Soros Slams Terror \'War,\' Compares White House to Nazis

www.crosswalk.com/news/1424649.html

... Soros told an audience at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, \"We are working with a very false frame when we talk about a \'war on terror,\' and yet it is universally accepted.

\"Everybody now recognizes that invasion of Iraq was a real blunder, but the war on terror is still the frame that is accepted by Democrats and Republicans alike,\" Soros claimed. \"It is a false, misleading, counterproductive, destructive frame.\" ...


www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DuafAqAHrc

Soros Slams Terror \'War,\' Compares White House to Nazis www.crosswalk.com/news/1424649.html ... Soros told an audience at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, \"We are working with a very false frame when we talk about a \'war on terror,\' and yet it is universally accepted. \"Everybody now recognizes that invasion of Iraq was a real blunder, but the war on terror is still the frame that is accepted by Democrats and Republicans alike,\" Soros claimed. \"It is a false, misleading, counterproductive, destructive frame.\" ... www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DuafAqAHrc

Sorry but, Sorros is an ignorant piece of dirt! I don't think he'd know the truth if it bit him in the butt!

Sorros is an ignorant piece of dirt! I don't think he'd know the truth if it bit him in the butt!

ignorant enuff to start from nothing and make his own fortune...unlike the moronic failure responsible for creating and propogating the "false, misleading, counterproductive, destructive frame" soros very correctly identifies as having been used to divert our focus from the war we shoulda been fighting.

Largest Swiss Paper Asks If Bush Was Behind 911

... Swiss university professors Albert A. Stahel (63) and Daniele Ganser (34) raise hot new questions.

\"Something is not correct\", says strategy expert Stahel in \"World Week\", and refers to the \"incomplete\" official US Government 9/11 Report of 2004.

The university professor confirms his criticism in VIEW:

\"Osama Bin Laden cannot be \'the large godfather\' behind the attacks. He did not have enough means of communication\".

Stahel doubts that a passenger airliner crashed into the Pentagon:

\"For trainee pilots it is actually impossible to crash into the building so exactly. Seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed, the World trade center Building 7 next to it also collapsed. The official version: It burned for a long time. Nothing at all is clear.\" ...


Swiss version: www.blick.ch/news/ausland/9-11/artikel45057

English Translation:

translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blick.ch%2Fnews%2Fausla\\ nd%2F9-11%2Fartikel45057&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=
UTF-8&oe=UTF-\\ 8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

Largest Swiss Paper Asks If Bush Was Behind 911

I think "somebody" needs a new tinfoil hat. Now we are to believe some university professor? Excuse but I have seen/heard "enough" from the idiotic professors that think only they have "all" the correct info and everyone else is wrong and stupid.

\"For trainee pilots it is actually impossible to crash into the building so exactly. Seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed, the World trade center Building 7 next to it also collapsed. The official version: It burned for a long time. Nothing at all is clear.\"

Same with this. "Now", he's qualified flight instructor? I doubt it. For that matter all I've ever flown are radio controlled A/C. But I'd be willing to bet, I could put the plane on target.
And on top of all this, it's not even in English. Which means "NONE" of the rest of the known world's media are buying what he's selling.

go here...Link

go here...Link

McCain's bill simply wants to take that at face value. That means we do what we think is fine and then suffer the slings and arrows of a moronic peanut gallery of nations who think what we do is barbaric. Bush wants more specific language. Which makes more sense when you are talking about facing war crimes tribunals, defining something, or leaving it vague?

straw man arguement...the geneva convention addresses torture and inhumane treatment as something defined by the INTENTION of the interrogator. what is torture to 1 person is not to another. Bush's plan wants to change it to the acts rather than the intent. therefore, we can put in things that WE don't consider inhumane, but the enemy does. that can be turned around on us in a heartbeat.

fact is, these possibly illegal acts really haven't netted anything of merit and that is well documented. ron Suskind's latest book explains why from inside the intelligence community itself. i'm not gonna read it to ya,,,gotta do your own research.

Great.  More of the "world hates" us bs that is the focus of the left. 

Leave to the liberals to be the one's worrying more about the rights of peope who are trying to kill us, than they are their fellow citizens.

We needed no excuse to go into Iraq and do what should have been done in the original Gulf War.

the neoconservative mantra.

unfortunately, it was wrong in 91, and it was wrong now. sorry neocons, the world isn't as easily controlled and manipulated as you would like it to be. Schwartzkoff and Powell and every other military expert warned against going beyond kuwait and into a "hornet's nest." a few people disagreed, like cheney, rummy and wolfie...

unfortunately, it was wrong in 91

So if it was up to you, Saddam would not only still be in power in Iraq, he would also be in control of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Good plan.

So if it was up to you, Saddam would not only still be in power in Iraq, he would also be in control of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Good plan.

nuttin like good ol neocon spin,,,distort the other side's view....no, what i said was...

Schwartzkoff and Powell and every other military expert warned against going beyond kuwait and into a "hornet's nest." a few people disagreed, like cheney, rummy and wolfie...


in other words....like the military experts, I and bush's father agreed that the gulf war I went as far as it could go without creating a backlash in the arab world.

we were right then, and we're right now

nice try on distorting our view tho,,,but you really should be ashamed of yourself in that attempt. defaming Schwartzkoff, Powell and the rest of the military? Twisting former President Bush's policy stance? for shame island dog.

and for the record,,,we probably would be better having a hussein who was pinned down (by saudi arabia on one side, iran on the other and the kurds / turkey on the north, kuwait in the south.) with a no fly zone preventing further atrocities on his own people than the absolute disaster these chicken hawks brought us.

and no, "the whole world" DID NOT believe saddam posed the imminent and grave danger this administration and their portable pundits claim. the intel was cherry picked, selective and was a "make the case fit the hypothesis, and to hell with all the facts" job. i didn't believe it as ALL the inspection data known AT THE TIME said he was no threat (the same inspectors BUSH threw out of the country so he could start his vendetta). the IAEA knew he had NO nuclear capability (and was called liars by this administration) and a whole host of other dissenting views were out there. we were used by chalabi and his cronies who were lying and telling the administration everything they wanted to hear. the administration AT THE TIME ignored any and all warning s that both the info and people involved were not even close to being credible.

as time goes on, we will eventually learn how negligent this administration has been with our military, our constitution and their overall performance while in power. i am more than confident in that and encouraged every day as the dam begins to break on their awful job.

ya want more support for this war? then get some people who are competent to fight it. people who aren't just "all hat, no cattle" cowboys who lack any credibility or have shown any competence up to this point. that won't happen, as this administration fears dissent and anyone outside their lil club having any meaningful say...so, i'll probably just keep not supporting this wasted effort in Iraq. you feel free in your continuing support of these bozos....good luck with that.

hope the kool-aid tasted good at least.

and no, "the whole world" DID NOT believe saddam posed the imminent and grave danger this administration and their portable pundits claim.

Most did.  Along with most major intelligence agencies in the world.  However, most democrats believed saddam had WMD's and was a direct threat to this country.  Although they seem to forget that now.  Typical.

in other words....like the military experts, I and bush's father agreed that the gulf war I went as far as it could go without creating a backlash in the arab world.

Everything causes a backlash in the arab world.  Just being non-muslim does that, so you still have no point.  You are basically advocating what most euros and liberals say, don't "offend" anybody and the problem might go away.

nuttin like good ol neocon spin,,,distort the other side's view....no, what i said was...

You can spin in all you want.  Although you didn't answer, if it were up to you would Saddam still be in power of Iraq and Kuwait?

Bush wants to rewrite the Geneva Conventions to suit US foreign policy. Perhaps then China will do the same when dealing with Tibetan dissenters. Perhaps then Lebanon will do the same to suit its needs with respect to Israeli "detainees". Its a can of worms that doesn't need opening. As McCain said

Am I missing something? I didn't know Al-Qaida and Hezbollah were signatories of the Geneva Convention. I do wonder what safeguards they give our captured troops or civilians. I'm all for the Geneva Convention, but as long as these groups do not represent (directly) an accountable nation, they should not expect to be treated better they the people they claim to represent. The US is not beheading the insurgents (or civilians for that matter). Where is the outrage over these actions? US interrogation of prisoners is a party compared to what a US soldier can expect from these enemies. I'm not suggesting tit-for-tat, but they shouldn't be coddled either.

Am I missing something? I didn't know Al-Qaida and Hezbollah were signatories of the Geneva Convention. I do wonder what safeguards they give our captured troops or civilians. I'm all for the Geneva Convention, but as long as these groups do not represent (directly) an accountable nation, they should not expect to be treated better they the people they claim to represent. The US is not beheading the insurgents (or civilians for that matter). Where is the outrage over these actions? US interrogation of prisoners is a party compared to what a US soldier can expect from these enemies. I'm not suggesting tit-for-tat, but they shouldn't be coddled either.

Standing Ovation!

There is nothing left to be said by any rational people. Thank you.