Pro AQ? You mean like our “Glorious Leader” who attacked an innocent third party when there was still a chance of wiping AQ out? You mean like our “great friend” Musharraf who hasn’t been able/willing to contest their resurgence in a country he rules? You mean like our other “great friend”, Saudi Arabia (Home of most of the 9/11 criminals), who are unable/unwilling to cut the flood of arms, money, and fighters to AQ and countless other terrorist organizations?

Perhaps I’ve missed something, but, are not “liberal” blogs the only media voices who call out the enablers of AQ? Is ANYONE, allied with the Right, currently criticizing Bushco for abandoning the fight against AQ?

If there is a pro AQ vein, at TP, I fail to see it. On the contrary, most of us call loudly, and often, for a reallocation of resources away from Iraq. Fighting AQ, and other terrorist organizations, is impossible while our military is being pinned down by a handful of fanatics in Iraq.

911 and pakistan

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essaysaeed

Our own government cannot be trusted, and the dearth of investigative journalists who cannot even dig out the relative interview films leave this kind of information hanging out on the web where it will probably just fade away.
Why has no one in the msm even mentioned this comment?
Weren’t CNN and MSNBC looking to fill their 24/7 broadcasts with Bhutto tapes?

If it weren’t for that foolhardy, swaggering cowboy, we wouldn’t be where we are today — so who should be blamed?
OF COURSE, Bush is ultimately responsible — this is his quagmire, and we’re all in it with him, the stubborn, stupid jackass.

Comment by ccokz

How so?

As Mike Molloy pointed out, CNN and MSNBC producers would scour the files for anything related to her in order to fill their air time, but no one pulled this recent video interview.

You know Francine, progressives are different than right wingers in that they will blame Bush for things that he is responsible for. Whereas the right wingers blame everyone but Bush for things that Bush and Company have done. The progressives believe in accountability. The right wingers believe in giving a “get out of jail free” card to any of their ilk who is caught doing something wrong.

Haaaa haaaaaaaa! You are asking Francine to provide evidence. Good luck on that one.

The only reason why Bush let Hicks go is because he is trying to kiss up to the new Australian PM. With Howard gone, he has lost his poodle and he is trying to make the new PM into his newest poodle. I doubt it will work, though.

Francine can’t enlist. As he said, it’s not in his own best interest to put himself in a place where he may get hurt. He’s fine with sending everyone else’s sons and daughters into that slaughter house, just not him. He’s back to Francine. He lost his balls again by proving that he is a total chickensh|t.

Comment by Frank M

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16227791/

“The Bush administration wants to be able to say that these are dangerous terrorists who are going to be confined upon their release … although there is no evidence against many of them,” he said.”

Also from the same article:

Detainees are held at Guantanamo Bay because a military panel classifies them as an “enemy combatant,” which refers not only to armed fighters but to anyone who aids enemy forces. Every year, each gets a hearing to determine whether he remains a security threat to the United States or has intelligence value.

Hmm… no mention of pressure from liberals yet…

Using those hearings as guidance, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England decides whether to keep the detainee at Guantanamo, release him, or send him to another country for detention.

Azmy, the New Jersey lawyer, said the distinction between release and transfer is largely a fiction because recipient countries are under no obligation to imprison the returnees. The United States doesn’t even ask them to.

Doesn’t even ask them to… interesting.

And still no mention of pressure from the “far-left”.

The fact of the matter Frank is that it’s all happenning according to due process. A process that your beloved leader oversees and approves of.

So, now, tell me how any of this is our fault?

And try to provide some evidence this time.

Comment by Frank M

The only time the Bush administration releases anyone from Gitmo is when they’ve determined that they don’t have enough evidence to try them for anything.

Um, Hicks served nine months of a seven year sentence, and part of his early release agreement was to keep his mouth shut for a year…