No, actually, I hadn’t. By “we knew”, do you mean that certain well-respected gentlemen with sufficient security clearance were entrusted with this knowledge? Or that it was common knowledge amongst we who are permitted our information a spoonful at a time? I note as well a deluge of “news” about the massive Pakistani effort to “get” ObL, such effort and sacrifice sadly unavailing.
Not that this is anything but sheer coincidence. And not to suggest that Mr. Musharaff is anything but the most egalitarian and democratic public servant to sieze power by military coup. Or anything.
What if one of the people appointed by GWB, despite the objections of the FBI and the NSA, tried to use their influence as a chairman of the PotUSA’s defense advisory board to arrange for a front for China’s military intelligence to buy the phone company that handles the Federal government’s and the Army’s phone lines?
Would anyone think that GWB’s decision to continue trusting someone like this was a sign of poor judgement?
Would it be enough to keep you from voting for GWB?
Just for starters, does the Bush admin’s refusal to come clean on the cost of the war, who’s going to pay for it, how we can sustain such wars in the future with limited military personel without instituting a draft (would you seriously consider joing the Nat’l Guard at this point?), and its insistence that we can still afford a tax cut suggest, even for a moment, that they treat you with anything but contempt?
Not that anyone needs me defending them, but let me get this straight: the OP asks a perfectly reasonable question (for instance, would a Watergate-type scandal do the trick?), and not only do you not answer it, you flip it around as you say, and make an abhorrent assumption about Rashak in the process.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of the members of this House, and of the American people, some recent, disturbing information about the continued role of Pakistan in the transfer and proliferation of nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
As if this recent disclosure about Pakistani nuclear missile technology with North Korea were not shocking enough, there are reports this week that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is investigating whether a leading Pakistani scientist offered Iraq plans for nuclear weapons. The information, first reported in Newsweek magazine, has been confirmed by the IAEA. According to the report, in October 1990, prior to the Persian Gulf War–but after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, while our troops were massing in Saudi Arabia under Operation Desert Shield–***a memorandum from Iraq’s intelligence service to its nuclear weapons directorate mentioned that Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist, offered help to Iraq to `manufacture a nuclear weapon,’ ** * according to Newsweek. The document was among those turned over by Iraq after the 1995 defection of Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, who ran Iraq’s secret weapons program.
There’re, of course, more possible citations. I hope that this one is sufficient for now.
Huh? I wasn’t taking a shot at Rashak. I was using hyperbole to make a point.
Let me re-state it more clearly:
When one person in an election hold opinions that are completely in opposition to what you believe in (i.e. you’re a liberal and the challenger is an extreme conservative, or you’re a conservative and the challenger is an extreme liberal), then ‘your’ guy has to be insanely bad before you’ll vote against your own principles.
If this election were between Bush and, say, Evan Bayh or even Joe Lieberman, you’d see a lot more Republicans jumping the fence. But John Kerry is out there. It’s going to be very hard for him to pick up disaffected conservatives, just as it would be harder for Trent Lott to pick up disaffected Liberals.
Just because you might believe me doesn’t mean that there’dn’t be others who rather dispute the possibility that we’re actively cooperating with a country that has proliferated nuclear technologies to regimes we’ve determined to be threats to regional stability, has military and intelligence communities with sympathies for both the Taleban and al Qaeda, (IIRC, the current “useless” 9-11 commision discovered that Pakistan’s General Hamid Gul thwarted Clinton’s attempt at assassinations by missile by “leaking” a timely warning.), and is somewhat democratically challenged.
Hamid Gul is a retired general, (and former intel chief), who is a “strategic adviser” to the political party in control of half of Pakistan’s provinces through US backed free elections. Here’s a choice quote:
"we have the nuclear capability that can destroy Madras (India), surely the same missile can do the same to Tel Aviv. Washington cannot stop Muslim suicidal attacks. Taliban are still alive and along with “friends” they will continue the holy jihad against the U.S. America will destroy Iraq and later on repeat the same act of war against Pakistan, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia."
We really need to take a look at some of our strange bed fellows in the War on Terror. Hindsight shows that we’ve had some clearly questionable judgement in the Cold War when we sided with certain other questionable regimes.
There needs to be a serious assessment on the part of the American electorate of current foreign policy with this in mind, IMHO. YMMV.
No offense taken... I understood your example and it was correct. Your quote is precisly the point I want to get too. Kerry aside... does it really take something "insanely bad" for conservative people to give up on Bush ? Naturally most "liberals" think Bush has messed up Iraq and diplomacy too much... how much shit will others take before quitting ?
Am I the only struck by the tone of uncertainty here?
And the bountiful use of qualifiers?
And wouldn’t ya think it’d incite more than an abstention?
Just joking, just joking. I know that these’re literary devices of some sorts. I just found the literal phrasing, rather than the implied meaning kind of humorous
While I understand why conservatives would want to support a more conservative candidate, I have trouble with the idea that John Kerry is the equivalent on the left to Trent Lott. I think this claim that Kerry is so far left (let alone as obnoxious as Lott) has developed simply because he is the presumptive nominee. Let’s face it, when Dean was the presumptive nominee, he was being labeled as extreme. Bush labeled Gore as a tax-and-spend liberal in 2000. And, my guess is that even if Bayh or Lieberman were the presumptive nominees, they would pretty much be being labeled that way. (E.g., they would probably trot out Lieberman’s high rating from League of Conservation Voters to label him an environmental extremist. [Note that his rating this year is artificially low only because he missed a lot of votes on the campaign trail and they count not voting as voting against their position; all the votes he actually cast were in LCV’s favor.])
And, of course, we have no evidence in modern times that even if a Presidential candidate is quite liberal that he would be able to govern as anything left of a moderate. These scare-tactics regarding Kerry being extremely liberal are mainly B.S.