Also: people seem to think that if Musharraf himself doesn’t benefit from it, then somehow no military or intelligence official would. Why does everyone seem think it’s only about Musharraf? Pakistani intelligence is notorious for its support of extremism.

If this is not YOUR country as well, you have no business criticizing mine. We have a right to defend ourselves from all enemies foreign and domestic.

Y’know, I’ve got quite a few friends who feel the same way. Some of them are – gasp – Muslim. (and some, Iranian)

It is the President’s right to take whatever action he deems necessary to accomplish that goal.

As a private individual each of us has the ‘right’ to defend America. No President has a ‘right’ to do anything. The Constitution assigns Powers and Duties to the presidency. Those Duties include executing the laws of the land and upholding the oath of office.

Nowhere in there is ‘whatever action he deems necessary’.

It is the job of Congress and the President to devise a system of laws which give the personnel, materiel and Duties to the presidency, so that whomever sits in that seat can do the job as well as needed. They are given a lot of leeway, but it’s not infinite.

Perhaps the most latitude is with regard to the nation’s ‘foreign policy’. But, even that isn’t infinitely broad.

Also, as Commander-in-Chief he isn’t free to do just anything. He is the commander just as a CEO runs a corporation — neither is free to do things illegal.

Many Republicans claim they want the government to uphold the Constitution and that Dems don’t. Well, there have been some instances of that, but the worst abuser is this Bush administration. They don’t seem to recognize much of the Law at all. It’s really tragic.

I do not see any Dem I would trust in the White House to deal with Al Qaeda, Iran, North Korea, Syria, China or any other potential enemy of the USA. The world has become a very dangerous place since Clinton allowed militant Al Qaeda and Osama to bomb our embassies and warships in the 90s…

Didn’t ya forget to capitalize “Lee”?

On your point: You say you don’t see any Dem you would ‘trust’. That may be, but it doesn’t mean some of the Dem candidates wouldn’t be good presidents. I know I wasn’t too crazy about seeing Reagan become president for at least that reason. Yes, I know he was going to be surrounded by better men. But, a president has to make fundamental decisions and only that person is authorized to do it. Everyone else follows that direction. Reagan got us into some messes with the Iran-Contra deal and the El Salvadoran death squads and the HUD mess and the S&L thievery and then said he couldn’t remember it. Why do you only trust that kind of person?

The public has always varied in support for Dems and Repubs and a lot of that was the times we live in and the candidates. This year we are trying to survive a really horrendous Republican administration and the public need a Democratic president. The only question is which one.

Among the Democratic presidents there are intelligent people who smile and laugh and seem to be well-rounded human beings and who seem to have a good deal of experience (at this and that) and who are sincerely trying to show they should be president. That’s a good start. We have a choice.

Why you don’t trust at least 3 or 4 of them is a mystery to me. Maybe you should ask yourself what qualities a president should have and then look at the candidates to find one (or two) that match. Is it looks and voice? Do they have to look presidential? Is it experience in politics, business or some other big enterprise? Is it wealth? Do they have to be Rich? Do they have to be from humble circumstances (as Reagan was)? Find the qualities you value and match them up. I’m certain you’ll find someone who fits pretty well.

One catch: don’t look too hard at the issues. If you do you’ll just get bogged down in politics you don’t agree much with.

But, there are some good people in the bunch and if you look a little you’ll find somebody you can, at least, trust with defending the nation.

Good luck!

ya know they get the GREAT big explosion…and blame HER DEATH on Bhutto HERSELF
BRILLANT

Frankly, they had no choice. If they admit Huckabee was right (his American apology statement), then it means war between ALL of Pakistan and the U.S. and if they said it was the government, then Musharraf would likely be ousted and if Musharraf said it was Al Qaeda, then the thin ice he’s standing on would fall through (and him with it). He had no choice, but to say it was the car that done it. The press just helped steno teh story right out to the public. Gotta propel the propaganda dontcha know.

We all hate sunroofs, right? Hey, stop the booing.

It’s this crazy surreal Bush era. It’s just amazing.

Now Nader will have ti sue the car company

Hey, if the next prez made him Sec. of Def. Ralph could just bomb the car factory. Yeah! LOL

At least here in America we have safe sunroofs because Ralph would accept nothing less.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/…..index.html

Bullets hit her and she sank into the truck before the explosion happened.

The Pakistani government failed to find anything definitive in the investigation into the Karachi bomb blast in OCtober that killed 140 people in over TWO months. Yet a day after the assassination, the details of which are still unclear and lost in the conflicting reports coming out, it claims to have “wholly resolved” the case..I dont buy it.