We need to **take it there** more often and louder. We have been too quiet, too politically correct and where has it gotten us? The republicans have been smearing democrats and each election has had nothing but dirty tricks from the republicans. This past election, Kerry tried to be on the up and up, not personally attacking..What did the republicans do? Secretly paid for a group to smear Kerry and his Vietnam War record. When Bush was asked, he said he had nothing to do with the group. Baloney! It was backed by the republican party. That is the way Rove and Bush are, they smear their opponents. Time to fight fire with fire. No more Mr. Nice Guy.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old. To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database fighting fire with fire doesn't work
We have been hitting each other over the head with clubs since Early Man. The American military has killed innocents, too. I do not think Americans are more deserving of anything than anyone else who inhabits this planet. We are all human beings with families and feelings and lives. Perhaps its time to drop the weapons and communicate for a change.
fire with fire
Tired of dirty fighting? It is the republican party who was the dirty fighters, not the democrats. and they continue to be dirty fighters and will win again and again if we dont stand up to them. Fight fire with fire. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. In the political spectrum that is America, you dont get anywhere for being the up and up person, the good guy, you win with dirty tricks. If you dont realize that, you need to step back when it comes to politics..I bemoan the situation, for sure, but I will fight fire with fire and the democrats will win once again..and, clue to you, check on Bushs right hand man, Rove, look at his extremely dirty politics and then ask yourself can we ever win against something like that by being nice? I dont think so and the country depends on the liberals getting the country back on track. I will do everything it takes, of course, everything that is legal. I dont break the law like Rove and libby are now being shown that they did.
Please fire them all. sm
People are losing their jobs, homes, and on the streets - and a mouse gets 35 million.
Cease fire.
No canned text for me. The tone of our posts are set by these my-way-of-the-highway / scorched earth approaches to opposite views. I have very exhilarating exchanges when the 2 parties are respectful, informed, flexible, open-minded, focused and on task, more interested in finding common ground than sowing the seeds of division, looking for solutions as opposed to validation and understanding that no political problems will ever be solved without bipartisan participation, mediation and compromise.
Plagiarizing and paraphrasing an opponent’s text and ideas and trying to throw them back at them does not an effective argument make. Furthermore, it is childish…like those playground disputes between children…“you did, no you did, no you did”…etc. It is not your ideas that I find so distasteful, it is your presentation. Not to be cliché, but you attract more bees with sugar than vinegar. I am not intolerant of Hannity…watch him frequently. Cannot have an effective debate without becoming familiar with the “cons” side of the argument.
On the bigot thing. Remember me? I’m the one who is hawking inclusion, supportive of minority interests, and has the audacity to suggest that Americans are not the only ones who just might deserve some equality, dignity, respect and basic human rights…even if they are illegal. I suppose it is a positive sign that you at least take offense. There’s hope for you yet.
On racial purity. You are really big on maintaining American cultural integrity and identity. But when it comes to extending the same consideration to our immigrants you go ballistic…clear off the map, at times. They can walk and chew gum at the same time…it is possible to preserve ones’ native culture AND be a good American. These are not two mutually exclusive concepts. If our democratic principles are all they are cracked up to be, it would not be so painful to see them behaving like Americans.
Going to go out on a limb here and to use and example. Mexican-Americans gathered together (right to assemble) waving their flag in protest (freedom of speech) of harsh immigration laws or working conditions in the maquilidoras are trying to bring these issues to the doorstep of the government who created those conditions (right to redress grievances). What could be more American than that? You cannot look at that crowd and distinguish between which among them are legal and which are not…after all, those are issues of ALL Mexican natives. Should we deny all of them these rights, implying that such rights are reserved for the REAL Americans? Being American is not simply a matter of a piece of paper, some arbitrary degree of language proficiency, some certain level of income or education. They should not be required to melt into the pot and disappear, renounce their birthrights and turn their backs on their own people just to qualify. Can’t have it both ways. If you want them to be Americans, then you have to LET them be Americans.
Ask yourself this question. If you saw 50,000 illegal Irish immigrants doing the same thing in NYC, would your reaction be the same? The bottom line is this: Our new wave of immigrants does not look like the ones from the past. You seemed to enjoy the DAR bridge party swapping stories of how they all came from different countries and cross bred with one another …even had a occasional Indian in the wood pile…and produced this great nation of mutts. But the breed was selectively white. If it was okay then, it should be okay now. The problem you are grappling with is that the results would produce all these mongrel shades of God-knows what. If this make you uncomfortable in the least little bit…if you are now feeling driven to slap me up side the head…that’s the voice of bigotry.
On elitism. Your posts are full of strict, literal reads and “tudes” as you call them. Sue me if I took a page from your book. At least you sort of tried to address the “academics,” still not calling it by name. If you could stop slaying the messenger long enough to hear the message, you would understand that there is nothing condescending about wanting to engage in informed debate that orients itself around reaching mutual respect and understanding. It has absolutely nothing to do with being angry or feeling superior. Think what you like, but I am neither of those. I simply enjoy using my language and have an affinity for broad vocabulary. It’s just who I am. Blame it on the docs. They certainly sent me to the dictionary too many times to count and I lingered there for a while, that’s all there is to it. This personal trait should not in any way exempt me from debate, nor should I be subjected to ridicule, name calling or unfounded accusations because of it.
There is something you and I have in common. We are 2 American gals coming from opposite ends of the political spectrum, locked into the extreme divisions that plague our fellow citizens from shore to shore. If we cannot find our way past this kind of bickering in which we both find ourselves ensconced, we all are in big trouble.
Believe it or not, Sam, I actually enjoy our posts. Okay, go ahead if you like. Send me to the therapist again. Call me masochist, bipolar, schizo, whatever. I just think we could do better than this.
Speaking of therapy, I have a life-long friend, an endearing street thug / bad boy from younger days, who grew up and became a therapist. He works with drug addicts, adult children of alcoholics (being one himself) and dysfunctional families. He said something to me that made a lot of sense. One of the first challenging pieces of advice he throws out to a new patient is to “try to keep things in the third person,” in an effort to “dial back” nonproductive confrontations with family members. I thought he was crazy at first, but I started trying this with my husband and to my surprise, it really did seem to help us to better understand one another, even after 18 years. That is what I will be trying to do next time you and I visit the water cooler. If you want to chill on the immigrant dialog for a while, that works for me.
Thanks for the good luck wishes on the job search. Hope I can find a decent company that is not just another maquilidora masquerading as an MTSO! Where there is smoke there is fire!!
xx
Well sh1t fire...ain't that the truth!
In America, anyone can be President. That's one of the risks we take.
Fire-and-brimstone campaign
You can go to your fire-and brimstone rallies, wallow in your misery, and try to think of more ways to smear the finest candidate this Country has seen in decades.
I will go to the joyful rallies, full of hope for the future of this great Country.
No smoke, no fire, only mirrors. LOL!
.
Who's God? Your God? My God? Earth, Wind and Fire?
x
Okay. Where is the petition to fire that CNN reporter
nm
They will think whatever they need to think to stoke the fire that feeds their hatred. nm Boy, your cease fire didn't last long....LOL
Just in case you are interested, and I doubt you are, I wrote this BEFORE you wrote your cease fire, not AFTER. Which makes your cease fire ring all the more hollow, especially in the face of this..."Okay you want to keep the gloves off..." LOL. And if this dialing it back a notch...yes, frankly, I would suggest you go back and talk to that family friend because you haven't got the third person thing down yet. Every post flies in the face of what you try to say. You ARE angry. You DO need to feel superior. You want what you want, I want what I want. I make specific examples of specific Americans I have personal knowledge of who immigrated from Mexico and that is their experience, and the experience of many others. But you could care less. If it doesn't illustrate your point, you don't care about it. You don't care that it costs your fellow citizens millions every year to support illegal immigrants...money that could be going to the needs of citizens of this country. And where do you get that illegals don't stay anyway? Got any of those 4-letter words to support that?
Yes, my feelings extend to ANY nationality illegal immigrant. Why on earth do you think I hate Mexicans? I don't hate ANYONE. I just want them to come here legally like other immigrants have, get a green card, go through the process, become citizens if that is what they choose to do, or go back home when their visas expire. Draw and quarter me for that if you like. I couldn't, at this point, care LESS.
Again you completely missed the fact that I grew up and went to school with Mexican immigrant children and knew their families and keep in touch today. I have no problem with Mexicans. It is a fact that the biggest problem we have with immigration is from Mexico...welll duhhh...we share a border with them. Much easier for them to immigrate illegally, much easier because of the porous border for folks to get in that we don't really want to get in. But of course, you would
As to it takes a long time to become a citizen, yada yada yada...well, good things come to those who wait. It has always taken a long time to become a citizen. Since there are millions here who are citizens, obviously they thought it was worth the wait. Excuses, excuses, excuses. It is the LAW. Do you pick and choose what laws you want upholded and those you don't?
You say NONE of them want to change who we are or what we are. Did I miss the part where you were named national spokesperson for illegal immigrants? You don't even realize you said the same thing I said. Yes, they come here for a better life. That's fine. If I immigrated to Canada for a better life, I would not carry the American flag down their streets in protest, out of respect if nothing else, but I suppose that is something that does not matter to you either...it certainly is not present in your rants. If I immigrated to Canada to a part where they spoke predominantly French, I would learn French. I would be embracing of their culture. Because I chose to make that my country and my home. I would not have to be asked to do so. But obviously I am the exception and not the rule.
Again with the languages. I don't care how many languages are spoken here. My sole point is that for preservation and protection of the United States of America we should be united...and you don't see that either. I belive what I believe, you believe what you believe. And never the twain shall meet, it would appear. Does not make me wrong, does not make you wrong. I will hold my hopes for the America I long for and you hold the hopes for the America you long for. The years to come will tell the tale. And if all this comes back to bite you years down the road...and we are too old to care...that little voice in the back of your head that said "I told you so..." That will be me.
The Civil War...geez. It was all ABOUT preserving unity. If it had not been fought to preserve the union we would be two countries today fighting back and forth across the border like Iran and Iraq for example. Slavery was only part of the issue of the civil war. But a brilliant man (and Republican I might add) Abraham Lincoln saw the folly in splitting the union, and another fine man, Robert E. Lee, saw the same folly...but chose to be a Virginian before an American, though it broke his heart to do so (to use his own words), and we see where that led. After the civil war and the slaves were freed, we came back together as a country, stronger than before, and never since have Americans chosen to be anything but Americans first. So far. That is what I would like to preserve. That is all I am talking about. Unity. Read up on the civil war. Read up on Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee. Both great men with great vision. The Civil War was about unity.
As to now who's arrogant? I am about the most UN-arrogant person you would ever meet. I wouldn't know how to be verbally condescending and you have it down to a fine art. For someone who is not angry and not needing to feel superior, your posts say the opposite.
All this aside, keep safe during the bad weather coming up. I know hurricanes don't go inland very far too often, praying that it won't get to you. Hoping tornados spawned won't get to either. Keep your head down and live to verbally slice and dice me another day. :)
If she had the proper and legal authority to fire him --
then why didn't she just do it instead of them telling the other guy to do it - then there would not be a problem.
Is it more of a fire hazard just because more than 15 people meet on a regular basis than if someone has a single party for 30 people?
As long as you and the other wiccans are clothed and no open-burning laws are being broken (in a residential area, that would be a fire hazard) I would have no particular problem with your rituals. Depending on the time of day/night and loudness of chanting, it might constitute a disturbance of the peace, same as a loud barbecue party in the neighborhood. But with the basic concept of your meeting, no big deal.
Newly Elected Muslim Lawmaker Under Fire...sm
My take: If you make a person who does not hold the Bible sacred swear to uphold his office on it, then does that swearing in really mean anything. They don't follow the teachings of the Bible, so why would it be relevant for them to swear on the Bible? (article below)
Newly Elected Muslim Lawmaker Under Fire
Decision to Take Oath on Koran Sparks Controversy
..
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON (Dec. 1) -- The first Muslim elected to Congress hasn't been sworn into office yet, but his act of allegiance has already been criticized by a conservative commentator. In a column posted Tuesday on the conservative website Townhall.com, Dennis Prager blasted Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison's decision to take the oath of office Jan. 4 with his hand on a Quran, the Muslim holy book.
He should not be allowed to do so, Prager wrote, not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American culture.
He said Ellison, a convert from Catholicism, should swear on a Christian Bible -- which America holds as its holiest book. … If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.
The post generated nearly 800 comments on Townhall.com and sparked a tempest in the conservative blogosphere. Many who posted comments called the United States a Christian country and said Muslims are beginning to gain too much influence. Others wrote about the separation of church and state and said the Constitution protects all religions.
Dave Colling, Ellison's spokesman, said he was unavailable for comment. Earlier, Ellison told the online Minnesota Monitor, The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer. And that's what the freedom of religion is all about.
Colling said Ellison's office has received hundreds of very bigoted and racist e-mails and phone calls since Prager's column appeared. The vast majority said, 'You should resign from office if you're not willing to use the book our country was founded on,' Colling said
Requiring somebody to take an oath of office on a religious text that's not his violates the Constitution, said Kevin Hasson, president of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
Members of the House of Representatives traditionally raise their right hands and are sworn in together on the floor of the chamber. The ritual sometimes seen as the swearing-in is actually a ceremonial photo op with the speaker of the House that usually involves a Bible.
They can bring in whatever they want, says Fred Beuttler, deputy historian of the House.
Prager, who is Jewish, wrote that no Mormon elected official has demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. But Republican Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, carried a volume of Mormon scriptures that included the Bible and the Book of Mormon at his swearing-in ceremony in 1997.
Prager, who hosts a radio talk show, could not be reached for comment.
12-01-06 11:28 EST
Copyright 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. All Rights Reserved. MTPockets posted about SP loving to fire people.
MTPockets could've just kept her post to the issue, but she had to throw in the barb about firing, so the next poster has every right to address it. Or is what she is referencing over your head?
I couldn't get in...crowd already exceeded the fire code.
So, after parking two blocks away and trudging to the party, the fire officials kept us out because the fire code only allows 300, of which there were more than that inside. Then the cops told us we couldn't congregate outside either due to traffic and not having a separate (outdoor) permit.
Just days after the 9/11 attacks, Vice President Cheney, on “Meet The Press,” said the response should be aimed at Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terror organization not Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
When asked if any evidence connected the Iraqis to the operation, Cheney said, no.
But during that same time period, according to Bob Woodward's book, Bush At War, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for military strikes on Iraq and during cabinet meetings Cheney, expressed deep concern about Saddam and wouldn't rule out going after Iraq at some point.
That point started to come 11 months later, just before the first anniversary of 9/11.
The president and vice president had decided to redirect their war on terror to Baghdad. So, with the help of the newly-formed White House Iraq group, which consisted of top officials and strategists, the selling of a war on Iraq began and the administration's rhetoric about Saddam changed.
On September 8, 2002, not only did White House hawks tell The New York Times for a front page exclusive that Saddam was building a nuclear weapon, five administration officials also went on the Sunday television shows that day to repeat the charge.
He is, in fact actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, Cheney told Tim Russert on “Meet The Press.
But the White House started claiming that Iraq and the group responsible for 9/11 were one in the same.
The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror, said Bush on September 25, 2002.
We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases, said Bush a few days later on October 7. He's a threat because he is dealing with Al-Qaeda.
In pushing the Saddam-Iraq-9/11 connection, both the president and the vice president made two crucial claims. First, they alleged there had been a 1994 meeting in the Sudan between Osama bin Laden and an Iraqi intelligence official.
After the Iraq war began, however, the 9/11 Commission was formed and reported that while Osama bin Laden may have requested Iraqi help, Iraq apparently never responded.
The other crucial pre-war White House claim was that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech republic in April 2001.
Cheney stated, It's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a Senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service.
Confirmed or unconfirmed by Vice President Cheney the 9/11 Commission said, We do not believe such a meeting occurred. Why? Because cell phone records from the time show Atta in the United States.
None the less, the White House strategy worked. In March of 2003, one poll found 45 percent of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11.
On the eve of the Iraq war, the White House sent a letter to Congress telling lawmakers that force was authorized against those who, aided the 9/11 attacks.
Yet the Bush administration continues to say it never claimed Iraq was linked to 9/11.
I think I made it very clear that we have never made that claim, White House Press Secretary McClellan repeated on Sept. 17, 2003.
The brutal irony is that while implications, innuendo, or false claims if you will about a 9/11 connection helped take us into Iraq. The Iraqi war itself has created a real al-Qaeda/Iraq link that may keep us from getting out.
Why don't you do a little bit of research on Obama, and not close your eyes to the numerous skeletons in HIS closet? Only one guy talking about cleaning up washington, both parties. Only one guy talking about cutting spending. That is the guy I am voting for.
Looking at the shape this country is in right now, looking at what Obama says he is going to do (STILL) when he knows there is no money to do it with...the Dems on the banking comittee and the ones getting rich while our economy was going down the tubes...you on the left have such a problem with the "rich" but Franklin Raines, Timothy Howard, James Johnson...ALL advising Obama...got RICH dragging Fannie Mae to the ground and all of us with them...and Obama the MOST liberal senator in his voting record...that isn't CHANGE. That is the same old Washington politics.
You really can't see that? Really?
GO FIGHT WIN
MCCAIN!!!!!
Do I want to fight?
Oh yes, I want to have an email war! Lets go, first one to type the dirtiest word wins!
Sheesh. Does your mommy know you are on here?
But seriously, get help.
Sometimes it is necessary to fight, whether we want to or not...
not one service member wants to be in Iraq, but they ARE doing good things over there. Unfortunately, our media is so biased that we rarely see the good that comes of our efforts. I do not believe that the war is senseless and it is not because I "have to believe" any such thing. It is because someone needed to stop Hussein before he became another Hitler. He was well on his way. Also, by fighting a little on other soil, I believe that we keep it from happening on ours and, unfortunately, our general populous doesn't have what it takes to defend their own way of life. Someone else has to do it for them.
I don't know why you would choose this fight anyway...sm
Bennetts words are right there for all to see/hear. This came out of his mouth, you can't make this stuff up.
God bless!
One more question...and I am NOT trying to start a fight....
just curious as to what you mean by "extremely conservative viewpoint?" Could you give examples? I won't even respond if you do not want me to...I just want to know what you consider an extremely conservative viewpoint.
Thanks!
why did you even bring this up - looks like you are trying to start a fight
Everytime a subject is brought out you seem to like to interject a bash to Sam. I've been reading the posts and nowhere in response to my post here did I see sam post a "message with the express intent of wreaking havoc and instigating argument". I'm reading the responses to my post about issues and I'm not seeing one from sam called "let the games begin", so I have no idea what you are talking about. If your talking about another post awhile back, then start a new thread, but for Pete's sake don't drag it into mine. Forget sam - it looks like you are the one who is trying to start arguments. Leave your personal hatred out of this and be an adult for once. Posts like this I would expect from my 12 year old, but we are adults here. What's frustrating is to finally start reading about a lot of issues that both sides would like to know about and info they are sharing with us and then all of a sudden - bam, here comes your post bashing sam. I'm sitting here now looking at all the responses to my post and I'm not seeing the one you are talking about. Lets stick to issues and facts. It also sounds like some other posters want that too.
No fight. Just looking for space and issues.
nm
I still vote for a jello fight
I mean since that's about how silly these campaigns have gotten :)
But seriously, why waste this much money on campaigning from either side? I admit it was just a bit of a pot shot at Obama (sorry!) but Mccain could do it too.
Then again our nation pays celebrities and professional athletes millions and teachers and police/fire/EMS etc make barely above minimum wage...
No wonder we are going down the crapper! Where are our priorities? When it's more important to see Lindsey Lohan's tadadada instead of paying teachers decent money to teach "our future".
*sigh* Maybe I'll go to Australia. I don't ever hear anything about Australians, 'cept for barbies and kangaroos and Steve Irwin (God rest his soul!). :-D
As a nonbeliever what do you think it is that makes you feel good inside when you do something good? I don't know much about atheists, always thought there wasn't much to know, except they don't believe in God and so I would assume when they die they believe that everything stops right there. I feel that there has to be a better life in the world to come so I am asking a sincere question which is thought provoking at least to me. If a loved one dies, how do you deal with it? What happens to them. When you die what happens to you?
As a nonbeliever what do you think it is that makes you feel good inside when you do something good? I don't know much about atheists, always thought there wasn't much to know, except they don't believe in God and so I would assume when they die they believe that everything stops right there. I feel that there has to be a better life in the world to come so I am asking a sincere question which is thought provoking at least to me. If a loved one dies, how do you deal with it? What happens to them. When you die what happens to you?
Keep it about the politics. Argue, fight it out...
disagree, agree, whatever. It's not a personal bash board to personally attack and insult other posters though.
At least Obama knows WHICH COUNTRY the fight is with
Not Iraq, since he doesn't have a Daddy that he has to clean up after, he can just go to the right country immediately and bypass the special agenda that fueled the last guy!
The opposition is going to fight the other side...
no matter who it is. George Washington was the only president that did not face opposition to his being the president - at least for the first term. Mind you, he was not elected to his first term and after his first four years when he was asked to serve another four, he was beaten down from both sides so much so that he swore he would never enter into politics again. This is the father of our country - the man who helped win our freedom from England! If he can't escape from being shot down at every turn, what makes anyone else who runs for president think they can? It's the nature of the beast and comes with the job.
How can this be? I thought Syria was one of those Islamofascist countries harboring the evil doers who hate us for our freedom and a potential target on Bush's hit list after (before?) Iran. How could they possibly save American lives?
Syrians fight off attack on U.S. Embassy
By SAM F. GHATTAS, Associated Press Writer 25 minutes ago
Armed Islamic militants attempted to storm the U.S. Embassy in a brazen attack Tuesday, the government said. Four people were killed, including three of the assailants. There was no immediate claim of responsibility, but an al-Qaida offshoot group was suspected, Syria's ambassador to the United States said.
No Americans were hurt in the attack, in which the militants used automatic rifles, hand grenades and at least one van rigged with explosives.
The al-Qaida offshoot group, called Jund al-Sham, has been blamed for several attacks in Syria in recent years, the Syrian ambassador, Imad Moustapha, said in comments to CNN.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice praised Syrian security agents for repelling the attack, but added it was too early to know who may have been behind it.
I think it's very early to try and speculate why this may have happened, said Rice, speaking at a news conference in Nova Scotia Tuesday with her Canadian counterpart, Peter MacKay.
The attackers apparently did not breach the high walls surrounding the embassy's white compound in the city's diplomatic neighborhood.
One of Syria's anti-terrorism forces was killed and 11 other people were wounded, the official news agency reported. The wounded including a police officer, two Iraqis and seven people employed at nearby technical workshop.
A Chinese diplomat also was hit in the face by shrapnel and slightly injured while standing on top of a garage at the Chinese Embassy, China's Foreign Ministry said. The diplomat, political counselor Li Hongyu, was in stable condition at a hospital, the ministry said.
A witness said a Syrian guard outside the U.S. Embassy also was killed, but the government did not immediately confirm that. As at most American embassies worldwide, a local guard force patrols outside the compound's walls while U.S. Marines are mostly responsible for guarding classified documents and fighting off attackers inside the compound.
Witnesses also said the gunmen tried to throw hand grenades into the embassy compound, shouting Allahu akbar! or God is great! It was not clear if any of the grenades made it over the walls, which are about 8 feet high.
The attack came at a time of high tension between the United States and Syria over the recent Israeli-Hezbollah war in neighboring Lebanon. In Damascus, the sentiment has become increasingly anti-American.
Syria has seen previous attacks by Islamic militants. In June, Syrian anti-terrorism police fought Islamic militants near the Defense Ministry in a gunbattle that killed five people and wounded four. In 2004, four people were killed in a clash between police and a team of suspected bombers targeting the Canadian Embassy.
The Bush administration has been critical of the tight control that the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad has over its people. Rice, meeting with her Canadian counterpart in Nova Scotia, would not speculate on whether Tuesday's attack may be an indication that the regime's control is slipping.
White House press secretary Tony Snow also expressed gratitude to Syria.
Syrian officials came to aid of the Americans, Snow said. The U.S. government is grateful for the assistance the Syrians provided in going after the attackers, and once again, that illustrates the importance of Syria being an important ally in the war on terror.
It does not mean they are an ally. We are hoping they will become an ally and make the choice of fighting against terrorists, he said, adding that the Bush administration does not know who is responsible for the attack.
Washington recalled Ambassador Margaret Scobey after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005, amid suspicions that Damascus had a role in it. She has not returned since, effectively downgrading U.S. diplomatic representation to the level of charge d'affaires.
Pools of blood lay on the sidewalk outside the U.S. Embassy, near a burned car apparently used by the attackers. A sport utility vehicle with U.S. diplomatic tags had a bullet hole in its windshield, and the windows of nearby guard houses also were shattered.
There were conflicting reports of what happened.
Syrian TV said one car was rigged with explosives but never was detonated by the attackers. But one witness said a second car did explode, and TV video showed a burned car.
The Interior Ministry, which is in charge of police, said a fourth attacker now in detention was wounded in what it called a terrorist attack. The report, carried on state-run television, said anti-terror units brought the situation under control and an investigation was under way.
In Washington, a State Department spokesman confirmed the attack by unknown assailants but had few details. Local authorities have responded and are on the scene, said spokesman Kurtis Cooper said.
A U.S. Embassy statement said the embassy came under armed attack at 10:10 a.m. and that all embassy personnel were safe. One Syrian guard was injured by gunfire and was hospitalized in a stable condition, the statement said.
The embassy's charge d'affaires, Michael Corbin, met with Interior Minister Bassam Abdel Maguid at the scene, and spoke by phone with assistant minister of foreign affairs, Ahmed Arnous, according to the statement.
It said the Syrian government has pledged full security cooperation.
About 30 Syrian guards usually are posted around the embassy 24 hours a day, Moustapha said.
State television said four armed attackers attempted to storm the embassy, using automatic rifles and hand grenades. Syrian security guards attacked the gunmen, killing three and wounding a fourth, TV said.
The attackers came in two cars and parked one that was rigged with explosives in front of the embassy but did not blow it up, state-run TV reported. Explosives experts dismantled the bomb, it said.
But a witness told The Associated Press that two gunmen drove up in front of the embassy, got out of their car, shot at the Syrian sentries at the building's entrance, and then detonated explosives in the car.
The witness, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said the security personnel fired back, and security forces rushed to the scene.
Television showed a delivery van loaded with pipe bombs strapped to large propane gas canisters outside the embassy. Had the bombs detonated, the explosions could have caused massive damage.
The video also showed the charred remains of a smaller car parked several feet behind the van.
Up to 40 U.S. diplomats are posted at the embassy, which is average in size, according to Tom Case, a deputy spokesman at the State Department.
marks the location of current message within thread
