Il Duce Giuliani

[toetoe]

Rudy Mussolini, er ... I mean Rudy Giuliani has a problem with someone (a sen. or rep.?) voicing an opinion with which Emperor Rudy disagrees, something about other countries having the right to hate us, as we hate others, "we will not forget," "united we stand," etc. :sleeping:. Boring , all the usual political stuff. First Rudy pulls the "I was there" argument, leaving out the fact that he did jackbootycrap of any real value after the WTC attacks. Then he demands that the speaker renounce the opinion that he has just voiced !! :confused:

Surprise !! The guy, whose argument was borderline weak and not eloquently stated, sticks to his guns !! Let's lock him up, Rudy. Duce, the perfect rendition of you was on the back page of the New Yorker years ago. You, as the mayor of NY, were planting flowers in a perfect symmetry. One flower somehow had moved from its perfect little spot. Your Highness was screaming at the little flower, "GET BACK IN LINE !!"

The Ayatollah Giuliani, just what America needs. :jump: (Insert flag emoticon here.)

[Tom]

He impressed the hell out of me, in fact, I am forgiving his stand on abortion and putting him back on my short list. I WANT a guy in the WH who will kick some butt. His view on the war on terror is a breath of fresh air.
And his having been there on 9-11 qualifies him more than anyone to understand what happened.

That libertarian nut he was talking too belongs on the dem satage, not the republican. Rue Paul? whatever.:ThmbDown::ThmbDown::ThmbDown:


Plus, I get a kick of his meeting his third wife while he was cheating on his first wife with his second wife. :rolleyes::lol:

[GaryG]

I agree Tom, I had a big problem with his stance on abortion, but looking at the man as a whole I like him a lot. He has human failings just like all of us but he looks best of the lot.

[lsbets]

I figure Rudy must have paid Ron Paul to set him up like that. From what I have heard today, a lot of people are looking past some of the issues they have with Rudy's social stances after that exchange.

[Tom]

Not all issues are going to be settled in the next four years.
I can put abortion on the back burner for a guy likely to do someting about terror.
Rudy has stones.

[46zilzal]

Rudy has stones.
Renal or billiary lithiasis?

[MONEY]

Rudy always knows what to say.
I'm a registered Republican and I don't like Guilliani.
While Guilliani was Mayor of NYC he tripled his own salary and more than doubled the salaries of the people that he appointed into political positions, while Police Officers And Firemen received a total of around 3% raise over 8 years. Guilliani also hired his buddy Bill Bratton as Police Commissioner. Bratton's claim to fame was changing police uniform shirts from blue to black. And BTW the only company that made the shirts that the cops were required to buy was partially owned by Bill Bratton. nough said!

[JustRalph]

The Abortion issue is a nearly decided issue. The issue will be decided by the states via the Supreme Court. No candidate is really going to have that much say in it anyway. Bush already had the most say.........with the two judges he appointed. If we could get one more to drop over or retire.......soon......it would be a done deal.

[hcap]

I did not see the Rudy vs Ron Paul exchange. Any one know about this...

"Viewers of the debate appear to have agreed. An unscientific survey by Fox News asked its viewers to send text messages identifying the winner. Tens of thousands were received and Paul ranked along with Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as having made the best showing"

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=195576

[Tom]

Ralph, I want abortion only if it is "retro-active!" :lol:

[ljb]

Personally I hope you guys get your wish. Rudy would be an easy target. On the other hand have any of you considered donating some of your winnings to the Hagel forces. Hagel has the potential to bring the Republican party back to the Republicans.

[rastajenk]

It's a comical fact of political life that libs are always telling Repubs what they should be doing, and vice versa. Hagel is an opportunistic stooge completely without principle. Some Dems think we ought to rate McCain more highly because he goes against the grain, but he's been involved in some decisions that are complete dealbreakers. And now they want us to give RonPaul his due, 'cause he sounds like a Truther, and nearly 40% of Dems have Truther sympathies.

The RonPaul backers were active the other night, in the Fox Poll and elsewhere, trying to goof up the dynamics of the race. If Republicans starting polling for Kucinich among Dem hopefuls, the effects would be similar, that is to say, nil.

[Show Me the Wire]

Ron Paul is correct we are experiencing the results of blowback. He could have articulated his position better by explaining the mess we are experiencing now is the result of Jimmy Carter's failed foreign policy.

We are contending with a problematic Iran because Carter betrayed the Shaw and let a religious zealot, the Ayatollah, take over. Carter did not understand the insanity of the Shiite sect of religion, espousing the end times as genocide of the Jewish people.

His lack of understanding allowed the unfettered growth of a theocracy in Iran commited to to the destruction of a people.

And to compound the regional problem his limited knowledge caused his decision to fund and supply the Taliban, which resulted in the existence of Al queda.

I agree we, through Jimmy, are the sower of the seeds of the current problems.

[JustRalph]

there is some evidence on the net that Ron Paul's staff was war dialing, msnbc mentioned this the other night............

[hcap]

Rudy might have won the Fox debate, however......

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger128.html

" When Paul mentioned Iran as an example of blowback from U.S. foreign policy, he was referring to the 1953 coup in which the CIA secretly and surreptitiously engineered the ouster of the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, who had been selected Time Magazine’s Man of the Year. In his place, the CIA installed the shah of Iran, whose secret police proceeded to terrorize and torture the Iranian people for the next 25 years, with the ardent support of the U.S. government. As the Iranian people discovered the U.S. government’s role in all this, their anger and rage ultimately erupted in 1979 with the Iranian Revolution and the taking of the U.S. hostages."

What bin laden said

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat%C4%81w%C4%81_of_Osama_bin_Laden

[hcap]

But Who Was Right – Rudy or Ron?
by Patrick J. Buchanan

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=10984

....Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahideen were declaring war on us.

Elsewhere, he has mentioned Sykes-Picot, the secret British-French deal that double-crossed the Arabs who had fought for their freedom alongside Lawrence of Arabia and were rewarded with a quarter century of British-French imperial domination and humiliation.

[JustRalph]

But Who Was Right – Rudy or Ron?
by Patrick J. Buchanan

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=10984

....Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahideen were declaring war on us.

Elsewhere, he has mentioned Sykes-Picot, the secret British-French deal that double-crossed the Arabs who had fought for their freedom alongside Lawrence of Arabia and were rewarded with a quarter century of British-French imperial domination and humiliation.

Once again, this is a stupid argument. We have troops in about 100 countries around the world. None of them sent terrorists to new york like Osama did. The osama crowd is different. They attack us because we are the largest target for their goofy religious belief's .

[rastajenk]

But hey, if Osama said it, it must be legitimate and worthy of respect, right?

'....Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was ... U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people..." :confused: I thought Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11! So I've heard, anyway.

[Show Me the Wire]

I enjoy when they use their own words to disprove their own positions. it is official now 9/11 is directly tied to Iraq as stated in Osama bin Laden's declaration of war.

And one should further understand that this is a religious war waged by the muslims as the declaration pointed out it is the presence of infidels on sacred soil that is offensive. Clearly he is not concerned about U.S. foreign policy, except to the extent it placed infidels on sacred ground.

See 46 and all you others that continually ask what has Iraq have to do with 9/11, the question has been answered.

[rastajenk]

I think the inside-jobbers (Truthers) and the blowbackers need to get their facts straight before they ask the sheeple who are being force-fed lies by a conservatively biased mainstream media to wake up from their comas and face the facts!

[Tom]

The missing link has been found - 9-11 WAS caused by Iraq after all!

You guys are good.:ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

I'll sum it up for the lib camp:

A brutal dictator, who not only possessed WMD, but used them on his own people, boldly invaded a peaceful neighboring contry and stole thier freedom and oil.
The world unites in efforts to drive him back over his own border, and do so, but not before he sets the oil fields on fire in his retreat.

A mentally derranged nutcase hiding out in some cave worshiping satan gets upset and attacks us.

Had Iraq not started the Gulf War, 9-11 might never have occurred.

Take notes - there will be a quiz.

[46zilzal]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

[rastajenk]

Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

Should have followed his advice. Look what proportional response has got Israel, years of same old same old.

[46zilzal]

Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

Should have followed his advice. Look what proportional response has got Israel, years of same old same old.
Rummy is the clown that told all the service people they didn't know what they were doing: read Woodward's book State of Denial as it is documented over and over.

[GaryG]

Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

Should have followed his advice. Look what proportional response has got Israel, years of same old same old.I wonder if we just don't fight balls to the wall wars anymore. It would save a lot of lives in the long run. The Japs should be thanking us for terminating their war as quickly as we did. Sure could use another man like Harry Truman.

[46zilzal]

THEY should be thanking folks who burned thousands of people in their homes.....Interesting

[46zilzal]

of course foreign policy, in the eyes of Islamics fueled reprisals......http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/18/martin/index.html

[Gibbon]

The Pat Buchanan reference to legendary Lawrence of Arabia is an interesting one. T.E. Lawrence did work for British Intelligence during WW1. Mostly because of his intimate knowledge of Arab topography and its people. Mostly nomadic desert people.

But, let us not forget the allies were fighting the Austria-Hungary empire and the Ottoman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire). The Ottoman Muslims had for many years coveted Europe. The Ottomans' original goal was complete conquest of Eastern and Central Europe. To this day many, what now we call the Balkans, is primarily Muslim. Not by choice but by way Islam is normally spread. By absolute force of arms.

After WW1, what were the allies supposed to do? Let the Muslim armies rebuilt with newly discovered petroleum? Someone had to lay down the law. Better us then them.

The Buchanan piece curiously illustrates how close the usual conspiracy theories contain elements of “truth” for both the far left and far right.

Mmmmm, could Buchanan and Michael Moore be one of the same?





_____________________________
old drf sp + variant = key to profits.

[Tom]

I Sure could use another man like Harry Truman.

Or Patton.
If we would just retaliate - fully - once, ohters woudl tihnk twice about screwingwith us.

[hcap]

Ralph,

Our bases spread mostly as a result of WWII.
Either military bases on allies soil, or on Japan or Germany-who we fought and rebuilt. Also we are still defending South Korea. All of these are from a different historical perspective than the Mid East where most were set up as a watchdog and protector of our interests in foreign oil.

The religious and cultural factors I admit are a factor, but not THE factor.
For the most part the inflammation of the religious/cultural divide is more recent. Not that it did not exist before 911, but that both we and them have latched onto shared historical roots from the Crusades to re fight what used to be only a simmering issue. Now it boils.

Exaggerating Islamofascism here and exaggerating US evilness from the Islamic extremists is much greater now than when bush first invaded.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/horton.php?articleid=10988

......Indeed, in the "declaration of war," bin Laden cites the presence of foreign combat forces near Mecca and Medina and "blood spilled in Palestine and Iraq" as his casus belli.

The good thing is that we don't have to believe bin Laden about his motives at all. He is an evil mass murderer of innocent civilians. Why would anybody listen to him?

Why would anybody listen to him?

The only reason anyone listens to or follows bin Laden is because he points at specific foreign policies of the U.S. in order to maintain that he is the one fighting on the defensive. Michael Scheuer, the former head analyst at the CIA's bin Laden unit, and author of Imperial Hubris, told me this himself. He said that the Ayatollah Khomeini spent the 1980's railing against American culture and the entire region yawned. Osama bin Laden, on the other hand, kept his pitch straight and to the point – and it worked.

He told them that America was the aggressor, and sited 6 specific policies as evidence:

1: The bases in Saudi Arabia

2: Unquestioning support for Israel (The 1996 Fatwa came on the heels of the first Qana massacre in Lebanon)

3: The no-fly zone bombings and blockade of Iraq which killed hundreds of thousands of people (now replaced on the jihadist sales pitch list by the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan which have killed hundreds of thousands more)

4: Support for dictators across the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, etc.)

5: Pressure on the oil producing states to keep their prices set where America wants them

6: Support for Russia, China and India in their wars against Muslims

This is why al-Qaeda is not just bin Laden and Zawahiri sitting around hating "the Jews" and American culture from their mother's basement. They have a following because they point at concrete examples of how the U.S. government makes life worse for the average guy in the Islamic World – when it's not taking it from him outright.

As Professor Robert A. Pape proved in his book Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism – by studying every single individual suicide bomber on Earth between 1980 and 2004 – the one characteristic that all suicide bombers have in common is the presence of foreign combat forces in their country – not Islam. Whether it's is Sikhs in India, the Communist and atheist Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Hamas in Palestine, al-Qaeda fighters from Saudi Arabia and Egypt crashing planes in the United States or Sunni insurgents in Iraq.

[hcap]

Also from the above article

..."There are a lot of things that are different now [that the U.S. occupies Iraq], and one that has gone by almost unnoticed – but it's huge – is that ... we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al-Qaeda.

"In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.

"I don't want to speak in messianic terms. It's not going to change things overnight, but it's a huge improvement." – Former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz Vanity Fair May, 9th 2003

[Tom]

For a guy trained as an engineer, Osama sure has problem with numbers.
His totals are not only not clsoe, but the one in Iraq were due to SH, not the blockadde. And anyone who believe otherwise, like Osam, is crazy.

And next his 6 reasons, I will cite 3,000 plus. 9-11.

[hcap]

rastajenk...The RonPaul backers were active the other night, in the Fox Poll and elsewhere, trying to goof up the dynamics of the race. If Republicans starting polling for Kucinich among Dem hopefuls, the effects would be similar, that is to say, nil.So I guess this poll was manipulated by the few evil anti-bush defeatocrats, surrenderrin' monkeys and viral hippy bloggercrats.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 448796 responses

Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
88%
No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
4.3%
No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
5.9%
I don't know.
1.9%

[rastajenk]

Yep.

Do you really think there is a significant movement out there for Ron Paul? Seriously? (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27598)

[Lefty]

Actually, there is NOTHING to put him on trial for. No Crimes, no High Misdeameanors. The libs don't like his policies but if each party starts impeachment proceedings over policy differences, where does it end?
The fact that this many americans are so misinformed speaks volumes to the leftwing slant of the mainstream media.

[PaceAdvantage]

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 448796 responses

Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
88%
No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
4.3%
No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
5.9%
I don't know.
1.9%


ARE YOU F_ING KIDDING ME? HAVE YOU EVER READ SUCH A BIASED POLL?

I mean, COME ON. EVEN YOU, Mr. Hcap, must realize that these poll answers are incredibly LEADING, BIASED and without question DESIGNED to elicit a CERTAIN RESPONSE.

SECRET SPYING....DECEPTIONS!?!?!?!?

Yeah, the whole objective here, obviously, was to formulate as fair and honest a poll as possible....:faint:

Thanks for my dose of comic relief for the day.

If you think Bush screwed up this country, you and your ilk are going to do it 100x additional damage by pursuing your current course. The poll above is a prime example of how you and those that share your views have completely lost sight of all objectivity.

[JustRalph]

ARE YOU F_ING KIDDING ME? HAVE YOU EVER READ SUCH A BIASED POLL?

I mean, COME ON. EVEN YOU, Mr. Hcap, must realize that these poll answers are incredibly LEADING, BIASED and without question DESIGNED to elicit a CERTAIN RESPONSE.

SECRET SPYING....DECEPTIONS!?!?!?!?

Yeah, the whole objective here, obviously, was to formulate as fair and honest a poll as possible....:faint:

Thanks for my dose of comic relief for the day.

If you think Bush screwed up this country, you and your ilk are going to do it 100x additional damage by pursuing your current course. The poll above is a prime example of how you and those that share your views have completely lost sight of all objectivity.

Amen! Can I get a another Amen! :lol:

[hcap]

PAThe poll above is a prime example of how you and those that share your views have completely lost sight of all objectivity.Yeah, all 448,796 are delusional.

I would think that asking the question "Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial" is fair and gets to the heart of the matter for 70% of the American people.
The remaining 28-30% who are still mouth breathing at the mission accomplished PR stunt, are focusing too much on the codpiece-not the obvious deceptions of the PR.

[Tom]

I just can't believe he posted that with a straight face.
Hcap...........

SEEK HELP!

Go to Cuba if you have to, but man, you have escaped the surly bonds of reality to touch the face of.........BOZO THE CLOWN!

:lol::lol::lol:

[hcap]

Iggy? Wha' happened? Did you get confused and forget to tune out?
Or could it be now that immigration is the new boogeyman on the right, you really want the sob out but are too chickenshit to say so? It's ok impeachment is a big tent. Bring your camel. :lol:

[rastajenk]

In a way I hope they do impeach Bush. That would hand Congress back to the Republicans on a silver platter at the earliest opportunity. Remember what happened to all the principles in the last impeachment? Gone-zo.

[PaceAdvantage]

They can't impeach him. Remember, All talky, no ballsy.

That, plus there's technically nothing with which to impeach him....strange how that works....

Just remember, this all started on some cold winter day in late 2000 when Democrats became convinced that Bush "stole" the election from Al Gore.

As much as the populace may believe Bush's lack of popularity has everything to do with Iraq, it also has much to do with REVENGE, the seeds of which were deeply planted when the Supreme Court handed down its decision.

The left has since never looked back, having been completely focused on its Kamikaze mission of destruction funded by George Soros and those of his ilk.

[hcap]

I did not see the Rudy vs Ron Paul exchange. Any one know about this...

"Viewers of the debate appear to have agreed. An unscientific survey by Fox News asked its viewers to send text messages identifying the winner. Tens of thousands were received and Paul ranked along with Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as having made the best showing"

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=195576


So after arguing here last night, by accident watched parts of the glorious republican debate on Fox. Ok, the dems ain't so glorious either, but the repugs really are pathetic. I was impressed by only 2.

John McCain and Ron Paul.

Curiously as Paul the anti war Repub candidate spoke about pulling out of Iraq the geniuses at Fox did a fast reaction shot of Rudy smirking. Not at all presidential and Paul came across as much more honorable, as did McCain.
Romney tried to be all things to all people.

Now it is pretty evident Paul is impressing a lot of repubs. I don't think his supporters manipulating polls explains the popular support....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18963731/

Who stood out from the pack? * 43204 responses

........71% Ron Paul

Who had the most rehearsed answers? * 42032 responses

.........41% Rudy Giuliani

[hcap]

Yep.

Do you really think there is a significant movement out there for Ron Paul? Seriously? (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27598)

What do you make of this?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1314/1332994509_b5cfbfdb1f.jpg?v=0

[Lefty]

Ron Paul whines like a dem, wants to surrender like a dem, too bad he didn't register as a dem. Big odds this guy don't get the nomination.

[JustRalph]

and the Dems are voting for the crazy ole bastard..............

[hcap]

Ron Paul whines like a dem, wants to surrender like a dem, too bad he didn't register as a dem. Big odds this guy don't get the nomination.But how do you explain his 33%? So in other words Paul is a repug pansy? Gee maybe he's french?

Ralph, I think there are a lot of repubs dissatisfied with rest of the field, I don't think there is a coast to coast democratic conspiracy to make Rudy Giuliani look bad. He just does.

I don't think your boy Fred is gonna do it-but I admit I could be wrong on Fred.

[Lefty]

Actualy, last night, Paul was intoduced as a libertarian. I can't explain why anyone would like a whiney gutless guy like this. Guess it's the dems.
My bet: He doesn't come close to the nomination. 3 guys in the running as far as I can tell: Giulliani, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. I think Thompson's too late into the race. I'd say Giulliani or Romney gets the nomination.

[hcap]

I agree, Paul is to far out of the repub coffee clatch to ever get the nomination. However he is rational and sane on the war. Also came across as having a shred of honor as McCain. Sorry Rudy is too slimy and Romney is everything to everybody.

You and Ralph maybe right about Thompson. But he may fizzle as soon as he starts campaigning. He is just an unknown at this point.
And the dems are doing much better re: fundraising.

If Thompson in any way hitches his wagon to bush, he is toast.

[Lefty]

You lost me when you said Paul is rational and sane on the war. He is also not sane on what to do about Iran. Whether you were for are against the war is irrelevent now. WE CANNOt let The terrorists take over Iraq. And we CANNOt allow Iran to have nukes. As Giulliani said: Biggest danger is they will give the nukes to the Al Qaeda terrorists.
No, Paul is not sane on the war.

[hcap]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

THE MYTH OF AQI....Who's responsible for the violence in Iraq? According to George Bush, the most dramatic and destabilizing attacks come from al-Qaeda in Iraq, the group supposedly responsible for the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samara last year and for a spectacular truck bomb attack in Tal Afar five months ago. This view of AQI's unique lethality is widespread, but what if it's mistaken? What if AQI wasn't responsible for either of those attacks? And what if AQI is nowhere near as dangerous as everyone thinks?

Andrew Tilghman is a former reporter for Stars and Stripes who spent nine months embedded in Iraq in 2005-06. Since then he's been investigating the role of AQI and has come to the conclusion that both its size and the scope of its operations have been systematically exaggerated for political reasons. His story, "The Myth of AQI," is forthcoming in our October issue, but today we're offering a sneak preview:

What if official military estimates about the size and impact of al-Qaeda in Iraq are simply wrong? Indeed, interviews with numerous military and intelligence analysts, both inside and outside of government, suggest that the number of strikes the group has directed represent only a fraction of what official estimates claim. Further, al-Qaeda's presumed role in leading the violence through uniquely devastating attacks that catalyze further unrest may also be overstated.

[JustRalph]

Ron Paul reminds me of somebodies Grandpa who let his blood sugar get a little too low............all he has to do is take his teeth out during a debate and it will complete the picture for me.

[Tom]

Didn't he used to sell fish sticks?

[Lefty]

Tom, That was Mrs Paul's Fish sticks so maybe his mother or maybe him...in drag!

[Steve 'StatMan']

John Paul? (Pope & esp. Pope II)

[Tom]

The Pope and Fish Sticks?








Wait for it.....




HOLY MACKERAL !!!!!

[Lefty]

Ron Paul looks too pooped to Pope.

[robert99]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

THE MYTH OF AQI....Who's responsible for the violence in Iraq? According to George Bush, the most dramatic and destabilizing attacks come from al-Qaeda in Iraq, the group supposedly responsible for the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samara last year and for a spectacular truck bomb attack in Tal Afar five months ago. This view of AQI's unique lethality is widespread, but what if it's mistaken? What if AQI wasn't responsible for either of those attacks? And what if AQI is nowhere near as dangerous as everyone thinks?

Andrew Tilghman is a former reporter for Stars and Stripes who spent nine months embedded in Iraq in 2005-06. Since then he's been investigating the role of AQI and has come to the conclusion that both its size and the scope of its operations have been systematically exaggerated for political reasons. His story, "The Myth of AQI," is forthcoming in our October issue, but today we're offering a sneak preview:

What if official military estimates about the size and impact of al-Qaeda in Iraq are simply wrong? Indeed, interviews with numerous military and intelligence analysts, both inside and outside of government, suggest that the number of strikes the group has directed represent only a fraction of what official estimates claim. Further, al-Qaeda's presumed role in leading the violence through uniquely devastating attacks that catalyze further unrest may also be overstated.

hcap,

The weasel words are now "Al Qaeda inspired attacks"
"Inspired" jihadists have come from all over to get involved.

[Tom]

Only a fool would think AQ is not operation in Iraq.
And they seem to be doing things in England as well.
But not here.

[hcap]

hcap,

The weasel words are now "Al Qaeda inspired attacks"
"Inspired" jihadists have come from all over to get involved.The goal posts are constantly being lowered as the "justifications" for being there exaggerated. Meanwhile the underlying neocon dream is chugging along, with limp democrats enabling. Plan 9 from corporate space.******


We are putting the finishing touches on America-in Iraq, the new half-billion-dollar embassy in the green zone in downtown Baghdad, and more occupying mega-bases throughout Iraq. Permanent occupation is the plan.
Screw the Iraqis. Purple fingers out the window.
If there were cabbages under the ground in Iraq and the adjoining Mid East instead of the prospect of controlling black gold for the next 20-30 years, we would be invading elsewhere.

--******
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4e/Plan_9_poster.JPG/200px-Plan_9_poster.JPG
--******
Taken in the AEI just before the invasion. Cheney and unidentified female giving a presentation
http://www.badmovies.org/movies/plannine/plannine5.jpg

http://www.badmovies.org/movies/plannine/

[robert99]

Only a fool would think AQ is not operation in Iraq.
And they seem to be doing things in England as well.
But not here.

Ah, Archie Bunker lives and has moved for safety from Queens to Canandaigua, wherever that is. Possibly the AQ cells won't find it either.

You have not been paying attention to your beloved Fox who have been using the terms AQ "inspired" most of the year. At least they understand that AQ is an "inspirational" movement, not an organised army just over the horizon, nor anywhere else. You also simply do not understand the essential nature of the threat or the way it operates. I don't know if you have a passport, but come over to England and find out some facts - they won't bite you, nor will the "huddled, terrified" masses. They may even tell you just how many AQ inspired cells are already in USA and the rate at which they are increasing each month through "open" borders.

The tedious link below, which you won't read, is just one example.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/27/gop_rivals_embrace_unproven_iraq_911_tie/

[Tom]

I think I've seen enough about England to pass on a trip.
The subways, the buses, the discos, the airport......AQ inspired or what ever you want to call it.....talk about your head in the sand.

As far as all of Euope goes, why would I ever want to go there? We came from there to improve ourselves...wouldn't going back be rather bonkers?

Cheers!

[GaryG]

Let's see....Queen Elizabeth, King Charles, King Abdullah? :eek: :eek: :eek:
I personally think Archie Bunker was too liberal.

[Lefty]

I wonder how many liberals have or will join AQ? It's only a small step from rooting for them to joining them. Hmmm...

[Lefty]

Ah, Archie Bunker, the cartoon conservative. You do realize this series was created and produced by one of the biggest libs in Hollywood don't you? Prob not.

[46zilzal]

Ah, Archie Bunker lives and has moved for safety from Queens to Canandaigua, wherever that is. Possibly the AQ cells won't find it either.

You have not been paying attention to your beloved Fox who have been using the terms AQ "inspired" most of the year. At least they understand that AQ is an "inspirational" movement, not an organised army just over the horizon, nor anywhere else. You also simply do not understand the essential nature of the threat or the way it operates. I don't know if you have a passport, but come over to England and find out some facts - they won't bite you, nor will the "huddled, terrified" masses. They may even tell you just how many AQ inspired cells are already in USA and the rate at which they are increasing each month through "open" borders.

[/url]
Hdcp hit it on the head long ago, these folks are suffering from "exclusive-ism" as these Monday morning patriots have no real frame of reference to the rest of the world and get the impression that being in North America somehow suspends the laws of social interaction to all bend down at the alter of "MARE-kan-ism." One day, hopefully but I doubt it, they will learn that we share his green ball with lots of other people.

[46zilzal]

I wonder how many liberals have or will join AQ? It's only a small step from rooting for them to joining them.
This mantra is so full of fecal matters as to be laughable.

[Tom]

...not out of the question.

[Tom]

...not out of the question at all.

[Tom]

...not at all.

[PaceAdvantage]

Permanent occupation is the plan.
Screw the Iraqis.

Now you're talking!

But seriously, I'm not going to feel too sorry for people that were so complacent under the tyranny of Saddam. How come the Iraqis never rose up against Hussein? After all, there were PLENTY of Iraqis who hated Saddam....where were they?

Now, all of sudden, when US Troops are around, Iraqis are now blowing up car bombs and killing each other in a civil war of sorts? How come these very same people were so docile under Saddam?

Why should I feel sorry for a people so willing to accept tyranny?

[Tom]

Yeah, NUKE 'EM!!!!!

[hcap]

Now you're talking!

But seriously, I'm not going to feel too sorry for people that were so complacent under the tyranny of Saddam. How come the Iraqis never rose up against Hussein? After all, there were PLENTY of Iraqis who hated Saddam....where were they?

Now, all of sudden, when US Troops are around, Iraqis are now blowing up car bombs and killing each other in a civil war of sorts? How come these very same people were so docile under Saddam?

Why should I feel sorry for a people so willing to accept tyranny?Yeah screw the victims. Makes the bad tasting medicine of foreign policy boo-boos and all the ones maimed and killed somehow the fault of all the ones maimed and killed. Collateral damage is in the eye of the beholder.

Yes there is a ingrained American Exceptualism, or Excluse-ism that allows "America knee jerk firsters" to forgive themselves for committing world class errors and crimes. Of course when committed by the current flavor of bad guy or evildoer the evilness quotient is never in doubt.

From a larger perspective America has been a champion of good and is worthy of support. However all administrations who lead for a few years don't always wear that mantle. Nice to know who is worthy of following. None ever blindly

So what if our hands are a bit bloody? As Bart Simpson of "I didn't do it" fame learned, that could be temporarily cute.

Too bad it ain't a cartoon.

[PaceAdvantage]

You didn't address one single point or question in my reply.

Where were all these "Freedom Fighters" when Saddam was killing his own people?

[Overlay]

But seriously, I'm not going to feel too sorry for people that were so complacent under the tyranny of Saddam. How come the Iraqis never rose up against Hussein? After all, there were PLENTY of Iraqis who hated Saddam....where were they?

Now, all of sudden, when US Troops are around, Iraqis are now blowing up car bombs and killing each other in a civil war of sorts? How come these very same people were so docile under Saddam?

Why should I feel sorry for a people so willing to accept tyranny?

I don't know that they accepted tyranny willingly. Regardless of the Iraqi factions' ideological persuasions or their hatred of Saddam, he kept them all in line with government-sponsored killing and repression. And the factions' hatred and distrust of each other kept them from uniting against him. That control mechanism is now gone, and we're expecting a new government operating within the constraints of a constitutional framework and Western ideas of acceptable use of force to achieve the same kind of control now that the genie is out of the bottle (with the added element of outsiders now coming in trying to exploit the instability for their own benefit). Certainly not a short-term objective (if achievable at all).

[hcap]

You didn't address one single point or question in my reply.

Where were all these "Freedom Fighters" when Saddam was killing his own people?You did say this. This is your main thesis.
But seriously, I'm not going to feel too sorry for people that were so complacent under the tyranny of Saddam. How come the Iraqis never rose up against Hussein?There are plenty of other victims that were unable to do much against tyrants.
The Russians
The Chinese
The North Koreans
The Iranian people

But I seem to remember very distinctly at various moments youse guys wanting to "save" lots and lots of the downtrodden. Particularily
tah- dah.....
DA AXIS OF EVIL

The Iraqis
The North Koreans
The Iranian people

So my main thesis is youse guys are copping out big time after screwing up in Mess-up-potania. As Ron Paul said....

"The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk, it would be slam dunk, and that it would be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They've been wrong on everything they've said. Why not ask the people – (interrupted by cheers) – why not ask the people who advised not to go into the region and into the war? The war has not gone well one bit."

For one moment I really thought he was simply saying what I have been saying to all you war enablers
IT IS TIME TO S**UP

[Light]

Now, all of sudden, when US Troops are around, Iraqis are now blowing up car bombs and killing each other in a civil war of sorts? How come these very same people were so docile under Saddam?



This is an important point. Saddam's iron clad rule was the glue to keeping all the differing factions in Iraq in check and not becoming a threat to his own rule.Give him some credit. He understood Iraqi politics and chemistry much more than Texas Tex. Removing him unleashed the Pandoras box waiting to be opened. I knew this before the war and so did the administration as a recent video of Cheney from 1994 confirms his awareness of this fragile structure in Iraq and his decision not to go into Iraq for this very reason.

[Tom]

Then you should have no objections to us just steamrolling over the country and putting a boot in the back of their necks to force them into peace?
After all, what you libs are saying is that their lives do not matter - if they need to be murdered and denied basic freedoms, than great. Isn't that what you are saying?

[hcap]

Then you should have no objections to us just steamrolling over the country and putting a boot in the back of their necks to force them into peace?
After all, what you libs are saying is that their lives do not matter - if they need to be murdered and denied basic freedoms, than great. Isn't that what you are saying???????? Gee Dr G, that's exactly what youse guys did.
PS it failed.

And steamrolling is your byline. That's what you usually say, and usually wanna use a few nukes to expedite the process

Please for god sakes, S***

[Light]

Then you should have no objections to us just steamrolling over the country and putting a boot in the back of their necks to force them into peace?


No one has that right. The point I made was that Saddam was holding back the fuse of a time bomb. We pulled it,and contrary to what the Lefty's of this world claim on intelligence,we knew the potential for this disaster existed as Bush Senior and Cheney chickenhawk have said in the past on tape.

[Lefty]

hcap, they were VICTIMS under Saddam. Now that we're helping them they are becoming victims no more. Sad that you libs hate Bush but had no prob with Saddam.
zilly, you're the expert in fecal matter. Since that's all you can put out instead of worthwhile debate.

[Lefty]

lighten up light, we did the right thing giving these poor people a chance at freedom and now that the surge is working the worried dems already demeaning Petraus before he even gives his speech. Patriots these dems, nope they are not; no matter how long and loud they protest thety are, their actions give them away. You, you're just some poor slob living in a dream world.

[wonatthewire1]

The Sunis are the "freedom fighters"; the Sunnis were aligned with Saddam, therefore, they were not going to rise up against themselves...with Saddam in power...

[PaceAdvantage]

The Sunis are the "freedom fighters"; the Sunnis were aligned with Saddam, therefore, they were not going to rise up against themselves...with Saddam in power...

Doesn't make much sense, does it? If the Sunnis were aligned with Saddam when they were in power, how are there any Shi'ites left with which to have a civil war with,now that Saddam is gone? You'd figure with all those years in power, they would have wiped out the opposition.

Yet, people claim that while Saddam was in power, some sort of peaceful control existed over the various factions. But, if Saddam was Sunni, and Sunnis had all the power, how come they didn't wipe out all the Shi'ites before the US ever stepped foot in Iraq?

[o0xst!]

because they needed them to deliver pizza's to them and whatnot..yknow, do the work that the sunni's werent willing to do or whatever...

[PaceAdvantage]

There are plenty of other victims that were unable to do much against tyrants.

I don't buy it. You can't stop a revolution of the people. The Iraqi people didn't give a shit about Saddam, that's obvious, as they allowed him to stay in power all those years after the first Gulf War.

And they really don't seem to give a shit now either, as there doesn't appear to be much motivation to rise up and squelch the current Iraqi on Iraqi violence.

How come they have more peace marches in Washington then they do in Baghdad? Where are the Iraqi people in all of this? Why should I care about them if they don't seem to care much about themselves?

Is Iraq simply a country populated by nothing more than helpless children?

[wonatthewire1]

<<<Doesn't make much sense, does it? If the Sunnis were aligned with Saddam when they were in power, how are there any Shi'ites left with which to have a civil war with,now that Saddam is gone? You'd figure with all those years in power, they would have wiped out the opposition.>>>


Still needed the Shi'ites as they were the numerical majority in the country - they just didn't have any power or weapons. It would be difficult to take on an Iran for years in war without cannon fodder. The civil war is primarily a work of the Sunnis as they had the majority of the weapons (being in power) from the Saddam era.


<<<people claim that while Saddam was in power, some sort of peaceful control existed over the various factions. But, if Saddam was Sunni, and Sunnis had all the power, how come they didn't wipe out all the Shi'ites before the US ever stepped foot in Iraq?>>>

Still need a population force to keep foreign countries like Iran from invading you. Saddam, apparently, was able to control the people quite ruthlessly with the military and quite a few govt agencies.

Now that the Shi'its do have govt power, the Sunnis are fighting back as they have weapons but not a numerical majority.

It is an interesting dynamic, but didn't we used to say that the countries in the Eastern Bloc should rise up against their Russian overlords? Difficult to do when you don't have the firepower - but accomplished without much blood shed when the regime toppled on its own and with the world's pressure. The Sunnis have firepower and apparently a lot of it - therefore, there will always be the threat of violence when the situation is not going their way.

[wonatthewire1]

I don't buy it. You can't stop a revolution of the people. The Iraqi people didn't give a shit about Saddam, that's obvious, as they allowed him to stay in power all those years after the first Gulf War.

And they really don't seem to give a shit now either, as there doesn't appear to be much motivation to rise up and squelch the current Iraqi on Iraqi violence.

How come they have more peace marches in Washington then they do in Baghdad? Where are the Iraqi people in all of this? Why should I care about them if they don't seem to care much about themselves?

Is Iraq simply a country populated by nothing more than helpless children?

How come the Kurds don't have their own country? But that would require taking pieces of Iraq, Iran and Turkey to create it - not that easy to do with those military powers in place...and they are players in Iraq as well, there are many ethnic players in a country that was basically "created" by the British.

I can completely understand your frustration with the Iraq situation and the manner in which things are going over there. But we removed a vital piece (Saddam and his military) that was basically oppressing the majority of the people there simply because they had weapons. Those same people are now causing the opposite problem - fighting back against what they consider oppressors and they have the weapons left behind from the Saddam regime. So a minority population can be quite lethal with guns, rockets and bombs.

Wiki has an interesting overview (and that is about all you can expect from Wiki) on Saddam and how he got to be the overlord of the country...

Were the Czechs, Poles, Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Georgians, etc. helpless children as well for almost 50 years following WWII? They too did not have the weapons to "rise up against their overlords".

[46zilzal]

lighten up light, we did the right thing giving these poor people a chance at freedom and now that the surge is working the worried dems already demeaning Petraus before he even gives his speech. Patriots these dems, nope they are not; no matter how long and loud they protest thety are, their actions give them away. You, you're just some poor slob living in a dream world.

Why not stop WASTING money on this fiasco and use all of that cash to help people in NORTH AMERICA?

[Tom]

So you say let them be slaughtered, what the heck?

And you also said North America, not the USA.
Interesting, You think we owe Mexico and Canada something? If anything, shouldn't the money be used exclusivley in the USA, where it was generated from, or is this your way of getting in on the gravy train at the expense of the Iraqi's?

That post puts all your other posts about the Iraqi's in better context - you don't care at all about the people there.....what other dictators do you support?

[Lefty]

Because we are saving lives, and ultimately, the free world. Do you think terrorists should go unchkd? You want them to have Iraq?
Libs in power have certainly proved money isn't the answer to a lot of our problems. We have created more failed social prgms than you can shake the proverbial stick at and we still fund them, so they are not being financially starved because of the war.

[46zilzal]

left, as usual, you are so full of crap.

[toetoe]

As the champion thread-hijacker of PA, I hereby complain that you guys are forgetting RG and talking war. :mad:

[46zilzal]

As the champion thread-hijacker of PA, I hereby complain that you guys are forgetting RG and talking war.
Are the G.O.P. and war mutually exclusive? Never have been.

[Greyfox]

Forgive me for getting off topic and talking about Rudy.

In his interview with Glenn Beck he said illegal immigration is not a crime.:


GLENN: Right. But isn't illegal immigration a crime in and of itself?

GIULIANI: No.

GLENN: Aren't you saying --

GIULIANI: Glenn --

GLENN: You're protecting criminals by saying that being treated as a criminal is unfair.

GIULIANI: Glenn, it's not a crime. I know that's very hard for people to understand, but it's not a federal crime.
The interview is at:
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/09072007.shtml

[Tom]

GIULIANI: Glenn, it's not a crime. I know that's very hard for people to understand, but it's not a federal crime.



And Rudy is not a viable candidate. Now that Fred is in the races, all the rest look like the morons they really are. Rudy is really not in touch with the real world. :ThmbDown::ThmbDown::ThmbDown:

(Rudy trivia - how did he meet his third wife? While he was cheating on his first wife with his second wife!):rolleyes:

[Lefty]

left, as usual, you are so full of crap.
Without any links, and all by yourself, tell me why?
Is Terrorism unchkd ok?
Money solves all probs?
In your own words, zilly, let's talk.

[hcap]

And Rudy is not a viable candidate. Now that Fred is in the races, all the rest look like the morons they really are. Rudy is really not in touch with the real world. :ThmbDown::ThmbDown::ThmbDown:

(Rudy trivia - how did he meet his third wife? While he was cheating on his first wife with his second wife!):rolleyes:Now that Fred is in the race?
Let's see "GIULIANI: Glenn, it's not a crime. I know that's very hard for people to understand, but it's not a federal crime.
VS Fred:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/09/08/2007-09-08_fred_thompson_al_qaeda_smoking_ban_pushe.html

SIOUX CITY, Iowa - SIOUX CITY, Iowa - Freshly minted GOP White House hopeful Fred Thompson puzzled Iowans yesterday by insisting an Al Qaeda smoking ban was one reason freedom-loving Iraqis bolted to the U.S. side.

“They said, ‘You gotta quit smoking,’” Thompson explained to a questioner asking about progress in Iraq during a town hall-style meeting.

Thompson said the smoking ban and terror tactics Al Qaeda used to oppress women and intimidate local leaders pushed tribes in western Anbar Province to support U.S. troops.

But Thompson’s tale of a smokers’ revolt baffled some in the audience of about 150 who came to decide whether the former Tennessee senator is ready for prime time.

“I don’t know what that was about,” said Jim Moran, 72, who had driven from nearby McCook Lake, S.D. …”Originally Posted by Tom:
all the rest look like the morons they really are. Rudy is really not in touch with the real world. Tough choice for confused conservatives :ThmbDown:

[Tom]

In your own words, zilly, let's talk.


:lol::lol::lol:

[chickenhead]

from Michael Yon, embedded journalist:

Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) had tarnished its name here by publicly attacking and murdering children, videotaping beheadings, all while imposing harsh punishments on Iraqi civilians found guilty of violating morality laws prohibiting activities like smoking. The AQI installed Sharia court had sanctioned the amputation of the two “smoking fingers” for those who violated anti-smoking laws. In part because local sentiment was shifting against it, AQI synthesized with other groups and undertook an image makeover, christening itself “The Islamic State of Iraq.” But the new name was just lipstick on a pig here.

On the evening of the 24th I spoke with a local Iraqi official, Colonel Faik, who said the Muftis would order the severance of the two fingers used to hold a cigarette for any Iraqis caught smoking. Other reports, from here in Diyala and also in Anbar, allege that smokers are murdered by AQI. Most Iraqis smoke and this particular prohibition appeared to have earned the ire of many locals. After an American unit cleared an apartment complex on the 23rd, LTC Smiley, the battalion commander, reported that residents didn’t ask for food and water, but cigarettes. In other parts of Baqubah, people have been celebrating the routing of AQI by lighting up and smoking cigarettes.

truth is often stranger than fiction...probably on overly obscure point being made by Fred, but no less correct for it.

[PaceAdvantage]

truth is often stranger than fiction...probably on overly obscure point being made by Fred, but no less correct for it.

Thanks for that chickenhead.

So there you go Hcap. Swing and a miss. Keep digging.

[hcap]

Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) had tarnished its name here by publicly attacking and murdering children, videotaping beheadings, all while imposing harsh punishments on Iraqi civilians found guilty of violating morality laws prohibiting activities like smoking.
Yeah, I guess the Iraqi smokers were pivotal in the success of the surge as well. Maybe instead of electricity or clean water or fear of violent death, the US should concentrate on how many cartons of cigarettes each Iraqi family should get.

Or that the suicide bombers and extremist blowing up mosques can't compare to a good smoke. Or publicly attacking and murdering children, videotaping beheadings are inconsequential compared to a few drags with that first cup of morning joe.

Fred missed the boat on this one.

Cold hard cash. Money talks, ciggy's walk

From The Sunday Times
September 9, 2007
US bribe insurgents to fight Al-Qaeda
Marie Colvin and Sarah Baxter

AMERICAN forces are paying Sunni insurgents hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash to switch sides and help them to defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The tactic has boosted the efforts of American forces to restore some order to war-torn provinces around Baghdad in the run-up to a report by General David Petraeus, the US commander, to Congress tomorrow.

Petraeus will tell Congress that there has been great progress at a local level in Iraq following a surge in the number of troops this year, but little sign of political reconciliation.

In a letter to US troops, the general wrote that “local Iraqi leaders are coming forward, opposing extremists and establishing provisional units of neighbourhood security volunteers”.
A failure? Or was Basra mission impossible?

The Sunday Times has witnessed at first hand the enormous sums of cash changing hands. One sheikh in a town south of Baghdad was given $38,000 (£19,000) and promised a further $189,000 over three months to drive Al-Qaeda fighters from a nearby camp.

[lsbets]

If the authors of the article did a little more digging, they could write a great piece (one that I am very surprised has not been written) about how the Sunni insurgency began in earnest in Anbar. They are in the neighborhood talking about sheiks and money.

[skate]

I agree Tom, I had a big problem with his stance on abortion, but looking at the man as a whole I like him a lot. He has human failings just like all of us but he looks best of the lot.

the skate is, always , anti abortion, but but but; i really do not care if "the person wanting an abortion, gets one".
because my "say-so" ends with the skate.

if the creator makes someone that is unable to show a concern for something he/she started, then it is not for the skate "to give a shit".

my point is , i think Giuliani says the same.

[Tom]

I suspect Rudy is the next Bush waiting to disappoint in just about everything.
He has two major strikes against him now. We need a leader, not another dipstick.

[Lefty]

Tom, after what Giulianni did in NY how could you call him a dipstick. He took over a city riddled with crime and saddled with high taxes and brght both down. Sounds like a leader to me and i'm still proud to have voted for Bush.

[skate]

ok ok ok , but, a human is a dipstick.


now what?

[chickenhead]

Yeah, I guess the Iraqi smokers were pivotal in the success of the surge as well. Maybe instead of electricity or clean water or fear of violent death, the US should concentrate on how many cartons of cigarettes each Iraqi family should get.

Why are you so upset by this? If the straw that breaks the camels back for some Iraqis is that they find Sharia law infringing on their lives in a little too close to home kind of way...isn't that a good thing?

For all your bombastic words...I don't think you've challenged the article's validity. It either is or is not valid...and if it is, hurrah for those who just figured out Sharia sucks. Good for them. Again, why would that upset you?

That is basically what this article, and Thompson by reference are saying...many Iraqis who have had a taste of Sharia think it sucks. That sounds pretty reasonable to me (but then again I think it sucks too).

[hcap]

I am neither upset, or do I doubt the validity of not being able to smoke and torturing people in retaliation under Sharia law being responsible for some to switch sides.

But neither do I think it is the main factor responsible. I don't think those listening to him-his prospective voters-do either.

My point was that Thompson used a relatively obscure line of reasoning to introduce his views. And Fred missed his opportunity to connect with those who came to hear him.

He could have gone into detail, and connected what he said with larger issues.

Should I have implied conservatives are "confused"? :lol:

[Greyfox]

My point was that Thompson used a relatively obscure line of reasoning to introduce his views. And Fred missed his opportunity to connect with those who came to hear him.


Good point.

“I don’t know what that was about,” said Jim Moran, 72, who had driven from nearby McCook Lake, S.D. …”

Obviously Fred knew what he was talking about. But the audience didn't.

[Tom]

I dopn't think Fred has failed to connect with many. Maybe YOU, Hcap, but you would never listen to the truth anyway.