Moreover, tw, you can't have both Sharon took advantage of a pushover president, and Sharon started the whole thing with the visit to the Temple Mount. Since that visit took place 4 months before Bush took office.

You're right, I meant to say al-Qaeda and said Taliban instead. Regardless, you have stated several times that your opinion is fact when that is not the case. How do you know about "active discussions" within the DoD? Anonymous sources in news articles you've read, I'm sure. The point is, you left out part of that story (i.e. Rumsfeld's response to those accusations) because it made your point seem stronger. That leads me to wonder whether you're really seeing the whole picture on other issues.

I find it interesting that you quote yourself ("Rumsfeld suggests torture may be necessary") to prove your point, when that statement itself is either false or unprovable. Rumsfeld never suggested torture may be necessary, at least not publicly. If you have proof otherwise, please share it.

Call me a cynic but i don't find it hard to beleive rumsfeld would support torture, or that the DoD was talking about hwo to do it but i also have ot agtree, there is no evidence

Hey, I never said it didn't happen.. I don't consider it out of the realm of possibility either.

Two different events have been erroneously merged into one. George Jr was not on the scene when Sharon, et al restarted the Intafada.

What part of the word 'immediately' is not understood? Currently Sharon is outrightly thumbing his nose at a what looks like a backboneless president. "Read my lips. Now means now." Will we hear that paraphrased quote? It certainly explains Sharon's mocking of the US President. When ordered to pull out of the West Bank, Israeli tanks stepped outside of two towns, then instead put both towns to siege. "Oh, we are getting out..." was the expressions also used to continue an invasion right up to Beirut. The man has a history of lying. Why should he have been any better when he ran for Prime Minister? The real question is why no one is discussing his trial in The Hague for crimes against humanity.

The pushover president is obvious and was not in office when a different event, the desecration of Temple Mount, was conducted.

Details were not included because those discussions within the DoD were already reported by numerous news services. Your were expected to know basic news reports or then first ask for details before accusing. I cannot be sure which news services reported that day, since I had listened to Bloomsberg, CBS, and BBC. But later that day, Rumsfeld was asked about those discussions already reported by the press. I never mentioned any of this because you are responsible for knowing basic news reports, or then simply asking for details. We know from news stories that these ongoing discussions included keeping the man at sea, or taking him to another friendly country where torture was legal and routinely used.

Instead, because you were not informed at the time, you now accuse me of leaving "out part of that story because it made [my] point seem stronger."? Nonsense. What I posted was then and is now correct. Your objections are only based on not being informed.

Cute. But nothing on the archives of bloomberg.com, www.bbc.co,uk, or cbsnews.com has any such story, suggesting that what you heard was idle speculation, not reporting of fact. If they had one fact that confirmed such discussions, certainly they would report it, would they not?

I can tell you -- only because I watched Alan Dershowitz explain it on Hardball -- that there would be only one case where they would consider such a thing. If there is a clear and present danger, where a plan is underway and the torture of an individual would result in the facts necessary to prevent tens of thousands of deaths, then they would consider extraditing him to a country where such things are done.

Instead, all we know is that this guy is the third in charge, could identify all the other Al Queda bigwigs on sight, and probably knows of bin Laden's whereabouts.

If that's not enough for the Dod to actually torture him -- and not just to discuss it -- then we can rest assured that we still live in a righteous nation. And I'll tell you what... even if they did discuss it, if all they did was to clarify the conditions under which they would consider such a thing, it's simply not a big deal.

Tobiasly's point remains... you're being disingenuous by ignoring the relevant bits that WERE reported.

I'm not interested in the particulars of how the torture misinformation came to light, and I'm not trying to accuse you. I'm simply noting that when you intentionally leave out half of a story, you lose credibility.

Instead, give all the facts and let people make informed decisions. You have a lot of good points, so there is no need to obscure the whole picture to try to prove a point.

Another example quote: "I don't remember which news service (maybe Bloomberg) reported that only 2 nations out of 57 condemn suicide bombings." I'm sure what you meant to say was, "only 2 nations out of 57 Arab nations condemn suicide bombings".

See how that changes the meaning somewhat?

A point appreciated and acknowledged. However in the case of "only 2 nations out of 57 ", that was a abbreviation to a previous post where I had noted what those 57 nations were AND listed the two Islamic nations as Bosnia and Malaysia. IOW I saw no reason to repeat what those 57 nations were because they had been defined previously - and (some will not believe this as they read on) was trying to keep my posts short.

There have been many inciteful explaination of how Sharon is playing George Jr. and how George Jr really does not understand this entire event. George Jr did not even know until a recent trip that Israel has a nine mile wide waist - he is that ignorant of the world. Sharon has a perfect president to 'play like a fiddle'.

This last weeks The Economist had at least seven inciteful articles on events and background. On last night's (9 Apr) Charlie Rose, the columist noted, as so many others have, that George Jr did not consider this Israeli / Palestinian event as significant. It was Clinton's mistake. It was a distraction from what he considers important - the elimination of Saddam or the invasion of Iraq. The NY Times provides background in
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/09/in...st/09ASSE.html :
That realization finally occured last week. What is Bush thinking now that Sharon has repeatedly thumbed his nose at George Jr - as he did to Ronald Reagan and George Sr? George Jr clearly gave Sharon a green light. Now even the press is noting how aggressively Israel is trying to hide facts - what the real intent is in the occupied territories. An ABC Network News reports explicitly, journalists are intentionally being targeted by Israeli troops - targeted with live ammunition. The BBC reports that Israelis may be intentionally removing water, sewers, sidewalks, and homes - claiming they must make way for heavy armor. That is what numerous West Bank residents are saying on the phone. Reality is that Israel is removing Palestinian infastructure from the West Bank - to drive Palestinians from the occupied territory. After all, is a TV station a terrorist organization? Of course not. Reported would be Zionism in its most racist flavor. But then history has proven Sharon is racist. No reason to understand what 'immediately' means? There is too much critical infastructure to shatter.

To have Powell wander around the Mediterranean for a week as world leaders keep asking him "What are you doing here? Why are you not in Israel?" - what is that nonsense? But then what is a wind dummy? Powell describes Christy Whitman as a wind dummy as used by helicopters, thrown out to see which way the wind blows. Powell must constantly watch his back in an administration that is deeply divided and dominated by the right wing extremists. Moderates live a very precarious existence in this administration - as demonstrated previously during what should have been a low key event during the China Spy Plane incident - an event that had some administration advisors demanding war. They might have gotten it if Powell had not stepped in.

Don't fool yourself. Some major players in this adminstration are both extremist hawks AND very closely allied with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Top of that list is a name all are cautioned to watch - Paul Wolfowitz.

Sharon is only proving he is as described long ago when he was renamed Prime Minister dichead. Not many people like Arafat either - not even many Arab leaders. Peres(?) once said that he did not like the man but it was who he had to negotiate with. However no player in this Middle East drama is as dangerous as Sharon. Sharon is the reason for all problems. Sharon is why Israel was declared a racist nation. Sharon created Intafada 2 as part of his current program. Everything else, including Saddam, is irrelevant to US interests - Everything.

As that columist on Charlie Rose noted, with so much incite and background, this is the worst time ever in the history of Israeli Arab relations. Most Americans don't appreciate how 24 Hour Arab news has so many Arabs sympathetic to anti-American terrorist groups. America's image in the Arab belt has never fallen so far so fast. Does your news sources report that?

So distressed was this man that, instead, he scheduled a trip to Argentina - to visit a crisis that might be resolved and to stay away from the futility called Middle East.

Sharon is playing his game plan exactly as he was doing before he was Prime Minister. This violence was exactly what Sharon planned then and wants today. It is why he can outrightly thumb his nose at the President who sends him $3billion every year - most of it in military aid.

Israel had less than half the combined defense budgets of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and Syria combined in 1967. Thanks in part to that $3billion, Israel now spends 30% more than the combined defense of those nations. And yet Sharon can still thumb his nose at the only country in the world that does not condemn Israel? Of course. He is Sharon as he has always been. A liar, a mass murder, insubordinate, and with no respect for any international laws, treaties, etc that would get in his way of land theft. All those deaths - collateral damage to Sharon. That is his history.

Calm down. Any military operation takes a while to pull back, and besides -- would it really be better for the US if it appeared that Sharon WAS a US lackey? Would it really be better if we jumped over there at the first sign of trouble?

Now the Arabs are mad at us for NOT being the world's policemen? I thought they were mad at us for sticking our nose in there at all.

A week ago, you said that George Jr green-lighted the entire operation -- parrotting the Egyptian propaganda on the topic, which was weird. Today he's a know-nothing dupe while last week he gave the go-ahead for the operation?

Sharon's 'pullback' is smoke and mirrors, and the same itme they mvoed into another 2 towns as they pulle dout of two others, leving a trail of destruction behind them.

Now thats a freudian slip if i ever saw one.

Hahaha, I thought the exact same thing but wasn't gonna say anything!

I am a pretty big fan of George Jr.'s, I think he has handled his presidency very well thus far, but I do think he was a little naive on this whole situation until last week. Not that I think he was lax, but rather that he didn't understand the whole scope.

Of course, a year ago I thought probably about 75-80% of the world thought the U.S. was pretty swell, and about 99.5% of people agreed that blowing up a nightclub full of innocent teenagers was terrorism. Looks like I was wrong on both counts, and so were a lot of Americans.

I'd always heard criticisms about how Americans were concerned only with themselves and were oblivious to everyone else. I dismissed it because we're bigger than most countries... for most of the rest of the world, knowing what's going on in the countries around you is like me the Hoosier knowing what's going on in Illinois. Being up-to-date on foreign policy means knowing what referendum California just passed this year.

But we can't be oblivious any longer, and as Undertoad points out, it's very difficult to strike a balance between playing policeman and letting everyone deal with their own problems. I think Dubya happened to calculate a little too far on the latter side regarding the Middle East, but he's coming around very quickly, and my kudos to him.

--toby

I heard him say last week than Arafat should do more to reign in terror *now*, while he has no ploce, communications etc, i'm sorry but eitehr that is colossal stupidity or a serious case looking in the other direction.

tw's sharp, he just has problems spelling. It's actually pretty common among a lot of really sharp people I know. No Freudian slip at all - just misspelled the word.

dham, relax, i just thought it was funny. Hell i if anyone shouldn't bag people about spelling/typing its me but that one i couldn't pass up, too funny.
i was j o k i n g