4,000 dead Americans

[Dobbs 3K 0]

OK, fair enough. I still don't buy Iran's accusation that the US is just fabricating the entire thing, but whatever.

[snuffbox 0]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EX_...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

 

It was probably a member of the Democratic Terrorist Party posing as a Republican, though.

[Jingus 0]

If he did indeed help obtain/launder money for terrorists while pretending to "bridge the gap between Christian and Muslim communities worldwide", then he was an asshole posing as a nice guy. That kind of shittiness crosses all party lines.

 

I got a chuckle out of terrorists getting money that was snuck in by supposedly being sent to orphanages that they own.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I don’t oppose all wars.

 

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

 

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

 

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

 

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

 

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

 

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

 

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

 

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

 

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

-State Senator Barack Obama, Illinois, Oct. 26th, 2002

 

This is a big reason why I have decided to support Obama.

[NoCalMike 0]

If the Democrats take the White House in November, the excuses are over when it comes to the War/Occupation in Iraq. I really hope for Clinton/Obama's sake that they do have a plan to get us the hell out of there.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_...formation_study

 

Not really a surprise, but kind of interesting, none the less.

[snuffbox 0]

Liberal Media wont have time to report that.

[Jingus 0]

Huh? Ever since the war started, I've heard countless news outlets talking about the administration's various descents into creative storytelling, especially the WMDs debacle and "Saddam Osama". There have been God only knows how many stories about it. Sure, you've got many conservative diehards out there who are like "Well, that's not exactly what the President said...", but they're not exactly a media majority.

[EricMM 0]

Yeah but we're not routinely bitching the President out for lying. Which we should be.

[snuffbox 0]

The Adminstration got, and will continue to get, a free pass on all of the Iraq stuff.

[theintensifier 0]

bigolsmitty, I guess you're not as smart as I thought.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Mentally Retarded Women Used in Bombings

 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...;show_article=1

 

Remember, they are barbarians.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

bigolsmitty, I guess you're not as smart as I thought.

 

Why's that, guy? (thanks for thinking I'm smart to begin with, though)

 

[SuperJerk 0]

As if this needs to be repeated, but for those interested;

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080227/ts_al...mreligionethics

Major survey challenges Western perceptions of Islam

 

by Karin Zeitvogel

1 hour, 43 minutes ago

 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A huge survey of the world's Muslims released Tuesday challenges Western notions that equate Islam with radicalism and violence.

 

The survey, conducted by the Gallup polling agency over six years and three continents, seeks to dispel the belief held by some in the West that Islam itself is the driving force of radicalism.

 

It shows that the overwhelming majority of Muslims condemned the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001 and other subsequent terrorist attacks, the authors of the study said in Washington.

 

"Samuel Harris said in the Washington Times (in 2004): 'It is time we admitted that we are not at war with terrorism. We are at war with Islam'," Dalia Mogahed, co-author of the book "Who Speaks for Islam" which grew out of the study, told a news conference here.

 

"The argument Mr Harris makes is that religion in the primary driver" of radicalism and violence, she said.

 

"Religion is an important part of life for the overwhelming majority of Muslims, and if it were indeed the driver for radicalisation, this would be a serious issue."

 

But the study, which Gallup says surveyed a sample equivalent to 90 percent of the world's Muslims, showed that widespread religiosity "does not translate into widespread support for terrorism," said Mogahed, director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies.

 

About 93 percent of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are moderates and only seven percent are politically radical, according to the poll, based on more than 50,000 interviews.

 

In majority Muslim countries, overwhelming majorities said religion was a very important part of their lives -- 99 percent in Indonesia, 98 percent in Egypt, 95 percent in Pakistan.

 

But only seven percent of the billion Muslims surveyed -- the radicals -- condoned the attacks on the United States in 2001, the poll showed.

 

Moderate Muslims interviewed for the poll condemned the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington because innocent lives were lost and civilians killed.

 

"Some actually cited religious justifications for why they were against 9/11, going as far as to quote from the Koran -- for example, the verse that says taking one innocent life is like killing all humanity," she said.

 

Meanwhile, radical Muslims gave political, not religious, reasons for condoning the attacks, the poll showed.

 

The survey shows radicals to be neither more religious than their moderate counterparts, nor products of abject poverty or refugee camps.

 

"The radicals are better educated, have better jobs, and are more hopeful with regard to the future than mainstream Muslims," John Esposito, who co-authored "Who Speaks for Islam", said.

 

"Ironically, they believe in democracy even more than many of the mainstream moderates do, but they're more cynical about whether they'll ever get it," said Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University in Washington.

 

Gallup launched the study following 9/11, after which US President George W. Bush asked in a speech, which is quoted in the book: "Why do they hate us?"

 

"They hate... a democratically elected government," Bush offered as a reason.

 

"They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

 

But the poll, which gives ordinary Muslims a voice in the global debate that they have been drawn into by 9/11, showed that most Muslims -- including radicals -- admire the West for its democracy, freedoms and technological prowess.

 

What they do not want is to have Western ways forced on them, it said.

 

"Muslims want self-determination, but not an American-imposed and -defined democracy. They don't want secularism or theocracy. What the majority wants is democracy with religious values," said Esposito.

 

The poll has given voice to Islam's silent majority, said Mogahed.

 

"A billion Muslims should be the ones that we look to, to understand what they believe, rather than a vocal minority," she told AFP.

 

Muslims in 40 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East were interviewed for the survey, which is part of Gallup's World Poll that aims to interview 95 percent of the world's population.

Mike and Marney have some splainin' to do.

 

edit" WTF am I doing way up here??? Isn't it March already????

Edited February 3, 2008 by SuperJerk

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

The troops still hate the troops.

 

Individuals in the Army, Navy and Air Force made those branches of the armed services among the top contributors in the 4th Quarter, ranking No. 13, No. 18 and No. 21, respectively. In 2007, Republican Ron Paul, who opposes U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, was the top recipient of money from donors in the military, collecting at least $212,000 from them. Barack Obama, another war opponent, was second with about $94,000.

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/2...dential.2.4.asp

[Dobbs 3K 0]

But they want to stay until their mission is finished!

 

If Bush had been smart, and didn't really have ulterior motives for keeping us in Iraq, he would have pulled us out a couple years ago. Our troops have done their job, it's up to the Iraqis at this point.

[snuffbox 0]

Will America believe Bush's FISA bullshit, as per usual? The Liberal Media seems pretty intent on providing a clear path for this.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

The foreign phone call spying thing? Probably.

[NoCalMike 0]

As if this needs to be repeated, but for those interested;

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080227/ts_al...mreligionethics

Major survey challenges Western perceptions of Islam

 

by Karin Zeitvogel

1 hour, 43 minutes ago

 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A huge survey of the world's Muslims released Tuesday challenges Western notions that equate Islam with radicalism and violence.

 

The survey, conducted by the Gallup polling agency over six years and three continents, seeks to dispel the belief held by some in the West that Islam itself is the driving force of radicalism.

 

It shows that the overwhelming majority of Muslims condemned the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001 and other subsequent terrorist attacks, the authors of the study said in Washington.

 

"Samuel Harris said in the Washington Times (in 2004): 'It is time we admitted that we are not at war with terrorism. We are at war with Islam'," Dalia Mogahed, co-author of the book "Who Speaks for Islam" which grew out of the study, told a news conference here.

 

"The argument Mr Harris makes is that religion in the primary driver" of radicalism and violence, she said.

 

"Religion is an important part of life for the overwhelming majority of Muslims, and if it were indeed the driver for radicalisation, this would be a serious issue."

 

But the study, which Gallup says surveyed a sample equivalent to 90 percent of the world's Muslims, showed that widespread religiosity "does not translate into widespread support for terrorism," said Mogahed, director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies.

 

About 93 percent of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are moderates and only seven percent are politically radical, according to the poll, based on more than 50,000 interviews.

 

In majority Muslim countries, overwhelming majorities said religion was a very important part of their lives -- 99 percent in Indonesia, 98 percent in Egypt, 95 percent in Pakistan.

 

But only seven percent of the billion Muslims surveyed -- the radicals -- condoned the attacks on the United States in 2001, the poll showed.

 

Moderate Muslims interviewed for the poll condemned the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington because innocent lives were lost and civilians killed.

 

"Some actually cited religious justifications for why they were against 9/11, going as far as to quote from the Koran -- for example, the verse that says taking one innocent life is like killing all humanity," she said.

 

Meanwhile, radical Muslims gave political, not religious, reasons for condoning the attacks, the poll showed.

 

The survey shows radicals to be neither more religious than their moderate counterparts, nor products of abject poverty or refugee camps.

 

"The radicals are better educated, have better jobs, and are more hopeful with regard to the future than mainstream Muslims," John Esposito, who co-authored "Who Speaks for Islam", said.

 

"Ironically, they believe in democracy even more than many of the mainstream moderates do, but they're more cynical about whether they'll ever get it," said Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University in Washington.

 

Gallup launched the study following 9/11, after which US President George W. Bush asked in a speech, which is quoted in the book: "Why do they hate us?"

 

"They hate... a democratically elected government," Bush offered as a reason.

 

"They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

 

But the poll, which gives ordinary Muslims a voice in the global debate that they have been drawn into by 9/11, showed that most Muslims -- including radicals -- admire the West for its democracy, freedoms and technological prowess.

 

What they do not want is to have Western ways forced on them, it said.

 

"Muslims want self-determination, but not an American-imposed and -defined democracy. They don't want secularism or theocracy. What the majority wants is democracy with religious values," said Esposito.

 

The poll has given voice to Islam's silent majority, said Mogahed.

 

"A billion Muslims should be the ones that we look to, to understand what they believe, rather than a vocal minority," she told AFP.

 

Muslims in 40 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East were interviewed for the survey, which is part of Gallup's World Poll that aims to interview 95 percent of the world's population.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

gallup = uber liberal trash, obviously.

[SuperJerk 0]

They hate us for our freedom. Shhh. Don't tell anyone.

[snuffbox 0]

That was a pretty nice red carpet rolled out for Ahmadinejad. The surge is clearly working.

 

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I don't know what to think about "the surge." You have people saying its not working at all, and others who say it is working.

 

It doesn't matter...the whole landscape there is going to change when the US leaves, one way or the other.

[snuffbox 0]

See, they literally rolled out a red carpet for the arrival of Ahmadinejad, the "most dangerous man on the planet." McCain can say watever he wants but that's some pretty strong evidence that the surge hasn't done much more than cost more lives and cash.

[NoCalMike 0]

I don't know what to think about "the surge." You have people saying its not working at all, and others who say it is working.

 

It doesn't matter...the whole landscape there is going to change when the US leaves, one way or the other.

 

I guess the question is, has the surge accelerated the end of Iraqi Conflict? Are we getting out sooner because of it? Also, is the success of the surge something that can be sustained without the current number of troops staying in Iraq for long term commitments. I guess that is why liberals tend to want more political progress/reconciliation because without that, sure we can just keep a huge number of troops in the region in order to keep the violence at lower levels but when does it end? When does America's financial and military commitment end?

[snuffbox 0]

It will end when we elect a president that doesnt think that attempted nation-building is really neat.

[cbacon 0]

Something that always gets overlooked with regards to Iran:

 

The efforts to intensify the harshness of the regime show up in many ways. For example, the West absolutely adores Ahmadinejad. Any wild statement that he comes out with immediately gets circulated in headlines and mistranslated. They love him. But anybody who knows anything about Iran, presumably the editorial offices, knows that he doesn’t have anything to do with foreign policy. Foreign policy is in the hands of his superior, the Supreme Leader Khamenei. But they don’t report his statements, particularly when his statements are pretty conciliatory. For example, they love when Ahmadinejad says that Israel shouldn’t exist, but they don’t like it when Khamenei right afterwards says that Iran supports the Arab League position on Israel-Palestine. As far as I’m aware, it never got reported. Actually you could find Khamenei’s more conciliatory positions in the Financial Times, but not here. And it’s repeated by Iranian diplomats but that’s no good. The Arab League proposal calls for normalization of relations with Israel if it accepts the international consensus of the two-state settlement which has been blocked by the United States and Israel for thirty years. And that’s not a good story, so it’s either not mentioned or it’s hidden somewhere.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Well, I think most people with any knowledge understand that Ahmadinejad is basically just a puppet.

[snuffbox 0]

Figurehead or not, Iran used to not get along with Iraq. Now their political leaders get the red carpet treatment.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Bush May Fire CentCom Chief Adm. Fallon, Replace With Commander More ‘Pliable’ To War With Iran

 

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has called CENTCOM commander Adm. William Fallon “one of the best strategic thinkers in uniform today.” Fallon opposed the “surge” in Iraq and has consistently battled the Bush administration to avoid a confrontation with Iran, calling officials’ war-mongering “not helpful.” Privately, he has vowed that an attack on Iran “will not happen on my watch.”

 

Unfortunately, this level-headed thinking and willingness to stand up to President Bush may cost him his job. According to a new article by Thomas P.M. Barnett in the April issue of Esquire magazine (on newsstands March 12), Fallon may be prematurely “relieved of his command” as soon as this summer:

 

[W]ell-placed observers now say that it will come as no surprise if Fallon is relieved of his command before his time is up next spring, maybe as early as this summer, in favor of a commander the White House considers to be more pliable. If that were to happen, it may well mean that the president and vice-president intend to take military action against Iran before the end of this year and don’t want a commander standing in their way.

 

In the Esquire article, Fallon also said that he was in “hot water” with the White House for meeting with Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. Fallon noted that such meetings are his job, and essential to making sure that regional leaders don’t get “too spun up” by the administration’s war rhetoric.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/05/fallon-bush-fire/