...thus, the enemy continues building nuclear weapons unfettered by any serious opposition from the free world.

Posted by: livefreeordie! at December 17, 2007 12:13 PM

I'm pretty certain we can defeat the jihadis. I'm not sure we can defeat the CIA.......

Posted by: n.a. palm at December 17, 2007 12:16 PM

The NIE report has a bad odour to it.

Posted by: dgene at December 17, 2007 12:20 PM

Also reported today was that Russia has shipped the first part of fuel rods purchased by Iran. Which begs the question, what about all the uranium they were enriching for "peaceful" purposes?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317067,00.html

Posted by: Kevin at December 17, 2007 12:32 PM

Hard to say that the poison monkey is wrong on this one.

I mean, if it's not a declaration of surrender then what is it?

Posted by: joeblough at December 17, 2007 12:32 PM

As long as we're saying that the CIA/NSA are merely incompetent, and that our politicians have agendas other than protecting their own constituents, I have nothing to add.

Posted by: special_guest at December 17, 2007 12:50 PM

President Monkeyman should send a Christmas fruitcake to Washington for this gift. It would be rather appropriate.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 17, 2007 12:55 PM

We are setting up Israel as the fall guy again. They are being pushed into a corner, and will be forced into action ala the strike on Saddam's Osirak nuclear facility in 1981.

An attack now on a facility with fuel and uranium stockpiles will result in a spread of contamiation. The Osirak reactor had no fuel.

Posted by: Pelayo at December 17, 2007 12:58 PM

Iran says U.S. report a "declaration of surrender"

Yeah, if we were all asleep and not paying attention, but that is not the case. The monkey man is playing poker, plain and simple. Do we have the poker face to beat him at his own game? I say we do.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 17, 2007 12:59 PM

Although "old wobbly" (George W.-the "W" stands for wobbly- Bush) did indeed and disgracefully wimp out in the fight to defend western civilization, and at the worst possible time in human history for any individual to do such a thing, the American people are NOT going to follow this man's (utterly pathetic) example.

Yeah, we're down (at the moment).

But, no, we're not out!

Posted by: pythagoras at December 17, 2007 1:00 PM

Pelayo

In addition to the potential spread of contaminants there is the issue of proximity of these sites in Iran to residential neighborhoods.

Like Hamas who fire rockets from schools and playgrounds, and insurgents in Iraq who attack from within mosques given special protective cover under rules of engagement, the mullahs have, in true Islamic cowardly fashion, built these facilities under and within residential neighborhoods.

Posted by: USorThem at December 17, 2007 1:14 PM

I can see why the achman says it is a surrender. But, it is a surrender by everyone but us. I don't know what he hears when Bush speaks but Bush is still pushing for sanctions against him, has told us all that he basically doesn't believe they stopped their nuclear armament, and said that the achman is dangerous (and I include the mullahs too as being dangerous).

I view this as just crud from a puke trying to do a 'one up-manship' on who he views as is enemies. It is only garbage from his mouth. (I guess it would be news if garbage didn't spew from his cake hole)

Posted by: R_not at December 17, 2007 1:23 PM

I have heard “W” called a lot of things, incoherent, stupid, stubborn – but “wobbley”? After pursuing Iraq against overwhelming political pressure, staying the course when most Americans and the world were screaming at him to “change course” - now he is “wobbly”?

I am eagerly awaiting the mental gymnastics you will have to perform to justify that statement.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at December 17, 2007 1:31 PM

The NIE reports suggests to our “allies” in Europe and the Middle East that we are not going to unilaterally stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program. So who has more to lose should Iran develop nuclear weapons, the Arab kingdoms and de-militarized Europe or USA? The NIE report forces the hand of these nations which have spent the last seven years castigating practically everything the US did in the Middle East. The ball is returned to their court. If they do not want a nuclear armed Iran, they themselves will have to take action. The NIE tells them that they can no longer hide behind the military might of the US while publicly condemning us.

Posted by: Alek at December 17, 2007 2:00 PM

davegreybeard:

When Bush's adminstration permits the US Department of Education to award SAUDI citizens scholarships for pilot training in the US (which it did, it may even have been THEIR idea) and there was an article on JIHAD WATCH about this, when it prosecutes US border security agents for basically what amounts to doing their job and policing the border from thugs(which possibly includes Islamic jihadists), actively campaigns for the creation of a Palestinian nation-state presently run by a terrorist organization known as HAMAS (whatever happened to the war against terrorists?????)and all the while actually allocating hundreds of millions of taxpayers' monies to do this largely without their consent, and endorses HILLARY CLINTON for President we have to wonder. Sounds pretty doggone wobbly to me...

And all that's just for starters.

Posted by: pythagoras at December 17, 2007 2:23 PM

Iran says U.S. report a "declaration of surrender".

They're right. I couldn't have described it better myself. Shame on us.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at December 17, 2007 2:34 PM

Spirit of 1683:

That's Bush and Co. talking-- NOT the US public. I personally don't know of anyone who believes that report.

Posted by: pythagoras at December 17, 2007 2:45 PM

So is he basically sayin that we, the U.S. have surrendered or submitted to Islam?

Posted by: Stinkyinfidel at December 17, 2007 3:00 PM

Armandhandjob, a "declaration of surrender"? Maybe, but don't count your imams before they come flying out of that well. By the way, be sure to stock up on sunscreen before deploying your peaceful atomic energy, just in case someone returns the favor.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at December 17, 2007 3:08 PM

Pythagoras says:

Spirit of 1683:

That's Bush and Co. talking-- NOT the US public. I personally don't know of anyone who believes that report.

You and your fellow Americans and infidels who value democracy and freedom can criticise it and refuse to believe it, but can do little else. Those who produced that report will remain in their posts. And at the next US Presidential Elections, you will simply be exchanging one set of folks who believe in that report for another with an equal belief in it. Unfortunately, events have to prove us right, and it will be too late by then.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at December 17, 2007 3:11 PM

Iran says U.S. report a "declaration of surrender"
......................

Awfully strange rhetoric, isn't it, for a nation that has supposedly just been absolved of spurious claims that their actions were aggressive?

Posted by: gravenimage at December 17, 2007 3:25 PM

DaveGreyBeard -

Pythagorus is right. This is no forum upon which to praise President Bush. President Bush cannot talk, write, or speak. Further, it appears that he does not comprehend those words (written for him by others) that he does bumble. He is just pathetic - unable to distinguish friend from foe at home or abroad.

Profound confusion is the hallmark of this president. (cf: Condoleeza Rice is his mascot)

Posted by: Havoc at December 17, 2007 3:29 PM

"You are either with us or against us"

He is friends with the Sauds and supporting a Pali terror state. That is the definition of wobbley.

Posted by: Elric66 at December 17, 2007 3:35 PM

I saw a bumper sticker today it said:

JANUARY 20, 2009 - THE END OF AN ERROR.

Posted by: Pelayo at December 17, 2007 3:37 PM

I've been chastised before for saying this, by no less than Hugh, but for all the criticisms heaped on George W. Bush, do any of us believe that our current crop of political "leaders" would be any more willing to take on Iran, its mullahs, the Saudis, etc while our economy is so dependent on their oil? We have a Congress that talks ad nauseum about being energy independent but refuses to allow drilling in ANWR, off our coasts, etc. It's okay for other countries to destroy their environments so we can buy their oil while we preserve our forests, etc? I'd rather we increased our drilling as our environmental controls exist unlike in Russia. But our political "leaders" don't see it that way. So just overnight we all start driving cars powered by the wind, howabout our trucking and rail freight industries? We have environmental weenies who cry about drilling in our national forests, etc. but they always seem to support the expansion of some ski resort... Or the complaints that W said we arent' sacrificing like we did during World War 2. Well, this war isn't quite the same as that one and I believe our economy and innovations since the 1940s preclude women having to save their urine. Do we really think the vast majority of Americans would be willing to sacrifice as was done sixty years ago when most people walked and didn't drive, etc?
I don't know what the answer is to dealing with all these Islamic threats without a major economic catastrophe that this country as a whole is unwilling to support.

Posted by: HOV Dummy at December 17, 2007 3:50 PM

Green Iran. The Islamic Republic of Iran is only taking the lead on global warming (sorry climate change)by switching to nuclear power from fossil fuels. They have taken the lead recently on human rights with Hugo and are now only joining the Gore planetary emergency crisis. We will soon be paying carbon taxes directly to the Mullahs.
Why have a nuclear program when all the pieces are noew available online at the AQ Khan / Chinese Communist Nuclear Super Store.
Let us join together and welcome the Mahdi's Hajj visit to Mecca.

Posted by: Ahmadinejew at December 17, 2007 4:13 PM

gravenimage, good point.

Posted by: special_guest at December 17, 2007 4:15 PM

I saw a bumper sticker today it said:
JANUARY 20, 2009 - THE END OF AN ERROR.

Posted by: Pelayo

Interesting, a error? Would Kerry have fixed this, or Al Gore? Everything would be just going super if it had went different?

Cheap, bumper sticker folly.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at December 17, 2007 4:35 PM

Military historian James F. Dunnigan post.

"It's interesting that within days of the NIE, Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a "liberal" cleric who served as President of Iran in 1989-2007, and was elected Chairman of the Assembly of Experts, the senior religious authority in the country, made a public speech at a university condemning many of Ahmadinejad's policies, a thing that would not have occurred just a few weeks ago."

"Ahmadinejad had a cause which he could use to rally popular support against foreign attempts to interfere in his country's "right" to develop and use nuclear power.

With that issue gone, Ahmadinejad, already having problems with the country's conservative religious leadership and its liberal, generally pro-Western middle class and academic community, over his adventurism, inept economic management, radical policies, and increasing curbs on civil liberties, no longer has a patriotic stick"

"in the absence of a foreign "threat" which he can use to rally jingoistic nationalism, he has to focus on domestic issues, his political influence will inevitably decline."

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20071217.aspx

Posted by: Rob at December 17, 2007 4:47 PM

So we imposed sanctions on Saddam, which created wealth for him and most of the U.N. officials hired to provide oversight, then we invaded (with the minimum force necessary so as not to offend), quit when we had Saddam, but not the population, let the imams dictate the constituion, created an insurgency/civil war and created an ineffective government and a population that hates us.

On the other hand, what kind of sanctions did we impose on Hitler and Hirohito? Oh thats right, we bombed the sh## out of them until the population unconditionally surrendered, and then we set up a new government for them, with a mandated constitution. The result? Two strong economies, two long term allies, two populations (that get mad at us on occassion) still like us better than the alternative.

Now how proceed with Iran? Decisions, decisions.

Oh I know. let's repeat the same mistakes we made in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by: walterc at December 17, 2007 5:21 PM

This was a brilliant propaganda stroke!

The NIE report was apparently accepted without as much as a murmur of doubt by the President and the American intelligence community.

All this time, we had been hearing--made to believe by our Government via its intelligence sources--that Iran was working on a nuclear bomb to blow Israel to smithereens. Ahmadinejad said so, unabashedly and that then we--the U.S.--were next.

What to do? Preemptive strike flashed into our minds. Why not? Cripple their effort to wipe us out, kill our children, etc. Rumor flashed that Bush would do something before his term expired.

Then--apparently out of the blue--came the NIE report allaying all our fears: Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon years ago. All its current effort was concentrated on nuclear development for peaceful purposes--energy, perhaps (as if they who are sitting on more oil than they can use needed that). Bush mouthed it, he made us believe that he believed it.

Now, we need no longer fear Iran, no longer concern ourselves with that problem. It no longer existed. Iran was not a menace.

Iran could go on working on their nuclear bomb without having to worry about sanctions. The propaganda stroke--persuading us that Iran had stopped trying to perfect a nuclear bomb but only working on peaceful nuclear energy--was successful.

Not everybody bought into that NIE report. John Bolton said that the "peaceful" nuclear work going on was the one that would finally yield the weapon that Iran was preparing for--they are getting the long-range missiles together to deliver that device to two targets: Israel and the U.S.

Other disbelievers, besides former UN ambassador John Bolton, are the UK and Israel. Their intelligence told them something else: nuclear development was going ahead in Iran, full steam. The line between "peaceful" nukes and nuclear bombs is fine to non-existent.

So, we--here in the U.S.--are left dangling. Is it true, what the NIE report said? Is Bush a willing dupe of the intelligence agencies--the CIA, etc., who have no use for him?

No longer were we certain that Iran is our enemy. Doubt had been sown into our collective consciousness.

If you haven't read them yet, go read the non-U.S. reaction to the NIE report. Better to be safe than sorry, that is, go along with Israel (target #1) and the Brits (probably better intel than we have). That the CIA culture hates Bush is hinted at, and that in this fashion they have prevented any further thought of attacking Iran also.

The propaganda--whether by Iran or the CIA--worked, we feel relieved--or do we? We are no longer as sure as before that Iran was close to getting nukes. So it--the propaganda--did its job.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at December 17, 2007 5:52 PM

walterc:
So we imposed sanctions on Saddam, which created wealth for him and most of the U.N. officials hired to provide oversight, then we invaded (with the minimum force necessary so as not to offend), quit when we had Saddam, but not the population, let the imams dictate the constituion, created an insurgency/civil war and created an ineffective government and a population that hates us.

On the other hand, what kind of sanctions did we impose on Hitler and Hirohito? Oh thats right, we bombed the sh## out of them until the population unconditionally surrendered, and then we set up a new government for them, with a mandated constitution. The result? Two strong economies, two long term allies, two populations (that get mad at us on occassion) still like us better than the alternative.

Now how proceed with Iran? Decisions, decisions.

I can almost hear the fingers drumming on the desk. What to do? What to do?
Somehow, the irony is lost on our leaders. But hey, we wouldn't want to "impose our culture" on them, especially after we go to the trouble of stomping hell out of their military, removing their government, losing thousands of people on both sides…. oh, and watching them "express" their "culture" by blowing each other, and our soldiers, up for the last few years. Yeah, we wouldn't want to impose our "Eurocentric ideals" on them... we'll just let it run open loop for a while and see if a western, pluralistic democracy spontaneously emerges.

How many times do we have to relearn: if you don't have the stomach to win, don't start the fight.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at December 17, 2007 6:27 PM

Pythagoras,

I agree with much of your criticism of Bush, though not all.

His position on protecting (?) the border is absolutely wrong and the prosecution of the Border Agents is an outrageous injustice.

I do not agree with the promotion of a Palestinian State either as I believe this is counter productive in the extreme and comes at the expense of Israel.

I would and to this list his continually espousing Islam as a religion of peace, etc. This just gets in the way of the truth, which the world desperately needs.

I would not characterize any of this as “wobbly” in that he does not filp flop, his positions are consistent. Perhaps you and I mostly disagree on the adjective.

Iraq is one of the things he has gotten right, in denying our enemy a victory and preventing a disastrous American defeat.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at December 17, 2007 6:28 PM

Posted by: Davegreybeard

Ahh, AT LAST A RATIONAL COMMENT
Is JANE FONDA in this house????I don't like some of the things he is doing now, but you never know what you are going to get until you open that box of chocolates, he's still our president and they are still our enemys, show me another politician that would have been better at dealing with the present situation , monday morning guarterbacks!!!!

Posted by: OLD SARGE at December 17, 2007 6:57 PM

Wouldn't it be nice if in our lifetime we could vote for a president we really wanted? Someone stalwart and brave, who would tell our enemies to go to hell, shore up our defenses, write a check for the research to find an alternative to our oil dependency, tell the enviro-wackos to shut up, close the borders, stop incessant spending on special interest groups by our politicians, send Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson on vacation to a destination of their choice, with no return ticket, and let Americans do what we do best, i.e., create, invent, build, provide jobs, all with a nice tax cut to make it worth our while. This would be awesome compared to ALWAYS,ALWAYS voting for the lesser of two evils.

Oh no, I just woke up from that dream. Dang it!

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 17, 2007 7:08 PM

G.W. is just fine.

Had to laugh when my ex gave me a seasonal present of a calendar of daily 'mis-spokens'of G.W.- presumably to bug the recipient.It didn't.

They are great.

G.W. is very bright, albeit slightly dislexic, and he's way ahead of his critics and most all those suffering from B.D.S.

History will judge him a courageous and fine president.

Posted by: dgene at December 17, 2007 9:13 PM

Right with you, dgene and OLD SARGE, I also think history will judge him a fine and courageous president. Though I do nit pick “W” on occasion.

RalphInfidel, I agree that the path ahead would have been much better and easier if we had insisted on secular constitutions for Afghanistan and Iraq. The provisions for Islam as the “State Religion” for both countries will be nothing but trouble. We at least got a mandate for democracy though, so we have a fighting chance at making this work – but we WILL have to fight for it.

So “W” and the boys fought half way up the mountain. Do we castigate them for not taking it all - or do we press forward?

Posted by: Davegreybeard at December 18, 2007 12:27 AM

The one thing that gives me comfort about this whole debacle is the knowledge of the Iranians capacity to delude themselves. They have fallen into the trap of believing their own propoganda. Let us hope that they continue to delude themselves into believing we have "surrendered".

Posted by: HereticInfidel at December 18, 2007 10:09 AM

I would not characterize any of this as “wobbly” in that he does not filp flop, his positions are consistent. Perhaps you and I mostly disagree on the adjective.

Iraq is one of the things he has gotten right, in denying our enemy a victory and preventing a disastrous American defeat.

Posted by: Davegreybeard

--------------------
Interesting outlook considering this is the same W who said after 911 "you're either with us or against us" or the Bush doctrine that stated "The US won't distinguish between terrorists and those that sponsor them".

Does sending millions and millions of dollars to the terrorist Palestinians contradict (flip flop) from his own doctrines? How about the arming and training of Palestinian security forces, you know, the same one's that continue to kill Israelis any chance they get? North Korea? Iran? Looks like a nuclear flip flopper to me.

The only countries Bush seems hard on is Israel, or Serbia, or Ethiopia.

The Bushbots are convinced that Iraq and Afghanistan are going to work....just have to, as Davey says "press forward"....yes that's it...train more militias loyal to Iran or criminal militias how to kill, arm them while you're at it. Continue building the enemies infrastructure, and continue "pressing forward" for a mistake.

But look at those success stories for democracy in Iraq? Brits in Basra handed over control, orderly I might add to Iraqi forces. Problem is that 14,000 of the 17,000 Iraqi forces there are either loyal to militias, or loyal to Iran. They just got armed and trained how to kill more effectively. Same nonsense with the Palestinians, that the US leaders (Bush) continue on in their fantasy land diplomacy.

Regarding the US using sunni locals to fight Al Qaeda....at some point, they will turn on the Americans. The enemy of my enemy isn't necessarily my friend.

Regarding the NIE....has Bush refuted the NIE report? Has Bush set up a non partisan committee to investigate as to how the conclusions were formed in the NIE report to make sure such a vital document was indeed accurate, or at least accurately reflected intelligence?

No, Bush has accepted the NIE reports conclusions, and basically the US policy towards stopping Iran's nuke program was dealt a death blow. Forget about sanctions and forget about support for a US strike on Iran's sites. They've left Israel alone....again.

Taking down Saddam, preventing that country from WMD was important, but the rest has been a mistake led from a fundamental misunderstanding of the enemy. It's also handcuffed them from acting on Iran. Fact is that the US wants democracy more than the Iraqis do....and why is that surprising when Iraqis are far and large Musilms, who don't accept democracy. Their constitution is the Qur'an, at some point the leaders such as the apply named Wobbly Bush and the fearless Bush cheerleaders and apologists will have to realize this, stop chanting Bush Bush rah rah and start thinking for themselves.

Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at December 18, 2007 10:36 AM

Anything positive to offer, sneaky?

Or does your “thinking for yourself” end at abject surrender and ignominious defeat?

Posted by: Davegreybeard at December 18, 2007 1:51 PM

Anything positive to offer, sneaky?

Or does your “thinking for yourself” end at abject surrender and ignominious defeat?

Posted by: Davegreybeard

Well Davey, I don't seem much to be positive about...do you? What originally started out as clear for Georgey, has turned into thick fog that he can't cut through.

Pointing out gaping holes in policy and strategy amounts to "surrender and defeat"? HOw about doing something that actually makes sense? Please explain how arming, and training soldiers of Allah helps the US in any way?

Bloody insane.

Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at December 18, 2007 4:12 PM

I think you suffer from a bit of “Bush derangement syndrome" sneaky – always focusing on the negative, can’t see ANY good news ANYWHERE if Bush had anything to do with it. Even if he didn’t, as in the N.I.E. report (which obviously knee capped Bush’s own policy on Iran) you twist yourself into a pretzel to make it Bush’s fault somehow.

Of course I see flaws in our Afghan/Iraq policies. The most glaring I already mentioned, allowing Islam to be the state religion of these countries. This is not a small problem and will be difficult to deal with down the road, but not impossible.

But I also see how far we have come and the many opportunities that lay before us:

We have established military bases in the very heart of the Middle East, exactly where we need them, right next to the source of the problem.

A mandate for a democratic government, with individual rights including free speech built in to both the Afghan and Iraqi constitutions.

We have battled to victory in both those nations against worldwide predictions that we would fail.

In Iraq Bush has been steadfast against an American defeat, despite tremendous political pressure both from a traitorous opposition party and from abroad.

THE WAY FORWARD is to educate the world as to the truth of Islam and the benefits of democracy, clearly, relentlessly, using every form of media – and to kill the Jihadi wherever we find him.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at December 18, 2007 6:17 PM

Does sending millions and millions of dollars to the terrorist Palestinians contradict (flip flop) from his own doctrines? How about the arming and training of Palestinian security forces, you know, the same one's that continue to kill Israelis any chance they get? North Korea? Iran? Looks like a nuclear flip flopper to me.

Remember ,, money is like drugs to these people, give them all the tastes they want , then start the withdrawl process, let them get the dt's and make a major mistake as in 9/11. What happened after that , two countries down and several targets acquired. Got to play the game to the end, not half way!!!!

Posted by: OLD SARGE at December 18, 2007 7:44 PM

What exactly would a "non-partisan" committee look like? Would it be anything like a "bi-partisan" committee? How would the president ensure that the committee is in fact "non-partisan"?

Posted by: HereticInfidel at December 19, 2007 7:59 AM

Well Davey, why don't you stop the speculation and stay on topic. You said Bush has been consistent....I've watched him contradict his own policies, for years so what you said about him being consistent, wasn't true.

The rest of your list of points were negative of Bush. You claimed Iraq was the only thing he got right....judging by Iraq how do you call wasting men for Islam, for your democracy unicorn a success? I don't see that. If you want to give Bush credit for something, the supreme court appointments were his moments, and he almost screwed those up. I don't have a problem hitting Iraq hard, taking out Hussein, making sure the countries threat is erased, but this extra nonsense has been a waste, expensive in everyway.

Training those who have killed Americans, and will turn on Americans at any time is successful? Arming them is wise? Blowing money on their national building is successful for the US how exactly? How is a fake fantasy world democracy project in Iraq going to fight the war on "terror"?

No sir, I don't blame Bush for everything, just what he deserves blame for, as he is the commander in chief isn't he? I haven't heard Bush rejecting a dangerous NIE report have you? I heard Bolton reject it, I've heard what the Israelis and the Brits think.

Bi partisan committees, as in a committee that has fair mix of repubs and democrats...best you can do in washington i suppose. At least some body of authority should be questioning the conclusions of the report, considering the impact on national security of multiple countries, I would think it would be a prudent move.

Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at December 19, 2007 10:01 AM

Since some of us use so many words to say so little, the rest of us have no choice but to speculate on their thoughts.

Back on topic, to the questions:
“Anything positive to offer, sneaky?
Or does your “thinking for yourself” end at abject surrender and ignominious defeat?”

I am forced to speculate that the answers are “NO” and “YES”.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at December 19, 2007 2:27 PM

davegreybeard: "Wobbly" means vacillating; which Bush is clearly guilty of. This man will NEVER win the war on terror for America as things now stack up as long as he behaves like such a cowardly fool.

Remember that statement he made: "You're either with us or with the terrorists." Hmm. I wonder whatever happened to that. The US government the last I heard was holding talks with the Muslim Brotherhood (the source of al-Qaeda). A group that conspired with Hitler to attack the United States with nuclear-armed V2 rockets during the 1940s.

If George W. Bush WAS being consistent in his war against terrorism policies, there is no way in hell this man would be permitting the United States to give away hundreds of millions of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to the HAMAS (read: Islamic terrorist organization with ties to Ousamah bin Laden) government now in power in "Palestine."

As long as Palestine is governed by HAMAS, Bush's policies should have been hands-off (if he cared about consistency, evidently he doesn't). It escaped his understanding somehow, that a Palestinian state in reality only means a new military base for the global jihad to operate from, just as is now happening across the globe including Lebanon, Bosnia, Kosovo, much of Latin America (and of course his administration looks the other way, now especially regarding Iran or Kosovo).

Islamic terror neither began with nor ended with the Iraqi dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and its removal by the US military. Islamic terrorism is STILL out there and it is still very much the same menace to Americans to the degree it was six years before now (if not more so).

Bush STILL hasn't bothered to tell the American people that Islamic jihadist ideology is the root of most of what we now perceive as 'terrorism'. Still hasn't bothered to protect the US-Mexico border from invasionns by jihadists coming via Latin America. Still hasn't kept Islamic militants from infiltrating and Islamizing our now "secular" government (read: increasingly anti-Christian). These are consistent with the war on terror?? Not to me, pal. These actions spell cop-out or cowardice! From the US government!! God help us!

Bush's 'war on terror' policies have now officially become 'wobbly' (or worse) in my book. And, so is he and almost his entire administration as far as I am concerned.

End of story.

Posted by: pythagoras at December 19, 2007 9:03 PM

You've got some good points pythagoras, I never said "W" was perfect, just a whole lot better than the alternative - and what most people give him credit for.

"W" will be gone very shortly -what are your thoughts for the future? You seem to want a radical change - Hillary? That would certianly be a change in direction. But I'm speculating again.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at December 19, 2007 9:55 PM