Posted on 04/22/2007 8:02:51 PM PDT by freedomdefender
I still do not know why I have been named in such a respectful gruop of people: “section9; All; iopscusa; freedomdefender”
since I haven’t even taken part in this discussion...
True on both counts but especially fending off that knat Waxman. I bet she gets all kinds of requests from him...shameful!
Iraq is a big mousetrap / roach motel to get and kill various al-Qaeda and other jihadists who can't "lose" Iraq and thus have to divert and drain their human and financial resources and suffer very bad PR for massacring other Muslims and Arabs. We also get the only actionable intelligence from Iraq through DIA, via captured jihadists and disenchanted "insurgents" and formerly sympathetic populace which is now threatened by them, and need and want our protection... media "reports" notwithstanding.
We are also right next to the last Axis of Evil partner, and Iraq is also a "tripwire" which Ahmadinejad is trying to trip, and might just "succeed" - when we decide the time has come, there will be plenty of evidence of "acts of war" from Iran.
The strategy is very sound - we have a lot more problems in our "unCivil War" on home front, than we have in Iraq. Even State is mostly not freelancing and making the wrong noises at the wrong time - I assume, due to leadership of Condi.
This is a PR move.
“Who amongst us wants to go on the record? Who will say; I could do a better job as commander and chief. Sign you name here.”
“You were named because I’ve been led to believe that the Poles are (as usual) fighting along side Usa in Iraq.”
Those two sentences just don’t mix...
As I have never said I’d do a better job as commander, what’s more I consider Condie’s plan to be pretty good for the knowledge she had at that time... There are several other Polish citizens on FR, maybe you should ask them also?
*sigh*
Here’s an easy way to understand these kind of articles:
First, you look at who wrote the article first to see whose editorial comments you’ll be reading.
Second, you tear up article into two separate pieces - editorial and quotes.
Third, you compare the two, and if they are entirely different, you ignore the editorial comments.
Here’s what you get :
Rice urges Iran to take part in Iraq meeting - FT
Reuter ^ | April 22, 2007 | Reuter
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged Iran to take part in a meeting on Iraq next month, telling the Financial Times it would be a “missed opportunity” if Tehran failed to attend.
In an interview published in Monday’s edition of the newspaper, Rice also denied the Iran policy of President George W. Bush’s administration had been directed at “regime change”.
Egypt will host the high-level meeting of a group of countries that includes Syria, Turkey and the United States in the first week of May to discuss how to stop the violence in Iraq. The conference is a follow-up to one in Baghdad in March.
Iran has not yet decided whether Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki will participate.
Rice also rejected the idea that Washington sought a change of government in Iran.
Her comments were published after an Iranian official said on Sunday the United States was showing signs of softening its attitude towards Iran.
Condi :
“It will be a missed opportunity if he doesn’t, but obviously it’s up to the Iranian government,” Rice told the Financial Times.
As for Syria, another of Iraq’s neighbours, the secretary of state said: “We have diplomatic relations with Syria. And it is not a matter of having an allergy to talking to certain states.”
“But we have the neighbours’ conference coming up. We’ll have a chance to, in a sense, test the proposition that Iraq’s neighbours have more to lose from an unstable Iraq than to gain from it.”
“It (regime change) was not the policy of the U.S. government. The policy was to have a change in regime behaviour,” she said.
“It is very clear in the package of proposals that were put forward would open up some possibilities of economic and political dialogue, even advantage. We removed our WTO (World Trade Organisation) objection so that Iran could apply for WTO membership. I think (America’s stance) is perfectly clear.”
Reading the second of two articles, I come up with entirely different impression from what the author of the first one is trying to imply, or put the words in Condi’s mouth.
Hey, you are reaching 6%, that's not too bad, trust me.
You might double your batting average and save some aggravation (with those who may be truly interested and "reachable" but base their decisions or thinking on distorted, or so-called "sophisticated" media information and don't know or understand the real issues) if you have them read a small article by a Democrat former professor at Navy College Thomas P. Barnett "Pentagon's New Map (Why we're going to war, and why we'll keep going to war)" which was published in Esquire magazine in March 2003, before the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom:
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm
(has very illuminating maps in PDF and JPEG formats)
It literally opened some people's eyes on entire subject, and they've become far more receptive to a different way of thinking, and to media's daily body count "reports".
Such as the millions we taxpayers have had robbed from us so it could be poured into the islamist coffers of the so called - ptuh! -”palestinian authority?” That’s PR too. Or so were told.
no wonder libs think they’re morons
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yeah, no kidding!
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.