igloo

wow bxbomb...great post....you must be so proud. It must have hurt for you to come up with more than one sentence. Hey--at least it is progress mental midget.
Remember--look in the mirror, and admit: you are an imbecile. First step to recovery son. If you can't muster up the strength to do it, then simply kill yourself. But don't sweat it, history has shown that insignificant, uneducated blowhards like you were never missed. So join the list nerd.
But before you do, you may want to answer the sheep siren one more time. Grab one more blowhard talking point from ANSWER for good measure. I would like to be entertained one more time by your stupidity before you go. Maybe a classic "No War for Oil" rant, or Bush is a terrorist", or "Bush killed Elvis" or "Bush slept with Brad Pitt, not Jolie"............
One last time for us clownboy, then promptly kill yourself.

Siceone,
This jerkoff isn't worth your time. Just another blowhard. Good luck in law school.

The bottom line, is that if this is not addressed, or "admitted" , or approached, this "war" can never be one.......sooner or later, everyone needs to pretending these realities do not exist

Chinese spooks: A growing Red menace
Peter Brookes (archive)
May 31, 2005 | printer friendly version Print | email to a friend Send
"One good spy is worth 10,000 soldiers." - Sun Tzu, ancient Chinese military strategist
Islamic terrorism is still the greatest threat to our national security, but Chinese espionage against the United States is gaining ground. The FBI says China will be America's greatest counterintelligence problem during the next 10-15 years.
China has seven permanent diplomatic missions in the States, staffed with intelligence personnel. But the FBI believes that as many as 3,500 Chinese "front companies" are involved in espionage for the People's Republic of China (PRC) as well.
And with the bureau focused on terrorism, the China challenge is overwhelming the FBI's counterintelligence capabilities.
The PRC has the world's third-largest intelligence apparatus (after the United States and Russia), and it's targeting America's governmental, military and high technology secrets.
China's goal is to replace the U.S. as the preeminent power in the Pacific - even globally. It's using every method possible, including espionage, to improve its political, economic and, especially, military might.
A senior FBI official said recently, "China is trying to develop a military that can compete with the U.S., and they are willing to steal to get it."
One example: Last fall in Wisconsin, a Chinese-American couple was arrested for selling $500,000 worth of computer parts to China for enhancing its missile systems. Even worse: The PRC recently fielded a new cruise missile strikingly similar to the advanced American "Tomahawk."
Chances that the similarities are a coincidence? Slim to none.
Naturally, America's hi-tech centers are a potential gold mine for Chinese spies. The FBI claims that Chinese espionage cases are rising 20 to 30 percent every year in Silicon Valley alone.
But don't think James Bond. It's all much more methodical - and mundane.
Chinese intelligence collection uses numerous low-level spies to painstakingly collect one small piece of information at a time until the intelligence question is answered. Kind of like building a beach one grain of sand at a time.
For instance, it took China 20 years to swipe American nuclear warhead designs from U.S. national nuclear weapons labs, according to a 1999 congressional committee
China also doesn't rely on "professional" spies stationed overseas to the extent other major intel services do. Instead, it uses low-profile civilians to collect information.
The PRC's Ministry of State Security (MSS) often co-opts Chinese travelers, especially businesspeople, scientists and academics, to gather intel or purchase technology while they're in America.
The MSS especially prizes overseas Chinese students, hi-tech workers and researchers living in the U.S. because of their access to sensitive technology and research/development that Beijing can use for civilian and military purposes.
Of course, not all the 150,000 Chinese students and researchers now in America, or the 25,000 official PRC delegates - or the 300,000 victors - are spies, but they do provide the MSS with a large pool of potential recruits for collecting secrets on U.S. targets of interest.
The MSS also recruits in the Chinese-American community, including sleeper agents. Developing personal relationships, invoking a common Chinese heritage, threatening cultural alienation or offering access to powerful people are persuasive in a culture where "guanxi" (connections) are important.
An equal opportunity employer, the MSS will, of course, "hire" sympathetic Americans - or any ethnicity - that will further China's cause, including scholars, journalists and diplomats, among others.
The United States isn't the only country with a Chinese spy problem. The MSS runs an espionage network against scientific labs and large research universities in several European countries, including the U.K., France, the Netherlands and Germany. In Asia, Taiwan recently arrested 17 of its military officers for working for the PRC.
China's spies and their methods aren't the most expedient or efficient in spy-dom, but the tenacity and quantity of Chinese spooks are proving effective. Unfortunately, the openness of American society provides easy access to sensitive information and technology.
Sun Tzu said that intelligence is critical to success on the battlefield. It applies to the political and economic "battlefield," too. Accordingly, China is investing heavily in espionage to match its geopolitical aspirations.
China will prove to be America's greatest foreign-policy challenge in this century. In recent months, the Pentagon, CIA, Treasury and Congress have voiced concerns about China's rapidly expanding political, economic and military clout. These are words to the wise.
We certainly can't take our eye off terrorist threats against the homeland, but neither can we risk not meeting the growing Chinese espionage menace. Both are major threats to our national security and merit significant resources and attention.
Peter Brookes, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, is a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a New York Post columnist.

The media, in all their fucking anti-war, anti-Bush wisdom, better start acting more fucking responsible.....and stop undermining the U.S. effort every fucking chance they fucking get.......enough is enough
Newsweek Apologizes for Quran Story Errors
NEW YORK - Newsweek magazine has apologized for errors in a story alleging that interrogators at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Quran, saying it would re-examine the accusations, which sparked outrage and deadly protests in Afghanistan.
ADVERTISEMENT
Fifteen people died and scores were injured in violence between protesters and security forces, prompting U.S. promises to investigate the allegations.
"We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst," Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker wrote in a note to readers.
In an issue dated May 9, the magazine reported that U.S. military investigators had found evidence that interrogators placed copies of Islam's holy book in washrooms and had flushed one down the toilet to get inmates to talk.
Whitaker wrote that the magazine's information came from "a knowledgeable U.S. government source," and before publishing the item, writers Michael Isikoff and John Barry sought comment from two Defense Department officials. One declined to respond, and the other challenged another part of the story but did not dispute the Quran charge, Whitaker said.
But on Friday, a top Pentagon spokesman told the magazine that a review of the military's investigation concluded "it was never meant to look into charges of Quran desecration. The spokesman also said the Pentagon had investigated other desecration charges by detainees and found them 'not credible.'"
Also, Whitaker added, the magazine's original source later said he could not be sure he read about the alleged Quran incident in the report they cited, and that it might have been in another document.
"Top administration officials have promised to continue looking into the charges, and so will we," Whitaker wrote.
Following the report, demonstrations spread across Afghanistan, and Islamic leaders gathered to pass a resolution calling for anyone found to have abused the Quran to be punished. Many of the 520 inmates at Guantanamo are Muslims arrested during the U.S.-led war against the Taliban and its al-Qaida allies in Afghanistan.
National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said in an interview for CNN's "Late Edition" that the allegations were being investigated "vigorously."
"If it turns out to be true, obviously we will take action against those responsible," he said

peeps believe that being a doom and gloom the u.s sucks person covers up their stupidity

The Arab Spring
Jeff Jacoby (archive)
March 11, 2005 | printer friendly version Print | email to a friend Send
"It is time to set down in type the most difficult sentence in the English language. That sentence is short and simple. It is this: Bush was right."
Thus spake columnist Richard Gwyn of the Toronto Star, author of such earlier offerings as "Incurious George W. can't grasp democracy," "Time for US to cut and run," and, as recently as Jan. 25, "Bush's hubristic world view."
The Axis of Weasel is crying uncle, and much of the chorus is singing from the same songsheet.
Listen to Claus Christian Malzahn in the German news magazine Der Spiegel: "Could George W. be right?" And Guy Sorman in France's Le Figaro: "And if Bush was right?" And NPR's Daniel Schorr in The Christian Science Monitor: "The Iraq effect? Bush may have had it right." And London's Independent, in a banner Page 1 headline on Monday: "Was Bush right after all?"
Even Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's "Daily Show" and an indefatigable Bush critic, has learned the new lyrics. "Here's the great fear that I have," he said recently. "What if Bush . . . has been right about this all along? I feel like my world view will not sustain itself and I may . . . implode."
For those of us in the War Party, by contrast, these are heady days. If you've agreed with President Bush all along that the way to fight the cancer of Islamist terrorism is with the chemotherapy of freedom and democracy, the temptation to issue I-told-you-sos can be hard to resist.
"Who's the simpleton now?" crowsMax Boot in the Los Angeles Times. "Those who dreamed of spreading democracy to the Arabs or those who denied that it could ever happen?" On the radio the other day, Rush Limbaugh twisted the knife: "The news is not that Bush may have been right," he chortled. "It's that you liberals were wrong." The gifted Mark Steyn, in a column subtitled, "One man, one gloat," writes: "I got a lot of things wrong these last three years, but, looking at events in the Middle East this last week, . . . I got the big stuff right."
Well, I'd say I got the big stuff right too. And as a war hawk who backs the Bush Doctrine, I find the latest developments in the Arab world especially gratifying. But this triumphalism makes me uneasy. This is the Middle East we're talking about, after all. And we have been here before.
It was only 22 months ago that Bush flew a Navy jet onto the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and emerged to tell the world, "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." War hawks and Bush supporters were ecstatic, but thousands of US and Iraqi deaths later, it is all too clear how premature that "Mission Accomplished" exultation was. Likewise the rapture that greeted the signing of the "Oslo" accord in 1993. When Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat shook hands, they unleashed a euphoric certainty that Israeli-Palestinian peace had been achieved at last. In retrospect, that euphoria looks not just ridiculous, but tragic.
None of this is to minimize the extraordinary changes unfolding in the Arab world. Iraq's stunning elections have given heart to would-be reformers across the region. In Beirut, tens of thousands of anti-Syrian demonstrators brought about the fall of Lebanon's pro-Damascus quisling government. (As of Wednesday evening, however, the Lebanese parliament was poised to restore the ousted prime minister.) Saudi Arabia held municipal elections, the first democratic exercise the Ibn Sauds have ever allowed. On Monday, hundreds of activists demanding suffrage for women marched on Kuwait's parliament. Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak has promised a genuine (i.e., contested) presidential election -- something he rejected just a few weeks ago as "totally unacceptable." And Syria's military occupation of Lebanon is drawing such international condemnation that Bashar Assad, the Syrian dictator, has begun to pull his troops back to the Bekaa Valley.
It is being called an "Arab Spring," and Bush's critics, many of whom snorted when he insisted last year that "freedom is on the march," are right to give him credit for helping to bring it about. What his allies need to bear in mind is that cracks in the ice of tyranny and misrule don't always lead to liberation.
In 1989, a global wave of democratic fervor brought tens of millions of anti-Communist demonstrators into the streets. In Eastern Europe, that wave shattered the Berlin Wall, freed the captive nations, and eventually ended the Cold War. In China, by contrast, it was stopped by the tanks of Tiananmen.Square and the spilling of much innocent blood. In history, unlike in nature, spring is not always followed by summer.
"At last, clearly and suddenly, the thaw has begun," said President Bush on Tuesday. Let us pray that it continues, and that the long winter of Arab discontent is finally giving way to a summer of liberty and human rights. There will be time enough for gloating if it does.

Agreed....A historic moment...and even if you are anti-war, or anti-Bush, or one of those who simply root for doom and gloom and American/Bush failure, you had to have been moved at what took place.......

A Conservative Answer to Michael Moore
Profile: Evan Coyne Maloney
BY JACOB GERSHMAN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 21, 2005
Evan Coyne Maloney, 32, who dresses and looks like a college student, may very well be America's most promising conservative documentary filmmaker. Yet the Upper East Side resident hasn't completed a single film.
The hype unaccompanied by output says a lot about the room for growth in the conservative documentary community. But a number of those on the right expect Mr. Maloney's unfinished debut film, "Brainwashing 101,"to emerge as a breakout theatrical hit - or at least to make it to theaters, a feat few films of its political ilk have managed to achieve.
A sardonic attack on political correctness in higher education, Mr. Maloney's film was hailed as the "most anticipated" documentary in 2005 by the American Film Renaissance, an upstart film institute based in Dallas. People attending October's Liberty Festival in Los Angeles apparently gave a preview version of it a standing ovation - though not of the duration of Michael Moore's 20 minutes at Cannes. A critic writing for the insider Hollywood Web site Ain't It Cool News called the first cut of the film one of the most "horrifying and hysterical documentaries I have ever seen."
As the title suggests, the 46-minute film, which Mr. Maloney is racing to expand into a full-length documentary by fall, is his attempt to confirm the worst assumptions that conservatives have about what goes on at universities. His film is about the spread of noxious speech codes, abuses of power by vindictive administrators, and the arbitrary restrictions on academic freedom imposed on conservative students - cases of which, the film argues, are increasingly cropping up in universities. The film begins with images of Columbia University, a university embroiled in a controversy concerning students who say professors violated their academic freedom.
On the road with Mr. Maloney across the country, the viewer watches an economics professor from Mr. Maloney's alma mater, Bucknell University in Pennsylvania, explain to the filmmaker that most white students at the school are "unconsciously racist" and that much of the "cutting-edge" work in his field is "being done in feminist economics."
Mr. Maloney then turns his camera to the case of Steve Hinkle. A student at California Polytechnic State University, he was disciplined by school officials after posting a flyer promoting an upcoming speech by a black conservative who equated welfare and slavery. The school dropped charges against Mr. Hinkle only after a civil-liberties organization sued, saying the university was violating freedom of speech.
To top it off, Mr. Maloney interviews Sukhmani Singh Khalsa of the University of Tennessee, a Sikh convert who received a death threat by e-mail from another student angry over his conservative opinion pieces in the student newspaper. The university refused to punish the author of the e-mail, who called Mr. Khalsa a "towel head" and reportedly urged students to shoot the student in the "face."
"The problem on campus becomes who defines harassment," Mr. Maloney said in a recent interview with The New York Sun. "Who on campus is going to stand up to a multicultural office or a diversity office?"
One of the more amusing scenes in the film comes when Mr. Maloney stops by the office of Cal Poly's president, Warren Baker - in a "Roger and Me" moment - for an impromptu interview, only to be herded away by a grouchy assistant. Not a single university administrator has agreed to appear in the New Yorker's film.
The story of how Mr. Maloney, who had little previous filmmaking experience, has become the right's best answer to Mr. Moore starts a little more than a year ago in front of the home of the older documentarian.
After staking out the director for four days with a fancy new Panasonic digital video recorder, Mr. Maloney confronted Mr. Moore on a sidewalk on the Upper West Side, with the intention of provoking a flustered reaction from him. Mr. Maloney wanted to needle him with pointed questions about liberal bias in Hollywood and then post the footage on his Web log, Brain-terminal.com.
Mr. Moore, as it turned out, was game for the interview. He calmly told Mr. Maloney that documentary filmmaking "should be open to all people of all political persuasions."
"It should not just be people who are liberal, or left-of-center, or whatever," the Oscar-winner said. "Make your movies, and then the people will respond or not respond to them."
Soon after the video of Mr. Moore went up on his Web site, Mr. Maloney received an e-mail message from Stuart Browning, 44, a goateed man from Miami Beach who has deeply conservative political views - and who boasts of having more money than the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, John Edwards.
At the time, Mr. Maloney had already gained some notice from the press with his 6- or 7-minute documentary shorts on left-wing protesters.
He videotaped antiwar demonstrators in New York in 2003 providing silly answers to questions about how America ought to deal with Iraq. He recorded a rowdy pro-Palestinian protest at Rutgers University, where one speaker screamed, "Long live the intifada," and another protester whispered to Mr. Maloney on camera: "Are you nervous?"
The shorts, posted on Mr. Maloney's Web site, were enough to impress Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit.com, who called Mr. Maloney's Web video journalism "the wave of the future."
In the fall of 2003, Mr. Browning and Mr. Maloney founded a production company, On the Fence Films, whose first film would be "Brainwashing 101." The expanded version has the working title "Ministry of Truth." Mr. Browning set the budget of "Brainwashing" at $250,000, a little more than 4% of Miramax's reported investment in "Fahrenheit 9/11."
Mr. Browning and Mr. Maloney said they have no idea whether the expanded film will ever find its way into your local Cineplex.
The most support they've gotten so far is from the organizers of the two conservative film festivals held last year.
"Evan has a lot of charisma," the president of the American Film Renaissance, James Hubbard, said. "He balances that out with a sharp intellect, and he's funny. When you want to tell a story, those are three great things to have.
The final version of the film will also answer the question about whether the technology used in making documentary films has become so inexpensive and accessible that anybody who can tell an interesting story has a chance of making it big.
Mr. Maloney works out of Starbucks or his tidy one-bedroom apartment. He has 100 hours of footage stored in what is called a Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks - a data-protection device that costs more than some cars. He edits raw footage with Apple Final Cut Pro software, using an Apple Power Mac Dual G5.
When he's interviewing on campuses, he wears a black T-shirt, loose-fitting Gap jeans, Rockport shoes, and, sometimes, a Yankees baseball cap that makes him look like an Irish version of the pitcher Mike Mussina. When he interviews would-be hostile subjects, Mr. Maloney puts on a blank face and speaks with a deadpan, dry delivery.
"The most effective way is to ask very simple, basic questions, so they don't think I dislike them," he said, "because I don't dislike them as people. I may not agree with their viewpoints."
It's an interview tactic he used effectively on a Bucknell professor, Geoffrey Schneider, the faculty member who spoke about his students' unconscious racism.
In an interview with the Sun, Mr. Schneider said he was "basically manipulated into appearing" in Mr. Maloney's film. "I was told originally I was going to be interviewed for a film about professors' academic freedom and attempts to censor professors," he said.
Mr. Schneider, a specialist in what is called institutionalist economics, said the film was edited in a "ridiculous" way that made it seem as though Bucknell students learn only about Marx and feminist political economy. "I also teach Austrian economics," he remarked, saying he was sympathetic to all the ideas taught in the economics courses.
"It's silly to say our curriculum is politically correct and biased in favor of liberal ideas, and then to use as an example what is taught in one day, in one course," Mr. Schneider said.
He stands by his comments on student racism: "Everybody comes from a specific background, and Bucknell students tend to be white upper-income. If they are white upper-income, they come with certain baggage" - such as negative stereotypes about black Americans.
"One of the things we try to do, which so angers conservative students, is to unpack these biases that we all have, to try to analyze them for what they are," he told the Sun.
For Mr. Maloney, the professor's comments are the type of thinking that provoked him into making the film in the first place. "He doesn't see political correctness as a problem," Mr. Maloney said.
His views on higher education were strongly influenced by Dinesh D'Souza's "Illiberal Education," the 1991 polemic against political correctness, and by the famous case involving a University of Pennsylvania student, Eden Jacobowitz, who was charged with racial harassment after shouting, "Shut up, you water buffalos," at a group of black students.
"To me, it kind of illustrated what political correctness is all about," Mr. Maloney said. "It was a form of hypocrisy. It was shoehorning every incident into the box of race, class, and gender."
He describes himself as a "libertarian conservative" and considers Ronald Reagan his political hero. He cannot explain why he steered toward the right while growing up in a liberal city, other than to recall the time he delivered a speech in front of his class at JHS 167 Wagner about the danger of nuclear weapons. "I realized I didn't believe a word I was saying," Mr. Maloney said.
A B student at Bucknell, Mr. Maloney edited a conservative newspaper, the Sentinel, which he recalls was occasionally stolen from circulation centers and trashed. After graduating in 1994, he hopped around between his two passions, politics and technology, designing software for various failed tech companies and assisting the failed campaigns of various New York City Republican politicians.
One of the developing trends among conservative documentary filmmakers is their background in the technology industry. Mr. Browning, who paid for "Brainwashing 101," became rich as one of the four co-founders of Embarcadero Technologies.
Two years after launching Brain-terminal.com, Mr. Maloney was inspired to make a movie by watching news reports of the antiwar protests that preceded America's invasion of Iraq.
"They kept showing signs of Bush with a swastika on his head. You can't think that mainstream America thinks Bush and Hitler can be equated," he said. "I remember thinking, if there is a protest in New York, I'm going to film it."

We just need to find OBL and leave , huh.....brilliant thinking on your part.........so, we just knocked Afghanistan back to the stone age.....the stone age, huh?.....wow, two back-to-back strokes of genius by you.....
I am glad you at least think Afghanistan was a valid war.......but you say that we knocked them past the stone age......interesting thought process by you.....let's get past the stupidity of your stone age comment for a moment, and forget for a moment the state of Afghanistan before we invaded........
How do you believe the U.S. should have conducted the war in Afghanistan?
Please, spill your ignorance and stupidity for all to see......discuss how you would have conducted the war in Afghanistan.......
Please also do some research and understand why the U.S. used the military footprint it used, and why it was the most effective and ONLY way to go..........plenty of reasons and justifications why, even some a simpleton like you can understand.......but don't go on my word, plenty of reading material out there to explain to to you (get an adult to help you with teh big words)...
And I am just a little kid who thinks this is cool?..... ...
I think you showed by your post how ignorant and "little kid" your thinking is...........
BTW--I have family and friends in the military....it is not mutually exclusive to you.........

And I also think we should not be pissing over what is an historical moment, and a change for the better.....and somethig called hope, somthing that country has not had in a long time...
Are things perfect, of course not....and never will be...nothing ever is....but things are better, and the future is looking brighter.........and to discount that is simply being a cunt..
No one is sucking their own dicks...the article posted contained both the good and the bad.........

WHY THE DOGS DIDN'T BARK
By RALPH PETERS
Email Archives
Print Reprint
November 17, 2004 --
IN April, al-Jazeera won the First Battle of Fallujah with lurid anti-American lies. This time around, the Middle- Eastern media continued to mill propaganda, but the fury was missing as Fallujah fell.
What happened?
military fought smarter, employing overwhelming force to finish the big job quickly. After one week of combat, only a few small terrorist gangs remain active in Fallujah — and they're being hunted down. Our forces wrapped up major combat operations before terrorist sympathizers in the media could have much effect.
But something even more important than martial skill was in play: We heard only pro-forma condemnations of our actions.
There was no outpouring of rage in the Arab world. Iraq's Shi'as remained quiet. The terrorists' attempts to shift the fight to other Iraqi cities didn't find much of an echo. Even Sunni Arabs complained of the threat posed to their homes — they didn't want their cities turned into little Fallujahs.
Terror has begun to defeat itself.
A significant shift of perception has begun in the Middle East. Even last spring, any attacks that tweaked America's nose or prevented civil progress in Iraq were cheered from Cairo to Karachi (in Europe, too). Then the terrorists began to make mistakes, as terrorists inevitably do.
The wave of videotaped beheadings appealed to the ultra-extremists in the Islamic world, but the great majority of Muslims were revolted. Not only were the ceremonial executions repugnant on a visceral level, they added to the growing global perception of Islam as a faith gone mad. The beheadings, which soon attracted copy-cats among the worst fanatics, brought shame on a great religion.
Meanwhile, the Middle East's political leaders, who had gloated over every blow against the occupation of Iraq, began to see events from a different angle. The daylight attacks on Iraqi politicians and professionals, on policemen and military recruits, sent chills through the leadership cliques of states where popular discontent is barely contained.
As the terrorists shifted their strikes to focus on unarmed Iraqis and the country's infrastructure, the Saudi royal family, Egypt's Hosni Mubarak and even Syria's Baby Assad began to grasp that the madness in Iraq might be a preview of their own national futures. If terrorists triumphed, the Americans could go home. But the Arabs are home already. A victory for terror would replicate itself across the region, creating chaos.
Syria still abets insurgent activity in Iraq, but is having second thoughts about support for Islamic terrorism. Damascus has begun to realize that governments can't really exploit terrorists, but that terrorists are cynical and sly about using governments. Non-Arab Iran continues to strive against the pacification of Iraq — but this time Iraq's Shi'as did not take up arms as some factions did last spring.
The story of the Second Battle of Fallujah is the story of Arthur Conan Doyle's "dog that didn't bark." Pandering to their factions, a few Iraqi politicians condemned the assault on the city. Inevitably, Kofi Annan extended the United Nation's seal of approval to the terrorists once again. But there was no intercontinental outcry to rival last spring's campaign to "save" Fallujah.
With their repeated slaughters of the innocent, their suicide bombing campaign against civilian and government targets, their assassinations of doctors, engineers and educators, and their un-Islamic practice of ceremonial human sacrifice (celebrated on videotape), the terrorists have begun to divide themselves from decent Muslims everywhere, as well as from Arab leaders who tacitly condoned their past activities.
The terrorists are losing the battle for hearts and minds, as well as the struggle for the future of Islam. That doesn't mean that the United States will suddenly be loved in the Middle East, only that terrorists will have ever more difficulty finding a refuge or new sources of support.
The struggle will be long. Blows against America will still be cheered. Al-Jazeera and the BBC will continue to broadcast lies. But more and more Muslims will recognize that "Islamic" terror violates the fundamental teachings of Mohammed.
Tactically, the terrorists' worst enemy is still the American soldier. Strategically, the forces of terror have begun to defeat themselves.
Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."

NBCNEWS: CACHE OF EXPLOSIVES VANISHED FROM SITE IN IRAQ BEFORE TROOPS ARRIVED...
The NYTIMES urgently reported on Monday in an apprent October Surprise: The Iraqi interim government and the U.N. nuclear agency have warned the United States that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives are now missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.
[The source behind the NYT story first went to CBSNEWS' 60 MINUTES last Wednesday, but the beleaguered network wasn't able to get the piece on the air as fast as the newspaper could print. Executive producer Jeff Fager hoped to break the story during a high-impact election eve broadcast of 60 MINS on October 31.]
Jumping on the TIMES exclusive, Dem presidential candidate John Kerry blasted the Bush administration for its failure to "guard those stockpiles."
"This is one of the great blunders of Iraq, one of the great blunders of this administration," Kerry said.
In an election week rush:
**ABCNEWS Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 4 Times
**CBSNEWS Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 7 Times
**MSNBC Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 37 Times
**CNN Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 50 Times
But tonight, NBCNEWS reported: The 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives were already missing back in April 10, 2003 -- when U.S. troops arrived at the installation south of Baghdad!
An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq.
According to NBCNEWS, the HMX and RDX explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived.
"The U.S. Army was at the site one day after the liberation and the weapons were already gone," a top Republican blasted from Washington late Monday.
The International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors last saw the explosives in January 2003 when they took an inventory and placed fresh seals on the bunkers.
Dem vp hopeful John Edwards blasted Bush for not securing the explosives: "It is reckless and irresponsible to fail to protect and safeguard one of the largest weapons sites in the country. And by either ignoring these mistakes or being clueless about them, George Bush has failed. He has failed as our commander in chief; he has failed as president."
A senior Bush official e-mailed DRUDGE late Monday: "Let me get this straight, are Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards now saying we did not go into Iraq soon enough? We should have invaded and liberated Iraq sooner?"
Top Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart fired back Monday night: "In a shameless attempt to cover up its failure to secure 380 tons of highly explosive material in Iraq, the White House is desperately flailing in an effort to escape blame. Instead of distorting John Kerry’s words, the Bush campaign is now falsely and deliberately twisting the reports of journalists. It is the latest pathetic excuse from an administration that never admits a mistake, no matter how disastrous."
Why is the U.N. nuclear agency suddenly warning now that insurgents in Iraq may have obtained nearly 400 tons of missing explosives -- in early 2003?
NBCNEWS Jim Miklaszewski quoted one official: "Recent disagreements between the administration and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency makes this announcement appear highly political."

Wow....this is really something to apply a "LOL" to....once again shows what a jerkoff you are..
For those adults who are interested in some insight into Poland's thinking:
Poland Leaders Aim to Pull Iraq Troops
Mon Oct 4, 5:03 PM ET Middle East - AP
By VANESSA GERA, Associated Press writer
WARSAW, Poland - Poland should withdraw its troops from Iraq (news - web sites) by the end of next year, Polish leaders said Monday, the first time the key U.S. ally has indicated a timeframe for pulling its soldiers out of the wartorn nation.
President Aleksander Kwasniewski said no final decision has been made on when to withdraw forces but Warsaw was considering the late 2005 deadline with the hopes that elections scheduled for January in Iraq would bring stability to the country.
"We decided to speak with the Iraqis and our coalition partners (and) the United States about a reduction of the Polish forces from Jan. 1 — and maybe to finish our mission at the end of 2005," Kwasniewski said on a visit to Paris.
The issue was sparked when Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski mentioned the possible pullout date in an interview, the first Polish official to do so publicly.
Szmajdzinski argued that 2 1/2 years in Iraq would be "enough" for the Polish military and said his suggestion was aimed at countering "cheap populism" by opponents of the Polish presence. However, he later said his remarks were his "personal opinion" and "not the official position of the government."
"In my opinion, the deadline should be the date of expiry of the U.N. Security Council's resolution 1546," Szmajdzinski was quoted as telling the Gazeta Wyborcza daily. That resolution provided for the handover of power to Iraqi authorities and includes steps that run through December 2005.
Prime Minister Marek Belka, who has maintained that he wants to transfer more authority to Iraq to make an eventual withdrawal possible, said he had not been consulted on Szmajdzinski's remarks.
"The prime minister expressed his displeasure with my public statement before the government adopts a formal stand," Szmajdzinski told reporters later in the day after a meeting between the two leaders.
In Washington, a senior White House official said the U.S. administration did not believe Poland had changed its position.
"Their position remains the same — that their troops would be there as long as it takes," the U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "The Poles have made clear their position is one where any decisions they make will be mission-driven."
Separately, Ukrainian authorities released a letter in which Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih asked the former Soviet republic not to withdraw its troops, saying the foreign forces were needed in Iraq to "face the ongoing reality of global terrorism."
Salih thanked Ukraine's president for his country's "contribution to the improvement of Iraq's security, economy, governance" and said withdrawing any of the nearly 1,600 Ukrainian troops would have grave consequences for Iraq and international community.
Ukraine has said it plans to reduce its contingent by 200 troops starting with the next rotation scheduled to be completed in October. President Leonid Kuchma had no immediate response to the letter.
Observers said the Polish defense minister's comments had less to do with state policy on Iraq than internal politics.
Belka's government faces a parliamentary vote of confidence on Oct. 15 and a leading member of his junior coalition partner, the Labor Union, has threatened to withdraw support for Belka unless he first presents a plan for pulling Polish troops out of Iraq.
The Iraq mission has broad political support in Poland but opposition has been growing among the Polish public. An opposition party, the Polish Peasants' Party, has launched a petition seeking an immediate pullout.
Poland last year took command of a multinational security force in central Iraq that currently includes about 6,000 troops, including more than 2,400 Polish soldiers.
Szmajdzinski said the mission in "such difficult conditions" is a major challenge for a former Warsaw Pact army that is still "reaching new capabilities and introducing new equipment."
"It is enough," he said. "It is a rational period of time."
In Paris, Kwasniewski said that he hoped the elections are going to bring stability to Iraq.
"Our plans are known: we want to reduce our forces after January 2005 and we are thinking very seriously about ending the mission . . . Will it be at the end of 2005 ... or another date? It's hard to say today," he said.

September 30, 2004, 8:18 a.m.
Lost in Translation
An avoidable national-security problem.
By Jim Boulet Jr.
Readers of the New York Times learned this week that "more than 120,000 hours of potentially valuable terrorism-related recordings have not yet been translated by linguists at the Federal Bureau of Investigation."
The problem is not new. In fact, the FBI told the Clinton administration it had an Arabic-translator shortage, according to the New York Post:
Urgent complaints that the FBI could not decipher bugged conversations between members of a Brooklyn mosque and Afghan terrorists because it lacked translators were included in the documents former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger removed from the National Archives.
Now why would Sandy Berger, at the time an informal Kerry campaign adviser, be so interested in covering up a translator shortage that continued well into the Bush administration? Because Clinton-administration language policies only made the problem worse.
On August 11, 2000, Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 13166. E.O. 13166 required all recipients of federal funds, including a "federally funded zoo or theater," to be able to provide translations into any language on demand, including rare or obscure languages spoken by only a handful of people.
E.O. 13166 would have enabled professional ethnic activist groups to grow ever richer by filing lawsuits against state, county, and city governments for failing to provide translations into Spanish or any other language. Your local DMV could be sued for failing to do what the FBI itself could not do with regard to interpreting Arabic, Pashto, and Urdu.
Only the Supreme Court's 2001 ruling in Alexander v. Sandoval put a temporary stop to what would have been a gold-plated gravy train for these anti-assimilation outfits and their trial-lawyer pals.
But the E.O. 13166 language-translation mandate remains the law of the land, forcing a desperate FBI to compete for Arabic translators with Ames, Iowa, hospitals; Nome, Alaska, unemployment offices; and every other federally funded entity anywhere in these United States.
As one might expect when a federal mandate increases demand for a limited supply of talent, the FBI's translation problems have only gotten worse. The 9/11 Commission Report documents what the FBI is up against: "The total number of undergraduate degrees granted in Arabic in all U.S. colleges and universities in 2002 was six."
The increased demand has led to a lowering of standards and an opportunity for America's enemies to derail our anti-terrorist activities from the inside, as a CBS News 60 Minutes report, "Lost in Translation," detailed:
In its rush to hire more foreign language translators after Sept. 11, the FBI admits it has had difficulty performing background checks to detect translators who may have loyalties to other governments — which could pose a threat to U.S. national security.
Take the case of Jan Dickerson, a Turkish translator.... The FBI has admitted that when Dickerson was hired the bureau didn't know that she had worked for a Turkish organization being investigated by the FBI's own counter-intelligence unit.
They also didn't know she'd had a relationship with a Turkish intelligence officer stationed in Washington who was the target of that investigation.
The source for this report, Sibel Edmonds, told the 9/11 Commission that Kevin Taskesen, a Turkish translator, had failed all FBI language-proficiency tests and "could not understand or speak even elementary-level English." Yet Taskesen, according to Edmonds, "was sent to Guantanamo Bay to translate."
If the FBI is so desperate for interpreters that someone as unqualified as Taskesen can be placed in such a key role, surely a senator like John Kerry, who claims he would be a superior guardian of our national security, would not be seeking to add to the FBI's translator shortage.
Yet Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, are both co-sponsors of Sen. Tom Daschle's "Health Care Coverage for Minorities" legislation (S.1833), which would require these scarce translation resources to cool their heels while awaiting a potential speaker of Arabic or Farsi to turn up in a Fargo, North Dakota, emergency room.
Since everyone knows that the FBI needs more translators, anything that keeps the FBI from hiring those translators, like Executive Order 13166 or S.1833, should be dropped like a hot potato.
Were President Bush to repeal E.O. 13166, something he can do with the stroke of his pen, he would force Kerry to choose between continuing to play ethnic politics and defending the president's action as necessary during a time of war. Chances are good Kerry would try to have it both ways, thus alienating both his base and swing "national security" voters.

YOU FUCKING IMBECILE....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You are so fucking dumb, and blind, it is unreal.....this is a classic post by a classic imbecile.....this clearly defines and demostrates how fucking dumb you really are (not that more proof is needed).....
I suggest you read it again, specifically try to understand how "political" is defined , and how it is applied to Bush's specific actions of releasing sensitive information...........try to focus on the "why" of that action, and the "why" it lead them to do that......think hard schmuckboy....
You are a fucking imbecile......this was too perfect...
BTW jerkoff---this is old news as to "why" the information was released...pull your head out of you ass.........and it is disgusting it had to come to this-----but can you guess "why" it was done retardboy..
Think...I know it is hard, but try...try and get past how the article was written with its obvious agenda, and do your own analysis.....get some help from the aide on the "special" bus you take each morning.....
Classic hypocrisy of the anti-Bush camps, and the use of useful idiots like Sasser.......

I would hate to think it is Sassa, because if all the time she was missing, and she came back this dumb, it would be a crime
Sassa was more interested in foreign policy and blame America for everything....this Sasser is just an uneducated, wannabe leftist blowhard who regurgitates Michael Moore shit.....
I do not think it is Sassa

June 28, 2004, 9:02 a.m.
Speaking Out
Muslim reformers condemn Saudi Wahhabism.
By Steven Stalinsky
Liberal Egyptian intellectual Tarek Heggy, author of Culture, Civilization and Humanity, recently wrote about the need for Muslim moderates to work against Wahhabism: "What needs to be done at this stage is to champion the cause of enlightenment by supporting moderates and promoting the humanistic understanding of Islam.... Efforts in this direction must go hand in hand with a counteroffensive against the rigid, doctrinaire, even bloodthirsty, version of Islam that first appeared among isolated communities separated from the march of civilization by the impenetrable sand dunes of the Arabian Desert."
Heggy, who will embark on a speaking tour in Washington, D.C., in late June to discuss his new Egyptian think tank and newspaper, added: "The time has come for the Saudi government to part ways with Wahhabism and to realize that the alliance between the House of Saud and the Wahhabi dynasty is responsible for the spread of obscurantism, dogmatism, and fanaticism, poisoning minds with radical ideas opposed to humanity...."
In addition to Heggy, an increasing number of reform-minded Muslims have begun to speak out against the impact of Saudi Wahhabism in the Muslim world. They have accused Wahhabism of serving as al Qaeda's guiding philosophy, "poisoning minds" of young Muslims, and being the main purveyor of anti-American, anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian sentiment in the Arab and Muslim world.
Egyptian Wael Al-Abrashi, deputy editor of the Egyptian weekly Roz Al-Yousef, wrote a series of articles critical of Wahhabism last year following the Riyadh bombings. According to Al-Abrashi: "Saudi Arabia has become the biggest area for extremist ideology and [provided] the broadest scope for the development of its viruses."
Since his articles were first released, al Qaeda has attacked Saudi Arabia multiple times, something Al-Abrashi warned would happen: "...Although Saudi Arabia has adopted a strategy of exporting Wahhabism to the rest of the world ... Saudi Arabia created the monster, exported it abroad, and then lost control of it. Then, the monster turned on it..."
In an article in the Addis Tribune about the corruption of Somali Islam by Saudi Arabia, journalist Bashir Goth criticized the Saudis' spreading of Wahhabism to his country: "It is a pity to see that, at a time when Saudi Arabia, the home of Wahhabism, is reassessing the damage that Wahhabism and extremism had done to their country's name and to the reputation of Islam all over the world, that Wahhabism has to find a safe-haven in our country." He also discussed how the Saudi-trained religious police have taken over Muslim towns: "The most conspicuous foot soldiers of Wahhabism are the moral police known as Mutawiun, who roam in the streets like riot police and force people to perform rituals or adhere to Wahhabism's code of decency.... This is the Wahhabism that the Saudi-oriented clerics want to impose on Somaliland.... It is a closed [mindset] that turned Islam into a fragile creed that lives in constant fear of children's toys and games such as Barbie dolls and Pokemon..."
Ethiopian journalist Alem Zelalem has written extensively about Wahhabism "corrupting" the Islam of his native Ethiopia and described how Saudis have built hundreds of mosques in Ethiopia over the past eight years, popping up "like weeds." One way the Saudis have spread Wahhabism to Ethiopians, he explains, is "by taking advantage of the unfortunate economic conditions of the downtrodden Ethiopian masses, the Saudi Embassy in Addis Ababa is busy bribing people to convert to Islam. The usual amount that they pay...is some $600.00." Zelalem called the mosques and madrassas "brainwashing factories" for teaching jihad and anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic ideology. He detailed how at least 5,000 Ethiopian boys have undergone "military training" for jihad in the Middle East.
Even in Saudi Arabia, the detrimental effects of Wahhabism are now discussed in public. Jamal Khashoggi, who currently advises Saudi Prince Turki in London, was fired last year following the Riyadh bombing when the paper he edited, Al-Watan, included articles critical of Wahhabism's spiritual father, Ibn Taymiyya. One article written by Khaled Al-Ghanami condemned the Saudi government's religious police and criticized the "spiritual father of Wahhabism," calling his philosophy "the real problem," and "a mistake" for Saudi Arabia.
As current events play out in Saudi Arabia, the royal family would do well to listen to the critique by reformist Muslims on how Wahhabism has negatively impacted their communities. As Wael Al-Abrashi explained, Saudi Arabia created the Wahhabi monster — and then lost control of it. They must now figure out how to battle against it.
— Steven Stalinsky is executive director of the Middle East Media Research Institute.

As a former Vice President, he is a disgrace to behave and speak like he did in a time of war......he undermined the war effort, gave comfort to our enemies, and put our troops in further harm...THIS IS REALITY
The guy is a fucking bafoon who should shut the fuck up.....when will he, and other douchebags like him, understand what they are doing, and the harm they are causing during a time of war with their reckless statements, dangerous rhetoric, and undermining a CNC during war....

Scathing........but some good points
The enemy within
Joseph Farah
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 18, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
With his latest best-selling book, my colleague Michael Savage has come up with a term that describes the real threat to America – "The Enemy Within."
There are some other terms I could use to describe Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and the senior senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy – traitors, leaders of the blame-America-first crowd, immoral cowards, treacherous appeasers to name a few.
But recognize that Kerry and Kennedy are not part of a loyal opposition within our country. They are leaders of a disloyal enemy within.
They are like a Trojan Horse within our midst. They are capable of doing more damage to this country than the Sept. 11 suicide attackers did. In fact, they may have already accomplished that.
Here are just two recent examples of the kind of rhetoric they are offering up while American troops fight for their lives in Iraq. You tell me whether you think this is the kind of talk you would expect to hear from responsible American leaders.
Kennedy: "On March 19, 2004, President Bush asked, 'Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open?' Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers have reopened under new management – U.S. management."
Kennedy suggests the abuses at Abu Ghraib are similar to those of Saddam Hussein's torture chambers. Let me remind you that Hussein and his sons placed human beings in plastic shredding machines feet first. They drilled holes in the heads of human beings. They dipped them alive in acid. They raped women picked up off the street. They killed children in front of their parents and killed parents in front of their children. They chopped off limbs.
If he can't distinguish between those kinds of atrocities and the limited abuses of a few individuals at Abu Ghraib, he must still be hitting the sauce pretty hard. Furthermore, notice who Kennedy blames – "U.S. management." He doesn't blame the handful of abusers. He doesn't blame Bush directly. He doesn't blame Rumsfeld by name. He blames all of us. He blames all U.S. military personnel. We're all guilty – but particularly all U.S. military people involved in guarding the prisoners in Iraq.
Now let's look at the junior senator from Massachusetts and what he's saying.
Kerry: "What has happened is not just something that a few, you know, privates and corporals and sergeants engaged in. This is something that comes out of an attitude about the rights of prisoners of war. It's an attitude that comes out of how we went there in the first place, an attitude that comes out of America's overall arrogance as policy."
In case you weren't sure what these people believe on the basis of Kennedy's attempt at satire, Kerry underscores the point. America is to blame. It's America's fault. It's your fault. It's our arrogance. We don't respect the rights of prisoners. We shouldn't have gone to Iraq in the first place – even though Kerry voted to go, before he voted not to go, before he voted to fund the troops, before he voted not to fund them.
I don't know how to say it any more clearly: These men are dangerous, anti-American radicals and zealots. They are morally blind.
And, worst of all, they give aid and comfort to the enemy. Kerry, in fact, has made a career of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. He came to the nation's attention doing it in 1971 and he's still at it. Kennedy's brain, I suspect, is so pickled, he may not even know what he is saying.
Nevertheless, the bile that comes out of their mouths represents the worst kind of America-hating venom. They are not just wrong. They are the enemy within – both of them overindulging in all the creature comforts America the beautiful has to offer, while working overtime to destroy and subvert the greatest country on the face of the earth.