Did anyone else wake up and see this headline:

Boost for Iraq
London attacks could strengthen support for War and Bush, 8A

sigh...

Most people now separate Iraq from the "War on Terror".

I certainly hope the "experts" are underestimating the common sense of the American people.

Is everybody :crazy: ?

what news source did you see this in?

to the story they printed on 8A.

It was:

Support for War Could Increase
Analysts: Attacks may
Strengthen Bush's
Position Against Terror

By David Jackson
The Dallas Morning News

blah, blah,

US and Britain won't react like Spain did blah, blah, blah.

Ugghh.

They are separate issues. It makes my head want to explode.

Is this the source? It's no wonder...:eyes:

is there a link?

is idiotic. I've wanted to post stories at DU that I've seen but I can't figure out how to do it)

They also have an e edition that shows the printed paper. Here is a link to it. You will see this headline at the top of the page where it promos stories inside the paper.

&GZ=T

edit to add - try this link, it may work better.

http://ee.gazetteonline.com/daily/Skins/CRGazette/navigator.asp?skin=CRGazette&BP=OK

They've been making an argument for a long time that, whether or not Iraq had links to al-Qaeda, as it is now, the people we are fighting in Iraq are the same people who did 9/11 and the attacks yesterday.

I don't find it a very compelling argument, but they might convince some.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

But then I live in Atlanta and the AJC wouldn't print such tripe.

those standard stories in all the papers.

How depressing. I saw that and then I got on DU and saw about Andy.

:(

his band of incompetents. 2006 and 2008 are coming!!!!

I Googled boost for bush and found this crap...

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=Boost+for+Iraq&btnG=Search+News

The deadly attack in London is likely to boost support for President George W. Bush and the war on global terrorism, international terrorism experts said yesterday, as political leaders united to condemn the bombings.

``I think this will probably help Bush because it will reinforce the sense that this is a very real threat,'' said Louise Richardson, executive dean at Radcliffe's Institute for Advanced Study. ``People are frightened and when they are frightened they tend to rally around what is familiar.''


http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=93003

...and this

~snip~

But the bombings also could raise questions about whether Bush's focus on Iraq is leaving the home front at risk.

"If this is perceived as, 'He can't protect us at home,' then it will be a political black mark for Bush," said Gideon Rose of the Council on Foreign Relations. "Others will simply perceive it as, 'There are bad guys out there who still want to harm us and kill us, and so we need a leader who is forceful and resolute,' and that's Bush."

http://miva.sctimes.com/miva/cgi-bin/miva?Web/page.mv+1+local+862731

people too many times for them to believe it.

Bush credibility is in the dump with most people - just because he says it is no longer enough for most people to believe it - of course, a lot of us know it means the opposite is more likely to be true.

I find it appalling that they would make this a political issue for bush 24 hours after such a horrific tragedy. Just like bush does they are trying to make it about him.

:(

Brit Hume talks up profiteering; these papers extoll the political advantages of terror.

It's so sickening that I want to vomit.

1) Attacks are brutal and savage.
2) We stand in solidarity with the victims.

End of discussion.