President running risk of isolation in his final year

The public has not "largely rejected the War in Iraq." The Liberal media is just portraying it so, with extremely leading and biased poll questions, selective polling, and selective reporting on news stories.

CNN and Newsweek and USA Today are by far the worst culprits. They are nothing less than downright treasonous.

Here's one of those "misleading" questions from the latest Gallup Poll on the war, July 6-8, showing the highest level of criticism ever, and how responses to this "misleading'' question have tracked since the start of the war.

H34. In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?

Yes
No
No opinion

%
%
%

2007 Jul 6-8
62
36
2

2007 Jun 1-3
56
40
4

2007 May 4-6
58
40
2

2007 Apr 13-15
57
41
2

2007 Mar 23-25
56
43
2

2007 Mar 2-4
59
39
2

2007 Feb 9-11
56
42
2

2007 Jan 12-14
58
41
2

2007 Jan 5-7
57
41
2

2006 Dec 8-10 ^
53
45
2

2006 Nov 2-5
55
40
5

2006 Oct 20-22
58
40
2

2006 Oct 6-8
56
40
4

2006 Sep 15-17
49
49
2

2006 Jul 28-30
54
45
2

2006 Jul 21-23
56
41
2

2006 Jun 23-25
55
43
1

2006 Jun 9-11
51
46
2

2006 Apr 7-9
57
42
1

2006 Mar 10-12 ^
57
42
1

2006 Feb 28-Mar 1
55
43
2

2006 Feb 9-12 ^
55
42
3

2006 Jan 20-22
51
46
3

2006 Jan 6-8 ^
50
47
3

2005 Dec 16-18
52
46
2

2005 Dec 9-11
48
50
2

2005 Nov 11-13 ^
54
45
1

2005 Oct 28-30
54
45
1

2005 Oct 21-23
49
49
2

2005 Sep 16-18
59
39
2

2005 Sep 8-11
53
46
1

2005 Aug 28-30
53
46
1

2005 Aug 5-7 ^
54
44
2

2005 Jul 22-24
46
53
1

2005 Jun 24-26
53
46
1

2005 Apr 29-May 1 ^
49
48
3

2005 Mar 18-20 ^
46
51
3

2005 Feb 25-27
47
51
2

2005 Feb 4-6
45
55
*

2005 Jan 14-16
52
47
1

2005 Jan 7-9
50
48
2

2004 Nov 19-21
47
51
2

2004 Oct 29-31 ^
44
52
4

2004 Oct 22-24
47
51
2

2004 Oct 14-16
47
52
1

2004 Oct 9-10 ^
46
53
1

2004 Oct 1-3
48
51
1

2004 Sep 24-26
42
55
3

2004 Sep 3-5 ^
38
57
5

2004 Aug 23-25 ^
48
50
2

2004 Jul 30-Aug 1
47
51
2

2004 Jul 19-21
50
47
3

2004 Jul 8-11
54
45
1

2004 Jun 21-23
54
44
2

2004 Jun 3-6
41
58
1

2004 May 7-9
44
54
2

2004 Apr 16-18
42
57
1

2004 Jan 12-15
42
56
2

2003 Nov 3-5
39
60
1

2003 Oct 6-8
40
59
1

2003 Jul 7-9
27
72
1

2003 Mar 24-25
23
75
2

"Everybody wants to be loved" bush fails to understand that americans who disagree with his Iraq policy do not hate him. Simply, 70% of americans want bush to start bringing the soldiers home and give Iraq back to the Iraqis.

I used to argue with a friend of mine about the Iraq war, back when it was beginning. He insisted that it was the only right thing to do, that we were crushing Fascism; that it was moral, and to oppose it was immoral. It was upholding our (America's, the West's principles) By the way, this guy is a Communist, not a conservative Republican.

I always came back to this: that maybe true, but failure is certain. So then what good is principle in this case if the result of persuing them is disaster, more deaths, more misery and a more uncertain future? I believe in standing by principles but practicality -- peace and the need for survival -- can trump principles.

Unlike most people here, I'll take Bush at his word that he's standing by his principles. Unfortunately his principles are misguided.

The vast majority of Americans polled think the Iraq War is a mistake, because it is a mistake.

Dubya has unwittingly created the mother of all terrorists recruiting and training grounds.

But we're on hold right now while the Iraqi Goverment gets a little R & R while our troops bake & die in the Iraqi heat.

We'll just have to wait and see what President Petraeus has to say in September.

This is a great article from Mark Silva.

Imagine, writing an article headslimed "These Days Some Republicans are questioning his course" and not talking to one actual Republican who says this!

Democrats Leon Panetta and Lee Hamilton are extensively quoted, however, and in the Perspective article the only photo shown is of Democrat Panetta.

And no Republican in the article is quoted as "questioning Bush's course".

I think it shows great journalistic talent to base your beliefs on what Republicans are thinking --from Democrats.

RNC Bruce,

Care to opine on those Iraq War poll #s?

Thank you Bruce.

I'll remember next time to also quote Richard Lugar, John Warner, Chuck Hagel, George Voinovich and all the Republicans who killed the immigration bill.

Bush believes that his legacy is Iraq, that he is right, and that history will vindicate him. He is healthy, has tons of money and doesn't have to run for election again. He could care what the Republican party thinks...he owes them nothing, or thinks he owes them nothing. This notion of his feeling lonely and isolated in office is absurd and is not verified by any thoughtful journalists who have spent time with him. This is a man who truly has nothing to lose by "staying the course." The press needs to lose these articles about
the lonely, isolated Bush.

Impeachment would have gotten his attention...looks bad for the legacy, but the Democrats didn't have the
courage to do that. Too late now. Too late for the next few thousand Americans who will die taking the place of Iraqi draft dodgers over the next two or three years. Or dodging bullets and rockets on the way out as the US finally gets it and ends its occupation of Iraq.
Think the Iraqis will stand gratefully to attention as we hit the road to Kuwait?
Think again. It'll be a total bloodbath, whether we leave next week or 10 years from now.

Doug, I'm not so sure about the 'wnwittingly' part of your statement. I think the whole thing was done on purpose. The Eternal War is part of the whole PNAC plan for continous Republican control of the US.

Doug, I'm not so sure about the 'unwittingly' part of your statement. I think the whole thing was done on purpose. The Eternal War is part of the whole PNAC plan for continous Republican control of the US.

In the ridiculous if not so tragic department, today's news items include descriptions of American troops helping Iraqis secure Baghdad ahead of fears of rioting following Iraq's participation in the Asia cup soccer matches.

Iraqis slaughter each other over soccer and Americans get to lose their lives too
in order to to try and reduce the damage.

The American public is truly clueless.

Alternate Caption;

(Too himself)
"That damn monkey keeps messing with the engine!!"

Next stop, The Twilight Zone

Cheryl,

As cynical as I am, I don't believe Dubya & Company set up the Iraqi situation by intent.

If for no other reason, they aren't smart enough to do that.

It seems Mark Silva is particularly thin-skinned this morning.
Mark, can you tell when members of a president's own party never abandoned their president on certain issues? Can you tell what happened when Clinton was in the White House and the Democrats controlled Congress, what exactly did happen to the Clinton's health care overhaul plan?

Anyway, I remember a column from the late Molly Irants a few years ago in which she vacationed in western Canada and said even in the conservative parts of Canada they didn't like Bush. She said in her column that in all her conversations with Canadians there all of them disliked Bush, yet NOT ONE Canadian was quoted.
Having been to Calgary in 2004 and talking regularly to Canadians in my previous employment I can safely say the reality is many Canadians do like George Bush and support him there.

Nope, not thin-skinned, just felt like stirring a little debate on this cloudy morning in DC, threatening rain here, just engaging, you know? I'll step out. You folks can have at it, please do.

It isn't just isolation Bush is suffering. It is contempt, and a well-earned contempt.

Everyone with a brain knew from the beginning this man was pathetic leadership material. An ex-drunk, frat-boy into his forties, irresponsible countless times, and never holding a real job.

But when freshly elected - through the power of hundreds of millions of dollars and outright vote fraud - and after a national crisis, so many pretended otherwise.

The way this pathetic mediocrity was made to look as though there were some substance to his character and abilities should serve as a lesson to Americans forever about the power of a manipulated press and plenty of money to market something worthless.

With the complete failure of Iraq, and the almost as certain failure of Afghanistan, with the horrors of his incompetent leadership during Katrina, and with the promise of a world more dangerous than he found it, most Americans finally have dropped the rose-colored glasses.

How can his fellow politicians have anything but contempt for this man? Close association with him will almost certainly be a political black spot in 2008.

John D.,

Maybe you did find a couple of Canadians who like Dubya, just not enough to be willing to participate in the little debacle named Iraq.

The strongest message to be learned from the Bush legacy is that mediocrity coupled with brash arrogance in high places is dangerous and deadly. Republicans and conservatives share in the misery of one of their own. They insisted in propelling a man into the leadership of America who demonstrably was unfit to lead on the basis of his deceptiveness, craftiness, under-achievement as a young man in his prime, and record of mis-behavior. They were willing to accept all of his weaknesses, and remain steadfast in their support of him. No one in America wants to see a failed president, but no one wants to support a president who has shown disdain for the Constitution, mislead the people, and refused to listen to people who knew better than him about important military affairs.
We all have watched this man stumble through explanations of his actions, mumble about important topics, and in general wreck the English language in ways that no other American head of state has done in the history of this country. He has seemed so weak most of time that everyone really wonders who is actually running this country. There is not one thing that anyone can point to as a success of George Bush's presidency.

Can you tell what happened when Clinton was in the White House and the Democrats controlled Congress, what exactly did happen to the Clinton's health care overhaul plan?
Posted by: John D | July 29, 2007 11:09 AM

How about the fact that, that is history, this is news.

Say, Eric Dondero, why do you suppose we aren't seeing much coverage of these recent newsworthy items in the "liberal" Chicago Tribune?

BBC story on attempted FDR coup:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/240707fascistcoup.htm
Also related:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auR4RumZEnQ&mode=related&search=

New evidence indicating Pat Tillman was likely killed by his own for his political views:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/28/soltz-on-tillman/
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/26/ap3958728.html

More proof that electronic voting machines can be easily hacked:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072807Y.shtml

Evidence indicating slave labor used to build Baghdad Embassy:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/26/slave-labor-used-to-contruct-us-embassy-in-baghdad/

More evidence the Bush Administration manipulated intel in the run-up to the Iraq war of aggression, this time from his own Director of Intelligence:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/mcconnell-pentagon/

More and more people are calling for impeachment, including conservative Bruce Fein:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/27/hardball-watergate-redux/

And, finally, why do so many liberals, conservatives and folks of all political stripes keep joining this loony fringe movement?
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

There is far too much energy spent debating what Bush might be thinking, why he is thinking it, whether other countries like him, whether he feels lonely or not. It's all irrelevant speculation.

At the end of the day, it's what Bush does that counts.
Does he start pulling troops out of Iraq now or in the next couple of months or not. Because if he doesn't, they are there until 2009. And don't assume a Dem president is going to be able to get them out during a first term.

And if Petraeus' recent comments to the London media are any indicator,
the fix is in for September. Petraeus is going to ask for as open-ended an extension of the surge as he and Bush think they can get away with, and certainly to January,2009. A veto-proof majority will support him.
Congress is as ineffective as Bush is delusional.

That is a biased poll question:

"In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?"

It leads the responder to assume it was mistake since the word was used. The word "mistake" should have substituted with "correct or incorrect decision".

What this questions does show is that the American people really don't think it was a mistake to send troops based upon the informatiopn available at the time (March, 2003). What the American public doesn't like is the fact that no WMDs were found and that their is no perception that things are going well.

That would be like asking this question during the fourth quarter of last year's Super Bowl game:

In view of the facts of the score of the game, do you think the Chicago Bears' fans made a mistake in betti ng so heavily on the Bears?"

"Anonymous," the point I was making in bringing up that Hillary Scare didn't pass muster even with a Democratic Congress and in comparison to today is that history and current events often mirror one another. Presidents have been "isolated" before and will be again.
Look at Illinois, we have a Dumbocratic governor and the legislature is controlled by Dumbocrats. But here were are at the end of July and still no budget and disagreement runs rampant among the Democratic rulers. So, where is the Trib article on the "isolation" of the Boy Governor?

Terry,

It would be one thing if the poll Mark Silva quoted were an abberation or a fluke, but it's not.

It is the norm. It is mainstream. It is the unequivacle truth of how the vast majority of Americans feel about the Iraqi Civil War.

This as the Iraqi Government takes the month of August off as our military sweats, suffers, and dies in uphodence of the failed policies of the Dubya & Darth Administration.

Looks like even al-Maliki does not support what is going on...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070728/iraq-hot-tempers/

"In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?"
Posted by: Terry | July 29, 2007 12:42 PM

What a tricky question.
Are you kidding?

Hi Mr. Silva. Thanks for stopping by. Always a pleasure.

Bush's "isolation" from the American public is so far removed from his loving, warm fuzzies he gets from Halliburton, Exxon/Mobil, Phizer, etc., I'm sure it doesn't effect him. I don't think he's the tragic ruler many are portraying him to be. He's laughing all the way to the bank.

Substitue the word "mistake" for correcty/incorrect and you have an unbiased question. That's all I said.

The poll does show that Americans have grown tired of the war, not that the war ws incorrect in the first place.

Another poll question that should be asked is this:

If the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 had never occurred, do you think the United States would have invaded Iraq?

Amazing what can be done with figures. What the article does not say is that 73 percent of Republicans support President Bush (Pew Research), which the writer covers by saying MANY Republicans are turning against Bush. By contrast, the RCP polling shows ONLY 38 PERCENT of Democrats polled support Hillary Clinton and 25 PERCENT of Democrats support Mr. Obama and no analysis is made about the 62 to 75 percent of Democrats opposing either of these two persons. Why is it that a majority of Democrats do not support either of these so-called front runners?

A "...risk of isolation"? He should be isolated in a cell at Fort Leavonworth until his day of hanging. Just like the despot he had hung. Cheney's knots should follow soon after.

Yet Bush just keeps succeeding(failing)!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6921617.stm

Alternate Caption; Continued:

"Stew! stew! The ape has pulled the cowling loose!"

"Now Mr. President, you must calm down or we will have to land. (Captain, we have a problem...)"

"...and that cloud looks like Mickey, and that one like Goofy, and that one like..."

"If the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 had never occurred, do you think the United States would have invaded Iraq?

Posted by: Terry | July 29, 2007 5:21 PM"

Yes. I believe several ex. Bush officials have indicated that regime change in Iraq was on the table pre 9/11. That's why they were punching the air when 9/11 happened; it greased their lies about WMD.

They knew Americans are very emotional about war and that they could do almost anything they wanted within a certain time frame.

Substitue the word "mistake" for correcty/incorrect and you have an unbiased question. That's all I said.
Posted by: Terry | July 29, 2007 5:21 PM

Terry...There is not an American out there that doesn't know there is a debate about the Iraq war. Was it a mistake? Seems simple enough to me.

I don't believe GW Bush cares about being isolated.Remember,he came from a very privileged background which enabled him to be a complete failure his whole life and still running and ruining this country.

Look at his two daughter's. Partied their way thru life so far,nice and safe at home while their father sends soldiers to die because once again,he failed.

CM,

Thanks for making the point. There are bunch of looning lefties out there that think that the momonet George Bush took office, all he wanted to do was invade Iraq. Some of the loony lefties (ROSIE) even think that 9-11 was an inside job probably to foster an eventual track to the invasion of Iraq.

Hmmm, C Morris, do you know that in 1998, Sen. Daschle, Sen. Levin and a mess of other Democratic senators all signed a document declaring their support of and need for regime change in Iraq? Clinton even advocated regime change in Iraq.
Not aware of that, C Morris? Not surprised. History, facts, knowledge: all factors the Loony Left do not know nor understand.

The majority of Canadians do not like George Bush, John D. And the overwhelming majority of Canadians believe his invasion and the continued occupation of Iraq is highly illegal. Your posts are not truthful or honest John D. Most Canadians consider Bush a corrupt criminal and his administration illegitimate. Sounds like you, John D. have been driving around in circles in your $36,000.00 fully equiped Nissan Murano SUV. Keep on driving fool.
Bush has become increasingly isolated and will go down in U.S. history as the worst President this country has ever had.

Doug R., we come to that reading and comprehension issue you Dingbat Loony Lefties seem completely incapable of grasping.
Nowhere do I say most Canadians support Bush. What I did say, and will say so again and hopefully that teeenie, tiny poor excuse of a brain you have can understand, is that I have spoken to many Canadians who do like Bush, especially in the Western part of Canada, and primarily the Manitoba, Saskatchewon, Alberta provinces of Canada. I also noted that Molly Irants said all the Canadians she spoke to in those areas didn't like Bush.
Doug R., in my previous employment I spoke to over the phone and in person countless Canadians and most of them liked and supported Bush. Also, Doug R., I have been in EVERY Canadian province below the Arctic Circle, from British Columbia to Newfoundland.
Certainly polls show most Canadians do not support Bush, but in my dealing with dozens of Canadians, that was not the case.
Now Doug R., do you even know anything about Canada? Do you even know it's North of us?

Don't lecture me about Canada, Mr. D. My sister in law is Canadian. I myself have lived in Toronto and Winnipeg for over 6 years total. I was in Canada for a week last summer. I spent 10 days visiting the Atlantic provinces in 2004. Overwhelmingly, Canadians do not like your hero Bush.

Well Doug R., you think you're Canadian, eh? I hear that since there is now a leader who has a clue up there, the Loony Lefties from the cities are looking for help. You might want to go back then.

John D.,

I don't suppose some of those Dubya admiring Canadians had a vested interest in some good 'ol $$$USC$$$?

That aside, tell us about their lobbying efforts to get Canadians involved in Iraq? 5,6,7, open up the Iraqi gates, CRNC QWERTY commandos we ain't going... either.

CM,

Thanks for making the point. There are bunch of looning lefties out there that think that the momonet George Bush took office, all he wanted to do was invade Iraq. Some of the loony lefties (ROSIE) even think that 9-11 was an inside job probably to foster an eventual track to the invasion of Iraq.

Posted by: Terry | July 30, 2007 7:11 AM

I don't want to speak for my friend Mr. Morris, Terry, but you seem to have completely misinterpreted what he wrote (or are you being sarcastic?).

He said: "Yes. I believe several ex. Bush officials have indicated that regime change in Iraq was on the table pre 9/11. That's why they were punching the air when 9/11 happened; it greased their lies about WMD."

In other words, the desire to take down Iraq did NOT spring from 9/11 at all, but was one of the guiding visions of the Bush Administration from the minute they took office:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
"And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001."

What exactly are you arguing? Are you being sarcastic? George Bush wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11. That is what we call A FACT, and one that I thought had been well documented, and even, dare I say, accepted even by the 28%ers.

-------------------------

"Hmmm, C Morris, do you know that in 1998, Sen. Daschle, Sen. Levin and a mess of other Democratic senators all signed a document declaring their support of and need for regime change in Iraq? Clinton even advocated regime change in Iraq.
Not aware of that, C Morris? Not surprised. History, facts, knowledge: all factors the Loony Left do not know nor understand.
Posted by: John D | July 30, 2007 8:52 AM

Again, I can't speak for C.Morris, but I think most if not all "loony lefties" are aware of that fact. Are you aware that "regime change" is the official policy towards Cuba as well, yet we haven't invaded? Pourquoi?

The Clinton policy of regime change did not mean that any day we felt like it we would invade with a conquering army, topple the government and occupy indefinitely. Frankly, Mr. Clinton was wise to have avoided the insane NeoCon dream of spreading "democracy" (chuckle chuckle) at the barrel of a gun. Policies that promoted regime change included enthusiastic enforcement of the No-Fly Zone and escalating UN Sanctions.

These policies contained Saddam Hussein throughout the 90's, leaving Saddam in place as a crucial counterweight to Iran. Bush and his insane Utopian followers blew the lid off the place, and have been bleeding American blood and treasure ever since.

This may provide some enlightenment for those interested in learning more about American-sponsored regime change:

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/03/09/cuba/index.html

Bryan,

It's one thing to have wanted a regime change, the Clinton administration wanted regime change in Iraq; its quite another to go out and do it. It wouldn't have happened unless their was a very serious reason (terrorist attacks plus where WMDs were located - thought to be located).

There are probably plans in the Pentagon to change regimes in North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc... (these plans probabvly pre-date teh Bush Administration) and there are probably those in the White Hosue that would love to see regime change in those countries. It doesn't mean it will happen unless given a very good reason.

Sept 11 and the WMDs was the reason for the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003. The reason for the invasion of Iraq in Dec, 1998 was the alck of coorporation with the UN inspectors on those same WMDs.

Bryan, did not Clinton invaded Bosnia and enact regime change there? Or how about Haiti?

"Sept 11 and the WMDs was the reason for the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003."

Thank you for reasserting your position, I didn't get it the first time (sarcasm).
I'm sorry Terry, but that simply is, at best, a piece of the puzzle. Since you continue to willfully ignore the evidence presented you, I will consider you a lost cause.

The main "national security" focus of Bush's first months in office was how to remove Saddam from power (NOT how to fight Al Qaeda; the advice Bill Clinton gave George Bush was to respond forcefully to the USS Cole bombing and confront Al Qaeda-inspired terrorism as the #1 threat to the nation). I assumed you would at least have tried to denigrate Paul O'Neil's statements by bashing the messenger, instead you just ignore the facts altogether.

You are correct that Iraq War II could not have happened without 9/11, but you are simply ignoring the historical record to suggest that 9/11 INSPIRED the Bush Administration to take down Saddam. That groundwork was laid in the early 90's by the Project for a New American Century, and discussed cryptically in the earliest Bush Cabinet meetings.

John Dyslin,

"did not Clinton invaded Bosnia and enact regime change there? Or how about Haiti?"

What is your point, John? Whether Clinton advocated regime change in Iraq or not, whether he engaged in it in Bosnia or Haiti, none of that will whitewash the fact that George W Bush chose to invade Iraq recklessly, failing to plan adequately for the aftermath, and has left this nation tied down in the biggest quagmire since at least Vietnam. There's really nothing you can say about Clinton that will alter that reality, but do spin away.

Bryan,

I want to be a lost cause traveling down the path you travel. If an article from Salon is evidence, I'll look elsewhere for facts.

We see how good of job Clinton did on al Qaeda while OBL was traveling out in the open.

My point, and you simply ignore it, both Clinton and Bush Admin wanted regime change in Iraq due to the WMDs. It was 9/11, that brough about its urgency.

For the 2nd time, why did Clinton invade Iraq in Dec, 1998?

Bryan,

Another source from The Guardian on how Clinton did such a great job on OBL. Also, does that mean the Clinton Admin, condoned torture?

"A British intelligence report says British agents were ready to give the U.S. information about the whereabouts of Usama bin Laden back in 1998 — but wanted assurances that bin Laden would not be tortured. The Guardian newspaper writes that the report states MI6 believed it was close to finding bin Laden in Afghanistan in '98, and again the next year.

Officials signed off on sharing the information with the U.S. — on the no-torture condition. But the CIA reportedly refused to give that assurance. CIA spokesman George Little tells FOX News — "There's really no need to comment on such reports because the United States does not conduct or condone torture."

Bryan,
Your interpretation of my posting is correct.
Thanks. I was tired.

In his mind;

'...and I'm free..♪
free falling...'♬

For all the Canadian lovers out there. And, gee, isn't Canada more liberal than the U.S.?

THE US House of Representatives today unanimously passed a resolution demanding Ottawa end the hunting of baby seals in Canada.

The resolution was introduced by Democrat Tom Lantos, chairman of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, and Christopher Shays, Republican of Connecticut.

The resolution said more than a million seals have been killed in the past three years and over the past five years, 95 per cent of the seals killed were less than 12 weeks of age, with the youngest just 12-days old.

Mr Lantos said this "inhumane practice is far beneath the dignity of the people of Canada".

"There is no real good reason to let this needless slaughter continue and every reason to put it to a stop. We call on the Canadian government to suspend the hunt in the waters off the East Coast of Canada now and forever," he said.

Mr Shays said: "I oppose the cruel practice of killing hundreds of thousands of young seals, as well as the environmental impact of this practice."

"It is our duty to protect and care for all of these animals," he said.

The Humane Society of the United States congratulated the House for taking up the matter.

"Canada's commercial seal hunt is the largest slaughter of marine mammals in the world," said their vice president, John Grandy.

A similar measure was introduced in the US Senate in March.