No problem. With Bush, Cheney, and Condi Rice keeping an eye on the Saudis, we don't have anything to worry about. It's funny, because it's so horribly wrong.
' Dan, do you have anything constructive to say? Or are you just going continue Bush bashing while those Whahabbi mother*#*#*#*#ers get some Musharef missiles?
You ever looked up the word 'facile', manny? Dan could have said "I sure hope our President, NSA and Defence Secretary will work hard to ensure that this Obviously Bad Thing is not allowed to happen. I have every faith, based on all available evidence of their tendencies, capabilities and geopolitical disposition, that they will do so with alacrity". That would be 'constructive'. Oh - and an act of cringeworthy banality. I'm guessing Dan decided to leave that part of this thread's development to you.
I'm sure that he just wanted to take yet another shot at Bush. He certainly does not "have every faith, based on all available evidence of their tendencies, capabilities and geopolitical disposition, that they will do so with alacrity".
We are not bogged down in Iraq. 87 Billiion is nothing to us. Our only problem in the war on terrorism might be a lack of will: Don’t the Democrats care even a little about terrorism? http://www.hillnews.com/york/102203.aspx
I read the article. IMO, all the contradictory outcomes and opinions depending on how the questions/issues were worded only indicate that this author is quite skilled in the art of intuitive gymnastics in reaching his conclusions.
From the first and second paragraph: This doesn't seem to me like a group out to hang liberals with word games.
If this proves to be true and thereby, in turn, proves that Pakistan - a Muslim nation with significant anti-western factions - is an active proliferator of WMD's to other states that openly support terrorism, is the US not going to need to find some more troops from somewhere? Invading and occupying Pakistan is not going to be a small operation, after all ...
What an incredibly dopey reading of a poll, followed by a raft of dubious conclusions. They polled registered Democrats in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Well, I've never been to Iowa or South Carolina, but I have been to New Hampshire numerous times, and have I got news for you: people living in places like that have good reason to be worrying about things besides terrorism first. Things like the failing economy, crippling unemployment, health care (or lack of it) for their families, and so on are a lot more immediate and pertinent to their lives and self-interests than the risk of a terrorist attack on Concord or Manchester or the Attitash/Bear Peak base lodge. I would suspect the same goes for IA and SC. I know that Bush and Cheney and Rummy and friends have done a good job of beating it into the national subconscious that we are ALL in danger, ALL the time, but do you really think your chances of being attacked is as great in Des Moines as it is in Lower Manhattan or San Francisco? Come on. Here's another f'rinstance. I just found out yesterday that the county next to mine here in rural Ohio has the fifth-highest unemployment rate, by county, in the nation - 16.9%. If they did a poll there, and anything more than 1% of the population was concerned about terrorism above the fact that a sixth of the county is out of work, I'd not only be surprised but awfully dismayed by a terrible lack of perspective. Let me also say that the design of the survey, as I read it, doesn't do much for me; if, instead of asking for Priority 1 and Priority 2, they had employed a scale of Very Important to Not Important and had respondents rank ALL of these issues, then I'd wager you'd see different (and far more representative) results. Since it was taken in NH, IA and SC by a Dem polling agency, I'm wagering that this poll was meant to help the candidates and advisers craft a focused message for the primary campaigns, not as a representation of What Democrats Want. But hey, nothing like taking things like this out of context. This Beltway windbag is feigning shock that some people have other primary concerns besides doling out fat contracts to corporate cronies and restricting civil liberties yet further, which is what 'fighting terrorism' aka 'homeland security' (why the distinction?) apparently boils down to, because our planes aren't much safer and neither are our borders. Then again, it must be nice for him to not have to worry about losing his job, not being able to afford to take his kids to the doctor, or having to go on WIC while working his ass off at two jobs. He should be worried, because I heard the Pakistanis just slipped Pat Robertson a couple nukes.
Hmm. More likely the west will just, erm .... approach (*cough*appease!!*cough*) this in more roundabout ways. What with Pakistan being our friends. I mean, having nukes. No! I mean friends. Err, no, nukes, I mean nukes ... or hang on, no, I mean ...
This is on the front page of the Wash Times today. I wasn't shocked. I think our friend Osama is in on this. I remember having a conversation where it was theorized that Osama's intention was to get Paki nukes and use them to gain power in Saudi Arabia and wage war against the U.S. and Isreal. Saddam's in bed with members of the Paki military. If someone could offer a better explanation as to why we haven't found him, please tell me. And McCracken's he's dead story doesn't count.
Repeat after me, folks: India and Russia will become our most important strategic allies within the next 10 years. India and Russia will become our most important strategic allies within the next 10 years. India and Russia will become our most important strategic allies within the next 10 years. India and Russia will become our most important strategic allies within the next 10 years. India and Russia will become our most important strategic allies within the next 10 years.
Did you actually mean to write "Saddam" there and not "Osama", or was that a Freudian slip? (if it was the latter, I agree with you--both about Osama being in bed with someone very high up in the Pakistani military (or intelligence services), and about Osama and Saddam having been allies )