Musharraf Meets With Opposition Leader Bhutto

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War on Terror
Posted on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:00:34 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I know this is a law blog but this rather understated headline could be extremely important:

Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf held secret talks with opposition leader and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto about a possible power sharing deal, media reported Saturday. The meeting, held Friday in the Gulf emirate of Abu Dhabi, lasted about one hour and ended without an agreement, Pakistani newspapers and television networks reported.
Reports of the meeting come amid intense speculation that Musharraf would seek Bhutto as an ally in his plans to seek reappointment from legislators for another term. The plans face constitutional hurdles, weakening the hand of Musharraf, an army general who seized power in 1999 and who is a key U.S. ally in the fight against terrorism.

Musharraf has recently been politically weakened by his failed attempt to oust Supreme Court Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry and also faces an alarming upsurge in Islamic militancy. . . . Musharraf has kept a low profile since the Supreme Court ended his bid to fire its chief judge, seen as a major setback to his plans to win a new five-year presidential term from lawmakers this fall.
The downturn in political fortunes comes as attacks have surged in Pakistan since an army assault on the pro-Taliban Red Mosque in Islamabad killed at least 102 people two weeks ago. A controversial security deal with tribal leaders on the Afghan border to contain Taliban and al-Qaida forces has also collapsed.

Read the whole article. This significance to me is the clear sign of Musharraf's growing weakness in Pakistan and the need for an alliance against Musharraf's erstwhile allies, the militant Islamists. Al Qaida IS in Pakistan's Waziristan region and a Pakistan willing to cooperate in fighting Al Qaida is important to US national security interests. This is a story that bears very close watching.

< Inspiring Confidence: Maliki Want Petraeus Out | Weekend Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Musharraf Meets With Opposition Leader Bhutto | 57 comments (57 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

A blind eye (1.00 / 0) (#1)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 04:30:59 PM EST

As the ME sees us falling into surrender and running away, and with an expected Hillary as the next President, this is the first, but with more to come, of politicians who will start to try and find accomodations with the terrorists.

This will be, of course, turning a blind eye on the terrorists as they train and plan for their next attacks on the west.

I've got a good gamble ppj..... (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by kdog on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 10:11:01 PM EST

Get our tanks, our spies, and our nose in general the hell out of the east....and the east finds no reason to attack the west.

If the gamble pays off, peace reigns. If it doesn't, we can always fire up the aircraft carriers again and get back to making war.


No need to wait. (1.00 / 1) (#49)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 10:08:22 AM EST

The attacks you speak of are not driven by our presence in the ME, but my our existence as a liberal democracy that reputes many of the main tenets of Islam. I offer:

(Peter Arnett): Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?
BIN LADIN:... So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

So his aim is not SA, but the world. We can see this again and again in attacks not by improverished, hungry Moslems, fresh from the ME, but by second generation, or ones who arrived in the west at a very early agre, home grown radicals who are middle class. See the tube bombings last year in London. See the attempts to blow up transatlantic commercial airliners fro England to the US. See the Doctors attacks in London and Glasgow using "car bombs." See the conspiracy to attack Ft. Dix and JFK.

These terrorists are driven by teachings that some are taking from their religion. It is said that these are not part of Islam, and that may be true. But it is Moslems that are doing, and trying to do, the harm.


Bullsh*t, and you know it. (5.00 / 2) (#50)
by Edger on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 10:22:10 AM EST

We're still waiting for your response to Dr. Maryam, ppj...

Avoiding it just makes you look like you're... avoiding it.

Here is again in case your scrolling finger doesn't work.

Dr. Maryam, Iraqi Pediatric Oncologist

Stop telling lies to yourself American. We know that your racist brutal murdering war criminal troops came from your society and reflect its values. we know that because we see how they behave and have to bury their victims. If you are stupid enough to think we feel anything but hatred and contempt for your soldiers and the country that sent them to make war on my people then you are a fool.
As to Saddam bad though he was your country is far worse.

You've repeatedly tried to assure everyone here that you're not a cowardly chickenhawk, ppj.

This is your big chance to buy some integrity, ppj.

It's also your big chance to throw away any remaining integrity you might still have buried inside you by avoiding the question.

Lets see what you're made of, ppj. Or not made of.

How do you respond to Dr. Maryam?


Osama.... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
by kdog on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 10:50:46 AM EST

is a nut....he speaks for all muslims like George Bush speaks for all Americans...only in his own deranged mind.


Ye, he is a nut. And very deranged. (none / 0) (#52)
by Edger on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 11:10:50 AM EST

But even in his deranged insanity, he had far more integrity than the cowardly Bush's or the ppj's of the world will ever have.

It by no means excuses him or his insanity, but at least he had the the guts and the integrity to state bluntly his insane intentions and motivations:

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.
...
And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

Nah.... (none / 0) (#54)
by kdog on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 11:48:11 AM EST

If he had integrity, he'd strap a bomb on himself instead of somebody else's kid.

Him and George...they're the same. No integrity to be found.


You're right (none / 0) (#55)
by Edger on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 12:13:33 PM EST

I just meant he stated his intentions, crazy as they were. More than I can say for Bush and his supporters....


: I hear that.... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by kdog on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 12:24:25 PM EST

he is honest about his intentions, just not man enough to the dirty work himself.
Bush can't even admit what this global bloodbath is really all about....

Do you always write nonsense? (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 04:37:51 PM EST

You have to ask? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 05:51:45 PM EST

He know he writes nonsense. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Edger on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 06:07:09 PM EST

He's smarter than he pretends to be.


You sure? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 06:36:04 PM EST

: Well, if he's pretending (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Edger on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 07:00:56 PM EST

then everything he says is a lie.

Heh (1.00 / 1) (#5)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 06:35:22 PM EST

The Left has been claiming for four years now that out presence in Iraq will increase the number of terrorists. So now you want to change your story?

Politicans, especially ME politicans, are practical creatures, as are the so called "arab street leaders." I say that they have always suspected our staying power, having been exposed to Vietnam and the various cut and run situations since then, including our lack of support for those who revolted in Iraq at the end of Desert Storm. Our "friends" understand that we have surrendered, how else could they take Reid's comments? How else could they take the many "date certain" comments??

This is the Democrat's baby, Big Tent. They can not deny it. You guys just lost the Presidental election and you don't even know it.

Wow.


Not So Fast (5.00 / 0) (#7)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 06:38:46 PM EST

This war is Bush's war, the GOP's war, YOUR war. You guys conceived it, you guys lied us into it, you own it, lock stock and barrel.

Congradulations and have a nice day.


I have to ask (4.00 / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 07:20:51 PM EST

How do you understand what he is saying?

It seems like nonsensical jibberish to me.

I truly have no idea what he thinks his point is.


Jim is a subscriber to the Dolchstosslegende (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:37:32 PM EST

A lot of what Jim writes is gibberesh that probably only Hunter Thompson (if you get my drift) or someone versed in Biblical textual criticism could decipher. I confess to some experience with both (that and reading statutes written by our glorious legislature).

Jim is basically a Neo Con. Many Neo Cons started out as "Scoop Jackson Democrats" meaning socially liberal (as Jim professes to be) and STRONG on DEFENSE (Jim believes he casts his vote based on whats best for US National Security, all else is trivial. Besides this allows you to declare yourself socially liberal, but you have an excuse to vote in a way that ensures neanderthal conservatism prevails.

Keep in mind, that GOP is interchangeable with Conservatism, except when the GOP loses, then the Conservative myth is they don't vote party, they vote the man. An alternative myth, is the GOP President who lost, lost his conservative moorings (e.g. GHWB). Jim, you will note, tells you right away, he is not a Republican, he is a conservative.

Once you have an understanding of the basics, if you look for the right buzz words, you can get Jim's meaning. In the above passage, he is basically calling us cheese eating surrender monkeys who will stab America in the back causing us to lose the WOT.

The key phrases are:

suspected our staying power- according to rightwing mythology, the US failed in Vietnam, because we lost are will to fight. Its the left's fault that Reagan ordered the marines out of Lebanon; Somalia, Black Hawk down- That is the fault of the left too. This alleged propensity to turn tail and run that is solely the fault of (and trait of) the left, has given the US a reputation of being a paper tiger, that has made OBL think he can attack us with impunity (never mind Bush dropping the ball and getting bogged down in Iraq).
Vietnam- Vietnam is, in and of itself a code, word for everything described above.
our lack of support for those who revolted in Iraq at the end of Desert Storm GHWB's inciting the Kurds to revolt and then abandoning them is the fault of the left too.
Surrender and Reid's comments This is an allusion to Harry Reid's treasonous comments that the war is already lost. It just reinforces our reputation as quitters.
date certain According to Neocon theory, annoucing a date certain, is telegraphing to "al Qaida" in Iraq (aka al Qaida lite) that we are feckless and if they are just patient, like Ho Chi Minh and General Giap, they can achieve victory. An unstated Neo con belief is that war is sort of like college football. You can't be crown number one in the AP and Coaches poll with more than 2 losses. The US will no longer be number one if we pull out of Iraq (pulling out, as George Carlin once observed about Vietnam, is not manly).

6 You guys just lost the Presidental election and you don't even know it. According to Neocon myth, the Democrats were banished to the wilderness after stabbing the country in the back in Vietnam. Watergate, Jimmy Carter, Democratic control of Congress through 1994, and PRESIDENT Clinton were incidental to the triumphant GOP realiagnment (keep in mind, to the NeoCons, the Southern Strategy is the love that dare not speak its name). What Jim is doing here is telegraphing the GOP/conservative strategy for a comeback. Odd as it may seem to rational observers, the Iraq Debacle is actually the fault of the Left, who lacked the will to see it through and stabbed America in the back yet again.

Its late, I'm tired, but hopefully this explanation makes sense.

Thank you MB... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by desertswine on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 11:37:04 AM EST

for that insightful and accurate necropsy.


MB - Loves psycho babble (1.00 / 0) (#19)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:34:16 AM EST

But Jim doesn't like inaccurate statements. Molly writes:

Jim, you will note, tells you right away, he is not a Republican, he is a conservative.

I have never said/written that.

How many conservatives do you know that support National Health Care, gay marriage, women's rights, minority rights, drug law reform, tax reform..

Those are positions I have taken time and again, all in the archives, all available if you would care to do the honest thing and research.

Jim believes he casts his vote based on whats best for US National Security, all else is trivial.

Are you saying that national security is not the most important item that we should have on our plate?

Besides this allows you to declare yourself socially liberal,

Show me where I have failed to support traditional liberal positions? The fact is that you can not, and your comment is a smear. What I don't support is the anti-war Left positions on national security, or in their case, lack there of.

As for staying power, the actions in Pakistan and now in Iraq with Maliki showing his displeasure speaks for itself.

And if you think the terrorist leadership are not well aware of the political situation in the US, then you are truly naive.


failed to support traditional liberal positions? (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by Edger on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:40:32 AM EST

Social Liberal, right ppj?

JimakaPPJ
February 11, 2006 09:16 PM
et al - To keep my reputation up, I offer you, "Muslim Opinion Be Damned"

Just ask him his Presidential votes since 1980 (5.00 / 3) (#24)
by Molly Bloom on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:47:57 AM EST

All of them failed to support traditional liberal positions. He voted for the President most likely to advance a conservative social agenda.

How do I know this? Because Jim has stated Jimmy Carter was the last Democrat for President he voted for (in 1976).

MB (1.00 / 0) (#29)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:59:23 AM EST

I voted for the President that was most likely to further national defense.

Why do you think that national defense is not No 1??


: It would have been "no. !" (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by jondee on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 12:19:26 PM EST

-- by far -- if he hadnt "furthered it." What was the problem, were your stocks languishing a little too much for your taste?

MB (1.00 / 1) (#30)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 12:03:36 PM EST

BTW - Bush just gave us Medicare Rx insurance... something that Kennedy and other Demos fought against.

Oh, I forgot. If a Demo didn't do it it didn't happen, eh?

He also tried to reform Social Security but you guys wouldn't help on that either.


a boon to Phrana, not so much for seniors. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by Molly Bloom on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 12:16:32 PM EST

: MB (1.00 / 0) (#38)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 01:34:30 PM EST

You can BS about a lot, but when it comes to RX insurance you have demonstrated you know zip.
In our case prior to 1/0/06 we were purchasing Rx drug insurance as a partial continuation of an ex-employer's program. With Medicare the payments dropped around 66%, and that was with a "full coverage" plan that had no deduct and no "doughnut" hole.
I have friends who no longer had to buy their parents drugs, and friends who had no insurance who actually were able to have a few bucks left for movies and an evening out.
So you be wrong Molly. And shame on you for passing out wrong information.
Now. Could it better? Of course.
Why don't the Demos get busy and improve it??
The nearest they have came to health care is claiming that Ashcroft "rose weakly" from his bed of pain......
Why do the Democrats refuse to solve healthcare problems???

edger - Nope (1.00 / 1) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:55:00 AM EST

I don't think traditional liberal positions include protesting against editorial cartoons, calling for the artist to be killed, rioting, and killing christians and jews.

In fact, I think cartoons making fun of political and "religious" leaders are the essence liberal positions.

And if you think bowing to people who claim that gays should be killed, women shot for cheating on their husbands, that no woman has any rights and exists only to "service" a man is a "liberal" position then you are not a liberal.


I'm still waiting for (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by Edger on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 12:17:26 PM EST

your response to Dr. Maryam, ppj...

: You do know what a (5.00 / 3) (#35)
by Edger on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 12:25:34 PM EST

Pediatric Oncologist does, don't you ppj?
She treats Iraqi children with cancers born of Iraqi women who have been breathing depleted uranium.

Referring to yourself in 3rd person now? (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by Molly Bloom on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:50:13 AM EST

Geez, havn't seen that since Bob Dole ran for President in 1996!


MB (1.00 / 0) (#27)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:56:59 AM EST

Well, I wanted to give you something to do some psycho babble over.

Do you apologize for your mistatement that I have said I was a conservative?

It would you know, be the grown up thing to do.


No, Jury is still out (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by Molly Bloom on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 12:14:47 PM EST

too much evidence to the contrary

: MB - Nope (1.00 / 0) (#39)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 01:39:04 PM EST

That's not true.
You wrote:

Jim, you will note, tells you right away, he is not a Republican, he is a conservative.
I have never said that. I have never written that.
My positions are not of a conservative and I have always denied any such inaccurate claims such as yours.
Do the adult thing, admit your mistake and let's move foward.

Your mouth says you (5.00 / 4) (#36)
by jondee on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 12:44:42 PM EST

support "liberal positions"; probobly in order to have enough cred with TL to maintain your trolling rights.

In practice all you've done for the last few years is tap dance to whatever the Rethug meme of the week and hope no one notices as long as you declare "Im a liberal" periodically.

Thats a level of self=delusion and dishonesty that goes beyond sad and into the truely pathetic.


jondee (1.00 / 0) (#40)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 01:50:03 PM EST

Perhaps you can show some of these???

The fact is that you can not, and you know that. Your problem is that as a member of the anti-war Left, you can not grasp the fact that it is possible to have mutually exclusive positions.

I find it odd that you, who claim to be a liberal, can find any excuses for a group that denies rights to gays, women and other minorities. I have linked time and again to "honor killings" of women, rape victims who have been hung for the crime of being raped, gays hung for the crime of being gay...groups that have rioted and killed over "insults to Islam,"
placed bombs on trains, in cars, etc., etc.

I sure enough absolutely positively do not understand how any one who claims to a liberal could possibly acceopt these actions, and be against actions designed to stop them.

Plainer.

You aren't a liberal. You are an anti-war Left Winger who is perilously close to a philsophy could be accepted by a Marxist.

Am I wrong?


: You aren't a liberal, (5.00 / 2) (#57)
by jondee on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 12:40:36 PM EST

you're a right wing, Cold War dinosaur/miltarist who apparently never had a thought about history or politics prior to the advent of A.M Talk Radio and the marriage of Corporate Gov and Snakehandling Faith Healers that gave us the Reagan "Revoloution". Im sure you'd be perfectly at home in Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile and quite possibly The Reich, as long as you could continue to cower behind the existing power structure and send OTHERS out to fight all the wars that you're "for".
BTW, Im anti-war and anti-torture and anti-rape and child abuse and anti-murder. I guess those positions in themselves will keep me barred from the Heavan where all the obedient little ppj's go.

MB (1.00 / 1) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 10:59:03 AM EST

Nope. Not true and I have quote after quote to prove you wrong.


Even granting you are a liberal (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Molly Bloom on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:58:55 AM EST

for the sake of argument, DO you deny you are a proponet of Dolchstosslegende?

Do you deny that what you were talking about is the left's alleged fecklessness in realizing Iraq is a debacle and demanding an end to a war we were lied into, which does not advance our cause in the socalled WOT? Do you deny you were gleefully arguing that the conservatives (which you are not) will reverse their fortunes by promoting Dolchstosslegende?

(Odd that a liberal would be so gleefull about it)

: Not responsive. (5.00 / 2) (#42)
by Molly Bloom on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 02:33:20 PM EST

The court will penalize you by accepting your non-denial denial as an admission.
I apologize for saying you admit to be a conservative. I don't apologize for calling you a conservative. I calls em as I see em.

: And I don't like rhubard either. (1.00 / 0) (#41)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 01:57:11 PM EST

Dolchstosslegende
Do you still beat your husband?
What funny questions you ask.
One More Time
I have been commenting here for four years. Do some research. Check the archives.
I am waiting for your apology.
One answer.
When you get into a war, no matter why, you have but two choices. Win or loose.

Let's See (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by squeaky on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 04:13:34 PM EST

I do not know any liberal that regularly quotes:

Powerline
Daniel Pipes
David Horowitz
Christoper and Peter Hitchens
Walter Russell Mead

et al

And Defends:

Bush
Cheney
Rove
O'Reilley
The Blond SheMale
Limbaugh
Giuliani

et al


squeaky (1.00 / 1) (#44)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:56:43 PM EST

Your problem is that you are not a liberal. You are a Leftist.

Huge difference.

i.e. Liberals always welcome a good debate and are ready to defend their ideas...

You, on the other hand, think that being a liberal means you won't defend our culture and we should sell Israel down the river. And when challenged you revert to:

Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

You Never Link to Any Liberals (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by squeaky on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 08:45:56 PM EST

But you are so embarrased by all the conservative and right wing sources you quote from and all the wingnuts that you defend that to list a smidgen of them makes you feel smeared?

hhahhahahahaha

Obviously you are self smearing.


squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#46)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 09:47:05 PM EST

All the "liberals" I assume you refer to are in fact merely anti-war blogs.

Your delusion is so great that you fail to understand that being anti-war is not a liberal position.


: Delusion?????` (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by squeaky on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:58:59 PM EST

You are saying that Daniel Pipes a liberal? Powerline liberal? David Horowitz liberal?
WTF
You are acting psychotic.

Attacking the credibility (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by jondee on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 01:01:16 PM EST

of Tom Delay's critics at very turn; a standard bearer of the "Save Terri" campaign; an advocate of hanging young soldiers who disobey orders; a staunch defender (or maintainer of thunderous silence), at every turn, of the most illiberal ("social" or otherwise) Admin In the last quarter century; an obvious friend of the most frothing-at-the-mouth, unbalanced, fringe of the Right, judging from the Links: Clinton the Murderer; Mineral Exploration based on Biblical Prophecy..And on and on and on..

Nobody believes you're a liberal and if you were, no one would want to affiliated with you.


not just the left (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Sailor on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 07:08:36 PM EST

The Left has been claiming for four years now that out presence in Iraq will increase the number of terrorists.

the latest NIE states it clearly that bush policies have increased AQ.


No. It's your baby, paleface. (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by Edger on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 07:18:33 PM EST

There are nearly 50,000 families who understand that from personal experience, and about 75% of the country who also know it.

You backed a loser and a lying little killer, ppj. An you continue to back a loser and a lying little killer, ppj.

Explain yourself to those 50,000 families. And to nearly a million Iraqi families.

Maybe you're not smarter than you appear to be?

Saba Ali Ihsaan, Baghdad, Irak

There is only one measure of progress that matters in Irak and that is the progress in chewing the invader forces into pieces and then spitting them out. Progress on that is excellent.
They came here as predators and now they are prey. The only thing an American understands is force, we sand nig*ers know a thing or two about that.

How can you make heads or tails (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 07:19:53 PM EST

of his jibberish? I can not even understand what he think he is saying.


: ppj? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Edger on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 07:24:20 PM EST

He's so deep in denial all he know to do is stay in denial. He probably can't look in a mirror.

edger (1.00 / 0) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:41:14 AM EST

Do you actually have anything to say to my point that the chickens are coming home to roost and that the "leaders" in the ME are starting to try and figure a way to accomodate who they see as the winners, which are the terrorists??

Do you think they failed to understand why Reid meant when he said the war was lost??

Show a little respect for the intelligence of the people of the ME. They can plainly see that this is another case of Left wing Demos cut and run.


: Sure. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Edger on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:46:29 AM EST

Read this.
The chickens are coming home to roost, ppj.
They want to have a word with you.
PERHAPS no fact is more revealing about Iraq's history than this: The Iraqis have a word that means to utterly defeat and humiliate someone by dragging his corpse through the streets.
The word is "sahel," and it helps explain much of what I have seen in three and a half years of covering the war.
...
Listen to Iraqis engaged in the fight, and you realize they are far from exhausted by the war. Many say this is only the beginning.

: The Post '68 Trauma (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by jondee on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 12:58:38 PM EST

is kicking in again. Just think, think all the chickenhawk would've had to do was enlist -- to save "American prestige" -- and he probobly would've gotten it out of his system by now.

This simply makes no sense (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 07:19:06 PM EST

I am now beginning to believe you a dishonest and dumb.


: You have to read him like (5.00 / 3) (#15)
by Alien Abductee on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 08:57:07 PM EST

looking at one of those scrambled pictures where you have to unfocus your eyes just the right way to see the image. He does make sense, but it's like fuzzy logic built on an alternate-universe set of facts. Like reading really bad poetry. But he never engages with or incorporates anything anyone else says to change his own take on things, so on that alone I consider him not an honest participant here but a troll.

: BTD (1.00 / 1) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:44:11 AM EST

It makes no sense because you don't want to accept that the actions described are the result of politicans deciding they better start being nice to the winners.
And that the Demos main man tied his Party to the loss when he declared the war lost.