Deri,

The rhetoric also sounds to me more like Obama's willing to use ground
troops in Pakistan to hunt down bin Laden, whereas Clinton is more
likely to do a "surgical strike."  I re-read the article,  from the
Post, and it said the incident I was thinking of occurred in 1998.

On 8/2/07, Deri James <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Thursday 02 August 2007 20:43:12 ken barber wrote:
> > thanks kendall, even after reading them, i must say i
> > am surprised by him saying this.
>
> From what I understand he was talking about a surgical strike based on an
> intelligence report of a planned meeting of al quaeda "high command" in 2005.
> Presumably this meeting would have decided which terrorist strikes to work
> towards in the future. Not an invasion of Pakistan.
>
> I don't see much difference between this and the regular strikes on palestine
> by israel "to hit known terrorists". I see very little criticism of this in
> the US press.
>
> Both are "wrong" in my  mind, it just irks to see the obvious dual standard
> being shown.
>
> Cheers
>
> Deri
>
> PS Commiserations on Murdoch buying the Washington Post. You can
> bet "Watergate" wouldn't have been reported if he'd owned it at the time.
> (He'd have used it as a "chip" in the big game - 'tis his way).
>
> -----------------------
>
> To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
>
> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
>


-- 


Kendall

An unreasonable man (but my wife says that's redundant!)

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.

-George Bernard Shaw 1856-1950

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy