Yes, it's true.

Mousecrazy, I see this as a pot shot:

""conservatives and supporters of America must accept liberals and American fault finders"

The way you have that grouped, it reads that liberals are not supporters of America. I take that as a shot, esp. since I don't equate supporting Bush with supporting America.

What I see here is a climate of "tolerance" meaning conservatives and supporters of America must accept liberals and American fault-finders, while the reverse is rarely ever true.

I've been thinking about what you said, and realized I've heard variations of it a lot lately. And honestly, I'm not sure what it means. I'm honestly curious. How are liberals insisting that others accept them while at the same time refusing to accept those others? I don't understand how that looks?

I mean this with all respect, it's not a slam.

I, too, had heard that Bush had had friendly relations with members of the bin Laden family. It seems that this family is a huge one, numbering well in excess, if I remember my facts correctly, of 50 adult members. They are an extremely wealthy and prominent Saudi family and thus it makes sense that Bush might have crossed paths with them. Big oil was his business, afterall....

Usama is a variation on the name Osama and is perfectly acceptable.

I had also heard that all members of the bin Laden family who were present in America at the time of 9/11 were spirited out of the country ASAP and under top secrecy. They were not subjected to the interrogation techniques that many other Muslims who may or may not have had associations with bin Laden and his merry gang of terrorists received. This seems kind of unfair to some of us.

Why is it "bad" for the Bush family to have a relationship with any Saudi family, including the bin Ladens? I have been told that MORE communication with the folks in the Middle East is necessary, not less. If the Americans refuse to talk to M.E. leaders, they are bad; if they talk to M.E. leaders, they are bad. This does not make sense to those who think along the same lines as I do.

The bin Ladens are wealthy Saudis but not "ME leaders". Any relationship with the president would not, therefore, be a matter of state. I think, considering the publicity regarding the large sums of money being funneled from Saudi Arabia to the insurgents in Iraq, that Mr. Bush would be wise to disassociate himself from any Saudi family at this point in time. It just looks bad for our president to be hangin' with the bin Ladins....know what I mean?

I come in peace. I think it's very bad that we as a nation of people are so divided by the current political climate in this country.

I don't want to participate any further in a forum that reflects that divison and which I'm afraid is only contributing to the anger between the supporters of our current administration and the manner that the president has governed this nation, with those of us who feel betrayed and believe our troops have been made to pay the ultimate price of a futile war.

Somehow our leaders need to find a solution that will allow some healing nationwide and one that will give some relief to the country of Iraq. Although discussion and voicing of opinion is healthy, it is obvious that many of us are in real emotional pain over this miserable situation that our country is in. Instead of lashing out at each other, we should think about discussing ways to resolve this country's precarious position in Iraq instead of accusing each other of things that neither of us may have intended with our words.

Mousecrazy do you have any suggestions for a solution to the war that might really work?

I haven't read this thread for a very long time. Glad to see it's still edgy. I'm assuming no one has convinced anyone of anything yet......but everybody's just having a roaring good discussion.

Here are my two cents about a good end to the Iraq issue. The differing religious factions in Iraq started warring each other in around 636 AD. Hussein was able to stabilize the country through control and terror. We took him out. So now the country is back to status quo, and all that is familiar to Iraq. We can't stop them.

We can't split up the country or Iran and Syria and Turkey will step in and stop it, so there will be a bigger squabble. So we should follow our agenda.

Let the country fight itself until it is tired of doing so. Protect and support their government if they ask us to. Protect and support Iraq's new rules that allow outsiders to have a say in the oil. Keep a peacekeeping group there to keep our presence next to Iran. Talk to Iran, Syria, and Turkey to try to stabilize the region from having a conflict that expands beyond Iraq. Stay out of the civil war.

Make a better deal with Canada than China has, to get our oil from Canada instead of the Middle East. Set up a free enterprise zone along the border with Mexico where factories can open and people can work for less than minimum wage, to get our manufacturing back, somewhat, from China. Any immigrant who works there 5 years and stays out of trouble, becomes a US citizen and can enter the rest of the country to get better wages, etc.

BetsyJane has lots of ideas, and they deserve a good airing out. Some of them are controversial, but hey...still worth a good discussion!

I know that the Messianic leaders of Iran are not interested in a peaceful region...that is the point. Iraqi leaders have already denounced the ill-fated Iraq Study (Baker's), and there have been demonstrations in Iran (at least I believe I heard that tonight). There are so many people in the world that only have the U.S. and friends to look to for help, and we should support and defend freedom. We will pay dearly, even more dearly than now, if we do not stick with this and draw the attention of those who seek our harm away from their plans.

I think something that could help us is to evaluate the media more critically...not the usual targets like CNN (for some) and Fox (for others). Really try to hear the slant in the news coverage, if it is there. What if your city's fires, deaths, murders, gang violence, etc., were covered with the same language, the same intensity as what happens in Iraq? Could we fairly say something like, "Dallas continues to unravel as a civil war heats up between Gang 1 and Gang 2" or "Another police officer killed in Dallas; public support continues to slide"? Do you see what I'm trying to say? Listen carefully. Why do you think we are not hearing about the schools that are re-opening in Iraq? Families are trying to work together to make better cities in Iraq, even with all the violence seen on the news each night. Businesses are reopening, but the news doesn't emphasize the positive gains made by our military. Why? Doesn't anyone ask themselves that?

Lisa, you asked earlier a question about tolerance. I think the last several posts have shown that it can happen. I feel good about that.

If Iraq wants us there to support their government, we should be there, and keep our word. I agree with BetsyJane on that.

If Iraq wants us there to support their government, we should be there, and keep our word. I agree with BetsyJane on that.

Which faction do you mean when you say "If Iraq wants us there"? From an article from the AP just a couple of months ago...

BAGHDAD, Iraq – In a bid to stop sectarian bloodshed, Shiite and Sunni religious figures met in Mecca, Islam's holiest city, and issued a series of edicts Friday forbidding violence between Iraq's two Muslim sects.

It is uncertain, however, whether the edicts, or fatwas, will find resonance among the country's Sunni and Shiite militants whose tit-for-tat attacks have created a deadly cycle of violence that gains momentum and brutality daily. Previous attempts to reconcile Iraq's rival sects have failed to stanch the violence.

There is no unified Iraq. It's like saying, "If the Irish Catholics want us there, we will help them overthrow the Protestant government." I don't believe the USA has any business getting involved in a religious tug-of-war between two Muslim sects. And I think that when the chips are down, both the Shiites and the Sunnis hate Americans (unclean heathen Infidels) far more than they hate one another.

Betsyjane: Thanks for your thoughtful reply. And Mousecrazy I understand what you're saying.

Unfortunately what Carlene posted is a very real problem for us. As much as no one wants to hear it, it is reminisent of Viet Nam in that we secure an area one day only to have it infiltrated and returned to a hot zone the next day. The civil war that is festering is causing our peacekeeping efforts to be practically ineffective. Last week I watched a report on some of the schools and businesses that had been able to function again, but that now people are abandoning because of the unpredictable bombings nearby.

There is certainly value to the U.S. in keeping some control over their oil. And in theory there is value in our staying the course so that we don't look weak. But we have been weakened by our involvement and every day that we continue the course we're on, we grow weaker and the bad guys get stronger.

I appreciated Betsyjane's theory to push for diplomacy between the neighboring countries of Iran, Syria and Turkey so that maybe we can assist in stabilizing the region to some degree. Because if we don't and we continue to do what we've been doing in Iraq, it looks like there's a very good chance that the war will push beyond Iraq's borders and if that happens, the U.S. will be in a worse spot than ever militarily.

Just as an aside, I have this weird conflicted feeling....Glad that Saddam the sadist is gone. Guilty that we destabilized the country and now will need to leave. Even if all we did was take the lid off a Pandora's box of old feuds that have been around since only a few years after Mohammed died in the 600's, we're the ones who did it. Seems like maybe the thing to do now is to also do alot more humanitarian aid, even if we do it for the selfish reason of public relations. Hopefully, we could also do it out of compassion, but it would be nice to be a better guy than the bombers...... Besides, I'd rather send troops to Darfur (as part of a real UN force)m, at this point.....

Oh, and on the issue of the wall at the Mexican border...you've probably all heard this, but I was listening to a comedian on TV, who wondered..."if we arrest the illegals, who's going to build the wall?

Sorry. I'm in Texas, and nothing gets built here, farmed here, or ranched here without the help of illegals.

One thing we all agree on is that there is a complicated situation out there. I don't think anyone thinks it is simple.

I want to say to everyone that I truly appreciate the turn toward a civil tone in the discussion. It gives us the ability to actually think about the issues.

Did anyone think the questions about the intensity of media reporting had any merit? Are our cities unraveling due to murder and mayhem, or is that just happening elsewhere?

Personally, I am hoping for a change in the U.N with the new president there. (Sorry for jumping from subject to subject...in a hurry.)

Shoot. The media can't even get it right whether Sharon Osborne had a lap band or gasrtic bypass!

I was in Thailand last Spring, and I loved watching the news! I heard about what was going on all over the world and in interesting detail. We may have freedom of the press, but the press doesn't choose to freely report much. We end up so biased and so isolationist.

It would be intreresting to know if the mood on this thread varies based on whether the writer is needing a fill! Just kidding.

It would be intreresting to know if the mood on this thread varies based on whether the writer is needing a fill! Just kidding.

LOL-so instead of PMS, we have PFS?