Today Show confirms terrorists want Dems to win

[fossten]

'Today': Terrorists Attempting To Influence US Elections With Current Violence Wave
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on October 19, 2006 - 08:06.

Amidst all the MSM reports about this being the deadliest month for US troops in Iraq in a long time, there was a stunning bit of candor today from NBC reporter Richard Engel suggesting this is not mere coincidence, but a conscious effort by the terrorists to elect Democrats.

At the end of his report on this morning's 'Today' on the situation in Iraq, having spoken with US soliders, Engel reported:

"They believe insurgents are intensifying attacks against US soldiers to influence November's mid-term elections."

Shouldn't it give Americans pause to consider that in the eyes of our men on the ground, our enemy wants to see the Democrats take power?

Perhaps George Soros will sponsor a new MTV series: 'Rocket-Grenade The Vote'.

 

[Mavrick]

Shouldn't it give Americans pause to consider that in the eyes of our men on the ground, our enemy wants to see the Democrats take power?

Just wondering, isn’t the Today Show part of the leftist media idiots that we are not suppose to be listing to because they are unable to tell the truth? Or are they a legit source only when it serves your purpose. With just a quick scan you’ve had this to say about them in just the past 10 days.

“I would also say that we should break up the major media networks like the govt. did to Ma Bell. Maybe they would be more responsible if they had to tell the truth for a living.”
10/12/2006 “Are we better off”

“The problem for all the pretty boys and leggy blondes at the networks, the elites at the New York Times, the Washington Post and the rest of the socialist media, is that outside of their sheltered enclaves on the East and West Coasts, nobody is listening to them anymore.”
10/12/2006 “GOP will win in November”

“Stop listening to the news. It’s going to be all trash. The Democrats know that you will not vote for a party with no program and no probity if you think about it, so they and their media enablers will be running round the clock smoke and mirror sideshows to distract you from thinking rationally.”
10/11/2006 “Democrat hypocrisy in Foley case”


Bush seems to think this may be the case as well as he stated in a interview with former Clinton official now with the leftist press at ABC news, George Stephanopoulos

Bush sees similarity in Iraq, Tet attacks
MICHAEL A. FLETCHER AND PETER BAKER; The Washington Post
Stephanopoulos asked Bush whether he agreed with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who wrote that the real “October surprise” of this campaign season is what “seems like the jihadist equivalent of the Tet Offensive.”

Let’s see now, NBC, ABC, The New York Times and Washington Post you have got to tell me, how can I to tell when they are telling the truth and how am I suppose to do that if I shouldn’t be watching them?

I think that it’s a very real possibility that the terrorist in Iraq have ramped up their attacks before our elections but this has been sliding further and further down hill since Bush stood on the deck of the Lincoln and declared mission accomplished. Other than giving you the chance to use the headline “Today Show confirms terrorists want Dems to win” I have no idea what this is suppose to prove.

Look around you, how many republicans running for reelection even want Bush in the same zip code as a result of the way he is running this war. The number of republicans coming to the realization that this isn’t working is growing each and every day. Mark my words, even if the republicans can somehow retain control (a real big if) of the house and senate a lot of things with regards to this complete mess in Iraq are about to change. If they don’t, get use to hearing ”Madame President” two years from now.

 

[fossten]

Even a broken clock is accurate twice a day. I used the Today Show because I figured even you lefties couldn't ignore your favorite sources. It has credibility with you, yes? But you criticize my use of it. However, when I use a Fox or alternate news source I get grief about using a so-called "right wing" source, so I guess I can't win no matter what, eh?

I love how you liberals use the "many" and "some" and "most" as a qualifier to describe Americans when pushing your agenda. Who are these people in this "growing number of Republicans?" You just pulled that out of thin air, probably because you heard it on one of the networks you just mentioned.

By the way, I hear from a lot of Republicans every day, and none of them say that they don't want Bush in their zip code. Maybe the people you're talking to aren't Republicans. But hey, that makes sense, since you libbies don't normally hang around the nasty Rethuglikkkans anyway, right?

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

'Today': Terrorists Attempting To Influence US Elections With Current Violence Wave
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on October 19, 2006 - 08:06.

Amidst all the MSM reports about this being the deadliest month for US troops in Iraq in a long time, there was a stunning bit of candor today from NBC reporter Richard Engel suggesting this is not mere coincidence, but a conscious effort by the terrorists to elect Democrats.

At the end of his report on this morning's 'Today' on the situation in Iraq, having spoken with US soliders, Engel reported:

"They believe insurgents are intensifying attacks against US soldiers to influence November's mid-term elections."

Shouldn't it give Americans pause to consider that in the eyes of our men on the ground, our enemy wants to see the Democrats take power?

Perhaps George Soros will sponsor a new MTV series: 'Rocket-Grenade The Vote'.

:bowrofl: :bowrofl: This has to be the most rediculous, illogical, unsuported argument to come from the RWWs for some time. In the past, they have capitolized on terrorist attacks to "justify" their argument that the GOP is "strong on terror" and that the American people "need the GOP to be in charge to keep us safe". NOW they are saying that terrorist attacks are an attempt to make them look bad........... and therefore "scare" the American people into voting the GOP out of power???

Which one is it? You cannot possibly suppport BOTH sides of that argument, unless one side is a LIE and you are a LIAR.
*owned*

 

[fossten]

:bowrofl: :bowrofl: This has to be the most rediculous, illogical, unsuported argument to come from the RWWs for some time. In the past, they have capitolized on terrorist attacks to "justify" their argument that the GOP is "strong on terror" and that the American people "need the GOP to be in charge to keep us safe". NOW they are saying that terrorist attacks are an attempt to make them look bad........... and therefore "scare" the American people into voting the GOP out of power???

Which one is it? You cannot possibly suppport BOTH sides of that argument, unless one side is a LIE and you are a LIAR.
*owned*

Actually, IDIOT, that is the STUPIDEST THING YOU'VE EVER SAID.

It is the same argument. The GOP is strong on terror, so more terrorist attacks would attempt to make it look like the GOP is failing in keeping us safe, thus convincing everyone to vote Democrat, which the terrorists actually want, because they know the Democrats would cut and run.

Sometimes you just can't see your d!ck for the pubes, can you?

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Actually, IDIOT, that is the STUPIDEST THING YOU'VE EVER SAID.

It is the same argument. The GOP is strong on terror, so more terrorist attacks would attempt to make it look like the GOP is failing in keeping us safe, thus convincing everyone to vote Democrat, which the terrorists actually want, because they know the Democrats would cut and run.

Sometimes you just can't see your d!ck for the pubes, can you?

No no, Percy. You don't get it. IF the GOP was truly "strong on terror", then WHY are they NOT capitolizing on this perceived increase in attacks to strengthen their "position" instead of blaming it on some conspiracy by the terrorists to "overthrow" the GOP?

ANSWER: The GOP talks ALOT of sh!t about "being strong on terror" but they are ACTUALLY a bunch of SPINLESS PUSSYS who'd rather blame some 3rd-world radical groups for their own INCOMPETENCE in dealing with the problem in the first place in order to maintain their grip on the political power.

THE GOP IS MORE CONCERNED WITH MAINTAINING THEIR POWER THAN ON REAL SECURITY FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

 

[MAC1]

No no, Percy. You don't get it. IF the GOP was truly "strong on terror", then WHY are they NOT capitolizing on this perceived increase in attacks to strengthen their "position" instead of blaming it on some conspiracy by the terrorists to "overthrow" the GOP?

ANSWER: The GOP talks ALOT of sh!t about "being strong on terror" but they are ACTUALLY a bunch of SPINLESS PUSSYS who'd rather blame some 3rd-world radical groups for their own INCOMPETENCE in dealing with the problem in the first place in order to maintain their grip on the political power.

Don’t kid yourself, Johnny!

Like the Việt Cộng, Iraq insurgents are well aware that they can influence American opinion through the American media. They have already said as much—and the media is obviously an all too willing partner.

Clearly, republicans have a legitimate concern when it comes to democrats (or anyone for that matter) using the war for political gain. In fact, democratic politicizing of the war is directly responsible for American casualties both in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result of their continuous political attacks, insurgents have stepped up their own attacks against our military in hopes of further influencing American opinion not only about the war in general, but also, about maintaining a republican majority in Congress. Insurgents are well aware that the democratic view of the war mirrors their view more closely than that of the republicans.

Like the Việt Cộng admitted to their stragegy to use the American media, the same can be said for Iraq insurgents who will also use the media to their advantage whenever possible. Don’t be so naive. This is a fact, not some fantasy or conspiracy theory concocted by republicans.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Don’t kid yourself, Johnny!

Like the Việt Cộng, Iraq insurgents are well aware that they can influence American opinion through the American media. They have already said as much—and the media is obviously an all too willing partner.

Clearly, republicans have a legitimate concern when it comes to democrats (or anyone for that matter) using the war for political gain. In fact, democratic politicizing of the war is directly responsible for American casualties both in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result of their continuous political attacks, insurgents have stepped up their own attacks against our military in hopes of further influencing American opinion not only about the war in general, but also, about maintaining a republican majority in Congress. Insurgents are well aware that the democratic view of the war mirrors their view more closely than that of the republicans.

Like the Việt Cộng admitted to their stragegy to use the American media, the same can be said for Iraq insurgents who will also use the media to their advantage whenever possible. Don’t be so naive. This is a fact, not some fantasy or conspiracy theory concocted by republicans.

IF what you claim is true, you MUST ask yourself, how is it possible that 3-1/2 years into this war do the insurgents even have the capability to wage such a "Tet Offensive"???? The only answer is that this war is being led by a bunch of imcompetents.

 

[MAC1]

IF what you claim is true, you MUST ask yourself, how is it possible that 3-1/2 years into this war do the insurgents even have the capability to wage such a "Tet Offensive"???? The only answer is that this war is being led by a bunch of imcompetents.

Over 40,000 Viet Cong and North Vietnamese soldiers were killed during the Tet Offensive, and approximately 2,900 American soldiers were killed. The Tet Offensive was a miserable defeat for North Vietnam and the Viet Cong. I don’t think it’s accurate to equate what’s going on in Iraq with the Tet offensive, which was a major conventional ‘offensive.’ While there may be a couple of tactical similarities associated with insurgent attacks in Iraq and the Viet Cong, including gorilla tactics and a psychological strategy to extinguish U.S. hopes of winning the War, it’s ridiculous to argue, as some have, that the Iraq War is another Vietnam.

I’m also unhappy with some elements of U.S. strategy in Iraq that appear to not be working. For example, I’m particularly upset with the numerous casualties caused by roadside bombs—Too many! And it appears that many U.S. casualties were caused by poor or insufficient armor on vehicles. I call that “inexcusable.” It’s time for the U.S. to compel the government of Iraq to take full control of their country. However, since I’m not there I don’t know exactly what’s going from a strategic perspective. What I do know, however, is that we can ill afford to allow the insurgents to win.

 

[fossten]

IF what you claim is true, you MUST ask yourself, how is it possible that 3-1/2 years into this war do the insurgents even have the capability to wage such a "Tet Offensive"???? The only answer is that this war is being led by a bunch of imcompetents.

Johnny shows his colossal ignorance again.

Ever heard of Iran? Where do you think they are coming from?

 

[Mavrick]

Even a broken clock is accurate twice a day. I used the Today Show because I figured even you lefties couldn't ignore your favorite sources. It has credibility with you, yes? But you criticize my use of it. However, when I use a Fox or alternate news source I get grief about using a so-called "right wing" source, so I guess I can't win no matter what, eh?

I love how you liberals use the "many" and "some" and "most" as a qualifier to describe Americans when pushing your agenda. Who are these people in this "growing number of Republicans?" You just pulled that out of thin air, probably because you heard it on one of the networks you just mentioned.

By the way, I hear from a lot of Republicans every day, and none of them say that they don't want Bush in their zip code. Maybe the people you're talking to aren't Republicans. But hey, that makes sense, since you libbies don't normally hang around the nasty Rethuglikkkans anyway, right?

I will admit that the only thing that got me to open this thread was you citing the Today Show after making clear you’re dislike for the mainstream media and I just had to take a swing at it. I tried to let it pass and I just couldn’t do it.

Sorry, my post wasn’t meant as a criticism. Sarcasm yes criticism, no. In fact your response to it was pretty much the point I was trying to make. Damn if you use one source, damned if you use the other. I saw nothing wrong with the article and believe it is based in truth. I just think your interpretation of it is off base.

Tet happened during a democratic administration and helped bring in a republican administration so if we are using your logic the communist are the ones who wanted Nixon and who we have to blame for Watergate. It’s all making sense to me now. In case you missed it that was sarcasm again.

I have now reread my earlier post and I did not see one time that I used “many”, “some”, or “most” as any kind of qualifier for any thing that I wrote in it. As far as a “growing number of republicans” I can tell by your posts that you are fairly well read and know damn well a growing number of republicans are jumping off the sinking ship that is Iraq. If you really need a list let me know but for now I’ll just go with this.

U.S. official admits ‘arrogance’ on Iraq
HAMZA HENDAWI; The Associated Press
Published: October 22nd, 2006 01:00 AM


BAGHDAD, Iraq – A senior U.S. diplomat said the United States had shown “arrogance” and “stupidity” in Iraq but was now ready to talk with any group except al-Qaida in Iraq to facilitate national reconciliation.
In an interview with Al-Jazeera television aired Saturday, Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department offered an unusually candid assessment of America’s war in Iraq.
“We tried to do our best, but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq,” he said.
“We are open to dialogue because we all know that, at the end of the day, the solution to the hell and the killings in Iraq is linked to an effective Iraqi national reconciliation,” he said, speaking in Arabic from Washington. “The Iraqi government is convinced of this.”

The republicans that I was referring to as keeping their distance from Bush were the ones running for re election. Me, pulling it from thin air may not be too far from the truth. It seems to me that in past election cycles that it was an asset to have a sitting president from your party out to campaign for you. In the past as it got closer and closer to the election just about every time the president was speaking to the issues he was out campaigning for someone or other. I haven’t seen any of that this time and if Bush was an asset and republican control of the congress is so important to him it just seems to me we would see more of him on the road. My personal observation is that they may be afraid that his unpopularity will rub off on their reelection campaign. So if the “number” of republicans you have talked to are running for congressional reelection I stand corrected.

Last of all, Can we please come up with a derogatory term you can accurately use for an independent? I can see that labels are as important to some of you as air. I would just like mine to be at the very least accurate. I don’t have a problem with the Republican Party in general. I have a problem with this president in particular. As I stated before, I have voted in 7 presidential elections, 3 republican, 3 democrats and 1 independent. We vote by mail here and I just filled out my ballot. Out of the 6 partisan races that I can cast a ballot in it was 4 democrats and 2 republicans. Sorry, my 2 republicans were state races. I would have voted for Dave Reichert (rep) for congress but I’m not in his district. The republican candidate in my district probably couldn’t tell the difference between an elephant and a donkey so I had to go democrat.

I can understand a lot of you having trouble grasping this concept of independent because 99% of the people writing on here are either right or left, liberal or conservative, republicans or democrats. But unlike the Easter Bunny or Santa we do exist and very rarely we show up on boards such as this.

By the way, I did like “Even a broken clock is accurate twice a day.” I may have to borrow that sometime.

 

[fossten]

I will admit that the only thing that got me to open this thread was you citing the Today Show after making clear you’re dislike for the mainstream media and I just had to take a swing at it. I tried to let it pass and I just couldn’t do it.

Sorry, my post wasn’t meant as a criticism. Sarcasm yes criticism, no. In fact your response to it was pretty much the point I was trying to make. Damn if you use one source, damned if you use the other. I saw nothing wrong with the article and believe it is based in truth. I just think your interpretation of it is off base.

Tet happened during a democratic administration and helped bring in a republican administration so if we are using your logic the communist are the ones who wanted Nixon and who we have to blame for Watergate. It’s all making sense to me now. In case you missed it that was sarcasm again.

I have now reread my earlier post and I did not see one time that I used “many”, “some”, or “most” as any kind of qualifier for any thing that I wrote in it. As far as a “growing number of republicans” I can tell by your posts that you are fairly well read and know damn well a growing number of republicans are jumping off the sinking ship that is Iraq. If you really need a list let me know but for now I’ll just go with this.

U.S. official admits ‘arrogance’ on Iraq
HAMZA HENDAWI; The Associated Press
Published: October 22nd, 2006 01:00 AM


BAGHDAD, Iraq – A senior U.S. diplomat said the United States had shown “arrogance” and “stupidity” in Iraq but was now ready to talk with any group except al-Qaida in Iraq to facilitate national reconciliation.
In an interview with Al-Jazeera television aired Saturday, Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department offered an unusually candid assessment of America’s war in Iraq.
“We tried to do our best, but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq,” he said.
“We are open to dialogue because we all know that, at the end of the day, the solution to the hell and the killings in Iraq is linked to an effective Iraqi national reconciliation,” he said, speaking in Arabic from Washington. “The Iraqi government is convinced of this.”

The republicans that I was referring to as keeping their distance from Bush were the ones running for re election. Me, pulling it from thin air may not be too far from the truth. It seems to me that in past election cycles that it was an asset to have a sitting president from your party out to campaign for you. In the past as it got closer and closer to the election just about every time the president was speaking to the issues he was out campaigning for someone or other. I haven’t seen any of that this time and if Bush was an asset and republican control of the congress is so important to him it just seems to me we would see more of him on the road. My personal observation is that they may be afraid that his unpopularity will rub off on their reelection campaign. So if the “number” of republicans you have talked to are running for congressional reelection I stand corrected.

Last of all, Can we please come up with a derogatory term you can accurately use for an independent? I can see that labels are as important to some of you as air. I would just like mine to be at the very least accurate. I don’t have a problem with the Republican Party in general. I have a problem with this president in particular. As I stated before, I have voted in 7 presidential elections, 3 republican, 3 democrats and 1 independent. We vote by mail here and I just filled out my ballot. Out of the 6 partisan races that I can cast a ballot in it was 4 democrats and 2 republicans. Sorry, my 2 republicans were state races. I would have voted for Dave Reichert (rep) for congress but I’m not in his district. The republican candidate in my district probably couldn’t tell the difference between an elephant and a donkey so I had to go democrat.

I can understand a lot of you having trouble grasping this concept of independent because 99% of the people writing on here are either right or left, liberal or conservative, republicans or democrats. But unlike the Easter Bunny or Santa we do exist and very rarely we show up on boards such as this.

By the way, I did like “Even a broken clock is accurate twice a day.” I may have to borrow that sometime.

First of all, your senior diplomat is a State Department official, and as such, could be prosecuted for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Could that be why he's ALREADY TRIED TO RETRACT HIS STATEMENT? He claims that he misspoke and that what he said (for 20 minutes on a terrorist network) somehow wasn't his opinion or the State Department's opinion. By the way, that was part of the same article, which you omitted. So you get a little *owned* for that.

This guy is a frequent guest on Al Jazeera by the way. Very trustworthy. <sarcasm off>

Earlier, the State Department had said that the same English translation of the comments posted on Al Jazeera's English language Web site had misquoted Fernandez, its director of public diplomacy in the bureau of Near Eastern affairs.

"What he (Fernandez) says is that it is not an accurate quote," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. Asked whether he thought the United States would be judged as being arrogant, McCormack said "No."

**********************************************************

A US state department spokesman on Saturday said that Fernandez alleged he had not been quoted accurately in the interview.

Sean McCormack said: "What he [Fernandez] says is that it is not an accurate quote."

However, Aljazeera said Fernandez' interview had been rechecked and confirmed the comments were accurate and the words "arrogance" and "stupidity" were used.


Secondly, the term "independent" means nothing but a party affiliation to me. You seem to want to avoid being called a liberal, but you are obviously against anything the Bush administration does. Furthermore, if you linger long enough, you will hear the guys on your side call us Repugs, Shrubbies, and the like. So don't get your panties in a bunch about the term 'liberal.'

Finally, the terms I used, such as "most" or "many," are terms that are frequently used by ignorant lefties who try to push the idea that the country doesn't agree with conservative views anymore. I knew you didn't use it, but your statement clearly paralleled that line of thinking, so I was preempting you.

 

[Mavrick]

First of all, your senior diplomat is a State Department official, and as such, could be prosecuted for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Could that be why he's ALREADY TRIED TO RETRACT HIS STATEMENT? He claims that he misspoke and that what he said (for 20 minutes on a terrorist network) somehow wasn't his opinion or the State Department's opinion. By the way, that was part of the same article, which you omitted. So you get a little *owned* for that.

This guy is a frequent guest on Al Jazeera by the way. Very trustworthy. <sarcasm off>

Earlier, the State Department had said that the same English translation of the comments posted on Al Jazeera's English language Web site had misquoted Fernandez, its director of public diplomacy in the bureau of Near Eastern affairs.

"What he (Fernandez) says is that it is not an accurate quote," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. Asked whether he thought the United States would be judged as being arrogant, McCormack said "No."

**********************************************************

A US state department spokesman on Saturday said that Fernandez alleged he had not been quoted accurately in the interview.

Sean McCormack said: "What he [Fernandez] says is that it is not an accurate quote."

However, Aljazeera said Fernandez' interview had been rechecked and confirmed the comments were accurate and the words "arrogance" and "stupidity" were used.


Secondly, the term "independent" means nothing but a party affiliation to me. You seem to want to avoid being called a liberal, but you are obviously against anything the Bush administration does. Furthermore, if you linger long enough, you will hear the guys on your side call us Repugs, Shrubbies, and the like. So don't get your panties in a bunch about the term 'liberal.'

Finally, the terms I used, such as "most" or "many," are terms that are frequently used by ignorant lefties who try to push the idea that the country doesn't agree with conservative views anymore. I knew you didn't use it, but your statement clearly paralleled that line of thinking, so I was preempting you.

Here is the COMPLETE article as it appeared in The Tacoma News Tribune.

U.S. official admits ‘arrogance’ on Iraq
HAMZA HENDAWI; The Associated Press
Published: October 22nd, 2006 01:00 AM
BAGHDAD, Iraq – A senior U.S. diplomat said the United States had shown “arrogance” and “stupidity” in Iraq but was now ready to talk with any group except al-Qaida in Iraq to facilitate national reconciliation.

In an interview with Al-Jazeera television aired Saturday, Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department offered an unusually candid assessment of America’s war in Iraq.

“We tried to do our best, but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq,” he said.

“We are open to dialogue because we all know that, at the end of the day, the solution to the hell and the killings in Iraq is linked to an effective Iraqi national reconciliation,” he said, speaking in Arabic from Washington. “The Iraqi government is convinced of this.”

The question of negotiations between the United States and insurgency factions has repeatedly surfaced over the past two years, but details have been sketchy.
One issue that was often raised in connection with such negotiations was the extent of amnesty the United States and its Iraqi allies were willing to offer to the insurgents if they disarmed and joined the political process.

Fernandez spoke to the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera after a man claiming to speak for Saddam Hussein’s outlawed Baath party told the network the United States was seeking a face-saving exodus from Iraq and that insurgents were ready to negotiate but won’t lay down arms.

“Abu Mohammed,” a pseudonym for the man, appeared to set near impossible conditions for the start of any talks with the Americans. Those included:
• The return to service of Saddam’s armed forces.
• The annulment of every law adopted since Saddam’s ouster.
• The recognition of insurgent groups as the sole representatives of the Iraqi people.
• A timetable for a gradual, unconditional withdrawal of U.S. and other foreign troops in Iraq.

“The occupier has started to search for a face-saving way out. The resistance, with all its factions, is determined to continue fighting until the enemy is brought down to his knees and sits on the negotiating table or is dealt, with God’s help, a humiliating defeat,” he said. The man wore a suit and appeared to be in his 40s but his face was concealed.

“There is an element of the farcical in that statement,” Fernandez said of Abu Mohammed’s comments. “They are very removed from reality.”

Still, Fernandez warned that failure to pacify the sectarian strife in Iraq as well as an enduring insurgency would damage the entire Middle East: “We are witnessing failure in Iraq and that’s not the failure of the United States alone but it is a disaster for the region.”

Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed

I don’t see anything here that I omitted that says anything about any kind of retraction by Alberto Fernandez himself or the state department. As far as I see the part I omitted was mainly the demands from that crack pot Baath official. If you have seen a different version of this article please let me know where because I also saw this same version on an internet site the day before this was printed in my local newspaper. If this is not a complete version I will be calling my local paper to find out why not.

As far as this being on Al Jazeera goes, well duh. It says that right in the part of the article I posted. If Alberto Fernandez is now retracting his statements it could be his republican handlers have had a come to Jesus meeting with him. I think that anyone who looked at the article could see that one coming. So it comes down to what you believe his view of the situation is. Is it the one he expressed in the interview or his corrected views put out by the state department?

The guy is a senior Bush state department official who speaks Arabic. I’ll bet they have damn near every Arabic speaking official on as much as possible on Arabic TV. I sure hope Bush is at least trying to get his message out to the people of the Middle East. So please once again if you have the secret list of who is trustworthy or who I should be listening to, when and through what source please pass it on to me.

In hindsight derogatory was probably the wrong word. I was hoping I could get a label that fit a little closer. If none exists I guess I’ll take liberal over the alterative. No, I am not a member of the George W Bush fan club and although I think he is a complete disaster on foreign policy I can’t say the same on some of his domestic policies. If you feel the need to rubber stamp everything he does and you truly believe everything out of his mouth I don’t know if I should be saying “good for you” or “I’m sorry to hear that” because the world just is not black and white. No one, not even me is right 100% of the time.

“Preempting” Damn, I sure wish I had your powers of ESP. I would have one less ex-wife. I take nothing on this site personal and I hope that at least from me, you are not taking any of this personal. I may not agree with you but I do admire the sprit of your convictions. Only history will show us who is right and who is wrong.

 

[fossten]

Mavrick, this is my favor to you. If you had done a little research on your own you would have found the same thing I found. Guess where I found it? Google. But I originally heard it on...you guessed it...Fox News. And I heard it at 6:30 this morning, before the below article was even printed.

Guess the CNN-watchers lag behind the times, eh?

Fernandez Apologizes for Iraq Remarks

By Howard Schneider
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 23, 2006; 8:55 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/content/article/2006/10/23/pmstate23.html

The State Department official in charge of public diplomacy for the Middle East apologized Sunday for telling the Arabic language Al-Jazeera television station that the U.S. had displayed "arrogance and stupidity" in Iraq.

Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department, made the remarks in an interview that aired Saturday on the Qatar-based channel, which is carried by satellite and is closely watched in the Arab world.

Speaking in Arabic, Fernandez discussed topics such as the United States' willingness to talk with insurgent groups in an effort to advance national reconciliation in Iraq.

"We tried to do our best," he said during the interview, which aired late Saturday. "But I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq."

As wire service accounts of his remarks began to appear, the state department initially said that Fernandez had been misquoted.

On Sunday, the agency posted a comment from Fernandez on its Web site apologizing for the remarks.

"Upon reading the transcript of my appearance on Al-Jazeera, I realized that I seriously misspoke by using the phrase 'there has been arrogance and stupidity' by the U.S. in Iraq," Fernandez said in the statement. "This represents neither my views nor those of the State Department. I apologize."

With violence in Iraq spiking in recent weeks, administration policy has come under heightened criticism -- including an assessment by Army Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV last week that efforts to make Bagdhad more secure had failed, and downbeat comments by Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

********************************************************

"Republican Handlers?" What's that supposed to mean? That he's being run by Republicans in a dastardly attempt to discredit the Bush administration and somehow they screwed up?

And of course, you have EVIDENCE of this???

One final point. Anyone here who knows me knows that I don't rubber stamp Bush. I've disagreed with him plenty; examples are illegal immigration and Harriet Miers. But that's nothing more than intellectual honesty. I see that you are in favor of his domestic policies. That indicates to me that you may be intellectually honest as well. The jury is still out on that, but time will tell.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Johnny shows his colossal ignorance again.

Ever heard of Iran? Where do you think they are coming from?

OK Percy, I'll bite. WHAT does "where they come from" have to do with this thread or the debate between MAC1 and I??

WHO CARES where the insurgents come from. The FACT REMAINS they are THERE IN IRAQ kicking our asses because the BuSh administration doesn't have the competency to fight a real war to VICTORY like you shrubbies claim. The fact that the majority of the insurgents are Iran imports only further illustrates the GOP incompetence in picking them off at the Iraq borders.

As I have stated before, STEP UP OR STEP OFF and let someone with real balls finish the job in Iraq. GW, Cheney and Rummy are only full of hot air. All talk and no bite.

 

[Mavrick]

Mavrick, this is my favor to you. If you had done a little research on your own you would have found the same thing I found. Guess where I found it? Google. But I originally heard it on...you guessed it...Fox News. And I heard it at 6:30 this morning, before the below article was even printed.

Guess the CNN-watchers lag behind the times, eh?

Fernandez Apologizes for Iraq Remarks

By Howard Schneider
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 23, 2006; 8:55 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/content/article/2006/10/23/pmstate23.html

The State Department official in charge of public diplomacy for the Middle East apologized Sunday for telling the Arabic language Al-Jazeera television station that the U.S. had displayed "arrogance and stupidity" in Iraq.

Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department, made the remarks in an interview that aired Saturday on the Qatar-based channel, which is carried by satellite and is closely watched in the Arab world.

Speaking in Arabic, Fernandez discussed topics such as the United States' willingness to talk with insurgent groups in an effort to advance national reconciliation in Iraq.

"We tried to do our best," he said during the interview, which aired late Saturday. "But I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq."

As wire service accounts of his remarks began to appear, the state department initially said that Fernandez had been misquoted.

On Sunday, the agency posted a comment from Fernandez on its Web site apologizing for the remarks.

"Upon reading the transcript of my appearance on Al-Jazeera, I realized that I seriously misspoke by using the phrase 'there has been arrogance and stupidity' by the U.S. in Iraq," Fernandez said in the statement. "This represents neither my views nor those of the State Department. I apologize."

With violence in Iraq spiking in recent weeks, administration policy has come under heightened criticism -- including an assessment by Army Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV last week that efforts to make Bagdhad more secure had failed, and downbeat comments by Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

********************************************************

"Republican Handlers?" What's that supposed to mean? That he's being run by Republicans in a dastardly attempt to discredit the Bush administration and somehow they screwed up?

And of course, you have EVIDENCE of this???

One final point. Anyone here who knows me knows that I don't rubber stamp Bush. I've disagreed with him plenty; examples are illegal immigration and Harriet Miers. But that's nothing more than intellectual honesty. I see that you are in favor of his domestic policies. That indicates to me that you may be intellectually honest as well. The jury is still out on that, but time will tell.

It looks to me like we were looking at two different articles. Mine was in the local Sunday paper here. On Sundays that is my only source of news during the NFL season because the rest of the day I have a recliner fasten to my ass. So I had not yet seen the last article you posted here. Yours if it’s complete and I assume that it is only deals with the “arrogance and stupidity” remark not the substance of what he said. I just wanted to point out that I did not omit anything from the article I was using as my source as you were accusing me of doing.

By “republican handlers” I meant the people he is dependent upon for continued employment. I know that if I accused the people above me at my job of “arrogance and stupidity” I could expect a visit from someone who may request that I clarify my remarks or maybe I should look for other employment. I would probably request the same from the people that work below me as well. So of course I have no EVIDENCE. I thought it was clear that was my own possible theory.

Take out the “arrogance and stupidity” remark (the only thing he is retracting in the article you posted here) and all the crap the Baath crack pot was demanding and reread what Alberto Fernandez was saying. Basically, it’s we have gone about this the wrong way and we need a course correction so to speak. That’s what I’ve been saying for the last 10 days or so here.

For the record I said this about Bush “although I think he is a complete disaster on foreign policy I can’t say the same on SOME of his domestic policies” that was SOME, now in capitol letters.

As far as the rubber stamp crack, I stand corrected. I’ve only been here less than 2 weeks and I guess I just haven’t seen your left wing side yet.

Last but not least as far as the jury still being out on me being “intellectually honest” I will take that as evidence of an somewhat open mind and hope for us all. Thank you for the debate.