Resolved Question: Why is the administration
Jose Maria Aznar
Note this timeline of official statements: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/from-video-to-terrorist-attack-a-definitive-timeline-of-administration-statements-on-the-libya-attack/2012/09/26/86105782-0826-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html .
Is this deliberate deception, poor intelligence, or just plain incompetence?
I do believe Mr. Obama should learn from the lesson of José Maria Aznar, who was PM of Spain during the 3/11 train bombing. Shortly after, he named the Basque group ETA as the culprit. Turns out it was Islamists instead, angry over Spain's involvement in the Iraq War. Then there was an election shortly after this with Aznar's party being voted out en masse. Voters anywhere do not like being deceived... Then, Bash, I must ask, would the facts be released if they were determined? Even if they were inconvenient? Certainly not until after the election--and the voters would resent an administration sitting on them because the timing of their release would not have been opportune. Or would wee see more Bush-esque dithering on Obama's part? Justagrain, excellent answer. But I do have a few follow-up queries:
1. "Its [sic] a new government there, and the groups are not organized in a way we'd understand." Indeed. But isn't it the job of the State Department and our intelligence services to study and determine this? If they're doubtful, then that says a lot--not about the situation, but about our own Foreign Service!
2. "Its [sic] one reason we should wait before we print, in any story of this type rushing for the scoop causes more problems down the line as more solid information becomes available people remember the first story and say that they heard it that way, not thinking it wasn't the full story because it wasn't known at the time[.]" Agreed. However, we're not talking about the press here, needing a hot headline; we're talking about governmental officials and spokesmen, even the President and the Secretary of State themselves, giving the press contradictory informati
Posted on 28 September 2012 | 10:31 am
Open Question: Why did all the foreign
Many of the foreign leaders who supported Bush on iraq ended up being unseated in election. Examples --
1) Jose Maria Aznar (spain)
2) John Howard (australia)
3) tony blair (uk)
4) norway leader
5) poland leader
6) bulgarian leader (never sent troops but said iraq war is justified)
7) luxemborg leader (sent 7 troops, all 7 dead in iraq) Bush said all these leaders combined make up the "coalition of the willing" As per my knowledge iraq war was never approved by UN. Security Council member France vetoed it and so did russia and china express opposition. I would like to see your link where it says UN authorized the iraq war. There was no UN backing whatsoever
Posted on 22 August 2012 | 7:17 pm
Resolved Question: Why did spain's ex-leader
Many insulting and humiliating puppets were made of Jose Maria Aznar and Bush by spaniards as seen in the image below. how could he be degraded so badly by his own citizens for supporting bush on iraq? http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/images/0318-03.jpg
Posted on 20 August 2012 | 3:30 pm
Resolved Question: Why was Henry Ford, one
Was it because he had read the "Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion" and thought it was true?
Did he dislike Muslims also? @One Knight: I am surprised that he did not contract anti-Jewishness while young. After all, prejudice towards African-Americans was much more prevalent than prejudice against Jews in the United States of America yet it would appear that he had nothing against African-Americans.
Posted on 12 August 2012 | 8:57 pm
Resolved Question: Who else believes that
To begin with, I fully expect this question to be deleted. It is going to make hostile foreigners angry. But before that happens, this is for the American people:
A great number of Mexicans who come here legally support illegal immigration. So ultimately, aren't those people still Mexicans? It seems that they serve Mexico's interests, not ours.
We are a unique people with a culture, heroes, villians, families, and a past. What does a certificate of citizenship mean? And what about "dual-citizenship"? Is this even possible? What if the two countries go to war? To finish this question, let's remember a song that is close to each and every one of our hearts.
"My country, 'tis of Thee,
Sweet Land of Liberty
Of thee I sing;
Land where my fathers died,
Land of the pilgrims' pride,
From every mountain side
Let Freedom ring."
How many "Mexican-Americans" do you think feel the power behind the words in this song? Do they even know the tune? It appears that multi-culturalism is a myth. There is an American culture, and it is 'e pluribus unum.' Unum. For those who wish to learn about themselves, here is the song in full.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0ywDLpfBHg This is a good video as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yuc4BI5NWU Our Fathers never immigrated to the United States. There was no such place until they created it.
Posted on 20 February 2011 | 6:20 am