Bernice: What does that have to do with (V)'s comparison to our constitution? He is NOT protected under our constitution. He is an enemy of the U.S. and should be treated as such.

rod03801: he is not a US citizen as you say, but he fears extradition to Sweden and then from there to the USA....

It is full on in our news as he was born here in my town and then went to Magnetic Island which is a 15 minute boat ride from the mainland....

All he is really guilty of tho is publishing facts, he didn't personally steal them he was given them...

(V): Go to an airport and yell Bomb! and see what happens

(V): Are you for real? For one, he is not a U.S. citizen, and is NOT protected under OUR constitution.

In the news, the wikileaks dude Julian Assange has been granted bail. The claims of him running off (by the Swedish prosecution) were described as not having any credibility considering Mr Assange's previous behavior of complete compliance with the Swedish and English Authorities.

The Wikileaks founder fears extradition to the USA as a more likely possibility than being extradited to Sweden.

... So much for Freedom of Speech.. A right protected by the USA constitution.. or so the right wingers keep saying when they have something to say.. even when that what they say is questionable or basically a lie...

....yet the truth is a punishable offense!!

On March 16, 1986, the San Francisco Examiner published a report on the "1983 seizure of 430 pounds of cocaine from a Colombian freighter" in San Francisco which indicated that a "cocaine ring in the San Francisco Bay area helped finance Nicaragua's Contra rebels." Carlos Cabezas, convicted of conspiracy to traffic cocaine, said that the profits from his crimes "belonged to... the Contra revolution." He told the Examiner, "I just wanted to get the Communists out of my country." Julio Zavala, also convicted on trafficking charges, said "that he supplied $500,000 to two Costa Rican-based Contra groups and that the majority of it came from cocaine trafficking in the San Francisco Bay area, Miami and New Orleans."[3]

Former CIA agent David MacMichael explained the inherent relationship between CIA activity in Latin America and drug trafficking: "Once you set up a covert operation to supply arms and money, it's very difficult to separate it from the kind of people who are involved in other forms of trade, and especially drugs. There is a limited number of planes, pilots and landing strips. By developing a system for supply of the Contras, the US built a road for drug supply into the US."

...The contents of the actual report were largely ignored by the national media. In the 623rd paragraph, the report described a cable from the CIA's Directorate of Operations dated October 22, 1982, describing a prospective meeting between Contra leaders in Costa Rica for "an exchange in [the United States] of narcotics for arms, which then are shipped to Nicaragua."[11] The two main Contra groups, US arms dealers, and a lieutenant of a drug ring which imported drugs from Latin America to the US west coast were set to attend the Costa Rica meeting. The lieutenant trafficker was also a Contra, and the CIA knew that there was an arms-for-drugs shuttle and did nothing to stop it.[10]

The report stated that the CIA had requested the Justice Department return $36,800 to a member of the Meneses drug ring, which had been seized by DEA agents in the Frogman raid in San Francisco. The CIA's Inspector General said the Agency wanted the money returned "to protect an operational equity, i.e., a Contra support group in which it [CIA] had an operational interest."[10]
[edit] Testimony of the CIA Inspector General

Six weeks after the declassified and heavily censored report was made public, Inspector General Hitz testified before a House congressional committee.[10] Hitz stated that:

Volume II... will be devoted to a detailed treatment of what was known to CIA regarding dozens of people and a number of companies connected in some fashion to the Contra program or the Contra movement that were the subject of any sort of drug trafficking allegations. Each is closely examined in terms of their relationship with CIA, the drug trafficking activity that was alleged, the actions CIA took in response to the allegations, and the extent of information concerning the allegations that was Shared with U.S. law enforcement and Congress.

As I said earlier, we have found no evidence in the course of this lengthy investigation of any conspiracy by CIA or its employees to bring drugs into the United States. However, during the Contra era, CIA worked with a variety of people to support the Contra program. These included CIA assets, pilots who ferried supplies to the Contras, as well as Contra officials and others. Let me be frank about what we are finding. There are instances where CIA did not, in an expeditious or consistent fashion, cut off relationships with individuals supporting the Contra program who were alleged to have engaged in drug trafficking activity or take action to resolve the allegations.[12]

Hitz also testified that the CIA did not "expeditiously" cut off relations with alleged drug traffickers.[13]

Hitz also said that under an agreement in 1982 between Ronald Reagan's Attorney General William French Smith and the CIA, agency officers were not required to report allegations of drug trafficking involving non-employees, defined as paid and non-paid "assets"--pilots who ferried supplies to the contras, as well as contra officials and others.[12][13]

This agreement, which had not previously been revealed, came at a time when there were allegations that the CIA was using drug dealers in its controversial covert operation to bring down the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua.[13] Only after Congressional funds were restored in 1986 was the agreement modified to require the CIA to stop paying agents whom it believed were involved in the drug trade.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_Contras_cocaine_trafficking_in_the_US

It sounds like they are calling good evil and evil good

Servant:

> The US think that the bad guys outnumber the few good guys on a global scale

To be more accurate, the US (and most other western countries) think that the bad guys outnumber the good guys. However, the bad guys are acceptable when it is easy to make money from them. So a bad guy is really just a guy that does not allow western monopolies to make money at their expense.

I can give some good examples:

Saudi Arabia is an autocratic, dictatorial kingdom that does not even allow women to fully participoate in the electoral process. However, they are an ally because they have a lot of cheap oil to sell. It is immaterial that most of Al Qaida and its funding originate here. They are still a good ally.

China is run by totalitarian communists, but they are not a bad guy because they have a lot of cheap manufactured goods to sell. It does not matter that Tibetans are oppressed, they are still a good guy and America's biggest trading partner and money lender.

In contrast:

Iran is a dictatorial islamic republic. They are a bad guy because their oil pipelines compete with Western-owned pipelines in the region, and they refuse to give their oil away to foregin monopolies. In fact, they kicked out western monopolies and nationalized their oil industry. That is truly evil and against capitalism.

North Korea is run by totalitarian communists. Unlike China or dictatorships in the Middle East, North Korea has no cheap goods and no oil to sell. So North Korea is a bad guy, even though they are as communist as China is.

Of course, western society can NEVER do wrong because it truly upholds Christian values emobodied in capitalist doctrine and representative democracy. Our WMDs are good, while those of the North Koreans and Iranians are evil. It is IDEOLOGY and not actions that make people good or evil.

Servant: Some do.. It's an acquired habit from the cold war. Plus the realisation that the USA can never be as 'big' as it use to be. Countries that were devastated through the likes of WWII have rebuilt or modernised, or both.

Sounds a bit harsh, anyway

The US think that the bad guys outnumber the few good guys on a global scale, they had better spy on almost everyone according to that theory.

What i know is that God protects those that want protection. Is Julian Assange a Christian? People spy on other people, is that a crime? It depends where you live and what you believe.

Artful Dodger: If you don't know... I suggest you give up politics, it being a matter of international affairs.

Vikings: The journalist who was killed in Iraq by a USA Apache Gunship. His death was covered up. Don't you think that the family of that person had the right to know how and why he died? Or that someone got it wrong in the USA military is justification to cover up the 'friendly fire' death via calling it "secret".

Artful Dodger:

> I wouldn't want the US spying on a friend and then releasing the info.

Isn't that one of the things that the American goverment was furious about? They were spying on "friends", then relaying the information back through diplomatic channels. It was okay until somebody spilled the beans. Now the guy is a traitor, for exposing the hypocrysy. All of that was about saving face. I can understand national security, but spying on the royal family, or Angela Merkel?

Übergeek 바둑이: I think it is hysterical how liberals like to make comparisons like someone blatantly admitting releasing military secrets with someone trying to give away bibles, or hike in the mountains
it must just burn like crazy in the pit of the stomach

> nothing hypocritical about it at all. If a U.S. citizen leaks secret U.S. information, it is by law, treason. If a not U.S. citizen does it is by law, espionage, period.

Then when North Koreans accuse a citizen of breaking the law and they throw them in jail, it is OK. After all, if the law of that country says that it is espionage, then it is, and the opinion of other countries does not count. When Americans complain about dissidents being jailed, by North Korean law definitions they are criminals, then North Korea is justified in its actions. Free speech is meaningless then when the law says that something is espionage.

> I live in the USA. Why should I care if the secrets of China are exposed?

That is precisely my point. The only reason why Wikileaks is being prosecuted is because they exposed western interests. If they had exposed somebody else's interests, the American government would not care. Wikileaks has committed a crime by exposing information that Americans consider secret and dangerous.

What about defectors from North Korea or Iran then? I guess it is justified to defend them. It is a nice, hypocritical double standard. Like the standard that says that it is OK for western powers to have the biggest arsenals of WMDs while giving smaller countries a hard time for pursuing the same WMDs that western powers refuse to give up.

What we call national security and "the law" then reduces itself to hypocritical double standards. We can spy on others, but others cannot spy on us. We can expose the secrets of others, but others cannot expose our own. We can have WMDs, but others can't. We can carry preeemptive attacks on others, but others cannot carry them against us. We can drop bombs with drone planes on others, but others cannot do it to us. We give ourselves all these rights, but refuse to accept that other could do the same. Our enemies have criminal spies, we have heroic spies. We are ALWAYS right, they are always wrong. Those who expose us as being otherwise are nothing but criminals and spies.

Übergeek 바둑이: nothing hypocritical about it at all. If a U.S. citizen leaks secret U.S. information, it is by law, treason. If a not U.S. citizen does it is by law, espionage, period. If it happens to lets say Russia, it is not any of our business but Russia's.
So Art's opinion is accurate

Artful Dodger:

> I coujldn't care less if it happened to an emeny of the US. That is hardly the point here.

Very convenient. If these people had exposed secrets in China or North Korea, should they be executed? It is so nice to have a double standard. But then, that is the essence of selfishness. What is good for me (or US) is what matters. What is good for others is immaterial. Personally, I think EVERY document should be public. But then, if you government kept secret documents on you, would it matter? All that this shows is the hypocrysy of western governments, nothing else.

Yes.. I forgot the support to those in the cocaine business as well... deals to turn a blind eye and the like.

.. It's ok for the CIA to take part and make money in the opium trade which kills people daily.. Yet those who leak info on the likes should be executed....

Übergeek 바둑이: Depends on the quality of the yellowcake.. It was deemed pretty rubbish so it might not be worth the while.

.... But then again, with so much of the USA GDP going on the military... ... well. It saves them the mining.

"When superpowers (or their dubious allies) make WMDs, who imposes sanctions on them?"

No-one. At least within the history of international affairs of the last century or so. As long as they have no no blood on their hands the superpowers didn't give a damn.

Artful Dodger: yes and it is operated by a friend of Assange.

(V):

> Villagers sell deadly uranium to the US army at $3 a barrel

The question is: what will the US military do with that uranium? I doubt that they will just dump it to the bottom of the ocean, or donate it to the boyscouts. Most likely they will refine it, enrich it and use it to make more nukes, or to make depleted uranium anti-tank shells.

I suppose it is OK for superpowers to have WMDs. Maintaining a monopoly of military might is more important than accepting the hypocritical nature of "non-proliferation" of WMDs. When superpowers (or their dubious allies) make WMDs, who imposes sanctions on them?

Artful Dodger:

> There's a huge difference between an individual or an organization reporting abuses in government or business one at a time and the same people stealing enough classified material to run a spy agency.

At what point does it become "reporting" or "spying"? The truth is that western governments have lived in a culture of secrecy for decades. The Cold War was used as an excuse to give broad powers to spy agencies. Governments got used to run just about everything as a secret. National security became an excuse for doing anything they wanted.

Once exposed, politicians now cry foul and try to hide their embarrassing crap behind "national security". If they could, governments would remain secretive, spy on people, abuse their power, and the voting public would be none the wiser.

Wikileaks is far from a spy agency. They simply put out government secrets in the public eye. The Obama administration can go and say that people's lives will be put at risk. What is put at risk is the government's ability to save face. Embassy personnel give recounts of their impressions of other powerful foreigners. Those people are being exposed for who they are. The American government does not want to appear to be spying on the rich and the powerful among their allies. Yet that is what they did, and now they call Wikileaks a spy agency? There is no free speech in this case, only Big Brother trying to tell others what they can and cannot report.

If governments don't want to be embarrassed, maybe they should start by giving up their culture of secrecy and their paranoia.

To add to this, if instead of American files, they had released 250,000 classified files from the Communist Party of the People's Republic of China, would people make such a fuss about it? If that were the case, the American government would probably be giving them a medal and massive funding for their projects!

Artful Dodger: "Open Leaks" will be launched in Germany next Monday.

... one minute "quoting" wikileaks and the next posting an article condemning them..

......... ie they are just useful for propaganda attempts???

Artful Dodger: So this report you are quoting is saying that those killed or targeted by anti Islamic biased people asked for it?

The Tax Policy Center reported that the various tax cuts under the Bush administration were "extraordinarily expensive" to the Treasury:[30]

The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation calculated a score, or revenue change, for each of the seven major tax cut bills passed during the Bush administration: their combined cost sums to over $2.0 trillion from 2001-17. Extending these tax cuts into the future would carry a similar cost: the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently estimated the cost of extending them through 2017 at $1.9 trillion, not counting the costs of debt service, and not counting the cost of indexing the alternative minimum tax (AMT) to inflation to prevent it from undoing much of the cuts...if one takes into account the direct effects of the tax cuts, extra interest payments, and the extra "interaction" cost of reforming the AMT while extending the Bush tax cuts, the combined cost of extending the tax cuts through 2017 adds up to $2.8 trillion.


........ $2.8 trillion is quite a bite OFF the national debt... But that FACT seems to be forgotten.

.....Some policy analysts and non-profit groups such as OMBWatch,[4] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,[5] and the Tax Policy Center[6] have attributed some of the rise in income inequality to the Bush administration's tax policy. In February 2007, President Bush addressed the rise of inequality for the first time, saying "The reason is clear: We have an economy that increasingly rewards education and skills because of that education".[7].....

...have pointed out that education fails to explain the rising gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99%, which has been the site of most increases in inequality. They point out that if education were to blame, a larger group would be pulling ahead of the rest of the population, and that wages of highly educated earners have fallen far behind those of the very rich. Furthermore, they point out that the U.S. is unique among developed countries in seeing such a sharp rise in inequality, while the composition of its economy and labor force is not - if education were to blame, one would expect the same trend across all post-industrial nations.[8] Bartels has asserted that the skill base explanation is partially used as it is more "comforting" to blame impersonal forces, rather than policies.[9]

The tax cuts have been largely opposed by American economists, including the Bush administration's own Economic Advisement Council.[10] In 2003, 450 economists, including ten Nobel Prize laureate, signed the Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts, sent to President Bush stating that "these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook... will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research... [and] generate further inequalities in after-tax income."...

....In contrast to the claims made by Bush, Cheney, and Republican presidential primary candidates such as Rudy Giuliani, there is a broad consensus among even conservative economists (including current and former top economists of the Bush Administration such as Greg Mankiw) that the tax cuts have had a substantial net negative impact on revenues (i.e., revenues would have been substantially higher if the tax cuts had not taken place), even taking into account any stimulative effect the tax cuts may have had and any resulting revenue feedback effects.[13] When asked whether the Bush tax cuts had generated more revenue, Laffer stated that he did not know. However, he did say that the tax cuts were "what was right," because after the September 11 attacks and threats of recession, Bush "needed to stimulate the economy and spend for defense."[14]

In terms of increasing inequality, the effect of Bush's tax cuts on the upper, middle and lower class is contentious. Most economists argue that the cuts have benefited the nation's richest households at the expense of the middle and lower class,[15] while libertarians and conservatives[16] have claimed that tax cuts have benefitted all taxpayers.[17]b Economists Peter Orszag and William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse government redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes."/b[18]....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration#Tax_policy

Artful Dodger: But it's not from wikileaks .... it's from

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/12/09/the_wikileaks_vindication_of_george_w_bush_108195.html




Saddam's nuclear arsenal? A scattering of yellow powder

Villagers sell deadly uranium to the US army at $3 a barrel

* Patrick Graham in Al Mansia
* The Observer, Sunday 5 October 2003 01.41 BST
* Article history

Dhia Ali makes a throwing motion as he tells how he dumped out the blue barrels of powder. The nine-year-old and his brother, Hussein, weren't looking for weapons of mass destruction when they went into the low brown buildings, known to UN weapons inspectors as Location C, near his home last April. They just wanted the blue barrels.

The yellow cake powder they poured out and breathed into their lungs - a form of natural uranium - was part of the nuclear programme which, the Iraq Survey Group's recent report claims, somewhat vaguely, was being restarted before the last war. The report won't do much for Dhia or Hussein - they haven't even been examined by a doctor yet.

'If you inhale even a small amount, it stays in your lungs,' said one of the senior scientists who worked on Iraq's atomic programme. He spoke anonymously because, like many of the country's best researchers, he didn't want any trouble from the Americans.

Even the ducks in the canal in the village of Al Mansia, where they dumped the barrels, later tested for increased radiation. When the US army offered a reward of $3 a barrel, the villagers fished them out and sold them.

The report's claim that Iraq was revamping its nuclear programme in such a way that it could constitute any serious threat was described as 'ridiculous' by the scientist. By 1991, when the he left the programme, Iraq had succeeded in producing no more than one kilogram of enriched uranium - 6 to 14 kgs short of a bomb. By 1997, the programme had been exposed and most of its capabilities destroyed.

To produce more would be impossible. Nuclear research, he pointed out, is a massive undertaking and difficult to conceal, especially under sanctions while being monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/05/iraq1

Übergeek 바둑이: I believe in tax breaks for EVERYONE. People who work hard, who have invested smartly, who inherited it, WHATEVER, all deserve to keep as much of it as possible. Our government does NOT use it wisely, and they should not be using as much as they are.

Artful Dodger:

> Most American feel that in this economy, all tax levels should remain the same.

I think that makes sense, not just in the USA, but in Canada and western Europe. Lowering taxes will just add to a bad deficit (something George W. Bush completely refused to admit in spit4e of the ever increasing costs of the war). Raising taxes will solve the deficit, but take money away from consumers. Obama seems to understand that, but he is too weak to stand up to those Republicans who want tax breaks. At this point in time, it is irresponsible to engage in tax breaks. It was irresponsible of the Bush administration to do it, and it is still irresponsible considering the deficit problem. The government needs to trim the fat, and that means no more bailouts and reducing military spending. Well, the realities of healthcare costs and increasing pressures on the pension system will eventually catch up to our governments. At some point it will be impossible to keep giving free rides to the big monopolies, keep throwing away money in wars, AND provide essential services to those in need. The public will force politicians to chose. Stimulating the economy with tax breaks sounds great and it is always a popular move, but can the government really afford it?

rod03801:

All I can say is this: Do you make over $250K a year? If you do, I can understand defending a tax break for the rich, because you will directly benefit from it. If you make under $250K a year, then a tax break for the rich is of no direct benefit to you. I suppose defending the political and economic interests of the wealthy elite really, really helps the lower middle calss.

Artful Dodger:

> "Chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam's toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict -- and may have brewed up their own deadly agents"

If that were true, there would be not a few thousand dead soldiers, but hundreds of thousands. I think these analysts have their heads right up their keisters. It takes no genius to figure out that if Iraq had WMDs, and the insurgents had inherited those, then the Coalition would be in serious trouble. Why use suicide bombing when you can release a toxin that could wipe out an entire army base? It is illogical!

Even after all these years people are trying to make excuses for the simple fact that Tony Blair and George W. Bush manufactured intelligence and lied to the public to justify a war whose final aim was to make billions of dollars for Haliburton, Exxon and other big oil companies. Why winge on about WMDs? They should just be honest and admit the truth.

Übergeek 바둑이: NO. The government is TOO big. We don't need more taxes. We need smaller government and less government spending. Like you, I can call the people that believe the democrats' silly ideology and vote for it dumb, as well.

rod03801:

> many people aren't able to think enough to realize that it is these people "earning $250,000 and higher"
> are the ones who create the jobs that everyone needs and if they are taxed even more, the unemployment
> situation is only going to get worse.

The truth is that the rich ALREADY have massive tax breaks that others don't enjoy. When it comes to "job creation tax breaks" nothing beats the "capital gains tax exemption". In Canada (I am not sure of the rates in the USA, but taxation law is not that different across the border) a person can declare income as capital gains. The exemption allows a person to pay NO TAXES on the first $250,000 of capital gains. This lifetime exemption was actually lowered from $500,000 because the government was losing billions of dollars in "exempt" income. Not only that, but when capital gains are declared, the taxation rate is 15%. That is less than half of the average 32% that the middle class pays.

Let's add to that exemptions based on "capital expenditures". If you are the owner of a business, you can take your income and invest it in upgrading infrastructure or buying equipment. That means that you can offset most of the taxes paid if you declare buying property as a "capital expense". I know rich people who declare everythingas a capital expense. Their car is a "company car". Their food is a "business meal". Their dentist is a "medical benefit" payed to an employee. I know this guy who bought himself a luxury sports car, and had the cheek to declare it as a business investment, and he got away with it.

Then we come to who actually creates the jobs. The answer is that consumers of products and services create the jobs. A rich man can open a clothing store, but if nobody buys clothes, the store fails. It is simple economics. Then who are the "consumers" in society. It is the working class, who make up the majority of the population. With no "capital tax breaks", it is the working class that carries the burden of paying taxes and sustaining the government. I wonder how many millionaires go to Walmart or MacDonalds and consume all those goods and all that food that makes the rich richer.

The idea that tax breaks for the rich stimulates the economy is the excuse that those on the right use to give tax breaks to themselves. Interestingly, those people who vote for them are dumb enough to buy the ideological crap, without actually looking at how the rich make their money and how they get away with paying less taxes.

In recent reports on some of the sensitivity of information released on Wikileaks. The revealing of certain strategic installations in Europe as designated by the USA gov was condemned.

.. That they were to any person of even moderate intelligence.. known was ignored. Apart from some new ones, most have been known as significant targest logistically or economically back to the days of the KGB and the cold war.

Among the new was the gas pipeline link from Russia. Europe's main source of gas.

The Col: Who did they poll? Nimrods who don't understand economics? And any Fox poll is no worse than any other poll that would be quoted. They are all pretty commonly skewed to show whatever view the poller is hoping to show.

Still can't deny that the recent election certainly showed that "vast numbers" do NOT agree with what the wonderful Libs/Obama have been up to. I suppose this doesn't automatically narrow it down to this specific tax situation as many people aren't able to think enough to realize that it is these people "earning $250,000 and higher" are the ones who create the jobs that everyone needs and if they are taxed even more, the unemployment situation is only going to get worse.

The Col: Maybe he should get Anonymous on his side!!

rod03801: Do you really think you'd find a major network poll (other than Fox News) with results greatly different?

O'bama was handed a gift, and he blew it spectacularly.The Republicans play hardball, he's way over his head

The Col: And I'm sure someone else could find a poll with higher numbers and lower numbers too. Fact remains that "vast numbers" do NOT support the recent direction that our federal govt. had been heading.

And yes, Obama is incompetent. He is "rolling over" because he sees it as possibly his only chance to continue torturing our country after 2012. I hope it doesn't work.

rod03801: "Just 26 percent of Americans say they support extending the cuts for all Americans, even those earning above the $250,000 level, which is the GOP proposal"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20024494-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody


If Obama can't find the will to battle that fight, and concedes outright, he's frankly not doing his job. He rolled over.

The Col: If a "vast number" of our citizens agreed with our incompetent president, why did we vote in droves to empty as much as possible, the House of his cronies? The numbers agreeing aren't THAT vast.

... The liberal Democrats here are under criticism especially by University students. Many signed (and as such was party policy) that there would be no increases in the maximum yearly fees cap. Yet, the cap set at £3290 is now increasing to a max of £9000.

Today, before two votes are taken.. It's a day of compromise... The whips wearing out shoe leather is a likely scenario.

The Col: Sometimes you have to stand up for what you, and the vast number of your citizens believe.This guy is like the wimp who continues to try and reason with the bully who has already landed another punches to close one eye, defend yourself Obama! grow a pair!

http://crooksandliars.com/media/play/wmv/18985/

The Col: And just what part of hillary's agenda is any different?

He's breathtakingly weak, remove him from office before he does more damage.Can you imagine if he was President during the early years of WW2?

We'd all be goose stepping right now, and eating shnitzel

2. (S) Soliman led off the New Year's Eve meeting by telling the Codel that the region is at a special, critical juncture. Egypt is America's partner. Sometimes we have our differences. But Egypt will continue to provide the USG with its knowledge and expertise on the critical regional issues, such as Lebanon and Iraq. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains the core issue; Soliman contended a peaceful resolution would be a "big blow" to terrorist organizations that use the conflict as a pretext. For this reason, President Mubarak is committed to ending the Israeli-Arab "stalemate."

3. (S) Soliman applauded the Administration's efforts, commenting that Annapolis had given hope and begun a process. The timing is right for progress based on four factors. First, the PA leadership is moderate and willing to negotiate. Second, Hamas is isolated and politically cut off in Gaza. Third, the Israelis are ready for peace; Soliman assessed that the GOI coalition is broad and strong, and larger than Rabin's coalition of the mid-nineties. Fourth, Arab states are ready to see an end to "the struggle."

4. (S) Soliman stressed that Egypt stands ready to help the U.S. effort. The GOE knows both the Palestinians and the Israelis, and knows the obstacles to peace. Soliman recommended two steps be taken. First, both the Israelis and Palestinians must be pressed hard to sign an agreement, which the U.S. and international community could endorse, to be implemented at the proper time. Second, the U.S. should insist that "phase one" of the Roadmap should be completed before the end of 2008.

5. (S) Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Soliman opined that the Palestinian Authority was ready to sign an agreement, but that establishment of a state may take between 1-3 years. While Hamas is isolated politically and unable to stop an Israeli-PA agreement, it remains entrenched in Gaza, and it was unclear to Soliman how long that would last. At one point in the discussion, Soliman seemed to imply Hamas may remain in control of Gaza for more than a year; at another juncture, he told Senator Voinovich that if negotiations proceeded briskly, Hamas may be forced to cede power in Gaza in 3-4 months. The bottom line for Hamas, according to Soliman, is that they must be forced to choose between remaining a resistance movement or joining the political process. They cannot have it both ways, he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks

Fancy that... teething problems!!