US News
Mar 6, 2008, 22:35 GMT
US says it has frustrated terrorists, but seeks vigilance
And Also
Similar articles
- Moment of silence begins 7th annual commemoration of 9/11
- Seven years later, Afghanistan still a daunting challenge
- After seven years, commemorations in US, scepticism abroad
- Acquittal does not ensure release of Guantanamo detainees
- Report: US could have vast archive of Guantanamo tapes
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Fort Hood suspect charged with attempted murder
- 2. White House gate crashers in less festive mood in first interview
- 3. Suspect in US police killing shot dead (1st Lead)
- 4. Suspect in US police killing shot dead
- 5. In Pictures: 'World War II Fighter Recovered'
Older Talkback
will not be missed. It will be a great day for America when Bush is gone; in fact it ought to be made a national holiday. ''The National Bush is Gone and Will Never Be Back'' day.
..until 14 months after the next person gets there...
Look at the stuff they've said about this president:
Dumb - supposedly, yet he managed to whip two so-called (by themselves) intellectual talking heads for office, managed to trick half the dems into believing that Iraq had WMD's, and manages, year after year, to get republican legislation through a dem congress. Honestly, they had to stop this one because he embarrassed them so badly. Bush must just sit in his office and laugh his ass off.
Crooked - this one's like handing out a speeding ticket at the indy 500, corrupt gets tossed around but the folks doing it neglect to check the dem side of the aisle with folks like William Jefferson, or Hillary and the mysterious Mr. Hsu....anything by the Kennedy's...in each case, no charges ever leveled against ol GW have ever stuck. Hours of congressional tesimony have gotten exactly zero. Too bad he didn't get Condi to give him a blow job, then go lie about it to a federal judge, then he could have then run on the dem ticket!
Neoconservative - a pity he's not really one, because he'd dug his heels in on these wars, tariffs on steel, spending like a drunken sailor, etc. When you find a necon, run his ass for office would you?
Most of all, through all this, he is unbendingly gracious. He is not mean or vindictive, and just does not care what anyone says.
He's the Ty Cobb of Presidents.
Quoting the article:'He called the war 'the great ideological struggle of our time.''
Chertoff got this only partly right. Among the enormous number of things he does not understand, he fails to understand that this is THE ideological struggle of all time. It is reason versus faith. It will go on for a long, long time to come.
Bush is the stupidest son-of-a-bitch to ever walk on two legs, and he has been a curse to the USA. In view of this, I see you are an American with pride.
They've deluded themselves into seeing Iraq as a military problem rather than the political problem that even our generals acknowledge.
No matter how long we'd remain, the damned thing would fall apart, because the Sunni and Shia despise each other more than ever, and nothing will overcome that, unless the Parliament and leadership serve as a role model. Won't happen - hasn't happened yet, and all of our troops cannot make it happen.
There have been attacks EVERY SINGLE DAY in Iraq, large and small, all of which get conveniently blamed on AQI. The Sunni are fed up with AQI, which worked to our advantage - but getting rid of the last of them will be impossible, since they have plenty of countries to recruit from, and an enemy willing to die is not readily offset. Short of closing the Iraq borders (which won't happen) there's no way to prevent AQI from 'restocking'. These latest Iraq attacks are to make a point - they're still there, and WILL still be there when we finally pull out. The only thing that could eliminate them are a strong Sunni force, including their militias, and some cooperation from the Shia, who despise al Qaeda for being Sunni in the first place.
Iran is now a full-fledged problem without an answer, and the price of oil only works in their favor, as they've cut deals with China and India, which gains them political support. Iraq has a distinct Shia majority, and after years of propping up various Sunni leaders, the Shia want to run the place, and Iran will end up helping them. The Shia are not a homogenous group, and al Sadr has kept the lid on with a cease-fire, while he is apparently in Iran studying to be an Ayatollah.
The American people simply will not let this bottomless pit continue - Bush has had ample time to show real POLITICAL improvement in Iraq, and it has not happened, except for a few grudging moves that barely passed Parliament.
The American people will decide - either McCain and the continuing war and deficits and lack of funding for domestic programs; or a Democrat who will draw down and get us out, whether the Iraqi leadership is ready, or not.
If it were not for the oil, no one would give a damn about Iraq. It worked for us with Saddam in power to stand against Iran, and we backed Iraq in the 1980-1987 war. Decades of policy blown, and we face now the Iranian threat that SMART Presidents, including Bush Sr., knew the value of.
It's a shame the world is not short of brainwashed schmucks, because we gave a couple wandering around in a fog here that we could export.
The American people are more concerned right now about mortgages, jobs, and the price of oil, and McCain has no answers for that - as the money is getting dumped into Iraq. By election time, Iraq may well be lower down in importance to the public, with the economy and health care more urgent to most people.
'They've deluded themselves into seeing Iraq as a military problem rather than the political problem that even our generals acknowledge.'
Now you are going back to an old argument... You see when PB's new talking points are shot down he just goes back to OLD talking points that have been shot down. IRAQ HAS MADE POLITICAL PROGRESS. They have met nearly all the benchmarks set out for them. Really, we are just down to the new elections which have passed one body in their parliament and are being held up in another and the hydrocarbons law which is already de facto just not de jure.
You are the one deluding yourself if you do not think that there is a military aspect to bringing about success in Iraq.
'No matter how long we'd remain, the damned thing would fall apart'
I love that you said that. You have been categorically WRONG on just about everything you have posted here. That pretty much guarantees complete harmony in Iraq.
'There have been attacks EVERY SINGLE DAY in Iraq, large and small, all of which get conveniently blamed on AQI.'
Al Qaeda in Iraq is pretty much the LAST organization that is attacking civilians. There is nothing 'convenient' about blaming al Qaeda, it is just the fact.
'but getting rid of the last of them will be impossible'
Gee, so we should stop killing them eh? Hand over the country to them. Why not the USA as well, you sniveling appeaser.
'and an enemy willing to die is not readily offset. '
No, that is why you have to kill them. Preferably in Iraq, chosen for it's central location in the middle east. All this has been explained to you about 100 times now and time has borne it out yet you still have your head crammed up your backside. You are willfully stupid about this.
'Short of closing the Iraq borders (which won't happen) there's no way to prevent AQI from 'restocking'.'
Well you can 1) kill them off and 2) turn the population against them so they kill them off.
'These latest Iraq attacks are to make a point - they're still there,'
So we had better not hand the country over to them eh?
'and WILL still be there when we finally pull out'
No, not necessarily.
'Iran is now a full-fledged problem without an answer'
No, there is an answer. Make it so there is a strong Sunni presence in Iraq to offset the Shiites. Iran and Iraq fought a long bitter war against each other. Iraqi Shiites have a sense of loyalty to Iraq.
You write:
'Shia want to run the place, and Iran will end up helping them.'
and then you undercut yourself by saying:
'The Shia are not a homogenous group'
You are correct except that it is spelled homogeneous. Iran's influence can be checked but we have to stay long enough to build the Sunnis back up, build a credible police force and a credible Iraqi Army. If we pull out prematurely, all your dire predictions WILL come true. Can't you see that? History and public opinion will vilify the fools who cut and run from Iraq when we have come so far in such a short time.
'The American people simply will not let this bottomless pit continue '
You do not speak for the American people, in fact you are a moron who barely speaks for yourself. Opinion polls are now against a precipitous withdrawal and a solid majority of the American people think the war is going 'well or very well'. hat will only get better by November, even if there are more attacks because the election will push them out of the headlines.
' Bush has had ample time to show real POLITICAL improvement in Iraq, and it has not happened,'
IT HAS HAPPENED YOU IDIOT. EVEN NANCY PELOSI HAS SHUT UP ABOUT THE POLITICAL IMPROVEMENT BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN REAL POLITICAL IMPROVEMENT.
'either McCain and the continuing war and deficits'
McCain is the ONLY one who has an economic policy that will balance the budget by the end of his first term. The ONLY one out of the 3. Barack Obama is going to bankrupt the country by turning it in to a nanny state
with free entitlement programs for everyone, including illegal aliens and their family's.
'or a Democrat who will draw down and get us out, whether the Iraqi leadership is ready, or not.'
You mean HAND IT OVER TO AL QAEDA AND IRAN, idiot, read your own post. It WILL happen if there is a draw down too soon. Good lord, you obviously want to lose this thing so bad you can taste it. It will effectively mean the end of the democratic party as you know it. The backlash at the wrecked economy brought about by oil price shocks and the shame of dishonoring ourselves will enrage the right to the point that your Bush derangement syndrome will look like a school girl crush. Mark my words if the democrats get in and screw this up the backlash will be more then you pussy socialist Alan Alda crybabies will be able to handle.
'If it were not for the oil, no one would give a damn about Iraq.'
With oil at $100 a barral you idiots had better start giving a damn about it.
'It worked for us with Saddam in power to stand against Iran,'
We are IN IRAQ, MORON. WE ARE THERE. THE PAST IS GONE, WE NEED TO FIX THE FUTURE NOW. Not make it worse by pitching a hissy fit and turning the country over to our sworn enemies who attack us at every opportunity.
'It's a shame the world is not short of brainwashed schmucks, '
Or self loathing sell out idiots who would march in lock step to get their dose of zyclon b in order to take their failed ideas to their logical conclusion. Go volunteer to get your stupid head sawn off, it will be no loss to anyone.
'The American people are more concerned right now...'
Good lord, you irrelevant pipsqueak. It makes me sick when a moronic little backstabbing traitor like you thinks it speaks for the people of the United States.
'and McCain has no answers for that '
Yes he does. The only answers your morons who are currently cutting each other to shreds for my amusement are to tax business out of the country, alienate our allies, renegotiate a trade deal with our largest oil exporter that was negotiated when oil was $11 a barrel, establish mega-entitlement programs that will bankrupt the country, and surrender to the SAME TERRORISTS who attacked us on 9/11.
'By election time, Iraq may well be lower down in importance to the public'
Which will bode well for McCain.
'with the economy and health care more urgent to most people.'
When people get a real good look at Obamas spending plan they are going to run like hell from it.
RE:'When people get a real good look at Obamas spending plan they are going to run like hell from it.'
There is no real difference between the spending plans of The Clintons and Senator Obama. The Clintons are better liars and are therefore better at obfuscating their true intentions. Just as they continue, with the help of our cowardly press, to obfuscate the fact that they are running for an unconstitutional third term.
Where is this oh-so-very-important foreign policy experience of Hillary's? Why, it resides in Bill Clinton! Imagine that! Who will step into Hillary's shoes if she gets sick? Why, Bill, of course! Who else could do the job for her? Who wants to mandate health insurance and fine you and garnish your wages if you disagree with her agenda? Why, it's Hillary. Who wants to and will retreat from Iraq with the flimsiest of pretenses? Why, Hillary! The war is politically convenient. At least Senator Obama is motivated by his moral convictions. The Clintons lack any such convictions. They are incorrigible reprobates. Who will raise taxes on everyone, especially the 'middle' class while spending the country into oblivion? Why that would be The Clintons, would't it?
The working classes, well, if we drive them into penury, we'll have an entirely new class of poor to feel sorry for and cry about in front of the cameras, won't we? This is how The Clintons look at American Citizens, folks. You had best remember who and what you are and tell these lying, thieving monsters to go home and be quiet. They will gut us like so many fish and grin while they do it.
RE:
'IRAQ HAS MADE POLITICAL PROGRESS. They have met nearly all the benchmarks set out for them.'
(Tell us who pays you to write that crap!)
======================
www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/01/benchmark.html
One Year After the Surge - January 24, 2008
Total Benchmarks: 3 of 18 Accomplished
On the one year anniversary of President Bush’s State of the Union address justifying his 'New Way Forward' in Iraq, it is clear that the surge has failed to meet its objectives. One year ago, the president pledged that “America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.' Despite the fact that the Iraqi government has only met three of the 18 benchmarks laid out last year, an end to U.S. military and financial commitment is nowhere in sight.
The purpose of the surge was to provide the “breathing space” for political reconciliation to occur. Yet over one year later, political progress has been scant, and what progress has been made is not durable. The Iraqis have not made the difficult political compromises necessary for national reconciliation, and an indefinite U.S. presence in the region will not inspire them to do so. Despite the best efforts of our military men and women in creating a temporary lull in violence, substantial advancement toward a sustainable and independent Iraq has not been made.
In order to motivate Iraq’s political leaders, the United States must set a date certain for withdrawal. Only then will the Iraqis make the difficult political compromises necessary for national reconciliation. While redeploying our forces over the next 10-12 months, the United States must initiate a diplomatic surge to ensure that all of Iraq’s neighbors are involved constructively in Iraq’s future. Only by implementing a Strategic Reset in Iraq will the United States be able to take control of its own national security interests in the country and the greater Middle East.
Government Benchmarks: 2 of 8 Accomplished
1. Perform constitutional review. Unmet
2. Enact de-Ba’athification reform. Partial
4. Form semi-autonomous regions. Unmet
5. Hold provincial elections. Unmet
6. Address amnesty. Unmet
8. Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan. Met
16. Ensure minority rights in Iraqi legislature. Met
18. Keep Iraqi Security Forces free from partisan interference. Unmet
Security Benchmarks: 1 of 8 Accomplished
7. Disarm militias. Unmet
9. Provide military support in Baghdad. Partial
10. Empower Iraqi Security Forces. Partial
11. Ensure impartial law enforcement. Unmet
12. Establist support for Baghdad Security Plan by Maliki government. Unmet
13. Reduce sectarian violence. Partial
14. Establish neighborhood security in Baghdad. Met
15. Increase independent Iraqi Security Focres. Unmet
Economic Benchmarks: 0 of 2 Accomplished
3. Implement oil legislation. Unmet
17. Distribute Iraqi resources equitably. Partial
------
“Iraq’s government is at a stalemate.”
-Mowaffak al Rubaie, Iraqi National Security Advisor, Washington Post, Jan. 18, 2008.
The complicated new law on de-Ba’athification has been, in the words of a senior Iraqi official, “a big mess, perhaps worse than if we had done nothing.”
-Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek, Jan. 21, 2008.
(The Iraqi leadership has had YEARS to work this out. The surge was expressly to get them the time to do it, and that's been a year. Anything that moves forward is a battle in their Parliament, because the various factions cannot work together for the good of Iraq, putting their own sectarian constituencies first. Nothing will change that; and the meager progress we're seeing has come from constant U.S. pressure, while at the same time we tell them we'll be around for decades, so just keep arguing amongst yourselves and periodically look like something useful is happening. A paper law without the will and ability to implement is not progress).
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/iraq/2004247624_iraq28.html
BAGHDAD — Iraqi government leaders on Wednesday (02-27) rejected a law that would have required nationwide elections by the fall, dealing a serious blow to a measure that the U.S. considers a key benchmark of political reconciliation in Iraq.
Parliament passed the legislation two weeks ago. The veto by Iraq's presidency council was an unexpected setback. Lawmakers will now have to reconsider the measure, which they only agreed to as part of a three-law package reached after weeks of political wrangling so divisive that some called for the dissolution of parliament. The two other laws — the 2008 budget and an amnesty that could apply to thousands of detainees in Iraqi prisons — were approved by the presidency council.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/27/iraq/main3882252.shtml
Iraqi Council Rejects Provincial Elections - Measure Sent Back To Parliament In New Setback To U.S.-Backed Reconciliation Efforts
afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hYO3MajPLR6JQiP1E71sgMz0ufzg
BAGHDAD, Feb 27, 2008 (AFP) — Iraq's three-member presidency council has rejected a draft law to hold provincial elections and returned it to parliament, the president's office said on Wednesday.
The presidency approved two laws concerning the 2008 federal budget and a general amnesty, but 'the law to hold provincial elections has not been approved and has been sent back to the parliament,' the statement said.
The three bills formed a flagship package of legislation seen as crucial to reconciliation efforts but which had been held up for months amid sectarian feuding in parliament.
The elections law had been championed by the Shiite majority while the budget in its current form had been strongly backed by the Kurds and the amnesty law by the Sunnis.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/03/07/BL2008030701908_2.htm l?hpid=opinionsbox1
'A fully credible explanation for the fact that the United States has suffered no terrorist attacks since 9/11 is that the threat posed by homegrown or imported terrorists -- like that presented by Japanese Americans during World War II or by American Communists after it -- has been massively exaggerated.'
John Mueller, an Ohio State University political scientist and noted contrarian, argued in a 2006 Foreign Affairs article that 'One reasonable explanation is that almost no terrorists exist in the United States and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad. . . .
'Americans are told -- often by the same people who had once predicted imminent attacks -- that the absence of international terrorist strikes in the United States is owed to the protective measures so hastily and expensively put in place after 9/11. But there is a problem with this argument. True, there have been no terrorist incidents in the United States in the last five years.
--- But nor were there any in the five years before the 9/11 attacks, at a time when the United States was doing much less to protect itself. ---
It would take only one or two guys with a gun or an explosive to terrorize vast numbers of people, as the sniper attacks around Washington, D.C., demonstrated in 2002. Accordingly, the government's protective measures would have to be nearly perfect to thwart all such plans. Given the monumental imperfection of the government's response to Hurricane Katrina, and the debacle of FBI and National Security Agency programs to upgrade their computers to better coordinate intelligence information, that explanation seems far-fetched. . . .
Too much wishfull thinking both from Bush and his pooodle SP4.Trrorists sytriking in Europe because security is topnotch in the USA ?I'd like to see any evidence of that first.As for the typical Bush statement that the troops are pinnnig down the terrorists in Iraq ,that is just the opposite of reality.It is the terorists who are pinning down the US troops unfortunately .I thought that was obvious for all as the violence and bombing turned Iraq into a mess with no exit strategy .Amazing twist of reality which is a marvel of neocon spin,I'll hand him that .Bu that doesn't mean one has to gobble it .
Whatever,the results of the BUsh era are plain to see,a gigantic hole in the state budget costing ever american 30.000 dollars to plus,infants and babies included .And the gap is only growing .Tax breaks for the richest,tax money handed out to the armament tycoons,the govvernment agencies such as FDA given to Monsanto,Fema the mockery of the entire world,New Orleans still in shambles ,social security reduced,average wage conditions now Wal-Mart like ,what a tragical evolution ?I guess not many americans feel the so called progress of living conditions created by Bush .The average increase of the salaries of top executives was 10 percent during the Bush governance,but the average byuing power has been reduced for the majority of the american people .Frankly that is normal,if one small part of the population takes a bigger part of the pie,less is available for the rest.No magic can be performed in the economy.
tonny, you are just an affront to rationality.
Spain, Paris, Britain, Italy...all have had attacks that, since 9/11 we have foiled. It's undeniable that we've engaged the enemy and he's compromised.
Europe not only has a terror issue, they bring it on themselves, enabling these terrorists for decades. Carlos Martinez' ran loose for almost 30 years, while the euro cops and security agencies bumbled about. Who did they have on the job....Inspector Cleuseau?
Then they enable guys like Yasser Arafat, let these operatives transit through europe freely, provide safe haven, etc. Bader-Meinhoff and the rest, unpursued for years.
Now it's car torching in Paris, and an apology to quell them. At every juncture, Europe has enabled these guys. There is a segment that wants to help, but their governments don't want the heat.
No thanks. I'll take the Bush homeland 7 days a week over that. This man, correctly, knows what to do. Don't like the war? Find another way. Curiously, the dems have been pretty skitish about their proposals.
Conservatism over? Hardly.
(Tell us who pays you to write that crap!)
Well we already know who pays you to regurgitate yours: George Soros. The 'Center for American Progress' is one of those new speak leftist named organizations that LIES on behalf of George Soros in order to weaken the United States and diminish our sovereignty. This evil little man that you no doubt admire has funneled billions of dollars in to these political action committees in order to help people like you drag the country that you loathe down. There is nothing worse then a self loathing jew who wants to destroy Israel and the country that looks out for it.
www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/george_soros_and_the_alchemy_o.html
George Soros and the Alchemy of 'Regime Change'
What does a very aged multi-billionaire do after he spends $25 million dollars to force a presidential election his way, and still falls flat on his face? Well, of course, he tries and tries again.
When George Soros failed to obtain the election of his candidate, John Kerry, in 2004, he brooded for a while, even said he might get out of politics altogether, but he just couldn't stop himself. He has stated publicly that he wishes to burst the 'bubble of American supremacy,' because he says our preeminence in the world is a detriment to global 'equilibrium.' So far, he has failed, but he keeps on trying.
And Mr. Soros has made no secret either of the fact that he sees the shortest way to effect political shake-ups, what he terms 'regime changes,' is through very difficult economic conditions.
America has not yet felt the full force of Soros style economic shock treatment. But others have.
Soros made his first billion in 1992 by shorting the British pound with leveraged billions in financial bets, and became known as the man who broke the Bank of England. He broke it on the backs of hard-working British citizens who immediately saw their homes severely devalued and their life savings cut drastically in comparative worth almost overnight.
When the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 threatened to spread globally, George Soros was right in the thick of it. Soros was accused by the Malaysian Prime Minister of causing the collapse with his monetary machinations, and he was branded in Thailand as an 'economic war criminal' who 'sucks the blood from the people.' Right in the middle of this crisis, Soros dashed off his book, The Crisis of Global Capitalism, which demanded a 'third way' toward economic stability.
Coincidentally, or not, during the height of the fears of worldwide recession, then President Clinton told the New York Times that he was proposing a 'third way' between capitalism and socialism. Unfortunately for Soros, U.S. markets rebounded quickly, his predicted catastrophe was forestalled, and his brave new global economic plans receded for a bit.
This may have been to Soros' own good, though, because he was by 1998 up to his neck in the collapse of the Russian ruble, and buying up valuable East European resources at fire-sale prices.
And why not?
He had already been widely proclaiming that it was his own machinations that brought down the Soviet Empire. When asked about his sphere of influence in the Soviets' demise for a New Republic interview in 1994, Mr. Soros humbly replied that the author ought to report that 'the former Soviet Empire is now called the Soros Empire.'
When our House Banking Committee investigated the Russia-gate scandal in 1999, trying to determine just how $100 billion had been diverted out of Russia, forcing the collapse of its currency and the default of its enormous loans from the International Monetary Fund, Soros was even called to testify. He denied involvement of course, but finally admitted that he had used insider access in a deal that was barred to foreign investors to acquire a huge chunk of Sidanko Oil.
The Russia scandal was labeled by Rep. Jim Leach, then head of the House Banking Committee to be 'one of the greatest social robberies in human history.' (Shadow Party; David Horowitz and Richard Poe; p. 96)
Of course, Russia-gate was quickly hushed up and pushed aside in the public's lurid, and quite insatiable, interest in Monica-gate.
Then, George Soros did some more shady economic fooling around in France. And he actually got caught and charged with illegal insider trading in his attempt to takeover the Societe Generale bank. He was convicted and the conviction was upheld in 2 separate appeals, the last in June of 2006. They let him off, however, with a piddling $2.9 million fine.
Mere chicken feed to a multi-billionaire.
Of course, since George Soros is a naturalized American citizen, it is difficult to imagine just why he would intentionally want to bring about our own economic collapse.
But from all appearances, that might be exactly what he has on his mind.
By 2003, Soros was already predicting the downfall of the dollar. In a CNBC interview, amid a slump in the dollar's value against the Euro, Soros added fuel to that fire by stating that he was already selling dollars. His statement, in turn, caused a further decline in the international worth of the dollar.
When George Soros speaks, hedge fund managers and world financiers listen.
Unfortunately, he wasn't able to bring about the 'October Surprise' U.S. economic downturn in time for the 2004 election. Our economy proved too resilient for him then.
But he hasn't stopped predicting that yearned-for recession that would spoil things for his political foes, the Republicans.
Just after he failed in 2004 to bring about Bush's demise, he went right on trying to force a conclusion to his self-fulfilling prophecy of doom for the U.S. And this year, it appears as though he may have finally hit pay dirt in the sub-prime meltdown which threatens to actually bring on that long hoped-for recession.
In Davos this year, at the World Economic Forum, Soros even went so far as to say that the current housing 'bust' would signal the end of the dollar as the world's default currency.
'The current crisis is not only the bust that follows the housing boom,' Soros said. 'It's basically the end of a 60-year period of continuing credit expansion based on the dollar as the reserve currency.'
Being that Mr. Soros' stated goal for more than a decade has been to burst the 'bubble of American supremacy,' it stands to reason that the financial gloom he is predicting for us would be precisely his own little cup of tea.
And if the economic picture is bleak in this election year, who stands to benefit? Why, the Democrats, of course, the beneficiaries of Soros' 527 largesse.
And Mr. Soros, along with his 'progressive' friends may stand at the ready to issue in their vision of America by strategically re-writing the Constitution.
In April 2005, Soros' Open Society Institute was the primary sponsor of a conference at Yale Law School, called, 'The Constitution in 2020.' The conference's task was to produce 'a progressive vision of what the Constitution ought to be.' (Emphasis mine.) When one sees references in progressive speak about the 'evolutionary character of constitutional law,' they are talking about changing the Constitution to formally enshrine their policy preferences so they can avoid the messy necessity of having to win elections. (Shadow Party; Horowitz and Poe; p. 71)
It would seem, then, that progressives stand at the threshold of fulfilling their wildest dreams right here on American shores. With a Republican Party in disarray, the economy seemingly poised on the brink of recession, one candidate with the charisma of a snake charmer and another master schemer as backup, and a new Constitution already being planned, what will stand in their way?
These folks have designs not only on a reinvention of America, but on the whole world. Both Democrat candidates for the presidency have plans for an American cure for global poverty that make our current, quite generous, foreign aid look like a tiny Band-Aid.
Hillary's utopian plan is of a global village, where the role of America is that of supreme benefactor, with herself as our beneficent queen. Hillary's plans for the redistribution of American wealth extend benefits not just to other Americans, but to every other country in need.
Obama, too, sees global poverty as the root cause of all evil in the world, including crime, war and terrorism. His single piece of signature legislation in the Senate is a bill that would authorize an additional $845 billion from American tax payers to eradicate global poverty, and legislate a demand on future presidents to bring America in line with UN mandates on percentage of national GDP given to fight global poverty.
These plans are in perfect sync with Soros' own support for the Tobin Tax, a global tax on currency transactions. This taxation would be forced on sovereign nations by an international body, coercing capitalist economies into sharing their wealth with poor nations for the eradication of poverty and the myriad problems associated with it.
So, that which we and our ancestors have sacrificed to build and maintain will be stolen from us and our offspring and given away by the new Robin Hoods, George Soros and the Democratic Party, who seem to envision global perfection at last, with every single soul living happily ever after in absolute peace and harmony, together singing kumbaya in the same language...the language of love.
And only God knows what can save America from being the sacrificial fodder for their grand, megalomaniacal delusion.
Saner heads prevailing, perhaps?
Cabal of Far Left Soros-Funded Fringe Groups Take Aim at McCain
No surprise here, leading the charge for this amalgam of fringe groups is The Silky Pony himself.
Naturally, they're also running against George W. Bush as well.
Democratic grass roots organizations on Monday launched a $20 million campaign to defeat Republican John McCain in the 2008 U.S. presidential election by focusing their attention on rising costs of the Iraq war.
The campaign, supported by former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, aims to link war spending with the ailing U.S. economy.
'There's a great concern and anxiety, angst out there among most Americans about their economic security,' Edwards said in a teleconference from North Carolina. 'All these things are made much worse by concern about what's happening in Iraq ... People don't understand why we're spending $500 billion and counting in Iraq.'
Edwards added, 'The American people are going to have a very clear choice this fall -- a Democrat who will bring this thing to an end ... and Senator John McCain who will continue the war.'
Here's the list of kook outfits on board:
Center for American Progress, USAction, MoveOn.org, VoteVets.org, Service Employees International Union and Americans United for Change.
Naturally, they're portrayed as 'grass roots' organizations, but let's take a look at some of them.
The Center for American Progress, another Podesta-Soros-Ickes creation that spawned the odious hit squad from Media Matters.
USAction, another dubious Soros frontgroup.
A member organization of the Win Without War anti-war coalition, USAction receives financial
support from Working Assets and the Open Society Institute.
MoveOn.org: Enough said. They lost all credibility with the 'General Betray Us' smear.
VoteVets was behind the Rush Limbaugh phony soldier smear campaign last fall.
Americans United for Change is run by a former Jon Corzine operative named Brad Woodhouse.
So there isn't anything newsworthy here. A bunch of far left political hacks who practice the art of political smear, yet they're give a free pass by Reuters, which pretends these are 'grass roots' groups.
It's going to be a long campaign, folks.
'The Iraqi leadership has had YEARS to work this out.'
Sorry if building a democracy from scratch out of a totalitarian fear-ocracy hasn't happened on your ADHD addled brains timetable. There is GENUINE, INCONTROVERTIBLE PROGRESS TO THAT END.
'The surge was expressly to get them the time to do it, and that's been a year.'
Dems disregard military, political progress in Iraq
Charles Krauthammer
'No one can spend some 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in every area. … If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government — in security, governance, and development — there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state.'
— Anthony Cordesman, 'The Situation in Iraq: A Briefing from the Battlefield,' Feb. 13, 2008
WASHINGTON
This from a man who was a severe critic of the postwar occupation of Iraq and who, as author Peter Wehner points out, is no wide-eyed optimist. In fact, in May 2006 Cordesman had written that 'no one can argue that the prospects for stability in Iraq are good.' Now, however, there is simply no denying the remarkable improvements in Iraq since the surge began a year ago.
Unless you're a Democrat. As Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., put it, 'Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq.' Their Senate leader, Harry Reid, declares the war already lost. Their presidential candidates (eight of them at the time) unanimously oppose the surge. Then the evidence begins trickling in.
We get news of the Anbar Awakening, which has now spread to other Sunni areas and Baghdad. The sectarian civil strife that the Democrats insisted was the reason for us to leave dwindles to the point of near disappearance. Much of Baghdad is returning to normal. There are 90,000 neighborhood volunteers — ordinary citizens who act as auxiliary police and vital informants on terror activity — starkly symbolizing the insurgency's loss of popular support. Captured letters of al-Qaeda leaders reveal despair as they are driven — mostly by Iraqi Sunnis, their own Arab co-religionists — to flight and into hiding.
After agonizing years of searching for the right strategy and the right general, we are winning. How do Democrats react? From Nancy Pelosi to Barack Obama the talking point is the same: Sure, there is military progress. We could have predicted that. (They in fact had predicted the opposite, but no matter.) But it's all pointless unless you get national reconciliation.
'National' is a way to ignore what is taking place at the local and provincial level, such as Shiite cleric Ammar al-Hakim, scion of the family that dominates the largest Shiite party in Iraq, traveling last October to Anbar in an unprecedented gesture of reconciliation with the Sunni sheiks.
Doesn't count, you see. Democrats demand nothing less than federal-level reconciliation, and it has to be expressed in actual legislation.
The objection was not only highly legalistic but politically convenient: Very few (including me) thought this would be possible under the Maliki government. Then last week, indeed on the day Cordesman published his report, it happened. Mirabile dictu, the Iraqi parliament approved three very significant pieces of legislation.
First, a provincial powers law that turned Iraq into arguably the most federal state in the entire Arab world. The provinces get not only power but elections by Oct. 1. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker has long been calling this the most crucial step to political stability. It will allow, for example, the pro-American Anbar sheiks to become the legitimate rulers of their province, exercise regional autonomy and forge official relations with the Shiite-dominated central government.
Second, parliament passed a partial amnesty for prisoners, 80 percent of whom are Sunni. Finally, it approved a $48 billion national budget that allocates government revenues — about 85 percent of which are from oil — to the provinces. Kurdistan, for example, gets one-sixth.
What will the Democrats say now? They will complain that there is still no oil distribution law. True. But oil revenues are being distributed to the provinces in the national budget. The fact that parliament could not agree on a permanent formula for the future simply means that it will be allocating oil revenues year-by-year as part of the budget process. Is that a reason to abandon Iraq to al-Qaeda and Iran?
Despite all the progress military and political, the Democrats remain unwavering in their commitment to withdrawal on an artificial timetable that inherently jeopardizes our 'very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state.'
Why? Imagine the transformative effects in the region and indeed in the entire Muslim world, of achieving a secure and stable Iraq, friendly to the United States and victorious over al-Qaeda. Are the Democrats so intent on denying George Bush retroactive vindication for a war they insist is his that they would deny their own country a now achievable victory?
'BAGHDAD — Iraqi government leaders on Wednesday (02-27) rejected a law that would have required nationwide elections by the fall, dealing a serious blow to a measure that the U.S. considers a key benchmark of political reconciliation in Iraq.'
The election law and the hydrocarbon laws are the last of what the USA has been asking for in terms of 'political progress' and the election law is not dead, it is stalled in Parliament and will be taken up for debate again. That is the political progress and it is genuine, despite the lies you regurgitate from the George Soros (Who hates the USA more then Bin Laden) funded lie machine.
I notice you have run out of steam trying to pretend that there is no progress in the security environment. You will eventually conclude that you can not get away with lying about the political environment as well.
'Why hasn't U.S. been attacked?'
LOL! We have been! they have been thwarted!
'A fully credible explanation for the fact that the United States has suffered no terrorist attacks since 9/11 is that the threat posed by homegrown or imported terrorists'
Our Muslim population is a fraction of what it is in Europe, even still, there have been a dozen attempts by 'homegrown' and imported terrorists.
''Americans are told -- often by the same people who had once predicted imminent attacks -- that the absence of international terrorist strikes in the United States is owed to the protective measures so hastily and expensively put in place after 9/11.'
There have been DOZENS OF THWARTED ATTACKS!
Thwarted Attacks on the U.S.
Friday, March 07, 2008
By Joseph Abrams
In July 2005, the Los Angeles Police Department caught a group of men who had been robbing gas stations in the area. While investigating, police uncovered something far worse: The gas station hits were bankrolling a terrorist plot to attack National Guard facilities, synagogues, the Israeli consulate and Los Angeles International Airport.
Deputy Chief of Police Michael Downing says the group was 'closer to going operational at the time than anyone since 9/11.'
Thomas P. O'Brien, the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, says, 'An untold number of lives may have been saved when this terrorist cell was dismantled.'
This story is hardly unique: Since Sept. 11, authorities have disrupted more than 20 publicly known plots against domestic U.S. targets, involving dozens of arrests at home and abroad.
Some of these plots are well-known, such as Richard Reid's failed 'shoe bombing' in December 2001 and the liquid explosives plot of 2006, when British investigators uncovered a plan to carry bombs on airliners bound for the U.S. Each of those incidents permanently changed airport security protocols.
Then there was the plot to kill U.S. soldiers using assault rifles and grenades at Fort Dix in New Jersey, and the so-called 'Lackawanna Six,' who pleaded guilty to providing support to Al Qaeda.
But others have passed by with little notice from the general public, as well as critics of government efforts to protect the U.S. from homegrown terror attacks.
Take, for example, Iyman Faris, of Columbus, Ohio, who plotted to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge and was convicted of conspiracy and providing material support for Al Qaeda in 2003.
Later that year 11 men with connections to Al Qaeda were discovered training for jihad in Virginia, using paintball games to simulate battlefield situations. In 2004, James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj were convicted of planning to bomb New York's Penn Station during the Republican National Convention.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a household name for his role as mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, also is known to have prepared little-known strikes against America's tallest building, the Sears Tower in Chicago, as well as the Empire State Building in New York and the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles.
In contrast, Dhiren Barot may not be a familiar name, although some security experts say he should be. An Indian convert to Islam, the Pakistan-based Barot planned a series of ruinous attacks on the U.S. and U.K, including the New York Stock Exchange and the IMF building in Washington, D.C. Barot was caught by British authorities in 2004 and sentenced to life imprisonment for conspiracy to commit murder.
Andrew McCarthy, director of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, credits much of the success in preventing terrorist attacks at home to the pursuit of enemies overseas.
'There have been days in Iraq and Afghanistan,' he says, 'where we have killed or captured more terrorists than we did between 1993, when the World Trade Center was attacked, and 2001, when the World Trade Center was destroyed.'
'But,' McCarthy cautions, 'once you get them over here, the rules of the justice system apply.'
Successful prosecutions are key to tackling terrorism, but they are not an easy process. Investigators prefer to wait for overwhelming evidence of a terrorist plot, and the timing is difficult.
'It's more dangerous to let things play out because law enforcement is rarely, if ever, in control during these investigations,' McCarthy says.
Plots often are disrupted early and as a result, he says, 'you don't often have well-developed cases.'
But there have been successes, and the courts have been very active since Sept. 11. According to Sean Boyd, a spokesman for the Justice Department, 527 defendants have been charged in terrorism or terrorism-related cases arising from investigations primarily conducted after Sept. 11.
Those cases have resulted in 319 convictions, with an additional 176 cases pending in court.
It's not a perfect record for the Justice Department, but it still is a good one, says McCarthy, who prosecuted and convicted 'blind sheikh' Omar Abdel Rahman, ringleader of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.
'The batting average is not as high as it was prior to Sept. 11,' when most investigations focused on crimes already committed, 'but that again is something that we are going to have to accept,' McCarthy says.
Allison Barrie, a security and terrorism consultant and a FOXNews.com contributor, agrees on the difficulties. 'The evidence [in these trials] is always at its best at the 11th hour,' she says. Waiting until the last moment is dangerous, but 'you've got to weigh that against actually getting that prosecution.'
So far, that strategy has been decisive in preventing another attack on the scale of Sept. 11. 'We've just been plain lucky,' Barrie says.
And intelligence work hasn't prevented smaller attacks from being carried out.
On July 4, 2002, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, a 41-year-old Egyptian national, opened fire at the El Al ticket counter at LAX, killing two people before a security guard killed him.
That same ticket counter later would be targeted by those L.A. gas station robbers, a homegrown terrorist group with roots in a California prison.
Homegrown groups often are difficult to detect, and the California cell was not found through careful intelligence work; the LAPD stumbled on them by accident. They might never have been discovered.
'The cliché is true,' Barrie says. 'Terrorists only have to be lucky once, but the good guys have to be lucky every time.'
The fact that you would even post that shows how divorced from reality you are PB. You are willing to ignore the threat of terrorism and completely bury your head in your rear end in order to rationalize your seething resentment for Bush. You support anyone who hates him. including the terrorists.
Your Talkback on this Story