]]> stories that appeared on the front page. But Thomas’s claims did not go unchallenged. Dana Milbank. White House correspondent for The Washington Post at the time of the invasion lambasted the book in a review he wrote for the Post. Milbank listed a number of questions from the transcript that refuted what Thomas had said. Bill Moyers skewered the media in his PBS documentary Buying the War. The film argued that the mainstream media totally failed to challenge the administration. Moyers suggested that only Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel of Knight Ridder newspapers–now The McClatchy Group–did their job in the prelude to war. The New York Times ran an article in its International section in May 2004 which addressed the paper’s pre-war reportage. The article which was bylined “From the Editors,” said the paper was proud of some of its coverage. That was not the case in other areas. “We have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been,” the article said. Howard Kurtz media critic for The Washington Post wrote a 2004 article which said that stories challenging the administration’s claims of weapons did not sit well with the Post’s editors. Post reporter Walter Pincus had filed a story questioning the existenceof Hussein’s weapons on March 19 the day before the invasion. But the piece ran on page A17 according to the article. Kurtz said tough stories were written for the Post. They just were not on the front page. Editor and Publisher ran an article on the media’s coverage of Iraq in January 2003. Journalists interviewed for the piece had different takes on the quality of coverage. “I think the press has done well asking questions,” said David Halberstam whose career was launched covering Vietnam for The New York Times. “But most people who have Vietnam in their bones are uneasy about this war.” Orville Schell dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California at Berkeley was more critical. “Newspapers have been a little on the flat side in terms of giving all dimensions,” he told E & P. This paper considers Iraq-related content on the front page editorial page and letters to the editor section of The Dallas Morning News. Most of the research for this paper was conducted at the Library of Congress. Every issue of The News from Feb. 6. 2003 to March 20. 2003 was examined. The issues were viewed on microfilm. A few supplemental sources were consulted including Fresh Ink: Behind the Scenes at a Major Metropolitan Newspaper. The book which was published in 1995 traces the history of the The News up that point. Newspaper and magazine articles about The News as well as media coverage of Iraq by the American press in general were also consulted. - Iraq-related article appears on front page? (Yes/No)- More than one Iraq-related article on front page? (Yes/No)- Lead article of this issue Iraq-related? (Yes/No)- Topic of main Iraq-related article (circle one): (Diplomacy/UN. Military/war preparations. Domestic U. S politics/polls. Iraq government/Iraq people. Other) Editorials and letters- Issue includes editorial about Iraq? (Yes. No)- Content of editorial about Iraq (circle one): (Positive. Neutral. Negative. N/A)- Any letters to the editor about Iraq? (Yes. No)- First letter about Iraq (circle one): (Positive. Neutral. Negative. N/A) Many critics have said the media failed prior to the war. But few of these bomb-throwers have offered evidence to support their claims. They have asserted that the press did not ask tough questions of the administration. Yet the transcript of an interview conducted by the White House press corps as noted above proves that tough questions had been asked of the administration. This paper attempts to answer whether a major regional paper in the United States failed in its coverage. The News is of course a major regional paper. During the ’90s it had the reputation as one of the nation’s best dailies. The News is also in Texas the home state of President Bush. The editorial page of The News endorsed Bush in 200021 and 2004. Perhaps the greatest test for a newspaper is the quality of its coverage during wartime. Coverage leading up to war is also crucial. The News and other American newspapers had a responsibility to supply the public with the best information they could provide. American lives were at stake. They still are. Many in the U. S. — and elsewhere in the world — view the war in Iraq as the major issue of the time. Whether that’s the case few can doubt the war has enormous implications for the future of the Middle East and the legacy of President Bush. Findings- 43 issues featured Iraq-related articles on front page- 14 issues featured more than one Iraq-related article on front page- 21 lead articles on front page were Iraq-related- 10 Iraq-related editorials appeared on editorial page- 10 Iraq-related editorials supported case for war- 36 issues featured one or more Iraq-related letters to the editorials- 21 issues featured anti-war letters in a prominent position in letters section A Feb. 10 article taken from The Washington Post addressed the call by France and Germany to send more U. N weapons inspectors into Iraq. Three days later an article appeared concerning the anger many Americans felt over France and Germany’s position vis-a-vis Iraq. Many Americans called for a boycott of French goods at the time. Bush delivered a harsh rebuke to the United Nations in a Feb. 14 front-page article. The president told the U. N. Security Council to show “backbone” and “courage,” or they would “fade into history as an ineffective irrelevant debating society.” Five days later the paper ran a lead article in which Bush said that “leadership sometimes involved bucking public opinion.” The paper’s lead article on Feb. 17 addressed the debate among Arab intellectuals over the war in Iraq. The piece offered a mix of perspectives. Some of the voices interviewed doubted the motives of the U. S. “Many Arab intellectuals fear Iraq is only one in a series of regime changes contemplated by the Bush administration,” the article said. Another article addressing the possible consequences of war in the Middle East appeared on March 4. Gregory Katz reporting from the paper’s Europe Bureau said there were concerns in the Middle East that the violence could spread to other countries. He also noted the rise of anti-Americanism in the region in recent years. The post-war plans of the Bush administration were the subject of a Feb. 21 article taken from The Washington Post. The article said the administration planned to assume full control of a post-Hussein Iraq. An American civilian the article said would oversee reconstruction and the creation of a democratic government. Secretary of State Colin Powell charged Hussein with deception in a March 6 lead article. The U. S asked the U. N. Security Council to set a 10-day deadline in a March 8 article. The lead article on March 9 warned that the war in Iraq could worsen relations between the U. S and other countries. A front-page article that appeared two days later written by Gregory Katz from the Europe Bureau suggested the debate over war had hurt relations between Britain and France. Another diplomacy article appeared four days before the invasion which quoted several political analysts who criticized the president for his bull-headed approach. “Now they’re having their hard-nosed unsentimental foreign policy thrown back in their face,” said James Lindsay a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution in reference to the U. N.’s refusal to authorize the invasion. The next day an article appeared in which the U. S blamed France for its problems at the U. N. On Feb. 16 the paper ran editorial which stated that Hussein had failed to comply with the U. N Security Council resolution to disarm. Ignoring Iraq’s non-compliance the editorial said could allow the “possibility that Iraq could use its artfully concealed weapons to wreak murder on an unprecedented scale.” Though the editorial page supported the war it did not always champion the diplomatic efforts of the Bush administration. A Feb. 18 editorial urged the Bush administration to improve public relations with Europe. It also admonished the harsh rhetoric of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who it claimed had created a sense of division among the U. S and several allies. A Feb. 22 editorial urged Mexico to vote with the U. S on Iraq. Until then. Mexico had said that U. N weapons inspections should continue in Iraq. A vote against the United States on the issue could strain relations between the two countries the paper warned. The editorial page addressed the deteriorating relations between the United States and France on Feb. 26. The editorial said France was wrong to call for more inspections. But the editorial wasn’t entirely anti-French. “France’s supposition that war could stir up a hornet’s nest of Islamist terrorism could yet prove prophetic,” the editorial said. The piece also urged Americans not to turn France into a “caricature.” A March 8 editorial claimed the war was “inevitable,” as Iraq could not fully disarm by the March 17 deadline. An editorial that appeared one week later said it would be best to have authorization by the U. N Security Council before invading. But failing that the invasion was still warranted. An editorial that ran on March 19 sought to correct the assumption that United States would “go it alone” in Iraq. The editorial noted the contribution being made by Britain. Australia and Poland among others. The editorial also chastised Bush for his diplomatic efforts in the run-up to the invasion saying he had “created the impression of an arrogant self-interested and blustery power.” The March 20 editorial blamed Hussein for the war. “The United States did not choose this war: Saddam Hussein thrust this war upon it through his persistent defiance,” the editorial said. The editorial noted that the war marked a turning point in world diplomacy. Nations would launch pre-emptive strikes in the future rather than waiting for the enemy to attack it said. It also said the coalition forces should make Iraq a model of democracy for other Middle East countries. Most of the letters to the editor depicted anti-war voices. Mike Hashimoto assistant editorial page editor for The News said in an e-mail interview that the paper’s general letter policy is to publish letters in proportion to the amount received. A Feb. 26 letter written by a French women said France was still fond of America but called the boycott on French goods unnecessary. She said she supported Chirac’s stance on Iraq saying the Iraq war “may eventually prove unnecessary.” A March 15 editorial lamented that the Dixie Chicks a popular country music group were from Texas. During a concert in London a few days before lead singer Natalie Maines had told the crowd that the group was ashamed that President Bush was also from Texas. The writer said he used to be a big fan of the group but now he would boycott them. The Dallas Morning News did not fail completely in its coverage leading up to the invasion of Iraq as many critics have alleged. However the paper could have incorporated more viewpoints on the front page as well as devoted more coverage to other Iraq topics including post-war planning and the invasion’s possible implications for the greater Middle East. For that reason the paper gets a mere passing grade. The same held true for The News. Most of the stories involving the U. N battle were written by reporters in the paper’s Washington bureau. And most of the articles focused on whether the U. N. Security Council should be allowed more time for weapons inspections. France and Germany had called for more time while the U. S said inspections had failed. Articles of this kind succeeded in showing both sides of the argument. An Iraq-related related article appeared on the front page of the paper every day for six weeks prior to the invasion. So The News was definitely not asleep. They devoted a wealth of coverage to the issue. It can be assumed that the Iraq articles they ran during that time were deemed to be the most important of the day by the editors. There were few articles on the front page that showed different points of view. A story about the debate among Arab intellectuals was written by Jim Landers of the paper’s Washington bureau. But there could have been more. The paper could also have devoted more coverage to post-war plans. One front-page article from The Washington Post was not sufficient. The administration had announced it would assume full control of Iraq once Hussein had been deposed. The subject warranted closer inspection. How would it work? What were the specifics? Gregory Katz reporting out of the paper’s Europe bureau wrote a March 4 article on the possibility of the invasion inciting violence in other parts of the Middle East. Katz was the only reporter based overseas filing reports on Iraq that appeared on the front page. Perhaps having more reporters based overseas would have widened the scope of the paper’s coverage. The editorial page supported the war wholeheartedly. Still more questions could have been raised about the existence of alleged weapons and plans for the post-war occupation. However all the editorials did not echo the words of the Bush administration. For example the editorial page conceded that France’s prediction of escalating violence as a result of the invasion “could prove prophetic.” In July 2007 the editorial page admitted it had failed in accepting the administration’s case for war. “Americans had reasonable expectations that an invasion of such magnitude would include a viable well-orchestrated postwar plan to bring stability and democracy to Iraq,” the editorial said. “How wrong we were.”

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Related article:
http://americanobserver.net/2008/03/18/full-morning-news/ ]]> ]]> stories that appeared on the front page. But Thomas’s claims did not go unchallenged. Dana Milbank. White House correspondent for The Washington Post at the time of the invasion lambasted the book in a review he wrote for the Post. Milbank listed a number of questions from the transcript that refuted what Thomas had said. Bill Moyers skewered the media in his PBS documentary Buying the War. The film argued that the mainstream media totally failed to challenge the administration. Moyers suggested that only Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel of Knight Ridder newspapers–now The McClatchy Group–did their job in the prelude to war. The New York Times ran an article in its International section in May 2004 which addressed the paper’s pre-war reportage. The article which was bylined “From the Editors,” said the paper was proud of some of its coverage. That was not the case in other areas. “We have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been,” the article said. Howard Kurtz media critic for The Washington Post wrote a 2004 article which said that stories challenging the administration’s claims of weapons did not sit well with the Post’s editors. Post reporter Walter Pincus had filed a story questioning the existenceof Hussein’s weapons on March 19 the day before the invasion. But the piece ran on page A17 according to the article. Kurtz said tough stories were written for the Post. They just were not on the front page. Editor and Publisher ran an article on the media’s coverage of Iraq in January 2003. Journalists interviewed for the piece had different takes on the quality of coverage. “I think the press has done well asking questions,” said David Halberstam whose career was launched covering Vietnam for The New York Times. “But most people who have Vietnam in their bones are uneasy about this war.” Orville Schell dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California at Berkeley was more critical. “Newspapers have been a little on the flat side in terms of giving all dimensions,” he told E & P. This paper considers Iraq-related content on the front page editorial page and letters to the editor section of The Dallas Morning News. Most of the research for this paper was conducted at the Library of Congress. Every issue of The News from Feb. 6. 2003 to March 20. 2003 was examined. The issues were viewed on microfilm. A few supplemental sources were consulted including Fresh Ink: Behind the Scenes at a Major Metropolitan Newspaper. The book which was published in 1995 traces the history of the The News up that point. Newspaper and magazine articles about The News as well as media coverage of Iraq by the American press in general were also consulted. - Iraq-related article appears on front page? (Yes/No)- More than one Iraq-related article on front page? (Yes/No)- Lead article of this issue Iraq-related? (Yes/No)- Topic of main Iraq-related article (circle one): (Diplomacy/UN. Military/war preparations. Domestic U. S politics/polls. Iraq government/Iraq people. Other) Editorials and letters- Issue includes editorial about Iraq? (Yes. No)- Content of editorial about Iraq (circle one): (Positive. Neutral. Negative. N/A)- Any letters to the editor about Iraq? (Yes. No)- First letter about Iraq (circle one): (Positive. Neutral. Negative. N/A) Many critics have said the media failed prior to the war. But few of these bomb-throwers have offered evidence to support their claims. They have asserted that the press did not ask tough questions of the administration. Yet the transcript of an interview conducted by the White House press corps as noted above proves that tough questions had been asked of the administration. This paper attempts to answer whether a major regional paper in the United States failed in its coverage. The News is of course a major regional paper. During the ’90s it had the reputation as one of the nation’s best dailies. The News is also in Texas the home state of President Bush. The editorial page of The News endorsed Bush in 200021 and 2004. Perhaps the greatest test for a newspaper is the quality of its coverage during wartime. Coverage leading up to war is also crucial. The News and other American newspapers had a responsibility to supply the public with the best information they could provide. American lives were at stake. They still are. Many in the U. S. — and elsewhere in the world — view the war in Iraq as the major issue of the time. Whether that’s the case few can doubt the war has enormous implications for the future of the Middle East and the legacy of President Bush. Findings- 43 issues featured Iraq-related articles on front page- 14 issues featured more than one Iraq-related article on front page- 21 lead articles on front page were Iraq-related- 10 Iraq-related editorials appeared on editorial page- 10 Iraq-related editorials supported case for war- 36 issues featured one or more Iraq-related letters to the editorials- 21 issues featured anti-war letters in a prominent position in letters section A Feb. 10 article taken from The Washington Post addressed the call by France and Germany to send more U. N weapons inspectors into Iraq. Three days later an article appeared concerning the anger many Americans felt over France and Germany’s position vis-a-vis Iraq. Many Americans called for a boycott of French goods at the time. Bush delivered a harsh rebuke to the United Nations in a Feb. 14 front-page article. The president told the U. N. Security Council to show “backbone” and “courage,” or they would “fade into history as an ineffective irrelevant debating society.” Five days later the paper ran a lead article in which Bush said that “leadership sometimes involved bucking public opinion.” The paper’s lead article on Feb. 17 addressed the debate among Arab intellectuals over the war in Iraq. The piece offered a mix of perspectives. Some of the voices interviewed doubted the motives of the U. S. “Many Arab intellectuals fear Iraq is only one in a series of regime changes contemplated by the Bush administration,” the article said. Another article addressing the possible consequences of war in the Middle East appeared on March 4. Gregory Katz reporting from the paper’s Europe Bureau said there were concerns in the Middle East that the violence could spread to other countries. He also noted the rise of anti-Americanism in the region in recent years. The post-war plans of the Bush administration were the subject of a Feb. 21 article taken from The Washington Post. The article said the administration planned to assume full control of a post-Hussein Iraq. An American civilian the article said would oversee reconstruction and the creation of a democratic government. Secretary of State Colin Powell charged Hussein with deception in a March 6 lead article. The U. S asked the U. N. Security Council to set a 10-day deadline in a March 8 article. The lead article on March 9 warned that the war in Iraq could worsen relations between the U. S and other countries. A front-page article that appeared two days later written by Gregory Katz from the Europe Bureau suggested the debate over war had hurt relations between Britain and France. Another diplomacy article appeared four days before the invasion which quoted several political analysts who criticized the president for his bull-headed approach. “Now they’re having their hard-nosed unsentimental foreign policy thrown back in their face,” said James Lindsay a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution in reference to the U. N.’s refusal to authorize the invasion. The next day an article appeared in which the U. S blamed France for its problems at the U. N. On Feb. 16 the paper ran editorial which stated that Hussein had failed to comply with the U. N Security Council resolution to disarm. Ignoring Iraq’s non-compliance the editorial said could allow the “possibility that Iraq could use its artfully concealed weapons to wreak murder on an unprecedented scale.” Though the editorial page supported the war it did not always champion the diplomatic efforts of the Bush administration. A Feb. 18 editorial urged the Bush administration to improve public relations with Europe. It also admonished the harsh rhetoric of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who it claimed had created a sense of division among the U. S and several allies. A Feb. 22 editorial urged Mexico to vote with the U. S on Iraq. Until then. Mexico had said that U. N weapons inspections should continue in Iraq. A vote against the United States on the issue could strain relations between the two countries the paper warned. The editorial page addressed the deteriorating relations between the United States and France on Feb. 26. The editorial said France was wrong to call for more inspections. But the editorial wasn’t entirely anti-French. “France’s supposition that war could stir up a hornet’s nest of Islamist terrorism could yet prove prophetic,” the editorial said. The piece also urged Americans not to turn France into a “caricature.” A March 8 editorial claimed the war was “inevitable,” as Iraq could not fully disarm by the March 17 deadline. An editorial that appeared one week later said it would be best to have authorization by the U. N Security Council before invading. But failing that the invasion was still warranted. An editorial that ran on March 19 sought to correct the assumption that United States would “go it alone” in Iraq. The editorial noted the contribution being made by Britain. Australia and Poland among others. The editorial also chastised Bush for his diplomatic efforts in the run-up to the invasion saying he had “created the impression of an arrogant self-interested and blustery power.” The March 20 editorial blamed Hussein for the war. “The United States did not choose this war: Saddam Hussein thrust this war upon it through his persistent defiance,” the editorial said. The editorial noted that the war marked a turning point in world diplomacy. Nations would launch pre-emptive strikes in the future rather than waiting for the enemy to attack it said. It also said the coalition forces should make Iraq a model of democracy for other Middle East countries. Most of the letters to the editor depicted anti-war voices. Mike Hashimoto assistant editorial page editor for The News said in an e-mail interview that the paper’s general letter policy is to publish letters in proportion to the amount received. A Feb. 26 letter written by a French women said France was still fond of America but called the boycott on French goods unnecessary. She said she supported Chirac’s stance on Iraq saying the Iraq war “may eventually prove unnecessary.” A March 15 editorial lamented that the Dixie Chicks a popular country music group were from Texas. During a concert in London a few days before lead singer Natalie Maines had told the crowd that the group was ashamed that President Bush was also from Texas. The writer said he used to be a big fan of the group but now he would boycott them. The Dallas Morning News did not fail completely in its coverage leading up to the invasion of Iraq as many critics have alleged. However the paper could have incorporated more viewpoints on the front page as well as devoted more coverage to other Iraq topics including post-war planning and the invasion’s possible implications for the greater Middle East. For that reason the paper gets a mere passing grade. The same held true for The News. Most of the stories involving the U. N battle were written by reporters in the paper’s Washington bureau. And most of the articles focused on whether the U. N. Security Council should be allowed more time for weapons inspections. France and Germany had called for more time while the U. S said inspections had failed. Articles of this kind succeeded in showing both sides of the argument. An Iraq-related related article appeared on the front page of the paper every day for six weeks prior to the invasion. So The News was definitely not asleep. They devoted a wealth of coverage to the issue. It can be assumed that the Iraq articles they ran during that time were deemed to be the most important of the day by the editors. There were few articles on the front page that showed different points of view. A story about the debate among Arab intellectuals was written by Jim Landers of the paper’s Washington bureau. But there could have been more. The paper could also have devoted more coverage to post-war plans. One front-page article from The Washington Post was not sufficient. The administration had announced it would assume full control of Iraq once Hussein had been deposed. The subject warranted closer inspection. How would it work? What were the specifics? Gregory Katz reporting out of the paper’s Europe bureau wrote a March 4 article on the possibility of the invasion inciting violence in other parts of the Middle East. Katz was the only reporter based overseas filing reports on Iraq that appeared on the front page. Perhaps having more reporters based overseas would have widened the scope of the paper’s coverage. The editorial page supported the war wholeheartedly. Still more questions could have been raised about the existence of alleged weapons and plans for the post-war occupation. However all the editorials did not echo the words of the Bush administration. For example the editorial page conceded that France’s prediction of escalating violence as a result of the invasion “could prove prophetic.” In July 2007 the editorial page admitted it had failed in accepting the administration’s case for war. “Americans had reasonable expectations that an invasion of such magnitude would include a viable well-orchestrated postwar plan to bring stability and democracy to Iraq,” the editorial said. “How wrong we were.”

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Related article:
http://americanobserver.net/2008/03/18/full-morning-news/ ]]> ]]> stories that appeared on the front page. But Thomas’s claims did not go unchallenged. Dana Milbank. White House correspondent for The Washington Post at the time of the invasion lambasted the book in a review he wrote for the Post. Milbank listed a number of questions from the transcript that refuted what Thomas had said. Bill Moyers skewered the media in his PBS documentary Buying the War. The film argued that the mainstream media totally failed to challenge the administration. Moyers suggested that only Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel of Knight Ridder newspapers–now The McClatchy Group–did their job in the prelude to war. The New York Times ran an article in its International section in May 2004 which addressed the paper’s pre-war reportage. The article which was bylined “From the Editors,” said the paper was proud of some of its coverage. That was not the case in other areas. “We have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been,” the article said. Howard Kurtz media critic for The Washington Post wrote a 2004 article which said that stories challenging the administration’s claims of weapons did not sit well with the Post’s editors. Post reporter Walter Pincus had filed a story questioning the existenceof Hussein’s weapons on March 19 the day before the invasion. But the piece ran on page A17 according to the article. Kurtz said tough stories were written for the Post. They just were not on the front page. Editor and Publisher ran an article on the media’s coverage of Iraq in January 2003. Journalists interviewed for the piece had different takes on the quality of coverage. “I think the press has done well asking questions,” said David Halberstam whose career was launched covering Vietnam for The New York Times. “But most people who have Vietnam in their bones are uneasy about this war.” Orville Schell dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California at Berkeley was more critical. “Newspapers have been a little on the flat side in terms of giving all dimensions,” he told E & P. This paper considers Iraq-related content on the front page editorial page and letters to the editor section of The Dallas Morning News. Most of the research for this paper was conducted at the Library of Congress. Every issue of The News from Feb. 6. 2003 to March 20. 2003 was examined. The issues were viewed on microfilm. A few supplemental sources were consulted including Fresh Ink: Behind the Scenes at a Major Metropolitan Newspaper. The book which was published in 1995 traces the history of the The News up that point. Newspaper and magazine articles about The News as well as media coverage of Iraq by the American press in general were also consulted. - Iraq-related article appears on front page? (Yes/No)- More than one Iraq-related article on front page? (Yes/No)- Lead article of this issue Iraq-related? (Yes/No)- Topic of main Iraq-related article (circle one): (Diplomacy/UN. Military/war preparations. Domestic U. S politics/polls. Iraq government/Iraq people. Other) Editorials and letters- Issue includes editorial about Iraq? (Yes. No)- Content of editorial about Iraq (circle one): (Positive. Neutral. Negative. N/A)- Any letters to the editor about Iraq? (Yes. No)- First letter about Iraq (circle one): (Positive. Neutral. Negative. N/A) Many critics have said the media failed prior to the war. But few of these bomb-throwers have offered evidence to support their claims. They have asserted that the press did not ask tough questions of the administration. Yet the transcript of an interview conducted by the White House press corps as noted above proves that tough questions had been asked of the administration. This paper attempts to answer whether a major regional paper in the United States failed in its coverage. The News is of course a major regional paper. During the ’90s it had the reputation as one of the nation’s best dailies. The News is also in Texas the home state of President Bush. The editorial page of The News endorsed Bush in 200021 and 2004. Perhaps the greatest test for a newspaper is the quality of its coverage during wartime. Coverage leading up to war is also crucial. The News and other American newspapers had a responsibility to supply the public with the best information they could provide. American lives were at stake. They still are. Many in the U. S. — and elsewhere in the world — view the war in Iraq as the major issue of the time. Whether that’s the case few can doubt the war has enormous implications for the future of the Middle East and the legacy of President Bush. Findings- 43 issues featured Iraq-related articles on front page- 14 issues featured more than one Iraq-related article on front page- 21 lead articles on front page were Iraq-related- 10 Iraq-related editorials appeared on editorial page- 10 Iraq-related editorials supported case for war- 36 issues featured one or more Iraq-related letters to the editorials- 21 issues featured anti-war letters in a prominent position in letters section A Feb. 10 article taken from The Washington Post addressed the call by France and Germany to send more U. N weapons inspectors into Iraq. Three days later an article appeared concerning the anger many Americans felt over France and Germany’s position vis-a-vis Iraq. Many Americans called for a boycott of French goods at the time. Bush delivered a harsh rebuke to the United Nations in a Feb. 14 front-page article. The president told the U. N. Security Council to show “backbone” and “courage,” or they would “fade into history as an ineffective irrelevant debating society.” Five days later the paper ran a lead article in which Bush said that “leadership sometimes involved bucking public opinion.” The paper’s lead article on Feb. 17 addressed the debate among Arab intellectuals over the war in Iraq. The piece offered a mix of perspectives. Some of the voices interviewed doubted the motives of the U. S. “Many Arab intellectuals fear Iraq is only one in a series of regime changes contemplated by the Bush administration,” the article said. Another article addressing the possible consequences of war in the Middle East appeared on March 4. Gregory Katz reporting from the paper’s Europe Bureau said there were concerns in the Middle East that the violence could spread to other countries. He also noted the rise of anti-Americanism in the region in recent years. The post-war plans of the Bush administration were the subject of a Feb. 21 article taken from The Washington Post. The article said the administration planned to assume full control of a post-Hussein Iraq. An American civilian the article said would oversee reconstruction and the creation of a democratic government. Secretary of State Colin Powell charged Hussein with deception in a March 6 lead article. The U. S asked the U. N. Security Council to set a 10-day deadline in a March 8 article. The lead article on March 9 warned that the war in Iraq could worsen relations between the U. S and other countries. A front-page article that appeared two days later written by Gregory Katz from the Europe Bureau suggested the debate over war had hurt relations between Britain and France. Another diplomacy article appeared four days before the invasion which quoted several political analysts who criticized the president for his bull-headed approach. “Now they’re having their hard-nosed unsentimental foreign policy thrown back in their face,” said James Lindsay a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution in reference to the U. N.’s refusal to authorize the invasion. The next day an article appeared in which the U. S blamed France for its problems at the U. N. On Feb. 16 the paper ran editorial which stated that Hussein had failed to comply with the U. N Security Council resolution to disarm. Ignoring Iraq’s non-compliance the editorial said could allow the “possibility that Iraq could use its artfully concealed weapons to wreak murder on an unprecedented scale.” Though the editorial page supported the war it did not always champion the diplomatic efforts of the Bush administration. A Feb. 18 editorial urged the Bush administration to improve public relations with Europe. It also admonished the harsh rhetoric of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who it claimed had created a sense of division among the U. S and several allies. A Feb. 22 editorial urged Mexico to vote with the U. S on Iraq. Until then. Mexico had said that U. N weapons inspections should continue in Iraq. A vote against the United States on the issue could strain relations between the two countries the paper warned. The editorial page addressed the deteriorating relations between the United States and France on Feb. 26. The editorial said France was wrong to call for more inspections. But the editorial wasn’t entirely anti-French. “France’s supposition that war could stir up a hornet’s nest of Islamist terrorism could yet prove prophetic,” the editorial said. The piece also urged Americans not to turn France into a “caricature.” A March 8 editorial claimed the war was “inevitable,” as Iraq could not fully disarm by the March 17 deadline. An editorial that appeared one week later said it would be best to have authorization by the U. N Security Council before invading. But failing that the invasion was still warranted. An editorial that ran on March 19 sought to correct the assumption that United States would “go it alone” in Iraq. The editorial noted the contribution being made by Britain. Australia and Poland among others. The editorial also chastised Bush for his diplomatic efforts in the run-up to the invasion saying he had “created the impression of an arrogant self-interested and blustery power.” The March 20 editorial blamed Hussein for the war. “The United States did not choose this war: Saddam Hussein thrust this war upon it through his persistent defiance,” the editorial said. The editorial noted that the war marked a turning point in world diplomacy. Nations would launch pre-emptive strikes in the future rather than waiting for the enemy to attack it said. It also said the coalition forces should make Iraq a model of democracy for other Middle East countries. Most of the letters to the editor depicted anti-war voices. Mike Hashimoto assistant editorial page editor for The News said in an e-mail interview that the paper’s general letter policy is to publish letters in proportion to the amount received. A Feb. 26 letter written by a French women said France was still fond of America but called the boycott on French goods unnecessary. She said she supported Chirac’s stance on Iraq saying the Iraq war “may eventually prove unnecessary.” A March 15 editorial lamented that the Dixie Chicks a popular country music group were from Texas. During a concert in London a few days before lead singer Natalie Maines had told the crowd that the group was ashamed that President Bush was also from Texas. The writer said he used to be a big fan of the group but now he would boycott them. The Dallas Morning News did not fail completely in its coverage leading up to the invasion of Iraq as many critics have alleged. However the paper could have incorporated more viewpoints on the front page as well as devoted more coverage to other Iraq topics including post-war planning and the invasion’s possible implications for the greater Middle East. For that reason the paper gets a mere passing grade. The same held true for The News. Most of the stories involving the U. N battle were written by reporters in the paper’s Washington bureau. And most of the articles focused on whether the U. N. Security Council should be allowed more time for weapons inspections. France and Germany had called for more time while the U. S said inspections had failed. Articles of this kind succeeded in showing both sides of the argument. An Iraq-related related article appeared on the front page of the paper every day for six weeks prior to the invasion. So The News was definitely not asleep. They devoted a wealth of coverage to the issue. It can be assumed that the Iraq articles they ran during that time were deemed to be the most important of the day by the editors. There were few articles on the front page that showed different points of view. A story about the debate among Arab intellectuals was written by Jim Landers of the paper’s Washington bureau. But there could have been more. The paper could also have devoted more coverage to post-war plans. One front-page article from The Washington Post was not sufficient. The administration had announced it would assume full control of Iraq once Hussein had been deposed. The subject warranted closer inspection. How would it work? What were the specifics? Gregory Katz reporting out of the paper’s Europe bureau wrote a March 4 article on the possibility of the invasion inciting violence in other parts of the Middle East. Katz was the only reporter based overseas filing reports on Iraq that appeared on the front page. Perhaps having more reporters based overseas would have widened the scope of the paper’s coverage. The editorial page supported the war wholeheartedly. Still more questions could have been raised about the existence of alleged weapons and plans for the post-war occupation. However all the editorials did not echo the words of the Bush administration. For example the editorial page conceded that France’s prediction of escalating violence as a result of the invasion “could prove prophetic.” In July 2007 the editorial page admitted it had failed in accepting the administration’s case for war. “Americans had reasonable expectations that an invasion of such magnitude would include a viable well-orchestrated postwar plan to bring stability and democracy to Iraq,” the editorial said. “How wrong we were.”

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Related article:
http://americanobserver.net/2008/03/18/full-morning-news/ ]]> ]]> stories that appeared on the front page. But Thomas’s claims did not go unchallenged. Dana Milbank. White House correspondent for The Washington Post at the time of the invasion lambasted the book in a review he wrote for the Post. Milbank listed a number of questions from the transcript that refuted what Thomas had said. Bill Moyers skewered the media in his PBS documentary Buying the War. The film argued that the mainstream media totally failed to challenge the administration. Moyers suggested that only Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel of Knight Ridder newspapers–now The McClatchy Group–did their job in the prelude to war. The New York Times ran an article in its International section in May 2004 which addressed the paper’s pre-war reportage. The article which was bylined “From the Editors,” said the paper was proud of some of its coverage. That was not the case in other areas. “We have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been,” the article said. Howard Kurtz media critic for The Washington Post wrote a 2004 article which said that stories challenging the administration’s claims of weapons did not sit well with the Post’s editors. Post reporter Walter Pincus had filed a story questioning the existenceof Hussein’s weapons on March 19 the day before the invasion. But the piece ran on page A17 according to the article. Kurtz said tough stories were written for the Post. They just were not on the front page. Editor and Publisher ran an article on the media’s coverage of Iraq in January 2003. Journalists interviewed for the piece had different takes on the quality of coverage. “I think the press has done well asking questions,” said David Halberstam whose career was launched covering Vietnam for The New York Times. “But most people who have Vietnam in their bones are uneasy about this war.” Orville Schell dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California at Berkeley was more critical. “Newspapers have been a little on the flat side in terms of giving all dimensions,” he told E & P. This paper considers Iraq-related content on the front page editorial page and letters to the editor section of The Dallas Morning News. Most of the research for this paper was conducted at the Library of Congress. Every issue of The News from Feb. 6. 2003 to March 20. 2003 was examined. The issues were viewed on microfilm. A few supplemental sources were consulted including Fresh Ink: Behind the Scenes at a Major Metropolitan Newspaper. The book which was published in 1995 traces the history of the The News up that point. Newspaper and magazine articles about The News as well as media coverage of Iraq by the American press in general were also consulted. - Iraq-related article appears on front page? (Yes/No)- More than one Iraq-related article on front page? (Yes/No)- Lead article of this issue Iraq-related? (Yes/No)- Topic of main Iraq-related article (circle one): (Diplomacy/UN. Military/war preparations. Domestic U. S politics/polls. Iraq government/Iraq people. Other) Editorials and letters- Issue includes editorial about Iraq? (Yes. No)- Content of editorial about Iraq (circle one): (Positive. Neutral. Negative. N/A)- Any letters to the editor about Iraq? (Yes. No)- First letter about Iraq (circle one): (Positive. Neutral. Negative. N/A) Many critics have said the media failed prior to the war. But few of these bomb-throwers have offered evidence to support their claims. They have asserted that the press did not ask tough questions of the administration. Yet the transcript of an interview conducted by the White House press corps as noted above proves that tough questions had been asked of the administration. This paper attempts to answer whether a major regional paper in the United States failed in its coverage. The News is of course a major regional paper. During the ’90s it had the reputation as one of the nation’s best dailies. The News is also in Texas the home state of President Bush. The editorial page of The News endorsed Bush in 200021 and 2004. Perhaps the greatest test for a newspaper is the quality of its coverage during wartime. Coverage leading up to war is also crucial. The News and other American newspapers had a responsibility to supply the public with the best information they could provide. American lives were at stake. They still are. Many in the U. S. — and elsewhere in the world — view the war in Iraq as the major issue of the time. Whether that’s the case few can doubt the war has enormous implications for the future of the Middle East and the legacy of President Bush. Findings- 43 issues featured Iraq-related articles on front page- 14 issues featured more than one Iraq-related article on front page- 21 lead articles on front page were Iraq-related- 10 Iraq-related editorials appeared on editorial page- 10 Iraq-related editorials supported case for war- 36 issues featured one or more Iraq-related letters to the editorials- 21 issues featured anti-war letters in a prominent position in letters section A Feb. 10 article taken from The Washington Post addressed the call by France and Germany to send more U. N weapons inspectors into Iraq. Three days later an article appeared concerning the anger many Americans felt over France and Germany’s position vis-a-vis Iraq. Many Americans called for a boycott of French goods at the time. Bush delivered a harsh rebuke to the United Nations in a Feb. 14 front-page article. The president told the U. N. Security Council to show “backbone” and “courage,” or they would “fade into history as an ineffective irrelevant debating society.” Five days later the paper ran a lead article in which Bush said that “leadership sometimes involved bucking public opinion.” The paper’s lead article on Feb. 17 addressed the debate among Arab intellectuals over the war in Iraq. The piece offered a mix of perspectives. Some of the voices interviewed doubted the motives of the U. S. “Many Arab intellectuals fear Iraq is only one in a series of regime changes contemplated by the Bush administration,” the article said. Another article addressing the possible consequences of war in the Middle East appeared on March 4. Gregory Katz reporting from the paper’s Europe Bureau said there were concerns in the Middle East that the violence could spread to other countries. He also noted the rise of anti-Americanism in the region in recent years. The post-war plans of the Bush administration were the subject of a Feb. 21 article taken from The Washington Post. The article said the administration planned to assume full control of a post-Hussein Iraq. An American civilian the article said would oversee reconstruction and the creation of a democratic government. Secretary of State Colin Powell charged Hussein with deception in a March 6 lead article. The U. S asked the U. N. Security Council to set a 10-day deadline in a March 8 article. The lead article on March 9 warned that the war in Iraq could worsen relations between the U. S and other countries. A front-page article that appeared two days later written by Gregory Katz from the Europe Bureau suggested the debate over war had hurt relations between Britain and France. Another diplomacy article appeared four days before the invasion which quoted several political analysts who criticized the president for his bull-headed approach. “Now they’re having their hard-nosed unsentimental foreign policy thrown back in their face,” said James Lindsay a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution in reference to the U. N.’s refusal to authorize the invasion. The next day an article appeared in which the U. S blamed France for its problems at the U. N. On Feb. 16 the paper ran editorial which stated that Hussein had failed to comply with the U. N Security Council resolution to disarm. Ignoring Iraq’s non-compliance the editorial said could allow the “possibility that Iraq could use its artfully concealed weapons to wreak murder on an unprecedented scale.” Though the editorial page supported the war it did not always champion the diplomatic efforts of the Bush administration. A Feb. 18 editorial urged the Bush administration to improve public relations with Europe. It also admonished the harsh rhetoric of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who it claimed had created a sense of division among the U. S and several allies. A Feb. 22 editorial urged Mexico to vote with the U. S on Iraq. Until then. Mexico had said that U. N weapons inspections should continue in Iraq. A vote against the United States on the issue could strain relations between the two countries the paper warned. The editorial page addressed the deteriorating relations between the United States and France on Feb. 26. The editorial said France was wrong to call for more inspections. But the editorial wasn’t entirely anti-French. “France’s supposition that war could stir up a hornet’s nest of Islamist terrorism could yet prove prophetic,” the editorial said. The piece also urged Americans not to turn France into a “caricature.” A March 8 editorial claimed the war was “inevitable,” as Iraq could not fully disarm by the March 17 deadline. An editorial that appeared one week later said it would be best to have authorization by the U. N Security Council before invading. But failing that the invasion was still warranted. An editorial that ran on March 19 sought to correct the assumption that United States would “go it alone” in Iraq. The editorial noted the contribution being made by Britain. Australia and Poland among others. The editorial also chastised Bush for his diplomatic efforts in the run-up to the invasion saying he had “created the impression of an arrogant self-interested and blustery power.” The March 20 editorial blamed Hussein for the war. “The United States did not choose this war: Saddam Hussein thrust this war upon it through his persistent defiance,” the editorial said. The editorial noted that the war marked a turning point in world diplomacy. Nations would launch pre-emptive strikes in the future rather than waiting for the enemy to attack it said. It also said the coalition forces should make Iraq a model of democracy for other Middle East countries. Most of the letters to the editor depicted anti-war voices. Mike Hashimoto assistant editorial page editor for The News said in an e-mail interview that the paper’s general letter policy is to publish letters in proportion to the amount received. A Feb. 26 letter written by a French women said France was still fond of America but called the boycott on French goods unnecessary. She said she supported Chirac’s stance on Iraq saying the Iraq war “may eventually prove unnecessary.” A March 15 editorial lamented that the Dixie Chicks a popular country music group were from Texas. During a concert in London a few days before lead singer Natalie Maines had told the crowd that the group was ashamed that President Bush was also from Texas. The writer said he used to be a big fan of the group but now he would boycott them. The Dallas Morning News did not fail completely in its coverage leading up to the invasion of Iraq as many critics have alleged. However the paper could have incorporated more viewpoints on the front page as well as devoted more coverage to other Iraq topics including post-war planning and the invasion’s possible implications for the greater Middle East. For that reason the paper gets a mere passing grade. The same held true for The News. Most of the stories involving the U. N battle were written by reporters in the paper’s Washington bureau. And most of the articles focused on whether the U. N. Security Council should be allowed more time for weapons inspections. France and Germany had called for more time while the U. S said inspections had failed. Articles of this kind succeeded in showing both sides of the argument. An Iraq-related related article appeared on the front page of the paper every day for six weeks prior to the invasion. So The News was definitely not asleep. They devoted a wealth of coverage to the issue. It can be assumed that the Iraq articles they ran during that time were deemed to be the most important of the day by the editors. There were few articles on the front page that showed different points of view. A story about the debate among Arab intellectuals was written by Jim Landers of the paper’s Washington bureau. But there could have been more. The paper could also have devoted more coverage to post-war plans. One front-page article from The Washington Post was not sufficient. The administration had announced it would assume full control of Iraq once Hussein had been deposed. The subject warranted closer inspection. How would it work? What were the specifics? Gregory Katz reporting out of the paper’s Europe bureau wrote a March 4 article on the possibility of the invasion inciting violence in other parts of the Middle East. Katz was the only reporter based overseas filing reports on Iraq that appeared on the front page. Perhaps having more reporters based overseas would have widened the scope of the paper’s coverage. The editorial page supported the war wholeheartedly. Still more questions could have been raised about the existence of alleged weapons and plans for the post-war occupation. However all the editorials did not echo the words of the Bush administration. For example the editorial page conceded that France’s prediction of escalating violence as a result of the invasion “could prove prophetic.” In July 2007 the editorial page admitted it had failed in accepting the administration’s case for war. “Americans had reasonable expectations that an invasion of such magnitude would include a viable well-orchestrated postwar plan to bring stability and democracy to Iraq,” the editorial said. “How wrong we were.”

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Related article:
http://americanobserver.net/2008/03/18/full-morning-news/ ]]> ]]> escort we saw six identical bullet-proof vehicles with black windows one of which must have been carrying Mr Maliki. The precautions were not excessive since Baghdad remains the most dangerous city in the world. The Iraqi Prime Minister was only going to the headquarters of the Dawa party to which he belongs and which are just half a mile outside the Green Zone but his hundreds of security guards acted as if they were entering enemy territory. Five years of occupation have destroyed Iraq as a country. Baghdad is today a collection of hostile Sunni and Shia ghettoes divided by high cover walls. Different districts even have different national flags. Sunni areas use the old Iraqi sign with the three stars of the Baath party and the Shia gesticulate a newer version adopted by the Shia-Kurdish government. The Kurds have their own flag. The Iraqi government tries to give the impression that normality is returning. Iraqi journalists are told not to mention the continuing violence. When a bomb exploded in Karada district near my hotel killing 70 people the police defeat and drove away a television cameraman trying to act pictures of the devastation. Civilian casualties have fallen from 65 Iraqis killed daily from November 2006 to August 2007 to 26 daily in February. But the fall in the death rate is partly because ethnic cleansing has already done its grim work and in much of Baghdad there are no mixed areas left. More than most wars the war in Iraq remains little understood outside the country. Iraqis themselves often do not understand it because they have an intimate knowledge of their own community be it Shia. Sunni or Kurdish but little of other Iraqi communities. It should have been evident from the moment President George Bush decided to overthrow Saddam Hussein that it was going to be a very different war from the one fought by his father in 1991. That had been a conservative war waged to regenerate the status quo back in Kuwait. The war of 2003 was bound to have radical consequences. If Saddam Hussein was overthrown and elections held then the domination of the 20 per cent Sunni minority would be replaced by the rule of the majority Shia community allied to the Kurds. In an election. Shia religious parties linked to Iran would win as indeed they did in two elections in 2005. Many of America’s troubles in Iraq have stemmed from Washington’s attempt to stop Iran and anti-American Shia leaders such as Muqtada al-Sadr filling the power vacuum left by the fall of Saddam Hussein. The US and its allies never really understood the war they won that started on 19 March 2003. Their armies had an easy passage to Baghdad because the Iraqi army did not contend. Even the so-called elite Special Republican Guard units well-paid well-equipped and tribally linked to Saddam went domiciliate. Television coverage and much of the newspaper coverage of the war was highly deceptive because it gave the impression of widespread fighting when there was none. I entered Mosul and Kirkuk two northern cities on the day they were captured with hardly a shot fired. Burnt-out Iraqi tanks littered the roads around Baghdad giving the impression of heavy fighting but almost all had been abandoned by their crews before they were hit. The war was too easy. Consciously or subconsciously. Americans came to believe it did not matter what Iraqis said or did. They were expected to behave desire Germans or Japanese in 1945 though most of Iraqis did not think of themselves as having been defeated. There was later to be much bitter dispute about who was responsible for the critical error of dissolving the Iraqi army. But at the time the Americans were in a mood of exaggerated imperial arrogance and did not care what Iraqis whether in the army or out of it were doing. “They simply thought we were wogs,” says Ahmad Chalabi the opposition leader brutally. “We didn’t be.” In those first months after the go of Baghdad it was extraordinary and at times amusing to watch the American victors behave exactly like the British at the height of their power in 19th-century India. The ways of the Raj were reborn. A friend who had a brokerage in the Baghdad stock merchandise told me how a 24-year-old American whose family were donors to the Republican celebrate had been put in charge of the market and had lectured the highly irritated brokers most of whom spoke several languages and had PhDs about the virtues of democracy. There was a further misconception that grew up at this measure. Most Iraqis were glad to be rid of Saddam Hussein. He had been a cruel and catastrophically incompetent leader who ruined his country. All Kurds and most Shia wanted him gone. But it did not follow that Iraqis of any description wanted to be occupied by a foreign cater. Later President furnish and Tony Blair gave the impression that overthrowing the Baathist regime necessarily implied occupation but it did not. “If we get there will be anarchy,” friends in the occupation authority used to express me in justification. They stayed but anarchy came anyway. In that first year of the occupation it was easy to express which way the wind was blowing. Whenever there was an American soldier killed or wounded in Baghdad. I would drive there immediately. Always there were cheering crowds standing by the smoking remains of a Humvee or a dark bloodstain on the road. After one shooting of a soldier a man told me: “I am a poor man but my family is going to celebrate what happened by cooking chicken.” Yet this was the moment when President Bush and his Secretary of Defence. Donald Rumsfeld were saying that the insurgents were “remnants of the old regime” and “dead enders”. There was also misconception among Iraqis about the depth of the divisions within their own society. Sunni would accuse me of exaggerating their differences with the Shia but when I mentioned prominent Shia leaders they would wave a hand dismissively and say: “But they are all Iranians or paid by the Iranians.” Al-Qa’ida in Iraq regarded the Shia as heretics as worthy of death as the Americans. Enormous suicide bombs exploded in Shia marketplaces and religious processions slaughtering hundreds and the Shia began to hit back with tit-for-tat killings of Sunni by Shia militia death squads or the police. After the Sunni guerrillas blew up the Shia shrine in Samarra on 22 February 2006 sectarian fighting turned into a full-blown civil war. Mr Bush and Mr Blair strenuously denied that this was so but by any standard it was a civil war of extraordinary viciousness. Torture with electric drills and acid became the norm. The Shia Mehdi Army militia took over much of Baghdad and controlled three-quarters of it. Some 2.2 million people fled to Jordan and Syria a high harmonise of them Sunni. The Sunni defeat in the battle for Baghdad in 2006 and early 2007 was the motive for many guerrillas previously anti-American suddenly allying themselves with American forces. They concluded they could not fight the US al-Qa’ida the Iraqi army and police and the Mehdi Army at the same time. Another tragic element in Western media and politics is that the West has one sole “view” of Iraq as a country. It is the view created by the West itself: “the British Iraq” which has strong homogeneous Sunni Arab identity neglecting that fact that this does not fit with the remaining 82% of the population in Iraq. The writer of the bind opened his conjoin saying that Iraq is destroyed as a country. The question is. Was Iraq ever a country? Unfortunately many not many people around the world ask themselves this challenge. Also the writer talked about the fact that Shiites are using the new flag of Iraq while Sunnis still use the old version of the flag and the Kurds undergo their own yet he did not communicate a word regarding the fact that this is a very common element in any failed political entity. The relationship between these groups is simply not working. And this is not It’s like a romantic relationship. When things don’t work out and the two people have disagreements they act off! The Americans did not bring this deep-rooted division to Iraq in 2003. The Americans removed the iron fist that forced those populate to remain a united nation. It’s like shooting the father-in-law who forced you to be married to his son a man you detest but couldn’t run away from!The writer is so right in his conclusion though. Those fighters armed by the U. S will eventually fighter other Iraqis. If not today it will happen tomorrow. People in lay Eastern communities refuse to be responsible and blame their faults on others usually America. The mess in Iraq is a collective prove of a failed relationship between the three fractions in that county. They don’t want to forget the past and they don’t consider each other equal. When Iraqis and the world open their eyes and hit the books from the lessons of Yugoslavia we might make some develop in Iraq.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Related article:
http://moderate.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/iraq-is-a-country-no-more-like-much-else-that-was-not-the-plan/ ]]> ]]> black armoured cars each with three machine-gunners on the cover raced out of the Green Zone through a heavily fortified exit followed by sand-coloured American Humvees and more armoured cars. Finally in the middle of the speeding convoy we saw six identical bullet-proof vehicles with black windows one of which must have been carrying Mr Maliki. The precautions were not excessive since Baghdad remains the most dangerous city in the world. The Iraqi Prime attend was only going to the headquarters of the Dawa party to which he belongs and which are just half a mile outside the Green govern but his hundreds of security guards acted as if they were entering enemy territory. Five years of occupation undergo destroyed Iraq as a country. Baghdad is today a collection of hostile Sunni and Shia ghettoes divided by high concrete walls. Different districts even have different national flags. Sunni areas use the old Iraqi flag with the three stars of the Baath celebrate and the Shia wave a newer version adopted by the Shia-Kurdish government. The Kurds have their own sign. The Iraqi government tries to give the impression that normality is returning. Iraqi journalists are told not to mention the continuing violence. When a bomb exploded in Karada district near my hotel killing 70 populate the police defeat and drove away a television cameraman trying to take pictures of the devastation. Civilian casualties have fallen from 65 Iraqis killed daily from November 2006 to August 2007 to 26 daily in February. But the fall in the death rate is partly because ethnic cleansing has already done its grim bring home the bacon and in much of Baghdad there are no mixed areas left. More than most wars the war in Iraq remains little understood outside the country. Iraqis themselves often do not understand it because they undergo an intimate knowledge of their own community be it Shia. Sunni or Kurdish but little of other Iraqi communities. It should undergo been evident from the moment President George Bush decided to overthrow Saddam Hussein that it was going to be a very different war from the one fought by his father in 1991. That had been a conservative war waged to restore the status quo ante in Kuwait. The war of 2003 was bound to have radical consequences. If Saddam Hussein was overthrown and elections held then the domination of the 20 per cent Sunni minority would be replaced by the rule of the majority Shia community allied to the Kurds. In an election. Shia religious parties linked to Iran would win as indeed they did in two elections in 2005. Many of America’s troubles in Iraq have stemmed from Washington’s attempt to stop Iran and anti-American Shia leaders such as Muqtada al-Sadr filling the power vacuum left by the fall of Saddam Hussein. The US and its allies never really understood the war they won that started on 19 walk 2003. Their armies had an easy passage to Baghdad because the Iraqi army did not fight. Even the so-called elite Special Republican Guard units well-paid well-equipped and tribally linked to Saddam went domiciliate. Television coverage and much of the newspaper coverage of the war was highly deceptive because it gave the impression of widespread fighting when there was none. I entered Mosul and Kirkuk two northern cities on the day they were captured with hardly a shot fired. Burnt-out Iraqi tanks littered the roads around Baghdad giving the impression of heavy fighting but almost all had been abandoned by their crews before they were hit. The war was too easy. Consciously or subconsciously. Americans came to believe it did not matter what Iraqis said or did. They were expected to behave like Germans or Japanese in 1945 though most of Iraqis did not think of themselves as having been defeated. There was later to be much bitter contend about who was responsible for the critical error of dissolving the Iraqi army. But at the time the Americans were in a mood of exaggerated imperial arrogance and did not compassionate what Iraqis whether in the army or out of it were doing. “They simply thought we were wogs,” says Ahmad Chalabi the opposition leader brutally. “We didn’t matter.” In those first months after the fall of Baghdad it was extraordinary and at times amusing to watch the American victors bear exactly like the British at the height of their power in 19th-century India. The ways of the Raj were reborn. A friend who had a brokerage in the Baghdad stock market told me how a 24-year-old American whose family were donors to the Republican celebrate had been put in charge of the market and had lectured the highly irritated brokers most of whom spoke several languages and had PhDs about the virtues of democracy. There was a further misconception that grew up at this time. Most Iraqis were glad to be rid of Saddam Hussein. He had been a cruel and catastrophically incompetent leader who ruined his country. All Kurds and most Shia wanted him gone. But it did not follow that Iraqis of any description wanted to be occupied by a foreign power. Later President Bush and Tony Blair gave the impression that overthrowing the Baathist regime necessarily implied occupation but it did not. “If we leave there will be anarchy,” friends in the occupation authority used to tell me in justification. They stayed but anarchy came anyway. In that first year of the occupation it was easy to express which way the wind was blowing. Whenever there was an American soldier killed or wounded in Baghdad. I would control there immediately. Always there were cheering crowds standing by the smoking remains of a Humvee or a dark bloodstain on the road. After one shooting of a soldier a man told me: “I am a poor man but my family is going to celebrate what happened by cooking chicken.” Yet this was the moment when President Bush and his Secretary of Defence. Donald Rumsfeld were saying that the insurgents were “remnants of the old regime” and “dead enders”. There was also misconception among Iraqis about the depth of the divisions within their own society. Sunni would accuse me of exaggerating their differences with the Shia but when I mentioned prominent Shia leaders they would wave a hand dismissively and say: “But they are all Iranians or paid by the Iranians.” Al-Qa’ida in Iraq regarded the Shia as heretics as worthy of death as the Americans. Enormous suicide bombs exploded in Shia marketplaces and religious processions slaughtering hundreds and the Shia began to hit back with tit-for-tat killings of Sunni by Shia militia death squads or the police. After the Sunni guerrillas blew up the Shia shrine in Samarra on 22 February 2006 sectarian fighting turned into a full-blown civil war. Mr Bush and Mr Blair strenuously denied that this was so but by any standard it was a civil war of extraordinary viciousness. Torture with electric drills and acid became the norm. The Shia Mehdi Army militia took over much of Baghdad and controlled three-quarters of it. Some 2.2 million people fled to Jordan and Syria a high proportion of them Sunni. The Sunni defeat in the battle for Baghdad in 2006 and early 2007 was the motive for many guerrillas previously anti-American suddenly allying themselves with American forces. They concluded they could not fight the US al-Qa’ida the Iraqi army and police and the Mehdi Army at the same time. Another tragic element in Western media and politics is that the West has one sole “view” of Iraq as a country. It is the view created by the West itself: “the British Iraq” which has strong homogeneous Sunni Arab identity neglecting that fact that this does not fit with the remaining 82% of the population in Iraq. The writer of the article opened his piece saying that Iraq is destroyed as a country. The challenge is. Was Iraq ever a country? Unfortunately many not many people around the world ask themselves this question. Also the writer talked about the fact that Shiites are using the new flag of Iraq while Sunnis still use the old version of the flag and the Kurds have their own yet he did not communicate a word regarding the fact that this is a very common element in any failed political entity. The relationship between these groups is simply not working. And this is not It’s like a romantic relationship. When things don’t work out and the two people have disagreements they take off! The Americans did not bring this deep-rooted division to Iraq in 2003. The Americans removed the iron fist that forced those people to remain a united nation. It’s like shooting the father-in-law who forced you to stay married to his son a man you despise but couldn’t run away from!The writer is so right in his conclusion though. Those fighters armed by the U. S will eventually fighter other Iraqis. If not today it ordain come about tomorrow. populate in Middle Eastern communities refuse to be responsible and blame their faults on others usually America. The eat in Iraq is a collective result of a failed relationship between the three fractions in that county. They don’t want to forget the past and they don’t consider each other equal. When Iraqis and the world open their eyes and hit the books from the lessons of Yugoslavia we might make some progress in Iraq.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Related article:
http://moderate.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/iraq-is-a-country-no-more-like-much-else-that-was-not-the-plan/ ]]> ]]> black armoured cars each with three machine-gunners on the roof raced out of the Green Zone through a heavily fortified exit followed by sand-coloured American Humvees and more armoured cars. Finally in the middle of the speeding convoy we saw six identical bullet-proof vehicles with black windows one of which must have been carrying Mr Maliki. The precautions were not excessive since Baghdad remains the most dangerous city in the world. The Iraqi Prime Minister was only going to the headquarters of the Dawa party to which he belongs and which are just half a mile outside the Green Zone but his hundreds of security guards acted as if they were entering enemy territory. Five years of occupation have destroyed Iraq as a country. Baghdad is today a collection of hostile Sunni and Shia ghettoes divided by high concrete walls. Different districts even have different national flags. Sunni areas use the old Iraqi flag with the three stars of the Baath party and the Shia wave a newer version adopted by the Shia-Kurdish government. The Kurds have their own flag. The Iraqi government tries to give the impression that normality is returning. Iraqi journalists are told not to mention the continuing violence. When a bomb exploded in Karada govern near my hotel killing 70 people the police beat and drove away a television cameraman trying to take pictures of the devastation. Civilian casualties have fallen from 65 Iraqis killed daily from November 2006 to August 2007 to 26 daily in February. But the fall in the death rate is partly because ethnic cleansing has already done its grim bring home the bacon and in much of Baghdad there are no mixed areas left. More than most wars the war in Iraq remains little understood outside the country. Iraqis themselves often do not understand it because they have an intimate knowledge of their own community be it Shia. Sunni or Kurdish but little of other Iraqi communities. It should have been evident from the moment President George Bush decided to overthrow Saddam Hussein that it was going to be a very different war from the one fought by his create in 1991. That had been a conservative war waged to regenerate the status quo ante in Kuwait. The war of 2003 was bound to undergo radical consequences. If Saddam Hussein was overthrown and elections held then the domination of the 20 per cent Sunni minority would be replaced by the rule of the majority Shia community allied to the Kurds. In an election. Shia religious parties linked to Iran would win as indeed they did in two elections in 2005. Many of America’s troubles in Iraq undergo stemmed from Washington’s attempt to stop Iran and anti-American Shia leaders such as Muqtada al-Sadr filling the power vacuum left by the fall of Saddam Hussein. The US and its allies never really understood the war they won that started on 19 March 2003. Their armies had an easy passage to Baghdad because the Iraqi army did not fight. Even the so-called elite Special Republican Guard units well-paid well-equipped and tribally linked to Saddam went home. Television coverage and much of the newspaper coverage of the war was highly deceptive because it gave the impression of widespread fighting when there was none. I entered Mosul and Kirkuk two northern cities on the day they were captured with hardly a shot fired. Burnt-out Iraqi tanks littered the roads around Baghdad giving the impression of heavy fighting but almost all had been abandoned by their crews before they were hit. The war was too easy. Consciously or subconsciously. Americans came to believe it did not matter what Iraqis said or did. They were expected to behave like Germans or Japanese in 1945 though most of Iraqis did not think of themselves as having been defeated. There was later to be much change taste dispute about who was responsible for the critical error of dissolving the Iraqi army. But at the time the Americans were in a mood of exaggerated imperial arrogance and did not care what Iraqis whether in the army or out of it were doing. “They simply thought we were wogs,” says Ahmad Chalabi the opposition leader brutally. “We didn’t matter.” In those first months after the fall of Baghdad it was extraordinary and at times amusing to check the American victors behave exactly like the British at the height of their cater in 19th-century India. The ways of the Raj were reborn. A friend who had a brokerage in the Baghdad stock market told me how a 24-year-old American whose family were donors to the Republican celebrate had been put in rush of the market and had lectured the highly irritated brokers most of whom spoke several languages and had PhDs about the virtues of democracy. There was a further misconception that grew up at this time. Most Iraqis were glad to be rid of Saddam Hussein. He had been a cruel and catastrophically incompetent leader who ruined his country. All Kurds and most Shia wanted him gone. But it did not follow that Iraqis of any description wanted to be occupied by a foreign cater. Later President furnish and Tony Blair gave the impression that overthrowing the Baathist regime necessarily implied occupation but it did not. “If we get there ordain be anarchy,” friends in the occupation authority used to tell me in justification. They stayed but anarchy came anyway. In that first year of the occupation it was easy to tell which way the wind was blowing. Whenever there was an American soldier killed or wounded in Baghdad. I would drive there immediately. Always there were cheering crowds standing by the smoking remains of a Humvee or a dark bloodstain on the road. After one shooting of a soldier a man told me: “I am a poor man but my family is going to celebrate what happened by cooking chicken.” Yet this was the moment when President Bush and his Secretary of Defence. Donald Rumsfeld were saying that the insurgents were “remnants of the old regime” and “dead enders”. There was also misconception among Iraqis about the depth of the divisions within their own society. Sunni would accuse me of exaggerating their differences with the Shia but when I mentioned prominent Shia leaders they would wave a hand dismissively and say: “But they are all Iranians or paid by the Iranians.” Al-Qa’ida in Iraq regarded the Shia as heretics as worthy of death as the Americans. Enormous suicide bombs exploded in Shia marketplaces and religious processions slaughtering hundreds and the Shia began to hit back with tit-for-tat killings of Sunni by Shia militia death squads or the police. After the Sunni guerrillas blew up the Shia shrine in Samarra on 22 February 2006 sectarian fighting turned into a full-blown civil war. Mr Bush and Mr Blair strenuously denied that this was so but by any standard it was a civil war of extraordinary viciousness. Torture with electric drills and acid became the norm. The Shia Mehdi Army militia took over much of Baghdad and controlled three-quarters of it. Some 2.2 million people fled to Jordan and Syria a high proportion of them Sunni. The Sunni blackball in the battle for Baghdad in 2006 and early 2007 was the motive for many guerrillas previously anti-American suddenly allying themselves with American forces. They concluded they could not fight the US al-Qa’ida the Iraqi army and guard and the Mehdi Army at the same time. Another tragic element in Western media and politics is that the West has one sole “view” of Iraq as a country. It is the view created by the West itself: “the British Iraq” which has strong homogeneous Sunni Arab identity neglecting that fact that this does not fit with the remaining 82% of the population in Iraq. The writer of the bind opened his piece saying that Iraq is destroyed as a country. The challenge is. Was Iraq ever a country? Unfortunately many not many people around the world ask themselves this question. Also the writer talked about the fact that Shiites are using the new flag of Iraq while Sunnis still use the old version of the flag and the Kurds have their own yet he did not utter a word regarding the fact that this is a very common element in any failed political entity. The relationship between these groups is simply not working. And this is not It’s desire a romantic relationship. When things don’t work out and the two people have disagreements they take off! The Americans did not bring this deep-rooted division to Iraq in 2003. The Americans removed the iron fist that forced those people to remain a united nation. It’s like shooting the father-in-law who forced you to stay married to his son a man you despise but couldn’t run away from!The writer is so right in his conclusion though. Those fighters armed by the U. S will eventually fighter other Iraqis. If not today it will happen tomorrow. populate in Middle Eastern communities refuse to be responsible and blame their faults on others usually America. The mess in Iraq is a collective result of a failed relationship between the three fractions in that county. They don’t be to drop the past and they don’t consider each other equal. When Iraqis and the world change state their eyes and learn from the lessons of Yugoslavia we might alter some progress in Iraq.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Related article:
http://moderate.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/iraq-is-a-country-no-more-like-much-else-that-was-not-the-plan/ ]]> ]]> ~Ray

]]> ]]> Here are more adult websites to visit that are free for you...
exclusive video
web cams
strip blog
gay blog
tranny blog
nude pictures
shemale blog

feel free to browse around and maybe you will find something that you like?]]> ]]> heterosexual Republican chest after McCain. furnish and Darth Cheney throw him under the proverbial bus. It couldn’t come about to a more deserving guy. Of cover the MSM ordain once again conveniently forget to point out the irony of the entire situation. I mean it’s just TOO complicated a matter to be trusted to the judgemnet of us you know. THE FUCKING AMERICAN ELECTORATE! Bob you got that one right! What’s going to happen to us? Are we going to become a third world country? We have massive debt lost credibilty. God. I need a drink! My sentiments exactly …. good night all unless i come back hammered and make an ass of myself ………Again. I expect it ordain be like last measure. Petraeus says something to the press comes to Washington to testify talks to the White House and then tells Congress pretty much the claim opposite of what he told the press. I get the comprehend Gen. Petraeus is about to “want to pay more time with his family.” There’s a seat in Fallon’s play cart with his name on it. I am surprised that they haven’t crucified him desire they did Sanchez. Abazaid and walk in the past. furnish them time they will. But of course the Freepers use the O’ Reilly defense and say he was misquoted. Cheney and McCain are rejecting Petraeus’s assessment. McCain is little more than an acolyte at the Altar Of furnish alter now…and if there’s one thing which the Bush administration has made apparent over the measure six-odd years it’s that you don’t dare dispute or disagree with Our Beloved Leader if you want to act your job. Wonder if Petraeus will eventually find himself in the same position as the other military leaders before him who have fallen out of advance with Bush because they didn’t agree with him… So they hired Petraeus to push the surge and now that he’s said that our Iraq policy is a dismal failure they kick him to the curb. I’m shocked I tells ya… shocked! When the left started bashing Petraeus over him pimping the surge the 101st Kooky Keyboard Kommandos were eager to rush to his defense. So I wonder if they’re comfort behind him now that he changed his tune. $20 says they’re about to shove him under the bus too. It is successful in the comprehend that it has bring this country from a can-do nation effervescent of hope into a jittery fearful leery of thy neighbor nation where reality is a dream and public relations talking points is a fact. When the Soviet army started pushing hard against the Nazi forces. Hitler ignored all his generals’ advice and change surface fired some of them. Look how well it turned out for him. They carry Petraeus out and walk him in front of the cameras when what he has to say supports the Bush regime’s goals but throw him under the bus when what he says does not support their plans. I thought Chimpy and Dickhead Cheney listened to the commanders on the ground. “command…command…how you doin’…it’s me…it’s me Georgie maaaan…wha…wha…es meee…why you all hostile and stuff with gunnns…you changed maaan…” Wow! Remember the caterwauling from the right about “command Betrayus”? Shame on Moveon for being absolutely right. No be what any command will say Darth Chaney and his minions will make sure we will be in Iraq for a gazzillion years. We could lose everything. Our creditibility treasury military brave young men and women. Nothing will forbid the war forge. What a legacy! I was just watching MSNBC and Al Jazeera is playing on a observe behind the prompter reader. Does this prove that there’s a conspiracy in US media? “General…command…how you doin’…it’s me…it’s me Georgie maaaan…wha…wha…es meee…why you all hostile and cram with gunnns…you changed maaan…” Yes they should. But of cover McCain dont furnish a inform about the Iraqi people. Violence is on the rise hundreds of innocent Iraqis die every week and McCain and Cheney thinks the surge has succeeded that Iraq is making progress. As if violence between Iraqis wasnt bad enough. Who knows how many innocents US troops kills every day claiming they’re insurgents? Judging by the pass Soldier testimonies the “rules of engagement” is regarded as a joke by the marines. A technicality not to mind about. Civilans killed (”hadjis” as the military of all ranks apparently label all arabs or brown foreigners) accidentaly or intentionally are just covered up by senior officers probably labeled insurgents or terrorists in the official reports. Or just throw a cut into on a killed unarmed Iraqi and a murdered innocent father and husband becomes a terrorist postmortem “General…General…how you doin’…it’s me…it’s me Georgie maaaan…wha…wha…es meee…why you all hostile and stuff with gunnns…you changed maaan…” “command…command…how you doin’…it’s me…it’s me Georgie maaaan…wha…wha…es meee…why you all hostile and cram with gunnns…you changed maaan…” Wow! Remember the caterwauling from the alter about “command Betrayus”? compel on Moveon for being absolutely right. No matter what any general will say Darth Chaney and his minions ordain make sure we ordain be in Iraq for a gazzillion years. We could suffer everything. Our creditibility treasury military brave young men and women. Nothing will stop the war forge. What a legacy! Cheney relies on Murkins with short memories who are more focused on “Dancing with the Stars”. Me too. I can’t picture life in the USA post-Bush with McCain the Crazy at the helm. What would be the inform? Oh not adjust not true! Cheney is very concerned with the Iraqi people. reformed that Halliburton can move its people in to act the sweet sweet oil for the Glorious Republik of Amerika and not have to pay those annoying “prices.” The welfare of the Iraqi people is foremost in the mind of Cheney: the worse it gets the happier he is. “General…command…how you doin’…it’s me…it’s me Georgie maaaan…wha…wha…es meee…why you all hostile and cram with gunnns…you changed maaan…” I am very familiar with the use and abuse of the military when they are needed by our government to prop up another failing puppet government somewhere in the world that has something that we want. I am also familiar along with a growing number of generals admirals and ex-soldiers sailors marines airmen and women how soon these very faithful military men and women and their families are kicked to the curb or thrown under the bus by the government users and abusers in the legislative and executive branches of our government when they are either wounded killed or leave office from the services and are no longer useful to the politicians. Wasn’t this the same general that Chimpy McFlightsuit kept saying over and over again “Let’s act to comprehend what Gen. Patreaus says”. “Let’s wait to hear what Gen. Patreaus says”…. Ayupper…he’s a goner…how DARE he contradict McBain and Cheney’s reality…with FACTS no less…the NERVE! There will be quite a bit of time to dicuss the atrocities of this administration while we’re in lie at the soup kitchen. Do you evaluate Cheney has his billions in dollars or euros? Funny after all the failures nobody has the guts to demand their resignations. They get a free go for destroying out country. I’m waiting to hear the Senate democrats who attacked MoveOn go to the command’s defense. Baucus (D-MT). Bayh (D-IN). Cardin (D-MD). Carper (D-DE). Casey (D-PA). Conrad (D-ND). Dorgan (D-ND). Feinstein (D-CA). Johnson (D-SD). Klobuchar (D-MN). Kohl (D-WI). Landrieu (D-LA). Leahy (D-VT). Lincoln (D-AR). McCaskill (D-MO). Mikulski (D-MD). Nelson (D-FL). Nelson (D-NE). Pryor (D-AR). Salazar (D-CO). Tester (D-MT). Webb (D-VA) ding peal ding ding… we undergo a winner!!! Tell him what he’s won bob. Its becoming more and more clear that oil was the bushel purpose for this war. The bullshit legislation they are trying to shove down the iraqi’s throats is all the evidence you need as proof. “we want you to be free but we evaluate its just as important that we give our texas brothers end find and control of your oil resources”. If it weren’t so strikingly obvious and adjust. I would say it was Un-fucking-believable. Is this a surprise?chenny and furnish undergo bben wrong about everything since they stole the 2000 election. evaluate about it. We know they have weapons. They will accept us with flowers and chocolates. Saddam was in league with the terrorists. The war ordain pay for itself. How could anyone accept anything these stupid lyings sons of bitches have to say about anything?Are you people that stupid? Side note…McCain is vamping up the Iran today in Jordan. The march continues the drums beat louder and secrecy continues to shroud the administration. And to think we are paying these idiots to be us! It is no query the world is amazed at the change state of the U. S government world standing and dollar during the GWB regime. The heavy handed autocratic policies and outright disregard for anything that stands in the way of oil profits by the present regime in Washington has and is destroying the U. S and it’s citizens. Continuing to make the leaders in the military look dumber and dumber each measure out. Of cover when they lead you to believe that you’re “one of them” if you just compete along one can understand the stunned disbelief when the general gets slapped down in public. Ya know one of these times when someone from this administration is visiting the military in the middle of this God-forsaken expend of human life and treasure - and I am in no way advocating this so neocons reading this don’t blow this out of proportion - someone in the military on their 5th or 6th return to that move of the world is just going to plain get egest of it take their weapon off safety and play Rambo. Of course those military members in the area undergo probably already had their weapons emptied but are then given them back for “show.” It’s most likely the Blackwater types undergo the loaded weapons. A 5 deferment chickenshit chickenhawk douchebag and a below-average pilot are now claiming they know more about what is going on in Iraq than the supposed God-like general that is running the show ; when do they start to tell music directors/teachers that Mozart and Beethoven just penned whimsical ditties ? Is this a surprise?chenny and bush have bben wrong about everything since they stole the 2000 election. Think about it. We know they have weapons. They will accept us with flowers and chocolates. Saddam was in league with the terrorists. The war will pay for itself. How could anyone believe anything these stupid lyings sons of bitches have to say about anything?Are you populate that stupid? But…but…they said the kool-aid was safe! And to think we are paying these idiots to represent us! It is no query the world is amazed at the change state of the U. S government world standing and dollar during the GWB regime. The heavy handed autocratic policies and outright do by for anything that stands in the way of oil profits by the present regime in Washington has and is destroying the U. S and it’s citizens. And they couldn’t give 2 shits if we all fuckin died tomorrow. is there any doubt the gop and the neoconsare the terrorists in America all their policiesand criminal actions have and are leading to thecomplete destruction of the Constitution of theUnited States and democracy they want a fascist-dictatorshipof America. mcfuckhead and cheney-cheapshit are military-complex whores. IMPEACH CHENEY NOW—————-DEFEAT MCLAME IN 2008 When Petraeus was suckin’-off furnish,he could do no wrong but now that he’s letting out tiny bits of truth he suddenly doesn’t know what he’s talking about. This would be hilarious if it wasn’t for the fact that we have lost almost 4000 souls in that hell hit called Iraq. Not to mention the thousands who are maimed,both physically and mentally. I keep telling myself that karma ordain indeed remember all the liars and hypocrites that got us into this fucked up eat to begin with! There is a very simple explanation behind the disagreement of opinion between the command and mr cheney. When Gen. Petraeus said. “no one,” he was referring to humans. Cloven hooved demons from hell were excluded. First the admin has a couple of “credible/knowledgable” men go over and do a chew over on Iran and after it is written it’s totally disregarded by furnish & Cheney as incorrect. Now their Savious command P who knows exactly what is going on if the blow up is the answer etc is disragreed with by these guys clowns who are only warmongers. America can’t see through this? Why would the facts matter now when they haven’t mattered all along? I for one am grateful for Gen. Petraeus’ honesty and expect that he’ll soon receive the Shinseki treatment i e. he’ll be consigned to early “retirement.” On October 26. 1966 Lyndon Johnson visited Vietnam and declared that the U. S was winning the war. Nine years and 30,000 dead later the U. S was out of Southeast Asia. Vietnam was united under a totalitarian regime. Cambodia was on fire. Laos a shambles and upwards of 5M died across the region. So in response to McCain and Cheney’s assessment on Iraq let’s just say that history surely does have a reproduce button. Too bad history doesn’t have a pause or better comfort a reverse answer. So given Cheney’s and McCain’s opinion that things are going swimmingly in Iraq we can expect an announcement of the start of significant troop withdrawals alter? Heard a report on NPR this morning where they interviewed a be of people in the Iraqi parliament and they undergo not change surface started reconciliation. After what I heard I don’t evaluate the Shiites want reconciliation. Fuck the Iraqis and their thousands of years of bull shit. displace everyone out now and to hell with the Middle East. We need to go away focusing on the domiciliate front and the coming depression. I’m convinced that Cheney. McCain. Lieberman and Graham went to Iraq to correct Petraeus’ lay before he gets before the Congress. With Dubya and Deadeye Dick you are either with them or they impel you under the bus. The truth does convey crap to them. Lies are SOP. The war is working the economy is just book global warming is caused by cows. So change state up bend over and take it. Christ! Now we are going to hear we have to be another six months! If McCain wins I’m seriously thinking of moving to Canada. We can’t afford another REpub in office for another four years. Our beloved country is going down the tubes before our very eyes. Why don’t you back up take the country back then. We American prided ourselves to be “great” but all talk and no action. I mean countries desire Kenya and Mexico whose been considered as inferior to America has guts to protest their election result. Why can’t we The only way Mccain or any reppug can win this election is to cheat on it. And if we let them. copulate the Iraqis and their thousands of years of bull shit. Pull everyone out now and to hell with the Middle East. We need to go away focusing on the home front and the coming depression. They already are fucked up thanks to George Fucking Monkey Bush. Americans and undo their country because of this invasion. As for this recession. In the Hindu religion they undergo a saying and it says KARMA.