To: Cogito who wrote (77314 ) 6/20/2006 4:03:23 PM From: Nadine Carroll Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 81568 Why is it that we haven't heard one peep about this from our President? If this is so, what is being done about it? Why no tough talk about Syria? Those are good questions, don't you think? By the way, "I am confident they were taken over" seems like a somewhat equivocal statement coming from the number 2 man in the air force. What's that about? And why is the Sun the only newspaper to whom these people will talk? Very curious, I call it. Good questions, Allen. A few more, and you'll begin to sound like a conservative complaining about MSM coverage -g- Re: By the way, "I am confident they were taken over" seems like a somewhat equivocal statement coming from the number 2 man in the air force Remember how Saddam ran things. He hid everything from everybody, and they in turn hid it from HIM. His own generals thought he had WMDs, it was just somebody else who was in charge. Not what you would call a transparent organization. Re: Why no tough talk about Syria? The President has had plenty of tough talk aimed at Syria, but mostly in the context of Syria's hand in blowing up Lebanese politicians, which is provable. (Also, since Rafik Hariri was a personal friend of Jacques Chirac, for once the US had French cooperation, in a former French colony. For all the professions of post-colonialism, the French still think they have the rights on meddling in their former colonies.) The US believes WMDs-to-Syria allegations, imo (it would be just Saddam's style), but they don't have proof, and after the Iraq fiasco they need 24K proof. The tough talk achieved a partial Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon (do you think that just happened of itself, after 30 years?), but more cannot be proved without raiding Syria & the Bekkaa valley. If you'll notice, Syria just strengthened all its defence ties with Iran trying to forstal this possibility. Iran's Revolutionary Guards will now join Hizbullah on Israel's northern border too.