Posted on 08/14/2005 8:30:39 AM PDT by street_lawyer
The timesonline which is the Times in the UK started out its article in the Aug 12 2005 issue this way: GEORGE BUSH loves his Prarie Chapel Ranch in Crawford so much that he has spent almost one fifth of his presidency “taking the pulse of the heartlands” in this big-buckled, open — if not red — necked, beef-eating corner of Texas. There is no need to tell the “rest of the story” because it is obvious that this newspaper wants American to surrender in Iraq.
The anti-warists, anti-Americans, anti-Israelis will not be content until the American public and the word is convinced that we must pull out. The objective is to make it a crime for the President not to say when our troops will be pulled out of Iraq. As of this date less than 40% of Americans polled believe that the President is going a good job in Iraq, so the media is doing a good job of convincing us that “Bush’s war” is not only lost but hopeless.
Is the media’s plan to construct a timetable for a pullout, and then demand that President Bush adhere to it? Since the President will not commit to a date certain the media is constructing a pullout plan using other estimates to which the press will hold the President: The N.Y. Times on Aug 12, 05 reported that a senior American officer in Iraq put the pullout date in the coming summer or their discontent. Should we look for a full-blown media blitz against the war if our troops are not on U.S. soil come next September?
The Pentagon has had “discussions of scaling back next year”. Piece by piece the anit-warists are doing their best to establish a time table for the President to meet, and if he does not, the chorus of discontented anit-warists will be chanting the now familiar claim that the President has misled the American people, once again.
The (London, England) Independent reported on July 10, 05 that by the end of this year two thirds of the British troops now deployed will have been pulled out, suggesting that the US Central Command wants a more rapid troop reduction. The memo implies that the British would formally hand over control to the Iraqis of the four provinces currently under British control by April 2006. So you can see the construction has begun and despite the fact that the President will not cooperate, the media is constructing a pullout date so that when the date comes and goes the President will have to explain why American troops are still being killed for a lost cause.
Why are they even talking about this in the first place? We need to talk about WHY we went over there. That was 9-11. And why did 9-11 happen? Because of Gorelick's wall! That's what needs to be discussed here.
I'm not surprised by that number - the MSM "more bad news" onslaught has been fierce. I have to search the net to get accurate & balanced (like daily successes) analysis re Iraq, and what I'm hearing is good. I hate to say it again, but Bush's comm team has been fumbling again - they seem incapable of driving the message home to voters re Iraq.
"few administrations in American history have boasted so many topnotch political pros. And seldom has any team of pros been so ineffectual in issues that involve defusing their political foes. Activate the base? They can do it. Power politics? They can do it. Head off political confrontations? They seemingly don't have a clue."
http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1124005409.shtml
Because they are open traitors working for our enemies?
Let's bring the troops home so we can provide socialist healthcare for EVERYONE!!!!
/s
Surely not. The Democrats would *never* play games with America's security for mere political purposes.
Hillary & Bill (2 for 1 remember?) ignored "Able Danger" - the first hard clue prior to 9-11. Then placed Gorelick on the commission to keep her from getting disected re her wall of seperation betwen intelligence agencies.
I don't know who that last quote came from, but it sounds like some MSM'er lamenting that the Administration won't play their game.
Once the Administration engages the MSM in a p*ssing contest, they lose by sheer weight of numbers.
I would also add that for people who don't have a clue, their ship of state seems headed fairly unrestricted in the direction they want it to go.
When the MSM has to oversample Democrats by 10 points to hurt them, somebody is scared, and I don't think it's the bush team.
I know, shocking, isn't it?! LOL!
There is a simple reason to demand the pullout of coalition forces from Iraq now, well in advance of establishing a stable government there. It would fit in with th al-Qaeda blueprint for establishing a new Islamic Caliphate in Baghdad, and from there, consolidate the power of the jihadists to effectively control the world's access to oil.
The War on Terrorism was never to acquire oil for only the US, it was to assure access to the oil in the region for ALL the world market. This includes China (now surpassing Japan in fossil energy usage), Europe, India and the emerging countries in Africa.
Now, more than ever, we have a compelling reason to develop and apply all the engineering and technology necessary to extract Methane Hydrate from ocean depths. There is talk that it may be a decade or more before the methods are economically viable, but a crash program to speed up the extraction and processing of Methane Hydrate would seem to be an excellent middle-range project to protect the world's economy while this period of transition is going on.
There shall always be plenty of demand for petroleum, as feedstock for many industries other than the production of motor fuel. Most internal-combustion engines, whether spark-ignition or Diesel, run perfectly well on methane, or with the knowledge we have of chemical engineering, some tailor-made fuels can be reformulated out of methane, with ZERO sulfur emissions and clean-burning, no particulates at all.
In fact, switching from pumping petroleum out of the ground to harvesting of Methane Hydrate from the ocean depths may well result in PREVENTING future global warming. There is strong reason to believe that rapid global warming in past millenia was due to widespread release of methane into the atmosphere, due to the warming of the ocean water at depths greater than 1,500 feet, causing Methane Hydrate to go through phase change. This sudden release of methane is believed to be one of the phenomena that contributes to sudden "white squalls" or mystery disappearances of boats and planes over the "Bermuda Triangle".
Controlled harvest of Methane Hydrate could well PREVENT these eruptions and the consequences. Of course, there is also the potential for even greater mischief to be carried out in the deliberate release of Methane Hydrate.
The War on Terrorism was never to acquire oil for only the US, it was to assure access to the oil in the region for ALL the world market.
I think it is dangerous to even suggest that securing the oil in any way precipitated the war. If we wanted the oil all we had to do is remove the sanctions. But certainly the oil is safer in the hands of the new government who is not likely to use it as a bargaining chip as did Saddam. You will recall how he set the wells on fire to discourage any further aggression against him.
Methane, yes, also if we want energy we are capable of constructing more nuclear power plants, but the liberals don’t seem to want that. Isn’t that interesting?
The problem of what to do with the "spent" nuclear fuel? The answer, it is not "spent" at all, as some 97% of the energy that was originally present in the fuel rods is still available, but that reprocessing the fuel rods concentrates plutonium, of which the anti-nuke types have a superstitious dread, as it can be made into DIRTY BOMBS, and WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!
The plutonium itself makes fuel for the atomic reactors, and eventually decays into a safe form, albiet more slowly than the radioactive isotope of uranium. The thing is, it is all heat, and heat is what forms the steam that drives the power generators.
For the amount of energy generated, the cost is very low, and the nuclear-driven power plants COULD generate electricity even more cheaply than hydro plants, or wind-driven plants, or even photo-voltaic plants. The power thus generated is used to electrolyze water, that is, break the hydrogen out of the water molecule, where it is collected and used to drive the ultimate low-emissions vehicle, the fuel cell-electric.
Hydrogen is not a primary power source, it is only an intermediary between the nuclear-generated electricity and propulsion of a free-ranging road vehicle. The oxygen generated by the electrolysis is taken up on the recombination with the hydrogen.
The second a person mentions Bush's vacations at his ranch is the moment you know you are looking your enemy in the eye.
You're in for a tirade of enemy talking points.
This is'nt party politics. We are at war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.