Bush and Condi's hail mary pass

[ljb]

Well I see, after almost 7 years of war-mongering profiteering these two are now trying to improve their legacy. Putting together a peace conference today amongst the Israelites and the Palestinian folk. What a joke these neocons are.

[delayjf]

Indeed, whatever they do, no way in hell should they make any attempts to being peace to the mid-east. Instead they should flood the region with arms and ammunition and make a killing by stock in companies supplying the weapons. What the hell, drop in a bunch of drugs as well – why should the arms companies get all the gravy. I'm calling my broker right now.

[JustRalph]

Well let's hope they don't come to an agreement that might get somebody killed. You know, like that Great American Jimmy Carter? You know, the one that forced Sadat into an agreement that got him murdered shortly after returning home. You remember, his own secret service with the machine guns. They only shot him 155 times.............. :bang:

from newsweek:

NEWSWEEK: Do you remember the moment when you heard that Anwar Sadat had been assassinated?

Jimmy Carter: Absolutely. I got a call directly from Cairo. I was at home and they told me at first that Sadat had been attacked but had only been slightly wounded. So I prayed that he would recover. And then they called me back within the hour to say that Sadat had been killed. It was like losing my own brother because Sadat was the closest of all foreign leaders to me. I probably have met more than 100 foreign leaders and he was the boldest and most courageous and most effective leader I’ve known.

Yet some Egyptians and other Arabs say he moved too far too fast, that his people weren’t ready to make peace with Israel.

[ljb]

You guys are a little late to the party. Where the hell were you both 7 years ago when the neocons were "cooking the books" to gain support for their unilateral invasion of Iraq. Which so far has costs the lives of over 3000 Americans, 750,000 Muslims and trillions of dollars.

[JustRalph]

You guys are a little late to the party. Where the hell were you both 7 years ago when the neocons were "cooking the books" to gain support for their unilateral invasion of Iraq. Which so far has costs the lives of over 3000 Americans, 750,000 Muslims and trillions of dollars.

at 2 trillion I think that is about 267 dollars a muslim...........not a bad price.... :bang: ..I wasn't sure how many zeros in a trillion......... 3000 American Deaths are regrettable..........but for a war that is been going on over 4 years now.........pretty damn good. But it should have been over in two years. Bush's war is a failure for that reason alone.

[46zilzal]

a........ 3000 American Deaths are regrettable..........but for a war that is been going on over 4 years now.........pretty damn good. But it should have been over in two years. Bush's war is a failure for that reason alone.
As long as it is not your life or a close relative. Those nondescript numbers are okay. Sacrifices must be made. Hogwash!

Should have never been there in the first place. What is it most of those killed SINCE "Mission Accomplished?"

[betchatoo]

My question is: Does it really matter why these two (Bush and Rice) are working toward achieving a peace? Isn't it a positive step that something is being done even if it's not for a reason that you like?

[ddog]

My question is: Does it really matter why these two (Bush and Rice) are working toward achieving a peace? Isn't it a positive step that something is being done even if it's not for a reason that you like?

Clinton tried this , when it went belly up it actually brought on greater violence than before.

one should be sure you are not going to make it worse or you should not take a chance of contributing to the diminishing of what VERY little hope most have of this getting better.

we will see, if it turns out they threw a Hail Mary to see what could happen then it's going to turn out badly.

[ddog]

Well let's hope they don't come to an agreement that might get somebody killed. You know, like that Great American Jimmy Carter? You know, the one that forced Sadat into an agreement that got him murdered shortly after returning home. You remember, his own secret service with the machine guns. They only shot him 155 times.............. :bang:

from newsweek:

NEWSWEEK: Do you remember the moment when you heard that Anwar Sadat had been assassinated?

Jimmy Carter: Absolutely. I got a call directly from Cairo. I was at home and they told me at first that Sadat had been attacked but had only been slightly wounded. So I prayed that he would recover. And then they called me back within the hour to say that Sadat had been killed. It was like losing my own brother because Sadat was the closest of all foreign leaders to me. I probably have met more than 100 foreign leaders and he was the boldest and most courageous and most effective leader I’ve known.

Yet some Egyptians and other Arabs say he moved too far too fast, that his people weren’t ready to make peace with Israel.

isn't the fact that they have not fought since the deal?
I think 99% of Israeli would agree this has been a tremendous help to their security.
we don't know for sure but if Saddat getting killed was the price to skip a few decades without a war between them then I would say it was worth it.

He was even money to get offed anyway, deal or no deal.
The guys that got him were early Aq types mainly.

[Tom]

Any success by Bush is bad for dems. They do not think in terms of good and bad, right or wrong - they need failure to get votes. That is what the DNC stands for.

Personally, if the palestineans are involved, I don't see anything comming out it.

[ljb]

Any success by Bush is bad for dems. They do not think in terms of good and bad, right or wrong - they need failure to get votes. That is what the DNC stands for.

Personally, if the palestineans are involved, I don't see anything comming out it.
Actually any success by Bush would be astonishing no matter what ones poitical preference is. Bush is now a synonym for failure in Rogets Thesaurus. :lol:

[hcap]

Tom Any success by Bush is bad for dems. They do not think in terms of good and bad, right or wrong - they need failure to get votes. That is what the DNC stands for.

Personally, if the palestineans are involved, I don't see anything comming out it.Yo Mr Great Debater. You can't have a peace process without the Palestinians. I suppose you could nuke them. Most of the kids are pretty sick and scraggly.

Nah, why waste the plutonium? :confused:

[Tom]

Huh? Say what? :rolleyes:

[rastajenk]

You can't have peace with the Palis, you can't have peace without them. So what's the point of this whole charade, anyway?

[46zilzal]

How is it a warmonger thinks HE can accomplish what many more capable people could not? All for show.

[46zilzal]

Under seige'

But many Middle East politicians and demonstrators have said the talks have little chance of success.

Jacky Rowland, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Gaza, said: "Here ... people are living under siege [with] air strikes and tanks shells fired into Gaza in the last 24 hours, and they feel what is happening in the US has nothing to do with them at all.

"Palestinians are sick and tired and feeling pessimistic.

"They feel they have no future of Gaza and they need to get out, but they cannot, because they are locked in by Israel."

[hcap]

You can't have peace with the Palis, you can't have peace without them. So what's the point of this whole charade, anyway?
Nuke'em?

Why negotiate with anyone?
Oh yeah I forgot George W Churchill is president. Why indeed?

[hcap]

Huh? Say what? :rolleyes:
You peeked. Iggy ain't doing it's job unless da Iggier is usiing it :D

[Tom]

Ah, the true colors come out.
50 arab nations show up and it is a charade.
What a sad bunch of people we have here.

[Gibbon]

....7 years.... Numerous successful attacks during the Clinton administration culminating in 9/11/2001 -->

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 4,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. who are now dead would be alive today.

The bush doctrine laid down the law. Subsequently, there have been zero attacks on US soil, zero attacks on US assets….

Could it be the Bush doctrine Works?

[Gibbon]

Nuke'em? If "they" possessed such weapons, who here doubts they would have used WMDs against us?

[hcap]

Well if you accept the bush doctrine, as Tom and a few others here have seemingly taken to sophomoric heights of absurdity, the time to nuke'em is before they get'em, and nuke us. Problem solved. We got tons and tons of idle megatonage just sitting around not doing nuthin'. Why waste the good 'ole cold war spoils? :rolleyes:

I think If you think the so-called oxymoronic "bush doctrine" works, you would not shy away from preemption. Any leader who FEELS strongly enough that as Darth Cheney teaches, that even a 1% threat is too much, should embrace the nuclear football. Any

The road to ruin starts with exaggerated threats. Emanuel Goldsteins are a dime a dozen. Conveniently

[ljb]

Could it be the Bush doctrine Works?
NO!

[hcap]

Gibbon why is it the blame always goes to Clinton? You are using a CLINTONDIDITTOO once again to deflect responsibility. I agree Clinton could have done more but in many cases guess who did not support his efforts. Republicans DID not support many of Clinton's efforts

Read the whole thing. If you want to blame clinton, you have to blame the repugs as well.

Republicans Sabotaged Clinton's Anti-Terror Efforts
http://www.mikehersh.com/Republicans_sabotaged_Clintons_Anti-Terror_Efforts.shtml

...Republicans claim President Clinton "did nothing" to combat terrorism. Back then - when they might have prevented the 9/11 attacks - Republicans blocked or stalled all of the anti-terrorism proposals above. First, they stone-walled for months despite Clinton Administration warnings. Then, the GOP watered-down key provisions.

...President Clinton took the oath of office January 20, 1993. February, 26 - barely a month later - terrorists detonated more than 1,000 pounds of explosives under the World Trade Center, killing six and injuring about a thousand people. Bill Clinton and the Democrats never dreamed of trying to blame the outgoing George Herbert Walker Bush

....President Clinton also ordered a "terrorism threat assessment of every federal facility in the country," which had "already begun" when, in February 1995, the Clinton Administration introduced a counter-terrorism bill in the Senate (S. 390) and the House of Representatives (H.R. 896). Note: this was before the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building Oklahoma City bombing on April 19 that year.

...President Clinton's proposals would have expanded pre-trial detention and allowed more federal wiretaps of terrorism suspects, eased deportation of foreigners convicted of crimes, allowed the detention of aliens convicted or suspected of crimes, let the President criminalize fund-raising for terrorism, and revived visa denial provisions to keep dangerous people out of the US.

....Republicans sabotaged Clinton's efforts to keep us safe. If in force before April 19, 1995 federal officials might have detected and prevented the Murrah Building plot. 9/11/01. If the Republicans had passed Clinton's proposals before September 11, 2001 we might have blocked the al Qaeda terrorist plot that killed 3000 Americans."


As far as HOW effective the WAR on Terrorism is a woldwide view is needed.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2006/TI-index/index.html

Current Article
The Terrorism Index
By FOREIGN POLICY & The Center For American Progress

July/August 2006
Is the United States winning the war on terror? Not according to more than 100 of America’s top foreign-policy hands. They see a national security apparatus in disrepair and a government that is failing to protect the public from the next attack.

Nearly 80 percent of the index participants have worked in the U.S. government—of these more than half were in the executive branch, one third in the military, and 17 percent in the intelligence community.

Despite today’s highly politicized national security environment, the index results show striking consensus across political party lines. A bipartisan majority (84 percent) of the index’s experts say the United States is not winning the war on terror. Eighty-six percent of the index’s experts see a world today that is growing more dangerous for Americans.

[Gibbon]

Read the whole thing. I did. Will need to corroborate some facts against the congressional record. In any event, the prez is commander and chief of our armed forces. Clinton did NOT need approval to conduct limited campaigns. You seem to be saying Dems bombs = good
Reps bombs = bad.

If you want to blame clinton, you have to blame the repugs as well. Indeed I do! I’m not a Bush sycophant. Has much to answer for. {Porous borders, outrages deficits, mismanagement of the war, Katrina, nominating a family friend to Supreme Court, failure to bomb opium fields in Afghanistan, failure to muscle known terrorist organizations in Saudi Arabia, list is endless….} But what’s the alternative? Hillary? Spare me. Bush has kept us from harm. Something the emasculated males in Western Europe do not understand.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Gibbon why is it the blame always goes to Clinton? You are using a CLINTONDIDITTOO once again to deflect responsibility. I agree Clinton could have done more but in many cases guess who did not support his efforts. Republicans DID not support many of Clinton's efforts

Read the whole thing. If you want to blame clinton, you have to blame the repugs as well.

Republicans Sabotaged Clinton's Anti-Terror Efforts
http://www.mikehersh.com/Republicans_sabotaged_Clintons_Anti-Terror_Efforts.shtml

...Republicans claim President Clinton "did nothing" to combat terrorism. Back then - when they might have prevented the 9/11 attacks - Republicans blocked or stalled all of the anti-terrorism proposals above. First, they stone-walled for months despite Clinton Administration warnings. Then, the GOP watered-down key provisions.

...President Clinton took the oath of office January 20, 1993. February, 26 - barely a month later - terrorists detonated more than 1,000 pounds of explosives under the World Trade Center, killing six and injuring about a thousand people. Bill Clinton and the Democrats never dreamed of trying to blame the outgoing George Herbert Walker Bush

....President Clinton also ordered a "terrorism threat assessment of every federal facility in the country," which had "already begun" when, in February 1995, the Clinton Administration introduced a counter-terrorism bill in the Senate (S. 390) and the House of Representatives (H.R. 896). Note: this was before the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building Oklahoma City bombing on April 19 that year.

...President Clinton's proposals would have expanded pre-trial detention and allowed more federal wiretaps of terrorism suspects, eased deportation of foreigners convicted of crimes, allowed the detention of aliens convicted or suspected of crimes, let the President criminalize fund-raising for terrorism, and revived visa denial provisions to keep dangerous people out of the US.

....Republicans sabotaged Clinton's efforts to keep us safe. If in force before April 19, 1995 federal officials might have detected and prevented the Murrah Building plot. 9/11/01. If the Republicans had passed Clinton's proposals before September 11, 2001 we might have blocked the al Qaeda terrorist plot that killed 3000 Americans."


As far as HOW effective the WAR on Terrorism is a woldwide view is needed.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2006/TI-index/index.html

Current Article
The Terrorism Index
By FOREIGN POLICY & The Center For American Progress

July/August 2006
I began reading your link until I got to the part where the writer added that the Bush was the illegitiment president and the 2000 elections were invalid, that is where I quit reading.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Anyone know how many suicide bombers killed people inside Israel after we invaded Iraq 2003?

[kenwoodallpromos]

Anyone know how many suicide bombers killed people inside Israel after we invaded Iraq 2003?
"http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38466" This article credits a fence that went up in 2003- but that is also when Hussein stopped supplyhing vests and $25k to families of mass murderers!

[Tom]

And now they are sitting in peace talk with the palestineans.
Funny how thinkgs jut keep moving in the right direction when you take out war monging, terror sponsoring dictators.

This is the libs worst nightmare.......they were counting on failure and defeat for so long. This coming on the heels of thier big election win and then the realiztion that the dem congress is utterrly and 100% worthless - accomplished nothing and just keep getting bitch slapped around by Bush.
They will go down in history as the "vichy" government! :lol::lol::lol:

[Secretariat]

I for one am glad they finally realized nothing is going to be settled until the Palestinian situation is resolved. Granted, it took them seven years to figure this out, but I applaud them for the attempt. Hopefully, they're serious and not looking for a photo-op.

[rastajenk]

I don't know who you're referencing with "they," but it's obvious the Palis aren't serious. Hamas leaders are on the record as saying that any agreement that acknowledges Israel's right to exist is non-binding.

[riskman]

But we know that what should be done will not be done...