The Col: I would have thought going by some of the shared ideals Sarah Palin and other right wing Christians.. they would have got on well with their extreme Muslim brothers.

The Col:

I am sure religious extremists in Egypt are also worried about Sarah Palin!

This comes as no surprise. The CIA has had nearly absolute power for 50 years. Can the CIA ever change?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110209/ap_on_go_ot/us_cia_accountability

Tuesday: nah, probably not. a good honorable man, wrote good books, but probably couldn't lower himself to roll in the slop with the other pols

What are the qualifications that would make a good president for the USA? What credentials? soundbites? How pretty he/she is? Does the camera like them?maybe dancing with the stars? or American Idol?

Five years on and the scandal of News International (specifically the News of the World) phone tapping has still yet to reach it's conclusion. New information over who and how much was tapped is still under police investigation.

Lord Prescott has revealed that the police have "significant new evidence" and will be contacting a number of potential new victims.

The cost of out of court settlements has already cost the News group about £2 million pounds, and with others taking legal action will cost Rupert Murdoch's company much more.

Tuesday: Yet people can make just as vicious comments about her, and it's ok?

Tuesday: Ahh. Yeah, gotcha. Of course.

rod03801: you betcha!
though I wonder what you consider " vicious "
she puts herself out there in the public forum, she gives just as much as she gets, and then some

The Col: I don't disagree. Most politicians do get it and give it. Some like to make it sound like it's one sided though.

rod03801: Truth depends on your perspective these days.Rarely does anyone break rank and disagree with someone on their side of the aisle.It has become far too predictable

Tuesday: Well I of course meant the people who would giggle about similar comments made about her, yet get a bit uppity about her making such comments.

Tuesday: ??? Seems to me it IS plenty of people who do it?

rod03801: Anti-intellectualism is a very dangerous path, and the Palin's of this world are the flag beares of it's renaissance upon the right wing stage.I frankly think it should be confronted whenever it appears, and it is in all it's heavenly glory when Palin opens her mouth

The Col: Again, that's fine. If the idiocy that comes from "the other side" is just as equally confronted.

OR if not confronted, then they shouldn't whine it works the other way too.

rod03801: I guess" idiocy" is a perspective thing, but I don't see the left mocking education, like some on the right do.

Hosni Mubarak reminds me of me when I am told to do the dishes.The stronger the demand, the less likely I am to do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc9BGSsU_ZU

Tuesday: She was, as have other right wingers in the ultimate aim of being a perfect 'Conservative'... it seems being a 'witch finder general' pays well!!

Tuesday: and Bill Clinton was?or Joe Biden or JFK for that matter or w bush? Some one I know during Clinton's sex offender trials derided Paula Jones as trailer trash. I laughed and said and what is Bill? and check out his mother

But having said that, Clinton in my opinion was a very good president, his mistake I didn't like was NAFTA

Tuesday: Really, JFK? why?HE sent the Advisers and military into Vietnam..The bay of pigs could have been adverted, or won, but he choose otherwise. which led up to the missile crisis. but hey he was soooo good looking

Now the shame is i think is Bobby Kennedy would have been a great president

Tuesday: Clinton was as much a peacemaker as he was a warmaker.

Tuesday: That doesn't make sense.
A better way to put it would be “I don't understand that”, as that is not surprising at all and makes great sense.

Tuesday: Those not afflicted with myopia would argue that Clinton is one of the world's leading war criminals!

One could say that the support for the 'El Presidente' of Egypt over the last 30 years was an artificial peace. That anyone challenging his government was arrested, imprisoned or tortured. Isn't then the USA admins supporting the regime yet another example of double standards!!

.. which has cost Americans billions of dollars...

Pedro Martínez:

> Clinton was as much a peacemaker as he was a warmaker.

Clinton was a lovah and not a fightah!

(V):

> One could say that the support for the 'El Presidente' of Egypt over the last 30 years
> was an artificial peace. That anyone challenging his government was arrested,
> imprisoned or tortured. Isn't then the USA admins supporting the regime yet another
> example of double standards!!

People in general forget small details of history that shed light on the nature of a president and why he was supported by the USA.

In the 1970s Anwar El Sadat was president of Egypt. Sadat managed to accomplish some things which were of great interest to the USA. First, he strengthened the Egyptian army, thereby getting rid of Soviet influence that had crept in during former president Nasser's regime. After Nasser's death, Sadat got rid of soviet equipment and advisors while at the same time strengthening the Egyptian army. This put him in a stronger political position to sign a peace treaty with Israel. This peace treaty was politically and strategically important to both the USA and Israel. That treaty got Sadat three things: Egypt was expelled from the Arab League, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and a fatwah (assassination) was called against him.

After Sadat was assassinated, there was a political vacuum in Egypt. A man had risen in rank and power in the military during the 1970s. That was vice-president General Hosni Mubarak. Mubarak promised to continue Egypt's peaceful policies towards Israel in exchange for economic and military support from Washington. Through the 1980s and into the present Mubarak proved to be a strong ally of the USA and a supporter of Israel. Over the years Egypt's military recieved more and more economic support from Washington. Today that support amounts to 1.8 billion USD and Egypt is the second largest recepient of military aid from the USA after Israel.

Besides supporting Israel, Mubarak also made Egypt a military ally of the USA during both wars in Iraq. As a full ally he provided equipment, personnel, land and air space, etc. He also cracked down on fundamentalist islamists who sought to drive him from power. While being called a dictator, Mubarak did everything right by Washington's standards. It is for this reason that his military receive, and will continue to receive, such strong economic support.

At this point Washington is trying to gauge how a new president will behave. Since the military still have all political and economic power, it is unlikely that things will change much in Egypt beyond just a new face in the presidency. Whoever is elected president will have to do things according to the dictates of the military, and Mubarak and his allies run the military. Washington will not tolerate any president who takes a belligerent stance towards Israel, or who allows fundamentalist Islamic groups to gain a foothold in the political landscape of Egypt.

Egyptians are torn between a desire for democracy, nationalism, Islamic religious fervor, a desire to support Palestinians, a desire to maintain good relations with the West, economic problems, and a latent military rule.

There will be those who will criticize President Obama for being ambiguous or apparently lacking resolution in supporting protesters. However, the stakes for both the USA and Israel are really big and the administration will not fully know who they are dealing with until after the elections in September. Will it be a Mubarak lackey, an extreme nationalist, a fundamentalist religious leader, a more moderate liberal? Anyone of them could rise to power depending on where the Egyptian military see what is most convenient for themselves.

Tuesday: Yes, he's guilty too
But at least he admits to it!

Tuesday: Well for a start,

"On October 10, 2002, Mrs Clinton voted to authorise then-president George W Bush to use military force against Iraq. In March the following year, Mr Bush gave the order to invade.

Iraq represented no imminent threat to the US or to any other country. The invasion was an unprovoked act of aggression. It violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, the UN Charter (Chapter VII, Article 39) and the Nuremberg Charter proscription of aggressive war (Article 6(a)). "

Or are you speaking about the man?