Spain Bends Over for AL'Qeuda

“Red Hawk, you said, "show me an unbiased reporrter one way or the other and I'll be in shock". Studies show the vast majority of the media is liberal. I couldn't agree with you more.

As to the reports who had previously worked with Clarke and flatly contradict him are Ijaz now stationed in London, and Retired Col. David Hunt, to name two of the four I have heard in the last two days.

But if you want unbaised, how about a tape in which Clarke earlier told reporters that,

1) The new Bush administration changed existing plans on how to deal with al-Qaida and increased covert operations funding "five-fold".

2) "There was no plan on al Qaida that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration."

3) The Bush administration decided to "increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after al Qaida."

4) That in March or April the new Bush administration "then changed the strategy from one of rollback with al Qaida over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaida."


I submit, Clarke's early taped interviews with the press demonstrates that Mr. Clarke is a bald faced liar when he now asserts that President Bush did nothing about al-Qaida before 9/11.”

“Not that anyone would make up lies to discredit Clarke (who was a registered Republican in 2000), but I wanted to see the quotes you provided in context. For some reason, I can't seem to google them up. Do you have a cite to the original?”

“WOW...Who'd uh thunk it....when you bend over for one group of terrorists (i.e. surrender to EVIL (the Islamic Fascists) you signal...?
A. You want peace, and are a really NICE FEELY type nation.

B. We need to work this out so lets get together for a GROUP HUG!

C. Lets end the pain, lets work together.

D. Hold on She (our nation) is squirming let me get a better grip on her arms so she won't fight you as much.


Well for the Surrender Weasels in Spain they are learning. You surrender to one force of EVIL becuase of terrorisim...you set the stage.

At his year-end news conference on Dec. 29, Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero proclaimed that the peace initiative he had started with the Basque separatist movement ETA months before was making progress.

“Are we better off now with a permanent cease-fire, or when we had bombs, car bombs and explosions?” he asked. “This time next year, we will be better off than we are today.”

The next morning, a bomb ETA had planted in a Renault van exploded in the five-story parking garage of Madrid’s new air terminal, killing two people and causing tens of millions of dollars of damage to Spain’s glittery showpiece of modernity.

So surrender weasels....what does this mean for you who want us to lose in Iraq?”

“Your question assumes we can _win_ in Iraq. I am no more confident of our winning in Iraq than our ability to win in 'Nam. The simple fact is there is no one more dangerous than someone who will die for the cause he beleives in. So long as there is one fanatic in the Middle East we will continue to be under siege. I think it is safe to say there is more than a single fanatic. The solution? I think we are in a no-win situation. Bin Laden and Hussein threatened to bury us in our own blood on their soil if not ours. It seems we did not take them seriously. That was a mistake. One thing is clear in my mind. The political know-it-alls in this nation haven't the faintest clue about militant Islam. Either that, or they are consumate traitors. Personally I am not sure which is more accurate. I am not aiming that charge at Bush. Frankly I think he is too stupid to be covered by either accusation.

Hey... if this is gonna be fuego... might as well live it up.”

“"....killing two...."

For a guy who thinks that 3,000 Americans dead in Iraq is a small price to pay, what's it gonna be?

Can you have it both ways, XL?
last edited: 1/17/07 7:23:09 AM”

“I guess the question is what WILL BE THE PRICE we pay?

I have already listed the Billions it cost on the relativly small attack on 9/11. So Marky Mark lets assume, for the sake of argument, we get say ten car bombs in Washington, New York, Chicago, Des Moines, etc. Say they target oh...a major sports event. Or even campaign speeches major public events, parades etc since the potential targets BOGGLE the imagination. Could even be the HUMAN BOMBS, or relativly easy Chem/Bio weapon.

What is the trade off? We already see how both parties are DYING to take control of our liberties. SO the next time a Hike gets planned we get to the trail head (okay we not you or Vile since you don't hike) there are ten federal agents there telling us to GO HOME.

As for the trite comment on the war we Gave Away in Vietnam (you do know the GOOKS admit we were destroying them) Imagine what the past 30 years would have been like if in 1974 when the Gooks crossed the line we had started shelling and massive bombing campaigns that had reduced Hanoi, etc to rubble? But we backed down.

Or even better 1936 the Surrender Weasels had sent one BRIGADE say sacrificed 3000 lives to stop Hitler going into the Rhineland. Would it have been worth saving 60 million lives?
last edited: 1/17/07 7:29:05 AM”

“"....since you don't hike...."

There ya go with yet another of your fantasies.

I've been backpacking pretty steady for 33 years, XLax.

Your re-writes of history are laughable, by the way........an imperialist's wet dreams.”

“Pretty Interesting Brilliant writer...oh Marky here is another one who left the liberal plantation you might not want to read it. (I have met Dr. Sowell brilliant and very nice man)


January 17, 2007
Another Vietnam?: Part II
By Thomas Sowell

Critics of the Bush administration's conduct of the war in Iraq have long demanded that he admit his mistakes. But they have not admitted their own past mistakes, much less admit the potentially catastrophic mistake they will make in the future if they make it impossible to sustain military operations there.

Critics have been proved wrong repeatedly in their claims that elections could not be held in Iraq or a government formed there. Iraqi voter turnout, even in the face of terrorist threats, has exceeded voter turnout in the United States.

During the 2004 presidential election campaign, John Kerry warned that the Bush administration had plans to impose a military draft immediately after being re-elected.

Two years later, there is no sign of a military draft on the horizon. The only people who have been advocating a military draft have been Democrats like Charles Rangel -- transparently as part of their class warfare political strategy of claiming that "the poor" are fighting and dying while "the rich" stay home and enjoy life. No facts back up this claim.

Miscalculations have been the rule, not the exception, in wars going back through the centuries. The miscalculations in the Iraq war have not been military but political.

Saddam Hussein's army was defeated quickly, decisively, and with far lower American casualty rates than in previous wars. Clearly there were ample numbers of American troops to accomplish that mission.

President Bush was right to listen to the military as regards the conduct of the war. But perhaps he should have sought the advice of police chiefs as regards maintaining law and order.

For that we did not have enough troops in Iraq and -- more important -- the troops we did have were under too many politically imposed restrictions. Put bluntly, they needed to tell the many private militias in Iraq to drop their guns or get killed.

Far fewer people would have died if they had. Of course, hand-wringers around the world, beginning with the American media, would have denounced such "brutality" and claimed that "negotiations" could have prevented such bloodshed.

The Iraqi government has negotiated, if not collaborated, with some of these domestic terrorists -- and the net result has been escalating violence and mounting death tolls.

A very thoughtful article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs by Singapore's former prime minister Lee Kwan Yew explained the realities of maintaining order after a conquest. You do not do it by a wholesale banishing of those who maintained order before the conquest.

The most fundamental difference between President Bush and his critics has not been in who has made mistakes, because both have. The biggest difference has been that the President has taken a long-run view of the worldwide war on terror, while his critics are seeking a quick fix.

Critics claim that there is no connection between the war on terror and the war in Iraq. They don't seem to notice that the terrorists themselves obviously see a clear connection, which they express in both words and deeds.

Terrorists are pouring into Iraq, even at the cost of their lives, in order to prevent a free, democratic government from being established in the Middle East. They see victory or defeat in Iraq as having major and long-lasting repercussions throughout the region and even throughout the world.

Critics seem not to be concerned about anything beyond the 2008 elections.

Both individuals within Iraq and countries throughout the Middle East must make life-and-death choices, based on whether they are safer to cooperate with the United States or to align themselves with the terrorists.

If the United States is here today and gone tomorrow, while the terrorists have already demonstrated their staying power and tenacity, we can expect a catastrophic realignment of forces in a region whose oil is the lifeblood of economies around the world.

With fanatical extremists controlling both Middle East oil and nuclear weapons, what happens in the 2008 elections can look like small potatoes compared to the horrors we bequeath our children.

Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate”

“Oh please, not on my screen. Where's the bleach?”

“North Vietnam crossed the line '74? Talk about a history re-write. Ok.. so let's assume we send another 25,000 troops to Iraq. How does that assure that we do not get the car or human bombs in the Super Bowl?

XL I don't know how old you are. I once assumed that you were about my age, but I am not so sure now. No... this is not a crack about immaturity. I just donot understand how a male who came of age in the 60's could have such a warped understanding of 'Nam. Westmoreland admits in his book that the whole war was mis-represetned to the American people by the political powers that be. We did _not_ "give it away". We _lost_ buddy. The military wisdom of the day i.e. "Do not get involved in a land war in Asia" was completely and totally ignored.

Similarly, the wisdom known about militant Islam was ignored and the war in Iraq mis-represented to the American people.

That'll do it for me. I'm done on this thread.”

“Wait a second here! They gave in to the Islamoterrorists so they are supposed to leave them alone, right? You mean that doesn't work? Huh! Never saw that comin'.”

“Basque terrorists are not "Islamoterrorists".

Let's stay focused here.”

“Westmoreland admits in his book that the whole war was mis-represetned to the American people by the political powers that be. We did _not_ "give it away". We _lost_ buddy. The military wisdom of the day i.e. "Do not get involved in a land war in Asia" was completely and totally ignored.
ramblinrev
7:48:10 AM
1/17/07

Here's some more of what Westmoreland had to say:

The American military was not defeated in Vietnam. The American military did not lose a battle of any consequence. From a military standpoint, it was almost an unprecedented performance. (Westmoreland quoting Douglas Pike, a professor at the University of California, Berkley a renowned expert on the Vietnam War)”

“LOL MarKY....um the tactic of Terrorisim to achieve one's ends is kinda like Burglars. If when the burglar breaks into your home you help him tie down the family and let him take what he wants....you can be assured you are going to get a bunch more visits (from others too). But when he breaks in if the coroner comes, zips him into a bag...I will bet thats the last time someone will break into your house.\

See Marky you cannot negotiate with EVIL. You can't LOVE Evil into being good....all you can do is DESTROY evil.”

“Eph 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

I know... I said I was done. But I think we need to put "evil" in its proper perspective. We can destroy all the terrorists we want but it will not have an impact on "evil".”

“UM Rev....when the rope snapped taught on Saddam or the rounds shredded his sons...that part of evil ended.

You are using the same sophistry of debate that the Libbies use with the POOR. SOOORY on one side you say the POOR are just an expense to bear (regardless that the plan is 8 Trillion in the hole and millions of lives have been permenantly destroyed) so keep pouring money into it. For evil, if we can't beat it why fight it seems to be the sentiment. Well gang we have to fight this evil...and personally I would rather 35,000 Iraqi Civilians take a dirt nap than 35,000 American Civilians. Nationalist,? yeah, insensitive? Yeah.

But I wonder what would have happened in 1865 if General Lee had surrendered and demanded the South start a Guerilla War? How long before the Yankees (kinda like a Hummer but you do it yourself)(LOL) woudl have demanded they just GIVE IN. Heck they had already had riots in New York over the draft. We would never have survived as a nation. Well today we will not find men of the caliber and quality of General Lee so we have to decide...do we stop it there or when we have no choice.”

“"See Marky you cannot negotiate with EVIL. You can't LOVE Evil into being good....all you can do is DESTROY evil.”
XL400236
9:37:19 AM
1/17/07

Then...........be gone you evil thing!!”

“For evil, if we can't beat it why fight it seems to be the sentiment.


hmmmm.... I must have missed something. Where did I say that? I can't find it.”

“ know... I said I was done. But I think we need to put "evil" in its proper perspective. We can destroy all the terrorists we want but it will not have an impact on "evil".”
Ramblinrev

UM believe me....when they individually take a dirt nap....evil is cut down a little.”

“Still don't see it....

oh well.... guess my point has been made. The nature of evil is completely misunderstood. Thanks for the affirmation.”

“Then...........be gone you evil thing!!”
mARKo
9:05:58 AM
1/17/07

You have to say it in an imperious voice while wearing a Merlin or Gandolf costume. That's the only way it works for me.

Oh, and throw a little hand flourish in there.”

“then there's


"Aroint, Witch!"

John Steinbeck
The Winter of Our Discontent”