Random observation
 

Or Pope.

(Never, ever tell BRC that not everyone strictly adheres to the words of Miss Manners. That's peeing on her Koran.)

This is Bad
 

2. I don't know how they would respond against the foreign terrorists, but I'm surprised that there haven't been more reprisal killings.

This is Bad
 

Yes. That would be the incident where bombers approached hundreds of children who were gathered around accepting toys and candy from an American serviceman and then blew themselves up. As appalling as that is, one major newspaper (in the US) snidely reported the incident as "hundreds of Iraqi children killed as American soldier hands out candy". I forget the exact headline but it had a definite "let them eat cake" suggestion.

Has this been posted?
 

I don't know if this is relevant or if it's accurate, but it's interesting:

Studies: Most foreign fighters didn't wage terror before Iraq war

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/3269420

Apparently we can be confident that they got assurance no crime was committed
 

Because having had a week or so to ponder (and get numerous legal opinions, I'm sure), the formulation is:

"if anyone on [Bush's] staff committed a crime in the CIA-leak case, that person will 'no longer work in my administration.'"

From yahoo.

What's "is" again?

Apparently we can be confident that they got assurance no crime was committed
 

I'd be more interested in the definition of "work."

Random observation
 

Infidel!

Obviously, he's with the terrorists.

Has this been posted?
 

It's definitely relevant and interesting. No idea if it's accurate, though I'm certain I can say who on this Board will say it's not.

On the other hand, I'm sure that they were all considering working on programs of terror before, and we are fighting them over there instead of here. And also, 9/11.

Has this been posted?
 

Who cares. The paper says most of the Saudis who went to Iraq to fight did so b/c they want to blow themselves up or risk their lives so that American feet are not touching Arab soil, even if Americans are there at the request of the government of the Arab country in question. Whether you call that kind of person an asshat or a terrorist -- who cares? We've been dealing with these wingnuts all over the world, including on our own soil, on the same "infidels out of Allah land" theme.

For Ty and His Boy Josh
 

QUESTION:

"Did the former Niger prime minister meet with any Iraqi officials in June 1999?"

In brief:

1. Wilson says “yes” during his private CIA debrief in March, 2002.

2. Wilson fails to mention the meeting in his NYT op/ed and his first “Meet the Press” in July, 2003.

3. Wilson lies and says “no” during a “Frontline” PBS Interview in August, 2003.

4. Wilson lies and says “no” twice during his second “Meet the Press” interview in October, 2003.

5. Wilson says “yes” during his third “Meet the Press” interview in May, 2004.

6. Wilson says “yes” to SSCI committee staff --report released in July, 2004.

Apparently we can be confident that they got assurance no crime was committed
 

What's a "crime" again?

For Ty and His Boy Josh
 

Who fucking cares? Is Wilson running the country? No.

eta: sgtclub posted the other night about how the board is much more polarized than it used to be, and I agreed that it mirrored the country this way. Your post is a perfect example of how and why Rove et al. push this polarization. You seem to think that there are only two positions in this debate, and that if you can trash Wilson then you win. Who fucking cares about whether Wilson told the truth about this stuff? You can think that Wilson is an opportunist who likes the spotlight a little too much and who can't keep his story straight over time, and still think that he was right to call attention to the Administration's scaremongering about Niger uranium, and that Rove et al. were wrong to defenestrate his wife. The polarization is designed to make sure there are only two sides, so that the attack politics work.

I asked you the other day how Rove could have known when he was talking to Cooper and Novak that Wilson was a partisan hack. You've ducked that question. Wilson's many actions and words since then aren't an answer.

For Ty and His Boy Josh
 

Does your tone infer that this story is over?

Here's War of the Worlds screenwriter David Froeep, describing his film:

Here is him again, from USA Today:

Do you think HG Wells orignally planned that his book be read as anti-UK propaganda?

For Ty and His Boy Josh
 

Wrong. What this administration, and the majority of Americans who supported it in the last election, are willing to do is take an aggressive position on National Defence, in order to avoid sitting on our hands like the Clinton Administration allowing the terrorists and the nations that harbour and otherwise support them to continue to build their strength for use against the US. If Clinton had been a CinC rather than a mouthfucker-who-jerks-himself-off-into-the-oval-office-sink-in-chief then these issues would not even exist. But, like the Demos of today, he was with them.