Let us hope and pray that all parties enter serious diplomatic discussions to: 1) respect one another, 2) understand one another, and 3) forgive one another so we can see a brighter future for all peoples in the twentyfirstcentury.

Thanks, Emily, for all the hard work!

I truly believe that, 20 years from now, when Israel and Palestine have finally achieved peace (I'm an optimist, clearly), historians will look back on this election as a turning point, and not just for Palestinians, but for the whole world. I am cognizant of the fact that this is a truly delicate situation, one where every word must be carefully weighed. But I think that, every action, or every failure to act, that Hamas makes has the possibility to fundamentally change the debate about terrorism in the Muslim world.

If Hamas actually decides that, in order to do the best job for Palestinians, they must renounce violence against Israel and work diligently on a complete and lasting peace, for that is the best way to ensure a better way of life for their people, that would have a HUGE effect on terrorism - just imagine Ahamdinejad's press conference after that! - basically suck all the life out of extremism.

But if Hamas maintains that the only way to secure Palestine's future is to blow Israel off the map, all the international aid will dry up, and Palestinians will know that terrorism isn't the answer - it's making their lives worse. A subsequent election would blow Hamas out of office, and (hopefully, I never underestimate man's ability to self-delude) will give Muslims pause about the effectiveness of fundamentalism.

What I think is key here is that the US and Europe give Hamas plenty of room to decide their path. It's vital that they give Hamas the chance to succeed, or fail, on its own, thereby avoiding the image that, should they fail, that the US and Europe wouldn't be to blame. Again, they may try to blame the West anyway, but actions speak louder than words - recognize that Hamas is democratically elected, maintain careful relations with them, and always let them make the first move.

Hamas has two choices... provoke a war with Israel... and watch other mideastern states stand by while Israel has its way, or back off its position that Israel must be destroyed... in stages... nuanced... to be able to build a palestinian state in cooperation with Israel. I think Hamas will choose the latter. But we can't expect anything soon.

i am disappointed of wining Hamas. because they must choose to stop answering Israel attacks and join in political movments. Voters need peace and if Hamas or Fath can achive this peace, they elect them. it's the first time for Hamas and because of a tradition in middilesst, radical parties always negotiate wtih their enemies and i hope the independent palestinian goverment would be create.
Hamas also can be devided to two parties sa north Irland Army did: a military force and a political branch. may new Jery Admas come from Gaza,,, time show us.

So does the fact that they are now in power in the government make the 'terrorists' in fact the 'army' ? I would think that it would put them on a par with Isreal & the US! Is Israel or the US going to renounce violence or Give up their nuclear programs or nuclear WMDS?

Sharon's Terror Child
http://www.counterpunch.org/hanania01182003.html
How the Likud Bloc Mid-wifed the Birth of Hamas

1. Likud is a terrorist organization that will always be hell bent on the destruction of Palestine. Bibi Netanyahoo's rise to power is just more bad news for the already fragile two-state solution.

2. Winning a place in government will force Likud AND Hamas to take a more moderate position in order to ensure the continuing flow of US aid, and to negotiate on behalf of its constituents, most of whom want to live in peace in a country of their own.

3. We have no idea how this will turn out, and we have no way of knowing how a Likud-led Zionist Government or the Hamas-led Palestinian government will affect Israel's March elections -- or anything else, for that matter.

What in bloody hell does a Hamas-led PA have to do with the US or Israel giving up WMDs? Are you equating the professional soldiers of the IDF (who RESPOND to attacks, not INITIATE them) to fanatics who revel in blowing up women and children in Pizza parlors and bus stops?

Does your moral relevance have no sense of shame?

Emily: points well taken. Just wanted to give a heads up, since there's some hair trigger folks out there just itching for another, "WP is censoring...SEE??!!" event (same folks who know darn well site owners have the right to edit any entry. Ask DU/KoS how fast they ban posters and remove entries in comparison).

But the timestamp thingee does need to be revisited, before it'll cause another blowout. If an admin did that on a blog/forum, it would cause a stink. MSM, even worse (I don't hint of another "Rathergate" reaction lightly). Takes just minutes online to organize a cyber lynch mob.

SandyK

No to know or to predict seems to be the common sense way to deal with the Hamas election win. The Hamas position vis a vis Israel can be beneficial or harmful to the Palestinians. Either position can be justified at this time. Events yet to happen will determine what will occur. Until then each side will be forced to be cautious and restrain from taking action that can cause more harm than good.

No to know or to predict seems to be the common sense way to deal with the Hamas election win. The Hamas position vis a vis Israel can be beneficial or harmful to the Palestinians. Either position can be justified at this time. Events yet to happen will determine what will occur. Until then each side will be forced to be cautious and restrain from taking action that can cause more harm than good.

D,
I agree that Disarm's statement is out there and off base,but I disagree with your statement:
"Are you equating the professional soldiers of the IDF (who RESPOND to attacks, not INITIATE them)."

There have been several cases in which people have come forward with stories of Israeli soldiers initiating fights, whether physically or verbally. One such example is detailed in Chris Hedge's, "War is a Force that Gives us Meaning," in which Israeli soldiers try to provoke unarmed children into conflict. And does anyone have a link to the story regarding an Israeli soldier who was reprimanded for forcing a man to play the violin to cross at a gate? If I recall, he was reprimanded not for humiliating the man, but because it was reminiscent of the German commander who forced a Jewish man to play the violin at a concentration camp in WWII. http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1361755,00.html

Between stories like that and running over civilians with Bulldozers (regardless of if they are palestinian, british, or american) I think it is hardly truthful to assert that Israeli forces do nothing to instigate conflict.

Freedom - Again, perhaps I was a little too brash in my statement. I certainly do not doubt that the IDF are blameless...there are bad apples in every bunch I'm afraid. The conflict is brutal and ugly but I take offense when I encounter folks who just so casually paint the whole situation with the brush of moral relativism and, of course, throw the US into the brew as well.

I cannot, and will not, ever view a cause that advocates the deliberate targeting of innocents as "noble".

Nor will I. Please don't believe I'm trying to justify terrorist attacks.

However, as a mind experiment, it is interesting to consider whether these terrorists actually percieve their victims as 'innocent' or as deserving of attack. It is a completely different mindset from a people with completely different values and morals, and I am unsure if I can truly put myself in their shoes to consider the situation from their perspective. From the outside looking in, I can only come to the same conclusion as you.

A good point. So then the question becomes, for a people (and I'll assume here) essentially indoctrinated since birth to view the Israeli (man/woman/child, soldier/civilian) as the enemy, where there is no distinction made between combatant and noncombatant, can it be reasonably expected that these beliefs can be changed so that a chance at peace is even plausible? Or are any concessions made by Israel just taken as a sign of weakness and provide a rationale to continue their attacks? Will the Palestinians, and Hamas in particular, ever renounce violence or is the image of Jew=Enemy so ingrained that peace will always be unattainable?

maybe I already answered my own question. Sigh...

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=1536576

My thought to all this is let Israel built its wall to protect against terrorists. Have Israel get totally out of the West Bank and Gaza. And then if Hamas contiues its terrorist activities, let Israel kill them with impunity. Killing innocent cilivian purposely should not be tolerated. If the purpose of the attack is to kill unarmed woman and children that is evil.

D.,
The questions you raise are difficult to answer. I believe that these beliefs can be changed, but it will take a great deal of time, and most likely outside influence to regulate a 'fair' deal. By some, concessions from either side will be seen as justification for past actions and as a weakness that can be again exploited. Those on both sides that crave peace will see concessions as a blessing.
The problem is that this problem needs to be addressed not from the view that Palestinians are the only deviants, but that there are deviants on both sides that must be reprimanded. Just as I have met palestinians who want peace and have horror stories of mistreatment by border guards and Israeli citizens, I have met Israelis that believe all their actions are the will of God, even those that break UN rules and regulations (occupying territories, etc.) And I have met members of both groups that fit the media's stereotypes (Its interesting to note that coverage of the palestinian/israeli conflict is taken from a completely different stance outside of the US).

My best suggestion is to press 'reset.' Barring that, attempt to work with each group to find what they consider fair and try to avoid disaster while doing so. I know its not the best of strategies, but then again, nothing thats been tried already has seemed to work.

I'm with D on all of this.

Israel and the Jews are NOT to blame.
Muslim's controlled the West Bank and Gaza for 19 years, and fostered terrorism, not democracy, not economic freedom, not absorption into Jordan or other Muslim countries, not anything constructive.

They have an election, and what's the first thing they do afterwards? Fight each other, shoot at each other, riot in the streets.

Does anyone legitametly wonder why Israel may be a little "gun shy" about "negotiating" with them?

Addendum:
When I say 'fair' deal, I mean a deal that is truly fair. To date, almost all deals proposed to Arafat or palestinians have been laughable. When you look at the substance of these deals, you find that most/all resources remain in Israeli hands and that very little truly changes, as the lands ahave been divided, airports banned, and strict regulations enforced. I'd make a comparison to Puerto Rico and their stance with America, but sadly, palestinians wouldn't even have that much freedom or power.

Emily, did you make it to the Great Barrier Reef yet? Better make that trip worth it because you're going to feel like you've been dragged behind a truck for about the next two weeks. It would be criminal to go to Oz and not see the reef.

"I truly believe that, 20 years from now, when Israel and Palestine have finally achieved peace (I'm an optimist, clearly),"

That your are. How many millenia have they been fighting there exactly? I am much less optimistic about peace in anyone's lifetime. But I do have a personal interest in not letting this set off WWIII.

I read a good book about the ME that pinned all outcomes on control of Jerusalem. Forget the name. It was interesting but a bit hard for an American to really feel.

The US a country where nothing is more than a few centuries old and progress usually trumps sentimentality in public works. If the temple mount was in the US there would probably be a McDonald's on it. The Holy Land has always had an "a long time ago in a land far far away" feel to those of us who haven't been there. On the other hand, I do not have to touch the temple mount or stand on the ground of the stable in Bethleham for my faith to be alive to me. Further, in the US we do not impose death as the penalty for vandalizing/desecrating a place of worship, we don't bulldoze their parent's homes or offer their families money if they die in the attempt. I live within walking distance of two synagogues, a mosque, and four churches (Catholic, Episcopal, Baptist and Presbyterian). Its no wonder I don't find it diminishing to my personal faith or the history of my religion for another branch of the descendents of Abraham to have built their style of worship on the sacred places in the Holy Land.

But I have to accept that a lot of people with a different history and different culture do feel some exclusive religious right to that land and some personal stake in keeping others from desecrating their religious land. And they feel so stronly about it that there is no compromise, and no right for the other to exist.

My question is: is the "exclusive rights" group representative of the common people of Palestine (and the ME) or just of the extremists who have flouished as an escape valve for otherwise oppressed peoples of the ME? Is Israel a convenient common enemy fostered by repressive governments, or is there really no two state solution possible even if everyone had freedom and a homeland and a middle class life? Maybe we're going to start finding out soon.

People in the Crusades didn't have nuclear weapons. If we find that even free peoples are not willing to compromise on a two state solution, then the US needs to rethink its role in the ME. If the US switched over to hybrid cars and recycled even 25% of the recyclables that we put in our landfills ever year we actually wouldn't need any oil from the ME within a decade (Canada and Venezuala are actually our biggest suppliers, followed by Saudi Arabia and then way farther down the list Iraq, Kuwait and UAE). So if we were free of oil interests in the ME how many think we would be willing to put boots on the ground to defend Israel (well, outside of President Liebermann)? Because as far as I know, we have never sent troops to defend Israel in her wars - we defend our oil interests and we help Israel in other ways, but so far as her right to exist there, she's so far been on her own.

If we were free of ME oil interests and the ME was no longer under the thumb of repressive governments that WE helped get and stay in power, would we go to war to defend Israel's right to exist?

INtersting question. I suspect the US would decide its NOT worth torching off WWIII in a fight between the heirs over who inherits the family home and religious artifacts.

Freedom, I think the deal Clinton brokered gave Arafat a lot.

In a period of stretched U.S. federal budgets, one item will surely be an approved exception: More support for Israel's military and defense capabilities. Maybe it even needs to be a checkoff box on form 1040.

When I was young, very young, I used to take glee whenever the IRA struck. I don't know why, I guess it was my Irish heritage or some other bullshit like that. For many years now I have thought of the IRA as scum, the very base hateful group that will never give up, because they actually would rather fight than live in peace. I am ashamed that I ever had any compassion for these assholes.

I feel the same way about these terrorist sponsoring jerkoffs over in the ME. If they would divert half the energy they expend hating to doing something constructive, maybe they could wade out of the cesspool they have created.

No Emily, not number 2 or 3.

What has gotten me this morning was the video footage from CNN (not Fox) of the Hamas folks going through a broken window of a government office window.

That smacks more of anarchy, forget democracy.

Can folks here or even in Europe consider it civilized for a winning party to crash the gates of a government building, break the windows, then climb through them?

If they ever plan to become a legit party, they need to act like one. Even Muslims have standards of decency, so theres no excuse to act like a redux of WTO anarchists.

SandyK

Right100 wrote:
===========================================
"And then if Hamas contiues its terrorist activities, let Israel kill them with impunity."
===========================================

If they're climbing through government offices via windows they broke, ah, they'll continue their thuggery.

Did they even bother to consider who'll have to PAY for the mess they made???? If they're going to start governing they'll have to learn anything broken is fixed/paid via taxes (something they should've known about long before the election). And who's going to be paying those taxes? The very people so poor they're living in slums.

Folks may hate Arafat, but at least folks knew his stances and corruption (he was contained). Can't say that now with this new batch of buffoons.

Emily you may have optimism for those thugs reforming themselves, but 2000 years of religious/ethnic infighting says reform isn't going to be seen in our lifetime (same can be said fo Russia too). Thugs have to be re-educated (if they can be trained to do more than bombing civilians), and that takes at generation.

SandyK
Who *Despises* terrorists with a capital "D"

I share your mocking of poor Joe. You are a gal, so why would you take photos of the babes of Phuket when you could be doing an interesting profile of Aussie lifeguards? Plus the Washington Post is so high in the pantheon as to avoid purience.....though there always is Newsweek..

I'll await a respectable WP male journalist like Woodward or Charles Babington to research and publish "Down Under: Gals in Thongs at the Billabongs - A Photojournal Essay".

Hamas? Well, that isn't so funny. All the money the Euroweenies, Americans, and yes, the Israelis poured into the PA and Arafat disappeared into a rat hole of corruption, cronyism and 5-Star Parisian hotels and Swiss bank accounts and so they lost power. They deserved to lose power. The Fascists of Italy arose in similar circumstances, but only ended up screwing Italy far worse in the end than their corrupt incompetent predecessors ever would have.

Hamas now has to be taking lessons from Hezbollah. Hating the Zionists isn't enough. Now, they must govern well and for the long term.

Frankly, due to long Zionist oppression, control of the utilities and roads PLUS the Islamoid Death Cult that places HATE at the peak of what Palestinian politics is all about, I doubt Rudy Giuliani could make it work.

My guess is the lives of Palestinians will get even worse. The Zionists will use violence and the refusal of Hamas to be the euphemistical, whimsical "partner in peace" in any way since they are far more honest than the lying toad Arafat about Israel - the Israelis will use that as the excuse they were waiting for to build the whole fence, complete their land grabs, draw borders, and clobber Hamas strongpoints. Hamas will be unable to resist the urge to lob mortars and rockets on the "Jew pigs who must all die".

Then the Israelis, whether you support them or not - finally get payback. Payback they have in a way been waiting 14 years for. Every family there has someone or knows someone whose family had a member butchered or wounded by the Islamoids and, unlike America which was free to go after Islamoids in Afganistan after 9/11 with full military force - politics so far has restrained the Israelis to "measured" responses. If Islamoids don't hold Jewish civilian life sacred, why should the lives of civilians around and cheering the Islamoids be worth a plugged nickel? Geneva is a 2-way street. Stand by for some Israeli 2,000 "send them all to Allah" bombs coming soon.

The other barriers Hamas faces are: (1) what to do with the 100,000 PA flunkies on the pad that won't start a civil war; (2) How to fix poor relations Hamas has with Egypt and Jordan and KSA so those countries don't support the economic throttling of Palestinians once the Israelis clamp down when Hamas launches it's promised violence; (3) How to keep the money spigot turned on from the Euroweenies, Oil Arabs, Iranians, Americans, and the 50 million they get from the Israelis for taxes the Jews collect still on Pals. When violence starts, those money flows may be cut off, even from Arabs and Euroweenies because the PA snakeoil salesmen of superb breeding, fluent French, and 30 years of solid lobbying contacts may decide it's time to retire and enjoy the 14 million they socked away in Switzerland or the Caymans...

But, as Messner said, this is all uncertain. It is too early to say how this might play out. 1,000 theories are in play, hopefully reduced to 100 in a month, 12 in a year, and 3 by the end of Year 2.

How shall I explain the Hamas "democracy" phenomenon to you? Try these analogies: At the conclusion of World War II the American nation bought peace by funding the regeneration of industry in the conquered states. Real Outcome: the US car industry is now owned / controlled or outsold by the conquered nations. Moral: what is good for the goose may strangle the gander. Moral lesson # two: in order to put Communist China on the road to capitalism and democracy the US and the free peoples of the West pumped trillions into the Chinese economy. Real Outcome: China is on the way to becoming the first wealthy communist super power, displacing the US and Europe and changing forever the economies of the West. Lesson @ 3: the Free World gave a certain Mideastern nation a democratic vote in order to change the direction and goals of its murderous terrorists. Real Outcome: the terrorists figured out how to exploit the fatal weakness of democracy (the most convincing liars win) and are still determined to destroy Israel. (Sorry, that's our focus example, isn't it?)

The Moral? Mixing socio / political / cultural truisms is like mixing paint: one color does some strange things when you mix it with other, different ones. You cannot transplant one culture's certainties into another, strange culture.

All clear now?

Chris Ford wrote:
The other barriers Hamas faces are: (1) what to do with the 100,000 PA flunkies on the pad that won't start a civil war; (2) How to fix poor relations Hamas has with Egypt and Jordan and KSA so those countries don't support the economic throttling of Palestinians once the Israelis clamp down when Hamas launches it's promised violence; (3) How to keep the money spigot turned on from the Euroweenies, Oil Arabs, Iranians, Americans, and the 50 million they get from the Israelis for taxes the Jews collect still on Pals.

Key points Chris, very key points. It's the younger flunkies I wonder most about, where the passion and energy are. I can't tell if all this shouting, jumping about, and trashing things is driven by loss of power or the specter of the unemployment line. Do they get religion and join Hamas, or are they imbued with the stuff of opposition? I don't have a clue myself. Does Hamas have the wherewithal to disarm them, as Israel demands of its PA negotiating partner? So nicely ironic, isn't it?

Hamas is pretty hemmed in by circumstances. The neighborhood isn't going to be anxious to financially support a lot of trouble making with so many US military assets in the region and they would probably have to develop a pretty good pipeline to money in Iran or Syria. Israel's weak point is their extended and scattered West Bank settlements. They will have resource problems defending them all in a no talk/no hope environment. Hamas may or may not have an internal problem depending on how much Islam and how quickly they lay it on the more secular oriented population.

BB, for the first time in my observation, didn't sound real sure of himself in the two interviews I caught. The best he could come up with was a weak, "I told you this would happen". But I'm not going to be surprised if the Israeli's don't have their own internal problems coming. The Israeli Arabs are themselves getting, how might I say, cheeky maybe?

I'm not so sure it would be a bad thing if the world just stepped back and left both of them to slowly and miserably spin in the wind and glare at each other over the wall for a couple of years. A stalemate isn't a stalemate until you recognize it.

For years Hamas influenced much of what Yassir Arrafat did during his leadership of Palestine. Since they weren't ostensibly running the show they could pull the political strings while they conducted terrorist operations when it suited them. Isreal would respond incident by incident, but they never moved in to completely crush Hamas because they couldn't do it without crushing the Palestinian Authority at the same time.
Then Hamas was perceived as separate from the Palestinian Authority and the international fallout would have hurt Isreal too much.

Now that Hamas has come out from behind the curtain to visibly take the reins they won't dare try any military action against Isreal. President Bush has already said we will stop all foreign aid if Hamas continues to call for the destruction of Isreal and continues terrorist operations. If Hamas wants to succeed politically they will have to deal with Isreal,the US, and other nations on a civil basis. About the worst they can do and still survive is to renounce the violence and stop calling for the destruction of Isreal so they can keep getting the foreign aid, but continue pretending to engage in the peace process with no intention of ever signing an agreement.

It certainly seemed that at the end of the Clinton Administration when Arrafat refused to sign the proposed agreement that contained the best terms Palestine can ever hope to get, that Hamas was pulling the strings to kill the deal. I think we're going to see Hamas try to walk a tightrope of doing what it takes to convince the rest of the world they are no longer terrorists, but not actually try to make peace with Isreal. Its only in the continuation of the strange limbo they've thrived in for so many years that they will be able to hold on to power. By taking political control they've painted themselves into a corner where they can't use the tool of violence any more without severe consequences to themselves and the people they now represent. If they stop using violence, Isreali retaliations diminish, and over time the pressure for a peace agreement grows from within to remove the onerous barriers to travel and separation of families.

The alternative is that Hamas can't control all their members, violence continues, and they lose foreign aid, trigger severe retaliation from Isreal and conditions worsen for the Palestinians to the point where Hamas is rejected.

I choose to be an optimist and believe that the lure of being the saviors (heros?) of the Palestinians and having a long term hold on power will be great enough and they will have enough discipline within the ranks to create conditions where peace is attained in spite of themselves.

All along the watchtower the sentries stirred, the commander paused and lamented:

"MMMmmmm, methinks terrorism does not a democracy make."

The diplomat responded and so composed:

"To "live free, or die" , or "suicide" is not the question... but rather whether the vote beget state sponsoring of terror...for to recognize or not to recognize...begs this pondering of which gloating Hamas decideth."

"indeed." the commander noted, "but strings of mullahs pulled in hate, will no decision make by them, but will for US!"

- HAMAS, 3rd act

DK wrote:
===========================================
"I choose to be an optimist and believe that the lure of being the saviors (heros?) of the Palestinians and having a long term hold on power will be great enough and they will have enough discipline within the ranks to create conditions where peace is attained in spite of themselves."
===========================================

When they can't even control their gangs breaking government buildings and firing rifles downtown, ah, they don't have the discipline to get coalitions in order.

They don't understand the rule of Law, and that can't be taught to sociopaths (which bombers and terrorists are).

The trust for Hamas making good is the broken trust in Asia over Japan. It's been 60 years since WWII, and they're not forgetting. Don't expect a longer hot bed of terrorism and mischief to be settled in our lifetime.

SandyK

Condi Rice said "you can't have one foot in power and one foot in terror"

Was she speaking to:

(a) Hamas

(b) George Bush

(c) the Zionists

The "news" department is reporting that the world is "shocked" that Hamas could have won a landslide election victory. Nobody saw it coming. They're just damn dumbfounded!
I've never been one to really think that the major media news was run and controlled by Jews or Zionits, but the reporting on this story has brought out what is at very least a strong bias in viewpoint towards the Judeo-Christian perspective. Muslims are portrayed as criminal killers of innocents, and some of them are, but so are some of the Western militaries. So, Palestinians elected a radical religious organization bent on destroying Israel and establishing a theocracy, and the major media is mystified. They're shocked, and they are acting shocked so all the sheep will act shocked with them, when all they really need is a clue.

The Iraqis didn't exactly elect a southern Republican, either. The administration we have in the USA was "elected" in 2000, and it would be fair to decribe them as religious zealots with an agenda of war and theocracy. What's so shocking, about what the Palestinians did it?

if you dont negotiate, then you never have to settle.
put em at the table, call their bluff.

Remember that it's always easy to point a finger at the other guy and shake our heads (or worse). Much more difficult is to look at ourselves with objectivity. I hear many voices shouting slogans like: "traitor", "America-bashers", and worse when (just in this blog alone) someone suggests that the United States or its leadership may have a fault or might seek better avenues of action. And was someone arguing that Palestinians were not part of the human race? Was that an someone over 16 on this site? We are human beings, we seek peace, justice, a better world.
Every government is at best an approximation of the dreams, goals, and desires of its people. Somethime, here in the U. S. we get the two pretty well lined up. Today, with the nation essentially 50%-50% on many significant issues, the government and people's will (in our loser-take-all democracy) do not accord very well. In fledgling democratic states, with no tradition of enduring such times, these poor alignments between popular will and government objectives can be even starker than what we know. Yet that doesn't change the ultimate desires of people everywhere: peace and harmony, a future for children, indications that things are improving. Regardless of the system and leadership, we must consistently understand that people everywhere are like us.

Emily,

So good to hear that your soaking up the sun..... Hopefully, the warm weather (and a high fiber diet) will help you improve your disposition.

Now, how 'bout dealing with (what can only be called Online Journalism's moral equivalent of B.O)...."The Debate".

IT STINKS!!!!!!

strokin their muzzles...

education is an important thing...too bad your president didn't get one except in back brushin...

you want the truth, be it....

pushing to invent it has already been done...

expressing honestly the dawgs of illusion are easily seen.

present what you see, not what others are framing.......

release their hold on your perceptive qualities....

argue not with fools as they infect you and you must clean yourselves afterwards to remove the disease.

shrill-voices-hating......be the cleansing you seek, look inward.

he's known as the number one terrorist in europe....

but let's get real ly

he's the howdy doo doo to the captain dick show....

and who knows whos got his hand up dicks puppet-entrance....

bombing pakistan, when an assassination would have been more effective and less noteworthy? oh yes....got to polarize if we want to make the islamic world look dangerous....not that they're not but...

what kinda weapons does the united states really have?

were the indians really the threat in the united states "indian wars"

I mean they had gatling guns and everything right?

and they poisoned the soldiers water holes and gave them peace blankets infected with small pox right?

you want peace I would think that actions speak louder than words except for the emotionally and mentally damaged/challenged...

they want you to listen to their words and not look at what is going on....

keep watchin the hand,

don't think.

they are gettin a paycheck from that....

traitors

traitors

traitors

warmongers....

filling your walmarts with products and sending your jobs overseas....

caring about you, is the last thing they'll ever do....

It's a rather more intractable situation than Northern Ireland was, sadly.

The time has long since past that any simple solution might arise for this particular problem.

Sharon did not intend to give away much more than he did, and he had solid reasoning for doing so from his perspective. Certainly it was an inch in the right direction, but noone could have expected to take a mile from it in the future.

The situation is often seen, in propaganda terms at least as extremely black and white. Certainly it is known that terrorist tactics in the israeli-palestine question have not been limited to one side, and certainly it is understood that what both sides desire necessarily does preclude the other, without significant sacrifice on the part of either group's ideals, and one group's holdings, but the response from the major powers seldom has anything to do with the realities, be they social or political which exist in that region.

Ultimately, debatable concerns about Hamas in Palestine resonant through the U.S. media as only one additional amplified distraction from the more-real domestic problems at our doorstep. Keystrokes are cheap. Meanwhile, our civilization needs some maintenance.

I hear many voices trying to appear authoritariative that are actually friends of the dawgs of war.. wrote:
===========================================
...
===========================================

That's what happens when someone hears many voices in the head. They will see war+dogs=friends!

;)

SandyK

Jazzman wrote:
===========================================
"Every government is at best an approximation of the dreams, goals, and desires of its people."
===========================================

The Taliban and al Qaeta weren't representatives of the dreams, goals and desires of the Afghanis. They killed dreams, goals and desires worse than the Soviets did.

Sometimes too much optimism clouds reality. Hamas isn't anymore the "people's voice" as al Qaeta is the voice of Muslims.

SandyK

SandyK, this person needs a new dogma.

Thanks to ErrinF for defending my right to vacation. One day perhaps I will fully exercise that right!
By Emily Messner | January 27, 2006; 11:27 AM ET

You're very welcome, Emily. I appreciate your blog and it was my pleasure to come your defense. To think, I didn't even need to be enticed with revealing photos to do so... ; )
Who ever this Joe character is, I wonder if he goes to strip clubs and demands an opinion piece with his lap dance. There's no shortage of revealing photos on the internet, so he can easily go elsewhere for his titillation and boobery. Try journalistsgonewild.com or redhotbloggerbabes.com, Joe. 'The Debate' is not the place for you.

To my dear Lonemule: We get it. Your comments on several Debate threads have made it perfectly clear that you don't like this blog. That's fine; I'm totally cool with that. But for someone who thinks The Debate is a waste of time, you sure seem to waste a lot of time here.
By Emily Messner | January 27, 2006; 11:27 AM ET

IT STINKS!!!!!!
Posted by: The Lonemule | Jan 28, 2006 11:20:26 AM

How ever will Emily survive The Lonemule's relentless strategy of popping up every other blog to say 'It stinks!', and nothing else? That Lonemule is one tough customer, what with the way he spends two seconds per blog to type out two words of criticism. It's a wonder Emily even acknowledges him. I only acknowledge him because of my theory that he is Jay Sherman aka 'The Critic':
"It stinks! It stinks! It stinks!"
"Yes, Mr. Sherman, everything stinks..."

nice to see you use your tongue the way you know how...

boyz....mowin that grass...candy a**

big one...

dream on...shanty boyz.

guess sandyk was prescient about nefarious editing

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007536.php

Don't be so sure that Hamas's win automaically benefits Netanyahu. Olmhert is hardly a dove and the majority of Israeli's are fed up the greater Israel ideology. They simply want security and Olmhert is a trusted and experienced old hand. When Sharon initially had a stroke I initially overestimated Netanyahu's appeal. However, Olmhert is credible on security and there is much resentment about Netanyahu's stewardship of the Israeli finance ministry.

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Well SandyK I'll admit that the Hamas supporters do seem undisciplined in their victory celebrations and I agree they are sociopaths, but when it comes to the attacks they have launched over the years, they have exhibited chilling levels of discipline and efficiency. Recruiting and training the numbers of suicide bombers that they do and planning and conducting the number of strikes that they do takes ruthlessness, calculation, and yes - discipline.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending these bastards, but right now I'm hoping and choosing to believe that since they have: 1) chosen to openly take political control, thereby making themselves accountable to their people as well as other nations, and 2) that those that run the organization are smart and have a survival instinct, they will refrain from doing anything that will either cause Isreal to move in and crush them more thoroughly than they've ever done before, or to lose the foreign aid funds that the Palestinians depend on so much.

If I'm wrong, Hamas won't be around much longer because they will lose the support of the Palestinians as quickly as they gained it or they they will simply be crushed by Isreal.

I'm not saying Hamas will stop their attacks and that conditions for peace may develop because I think Hamas has suddenly become a bunch of nice guys. I'm saying it because I think they're survivors and the only course they have that will allow them to maintain power and to stay in existence is to stop sponsoring terrorist acts.

They have brought the situation on themselves, and I feel no sympathy for them, or the sayanim who helped them get where they are today.

So I say...attack Iran....please. Putin KNOWS what needs to be done. When the dust settles, the fallacy of war will become clear to all sides...especially the side whose country just got reduced to a glass covered parking lot.

Hamas Suggests Using Militants in Army
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060129/D8FE0PF01.html
Israeli officials condemned the plan, demanding that Hamas renounce violence.

Is Israel going to renounce violence?

You are completely misunderstanding what I wrote.

Jazzman,
Not the first time; nor are yow alone. :o)

Cayembe --
LOL . . . I thought I was having delusions. Thanks.

I was referring to the dogs of war guy. Your post slipped in before mine. Woof Woof.

ok so wuts going on
fill me in

SS,DD, New_comer. It's a wild and wacky world and the truth is out there. Our mission, if we choose to accept it, is to discover what's going on and who's in on it.
Amazing how far things can go. It's a dicey jungle, and everyone needs to be alert for falling snakes.

Jazzman wrote:
===========================================
"It's a dicey jungle, and everyone needs to be alert for falling snakes."
===========================================

And be alert for those partisan "True Believers" who had drunk cyanide laced Kool-Aid in the jungle.

Some partisans here have drank out of the same punch bowl.

Maybe why the Mission Impossible countdown, too? =:o

SandyK

Interesting article...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701231.html?nav=hcmodule

Robert Kagan wrote:
===========================================
"But the inadequacy of the military strike option does not mean we can simply turn to diplomacy. Diplomacy by itself has no better chance of success. The present Iranian regime appears committed to acquiring a nuclear weapon. It has been undeterred by the prospect of international isolation or economic sanctions and apparently deems these hardships an acceptable cost. If so, even bigger carrots will not persuade it to forgo a program it considers vital to its interests. Fear of U.S. military action is probably the only reason Iran even pretended to negotiate with the Europeans (and a big reason why the Europeans have negotiated with Iran), but it has not been enough to stop their program."
===========================================

Which is exactly my thoughts too. Iran is trying with every trick in the book to obtain nukes. If they can get their hands on them, they'll surely share them with every Muslim terrorist group (as they all want to commit genocide of Jews).

Hamas is even looking to build a new ARMY.

Does anyone see the fast time table? Iran fast tracking nuclear development, while Hamas, and the roach terrorists in Iraq getting AIT small group tactic training as well?

They're getting ready for World War IV.

SandyK

There is a high probability that Hamas in government will not squander the international sympathy for the Palestinian cause, by continuing its implacable belligerence against Israel. Nor will it sacrifice on the altar of its radical ideology the financial support it receives from the US and the EU, which is vital for its continued viability as a government, and more importantly, for the economic survival of its people. To do otherwise, is to provoke a revolt of the Palestinians, including its own supporters, against it. Already the dress rehearsal of such a possibility has been "staged", with the clashes of Fatah and Hamas in the immediate aftermath of the elections.

The electoral victory of Hamas, therefore, may still prove to be, ironically, a victory of democracy in the region. Hence, this is not the denouement of nascent democracy in the Middle East, as some pundits claim, and the farcical unfolding of Bush's spreading of democracy in the region, but its beginning, pregnant with all possibilities.

Thus, there are still many moves to be played on the chessboard of the budding democracy in the Middle East, and the policies of the neo-cons are not yet checkmated, as the all omniscient ideologues of the Left want us to believe.

Morning bump. Here's what Palestine is offering this morning -- another victim...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060130/ap_on_re_mi_ea/palestinians_denmark;_ylt=

===========================================
"GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Masked gunmen on Monday briefly took over a European Union office to protest a Danish newspaper's publication of cartoons deemed insulting to Islam's Prophet Muhammad, the latest in a wave of violent denunciations of the caricatures across the Islamic world."
===========================================

If they can't act civilized, how will the world ever trust them? There is a thing called "freedom of expression". Cartoonists have been making jabs at anything for hundreds of years, and if thugs "don't get it", they have serious mental issues.

If politicians rioted everytime a cartoonist made a strip that ridiculed God or themselves, government would stop cold!

I don't blame the Dane's skeptism and rightward turn (unusual for Europe). But when Vincent Van Gogh's (yes, the renowned Impressionist painter) own relative was stabbed to death, and a radical Islam's own treatise pinned to his chest with a knife, what does the world expect??

SandyK

From http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-world.asp?parentid=36894

===========================================
Repeating a move by conservative Danish paper Jyllands-Posten last September, Magazinet published the controversial drawings in the name of 'freedom of expression'.

The same caricatures have been blasted by Muslims in Denmark and abroad.

"Just like Jyllands-Posten, I have become sick of the ongoing hidden erosion of the freedom of expression," Magazinet editor Vebjoern Selbekk wrote.

The murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004 revealed "that we are not facing empty threats. We know that the freedom of expression in our part of the world is being threatened by religion that is not afraid of using violence", he added.

The editor said he was not afraid of the prospect of facing the same indignation and even death threats that faced the Danish paper after it published the cartoons.

"We have gone astray if we start to give in to fear in this question," Mr Selbekk said.

"Many people have already done a lot to make sure this problem is not hushed to death.
===========================================

[Interesting use of words, and ironically the same message <-- just typed up Theo's name and the above was listed on AsiaMedia's page].

If Palestinians want to run their country like a juvenile detention facility, they'll have to accept that there's adult guards ready to discipline them.

SandyK

Hamas is considered to be non-corrupt but once it has power and the money of government behind it, it will become corrupt as Fatah did before it. Then the voters will vote out the corrupt Hamas government and things might settle down.

The question is whether Hamas will ever let that next vote happen. I doubt it.

Power leads to corruption and absolute power, which Hamas was given by the voters, will certainly lead to corruption absolutely.

Another sad fact for you losing liberals Hillary's duplicity and involvement with terrorists groups (our enemies) such as Hamas. Why is it you don't see articles like this in the Al Jazeera Washington Post or DNC Times? HMM!!!!!

Steve Emerson: Hillary Clinton and Hamas

2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton wasted no time last Thursday denouncing Hamas after the terror group's big win in the Palestinian parliamentary elections.

But as noted terrorism expert Steven Emerson pointed out when Mrs. Clinton first ran for the Senate, relations between the top Democrat and supporters of the notorious anti-Israeli organization haven't always been so chilly.

In fact, in a November 2000 report on OpinionJournal.com headlined "Hillary and Hamas," Emerson noted that Mrs. Clinton "has met repeatedly" over the years with "groups that had openly supported Hamas, Hezbollah and other foreign terrorist organizations."

Hillary launched her outreach program to U.S. Muslim leaders beginning in 1996. But as terror expert Emerson observed: "Curiously, nearly all of the leaders with whom Mrs. Clinton elected to meet came from Islamic fundamentalist organizations."

Among the most troubling terror-friendly groups cultivated by the former first lady was the American Muslim Council, an organization that had "clearly established a record in support of radical Islam," he said.
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, for instance, the AMC vigorously defended Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman - whose followers carried out the attack - as a "theologian" who advocated "democratization of the Egyptian political system."

The blind sheik is now serving a life sentence in connection with that attack and other plots to blow up New York City landmarks.

Another group that benefited from Mrs. Clinton's Muslim outreach program was the Islamic Relief Association, which Emerson noted, "clearly has a militant agenda."

Less than three weeks before a top official with the group met with Mrs. Clinton, the association held a fund-raiser in Brooklyn, N.Y., where the main speaker was Sheik Abdulmunem Abu Zant.

At the time, noted Emerson, "Mr. Abu Zant was a deputy in the Jordanian parliament and the self-proclaimed leader of the most radical wing of the Islamic Action Front. He is an ardent supporter of Hamas and has repeatedly called for holy war against Israel and the U.S."
Another organization embraced by Mrs. Clinton was the Muslim Women's League and its parent group, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, which Hillary lauded in a May 1996 speech for fighting against "hatred."

Three months before, however, MPAC had defended a bus bombing in Jerusalem and called the Israeli response a "terrorist act."

Three years earlier, apparently before the group launched its supposed anti-hate campaign, MPAC issued a statement decrying Israel for its "unjust and illegal usurpation of Muslim and Christian lands and rights."

Concluded Emerson: "A review of the statements, publications and conferences of the groups Mrs. Clinton embraced shows unambiguously that they have long advocated or justified violence. By meeting with these groups, the first lady lent them legitimacy."

Here's another spokesman & friend of the democratic party & don't forget great friend of Cindy Sheehan the poster girl of your pitiful liberal party. Keep up the good work democrats see where this get's you in 06 & 08!!

Chavez: 'Down With the U.S. Empire'

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez urged activists around the world on Sunday to protest against U.S. dominance and the war in Iraq, saying: "Down with the U.S. empire!"

Chavez made the sharp remarks while speaking to activists invited to his weekly broadcast on the final day of the World Social Forum.

"Enough already with the imperialist aggression!" Chavez said, referring to U.S. military involvement in places from Iraq to Panama. "Down with the U.S. empire! It must be said, in the entire world: Down with the empire!"

"In this century, we have to bury the empire, and may there never again be empires in the world," he said to rousing applause from an audience of supporters and international activists.

He spoke with his arms wrapped around the shoulders of visiting American peace activist Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, and Elma Beatriz Rosado, the widow of slain Puerto Rican nationalist Filiberto Ojeda Rios.
Chavez said Sheehan told him during a meeting Saturday night that "soon, in Holy Week, she is going to put up her tent again in front of Mr. Danger's ranch." Sheehan gained international notoriety last year when she set up a protest camp near Bush's Texas ranch.

"She invited me to put up a tent. Maybe I'll put up my tent also," Chavez said to applause.

A beautiful characterization of what the do nothing no idea, cut & Run terrorist appeasing liberal democratic party stands for. Come up with some no ideas!!!!

Since the 2004 election, the Dems have had nothing constructive to say on any topic. On taxes, they want to raise them. On Social Security, they want no change. On federal spending, they're as bad as -- dare we say it? -- Republicans. On Iraq, they want to cut and run. Worse still, they want to take away the legal and innovative tools the president and the Big Dog have devised to win the war. Guantanamo Bay? Close it. NSA warrantless eavesdropping on al-Qaeda? Stop it. Secret jails in Europe and Asia to hold terrorist suspects? Close them. Tough interrogation of terrorists that stops short of torture? Don't need to do it. Renew the PATRIOT Act? Only if it's watered down to the point that intelligence can't be gathered or shared. The Dems want to make it impossible to "connect the dots."

Repeating a move by conservative Danish paper Jyllands-Posten last September, Magazinet published the controversial drawings in the name of 'freedom of expression'.

The same caricatures have been blasted by Muslims in Denmark and abroad.

"Just like Jyllands-Posten, I have become sick of the ongoing hidden erosion of the freedom of expression," Magazinet editor Vebjoern Selbekk wrote.
===========================================

SandyK - One thing I've noticed over the years is that you never tell a Dane what NOT to do. They'll do it just to spite you. Its a Viking thing, I guess!

Interesting that John feels that Dems thinking that law breaking, torture, and inhumane treatment are considered bad qualities. It's also interesting to note that there are repubs against things like torture, or renewing the Patriot act as is. But lets not get a silly thing like facts get in the way, shall we?

And just out of curiosity, John, what dots were connected before all of the recent outcry for change? Certainly you don't mean connecting Iraq to Osama, do you? Or the WMDs? How about connecting the dots to out Valerie Plame? Thats some good work there. If these are what you mean, apparently you never paid attention to PeeWee Herman's Playhouse.

Hey Freeloser:

Can your cut & Run do nothing terrorist appeasing party come up with some new ideas, anything????? The last idea a democrat came up with was when Bill Clinton made a decision to pull his zipper up or down or when Ted Kennedy decided to let a girl drown because he was too drunk to save her or when KKK Byrd wa burning crosses! Great ideas from great people in your useless do nothing party!!

We often talk about the Democrats' conspicuous lack of a policy agenda as proof they are a party in decline. But I think there's even better evidence of the phenomenon: They habitually misrepresent what they stand for and what Republicans stand for, and constantly mischaracterize President Bush's actions.

If they had confidence in the salability of their ideas, would they need to play word games, resort to euphemisms, revise history, distort facts and repeat patently false charges?

I long for the days when the worst you could expect from a liberal was the articulate but good-faith presentation of wrongheaded ideas. Today, the political exponents of liberalism reside predominantly in the Democratic Party, which - on the national level - is on the verge of intellectual and moral bankruptcy.

On issue after issue, they dissemble - grossly and shamelessly. They aren't honest about their positions on abortion, the Iraq War, their criteria in confirming judges and "values" issues, to name a few. They must believe they can't afford to be.

Worse, they paint President Bush as a liar and miscreant at every opportunity. The most egregious example is their unconscionable charge that the president lied about Iraqi WMD. I honestly don't know how President Bush has been able to withstand the libels with such dignity and class, except for, in his words, "family, faith and friends."

Consider Hurricane Katrina.

They couldn't be satisfied merely to criticize President Bush for failing to coordinate a multi-layered government response in New Orleans, which, in my view, would have been unfair enough, given the obstacles he faced with state and local leaders.

No, they had to go further and accuse him of racism because of the hurricane's allegedly disproportionate impact on blacks, a presumption that was later discredited.

How about the issue of torture? When isolated incidents of abuse of enemy combatant terrorists were reported, they insisted on imputing the charges to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and President Bush.

It didn't matter a whit to them that the administration has not authorized illegal techniques in dealing with captured terrorists. What mattered was that this was an opportunity to taint them as sadistic ogres.

More recently, they've latched on to the administration's eavesdropping of al-Qaida without a warrant, which they insist on misportraying as the president's "domestic spying program." They intend to leave the impression that the "power-mad" president has a perverse interest in monitoring private communications between innocent citizens.

Can someone please tell me what motive President Bush would have - other than laudably trying to prevent further terrorist attacks - to listen in on private citizen's phone calls? Can they produce just one innocent victim of the NSA surveillance program?

Better yet, can anyone explain why the administration should need to demonstrate probable cause to listen in to a suspected terrorist's communications when time is of the essence? Do we really want to hamstring our intelligence agencies when going after the enemy in war - as opposed to pursuing suspected criminals for law enforcement purposes?

More importantly, does anyone really believe Democratic leaders oppose the blanket practice of monitoring al-Qaida, and, if so, why? Or are they just grandstanding, as usual, to score political points?

How about their deliberate attempts to smear Judge Samuel Alito as unethical for not initially recusing himself in a case involving Vanguard, a company in which he owned an amount of stock whose value couldn't conceivably have been effected by the outcome of the case?

Even after Alito's eminently credible explanation for sitting on the case, Sen. Ted Kennedy tirelessly repeated the charge, as if Alito had confessed to flagrant misconduct.

Also consider their hand wringing over President Bush's evil scheme to "pack the court" with judges who will conspire with him to emasculate Congress. The charge is almost too absurd to repeat in respectable circles.

They know full well the president's fulfillment of his duty to appoint justices to the Supreme Court does not fall within the definition of "court packing," which was a term used to describe FDR's plan to wholly restructure the court to obtain a rubber-stamp majority.

Then there's their deliberately misleading description of the president's court appointees as ideologues, when those appointees were chosen precisely because of their commitment to judicial restraint, a judicial philosophy that eschews "ideological" jurisprudence.

On the bright side, as a conservative, it is fairly comforting to realize that Democratic leaders do not have sufficient confidence in the popularity of their ideas to sustain a consistent position on Iraq or to present the truth to the people on a host of other issues.

Until they reacquire that confidence, we can expect more negativity, hyperbole and scandal mongering, which is hardly a formula to win elections.

Can you imagine any american or party hoping that weapons of mass destruction which we know Saddam had aren't found! You liberals can never be in control of national security because you're a bunch of cut & run sissies. Do you for once think mainstrean red state americans would ever vote to put any democrat in charge of the war on terror and to be the commander and chief of our troops in harms way and hope for the defeat of our military! Cold day in hell freeloser!!!!


Sunday, Jan. 29, 2006 1:33 p.m. EST
Iraqi General: Syria Gave Al-Qaida Saddam's WMDs

A former senior military advisor to Saddam Hussein is warning that the chemical weapons used by top al-Qaida terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi in a foiled 2004 plot to attack Amman, Jordan were the same weapons Saddam Hussein transported to Syria before the U.S. invasion.

Gen. Georges Sada offered the stunning revelation Saturday while explaining why he didn't decide to go public about Saddam's hidden WMD stockpile until recently.

"As a general, you see, we should keep our secrets," Gen. Sada told WABC Radio's Monica Crowley. But when news broke of the foiled WMD attack on Amman, he changed his mind.

"I understood that the terrorists were going to make an explosion in Amman in Jordan . . . . and they were targeting the prime minister of Jordan, the intelligence [headquarters] of Jordan, and maybe the American embassy in Jordan - and they were going to use the same chemical weapons which we had in Iraq," he told WABC.

Last week, Gen. Sada generated headlines when he told the New York Sun that Saddam had shipped his biological and chemical weapons stockpiles to Syria in the weeks before the U.S. attacked in March 2003.
But until yesterday, the former top Iraqi official had said nothing about al-Qaida gaining access to those same weapons.

"It was a major, major operation. It would have decapitated the government," said Jordan's King Abdullah at the time, in an interview about the Zarqawi plot with the San Francisco Chronicle.

Had it succeeded, the WMD strike would have been the most deadly terrorist attack in world history, with Jordanian officials estimating that Zarqawi's al Qaida team could have killed up to 20,000 people.

While King Abdullah said that trucks containing chemical weapons had come from Syria, he did not identify Iraq as the ultimate source of Zarqawi's WMDs.


Gen. Sada, however, said he had no doubt that Zarqawi intended to use the same chemical weapons Saddam had sent to Syria.
Telling Crowley that he was "shocked" when news of the Zarqawi plot broke, Saddam's former top advisor recalled thinking: "My God, I know many things. How can I keep them [secret any longer]."

Gen. Sada also detailed on Saturday the Iraqi dictator's plan to launch his own WMD attack during the first Gulf War, explaining, "He wanted to attack Israel with chemical weapons."

The top Iraqi military man recalled a meeting of senior defense ministers where Saddam ordered: "I want you to do two things that are very important - to attack Israel and to attack Saudi Arabia with chemical weapons."

Gen. Sada said the planned WMD strike was to be carried out by 98 aircraft, including Soviet-built Sukhoi 24s, MiGs and French-built Mirage jets.

"One wave would fly through Syria and the other wave through Jordan and then penetrate to Israel," he said.

Gen. Sada recalled that he was the only one to raise objections, warning Saddam that such an attack would surely provoke a nuclear response from Tel Aviv.

"I told all this directly [to Saddam] and everybody was listening. If a needle was dropped on the carpet you would hear it," he told Crowley.

After presenting a nearly two-hour-long argument against the WMD attack, Gen. Sada said Saddam was finally persuaded to pull the plug on the deadly operation.

Hey Freeloser do you notice the only thing you defeatacrats have is constant made up scandals because you have no ideas and you have a liberal media that fails to give 2 sides to a story. The NSA story won't go anywhere because of what your moron Al Gore did which is far worse because it was before 911. Did you ever read about this in the Al Jazeera Post or DNC Times? I wonder why????? You moron liberals will never win in the arena of new ideas because you have none!!!!

Al Gore Led Effort to Tap Every Phone in America
Charles R. Smith
Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2006

Big Brother Al

There are times when Al Gore should sit down and shut up. Former Vice President Al Gore called for an independent investigation into President Bush's domestic spying program, insisting that the president "repeatedly and insistently" broke the law by eavesdropping on Americans without court approval.

What Al Gore forgot to tell his audience was that he not only supported eavesdropping on Americans without court approval - he also chaired a project designed to execute just that in total secrecy. In short, Al Gore wanted to bug every phone, computer and fax in America.

In 1993 Al Gore was charged by then President Bill Clinton to run the "Clipper" project. Clipper was a special chip designed by the National Security Agency (NSA) to be built into all phones, computers and fax machines. Not only would Clipper provide scrambled security, it also contained a special "exploitable feature" enabling the NSA to monitor all phone calls without a court order.

In 1993, VP Al Gore went to work with a top secret group of Clinton advisers, called the IWG or Interagency Working Group, and delivered a report on the Clipper project.

"Simply stated, the nexus of the long term problem is how can the government sustain its technical ability to accomplish electronic surveillance in an advanced telecommunications environment," states the TOP SECRET report prepared by Gore's Interagency Working Group.

"The solution to the access problem for future telecommunications requires that the vendor/manufacturing community translate the government's requirements into a fundamental system design criteria," noted the Gore report.

"The basic issue for resolution is a choice between accomplishing this objective by mandatory (i.e., statutory/regulatory) or voluntary means."

The documented truth is that America was to be given no choice but to be monitored by Big Brother Al. This awful conclusion is backed by several other documents. One such document released by the Justice Department is a March 1993 memo from Stephen Colgate, Assistant Attorney General for Administration.

According to the Colgate memo, Vice President Al Gore chaired a meeting with Hillary Clinton crony Webster Hubbell, Janet Reno, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and Leon Panetta in March 1993. The topic of the meeting was the "AT&T Telephone Security Device."

According to Colgate, AT&T had developed secure telephones the U.S. government could not tap. The Clinton-Gore administration secretly contracted with AT&T to keep the phones off the market. Colgate's memo noted that the administration was determined to prevent the American public from having private phone conversations.

"AT&T has developed a Data Encryption Standard (DES) product for use on telephones to provide security for sensitive conversations," wrote Colgate.

"The FBI, NSA and NSC want to purchase the first production run of these devices to prevent their proliferation. They are difficult to decipher and are a deterrent to wiretaps."

Buried in the Colgate memo is the first reference to government-developed monitoring devices that would be required for all Americans.

According to the March 1993 Colgate memo to Hubbell, "FBI, NSA and NSC want to push legislation which would require all government agencies and eventually everyone in the U.S. to use a new public-key based cryptography method."

Gore Lied

Al Gore quickly embraced the Clipper chip and the concept of monitoring America at all costs. In 1994, Gore wrote a glowing letter supporting the Clipper chip and the government-approved wiretap design.

"As we have done with the Clipper Chip, future key escrow schemes must contain safeguards to provide for key disclosures only under legal authorization and should have audit procedures to ensure the integrity of the system. We also want to assure users of key escrow encryption products that they will not be subject to unauthorized electronic surveillance," wrote Gore in his July 20, 1994 letter to Representative Maria Cantwell.

However, Gore lied. In 1994, federal officials were keenly aware that the Clipper chip design did not have safeguards against unauthorized surveillance. In fact, NASA turned down the Clipper project because the space agency knew of the flawed design.

In 1993, Benita A. Cooper, NASA Associate Administrator for Management Systems and Facilities, wrote: "There is no way to prevent the NSA from routinely monitoring all [Clipper] encrypted traffic. Moreover, compromise of the NSA keys, such as in the Walker case, could compromise the entire [Clipper] system."

Ms. Cooper referred to Soviet spy John Walker, who is serving life in prison for disclosing U.S. Navy secret codes. In 1993 Ms. Cooper did not know of Clinton Chinagate scandals, the Lippo Group, John Huang or Webster Hubbell, but her prophetic prediction was not so remarkable in retrospect.

Yet, Al Gore pressed ahead, continuing to support a flawed design despite warnings that the design could "compromise" every computer in the U.S.

A 1996 secret memo on a secret meeting of CIA Directer John Deutch, FBI Director Louis Freeh and Attorney General Janet Reno states, "Last summer, the Vice President agreed to explore public acceptance of a key escrow policy but did not rule out other approaches, although none seem viable at this point."

According to the 1996 report to V.P. Gore by then CIA Director Deutch, Reno proposed an all-out federal takeover of the computer security industry. The Justice Department proposed "legislation that would ... ban the import and domestic manufacture, sale or distribution of encryption that does not have key recovery. Janet Reno and Louis Freeh are deeply concerned about the spread of encryption. Pervasive use of encryption destroys the effectiveness of wiretapping, which supplies much of the evidence used by FBI and Justice. They support tight controls, for domestic use."

Share With China, Syria and Pakistan

Declassified documents from the CIA and the U.S. State Department also show that the Clinton-Gore administration considered sharing Clipper code "keys" with foreign powers including China, Syria and Pakistan.

"Are Clipper devices likely to be permitted for importation and use in the host country?" asked a secret 1993 CIA cable addressed to the U.S. embassies in Beijing, Damascus and Islamabad.

"Would the host country demand joint key holding or exclusive rights to Clipper keys for law enforcement or intelligence purposes?"

The secret 1993 CIA cable is one of 69 documents released by the U.S. State Department on the secret Clipper chip project. The documents were forced from the State Department through the Freedom of Information Act.

In addition, the State Department refused to release 12 documents as classified "in the interest of national defense or foreign relations." The documents show that the Clinton-Gore administration considered sharing secret Clipper surveillance keys with China and other hostile powers in order to monitor worldwide communications for "law enforcement" purposes.

Al Gore called the Bush anti-terrorism program "a threat to the very structure of our government." The former vice president's memory of his own threat to American privacy is flawed and filled with lies. I only hope that Gore elects to come clean with documented history. Until then he can fade into the oblivion of a lying, second-rate ex-presidential candidate.

We get it, John. You're an extremist conservative obsessed with the Democratic Party... your type is a dime a dozen, really. My question is: Have you even bothered to address Hamas, the topic of this blog? Not that I want to interrupt this counterproductive diatribe of yours...

Here's my post on Hamas read it!!!!

Another sad fact for you losing liberals Hillary's duplicity and involvement with terrorists groups (our enemies) such as Hamas. Why is it you don't see articles like this in the Al Jazeera Washington Post or DNC Times? HMM!!!!!

Steve Emerson: Hillary Clinton and Hamas

2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton wasted no time last Thursday denouncing Hamas after the terror group's big win in the Palestinian parliamentary elections.

But as noted terrorism expert Steven Emerson pointed out when Mrs. Clinton first ran for the Senate, relations between the top Democrat and supporters of the notorious anti-Israeli organization haven't always been so chilly.

In fact, in a November 2000 report on OpinionJournal.com headlined "Hillary and Hamas," Emerson noted that Mrs. Clinton "has met repeatedly" over the years with "groups that had openly supported Hamas, Hezbollah and other foreign terrorist organizations."

Hillary launched her outreach program to U.S. Muslim leaders beginning in 1996. But as terror expert Emerson observed: "Curiously, nearly all of the leaders with whom Mrs. Clinton elected to meet came from Islamic fundamentalist organizations."

Among the most troubling terror-friendly groups cultivated by the former first lady was the American Muslim Council, an organization that had "clearly established a record in support of radical Islam," he said.
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, for instance, the AMC vigorously defended Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman - whose followers carried out the attack - as a "theologian" who advocated "democratization of the Egyptian political system."

The blind sheik is now serving a life sentence in connection with that attack and other plots to blow up New York City landmarks.

Another group that benefited from Mrs. Clinton's Muslim outreach program was the Islamic Relief Association, which Emerson noted, "clearly has a militant agenda."

Less than three weeks before a top official with the group met with Mrs. Clinton, the association held a fund-raiser in Brooklyn, N.Y., where the main speaker was Sheik Abdulmunem Abu Zant.

At the time, noted Emerson, "Mr. Abu Zant was a deputy in the Jordanian parliament and the self-proclaimed leader of the most radical wing of the Islamic Action Front. He is an ardent supporter of Hamas and has repeatedly called for holy war against Israel and the U.S."
Another organization embraced by Mrs. Clinton was the Muslim Women's League and its parent group, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, which Hillary lauded in a May 1996 speech for fighting against "hatred."

Three months before, however, MPAC had defended a bus bombing in Jerusalem and called the Israeli response a "terrorist act."

Three years earlier, apparently before the group launched its supposed anti-hate campaign, MPAC issued a statement decrying Israel for its "unjust and illegal usurpation of Muslim and Christian lands and rights."

Concluded Emerson: "A review of the statements, publications and conferences of the groups Mrs. Clinton embraced shows unambiguously that they have long advocated or justified violence. By meeting with these groups, the first lady lent them legitimacy."

John,
And yet, I don't find anything substantial in your attempts to answer my questions on the 'connect-the-dots'suggestions I posed. If so, you would have addressed some actually stances where the administration has 'connected the dots.' What I do see, is an attempt to justify and protect our president for anything that has gone wrong. You bring up things that have not been addressed as problems and start defending them. Guilty conscience much? Or can you not stick to the topic at hand to feel that you are adequately portraying your savior as a saint? There is also this posted story, with no news source listed, nor link provided. A quick google search finds no site carrying the story, so if you could provide a link, I would appreciate this much so that I feel justified in reading it and assuming it to be accurate and/or valid, and not the ravings of a man who is quick to call names and assert his superiority over others with little to no proof.

You state:
"If they had confidence in the salability of their ideas, would they need to play word games, resort to euphemisms, revise history, distort facts and repeat patently false charges."
Despite your accusation that these are the tools of dems/liberals, I see this tactic run rampant through your posts. You use wordgames in stating my name, 'freeloser.' You bring up abortion and I assume you follow with the ideology of the term 'pro-life.' May I ask your stance on the death penalty? As far as false charges go, you accuse me of being a democrat with no knowledge of party affiliation beyond a handful of posts. You insist that I am cut and run without knowing my stances and insist that I hope that WMDs are never found. In reality you couldn't be more off base. I truly hope that WMDs are found so that so many brave soldiers has a reason to die. Unlike so many of the great party, I truly am pro-life.

And thank you, John, for one of two things.

Either:
A: for Revealing that you are David Limbaugh, posting on WP with the name John- The post 'Posted by: John | Jan 30, 2006 12:00:21 PM ' is largely a cut and past from this site: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/davidlimbaugh/2006/01/27/184027.html

or

B: You have no original thoughts of your own and merely copy and paste from someone else, hoping that occasionally you can slip them in as your original and intelligent ideas.

So I am just curious, John. Which one is it?

And as an aside, "Oh boo hoo. The media has all of these one sided stories that are never ever found to be true. You never get both sides!" And yet, you seem to post the most interesting 'true/mainstream' stories John.

Here's how a former democrat President would deal with a terrorist nation such as Hamas. You have to be kidding me that people like this are the spokesman for an impotent dying party! He wants the U.S. and other countries to fund these animals so they continue to kill innocent people!!And you wonder why you people are losing every office in the country with rhetoric like this?

Carter calls for funding Palestinians
By ETGAR LEFKOVITS

A day after Hamas swept to an upset victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, former US President Jimmy Carter on Thursday said that Wednesday's voting had been orderly and fair.

"The elections were completely honest, completely fair, completely safe and without violence," the former president said.

Carter, who led an 85-member international observer team from around the world organized by the 'National Democratic Institute' in partnership with 'The Carter Center,' urged the international community to directly or indirectly fund the new Palestinian Government even though it will be led by an internationally-declared foreign terror organization.

"The Palestinian Government is destitute, and in desperate financial straits. I hope that support for the new government will be forthcoming," Carter said at a Jerusalem press conference.

He added that if international law barred donor countries from directly funding a Hamas-led government than the US and the EU should bypass the Palestinian Authority and provide the "much-needed" money to the Palestinians via non-governmental channels such as UN agencies.

"Regardless of the government, I would hope that potential donors find alternative means to be generous to the Palestinian people [even] if the donor decides to bypass the Palestinian government completely," Carter said, stressing that his main concern was to avert the "suffering" of the Palestinian people, which he said could lead to a new cycle of violence.

He noted that the heavily funded Palestinian Government would run out of money at the end of next month.

Hamas, the largest and most powerful of the Palestinian terror organizations, which advocates Israel's destruction, has carried out scores of bombings over the last five years of Palestinian violence, attacks which have killed hundreds of Israeli civilians.

Earlier Thursday, Israeli statesman Shimon Peres had opined in a radio interview that international aid to a Hamas-led government would likely be terminated.

The former Democratic president's comments came as US President Bush said that Hamas cannot be a partner for Middle East peacemaking without renouncing violence, reiterating that the United States will not deal with Palestinian leaders who do not recognize Israel's right to exist.

Carter, who has long supported the participation of Hamas in the Palestinian elections, voiced the hope that the Islamic terror group would act "responsibly" now that it had won the elections.

Hey Freeloser:

Just like the majority of American's we choose not to get our information fron these lying liberal papers such as the Al Jazeera Post & DNC Times. Earnings down 41% wonder why freeloser????

New York Times Earnings Plunge 41 Percent

The New York Times Co. said Tuesday its fourth-quarter earnings fell 41 percent from the same period a year ago, weighed down by charges for staff reductions and an accounting change.

The Times, which also publishes The Boston Globe and the International Herald Tribune, earned $64.8 million or 45 cents per share in the three months ending in December, compared to $110.2 million or 75 cents per share a year ago.

The earnings included a charge of 19 cents per share for staff reductions and an accounting charge of 4 cents per share. The earnings came in above guidance the Times gave in December, which the company attributed to stronger-than-expected growth of 8 percent in advertising at its flagship newspaper for the quarter.

However, advertising revenues fell 3.8 percent at the Globe and other New England products in the quarter, which the company attributed to sluggish demand for auto, home furnishing and other ad categories as well as consolidation of key advertisers.

Overall revenues rose 3 percent to $931 million in the quarter, or 1.1 percent if the acquisition of the online company About.com is excluded from results.

The Times also said it would raise home delivery rates by 4 percent effective Feb. 6, resulting in new revenues of up to $8 million this year. In the fourth quarter of 2005, revenues from circulation fell 2.3 percent.

Shares of the Times rose 41 cents, or 1.5 percent, to $27.72 in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

Plus your media doesn't tie into your party giving talking points to our enemies

Bin Laden Echoes Dem War Critics

Osama bin Laden is nothing if not a quick study - as his audiotaped message, replete with echoes of complaints from Iraq war critics on Capitol Hill, amply shows.

In fact, the terror mastermind invoked one Democratic Party talking point after another in his bid to convince America that George Bush was leading to U.S. down the path to ultimate destruction.

When Ted Kennedy, for instance, complained last year that Saddam Hussein's torture prisons had been reopened "under U.S. management," Osama was clearly listening.

Warming to Kennedy's theme, the al Qaeda chief griped:

"Jihad (holy war) is ongoing, thank God, despite all the oppressive measures adopted by the U.S. Army and its agents (which is) to a point where there is no difference between this criminality and Saddam's criminality . . . . As for torturing men, they have used burning chemical acids and drills on their joints. And when they give up on (interrogating) them, they sometimes use the drills on their heads until they die. Read, if you will, the reports of the horrors in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons."

Bin Laden also borrowed a page from top House Democrat Nancy Pelosi, who announced after last July's train bombings in London that President Bush's "fight them there, not here" strategy plainly wasn't working.

"The mujahideen (holy warriors), with God's grace, have managed repeatedly to penetrate all security measures adopted by the unjust allied countries," Osama proclaimed. "The proof of that is the explosions you have seen in the capitals of the European nations who are in this aggressive coalition."

And it appears that bin Laden agrees with Sen. John Kerry's condemnations of President Bush's premature "Mission A