"Fair and Balanced"

[jAZ]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/14/fox-news-internal-memo-_n_34128.html

FOX NEWS INTERNAL MEMO: "Be On The Lookout For Any Statements From The Iraqi Insurgents...Thrilled At The Prospect Of A Dem Controlled Congress"...
Posted November 14, 2006 06:50 PM

Huffington Post has obtained an internal Fox News memo written by the network's Vice President of news. The memo details Fox's game plan the day Democrats won control of both the Senate and the House.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/ap/memo4.jpg

[patteeu]

The actual quote doesn't look bad at all. Do you deny that Hamas is probably thrilled that the dems won what was advertised as a referendum on Bush foreign policy?

[noa]

The actual quote doesn't look bad at all. Do you deny that Hamas is probably thrilled that the dems won what was advertised as a referendum on Bush foreign policy?


The quote actually refers to Iraqi insurgents (Hamas is the sentence before), but what's funny about this is that Fox News is way behind people posting on this board. We've known since election night that as a nation, we just gave aid and comfort to the terrorists through our peaceful, democratic process.

[patteeu]

The quote actually refers to Iraqi insurgents (Hamas is the sentence before), but what's funny about this is that Fox News is way behind people posting on this board. We've known since election night that as a nation, we just gave aid and comfort to the terrorists through our peaceful, democratic process.

Good point. They'd be even more likely to appreciate a repudiation of Bush foreign policy.

[Bowser]

The actual quote doesn't look bad at all. Do you deny that Hamas is probably thrilled that the dems won what was advertised as a referendum on Bush foreign policy?

I think the notion of Fox News thinking that Hamas is sitting around watching CNN or any other news outlet not named Al-Jazeera is laughable. I might be so bold as to say their agenda has no interest in who is in power in this country. They hate us all, Republican and Democrat; Liberal and Conservative. JMO.

[Radar Chief]

I think the notion of Fox News thinking that Hamas is sitting around watching CNN or any other news outlet not named Al-Jazeera is laughable. I might be so bold as to say their agenda has no interest in who is in power in this country. They hate us all, Republican and Democrat; Liberal and Conservative. JMO.

Really? See I think the idea that they don’t watch CNN is laughable, particularly when the go parroting Dem talk’n points.

[Bowser]

Really? See I think the idea that they don’t watch CNN is laughable, particularly when the go parroting Dem talk’n points.

What makes you think that, exactly? What talking points are the radicals "parroting"? And please don't say 'because Fox News had a memo saying so'.

[patteeu]

I think the notion of Fox News thinking that Hamas is sitting around watching CNN or any other news outlet not named Al-Jazeera is laughable. I might be so bold as to say their agenda has no interest in who is in power in this country. They hate us all, Republican and Democrat; Liberal and Conservative. JMO.

I don't think anyone is expressing that notion. Fox is looking for comments from Hamas and the Iraqi insurgents for their US audience.

[Radar Chief]

What makes you think that, exactly? What talking points are the radicals "parroting"? And please don't say 'because Fox News had a memo saying so'.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7403

You think’e gets this stuff completely on’is own? And please don’t say, “CNN hasn’t told me ‘bout it so it doesn’t matter.” :rolleyes:

[Bowser]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7403

You think’e gets this stuff completely on’is own? And please don’t say, “CNN hasn’t told me ‘bout it so it doesn’t matter.” :rolleyes:

Are you talking about the part where bin Laden references the cost of the war, or the casualties? Either one of those figures are readily available to anyone who owns a laptop and an internet connection.

But that's not the point I was trying to make. My point was al-Qaida or any other insurgent group really doesn't care what American political talking heads say on TV. They want to kill us, regardless.

It seems to me that certain people try to make the connection that terorists have a direct impact on what the Democratic party thinks and does. This is a crock of shit, imho. Just a bunch of partisan hate, nothing more.

And I don't watch CNN, FOX, MSNBC, or any of the other news outlets (save maybe the BBC) without a grain of salt. Everybody has an agenda.

[Cochise]

I think the notion of Fox News thinking that Hamas is sitting around watching CNN or any other news outlet not named Al-Jazeera is laughable. I might be so bold as to say their agenda has no interest in who is in power in this country. They hate us all, Republican and Democrat; Liberal and Conservative. JMO.

I think this notion is laughable. It was widely known during the gulf war that Saddam watched CNN, for example.

This is an age of global media. Despite an outdated worldview straight from the middle ages, Islamic terrorists are not sitting around relaying orders by carrier pigeon and getting their news from a town crier.

You don't think that Hamas is affected at all by who is in power in the United States?

You don't think that the insurgents in Iraq, who want us to retreat and leave the country for them to establish an islamic fundamentalist regime, are going to be affected by who is in power here?

I mean, jeez. I don't see how anyone could possibly think this at all. Yeah, they hate our way of life to one degree or another, but to say they don't care at all and don't pay any attention is pretty silly.

[Cochise]

The actual quote doesn't look bad at all. Do you deny that Hamas is probably thrilled that the dems won what was advertised as a referendum on Bush foreign policy?

I don't see why Dems have to be insulted over it. In every election there are winners and losers. A winner is someone who gets something like via a campaign promise. A loser is one who stands to lose based on the platform. I don't think there is any denying that a Democratic regime in the United States would be much less likely to intervene in something Hamas does, and much less likely to stay longer in Iraq and more likely to be scared out by insurgent activity. Dems don't want to be seen that way, but it's common sense, and probably has been a motivating factor in the insurgency - wearing down the will of politicians and the public in general to finish the job.

[noa]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7403

You think’e gets this stuff completely on’is own? And please don’t say, “CNN hasn’t told me ‘bout it so it doesn’t matter.” :rolleyes:


Reading this stuff pisses me off. How the f*** have we not caught Bin Laden yet? I want to bring his a$$ to justice, Chuck Norris style. I think the left and the right of our country could be united over administering torture to this a$$hole. We could do it at halftime of the Super Bowl.

[Bowser]

I think this notion is laughable. It was widely known during the gulf war that Saddam watched CNN, for example.

This is an age of global media. Despite an outdated worldview straight from the middle ages, Islamic terrorists are not sitting around relaying orders by carrier pigeon and getting their news from a town crier.

You don't think that Hamas is affected at all by who is in power in the United States?

You don't think that the insurgents in Iraq, who want us to retreat and leave the country for them to establish an islamic fundamentalist regime, are going to be affected by who is in power here?

I mean, jeez. I don't see how anyone could possibly think this at all. Yeah, they hate our way of life to one degree or another, but to say they don't care at all and don't pay any attention is pretty silly.

So now that they have watched the news and seen the shift of power, they are not going to want to kill us anymore?

I guess my point, or question, is do they really care about the news?

[Cochise]

Reading this stuff pisses me off. How the f*** have we not caught Bin Laden yet? I want to bring his a$$ to justice, Chuck Norris style. I think the left and the right of our country could be united over administering torture to this a$$hole.

Even if we caught him, we can't torture him. We can't lay a finger on him, and he must go to trial and be convicted like a common criminal rather than a terrorist, since this is a criminal matter. Then he will be sentenced, but remember, we shouldn't give him the death penalty either.

[Cochise]

I guess my point, or question, is do they really care about the news?

I think you dreadfully underestimate their awareness of the American political situation. That should be and probably is their foremost concern, not some irrelevant bit of trivia.

Underestimating Al Queda got us where we are today.

[noa]

I don't see why Dems have to be insulted over it. In every election there are winners and losers. A winner is someone who gets something like via a campaign promise. A loser is one who stands to lose based on the platform. I don't think there is any denying that a Democratic regime in the United States would be much less likely to intervene in something Hamas does, and much less likely to stay longer in Iraq and more likely to be scared out by insurgent activity. Dems don't want to be seen that way, but it's common sense, and probably has been a motivating factor in the insurgency - wearing down the will of politicians and the public in general to finish the job.


I disagree. Your argument is that the terrorists are succeeding when we elected the Democrats. I think the terrorists would be succeeding if we didn't vote out the corrupt, do-nothing, spending-crazy Congress. If we don't vote out who deserves to get voted out over the threat of terror, then the terrorists win. That is their motive, to influence our government.

[noa]

Even if we caught him, we can't torture him. We can't lay a finger on him, and he must go to trial and be convicted like a common criminal rather than a terrorist, since this is a criminal matter. Then he will be sentenced, but remember, we shouldn't give him the death penalty either.


Actually, the more I think about it, the more I would like to see him allowed into the general prison population in the U.S. That would be better than torture. Of course, they would probably isolate him, but who knows, maybe one day a Jeffrey Dahmer style whack could go down. Still, we have to catch the f***er first.

[Radar Chief]

Are you talking about the part where bin Laden references the cost of the war, or the casualties? Either one of those figures are readily available to anyone who owns a laptop and an internet connection.

But that's not the point I was trying to make. My point was al-Qaida or any other insurgent group really doesn't care what American political talking heads say on TV. They want to kill us, regardless.

It seems to me that certain people try to make the connection that terorists have a direct impact on what the Democratic party thinks and does. This is a crock of shit, imho. Just a bunch of partisan hate, nothing more.

And I don't watch CNN, FOX, MSNBC, or any of the other news outlets (save maybe the BBC) without a grain of salt. Everybody has an agenda.

Well, it doesn’t sound like we’re that far apart here then.

There point is to divide us and lessen our support for the gubments, Israel in particular, which they wish to subvert. Too that end, they take certain cues from the opposition party here. In other words, if a Dem was the POTUS, they’d be parroting the attacks from the Reps, but to deny that they do this is pretty uninformed, IMO.

[Bowser]

I think you dreadfully underestimate their awareness of the American political situation. That should be and probably is their foremost concern, not some irrelevant bit of trivia.

Underestimating Al Queda got us where we are today.

Does al-Qaida have a grudge against the US based solely on what political party is in power here? I was under the impression that we are all capitalist pigs that deserved to die.

I realize al-Qaida is not a collection of brainless suicide bombers. We trained them, equipped them, financed them, and set them off against the Soviets in Afghanistan. One could make an argument that at one time al-Qaida was our army by proxy. It's my belief that bin Laden and al-Qaida loathe us, Democrat and Republican both, and go on with whatever it is they plan to do without any prodding by Fox News or CNN, or anybody else. I can concede that they glean info from news outlets, but it doesn't really impact their way of thinking. They're going to do whatever their twisted minds tell them to do.

[Radar Chief]

Reading this stuff pisses me off. How the f*** have we not caught Bin Laden yet? I want to bring his a$$ to justice, Chuck Norris style. I think the left and the right of our country could be united over administering torture to this a$$hole. We could do it at halftime of the Super Bowl.

I couldn’t positively say that he isn’t buried under several million tons of rock at Torra Borra. He certainly had a sudden shift in the media he used to spread his hate from that point forward. :shrug:

[patteeu]

I disagree. Your argument is that the terrorists are succeeding when we elected the Democrats. I think the terrorists would be succeeding if we didn't vote out the corrupt, do-nothing, spending-crazy Congress. If we don't vote out who deserves to get voted out over the threat of terror, then the terrorists win. That is their motive, to influence our government.

Surely you would agree that in a multi-faceted society like our own, it's possible that one leadership group has a positive impact in some areas and a negative impact in others. Even if we agree for the sake of argument that Republicans were not serving the country well in the areas of corruption and spending, it doesn't follow that it's better for our country in terms of our response to the radical islamist threat that we replace them with democrats. I'm pretty sure that radical islamists in the Middle East care more about our foreign policy than they do about scandals involving Indian casinos or spending on a bridge to nowhere. As you might expect, I think Cochise hit the nail on the head.

[noa]

Surely you would agree that in a multi-faceted society like our own, it's possible that one leadership group has a positive impact in some areas and a negative impact in others. Even if we agree for the sake of argument that Republicans were not serving the country well in the areas of corruption and spending, it doesn't follow that it's better for our country in terms of our response to the radical islamist threat that we replace them with democrats. I'm pretty sure that radical islamists in the Middle East care more about our foreign policy than they do about scandals involving Indian casinos or spending on a bridge to nowhere. As you might expect, I think Cochise hit the nail on the head.


I think we lose a lot more by enabling one party to maintain permanent control because they constantly use the tool of fear to win elections. We will always face a threat from terrorists, and personally, I don't think the Republican party is all its cracked up to be in the national security department. For starters, the Democrats are the ones who are going to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The Republicans neglected port security while in office. I also don't think the Republican foreign policy in Iraq has made us one iota safer. We have created a terrorist haven in Iraq and while we continue to use resources there, North Korea and Iran have gone nuclear. So, basically, I don't think Cochise hit the nail on the head. His basic argument is that the terrorists want the Dems in power so we should have elected Repubs, but voting based on what the terrorists want is succumbing to their will, and I think Americans are more resilient than that.

[patteeu]

Does al-Qaida have a grudge against the US based solely on what political party is in power here? I was under the impression that we are all capitalist pigs that deserved to die.

I realize al-Qaida is not a collection of brainless suicide bombers. We trained them, equipped them, financed them, and set them off against the Soviets in Afghanistan. One could make an argument that at one time al-Qaida was our army by proxy. It's my belief that bin Laden and al-Qaida loathe us, Democrat and Republican both, and go on with whatever it is they plan to do without any prodding by Fox News or CNN, or anybody else. I can concede that they glean info from news outlets, but it doesn't really impact their way of thinking. They're going to do whatever their twisted minds tell them to do.

Saying that al Qaeda is the same as the mujahadeen is a little like saying that the Kansas City Chiefs are the same as the UCLA Bruins. Sure there are a few connections, but it's really pretty silly to say that al Qaeda was equipped, financed and trained by us, even moreso to even entertain the notion that they were "our army by proxy."

[patteeu]

I think we lose a lot more by enabling one party to maintain permanent control because they constantly use the tool of fear to win elections. We will always face a threat from terrorists, and personally, I don't think the Republican party is all its cracked up to be in the national security department. For starters, the Democrats are the ones who are going to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The Republicans neglected port security while in office. I also don't think the Republican foreign policy in Iraq has made us one iota safer. We have created a terrorist haven in Iraq and while we continue to use resources there, North Korea and Iran have gone nuclear. So, basically, I don't think Cochise hit the nail on the head. His basic argument is that the terrorists want the Dems in power so we should have elected Repubs, but voting based on what the terrorists want is succumbing to their will, and I think Americans are more resilient than that.

If you think the democrats are better on national security, I think you're in the minority on that.

So far as we know, the Republicans batted 1000 on port security. I don't think you know much about what was done to improve security at our country's ports if you think they were neglected.

Democrats want to create a terrorist haven in Iraq by leaving before it is secure.

Iran and North Korea were headed for the nuclear club before Bush took office. Bush publicly pointed the finger at them and the heavy hitters in the UN (aside from the British), along with many democrats here in the US, failed to step up and get in the game. Just because you weren't personally aware of North Korea's and Iran's nuclear ambitions before Bush exposed them doesn't mean they weren't realities.

[Cochise]

Saying that al Qaeda is the same as the mujahadeen is a little like saying that the Kansas City Chiefs are the same as the UCLA Bruins. Sure there are a few connections, but it's really pretty silly to say that al Qaeda was equipped, financed and trained by us, even moreso to even entertain the notion that they were "our army by proxy."

Every relationship on the global political stage is one of expedience. There are no true friends, and there aren't many automatic allies, unless you are talking about Muslim states against infidel states. It's about what you can do for us right now. The past is the past, and we'll deal with the future when we get there.

Certainly France doesn't feel like they owe us anything for bailing them out over and over. The UK doesn't carry a grudge and refuse to align with us because we warred with them once.

"We used to be allies but now we are enemies " in itself is not a bad reflection on the policy of the allied times.

[Cochise]

Iran and North Korea were headed for the nuclear club before Bush took office... Just because you weren't personally aware of North Korea's and Iran's nuclear ambitions before Bush exposed them doesn't mean they weren't realities.

How can people think that a nuclear arsenal takes only a year or two to develop? The manhattan project probably began in the 30s and took us 15 years. Israel started in the 60s, but IIRC most didn't think them nuclear capable until ~1980. It's not like Bush got into office and mistakenly mailed the secret plans to Kim jong-Il.

[noa]

If you think the democrats are better on national security, I think you're in the minority on that.

So far as we know, the Republicans batted 1000 on port security. I don't think you know much about what was done to improve security at our country's ports if you think they were neglected.

Democrats want to create a terrorist haven in Iraq by leaving before it is secure.

Iran and North Korea were headed for the nuclear club before Bush took office. Bush publicly pointed the finger at them and the heavy hitters in the UN (aside from the British), along with many democrats here in the US, failed to step up and get in the game. Just because you weren't personally aware of North Korea's and Iran's nuclear ambitions before Bush exposed them doesn't mean they weren't realities.

Republicans are not winning the war on terror. Of course, Americans cannot be blamed for terrorist attacks world wide, but here are some statistics:

Terrorist attacks world wide: In 2004, there were 2,800 attacks. In 2005, there were over 11,000 attacks.

Now, as to Iraq being a terrorist haven, of course you can try to blame the Dems all you want, but here are the facts:

Terrorist attacks in Iraq: In 2004, there were 1,800 attacks. In 2005, there were 3,474 attacks.
Fatalities due to terrorist attacks in Iraq: In 2004, there were 4,000 fatalities. In 2005, 8,300.

Iraq is already a terrorist haven. Attacks and fatalities continue to rise. The Dems will be blamed if we pull out and things get worse, but who do we blame for what is going on right now?

My source for all these stats is the Iraq Index report (PDF file) at http://www.brookings.edu/iraqindex

[noa]

How can people think that a nuclear arsenal takes only a year or two to develop? The manhattan project probably began in the 30s and took us 15 years. Israel started in the 60s, but IIRC most didn't think them nuclear capable until ~1980. It's not like Bush got into office and mistakenly mailed the secret plans to Kim jong-Il.


I didn't think that North Korea and Iran developed a nuke in two years. I just think we would have been better suited to address a nuclear North Korea and Iran if it weren't for the debacle in Iraq. Of course, its pure speculation, but we would probably have more friends on the global scene if it weren't for Iraq, and our troops wouldn't be stretched as thin. I know that Iran and North Korea going nuclear is probably inevitable. I'm just arguing that I don't think the Repubs have as much credibility in terms of national security and defense as they like to claim.

[Cochise]

Republicans are not winning the war on terror.

Granting the factuality of this statement for the sake of argument, it's still not a correct framing of the question.

Even if Republicans are losing the war on terror, from Al Queda and other terrorist groups' perspective, which sort of power balance in the United States will result in the least amount of pressure on them?

Would they rather go with the the one who wants to stay until the western-friendly government in Iraq is on its feet? Or the one that is looking for an exit as soon as possible as long as it doesn't make them look weak?

Which is more likely to intervene in a showdown between Israel and its neighbors? Even if both would intervene, which one is more likely to be sympathetic to their aims? Which would be more arab-friendly and which would be more likely to oppose them?

[Cochise]

I didn't think that North Korea and Iran developed a nuke in two years. I just think we would have been better suited to address a nuclear North Korea and Iran if it weren't for the debacle in Iraq. Of course, its pure speculation, but we would probably have more friends on the global scene if it weren't for Iraq, and our troops wouldn't be stretched as thin.

Is it then your suggestion that we would have engaged in a full-scale military confrontation with North Korea, a suspected nuclear power, now if we hadn't already been in Iraq? I think this is a tremendous assumption.

[Donger]

How can people think that a nuclear arsenal takes only a year or two to develop? The manhattan project probably began in the 30s and took us 15 years. Israel started in the 60s, but IIRC most didn't think them nuclear capable until ~1980. It's not like Bush got into office and mistakenly mailed the secret plans to Kim jong-Il.

Well, officially, The Mahattan Project started just before Pearl Harbor was attacked. But, of course, the physics behind a fission weapon was started long before that.

[noa]

Is it then your suggestion that we would have engaged in a full-scale military confrontation with North Korea, a suspected nuclear power, if we hadn't already been in Iraq? I think this is a tremendous assumption.


No, but our threat of force would have meant more. Also, we might have been able to count on some other allies, whereas now we pretty much have to rely on Japan and China keeping North Korea in check.

[Cochise]

No, but our threat of force would have meant more. Also, we might have been able to count on some other allies, whereas now we pretty much have to rely on Japan and China keeping North Korea in check.

Your premise that nations in these matters hold grudges 'just because' is faulty. If North Korea were truly nuclear and truly beligerent Japan and China would be begging us for help in subduing them regardless of whatever disagreements were had 3 or 4 years ago.

[Cochise]

Well, officially, The Mahattan Project started just before Pearl Harbor was attacked. But, of course, the physics behind a fission weapon was started long before that.

Well, I thought the idea was that the Germans were researching such weapons and we had to get them first, and that research in creating fissionable material predated the actual delivery platform development by at least a decade.

[noa]

Your premise that nations in these matters hold grudges 'just because' is faulty. If North Korea were truly nuclear and truly beligerent Japan and China would be begging us for help in subduing them regardless of whatever disagreements were had 3 or 4 years ago.


I don't think countries hold grudges 'just because.' I think we've alienated a lot of people around the world with this war in Iraq. I know a lot of Americans don't care what the rest of the world thinks, but it could come back to bite us in the ass if we ever do actually need help. Check out this poll: http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252

[patteeu]

Republicans are not winning the war on terror. Of course, Americans cannot be blamed for terrorist attacks world wide, but here are some statistics:

Terrorist attacks world wide: In 2004, there were 2,800 attacks. In 2005, there were over 11,000 attacks.

Now, as to Iraq being a terrorist haven, of course you can try to blame the Dems all you want, but here are the facts:

Terrorist attacks in Iraq: In 2004, there were 1,800 attacks. In 2005, there were 3,474 attacks.
Fatalities due to terrorist attacks in Iraq: In 2004, there were 4,000 fatalities. In 2005, 8,300.

Iraq is already a terrorist haven. Attacks and fatalities continue to rise. The Dems will be blamed if we pull out and things get worse, but who do we blame for what is going on right now?

My source for all these stats is the Iraq Index report (PDF file) at http://www.brookings.edu/iraqindex

Your statistics are pretty meaningless as far as I'm concerned. How many terrorist attacks were there in Afghanistan in 2000 and the first 8 months of 2001? I'd imagine that were were relatively few (compared to what is going on in Iraq now). But pre-9/11 Afghanistan was a place that al Qaeda could train an army of thousands in relative peace and make plans to mount the largest attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor, if not ever. Iraq is a violent place right now, but there are no safe havens for terrorist training facilities there. Any training taking place there is done in hiding and on a small scale. IOW, pre-9/11 Afghanistan was a worse terrorism problem for us than Iraq is now. Iraq could evolve into something worse than Afghanistan was if we leave too soon though.

George Bush did that. Bill Clinton's approach of lobbing an occasional standoff weapon at a terrorist encampment was as effective as swatting at mosquitos while camping in the swamps of Minnesota. Hopefully, today's democrats aren't interested in dragging us all the way back to that sort of counterterrorism policy.

Hammers are great tools, but if you don't use them right they may not be very useful. Likewise with statistics.

[Cochise]

I don't think countries hold grudges 'just because.' I think we've alienated a lot of people around the world with this war in Iraq. I know a lot of Americans don't care what the rest of the world thinks, but it could come back to bite us in the ass if we ever do actually need help. Check out this poll: http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252

The poll doesn't mean anything. Military decisions are not made by people walking down the street. They're made by power brokers in government.

You think that if Japan had concrete information that North Korea was going to unleash a nuclear attack within 48 hours, they wouldn't come running to the United States because they are "alienated"?

:rolleyes:

[patteeu]

No, but our threat of force would have meant more. Also, we might have been able to count on some other allies, whereas now we pretty much have to rely on Japan and China keeping North Korea in check.

Our threat of force was at it's peak when George W. Bush declared "mission accomplished." It has declined since then and those who have already declared Iraq a failure along with those who are arguing for phased withdrawal as a fig leaf for retreat have maximized that decline.

[noa]

Your statistics are pretty meaningless as far as I'm concerned. How many terrorist attacks were there in Afghanistan in 2000 and the first 8 months of 2001? I'd imagine that were were relatively few (compared to what is going on in Iraq now). But pre-9/11 Afghanistan was a place that al Qaeda could train an army of thousands in relative peace and make plans to mount the largest attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor, if not ever. Iraq is a violent place right now, but there are no safe havens for terrorist training facilities there. Any training taking place there is done in hiding and on a small scale. IOW, pre-9/11 Afghanistan was a worse terrorism problem for us than Iraq is now. Iraq could evolve into something worse than Afghanistan was if we leave too soon though.

George Bush did that. Bill Clinton's approach of lobbing an occasional standoff weapon at a terrorist encampment was as effective as swatting at mosquitos while camping in the swamps of Minnesota. Hopefully, today's democrats aren't interested in dragging us all the way back to that sort of counterterrorism policy.

Hammers are great tools, but if you don't use them right they may not be very useful. Likewise with statistics.


I don't see how those statistics are meaningless. It shows that we haven't made progress in reducing terrorist attacks in Iraq. Also, the insurgency was 5,000 people strong in 2004 and is now over 20,000 people strong. Clearly, people are finding ways to join together and train/prepare for attacks. I really don't think you should be giving George Bush and praise for what is going on there right now.

[noa]

The poll doesn't mean anything. Military decisions are not made by people walking down the street. They're made by power brokers in government.

You think that if Japan had concrete information that North Korea was going to unleash a nuclear attack within 48 hours, they wouldn't come running to the United States because they are "alienated"?

:rolleyes:


You are really twisting my argument there. I said nothing to indicate I think Japan wouldn't want our help. I really don't know how you concluded that. I acknowledged in an earlier post that Japan and China are working with us on North Korea. Please don't try to put words in my mouth.
My point was that I think we would have more credibility on the world stage if it weren't for Iraq. Maybe then we wouldn't have to wait for your 48 hour scenario to form a united front.

[Cochise]

I don't see how those statistics are meaningless. It shows that we haven't made progress in reducing terrorist attacks in Iraq. Also, the insurgency was 5,000 people strong in 2004 and is now over 20,000 people strong. Clearly, people are finding ways to join together and train/prepare for attacks. I really don't think you should be giving George Bush and praise for what is going on there right now.

Do you think, if you put Howard Dean in the White House starting in 2004 and gave him a Democratic majority in both houses, we would have won Iraq and left a peaceful, friendly government there by now? Do you think we would actually win the war on terror, or would we just refuse to prosecute it? Do you think he would have confronted North Korea militarily as you asserted earlier needed to be done?

It's understandable. You favor Democrats and don't want to see them as weaker on terrorism or having no solutions beside admitting defeat and retreating. But I don't see the scenario where they commit to somehow fix all these problems. Their fix is to get back inside and lock the doors. (Well, maybe not lock the doors) I don't see them proposing any strategy but a thinly veiled retreat from Iraq and to acquiesce to the aims of Al Queda in the region.

[Cochise]

You are really twisting my argument there. I said nothing to indicate I think Japan wouldn't want our help. I really don't know how you concluded that. I acknowledged in an earlier post that Japan and China are working with us on North Korea. Please don't try to put words in my mouth.
My point was that I think we would have more credibility on the world stage if it weren't for Iraq. Maybe then we wouldn't have to wait for your 48 hour scenario to form a united front.

You think a credibility issue would keep people from aligning with us if it were in their interest. I said that was false. Their national interest will get them to align with us regardless of the window dressing.

[patteeu]

I don't see how those statistics are meaningless. It shows that we haven't made progress in reducing terrorist attacks in Iraq. Also, the insurgency was 5,000 people strong in 2004 and is now over 20,000 people strong. Clearly, people are finding ways to join together and train/prepare for attacks. I really don't think you should be giving George Bush and praise for what is going on there right now.

Accepting your numbers for the sake of argument: If those additional 15,000 insurgents are imported al Qaeda then we are better off with them in Iraq where we can hunt them than we would be if they were sneaking across our own border. If they are Iraqis who just want to get the US out or to fight old blood feuds with other Iraqis then they aren't all that important in terms of the terrorist threat to the US.

I think you are doing too much bean counting.

[noa]

Our threat of force was at it's peak when George W. Bush declared "mission accomplished." It has declined since then and those who have already declared Iraq a failure along with those who are arguing for phased withdrawal as a fig leaf for retreat have maximized that decline.

I agree that our threat of force was maximized at that point, but its not the anti-war folks who diminished that threat. You really want to blame the liberals for everything while requiring zero accountability on the part of this administration.

[Cochise]

You really want to blame the liberals for everything while requiring zero accountability on the part of this administration.

Conversely, you assign all failures to Bush and assume that the Democrats would have done better. It's easy to say someone can do something when they don't have to prove it.

[patteeu]

I agree that our threat of force was maximized at that point, but its not the anti-war folks who diminished that threat. You really want to blame the liberals for everything while requiring zero accountability on the part of this administration.

Nonsense. I blame the administration for plenty of things. For example, I blame them for kowtowing to democrat constitients with their prescription drug program and I blame them for overestimating the support they would receive from France, Russia and democrats once the fighting started in Iraq.

[noa]

Accepting your numbers for the sake of argument: If those additional 15,000 insurgents are imported al Qaeda then we are better off with them in Iraq where we can hunt them than we would be if they were sneaking across our own border. If they are Iraqis who just want to get the US out or to fight old blood feuds with other Iraqis then they aren't all that important in terms of the terrorist threat to the US.

I think you are doing too much bean counting.


You really should look at the Iraq index I referenced. Only 2,000 of the current 20,000 + insurgents are foreign nationals. That means 18,000 are Iraqis. My point was that its hard to argue the Republican strategy is effective at reducing terrorism in Iraq considering these facts. You want to blame the Democrats for the situation but aren't willing to blame the Republicans for any part of this.

[noa]

Nonsense. I blame the administration for plenty of things. For example, I blame them for kowtowing to democrat constitients with their prescription drug program and I blame them for overestimating the support they would receive from France, Russia and democrats once the fighting started in Iraq.

Those are just underhanded ways of continuing to blame the Dems for everything.

[noa]

Conversely, you assign all failures to Bush and assume that the Democrats would have done better. It's easy to say someone can do something when they don't have to prove it.


I really don't think the Dems would have done better. I want to assign blame where it is due, and I have a very hard time blaming Democrats for what is going on in Iraq.

[patteeu]

You really should look at the Iraq index I referenced. Only 2,000 of the current 20,000 + insurgents are foreign nationals. That means 18,000 are Iraqis. My point was that its hard to argue the Republican strategy is effective at reducing terrorism in Iraq considering these facts. You want to blame the Democrats for the situation but aren't willing to blame the Republicans for any part of this.

I've looked at it in the past, but I covered all bases in my previous post anyway. BTW, the Bush strategy isn't focused on "reducing terrorism in Iraq," it's focused on reducing the threat to the US.

[noa]

You think a credibility issue would keep people from aligning with us if it were in their interest. I said that was false. Their national interest will get them to align with us regardless of the window dressing.


I agree with you here.

[noa]

I've looked at it in the past, but I covered all bases in my previous post anyway. BTW, the Bush strategy isn't focused on "reducing terrorism in Iraq," it's focused on reducing the threat to the US.


Certainly, part of his Iraq strategy has to include reducing terrorism there.

[noa]

Do you think, if you put Howard Dean in the White House starting in 2004 and gave him a Democratic majority in both houses, we would have won Iraq and left a peaceful, friendly government there by now? Do you think we would actually win the war on terror, or would we just refuse to prosecute it? Do you think he would have confronted North Korea militarily as you asserted earlier needed to be done?



No offense, but this is pretty absurd. Why is it that someone who criticizes the war has to love Howard Dean to the point of being delusional that the Dems would have solved this problem in Iraq? I have never, nor will I ever, say anything remotely close to this statement.

[|Zach|]

<font color="black">
Someone allegedly paid terrorist organizations $2 million for release of FOX News reporters</font></a></b></font>
<br>

<b>by John in DC</b> - 11/14/2006 10:26:00 PM
<br>
<br>
<font size="2"><div style="clear: both;"></div><a href="http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52960">Excuse me?</a> Someone, on behalf of FOX News, reportedly gave terrorist organizations $2m that the terrorists now say they used to buy weapons to kill Israelis? FOX says "it's possible" money was paid to terrorists? And the Bush administration, they were heavily involved in this effort to free the FOX reporters - were they aware that someone was paying off terrorists? Were they the ones who arranged the payment? This is abominable if true.<blockquote>Palestinian terror groups and security organizations in the Gaza Strip <span style="font-weight: bold;">received $2 million from a United States source </span>in exchange for the release of Fox News employees Steve Centanni and Olag Wiig, who were kidnapped here last summer, a senior leader of one of the groups suspected of the abductions told WND.<br><br>The terror leader, from the Gaza-based Popular Resistance Committees, said his organization's share of the <span style="font-weight: bold;">money was used to purchase weapons, which he said would be utilized "to hit the Zionists."</span><br><br>He said he expects the payments for Centanni and Wiig's freedom will encourage Palestinian groups to carry out further kidnappings.<br><br>Officials associated with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party and its security organization, the Preventative Security Services, confirmed to WND money was paid for the release of the Fox News reporters.... the money was used to purchase weapons.<br><br>"We used 100 percent of the money for one precise goal – our war against the Zionists," the Committees leader said.<br><br><span style="font-weight: bold;">He said weapons purchased included rockets.</span><br><br>"Regarding the others (the Dugmash clan of the Committees) who received the money, I can tell you one thing is very clear – this went also to be used against the Zionists. I can't say every cent went to buy bombs, maybe it also went to pay for salaries, smuggling, buying shelter."....<br><br>A spokeswoman for Fox News Channel told WND she could not provide an official statement about whether Fox was aware of money paid to free its two employees.<br><br>A source at Fox told WND many parties were involved with the freedom of Centanni and Wiig, including the U.S. government, and that <span style="font-weight: bold;">it was possible money was paid</span>.</blockquote>Ironically, this news comes on the heels of the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/14/fox-news-internal-memo-_n_34128.html">leak of an internal FOX memo</a> saying "Be On The Lookout For Any Statements From The Iraqi Insurgents...Thrilled At The Prospect Of A Dem Controlled Congress." Funny, but I bet the terrorists will be even more thrilled at the prospect of FOX News having given them $2m.<div style="clear: both; padding-bottom: 0.25em;"></div> </font>

[Cochise]

No offense, but this is pretty absurd. Why is it that someone who criticizes the war has to love Howard Dean to the point of being delusional that the Dems would have solved this problem in Iraq? I have never, nor will I ever, say anything remotely close to this statement.

I just chose the frontrunner in the Democratic primary process before the 'most electable rather than the one we like the best' situation came down. Besides, he is the party chairman. Who else would you choose to exemplify a party's values?

If I might make a prediction:

The Democrats will win the white house in 2008 on a veiled retreat platform and posess a majority in both houses of congress. A reduction in force will have taken place in Iraq, but the government will not yet be able to handle security long-term.

We will be bail out of Iraq post haste to make good on the Democrats' election promise. Iraq will descend into chaos as soon as we aren't there to preserve what fragile balance currently exists. The ill-prepared government will be routed and after an undeterminable period of open war in the country at an enormous human cost, a fundamentalist regime backed by the Irans and Syrias of the world will come into place.

At that time, we will have something more dangerous than what we had before. Before we had a despot who may or may not have posessed or been working on WMD. After retreat, we will have 10 years of military effort thrown to a brand new unabashed state sponsor of terrorism friendly to other nuclear-capable rogue states in the middle east.

However one feels we may have screwed up so far, there's no denying that the region is going to deteriorate if we leave before it's safe to, and I don't think that there's any question now due to the political climate that we will.

The Republicans have alienated their base on issues unrelated to Iraq and lost general political support because of it. It has eroded their power in government and in my opinion, it will take a hail mary for them to retain the white house in the next cycle.

I'm not saying you agree with this policy. Maybe you do or maybe not. I'm just trying to predict the future there.

We're going to get what the Democrats want in Iraq. I think it's all over but the shoutin'. I just hope everyone is careful what we wish for.

[noa]

However one feels we may have screwed up so far, there's no denying that the region is going to deteriorate if we leave before it's safe to, and I don't think that there's any question now due to the political climate that we will.



I know the Dems have said repeatedly that they want to redeploy, but we'll see what happens. Like I've said in other posts, the President is still the Command in Chief, so any redeployment has to go through him.

[Cochise]

I know the Dems have said repeatedly that they want to redeploy, but we'll see what happens. Like I've said in other posts, the President is still the Command in Chief, so any redeployment has to go through him.

Right. Bush wouldn't sign off on it but I think the Democratic candidate in '08 will run on it.

The language will be "fight it smarter", or "reposition" or "redeploy". But in the end what we will get is retreat. The platform will be 'bring the boys back home', re: 'peace with dignity' from decades ago.

I think the Democrats are going to win running on that, the Republicans have flushed their political capital too much to win. We will end up getting another Iran/Syria cohort for all our expenditure in the region.

[noa]

Right. Bush wouldn't sign off on it but I think the Democratic candidate in '08 will run on it.

The language will be "fight it smarter", or "reposition" or "redeploy". But in the end what we will get is retreat. The platform will be 'bring the boys back home', re: 'peace with dignity' from decades ago.

I think the Democrats are going to win running on that, the Republicans have flushed their political capital too much to win. We will end up getting another Iran/Syria cohort for all our expenditure in the region.


If things in Iraq are the same way in two years as they are today, then I think you are correct. However, a lot can change in two years, and the American public might be more supportive of the war if we make strides. If things aren't improving by then, I don't think the public would have much hope for things ever going our way.

[patteeu]

Someone allegedly paid terrorist organizations $2 million for release of FOX News reporters

...


Ironically, this news comes on the heels of the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/14/fox-news-internal-memo-_n_34128.html">leak of an internal FOX memo</a> saying "Be On The Lookout For Any Statements From The Iraqi Insurgents...Thrilled At The Prospect Of A Dem Controlled Congress." Funny, but I bet the terrorists will be even more thrilled at the prospect of FOX News having given them $2m.<div style="clear: both; padding-bottom: 0.25em;"></div> </font>

So what? :shrug:

[patteeu]

Certainly, part of his Iraq strategy has to include reducing terrorism there.

Ultimately we want a stable Iraq, yes. Obviously, having gone to war there, we were willing to see Iraqis die and Iraqi infrastructure destroyed along the way. US security is the ultimate goal, and a stable Iraq is part of the strategy. It would be better if the Iraqis had greeted us with flowers and immediately started getting on with their lives, but the fact that some of them are putting up resistance is not a show stopper for the strategy... unless we decide to quit.

[noa]

Ultimately we want a stable Iraq, yes. Obviously, having gone to war there, we were willing to see Iraqis die and Iraqi infrastructure destroyed along the way. US security is the ultimate goal, and a stable Iraq is part of the strategy. It would be better if the Iraqis had greeted us with flowers and immediately started getting on with their lives, but the fact that some of them are putting up resistance is not a show stopper for the strategy... unless we decide to quit.


I agree with you. I don't want to see us quit.

[Calcountry]

I think the notion of Fox News thinking that Hamas is sitting around watching CNN or any other news outlet not named Al-Jazeera is laughable. I might be so bold as to say their agenda has no interest in who is in power in this country. They hate us all, Republican and Democrat; Liberal and Conservative. JMO.I think the notion of you underestimating the cunningness of our enemy is laughable.

They study economics, engineering, mathematics, and are very learned in policial affairs, both local and geo political. It is you that are stupidly arrogant by dismissing their wanting to know what the enemies media is saying, and how they may or may not be able to manipulate it.

[tiptap]

The scenario I see is that the most educated have left the country. We are only left with religious focused people. The country will be three areas each with their own influence from outside. The Sunni interest and Shia interest are not going to get together and one can expect that they will be waging attacks against each other and not against us.

[MarcBulger]

My Brother e-mailed me today. (Special Forces Iraq) The Iraq translator that he has become friends with asked him if they were now going to leave since the US voted Bush out. My brother explained that Bush was not voted out, but has had his wings clipped. He said the Guy was really worried becasue Iran will try and take over the country now.

[Ultra Peanut]

Wait, you're saying Fox is biased?!

[noa]

Wait, you're saying Fox is biased?!


I also liked when they labeled Mark Foley a Democrat 3 times during the O'Reilly Factor.

[Calcountry]

My Brother e-mailed me today. (Special Forces Iraq) The Iraq translator that he has become friends with asked him if they were now going to leave since the US voted Bush out. My brother explained that Bush was not voted out, but has had his wings clipped. He said the Guy was really worried becasue Iran will try and take over the country now.It is far past time, for the country to get on a real war footing and understand we are in a fight for our way of life.

If we leave Iraq, it will become Iran Western provinces.

I don't know how many of you played the game Risk, but once Iran gets control of those oil fields, the Strait of Hormuz, and Nukes, they will be a super power.

We are in Iraq for our Strategic National interests. I sincerely doubt, that once the cowardly Democrats see what is on the table, they won't run from Iraq. They will be content to let Bush take the poitical heat for it, and then run against him on it in 08. They still will not be advancing any alternative foreign policy objectives vis a vis the WOT, because they have none. They don't believe we are at war, and those that do, are either Halliburton or Racists.

[|Zach|]

So what? :shrug:
So it sounds like kidnapping reporters is a sure fire way to get a lot of money now.

Great precedent.

Not to mention it is 2 million dollars in the hands of terrorists.

[patteeu]

So it sounds like kidnapping reporters is a sure fire way to get a lot of money now.

Great precedent.

Not to mention it is 2 million dollars in the hands of terrorists.

I find it odd that you would object to this and wonder whether you'd have had the same reaction if this were the Christian Science Monitor or Doctors Without Borders who paid a ransom to get one of their own back.

[|Zach|]

I find it odd that you would object to this and wonder whether you'd have had the same reaction if this were the Christian Science Monitor or Doctors Without Borders who paid a ransom to get one of their own back.
I find it odd that with your dog and pony show of people like our own elected officials doing good things for terrorism by simply getting elected your reaction to actual support of terrorism is :shrug:

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I find it odd that with your dog and pony show of people like our own elected officials doing good things for terrorism by simply getting elected your reaction to actual support of terrorism is :shrug:

Such is the life of this board's version of a feminine Ann Coulter.

[Bowser]

I think the notion of you underestimating the cunningness of our enemy is laughable.

They study economics, engineering, mathematics, and are very learned in policial affairs, both local and geo political. It is you that are stupidly arrogant by dismissing their wanting to know what the enemies media is saying, and how they may or may not be able to manipulate it.

They do all that just to blow themselves up? Wow. That's taking your job seriously.

"Stupidy arrogant". Since you didn't catch all of what I said, I'll summarize....

My point is that they don't care who controls what over here. They are bound and determined to kill us, and don't care if they kill themselves in the process. They can get whatever info they want from wherever they want, but in the end, it's jsut going to be another suicide bomb taking out 10, 20, 30 more people. What I find "stupidly arrogant", or maybe just stupid, is the notion that terrorists have wormed their way into the media and are now in control of what happens in Iraq via the media. This is nothing more than another pissed off partisan cheap shot from a bitterman who is angry that his party lost control of congress.

[patteeu]

I find it odd that with your dog and pony show of people like our own elected officials doing good things for terrorism by simply getting elected your reaction to actual support of terrorism is :shrug:

I don't blame any private person from doing what they think they have to do to keep their loved ones from ending up like Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg. The sooner the rest of you get on board with fighting back against those who take part in these barbarous acts, the sooner we won't have to worry about paying these kinds of ransoms.

[noa]

IThe sooner the rest of you get on board with fighting back against those who take part in these barbarous acts, the sooner we won't have to worry about paying these kinds of ransoms.


It will be harder to fight back against them if they can earn $2 million for every kidnapping. I know people will do what they can to save their own loved ones, but it does set a dangerous precedent.

[patteeu]

It will be harder to fight back against them if they can earn $2 million for every kidnapping. I know people will do what they can to save their own loved ones, but it does set a dangerous precedent.

It doesn't set any kind of precedent. It's been going on forever. This is nothing new. It's widely believed that a ransom was paid to free the Christian Science Monitor's reporter, Jill Carroll, and she is one of many.

Ransom claims abound in Carroll case (http://www.suntimes.com/special_sections/jillcarroll/41014,cst-nws-carrollside25.article)

August 25, 2006
BY SCOTT PETERSON AND DAN MURPHY Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor
BAGHDAD -- Since Jill Carroll's release, rumors have swirled about a $10 million or even a $36 million ransom payment. Iraqi politician Adnan al-Dulaimi's claim to have paid $1.5 million to free Ms. Carroll (See Aug. 22 story), is just the latest.

Such rumors are not without precedent. Most releases of foreign hostages in Iraq have involved ransoms into the millions of dollars. Carroll's captors told her in January that they were seeking $10 million, but they later said that their leadership had decided against accepting money for her release.

...

That Zach suddenly finds this troubling tells me that he either doesn't follow the news from the region very closely or that something about this particular case besides the fact that a ransom might have been paid irritates him. Perhaps it is the FoxNews connection? Perhaps he doesn't like it when Hamas benefits from a ransom but doesn't mind it when Iraqi insurgents do? Who knows, but like I said, it's odd.

I presume that you and Zach oppose any kind of prisoner swap by Israel in their efforts to free the Israeli soldiers who have been taken hostage by Hamas and Hezbollah in recent months?

[noa]

It doesn't set any kind of precedent. It's been going on forever. This is nothing new. It's widely believed that a ransom was paid to free the Christian Science Monitor's reporter, Jill Carroll, and she is one of many.



So you criticize people for not supporting the war enough, but you're okay with Americans who just gave direct financial support to terrorists? Is there any doubt that this ransom won't be used for terrorist purposes? Like I said, I know that people will bend their stances when it comes to their loved ones, but I have a very hard time justifying giving direct monetary support to terrorists. IMO, people who give money to terrorists do more damage than Americans who don't support the war.

[patteeu]

So you criticize people for not supporting the war enough, but you're okay with Americans who just gave direct financial support to terrorists? Is there any doubt that this ransom won't be used for terrorist purposes? Like I said, I know that people will bend their stances when it comes to their loved ones, but I have a very hard time justifying giving direct monetary support to terrorists. IMO, people who give money to terrorists do more damage than Americans who don't support the war.

I think it would be great if people were willing to sacrifice their loved ones for the good of the country, but I don't expect them to do it and I don't begrudge them when they don't. It takes a lot less personal sacrifice to support the war effort or at least avoid undermining it, to refuse to talk it down (especially when they don't have personal knowledge of what they are talking about), to refuse to leak government secrets, etc. so, yes, I criticize people for failing us in those ways before I would criticize a person who is paying a high personal price no matter what decision they make.

What's going on with these ransoms is that these people are socializing the costs of terrorism. Instead of bearing the entire cost associated with that particular kidnapping themselves in terms of losing a loved one, they are exchanging cash for the life of the loved one and that cash is translated into some small amount of increased risk across the entire population (with some parts of the population, e.g. soldiers in Iraq, facing a greater risk than others obviously, but with no one person bearing the entire cost).

[NewPhin]

FWIW: the last time the Republicans were elected, Neo-Nazis and abortion clinic bombers everywhere celebrated it as a victory.


Or...I'm sure a network could have found quotes to back that up, if they'd set out to do so.

[patteeu]

FWIW: the last time the Republicans were elected, Neo-Nazis and abortion clinic bombers everywhere celebrated it as a victory.


Or...I'm sure a network could have found quotes to back that up, if they'd set out to do so.

I'm sure that's true to some extent although I'm not sure of many significant retreats in our efforts to contain those two "scourges" spearheaded by Republicans.

[memyselfI]

It will be harder to fight back against them if they can earn $2 million for every kidnapping. I know people will do what they can to save their own loved ones, but it does set a dangerous precedent.

The dangerous precedent was set long ago in this war. Everyone knows the US and our interests negotiate with terrorists. The danger is the WH continuing to spread it's propaganda pretending it's NOT.

The entire Al-Sadr situation is a classic and Faux News is following the WH lead.

[Cochise]

It doesn't set any kind of precedent... Perhaps he doesn't like it when Hamas benefits from a ransom but doesn't mind it when Iraqi insurgents do? ...I presume that you and Zach oppose any kind of prisoner swap by Israel in their efforts to free the Israeli soldiers who have been taken hostage by Hamas and Hezbollah in recent months?

Monetary compensation is only one form of paying a ransom. Some amound of capitulation probably happens in most of these cases.

[patteeu]

I get the impression from the things I hear from the left that it's wrong to seriously fight terrorists and it's wrong to negotiate with them, so I guess that leaves hiding from them and baring your neck. I don't like those options.

[memyselfI]

I get the impression from the things I hear from the left that it's wrong to seriously fight terrorists and it's wrong to negotiate with them, so I guess that leaves hiding from them and baring your neck. I don't like those options.

I get the impression a visit to your optomistrist would be a worthwhile investment...

for I have yet to see anyone say it's wrong to seriously fight terrorists. I can't speak for others but I'm not saying it's wrong to negotiate with them. Rather, if you are going to do it (and all governments have and do) then stop saying you don't do it. It makes you look weak when, in the end, your need or willingness to negotiate with terrorists is revealed.

[patteeu]

I get the impression a visit to your optomistrist would be a worthwhile investment...

for I have yet to see anyone say it's wrong to seriously fight terrorists. I can't speak for others but I'm not saying it's wrong to negotiate with them. Rather, if you are going to do it (and all governments have and do) then stop saying you don't do it. It makes you look weak when, in the end, your need or willingness to negotiate with terrorists is revealed.

There is no indication that the government paid any money to the Hamas kidnappers. I seriously doubt that they did.