i know that was a bit emotional but what did you think? and have u guys checked out the site?

She's always CRYING and bawling, as if maybe we'll think: "She's suffered enough." This... *animal* that pretty much said: "I'm not going to F***ing jail!" and ran off after the accident is incapable of remorse.

It's sad how stupid some people can be.

If the first part were true, it would mean that the government is being more thoughtful in their approach to the war. It isn't realistic to think that we will kill every insurgent in Iraq. It's more realistic that there will be a truce and that some of those same insurgents will be included in some of the Iraq governments stuff. This isn't a failure on the US part. Hopefully, the other side knows that the US won't stop, and the US knows that there needs to be a light at the end. And a peaceful truce is the best way.

As much as I'd like to see every insurgent killed... the sooner the war is over the sooner I can stop seeing protesters or hearing anti-war bickering.

I don't understand the connection between the two thoughts (the press and the nanny).

Also, I think that not only is it over the top emotionally, but it makes absurd claims with no proof:

These are the same people who felt flag pins after Sept 11th created a conflict on interest, all while actively campaigning for Democratic canidates at every election cycle.

You paint the press with a broad brush of outrageous claims that nobody buys and offer no substantiation for your ranting.

while much of the post was hyberbole the thing about the pins did occurr. anchors from a variety of stations did comment on the pinn issue and claimed it made them partial to a specific side

id loved to have cited to the article but it was close to 4 years ago and I was 14 at the time so i didnt save it

btw, i didnt saw this was a US failure, but a media failure. I love the fact that we have a stategy to get out, or are at least attempting to make one, I just cant stand the fact that the media leaked it.

Ryan, if it was such a secret, how did the media get hold of it?

Meeting with the insurgents doesn't mean we're giving selling out our allies, it means we think the insurgents are at the point now where they might like to stop fighting and perhaps take their issues to the public arena if we can figure out a way to bring them in out of the cold.

The situation in Iraq is NOT going to end because we killed every terrorist. It's going to end when the nationalistic insurgents come over to our side and sell out their religiously motivated and purely criminal allies.

Dave

"horrible, horrible people who deserve severe punishment"

Ryan, not bad, it has a ring to it...how about a BC weekly like that quiz?

Maybe this secret was leaked for publication in order to assure the American public that there is movement to resolve the situation. Maybe the press was doing the Administration a big favor.

Mark

In this case ("treasonous" press divulging secrets), Ryan, I think you're pointing to the wrong culprit. The sub-head to this article was "Insurgents reveal secret face-to-face meetings" [emphasis mine].

"Leaks" (if leaks they be) generally occur because a) someone privy to the 'secret' thinks it's too heinous to keep quiet, or b) because the powers that be WANT it leaked, as MDE says, or c) because the powers that be are dealing with people they should know up front can't be trusted w/secrets, and are taking the chance w/it, or permutations of all of the above. If the insurgents are the leakers, then it isn't the press that are at fault, but the insurgents who are obviously trying to trumpet that they have brought the mighty US to its bargaining knees, and that of those US persons (including Cheney & Rumsfield, who presumably know about it and approved it) who bet they could keep it a secret - and were wrong. Again.

'Brought the US to its bargaining knees'? Come again?

Why would anyone come up with that interpretation? We've wanted to get the actual insurgents into the political process for quite a while, and bargaining with them is no skin off our nose. The fact that they want to bargain at all suggests that they are starting to feel the pressure. Considering the huge numbers of insurgents and terrorists caught in the last few weeks I imaigne most who hear about these negotiations will assume they're running scared.

Dave

There are two kinds of "insurgents" in Iraq:

- Sunni Iraqis who are pissed off that they have lost their absolute power in their country, but who could possibly drop their arms and come to the democratic table if certain concessions are made...

and

- Deranged terrorists from outside Iraq who want nothing more than their suicidal jihad to kill as many innocents as possible...

You can "negotiate" with the former. The latter, however, must be either booted from Iraq, prevented from getting into Iraq, or just hunted down and killed like mad dogs.

Who is that's not supposed to know about these meetings, again?

Ryan mentions two groups he thinks should not know about them: American soldiers, and the enemy.

Let's look at these separately.

High-level American military officials cannot move around in Iraq without a sizable security escort. It's safe to assume many, and perhaps most, American soldiers already know such meetings are taking place. Especially now that Secretary Rumsfeld has assured us such meetings happen all the time and are no big deal.

As for the enemy, aren't they the other people who actually are at the meetings? How exactly do you keep a meeting secret from someone who is at the meeting?

Sure, maybe some footsoldiers of the opposition forces in Iraq were still unaware of these meetings, but the only ones deeply upset to learn of such things are the hard core dead-enders who oppose any reasonable solution anyway. Any insurgents sane enough to consider joining Iraq's new government instead of fighting against it would be glad to learn negotiations toward that end are taking place.

So in reality, the histrionic shrieking about "the treasonous press" has no basis in the facts. It is merely another manufactured crisis from the knee-jerk right wing, no more useful to any sane purpose than the manufactured crises from the knee-jerk left wing.