense of the realities of war in America --that's why it was brilliant to take the war to the terrorists' home turf: Afghanistan. And put on notice those countries who harbor terrorists. Like Syria. Like Iran. Like Iraq.

I think enough Americans understand the realities of war to know what it portends. And are willing to make sacrafices to see it conclude purposefully, correctly.

I think that's why some in our country take great exception to the unAmerican impulse that allowed a news organization like Newsweek to publish apparently deceitful lies about our military police at a time when America was trying hard to repair its image with our Islamic friends. It's a huge issue to America! It's why Bush stood tall after 9/11 to indicate to the dark forces in our country that violence against Islamic citizens wouldn't be tolerated, condoned, or trucked. It's why LBush is heading to the Middle East right now.

And it's why people like Jim Jeffords and others commenting that the war in Iraq is all about oil and we'll go to war with Iran just to enhance election opportunities is so unAmerican he should resign his post in the Senate. Now there's an idiot of the first order.

You forgot Saudi Arabia!

Please provide a link with the proof that Iraq horbored terrorists. I'll be waiting.

You.... :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Why dont you be a man and join them?
Uncle Sam is calling, he needs you "Matt."

“He is one of the people you label as the blue Americans that sneer at the people that have the yellow ribbons and support our troops signs, etc.”

Does he also have his TV tuned into the “Independent” Al Jazeers? They just ran a series on why all Americans should die, the red and blue ones. An independent view, of course. The only really independent and fair journalism in the world.

Can you order it on direct TV? Or did they “buddy up” with the North Korean new agency?