New York Times defends decision not to run McCain's op-ed, says...

... the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia

VX? Nay. Chemicals that *can* be used to MAKE VX, yes. This is just bad reporting. And also they can be used to make, if I recall correctly, food coloring and certain other dyes. As such, they weren't on the "precursor chemical list".

Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

As so many others before you, you are using alarmism and a rather pronounced ignorance of the subject to rationalize your equivocation on the matter. All chemicals that can be harmful become "chemical weapons"; all bacteria which can be harmful become "biological weapons"; every box of paper clips used in a breeder reactor creating plutonium becomes "supplies for nuclear weapons development".

Quit playing games.

Noticer wrote:

<quoted text>
Real intelligence and international cooperation has intercepted and prevented MANY potentially disasterous terrorist attacks. That's the only way should be done. Combating terrorism by waging wars in foreign theaters is like combating organized crime by carpet bombing Las Vegas.

How did your "way" work out for us on 9/11? I guess in your book stopping MANY is ok, not in mine. I want to stop them ALL. And to do so I UNDERSTAND (isn't Caps fun) that we need to use every option available to us. And war is one of those options. Yes, WAR. I think this is a great message to send to the rest of the world---Anyone who wants to attack/threaten the United States should be well prepared to have the US Marines, US Navy, US Air Force and US Army knocking on your door. Simple.

And as for Dwight:
"Pre-emptive war IS war." I'm glad you finally understand what we are doing.

Noticer wrote:

If anyone ever thought we should trust the crosscurrents of politics, greed, power, lies, and hatred to produce accurate assessments of what another nation will do someday, somehere down the line, the catastrophic and clearly unnecessary invasion of Iraq should have put the lie to THAT.

"Catastrophic" and "unnecessary" are conclusions; you haven't supported them.

If I were to object, hizzoner would sustain.

Just so you know...

Just think back on what the clairvoyants told us before we let them do their worst: "There is NO DOUBT" Iraq has WMDs.

There wasn't, especially since the UN found them and left them there.

The war will last "six days, six weeks - I doubt if it will last six months."

It lasted seven weeks. Don't backtrack now on your understanding of the operational differences between occupation and war...

Maybe you want to trust false prophets and liars like these to tell us who's going to someday develop the means to someday deliver weapons to U.S. soil and someday maybe attack us... I sure as hell don't.

If you don't trust them, then you obviously don't believe them. Unless this is a recent epiphany of yours, there should be no reason you're wetting your panties over this STILL; you didn't believe them when they first said it and therefore they could not have lied to you. Why you're harranguing on it is beyond me.

Combating terrorism by waging wars in foreign theaters is like combating organized crime by carpet bombing Las Vegas. The "cure" is worse than the disease. Much worse.

For whom? The object and purpose of US foreign policy is not to benefit the world at large; it is to protect the US. If others around the world are taking shots at us we have a few choices [and to make it easier on your obviously superficial understandings of the real world, I'll confine our choices to simple dichotomies where I can]:
1] fight back
2] capitulate

If we fight back, we either do it:
1] on their soil where those who wish us harm will be injured and killed more readily; or
2] on our soil where the folks we are trying to protect will be injured and killed more readily.

Now, even though the majority of us do not like protracted combat operations, the majority of us would prefer we fight wars *there* than here.

On top of which, you're advertising **yet another** glaring ignorance about the world: "terrorism" [a term I loathe, by the way; it is paramilitarism] cannot exist in the modern world without well-heeled financiers and support systems.

Which is to say: national sponsors. There are three mid-east national sponsors of terrorism worth talking about circa 2002: Iraq, Iran, Syria. You take out the national sponsors, you take out the financing. You take out the financing, your force other financiers to double up [which is a significant portion of the oil/bbl increase, by the way].

Despite you putting on every attempt to appear so, you are not unintelligent. Even YOU can follow this bouncing ball.

Stephen St Jack wrote:

Does any remember:
- who attacked us on 9/11?
- that Iraq had nothing to do with it
- the original reason for going to war (WMD)
- the mission was accomplished years ago
Iraq is a steaming pile of dog crap. Bush has the deaths of thousands on his head and he will answer to "friend who lives among the clouds".

Or how about this little gem -- the war in Iraq will not cost the American people one cent but will be paid for with Iraqi oil dollars. Only one of many lies told by GWB to convince Americans to go to war with Iraq. Now, 7-1/2 years and trillions of dollars later, when will those oil dollars kick in for paying for this thing?

The NY Times is garbage. I'm an independent, I don't like either candidate running but please, is it any wonder their readership is down?

Maybe legal Americans are tired of garbage liberal policies that continue on endlessly

Noticer wrote:

A good mind closed is pretty much good for nothing.

That assumes that your mind was 'good' before you closed it.

I know what you're trying feebly to get at here: I can only have a "good" "open" mind if I accede to your opinions on the subject which you preach so loudly from your mountain top.

But it ain't happening. I'm not some half drunken dolt sitting on the bar stool next to you who can be ever so impressed with your sincerity and one-semester of PoliSci book nollij. I actually work in this field, and I've seen far more "sincere" myopics than you come strutting around attempting to get everyone else to accept that their poisoned views based almost entirely on partisan bias are worth more than the internet paper they're written on.

Get this, and get it quick:
You. Do. Not. Know. What. You're. Talking. About.

You're clueless [obviously] about miltiary tactics and strategy; you are less than clueless about the international law which we are required to [and which the US virtually singularly] adheres; and as you very deftly demonstrated just a bit ago, you haven't the foggiest notion what a chemical weapon is.

And you deign to lecture me?

Get the hell over yourself.

Noticer wrote:

<quoted text>
Not only his supporters, but the mainstream media, as well. The right continue plucking their one-note song, crying that they're victims of a liberal media bias that, in this case, favors Obama.
But how much mainstream coverage have you seen of these very serious gaafes made by a presumptive U.S. president? All I've ever read about McCain in the mainstream are glowing accounts of his solid military familiy background.

Agreed. The CBS interview with Katie Couric last night is a prime example. McCain made a major mistake (or he was flat out lying) about the timeline of the surge in conjunction with the Anbar Awakening. With the exception of Keith Olberman, I didn't hear any news analysts talking about this item. And, to think that CBS is a major media outlet and they left this little tidbit on the cutting room floor instead of reporting is as news (which surely they would have done if Obama had made the mistake).

rwilymz wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't know I was opposed to Obama.
I thought I didn't particularly care.
Yes.... yes, that's what it is: I don't particularly care. I've certainly made no public statements in support of one or the other -- particularly since I've been a 3rd party presidential voter for my entire life.
So once again, we see that in the face of criticism, idiot ideologues can only see black & white [ha ha], and yer either fer me or agin me.
Yet when the "other" plays fer-me/agin-me games it's ba-a-a-a-ad; but when you do it, it's perfectly fine.
Hypocrite.

You are so full of it. You've been blathering on and on about the downside of Obama, you've just implied that I am an idiot in your post above and you've been in/on threads about Obama numerous times with never a positive thing to say. Holy shit, batman, how much attention would you pay to the man if you actually cared?

Noticer wrote:

<quoted text>
If anyone ever thought we should trust the crosscurrents of politics, greed, power, lies, and hatred to produce accurate assessments of what another nation will do someday, somehere down the line, the catastrophic and clearly unnecessary invasion of Iraq should have put the lie to THAT. We'd do better to prognosticate by examiing the entrails of sacrifical beasts.
Just think back on what the clairvoyants told us before we let them do their worst: "There is NO DOUBT" Iraq has WMDs. "We KNOW where they are." "We'll be greeted as liberators." "The war will pay for itself." The war will last "six days, six weeks - I doubt if it will last six months." Etc. Etc. Yada yada yada ad infinitum ad nauseum. Makes ya sick.
Maybe you want to trust false prophets and liars like these to tell us who's going to someday develop the means to someday deliver weapons to U.S. soil and someday maybe attack us... I sure as hell don't.
Real intelligence and international cooperation has intercepted and prevented MANY potentially disasterous terrorist attacks. That's the only way should be done. Combating terrorism by waging wars in foreign theaters is like combating organized crime by carpet bombing Las Vegas. The "cure" is worse than the disease. Much worse.
Remember this quote of Dwight Eisenhowers, which is so self-evident no one should even have had to say it:
"Pre-emptive war IS war."
Duh.

Noticer, you've done a fine job representing yourself and your point of view. Unfortunately, you're arguing with a wall with that guy that knows everything. If I were on the fence, you surely would have swayed me. Thanks for a cognitive, clean argument. They're rare to find on here.

Noticer, the proof of liberal bias in the media is the rage exhibited by liberals at the mere existence of Fox News, which dares to give Republicans equal time.

Liberalism requires a monopoly to survive.

Tough Love wrote:

<quoted text>
That's a question for the Iraqis to answer, not I or not the US. The fact is, as you state, there was not much sectarian violence. We poke our noses in and awake a hornet's nest. I don't agree with Saddam's methods, but the truth is I'm not seeing much difference with what we have done and are doing. There are plenty of brutal regimes in the world and a good part of them are propped up by us. Remember, we propped up Saddam AND bin Laden for a good while.

Yes, I agree we should not be the world's cop, but when Saddam goes after nukes, something must be done, same as Iran ...

staci wrote:

<quoted text>
And that little endorsement thing they gave to McCain over the democratic candidates also points to their liberal bias, huh?

Look at the choice they had ... Obama, Clinton, you've got to be kidding ... even they don't want to be attacked again.

wmb wrote:

The idea is that before the 1000 cops leave, the community have its own program capable of doing the job. That is what the surge was about, providing security and training until Iraq law enforcement and troops could get up to speed.
That is why a timeline would need to be generalized rather then specific and account for the facts on the ground. In which case, what is the purpose of having a timeline at all? An outline of what is needed before our troops leave is reasonable, a timeline isn't.
<quoted text>

The timeline can also be a big motivation for the Iraqis to get their act together sooner than later. It's now 5 years later and this taxpayer is sick to death of our American lives and dollars being wasted on a country THAT DOES NOT WANT US THERE. All we are doing is creating a dependency and a (military) welfare system...two things I know Republicans just absolutely hate.

rwilymz wrote:

<quoted text>
That assumes that your mind was 'good' before you closed it.
I know what you're trying feebly to get at here: I can only have a "good" "open" mind if I accede to your opinions on the subject which you preach so loudly from your mountain top.
But it ain't happening. I'm not some half drunken dolt sitting on the bar stool next to you who can be ever so impressed with your sincerity and one-semester of PoliSci book nollij. I actually work in this field, and I've seen far more "sincere" myopics than you come strutting around attempting to get everyone else to accept that their poisoned views based almost entirely on partisan bias are worth more than the internet paper they're written on.
Get this, and get it quick:
You. Do. Not. Know. What. You're. Talking. About.
You're clueless [obviously] about miltiary tactics and strategy; you are less than clueless about the international law which we are required to [and which the US virtually singularly] adheres; and as you very deftly demonstrated just a bit ago, you haven't the foggiest notion what a chemical weapon is.
And you deign to lecture me?
Get the hell over yourself.

It's a nice day here on this side of the river...why don't you go outside to play and get some fresh air?

lol wrote:

<quoted text>you said it yourself Free speech and Freedom of the press the can run and say whatever they like and if you don't like it Im pretty sure there is a another paper out there somewhere.

That's not "Freedom of Speech", that's called Capitalism.

The NY Times is pathetic, they print only one candidate's dialogue?! And the media wonders why the country believes they are biased toward Obama.(eyes rolling)

A vote for McCain is a vote against the media picking our Presidents.

.
..
....
..In the United States of America - We have a thing called "FREE PRESS"
.
..IF THAT WERE TRUE (now is a good time to think)
.
.."New York Times defends decision not to run McCain's op-ed, says"...
.
..WHY ARE THEY DEFENDING THEIR ACTION ?.? other than they will be retaliated against and black-balled from McCain press conferences if "elected?.?.?"
FREE PRESS ?.?.?.?

Jack Wilson wrote:

Noticer, the proof of liberal bias in the media is the rage exhibited by liberals at the mere existence of Fox News, which dares to give Republicans equal time.
Liberalism requires a monopoly to survive.

Nice logic. You use your opinion of non-media people as proof of media bias. Your point, if there is one?

Titan wrote:

<quoted text>
How did your "way" work out for us on 9/11? I guess in your book stopping MANY is ok, not in mine. I want to stop them ALL. And to do so I UNDERSTAND (isn't Caps fun) that we need to use every option available to us. And war is one of those options. Yes, WAR. I think this is a great message to send to the rest of the world---Anyone who wants to attack/threaten the United States should be well prepared to have the US Marines, US Navy, US Air Force and US Army knocking on your door. Simple.
And as for Dwight:
"Pre-emptive war IS war." I'm glad you finally understand what we are doing.

My "way" has continued to be in effect AFTER 9-11 and has - as before 9-11 - managed to detect and prevent several terrorist plots on our soil that would have been quite serious had they succeeded. The idiot occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq did nothing to stop those people from trying, and some of them from getting here in the attempt. Neither did those idiot actions prevent al Qaida from successfully pulling off terrorist bombings in Spain, London, and Indonesia.

In fact, by the consensus our very own (U.S.) intelligence agencies, the numbers of both terrorist attacks AND terrorists themselves have INCREASED since the invasion of Iraq - a military aggression that has cost possibly hundreds of thousands of human lives, compromised our nation's ability to defend us from ACTUAL military threats through tens of thousands of deaths and permanent injuries among our armed forces, and is draining our nation's economy of several billion dollars each week. Oh yeah, and the same agencies also reported separately that al-Qaida specfically has, since the Iraq aggression, become STRONGER and has INCREASED in membership.

Yet you feel safer, hu? The sad fact is that there is no way under the sun to prevent SOME terrorists from SOME day slipping through and wreaking SOME sort of havoc and mass murder here. We'd do best not to let terrorism prevail by facing this fact courageously and doing our best to detect it, and not letting U.S. warmongers, energy moguls, arms dealers, and war profiteers wreak havoc abroad in the name of "keeping us safe" and "defending our freedoms." It's crap.

.You should be talking about how President Bush has manipulated the news - sinking recession into depression - two wars - inflation - foreclosures -
AND he stands there and says the economy is basically sound.
Halliburton moves headquarters to DUBAI
torture - illegal renditions - immunity for the telecoms.?.? which in reality benefits him far more than their executives
.
..AND ON AND ON
.
NOT TOO GOOD ON TRUTH -.- BUT GREAT AT MANIPULATION OF THE "FREE" PRESS

staci wrote:

You are so full of it. You've been blathering on and on about the downside of Obama

I have?!?

Point it out.

you've just implied that I am an idiot in your post above

I hate to have such implications around. Let me assert it: You ARE an idiot. You are a presumptuous, self-martyring panty-wetter leaping to conclusions that justify her convenient biases.

and you've been in/on threads about Obama numerous times with never a positive thing to say.

I don't recall saying anything negative here, either.

But I've said many positive things elsewhere. But they are impertinent to this discussion.

Holy ****, batman, how much attention would you pay to the man if you actually cared?

This is a subdiscussion about foreign policy, toots, not "Barama". Frankly, who the president is, what party he's from, and what his campaign idealisms are are all three irrelevant when he actually parks his tuchis in the leather chair. At that point he has to listen NOT to the high-minded nonsense spouted by the ideologues what preened him and the simpletons what elected him, but the actual by-god experts who've been doing their same job consistently for all presidents of all parties for decades.... and who do NOT give a rat's ass for your petty political bickerings.

No, I do not care if he becomes the prez or not. Nothing will change. Nothing changed between Clinton and Bush; nothing will change between Bush and ???.

Get used to it.