Biden & Graham Debate Iraq: 1/7/07 on Meet the Press

[Poop-Loops]

You're forgetting that the Democrats have been completely spineless, too. They had ample opportunities to fix or at least challenge the situation, and they've just bent over and taken it.

 

[Gokul43201]

You're forgetting that the Democrats have been completely spineless, too. They had ample opportunities to fix or at least challenge the situation, and they've just bent over and taken it.

Not everyone has been spineless all the time, and in the divided Congress that we have today, it takes only a very small number of invertebrates to invert the fate of a bill.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

You're forgetting that the Democrats have been completely spineless, too. They had ample opportunities to fix or at least challenge the situation, and they've just bent over and taken it.

Ok fine so the government of the US in general are to blame, which means the American voting public are at least somewhat to blame, in the same way I am for voting in TB even though I didn't vote in the last 3 elections, because none of the candidates warranted a vote. But the democrats are not reponsible for Iraq II. That would be the Republicans.

 

[Astronuc]

Crackdown on Militias Raises Stability Concerns
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/world/middleeast/08iraq.html
By JAMES GLANZ and STEPHEN FARRELL, NYTimes, April 8, 2008

BAGHDAD — A crackdown on the Mahdi Army militia is creating potentially destabilizing political and military tensions in Iraq, pitting a stronger government alliance against the force that has won past showdowns: the street power wielded by the radical cleric Moktada al-Sadr.

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s military operations against the Mahdi Army that Mr. Sadr leads have at least temporarily pacified Sunni political leaders, who had long called on Mr. Maliki to fight Shiite militias with the same vigor that his forces use against Sunni insurgents.

And both the Kurds and some of Mr. Maliki’s Shiite political rivals, who also resent Mr. Sadr’s rising power, have been driven closer to Mr. Maliki. This may give him more traction to pass laws and broker deals.

But the badly coordinated push into Basra has unleashed a new barrage of attacks on American and Iraqi forces and has led to open fighting between Shiite militias.

Figures compiled by the American military showed that attacks specifically on military targets in Baghdad more than tripled in March, one of many indications that violence has begun to rise again after months of gains in the wake of an American troop increase. Overall attacks on Baghdad more than doubled, to 631 in March from 239 in February, reflecting new strikes against the Green Zone, the fortified headquarters for Iraqi and American officials, as well as renewed fighting in Sadr City between the Mahdi Army and American and Iraqi forces. . . . .

Meanwhile, back in Washington . . .

Petraeus Likely to Advise Against More Troop Cuts
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89452053
by Scott Neuman

NPR.org, April 7, 2008 · Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker are expected to tell the Senate on Tuesday that there should be no further pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq after a planned withdrawal of 20,000 soldiers in July.

Crocker and Petraeus, the commander of U.S. ground forces in Iraq, are likely to face tough questions from two Senate panels, amid an upsurge of sectarian violence that broke out late last month in the southern city of Basra and in the Shiite-dominated areas of Baghdad.

In one of the deadliest days for American forces in months, seven U.S. soldiers were killed on Sunday, according to a military spokesman.

. . . .

 

[WheelsRCool]

Ok fine so the government of the US in general are to blame, which means the American voting public are at least somewhat to blame, in the same way I am for voting in TB even though I didn't vote in the last 3 elections, because none of the candidates warranted a vote. But the democrats are not reponsible for Iraq II. That would be the Republicans.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was President Clinton who made it U.S. policy to take out Saddam Hussein, not the Republicans. After 9/11, there were numerous reasons for invading Iraq, which are arguable (people can argue they were good enough or not good enough) with regards to the global war on terror, but I think overall that Iraq can be salvaged.

Remember, counter-insurgency wars on average take nine years to complete, sometimes longer. Iraq requires a lot of work, but in the future, the U.S. staying the course in Iraq may be viewed as one of the main things that contributed to bringing more stability to the Middle East.

Yes the Sunnis and Shiites hate each other, but so did the Catholics and the Protestants, but after all their fighting, they grew to tolerate each other and this led to the Age of Reason, which then led to the Industrial Revolution and modern civilization. I believe the same things can occur in Iraq, but it takes some time.

In Northern Ireland for example, much of the violence that was occurring there has decreased due to the economic prosperity Ireland is increasing. When people start getting lives, like cars, TVs, Internet, cellphones, books, etc...they lose interest in killing each other constantly.

We can see this in our own ghettos even, where gangs constantly shoot each other; when you create prosperity, this disappears. Much of the violence in Iraq I believe has been between various religious gangs.

 

[Astronuc]

Interesting story -

Assessing the Human Cost of Air Strikes in Iraq
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89460867

Fresh Air from WHYY, April 8, 2008 · As chief of high-value targeting for the Pentagon, Marc Garlasco helped plan the targets of laser-guided bombs during the invasion of Iraq. Now a senior analyst with Human Rights Watch, he visits war zones where he assesses the damage being done to civilians by bombs and lobbies for greater deliberation in the use of air power. Garlasco has provided assessments for Human Rights Watch throughout the world, including Israel and Iraq.

Garlasco makes an interesting point about the impact of Iraq is adversely impacting Afghanistan because there are not enough resources on the ground in Afghanistan, and this leads to higher civilian casualties.

 

[turbo]

Yesterday at the Petraeus hearing, McCain again suggested that al Quaeda was a group of Shiite extremists, before correcting himself. His Iraq expertise consists of visiting the country a couple of times and walking around for photo-ops under heavy military escort. I am convinced that he is not the person we should entrust with the job of getting the Iraq situation under control - he can't even be bothered to educate himself on the identities of the warring factions, nor their sponsors. It's pretty pathetic.

 

[mheslep]

His Iraq expertise consists of visiting the country a couple of times

Seven times including this last visit. Obama once. McCain's been on the Armed Services Committee since '86.

 

[Gokul43201]

It sounds like either (1) he doesn't believe it really matters all that much what the details of the local socio-political conditions are, or (2) his age is beginning to show.

 

[turbo]

It sounds like either (1) he doesn't believe it really matters all that much what the details of the local socio-political conditions are, or (2) his age is beginning to show.

I am concerned about (2), and am genuinely disturbed about (1). We cannot hand over this situation (unprovoked war and occupation) to someone who sees only military solutions to diplomatic/political problems. Bush has used US military power to create a social/political imbalance in Iraq that cannot possibly fixed by the application of more military force. McCain does not understand this, and he unfit to lead.

 

[WheelsRCool]

I do not like McCain, but I cannot possibly fathom how Obama or Clinton could be any better, in either foreign policy or domestic policy. It's like the lesser of three evils.

I think the application of more military force can fix certain problems in Iraq, but it has to be combined with good diplomatic policy as well.

 

[russ_watters]

(1) he doesn't believe it really matters all that much what the details of the local socio-political conditions are...

Does it? Global politics used to be dominated by the concept of nationalism. It isn't today. Why? Shouldn't I hate all Germans, Japanese, and Italians because of WWII?

The way to get people to stop fighting for such things is to convince them that such things are just not important.

Bush, right now, is mostly just following the advice of his commanding general. Is that a good policy?

 

[Art]

Does it? Global politics used to be dominated by the concept of nationalism. It isn't today. Why? Shouldn't I hate all Germans, Japanese, and Italians because of WWII?

The way to get people to stop fighting for such things is to convince them that such things are just not important.

Bush, right now, is mostly just following the advice of his commanding general. Is that a good policy?

Not surprisingly military people generally come up with military solutions so if one bases one's foreign policy on advise from generals you are likely to end up in a lot of wars.

Do you not think Americans are nationalistic ? Why do you think other people should think any less of their country than Americans do of theirs apart from the fact it would make them easier to dominate that is?

 

[mheslep]

It sounds like either (1) he doesn't believe it really matters all that much what the details of the local socio-political conditions are, or (2) his age is beginning to show.

By the same gotcha evidence Sen. Obama doesn't know the difference between Iran and Iraq:

April 8 Petraeus/Crocker Senate Committee hearing, confuses Iranian/Quds Force directed groups in Iraq w/ Iraqi direction:
Sen Obama: "Do we feel confident that the Iraqi government is directing this aid to these special groups ..."
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/iraq/iraq040808_obama.rm
6mins:32s
Corrects himself couple sentences later.

Source page
http://c-span.org/videoarchives.asp?CatCodePairs=Current_Event,Congress&ArchiveDays=30

BTW, I think Sen Obama's questions showed that he's done his homework; were mostly productive, thoughtful, helped clarify the choices ahead, far better than many of his blow hard colleagues.

 

[quadraphonics]

Does it? Global politics used to be dominated by the concept of nationalism. It isn't today.

It's not? Then why is the entire land area of the planet divided up into nation-states?

 

[BobG]

Bush, right now, is mostly just following the advice of his commanding general. Is that a good policy?

Not surprisingly military people generally come up with military solutions so if one bases one's foreign policy on advise from generals you are likely to end up in a lot of wars.

It would be pretty irresponsible (and borderline insubordinate) of Petraeus to recommend a foreign policy that directly contradicted his commander in chief. Giving honest answers about the number troops needed to provide the security desired by Bush is completely within his duties and responsibilities. He could even give his honest opinion about whether providing the necessary number of troops is even feasible (something he seems disinclined to do) which would obviously reflect on the feasibility of the Bush's policy. He has no business giving any direct foreign policy advice.

So, yes, a general is going to give military solutions to problems stemming from someone else's foreign policy, but that's because solving the military problems associated with a foreign policy is what he does for a living.

He actually was asked about his opinion on Clinton's and Obama's plans and he wisely avoided being drawn into the election campaign.

If Congress wants answers about the foreign policy, itself, they should be asking the guy that's making the foreign policy; not the guys that are hired to carry that foreign policy out.

 

[turbo]

Bush, right now, is mostly just following the advice of his commanding general. Is that a good policy?

I don't think that's an accurate assessment of the situation. Bush and Cheney are following the their own policies and the advice of neocons and Petreaus has to support their policy to keep his job.

The Bush administration has culled the top brass of any dissidents until they got a commander who will "play nice" and tell them exactly what they want to hear. Fallon wouldn't do that, and that's why he was forced to resign. Bush and Cheney didn't like the advice coming from Fallon, so they canned him before Congress could ask for his assessment and recommendations. Petreaus acts like an echo-chamber for Bush/Cheney policy which is why he's still got his job.

 

[edward]

I would like to see what Baghdad really looks like. According to a local newspaper article, it isn't good.

The city of 6 million has largely been carved up along sectarian lines, a patchwork of neighborhoods surrounded by 10-foot-high concrete walls and dotted with checkpoints.
Violence declined last year and early this year following a cease-fire by Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, an influx of 30,000 additional U.S. troops and a Sunni revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq.

Emphasis mine

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/233751

It seems like every time Muqtada al-Sadr chooses, all hell breaks loose.

BAGHDAD — Errant mortar shells slammed into houses and a funeral tent Wednesday, leaving three children among the dead during clashes in a Shiite militia stronghold under siege by American and Iraqi forces on the fifth anniversary of the U.S. capture of the capital.
The fighting came as the U.S. military announced the deaths of five more soldiers.
That raised the number of American troop deaths to 17 since Sunday.

 

[lisab]

Bush, right now, is mostly just following the advice of his commanding general. Is that a good policy?

No, it's not a good policy. In fact it's a *horrible* policy. Policy is set from the top down, not the botttom up.

Look, if you go to a surgeon with a backache, chances are you'll be advised to have surgery. Go to a chiropractor, you'll be advised to get your back cracked (or whatever the heck it is they do). Go to a massuese, he'll tell you you need your back massaged.

Patreus is a military man. Show him a problem - say, Iraq - and he'll advise a military solution.

If Bush is setting policy based on Patreus' advise, no wonder we're in such a mess.

 

[edward]

No, it's not a good policy. In fact it's a *horrible* policy. Policy is set from the top down, not the botttom up.

Look, if you go to a surgeon with a backache, chances are you'll be advised to have surgery. Go to a chiropractor, you'll be advised to get your back cracked (or whatever the heck it is they do). Go to a massuese, he'll tell you you need your back massaged.

Patreus is a military man. Show him a problem - say, Iraq - and he'll advise a military solution.

If Bush is setting policy based on Patreus' advise, no wonder we're in such a mess.

Bush has based his policy on the advice of military officers that he knew would tell him what he wanted to hear.

Yet it was civilians who wanted the war, and civilians who dictated the strength of the invasion force.

Bush's War on Frontline is a must see. It is divided into short segments for online viewing.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, it's not a good policy. In fact it's a *horrible* policy. Policy is set from the top down, not the botttom up.

Look, if you go to a surgeon with a backache, chances are you'll be advised to have surgery. Go to a chiropractor, you'll be advised to get your back cracked (or whatever the heck it is they do). Go to a massuese, he'll tell you you need your back massaged.

Patreus is a military man. Show him a problem - say, Iraq - and he'll advise a military solution.

If Bush is setting policy based on Patreus' advise, no wonder we're in such a mess.

Tell me what to do so that I may lead?

Yes, ideally Bush's job is to integrate the best advice possible from all points of view; not just that of his Generals.

At this point I pity anyone who is tasked with solving this problem.

 

[turbo]

At this point I pity anyone who is tasked with solving this problem.

This is a mine-field for the next president. No matter how they try to deal with this complex problem, they will be blamed for any negative repercussions. Bush's one-dimensional (and delusional) approach to Iraq has fostered so many seemingly intractable problems... the next president will need to establish a knowledgeable and skilled task force to coordinate the diplomatic and military efforts necessary to keep our soldiers safe while withdrawing them in a manner that is supportive of a smooth hand-over to Iraqi forces. This will be a HUGE job - one that the neo-cons never intended to pursue, nor were mentally/ethically-equipped to pursue.

 

[rewebster]

I don't think that's an accurate assessment of the situation. Bush and Cheney are following the their own policies and the advice of neocons and Petreaus has to support their policy to keep his job.

The Bush administration has culled the top brass of any dissidents until they got a commander who will "play nice" and tell them exactly what they want to hear. Fallon wouldn't do that, and that's why he was forced to resign. Bush and Cheney didn't like the advice coming from Fallon, so they canned him before Congress could ask for his assessment and recommendations. Petreaus acts like an echo-chamber for Bush/Cheney policy which is why he's still got his job.

yep--that's the way I see it too---

and, in a way, its looks more and more like Enron----the people at the top are making money, getting promotions, etc.--and when it 'collapses' and just a few will be punished, while many will suffer, (even more) when it is over

 

[chemisttree]

Hillary's http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/Iraq/"

Starting Phased Redeployment within Hillary's First Days in Office: The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration. would also direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to prepare a comprehensive plan to provide the highest quality health care and benefits to every service member -- including every member of the National Guard and Reserves -- and their families.

Securing Stability in Iraq as we Bring our Troops Home. As president, Hillary would focus American aid efforts during our redeployment on stabilizing Iraq, not propping up the Iraqi government. She would direct aid to the entities -- whether governmental or non-governmental -- most likely to get it into the hands of the Iraqi people. She would also support the appointment of a high level U.N. representative -- similar to those appointed in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo -- to help broker peace among the parties in Iraq.

A New Intensive Diplomatic Initiative in the Region. In her first days in office, Hillary would convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all of the states bordering Iraq. The- mission of this group would be to develop and implement a strategy to create a stable Iraq. It would have three specific goals:

Non-interference. Working with the U.N. representative, group would work to convince Iraq's neighbors to refrain from getting involved in the civil war.
Mediation. The group would attempt to mediate among the different sectarian groups in Iraq with the goal of attaining compromises on fundamental points of disputes.
Reconstruction funding. The members of the group would hold themselves and other countries to their past pledges to provide funding to Iraq and will encourage additional contributions to meet Iraq's extensive needs.
As our forces redeploy out of Iraq, Hillary would also organize a multi-billion dollar international effort -- funded by a wide range of donor states -- under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to address the needs of Iraqi refugees. And as we replace military force with diplomacy and global leadership, Hillary will not lose sight of our very real strategic interests in the region. She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.

Gee, if only Bush had thought of that. Convene the experts and follow their plan. Stabilize the country by removing support for the only stabilizing factor there. Give money and aid directly to the insurgents. (it does cut out the middleman) Get the UN to tell Iran to do something they don't want to do. (can you say "uranium enrichment"?) "Attempt" to mediate disputes between warring factions that describe the other's leaders as "enemies of God"... but of course this time we will HAVE A GOAL IN MIND! Convene a meeting of key allies and bordering states to come up with A PLAN FOR IRAQ! I think Iran is already working on their plan for Iraq... no meeting required, Hillary

And it's a http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/"

Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Press Iraq’s Leaders to Reconcile
The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.

Regional Diplomacy
Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.

Humanitarian Initiative
Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.

Sounds like these two believe in the "Easy" button. Shame on you Bush! Why haven't you "attempted" to do something in Iraq before?

 

[Astronuc]

She would also support the appointment of a high level U.N. representative -- similar to those appointed in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo -- to help broker peace among the parties in Iraq.

Geez - who could that be? Maybe one of her top foreign policy advisers - Richard Holbrooke. :yuck:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Holbrooke

 

[baywax]

This just in:

WASHINGTON - Iraq's financial free ride may be over. After five years, Republicans and Democrats seem to have found common ground on at least one aspect of the war. From the fiercest war foes to the most steadfast Bush supporters, they are looking at Iraq's surging oil income and saying Baghdad should start picking up the tab, particularly for rebuilding hospitals, roads, power lines and the rest of the shattered country.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080414/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_free_ride_over

 

[edward]

Corruption in Iraq is rampant. I normally don't watch CBS's 60 minutes anymore but this segment on the corruption in Iraq caught my eye.

Money from many of the various ministries often ends up supporting insurgents.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/11/60minutes/main4009328.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4009328

 

[rewebster]

Sounds like these two believe in the "Easy" button. Shame on you Bush! Why haven't you "attempted" to do something in Iraq before?

Bush's plan: Throw money at it!




(that way a lot will fall into RNC friend's hands and a minute portion of that money will then be given back to the RNC---FULL CIRCLE


--except that 98% gets absconded as corruption)


lets see---how much have they spent? some estimates as high as 2 trillion divided by 20 million Iraqis equals $100,000 per Iraqi

 

[quadraphonics]

Corruption in Iraq is rampant. I normally don't watch CBS's 60 minutes anymore but this segment on the corruption in Iraq caught my eye.

Money from many of the various ministries often ends up supporting insurgents.

All petrostates are corrupt. Regardless of what anyone else does, so long as Iraq's economy is dominated by oil exports, it will remain corrupt.

 

[turbo]

All petrostates are corrupt. Regardless of what anyone else does, so long as Iraq's economy is dominated by oil exports, it will remain corrupt.

Iraq has no reasonable expectation of having an economy that is NOT dominated by oil, at least not for a VERY long time. The brain-drain that resulted from middle-class and better-off people fleeing Iraq cannot easily be reversed, because of ethnic tensions. People are afraid to come back home to even the "relatively" quiet areas of Iraq, and until there is security, doctors, professors, engineers, etc, are going to try to make a living in other countries instead of repatriating.

 

[mheslep]

lets see---how much have they spent? some estimates as high as 2 trillion divided by 20 million Iraqis equals $100,000 per Iraqi

Some estimates? How about some estimates high as $20 trillion. No, $400 trillion! $200 trillion stolen by evil neocons and $200 trillion to Iraqis. Every Iraqi got $10 million!

Spending in Iraq has averaged $144B/year.

 

[baywax]

Spending in Iraq has averaged $144B/year.

Who's your source?
Does Waxman agree with the estimate?

What are you (taxpayer) spending 144 b a year on? Are there new bridges going up? Does maintaining a fleet of tanks cost that much? Do all the figher jets and helicopters cost that much to maintain or did they buy brand new ones for this war? Are the force's breakfast lunch and dinners costing that much? Are the Canadian made bullets dinging the budget so much? Where are the fire fights that are using up all these bullets? Is this a case of toilet seats costing $596.37 each?

 

[quadraphonics]

Iraq has no reasonable expectation of having an economy that is NOT dominated by oil, at least not for a VERY long time.

Indeed. And, as a corollary, we should give up on the idea of Iraq not being corrupt in the same time frame.

The brain-drain that resulted from middle-class and better-off people fleeing Iraq cannot easily be reversed, because of ethnic tensions. People are afraid to come back home to even the "relatively" quiet areas of Iraq, and until there is security, doctors, professors, engineers, etc, are going to try to make a living in other countries instead of repatriating.

It probably wouldn't matter if they did return, with the high prices of oil likely to be with us for a while. I.e., it'd be a petrostate regardless, and the resulting corruption and inefficiency would probably drive out the most talented, productive people anyhow.

 

[edward]

All petrostates are corrupt. Regardless of what anyone else does, so long as Iraq's economy is dominated by oil exports, it will remain corrupt.

This doesn't explain why almost every ministry in Iraq is corrupt. Many of them are far removed from oil.

CBS) "According to the report, these are some of the ministries where corruption seemed to be rampant: the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Trade, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Oil, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Water Resources, Finance, Electricity, Labor, and Social Affairs, Displacement and Migration, Science and Technology. I mean, what's left?" Kroft asked.

"I was going to ask you that. Okay? It's pretty much across the board in every ministry," Mattil replied.

Mattil says shortly after the unclassified report was leaked to the press last summer, the State Department decided to make it classified.

Asked for what reason it was classified, Mattil said, "The embarrassment factor, I would think."

But the State Department's decision to try and bury the report didn't change the facts in Iraq. In some cases, Mattil says the corruption involves outright theft of government funds, or bribery, with some of the money finding its way into the hands of insurgents or Iraqi militias.

emphasis mine

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/11/60minutes/main4009328.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4009328

 

[edward]

This week in political cartoons

From MSNBC Who's who in Iraq

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24067535/displaymode/1107/s/2/framenumber/14/