"Support the Troops"

[red states rule]

You mean like whenever they write something that perfectly fits your preconcieved notion of what you think the "truth" is?

That's convenient!

To the liberal media - good news is bad news

Bush success vs. al Qaeda breeds long-term worries

By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's administration has crippled al Qaeda's ability to carry out major attacks on U.S. soil but at a political and economic cost that could leave the country more vulnerable in years to come, experts say.

Even as al Qaeda tries to rebuild operations in Pakistan, experts including current and former intelligence officials believe the group would have a hard time staging another September 11 because of U.S. success at killing or capturing senior members whose skills and experience have not been replaced.

"If the question is why al Qaeda hasn't carried out another 9/11 attack, the answer I think is that if they could have, they would have," said a former senior U.S. intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Tighter U.S. airport security, greater scrutiny of people entering the United States and better coordination between the CIA, FBI and Department of Homeland Security also have made it harder for extremists to enter the country, experts said.

Home-grown extremists in the United States are believed to be isolated and lacking the will or ability to carry out large-scale operations.

"Make no mistake about it, however, our enemy is resilient and determined to strike us again," said Charles Allen, chief intelligence officer at the Department of Homeland Security.

Some experts warn that the successes of Bush's war on terrorism have been undercut by huge security costs, strains on the U.S. military from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and resentment of the United States abroad.

"Look at al Qaeda's plans," said Michael Scheuer, who once led the CIA team devoted to finding al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. "They're very simply defined in two phrases: spread out America's forces and bleed the United States to bankruptcy. I'd argue America has been under attack successfully every day since 9/11 from that perspective.

"If you're looking at it from the cave, or wherever al Qaeda is hiding at the moment, you have to be pretty happy with the way the world is moving," he said.

ATTACKS WANE

The Iraq war has been described by U.S. intelligence as both a cause celebre for new al Qaeda recruits and a militant training ground in explosives and urban guerrilla tactics.

"There may be individuals they've been able to recruit in Iraq who might have the credentials and capabilities to deploy elsewhere, even though the core al Qaeda has been damaged," said John Brennan, former acting director of the National Counterterrorism Center.

U.S. intelligence believes that bin Laden and his second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri, driven from Afghanistan when U.S.-led forces ended Taliban rule there in 2001, are now trying to reestablish operations in remote, semi-autonomous tribal areas in Pakistan.

But experts view recent attacks in Europe such as the July 2005 London transport bombings as evidence that al Qaeda-linked groups, while dangerous, lack the advanced skills and organization of militant groups like Hezbollah.

"What al Qaeda's left with is a bunch of Sunni radicals in various capitals who get their orders and technology on the Internet. But their contact with home base is not very strong and they're not very disciplined," said former CIA official Robert Baer

Islamist groups have killed about 1,600 people in 53 attacks overseas since 2001, according to IntelCenter, an Alexandria, Virginia-based intelligence contractor.

The number and lethality of the attacks have fallen off since 2004. Last year, there were five attacks and 28 deaths, according to IntelCenter statistics, which do not include attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan or other war zones.

But IntelCenter chief executive Ben Venzke said the chance of an al Qaeda attack on U.S. soil has grown based on the militant network's increasing references to the American homeland in public messages.

"Our leading thinking is that we are closer now to an attempt at a major attack in the United States than at any point since 9/11," Venzke said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...3?pageNumber=1

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I love this, everybody who the far left disagrees with is a biggot.

Todd Beamer and his Merry Band of Bigots may have escaped justice, but the nameless John and Jane Does of Flight 300 won’t get off so easy. Lawsuits are currently being filed against those who reported the befuddled Imams to the airport gestapo.

Its in the link, red state provided above

People on the far left, are anti-christian, and its people like this who will make sure my throat is slit, and you will be on a prayer rug

http://blamebush.typepad.com/

 

[actsnoblemartin]

like attacking christians

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2006/12/liberal_larrys_.html

 

[eots]

Dems have not changed since the Civil War


its not a civil war.....its pure evil...according to the great leader...i mean decider

 

[actsnoblemartin]

its not a civil war.....its pure evil...according to the great leader...i mean decider

I dont understand what your talking about

but can we get back to an actual issue?

 

[eots]

today bush announced on CNN that there was not a civil war in Iraq and said it was more accurately described as pure evil

 

[actsnoblemartin]

actually, saddam paid 25,000$ to the families of every palestinian homicide bomber. Although, im not really interested in discussing my opinion on the iraqi war, because this thread has turned very ugly.

Please people, stop being so vile to each other

 

[red states rule]

today bush announced on CNN that there was not a civil war in Iraq and said it was more accurately described as pure evil

The Poll You’ll Never Hear About: Only 27% of Iraqis Believe it’s a Civil War
Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 19, 2007 - 00:34.
There were two Iraq polls released on Sunday. One is guaranteed to be headline news. The other will likely be totally ignored.

In fact, one of the polls was already referenced by George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week,” as well as reported by USA Today and CNN.

Know what the difference is between these surveys, both of which rather compelling as they asked questions of Iraqi citizens? Well, one painted a rather dire picture of conditions in the embattled country, while the other found a very optimistic people who don’t believe their nation is in a civil war.

As the American media will likely focus all of its attention on the more pessimistic survey, here is the contrary view nobody other than Fox News is likely to cover as reported by the Sunday Times (emphasis added throughout):

DESPITE sectarian slaughter, ethnic cleansing and suicide bombs, an opinion poll conducted on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq has found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants.

The poll, the biggest since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003, shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services.

The survey, published today, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war.

Is it becoming clear why you are unlikely to hear anything about this poll? Yet, that was only the beginning of the startling findings:

The 400 interviewers who fanned out across Iraq last month found that the sense of security felt by Baghdad residents had significantly improved since polling carried out before the US announced in January that it was sending in a “surge” of more than 20,000 extra troops.

[…]

49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26% said things had been better in Saddam’s era, while 16% said the two leaders were as bad as each other and the rest did not know or refused to answer.

And, there was even more good news:

The poll suggests a significant increase in support for Maliki. A survey conducted by ORB in September last year found that only 29% of Iraqis had a favourable opinion of the prime minister.

Another surprise was that only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war. Again, that number divided along religious lines, with 41% of Sunnis believing Iraq was in a civil war, compared with only 15% of Shi’ites.

[…]

One question showed the sharp divide in attitudes towards the continued presence of foreign troops in Iraq. Some 53% of Iraqis nationwide agree that the security situation will improve in the weeks after a withdrawal by international forces, while only 26% think it will get worse.

“We’ve been polling in Iraq since 2005 and the finding that most surprised us was how many Iraqis expressed support for the present government,” said Johnny Heald, managing director of ORB. “Given the level of violence in Iraq, it shows an unexpected level of optimism.”

Despite the sectarian divide, 64% of Iraqis still want to see a united Iraq under a central national government.

Rather unfortunate that Americans will likely hear very little about this survey, wouldn’t you agree?

What a disgrace.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11497

 

[actsnoblemartin]

we know the media is liberally biased, when 90% vote for a democrat, and you see them always jumping down the throat of a republican, and giving a free pass to democrats, and not reporting on anything positive, its the news media, not fox news who is UN-fair, and UN-balanced.

 

[maineman]

we know the media is liberally biased, when 90% vote for a democrat, and you see them always jumping down the throat of a republican, and giving a free pass to democrats, and not reporting on anything positive, its the news media, not fox news who is UN-fair, and UN-balanced.

blah blah blah.... why do you think so little of professional journalists that you think they are incapable of reporting the facts regardless of their personal political affiliation?

Do you only go to republican doctors?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

blah blah blah.... why do you think so little of professional journalists that you think they are incapable of reporting the facts regardless of their personal political affiliation?

I just dont trust the media, maybe i listen to too much conservative talk radio

Do you only go to republican doctors?

NO, i could care less what a persons politics are, i would hang out with anyone , as long as they arent mean to you.

I am working on being less biased, and I like being challenged on my beliefs, but please dont be so aggressive or mean about it, and i promise i'll listen to you with an open ear , and an open mind, just ask shogun

 

[red states rule]

blah blah blah.... why do you think so little of professional journalists that you think they are incapable of reporting the facts regardless of their personal political affiliation?

Do you only go to republican doctors?

You cannot tell the difference from the front page and the opinion page in the liberal media

 

[maineman]

You cannot tell the difference from the front page and the opinion page in the liberal media

bullshit.

professional journalists know the difference between opinion and news....

now Fox NEWS Radio.... that is a different story

 

[jillian]

blah blah blah.... why do you think so little of professional journalists that you think they are incapable of reporting the facts regardless of their personal political affiliation?

I just dont trust the media, maybe i listen to too much conservative talk radio

Do you only go to republican doctors?

NO, i could care less what a persons politics are, i would hang out with anyone , as long as they arent mean to you.

I am working on being less biased, and I like being challenged on my beliefs, but please dont be so aggressive or mean about it, and i promise i'll listen to you with an open ear , and an open mind, just ask shogun

The whole "liberal media" thing is what is called in Yiddish a bubbameitzer (sp?)...an old wive's tale.

These articles might interest you.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602150003

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604040001

 

[red states rule]

bullshit.

professional journalists know the difference between opinion and news....

now Fox NEWS Radio.... that is a different story

Know I know why you ignore the posts from Newsbusters - you always ignore the truth

 

[Creek_George]

What exactly does this mean? Anyone?

We as American people love our troops...We are with them..we cry with them.

I see some using that as an excuse..to say go along with the program.

Of course we support our troops...but now it feels like we are sending them to police violence in another country...To correct a mistake that brought them there to begin with.

That saying now..is like if we don't believe Bush..we don't support our troops.

America...including myself is not afraid to say this is "bullshit"...It feels like we now have to correct a mistake we made.

It is a term used...to support them...Now it is used mostly by those with family..or a political agenda.....I support the families of those serving..I appreciate all the do for my freedom..I love them with all my heart.

This is my opinion...To support our troops..and to support this war are totaly 2 different things.

To want them to come home..to get them out of harms way of a serious ass mess...is supporting them.

If Bush thinks I'd fuel a plane..to continue this B.S...then hang my ass for war crimes.

I am a patriot..and all my family has served...It was something that we as a people got behind.

If anyone can tell me what this Iraq crap has accomplished..or tell me a reason worth hauling in the fight..I wana hear it.

Now we have a responsibilty to clean this mess up....

People are not supporting this war....They know exactly why it started...They are seeing failure..after failure..and shit falling from the sky.

Dam right we support them...

I personaly want nothing to do with filling the void anymore...

Terrorist attack..after road side bomb....

At least we removed a bad leader...To bad about the WMD's...

Those that support them the most..would call an end to this B.S...The world don't work that way...at least those in the White House don't see it that way.

We have free speech here....Those that are against this...support the troops the most.

This aint Anti-War...it's just seeing reality.

Support our troops is a God Given for Every American....Try using support this war...instead of using our young men & women as political propaganda.

My two bits..

Creek

 

[Superlative]

"CUT AND RUN" is a Political way of framing the issue, Its the exact same as "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS" its ambigious, if you're against the war, your not "for our troops" and if you want to end the war, you must want to "cut and run" Its a simple way of turning your positive into a negative.

Its just clever phrasing in order to make the public blindly choose sides, according to the government, you're either for the US or against it, its plain old political positioning, it simplifies things when the issues arent that simple, they are FRAMED in a way that forces people to take a side without thinking.

I realize that there are a million things leading up to this and dont think im ignoring them, i realize its a war/occupation, im just highlighting the facts of "Framing the issue"

Please allow me a HUGE liberty in drawing an analogy for you, which you can rip apart at your leisure.


Lets imagine

Owner "B" Allegedly breaks Owner "A"swindow, or at least we totally assume he did, cause we dont like him, and he has a gas station in the parking lot, that we do like.

Owner "A" then says, "Thats it, im going to fuck his shit up."

the owner of a supermarket "A" in retaliation sends employees to supermarket "B", where they smash up the place, and basically try to assume control

After the smash up,
Owner "A" says "its ok, ill send some caretakers over there to clean it up."

When owner "A"s employees complain "you shouldnt have gone and done that"

Owner "A" simply says, "He broke our window first! Dont you support our caretakers? Dont undermine our caretakers, they're over there doing their best and cleaning up."

"A"s employees say, "I guess we support them, they are our employees, we just dont support that you fucked their shit up. You need to stop messing things up over there,"

Owner "A" says, "If you support our employees your on my side, you want to just leave? the jobs not done we cant just cut and run, its still a mess over there,"

"A"s employees"I guess we have to stay, they are our people, and it is a mess."[/i]


Through a constant beratement of repeated Talking points on every major news organization, The US Government has framed the issue as such.
And the gen pop buys the shit they are fed.
Using ambigious terms to frame issues to skew public opinion in their favor, its not new, its just what the general public (who dont generally investigate further than one news channel) end up believing.


Yes this is a repost from this thread.
http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=47874&page=9

 

[red states rule]

Stalemate Over Funds for War Would Hurt Troops and Politicians
By Mort Kondracke

In light of current goings-on, it's almost laughable -- and also dispiriting -- to recall how President Bush and incoming Democratic Congressional leaders vowed just months ago to heed the voters' 2006 call for bipartisan cooperation.

In his State of the Union address, Bush said -- can anyone remember this? -- that "our citizens don't care which side of the aisle we sit on, as long as we are willing to cross that aisle when there is work to be done."

And, in his final press conference of 2006, he said, "The American people are sick of partisanship and name-calling." We heard the same sort of sentiments from Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Well look where we are now: Democrats are using Bush's firing of eight U.S. attorneys to conduct a scalp-hunting expedition to oust Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and, if they can, cost Bush the services of his top political aide, Karl Rove.

And, much worse, Bush and the Democratic Congress are playing a game of chicken over Iraq and Afghanistan war funding -- with the lives of American soldiers potentially becoming collateral damage.

Each side is betting it can win the face-off that will ensue when Bush vetoes the final war supplemental because it contains either a "hard" or "soft" deadline for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and billions in extraneous pork-barrel spending.

On the merits, I think Bush is absolutely right to veto any bill that contains a fixed timeline for troop withdrawals, but he also should be meeting on an urgent basis with Democrats to work out a no-timeline bill (if he can) instead of meeting only with Republicans and making defiant speeches.

Both sides are likening the current conflict to -- or differentiating it from -- the 1995 budget face-off between President Bill Clinton and Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), which led to two government shutdowns and which Clinton indubitably won.

Though badly battered in the 1994 Congressional elections, Clinton had recouped during 1995 to a Gallup approval rating of 53 percent as he dueled with Gingrich's new GOP majority in Congress. In November, Clinton vetoed a GOP funding bill that contained cuts in the growth of Medicare, triggering the government-wide shutdowns.

In the memory of one current House GOP leader who lived through those times, "we resurrected Bill Clinton. I think President Bush has an opportunity to do the same for himself if he stands up and fights over the issue of winning in Iraq and bringing some fiscal discipline to this place.

"It is a way for him to win," he said. "And, of course, it will help if the Pentagon moans and groans and screams, although they do have the ability to move money around at least until Memorial Day or later."

In Republican thinking, Bush -- like Clinton in 1995 -- has the presidential "bully pulpit," especially with Congress in recess, and can mount a forceful public relations campaign, accusing Democrats of overreaching, micromanaging U.S. strategy in Iraq, and validating their party's stereotypes for being weak on national security and profligate in spending.

The White House will use the argument --persuasive to me -- that U.S. troop commander Gen. David Petraeus deserves a chance to pacify Iraq with his new counter-insurgency strategy, that there actually are signs that it's working, and that Democrats are guaranteeing defeat by insisting on early troop withdrawals and setting dates for full departure of combat troops.

Democrats have a totally different take on the 1995 parallel. As House Democratic Caucus Chairman and former Clinton White House aide Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) put it in an interview, "Let's compare. Bill Clinton, 53 percent. George W. Bush, 34 percent. Clinton, defending Medicare. Bush, defending the Iraq War.

"Bill Clinton, the first thing he did was say to the Republicans, 'Come down to the White House for a meeting.' First thing that Bush did was say, 'I'm vetoing. I'm vetoing.' What's more, Nancy is at 52 percent approval while Newt was at 50 percent disapproval.

"If we overreach, that's one thing. But right now Bush is starting where Gingrich was and we are starting where Clinton was." Emanuel would not define "overreaching" or predict what the endgame would be, but he denounced the president's motives.

"You can give him what he wants and he'll still veto. He wants a veto. That's all he wants. They are vetoing because they think it will give them political relevancy. He's down in the dumps and he thinks this makes him powerful. It's politics that's driving this."

To me, it's clear that it's not just politics. Bush has perhaps until the end of summer to wrest his Iraq policy from the jaws of catastrophe, and he genuinely believes that setting withdrawal deadlines will demoralize U.S. troops and the Iraqi government and encourage the enemy to bide its time until the U.S. is gone.

And the Democrats could overreach, especially if the party's left wing sees a stalemate on the war funding bill as an opportunity to stop the war and if moderates let their enmity for Bush and his war policy dig them into intransigence.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has declared that if funding isn't provided by May 15, replacement forces for Iraq won't be trained and equipped, tours in Iraq will have to be extended, and equipment needed there can't be supplied.

Gates undoubtedly can reprogram Pentagon funding to keep the troops supplied longer, but at some point the money will run out. There needs to be a deal. Arguably, Bush could accept a nonbinding, nonspecific statement of goals for eventual U.S. withdrawals and the memorializing of his own stated benchmarks for progress in Iraq.

Democrats have said that they will supply money for the troops and their budget contains all that Bush has asked for and more. They've also appealed to Bush to talk with them about compromises. What constitutes "pork" is a flexible matter if there ever was one.

So, it behooves both sides to begin acting like serious statesmen and stateswomen in this crucial matter and quit playing politics with the lives of U.S. soldiers.

Mort Kondracke is the Executive Editor of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill since 1955. © 2007 Roll Call, Inc.

 

[pegwinn]

bullshit. Tut Tut my boy, remain civil. I know you were trained better than that.

professional journalists know the difference between opinion and news.... Yes, but professional journalists are not employed by the modern media. They usually end up teaching.

now Fox NEWS Radio.... that is a different story Truth, of course that also applies to ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and of course the all powerful ETC

Remember the mantra of modern journalism kids..... If it bleeds, it leads.

 

[red states rule]

Remember the mantra of modern journalism kids..... If it bleeds, it leads.

However, the liberal media also will ignore any news that does fit their agenda of failure