I have one question for Jed:
Why do you, and why did Donald Rumsfeld in his memo, make such scant mention of the fact that former regime elements — the Baathist former Iraqi nomenklatura operating largely out of Syria with the cooperation of Syrian intelligence — are, according to a report from the U.S. military about two weeks ago, responsible for roughly 80% of the violent bombings in Iraq?
The Baathist strategy, from the very beginning, has been to foment Sunni-Shia conflict in order to put themselves back in the Sunni leadership role they lost during the Saddam regime, and then to regain control of Iraq.
So why are we not being heavy-handed with Syria: 1) threatening massive infrastructure bombing, 2) demanding the arrest and handing-over of those former regime elements, and their billions of looted dollars, who operate from the safe haven of Syria.p>If the U.S. could end 80% of the bombings, most of the other problems in Iraq (and in the press and in American politics) would take care of themselves. br> — Jameson Campaigne br> Ottawa, Illinois /p>
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?