2) i'm guessing you dont read the nyt but heard that there was an op-ed piece on monday where the author said that the military was making progress in iraq. aside from the fact that the author ignored all of southern iraq in making his determination, this had nothing to do with the nyt editorial page. it was an op-ed. there is news today that the total death toll in iraq was 74 for the month of july. some might consider that positive news, but i don't think people are standing up and cheering.
Is this how you're trying to spin this. aside from the NYT editorial (and i do read the times when i can stomach it, and the whole paper is an op-ed piece, and you know it) there have been a half dozen similar articles in the last few days (I would post them all, but I???m sure they???ll show up in the next chapter of Motown???s book). And you're going to try and pretend that the editorial page has absolutely no control over what gets printed as an op-ed. Come on.
As for my original hypothesis, you tell me which top tier candidate runs to the right of Hillary on this issue (and on second thought, you can remove the smirk from the analysis because he hasn't a chance in hell). Its just like when Kerry, the DNC and the NYT got together to scuttle Howard Dean???s campaign.
Is this how you're trying to spin this. aside from the NYT editorial (and i do read the times when i can stomach it, and the whole paper is an op-ed piece, and you know it) there have been a half dozen similar articles in the last few days (I would post them all, but I???m sure they???ll show up in the next chapter of Motown???s book). And you're going to try and pretend that the editorial page has absolutely no control over what gets printed as an op-ed. Come on.
Please name a paper that is better than the nyt.
The op-ed page has some guest columnists but its mostly regular contributers. David Brooks is about as conservative and anti-Hillary as they come and he has a bi-weekly column. Maureen Dowd is critical of bush but she was just as harsh on clinton and liberals would gag if anyone characterized her as one. Keep in mind they only run 3 op-eds a day. Generally, there is at least 1 conservative column, and 1 that has nothing to do with politics or even social issues.
As for my original hypothesis, you tell me which top tier candidate runs to the right of Hillary on this issue (and on second thought, you can remove the smirk from the analysis because he hasn't a chance in hell). Its just like when Kerry, the DNC and the NYT got together to scuttle Howard Dean???s campaign.
Where are you getting this conspiracy theory from? Assuming Edwards, Obama and Hillary are the only "top tier" candidates, why dont you tell me how they differ on Iraq? If you've watched the debates, there hasn't been any contention on this issue between them, except as it relates to Hillary's voting record. If the nyt is gonna lobby for Hillary, it will have to be on other issues where there is a greater difference of opinion.
Didn't Obama say yesterday that if elected he would send troops into Pakistan???
August 1, 2007 Obama Warns Pakistan on Terrorism By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 1:33 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission if warranted -- an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion [/b] and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
''Let me make this clear,'' Obama said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. ''There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.''
Obama's speech comes the week after his rivalry with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton erupted into a public fight over their diplomatic intentions.
Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, an idea that Clinton criticized as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her ''Bush-Cheney lite.''
Thousands of Taliban fighters are based in Pakistan's vast and jagged mountains, where they can pass into Afghanistan, train for suicide operations and find refuge from local tribesmen. Intelligence experts warn that al-Qaida could be rebuilding here to mount another attack on the United States.
Musharraf has been a key ally of Washington in fighting terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, but has faced accusations from some quarters in Pakistan of being too closely tied to America.
The Bush administration has supported Musharraf and stressed the need to cooperate with Pakistan, but lately administration officials have suggested the possibility of military strikes to deal with al-Qaida and its leader, Osama bin Laden.
Analysts say an invasion could risk destabilizing Pakistan, breeding more militancy and undermining Musharraf. The Pakistani Foreign Office, protective of its national sovereignty, has warned that U.S. military action would violate international law and be deeply resented.
A military invasion could be risky, given Pakistan's hostile terrain and the suspicion of its warrior-minded tribesmen against uninvited outsiders.
Congress passed legislation Friday that would tie aid from the United States to Islamabad's efforts to stop al-Qaida and the Taliban from operating in its territory. President Bush has yet to sign it.
Obama's speech was a condemnation of President Bush's leadership in the war on terror. He said the focus on Iraq has left Americans in more danger than before Sept. 11, and that Bush has misrepresented the enemy as Iraqis who are fighting a civil war instead of the terrorists responsible for the attacks six years ago.
''He confuses our mission,'' Obama said, then he spread responsibility to lawmakers like Clinton who voted for the invasion. ''By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.''
Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them ''on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan.'' He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.
He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa.
this is either (a) a bold, refreshing wake-up call to a dangerous human rights abusing country that we have coddled for way too long or (b) just a dumb slip of the tongue by an amateur politician.
A few days ago he was talking about having a cosy tea and chat with all our enemies. Now he's promising to bomb our allies. You shoulda done listend when dolo told yall this guy is a rookie.
Comments
Is this how you're trying to spin this. aside from the NYT editorial (and i do read the times when i can stomach it, and the whole paper is an op-ed piece, and you know it) there have been a half dozen similar articles in the last few days (I would post them all, but I???m sure they???ll show up in the next chapter of Motown???s book). And you're going to try and pretend that the editorial page has absolutely no control over what gets printed as an op-ed. Come on.
As for my original hypothesis, you tell me which top tier candidate runs to the right of Hillary on this issue (and on second thought, you can remove the smirk from the analysis because he hasn't a chance in hell). Its just like when Kerry, the DNC and the NYT got together to scuttle Howard Dean???s campaign.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
best political website.
Please name a paper that is better than the nyt.
The op-ed page has some guest columnists but its mostly regular contributers. David Brooks is about as conservative and anti-Hillary as they come and he has a bi-weekly column. Maureen Dowd is critical of bush but she was just as harsh on clinton and liberals would gag if anyone characterized her as one. Keep in mind they only run 3 op-eds a day. Generally, there is at least 1 conservative column, and 1 that has nothing to do with politics or even social issues.
Where are you getting this conspiracy theory from? Assuming Edwards, Obama and Hillary are the only "top tier" candidates, why dont you tell me how they differ on Iraq? If you've watched the debates, there hasn't been any contention on this issue between them, except as it relates to Hillary's voting record. If the nyt is gonna lobby for Hillary, it will have to be on other issues where there is a greater difference of opinion.
August 1, 2007
Obama Warns Pakistan on Terrorism
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:33 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission if warranted -- an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion [/b] and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
''Let me make this clear,'' Obama said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. ''There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.''
Obama's speech comes the week after his rivalry with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton erupted into a public fight over their diplomatic intentions.
Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, an idea that Clinton criticized as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her ''Bush-Cheney lite.''
Thousands of Taliban fighters are based in Pakistan's vast and jagged mountains, where they can pass into Afghanistan, train for suicide operations and find refuge from local tribesmen. Intelligence experts warn that al-Qaida could be rebuilding here to mount another attack on the United States.
Musharraf has been a key ally of Washington in fighting terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, but has faced accusations from some quarters in Pakistan of being too closely tied to America.
The Bush administration has supported Musharraf and stressed the need to cooperate with Pakistan, but lately administration officials have suggested the possibility of military strikes to deal with al-Qaida and its leader, Osama bin Laden.
Analysts say an invasion could risk destabilizing Pakistan, breeding more militancy and undermining Musharraf. The Pakistani Foreign Office, protective of its national sovereignty, has warned that U.S. military action would violate international law and be deeply resented.
A military invasion could be risky, given Pakistan's hostile terrain and the suspicion of its warrior-minded tribesmen against uninvited outsiders.
Congress passed legislation Friday that would tie aid from the United States to Islamabad's efforts to stop al-Qaida and the Taliban from operating in its territory. President Bush has yet to sign it.
Obama's speech was a condemnation of President Bush's leadership in the war on terror. He said the focus on Iraq has left Americans in more danger than before Sept. 11, and that Bush has misrepresented the enemy as Iraqis who are fighting a civil war instead of the terrorists responsible for the attacks six years ago.
''He confuses our mission,'' Obama said, then he spread responsibility to lawmakers like Clinton who voted for the invasion. ''By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.''
Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them ''on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan.'' He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.
He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa.
this is either (a) a bold, refreshing wake-up call to a dangerous human rights abusing country that we have coddled for way too long or (b) just a dumb slip of the tongue by an amateur politician.
you be the judge.
Why are you wallowing in the excrement of SS??