TPS

Oh, the irony....

Your's and Ed's comments say a lot about how you guys form your thoughts and opinions. Ed makes a judgement about me from the title of my post without reading the article, and you accept his judgement without reading the article, and ignore my admonishment to him about not reading the article. The title of my post is based upon an analogy mentioned by the WSJ in the article that the Bush administration is fighting two insurgencies: one in Iraq, and one in the CIA. From now on I will label my titles for their degree of difficulty: Richio for the lowest degree of comprehension necessary, DCTom for the highest....

As I just stated, I believe that the goals of the Neocons are consistent with the goals of hardline Israelis, so it wouldn't surprise me if they helped each other achieve their goals. If the Neocon goals are in the best interest of the US, then it's not a bad thing; but I don't believe they are. Yes, I am absolutely guilty of posting articles about the battles between the Neocon-controlled Pentagon and the State Dept or the CIA. That tells me there are people who in those agencies who also believe that the interests of the Neocons are not in the best interests of the US. As for spies, Israel would never infiltrate US security agencies, would they?

Sadley, you idiotically decided to comment on my title without reading the article.

My interpretation of the article, or at least the part you focus on, is that the goals of the Neocons are consistent with Israel's goals. That doesn't mean they are conspiring to help Israel;however, it does imply that they may help each other achieve their goals. I certainly believe that is plausible. There are people who do believe that some of the neocons are in bed with Israel--Pat Buchanan for example. I posted the article because of Robert's criticism that Kerry and Bush do not differ much on Iraq, not for what you tried to pull out of it.

I stated a couple of years ago that I thought Iraq was (mainly) about two things: Israel and oil. I've posted many articles by former and current CIA analysts that said the same thing. One doesn't have to be a spy to support those goals; the US has always supported Israel, and we've always tried to keep supply of ME oil to the US open. Other than that, your insinuations of what I'm saying are assinine. But for some reason you always feel the need to attack me, so I'm used to it.

Apparently the Bush Administration has fueled insurgencies in more than Iraq... Insurgents everywhere

I'm always amazed when I agree with a former Reagan Adviser.... P.C. Roberts

Apparently a Wall Street Journal reporter' personal letters about the situation in Iraq doesn't paint a pretty picture. I don't think Bush has a choice; he's got to hold his line until after the election. Another headline today has Rumsfeld saying we won't leave until after the election. I'm sure the Bush lemmings will continue to believe it is a "catastrophic success...." A Wall Street Journalist's view of Iraq

I realize what you wrote. I posted that because I didn't think the WSJ would contradict itself from the previous day. It's certainly conceivable that the range of forecasts was what you heard, but the typical focus is on the "consensus" forecast, not the range. Hope you're feeling better....

This if from the first line in the WSJ article this morning: "Employers added 96,000 jobs to their payrolls in September, fewer than economists forecast for the last employment report before Election Day. "

There doesn't have to be any implication that it's Bush's fault; the fact is that voters are very sensitive to economic performance, and they typically tie that to whoever has been in office when it comes to election time.

As I recall, I was posting a lot about Scott Ritter's assertions that Saddam was not a threat and the inspections were working. Because Ritter opposed this administration, and was one of the few people calling them on their faulty intelligence, the right-wing attack machine went after him. Find some personal failing and put it in public to discredit him. What a crock! It's like saying none of you have credibility because you all masturbate.... Turns out he was dead on.

How does your second paragraph square with the first? How does a representative republic stop them from blowing up themselves in the name of Allah?

I thought the reason Edwards focused on the coalition figures was because he was comparing the first war with this war. How many countries joined us in Gulf War 1 vs. the current war? The point made was that we had a real coalition in GW1, with significant troops and funding from the coalition. Edwards was making the point that this administration couldn't get the same level of commitment for this war. Surely one wouldn't inlcude the Iraqis as part of that coalition for comparative purposes, would they? If so, where were they at the start of the war....?

You should know better Kelly, they moved them to Syria; remember?

More incompetence at FBI

Hmmm...I thought it was the media who was fixated on the number(s). As for anyone who tries to make their death a liberal vs. conservative issue, a big F__K OFF!!

You get the NRA emails eh?

A wire?

I can't believe how the refs hosed GW!!! I wonder if he'll get an apology from the commission?

That would probably be the intellectual highlight of Bush's comments...

Cheney speech 1992 This at a time when we knew he had WMDs.

The parties will pay attention when more and more people start sending them a message by voting for alternatives.

Libertarians? I'll be honest, I've only heard him on one issue, so I'll have to read up on him at their web site, but I'm leaning toward voting for him.