I think we should rename this thread to 'if you hate America say aye!'

Everyone hates the Great Satan.

There was a world poll by BBC which revealed that most people around the world hate President Bush. Israel was the only country that viewed Bush favourably. All other countried to varying degrees hated US policies.

Satan is not liked much is he?

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/...279597,00.html

Muslim Cleric Attacked In London Mosque
Sunday August 12, 2007

A Muslim cleric is in a serious condition in hospital after being attacked in a London mosque.

The Muslim Council of Britain claims there have been a series of recent Islamophobic crimes in Britain, which they believe have been fuelled by the media.

The 58-year-old imam, who has not been named, was assaulted at Regent's Park mosque on Friday.

He suffered heavy blood loss, damage to both eyes and had to undergo emergency surgery, the Muslim Council of Britain said.

An MCB spokesman said: "There is clearly a growing anti-Muslim climate in this country and it has some very worrying implications for all of us.

"It is deeply regrettable that sections of our media have been playing a key role in fermenting much of this Islamophobic prejudice and hatred against British Muslims."

An arson attack on a mosque in Bradford on August 3 is being treated as suspicious by police.

Strathclyde Police have also reported an increase in race crime in the west of Scotland since the suspected terrorist attack on Glasgow Airport on June 30.

The Metropolitan Police said officers were called at about 8.30am on Friday to reports of an assault at Regent's Park mosque, known as the Islamic Cultural Centre.

The victim was taken to a central London hospital by the London Ambulance Service where he remains.

Responsibility for race and community relations was transferred from the Home Office to Ruth Kelly's Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in May.

Forums aimed at tackling Islamophobia and extremism have been established in Leicester, Redbridge and Dudley, with more planned around the country.

A spokeswoman for the DCLG said: "Any crime motivated by a prejudice against a person's race or religion is deplorable and we are committed to doing all we can to support the police in this matter."

:: A man has been charged with grievous bodily harm and assaulting a police officer.

He has been remanded in custody until August 24 when he will appear at Southwark Magistrates' Court.

A Met spokesman said police were keeping an open mind about the motive of the attack.

This is true praise indeed. When enemy praises its enemy.

Quote:

[b]Israeli Minister Ben-Eliezer says Hezbollah leader has never lied. [/b]

15 August 2007

"Nasrallah has never lied. He is cocky, he is arrogant, but at least from our experience with him, to my regret, what he has said, he has done. And when he says 'I have 20,000 missiles' I believe him," Ben-Eliezer told Army Radio on Wednesday.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1186557456474&pagename=JPost%...

See how Kaafirs tend to lie when they claim they stand for freedom.
In reality, there is no freedom of expression in their belief.

Their own leaders oppress and deny people basic rights.
Given a chance, Satan's government would have jailed this family for life. But they got caught out.
Allah helped Jeff and Nicole.

Quote:

[b]Anti-Bush protestors get $80,000 [/b]

Jeff and Nicole Rank, the couple arrested after wearing anti-Bush shirts at the president's July Fourth speech at the West Virginia State Capitol.

Sat, 18 Aug 2007 09:47:51

The US government has agreed to pay $80,000 to a Texas couple arrested in Charleston for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts at a 2004 campaign rally.

The money is going to be paid according to a lawsuit settled against the federal government by the couple and filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Nicole and Jeffrey Rank while wearing homemade anti-Bush T-shirts were removed from the July 4 rally at the West Virginia Capitol in handcuffs. On the front, the shirts had a red circle with a bar over the word "Bush." The back of his shirt read, "Love America, Hate Bush," while hers read, "Regime Change begins at Home."

"We'd noticed that whenever you see Bush on TV, he's always surrounded by fervent and passionate supporters, but where are the protesters?" Jeff Rank told the Gazette newspaper.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit alleging the White House has a formal policy of trying to hide protesters from the media and the president and silence anti-Bush slogans.

The settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing, said White House spokesman Blair Jones.

This process of excluding the dissenters from the scene happens in a situation in which White House time and again accuses other countries including Iran of muting the protesters.

http://www.presstv.com/Detail.aspx?id=19847&sectionid=3510203

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20310306/

"malik" wrote:

This is true praise indeed. When enemy praises its enemy.

Quote:

[b]Israeli Minister Ben-Eliezer says Hezbollah leader has never lied. [/b]

15 August 2007

"Nasrallah has never lied. He is cocky, he is arrogant, but at least from our experience with him, to my regret, what he has said, he has done. And when he says 'I have 20,000 missiles' I believe him," Ben-Eliezer told Army Radio on Wednesday.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1186557456474&pagename=JPost%...

You idiot. He wasn't praising Nasrallah. He was presenting him as a terrorist and a real threat to Israel.

Ben-Elizer gave the specific example of Nasrallah saying 'I have 20,000 missiles'. He wasn't saying Nasrallah is a trustworthy and honest human being.

He was trying to justify continued Israeli attacks on Southern Lebanon.

"malik" wrote:

See how Kaafirs tend to lie when they claim they stand for freedom.
In reality, there is no freedom of expression in their belief.

Their own leaders oppress and deny people basic rights.
Given a chance, Satan's government would have jailed this family for life. But they got caught out.
Allah helped Jeff and Nicole.

1. Why would Allah help lying Kaafirs like Jeff and Nocole?

2. And why would Allah act through the Kaafir [url=http://www.aclu.org/]ACLU[/url] and help them to uphold their Kaafir ideas about freedom of expression?

"[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2152325,00.html wrote:

The Guardian[/url]"][size=15][b]Kurds flee homes as Iran shells villages in Iraq[/b][/size]

"[url=http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/20070820/twl-hurricane-dean-heads-for-mexic... wrote:

ITN[/url]"][b][size=15]Hurricane Dean heads for Mexico[/size][/b]

Hurricane Dean has passed Jamaica and is now on course to reach the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico.

The Category 4 storm is described as "extremely dangerous" with winds of almost 150 miles per hour.

But the US National Hurricane Centre has warned it could be upgraded to Category 5, the highest level on the Saffir-Simpson scale.

It may also threaten Mexico's Bay of Campeche where most of the country's oil production is concentrated.

The state oil company Pemex has evacuated workers from the region and some American companies have pulled workers off Gulf of Mexico platforms as a precautionary measure.

Up to 5,000 British tourists were stranded on Jamaica as the storm passed and urged to seek refuge at emergency shelters in churches and schools.

The hurricane has already left a trail of death and destruction across much of the Caribbean and killed at least nine people.

The Jamaican government imposed a curfew, electricity supplies were switched off and troops patrolled the capital Kingston to prevent looting.

Dean is the first hurricane of what is expected to be an above-average 2007 Atlantic storm season.

Nasa is preparing to bring space shuttle Endeavour, which has been on a mission to the International Space Station, back to Earth a day early just in case Mission Control in Houston has to close because of the storm.

[url=http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/omd/ops/weather/plots/storm_04.gif]Computer models[/url] all chart the [url=http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/flt/t1/ir2.jpg]large[/url] storm as likely to take a slight northward curve. My very amateurish guess is that it will instead plough straight into the Belize/Mexico border and go nowhere near Texas for now. That's because they thought it would head for Jamaica but it ran south of the island going straight east. But I don't understand how these things work.

Here it is photographed from Endeavor in space. Better to see it from above than from below:

[list][img]http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/8564/1575553qm9.jpg[/img][/list:u]

[b]Tony Blair is seeking ways to ignite a big war in the entire region of Middle East.[/b]

Thats what Hamas said today. Blair is not interested in peace but in war.

He is touring different countries to see how best to save Israel and destroy hopes of a Palestinians State.

Quote:

[b]Hamas: Blair's ME tour a war plan [/b]

Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:38:07

Islamic Hamas movement has downplayed the Middle East peace mission of Tony Blair, saying it is part of a plan to wage a war in the region.

Salah al-Bardaweel, spokesman for Hamas' parliamentary bloc, told reporters in Gaza "this tour cannot score a breakthrough because there are no true intentions for peace and there is no peace process at all."

Instead, "we believe a dangerous operation, like attacking Syria or Iran, is being arranged," he said.

"There is a complete plan preparing for a war in the region and pushing the Arab nations for free normalization with Israel," he continued.

Al-Bardaweel also slammed the former British prime minister, saying Blair "who has failed to manage his country's internal and foreign policy wants now to succeed in managing the Palestinian and Arabic causes."

The Quartet, which groups the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and Russia, rejects dealing with Hamas unless it recognizes Israel and lays down arms.

The international mediation body sponsors aid to the Palestinian Authority Chief Mahmoud Abbas who is engaged in power struggle with Hamas.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=21931&sectionid=351020202

There's some unanswered question in my above post, Malik.

Sorry beast brother; I forgot to reply to you. I'll do it now.

"ßeast" wrote:

1. Why would Allah help lying Kaafirs like Jeff and Nocole?

2. And why would Allah act through the Kaafir [url=http://www.aclu.org/]ACLU[/url] and help them to uphold their Kaafir ideas about freedom of expression?

[b]I believer that Kaafirs who are not anti-Muslim are sometimes helped by God.[/b]

[b]Freedom of speech is God's idea[/b]. It is Islamic. Imam Ali advocated it. It is not a Kaafirs' idea. Kaafirs are incapable of coming up with such beautiful concepts as freedom of expression.
Devil is only good at oppression.

Any day now...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=W0hWAxJ3_Js&mode=related&search=

"ßeast" wrote:

Any day now...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=W0hWAxJ3_Js&mode=related&search=

I wouldn't rule it out, mind. Odd that first he should say God told him, and then he says "I hope that I'm wrong." I mean, if God tells you something that specific you can't start beating around the bush, either you're clinically insane or it's a dead cert. Perhaps there's another video where he gives more details of how this revelation took place. Or perhaps he was eating a rodent or other small animal and realised the bite he'd just swallowed contained a sacred message. That would plausibly explain the disclaimer.

The damage from Hurricane's Dean and Felix was fortunately limited as both rapidly moved inland through fairly sparse areas and lost a lot of strength. Some are saying hurricanes around Mexico are now only big news and monitored by the US authorites because of Katrina and global warming concerns. I don't know, I only read that in the comments underneath a news story.

Anyway, since we're talking predictions, it seems there's a frightening depression in the Atlantic that could become a serious storm if not a hurricane that some models predict will hit New York this Sunday or shortly after. The storm would be nicknamed Gabrielle. And a major typhoon is about to hit Tokyo. [url=http://www.drudgereport.com]Drudge Report[/url] is keeping tabs. In the case of the New York thing, there's still a lot of uncertainty and conjecture.

Americans are now waking up to all the lies and brainwashing their medie pours out everyday.

Quote:

[b]Not Entitled to Their Own Facts[/b]

By Dan Froomkin
Washington Post - September 6, 2007

The late senator Daniel Moynihan famously said that people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Modern political debate, however, turns out to be as much or more about facts as it is about opinion. In particular, people's views about what should we do in Iraq appear to be largely fueled by competing views of reality.

That's why the White House is trying to focus so much attention on the testimony next week by its two chief loyalists in Iraq. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker are expected to present evidence that the surge is beginning to work and deserves more of a chance. Bush and his aides are hoping their analysis will be accepted as fact.

But as Karen DeYoung writes in today's Washington Post, there is plenty of reason to be skeptical of such optimism. Case in point: "The U.S. military's claim that violence has decreased sharply in Iraq in recent months has come under scrutiny from many experts within and outside the government, who contend that some of the underlying statistics are questionable and selectively ignore negative trends.

"Reductions in violence form the centerpiece of the Bush administration's claim that its war strategy is working. In congressional testimony Monday, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is expected to cite a 75 percent decrease in sectarian attacks. . . .

"Others who have looked at the full range of U.S. government statistics on violence, however, accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators and caution that the numbers -- most of which are classified -- are often confusing and contradictory. . . .

"Recent estimates by the media, outside groups and some government agencies have called the military's findings into question. The Associated Press last week counted 1,809 civilian deaths in August, making it the highest monthly total this year, with 27,564 civilians killed overall since the AP began collecting data in April 2005."

That alleged 75 percent decrease is a fascinating story in and of itself. As DeYoung writes: "When Petraeus told an Australian newspaper last week that sectarian attacks had decreased 75 percent 'since last year,' the statistic was quickly e-mailed to U.S. journalists in a White House fact sheet. Asked for detail, [the Multi-National Force-Iraq] said that 'last year' referred to December 2006, when attacks spiked to more than 1,600.

"By March, however -- before U.S. troop strength was increased under Bush's strategy -- the number had dropped to 600, only slightly less than in the same month last year. That is about where it has remained in 2007, with what MNF-I said was a slight increase in April and May 'but trending back down in June-July.'

"Petraeus's spokesman, Col. Steven A. Boylan, said he was certain that Petraeus had made a comparison with December in the interview with the Australian paper, which did not publish a direct Petraeus quote. No qualifier appeared in the White House fact sheet."

This is far from the first time administration figures have been questioned. As DeYoung writes: "Challenges to how military and intelligence statistics are tallied and used have been a staple of the Iraq war. In its December 2006 report, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group identified 'significant underreporting of violence,' noting that 'a murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack. If we cannot determine the sources of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the data base.' The report concluded that 'good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals.'"

Peter Grier writes in the Christian Science Monitor: "Violence in Iraq is down -- unless it isn't. The surge of US troops into Baghdad has eliminated havens for outlaws -- or not. The Iraqi government has sent three brigades to help curb Baghdad violence -- depending on the definition of 'brigade.'

"As Washington enters a crucial period of debate about the Iraq war, Democrats in Congress and the Bush administration appear to differ on basic facts and numbers about the situation there, as well as on what policies to pursue."

Stephen Collinson writes for AFP: "Far from unleashing a pivotal political shift, a flurry of reports to the US Congress on President George W. Bush's war strategy in Iraq appear to be simply hardening political divides. . . .

"[T]he answer to the question of whether the war is now a quagmire or showing promise still lies in the eye of the beholder."

In a letter last week to congressional leaders, a group of academics and former government officials suggested "inquiry and attention into the exact nature and methodology that is being used to track the security situation in Iraq and specifically the assertions that sectarian violence is down. Not only is accurate reporting the key to sound policy, it is also the responsibility of government to those who have lost loved ones to this horrific conflict."

More Facts to Argue About

-----

In a second Washington Post story this morning, DeYoung writes: "Iraq's army, despite measurable progress, will be unable to take over internal security from U.S. forces in the next 12 to 18 months and 'cannot yet meaningfully contribute to denying terrorists safe haven,' according to a report on the Iraqi security forces published today.

"The report, prepared by a commission of retired senior U.S. military officers, describes the 25,000-member Iraqi national police force and the Interior Ministry, which controls it, as riddled with sectarianism and corruption. The ministry, it says, is 'dysfunctional' and is 'a ministry in name only.' The commission recommended that the national police force be disbanded."

It's a far cry from what Petraeus and Bush were confidently predicting a couple years ago. DeYoung writes: "As he ended a year in charge of training the Iraqi security forces in 2005, then-Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus said that Iraq's military had made 'enormous progress' and that its readiness to take over from U.S. forces was growing 'with each passing week.' President Bush said of the Iraqi forces, 'As they stand up, we'll stand down.'"

David S. Cloud writes in the New York Times: "Allies of the White House are likely to point to the report as evidence of the dangers inherent in any rapid withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, and a Pentagon spokesman said Wednesday that the administration remained committed 'to stay as long as it takes to get the Iraqi Army back on its feet.'

"But Democrats, who are pressing for a speedy reduction of American combat troops in Iraq, may use the report to argue for shifting additional resources into training Iraqi police and army units. Democratic lawmakers who have returned recently from Iraq have called attention to what they called surprising improvements in the Iraqi Army, which they contend can allow the United States to draw down rapidly without leaving Iraq in chaos."

And Yet Another Reality Check

--------

James Gordon Meek writes in the New York Daily News: "Lawmakers returning here this week got hit with more bad news about Iraq in a confidential report that says the fragile democracy is 'collapsing,' the Daily News has learned.

"The boycott of the government by certain Shiite and Kurdish political blocs has left Iraq's leadership hanging by a thread, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service. . . .

"'My assessment is that because of the number and breadth of parties boycotting the cabinet, the Iraqi government is in essential collapse,' Kenneth Katzman, the author of the report, said. 'That argues against any real prospects for political reconciliation.' . . .

Many senior State Department officials in Iraq believe a political solution to the war is now "hopeless," according to a top diplomat.

"'I would agree with that,' Katzman said."

How the Press Can Help

Journalists can help the public determine who's being truthful and who's not.

As Greg Mitchell writes in a column for Editor and Publisher: "Over the next week, much will be written, pro and con, about General Petraeus's report on the progress of the 'surge' in Iraq and President Bush's response. Since both men have pretty much already announced, or at least rehearsed, what they are going to say, the suspense is not exactly crippling."

What's called for, Mitchell writes, is "a steady gaze" of the kind that was "sadly lacking last winter in the weeks before the 'surge' was announced."

Is the press up for such a challenge? There are some signs (see above) that it might be. But coverage of Bush's trip to Iraq was not encouraging.

Howard Kurtz wrote for washingtonpost.com yesterday that "President Bush got the headlines he wanted with his Labor Day drop-by in Iraq."

As press critic Jay Rosen blogs on Huffingtonpost.com: "No one on [the president's] plane thought Bush was going to make any real news in Iraq, and yet they also knew that their bosses weren't about to send them all the way over there and get nothing from it. This made them dependent on what the President decided to say in lieu of making news. So what we got was misleading announcements about possible troop reductions when, as Kurtz wrote, 'a troop reduction is no more likely today than it was yesterday.' . . .

"Bush flew to Iraq on a propaganda mission that required the press to complete the mission for him."

Rosen further marvels that "reporters left behind were heard griping about being 'out of position.'"

Indeed, as Joe Strupp writes for Editor and Publisher: "President Bush's surprise trip to Iraq on Monday, which included just five White House reporters, marks the fourth time in the past month or so that Bush has made surprise news in one location while the White House press corps was en route to another. . . .

"'We're out of position for the big stories,' CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller said in an e-mail to fellow [White House Correspondents Association] members last week."

Myth Busting

--------

Here's an example of some skeptical reporting, from Andrew Tilghman of the Washington Monthly, who challenges the "myth" of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).

"After a strike, the military rushes to point the finger at al-Qaeda, even when the actual evidence remains hazy and an alternative explanation -- raw hatred between local Sunnis and Shiites -- might fit the circumstances just as well. The press blasts such dubious conclusions back to American citizens and policy makers in Washington, and the incidents get tallied and quantified in official reports, cited by the military in briefings in Baghdad. The White House then takes the reports and crafts sound bites depicting AQI as the number one threat to peace and stability in Iraq. (In July, for instance, at Charleston Air Force Base, the president gave a speech about Iraq that mentioned al-Qaeda ninety-five times.)

"By now, many in Washington have learned to discount the president's rhetorical excesses when it comes to the war. But even some of his harshest critics take at face value the estimates provided by the military about AQI's presence."

Tilghman writes that "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. . . .

"How big, then, is AQI? The most persuasive estimate I've heard comes from Malcolm Nance, the author of The Terrorists of Iraq and a twenty-year intelligence veteran and Arabic speaker who has worked with military and intelligence units tracking al-Qaeda inside Iraq. He believes AQI includes about 850 full-time fighters, comprising 2 percent to 5 percent of the Sunni insurgency. 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq,' according to Nance, 'is a microscopic terrorist organization.'

"So how did the military come up with an estimate of 15 percent, when government data and many of the intelligence community's own analysts point to estimates a fraction of that size? The problem begins at the top. When the White House singles out al-Qaeda in Iraq for special attention, the bureaucracy responds by creating procedures that hunt down more evidence of the organization. The more manpower assigned to focus on the group, the more evidence is uncovered that points to it lurking in every shadow."

Playing for Time

--------

Slate publishes its third excerpt from Robert Draper's controversial biography of Bush: Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush. It's in this passage that Bush explains how he's playing for time in Iraq.

"'So now I'm an October--November man,' Bush had said that February, a picture of rustic calm as his boots rested atop the fine historic desk. 'I'm playing for October--November.' . . .

"His playing field was now the future. That, of course, assumed that October--November would at last bring stability to Iraq and thereby surge his depleted mandate. Bush did in fact operate with that belief -- always. . . . What had to be believed, he believed.

"'I'm not afraid to make decisions,' Bush said. 'Matter of fact, I like this aspect of the presidency.'

"He yearned to make more decisions. And he just knew it: After October--November, the strategy would work, Bush would be proven right, and that big ball would be back in his hands again, and he would heave it long."

Bolten Explains

White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten yesterday expanded on Bush's long-term plan, in an interview with the USA Today editorial board.

David Jackson writes in USA Today: "Looking forward, Bolten said he doesn't think any 'realistic observer' can believe that 'all or even most of the American troop presence' will be out of Iraq by the end of Bush's presidency. The questions will be what level of presence will be required, and how much danger troops will be in. . . .

"Bush wants to make 'it possible for his successor -- whichever party that successor is from -- to have a sustained presence in the Middle East,' Bolten said. 'And have America continue to be a respected and influential power in the Middle East.'"

Bolten also told USA Today that Bush will address the nation next week about Iraq and U.S. efforts to get that country "well on the path" to stability by the end of his term. He declined to say whether Bush would discuss any troop withdrawals next week.

Bush Uncensored

---------

Phillip Coorey writes for the Sydney Morning Herald about Bush's chipper view of the war.

"'We're kicking ass,' he told Mark Vaile on the tarmac after the Deputy Prime Minister inquired politely of the President's stopover in Iraq en route to Sydney."

Zay N. Smith reprints Bush's quote in his Chicago Sun-Times column, then writes: "And Osama bin Laden quietly smiles to himself, because it still isn't his."

No WMD?

-----------

Former Clinton administration official Sidney Blumenthal writes in Salon: "On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

"Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD."

Former top CIA official Tyler Drumheller disclosed the White House meeting in a 60 Minutes interview in April 2006, but Blumenthal's sources provide a few new details.

And it's possible that Bush to this day may still believe Saddam had WMD. Think Progress quotes from Draper's book: "Though it was not the sort of thing one could say publicly anymore, the president still believed that Saddam had possessed weapons of mass destruction. He repeated this conviction to Andy Card all the way up until Card's departure in April 2006, almost exactly three years after the Coalition had begun its fruitless search for WMDs."

Opinion Watch

--------

Clinton administration secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright asks in a Washington Post op-ed: "What are we fighting for? . . .

"A cynic might suggest that the military's real mission is to enable President Bush to continue denying that his invasion has evolved into disaster. A less jaded view might identify three goals: to prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for al-Qaeda, a client state of Iran or a spark that inflames regionwide war. These goals respond not to dangers that prompted the invasion but to those that resulted from it. Our troops are being asked to risk their lives to solve problems our civilian leaders created. The president is beseeching us to fear failure, but he has yet to explain how our military can succeed given Iraq's tangled politics and his administration's lack of credibility."

Albright argues that the only hope for Iraq involves coordinated international assistance.

"President Bush could do his part by admitting what the world knows -- that many prewar criticisms of the invasion were on target. Such an admission would be just the shock a serious diplomatic project would need. It would make it easier for European and Arab leaders to help, as their constituents are reluctant to bail out a president who still insists that he was right and they were wrong. Our troops face death every day; the least the president can do is face the truth."

Retired general William E. Odom, on NiemanWatchdog.org (where I am deputy editor) lists "at least three reasons Congress should refuse to give Bush money to arm Sunni insurgent groups

"First, there are no historical examples where the United States has armed its enemies in a client state facing an insurgency and achieved a desirable outcome. . . .

"Second, the implications for political consolidation in Iraq, the very thing that General David Petraeus and others say is essential for success, are adverse. Those Sunnis who are accepting the offer to fight al Qaeda in return for weapons and ammunition do so because they mistrust the present government in Baghdad. Most say so openly. In other words, they will fight on the U.S. side precisely because they do not trust their own government. That tells us that we are arming the enemies of the government whose election and legitimacy we sponsored. Perhaps the president can explain why he favors such a strange policy. . . .

"Third, the historical record holds no example where stable states were created by diffusing weapons and power to local and regional groups. On the contrary, it has led to civil war, chaos, and sometimes the disappearance of states."

Joseph L. Galloway writes for McClatchy Newspapers: "This week President Bush made one of his regular, super-secret photo op visits to the troops in Iraq and, considering that they're armed and dangerous, even let slip that he might or may consider reducing the number of Americans in that miserable country and miserable war. Might. Maybe. Someday. But only from a position of strength. Somewhere close to success or victory.

"Yeah, right.

"Given the amazing number of politicians swooping in to be force-fed the official line, the troops on their second or third or fourth tours of combat in Bush's war surely can recognize weasel words, lies, damned lies and plain old bull."

More on the Disbanding

---------

One of the most shocking revelations of Draper's book was Bush's nonchalant response to questions about the disbanding of the Iraqi army -- widely seen as one of the biggest mistakes of the occupation.

As Richard Wolffe writes for Newsweek: "According to Draper, Bush was unaware that his own viceroy in Baghdad, L. Paul Bremer, was going to stand down the Iraqi army. 'Well, the policy was to keep the army intact,' Bush told the author. 'Didn't happen.' Since then the White House has tried to explain that Bush was actually referring to the melting away of the army, not the disbanding order."

Bremer told the New York Times on Monday that Bush was told in advance about the disbanding of the army.

And today, Bremer writes in a New York Times op-ed: "The decision not to recall Saddam Hussein's army was thoroughly considered by top officials in the American government. At the time, this decision was not controversial. . . .

"On May 22, I sent to President Bush, through Secretary Rumsfeld, my first report since arriving in Iraq. I reviewed our activities since arrival, including our de-Baathification policy. I then alerted the president that 'I will parallel this step with an even more robust measure dissolving Saddam's military and intelligence structures.' The same day, I briefed the president on the plan via secure video. The president sent me a note on May 23 in which he thanked me for my report and noted that 'you have my full support and confidence.'"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/09/06/BL200709060...

"You" wrote:

I find it funny that an educated person called a properly elected person a cruel dictator. and that saying that was an insult is a good comeback.

properly elected out of a total of ONE candidate.

"Ya'qub" wrote:

"You" wrote:

I find it funny that an educated person called a properly elected person a cruel dictator. and that saying that was an insult is a good comeback.

properly elected out of a total of ONE candidate.

Who Komander Khomeini said to vote for!

my childhood school went up in flames yesterday. When i first heard the news i thght it was a little fire, but i learned today that it's a huge fire. Apparently they were still putting it out today.

As yet no one knows how it occured could be structural or arson nothing definate yet.

It's ironic just a day ago i was telling my husband about the great memories i had at secondary school. I spent most of my out of school hrs in the sports area, hanging out with the sports teachers, they were the best teachers around, least in my eyes. One teacher in particular became an inspiration and friend to me i'll never forget her. So guess what happened today it just so happens she met my husband via his work. He saw her name remembered me mentioning her and i got to speak to her. It's been erm i think 9 yrs since i spoke to her. It was both thrilling and devastating to speak to her in light of what's happened, naturally she's still in a state of shock. We got talking about the past and the floodgates started on my side. Most of my best times were spent in the sports area, and to think it's now a pile of ashes just makes me realise how short and precious life is. At least i have my memories even if i'll never see that building again right?

One more thing the sequence of events that led to me speaking to a teacher i loved, and admired just goes to show God works in mysterious ways, He definately reconnected me with her for a reason

thght i'd share my sad life with you, since it's in the news right now, and i'm feeling slightly low.

"Ya'qub" wrote:

"You" wrote:

I find it funny that an educated person called a properly elected person a cruel dictator. and that saying that was an insult is a good comeback.

properly elected out of a total of ONE candidate.

There were other candidates.

Prominent among them was [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafsanjani]Heshemi Rafsanjani[/url].

Although all candidates had to be vetted by the government.

Director of the Columbia University, Bollinger, called President Ahmadinejad an uneducated "cruel dictator".

Iran President is of course one of the most popularly electred leaders in the world.

So instead of telling Bollinger that fact, he ripped him apart by saying you dont know what you are talking about. You've been misled. Being a professor you got your facts wrong. How can you be so misinformed.

A few thinking people inside the lecture hall loved Ahmadinejad's sharp reply to Bollinger: How could a learned man like a university professor not know the definition of "a dictator", and mistake an elected leader as one. Yet the Professor had the cheek of calling Ahmadinejad is "uneducated".

"[url=http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/region/10185742.html wrote:

Gulf News[/url]"][list][b]Iran will have a biased election[/b]

We are the most democratic country in the region," said Manuchehr Mottaki, the foreign minister of the Islamic Republic in Tehran. Speaking in Davos, where he was attending the annual session of the World Economic Forum, Mottaki also claimed that the next Iranian general election would be the freest ever since the late Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in 1979.

Events inside Iran, however, provide a different picture. Last week the Council of the Guardians of the Constitution, a 12-man committee of mullahs and their legal advisers, rejected the application forms of almost 4,000 men and women who wish to run in the next general election scheduled for March 14. Almost all of the unsuccessful applicants belong to the 21 groups designated by Western observers as "reformists" opponents of the ultra-radical President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The list of the "rejected ones" reads like a who-is-who of politicians regarded by many in the West as "moderates" expected to put the Khomeinist regime on a less confrontational trajectory.

The list includes individuals who served in the administrations of Hashemi Rafsanjani, a businessman-mullah, and Mohammad Khatami, a mid-ranking cleric, who preceded Ahmadinejad as president of Iran.

There are also scores of former members of the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Majlis) the 290-seat parliament set up by Khomeini in 1980. In what looks like a massive purge, a total of 103 members of the present Majlis, all critics of Ahmadinejad, have also been declared "unfit" for re-election.

[url=http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/region/10185742.html]Contd...[/url]

[i]Amir Taheri is an Iranian writer based in Europe.[/i][/list:u]

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7217342.stm]Jeremey Beadle has passed away, aged 59[/url]

oh man, i really used to like his shows

Quote:

He attracted funds for Children with Leukaemia all through his life and is thought to have raised more than £100 million for all charities.

Quote:

rate him for that, and you been framed.....he made it class, after him, with that big woman, it werent the same

"[url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080206/ap_on_re_us/severe_weather wrote:

AP[/url]"]LAFAYETTE, Tenn. - Daybreak revealed a battered landscape across the South on Wednesday, as crews searching communities hit by a violent line of tornadoes fought through downed power lines, crumpled mobile homes and snapped trees to find victims. At least 48 people were dead.

"Joie de Vivre" wrote:

[quote="[url=http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/region/10185742.html]Gulf News[/url]"][b]Iran will have a biased election[/b]

"[url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/123e583e-d4de-11dc-9af1-0000779fd2ac.html?ncli... wrote:

FT.com[/url]"]The mass disqualifications have guaranteed that conservatives will retain their absolute majority in the next parliament, which they won four years ago following disqualifications on a similar scale.

Mr Karroubi and two former presidents, Mr Khatami and Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani held an emergency meeting recently in which they decided to appeal to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, who has the last say in all state affairs, to intervene in the qualification process.

“The result only seems to be more disqualifications,” said one despairing reformist.