This morning, Col. Bill Cowan stated that the problem wasn't any "rule" about cemeteries. What I gathered from his interview was that the request went up the chain of command, the length of time that took was long enough for the group to disband. He said it WAS "a go". He also stated that NBC got the wrong info from their source. The end result is still the same. We missed a marvelous opportunity to kill the bad guys killing us.

The current rules of engagement, likely developed by senior Pentagon officials, do not rule out an attack on religious gathering but do generally prohibit an attack on a religious site such as a cemetery or mosque, military analyst and retired Army Col. Jack Jacobs told MSNBC TV.

"The reason for these rules of engagement is that we’re not engaged in a full-out war, where we have unconditional surrender as the objective. In that case we would bomb everyone and sort it out later on,” Jacobs said. “You have a very heavy political component here, and that’s why (the rules of engagement) are difficult to change."

MSNBC with the same story

I swear. It's a no-win situation for the military. If the military doesn't strike, Huffington Post and liberals alike scream, "They didn't act to kill Taliban fighters!" If the military disregards the Rules of Engagement, headlines would read, "Military violates Rules of Engagement by bombing funeral."

If the military doesn't strike, Huffington Post and liberals alike scream, "They didn't act to kill Taliban fighters!" If the military disregards the Rules of Engagement, headlines would read, "Military violates Rules of Engagement by bombing funeral."

Geez, I thought it was Fox News that was complaining about this, not the "liberal media". Since when do any of you give a crap what the Huffington Post says?

On top of that, the argument Steve is making is incredibly short-sighted. If these were not our rules of engagement, then the fighters would not have presented themselves in that fashion. What I mean to say is that you only get one opportunity to benefit from violating your own ROE. After that, the enemy learns.

Such a short term benefit for the sake of engaging in politcally unpalatable activities. As per SSE's quote of Army Col. Jack Jacobs, "You have a very heavy political component here...", among other sensible things. That little sentence fragment really highlights what so many of you conservatives don't seem to grasp, and maybe never will.

Steve,

Are you practicing to be as boundless as the enemy? The only that seperates us from the enemy is that we have a few moral lines we don't cross. Would you have the military bomb a church if you knew a 100 taliban were gathered there? How about a market place. You'd probably say yes on each count and then complain if the enemy blew up a church in your neighborhood.

Maybe this would be a good time to look at the rules of engagement.

There come a time in the decision making process when a person has a split second to turn and go the opposite direction when they realize they have made a mistake; "W" didn't.

Russ,

You assume Bush thinks he's reached that point. When you talk to God directly you are infallable and will never reach that point. Kind of like the Muslim "martyrs" who rammed themselves into the World Trade Center.

That's why I say that if your going to trust anyone to hold the nuclear trigger, give it to an athiest, they have alot less incentive to want to leave this world, or take others with them before they go.

The rules of engagement here are rules of international law, not domestic rules that someone in the White House, or the State Department, or the military made up. NO nation would accept the deliberate targeting of mourners. The UN would go crazy, we'd be sanctioned by everybody (except possibly Israel and Britain), and the liberals in this country would paint our presdient as an international outlaw and have actual grounds for impeachment of anyone they could connect with the action.

Yes, it's ridiculous. But we had no choice.

"That's why I say that if your going to trust anyone to hold the nuclear trigger, give it to an athiest, they have alot less incentive to want to leave this world, or take others with them before they go."

Nor do they have any ultimate incentive to do the right thing. All they have is temporal self-interest.

Nor do they have any ultimate incentive to do the right thing. All they have is temporal self-interest.

"Ultimate incentive" huh? You know next to nothing about anything. You manage to show how shallow minded of a person you are by claiming that incentive is needed to do the right thing; PATHETIC! (I'm using your tactics now Kerry.)

All you do is make idiotic generalizations all day long. I know these last few days of reality have been hard on all you conservies, especially when the typical defenses you constantly use are refuted left and right. Does it hurt to constantly get "owned" (as RR would say) on your own turf (PME) OUCH! It hurts me just looking at it!

"I know these last few days of reality have been hard on all you conservies, especially when the typical defenses you constantly use are refuted left and right."

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. It certainly has no reality in my life. My last few days have been magnificent. My president has performed admirably as the commander-in-chief, the liberals have fallen all over themselves acting like the enemy in response, and the poll numbers are getting better.

We're winning. You're losing.

Karl Rove RULES. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

(Just messin' witcha.)

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. It certainly has no reality in my life.

My president has performed admirably as the commander-in-chief

Reality? Tee hee hee hee! Thank you for that. -giggles-

Karl Rove RULES. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Yes he does Bwahahahahhahaha -cough- ha!

the poll numbers are getting better

Kerry,

Maybe on your planet, but not on the Earth I know.

Nor do they have any ultimate incentive to do the right thing

Here's a trick question for you. Who sits on the moral highground. A person who does the right thing because it will get them into heaven, or the person that does the right thing, just because its the right thing to do.?

Ahmanrah,

What is that person's frame of reference for "the right thing?"

And, yes, the president's poll numbers--and the democrat/republican generic voting question--are getting better. Perhaps you should move "your" Earth closer to a news source of some kind.

The administration believes that the court's ruling prevents it from properly interrogating terrorist suspects because it opens military and CIA personal to prosecutions, so the White House asked Congress to define the the terms of Article III, Snow said.

Here is a nice paraphrase of the Whitehouse's comments yesterday, following an embarrasing "REJECTION" by members of his own party.

Here's a translation of Bush-speak:

"We want to 're-interpret' Article III so that we can torture...sorry my aid says that's the wrong word. I meant use 'alternative interrogation techniques' (ie. torture) without consequence to the CIA or other interrogation personnel."

What is that person's frame of reference for "the right thing?"

Their parent's perhaps? Sorry to break it to you Kerry, but you don't need a Bible to know the difference between wrong and right. Rules of behavior naturally evolve in any society because if they didn't there would be totally anarchy. And human society has been around alot longer then Bibles. Heck you can see rules of behavior in packs of wolves...its a primitive form, but you don't see them packing around Bibles telling them not to kill each other. Any wolf knows instinctively that if he starts attacking every wolf in sight, that his fellow wolves are going to take him out....period.

Ahmanrah:

Go here:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/PollVault/

and check out "Republicans Inch Closer in 06 Election Preference"

And your translation of Snow is quite curious. Clearly, "presser" is not your first language. Allow me:

"The president doesn't want us to interrogate any more prisoners until we know what we can do without our interrogation personnel being sued in an international court. The Court left the door open for Congress to clarify our responsibility under Article III, so we'd like them to do that. Soon."

Ahmanrah, do you really want American personnel doing interrogations without clear guidelines as to what they can and cannot do? Would you want to do a job with an open-ended brief and the possiblity of being sued or court-martialed if you guessed wrong?

""What is that person's frame of reference for "the right thing?""

"Their parent's perhaps?"

There are some really bad parents out there. I wouldn't make them the ONLY arbiters of morality. Some of the most immoral people in the world have been or are parents. Not an infallible source. Try again.

"Sorry to break it to you Kerry, but you don't need a Bible to know the difference between wrong and right."

No, you don't. Because the Bible says you already know them and are without excuse. But they are the rules OF the Bible.

"Rules of behavior naturally evolve in any society because if they didn't there would be totally anarchy."

"Rules of behavior" are not the same thing as MORALITY.

"And human society has been around alot longer then Bibles."

So have blood-sucking insects. So what?

"Heck you can see rules of behavior in packs of wolves...its a primitive form, but you don't see them packing around Bibles telling them not to kill each other. Any wolf knows instinctively that if he starts attacking every wolf in sight, that his fellow wolves are going to take him out....period."

Let me get this straight. You want us to take our moral cues from....wolves?

And you find this more likely to result in appropriate moral conduct than an absolute system of divine morality?

Are you kidding?

The ONLY reason the wolf doesn't kill all the others is because of the consequences--not because it's inherently WRONG. In fact, if they can get away with it, they will do it.

When a wild stallion takes over domination of the herd, it kicks all the pregnant mares in the stomach until they miscarry, then impregnates them himself to establish his dominance.

Is that the kind of thing you were talking about? The inherent morality of the animal kingdom?

Ahmanrah, do you really want American personnel doing interrogations without clear guidelines as to what they can and cannot do? Would you want to do a job with an open-ended brief and the possiblity of being sued or court-martialed if you guessed wrong?

Kerry,

How long have the Geneva conventions been in place? How long have we and others used them without feeling the need to "re-interpret" them. Face it, the only explanation that makes sense is that Bush is wanting test the boundaries of what is acceptable interrogation, and then not be held accountable for crossing the line.

Lets not pussy foot around here. That is what he's wanting to do, and everybody except you and everybody else Bush has managed to fool knows it.

There are some really bad parents out there. I wouldn't make them the ONLY arbiters of morality. Some of the most immoral people in the world have been or are parents. Not an infallible source. Try again.

Yah and some of those folks owned Bibles and were supposedly devote Christians, so what's your point?

No, you don't. Because the Bible says you already know them and are without excuse. But they are the rules OF the Bible.

Then you just answered your own question about a frame of reference.

Let me get this straight. You want us to take our moral cues from....wolves?

Did I say this Kerry...no. I was making a point and you know what that point is.

The ONLY reason the wolf doesn't kill all the others is because of the consequences--not because it's inherently WRONG. In fact, if they can get away with it, they will do it.

Hmm. Sounds curiously like alot of human beings I know...including the more religious ones. How many times has the Bible been used to justify murdering people in the name of righteousness.

When a wild stallion takes over domination of the herd, it kicks all the pregnant mares in the stomach until they miscarry, then impregnates them himself to establish hisdominance.

Yah and when a rulers invaded a foreign territory they often used the Bible, or the Koran, etc, to set the ground rules for the society he just ruled. Which might include forcing women to cover themselves, or forcing a polygamist to give up his wives....or outright murder anyone who decides to remain a pagan. Sounds alot like that wild stallion doesn't he.

All that being said you still haven't answered my original question. Who has the moral high ground, someone who does the right thing because they want to go to heaven, or does the right thing, because that is the right things to do?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/PollVault/

and check out "Republicans Inch Closer in 06 Election Preference"

I bet it took you a long time to find that one. Want to do any more cherry picking for me?

I found it interesting when I opened up the paper today, and read an article on Port security. Its amazing what happens in an election year. How long has the 9-11 commission and the Democrats been hounding the Republican congress to protect America's ports. Its taken 5 years, but they finally passed legislation to start scanning every cargo containers for radiation. Makes you wonder if every year should be an election year....that way congress might actually feel its accountable to the American people 365 days of the year, and not just for a few months every other year!

Kerry,

As far as polls, try this one instead. It makes it a little harder to cherry pick like you do.

http://www.pollingreport.com/2006.htm

I don't there is anywhere on this page (which covers major polls for the last year) where Republicans have posted even a marginal lead.

Lets tie this,

"Let me get this straight. You want us to take our moral cues from....wolves?"

and this....

"And you find this more likely to result in appropriate moral conduct than an absolute system of divine morality?"

and this,

"How long have the Geneva conventions been in place? How long have we and others used them without feeling the need to "re-interpret" them. Face it, the only explanation that makes sense is that Bush is wanting test the boundaries of what is acceptable interrogation, and then not be held accountable for crossing the line."

....and going along with ahmanrah and his post; Kerry how do you see GWB's actions divinely moral and not the actions of a rogue wolf, or in his case maybe an elephant?

Bush wants to justify the actions he's already taken.

Ahmanrah,

Surely you see that the LATEST poll shows that the Democratic lead on the generic question has gone down NINE points in a week--on YOUR polling reports data. That puts the Democrats ahead by only 3 points, with a month and a half yet to go.

There's no breathing space for either side this year. It's going to be close.

No, Russ,

Bush wants to KNOW what the parameters are. They are NOT clear. Are we still allowed to blast rock music at people, like we did to get Noriega out? Are we allowed to use any kind of deception? Do we have to apply the same lopsided rules to international terorists as we do to domestic bank robbers? Are all the rights on the side of the suspect there, too--even when the suspect is KSM, who PLANNED the 9/11 attacks????

The world has gone mad when we are more concerned about preserving the rights of terrorists than preventing them from killing the next 3000 people.

How's this for a slogan?

"Vote Republican this year--because if the Democrats win, you might not be here next year."

We know many things are not CLEAR to George W. Bush. This is nothing new!

Rights! How about our rights? OK, Based on GWB's interpretation, let's turn him over to his enemies and allow them to interrogate him accordingly. Ah hell, give GWB ten minutes in the Sunni Triangle. What has happened to prisoners to date, (and I'm speaking of enemy combatants, POWs or what ever you choose to call them, housed in prisons around the world)is not acceptable behavior under the Gevena Convention. You DON'T do to them what you DON'T want them to do to you! Hey. it's a lot like the Golden Rule, guess that explains why you DON't understand.

Kerry, you get your undies in an obsessive knot over Clinton infidelity, yet turn a blind eye to torture and murder. Please don't try and convince me your morality is of divine nature.

It is quite funny that we seemed to know what the limits were until we found it too restrictive.

Bush wants to KNOW what the parameters are. They are NOT clear.

I wonder if he would let the UN or world human rights commission clarify things for him. My guess is know. He wants something that fits what's already in his head.

Surely you see that the LATEST poll shows that the Democratic lead on the generic question has gone down NINE points in a week--on YOUR polling reports data. That puts the Democrats ahead by only 3 points, with a month and a half yet to go.

I find it kind of suspect when any poll, let alone one released by Fox can go from a 16 point spread to 3 in 2 weeks. No I look at the average trend, and that trend hasn't really changed much in a year

Russ,

Nobody has authorized "torture" or "murder" in the US government.

You are becoming hysterical.

Why are you more concerned with whether the terrorists fear for their lives than whether we fear for ours?

Our "torture" consists of playing the Red Hot Chili Peppers at people and pouring water on their heads and (my favorite accusation) questioning them in rooms decorated with pictures of September 11 victims.

Their "torture" consists of cutting off people's fingers and toes, feeding them to wild animals, and sawing off their heads.

Think there's a difference? (Really, this is not a trick question.)

"I wonder if he would let the UN or world human rights commission clarify things for him. My guess is know. He wants something that fits what's already in his head."

No, because it wasn't the UN that objected to our previous interpretation. It was the US Supreme Court, so the Administration is asking the Congress to outline the parameters within which they want to fight the war.

""Surely you see that the LATEST poll shows that the Democratic lead on the generic question has gone down NINE points in a week--on YOUR polling reports data. That puts the Democrats ahead by only 3 points, with a month and a half yet to go.""

"I find it kind of suspect when any poll, let alone one released by Fox can go from a 16 point spread to 3 in 2 weeks. No I look at the average trend, and that trend hasn't really changed much in a year."

That's a misreading of both polls and politics. There is nothing suspicious about a FoxNews poll. It's not a poll of Fox viewers. And the other FoxNews polls on that list do not differ from the other polls in the same time frames. FoxNews just happens to have the latest available data.

And the fact is that electoral predictions don't move along "general trend lines." The public is fickle and changeable, and last month's "trend" becomes meaningless in the face of this month's results. If "trends" had any meaning, Al Gore and John Kerry would have been presidents.

The world has gone mad when we are more concerned about preserving the rights of terrorists than preventing them from killing the next 3000 people.

Kerry,

I'm not concerned about the terrorists, they could do whatever they want to them for all I care, who I care about the people who this government brands terrorists, who aren't. There are numerous examples that could be cited if you want me to. All of these "innocent people" were held at Gitmo for years without trial, lawyers, or the ability to find out what they are accused of. That is wrong, pure and simple. The due process system in the US was setup for a reason, to prevent the innocent from being convicted...and even that system as we all know has its flaws because innocent people are still being convicted and put on death row. Just imagine the abuses or mistakes that can take place in a system that has even more holes in it, or judicial oversight?

You'd love to able to say the US military and CIA are doing everything right...but we know that isn't the case.

I'm also concerned this "enemy combatant" label could be used by the president or someone acting under his orders, to haul in Americans strictly for their views, rather than their actions. And who gets to decide what views constitute a problem...the president? If that's true, you could wake up tommorrow and find that Bush has condemned all of his political opponents, the ones he keeps telling us are helping the enemy are "enemy combatants" rather than the loyal opposition with a different point of view. We are headed down that road with the continued removal of judicial and congressional oversight of the administrations actions. And while the President may have started out with good intentions....the pathway to dictarship always starts small, and then before you know it, you've given away more power to one person than you should have. And that can't be allowed to happen...and that is what the constitution is designed to prevent. So the next time congress gets in Bush's way cheer rather than groan.

That's a misreading of both polls and politics. There is nothing suspicious about a FoxNews poll. It's not a poll of Fox viewers. And the other FoxNews polls on that list do not differ from the other polls in the same time frames. FoxNews just happens to have the latest available data.

What? You tell me how close Fox matches the other polls taken in the same time frame.

9/6 - 912 Three polls: 3 points (fox), 12 points, 11 points

8/22 - 8/29 Three polls 16 points (fox, 12 points, 11 points

How does that 3 pointer not differ from the other polls, that's a 8-9 point difference. Then you've got a 4-5 point difference on the earlier poll.

Learn some math for heaven sake.

Ahmanrah,

No, you're doing it wrong. Look at the page with the right track/wrong track data.

http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

After Sept 11, the wrong track polling drops SIX POINTS. And that's an AP poll, not FoxNews.

Just look at the data after September 11, because that's the effect we're looking at. What happened before doesn't matter.

From now on, just pay attention to where the numbers track as we move out from September 11, and as the president gets actively engaged in campaign mode.

Whenever the Democrats talk down the war on terror, their polls will fall. Wherever the president speaks, whenever there is ANY attention paid to the war on terror, Republicans will benefit.

If there are catastrophic events in Iraq, it will depend on how the Democrats play it--if they act like scared babies and scream about leaving, they'll lose. If they act statesmanlike, they'll win. If there are catastrophic events elsewhere, the president has a stronger hand, but the Democrats still have the option to play it smart.

Gas prices will continue to fall, and the GOP will benefit, because the class warfare argument will disappear. The market hits record highs. The economy stays strong. GOP wins.

The Democrats can't resist the Rosie O'Donnell/Michael Moore/Jane Fonda crowd--and that's going to kill them. Because it doesn't matter what the political climate of the moment is, to them the whole issue is "Bush is Hitler" (which is just what the "Evil on Parade" fiesta in Cuba right now is putting out, too. All we have to do is show the signs there and the signs here--voila! Since Bush ISN'T Hitler, but Democrats think he is, they LOSE.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14905066

I'm not saying I agree with all their ideas but they are looking in a different direction than some who seem to be focused on Bush ideology.

"Gas prices will continue to fall, and the GOP will benefit, because the class warfare argument will disappear. The market hits record highs. The economy stays strong. GOP wins."

Any sane individual could predict falling gas prices.

The argument may be diminished but the spread between poverty and wealth will remain. Unfortunately many of the poor are apathetically standing in a pool of tears created by GOP laughter.

The economy is strong based on what?

George said it was?

National Debt?

National deficit?

A national deficit that was projected with an inflated figure, only to come in lower as a means to show a growing economy?

Well, the unfortunate factor for the GOP is the $$$amount spent. The deficit confuses many but the resulting figures don't equal a strong economy.

"a pool of tears created by GOP laughter". Wow, Mr, Russ, are you a poet and we don't know it? Sounds quite Maya Angelou-like. Of course that is a compliment to your mind. Your Socialistic, Communistic "Utopia" of economic equality is not feasible in the world of freedom and Democracy. There will always be the haves and the have nots. It is up to each of us to strive for what we can.