Rudy, when the day before, your party leader in the form of Fuhrer Bush bad mouthing Congress for supposedly playing politics with tragedy and then you turn around and do EXACTLY that, it makes you look like a hypocritical jackass and an opportunistic fear monger. Got news for you, Rudy. The polls show Americans do not think a Republican is better for us IN ANY WAY and you just confirmed it. You WERE the ONLY Republican I might have considered voting for, but then you backed a national ID card. I am not getting one EVER Rudy, no matter who is President, got that? You will have to issue one to my dead body. Now you say something as ridiculous like a Democratic President would make us 11% more likely to suffer an 9/11 style attack. Tsk, tsk, tsk. 11%? Really? That shows me you have Karl Rove for a math teacher. If you are going to fabricate numbers, go whole hog, say 38% or 45.75%. Aim for the big lie. I have seen the future and his name is not Giuliani. Buh-bye now, loser.

Republicans "will remain on the offensive"? Like President Bush has throughout this ill-conceived and mismanaged war? It seems as if the offensive Mr. Bush has this country (or 30% of it) on is what is making America less secure. If we were to just leave the Iraqis alone, they just might leave us alone.

As I watch I get some sweet sweet payoff . . . the House just authorized immunity for Monica Goodling and issued a subpoena. Between Gonzo and Rove, Bush is now seriously facing being forced from office. To quote Neocon Republican role model and general all-around bad guy, C. Montgomery Burns, "Excellent! Smithers! Release the hounds!"

Offensive about sums up the whole administration

I don't know why but I am a little surprised at Rudy. I had thought he would be smarter than this instead of playing these weak on defense scare tactics against the Dems. That is not a political strategem that is working right now, especially when the majority of Americans want us out of this conflict in Iraq. Whoever his campaign advisors are they are making a big mistake. The fact is, Republican or Democratic administration, if the terrorist want to hit the United states again they can, they will, no matter who is in office. And if Rudy is playing this gajme now just to please the riight wing of the Republican party so he can win the nomination, well, like I said about all politicans before, Republican and Democrat, they will say what they think is going to please the crowd they are speaking to at the time. They all suck. Nice zinger (quote) by Harry Reid in response to Cheney by the way.

Wasn't it a Republican Administration that was in place on 9/11? And wasn't it that same Republican Administration that dismissed the Daily Presidential Brief warning "Bin Ladin Determined to Attack Inside the US?" Makes you wonder who's really the party of waiting for a 9/11.

I posted one statement about Rudy but just had to add to it. Rudy states the terrorists "hate us for our freedom". Just what the f--k is that? This guy is running for President and he cannot make an intelligent statement as to why he thinks the terrorist hate us. Just another over-generalization without any substance to please the crowd he is speaking too. That's it, Rudy is out of the ballgame. The Republicans better hope that Chuck Hagel announces he is running for President or the game will be over before it even starts. Clinton or Obhama will be your next President.

Rudy Safety from the Republicans? Give me a break! What party was in office that was instrumental in the overthrew of the government of Iran, 1953? And what achieved? Twenty years of cheap oil and a lot of hate from the Iranians. And you still demonize Jimmy Carter because he was confronted with all the hate you intilled in Iran for the American people. May I remind you, he lost the election but every one of those hostages came home. Left up to the likes of you we would have nuked that country, killed our people and a lot of innocent Iranians. Who was it that supplied Saddam Hussein with all the ingrediants he needed to make all of his cute little toys. After all he was going to protect us from Iran, remember? There was never any concern shown over the gassing of the Kurds until it became politically expedient to do so. I'll never forget those pictures and I will never forget who justified the policy of keeping him as our pit bull. I could go on and on but right now I have to go spit out the nails I am biting.

We're safe now? Budgets for our local police forces have been cut. I can hear gun fire from my home at night. A decade ago, all I heard late at night was the patrol cars making their rounds. Today, no patrol cars at night. It's appalling. We aren't safe under this Republican administration, why should we be safe under any other?

JUST IN: "A House committee voted Wednesday to grant immunity to Monica Goodling, a key aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during the firings of eight U.S. attorneys. She had refused to testify, invoking her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination." Well, well, well, it's looks as though Alberto Gonzalez, in addition to Karl Rove and perhaps the moron and criminal George W. Bush will be exposed for the lying sack of collective crap they are!! Goodling "taking the fifth", and subsequent excuses based on her decision, were disgusting enough; and I was sincerely hoping Congress would give on this one, thus grant her immunity. I posted it on another thread a few weeks back!! I'm glad to see they chose the correct "lesser of two evils"; as I honestly believe people will go down, and fast. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Gonzalez "surrenders" his resignation; and most likely at 4:59PM/59 seconds on Friday, April 27, 2007!! After all, this entire Administration, from top to bottom, looks at Americans as a collective bunch of idiots; and therefore truly believes in their criminal, sick, twisted and flat out evil thinking that we will just not pay attention Friday night or over the weekend!! The unraveling continues!! I can't wait for this testimony!!

Jimmy Carter getting the hostages out ??? You got to be freaking kidding me ! If he would have won re election they would have been there another 4 years. I believe the Iranians understood that Reagan was prepard to kick their ass. I too am mad as hell that Mr and Mrs Bill Clinton both said that Sadaam was a threat and had weapons of mass destruction. Oh the selective memory of some libs. If Bill was not so convinced then maybe so many libs would not have voted to go to war , and saved us all of this heartache. You see, it's easy to state things here from recorded soundbites of the clintons and put blame wherever to want it to be. Truth is , we all made a mistate. So , please Harry - defund this illegal war abd bring our boys home. Then when all Iraquis start the lovefest I will give you all of the credit. But when mass killings escalate , I hope you take responsibility

The House is also scheduled to vote on subpoenas for Bush administration officials!! Oh, it just keeps getting better by the day for those of us who have watched in horror for the last six plus years. Among those the House is preparing to vote to issue a subpoena for is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Apparently, finally and exceedingly long overdue, lawmakers have a “few” (HAH!!) questions to ask her regarding the administration's now-discredited claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. This of course, was used to LIE to the America public, the United Nations, the community of nations and the citizens of Iraq, in part to justify the war against Iraq. Well it appears my now favorite word “unraveling”, might have to be replaced with those like “sinking ship”, “start fitting them for orange jumpsuits”, The Hague Here We Come” and “The George W. Bush Administration Titanic”. Wow, to even envision the possibility that the now infamous sixteen words/LIE told by George W. Bush regarding uranium, could take this Administration down, and assign it the accurate title of “Officially Disgraced Administration & Final Legacy” is not only justified, it is necessary. If this country is to even begin regaining our status in the world, subpoenas and testimony like this are necessary!! The world is “watching” and more importantly, they are watching our actions as citizens and individuals. On a final note, President Bill Clinton, we NEED you, the world needs you!! As a man who is unconditionally respected and well liked throughout the world, no person could or would do a better job at mending the thousands of fences George W. Bush, a.k.a. “President Bombsalot” and his criminal and incompetent Administration have ruthlessly crushed!! HELP!!

PS: Breaking News: "Congressional committees Wednesday ramped up their investigations of the Bush administration by approving a subpoena for Secretary of State Condoleezza" It's coming, I have that feeling........!!!!

I love Keith and Alison on the show, and often watch the posted clips from the MSNBC website. Unfortunately, since I missed the show on Tuesday, I couldn’t get the right clip when I selected “Another Rove investigation” – I kept getting the “Oddball: SkySisters” clip. Is this another example of the long arm of the White House? ;) Rudy Giuliani is a disaster waiting to happen -- it's almost time for another scandal to surface about him. He is such an authoritarian putz. I never expected him to do better than McCain, even with McCain continual shooting himself in the face, sucking up to the president while maintaining publicly that he is independent and a "maverick" (did you see him on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Tuesday night? Check it out!).

Breaking News: "Simultaneously across Capitol Hill, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved — but did not issue — a subpoena on the prosecutors' matter to Sara Taylor, deputy to presidential adviser Karl Rove." I can state without a doubt that this day is being marked on my "personal calendar" as the day that Congress has FINALLY begun to deliver to this Administration what is exceedingly long overdue!! They are standing up to this bullying, criminal and incompetent bunch of lying jackasses!! FINALLY, at least a process is beginning, which could ultimately lead to each and every one of this Administration's bold-faced lies exposed. There aren't enough apologies in the word to ever tell the Iraqi people how sorry we are for destroying their nation; however, perhaps this will give "us", as "individuals" back some level of credibility, which George W. Bush and his Administration stole from "us" as "individuals"!!

Larry, I think you missed my point. With every crises we have if you go back far enough you will find a Republican administration that planted the seeds of hatred. I know what is coming next, "Thats right blame America first." Not true, I blame the GOP better known as "Greedy Old Pariahs", not America.

The reality is not so much do we need a Republican or a Democrat so much as do we want strong or weak. Strong Presidents can be problematic at times. For example, Presidents Johnson and Nixon were both very strong Presidents, but both were, over all, detrimental to the American nation in one way or the other. Bill Clinton and Franklin Roosevelt were both strong Presidents who sought to do good for the nation, but were flexible enough to compromise. Weak Presidents tend to be totally ineffectual and normally last only one term. George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter are both weak Presidents, but in different ways. Carter wanted to do so much good that he rarely got the chance to actually govern. G.W. Bush is unwilling to go beyond his advisors for information, and is, thus, slave to their agendae. There are rare median Presidents such as Ronald Regan. However, Regan may really be a case of a weak President surrounded by good, honest men and women. What this nation needs is a good, strong executive who is in step with the majority opinions of the people, and not enslaved to the views of a radical few. But to say that only a Republican can make this nation safe is, quite frankly, repugnant. Honestly, scare tactics are low, and often backfire. All anyone has to do now is point out that G.W. Bush removed the presure that Al-Qaida was under durring the Clinton Administration and that allowed bin Laden's followers to carry out the attacks of 11 September. Crime rates are climbing as well. I do not think that saying 'only a Republican' can make us safe is a wise statement to make.

Reagan didn't scare the Iranians, he traded missles for hostages. Some hero. Stop getting all your info from fear and hate mongers. Read a book!

Larry Charleston, SC – First of all, you analogy of President Jimmy Carter is asinine. While the mission to rescue the hostages was a disaster, military experts have testified over and over again that had that one pilot, who thought he was entering a dangerous sand storm, not turned around as he did, the mission could have been successful. We will never know, as it was horrifically catastrophic. In addition, it has long been rumored (i.e. the truth) that George Herbert Walker Bush orchestrated a “deal” (what a shock) to not only ensure the American hostages were held until after the election, that they also not be released until Reagan was sworn into office. WOW!! Guess what Larry? The hostages were released within fifteen minutes of Reagan’s inauguration!! President Carter was willing to sacrifice his re-election for the safety of the hostages Larry!! (the anti-BushES). I understand this might be difficult to grasp, as with all the horrors we have witnessed with George W. Bush’s Administration. Additionally, the criminal Reagan/Bush team was a disgrace!! There were more indictments issued during the Reagan/Bush Administration than any other in history or to date. Also, President Carter is the most honest president this country has ever had. Now let’s move on to President Bill Clinton. In his own words, “I tried to get Osama bin Laden, I ordered his killing and I contracted for him to be killed. That’s the difference, I tried and this Administration (George W. Bush Administration) did NOTHING for eight months leading up to September 11th. The difference is I tried, and I failed, but at least I tried. We left a comprehensive terror plan for the incoming (George W. Bush) Administration and it was ignored, and threats were ignored”. So Larry, please get off you soap box and study up on the variety of collective facts you seemingly ignore, and on a nonstop “broken record” basis. President Bill Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of ANY president in US history. In addition, the huge deficit inherited after twelve irresponsible and criminal years of republican leadership, he left the George W. Bush Administration with a surplus. That surplus was SPENT and it was spent BEFORE the attacks of September 11, 2001. President Bill Clinton is so popular around the world; I truly believe he is the one person that can help restore our lost credibility to the community of nations, and the United Nations. Look at some statistics on President Bill Clinton’s global popularity and reputation Larry. You will find them staggering, and staggeringly high!!

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy, The American people are 'divorcing' the 'Republican politics of fear'. And YES! Congressional subpoena power!

"Are we not Men? We are Devo." -Latest theme of the Dead-Ender-in-Chief.

would anyone expect anything else from a repubican

You know, at the beginning just after 9-11 the liberals were suggesting that the terrorist acts were a result of US policies in the ME, a ludicrous position. Their position of surrender now however would result in a policy where people in the ME would have legitimate reason to hate us, and surely generate more terrorism. Nothing promotes success like success, and the terrorists would certainly consider this a defeat for the US and a success for them. It would also result in murder on an industrial scale in the region. Anyone who believes that our departure will improve the situation (other than the terrorists), is a naive pie in the sky simpleton, or a George Soros liberal – but I guess that last is redundant. Rudy is right, the last thing we need to do is go on the defensive in our war against the terrorists.

Well, lets not forget that all political leaders have their ghosts in the closet and their errors of judgement and scandalous periods of leadership. Johnson and yes Kennedy and Nixon and Reagan, Carter, Bush Sr., Clinton and of course GW all included. I guess I am kind of weird. I liked Reagan (and as in the movie Castaway when Hanks says to Wilson when the wind blew the plastic sails away "I don't know why") I just did. I think Clinton was great. I liked Carter and felt bad for Nixon even though he deserved impeachment. I liked Kennedy even if he were big daddy to Marilyn and Bobby ran the show, and really don't know but think Johnson was ok and was destroyed by the VN War. Bush Sr, has enough problems defedning his son so I guess he is ok. The thousand points of light was kind of a cool saying. Each had their scandalous moments or periods of poor judgement and there is no point in comparing one against the other. Each need to be rated in history on their own merits. Using Carter for example. Intersting person this man. Loved the way he built houses for the homeless after his Presidency, probably under-qualified for the Presidency, did seem to care about people, too bad he particpated in some not so moralistic rendevous's as a married man when Governor of Georgia (a good friend of mine was one of Jimmy's state trooper body guards during his Governorship). So, there is Jimmy. I would give him a B as an all around nice person, C+ as President. Now, we can rate another, but let's stop comparing. I forgot to mention. GW is the only one listed above I just cannot say I liked, or give any credit to for doing at least something that I liked. There has to be a message in there for me somewhere.

Larry Charleston, SC – On another and MOST important note, George Herbert Walker Bush and his son, George W. Bush, have a collective IQ of 189, with Senior’s being 98 and Junior’s being 91. George W. Bush (Junior Idiot) has the lowest IQ of the last twelve presidents, and George Herbert Walker Bush (Senior Idiot) has the second lowest. To better compare, these two morons’ COLLECTIVE IQ’s are just seven (7) points higher than President Bill Clinton’s alone, whose IQ is 182; and just fourteen (14) collective points higher than President Jimmy Carter, whose IQ is 175. Well, this explains a hell of a lot to me!! By the way, Ronal Reagan’s was just barely over the 100 mark, at 105. The “Bushes Collective IQ Disaster” is a telling sign in itself. These two morons should have never been elected “Prom Kings” or “Elementary School Presidents”. They are idiots Larry; and their collective IQ’s further demonstrate their complete incompetence to ever have held and/or hold the office of president of the United States. Therefore, prior to slinging insults at Presidents Carter and Clinton, I suggest you do a bit of research on the “brains”, or lack of, of your heroes. They are a collective bunch of brainless, dim-witted and stupid jackasses!!

Okay, I'll give the guy a pass for changing his mind about many issues that he previously supported, but this stuff takes the cake. All this talk, ya know, throwing in all the stuff the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., were saying over a year ago, he is using that as a platform-real bright. It sort of reminds me of all the people living here in Chula Vista that bought homes in a booming market just knowing that they were going to make a killing, only to see the market stop and lower. They kept waiting and waiting, following the hype, and the zap, it was all over. Guilliani no more knows if, how and when our country could be attacked again, than Bush knew about invading country! Rudy, stay in NY, you're not needed elsewhere!

Scott Henderson NV - Gen. Petraeus evidently disagrees with you. He thinks that the military-only approach to Iraq won't work. Since he is "there", I think he knows more than you do. Listen to the hearings for what he has to say. I'm wondering what Mr. Bush is gonna think. Pelosi has said that she and the General are in agreement so I guess he doesn't consider scheduling departure to be "surrender". I'll have to wait (as will you) to hear the details.

Jen,Wilmette, il - Well stated!! I also suggest the documentary "Cover-Up", which both clearly details the criminal actions of George Herbert Walker Bush and his culpability in the "Iran-Contra Affair & Scandal". Reagan was just as guilty!! It also details what I have posted above regarding George Herbert Walker Bush's secret dealings with the Iranians to a.) Not free the American hostages until after the Reagan vs. Carter election of 1980, and b.) No hostages be released until after the inauguration of Ronald (criminal) Reagan. It's an amazing documentary that aired in 1991, and was subsequently released on video. It is still available on both video and DVD (now) through Amazon, etc.. I highly recommend it. I own an original copy, and have watched it in literal horror multiple times; and with same level of disgust and revulsion each and every time over the course of the last sixteen years.

Pam Bignardi, San Pedro, California (Sent Wednesday, April 25, 2007 4:25 PM) Pam you are one gullible muchacha. I suppose you got your estimates from the Lovenstein Institute?

One more thing: what happened to the call for impeaching Cheney? Wasn't that supposed to get started yesterday? Haven't seen any followup.

Todd this one's for you. Smithers who is that incompetant twit? Sir that's George W. Bush the POTUS

CA, your points are very good. I try to avoid value judgements like 'good' and 'bad', though. Instead, I long ago (as an Historian in training) went by 'strong' and 'weak' and 'effecitve' and 'ineffective'. Some Presidents are strong and effective, others are strong and ineffective. Roosevelt and Clinton were both strong and effective. Johnson and Nixon were strong and ineffective. And so on. Regan I think of as weak but effective. I remember Clinton fondly despite his personal troubles. Indeed, he was the first person I ever voted for. What aggrivated me was that he was impeached for nothing. Clinton did not commit the crime he was accused of. To be blunt, the legal definition of sex is very explicit. What he and Lewinski did is not covered by that definition. As for lieing to the American People, well, he's a politician. I think Carter never told a lie, but I'm not positive of that. All politicians lie at some point. What infuriated me was the blatent violations of Clinton's Civil Rights. According to the Supreme Court in 1957, a special proscecutor cannot change the direction of an investigation mid stream. The original investigation has to be concluded and a new proscecutor designated to investigate the new crime. This stems from the McCarthy hearings. What bothers me is that this patern of Republicans holding themselves above the law has just extended to this President. For six years we heard "No one is above the law", but now Bush will do anything to remain beyond the law's reach. That worries me.

Larry I must say I am impressede. You have finally admitted that this war is a mistake. I need to correct you on something however. The congressional authorization is not the liberals fault. Do the math. The Left wing of the Democratic Party did not have the votes to block the authorization. Remember the Senate was split 50-50 and the House had a Republican majority at the time. Had every Democrat voted against the authorization it still would have passed. I'm sorry but it is time to get those troops now in Iraq home. The Army is broken and the culprits are the ones who like to pride themselves on National Security. This is fact not opinion. Here's an idea. Why not admit to the world hey we screwed the pooch here. We could use some help. Hey Arab League help out your Iraqi brethren here and try to keep a lid on things so we can leave. They might be a lot less likely to shoot at you than at us. By the way the Iraq Oil belongs to Iraq not ExxonMobil Royal Dutch Shell BP or Chevron. Reconstruction Contracts? Lets have some competetive bidding here. No sweetheart deals for Halliburton or Bechtel anymore For what it's worth those are my thoughts. It'll be a cold day in hell before we see that happen.

Scott so the senior British Commander in Iraq is a pie in the sky simpleton? You know the guy who said that the Britsh's presence there was only making matters worse? It just might be possble that our presence in Iraq is making matters worse.We'll never know unless we test that hypothesis. One thing is certain; the current situation is untenable.

I can simply not fathom in any way, shape or form, the “rose colored glasses”, worn by so many for so long in their blind support and defense of this Administration. However, these "glasses" have attained new heights!! These “rose colored glasses” have collectively been discarded and replaced with “limousine tinted glasses”, worn BACKWARDS by this bunch!! This community of blind defenders of George W. Bush and his Administration are incapable of “seeing in”!! Any person who actually believes, and willingly defends, George W. Bush and his Administration are not only incapable of seeing reality; they proceed to discard it via swallowing it, passing it and recycling it via their continued spewing of their personal bio-solids!!

scott henderson nv - Like C A and now Jamie, I refuse to respond to a fourteen-year-old, and I suggest you STUDY (thus understand how IQ's are calculated)instead of making a fool of yourself on these blogs!! Bye, as Jamie said, in addition to PEACE Scott in you pursuit of hatred!!

Pam , Todd, and others let the investigations continue let's go where the evidence takes us. We shall soon see just how many R's want to get re-elected in '08. CA you're from Louisiana or at least live there now. Remember what Huey Long said about the difference between Democrats and Republicans? The High poppa lowrum and Low poppa highram politics? His populist movement in the 1930's got him killed. When running for re-election as Gov. of Louisiana a reporter asked him about various charges of graft and corruption Gov. Long answered: "Yes I steal of course I steal hell all politicians steal. The difference is I share." The problem with the bushies is they don't want to share

Osama Bin Laden attacked us because we put a military base in Saudi Arabia, which he considered his holy land. After we were attacked the spineless chicken hawks in charge closed that base and did the second thing he wanted. They invaded a Muslim country. Anyone who is still spewing "they hate us for our freedom" should be laughed off the campaign trail. But apparently thats all they have got.

Bill Rochester NY - To add to your brilliant statement regarding "authorization", that "authorization and/or Resolution" did not give George W. Bush hell bent power to attack Iraq. It clearly stated that a.) All diplomatic efforts must be attempted and exhausted first, b.) The United Nations MUST be given the time, as they felt needed, to complete their inspections for WMD. Congress did NOT give George W. Bush the authority via the resolution to give "Saddam and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq”, then subsequently bomb Iraq less than 24 hours after issuing that directive. However, Bush keep his word? HAH!!) The integrity of the United Nations was impugned, as their inspections were not completed and this was stated multiple times. In addition, diplomatic efforts were not exhausted. Therefore, those (NOT you Bill) who state that "Congress voted for the war" in not only factually incorrect, it is asinine. They are either ignorant, or simply use this as an excuse to blame democrats for the Iraq debacle. They are WRONG!! . I ask that those of you who continually misrepresent the "resolution" READ it!! Thanks Bill, another great post!!

Larry South Carolina What I am trying to say is this, if were not for the meddling in Iran's internal affairs in 1953 by a Repulican administration, Jimmy Carter would not have had a hostage crisis.

I'm having trouble understanding the first two sentences in the 4:10 post above, so somebody please help me with the logic behind the intended message. (1) To suggest that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were a result of US policies in the ME is a ludicrous position. Does this mean that a sensible position is they attacked us because they hate us for our freedom, or they hate us for our decadent lifestyle, or it's part of a big plan to exterminate all non-moslems? Have I left anything out? (2) "Surrender" now would result in a policy where people in the ME would have a legitimate reason to hate us, and surely generate more terrorism. So, if we un-invade and cease occupying their country, quit destroying their infrastructure, cities and homes, and quit arresting, torturing and killing them (only collaterally, of course) then they'll start hating us? I am seeking input because, apparently, I am a naive pie in the sky simpleton.

Jen: How right you are. Bin Laden has us just where he wants us. If we were to leave his strategy would have failed. If we stay his strategy will continue to be successful. By staying we lose. By leaving we avoid disaster.

Bill: not Louisiana but Alabama but totally agree with the statement by Huey and have read quite a bit about this intersting character.

Scott in South Texas (not nv)- Your posts are great, and as someone who has come to conclusion that trying to figure "Scott/NV" out is like trying to understand Bush's brain!! I ignore him as he NEVER makes sense!!

Terrorism is about power. The stated causes of a terrorist group are often little more than excuses to act. Forget all the posturing, and what you hear in the news. Bin Laden wants power somewhere where he can be important. However, the Hydra that has stirred in Iraq will be his downfall as well. IF the US pulls its troops out of Iraq, bin Laden will find it harder to make inroads in a society now divided along sectarian lines. Bin Laden is a Saudi, and, nominally, a Sunni. Here is the deal. Bin Laden is a Sunni Islamist. He will find it hard to get the support of the largely secular Sunnis in Iraq because he is an Islamist. The Shi'a are more apt to follow Islamism in Iraq, but they would never allow bin Laden to govern them because he is Sunni. The Kurds would likely tell Turkey where to go, and form an independent nation. IF Turkey reforms along the lines that the EU mandates, it will remain whole from that. However, this move will destabalize Syria and Iran. Their Kurdish populations have been quietly supporting the Turkish Kurds in seeking to form their own nation. However, Al-Qaida in Iraq would be torn to shreds as the nation descends into Somalia style chaos and fractures. By now, the only future may lie in all Shi'a moving south, all Kurds moving North and three distinct nations being founded. Just so you know, this conclusion comes from studying paterns of other nations when they have undergone similar stresses. So far, the only time a terrorist group has both won independece and created a stable, multi-party democracy is in Ireland.

C A, Tuscaloosa, Al (Sent Wednesday, April 25, 2007 5:40 PM) Obviously you don't know what bin Lauden is after. The reason he wanted us to start a fire in the ME was to create a chaos that would eventually engulf the entire region - He wants a new Arab empire that spans the entire of North Africa, Spain, and well as Saudi Arabia Yemen Oman UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Syria, Jordan, and Israel. He wants to establish a new Caliphate. Our continued presence there is an impediment to that goal, he wanted to use us as a proxy to achieve his ultimate goals. Apparently the Democrats are willing to help him.

I can hear Giuliani in the morning. "Does my butt look fat in this 9/11 analogy?" He cracks me up.

Scott Henderson from Nevada. You are absolutely correct in that. However, you miss a lot of facts along the way to the rest of this. Terrorists must have an external enemy to fight. For many, that enemy is either Israel or the United States. Hamas MUST have Israel remain in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in order to survive. Bin Laden MUST have the US remain in Iraq in order to achieve his victory. If one removed Israel from the Palestine, Fatah and Hamas would tear into each other without mercy. Remove the US from Iraq, and Al-Qaida will be obliterated in the region. The US is the biggest excuse that there is for these groups. It is why Al-Qaida struggled durring the Clinton Administration. Clinton was very kind to the Middle East. He helped them and tried to achieve peace. He put preasure on Al-Qaida, helping nations round up and incarcerate its members. G. W. Bush, however, got into power and tore down everything that Clinton had done. He even revoked the order to assassinate bin Laden. Bush was the ideal person for bin Laden to use. Bush is stuck in the Cold War mentality of the US may do what it pleases. This mentality is easily swayed into actions that the opponent wants, and not the ones that would counter the enemy. In fact, bin Laden miscalculated durring the Madrid bombings. He wanted Aznar's party to win because they would continue to support the occupation of Iraq and, thus, fuel the power of Al-Qaida. Instead, the Spaniards had the opposite reaction to bin Laden's attacks and voted out Aznar's party. This is why no attack has been made durring an election since 2003. Before yous stand there saying what it is bin Laden wants, try to study the length and breadth of terrorism. Note how most terrorist groups tear themselves assunder after victory because they have relied upon an enemy to keep them cohesive. Currently, Al-Qaida takes credit for almost every attack launched in Iraq, even those that do not fit its profile. We are dealing with a Hydra in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of groups all yipping for their own peice of meat. Al-Qaida will not find Iraq easy to take if we leave, but if we stay, they will continue to gain support. Learn from what Jorge Santayana said.

Scott from South Texas. You do have great points. Can I recomend a book? Bernard Lewis' "What Went Wrong" It's a very short book and goes into the basic reasons why the people of the Middle East hate the West as a whole.

Pam and Bridgette, I am impressed with your wealth of knowledge and use of logic, and that is not just in comparison to other posts.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):