1 posted on
01/23/2006 5:54:00 PM PST by
voletti
To: voletti
Pardon me, but does anyone REMEMBER A THING CALLED THE "BUSH DOCTINE"??? Any questions?
2 posted on
01/23/2006 5:56:34 PM PST by
EagleUSA
To: voletti
"For identifying and neutralising the hitherto undetected sleeper cells in US territory, the US intelligence agencies must have the freedom to do a random checking of all telecommunications, including through the Internet, between the US and the rest of the world, particularly Pakistan and Afghanistan. The ill-advised critics of President Bush, by making it difficult for the President to order and for the agencies to carry out such random monitoring of communications, would play into the hands of Al Qaeda and the IIF and unwittingly facilitate the execution of the diabolical plans of Al Qaeda."Unfortunately Democrats are too busy trying to get back in the White House, to pay attention to national security.
3 posted on
01/23/2006 6:03:54 PM PST by
TheLion
To: voletti
It's a balance. Musharref has been generally helpful, but he can't do too much without getting himself killed.
We don't need a war with Pakistan if we can help it. We still have Iran and Syria to deal with.
Naturally India has its own interests. On the other hand, if Indira Gandhi hadn't decided to ally India with the Soviet Union and rally the third world against us, the U.S. never would have started backing Pakistan. India was originally our first choice.
4 posted on
01/23/2006 6:04:23 PM PST by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: voletti
Seems like our Indian friends don't want us getting too close with the Paki government.
5 posted on
01/23/2006 6:05:17 PM PST by
rjcmember
To: voletti
Well, this is certainly illuminating. It's not our support of Israel, or our infidel troops in holy lands, our "filthy lifestyles", or our "oppression of Muslims" that is the problem, it's Clinton's firing off of a few cruise missiles that hit the wrong target. Of course he fired those well after the first attack on the WTC and other attacks, but let's not get picky. (sarc)
I'm glad this article is clearly marked "opinion" cuz it sure isn't news, despite a few unsourced claims about events at people at the site of the attack.
Raman does have one good line: "Bin Laden's warning should not be taken as an empty threat." Gee thanks, that was helpful.
7 posted on
01/23/2006 6:18:38 PM PST by
SaxxonWoods
(Regime change in Iran and Syria is required, and required now.)
To: voletti
Self serving Indian Nationlist ping.
9 posted on
01/23/2006 6:20:24 PM PST by
Jeff Gordon
(Is tractus pro pensio.)
To: voletti
This article is full of complete hyperbole BS - With bits of facts masked within - But on the whole it's premise is junk -
To: voletti
Stopping Pakistan's proliferation of nuclear weapons is more important than catching Osama.
14 posted on
01/23/2006 7:18:49 PM PST by
HAL9000
(Get a Mac - The Ultimate FReeping Machine)
To: voletti
We're stuck with Mushy.
Does anybody remember where the SPOD is for OEF?
17 posted on
01/23/2006 8:04:45 PM PST by
Cannoneer No. 4
(Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson