Mr. Heinz is a wimp. He should settle for being president of his fan club.

John Kerry more than most in his party (and that's saying A LOT) will say ANYTHING if he thinks it might garner him some support.

If tomorrow the sectarian violence stopped and there was no violence and progress being made (as I think will slowly happen in the next few years) John Kerry will then try to defend himself against today's statement which is against his 2004 statement which is against his 2003 statement which is against his 2002 statement and so on...

If Webster, when creating the dictionary were looking for a definition of opportunist it would have said: opportunist: n. John Forbes Kerry.

LaMano:
He couldn't win president of his fan club.

He was in favor of his fan club before he was against it.

He better hope we do not have another large scale terrorist attach

whoa - does the lieutenant mean that he doesn't regret perjury in his sworn "winter soldier" congressional testimony which he knew to be false before he testified?

and he doesn't regret suborning perjury by others also testifing before congress?

and he doesn't regret never having retracted his perjury & slander?

If only Republicans in general would apologize first to the nation, second to Iraq and third to the entire world for voting to give a bunch of lunatics the authority to invade another nation on baseless grounds.

What's really sad is that *everything* the radical left said about the war has come true. And *nothing* the Bush Administration has promised has come to pass.

To wit, there were no WMD's. It did not last 6 months as Rumsfeld estimated. Iraqi oil did not pay for reconstruction. We were not greeted as liberators as Cheney smugly insisted.

Left, Right, center? Does it matter now that our armed forces are bogged down, Bush has no plan for victory and thousands are dying every month?

You can screech all you want about the anti-war left but what is your plan to end this fiasco?

Wade

radical this, radical that, no matter how hard you read off the rove and co. daily morning faxes, you'll eventually have to come around to the fact that a clear MAJORITY of americans support his position and are in fact anti-war and are calling for a plan for withdrawal.

of course, chimperor wants to stay in until 2010 or longer. woo-hoo.

John Kerry owes President Bush a major thank you...

Religion of Terror and Chaos

LGF, "A Muslim convert arrested two years ago has admitted to plotting to blow up the New York Stock Exchange"

LONDON (Reuters) - A Briton arrested amid a massive U.S. security alert two years ago admitted in a London court on Thursday to plotting to blow up the New York Stock Exchange and carry out “dirty bomb” attacks in Britain.

Dhiren Barot, a Muslim convert, admitted to plotting to blow up the stock exchange and other U.S. financial hubs including the headquarters of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Citigroup and Prudential in Washington, New Jersey and New York. “Explosions at these premises were clearly designed to kill as many people as possible”, said prosecuting lawyer Edmund Lawson.

Amid tight security at Woolwich Crown Court in South London, Barot pleaded guilty to conspiracy to murder and prosecutors outlined the details of his confession.

He admitted planning strikes on unspecified British targets in a conspiracy called the “Gas Limos Project”, which “involved parking three limos with gas cylinders with explosives and detonating them in underground carparks,” Lawson said.

Barot admitted another plan to detonate at least one “dirty bomb” contaminated with radiological material in Britain. The prosecution said Barot claimed the dirty bomb was not designed to kill but “rather to cause injury, fear terror and chaos”.
*************

***lgf, "And a blast from the past: Democrats suggested the terror alert that led to this would-be mass murderer’s arrest was a fake during an election year to increase support for Bush."

Since most Americans have ALSO changed their minds about the war, would that make OVER 60% of Americans "radical anti-war left"?

BTW, you DID see what a Conservative paper, the New York Sun, is saying about the 'Baker Report':

"Baker's Panel Rules Out Iraq Victory"

http://www.nysun.com/article/41371

Quote:

"Currently, the 10-member commission — headed by a secretary of state for President George H.W. Bush, James Baker — is considering two option papers, "Stability First" and "Redeploy and Contain," both of which rule out any prospect of making Iraq a stable democracy in the near term."

Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh is advocating the Murtha plan (though he won't call it that) of turning security over to the Iraqis and pulling US troops to the Syrian and Iranian borders to keep out 'foreign fighters'.

It's time we face the facts that the Iraq War is NOT going well, it IS NOT going according to plan, AND we need to Re-Define the mission and determine how best to proceed. Nobody SERIOUS (Baker, John Warner, Murtha, and yes Kerry) REALLY thinks we're going to establish a 'Jeffersonian Democracy which is free, stable, and an allie in the WOT'. We need a strategy for success which is bi-partisan, but in this election year that is, sadly, impossible. . .

Coulterfan...

You're wrong in calling Rush's plan the Murtha plan. Rush suggests the role of the US Army is to stop foreign fighters and weapons coming into Iraq...

Murtha's plan... if you'll be honest about it (which I doubt) is to withdraw US troops to Okinawa. I am not a HUGE geography expert but I do know the United States Armed Forces couldn't stop foreign weapons and foreign fighters from entering Iraq from JAPAN.

So exactly how is Rush's suggestion the "Murtha Plan." Be HONEST now...

"You're wrong in calling Rush's plan the Murtha plan. Rush suggests the role of the US Army is to stop foreign fighters and weapons coming into Iraq...

Murtha's plan... if you'll be honest about it (which I doubt) is to withdraw US troops to Okinawa. I am not a HUGE geography expert but I do know the United States Armed Forces couldn't stop foreign weapons and foreign fighters from entering Iraq from JAPAN."

Obviously geography isn't the only thing you're not a HUGE expect on. . . Here, let's look at the Murtha plan:

"To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq."

Now, I admit that it's not all that fleshed-out, BUT he does indicate redeployment to create a "quick reaction force in the region" and an "over-the-horizon presence of Marines".

When asked for more details on MTP, Murtha said:
to "redeploy the troops to the periphery." He used that phrase—"to the periphery," meaning just offshore or across the border from Iraq.

His plan was in part inspired by a plan written by Korb (assistant Sec. of Defense under Reagan) and Katulis- Murtha has acknowledged so much. By their plan, all 46,000 members of the Guard and Reserve will go home next year, but most of the active-duty soldiers and Marines will be "redeployed" to Kuwait or Afghanistan. Even after that, many American troops will remain to train, advise, help secure the borders, and provide logistical and air support to the Iraqi regime.

Doesn't sound like "cut and run", does it? Actually, it sounds A LOT like the "Limbaugh" plan (and other Democratic plans, as well).

Now, it is YOU who should be honest. Just WHERE does Murtha state he wishes to redeploy troops to Okinawa? C'mon, now- quote him directly and please provide links for verification.

I KNOW you're aware of Murtha's close relationship with the military and the Pentagon and his own heroic military career. He visits injured soldiers WEEKLY. In fact, he talks with the Pentagon MORE THAN ANY OTHER CONGRESS MEMBER. Much of "his" plan was written with the INPUT of folks in the Pentagon.

Now I know that Rush couldn't go to Viet Nam BECAUSE OF AN ANAL CYST! So, who do you think knows more about the military- a blowhard entertainer with an anal cyst or a decorated veteran with close ties to the Pentagon?

Now your "evidence" that he wants to redeploy to Okinawa?!?!?!

One question:

What the HELL is Bush's and the Republican's plan anyway? Saddam is gone, Iraq has had elections and a Constitution.

Now what?!?!?!?

How will we know when we are done? What are the benchmarks? Are we getting closer- I know the Pentagon has plans to stay until at least 2010, but what are we doing exactly?

I'm serious and would appreciate a serious answer. The President says, "We'll stay until the job is done." WHAT job? What needs to be done before we leave?

Hey, I can do my OWN research (what a concept!). Here's the money quote:

MR. RUSSERT: Who?

"REP. MURTHA: Kuwait’s one that will take us. Qatar, we already have bases in Qatar. So Bahrain. All those countries are willing to take the United States. Now, Saudi Arabia won’t because they wanted us out of there in the first place. So—and we don’t have to be right there. We can go to Okinawa. We, we don’t have—we can redeploy there almost instantly. "

So of all those bases, guess which ones the wingers focus on? OKINAWA?!?!? I mean, what about lambasting him for suggesting Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain?

That's a page right out of the Republican handbook- take a quote out of context and use it against that person! Sort of like me taking this:

Bush: "They (Al Queda) never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we!"

from:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040805-3.html

At least Murtha doesn't try to come up with new ways to harm "our country and our people" like Bush and Al Queda!

Seriously, what IS the "Bush plan"?

I notice you don't give the date of that interview. Murtha SPENT MONTHS on TV saying only Okinawa made sense. And if you look at the quote of Murtha's, it's quite clear the old guy was clearly having a hard time figuring out where they could base. Why not Jordan? They SHARE a border... or Turkey? Maybe he was too busy flahing back to ABSCAM.

So again, you're not being honest. There is no way we could protect Iraqi borders from Qatar or Afghanistan. But hell, since you're not a geography expert I'll explain... you have to be PHYSICALLY present or in the immediate area (not hundreds of miles away by Boat or Air) if you're going to protect the Iraqi border. But then again, Democrats aren't really in favor of secure borders are you?

I'm in favor of several things you mentioned though. First off, the President would be wise to actually say X, Y, and Z get done and then we're gone. But the ANGER and RAGE y'all have isn't going to bring our troops home now or what you really want to happen, to change the past and not invade.

But dude, this post is about John Kerry being a tool. Let's keep on topic. If you love John Kerry.. then cheer loudly and proudly. He cheered loudly and proudly for the North Vietnamese so maybe soon he'll be cheering for Al Qaeda.

Some of the funniest video you will ever see on the 9/11 conspirators. South Park

Again... you selectively quote that Russert interview.

His only detailed description about troop relocation was Okinawa...

"REP. MURTHA: Well, it—you know, they—when I say Okinawa, I, I’m saying troops in Okinawa. When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly. And—and—when they don’t know we’re coming. There’s no question about it. And, and where those airplanes won’t—came from I can’t tell you, but, but I’ll tell you one thing, it doesn’t take very long for them to get in with cruise missiles or with, with fighter aircraft or, or attack aircraft, it doesn’t take any time at all. So we, we have done—this one particular operation, to say that that couldn’t have done, done—it was done from the outside, for heaven’s sakes."

p.s. I thought I had cut and pasted that into my prior post... now back to our regularly scheduled programming... showing what a joke John Forbes Kerry is.

Coulterfan,

On NBC's "Meet the Press" last Sunday (June 18, 2006 ), Rep. John Murtha repeated his call for "redeploying" U.S. troops from Iraq with something new -- and disturbing to fellow Democrats. Asked by moderator Tim Russert about sites for redeployment, Murtha replied: "We can go to Okinawa. ... We can redeploy there almost instantly."

When Russert expressed doubt about "a timely response" from Okinawa to meet a Middle East crisis, the 16-term congressman from western Pennsylvania and new national security spokesman for his party stumbled: "Well, it -- you know, they -- when I say Okinawa, I, I'm saying troops in Okinawa. When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly. And -- and -- when they don't know we're coming."

John Kerry is the ONLY politician who could make me ever vote for Hillary Clinton in an election.

Ah hell....lets just let all the Gitmo boys out and place them with the child molesters next to all the libs and biased judges. I'd take the worst 10 and place them in a half-way house just down the street from the ACLU...and maybe 3 others near orangealert. Then they could party down. We need just one to cover Kennedy and Murtha, since there is no speed in that backfield. When those two are told to haul ass, they have to make two trips!

"I'm in favor of several things you mentioned though. First off, the President would be wise to actually say X, Y, and Z get done and then we're gone. But the ANGER and RAGE y'all have isn't going to bring our troops home now or what you really want to happen, to change the past and not invade.

But dude, this post is about John Kerry being a tool. Let's keep on topic. If you love John Kerry.. then cheer loudly and proudly. He cheered loudly and proudly for the North Vietnamese so maybe soon he'll be cheering for Al Qaeda."

Umm, at least Democrats (including Kerry) HAVE a plan. And A LOT MORE OF THEM (and the Republicans you HATE) have ACTUALLY SERVED! My anger stems from deep frustration that WE HAVE NO PLAN NOW! And this administration has made TERRIBLE decisions and NO ONE IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE!

Seriously, I remember quite a bit of "ANGER and RAGE" over a friggin' BJ. Personally, I think that's NOT NEARLY AS BAD AS 2,800 American dead 44,000 injured $500 billion, NO PLAN, AND NO END IN SIGHT!!! The BJ ANGER (evidenced OFTEN on this board-8 YEARS AFTER THE FACT) seems quiant in comparison.

Kerry "cheered" for the N. Vietnamese? Gee, I thought he FOUGHT THE VIETNAMESE!!! What the swiftboaters did to Kerry was DESPICABLE, like what Bush did to McCain in 2000! Kerry was injured and KILLED NORTH VIET CONG! He had supported the war, but changed his mind. Kerry had the courage to speak out on a war which WASN'T WORKING!

I always believe that if you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING!!! Kerry wanted to stop digging in Viet Nam and for that he's called "Cheering the N. Vietnamese"? We lost 58,000 DEAD 153,000 WOUNDED; the Vietnamese lost almost 2 MILLION! How much longer should we have kept fighting? If Cheney, Limbaugh, Bush, etc all supported the war, WHY DIDN'T THEY GO?!?!?! And NOW Kissinger is advising the President on Iraq. . .

BUT I recall Limbaugh, Hannity, Bush clearly siding AGAINST CLINTON in Kosovo!!! I GUESS THEY WERE PROUDLY CHEERING FOR MILOSEVIC!!!! And, guess what, Clinton actually WON THE WAR when he said he would AND BROUGHT MILOSEVIC TO HAGUE FOR TRIAL! He ALSO had an 'Exit Strategy". Yet Hannity and Limbaugh were ENDANGERING OUR TROOPS and PROVIDING AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY DURING A WAR!!!

Again, what's the plan in Iraq? And have you enlisted or are you going to enlist? How much longer do YOU think we can stay WITHOUT A PLAN and WITHOUT A DRAFT?!?!?!? WHEN ARE WE DONE?

Sorry, but WAR (unlike BJs, which I'm in favor of) makes me ANGRY!

Yo Coulter Fan ...
Since you brought up Kosovo, can you please send me links to evidence of mass graves ... the reason we went to "war" in Kosovo? And, also did Clinton have an exit plan for Kosovo? We're still there 8 years later ...

"Yo Coulter Fan ...
Since you brought up Kosovo, can you please send me links to evidence of mass graves ... the reason we went to "war" in Kosovo? And, also did Clinton have an exit plan for Kosovo? We're still there 8 years later ..."

Hey, why don't you research it yourself? You can google yourself. As I recall, the war itself lasted only a few months and we suffered FEW casualties. Milosevic's REGIME was taken out and HE WAS PUT ON TRIAL! You're ACTUALLY on Milosevic's side?!?!?!? I was JUST JOKING about AIDING AND COMFORTING THE ENEMY, I didn't think you would actually argue that Milosevic wasn't a BAD DICTATOR!!!

Anyway, the evidence is AT LEAST AS GOOD AS WMDs!

Here's some questions for you to Google:

How many casualties did we suffer in Kosovo last year? How many troops are still stationed there? How many attacks per day are we experiencing there compared to, say, Iraq? Are there still troops stationed in Germany, Japan, Korea, Kuwait? Does this mean that WWII IS STILL GOING ON?!?!?

These are all things you can find out for yourself. Good luck.

Kerry is a sad excuse for a Presidential candidate, the electrons shouldn't be spent worrying about him. At the moment there are no contenders for the Democrats, nor the Repbublicans--it's pretty bleak out there for 2008.

I suggest focus on the issues at hand--that the deaths of US soldiers are at their highest rate since January of 2005.

Military Fatalities: By Month
Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days
10-2006 45 1 1 47 3.92 12
9-2006 71 3 2 76 2.53 30
8-2006 65 1 0 66 2.13 31
7-2006 43 1 2 46 1.48 31
6-2006 61 0 2 63 2.1 30
5-2006 69 9 1 79 2.55 31
4-2006 76 1 5 82 2.73 30
3-2006 31 0 2 33 1.06 31
2-2006 55 3 0 58 2.07 28
1-2006 62 2 0 64 2.06 31
12-2005 68 0 0 68 2.19 31
11-2005 84 1 1 86 2.87 30
10-2005 96 2 1 99 3.19 31
9-2005 49 3 0 52 1.73 30
8-2005 85 0 0 85 2.74 31
7-2005 54 3 1 58 1.87 31
6-2005 78 1 4 83 2.77 30
5-2005 80 2 6 88 2.84 31
4-2005 52 0 0 52 1.73 30
3-2005 35 1 3 39 1.26 31
2-2005 58 0 2 60 2.14 28
1-2005 107 10 10 127 4.1 31

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Iraq continues to be a no win situation--there no hope for "victory" as it was defined 4 years ago. Afganistan is also a loss. The US government needs to let these countries fight their civil wars (well, at least Iraq, Afganistan is happy where it is, and Pakistan will likely follow) and start thinking about how to better protect the USA through oil independence, addressing real nuclear threats, and fighting the core of terrorism, not creating terrorism by attacking and destroying non-threatening countries.

Coulterfan: I have googled it and guess what? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF MASS GRAVES.

And while you're at it, genius ... research what is currently going on in Kosovo ... like AQ and other terrorists occupying it for training camps, etc.

"THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF MASS GRAVES."

Okay, so you DON'T THINK THE WORLD IS BETTER OFF WITHOUT MILOSEVIC? Should we have "stayed out" of WWII? You sound like an appeaser to me!

Are there WMDs in Iraq? Why are we THERE?

The Repubs are desperate if they're bringing up Chappaquidic, ABSCAM, etc! Did the DWI arrest of Bush story from the 70s work? Did the Clinton draft-dodging story? What about the 'AWOL' Bush story?

You SEE the numbers of casualties per month in Iraq??? WHY are we THERE? WHAT is the MISSION NOW?!?!? PLEASE give me SOMETHING SOLID! When will we know we're done?

BTW, the MISSION was ACCOMPLISHED in Kosovo when we evicted the Serbs and removed Milosevic. We QUICKLY SCALED DOWN!

What about Iraq?

Can some TRUE BELIEVER explain it to me, please?

"And while you're at it, genius ... research what is currently going on in Kosovo ... like AQ and other terrorists occupying it for training camps, etc."

And how they WISH they could be training in IRAQ! You don't just get technical knowledge, but can actually put it into practice there!
AND it's a MUCH LARGER TERRORIST COMMUNITY with LOTS OF OIL!

The CHAOS that was Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorism.

Kimberly4bush said: "Since you brought up Kosovo, can you please send me links to evidence of mass graves ... the reason we went to "war" in Kosovo? And, also did Clinton have an exit plan for Kosovo? We're still there 8 years later ...

Coulterfan: I have googled it and guess what? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF MASS GRAVES.

And while you're at it, genius ... research what is currently going on in Kosovo ... like AQ and other terrorists occupying it for training camps, etc."

Well said, Kimberly4bush. Kosovo is a freaking mess. Yes, Clinton got rid of Milosevic, but he left the war unfinished. The current result of Bill Clinton's war in Kosovo, is that now Kosovo has become a training ground for Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists-a new front in the War on Terror/Islam. This is similar to the result of Clinton's cut-and-run from Mogadishu, Somalia after the Blackhawk Down incident. Clinton pulled our U.S. forces out of Somalia and now Somalia has become an African Taliban-where you get killed for missing prayers. Somalia has become a new front in the War on Terror/Islam.

Kosovo and Somalia have both become Islamic terrorist havens and fronts in the Global War on Terror/Islam.

Today's Democrats have no idea how to win wars. They are dangerous.

To be honest I don't think it is doing him any good, but it is good that at least one democrat has stood up and said his vote for the war was a mistake. Becuase in case you hadn't notice it is you who are in the minority when it comes to supporting the war in Iraq. It was a mistake. The more democrats admit this the better politically speaking.

Somalia's Islamists impose tough new rules on journalists

Deutsche Presse-Agentur: Nairobi - Press freedom groups are up in arms over strict rules of conduct handed out to Somali journalists by Islamic radicals. The 13-point code of conduct, given out last weekend to privately- owned media, is another sign of the Islamists' tight grip on the areas of the anarchic country they control.

'The result of this draconian charter would be a gagged, obedient press, one constrained by threats to sing the praises of the Islamic courts and their vision of the world and Somalia,' said a statement by Paris-based Reporters Without Borders released Wednesday.

Since their successful rise began earlier this year, the Islamists temporarily shut down a radio station and detained three journalists for 'conveying wrong messages.'

The International Federation of Journalists said these new rules were a sign the Islamists want to control the media. It called for the Islamists to work 'hand in hand' with Somali journalists to come up with an appropriate code of conduct.

The Islamists' rules prohibit use of the word 'terrorist' to describe any Muslim and ban journalists from publishing elements of a foreign culture which are contrary to the tenets of Islam.

The CHAOS that was Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorism.

The fatty blob that was your brain is a breeding ground for stupidity...

Hey, why don't you research it yourself?

Coulterfan, I hope you're a girl, because, in my "sexist" view, you just got your arse kicked by one!

You rock, kimberly, and no, I'm no sexist. I just know that creeps like coulterfan have these big egos, and can't stand losing to anyone. That's why they never concede defeat, although they end up looking soooo foolish. Way to go, and keep up the fight.

*I urge EVERYONE to read this!*

A Balkan Base for Al Qaeda?

By Julia Gorin
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 20, 2006

The War on Terror suffered a major blow three years before it was ever announced. It happened when the people of this democracy were misled into attacking the sovereign, emerging post-Communist democracy of Yugoslavia--over rumors of genocide and ethnic cleansing that proved false. In so doing, we put the final touch on delivering the Balkans to al Qaeda.

Today we are being asked to seal that historical blunder, whose repercussions seven years later are only escalating as those we “rescued” turn their weapons against UN and NATO forces. While NATO spends most of its time rooting out terror cells in Kosovo and Bosnia—which served as the logistics bases for the London and Madrid bombings--the 2006 deadline to complete our eagerly forgotten debacle and determine the province’s final status is fast approaching. To persuade the international community that only one final status will be acceptable, our Albanian "rescuees" have been stepping up the violence, a message to the West that it has only one possible exit strategy: grant unconditional independence--without border compromises with Serbia and without protection guarantees for what’s left of the non-Albanian minorities.

If we allow this to happen, the peacekeepers will have to leave, and with them our eyes and ears in this terror haven and thruway. Still, congressional, State Department and UN sentiment seems to be tilting toward self-determination and the logic that if you’ve dug yourself into a hole, keep digging.

Here is the size of that hole so far: In November, 2001, what should have been an explosive article appeared in the European edition of the Wall St. Journal. Headlined “Al Qaeda’s Balkan Links,” it read: “For the past 10 years…Ayman al-Zawahiri [bin Laden’s second in command] has operated terrorist training camps [and] weapons of mass destruction factories throughout Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Turkey and Bosnia…Though the Clinton administration had been briefed extensively by the State Department in 1993 on the growing Islamist threat in former Yugoslavia, little was done to follow through….”

Nor did a December 2003 article in Britain’s Sunday Mirror register a blip: “Posing as members of the Real IRA, we…made our deal in Kosovo, a breeding ground for fanatics with al-Qaeda links. Our contact was the deputy commander of the Kosovo Liberation Army Niam Behljulji, known as Hulji…Hulji is said to supply terrorists across Europe and has been accused of massacring Serbian women and children during the war. He even posed grinning for a photograph, holding the severed head of one of his victims…Hulji said: ‘The plastics (Semtex) is the old type. No metal strips inside. It cannot be detected at airports.’”

But to perpetuate the version of events we were sold from the beginning, all these connections have gone purposefully unmade by our nation’s “journalists,” who were gung-ho supporters of our 1999 offensive against a historical ally and the culmination of our pro-terror policies in 1990s Yugoslavia. How many Americans know that the terrorists who carried out a spate of suicide attacks in Iraq in August 2004 were trained in Bosnia, or that al Qaeda’s top Balkans operative, al-Zawahiri’s brother Mohammed, had a high position with our terrorist KLA "allies"? And who wants to bring up what former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia James Bissett has--that in Bosnia we'd fought alongside at least two of the 9/11 hijackers. The American public certainly won't hear that Bosnian charities have been raided for funding terrorism or that in 1992 Bosnia issued passports to Osama bin Laden and al-Zawahiri. (cont.)

(...cont.)
We'll never know that Bosnia today is the European “one-stop shop” for all the terrorism needs--weapons, money, shelter, documents--of Chechen and Afghani fighters passing through Europe before heading to Iraq. [..]

Only Britain's Sky News has caught on, in December airing a segment entitled "The Hidden Army of Radical Islam," about Bosnia, where there is "growing radicalization" and a base for Al Qaeda: "In the heart of Europe, thousands of Arab fighters. Zenica [Bosnia], 1995. They come to wage holy war in support of the Bosnian Army. [Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic shown welcoming the mujahadeen.] ...They committed many atrocities; the tapes Sky News has obtained include beheadings and signs of torture. …This isn’t just about history; it's about now. Western intelligence agencies are now pressing the Bosnians to look into exactly where these people are and what they are doing, and asking have any of these men been in contact with the three young Bosnian Muslims arrested last month on terrorism charges. ...In Sarajevo now the influence of Saudi ideas can be found all over the city. ...Radical Islam is attempting to plant deep roots in the community. …The seeds for change were planted back in 1995."

We see footage of Bosnian Muslim forces destroying an Orthodox Christian church; of a Bosnian Serb being brutalized (we're spared the skull crushing that follows); and a mujahadeen persuading his Bosnian colleagues to let him kill Serb prisoners, who are soon led off and executed. Though there is ample supply of tortured-Serb footage, it doesn’t enjoy the wide circulation that the video of a Bosnian-Serb paramilitary unit killing six Bosnian Muslims got last summer. The narration continues: "There were some serious players sent to Bosnia, among them the man who planned 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohamed...The mujahadeen video shows their flag planted in Bosnia and speaks of spreading their jihad. ...Bosnia is a useful place to hide, plan and move. It's why some stay on." The segment opens with the sentence, "Hundreds of radical Islamic holy warriors [are] hiding in Bosnia, a decade after the end of the war." That statement underscores the West's big miscalculaton in the Balkans--that Bosnia was a self-contained war that had an end, rather than an early front in a war that was just unfolding.

A similar picture began to emerge in Kosovo, where the late Wall St. Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was uncovering that "Ethnic-Albanian militants, humanitarian organizations, NATO and the news media fed off each other to give genocide rumors credibility." The anti-Serb propaganda which misled Americans throughout the 90s and which Daniel Pearl was debunking continues to guide our perceptions and foreign policy in the Balkans today. But despite the media’s blackout on the subject of Balkans terror--including by Pearl's own Wall St. Journal--more and more Americans have been scratching their heads, wondering why we forcibly precluded the Serbs from doing in their own backyard what we’ve gone halfway around the globe to do.

By 1999, our government knew that the KLA was supported by Islamic nations and bin Laden, against whom the U.S. already had issued two indictments.

The Islamists were by then a known entity, specifically as our main post-Cold War threat, and Serbia wasn't an enemy.

For the past four years, the Hague's International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has been finding what multiple international forensic teams have found--that claims of Serb “atrocities” were exaggerated and often invented. It turns out we confused an attempt to create an Islamic "Greater Albania" with one to create a “Greater Serbia.” [..]

“If you break it, you fix it.” We’ve heard much of that refrain throughout our Iraq debates—including from the selfsame architects of the Kosovo offensive: Bill and Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright and Wesley Clark. Their prescription for fixing what they broke? Bury it.

As UN human rights observer Jiri Dienstbier notes, "If NATO and the UN can't defeat terrorism in an area the size of one-eighth of the Czech Republic, how do they expect to confront global terrorism?" Balkans author Vojin Joksimovich seconds the question: "Although the intelligence community is fully aware of the threat, political leaders are denying it and the media are silent. Given this cover-up, it's fair to ask whether we are able to prevent yet another major terrorist act." Indeed, can you fight terror with one hand while abetting it with the other?

In early 2001, German TV broadcast a report titled "It Began with a Lie," which publicized the findings of the observer force Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) that no genocide had taken place in Kosovo. The revelations set off a huge public debate in Germany, a member of the NATO coalition, after the public realized their country had been party to a hoax, and they held the responsible politicians’ feet to the fire.

It’s long past time that we also set the record straight on what we "achieved" in the Balkans -- and change course. As the world closes in on the Serbs again this year, we must stop bin Laden from establishing a terror state in Europe. We know from Madrid and London that we’ll pay for it with our own blood. In fact, we already have.

Your're FUNNY, Freedom1! Sounds like you ALSO LOVE Milosevic, you TRAITOR!

Perhaps you think that the Iraq war is a model of how wars should be fought? How much have we spent in Kosovo? Did the IRAQ WAR start with a LIE???? Were the Iraqis a THREAT to the US? Any evidence they were involved in 9-11?

I notice that NO ONE can answer what the mission is in IRAQ. What do we need to accomplishment before we are DONE?

And why is your HATRED of CLINTON and LOVE FOR MILOSEVIC so OVERWHELMING?

Here's a portrait of the ONE you SUPPORT:

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/b/branson-milosevic.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Now, the NYTimes won't mean much to a HOLOCAUST DENIER, but most others will be swayed.

Hey, when are you going to fight in Iraq, guys? AND WHAT IS THE MISSION???

Freedom: Good posts, and the information that you give, is another of the "Clinton's ineptness while he AND Hillary shared the Presidency". It doesn't get much press, these failures does it? Would it be because the MSM Still tries to cover up for the Clintons? Yep, that's it. If one does try to show the "Paths taken by Clinton that failed---WE are picking on poor ole Slick Willy"
But, let another man pick up from all the mistakes of the Clinton's and try to do something
about this War of Terrorism-he is Lambasted on a Daily Basis. That President Bush, had the balls to "stand up to Terrorism, when his Predecessor DID NOT, and tired of the thought of it all, says volumes. AND, while I'm at it, for the Idiots, who Don't think that Iraq was involved heavily in
the business of Terrorism-they are in denial. It will be proved with all the papers found that are being translated, JUST HOW VERY INVOLVED SADAAM WAS. These idiots will still want to deny these facts, because they hate President Bush, and don't
want to admit that their own "Draft-Dodging, Morally Deficient, Lying, cheating Slick Willy, was a lose, lose President in name only-He was as inept as was Jimmy Carter-who was held captive for over a year, right along with those held captive by the Iranians. Losers-Both. they show no class since leaving office either, and BOTH, are trying to 'rewrite their own history and legacy'....why else does anyone think that Sandy Berger was stealing papers, that would be incriminating to the Clinton Administration and himself?

As you may recall, Rumsfeld described Miloševi? as a "failed dictator" alongside "Hitler, Stalin, Lenin and Ceausescu".

You STILL side with MILOSEVIC and AGAINST THE USA?

Well said, Freedom1. It's too bad CF won't comment on your post but instead, assumes you (and I) are Milosevic fans.

Not once did anyone take Milosevic's side. However, there is NO evidence the Serbs were committing genocide against the Muslims (the reason we went to war there). And now that we have "evicted" the Serbs from their homeland, the area has become a breeding ground for Islamic facists. I do not consider that an accomplishment.

Also, no one on this board has said the war in Iraq is a complete success. We have all agreed there have been many mistakes made. That being said, we cannot leave it as it is and allow it to become another Somalia or Kosovo. That would be a bigger mistake in this GWOT.

I'd be curious to know if CF has any solutions for Iraq or is he/she just full of . . . . , uh criticism.

"Not once did anyone take Milosevic's side. However, there is NO evidence the Serbs were committing genocide against the Muslims (the reason we went to war there). And now that we have "evicted" the Serbs from their homeland, the area has become a breeding ground for Islamic facists. I do not consider that an accomplishment."

Umm, nor did Kerry REALLY take the N. Vietnamese side. Nor are Democrats on the side of Al Queda! Yet the Republicans imply otherwise EVEN THOUGH they criticized the Kosovo War WHILE OUR TROOPS WERE IN HARMS WAY!

Anyway, WHO has been in charge for the past 6 years or so??? What about Congress, WHO has been in charge for 12 years? Shouldn't THEY be the ones DOING SOMETHING if the former Yugoslavia has degenerated into chaos?

Put another way- WHEN Democrats take the Congress and the White House, CAN THEY STILL BLAME BUSH if things aren't going better in Iraq in another 8 years?!?!?!? Personally, I'm FOR holding those accountable who are IN POWER!

"I'd be curious to know if CF has any solutions for Iraq or is he/she just full of . . . . , uh criticism."

Well, when your drunken friend crashes the car, the FIRST THING TO DO is to TAKE AWAY THE KEY! S/he can whine, "We are where we are now!" and "Let's not re-hash the past" all s/he wants, but that doesn't change the fact that S/HE IS A LOUSY DECISION MAKER!

Next, how about we LISTEN to some of the ideas offered by Murtha, Kerry, Warner (Republican), Hagel, McCain, James Baker (now saying victory ISN'T POSSIBLE! G.H.W. Bush's former Sec. of State!) and OTHER Muslim COUNTRIES IN THE REGION?!?!? What about instead of a knee-jerk, partisan, divisive "cut and run" meme, we try to ACTUALLY WORK TOGETHER TO ESTABLISH A PLAN?!?!?!?

NOBODY has told me yet what the alleged 'Bush Plan' is!!!! Whatever is happening now isn't working AND it has cost us dearly (in US casualties and financially)!

The way I see it, we need to get rid of Rumsfeld and either send in A LOT of troops (300-400,000) to CRACK DOWN AND PROVIDE REAL SECURITY FOR THE IRAQIS, or WE PULL BACK TO THE BORDERS AND KEEP OUT FOREIGN FIGHTERS and turn control over the the Iraqis! We can't stay indefinitely- ultimately the Iraqis may have a civil war and split up the country again, but at least THEY will be in charge of their own destiny!

Oh, and I would consider it a HUGE priority to STOP USING MIDDLE EAST OIL ENTIRELY! That would CRUSH the terrorist network and these dictatorships and aristocracies would be BEGGING for our business- we would then have A LOT OF POWER over their political system!

So, WHAT EXACTLY is the 'Bush Plan'???????? And are YOU planning to go to Iraq?

And, Kimberly, WHERE is the evidence that Saddam had WMDs? What about his alleged 'Nuclear Program'? WHY is the death rate in Iraq Skyrocketing and the security situation degenerating 3.5 YEARS after the invasion?

And, didn't the US side WITH Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war and actually SELL them weapons during the REAGAN administration?

WHAT is the plan now? How can we tell if we're winning? WHEN can we leave? Are YOU going to Iraq?

Why can no one answer me by EXPLAINING THE BUSH PLAN?!?!?!?

"I have googled it and guess what? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF MASS GRAVES."

Wow, I seemed to find some evidence fairly easily.
Did you actually do a search? Dolt!

EVIDENCE

“WHERE is the evidence that Saddam had WMDs?”

This has been answered EXTENSIVELY and in DETAIL here on B4B and in numerous sources. Like Bane says; “if you can’t keep up take notes”!

“What about his alleged 'Nuclear Program'?”

What about his alleged “Nuclear Program”? Did someone say he HAD a nuclear program?

“WHY is the death rate in Iraq Skyrocketing and the security situation degenerating 3.5 YEARS after the invasion?”

Skyrocketing deaths? Who said they’re skyrocketing? I haven’t seen any indication of skyrocketing deaths. Do you have some proof of this or do you just like to make unfounded suggestions to further your political agenda?

And for degenerating security, where do you pull this gem from. I don’t think anyone in the Bush administration claims things are rosy. In fact they acknowledge areas of concern then address them collectively with the Iraqi military, policy and government and are taking what they deem appropriate action.

“And, didn't the US side WITH Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war and actually SELL them weapons during the REAGAN administration?”

And what’s your point here? Seems like from what I’ve read, the majority of Iraqi’s weapons came from places other than the US (see France / Russia).

“WHAT is the plan now?”

WIN the war against the enemies of the US and her allies. (If you haven’t figured THAT out you really haven’t been paying attention.)

“How can we tell if we're winning?”

When we kill or confine a bad person, we’re winning. When we aid a country to become an independent democratic country, we’re winning. When we take steps to persuade other countries that were against us to become an ally, we’re winning.

“WHEN can we leave?”

When were done.

“Are YOU going to Iraq?”

Hadn’t planned on it, you?

“Why can no one answer me by EXPLAINING THE BUSH PLAN?!?!?!?”

Well first you have to be willing to LISTEN. Second you have to be able to COMPREHEND. Third and most important, you have to LET GO of your hate.

Boy, Jo, that was QUITE the RANT! Your HATRED for Clinton over a BJ is quite UNBELIEVABLE! Look, we could point to Osama Bin Laden being CREATED BY THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION. We could also talk about ARMING SADDAM DURING THE IRAN/IRAQ WAR during Reagan & Bush administration. Also, you're seriously DELUSIONAL if you think that Saddam had ANYTHING to do with 9-11 (even Bush has admitted as much)! What countries did the hijackers come from again?

But, we're getting SERIOUSLY OFF TOPIC! Clinton has been out of office for over 6 years now. The American people CLEARLY preferred him to Bush (look at his approval ratings compared to Bush).

One question: other than a BJ, can you name ONE THING Clinton lied about?!?!?!? I can name DOZENS OF LIES from Bush. Just come up with more than "he lied about sex". Personally, I thought it TERRIBLE that he commited PERJORY, but it was about an AFFAIR! I mean, did ANY REPUBLICAN EVER LIE ABOUT SEX? Did Cheney go to Vietnam, how about Rumsfeld, Bush, Limbaugh, Hannity, George "macaca" Allen, etc? How can you blame Clinton for NOT going and then turn around and blame Kerry, Murtha, and Cleland for GOING and for changing their minds about the war?

And, SOMEBODY, what IS THE BUSH PLAN IN IRAQ? And Jo, ARE YOU GOING????

A Jewish Albatross: The Serbs

By Julia Gorin
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 16, 2005

Imagine that a country is fighting domestic terrorism by Muslim militants who are carrying out attacks against police, government officials and citizens in a bid to carve out their own state, hoping to provoke a response from the government that will alarm the international community. Imagine that the world duly intervenes, and a peacekeeping force is sent in, paralyzing the nation’s ability to defend itself, and effectively doing the militants’ bidding even as attacks against the non-Muslim population continue. Finally, imagine the intervening internationals severing this nation’s Jerusalem from it and handing it to the provocateurs.

It sounds like a worst-case scenario for the Israeli people, but it is a fate that actually befell the Serbian people, who this year may lose Kosovo as the deadline approaches for determining the status of the province, where Christian churches, monasteries and homes were burned to the ground in pogroms in March of last year. They will lose Kosovo to Albanian Muslims, whose fates are now entirely in the hands of the international Islamist factions with whom they, and we, cast their lot. [..]

After all, we were told that a genocide was in progress. We were told of mass graves. A hundred thousand killed and 800,000 displaced, Bill Clinton said.

Soon after the U.S.-led NATO invasion, the 100,000 figure turned out to be closer to 2,000 and included armed Albanian and Serb fighters. “No Bodies at Rumored Grave Site in Kosovo,” read a Reuters headline as early as October ’99, above an article reporting the results of an excavation by international war crimes investigators to check the rumors that Serbs had hidden up to 700 Albanian bodies in a lead and zinc mine. Other “mass graves” turned up empty or hardly massive, and the Racak massacre, the feather that was used to break the NATO camel’s back, turned out to have been staged, according to three forensics teams sent in to investigate--but only after the first team, headed by Finland’s Helena Ranta, initially gave a thumbs-up to “massacre” so that the bombing campaign could commence. (Two years and thousands of lives later, Ranta’s final report confirmed the opposite conclusion.)

Sold on a Holocaust scenario, the American people couldn’t have known what sinister deal they’d signed on to. [..]

As journalists fanned the early flames of Serb demonization in Bosnia, starting with a widely circulated 1992 photo of a Serb-run “death camp” for Bosnian Muslims that turned out to have been taken from the inside of a fenced storage area, and showed refugees who had escaped the fighting and were free to go at any time, it should have raised some red flags.... [..]

It’s all the more tragic considering the historical relationship between Jews and Serbs, both of whom were persecuted by the Nazis’ Croatian, Bosnian and Albanian brigades during WWII. In 1999, under pressure from the U.S. and amid protest from Israelis who knew better, Israel joined NATO’s war against Yugoslavia, leaving Serbs stunned and angry in an era when most of Europe was already being engulfed by a new wave anti-Semitism. Today, whatever Jews remained in Kosovo before our intervention have been cleansed right along with the Serbs. [..]

A 2000 documentary on England’s BBC2 showed an interview with KLA leader Hashim Thaci, in which he admitted, "We knew full well that any armed action we undertook would trigger a ruthless retaliation by Serbs against our people. We knew we were endangering civilian lives, too, a great number of lives." There was also a sound bite from a Kosovo Albanian negotiator named Doug Gorani: "The more civilians were killed, the chances of international intervention became bigger, and the KLA of course realized that." [..]

When, during Wesley Clark’s clumsy yet merciless 78-day bombardment of the Orthodox Christian Serbs, which didn’t break even for Easter (the way our other bombardments have for Ramadan), the possibility of a precedent for Israel was made clear to then Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon by an Italian ambassador, he asked American Jewish leaders to call for an end to the bombardment against Yugoslavia, citing that the KLA was backed by Iran-backed terror outfits and that an independent Kosovo would be a gateway for the spread of terror throughout Europe.

If, as we were told, there was systematic rape by Serbs, where are the resulting children? Or evidence of mass abortions? Jewish women had Nazi babies, and at Nuremberg there was plenty of testimony and plenty of evidence. So far at the Hague, there has been only testimony (much of which falls apart under cross-examination), and virtually no evidence. Such that the court has had to redefine the very word “genocide”--to at least make it fit what happened in Bosnia after it was unable to make it fit Kosovo. (“War crimes case widens ‘genocide,’” BBC.com, April 19, 2004). Hence we arrive at a state of affairs wherein the UN declares 70,000 dead men, women and children in Darfur to not be genocide, but 7,000 dead Bosnian males in the UN “safe haven” Srebrenica--used as a staging ground for attacks on Serbs--is.

While Byzantine art exhibits at New York museums were humming last year, 900-year-old Serb churches, cathedrals and monasteries in Kosovo were being systematically bombed, burned, looted, and urinated on in a single week. The pogroms had been set off by a rumor, later confirmed false by NATO, that Serbs had drowned some Albanian youths. By the end of March, 366 homes and 41 churches were destroyed, according to an AP report, which quoted 23 year-old Ruzhdi Krasniqi, who “smoked a cigarette as he assessed the damage and said he felt ‘OK’ about [it]. ‘I don't want the Serbs to return here,’ he said. ‘They've got no place here.’” [..]

Without being innocent, a people can still be scapegoated and a falsified history go down in the books. Serbs have apologized repeatedly for the heavy hand that Belgrade wielded in responding to the ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo and Bosnia. They have admitted they are not innocent, while the instigators themselves admit nothing, continue crying out against past Serb crimes, and kill with abandon.

That the Serbs haven’t been innocent cannot continue to be used to mischaracterize the Balkan conflicts and our actions there. Starting with a mistaken premise and working backwards to prove it, then devolving into moral equivalence when it doesn’t work must stop. A reevaluation must begin.

"Would it be because the MSM Still tries to cover up for the Clintons? Yep, that's it."-Jo

For sure!

"And now that we have "evicted" the Serbs from their homeland, the area has become a breeding ground for Islamic facists. I do not consider that an accomplishment."-Kimberly4bush

No. More like an unfolding disaster.

Freedom1,

WOW!! To be SO WORKED UP over the Kosovo War, which resulted in NO US CASUALTIES and COST THE US 12 BILLION!

You must be REALLY PISSED ABOUT IRAQ!!!!

We were told that Iraq had WMDs, that they had nukes which could reach us in 45 minutes, that they were involved in 9-11, that we would be greeted as liberators, that the war would last less than 6 months, that the war would "pay for itself" or, at most, cost 1.7 billion dollars, etc, ETC!

NONE OF THIS TURNED OUT TO BE TRUE!!!

So, I'm SURE YOU ARE P*SSED AS H*ELL LIKE I AM that Saddam had NO TIES to Al Queda, NO WMDs, NO NUKES, that Rumsfled et al DIDN'T PLAN FOR AN INSURGENCY, that the war has DRAGGED ON FOR YEARS, that it has SO FAR COST US 500 BILLION (estimated to reach into the TRILLIONS including cost of VA CARE, Mental Health Issues, and a PROLONGED OCCUPATION), that WE HAVE LOST 2,800 AMERICAN TROOPS AND 44,000 HAVE BEEN INJURED, that the Iraqis hve suffered 655,000 CASUALTIES DUE TO THE WAR, and that it is being used to RECRUIT AND TRAIN TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!!

I'm sure you're FURIOUS!!!!!

Since ALMOST ALL of the points made in that 'reprinted article' about Kosovo APPLIES ONE HUNDRED FOLD IN IRAQ, you MUST be P*SSED!

Oh, and WHAT IS THE BUSH PLAN FOR IRAQ?

Anyone?!?!?

Or should we debate whether Hitler was "really all that bad" and whether we should have gotten into WWII? Remember, Rumsfeld compared Milosevic to Hitler (but, seriously, when has HE been right? LOL)

"EVIDENCE" Posted by: Morphie

From Morphie's "Evidence" link-

"Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo: An Accounting"
U.S. State Department Report • December 1999

"Over 2,100 bodies have been confirmed to be found by investigators at over 160 sites, or an average of about 11 bodies per site."
*****

Tragic. But, hardly close to the 100,000 bodies claimed by Bill Clinton. The Bosnian/Kosovo situation is a lot more complicated and a lot different than we initially were lead to believe.

Coulterfan,

Switch to de-caf.

Freedom, CF thinks that if she puts it in capital letters it will mean more. Or be more accurate. All it does is make her look like an over-excited adolescent.

can nobody answer what 'bush's plan' is in iraq?

"Okay, so you DON'T THINK THE WORLD IS BETTER OFF WITHOUT MILOSEVIC? Should we have "stayed out" of WWII? You sound like an appeaser to me!"

And you don't think the world is better without Saddam Hussein? Yet we have liberal Senators saying the world is better with him around.

Bush's plan is to let the gov't of Iraq get control of their citizens and as they do, we will withdraw appropriately.

Things take time. The US Revolutionary War took 8 years. In year 3 should we have been bailing like you are suggesting?

War is tough. War is not a "planned" set of events like you want to make it out to be. The enemy has a say in it too. You plan what you can, then you react and plan again.

Very fluid. My guess is you spent 0 days, 0 years, 0 minutes in the US Military service...and it shows!

coulterfan,

You got a plan???? Then get on a plane and go over there and fix that thing called terrorism, I'm sure you'll do fine on your own amongst the radical masses,LOL!

Jeremiah

can nobody answer what 'bush's plan' is in iraq?

Posted by: coulterfan at October 13, 2006 09:49 PM

Oh my Gosh, lay of the meth cappy!

If someone thought you really wanted to hear a plan CF, we'd take the time ONCE AGAIN to explain it to you daft liberals. Unfortunately 4 years of esplaining can were on you! Go get a girlfriend and go out for the evening......don't worry about the night club being blown up(Like in Israel or Bali), we got your back CF, wether you want to admit it or not!

“WHERE is the evidence that Saddam had WMDs?”

This one has been answered EXTENSIVELY and in DETAIL here on B4B and in many other sites or articles. As Bane says, “If you can’t keep up, takes notes!”

“What about his alleged 'Nuclear Program'?”

What nuclear program are you talking about? Did anyone say he HAD a nuclear program?

“WHY is the death rate in Iraq Skyrocketing and the security situation degenerating 3.5 YEARS after the invasion?”

Skyrocketing deaths? I’m not aware of any skyrocketing deaths. Where do you get that information from? Would care to provide a (reliable) source for that info?
As for the security, from what I’ve seen things are slowly becoming MORE secure with an occasional step back when an Iraqi battalion or police force is brought up to speed and allowed the take the front. Other than that and an occasional insurgent push, things are actually improving. I guess all you have to do is take off the (hate) blinders to see these things.

”And, didn't the US side WITH Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war and actually SELL them weapons during the REAGAN administration?”

Did you have a point here?

”WHAT is the plan now?”

To win the war against all those oppose the US and her allies. If you don’t know this you really haven’t been keeping up!

”How can we tell if we're winning?”

When we kill or detain a bad guy, we’re winning. When we aid in the installation of democratic government elected by a free people, we’re winning. When we take steps to change countries that were once against us to an ally, we’re winning.

”WHEN can we leave?”

When we’re done.

”Are YOU going to Iraq?”

Hadn’t planned on it, you?

”Why can no one answer me by EXPLAINING THE BUSH PLAN?!?!?!?”

Well, first you’d have to be willing to LISTEN. Second you’d have to be able to COMPREHEND. Third and most importantly you’d have to LET GO of you hate.

"You got a plan???? Then get on a plane and go over there and fix that thing called terrorism, I'm sure you'll do fine on your own amongst the radical masses,LOL!"

Hey, Church Lady! I know that you think SATAN is responsible for me questioning the mission, but really you must admit that things aren't exactly going according to plan. Right?

"If someone thought you really wanted to hear a plan CF, we'd take the time ONCE AGAIN to explain it to you daft liberals."

I know, I know. . . We'll get out of there as soon as we get to Baghdad, as soon as we get Saddam, as soon as there are elections, as soon as there's a Constitution, we will 'Stand Up as they Stand Down', we will draw down to under 100,000 troops by the end of 2006. . .

All of these 'milestones' have been met, but our force in Iraq is BIGGER than ever! (currently about 142,000 US troops; and the UK is talking about pulling out now). The Pentagon has plans to stay at least until 2010. Are things really getting better?

There is NO Bush plan, they are just 'winging it' and hoping nobody notices until they DO have a plan. Even James Baker is now saying that 'victory' (as originally defined') is impossible!

And to think that Rummy said he doubted it would take "6 months"! Then again, he thought we would be 'under 30,000' troops after deposing Hussein. But, then, I'm SURE Jeremiah and bearman have a CLEAR idea as to what needs to be accomplished before we can leave!

Right?

Can anyone explain the plan to this 'daft liberal'? (I'm actually more libertarian, which is now more suited to the Democratic party than the 'Big Government' Republicans. But let's not further complicate matters.)

Oh, and Church Lady, you HAVE heard about the new David Kuo book "Tempting Faith". Right?

You know, the one were Rove calls Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, et all "The Nuts". . . and Rove himself is quoted as saying "Just get me a f*cking faith based thing!" Kuo himself was the former Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and became disillusioned when it became obvious that the Christian Rightwingers were being "played" by this administration.

He still believes Bush is a "good man", but can't say the same about the rest of the administration.

Worth a read.

Oh, and one other interesting point:

Although I voted for him, I'm GLAD that Kerry lost in 2004. Because Bush & Co. got us INTO Iraq, it's only right that they had a chance to 'finish the job'.

If Kerry had won and things in Iraq had gone the EXACT SAME WAY AS THEY ARE NOW, the Republicans could have plausibly claimed, "Things were going GREAT, we were about to have Iraq elections, and we would have been out of Iraq by 2006. And then the LIBERAL Kerry took over, emboldened the terrorists, messed up Iraq, and NOW it's going to take YEARS for us (the Republicans) to fix it back up!" Nevermind that this would have been untrue, the American people would have believed it AND it would have reinforced the idea that Dems are "weak on defense". The Democratic party would have been dealt a blow that would last for decades.

The Dems would have LOST BIG in 2006 and 2008. As it is, Bush has shown us that he has NO IDEA what he's doing in Iraq. He has had more than enough time to prove his justifications for the war, and the American people just don't believe him any longer. This is the Republicans failed policy and they have no one to blame but themselves for how badly things have gone.

The Republicans are going to LOSE BIG this election cycle. They have proven that they can't manage a war, are extremely corrupt, are the biggest spenders in our history, and are unwilling to admit mistakes and change course EVEN WHEN faced with overwhelming evidence.

Before you lambast me, THINK about it. C'mon, you KNOW that Bush is not the "best" conservative out there. Wouldn't it have been worth sacrificing his 2nd term (in retrospect) so that his failed policy would make Democrats look bad!?!?!?!

And, on a similar note, if the former Yugoslavia is going so poorly and is such a "one stop shop for terrorists", then WHY hasn't this administration done ANYTHING about it?

I mean, if Kerry had won in 2004 and had just dropped Iraq for 4 years, would it REALLY be Bush's fault any longer?

Who's in charge anyway?

”The Republicans are going to LOSE BIG this election cycle.”

Would you be willing to bet on that?

”They have proven that they can't manage a war,”

You sure like to make things up don’t you? The war is NOT a static thing. As it changes our administration and military adjust accordingly. You on the other hand have a knack of making blatantly false statements and throwing them wherever you care to litter them.

”are extremely corrupt,”

Actually, Bush has held himself above the fray quite admirably. Some on this blog have even suggested they wish he would come out swinging a little more and a lot harder with regards to all of the lies and mud thrown at him. See, I think he understands that if he gets into a mud fight then he has less time and energy taking care of the responsibilities of the Presidency. Though he has made some mistakes, they aren’t anywhere near what you portray. I laugh at your corruption claim.

”are the biggest spenders in our history,”

Unfortunately, many here will agree that he has spent more money than they would like especially on things they don’t want money spent on. There are many different reasons for this, some in hindsight that hasn’t worked, others that have worked quite well. Mostly, the spending is the result of CONGRESS and though the Republicans hold a majority in both houses their numbers are not so large as to be able to move spending measures without some give and take from both parties.

”and are unwilling to admit mistakes and change course EVEN WHEN faced with overwhelming evidence.”

Again, I laugh at what you call evidence. Mostly of what you do is repeat lies of those who’s hate for the President is so great they refuse to see good in a man where much exist. All you have left after that is repeating the lies.

”Before you lambast me, THINK about it. C'mon, you KNOW that Bush is not the "best" conservative out there. Wouldn't it have been worth sacrificing his 2nd term (in retrospect) so that his failed policy would make Democrats look bad!?!?!?!”

I think you may have something here. Most people seem to agree that Bush is NOT the best conservative out there. But to “sacrifice” his second term would mean we would have Kerry as President now. Even many of the left who post on B4B admit that Kerry would have been a HUGE mistake. For those of us with a more conservative mindset, Bush was and still is light-years ahead of anyone else running for the Presidency in both 2000 and 2004. Apparently the majority also believed that the second time around too.

"Would you be willing to bet on that?"

Yeah, I would. You really think the Republicans are going to pick up seats?

"You on the other hand have a knack of making blatantly false statements and throwing them wherever you care to litter them."

Maybe you won't accept my word for it, but here are some you might trust:

Gen. Paul Eaton, who helped revive the Iraqi army, described Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically" and called for his resignation.

Retired Lt. Gen. William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency and now a Yale professor, said in a speech covered by the Providence Journal that America's invasion of Iraq might be the worst strategic mistake in American history.

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, a four-star former commander of the Central Command, describes administration behavior that ranged from "true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility" to "lying, incompetence and corruption."

Retired Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, has written in Time magazine that the Iraq war was unnecessary.

Lt. Gen. Bernard Trainor and Michael Gordon have written a history of the invasion of Iraq, Cobra II, which describes a willfully self-deluding planning process.

Maj. Gen. John Batiste also called for Rumsfeld's resignation; the Washington Post reported that Batiste, commander of the First Infantry Division in Iraq during 2004-2005, turned down a third star and a tour in Iraq as the second-ranking U.S. military officer there. He retired rather than continue to work for Rumsfeld.

Hey, how about you give me statements from retired Generals whom actually say that the war has been conducted well!

"though the Republicans hold a majority in both houses their numbers are not so large as to be able to move spending measures without some give and take from both parties."

You're joking, right?!?!? Who SIGNS bills into law? You do realize that in 1987 Reagan vetoed the highway bill for having 157 pet projects, in 2005 Bush signed the highway bill with 6000 pet projects! And, I'm sure you know, that a bill only needs a majority to pass. . .

"Mostly of what you do is repeat lies of those who’s hate for the President is so great they refuse to see good in a man where much exist. "

I deal only with facts, not hate. Leave the hate to those who still irrationally hate Clinton and refuse to see any good during his entire presidency all because he lied about a BJ! Hey, at least he didn't misuse Intelligence to get us into a WAR!

"Apparently the majority also believed that the second time around too. "

Hey, one time out of two ain't bad!

“You're joking, right?!?!? Who SIGNS bills into law?”

You mean the bills passed by both houses of congress. See, that’s how it works. Congress passes a bill and the President either signs it or vetoes it. And your take on a billing only needing a majority to pass conveniently omits some of the many stall tactics or ways a minority party can hijack a bill. We’ve seen it too many times over the past few years used by the Democrats.

“I deal only with facts, not hate.”

What a laugh. Your post are filled with hate even if you don’t see it. Or is that one of those - depending on what the definition of “is” is.