| Author |
Message |
    
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 564
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 1:11 pm: |     |
Guy, Cheney's argument is not a valid argument, it is simply a specious argument designed very deliberatly to play on people's basest fears.
It also completely dodges the (again, widely made) argument that the Bush administration has in fact NOT been directing our resources in fighting terrorism when it embarked this nation on a "mission" with a country that had absolutely zippo to do with Osama Bin Forgotten's attack. The biggest connection that I have heard to date of 9/11 to Iraq was that some guy was treated in a hospital in Baghdad once. (Hey, -Perhaps WE sponsored the terrorists since they took FLYING LESSONS in our country! -if ya see what I mean about the thinness of their argument).
As a result the administration has been forced to repackage through sheer repetition the Iraq invasion as part of the "global strategy" on the war on terror while completely ignoring the very real and distinct possibility that they have made things worse. -Worse with what (that other well known lefty-liberal) Pat Buchanan calls "the worst political foreign affairs blunder in decades".
I sadly predict that we will now be propping-up the new "Sovereign Iraq Govenment" for decades to come. -Meanwhile guys like Al-Sadr will also exist for decades except that now instead of being pissed at Hussein they will be pissed at US in exactly the same twisted way that crazies like Osama have pissed at us because of his own hatred of the U.S/Saudi bond.
I swear on some days, in an ugly way I almost hope that Bush WILL win because I sadly predict that things will get even worse and perhaps after 8 years of complete power, (instead of the mere 4), the republicans we will have created an even clearer an undeniable road map for all to see of behaviors to avoid for future decades, (assuming we live that long). -See, I AM afraid, but I'm afraid of Cheney! |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 1625
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 1:16 pm: | |
"If the Bush Admin had talks with his administration, what was discussed? When was it?"
I'm telling you, Janay, I don't know. But I'll re-post here a CNN excerpt from what Putin said in an interview yesterday:
In the wide-ranging meeting which lasted almost four hours, Putin said he likes President Bush, calling him a friendly, decent, predictable person.
But Putin said each time Russia complained to the Bush administration about meetings held between U.S. officials and Chechen separatist representatives, the U.S. response has been "we'll get back to you" or "we reserve the right to talk with anyone we want."
Putin blamed what he called a "Cold War mentality" on the part of some U.S. officials, but likened their demands that Russia negotiate with the Chechen separatists to the U.S. talking to al Qaeda.
These are not "freedom fighters," Putin said. "Would you talk with Osama Bin Laden?" he asked.
Putin said the Chechen separatists are trying to ignite ethnic tensions in the former Soviet Union and it could have severe repercussions.
"Osama Bin Laden attacked the United States saying he was doing it because of policies in the Middle East," Putin said. "Do you call him a freedom fighter?"
Putin's comments came a few weeks after the U.S. granted asylum to Ilias Akhmadov, the "foreign minister" of the Chechen separatist movement.
Incidentally, Akhmadov, based on absolutely everything I've read from disinterested sources, is nothing but a good guy who has advocated a peaceful resolution of the Chechen war, involving international peacekeepers (which I'm afraid no one on earth is prepared to send to Chechnya, so it's a moot point). He's maybe analagous to a figure like Sari Nusseibeh, the Palestinian intellectual. So I don't think the asylum a Boston judge granted him is likely the big problem.
Something else is. And before one votes for Bush--before one assumes one knows everything there is to know about the way our policy on terrorism is being carried out, not just talked about in an election year--I think one would want look a little deeper, or at least reserve judgement.
"Kerry wants to be sensitive to terrorists."
Oh come on. Will you leave the manicheistic Bush vs. Kerry, god vs. devil stuff to the rah-rah contingent already? You needn't stoop to sloganeering. The fact of the matter is that what Kerry does in the face of any given challenge depends on more than John Kerry. The question is, who would be his cabinet? Who would be his NS advisors?
Frankly, I'd rather have a president who was not too predictable to terrorists. If you think Kerry "flip flops" (I think he continually adjusts his viewpoint to account for new information) then maybe he should be your man. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2333
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 1:42 pm: | |
Strategically being unpredictable to terrorists is OK. Being unpredictable isn't very good if your own troops can't count on you, or your voting public.
Any new information that causes Kerry to 'adjust' comes in the form of polls. Kerry adjusts his viewpoint to that which he thinks will benefit him politically. His position has nothing to do with what he feels is the long term interests of this country. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 796
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 1:46 pm: | |
KErry is VERY predictable to terrorists. They know he doesn't have the fortitude to keep pressure up on them in a long and protracted battle.
Mount up casualties and he will run the other way as soon as public opinion shifts. Public opinion is often wrong.
Kerry doesn't "continually adjusts his viewpoint to account for new information" That would be fine. What he does is spout a viewpoint that he believes you want to hear at any given time ONLY TO GAIN POLITICAL ADVANTAGE.
Take the Israeli wall, The Iraq War, Cambodia, Gay Marriage, or any of his positions. He doesn't simply change based on new information, he changes based on what is politically correct at the time and depending on who he is talking to.
The only thing you can count on about Kerry is that you can't count on him.
As for his cabinet, I don't know, but if he chooses them, I would be afraid, very afraid. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 2782
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 2:09 pm: | |
Terrorists think that Bush has fortitude to keep pressure up on them? Terrorists are feeling pressured? You think they are scared of Bush?What on earth could you possibly be talking about. |
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 566
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 2:44 pm: | |
Michael, did you get all that in your RNC goodie bag from the convention?
Sell crazy someplace else. -We're all stocked up on rhetoric here. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 1626
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 2:47 pm: | |
Gentlemen, upon further research I have come to understand that our government has been talking with Aslan Maskhadov, a “moderate” Chechen separatist with wide public support among his people and known links to the man who planned the Beslan school atrocity. He is, in other words, a version of Yassir Arafat.
Now, Mr. Bush, who supposedly has a personal relationship with Vladimir Putin, could have offered conditionally to assist in the Russian war against terror. Could have shared intelligence--again, provisionally. Could have attempted to press Putin on necessary internal reforms, and offered quids-pro-quo (and cash), in order to make sure he took our advice. (A few people may realize that our foreign aid to Israel actually helps keep the Israelis from doing to the Palestinians what successive Russian leaders have done to the Chechnyans.)
But it does not appear that we are doing these things. No, we are taking the same route we took to Oslo, and although there is ostensibly a larger contingent of Chechens who are willing to talk peace, there is no reason to think they can rein in guys like Basayev any more than Arafat could rein in Hamas.
You think your candidate does not talk to terrorists? I think the jury is out on that—out of the country, in fact. I think you are far, far too overconfident in Bush, and too ready to buy into your party's caricatures of his opponent. Is Kerry perfect? No. But I don't think his voting record makes him out to be the golem of opinion polls you would fashion.
I understand there's nothing I can say to stay your hands at the voting booth. All I can say is that the important battles this country faces are not between Republicans and Democrats, and as voters I just wish to G-d we would shut party platitudes out of our decisions about how the country should be led. I can't say for certain that Kerry himself is able to do that. But I'm quite certain Bush will not, and I am equally certain his domestic policies will seriously undermine public unity in this country. If that happens, we are lost--and so, by the way, is Israel.
|
Joe
Citizen
Username: Gonets
Post Number: 335
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 2:47 pm: | |
Would have been nice if this president with all the fortitude would have had the kind of attention span needed to finish off Bin Laden in Tora Bora, rather than divert soldiers and resources to Iraq. The attention span problem also exlains how his administration could forget to include funding for Afghan reconstruction in their 2004 budget. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 803
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 3:03 pm: | |
Steel,
You sure are.
I agree, you do have more than enough crazy.
Jcrohn,
Please post a link to your info, I'm very interested to read it. I don't know enough about the Chechen issue, but I would hope that the Bush admin is talking with them to gain a position to learn about their intentions, or to entice them to give up terror ties with both carrots and sticks. Oslo is definetly the wrong way to go.
Israel is lost if Kerry is elected, thats why Israelis and those americans who have made Aliyah overwhemingly support Bush. Its also why Arafat, Assad, and the Iranian Ayatollahs want Kerry elected (see : http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=109 3921794974&apage=1 ). Kerry can't be trusted to keep calling a terrorist a terrorist.
Don't you see, public unity in this country is already undermined. Israel and any of our allies are lost if they can't count on the US administration to do what says it will. If they believe that the US will abandon any exercise as soon as public opinion changes, then none of them will ever want to partner with us. Why would they?
I know there is nothing I can say to sway your vote. Its too bad, you are an incredibly intelligent person whose posts I look forward to reading for their prose and their information. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1034
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 3:22 pm: | |
No other nation puts faith in the U.S. living up to its committments, despite what their governments might say publicly. This is one of the reasons why Britain and France maintain independent nuclear deterrent forces, and why Israel sought to acquire nuclear weapons (which it is now widely believed to possess).
Mistrust of the U.S. is a basic fact in most international relations. |
Addy
Citizen
Username: Addy
Post Number: 233
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 5:15 pm: | |
If you're OBL, you want Bush in charge because he's more likely to be militaristic. All OBL wants is to launch bigger and bigger conflagrations over the globe in an effort to bring Islamic nations together in the Great Jihad.
You're foolish to believe otherwise. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1370
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 6:01 pm: | |
Do you really think that the terrorists spend one second thinking about the differences between Kerry and Bush? To them all American Politicians are the same. They probably believe that elections in this country are just a sham. |
marie
Citizen
Username: Marie
Post Number: 1141
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 7:11 pm: | |
The History of the Conflict in Chechnya
Morning Edition audio
Sept. 8, 2004
The conflict between Russia and Chechnya stretches back to at least 1994, when Russian troops invaded the breakaway republic under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin. Some experts allege connections between al Qaeda and Chechen rebels. Hear NPR's Renee Montagne and Anatol Lieven of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3895353
|
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2557
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 8:06 pm: | |
Chechnya has been on the receiving end of Russian state terrorism for about two hundred years. The recent destruction of Grozny, the deportations of 1943, etc., etc. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2334
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 8:23 pm: | |
Addy -- You basically state that OBL wants someone who will take military action against him in power in the US. Meaning, someone that will turn over and expose a receptical to OBL scares the beJesus out of him.
So, if I know you won't do anything if I smack you in the face, I'll run for the hills. Let's cancel all police, and criminals will stop and personally reflect upon their evil intentions.
No one, and more importantly OBL, believes that. He had that with Clinton, and it didn't scare him away from 9/11.
The reason that France and Britain have nukes is because they don't believe we'd come to their defense despite WW2? |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 1627
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 8:32 pm: | |
Marie:
Lieven is a good commentator on this subject. (I heard him on WNYC this week, don't know if it was the same program.)
|
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1038
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 8:33 pm: | |
The Republicans prevented the U.S. from coming to the aid of Britain for as long as they could. Were it not for Pearl Harbor they might have left Hitler in control of Europe. Without U.S. assistance it would have been impossible for Britain and its allies to invade the continent successfully.
After the war, the Republicans opposed the Marshall Plan and the creation of NATO. Given that they would ultimately come to power in the U.S., no responsible leader in Britain or France would have relied entirely on the U.S. to deter Soviet aggression in Europe. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2338
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 9:00 pm: | |
Monty, you're amazing. Do you teach?
Given that analysis without regard to modern manifestations of politics, why would blacks back democrats when they were responsible for the longest filibuster on record with the Civil Rights Act? (Note -- the Dem party pulled a longer filibuster than Strom Thurmond did, who holds the record for the single longest personal filibuster).
Because they changed? No ••••! You read that somewhere???!
|
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1041
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 10:27 pm: | |
In response to a question about how France and Britain viewed the reliability of U.S. commitments after the Second World War, I provided some basic historical facts from that period, which the leaders of those countries would likely have taken into account.
Responding with irrelevant data and an ad hominem attack shows (again) the lack of a coherent counterargument.
|
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 196
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 10:37 pm: | |
Addy -- You basically state that OBL wants someone who will take military action against him in power in the US.
CJC..maybe you haven't noticed, but nobody's taking military action against Osama bin Laden. My guess is, he likes that just fine. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2349
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 10:40 pm: | |
An hominem attack would have been me saying you're clueless and/or a moron. I did neither.
And my point relating to the current political reality seems to have stumped you. I could have added Reagan's positioning of an s-load of Pershing Missiles and troops in a powerful posture to save Britain and France's lunch should the Soviets get aggressive.
Play the victim if you want. It may work for Kerry. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2350
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 10:41 pm: | |
Madden -- OBL loved people talking about taking action against him. What he doesn't like is people actually taking action against him.
Kerry talks a lot. |
Face
Real Name
Username: Face
Post Number: 374
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 10:49 pm: | |
You don't think Democrats would ever pander to say the senior citizen voters by suggesting that their social security benefits would be in jeopardy if a republican were elected? Do you?
Oh my, what is happening in this world? I guess it's ok to do, but only if you are a Democrat free falling in the polls.
Get used to it pal. Politicians frequently obtain votes from using fear tactics. Look no further than any Democratic politician like Senator Secaucus Train Station man Lautenberg's platform when he ran. He used scare tactics. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2353
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 10:50 pm: | |
Add to that, Cheney was right. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 199
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 11:44 pm: | |
Madden -- OBL loved people talking about taking action against him. What he doesn't like is people actually taking action against him.
CJC...I repeat: NO ONE IS TAKING ACTION AGAINST BIN LADEN RIGHT NOW. We can't find him. We let him off the hook so we could capture the new Hitler, Saddam Hussein. Meanwhile, the Taliban are back in Afghanistan, and al Qaeda is alive and well, and, by all accounts, recruiting like crazy. Tell me again why bin Laden fears Bush?
Kerry talks a lot.
So now your position is that Kerry should already be taking action against bin Laden, instead of just talking? Or maybe he should have staged a rogue campaign in the 90s...one Senator, taking on the terrorists. Maybe if the right wing wackos running both Houses of congress had done less TALKING about Bubba and the blue dress, they could have been TAKING ACTION against bin Laden. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2361
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 2:34 pm: | |
"No one is taking action against Bin Laden"?? Just because we can't find him doesn't mean operations have ceased in that regard. Al Qaeda is going to their bench, which is hardly a plus for them.
My comment about Kerry is that he talks, and that's pretty much what he's done for 19 years in the Senate with nothing much to show for it. The stakes are too high to have that as president. But that rogue campaign sounds interesting. He could pattern it after his successful exploits in Cambodia. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 210
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 3:23 pm: | |
Just because we can't find him doesn't mean operations have ceased in that regard. Al Qaeda is going to their bench, which is hardly a plus for them.
You can't be serious. You think al Qaeda has a finite "bench?" Every day we're in Iraq, the bench gets a little longer. Shortsightedness like that is the hallmark of the Bush administration.
My comment about Kerry is that he talks, and that's pretty much what he's done for 19 years in the Senate with nothing much to show for it.
Keep ignoring BCCI. I mean, shutting down a crooked bank where bin Laden had accounts...that sure sounds like a big nothing to me. For the record, that was in July of '91...before either World Trade Center attack.
Then there was Kerry taking the lead in the probe that uncovered Iran-Contra. But that wasn't really a big deal either, right? Not a big accomplishment like having your daddy's friends buy you a baseball team. |
llama
Citizen
Username: Llama
Post Number: 598
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 3:49 pm: | |
On a lighter note:
How many members of the Bush Administration are needed to replace a light bulb?
1. one to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed,
2. one to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed,
3. one to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb,
4. one to tell the nations of the world that they are either for changing the light bulb or for darkness,
5. one to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new light bulb,
6. one to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner "Light bulb Change Accomplished",
7. one administration insider to resign and write a book documenting in detail how Bush was literally "in the dark",
8. one to viciously smear #7,
9. one surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along,
10. and finally one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country
|
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1042
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 5:14 pm: | |
Since we've moved on to Reagan here, we can examine another set of Republican lies.
The NATO force buildup in Europe took place in the 70's and 80's, spanning three U.S.Administrations. Deployment was planned under Nixon and Ford, implemented by Carter, and accelerated by Reagan. The original decision to deploy Pershing II missiles was made by Carter.
The official history of the Stationing of the 2nd Armored Division is available from the US Army in Europe website www.history.hqusareur.army.mil, along with other material that I'll be drawing on from time to time. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2363
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 7:30 pm: | |
No, Madden. I don't think Al Qada has a finite bench. However, if Carville or Shrum get tossed and the DNC turns to you, I think on balance people would think that's a plus for the Bush team -- just to give an example.
I wasn't aware, frankly, about Kerry's lead role in BCCI and Iran Contra. Possibly because his name doesn't appear when that comes up in conversation, ya think? And I missed the part where he brought that up on the campaign trail or TV appearances where he thought that was a big accomplishment that justifies putting him in the Oval Office.
Perhaps Kerry was being humble.  |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 3829
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 8:14 pm: | |
Cjc: BCCI and Iran Contra were recently mentioned in Christopher Hitchens' "hit piece" (sorry, review of a biography of Kerry). They've been mentioned other places as well.
Maybe your "fair and balanced" news sources, well, aren't. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2365
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 8:42 pm: | |
I don't watch Fox. I watch the opposition. How could your compatriots in the mainstream media seem to have skipped over it. How could they miss "The Kerry Hearings"? But maybe you're on to something. Maybe we'll see Team Kerry screaming "Remember BCCI -- Elect John Kerry." That will turn things around for him.
Kerry might not have brought it up because there weren't any medals associated with it. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 888
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 9:28 pm: | |
Unfortunately for John Kerry, his real accomplishments in the Senate were investigations (Iran-Contra, BCCI, MIAs in Vietnam). Those won't get covered by TV news. Period. They're stories that don't lend themselves to sound bites, or to screaming arguments. They're boring TV, frankly.
Try reading David Corn's article "What's Right With Kerry". I don't expect committed Republicans to turn around and vote for him, but Corn's article is a pretty good summary of why a lot of us think John Kerry would make a good president.
quote:After two decades in the Senate, Kerry has a long record that can be picked apart by competitors within his own party as well as in the GOP. And though he has been re-elected three times, he has not developed the best political skills. He has not shed a manner too easily criticized as aloof or patrician. He has had brushes with smarmy campaign financing. But there have been times he has shown courage, devotion to justice and commitment to honesty, open government and principle-over-politics. There are few senators of whom that can be said. A full assessment of the man ought to take these portions of his public service into account.
|
hariseldon
Real Name
Username: Hariseldon
Post Number: 225
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 11:46 pm: | |
Dear Janay:
Nice try, attempting to repeat the Big Lie campaign used to demonize Clinton and undermine the label "Liberal". It's a recognizes part of the compassionate conservative's toolkit.
|
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 221
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 8:22 am: | |
No, Madden. I don't think Al Qada has a finite bench. However, if Carville or Shrum get tossed and the DNC turns to you, I think on balance people would think that's a plus for the Bush team -- just to give an example.
So you're saying we're better off fighting less experienced terrorists? How much skill do you think it takes to plant a car bomb? Are you suggesting the al Qaeda "rookies" aren't up to being cannon fodder, and taking our soldiers down with them? What a remarkable thing to say.
I wasn't aware, frankly, about Kerry's lead role in BCCI and Iran Contra. Possibly because his name doesn't appear when that comes up in conversation, ya think?
More likely that it doesn't come up in conversation at all, because stopping terrorist funding pre-9/11 wasn't a real headline grabber. If your gauge of Presidential caliber is how much your name appears on stuff, I can see why you're voting for Bush. By your logic, Henry Ford is the only one who deserves credit for the 2004 Taurus.
And I missed the part where he brought that up on the campaign trail or TV appearances where he thought that was a big accomplishment that justifies putting him in the Oval Office.
Yeah, I guess you did miss it. Or, more likely, you had your mind made up, and your ears sealed. You have to get over this idea that because you're ignoring something, Kerry's either not talking about it, or it never happened in the first place.
Perhaps Kerry was being humble
Seems like a foreign concept for Presidents these days, but maybe Kerry realizes there are more important things that slapping your name all over anything you touch. Leave that to Bush and Donald Trump. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 1635
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 10:20 am: | |
Janay, I neglected to provide you the link you requested. Here's one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1299408,00.html
The leader:
The Chechens' American friends
The Washington neocons' commitment to the war on terror evaporates in Chechnya, whose cause they have made their own
|
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 1636
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 10:51 am: | |
(That editorial, btw, scarecly represents the Guardian's overall point of view.) |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page