I am so glad the Ethiopians have succeeded (so far) in Somalia.

I don't find any plus or minus for either political party in this, but I am very happy at the pledge of financial support the Bush Administration has given the interim government and this recent military engagement will do some good, I hope.

It is sad some editorials I have read consider the prior Islamist state to have been a stable period for Somalia, which is now unstable. To look at Darfur at the hands of government-backed Islamist militias and consider that ethnic cleansing a form of stability is beyond comprehension.

Unfortunately, there is a long history of bad blood between Somalis and Ethiopians, and as such there is much distrust by locals of their liberators. I hope that, with foreign assistance, the Ethiopians can make the streets secure, can win the hearts and minds, can introduce a popular and strong local government, and that they rightfully leave the country to its own stewardship to promote a future of GOOD will between the two peoples.

Let's hear some prayers in support of the people and governments of Ethiopia and Somalia.

Imagine how pissed the dems would be if President Bush ended up winning the war on terror.

If you are the party in the reality-based alternate Universe, then why does your President (last time I checked) acknowledge that Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terra?

There also happen to be a LOT of voices on the left who have been screaming about Somalia for a few YEARS now. If this War on Terra really had anything to do with radical Islamists, why would Bush and his Republican Congress LET THE SLAUGHTER CONTINUE UNABATED? Wasn't that perfect PR for the machine?

Six years, you had absolute agenda-control. Six years, you proved that the party that hates Government does not know the first thing about governing.

And apparently, Blogs for Bush doesn't know the first thing about reality when it claims that Iraq is not a disaster. Iraq is EXACTLY what people like Scott Ritter and Richard Clarke said it would be at this point: a Civil War between the many factions of what was an artificial country to begin with. It's this way because Bush ignored his Generals, including Shinsecki when he said he'd need 4 times as many troops to do the job properly.

And all those people who spoke up several years ago and told us all it would be this way? Yeah, fired or smeared by Bush and Rove and rightists like you.

If the Republican Party were at all "serious about our future," they wouldn't have sold trillions in debt to Communist China to fund a war of choice that had NOTHING to do with the War on Terra.

And of course, you try to paint the left as wanting America to choose defeat. This black and white, "with us or ag'in us" garbage is played out, you've really gotta come up with something new. Because it's two-thirds of the country now that favors America defeated in your alternate reality.

Excellent! Victory on the Somalia front of the Global War on Islamic Terror is a welcome development. God bless President Bush, the US military, and the Ethiopian troops for forcing the Islamists from Somalia's capital! I hope that our forces finish the job and eradicate these Taliban-style Islamists from the face of the Earth.

Here's a good timeline of events on the Somalia WOT front: http://www.billroggio.com/

My sense is that the media is congratulating itself for the Democrats win and now is pushing the Democrats to more and more irresponsible behavior on Iraq-it's the elitist bubble.

While Americans are increasingly concerned about Iraq and the lack of progress there, the media and Democrats would not have had to break the Foley story and beat it non-stop for 10 days if the Republicans were in such bad shape in late September.

The Democrats are in danger of overinterpreting the victory and their small majorities with the help, not of the loonies, but of the media.

If you are the party in the reality-based alternate Universe, then why does your President (last time I checked) acknowledge that Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terra?

Last time you checked with whom? Al Franken? Jon Stewart? David Letterman? Elsie O'Donnell?

btw, Jenius--ha!--your kook party is the one who lays claim to being "reality-based." More like "reality-show based..."

Again necons don't have a clue. The typical Democrat has no problem with destroying anything al Qaeda. We are at war with al Qaeda no matter where they are hiding. We don't care if we have to go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden. Hint Hint

At least our troops will have our full support this time when they are in harms way attacking al Qaeda in Somalia. This will be unlike in 1993 when republicans accused the President of meddling in another nation’s affair. And again in 1998 when a subversive element of the republican party diverted our President’s attention away from al Qaeda with a baseless attempt to undo a national election. Democrats know what the impeachment of the Commander and Chief did to the troops. This is why typical Democrats are against Bush’s impeachment unless it meets Constitutional mustard such as Bush knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, doctored the documents to state otherwise and then sent 3,000 of our young people to their deaths.

What does our bombing in Somalia have to do with our war in Iraq? They couldn't be more dissimilar. In Somalia, we are backing a neighboring military in their efforts to destroy Islamists. This is coupled with limited U.S. strikes against particular high-value targets. This is exactly the way to fight the War on Terror.

On the other hand, in Iraq we have a large US force on the ground trying to stabilize a country. We have little help from other nations, and no help from regional players. The local military (Iraqi) is incapable of operating on its own. In short, we are tied down in one location while our enemies (terrorist organizations) freely operate all over the world.

At a strategic level, the war in Iraq does not help us fight the War on Terror. We only continue there now to preserve the fragile egos of the President, his party, and war supporters, like you. Why don't you grow up, admit your support for this war was wrong, and start advocating a strategy of victory in the War on Terror, not victory in the War on Iraq?

Mark from the article quoted:

"Another senior Democrat, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, said one option under consideration would be for lawmakers to vote on denying the use of funds for any increase in the U.S. deployment."

Wow!

This is a slippery slope for the Dems and if there is any sort of redetreat, how will the Dems move to authorize action in another REGION (you know..Somalia for example) if a terrorist flare-up occurs? They've been betting their pethetic careers on Iraq, without thinking that terrorism exists elsewhere on the planet...what fools!!!

The republicans need to expose their narrow-mindedness and hold their feet to the fir...now.

Either way, they'll look even weaker than they really are and those that did switch sides in the 2006 mid-term will be back pondering their decision to vote the other way.

Talk about being exposed for who they are!

I certainly would not want to be a Dem right now. Or ever for that matter, but I'll bet that Morton's steak dinner that they back off the rhetoric when confronted with an escalation of force in any other region.

Keep it up GW!!!

why would Bush and his Republican Congress LET THE SLAUGHTER CONTINUE UNABATED? Wasn't that perfect PR for the machine?

You complain that we let the slaughter in Somalia go unabated, but you seem to be from the same side of the aisle that wants us to cut and run in Iraq, thus letting that slaughter go unabated.

And of course, you try to paint the left as wanting America to choose defeat.

The left, or at least the Cindy Sheehan type of lefty, want a unilateral pullout from Iraq. Such a move, in an of itself, would constitute defeat. Much of the world would characterize it as such, just as they did with our pullout from Vietnam. I will concede that you aren't literally saying, "We want defeat", but what some of you are asking for would amount to defeat. Come to think of it, maybe our pullout from Somalia under a president from your side of the aisle may have contributed to the problems that place has faced.

Six years, you had absolute agenda-control.

Not quite. For Bush's first 2 years, the Senate had a Democrat majority, produced by the defection of Jim Jeffords of Vermont (now replaced by Socialist Bernie Sanders). If the GOP had "absolute agenda-control", how do explain the fact that Bolton could only get a recess appointment as U.N. ambassador? And what about all those unconfirmed judges? When it comes to "agree with us, or else", the Dems don't have too much room to complain.

By the way, let me clue you in to the successful aspect of what's going on in Iraq. Yes, you read that correctly, "successful". You won't find most of these facts in the MSM. That grand-daddy of all rightwing publications, National Review, has listed them in a long article. Cut and paste:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTQwM2ExODNhMjRmMTczODM1OTc0MmVmNDRiNTM5MzE=

The targets included the senior al Qaeda leader in East Africa and an al Qaeda operative wanted for his involvement in the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in Africa, Martin reports. Those terror attacks killed more than 200 people...

Got to hand it to GW, the man is doing what Clinton and his ilk are to chicken shit to do.

Hey, Bigfoot-

Since you seem to be such a big fan of the escalation...er..."surge" in Iraq (which, folks, isn't really a "surge" at all, it is merely extending the tours of duty on our already strained military), I wonder if you can tell me which kooky, wacko, commie lefty made this statement this week:

"None of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, guardsmen and marines that I interviewed in my eighth trip told me they wanted more US boots on the ground. Nearly all expressed just the opposite. ‘We don’t need more American troops; we need more Iraqi troops’ was a common refrain. My concern is that incremental increase in US troop strength...as first suggested last summer during the congressional campaign sounds eerily like Lyndon Johnson’s plan to save Vietnam in the 60s by gradual escalation as a way not to lose."

Three guesses!

James, Jenius, God, navydad, Bigfoor & Cyberactor

How did this article on the promising events in Somalia become an article on Iraq?

This is great news for the region and for the World and has little to do with left vs. right.

C'mon, guys, put aside partisanship for a thread. I am glad that Bush supports the Ethiopians but I'd imagine any sitting President would do the same.

The bottom line is, this is fantastic news that shows promise and all our prayers, not left nor right but ALL, should go out to those involved.

I'll answer it for him...Ollie North a great American.

But what Ollie whom I have a great deal of respect for, doesn't understand is that although there is the need for a greater Iraqi presence, what you've conveniently forgetten is that Ollie also recognizes that we have never secured Baghdad to a point in which a true Democracy could form.

Maybe you should read what Gen. Keane said on Cspan last nite regarding the successes and failures and you will probably agree that we did a crappy job at the security aspect, therefore, we need to do it again...unfortunately.

History dictates that once the area is secure, then the political process can begin, otherwise....

MS...agreed, however, it is important to know that if we're to fight this war on terrorism to win and together, there needs to be some give and take...from both sides politically. The left tends to demean every action that GW takes toward this war and it becomes almost ridiculous to try to fight a war such as this without all parties on the same page.

Look at Harry Reid's position just a few weeks ago vs. today. They're position is so politically driven it's pethetic.

It's about time we got back to attacking Al Qaeda. We need to get attention back on the group who actually attacked us on 9-11.

Navy:

"...what you've conveniently forgetten is that Ollie also recognizes that we have never secured Baghdad to a point in which a true Democracy could form."

Finally, a GoOPer who is willing to admit that the occupation was botched from the beginning. You're right, ND, we never secured Baghdad. And here we are, almost four years later, in the middle of a civil war as a result.

And now you're telling me that forcing 20,000 of our troops to extend their tours of duty for an undefined period of time is going to solve this problem? If so, how do we measure success? Care to impose some dealines/benchmarks? Oh, no. That would embolden the enemy, right?

This escalation is, as has been posited, a political ploy of Bush's to put off the inevitable (the inevitable being a withdrawal). Bush, through personal stubborness and shameful pride, cannot bring himself to admit what we already know: the battle in Iraq is lost. It could have been otherwise, but, as you admitted, we botched the occupation from the start.

"Maybe you should read what Gen. Keane said on Cspan last nite regarding the successes and failures and you will probably agree that we did a crappy job at the security aspect, therefore, we need to do it again...unfortunately."

Do it AGAIN? There are no "do-overs" in war, Navydad. To properly secure Baghdad (and Iraq) would take a hundred thousand more soldiers, which we neither have to send or are willing to conscript.

"History dictates that once the area is secure, then the political process can begin, otherwise...."

And what happens if we can't secure it? What then? If you're being totally hoest about this Iraq mess, you must be able to articulate what happens if we cannot stablize the region. Saying "But we will!" is not an answer to that question.

Cyber

So there weren't any re-dos during WWII?

It would take up so much bandwidth that mark would have to ban me, therefore go find those examples yourself and stop wasting our time.

Your side will never admit that this war MUST be won and until that time comes, there is nothing anyone can say or do to make your side listen...except retreat.

In closing, remember this:

"It can be argued that the defining moment of Douglas MacArthur's life came on March 11, 1942, when he reluctantly left the Philippines and headed for Australia. Already a well-known figure, MacArthur's quest to return -- and free those he had left behind -- would make him into an icon."

So don't tell me that there are no "re-dos" in war.

MacArthur's return to the Phillipines? That's the best you've got? Navy, I'm not talking about re-taking battlegrounds. I'm talking about an actual OCCUPATIONAL FORCE that has let the whole country go straight to hell. Can't blame the soldiers. Not their fault. It is the fault of the short-sighted planners of this entire fiasco: Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz...you know all their names, I'm sure.

And you've carefully dodged all of the questions I put to you, probably because you have no answer. I understand. It must be very difficult to defend Dear Leader and his band of goofballs.

But until you can explain what will happen if the planned escalation doesn't work, you're talking out of your pointy little hat.

So tell me: if Bush's latest ploy fails...what then?

Please read correctly. The examples are many and there isn't the time for each.

"And what happens if we can't secure it?"

Haven't you heard Cyber....we're not going to lose! Unless of course the Dems cut the funding, which is your stance obviously. Then no one will need to answer your pethetic quetion except the "Dems. Try to sell a complete pull-out to those Americans that want to win...good luck!

I'd bet that when you played sports and the other team was whipping your liberal ars, you typically gave up and went home.

"MacArthur's return to the Phillipines? That's the best you've got? Navy, I'm not talking about re-taking battlegrounds."

I am!

Baghdad IS a battleground and if you've taken the time to notice, there is stability and calm throughout the rest of the country therefore there can be in Baghdad...but I know you don't want to believe that because it blows holes in your cut-n-run theory.

Here's a quote from Rory Stewart the former colonial governor in Southern Iraq:

"It's clear that the Shia with their Kurdish allies outnumber and outgun ( get this, outgun and outnumber...hmmm..sound familiar)the Sunni Arabs, so if the coalition forces left and there was a civil war, they would very probably win. More likely the Sunni Arabs will come to an understanding with the Shia and Kurds ( hmmm...an understanding...that's novel)-- this seems to be the strategy of the main Sunni Arab grouping, the Iraqi Islamic Party -- and they'll live together in an uneasy peace. The new Iraq will be a democracy (sort of), it won't have a brilliant record on human rights (but it'll be a better one than Saddam had), it won't be an enthusiastic ally of the USA in its "global war on terror" (but nor will it be an implacable enemy), it'll be moderately friendly towards Iran (but won't be run by Iran), it won't have an economic miracle (but neither will it have Mugabe-style meltdown)."

If it can take this form is Southern Iraq, it can take hold in Baghdad....no doubt, and all the sniveling and whinning in the world won't stop what is about to happen....a surge of troops that will re-enforce the existing 15k that we have in Baghdad to secure the city and then, but only then will we consider leaving. But not until the job is done.

Of all the eye-popping whoppers I've ever read (on virtually ANY blog) this has to be the topper.

On Iraq, from navydad: "there is stability and calm throughout the rest of the country therefore there can be in Baghdad."

Read it again. Heck, I'm cutting and pasting, so I'll WRITE it again: "there is stability and calm throughout the rest of the country therefore there can be in Baghdad."

Stability and calm? Throughout the REST OF THE COUNTRY? Navydad, whatever you're smoking, I'll take some.

Tell me, have you heard of the Anbar Province, navydad? Seem "stable" and "calm" to you? Falluja? Everything peachy there?

Baghdad is a mess, no question. But Baghdad is just the tip of the iceberg.

Oh, and to those of you following this thread, I've now asked this question three times: "What if the esclation doesn't work?" The ONLY answer I've gotten is "It will! Don't worry! We'll win THIS time! Really we will!" This from the team who hasn't been right about doodly squat in four years.

But...making plans without thinking of the possible consequences: That's the Republican way!

The Bush administration deserves full credit for being exactly right in this strategy. We should hit terrorist camps hard wherever they are and not apologize for the results. This is the way to fight a terror war. Let the Al Qaeda realize there is no safe haven anywhere and they will have something to think about aside from their next plot.

Cyber

Read my post, no one has said that the entire country is at peace. You're simply looking for an argument that is not arguable and conflating the
facts. Yes, there can be peace in Baghdad!
If you want to believe it isn't possible, go ahead. However, I believe that we will accomplish the mission that we set out for and prove every runaway monkey to be full of feces.

You've named two provinces, only two!! So what about the other 16? Are they unstable or can they hold their own and govern themselves...yes they can and they are, but since you get your news from the Daily Show, I wouldn't expect you to know more than what John Stewart drives into your pethetic pea brain.

Iraq has 18 provinces, two of which we're battling for security. The other 16 are fairly calm.

So prove to me that the others haven't shown some progress and I'll tell you where to find the stuff that I supposedly smoke.

Can you name the last attack outside the Baghdad area in the last few months? probably not, cause they're not happening! Sure, there are random suicide bombings here and there, but there are in Thailand, Spain and London too.

Oh, did I forget to tell you that we haven't been hit at home again in SIX years!!

Don't ya just wonder what those poor terrorist buddies of yours are plotting while they're running like cowards from our mighty gunships and our mighty military on the ground. I'll bet they're pissin their pants thinking that today maybe their last day on earth. Hopefully we'll help them with their departure.

But I'm sure of this: When we win this war, your side will be the first to stand up and want to take credit for the victory...losers!

We need to get attention back on the group who actually attacked us on 9-11.

Uh, Aztec, we have operations going on worldwide. You, like Speaker Piglosi, think the war on terror is confined to AQ and Bin Laden. It isn't. The events on 9/11 were merely a stepping-stone, when you look at the overall picture. Something you on the left can't do...

Five months? How about just in the past month?

Just in the past couple of weeks, all outside Baghdad:

“Friends and family are remembering Jonathan Schiller as a fun-loving person who became a man and a leader. The 20-year-old Army corporal was killed on December 31st in Iraq. He died when a bomb exploded near his Humvee while he was on a combat patrol near Baqubah.”

“A U.S. Army Reserve officer from central Kentucky died Friday in a roadside bomb explosion, his widow said Sunday. U.S. Army Maj. Michael Lewis Mundell, 47, of Brandenburg, Ky., was killed Friday in Fallujah, Iraq.”

“Cpl. Joshua Schmitz was killed in Iraq during military operations Dec. 26. He is the second cousin of Hudsonite Darla Meyers. He was on his second tour in Iraq with the 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marine Division when he was killed during combat operations in Anbar Province.”

“On Dec. 26, 2004, Army National Guard Staff Sgt. Todd Olson of Loyal was killed in Iraq.”

There is more, much more (sadly), but I’ve proved my point. Baghdad is bad. But the rest is just as bad.

And your inability to conceive of a failure of this idiotic escalation is just plain pathetic. Sadly, when it fails, you will try to blame us on the left for the defeat. But the responsibility lies solely with the architect of this disaster: George W. Bush.

He blew this thing almost four years ago. It's too late to fix it. But he's going to throw some of our brave soldiers at the problem anyway, hoping it will go away. And that, my friends, is criminal.

Cyber, I dont believe you know or have made yourself understand the broader implications of the coming military push in Iraq.

Of all the soldiers we have in Iraq, there are only 15,000 doing the actual street fighting in Baghdad, a city of six million. 20,000 more soldiers more than doubles that force and you can bet they wont be sent just to fill extra cots in the barracks.

There is a BIG operation coming, those 20,000 are almost all combat troops and they are going to be used for something that only Bush and the generals know about at this time. I would expect Sadr is going to become quite uncomfortable very soon.

Try to think outside the box and little and imagine tactically.

Just read a great quote at All Things Conservative...this ought to make the libs crazy since most of them are rooting for the terrorists..

One post reads:
"Al Qaeda Death Toll
It's tough to be a terrorist these days:

[The Head of al Qaeda in Iraq] also said more than 4,000 foreign militants have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003--the first known statement from the insurgents about their death toll.

Considering what nineteen motivated terrorist can do, I think 4,000 less is something to celebrate.

My congratulations to our military for kicking butt."

Great post! He's right. It will only take one crazy mofo to light off a suitcase nuke in downtown NYC and the left will be screaming for mercy. So the reason this pertains to this Somalia post is for the exact reason we're foighting this war...to kill every terrorist we can.

Try to think outside the box and little and imagine tactically.

Bongos, when it comes to this war, the defeatocRATs can't think outside the box. And I love how their heroes are all cow-towing to the base...

The events on 9/11 were merely a stepping-stone, when you look at the overall picture. Something you on the left can't do...

Can you name a group who is a bigger threat to the US? If not it would seem a good strategy to have our primary focus on the most dangerous elements. I have no illusions that Al qaeda is the only threat we face in the world but they have attacked up on our own soil and should be served justice.

All of the potential terrorist groups are a large threat, the trick is to knock them off before they get really dangerous.

The problem this nation has is that the left would have seen Bin Ladens body and them immediately declared the WOT as officially over; no more fighting anywhere is necessary because the 911 goons are dead.

And of course we would have to go after other terrorists, such as Abu Sayef, while the libs were left to splutter, "But..but..but..Bin Laden is dead...the war is over..YOU CANT SEND THE TROOPS ANYWHERE ELSE!"

This is exactly what they did when the Berlin Wall fell, the left declared it was time to mothball the ships and melt down the tanks.

Well, I for one can't wait to see Bush send more troops into Iraq.

Sending more troops will accomplish these things:

1. Prove once and for all what a complete and utter failure Bush is, always has been, and always will be.

2. Kill off hundreds more of our troops, pissing off thousands more friends and family members.

3. Ensure a Democratic takeover of the Presidency and more of Congress

4. Set our country on the right path of admitting to mistakes, LEARNING from past mistakes ahemVIETNAMahem, and fighting terrorism the way it should have been fought in the first place

Knowing the ignorance and arrogance of Bush (poor combination in this author's view), he will send troops to Iraq regardless of the stalling measures of Congress. This in turn will force Congress to fund the troops or else be thought of as cowards, and the complete and utter failure will again be on Bush's shoulders.

End note: Bush is THE WORST PRESIDENT THIS COUNTRY WILL EVER SEE!!!!!

Well then blue, you might want to convince everyone else that the 'Blue Revolution' is in full swing...it is a REAL revolution, is it not?

Lets see here, all we have heard since November is that the American public voted for change in Iraq..ok ok the dems are claiming we voted for a change in (insert pet issue here)..so Bush is giving them change. Or did the dems mean America only wanted the lefty version of change, which is ahemRUNLIKEASCALDEDDOGahem?

So here is your chance, prove your witty screen-name is correct, show everyone that the revolution is for real, or are the self-professed saviors from the DFL just a bunch of lackeys?

Stop the war funding, viscerally block every single Iraq plan the president proposes, refuse even to give money to fund the current operations, bring the troops home; its what the people wanted, isnt it? This is what America voted for, so give us what we voted for!

Seems simple to me, or are the dems just as full of crap as they have always been? You libs just got snookered again, all those campaign promises that are being broken daily and this will just add to the list.

Lefties,

You want to know what is really distressing about you? That you simply will not tackle the issue at hand - you are so full of emotion, spite and hatred that most of you have become incapable of anything other than a grumble...

There are only two reasons why Bush would escalate a war that defies the will of the American people, the advice of his generals, the recommendations of the Iraq Survey Group, and common sense. The cynical reason is that he does not want HIS war to fail on his watch. He wants to run the clock so the next president will take the blame for losing the conflict. The second reason is that he is as delusional as a chronically losing gambler at a riverboat casino betting it all in the hopes he can, at least, break even. It is easier to bet it all when you are gambling with other people’s children.

If Blue Rev would just come out and say he wants a full and unconditional retreat, he'd have much more credibility....NOT!

Otherwise Blue, shut up and let our mighty Military break shi* and kill terrorists..you know, kinda like we just did with your brother Fazul Abdullah Mohammed over in Somalia...or do you oppose our military actions there too?

I heard that we're thinking of dragging his body thru the streets of Mogadeshu like he and his buddies did our guys to make the point that we're sick of their actions and that our patience has run thin. Maybe if we did this, the terrorists would come out and openly fight our guys like real men without hiding behind women and children...but I doubt it.

If our military were constrained by the left wing whacko mentality of anti-war and anti-confrontation, just like the Clinton Administration was, the terrorist population would be as large as the Israeli population in no time and with similar strengths...less the fighter jets and Navy. Then where would we be Blue?

Mark, you hit it right on the head when you stated
"you are so full of emotion, spite and hatred that most of you have become incapable of anything other than a grumble..."

We conservatives are rational when we're pulling the trigger and these kooks can't lower their blood pressure below the burst level long enough due to the hatred for our President to think clearly enough to even pull the trigger. The entire time they're thinking of how to negotiate with the terrorists, rather than kill the terrorists.....you've got to be kidding!!

What Blue and his kook buddies don't get is that even if and it's a big if, the Dems take back the WH in 08', the newly elected President will be faced with the exact same threats that we're faced with today and that new President will undoubtably engage the terrorists in the exact same manner in which it is handled today..guaranteed! So if you're looking for appeasment...forget it.

We Conservatives DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS!
Only Clinton and his party will and here's the proof.

"Clinton, for example, invited a terrorist to the White House who had conspired in the deaths of Americans, even letting him sleep and sate himself at taxpayer expense as an honored guest for weeks at a time. His name was Yasser Arafat."
Name ring a bell...Blue???

Never again!!

navydad -

"We Conservatives DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS!"

Actually, navydad, conservative icon Ronald Reagan did more negotiating and dealing with terrorists than any president in history. He sent weapons to terrorist Iran in the early 80's to secure the release of US hostages held by Hezbollah, and to help fund terrorist contras in Nicaragua. At the time he did that, Hezbollah, closely allied with Iran, had just a few months earlier blown up the Marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 241 American servicemen.

And in 2001, GWB sent millions in aid to the Taliban in Afghanistan at a time when they were known to be harboring and training al-qaeda.