Generally, I know no one here of any political persuasion who thinks that. In fact, I would claim all members post here expecting to encounter rigorous debate and not only opposing opinions, but also multiple viewpoints on a particular matter. I believe I posted before about your tendency to compare things in "black and white" when "shades of gray" describe a situation much better.
Maybe you are right that I see things in black and white most times. But what you may not take into consideration is I am able to see those shades of grey and yet still make judgments despite that. I may not be right all the time, but I don't spend precious time pondering over grey area. I find it easier to deal with things that way. I also often reevaluate my positions based on new info or new knowledge.
It may not be the way you do things but that does not make it wrong, does it?
BOT
If these links are proven true, will any of you reconsider your own positions? Or will it make no difference?
You have laid out YOUR preferences for news outlets. You have stated YOUR bias toward YOUR choices.
Really that is cool and I have no real problem with what YOUR choices are.
But don't you think it is a little arrogant to suggest that YOUR choices are the only ones that are credible? That a person can only glean credible news from YOUR choices? No offense intended. You don't have to answer, it is a rhetorical line of questions.
Once again, I do read all of those. As a matter of fact I read whatever I run across if it applies to what I am looking for or if something piques my interest. I actually read first judge last. I guess that is wrong way according to you, Am I reading to much into your post? I hope so.
Oh c'mon. There's nothing arrogant about my post. What I said (and you know this) is that NewsMin is NOT credible and I listed a bunch of respected right leaning pubs with a few lefties to balance it out.
My Al Q skepticism goes like so (short, linkless version):
By most accounts, the thing is very ad hoc. In other words, there is very little centralization.
And yet, at times, it comes across (in media, from politicians) as a very distinct, very concrete group with a clear leadership and infrastructure (as if it were Cobra, and Osama was Cobra Commander). I find that hard to swallow, frankly.
I'm prepared to believe that Osama is a real person (I have seen no reason to doubt that) and that he uses his money to fund various actions. But anything beyond that makes skeptical (which doesn't mean I'm not prepared to accept evidence).
For example: how is it that we knew, within hours, which evildoers (who hated freedom) were on the planes? Were said evildoers unaware of the ease with which one can obtain a fake i.d.?
Its little things like that what get my historical perspective all a'workin'. I, for example, remember the Maine.
[B] I don't spend precious time pondering over grey area. I find it easier to deal with things that way. I also often reevaluate my positions based on new info or new knowledge.
Here's the thing: If, because you simply find it easier to ignore complexity and then correct yourself when you're wrong, would you expect a decision where peoples lives are at stake to operate the same way? Wouldn't you expect a crucial, life or death decision like that to at least consider that things might not be as simple as they might seem? Wouldn't you want someone making such a decision to have considered all of the possible angles, and not just made a quick decision--banking on the ability to change course later?
Quote:
If these links are proven true, will any of you reconsider your own positions? Or will it make no difference?
Sure. If we can uncover some kind of systematic support of al Qaeda on the part of SH and the Ba'ath party, I'll rethink some elements of my opposition to the invasion of Iraq.
But here you go. I'll throw a wrench into the works:
While I understand the logic of invading Afghanistan, I do not think it was the best course of action. As I have argued on these forums again and again and again, the notion of a "war on terror" mistakenly presumes a) that there is a finite number of terrorists and b) that shooting the terrorists will make their numbers decline.
I reject both of these assumptions, simply because, as Israel and England have shown, killing the terrorists just makes their brothers, sisters, parents and children vengeful enough to become terrorists themselves. England has been shooting at terrorists since before the word existed. Israel, for 50 years. Quite a success rate, I'd say! Clearly, they're both winning their wars on terror!
The problem is that terrorism is an unconventional extra-military tactic, and thus you'd have as much luck declaring war on rhetoric as you would on terror. There are, indeed, people out there who hate America. And for a variety of reasons.
But that is always going to be the case. Someone, somewhere, will always hate something--especially when it's a secular plural society. The alternative to invading and shooting and killing and making more terrorists is simple, and I like Richard Clark's construction of it: we have to offer an alternative to terrorism. We have to make blowing yourself up less appealing than something else.
Shooting at them, killing them, invading them, and occupying them, will only make more of them. And hey, people can point all they want to our having captured whatever percentage of al Qaeda leadership...but that was their leadership 3 years ago.
My Al Q skepticism goes like so (short, linkless version):
By most accounts, the thing is very ad hoc. In other words, there is very little centralization.
And yet, at times, it comes across (in media, from politicians) as a very distinct, very concrete group with a clear leadership and infrastructure (as if it were Cobra, and Osama was Cobra Commander). I find that hard to swallow, frankly.
I'm prepared to believe that Osama is a real person (I have seen no reason to doubt that) and that he uses his money to fund various actions. But anything beyond that makes skeptical (which doesn't mean I'm not prepared to accept evidence).
For example: how is it that we knew, within hours, which evildoers (who hated freedom) were on the planes? Were said evildoers unaware of the ease with which one can obtain a fake i.d.?
Its little things like that what get my historical perspective all a'workin'. I, for example, remember the Maine.
I can go along with all of that, but it only strengthens my opinion that SH and most like every other anti-US state and radical leader has got ties with AQ in one way or another. The whole water finding a common plane thing, I look at it like the Mac community, or the biker community, or the car club community, it is an instant common ground for them. It is funny how you make diversified friends when you have things in common.
The thing is, I don't think 911 necessitated a big conspiracy. It was a brilliantly simple attack which any number of people could have pulled off. Hell, given the abysmal state of airline safety (even now), WE (me and you) could pull it off.
Assuming, of course, that you and I were into martial arts. I'm not.
The thing is, I don't think 911 necessitated a big conspiracy. It was a brilliantly simple attack which any number of people could have pulled off. Hell, given the abysmal state of airline safety (even now), WE (me and you) could pull it off.
Assuming, of course, that you and I were into martial arts. I'm not.
That's an interesting thing, I don't think that it could work the same way again. The hijackers relied on saying there was a bomb on the plane, the people on the plane didn't know whether that was true, but they also didn't know that hte plane was to be a bomb. I think if they knew that the plane was going to be flown into a building, then they'd risk overpowering the hijackers even if there was a bomb on the plane. ya know? if there was a bomb, then the hijackers could detonate it, killing everyone on board, but their ultimate plan would have been foiled.
So, I think that today's americans wouldn't let themselves be hijacked. but then again, I've never been in a life or death situation like that, I have no idea how they might react, despite 9/11. Sometimes, in the moment thoughts don't make any sense...
Here's the thing: If, because you simply find it easier to ignore complexity and then correct yourself when you're wrong, would you expect a decision where peoples lives are at stake to operate the same way? Wouldn't you expect a crucial, life or death decision like that to at least consider that things might not be as simple as they might seem? Wouldn't you want someone making such a decision to have considered all of the possible angles, and not just made a quick decision--banking on the ability to change course later?
You are reading a lot into what I said. I am not the president and as such i think that the level of responsibility would force one to consider more variables.
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
While I understand the logic of invading Afghanistan, I do not think it was the best course of action. As I have argued on these forums again and again and again, the notion of a "war on terror" mistakenly presumes a) that there is a finite number of terrorists and b) that shooting the terrorists will make their numbers decline.
I reject both of these assumptions, simply because, as Israel and England have shown, killing the terrorists just makes their brothers, sisters, parents and children vengeful enough to become terrorists themselves. England has been shooting at terrorists since before the word existed. Israel, for 50 years. Quite a success rate, I'd say! Clearly, they're both winning their wars on terror!
The problem is that terrorism is an unconventional extra-military tactic, and thus you'd have as much luck declaring war on rhetoric as you would on terror. There are, indeed, people out there who hate America. And for a variety of reasons.
But that is always going to be the case. Someone, somewhere, will always hate something--especially when it's a secular plural society. The alternative to invading and shooting and killing and making more terrorists is simple, and I like Richard Clark's construction of it: we have to offer an alternative to terrorism. We have to make blowing yourself up less appealing than something else.
Shooting at them, killing them, invading them, and occupying them, will only make more of them. And hey, people can point all they want to our having captured whatever percentage of al Qaeda leadership...but that was their leadership 3 years ago.
What about their leadership now?
You make a lot of good points, but what is your solution. What would be more appealing to a terrorist? I know myself, I would choose just about anything over blowing myself up? Give me a bag of stale chips, that is more appealing, no?
What do you offer them? Do you give in to their violent, uncivilized behavior and reward them for it?
They HATE you and I, they want us dead and want the world to be what would be considered a nightmare to most of the rest of the world. How do you satisfy that desire? Or maybe they want Israel to perish. Do we turn the other way and let them accomplish that goal?
I don't see any positives for humanity one way or the other. Maybe I am dense, but I can't see any other solution but to fight.
If fighting is the best strategy, who does one fight in this situation? That gets back to my suspicions (which involve the question of how one nails jello to a wall), as well as the point someone made above about the experience of the Brits with Ireland (I presume that was a reference to Ireland) and the Israelis.
Britain has always had more than enough force on its side, but it never got an end to terrorism until it tried negotiations.
Israel, likewise, has had relative peace during periods where it was lighter on the forceful response.
On the other hand, Israel is a state in part because of successful terrorism against an overwhelming opponent. Same goes for the end of Apartheid in South Africa or the American Revolution.
You are reading a lot into what I said. I am not the president and as such i think that the level of responsibility would force one to consider more variables.
And yet you seem to condone such thinking. That's my point.
Quote:
You make a lot of good points, but what is your solution. What would be more appealing to a terrorist? I know myself, I would choose just about anything over blowing myself up? Give me a bag of stale chips, that is more appealing, no?
What do you offer them? Do you give in to their violent, uncivilized behavior and reward them for it?
I have no idea where you got this. Seriously. I very clearly said that we have to offer an alternative to terrorism. The same way we offer alternatives in the US to joining a militia or the Klan or a gang.
Quote:
They HATE you and I, they want us dead and want the world to be what would be considered a nightmare to most of the rest of the world. How do you satisfy that desire? Or maybe they want Israel to perish. Do we turn the other way and let them accomplish that goal?
I never said "satisfy." I said "offer an alternative." Imagine if, for instance, instead of dumping $1 billion a week into supplying our troops, we'd dumped $1 billion a week into countering the madrassas in Afghanistan by setting up economic incentives for children to go to real schools? Imagine if, instead of moving our soldiers to Iraq, we're used them to build libraries and filled them with all the literature of Western culture? What if we'd paid people to come in from the sticks to get an education?
Quote:
I don't see any positives for humanity one way or the other. Maybe I am dense, but I can't see any other solution but to fight.
To fight what? A tactic? An idea? That is attacking the symptoms but not the disease. And this, I'm afraid, is a tactic that others have tried to fight and failed. Miserably.
I'll put this really simply: You cannot destroy ideas with force. All you can do is offer more appealing alternatives.
Ok, but I am talking facts. They seem to be good on facts. They can lean any way they want as long as they report the facts, I am good.
What facts? They quote some alleged paper on some alleged ties without a second source or any official statement.
Just click on their "editors note" to see what kind of bovine fertilizer they sell:
Quote:
It?s called Catastrophe: Clinton?s Role in America?s Worst Disaster - and tells the real story of 9/11 - the one the big media are afraid to report. [...]
# There is strong evidence that the West Nile virus was the first bioweapon used by Iraq. Did you know the first cases appeared near the United Nations in New York and that a major Iraqi defector said Saddam bragged in 1997 he would release the West Nile virus on America?
# A top economics adviser to Russia?s President Putin warned on the front page of Pravda, just months before 9-11, that a catastrophic ?financial attack? on the U.S. economy would take place. She has new warnings about the future.
# The Russian government officially told its citizens to cash out dollars in the months after 9-11 - and warned of an economic collapse. Did it have advance knowledge?
# Two top U.S. military commanders have warned that weapons of mass destruction will be used in the new war on terrorism.
# FEMA has a secret plan to build emergency cities that could house millions of Americans - after our cities are attacked by weapons of mass destruction.
I can see reasons why the "big media" would rather not report this...
This thread is ridiculous. The WSJ comes out with some interesting facts laced with appropriate caveats that if true show a direct link between 9-11 and Saddam's Fedayeen group. But all anyone here can do is kill the messenger. WSJ is now suspect and to the right. NYT and BBC are held up as examples even though they have been caught red handed fabricating news.
We realize that even raising this subject now is politically incorrect. It is an article of faith among war opponents that there were no links whatsoever--that "secular" Saddam and fundamentalist Islamic terrorists didn't mix.
WSJ runs and facts and the rest of you run on "article(s) of faith".
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Generally, I know no one here of any political persuasion who thinks that. In fact, I would claim all members post here expecting to encounter rigorous debate and not only opposing opinions, but also multiple viewpoints on a particular matter. I believe I posted before about your tendency to compare things in "black and white" when "shades of gray" describe a situation much better.
Maybe you are right that I see things in black and white most times. But what you may not take into consideration is I am able to see those shades of grey and yet still make judgments despite that. I may not be right all the time, but I don't spend precious time pondering over grey area. I find it easier to deal with things that way. I also often reevaluate my positions based on new info or new knowledge.
It may not be the way you do things but that does not make it wrong, does it?
BOT
If these links are proven true, will any of you reconsider your own positions? Or will it make no difference?
After all, he had as much reason to want to hurt the US as anyone.
At the same time, 911 was hardly a complicated operation, so proof of any kind must be hard to come by.
Mind you, I'm saying this from the perspective of a person who is suspicious about the whole notion of Al Quaeda.
Originally posted by GregInMex
Mind you, I'm saying this from the perspective of a person who is suspicious about the whole notion of Al Quaeda.
Expand on what you mean by the whole notion of AQ?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Great links and descriptions, really.
However, let's look at what you said here:
You have laid out YOUR preferences for news outlets. You have stated YOUR bias toward YOUR choices.
Really that is cool and I have no real problem with what YOUR choices are.
But don't you think it is a little arrogant to suggest that YOUR choices are the only ones that are credible? That a person can only glean credible news from YOUR choices? No offense intended. You don't have to answer, it is a rhetorical line of questions.
Once again, I do read all of those. As a matter of fact I read whatever I run across if it applies to what I am looking for or if something piques my interest. I actually read first judge last. I guess that is wrong way according to you, Am I reading to much into your post? I hope so.
Oh c'mon. There's nothing arrogant about my post. What I said (and you know this) is that NewsMin is NOT credible and I listed a bunch of respected right leaning pubs with a few lefties to balance it out.
By most accounts, the thing is very ad hoc. In other words, there is very little centralization.
And yet, at times, it comes across (in media, from politicians) as a very distinct, very concrete group with a clear leadership and infrastructure (as if it were Cobra, and Osama was Cobra Commander). I find that hard to swallow, frankly.
I'm prepared to believe that Osama is a real person (I have seen no reason to doubt that) and that he uses his money to fund various actions. But anything beyond that makes skeptical (which doesn't mean I'm not prepared to accept evidence).
For example: how is it that we knew, within hours, which evildoers (who hated freedom) were on the planes? Were said evildoers unaware of the ease with which one can obtain a fake i.d.?
Its little things like that what get my historical perspective all a'workin'. I, for example, remember the Maine.
Originally posted by NaplesX
[B] I don't spend precious time pondering over grey area. I find it easier to deal with things that way. I also often reevaluate my positions based on new info or new knowledge.
Here's the thing: If, because you simply find it easier to ignore complexity and then correct yourself when you're wrong, would you expect a decision where peoples lives are at stake to operate the same way? Wouldn't you expect a crucial, life or death decision like that to at least consider that things might not be as simple as they might seem? Wouldn't you want someone making such a decision to have considered all of the possible angles, and not just made a quick decision--banking on the ability to change course later?
If these links are proven true, will any of you reconsider your own positions? Or will it make no difference?
Sure. If we can uncover some kind of systematic support of al Qaeda on the part of SH and the Ba'ath party, I'll rethink some elements of my opposition to the invasion of Iraq.
But here you go. I'll throw a wrench into the works:
While I understand the logic of invading Afghanistan, I do not think it was the best course of action. As I have argued on these forums again and again and again, the notion of a "war on terror" mistakenly presumes a) that there is a finite number of terrorists and b) that shooting the terrorists will make their numbers decline.
I reject both of these assumptions, simply because, as Israel and England have shown, killing the terrorists just makes their brothers, sisters, parents and children vengeful enough to become terrorists themselves. England has been shooting at terrorists since before the word existed. Israel, for 50 years. Quite a success rate, I'd say! Clearly, they're both winning their wars on terror!
The problem is that terrorism is an unconventional extra-military tactic, and thus you'd have as much luck declaring war on rhetoric as you would on terror. There are, indeed, people out there who hate America. And for a variety of reasons.
But that is always going to be the case. Someone, somewhere, will always hate something--especially when it's a secular plural society. The alternative to invading and shooting and killing and making more terrorists is simple, and I like Richard Clark's construction of it: we have to offer an alternative to terrorism. We have to make blowing yourself up less appealing than something else.
Shooting at them, killing them, invading them, and occupying them, will only make more of them. And hey, people can point all they want to our having captured whatever percentage of al Qaeda leadership...but that was their leadership 3 years ago.
What about their leadership now?
Originally posted by GregInMex
My Al Q skepticism goes like so (short, linkless version):
By most accounts, the thing is very ad hoc. In other words, there is very little centralization.
And yet, at times, it comes across (in media, from politicians) as a very distinct, very concrete group with a clear leadership and infrastructure (as if it were Cobra, and Osama was Cobra Commander). I find that hard to swallow, frankly.
I'm prepared to believe that Osama is a real person (I have seen no reason to doubt that) and that he uses his money to fund various actions. But anything beyond that makes skeptical (which doesn't mean I'm not prepared to accept evidence).
For example: how is it that we knew, within hours, which evildoers (who hated freedom) were on the planes? Were said evildoers unaware of the ease with which one can obtain a fake i.d.?
Its little things like that what get my historical perspective all a'workin'. I, for example, remember the Maine.
I can go along with all of that, but it only strengthens my opinion that SH and most like every other anti-US state and radical leader has got ties with AQ in one way or another. The whole water finding a common plane thing, I look at it like the Mac community, or the biker community, or the car club community, it is an instant common ground for them. It is funny how you make diversified friends when you have things in common.
Assuming, of course, that you and I were into martial arts. I'm not.
Originally posted by GregInMex
The thing is, I don't think 911 necessitated a big conspiracy. It was a brilliantly simple attack which any number of people could have pulled off. Hell, given the abysmal state of airline safety (even now), WE (me and you) could pull it off.
Assuming, of course, that you and I were into martial arts. I'm not.
That's an interesting thing, I don't think that it could work the same way again. The hijackers relied on saying there was a bomb on the plane, the people on the plane didn't know whether that was true, but they also didn't know that hte plane was to be a bomb. I think if they knew that the plane was going to be flown into a building, then they'd risk overpowering the hijackers even if there was a bomb on the plane. ya know? if there was a bomb, then the hijackers could detonate it, killing everyone on board, but their ultimate plan would have been foiled.
So, I think that today's americans wouldn't let themselves be hijacked. but then again, I've never been in a life or death situation like that, I have no idea how they might react, despite 9/11. Sometimes, in the moment thoughts don't make any sense...
Originally posted by midwinter
Here's the thing: If, because you simply find it easier to ignore complexity and then correct yourself when you're wrong, would you expect a decision where peoples lives are at stake to operate the same way? Wouldn't you expect a crucial, life or death decision like that to at least consider that things might not be as simple as they might seem? Wouldn't you want someone making such a decision to have considered all of the possible angles, and not just made a quick decision--banking on the ability to change course later?
You are reading a lot into what I said. I am not the president and as such i think that the level of responsibility would force one to consider more variables.
Originally posted by midwinter
While I understand the logic of invading Afghanistan, I do not think it was the best course of action. As I have argued on these forums again and again and again, the notion of a "war on terror" mistakenly presumes a) that there is a finite number of terrorists and b) that shooting the terrorists will make their numbers decline.
I reject both of these assumptions, simply because, as Israel and England have shown, killing the terrorists just makes their brothers, sisters, parents and children vengeful enough to become terrorists themselves. England has been shooting at terrorists since before the word existed. Israel, for 50 years. Quite a success rate, I'd say! Clearly, they're both winning their wars on terror!
The problem is that terrorism is an unconventional extra-military tactic, and thus you'd have as much luck declaring war on rhetoric as you would on terror. There are, indeed, people out there who hate America. And for a variety of reasons.
But that is always going to be the case. Someone, somewhere, will always hate something--especially when it's a secular plural society. The alternative to invading and shooting and killing and making more terrorists is simple, and I like Richard Clark's construction of it: we have to offer an alternative to terrorism. We have to make blowing yourself up less appealing than something else.
Shooting at them, killing them, invading them, and occupying them, will only make more of them. And hey, people can point all they want to our having captured whatever percentage of al Qaeda leadership...but that was their leadership 3 years ago.
What about their leadership now?
You make a lot of good points, but what is your solution. What would be more appealing to a terrorist? I know myself, I would choose just about anything over blowing myself up? Give me a bag of stale chips, that is more appealing, no?
What do you offer them? Do you give in to their violent, uncivilized behavior and reward them for it?
They HATE you and I, they want us dead and want the world to be what would be considered a nightmare to most of the rest of the world. How do you satisfy that desire? Or maybe they want Israel to perish. Do we turn the other way and let them accomplish that goal?
I don't see any positives for humanity one way or the other. Maybe I am dense, but I can't see any other solution but to fight.
Britain has always had more than enough force on its side, but it never got an end to terrorism until it tried negotiations.
Israel, likewise, has had relative peace during periods where it was lighter on the forceful response.
On the other hand, Israel is a state in part because of successful terrorism against an overwhelming opponent. Same goes for the end of Apartheid in South Africa or the American Revolution.
Originally posted by GregInMex
how one nails jello to a wall),
exactly.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You are reading a lot into what I said. I am not the president and as such i think that the level of responsibility would force one to consider more variables.
And yet you seem to condone such thinking. That's my point.
You make a lot of good points, but what is your solution. What would be more appealing to a terrorist? I know myself, I would choose just about anything over blowing myself up? Give me a bag of stale chips, that is more appealing, no?
What do you offer them? Do you give in to their violent, uncivilized behavior and reward them for it?
I have no idea where you got this. Seriously. I very clearly said that we have to offer an alternative to terrorism. The same way we offer alternatives in the US to joining a militia or the Klan or a gang.
They HATE you and I, they want us dead and want the world to be what would be considered a nightmare to most of the rest of the world. How do you satisfy that desire? Or maybe they want Israel to perish. Do we turn the other way and let them accomplish that goal?
I never said "satisfy." I said "offer an alternative." Imagine if, for instance, instead of dumping $1 billion a week into supplying our troops, we'd dumped $1 billion a week into countering the madrassas in Afghanistan by setting up economic incentives for children to go to real schools? Imagine if, instead of moving our soldiers to Iraq, we're used them to build libraries and filled them with all the literature of Western culture? What if we'd paid people to come in from the sticks to get an education?
I don't see any positives for humanity one way or the other. Maybe I am dense, but I can't see any other solution but to fight.
To fight what? A tactic? An idea? That is attacking the symptoms but not the disease. And this, I'm afraid, is a tactic that others have tried to fight and failed. Miserably.
I'll put this really simply: You cannot destroy ideas with force. All you can do is offer more appealing alternatives.
Originally posted by GregInMex
which involve the question of how one nails jello to a wall
Just add extra gelatin packets to the Jello before cooling it. Simple.8)
Originally posted by NaplesX
Ok, but I am talking facts. They seem to be good on facts. They can lean any way they want as long as they report the facts, I am good.
What facts? They quote some alleged paper on some alleged ties without a second source or any official statement.
Just click on their "editors note" to see what kind of bovine fertilizer they sell:
It?s called Catastrophe: Clinton?s Role in America?s Worst Disaster - and tells the real story of 9/11 - the one the big media are afraid to report. [...]
# There is strong evidence that the West Nile virus was the first bioweapon used by Iraq. Did you know the first cases appeared near the United Nations in New York and that a major Iraqi defector said Saddam bragged in 1997 he would release the West Nile virus on America?
# A top economics adviser to Russia?s President Putin warned on the front page of Pravda, just months before 9-11, that a catastrophic ?financial attack? on the U.S. economy would take place. She has new warnings about the future.
# The Russian government officially told its citizens to cash out dollars in the months after 9-11 - and warned of an economic collapse. Did it have advance knowledge?
# Two top U.S. military commanders have warned that weapons of mass destruction will be used in the new war on terrorism.
# FEMA has a secret plan to build emergency cities that could house millions of Americans - after our cities are attacked by weapons of mass destruction.
I can see reasons why the "big media" would rather not report this...
WSJ saw all this coming.
We realize that even raising this subject now is politically incorrect. It is an article of faith among war opponents that there were no links whatsoever--that "secular" Saddam and fundamentalist Islamic terrorists didn't mix.
WSJ runs and facts and the rest of you run on "article(s) of faith".
Originally posted by NaplesX
Some make it obvious that opposing opinions are not welcome.
You still think the problem is your "politics?"
Originally posted by Scott
WSJ is now suspect and to the right.
No, WSJ is dishonest and biased, as demonstrated in the flat-out deceit used to attack Clarke, among hundreds of other incidents.
Originally posted by giant
No, WSJ is dishonest and biased, as demonstrated in the flat-out deceit used to attack Clarke, among hundreds of other incidents.
Maybe we should just toss them all in the trash and allow our dogma to rule the day.