Hello
Need sex with local girls click here [url=http://freeonlinesexdating.blogspot.com/]freeonlinesexdating[/url]
http://freeonlinesexdating.blogspot.com
G'night

If you like sex you need to visit it
Over 20,000,000 girls registered to have sex always.Click [url=http://adultfriendfinderpersonalsfreeonli.blogspot.com/]here[/url]
http://adultfriendfinderpersonalsfreeonli.blogspot.com/

Best site for meeting people for sex!
A lot of local girls need sex right [url=http://adultfriendfinderpersonalsfreeonli.blogspot.com/]here[/url]
http://adultfriendfinderpersonalsfreeonli.blogspot.com/

yweoag dgyvck bmtpou nkabzvy ofribswg asuzjpxgv ylxsuhwpt http://www.vxqtjcyu.upqx.com

reoup hxywt bswnpdy rejnz brustnf zrfxmnegq cgis

Hi all!
New girls want a sex [url=http://freesexdating.bravehost.com]tonight[/url]
http://freesexdating.bravehost.com
G'night )))

Hi people!
New girls want a sex [url=http://freesexdating.bravehost.com]tonight[/url]
http://freesexdating.bravehost.com
Good luck

Mitt Romney, substance, intellect, stature,family man, likes the military,has great ideas, can make things come together, don't keep spinning your wheels, vote Romney. Naw just kidding lets get a Democrat, they are against the military,they love taxes, show no signs of believing in God, seculary progresive, pro abortion, pro gay marriage, hate traditional values, sure we need one of them for president. If you don't believe that...ask Senator Libierman.
Have a good day!

Hi all!
Find a real sex partner for [url=http://realpartner.bravehost.com/]tonight[/url]
http://realpartner.bravehost.com
G'night )))

Hi people!
Want a real sex [url=http://realpartner.bravehost.com/]tonight[/url]
http://realpartner.bravehost.com
Good luck

Chris: Can't argue with your analysis, which is always sound.

Why don't you consider expanding your franchise a bit and do The Line for key issues? Who's first, second, third, fourth and fifth in each party in addressing what to do in Iraq, the fight against terrorism, the widening income gap, global warming and the environment, improving the schools, fixing the health care system, fixing the tax code.

Here's a post I wrote about it:

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/15/idea_race08.html

Jay Rosen (www.pressthink.org)

Edwards doesn't have a hope. It's between Clinton, Obama and Richardson, and really, have the Clinton's ever lost anything?!

WE WANT GRANNY D

JimD.

Per your response to my original post. I served as well. Here's a clue:

- most in the military serve for reasons other than patriotism

- people enter and leave the military all the time for personal, financial and ideological reasons. quit obfuscating things with your glib universals

- it is immensely appropriate for those serving (unless they are total fools) in an age such as the present where the command structure itself has been thoroughly politicized; in which those who do not participate in the common defense break out not only along income/class lines (as has been well documented) but along ideological lines as well (which has not received sufficeint analysis); in the which the base for many of the current prospective Presidents hold positions at variance with the intersts of those serving

whether or not it is in their interest and their families to continue serving. the depsicable charade that is going on in Washington right now by a certain party - independent of the wisdom of current administration policy - has raised the bar for everyone when it comes to the personal calaculus of whose intersts are being served and where loyalties really lie.

please do not have the temerity to mask what is obvious to anyone with a mind to listen to the spectacle and long experience - like yours - in what service used to mean.

JimD...

"I held several positions in the Navy dealing with high level financial planning from 89 to 93"

It is unfortunate that you labeled yourself with the "high level financial planning" tag. That immediately associates you with the Beltway crowd many others with warfighter and acquisition experience align with being disassociated form the problem space.

" There is altogether too much juvenile name calling on both sides of the debate here. Another annoying, juvenile feature is the tendency of some posters to attribute exreme and nonsensical positions to those who disagree with them."

- Comically, you then go on to demonstrate the very same qualities in your lengthy diatribe.

Please hit the books again. Your analysis/argument, which is quite receptive to what actually needs to be proven, is limited to the degree that it neglects the influence of external forces engaged in this conflict.

Fox 2...btw...were you there when Clinton was yuking his way among the assembled at the Cole ceremony in Norfolk?

anonymous poster at 1:27

Your comments are an insult to those of us who have served and are serving. I served under Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I and Clinton. The men and women of our armed forces serve the country not the politicians. Many of us did not like certain things about various presidents but we served faithfully and with honor.

What makes anyone think that those in the Armed Services will want to serve Hillary or Barak?

What makes anyone think that those who have served aren't already discussing in the professional "underground" ways of organizing to discourage service by others?

it's not actually about Hillary or Barak. It's about who they represent - the base. That base has nothing in common with the folks in the Armed Services.

5. Chris Cillizza: The upcoming Ames Straw poll is a do or die moment for Cillizza. If he is able to come in second (behind Romney), it will be a sign that despite his stunning lack of money, Cillizza does have some level of organizational heft. A second-place showing might also shake loose some of the money that a number of GOP donors are currently sitting on as they wait to see what the field will ultimately look like. Thompson's campaign-in-waiting complicates that equation for Cillizza, but there should be enough money to go around. An increase in fundraising is absolutely essential for Cillizza to have any chance at winning the nomination.

One side note: It's too bad for Cillizza that there isn't a GOP debate every week (!!!!!!!).

Happy Birthday, lylepink

Congratulations on your triathalon, proud

There is altogether too much juvenile name calling on both sides of the debate here. Another annoying, juvenile feature is the tendency of some posters to attribute exreme and nonsensical positions to those who disagree with them.

I am a retired naval officer and I believe it is possible to support the troops and oppose the misguided policies of this administration. As as student of history, I would point out that one of the most strident opponents of the Mexican War was a first term Illinois congressman by the name of Lincoln. Many retired flag and general officers have been extremely critical of the Bush administraion's blunders in Iraq. Who will be the first to accuse Lincoln and these retired admirals and generals of undermining our troops?

The only thing worse than a continuation of current policy in Iraq would be a precipitious withdrawal. However, we do need to rethink our strategy. Except for the publications that have been consistent cheerleaders for the war, most reports on progress from the surge are mixed at best. The Shiite militia appear to mostly be hunkering down to wait the situation out. One of the motivations of the Sunni sheiks in cooperating with our military against the Al Qaeda in Iraq group is to gain access to US weaponry to be in better position in the ongoing Sunni-Shia civil war.

The "follow us home if we leave" argument is simplistic and ignores the reality of who are the elements fighting in Iraq. The Sunni and Shia fighting for supremacy in Iraq will not follow us home - that is not their aim, they want to kill each other. The largely Sunni insurgency against our occupation will not follow us home - our leaving is their goal. The al Qaeda in Iraq group is a small part of the problem and is a mixture of radicalized Iraqi Sunnis and itinerant jihadists who went to Iraq after the invasion to take potshots at our troops. The one group that actually mounted a successful attack on our soil is not in Iraq but they are hiding in our alleged ally Pakistan after getting away when Rumsfeld called off our military in hot purtsuit of bin Laden and company at Tora Bora.

Having said all that, a sudden pullout will exacerbate the chaos in Iraq and could lead to neighboring countries intervening directly - especially Turkey and Iran. The Saudis, who have been surreptitiously helping the Sunni insurgency, would become more active as well. The ONLY solution to the situation is a political settlement among the main groups in Iraq. There certainly appears to be no movement on that front. Should such a settlement be found, the actual jihadist threat would be containable.

The only presidential candidate with a realistic plan for Iraq is Joe Biden. I do not see a more feasible solution for the ethnic tension in Iraq than giving each main group a highly autonomous province. US troops will need to remain at a reduced level to guarantee the territorial integrity of Iraq, train Iraqis and conduct strikes against the al Qaeda in Iraq group. However, I believe that policing the civil war is not working. There is a lot of evidence that many of the armed groups, especially al Sadr's militia, are simply lying low to wait the surge out. Absent a political settlement, we have nowhere near enough troops to pacify this country. Remember when the Army Chief of Staff told Congress that we would need several hundred thousand troops to successfully occupy Iraq? Rumsfeld and the neo-con crew ridiculed him, some had the sheer audacity to question his courage. Who was more accurate in his assessment of the requirement? Of course, leading the chorus ridiculing General Shineski was the chief cheerleader for the war, William (it's a myth that Shia and Sunni hate each other) Kristol of the Weekly Standard.

I would also provide a little historical perspective to the poster claiming that the military was gutted in the 90's. I held several positions in the Navy dealing with high level financial planning from 89 to 93. Our military was designed to, above all else, deal with the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union collapsed, a lot of our military force structure was obsolete. We were also dealing with massive budget deficits left over from Reagonomics. The Bush I administration planned huge cuts in military spending and my office, among many others, was tasked with planning how to take these cuts. However, we were told that the actual amount of the cuts would not be announced until after the 1992 election because the administration did not want any leaks. This was particularly the case since the administration thought they could use "strong on defense" as a selling point in the campaign. What unfolded under Clinton was not much different from what Bush I was planning. A lot of the problems in the later 90's with parts shortages had more to do with a declining defense industrial base and the inclination of the military to keep high tech procurement programs at the expense of operations and maintenance accounts.

I would also like to endorse Josh's points that there is a tendency to conflate all Muslim groups using terror tactics with al Qaeda. The reality is quite different and needs to be dealt with realistically not ideologically. Neither Romney nor Giuliani have any foreign policy experience or credentials. Their comments betray either great ignorance or extreme cynicism in pandering to the base.

Huckabee at #5?

I think Ames will immediately decide who of the 2nd tier still has a shot. Huckabee, Brownback, Paul & TThompson all need at least a top 3 and probably a top 2 to remain in the race.

At least one of those will drop out in a fortnights time. The winner of the fight for 2nd (my pick is Brownback) will take the #5 slot, and look to start replacing McCain at #4.

lylepink - You say that you have picked every Presidential winner since Truman in '48. What method did you use as an 8-year old?

Do you still use that today?

Happy Birthday!

proudtobeGOP - Congratulations on your Triathlon championship!

Now let's put the same amount of effort into looking at the world realistically and not through endorphin-clouded glasses.

Happy Bitthday To Me, Happy Birthday To Me. Feels good to be 68. Now I need to find a little drink to celebrate.

ash: No. As much as I support Hillary, I have not and will not contribute to her campaign simply because I cannot afford to do so. A lot of folks think money is the most important thing, where this is true to an extent, the serious voters spend a lot of time studying each of the parties choices and cast their vote mainly on the individual. When we have a majority of folks thinking all, or most, of the pols are crooks, this is very hard to determine how the voters, and this is important, perceive each of the candidates.

LOL @ lylepink... Hillary campaign volunteer?

When Ron Paul is raising more money, drawing bigger crowds and winning or placing 2nd straw polls in NH and SC, I have no idea where the author ranks Huckabee in 5th when he is accomplishing..well nothing

I agree pretty much with the assessment on the GOP side, except I'd be tempted to put Gingrich in the mix. If he runs, he's instantly in at least the No. 3 spot.

On the Dem side, I don't think the assessment is all that far off. But Richardson's performances in the debates have (unfortunately) been awful, so I'd drop him down to No. 5. Dodd has been doing very well on the TV interview circuit and in the debates, but I haven't seen that translating into votes yet.

CC -

Don't blow off Ron Pau.
I think he will finish 1st in Iowa.

Lauren: Don't be fooled by these clever, edited videos you see on YouTube. These folks are very good at this sort of thing and they can make you think you are seeing and hearing something, when the opposite is true. They are fun to watch, but don't take them seriously.

Two MUST WATCH videos on the "talking to your enemies" question.

Watch this one to see how inconsistent HIllary Clinton has been on the "will you meet with your enemies" question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw

Watch this one to see how consistent Barack Obama has been on Iraq: http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/newleadership&source=SEM-register-blogads-judgment-site-national

When the dust settles, it will be plain that Barack Obama had the right approach, took the high road, and stands apart from the others on the most difficult questions of war and diplomacy.

hey mikeB - How ya doin buddy?? I just wanted to say THANK YOU to you. See, you really pissed me off yesterday with those personal attacks; the ones where you said I "presume to hide behind those who DO", I'm "stuffed and fake", "cheap",an "empty bag of air", "a nothing" , oh and my personal favorite - a "snivelling coward."

I just finished winning (WINNING) a triathlon today on the military base where I live. Having that extra energy from our discussion yesterday made all the difference!

And about your negative attitude toward everything and everyone who doesn't agree with you....keep telling yourself whatever you need to be able to sleep at night.

In reviewing Ian Shapiro's new book, Containment: Rebuilding a Strategy Against Global Terror, Samantha Powers emphasizes a point that has been completely lost on Republican presidential candidates (and the man they hope to replace):

Shapiro is at his most persuasive when he argues against lumping Islamic radical threats together. He points out that at the time of the cold war, George Kennan, the formulator of the containment policy, warned against treating Communism as a monolith. Policy makers, Kennan said, ought to emphasize the differences among and within Communist groups and "contribute to the widening of these rifts without assuming responsibility." The Bush administration, by contrast, has grouped together a hugely diverse band of violent actors as terrorists, failing to employ divide-and-conquer tactics.

Although it is tempting to feel overwhelmed by the diversity of the threats aligned against the United States, Shapiro says that very diversity presents us with opportunities, since it "creates tensions among our adversaries' agendas, as well as openings for competition among them." To pry apart violent Islamic radicals, the United States has to become knowledgeable about internal cleavages and be patient in exploiting them. Arguably, this is what American forces in Iraq are doing belatedly -- and perilously -- as they undertake the high-risk approach of turning Sunni ex-Baathists against Qaeda forces.

Kevin Drum notes that this is "the serious side of dumb gaffes from people like Rudy Giuliani, who seem unable to distinguish between even simple divisions like Sunni and Shia." That's absolutely true, but it's not just Giuliani who's confused about the basics.

For example, in the first Republican presidential candidates' debate in May, Mitt Romney tried to explain how he perceives threats to the U.S. from the Middle East: "This is about Shi'a and Sunni. This is about Hezbollah and Hamas and al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the worldwide jihadist effort to try and cause the collapse of all moderate Islamic governments and replace them with a caliphate. They also probably want to bring down the United States of America."

It seemed to impress the Republican faithful, but it didn't make a lot of sense. Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda, for example, have nothing to do with one another. The latter is a terrorist organization; the prior has renounced violent jihad and, in some countries, participated in elections.

At a subsequent debate, Wolf Blitzer asked Mike Huckabee whether he has confidence in Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Huckabee responded with a semi-coherent argument about the Taliban in Afghanistan. The connection to Maliki was unclear.

Giuliani, running on a foreign-policy platform, has been more confused than anyone, conflating every possible rival in the Middle East as one dangerous entity. At a recent debate, he connected Iran to the Fort Dix plot for no apparent reason. Around the same time, he gave up appreciating the nuances of Middle East politics altogether, concluding that the region is filled with those who "have a similar objective, in their anger at the modern world."

Truth Hunter: Thanks for the update. You may have a typo error on your cite, I keep getting reports of temps in the 120 F range. Anywhow with the gear, it must seem a lot worse.

Before bush the belligerent started bellowing about axis of evil, the Iranians were being quite helpful to us in afghanistan. But you have to understand that Cheney at least, WANTS all-out war in the Middle East, to overthrow any government that won't allow the exploitation of their oil resources.

They don't want to negogiate, it might actually solve problems and tamp down the violence. Obviously, with the intentional supplying of advanced weapons to warring states, their goal is instead escation of violence.

ooh. Obama is going one up on the diplomacy front. Double or nothing! It's a nice response, and in my opinion, wholly appropriate.

Here is the article by Mike Glover http://www.miamiherald.com/692/story/185662.html

Here are clips from the Mike Glover article:
...

'We need a president who'll have the strength and courage to go toe to toe with the leaders of rogue nations, because that's what it takes to protect our security," the Illinois senator told Democrats at a rally. "That's what I'll do as your next commander in chief."

...

Defending his position, Obama cited Kennedy's 1961 inaugural address saying that the nation must never negotiate out of fear, but also never fear to negotiate.

"I was called irresponsible and naive because I believe that there is nobody we can't talk to," said Obama, drawing loud cheers. "We've got nothing to fear as long as know who we are and what we stand for and our values."

...

When dealing with renegade nations, Obama said, the Bush administration has mistakenly been led by a "guiding diplomatic principle" that it can punish a nation by refusing to talk.

"I am confident we can go before the world and talk to the worst dictators and tell them we don't believe in your values, we don't believe in your human rights violations, we don't believe in you exporting terrorism, but if you are willing to work with us in a better direction then we're willing to talk," Obama said. "We shouldn't be afraid."

I think Obama had a valid point, we've been following a policy of refusing to talk to our adversaries for fear of "empowering" bad players (though we don't seem at all hesitant to talk about them, just not too them) and it hasn't yeilded a usable result.
It seems to be the same sterling logic one finds applied at most high schools among social cliques and with Charles Krauthammer endorsing it without reservation, I can't help but suspect it's an ineffective and wrong headed approach to world affairs. After all, that guy has a perfect track record, he's wrong every time.

REDSTATE (Pejman Yousefzadeh)
Euphemism: Time To Take Fredo Out Fishing
No, Alberto Gonzales should not be offed. But the man President Bush calls "Fredo"--was a Presidential nickname ever more apt?--should at long last be invited to spend more time with his family. Much more time.... Especially if he suddenly gets a hankering to serve his country once again. In which case, the legions upon legions of intelligent adults accompanying him in a supervisory capacity should move Heaven and Earth to convince Alberto Gonzales that "his country" is Kazakhstan.

Before he's even explained himself, before Larry Flynt has found all his hookers, Senator David Vitter (R-Pampers) wants to turn to the next chapter: [Vitter] told his colleagues that Senate conservatives should "rebrand" themselves "by reclaiming the fiscal conservative mantle."

Is there anything more hilarious, hypocritcal and transparent than a modern-day 'conservative'?

Everything that this administration does -- everything -- is for the sole purpose of profit for multinational corporations. Especially for the two biggest profit makers -- oil companies and arms dealers.

Even if it undermines our country's economy. Even if it undermines our national security. Even if it kills thousands of our young people and destroys any hope of a future.

It's all about money, it's all about profits, it's all about soulless and bottomless greed. This entire administratioin is the most morally bereft in this nation's history. Every member should be tried for treason and hung.

Who is this Mike poster? Christ, what a neanderthal--one of the fringe lunatics [the core 18%] who still support this occupation for oil. Here's acouple pices of news for you, simple one:

'An overwhelming bipartisan coalition voted 399-24 to support the Democratic Leaderships H.R. 2929 to limit the use of funds for establishing permanent US Military bases in Iraq or to exercise US economic control over the oil resources in Iraq.  I hope this veto-proof vote will be the first in a series that move us toward redeployment from this ill-conceived and mismanaged war.'
-----------------------------

'Iraq's national government is refusing to take possession of thousands of American-financed reconstruction projects, forcing the United States either to hand them over to local Iraqis, who often lack the proper training and resources to keep the projects running, or commit new money to an effort that has already consumed billions of taxpayer dollars.

The conclusions, detailed in a report released Friday by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, a federal oversight agency, include the finding that of 2,797 completed projects costing $5.8 billion, Iraq's national government had, by the spring of this year, accepted only 435 projects valued at $501 million. Few transfers to Iraqi national government control have taken place since the current Iraqi government, which is frequently criticized for inaction on matters relating to the American intervention, took office in 2006.

The United States often promotes the number of rebuilding projects, like power plants and hospitals, that have been completed in Iraq, citing them as signs of progress in a nation otherwise fraught with violence and political stalemate. But closer examination by the inspector general's office, headed by Stuart W. Bowen Jr., has found that a number of individual projects are crumbling, abandoned or otherwise inoperative only months after the United States declared that they had been successfully completed.'

But of course you won't listen to any facts, because they might collide with your sick, warped and twisted world view.

"As an actual member of the military who doesn't need to call on my relatives or neighbors for an opinion, I disagree with you."

You weren't in the marine's mike. Your lying. Stop using your military service to justify your political views :)

Bokonon... Agreed. But it does fit with the Bush/Cheney ideology... turning everything over to the industrial/military complex.

Meanwhile, Russia is laying claim to the Arctic seabed beneath the North Pole... an area of more than 460,000 sq. miles of the Arctic shelf where estimates are it contains 10 billion tons of oil and gas deposits. WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072701426.html

The "oil kings" Bush and Cheney can't even get this right... while we are bogged down on the other side of the world in a bloody, endless struggle for Middle East oil, Russia is stealing the oil in our backyard. Figures.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

The GWB and HRC cults of personality are indeed interesting to compare. Thanks for the response Anticlimacus.

Anyone notice the front page article describing the Bushie plan to sell MORE weaponry to Arab states, including Saudi (home of bin Laden) and Egypt (home of al Zawahiri)-? Yes, I know that both countries are currently run by totalitarian governments who are nominal allies of the US. Remember, the same was true of the Shah of Iran in 1979. This strikes me as a notably bad idea, even for the current masters of notably bad ideas.

Beyond the primary elections.
People elect their nominee during the primary election to win the general election.When I look carefully at the new polls' ,B. obama is the favorite for the general election. He is the only democrate who is able to beat all the republican candiates. H.Clinton, unlike, B. obama is beatten by most of republican candidates.Then the question is to know whether the democrates want to win the 08 election or loose it. If they want to win the 08 election , the game is very easy and clear ,just :present(elect Obama during the primary election) obama as their nominee and the White House is guaranteed.
We can say that the so- called experience of H. clinton lacks many factors. First her experience didn't help her to forcast the right decisions about going to Iraq, so she will make the same mistakes as actual administration if she is elected President of US.
Secondly, she returns to old advisers of her husband to deal with the problems of news generations.
In sum ,although Clinton leads in the democratic polls, she can't win the 08 election ,that will be the big loss for the democratic party .
On the other hand, Obama is the candidate of 2008. If the demcratic party wants to win the 2008 election , they have or must present obama as their nominee.

Brendan, I agree with your assessment. Biden is the best of the field.... he may have much more support than the pundits want to believe.

Headline in today's Des Moines Register... "Obama's attacks on Clinton seen as undermining message of hope."

A survey taken for KCCI-TV this week indicated that both Clinton and Obama are losing ground in Iowa... Edwards 27 percent, Clinton 22 percent, Obama 16 percent... which leaves 35% for the rest of the field and uncommitteds.

In May, the same survey showed Clinton 28 percent, Edwards 26 percent,and Obama 22 percent.

Another headline said "Romney picks up backing during two-day visit," to 10 cities, working to build momentum for the Aug. 11 straw poll.

The same KCCI-TV poll found Romney leading with 16 percent (was in 3rd place in May), Fred Thompson at 14 percent (up from 9% and 4th place in May), Giuliani 13 percent and McCain 10 percent (McCain had led in May).

This leaves a whopping 47 percent for the rest of the field and uncommitteds.

It was also reported that Romney continued at attract support from state lawmakers.

Those compaigning heavily this weekend in Iowa.... Brownback, Cox, Dodd, Tancredo, Tommy Thompson.... with one appearance by Obama in Des Moines.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Now, Bush administration officials are voicing increasing anger at what they say has been Saudi Arabia's counterproductive role in the Iraq war. They say that beyond regarding Mr. Maliki as an Iranian agent, the Saudis have offered financial support to Sunni groups in Iraq. Of an estimated 60 to 80 foreign fighters who enter Iraq each month, American military and intelligence officials say that nearly half are coming from Saudi Arabia and that the Saudis have not done enough to stem the flow.

One senior administration official says he has seen evidence that Saudi Arabia is providing financial support to opponents of Mr. Maliki. He declined to say whether that support was going to Sunni insurgents because, he said, "That would get into disagreements over who is an insurgent and who is not."

Along with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are likely to receive equipment and weaponry from the arms sales under consideration, officials said. In general, the United States is interested in upgrading the countries' air and missile defense systems, improving their navies and making modest improvements in their air forces, administration officials said, though not all the packages would be the same.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A senior administration official confirmed to CNN on Saturday that the United States is developing a proposed $20 billion, 10-year arms sales package for Saudi Arabia aimed at giving the Saudi military an upgraded capability to counter Iranian aggression in the Persian Gulf region.

The proposed sale was first reported in the New York Times.

The official spoke to CNN on the condition of anonymity because discussions remain ongoing with the Saudis. And, none of the terms of the package have been finalized.

The future of the package is expected to reverberate in Israel, which has been concerned about Saudi arms deals in the past.

"This is all about Iran," said the official, who noted that the Bush administration is mindful at the same time that Israel must maintain its "qualitative edge" in the region.

One of the most potentially controversial portions of the proposed sale will be the first sale to the Saudis of satellite-guided bombs known as JDAMs. The sale may include both a 500-pound and 2,000 pound version of the aerial bomb.

The Israelis are said to be very concerned about the Saudis having that precision-strike capability. so the United States will discuss basing the weapons as far away from Israel as possible, the official said.

Other elements of the sale include new naval vessels, an advanced version of air-to-air missiles already used by the United States and advanced Patriot missiles.

This entire matter is expected to be a major portion of a meeting next week between Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Saudi officials.

Recent U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia have dramatically raised the level of military technology in the region, spurring arms races with other Persian Gulf states and with Israel. Having denied Egypt's request for the sale of Apache helicopters equipped with Longbow radar, the U.S. government has approved the possible sale of this technology to Saudi Arabia. This move opens the way for a further shift in the balance of power and technology in this region.

bush's lovers, the saudis, finance terrorism:

'The Saudi government has been unwilling to tackle the financial infrastructure essential to terrorism. U.S. intelligence reports state that Saudi banks, while mostly doing ordinary commerce, also are institutions that extremism relies upon in its global spread.

As a result, the Bush administration repeatedly debated proposals for taking strong action itself against Al Rajhi Bank, in particular, according to former U.S. officials and previously undisclosed government documents. Ultimately, the U.S. always chose instead to lobby Saudi officialdom quietly about its concerns.

The U.S. intelligence reports, heretofore secret, describe how Al Rajhi Bank has maintained accounts and accepted donations for Saudi charities that the U.S. and other nations have formally designated as fronts for al Qaeda or other terrorist groups.

The fun part now is trying to figure out what these Republican presidential hopefuls are so afraid of. There are a variety of competing theories.

* The Bubble must be protected -- Josh wondered if "the current Bush Republican party is so beholden to a worldview based on denial and suppression of evidence that exposure to unpredictable questions presents too great a danger."

* The GOP base is scary, even to the GOP -- Tim F. noted that the Dems' debate featured questions from the liberal base, but the far-right base is much scarier. "The idea of stringing up liberals, war critics, apostate Republicans as traitors seeps into every forum. They love torture, they hate civil rights and long ago the right's mainstream leaders declared the entire religion of Islam a free-fire zone. Better still, six years of holding government in a headlock has left these guys with a sense that they're entitled to say all this without apology or self-consciousness." If they're asking the questions, maybe the candidates don't want to be there to hear them.

* Democracy, schmocracy -- Andrew Sullivan suggested that the GOP is "a party uncomfortable with the culture and uncomfortable with democracy," so a debate with questions from regular people doesn't suit the party's worldview.

* Shameless elitism -- Steve M. argued that the GOP wants to avoid the riff-raff. "The questioners in the Democratic YouTube debate were sometimes a bit insolent and not always properly groomed. A true modern Republican leader can't tolerate being sassed at by a person like that; it would be like the Generalissimo of a banana republic allowing a peasant to mock his epaulets and riding crop. Giuliani and Romney, in particular, are trying to project an aura of contempt for the scum who disagree with them."

It's looking like there might not be a GOP CNN/Youtube debate. Rudy appears to be opting out and Mitt Romney doesn't seem far behind. And GOP party functionary Hugh Hewitt is already laying down a line of covering fire for the retreat, arguing that CNN and Youtube are biased against Republicans.

"Liberal Bias", whatever else it once was, now appears to be the new Republican code word for any venue or events not controlled by Republican commisars like Hugh Hewitt along the lines of President Bush's notorious Social Security townhalls in which only certified flunkies who swore to a Bush loyalty oath were let into the room.

As I said here on the night of the debate, the CNN/Youtube debate wasn't perfect. And there were for my tastes a bit too many questions based on a rather cliched sort of viral video silliness. All told though I found it surprisingly successful in getting fresh questions into the mix and edging at least somewhat more candor out of the candidates than the usual fare.

I'm not sure whether the resistance is rooted is the profound feebleness of the current GOP field or the fact that the current Bush Republican party is so beholden to a worldview based on denial and suppression of evidence that exposure to unpredictable questions presents too great a danger. But if they can't face Youtube how can they defeat the terrorists?

Watch Romney...Pledge not to impose his moral beliefs on others. Praise his mother's 1970 Senate campaign in Michigan as a pro-choice candidate. Discuss the experience of an in-law who died from a botched illegal abortion. Say the Boy Scouts of America ought to allow gays to participate. Completely distance himself from Ronald Reagan. And much, much more!

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jul/27/do_romneys_youtube_greatest_hits_explain_why_hes_skipping_debate

This whole Hillary Vs. Obama thing is a media fabrication.
When you come right down to it their positions are that far apart.

Well obviously, Hillary is ahead. She's being funded by Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. Surely, WaPo got the memo too - as did the entire media.

Hi, Rufus - I did not vote for GWB for Prez, although I did vote for him for Gov. in 1998.

My appreciation of Laura Bush's advocacy for education in Texas in the '90s is independent of my doubts about GWB.

I thought it was an amusing response to a previous poster.

Of course(unlike David Brooks),
I do not credit "First Lady" as a powerful resume filler, absent other achievements during that elapsed time.

"I want to make it absolutely clear that I will be sending high-level presidential envoys, including my husband, all over the world, to send a message to not only leaders but countries, 'We are back and we want to be working to find common interests and common ground with all of you,"' she said.

The clearest indication so far that the Clintons see this as an extention of Bill's term. This type of thinking will be instrumental in Hillary losing votes.

I'm not one of his loyalists (I'm for Mitt), but I think that Ron Paul's fundraising and dedicated constituency have earned him the number 5 spot. Huckabee's not raking in the dough or setting the Internet on fire.

For MikeB: "Courtesy demands that you use something approaching your name." - sorry MikeB, I'm not engineer obsessive compulsive. I choose to use ____________ as my posting name; as discomforting as that is for you.

"He has more courage than 99.9% of the people I have ever heard of." - Look around you. You're so hermetically sealed in your engineer world mind that you probably don't realize that many of the 20 to 90 year olds you see every day showed uncommon valor under pressure at some time in their life, but are not so insecure that they have to tell everybody about it over and over, if ever.

"I am sick and tired of clodhoppers from the right USING him as an excuse to prolong this catastrophy" - Yet you USE him for your purposes to oppose the catastrophy!

You've ranted about how "My son's been screwed by the Army, the VA, and the world" before and ranted about how it is all documented on CNN. You not only won't provide a link to the story, but you insult people who do ask for it. Maybe it doesn't exist or just doesn't support your rants here.

"parasitical foreign guest" - so now that your family is established here, immigrants seeking the "American Dream" are parasites. That kind of belies why your son volunteered to serve this country doesn't it. Or does your American Dream limit this "nation of immigrants" to those who are already here?

"They DO NOT deserve to be treated as we did the veterans of Vietnam" - Maybe you treated them that way. But, actually most Vietnam veterans were not treated poorly, they just weren't treated as heroes. Vietnam vets raised their voices, were heard and listened to by many. But most simply went back to being the ordinary citizens which they were before they served; and have led productive lives. The vets who were treated poorly were the Korea vets. Their older brothers the WWII vets ignored their efforts, pain and suffering. Ignoring the Korea vets was far worse than how Vietnam vets were treated.

"Step up and show your support for our troops with actions, not empty platitudes or debate points, or just shut up!" - Pointing out your hypocrisy for calling out proudtobeGOP while you rant on doing exactly what you demand she and others do not do is not a debate point, it's pointing out a lack of ethics. Your response to that is simply more ranting and use of your sons to support YOUR points.

MikeB, most of the rest of us are not engineers and do not have the absolute certainty that we know better than everybody else and that everybody else is a fool if they do not agree with us. Most of us do live in the real world and do understand that there are more opinions than just our own. I'm sorry that you're trapped in that Black/White world of your's. It's a shame that you miss all of the tones and hues and shades of gray which the rest of us bring to the world.

Chris Dodd is the only unnecessary candidate in the GOP field.

Clinton and Obama are what they are.

Gravel is the true sideshow ... Kucinich represents the radical left.

Richardson is the "experience candidate" who is pandering to the left.

Edwards doesn't have the experience, and is pandering to the left.

Biden is the only one who is willling to speak the truth, politics be damned. Little money, sure, but his wide-ranging experience and passionate arguments in favor of intervention in Darfur and his honesty when it comes to Iraq makes him the best candidate on either side.

Alas, he is not making a dent in the pundits' predictions. Nonetheless, I think he has a bigger natural base than people believe.

I believe in miracles! Biden for President in '08!

Chris Dodd is the only unnecessary candidate in the GOP field.

Clinton and Obama are what they are.

Gravel is the true sideshow ... Kucinich represents the radical left.

Richardson is the "experience candidate" who is pandering to the left.

Edwards doesn't have the experience, and is pandering to the left.

Biden is the only one who is willling to speak the truth, politics be damned. Little money, sure, but his wide-ranging experience and passionate arguments in favor of intervention in Darfur and his honesty when it comes to Iraq makes him the best candidate on either side.

Alas, he is not making a dent in the pundits' predictions. Nonetheless, I think he has a bigger natural base than people believe.

I believe in miracles! Biden for President in '08!

On July 27, 2007 04:56 PM, proudtobeGOP said: "It is disingenous to say that one is anti-war, yet supports the troops"

Only the weak minded believe that baloney. The politicians set the mission, not the troops. Why would anybody hold the implementers responsible for a failed policy?

Let's put it in another context: You're a shareholder of a company. The board makes some bad decisions costs the value of your stock to drop precipitously. Do you blame the secretaries & the factory workers for the board's bad decisions?

If you're weak minded like proudtobeGOP, you bet you do.

On July 27, 2007 04:56 PM, proudtobeGOP said: "It is disingenous to say that one is anti-war, yet supports the troops"

Only the weak minded believe that baloney. The politicians set the mission, not the troops. Why would anybody hold the implementers responsible for a failed policy?

Let's put it in another context: You're a shareholder of a company. The board makes some bad decisions costs the value of your stock to drop precipitously. Do you blame the secretaries & the factory workers for the board's bad decisions?

If you're weak minded like proudtobeGOP, you bet you do.

The Army that marched into Iraq was by all standards the most technically advanced, equipped, and trained army and Marine Corps the United States ever placed on a field of Battle. That statement can not be made today. It was not Clinton, Carter, Kennedy, or any other Democratic President that marched that army into Iraq and broke it. It was conservative G. W. Bush and his conservative chicken
hawk lemmings, such as Mike. But Mike will continue to blabber "it was Clinton" just as he's programmed to say. We now have over 900 convicted felons serving, qualifications have been dropped, and recruiting goals still can't be met. We have granny's instead of gunny's on the front line while 22 year old frat boys attend Young Republican meetings back home calling for us to continue the War in Iraq. Liberalism at its worst could not have screwed as bad as conservatism at its best did in Iraq.

Hey, but thanks for bringing up the Iraq fiasco and please continue to do so, especially in the general election next year.

Posted by: Mike

Not blaming Clinton per se,
but blaming the liberals who ALWAYS want to keep the military weak.
Who ALWAYS seem to support prosecuting the military, while granting due process rights to terrorists.
Who ALWAYS are distrustful of the military, and who think a "strong military" is a "waste of money".
So, no, not just blaming Clinton, but Liberalism at its best.

Bokonon, did you know that there really is an Ice9? Not quite as advertised in "Cat's Cradle", but you probably do not play footsie, either.

Anticlimacus, as long as we can get Bushcheney out of office before it unleashes the IceNine...

Bokomon: You summed up the stupidity of those that keep with the support the troops line, when in fact the opposite is true. MikeB was also direct and to the point on that little catch phrase. Let me remind you of the "Lawnmower" story, those that have served know it well. I have stated from day 1 my opposition to this war and am convinced it was for oil/money. This Administration has in fact killed and wounded tens of thousands of our military people for no other reason. That is a FACT.

response to Golgi -

there was an article in the post a few weeks (months?) back about hillary clinton's inner circle. i am in no position to judge how much of a bubble they keep her in. however, it seems quite a few of them have been on her 'team' for 10 or 15 years. from that one article, it seems they have similar loyalty principles as bush's. which is to say, something approaching cult of personality.

comment to bokonon-

nice, nice, very nice
nice, nice, very nice (moniker)

Mike, do you remember how this argument started? You said that liberals don't support the troops, because we want the war to end. Now you say that if we invaded Britain, you'd agree that the mission was bad and we should end it, but that wouldn't have anything to do with your support for the troops.

You're the one that made the false claim that opposing the war means not supporting the troops. And that's ridiculous, as you've now admitted. So I'll agree to not say that we should withdraw from Iraq for the troops' sake, if you'll agree not to whine about your opponents not supporting the troops. Of course, that would require you to be something besides a Republican partisan troll, so I don't expect it from you.

MikeB, I have no children, but my cousin and several friends are over there as we speak. Everyone who has friends and/or relatives in the service has all the right in the world to protest the policies of this stupid, stupid man and his self-interested Administration.

(other) Mike, the fact that soldiers enlist voluntarily is irrelevant. It is not "supporting" them, and it is NOT "supporting" the country for which they supposedly fight, to continue with a policy which is counterproductive to the cause it supposedly serves. Our war in Iraq has STRENGTHENED al Qaeda, according to the recent National Intelligence Estimate, which goes on to say that al Qaeda in Pakistan (with Osama - remember him? the one who was and is a REAL threat?) almost back to pre-09.11 levels. This has happened because Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld took their eye off the ball in Afghanistan - when Osama was cornered - to shift the focus to what they thought would be an easily winnable war. They wanted to build support for neocon policies AND show off US military hardware to the rest of the world. Both objectives have failed badly, and we now find ourselves with an overstretched, demoralized army at precisely the time that international pressures are mounting to levels not seen for many years.

Well I'm kind of in a hurry and a lot of people have written a lot of things that I don't have time to respond to.

MikeB -- I have enjoyed talking to you, but one of the things you said just bothers me: "None of this is due to Clinton."

Fact: Clinton had multiple opportunities to get bin laden and failed

Fact: Clinton oversaw the greatest downsizing of our military in a long time

Fact: Clinton opposed spending on military training, research, equipment

Fact: A huge percent of our F-18s and other aircraft could not fly, for lack of parts

YES - The president has made mistakes. I'm not defending him.

And Blarg, no- don't invade Britain. But don't argue against it in terms of "I care about the troops so lets bring them home". Argue against it because it is a bad mission.

I know plenty of you think this is a bad mission. Fine. Argue on the MERITS.

But don't claim to support the troops because you don't want to see them in harms way.

I don't want to see fire fighters in harms way, or police officers, or medical response teams.

But if there's a fire, that fire fighter better be there

And if there's a war, our military better be there.

Argue the merits of your case, but don't be disingenuous.

All for now.

MikeB -- thankyou for your family's service to the country. I understand your concern for your sons safety. I think about my men, and the future men under my command, and it keeps me up at night. But I'm also a realist - people, including myself, are going to pay the ultimate sacrafice in war. It's a terrible thing, but a necessary thing. And it's a thing that they, and I, have signed up for. I wish them well, and will keep them in my prayers -- but a Marine never backs down from a fight. And if our President tells us to fight, we will fight.

To quote a famous Marine, "When this Marine recieves an order from his commander-in-chief, this Marine follows it" -Oliver North

Support the troops by wishing them VICTORY, not DEFEAT.

Peace be with all of you.

anon - Courtesy demands that you use something approaching your name. And what parent wouldn't point out how brave their son was, when they were shown resuing people? You bet I bragged about my son! He has more courage than 99.9% of the people I have ever heard of. And, believe you me, HIS OPINION counts with me and I am sick and tired of clodhoppers from the right USING him as an excuse to prolong this catastrophy that is our foreign policy. He and the other young men like him are brave and we owe them much. They deserve brass bands and a hero's welcome. They deserve the best medical care. They deserve a VA that can actually find their records and provide them the GI Bill benefits for college. They deserve a country that can provide jobs FOR THEM instead of compitition from a bunch of parasitical foreign guest workers or a bankrupt future where government and corporations have offshored their jobs and wrecked the economy. They deserve the Amercian dream. They DO NOT deserve to be treated as we did the veterans of Vietnam. Step up and show your support for our troops with actions, not empty platitudes or debate points, or just shut up!

"Nice try lamebrain. Don't YOU use my sons to support your bankrupt President, your idiotic and failed Iraq and Afghanistan policies,"

MikeB, I was just pointing out a significant inconsistency in your posts. You will notice that I said nothing about the President, or Iraq or Afghanistan.

I think that it is hypocritical for you to go off on proudtobe GOP, when you have used your sons to support your positions for over a year; even to the extent that you provided links to CNN's website when your medic son was in a picture on CNN's home page.

What's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.

Either drop using your sons, or accept that if you do, others can comment on your using them.

Mike - You cannot blame the CLinton's for the horrible equipment failures I just posted about. Every single one of them is due to the present Pentagon and to the Bush Administration. That anti_RPG system? The Israeli developed one and it works nearly 100% of the time AND will retrofit our present Bradley's and Humvees. Insrtead of buying it, some armchair general at the Pentagon issued a no bid contract to a defense buddy to "research" amking one. How many U.S. soldiers have DIED becasue some swine used this war to make money off that one problem? The same, the exact same thing applies to the 9mm hanguns U.S. troops carry, to the .223 ammunition that we knew going into Iraq wouldn't penetrate the walls that the bad guys hide behind, to the defective body armour, to a wehole lot of things. The fact is, our troops are under equipped AND THEY ARE WORN OUT due to poor planning and people at the top using them as nothing more than canon fodder! My younger son is on his FOURTH tour of duty. He has been in Iraq since day 1, except for three wslightly less than 30 day leaves home. The other son was WOUNDED. The military hospital never did provide the care he needed and those same swine at the Pentagon just bounced him off into the reserves. We, his mother and I, WE PAID for his medical care. Then, becasue the VA had his records screwed up, we paid his way through nearly two years of college. When the Pentagon found out he was physcially well, they called him up in the middle of last spring quarter, they rectivated him and shipped him off to Iraq to serve his THIRD tour of duty. The same cowards at the Pentagon that screwed everything else up, put him in the exact same situation that nearly got him killed to begin with - he runs ahead of convoys looks for ambushes and IED's in an unarmoured Humvee. None of this is due to Clinton. Every bit of it is due to Bush **AND** the incompitent, uncaring, swine that run our Pentagon and Defense Department.

And, to anon coward, posting at 06:14 . Nice try lamebrain. Don't YOU use my sons to support your bankrupt President, your idiotic and failed Iraq and Afghanistan policies, nor the human rubbish that occupies the Pentagon. And, most certainly don't use them to support the lunatic ideas you and the rest of the twisted scum spout from the right.

If Hillary is offended by being called "Bush lite" then perhaps she should request that Bill not give keynotes at conferences with Bush Sr. They spoke together at the CTIA conference on March 30,2007. If past speaking fees are any indication, they both recieved between $150,000 and $400,000 for the appearance.

The CTIA is a lobby group for the telecommunications industry. It is worth noting that Mrs. Hillary Clinton has proposed bills that advocate spending tens of millions of dollars in telecommunications improvements (http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/record.cfm?id=271662).

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2109950,00.asp

Blarg - I agree with you on how our military is used. My point was the individual soldier has a sense that they are serving the country's philosophical interests, not it's economic or geo-political interests.

That the G.I. actually has a sense of patriotism; at least for the first enlistment or two.

Mike - please explain how complaining about the Pentagon lying is anti-military. Institutionally the response of any DOD public relations officer is to deny that anything negative ever happened.

That, plain and simple is lying.

When the facts begin to come out, the first DOD response is to attack the people presenting the facts. When the facts are corroborated and the Truth begins to be known for what it is, the DOD response is to find a scapegoat (usually, though not always, low-ranking Enlisted personnel - sometimes Junior officers are sacrificed). Finally, when the Truth is finally out, the DOD response usually is to simply shut-up. They recognize a losing cause.

Going after DOD for lying shouldn't be considered anti-military. Challenging people who knowingly lie should be considered anti-military; just challenging people who are institutionally unethical.

Mike, what if we decided to invade England tomorrow? Practically everyone would oppose that invasion. Does that mean they aren't supporting the troops? Is the only way to support the troops to support any mission those troops are given, even if the mission is pointless or unjust?

6:07 anonymous, of course soldiers believe they're doing something for their country. And in general, they're right. But not by protecting our "freedoms", because our freedom isn't threatened. The general mission of our military is to protect American interests. We protect our allies, we defeat dictators, we fight for democracy and justice in the world. Those are all laudable goals. But they aren't protecting our freedoms, in any but the vaguest and most convoluted sense. In their constant slavish worship of our military, Republicans ignore what the role of our military actually is.

A couple things:

1) Osama bin Laden is not stupid. Anyone who thinks otherwise has no idea what they're talking about. He knows that the destruction of the West, of America, will not be attained through brute force. His goal is to disrupt governments, including ours. Force us into a position where we are willing to abandon freedoms in exchange for security, or at least the feeling of security. He believes us to be an abomination before God, because we accept the concept of individual liberty in all aspects of life. When we allow the government to restrict those freedoms, terrorists know that they have effectively terrorized us.

2) Yes, if a soldier breaks the law, be it civilian or military law, they should be punished. That's why we have laws. Was it wrong to punish Calley for the massacre at My Lai?

3) Yes, terrorist suspects should receive due process. If we're going to roam the Earth dragging other nations kicking and screaming into the espousing of American-style democracy, then we're going to have to treat the criminals we apprehend over there the same way we treat them over here. Otherwise, we're nothing but hypocrites, aren't we?

Mike - food for thought: when the Soviet Empire fell, there was no clear and present enemy. Would you have kept the U. S. Armed Forces at their Cold War levels?

Would you have done anything other than downsize somewhat, until a threat, real or fabricated (politicians do that you know) emreged?

The military should have been downsized naturally, and then adjustments made as the New World Order took shape (we still may not even know what that is). The military is costly. The money used for that should have either been returned to the people as a "peace dividend" of some type or put into other programs most of which are social, which Liberals tend to support.

It's quite possible that the Liberals may not have been so much anti-military as pro-social knowing that money was available to fund what they naturally support.

It's too bad tht Huckabee doesn't et more attention. He seems to be pretty genuine and certainly competent. If Cilizza is even remotely right and Huckabee shows well in Iowa, then maybe he can hold on for a bit longer.

The only entity that can eliminate our freedom of speech is the US Government. Unless you can clearly explain how anyone we're fighting in Iraq is trying to take away our rights, stop using those tired lines about the military fighting for our freedoms.

Posted by: Blarg | July 27, 2007 05:58 PM

Let's eliminate all of the military and see how long it takes for some other country to come over and conquer us. It's a lesson that Thomas Jefforson learned the hard way. He had great reservations about the military, but ended up increasing its size more than any other president.

Reality is a tough thing Blarg, try dealing with it on occasion.

The answer is simple folks.

"Supporting the Military" does not mean bringing them home.

If your son was a racecar driver, "support" wouldn't mean telling him not to drive.

If your daughter was a vet, "support" wouldn't mean telling her not to handle dangerous animals.

So, Blarg, and the rest of you confused liberal bloggers out there -- "supporting the military" does not mean sitting them out of the fight.

We signed up to fight. That's our job. Support us DOING our job.

How about that?

When's the last pro-military foundation you gave aid to?

When's the last time you send a post-card or an x-mas gift to our boys overseas?

That's "support"

Sitting here from your arm-chair, demanding a RETREAT is not "supporting the military" -- it's supporting the Liberal agenda - to always lose wars.

http://conservativestandards.blogspot.com/

Not blaming Clinton per se,

but blaming the liberals who ALWAYS want to keep the military weak.

Who ALWAYS seem to support prosecuting the military, while granting due process rights to terrorists.

Who ALWAYS are distrustful of the military, and who think a "strong military" is a "waste of money".

So, no, not just blaming Clinton, but Liberalism at its best.

MikeB - in your last post you used your sons again to support your position. In CAPS even.

How can you complain about somebodyelse referencing that?

Mike - isn't it getting cold on there on the wing? Still blaming the Clintons 6 1/2 years later. Yeesh!

Blarg - there is validity to the tired lines about the military fighting for our freedom.

It gets warped all too often, but most of those who join, even those drafted when there was a draft, believe that they are doing something "for their country."

Even when we're not involved in a war, their presence makes a difference, simply because of the role of the U.S. as the World's only superpower. We represent freedom to the rest of the World. Our military theoretically protects that freedom. It's been difficult to believe that of late, but that should be the case, and it shouldn't seem "tired" to us to hear that.

Blarg -- that's moronic. Al-Qaeda would gladly do so in a heartbeat. Trust me, I know.

Hell, even the ACLU would take away our bill of rights if they could (of course taht's another topic).

MikeB -- thank you for your son's service. But how do you think our military got the way it was? How do you think we had no spare parts, no equipment, no planes that could fly?

Could it be.... the Clintons? Because I'll tell you, things were different under Reagan. The military was prepared to fight and WIN a war.

Just curious FH, do you also believe that the flag just a piece of cloth?

FH, there is no external force that has the power to eliminate the Bill of Rights. (More accurately, there's no entity who has the desire to do so.) The only entity that can eliminate our freedom of speech is the US Government. Unless you can clearly explain how anyone we're fighting in Iraq is trying to take away our rights, stop using those tired lines about the military fighting for our freedoms.

I really don't give a rats behind what "prouds" husband is doing or not. I do care about these swine USING the young men in the military to to beat anyone over the head that disagrees with them. I'm also sick and tired of annonymous posters, like KOZ or maybe someone just as lame, claiming that I am somehow using my sons when I merely point out THEIR view, and the view of their fellow soldiers, about this ill advised invasion. Their entire position is bankrupt and mindless and I, for one, am sick of it! THEY, Bush and the fat armchair generals at the Pentagon, the corporate swine that make money off this mess, all blather about "supporting the troops" as an excuse to continue this nightmare. Well, I am OPPOSED to this misadventure and am pointing out that these swine put MY SONS in harms way for no good reason. Not just for no good reason, but ill equipped, with unarmored Humvee's, with tanks and Bradley's and other vehicles that were either unarmored or had and HAVE such a lack of armor that hundreds of young men have died and thousands have been wounded and maimed. They equipped these soldiers with rifles and pistols that they knew and KNOW full well will jam when dirty, are wreced by sand. They subcontracted out food services that fed them spoled food. They put them in horrible hospitals when they were wounded or simply shoved them into the reserves and left them to fend for themselves. They have called up these tired young men to serve three and four and five tours of duty. They have lied to them, telling some that they would not have to go back to that nightmare if they would re-inlist, but sent them back again nce the papers were signed. They have taken their right to communicate openly and honestly with their parents by censoring their email, their letters, their telephone conversations home. They treat these brave soldiers like garbage and then have the unmittigated gaul to talk about "spporting them". These people, people like "proud" are nothing more than snivelling cowards that use the sacrifice of these soldiers to prop up their failure. How ANYONE can put up with them or not see their cowardess and phony talk is beyond me. BUT I will not stand for it any longer.

"Quit hiding behind MY sons!!!! "

Quite hiding behind your own sons.

As an actual member of the military who doesn't need to call on my relatives or neighbors for an opinion, I disagree with you.

So what do you think of that? Am I a swine too because I disagree with you?

"They do not decide for themselves, nor do we." - proudtobeGOP

Actually Proud, we do. We vote. We made the mistake of voting in people who had flawed agenda which they had been wating to implement for 20 years. We let them do it. We can also stop it. It may take another year and one-half, but you better believe that it's going to stop.

"I happen to agree with what FH wrote above: "If we leave Iraq in its current state we will lose any control over the situation in the middle east, and that is unacceptable." Even if it is damn hard."

How does having forces in Iraq give us any control over the situation in the middle east that we didn't have before or would have with our forces based in allied countries instead?

"Try to remember that the American military is at war, even if the rest of the country is not." -