Norfolknet Opinions
CLOSED FOR INVENTORY
If the Islamic world wishes to participate in the world at large (the
free world), it must learn to accept the rights of cultures that they
see as offensive to them without resorting to violence and attacking
innocent people and property.
If one chooses to take the position that freedom of speech comes with
responsibility (which I happen to agree with to a great degree), and
that it was irresponsible to publish these caricatures; one must be
prepared to answer a number of questions such as:
1. Why is it then acceptable to burn the American flag, as it offends so
many so deeply?
2. Why is it acceptable to burn crosses, as it offends so many so
deeply?
3. Why is it acceptable to publish a swastika, when it offend so many?
4. Why is it acceptable to publish the Confederate Flag, when it offends
so many?
5. Why is it acceptable to defame images of Christ, if it offend so
many?
6. Why is it acceptable not to remove Christmas songs from school plays?
7. Why can it be acceptable not to allow a "Christmas tree" in a community?
8. Is it acceptable to do violence when these offences occur?
9. Where is the line between responsibility and irresponsibility with
regard to free speech?
10. Who determines that line?
11. Can we American determine if for Europe?
12. Can Islamic nations determine for US?
PS: It appears that the government of Lebanon would agree that the
violence which has occurred in the name of Islam warrants an apology.
The Christians in that country know all too well how repressive radical
Islam can be.
Lebanon apologized to Denmark -- where the cartoons were first published -- a day after protesters set fire to a building housing the Danish mission in Beirut. The attack "harmed Lebanon's reputation and its civilized image," Lebanese Information Minister Ghazi Aridi said.- JPB
[ref]
In George Bush's America, he insists he has the right to ignore any law (via
signing orders), detain citizens without a warrant, hold them indefinitely
without charges (just by labeling them "enemy combatants"), abuse them
(by redefining torture), ship them out of the country (Guantanamo) or send
them abroad to be tortured (renditions). US citizens!
This is not our government! What happened to our checks-and-balances
democracy? What a loophole -- attack another country, revert to
authoritarianism. This is not what the Constitution says. Why is this
not a bigger story? Where is the press, our watchdog on the excesses of
government? Where are the true patriots who care about our country and
where it's headed? Or is chanting the "liberal, liberal, liberal,
terrorist, terrorist, terrorist" jingle really enough to pull the wool
over voters' eyes?
And even as the Pentagon prepares for the "Long War," we should recall how
James Madison warned of the dangers war poses to freedom and democracy:
No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.- AROf all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
[ref]
Re. Omar Ahmad's "agenda," his comments on resisting the loss of culture and identity
and teaching America the ways of Islam instead ("Muslim institutions,
schools and economic power should be strengthened in America, he said.
Those who stay in America should be 'open to society without melting
(into it).' Keeping mosques open so anyone can come and learn about
Islam, he said"
(ref)
): Nothing wrong with that, but if they start sending
missionaries door-to-door, I'm not buying from them, either.
Imagery was not the only problem with the Danish cartoons. They were insulting, which is, of course, the point of a cartoon. But they also portrayed the Prophet as a terrorist and, by extension, all Muslims, thereby engendering hate against them.Such a pointless shame. More fuel for the extremists' fire, on both sides.
[ref]
Last week, the editor of a Jordanian newspaper chastized his fellow Muslims in an editorial. "What brings more prejudice against Islam? These caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?" asked Jihad Momani.- JPBBut Mr. Momani has since been fired and arrested. The newspaper was removed from newsstands.
[ref]
...CAIR Chairman Omar M. Ahmad..."Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."As reported by the San Ramon Valley Herald
In a letter to the to Trade minister, the ultra fundamentalist President
(of Iran) has ordered him to form a "study and review group" to identify
all the countries involved in insulting the holly Prophet and present
"ways and means" to cancel all existing trade, exchanges and other
cooperation agreements signed with them.
[ref]
In contrast, it appears Muslim have no strong outrage over terrorizing
and beheading innocent people such as Jill Carroll and others.
Demonstrators protesting caricatures of Islam's prophet set fire Sunday to a building housing the Danish Embassy in Lebanon...- JPB
...In Damascus, thousands of Syrians enraged...torched the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus on Saturday - the most violent in days of furious protests by Muslims in Asia, Europe and the Middle East...
...In Gaza, Palestinians...storming European buildings and burning German and Danish flags. Protesters smashed the windows of the German cultural center and threw stones at the European Commission building, police said.
One of the offending cartoons.... for example, former French actress Brigitte Bardot was convicted for inciting racial hatred and fined $6,000 for anti-Islamic remarks in her book "A Scream in Silence."... Regarding the "Islamization of France" she wrote, "not only does it fail to give way to our laws and customs. Quite the contrary, as time goes by it tries to impose its own laws on us..."
..." Last year, too, the head of the Muslim Union of Italy filed charges against Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci for insulting Islam. At issue was Fallaci's book, "The Rage and Pride," which said Muslim immigrants in Europe had "multiplied like rats," and that the continent was turning into "a Muslim province, a Muslim colony."
(UPI)
Post
replies and indicate if you don't wish them added to this page
(ie, for my eyes only), else I will put them on the page by default.
And to think that heads rolled (White House economist was fired) for
predicting back in 2002 an incredibly high cost of $200 billion.
[ref2]
The administration figure was "$60 billion or less."
The case against Libya was surprisingly weak, and the Lockerbie trial
specifically did not link any Libyan higher-ups to the bombing; it was
George Bush that forced Libya to pay compensation in exchange for the
lifting of sanctions
[ref1]
What it actually "accepted responsibility" for was carefully worded legalese,
admitting nothing:
Libya as a sovereign state has facilitated the bringing to justice of the two suspects charged with the bombing of Pan Am 103, and accepts responsibility for the actions of its officialsAs the Libyan Prime Minister, Shukri Ghanem, said in an interview with the Today program on BBC Radio 4 on 24 February, 2004,
[ref2]
Q: ... Why has Libya not actually apologised, said that you're sorry that you were behind this act?Like he said - bought peace because it was easier.A: Because it is a case that we came to a conclusion that we reached an agreement in which we feel that we bought peace. We, after a while and after the sanctions, and after the problems we have faced because of the sanctions, the loss of money, and we thought that it was easier for us to buy peace, and this is why we agreed on compensation. Therefore we said, let us buy peace, let us put the whole case behind us and let us look forward.
Q: So payment of compensation didn't mean any acceptance of guilt?
A: I agree with that, and this is why I said we bought peace.
[ref3]
[Update 1:33pm: Mind you, that's not to say Libya wasn't partly or wholly responsible, just that they've never admitted guilt, and that the evidence presented at the trial was lacking. - AR]
The intellectual part is in asking reasonable questions, like why attack a
country completely unconnected to the "war" we're supposed to be
fighting. By attacking Saddam Hussein, we dropped the ball on the fight
against terrorism. Why, the man wasn't even bearded!
It would also be intellectual to point out that by forcing Western-style
democracy onto a population at the point of a gun, against their wishes,
we're only creating more terrorists.
If the past is any indication, all that may be too intellectual for Bush.
But he has a ready, sincere excuse -- Cheney did it!
He's part of the same neocon gang that pressed for war with Iraq, and
Iran and Syria are known to be next on their agenda. He's just doing
"public relations" -- working the masses.
That said, diplomacy should always be the 1st option, for it is the most
sensible and humane to all concerned. However, when our national
security, and the very safety of our children are at risk, we must have
the will to use all measures necessary to defend them.
We find ourselves at the moment in a world war - World War Terror (WWT),
if you will.
Like WWI and WWII, we must keep the enemy across the sea and destroy him
there. If not, the chances of a massive attack on the homeland with a
WMD will happen. Osama Bin Terrorist and his band of bearded-men have
increased the magnitude of each attack they have conducted. If this
trend continues, 9/11 will pale in comparison to the next one. Time and
the terrorist will not wait for prolonged, intellectual discussion over
how to appease these guys.
Now this all happened prior to our American heroes showing up in the
neighborhood, but he did not hand over possession of his weapons of mass
destruction until George put a boot into the hornets' nest.
Libya will present a letter to the UN security council today accepting responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing, in a move which looks set to end its pariah status. Following complicated and protracted negotiations, Colonel Muammar Gadafy's government has produced a statement of responsibility for the bombing of the Pan Am airliner in 1988 ...- JPB...Compensation and Libya's letter pave the way for the permanent lifting of UN sanctions, which were suspended in 1999 when Col Gadafy handed over Abdel Baset al-Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah for trial. Megrahi was convicted and Mr Fhimah acquitted. But a late hurdle could come from France, which is pushing for compensation from Libya for the 1989 bombing of a French airliner over Niger before any permanent lifting of sanctions takes place.
[ref]
What does it say for democracy that half of the American population is unable to draw a rational conclusion from unambiguous facts?- AR
[ref]
The case of Libya is interesting: it became a pariah state because of
two terrorist acts, the bombing of a German Discotheque in 1986, and the
PanAm 103 jet bombing in 1989. (Reagan even ordered a strike on Muammar
Qadhafy's houses in Tripoli and Benghazi in "retaliation" for the
bombing of the discotheque. 30 civilians were killed, among them
Qadhafy's 5 year old daughter; Qadhafy himself was not hurt.) The only
glitch -- Libya was not responsible for the disco bombing
[ref1].
And now doubts surfaced about the key evidence presented at the
Lockerbie trial as well.
[ref2]
"they were the people committed to getting it right-and to doing the right thing-whatever the price. These people know who they are. Some of them did pay a price for their commitment to right, but they wouldn't have it any other way."- AR
[ref]
In 2004, for example, former French actress Brigitte Bardot was convicted for inciting racial hatred and fined $6,000 for anti-Islamic remarks in her book "A Scream in Silence." While Bardot trashed a variety of apparent evils of modern French society, she singled out Islam and immigrants for the most vitriol.- JPBRegarding the "Islamization of France" she wrote, "not only does it fail to give way to our laws and customs. Quite the contrary, as time goes by it tries to impose its own laws on us."
Last year, too, the head of the Muslim Union of Italy filed charges against Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci for insulting Islam. At issue was Fallaci's book, "The Rage and Pride," which said Muslim immigrants in Europe had "multiplied like rats," and that the continent was turning into "a Muslim province, a Muslim colony." [UPI]
Destruction of Israel is a pillar of the Islamic Republic's ideology. Soon after leading the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini declared, "Every Muslim has a duty to prepare himself for battle against Israel." President Ahmadinejad's recent Holocaust-denial and call for Israel to be "wiped off the map," may have shocked Europe, but his statements mark only a change in rhetorical style, not ideological substance. When it comes to Israel, there is no difference between hard-liners and reformers. While Mr. Annan honored Mohammad Khatami for his Dialogue of Civilizations, the reformist president's instructions to the Iranian people were less high-minded. "We should mobilize the whole Islamic World for a sharp confrontation with the Zionist regime," he told Iranian TV on Oct. 24, 2000. "If we abide by the Qur'an, all of us should mobilize to kill." In a Dec. 14, 2001 sermon, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, perhaps the second most powerful man in Iran and one often described as a pragmatist by Western officials and journalists alike, declared, "The use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. . . . It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality." During a Sept. 22, 2003 military parade, authorities displayed a Shihab-3 missile draped with a banner reading, "Israel must be uprooted and erased from history."And so, if Israel must go, what would a prudent man believe should become of the great Satan - that's us folks?
[ref]
BY TELLING a conference in Tehran Wednesday [Oct 26, 2005] that ''Israel must be wiped off the map," Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was not only revealing the hate-twisted face of the Islamist hard-liners who took over key government posts following his suspect election last June. He was also throwing down a challenge to the governments of the world ...- JPBWhat Ahmadinejad said expressed a fanatical mentality, the outlook of a political leader who served as a security boss in Iran's notorious Evin prison after Ayatollah Khomeini came to power and is said by former inmates to have personally finished off executed political prisoners with a bullet to the head. Iran specialists commonly report that Ahmadinejad represents only one current of thought in Iran's leadership and that other influential figures are more pragmatic. If so, that is even more reason to make it clear that there is a price to pay for a regime that not only assassinates its domestic dissidents but issues overt threats of eradication against another nation.
[ref]
Iran yesterday upped the ante in the dispute over its nuclear programme by threatening to block inspections of its facilities if it is referred to the UN security council- JPB
[ref]
It is they in fact that seek to coerce the region to submit. However,
they know this is impossible so long as the US has the will to stop
them. Would nuclear weapons serve that purpose, they think yes. That
is why they have been persistent in attempts to develop a nuclear
capability, under the guise of a civilian energy program.
A Norman Schindler, Deputy Director of the CIA Nonproliferation Center,
in a speech to a Senate proliferation committee in September 2000,
stated that Iran continues to seek development of fissile material and
ultimately a nuclear weapon. And that they - the Iranians - have
developed a covert network of organizations to acquire this capability.
[pdf]
Whereas the Bush administration has been accused by democrats as being
slow to address the Iranian issue, I'm sure we can conclude that this
speech, only nine months after Bush took office, is untainted by Bush
administration influence.
In an interview with the Washington Post on 29 Aug 2004, John Edwards
said... Iran is further along in developing a nuclear weapon than they
were when George Bush came into office... A nuclear Iran is unacceptable
for so many reasons, including the possibility that it creates a gateway
and the need for other countries in the region to develop nuclear
capability -- Saudi Arabia, Egypt, potentially others," Edwards said.
[ref]
Is a Nuclear-armed Islamic revolutionary Iran a danger to the region and
all those who are not Islamic fundamentalist? I'm going with John
Edwards on this one!
PS: My fortune cookie says, "A prudent man would ask why a nation in
the oil-rich Middle East would have such an urgent need for nuclear
energy." Isn't that sort of like shipping sand there?
No, the whole row is precisely about nuclear know-how and not nuclear devices.
The objections the US and the G3 have are all about Iran getting the know-how
and experience of processing uranium into fuel. This is the hard part; with
this, Iran would be nuclear capable. Not nuclear armed, but in a position
where the possibility of retaliation could not be ruled out if attacked with
tactical nuclear weapons (like the US and Israel occasionally threaten
to do.) They don't need nukes for this, merely having the option would make
them much less susceptible to military coercion, ie. less vulnerable and more
independent. They can achieve this without having to build a single
bomb.
And the appearance of even one such independent nation in the region would
puncture the aura of Western invincibility that we use to bend them all to
our will.
So the hoo-hah about Iran's nuclear plans is really about maintaining
the status quo in the Middle East bluff-and-posture game. The hot
rhetoric coming from the administration is demagoguery for domestic
consumption -- fear politics and war hype keep incumbents in power.
A top Iranian commander accused U.S. and British intelligence agents of fomenting unrest in southwestern Iran and threatened to respond with missiles if attacked... Iran's improved version of the Shahab-3 missile can strike more than 1,300 miles from their launch site, putting Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East in easy range.- JPB
[ref]
This became possible only after its leader, Col. Muammaer Qaddafi,
abandoned his nuclear weapons program, renounced terrorism, and accepted
responsibility for the 1998 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, compensating
the victims' families.
[CSM]
On a somewhat personal note, I was assigned in Germany at the time and a
young Air Force family in my unit were on the flight and perished. They
were heading home for the holidays.
The west and its allies must take the same hard-line with Iran if we are
to avoid a nuclear catastrophe.
The US will to face terrorism and nations that aid it, and our being in
the general area of Tripoli, I'm sure, has had a small impact on the
Col's decision.
An inquiry into the death of Princess Diana is "far more complex than any of us thought," the official leading the investigation said Friday (...) Lord Stevens, the former head of London's Metropolitan Police, acknowledged that some of the issues raised by Mohammed al Fayed -- whose son, Dodi, was killed in the 1997 car crash with Diana -- were "right to be raised." He did not elaborate.Presumably this means that they've found indications that there may indeed have been a conspiracy to kill Diana, and/or found evidence of who may have been behind the incident. Royal intrigue, indeed.
[AP]
The U.S. Army in Iraq has at least twice seized and jailed the wives of suspected insurgents in hopes of "leveraging" their husbands into surrender, U.S. military documents show.- AR
[AP]
Iran received some arms at the time, but their action eventually brought
about the proliferation of anti-US militants, the erosion of civil
liberties here at home, and the replacement of their mortal enemy,
pro-US Saddam Hussein, with friendly pro-Iran Islamic fundamentalists.
Allah works in mysterious ways.
Iran must be wondering, with enemies like this, who needs friends?
Washington yesterday raised the stakes in the confrontation over Iran when it warned India that Delhi's own nuclear deal with the US could be ditched if the Indian government did not vote to refer Tehran to the United Nations Security Council.Always interesting to observe these "coalitions of the willing" in the process of formation. Democratic it isn't (well, maybe in the same way Jack Abramoff purchased votes for his clients -- throw up the cash, and each senator democratically decides whether to grab for it), but very free trade. And here we fret about a few senators getting bought, when there are entire countries up for sale.
[FT]
Of course, the fact that we ourselves offer bribes for voting our way did
not stop us from accusing France and Russia of voting their pocketbooks
when they favored continued inspections and negotiations instead of an
unjustified (and devastating, for the population) invasion. (Oddly enough,
in some parts of the country they still call them "freedom fries," even
though the French turned out to have been right, and the administration
wrong in the claims it made while pressing the case for war.)
What's striking to realize, with rather counter-intuitive implications for
the principle of democracy, is that in the free marketplace of ideas, the
idea with the deeper pockets wins.
"When I got on the ground a lot of people were very receptive to US forces. We weren't offered chocolate or candy but we had a lot of people begging for food, we had a lot of people trying to sell us things. When I left Iraq, those same people that were begging and trying to sell us things were throwing rocks at us.- AR"I think that he (Bush) doesn't have a very good grasp of what victory is in Iraq. He doesn't really understand what the Iraqi people think and what the American people think. Especially as a democracy I think more than ever we have to have our leadership represent what the people believe and what the people feel."
[BBC]
Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.In other words, we're asking too much of our troops, this (unprovoked and needless) military adventure has weakened our national defense capabilities, and the administration is in (public) denial.The 136-page report represents a more sobering picture of the Army's condition than military officials offer in public. ...
He wrote that the Army is "in a race against time" to adjust to the demands of war "or risk `breaking' the force in the form of a catastrophic decline" in recruitment and re-enlistment.
Krepinevich's analysis, while consistent with the conclusions of some outside the Bush administration, is in stark contrast with the public statements of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and senior Army officials.
[CNN]
Krepinevich (West Point, PhD Harvard)
has many articles on the subject
of warfare, including the Iraq war. He recently wrote in Foreign Affairs:
Because they lack a coherent strategy, U.S. forces in Iraq have failed to defeat the insurgency or improve security. Winning will require a new approach to counterinsurgency, one that focuses on providing security to Iraqis rather than hunting down insurgents. And it will take at least a decade.The Foreign Affairs article is long and thorough. I especially enjoyed the detailed and in-depth analysis of the situation and what approaches would be productive; a refreshing break from the usual shallow pro-war cheerleading. Interestingly, in spite of public denials by the White House, recent news reports from the Pentagon (the FA article is from Sep/Oct) are much more in line with the report's suggestions than earlier ones, implicitly confirming its accuracy.
[ref]
[Update 1/26 11:29pm:
The military commanders aren't backing the administration line; they confirm that the army is stretched thin because of Iraq.
Gen. George Casey's remarks contrasted sharply with statements made on Wednesday by U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who disputed findings of an unreleased study conducted for the Pentagon that said the Army is overextended because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush shrugged off the report Thursday.Technically, Rumsfeld didn't dispute the findings of the report, he disputed that the forecasted eventual outcome had already occurred. A deceptive vigorous non-contradictory non-denial from the man personally responsible for the current predicament."The forces are stretched ... and I don't think there's any question of that," Casey said of U.S. armed forces deployed in large numbers in Afghanistan and Iraq.
On Tuesday, The Associated Press reported ... A day later, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld disputed that, asserting that "the force is not broken."
[ABC]
If you could get a car for $20,000 that got 330 miles per gallon, would
you buy it? If it looked a little... unconventional, would you still
drive it? A Carlsbad, Calif company (just north of San Diego) has come
up with designs and manufacturing processes for an ultra-light two-seater that
is claimed to offer phenomenal gas mileage. They're committed to bringing
it to market, with production scheduled for the near future.
[ref]
[I believe I've addressed this topic before; see the discussion of the night of 11/4 7:18pm and 11/4 10:05pm - Wm.]
Although the Opinions page is run by more relaxed rules than the main page
-- it was assumed that people would be willing to support their opinions in
the face of vigorous challenges -- we seem to have gotten past "vigorous
challenges" into personal attacks, slurs, and name-calling. This makes
maintaining the page a drudgery, because though I still read every message
and check for typos and apply formatting, all I get out of them is heat but
no light -- vehemence without illumination. Not to mention that it upsets
my family, wastes a lot of my time, and, frankly, doesn't reflect well on
Norfolknet or the town.
I don't want to censor this page, because I believe Norfolknet
benefits from a place where strong views can be stated. But I also don't
want to ruin the page by letting it spiral out of control into chaos.
A suggestion: Be polite! Be clever, be humorous, be thought-provoking!
Be terse! Offer insights, not judgements! Explain, don't just correct! A
lot of meaty issues have been mentioned already, dig in, don't just skim!
Pick a topic, read up on it, and enlighten us!
The point of this page is not the destination, but the trip. Don't expect
results, because nothing anyone says here will change anything; the
most to hope for is that someone else will read and think about what you've
written, and perhaps better understand your point of view.
Personally, I want to be educated, not lectured; what makes this fun for me
(speaking as the typist who updates the page by hand) is being exposed to
new information, new ideas, new ways of looking at the world. When we get
into reruns, it gets old fast. Come on, people, keep it interesting! If
it's no fun, what's the point? (And, just to be clear, barroom fights are
not my kind of fun.)
Finally, I wish to extend my apologies on behalf of Norfolknet to those
who were upset by the brawl; I should have stepped in sooner, before people
got hurt. I also wish to apologize to those who were offended by and
expected better from a shared community resource.
Calling me a right-winger, a bully, a neocon, insinuating that I am
depressed, now a call to censor me. Something rottin' in Denmark.
Don't preach to me about name calling and labeling. You guys have done
plenty of that, directed at me and others; and I have the backup text to
prove it!
Yes, intellectual debate is indeed good, but results are what counts.
Having a long discussion and coming up with the same results each time
is not intellectual, mind you.
I would say that the large majority of this country places the fight
against terrorism higher on the priority list than the issues you
four... or three discuss here. It seems you can't see the forest for the
trees.
Freedom and democracy for millions is Eastern Europe in the 1990s thanks
to Ronald Reagan; freedom and democracy for millions is the Middle East
in the 1st part on the 21st century thanks to George W Bush; 4.9%
unemployment in the US, stock market flying high, economy is in great
shape, wages and homeownership higher than ever.
Iran wants a nuclear bomb guys, wake up! They want to destroy Israel,
Wake up!
They are responsible for the rise in oil prices and the 213 point drop
in the stock market last week, Wake up!
And by the way... this is an opinion page for Norfolk residents - I've
been expressing my opinions here... and your little group here disagrees
with them. And if one compares the opinions that you four... or three
have posted here, one would easily deduce that they seldom stray form
the "party-line". If that party-line sounds a lot like an Osama Bin
Terrorists speech, I'm going to point that out. And if your statements
have the potential effect of helping the enemy, I'm going to point that
out. Just as you point out that you believe my opinions are not for the
good of the nation.
The reason I suggest labels is because no one knows what to call your
ideology... you change its label so often. Best I can tell from this
page is that it started with communists and is currently progressive.
Just stop retreating and say what you are. It confuses the
constituency, quarter of whom can barely read.
Finally, (for now) as you can see below, this page is not for children,
I'm reading that to mean it's for big people... bully??
Norfolknet Opinions- JPBThis is the first Norfolknet OpEd page, there are none before this one.
This page contains the comments opinions, editorials, and commentary by Norfolk residents about matters important to them, but not directly related to town (or not suitable for a general audience that may include young children). Local comments and opinion about our town, businesses, officials, (web pages :-) go on the main page.
And along with that came the realization that you don't really want an
answer.
You couldn't care less -- you haven't shown any sign of paying
attention to what anyone else thinks, you just rag on all but the most
conservative views as "liberal" or "socialist" or "communist," taunt
people and bully them by calling them names.
It makes no difference to you whether I love my country or not. You
wouldn't show any more courtesy or think about the issues raised either
way, so what would be the point? Would I have fewer rights under the
Constitution if I didn't? Would what you're advocating transforming it
into hurt less if I did?
You don't care. You're not trying to make your country a better place,
you're just attacking anyone who disagrees with your party's line. You
seem to view yourself as the appointed guardian of the Gospel of Neocons,
and viciously attack and unfairly smear anyone who strays from scripture.
Life in your America is life in a tightly regimented theocracy. You spout
your ultra-right-wing dogma without thinking of what it is you're really
saying or supporting or how it affects others.
I'm an idealist -- I want to do right. You're a fan -- you want your team
to win, right or wrong. A no-go from the start.
I don't believe I'll answer you. It wouldn't make a difference either way.
And you don't deserve it.
JPB: For information, in which uniform did you serve 20 years? If you
wish you may include your rate or rank but there is no
requirement for that. Thank you for your service!
We conservatives (me with a medium "c") are confident enough to proudly
announce our affiliation. While liberals/socialists or whatever the
title of the day is...Communists?... are afraid to. Heck, AR can't even
indicate if he loves America or not.
[Let's see, that's one deliberate falsehood, three instances of of rude taunting, and three of unwarranted name-calling. I'm beginning to see JC's point - Wm.]
And, by the way, the merit-based system you refer to is decidedly NOT a
Judeo-Christian concept. Would you like to explain to Mother Teresa how
she was wrong in helping those poor miscreants whom the rest of society
decided were not pulling their weight? I'm sure Catholic Charities (or
any other faith-based outreach program) does not feel that they should
only help those people who DESERVE their help. In fact, the early
Christian Church had quite a "commune" feel to it, with all church
members giving up their personal possessions for the use of the group as
a whole, without regard to how much each individual brought to the
group -- or so says my pastor, when I discussed your posting with him
last week.
PS: I would never attempt to compare George Bush with Ronald
Reagan... but those American principles of fighting to secure freedom -
even when its not ours - are universal and part of the very fabric of
America.
But we love our little tin-pot tyrant! We want him to be our ruler
forever! El Presidente rules by martial law, ignores the constitution
of the nation, wins power amidst rumors of election fraud, and
drives the budget deep into the red with large handouts to his cronies.
He is revered just like Reagan! Long live King George!
Some of us, of course, prefer to attend a party for tea instead.
Fine print: In King George's America it is aiding the terrorists to say
otherwise. Your communications may be monitored by the NSA for better
quality control of your thoughts. Opinions void where prohibited.
This web site and all its contents are visible to the enemy, and posting
to it may be construed as overseas communication subject to monitoring.
Posting jokes is definitely illegal, because if even a single Al Qaeda
member laughs, it will help his mood, therefore his day, therefore his
actions, therefore his cause. Wait, there's knocking at the do..x;kuf
Yes, people pray; and your not going to make them hide in closed to do
it.
Hey... what's it say on an atheist's tombstone?... All dressed-up and
nowhere to go!
I suppose the same could be said for liberals on election day!
PS: Do you guys prefer Liberals, Socialists, Communists or Progressives
this year??
We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we are in a time when there are no heroes just don't know where to look. You can see heroes every day going in and out of factory gates. Others, a handful in number, produce enough food to feed all of us and then the world beyond. You meet heroes across a counter-and they are on both sides of that counter. There are entrepreneurs with faith in themselves and faith in an idea who create new jobs, new wealth and opportunity. They are individuals and families whose taxes support the Government and whose voluntary gifts support church, charity, culture, art, and education. Their patriotism is quiet but deep. Their values sustain our national life.- JPBI have used the words "they" and "their" in speaking of these heroes. I could say "you" and "your" because I am addressing the heroes of whom I speak-you, the citizens of this blessed land. Your dreams, your hopes, your goals are going to be the dreams, the hopes, and the goals of this administration, so help me God.
We shall reflect the compassion that is so much a part of your makeup. How can we love our country and not love our countrymen, and loving them, reach out a hand when they fall, heal them when they are sick, and provide opportunities to make them self-sufficient so they will be equal in fact and not just in theory?
[1981 inaugural address]
Oh, sorry, I forgot -- "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance
in 1954, during the Communist scare, to distinguish us from those
heathen Godless atheists. So before the red
menace, presumably we were not under God yet.
The Pledge, as written and intended by its author:
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [ref]As an aside, what makes this flag special is that it protects your very right to trample it... You can't injure a piece of cloth, but by legislating it into a muzzle, you can certainly desecrate what it stands for.
Allegations persist that the hostage release was delayed until after the election through an illegal deal between the government of Iran and the Reagan kitchen cabinet, which was keen to avoid ... a pre-election hostage release that would have handed the vote to Carter.The book October Surprise by Gary Sick details
[ref]Proponents of the theory ... allege that William Casey and other representatives of the Reagan presidential campaign made a deal at two sets of meetings in July and August at the Ritz Hotel in Madrid with Iranians to delay the release of Americans held hostage in Iran until after the November 1980 presidential elections. ... The allegations included a date-specific allegation that William Casey met with an Iranian cleric in Madrid, Spain, and ... critical pages of his daybook diary were unaccountably missing when the investigators came to look for them over a decade later.
[ref]
- The Reagan-Bush campaign's systematic penetration of the national security complex of the U.S. government, through which a network of former and current intelligence agents kept Casey - not then in any government position - informed of highly classified military movements, diplomatic initiatives, and policy decisions.I also remember listening to the Iran-Contra trials -- remember Ollie North and the "I do not recall" hearings? I was acutely conscious that recall is voluntary, remembering is involuntary. But not once was the answer "I do not remember," or even "I can not recall." Always "I do not recall." A question, a soft "I do not recall" from the defense attorney, then a loud "I do not recall" from the defendant. Question after question.- The secret meetings that took place in Europe during the summer and fall of 1980, at which Casey hammered out the deal with the Iranians.
- Israel's shipment of arms to Iran during the last weeks of the presidential campiagn (in deliberate violation of the U.S. embargo) and the massive covert arms transactions between the two nations immediately after Reagan's inauguration.
- The connection between the Republicans' 1980 arms-for-hostages deal and the Iran-Contra Affair five years later.
(Yes, JPB, we know, we heard it the first time... Ronald Reagan was a GREAT
American, and Ollie North a TRUE PATRIOT. Reagan didn't know a thing,
and an arms embargo is an anti-capitalist, anti-free-trade, evil
anti-American law, and it's our patriotic duty to ignore it. There,
it's been said.)
To paraphrase tenement queen Leona Helmsley,
"We don't obey the law. Only the little people obey the law"
[ref].
Come to think of it, not all that different from the Republican
adminstration of today.
...Perhaps the most dramatic campaign story has unfolded in Quebec, where Conservatives failed to win a single seat in the last election. According to a recent poll, the Conservatives' leader, Stephen Harper, is more popular in Quebec than he is in his home province of Alberta, the most conservative region in the country... Some see parallels between Harper's campaign and the successful election bid of Australian Prime Minister John Howard, which ended the 13-year rule of the more liberal Australian Labour Party...- JPB...Meanwhile, the Liberals "didn't say much in the first half of the campaign, and then they got a lot of bad news," he adds, referring to a corruption scandal miring the Liberals' campaign.
Good old days... did someone forget to tell me that the Democrats have
retaken the house... senate.. presidency? It seems YOU are delusional
about who is longing for the good old day. The Republicans have
steadily gained in all branches of national government since 1980.
Perhaps you do not have cable or have you not heard of the red state -
blue state concept?
AND this January also happens to be the 25th anniversary of Ronald
Regan's inauguration... you know the same day the same Islamic-Extremist
Iranian government released our innocent American hostages after
storming our sovereign US Embassy in Tehran and holding the hostage for
444 days + or -.
...Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. It is a weapon that we as Americans do have. Let that be understood by those who practice terrorism and prey upon their neighbors.- JPB
[ref]
...Chief Justice Warren Burger administered the oath of office to the former broadcaster, screen actor, and Governor of California. In the election of 1980, the Republicans won the White House and a majority in the Senate. On inauguration day, American hostages held by the revolutionary government of Iran were released.PS: Those who chose to be on the losing side of history yet again speak - or as George would say, "fool me once - you can't fool me again."
[ref]
PS: I basically share your feelings about the Miers nomination. But
let us not forget that Ronald Reagan was once a movie actor.
There are lots of great Americans who love their country who could be
earning more elsewhere but serve selflessly instead. My personal
gratitude goes to schoolteachers. I certainly couldn't do their job,
but do complain if I believe that my child's needs are not adequately met.
Everyone chooses the manner in which they serve their community. There
are some who would observe that expending this much effort trying to
shepherd such a tiny part of our nation toward the path of law, justice,
honesty and openness is itself a clear demonstration of dedication and
civic service. The pen being mightier than the sword and all. But it's
a subtle point.
PS: Good catch on the Marshall thing!
[article]
However, rest assured our families are still the object of his
destructive affection:
...Instead, the speaker (Osama Bin Terrorists) says, further attacks are in preparation and "you (American citizens) will see them in your houses as soon as they are complete, God willing." [ref]Perhaps you and your friends can get a job writing his speeches!
I certainly hope that the Supreme Court does not decide
questions of law based on their personal religious beliefs.
Their job is to decide the legality of the laws passed by
the states and Congress, not to ponder the moral path the
voters have (overwhelmingly) chosen.
But, unfortunately, I share your fear that Alito, too,
would have voted along party lines, his radical activist
views notwithstanding.
As to Thomas, and his on-the-job performace being a "racist notion" --
oh please, get real. Though you're right, Clarence Thomas is the dimmest
of the justices by far, having received the very lowest "qualified"
ABA rating ever awarded. (Sort of like Bush just barely
squeaking into college in the bottom 10% of his class, which
is also dismal; I want leaders I can respect, but I digress.)
Legal abilities apparently were secondary for the the job he must have
been intended to serve.
Now, Thurgood Marshall -- he was a Supreme Court justice worthy of the name.
I also see a different "merit system" at work among conservatives -- the
"buddy system." As in, if you're my buddy, you get the perqs.
Bush clearly values loyalty higher than ability,
else how to explain Michael Browne's appointment as director of FEMA, or
the Harriet Miers nomination?
"Heh heh, just checkin' to see if y'all were still payin' attention?"
And don't get me started on all the "accomplishments" of the "grand old
party" of Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff during the past 6 years (and a
merry time was had by all, I'm sure) -- I'll just say that I always thought
blowing a huge budget surplus in favor of giant deficit spending was a
liberal kind of thing to do. Go figure.
Since you have injected the racist notion that black judges do not have
the ability to think independently and make decisions, I'd add the
following contrast. Conservatives believe in the merit system, the
bedrock of our Judeo-Christian roots. Whereby individuals are appointed
to be judges, Secretary of State; Secretary of Defense, and all other
positions on their proven ability to perform. Liberals maintain the
fundamental belief that certain minorities are unable to ascend
themselves to such positions. That they need the "party" to help them.
This ensures two things: the "party" will have a stable of dependent
voters, and the Democrats will never see illegal immigration as a
problem.
Republican Civil Rights Achievements:
Democrat Civil Rights Achievements:
PS: Lincoln, too, was a strong advocate for states' rights.
The irony is that it was the most conservative justices
(Scalia, Rogers, and of course the rubber stamp, Thomas) who were
the ones who voted against states' rights and for greater federal
authority. All others backed Oregon.
It would have been interesting to see how Alito would have voted,
pitting his extreme states' rights views against his extreme
executive brach powers views.
The Bush administration position would ``effect a radical shift of authority from the states to the federal government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality,'' Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court.- AR``If the term `legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death,'' Scalia wrote.
Oregon voters approved the measure twice, in 1994 and 1997, the second time with 60 percent favoring the law.
``Between March of 2000 and 2004, the number of unemployed adult
natives increased by 2.3 million, while the number of employed
adult immigrants increased by 2.3 million.
Half of the 2.3 million increase in immigrant employment since
2000 is estimated to be from illegal immigration.''
[ref 1]
Also, between one half to one million illegal immigrants arrive in the
country each year. If "many such illegals are reportedly terrorists,"
that's a lot of terrorists (primarily Mexican terrorists, one would
presume, since Mexicans make up 60 to 70% of all illegal aliens.)
And our economic welfare, predicated as it is on continued growth,
is heavily dependent on immigrants: ``The annual arrival of 1.5
million legal and illegal immigrants, coupled with 750,000 annual
births to immigrant women, is the determinate factor - or
three-fourths - of all U.S. population growth.''
[ref 2]
It would seem that my information about illegal aliens occupying a
non-overlapping niche in our economy is dated. Looks like the
economy is retooling to employ immigrant labor preferentially over
native-born. Wonder how much is due to the Wal-Mart effect.
This in turn would explain the suggestions for a guest worker
program (which would officially permit and likely increase the influx
of foreign, and less expensive, labor into the country.)
Regarding the rude wall: I believe the government should have the means
and desire to know who comes into our country and who leaves. The laws
and regulations should be such that summer workers, for instance, can
visit from other countries and work as restaurant help, landscapers,
etc., and other workers can work in various jobs, but all should be able
to be tracked and monitored. I would vote for a wall if that is what is
needed to prevent folks from going around the laws and coming here
illegally with no knowledge and approval of the Immigration Service,
since many such illegals are reportedly terrorists. As Robert Frost
quoted in his poem Mending Wall, "Good fences make good neighbors."
I think building a wall along the Mexican border would be
needlessly rude. It's not as if the illegal aliens benefit
more from being here than the many businesses that hire
them. Agriculture, specifically, relies heavily on migrant
Latino labor, many of whom are illegal. In fact, businesses
lobbied hard for H1-B visas that provide a way to bring
in lower-wage non-citizens to work in high tech jobs; illegal
migrants provide the same benefits to the low-tech sector.
As to changing the rules for citizenship, I'm not aware of
what's been proposed -- though wouldn't it take an amendment
to the Constitution to make a child born to illegal immigrants
not automatically be a citizen?
"Staying the course" is less even about saving face for
Bush than trying to salvage the grand neo-conservative
vision, but it costs us money and sacrifice without
gaining anything in the long run. It is not a solution,
it's a delaying tactic.
Perhaps one small suggestion I could make is that it is better
whenever possible to try and avoid problems with Islamic
fundamentalists than to go and deliberately stir up more of them.
By invading Iraq (that had absolutely no connection to
Islamic terrorists, as was pointed out to him) Bush created
lots more terrorists than there were before (as was also
pointed that this would do.) It's just our bad luck that
he couldn't be satisfied with a million dollar
missle instead of seeking the glory of a trillion dollar
(million million dollar) invasion.
In the future, it would be better not to elect the
short-sighted candidate with bad judgement.
(*) By Bush, I mean in his role as proxy for Cheney and
the neo-conservatives. I don't believe Bush himself would
have attacked without being led into it by frivolously
optimistic, deceitful advice.
"Cakewalk," as George Tenet put it.
The core of
democracy is the consent of the governed, and by deceiving
us the government breaks the pact between governor and
governed, and cheats us.
Yes I sometimes deliberately overstate my point, but the
charges I level have a large dose of truth in them, and are
illustrated with the incidents that got me upset. What
does it say to complain about my posts while overlooking
what prompts them? I suppose it would be easier if I
didn't care, but there used to be a time when I really
thought we were better than that. Call me a political
innocent, but truth, justice, and right and wrong matter
to me.
There is no honor in an unprovoked war of conquest, no
matter how valiantly fought. It is noble to serve
and serve well, but by using the nation's troops as
mercenaries, Bush brings dishonor on us all.
Dishonor and shame.
[No problem with the image, so long as I don't get in trouble with the NSA or the copyright office... - Wm.]
By the way, my brother-in-law is a Naval officer and he completely
agrees with the action we have taken there. And I served 20 years in
uniform but did not serve there as 9/11 occurred two months after I
retired. I might add... I speak to active duty military members daily
and NONE like what is said about their efforts on this post.
Particularly when they are compared to terrorist such as has been the
case on at least two occasions.
I'll address AR's post here as it fits perfectly: while there may be
some military personnel who have come out against the war or the
prosecution of it... ALL the evidence suggest that they are a very, very
small minority - like liberals. Have mistakes been made at all levels?
Yes they have. Have there been some crimes committed on the ground?
Yes there have. We are talking about many, many people in very
difficult situations that have to make split-second decisions. I would
make this challenge. Show me a man that has not made a mistake and I
will show you God.
Does this place me in a position to know a little bit about military
culture and pulse the situation? I'm not sure, but I am an American who
supports my country in this war and I am free to express that - even if
some liberals would have it another way!
As one American officer explained to New York Times reporter Dexter Filkins, the willingness to sacrifice local civilians is part of a larger strategy in which US military power is used to "punish not only the guerrillas, but also make clear to ordinary Iraqis the cost of not cooperating". A marine calling in to a radio talk show recently stated the argument more precisely: "You know why those people get killed? It's because they're letting insurgents hide in their house." This is, by the way, the textbook definition of terrorism - attacking a civilian population to get it to withdraw support from the enemy. (emphasis added) What this strategic orientation, applied wherever US troops fight the Iraqi resistance, represents is an embrace of terrorism as a principle tactic for subduing Iraq's insurgency.- AR
President George W. Bush called on Tuesday for a responsible election-year debate on Iraq and said Americans should demand a discussion "that brings credit to our democracy, not comfort to our adversaries."Translation -- "Don't just tell me I screwed up, tell me how to fix it!"
[Reuters]
"Unfairly but truthfully (sic), our party has been tagged as being against things. Anti-immigrant, for example. And we're not a party of anti-immigrants. Quite the opposite. We're a party that welcomes people."
- George W. Bush, Cleveland July 1, 2000
That said, the goals we seek in Iraq are not purely altruistic, as I'm
sure you know. We do have immediate and long-term national security
issues to tend to. Without going into painful detail: the hope is to
establish democratic AND other institutions in which Iraqis can
participate, voice their opinions and vent without fear of death.
Institutions beyond the only ones that existed prior to our arrival.
Radical Islamic ones. Many necessarily underground as Saddam ruled with
the iron fist of death. As such institutions take root, history has
proven that individual ideas emerge and the society at large experiences
far less frustration. Turkey would be a good example, although not
Arab. Historically, western society has dealt with the radical Islamic
threat by supporting dictators to keep them in check. This has been the
quick-fix and has failed. It has merely served to stifle legitimate
concerns of the individual, cause frustration and maintain a healthy
radical Islamic underground in which one can be heard or take action.
The long term solution of creating an environment that HOPEFULLY will
support democratic-like institutions is a far more complicated
proposition. One in which the free flow of ideas and opinions is common
and encouraged. And one that is less likely to support such radical
views such as flying airplanes into our buildings.
PS: I'd say that George Bush has earned his money over the past four
years.
The cost of the Iraq war could top $2 trillion, far above the White House's pre-war projections, when long-term costs such as lifetime health care for thousands of wounded U.S. soldiers are included, a study said on Monday.How easy for a coddled rich boy to spend other people's hard-earned money. Government by tax-and-spend conservatives... what an odd turn of events, to find ourselves needing an honest, disciplined liberal to bring the federal budget back under control."Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," said the study, referring to total war costs. "We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars."
Before the invasion, then-White House budget director Mitch Daniels predicted Iraq would be "an affordable endeavor" and rejected an estimate by then-White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey of total Iraq war costs at $100 billion to $200 billion as "very, very high."
Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death- JPB
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism ... Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace - but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
As for those 2000 plus American heroes, they knew why they were there,
and were willing to die to see those now free people with purple thumbs
smiling as they emerged from the polling places. They took great pride
and joy in it. A sense of self actualization in their profession. That
"piece of cloth" represents their sacrifice, their belief in these
principles and the very blood they shed in defense of them.
I understand that on this evening's news, we may hear the latest
Bushism: Bush's reference to "the imminent Judge Alito"!
[Update 5:46pm: removed spurious characters "^2" - Wm.]
Bush mistakes, Bush-isms, Katrina miscalculations... voters STILL prefer
this over the Democrats! By the way, I'm sure Rice will have a job
well into the future be it in Washington or otherwise, but the point was
a reply to an accusation of bigotry and misogynism on the part of
flag-waving conservatives made earlier... let's not get so red in the
face that we neglect to read the entire chain of events. But be calm,
panic is a mind killer. This stuff gets a little more difficult when
there is an opposing view!
Bush Results:
Saddam in jail, free elections in Iraq, Sunnis voting, the Taliban
defeated, Syria out of Lebanon after 30 years of occupation, women's
rights in Afghanistan, Libya giving up its weapons stash, Egyptian
elections planned, Jordan sets requirements for Islamic students to take
more rounded classes such as sociology and psychology, not a successful
terrorist attack in the US since 9/11, only three house members vote to
withdraw from Iraq, US economy growing, unemployment rate BELOW 5%.
Democrat Results:
Voted for the war in Iraq before they voted against it! Our soldiers can
not win the war in Iraq! Let the Iraqis terrorize the women and
children or Iraq! Oh yes, and voted overwhelmingly last month to NOT
pull our heroes out of Iraq immediately.
To Summarize:
I'd have to say that the American voters have decided, based on results,
that given the opportunity, the Democrats would allow the Islamic
terrorist to spread across the globe unchecked while they - the
Democrats - debate what course of actions we could take that would not
"make them angry" or further disrupt the world harmony that has existed
throughout history; as they did for 30 years while Communism spread
across the globe like wild fire. But I detect it will take a mosque to
go up on town hill before you get it.
At which point it will be too late... and don't you dare say that it can't
happen.
[article]
1/7 2:02pm TEM: I'm flattered and proud to be labeled super-patriotic and a flag-waver. It is my hope that at least that part of your myopic post was directed at me - please say it is so.Interesting, JPB: - you say "our nation to be humiliated by 3rd world nations like Iran." The neo-con Republicans' obsession with Saddam Hussein led us into this costly and mistaken war, yet the most armed and dangerous single enemy of the US, and putative planner of the 9/11 attack, Osama Bin Laden, continues to be free.
And while the cost of Bush's war passes $232 billion, American deaths
pass 2189, and our wounded are more than 16,329 of our soldiers, Bush is
concerned about rewarding unqualified political cronies: ("You are doing
a great job, Brownie" Bush to Michael Brown, former FEMA director,
looking at the flood waters in Louisiana, at a staged photo-op.)
Unfortunately, the GOP Congress rubber-stamps the flawed leadership
surrounding Bush:
Cheney, Rumsfeld, formerly Wolfowitz, Frist, the devious Rove, and
others.
An honest prosecutor is now responsible for the indictment of Scooter
Libby (of Cheney's office) in the investigation of the disclosure of the
name of an undercover CIA agent, which was retribution against the
agent's husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson. That disclosure shows just
how far this corrupt Republican Administration is willing to go to
attack those who try to tell America the truth about Bush policy;
specifically, in this case, that there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq.
Senator Clinton hasn't abandoned anyone, referring to your simplistic
supposed quid pro quo. Senator Bennett sponsored a flag bill, S1320,
7/1/05, with cosponsors Byrd, Conrad, and Dorgan. Later he sponsored a
re-write, S1911, 10/24/05 with Sen Clinton as cosponsor.
Previously, 1/25/2005, in the House, Randy (Duke) Cunningham, Republican
of California, sponsored a resolution (HJ Res 10) to amend the
Constitution to prevent desecration of the flag. It picked up one
hundred and ninety six (196) cosponsors. Unfortunately, Duke isn't in
the Congress anymore to push his resolution:
SAN DIEGO - Disgraced ex-Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham wore a wire for federal agents before pleading guilty to corruption charges on Nov. 28, it was reported today.P.S.: Condoleezza Rice may start the year 2008 unemployed. I cannot guess her political or culinary future.Sources told Time magazine that the San Diego Republican wore a recording device during the short interval between the time he started cooperating with investigators and when he pleaded guilty to charges of taking about $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors.
[article]
Now we wait to see the political names associated with Jack Abramoff.
Reportedly many! In high places!
Thoughts on politics:
An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought. - Simon Cameron- RHThe price of freedom is eternal vigilance. - Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826)
Here's a little secret that Starbucks doesn't want you to know: They will serve you a better, stronger cappuccino if you want one, and they will charge you less for it. Ask for it in any Starbucks and the barista will comply without batting an eye. The puzzle is to work out why.- Wm.The drink in question is the elusive "short cappuccino"--at 8 ounces, a third smaller than the smallest size on the official menu, the "tall," ...
This secret cappuccino is cheaper, too--at my local Starbucks, $2.35 instead of $2.65. But why does this cheaper, better drink--along with its sisters, the short latte and the short coffee--languish unadvertised?
Economics has the answer: This is the Starbucks way of sidestepping a painful dilemma over how high to set prices. Price too low and the margins disappear; too high and the customers do.
"Victory or defeat" is, in fact, a false strategic choice. [...] But the real, practical choice is this: "persist but not win" or "desist but not lose."Always refreshing to read level-headed thinkers who see past the programmed chant.His [Bush's] policymaking and his speeches are the products of the true believers around him who are largely responsible for the mess in Iraq. They have a special stake in their definition of victory, and they reinforce his convictions instead of refining his judgments.
Finally, Democratic leaders should stop equivocating while carping. [...] They fear being labeled as unpatriotic. Yet defining a practical alternative would provide a politically effective rebuttal to those who mindlessly seek an unattainable "victory." America needs a real choice regarding its tragic misadventure in Iraq.
We ask him, "Mr. President, how could you do this
to the innocent Iraqi people?" and he answers, "I will
stay the course." We ask him, "Mr. President, how
could you contravene the law and the Constitution?" and
he answers "I am Command in Chief of the Armed Forces."
Judging by the answers, he doesn't get even the questions.
An empty shell, a prop. Reads speeches written
by others off cue cards. Takes mountain bike rides.
Attends fundraisers. What's to hate?
As to Hugo Chavez, he can try bringing lots of cash and standing in line.
Watching Randy Cunningham and Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay operate, it
seems reasonable to conclude that refusing support in exchange for
"incentives" would be un-American. Who knows,
someone might give in and do the Washington thing even here in Massachusetts.
As for longing for the good old days, I'd have to say that is a
liberal/socialist affect. Meaning the 30-plus years they controlled the
congress, courts, media, and universities; allowing communism to spread
across the globe, our nation to be humiliated by 3rd world nations like
Iran, a welfare culture to develop in our cities, and a judicial system
that allowed criminals to commit violent crimes only to be placed on
probation and repeat them.
Even Hillary Clinton it seems has abandoned you in her quest to gain
favor with the red states as she focuses on the 2008 election. She has
co-sponsored the Bennett bill, which will allow the government to fine
or imprison someone who intentionally defaces or destroys the flag -
Sen. Bob Bennett is a Republican.
PS: I propose a Condoleezza Rice / Hilary Clinton face-off in 2008. If
Condoleezza isn't busy in the kitchen of course.
Hey... I hear Hugo Chavez is looking for some supporters in
Massachusetts.
Tropical storms are caused by hot ocean temperatures, and as it happens,
2005 was the second hottest year ever (1998 was tops).
[BBC]
In fact, nine of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 1995.
Global warming - not just a possibility any more.
Zeta again strengthened into a tropical storm Thursday and could break the record for the storm lasting the longest into January since record keeping began in 1851.Consider, 2 million people in Louisiana live less than 3 feet above sea level. The ice sheets melting on Greenland over the coming century or two will elevate sea levels by 20 feet. That's a lot of refugees.Zeta, the 27th and final named storm in a tumultuous, record-breaking hurricane season that officially ended more than a month ago, had sustained winds near 40 mph at 10 a.m., up from 35 mph earlier in the day, according to the National Hurricane Center in Miami. Winds had reached 65 mph on Wednesday.
Kyoto? Nah, that's a pinko commie plot (oops, I'm dating myself, of course I
mean Islamo-Fascist terrorist plot :-)
Cuba lay behind the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy by Lee Harvey Oswald and its agents provided the gunman with money and support, an award-winning German director says in a new documentary film.- ARWilfried Huismann spent three years researching "Rendezvous with Death," based on interviews with former Cuban secret agents, U.S. officials and a Russian intelligence source, and on research in Mexican security archives.
Laurence Keenan, an officer of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) who was sent to Mexico City immediately after Kennedy's death to investigate a possible Cuban connection, said he was recalled after just three days and the probe was aborted.
Keenan, 81, said he was convinced Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson, blocked further investigation because proof of a Cuban link would put him under irresistible pressure to invade the island, a year after the Cuban missile crisis had brought the United States and Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war.
Robert F. Kennedy, brother of the assassinated president and attorney general in his administration, had personally ordered eight attempts on the life of Castro, who is still in power to this day.
Instead of trying to impose their own notions of "right" and "wrong,"
maybe they could reflect on what could have caused the smartest minds
in the nation to arrive at a different conclusion than they did.
Just a thought.
(PS: Actually, I have my own theory, not related to "smarts" :-)
Laws apply to all citizens, but clearly, our George must be special.
When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.Call a spade a spade -- the power to bypass civil law is called "martial law." To use it, Congress has to have declared war, not the President. The Constitution specifically assigns the authority to declare a state of war to Congress (out of prudence, lest Presidents get carried away with their global ambitions); to have otherwise would make large portions of the Constution easily bypassed, thus pointless. Delegating authority to act is not the same as having declared war -- and without a declared state of war, the rule of law applies.
[Globe]
This concept, laws applying to everyone, must be difficult for a spoiled
little rich boy like George. He never had to pay much attention before --
he could always rely on his dad's clout and connections,
for his National Guard service, college eduction, oil industry employment.
Congressman Curt Weldon, R-Pennsylvania, (vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security Committees) says a military intelligence unit called Able Danger identified four September 11 hijackers in 2000, more than a year before those attacks.- RHAnd he accuses the Defense Intelligence Agency of conducting a smear campaign against Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, the intelligence officer who said he tried to alert the FBI and, later, the commission investigating the attacks about the terrorists.
``...The 9/11 Commission is... embarrassed. They've got egg all over their face. The reason they didn't report on it, is because for some reason, I think it was deliberate. They never interviewed the key participants in Able Danger.''
If only it were true! I am reminded of the comments of one of my EE
profs, who said: "Always consider the source." Even here, in this
context, I read the source article, then the author's bio, then the
header:
Reading the header notes: " About The Heritage Foundation"
"Some of the finest conservative minds in America today do their work in
The Heritage Foundation.
- Rush Limbaugh November 10, 2000""
What an endorsement. What a person to give an endorsement.
Interesting: Neither of the statements in JPB's post appear in the
referenced article.
"Author
James
Phillips
is
Research Fellow in Middle Eastern Studies in the Douglas and Sarah
Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and
Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage
Foundation"
Phillips is a good author who carefully qualifies some of his
statements. His last paragraph:
"The United States can help create the conditions for success, but ultimately only the Iraqis can build a sustainable democracy in Iraq. Iraq's new leaders must work together in an effective manner to improve the daily lives of Iraqis or they will squander the popular support bestowed by today's vote and risk plunging Iraq into a bloody civil war."Let us all hope that the new Iraqi leaders will be successful, so that our troops can come home!
Lives:
2156 US Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and other US forces killed in Iraq
Wounded:
16,061 US Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and other US forces wounded in Iraq
Per the DOD website
[link]
(Iraqis and others, killed estimated 30,000; wounded: no estimate)
Dollars:
All of the United States
227.6 Billion, as of 12/19/2005
Massachusetts alone:
6.9 Billion, as of 12/19/2005
Per website
[link]
[When I visit the second link, I see a different number: ``The War in Iraq Costs 0 JavaScript must be enabled.'' Given a choice, I'll go with the lower figure :-) - Wm.]
Democrat Accomplishments:
Voted for the war in Iraq before they voted against it!
Our soldiers can not win the war in Iraq!
Let the Iraqis terrorize the women and children in Iraq!
Massachusetts Accomplishments:
One of the last remaining blue-states in the nations!
Merry Christmas All!
"When in the past a murderer regime ruled Iran, those who imposed sanctions against us today gave that regime everything. But when the Islamic revolution became triumphant and freedom and independence of the people were fulfilled, they imposed sanctions on the nation. Now what assurances exist that they will not do the same thing regarding nuclear fuel?"The murderer regime referred to is the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who was placed in power by the CIA in 1953 (operation Ajax) [NYT scoop] when the democratically elected leader Mohammed Mossadegh pursued an oil policy not to our liking. The Shah's secret police, the SAVAK (founded in 1957 with the assistance of the CIA), was as nasty and as feared as Saddam at his worst. The Islamic Revolution refers to the overthrow of the Shah by a popular mass uprising led by the Ayatollah Khomeini. So the harsh theocracy in Iran *is* the population's democratically chosen form of government (and let that be a lesson to those who think they have all the answers.)
[article]
Seems, in historical retrospect, we're not really about democracy after all.
We're just as likely to install brutal despots like Saddam, along with his
tools of torture, as we are to get rid of them. Perhaps there's something
more basic at work...
But it is a wonderful era in which to be an oil capitalist.
Well, we've come full circle -- privatization by a different
name, just as profitable. Up to $194 billion profitable.
Gee, I guess our hundreds of billions of reasons to attack
trumped France's measly few billion not to.
Control of Iraq's future oil wealth is being handed to multinational oil companies through long-term contracts that will cost Iraq hundreds of billions of dollars, according to a new report published today in London.- AR"The Bush administration has gone to great lengths to hide the truth, but this report confirms what many have long suspected. In short, the winners for control of Iraq's oil are the US, the UK, and their oil companies.
"Progress is running far behind Iraqi expectations in virtually every area," said Wayne White, head of the State Department's Iraq intelligence team from 2003 to 2005 and now an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute. "In their view, most Iraqis are not seeing 'amazing progress.' All too many of them live in constant danger, with less electricity in many areas than under Saddam Hussein."- AR
[WP]
"The reason she is able to say that the United States does not engage in torture is that the administration has redefined torture to exclude any technique that they use," said Tom Malinowski, Washington director of Human Rights Watch. "What makes this awkward for Secretary Rice is that the state department has continued to condemn as torture techniques such as waterboarding when they are used by other countries - in other words the very techniques the CIA has used against these high level detainees."What happened to the days when the difference between the good guys and the bad guys was obvious just by observing what they did?
[article]
Iraq's first post-Saddam prime minister, Ayad Allawi, has pointed out that the situation on the ground is worse than ever. "Human rights abuses in Iraq are now as bad as they were under Saddam Hussein and are even in danger of eclipsing his record," Allawi said in an interview with the Observer.- AR
[Guardian]
The role of Vice President Dick Cheney as the administration's point man in security policy appears over, according to administration sources.- AROver the last two months Mr. Cheney has been granted decreasing access to the Oval Office, the sources said on the condition of anonymity. The two men still meet, but the close staff work between the president and vice president has ended.
"There's a lack of trust that the president has in Cheney and it's connected with Iraq," a source said.
The sources said Mr. Bush has privately blamed Mr. Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for the U.S.-led war in Iraq. They said the president has told his senior aides that the vice president and defense secretary provided misleading assessments on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, as well as the capabilities of the regime of Saddam Hussein.
[article]
It has been forecast that continued global warming will interfere
with the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream is created when the arctic polar
ice cap chills the ocean water, which then sinks and flows away, pulling
warmer surface water north to replace it. This is the ``heat pump'' that
keeps Europe up to an average of 18 degrees warmer than Canada is at the
same latitude.
Global warming is predicted to interfere with this mechanism several
ways. With a decrease in the amount of ice, less cold water will be
produced; the pump will be weaker.
Also, the melting-ice fresh water produced will cool
the current, and since it's lighter than salt water, will spread on
top, pushing the Gulf Stream underneath, diffusing it and deflecting
it from reaching the Europe.
I've posted about the
Woods Hole study
discussing this back on 9/30/2002.
At this point, it seems some kind of tipping point may have been crossed --
Measurements of ocean currents in the North Atlantic reveal that they have weakened by about 30 per cent since 1992. The findings, published in the journal Nature, fit computer predictions of what would happen when Greenland glaciers begin to melt because of global warming. The models suggest that extra freshwater released into the North Atlantic could weaken ocean currents and even shut down the Gulf Stream.Such a 1C temperature dip caused the ``mini ice age'' of the 1700s, when the Dutch masters were painting ice-skaters on the canals of Holland. The "greater effects" would be 10C colder, like continental Canada located at the same latitude, land of permafrost and polar bears.Professor Harry Bryden, one of the scientists leading the project, said: "The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, sometimes called the Conveyor Belt, carries warm upper waters to northern latitudes and returns cold deep waters southward across the equator. It is a massive system that includes the Gulf Stream and it carries heat northward out of the tropics into the northern Atlantic, warming the atmosphere and helping to provide northern Europe with a moderate climate.
"In previous studies over the last 50 years, the overturning circulation and heat transport were reasonably constant. We were surprised that the circulation in 2004 was so different from previous estimates."
The researchers predict that if the 30% weakening persists, it may lead to a 1C fall in temperature over northern Europe in the next 20 years.
Further disruption to the system could be expected to have greater effects.
Experts say Greenland's 9,800 ft thick ice sheet, which has been melting at ever higher altitudes in summers in recent years, may be vulnerable to a runaway thaw.- Wm.If the Greenland sheet melted entirely over the next few centuries, world sea levels would rise by about 23 ft.
"The concern is that there are tipping points out there that could be passed before we're halfway through the century."
[Update 3:01pm: Changed that to "may be" cooling Europe -- it's not clear what's going on. What's known is: 30% drop in arctic return current, 30% diversion of North Atlantic warm current, condition normal along Labrador. Some more articles on the subject 11/30 New Scientist, 11/30 BBC - Wm.]
''This was not substantial evidence," a senior German intelligence official said. ''We made clear we could not verify the things he said."Like with the Niger uranium purchase, again they knew the information was not trustworthy, even that it was false, but sold it as fact anyway. Dishonest and reprehensible indeed.Curveball was the chief source of inaccurate US prewar assertions that Baghdad had a biological weapons arsenal, a commission appointed by President Bush that was reported this year. US investigators did not interview Curveball ...
The White House, for example, ignored evidence that UN weapons inspectors had disproved virtually all of Curveball's accounts before the war.
At the CIA, senior officials embraced Curveball's claims, even though they could not verify them or interview him until a year after the invasion.
They ignored multiple warnings about his reliability, punished in-house critics who had provided proof that he had lied, and refused to admit any error until May 2004, 14 months after invasion.
The Republicans make great hay about Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds. But when that attack was made in 1988, it was Democrats who moved a resolution to condemn those attacks, and the Reagan White House quashed the bill in the Senate, because at that time the Republicans considered Saddam one of our own.We chose to not speak out about Saddam's crimes when they occurred, and were willing to directly and indirectly cause the pointless deaths of 500,000 children and 600,000 adults -- not a good footing from which to make eloquent moral pronouncements about the evils of Saddam. We've already far surpassed the 300,000 that weighs on Hussein's conscience, plus there's another million from 1998 til today, and Fallujah has yet to be tallied. Time for some introspection and self-examination, methinks.So in 1988, who abandoned the Iraqi people to tyrants and a thugs?
UNICEF and World Health Organization studies based on infant mortality studies showed a 500,000 increase in mortality of Iraqi children under 5 over trends that existed before sanctions. From this, it was widely assumed that over 1 million Iraqi deaths for all age groups could be attributed to sanctions between 1990 and 1998.
A report from Johns Hopkins suggests that over 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion, most of them violent deaths and most as "collateral damage" from US forces.
- Rep. Cyntia McKinney
[article]
"So long as I am commander-in-chief, our strategy in Iraq will be driven by the sober judgment of our military commanders on the ground." -- George W. BushAs I recall, the sober judgement of the military commanders was that it would take twice as many troops to take and hold Iraq as Rumsfeld was willing to send. That's one.
Also, it's not the job of the military commanders on the ground to define
our national geo-political objectives -- it's the President's.
As commander-in-chief, Bush is the one responsibile for telling them
when to fight and when to call it good enough. That's two.
And the last time our objectives within Iraq were discussed, we were looking
for WMDs; no updates since then. What exactly are we doing there?
That's three strikes; are we out yet?
You know, for someone in his second term, I expected some on-the-job
learning to have taken place by now.
Remember the "Mission accomplished" photo?
We were successful; it's done already!
There is nothing more that the military can accomplish, it's time for
negotiations, compromise and statecraft. Bring our soldiers home!
And here's a different angle on the troop deployment -- since the Iraq mess is
likely to hurt the GOP in the 2006 elections, expect a significant draw-down
of troops over next year to help the Republican Party's chances in November.
The plan, which has been submitted to Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, calls for more than 60,000 troops -- over a third of the total -- to leave by the end of next year.- AR
Let's consider -- it's spread into the air, engulfs large areas, and
if it lands on your skin or you inhale it, you die a gruesome death.
Your lungs burn away from the inside out, and your flesh sears
and melts off your bones. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
Funny, a missile that flies farther than 95 miles is an illegal weapon
of mass destruction, while a device that indiscriminately kills every living
creature in the surrounding area is a nice, legal, gentle conventional weapon.
War is Peace. Ignorance is Strength. Maybe this is what is meant by
"gentle conservatism."
So, how'd it go again about Saddam's inhumane subjugation methods?
Let's hear it for the "good guys."
The US initially denied reports it had used white phosphorus as a weapon in Falluja in November 2004, saying it had been used only for illumination and laying smokescreens.The US did not sign the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons that expressly forbids the use of white phosphorus, but its use against people makes it a chemical weapon per the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention:However, the Pentagon has now confirmed the substance was used as an "incendiary weapon" during the assault.
The row began when Italy's state television network Rai claimed that white phosphorus had been used against civilians in a "massive and indiscriminate way" during the Falluja offensive.
Its documentary, Falluja - The Hidden Massacre, alleged that Iraqi civilians, including women and children, had died of the burns it caused.
But America is a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which it ratified in 1997, and that agreement forbids the use of any substance to kill or harm either soldiers or civilians if it is being used mostly for its toxicity.- ARA US Army handbook published in 1999 states clearly that the use of white phosphorus burster bombs against enemy personnel is "against the law of land warfare" and the US State Department clearly denied last year that any such weapons were being deployed in Iraq.
The mere fact that supporters of this war are now citing Saddam's crimes
against the Kurds as justification for THIS war tells you all you need to
know: WMD was not the real reason for this war. Now before anyone starts
jumping up and down, yes, Saddam was a bad man, and it's great he's gone.
But real questions remain: Why now? (We stood by under the first Bush
administration and did NOTHING while 200,000 Kurds were gassed, why the
sudden need to liberate? Why are we, the great protectors of human rights
and liberty, sitting on our hands while there is a full-blown genocide
taking place in the Sudan?)
This isn't about the troops on the ground and
whether or not they are heroes. Clearly, they are brave and heroic every
day, and we owe them our deepest gratitude. This is about the people we
elect who put these brave people in harm's way. It's unpatriotic NOT to
demand the truth on their behalf, and on behalf of every mother, father,
husband, wife, son, daughter, sister, or brother of the more than 2000
fallen soldiers.
If you're saying Iraq had WMDs right before we attacked, that's false.
All the solid evidence we had indicated that he didn't; Saddam had
disarmed by then. What vague suspicions remained were uncertain
before we attacked, were reported as false by the weapons inspectors,
and remained false after our own search. There were none.
In fact, the reason the administration is accused of having lied is
precisely because they stressed the unconfirmed rumors and speculation
and silenced the reports and analyses that disagreed with their view.
Doctored the intelligence, in other words; slanted it. Deliberately
presented as concrete fact internal speculation, something that was
known to be uncertain and unreliable.
If you're saying Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons in 1988, before
the first Gulf War, of course he did! And we were mightly glad
to have supplied him; he was fighting the evil Ayatollah on our
behalf, and would have lost the war without them:
The US not only helped arm Iraq with military equipment right up to the time of the Kuwait invasion in 1989, but also sold and helped Iraq to integrate chemical weapons into their US-provided battle plans while fighting Iran between 1985-1988.See also [Greenleft: US supplied targeting for Iraqi chemical attacks], [Wikipedia: Iran-Iraq War]C.I.A. officials "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose" to Iran. "The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern," he said. One veteran said, that the Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas." "It was just another way of killing people - whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference."
Contrary to what was said by the U.S. State Department, white phosphorus was not used in the open field to illuminate enemy troops. For this, tracer was used. A rain of fire shot from U.S. helicopters on the city of Fallujah on the night of the 8th of November.The war in Fallujah was a lot more brutal and capricious than we were ever let to know. The article and video footage is particularly disturbing because it shows the senseless butchery being done in our name.
US soldiers appeared on the roofs of surrounding houses and opened fire. Eyad's father was shot in the heart and his mother in the chest.- ARThey died instantly. Two of Eyad's brothers were also hit, one in the chest and one in the neck. Two of the women were hit, one in the hand and one in the leg.
Then the snipers killed the wife of one of Eyad's brothers. When she fell her five year old son ran to her and stood over her body. They shot him dead too.
"Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize."- AR
- Michael Ledeen
You will find some useful links below. Webster's online even lists Iraq
as one of the countries that may posses them.
[Webster's: WMD]
[reference.com: WMD]
P.S. Not all weapons identified by the Iraqi's in 1991 to UNSCOM were
destroyed or found. That is to say, they were asked to self-identify
what they had prior to the arrival of inspectors, which they did. As of
March 2003 they were still unable to account for much of it. I'm sure
you will find this in the UN reports if you care to dig a bit deeper.
Definition: Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) generally include nuclear, biological, chemical, and increasingly, radiological weapons. The term first arose in 1937 in reference to the mass destruction of Guernica, Spain, by aerial bombardment. Following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and progressing through the Cold War, the term came to refer more to non-conventional weapons. The terms ABC, NBC, and CBRN have been used synonymously with WMD, although nuclear weapons have the greatest capacity to cause mass destruction. The phrase entered popular usage in relation to the U.S.-led multinational forces' 2003 invasion of Iraq.Per Dr. Hans Blix, 27 Jan 1993, in an update to the UN:
The implementation of resolution 687 (1991) nevertheless brought about considerable disarmament results. It has been recognized that more weapons of mass destruction were destroyed under this resolution than were destroyed during the Gulf War: large quantities of chemical weapons were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision before 1994. While Iraq claims - with little evidence - that it destroyed all biological weapons unilaterally in 1991, it is certain that UNSCOM destroyed large biological weapons production facilities in 1996. The large nuclear infrastructure was destroyed and the fissionable material was removed from Iraq by the IAEA.Though Dr. Blix is from the Kingdom of Sweden, an arguably Socialistic country, no credible source has accused him of lying. While clearly Sadam's forces had WMD (Gas and Chemical weapons) in 1987-88, none were found in Iraq during the Iraq war.
The degree to which, in the months immediately following the war*, US
citizens believed the misconception that WMD had been discovered in Iraq
varied with the respondants' preferred media source: (*Since the
peremptory war is still in effect, "war inception" is more correct.)
Media source Respondents believing WMD had been found in Iraq
since the war ended
Fox 33%
CBS 23%
NBC 20%
CNN 20%
ABC 19%
Print media 17%
PBS-NPR 11%
Based on a series of polls taken from June-September 2003.
Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War, PIPA, October 2, 2003.
"Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war," -- President George Bush.With all due respect, Mr. Bush, the critics have been claiming that well before the war began. What's different now is that proof has emerged showing that NONE of the reasons originally cited for invading Iraq were known to be true -- not the nuclear weapons, not the WMD, not the links to terrorism. Your administration was engaged not in just a small exaggeration here or there, but wholesale fabrication.
"The stakes in the global war on terror are too high and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges."But then you know that -- once again, you attempt to mislead the public by the telling of deliberate falsehoods. Right you are, Mr. Bush -- the stakes are too high, and the national interest too important. Please refrain.
The bad news here is that every major potential contender for the
Presidency in 2008 (whether Republican or Democrat) did not possess the
foresight or spunk to vote against that resolution and bought into the
reactionary, black and white view of the world being pitched. This
includes McCain, Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Biden, or Frist (whom have I
left out?). Sadly, this also sets the stage for the painful reality of
two governors becoming front runners, Romney or that other oil-rich
carpetbagger in Florida. What was his name again? Yikes! Nader in 2008!!
In February 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency questioned the reliability of a captured top al Qaeda operative whose allegations became the basis of Bush administration claims that terrorists had been trained in the use of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, according to declassified material released by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.).The President lied to the public, but worse, he lied to Congress to deceive them into approving his military re-election adventures abroad. So much for the "we will ask not only what is legal but what is right" administration.In fact, in January 2004 al-Libi recanted his claims, and in February 2004 the CIA withdrew all intelligence reports based on his information. By then, the United States and its coalition partners had invaded Iraq.
"We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases," Bush said, an assertion that was based primarily on al-Libi's material.
"Just imagine," Levin said, "the public impact of that DIA conclusion if it had been disclosed at the time. It surely could have made a difference in the congressional vote authorizing the war."
[The full article is [here], an overview [here] - Wm.]
As I have indicated in previous posts, I am no fan of George Bush, but
we have to fight the Islamic terrorist that wish to decapitate us - and
we need to fight them any place but HERE! The way I see it: Bush
leveraged Saddam's WMD attacks on the Kurds, Saddam's huge unpopularity
in Iraq, and the neocons, to do away with Saddam and find a place in
which to fight these terrorist. I too think that he has made many
mistakes in this endeavor. But as he has told us on many occasions,
this is going to be a long, hard and expensive road. I am no parrot for
the neocons. I would say that my thought and opinions on this war (the
one on Islamic terrorists) take into consideration the long history of
this problem. Not simply the Bush basher or the neocon rhetoric -
although both bring useful facts and ideas to the equation. I happen to
believe that in this regard, mine is the most logical method of arriving
at an opinion. This war has in fact existed longer than the
Palestinian/Israeli conflict, Muhammad was a jihadist and so is Osama
Bin Terrorist (if he is still alive). It took the Europeans centuries
to push the jihadist back to the hornets' nest, now it is up to us to
contain them - that I firmly believe.
I would challenge you and all who express their opinions on this site to
offer an effective way to do that. I find it rather irresponsible and
unmanly to simply bash the Bush effort and not offer a better way. Let
the cards fall where they may with regard to Libby and any others who
are indicted. I personally believe that if they are found by the courts
to have revealed the identity of an operative, they should be executed.
Let's let the law do what it is suppose to do. But, lets also not
forget that Bill Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice. And
that he made a decision to attack a baby formula plant in Khartoum on
faulty intelligence. Did it in fact have anything to do with diverting
attention from his legal problems?
There is one thing you can be sure of, I will be here for the duration
to ensure you guys don't have free rein over this post.
Perhaps not the flattering answer you might have had in mind, but
more accurate.
Secondly, I am so sick and tired of you folks claiming to be more moral,
more patriotic, more ethical, and overall superior to those of us who
disagree with the way this administration has tackled a real and genuine
threat. You are riding the wave of spin created by a few clever, and
devious, spinmasters, who claim to own the high road in this country. (They
all happen to be facing indictments right now, but that is another matter.)
I am religious, patriotic, extremely moral and ethical, and I think George
Bush is dead wrong on 90% of the issues facing his presidency. I support
our troops far more than he does, because I believe it is immoral to take
human life and beyond forgiveness to do so based on a lie. Before this
started I argued endlessly with my liberal friends who claimed he was just a
puppeteer for Cheney/Rove and the gang, and this was a war for oil and money
first, and nation-building last. I was incredulous that under the threat of
terrorism, anyone could prescribe such hateful and deceitful tactics to a
sitting president. I've been eating my words a lot lately.
You have fallen for their black and white only logic; there is good and
evil. If life were only so simple. That Saddam Hussien is evil doesn't
make George Bush good. That Saddam is gone, which itself is too good to be
true, doesn't mean that Bush's flawed, poorly planned and even more poorly
executed war in Iraq represents anything close to an effective war on
terror. Let's face it, if you have a malignant tumor on your left lung, you
would not radiate the right one, because it's close by, has similar
characteristics, and may be somehow involved. Taking out Saddam Hussien was
a good thing for the Iraqi people. Leaving them in the midst of a civil war
is not. This was not the first order of business in the fight on terror, it
was a sideline, and one that has made us more vulnerable than ever. His
first order of buisness should have been to secure the country better.
Clearly, any hope of that was dashed with the response to Katrina. We
should be afraid, very afraid.
Don't be so confident that all those yellow ribbons you see on bumpers mean
the drivers agree with you. You haven't cornered the market on caring for
our troops, or our heroes, on the front line. We just might think caring
means something vastly different.
Now, for the 4th time, to whom do the innocent victims of Saddam give
thanks that their 30 year nightmare is over?
Nothing bashes quite like the unvarnished truth. Doesn't it strike
you as curious that liberal stations are full of recitations of facts,
while conservative stations are full of liberal-bashing?
One uses what material is available, be it a blue dress with
stains or forged proof in making the case for war. When there is
nothing good to use to bolster one's argument, increase the volume!
Reminds me of the fundamental rule of lawyering: "If you have the
law on your side, argue the law; if you have the facts on your side,
argue the facts; if you have neither, pound the table."
As to whom to thank that terrorists are not blowing up Manhattan --
let's see, one key test-taking skill one learns is to eliminate
the obviously wrong choices, and what's left is the answer. With
that in mind,
"Once you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter
how improbable, is the truth" (apologies to Sherlock Holmes, of course).
At any rate welcome to the greatest country on earth... but remember I'll
be around challenging your futile attempt to change my capitalist
country into a socialist one.
P.S. You have no right to change the meaning of ones prose, regardless
of the excuse.
[Of course Saddam had WMD's, that wasn't the question. The question was whether he had any left, say, in the five years before we attacked him. We had no proof that he had, and the post-war inspections determined conclusively that he had not. And I don't worry about Hussein torturing me, it's not his laws that I live under. But the CIA and FBI looking for ways around the Constitution, now those are our guys, and that does worry me.
As to changing the meaning of a post, I quite agree, one must not,
and whenever I have to reword a portion, I try my best to be careful not to.
And I'm quite confident that I never have. - Wm.]
Wm: I'm not sure where you are from originally but is appears you
brought with you some of the censorship that went along with those hard
times.
PS: Do you know my identity and address? It makes me a bit nervous
that one would be so desperate.
[Re. edited - absolutely! That's what it means when text is in [square brackets] in the middle of a post. It says right there on the Posting Guidelines, we "sometimes reword or remove comments likely to offend", and "outing" a user of this site is one of the seven deadly no-nos. Besides, what else can you expect from an overgrown blog? (I also fix typos and grammar errors, but you can consider that a personality quirk -- I try to present all opinions to the best of my ability, even ones I disagree with.)
Otherwise, I guess you found
out our little conspiracy... Don't torture me, I confess!!
I was being paid by Scooter Libby to spread WMD propaganda.
It was easy money, and it almost worked, too!
Vhat byootiful kapitalist systeme in dis kountry...
But wait, I just posted your note -- does that mean it can't now be
trusted? Could it right before I saved the page update?
And are you and BC now corresponding privately, too?
Or are you two really the same person, playing with my mind?
Whoa, this is confusing... I'm desperate in search of
some clarity of insight... :-) - Wm.]
P.S. What was the comment regarding revealing his identity about?
In the interest of political correctness I'll make this one multiple
choice:
- Osama Bin Terrorist
- Saddam "kill the Kurds with chemical weapons (AKA WMD) Hussein"
- The guy with the funny Christmas hat that coordinated the 1993 WTC Bombing
- Bill "Bomb the baby formula factory in Khartoum" Clinton
- George Bush
I guess your math may be a little fuzzy. Are you really arguing that
there are only 25,000 non-peace loving Muslims in the world? I'm sure
that there are people in Israel, Eastern Europe, London, Madrid,
Manhattan, Indonesia, the Ukraine, and countless other places around the
globe that would beg to differ... perhaps that number is just a little
bit higher. And let's take a close look as to what is happening in and
around Paris during the past week. (Or haven't you heard... seems to be
difficult to learn anything about this unless you dig a bit) If you read
or watch CNN, you will see it's violence started by the French police
who forced 2 teens to accidentially electrocude themselves by chasing
them when they hadn't done anything wrong. That served as a springboard
for 7 days of rioting by "African immigrants". In reality, the rioters
are Muslim. Should be interesting to see how France responds to this.
I'll echo the words of JPB... why aren't we hearing from the
"peace-loving" Muslim community?
Now, that being said, I am still in shock over a few other things that
have been posted on here in the past week. In one post you said
"Meanwhile the honorable commitment of our troops is being shamelessly
abused by Bush to grind them into a self-serving mission." Yet today,
you accuse the troops of Geneva Convention crimes: "Nobody likes their
wives bombed, children machine-gunned, cities bulldozed" Which is it?
Are we going to support the troops or call them baby killers? The one
that really got my blood boiling, however, was "One can only hope that
the Iraqis eventually forgive us." Are you serious? Are we (our
troops) not securing their freedom? Is their former president not in
custody awaiting trial for the cold blooded murder of over 600,000 of
his own people? One can hope that they forgive us... hmmm...
And on the subject of forgiving and in the interest of being fair... I
think everyone should know [who you, Wm., are] so that when you editorialize people's comments,
the readers should know that this may be done because you don't agree with
what is being said. And in the interest of full disclosure, I
appreciate the apology, but I also notice you have not taken the
comment down. (Editorial comment to my post on October 26th).
Keep plugging away, JPB. There are others out here who appreciate your
opinion.
[8:09pm: BC, I hear what you're saying, but my preferred solution is that all initialed posts be equal on the page, and for me to not annotate posts based on opinion. I'm working on it :-) As to the last annotation, I try not to alter content once up on the page, because it affects all that follows. Consider -- your comments and my reply would lose context without it. And though not completely opinion-neutral, it made two points that apply universally and that I stand by: cite sources, and think twice about sending cut-and-paste form letters. - Wm.]
There are about 1,300 million Muslims around the world. According to
the Pentagon, we're at war with about 20,000 Iraqi insurgents, and --
let's be generous -- another 5000 Al Qaeda operatives around the world.
That leaves over 1,299 million peace-loving Muslims.
(And even the insurgents would not be blowing up our heroes had they not
been sent in to invade and occupy their country. Nobody likes their
wives bombed, children machine-gunned, cities bulldozed. If we absolutely
had to go and avenge 9/11 on an uninvolved nation, we should have
bombed and conquered Jamaica -- just as pointless, but much smaller, a lot
closer, much, much cheaper, and better vacation resorts!)
But this line of thinking naturally starts one wondering, what exactly
does it mean to be peace-loving? Are our troops abroad peace-loving? What
about the people they're shooting at, who've never left their own country?
How about the many who still support an
unjust and illegal war on a country and people that had done us no harm?
It's a tough one. Anyway, I hope the numbers were helpful.
Places, at least according to CIA lawyers, beyond the reach
of due process, the Constitution, or judicial oversight. Why US
law does not constrain US citizens performing US government jobs
when outside US territory is a bit hazy to me, but then I'm not a CIA lawyer.
Hey, want to legally pass a bribe to a public official?
Do it on an overseas junket!
But as the volume of leads pouring into the CTC from abroad increased, and the capacity of its paramilitary group to seize suspects grew, the CIA began apprehending more people whose intelligence value and links to terrorism were less certain, according to four current and former officials.This is especially disturbing to those of us who were refugees from regimes where such practices were routine. We finally felt safe in a land where the law applied equally, rights were guaranteed, and the security service's powers were checked in fact, not just on paper. Where things like this just didn't happen. Perhaps all good things must come to and end, but it's still a shame when they do.The original standard for consigning suspects to the invisible universe was lowered or ignored, they said. "They've got many, many more who don't reach any threshold," one intelligence official said.
"Because it's not just about Wilson," maintained [Seymour] Hersh. "Fitzgerald's going deep. He may just unravel the whole conspiracy."Making Iraq over in the Neocons image was part of their master vision, published in the early 90's. They had been planning regime change there since before the first President Bush. And next on the agenda, apparently already in motion (with the Mehlis report), the Neocons are busy concocting pretexts for yet another illegal war, on Syria -- also on their published list of target countries. Hang on, here we go again...[T]he whole conspiracy [was that] the Iraq war was planned and orchestrated long before the administration began to build its case for regime change; and that the case it attempted to build, as laid out by former secretary of state Colin Powell to the United Nations, was essentially a fraud (and known to be a fraud).
For their "historic deeds," I fully fault Bush. I've never imagined
I'd see our country fall so low so fast as it has under this man's command.
One can only hope that the Iraqis eventually forgive us.
Meanwhile the honorable commitment of our troops is being
shamelessly abused by Bush to grind them into a self-serving mission.
Yellow bumper stickers are a fashion statement;
Support Our Troops with actions, not words: bring them home!
Their families need them more than the Neoconservatives need Iraq.
With a heavy heart, I join you in praying for our troops and our
nation. I'll omit Bush, though -- I'm not yet ready to forgive
and forget. Bush and his administration were the
ones who hijacked the country and put both the nation and the troops in
need of divine assistance.
"In my administration, we will ask not only what is legal but what is right, not just what the lawyers allow but what the public deserves." -- George W. Bush, Oct. 26, 2000.That was before Halliburton, Guantanamo, Katrina, Abu Ghraib, and an invasion built on a lie. None of it moral, none of it right. All allowed by the administration's own lawyers. Now, technically, the public voted him into office, so the public deserves all it has coming, but I sort of assumed he didn't mean to say he'd do more of same and worse...
U.S. terrorism experts Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon have reached a stark conclusion about the war on terrorism: the United States is losing.- ARDespite an early victory over the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the two former Clinton administration officials say President George W. Bush's policies have created a new haven for terrorism in Iraq that escalates the potential for Islamic violence against Europe and the United States.
"It's been fairly disastrous," said Benjamin, who worked as a director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council from 1994 to 1999.
"We have had some very important successes getting individual terrorists. But I think the broader story is really quite awful. We have done a lot to fuel the fires, and we have done a lot to encourage people to hate us," he added in an interview.
The Italians hand over to the US (and British) what they believe is a forged document alleging the Iraqis were looking to buy uranium from Niger (never mind that Iraq has plenty of uranium already). They assume the US will be better able to determine authenticity.Pretty straightforward, but for the one juicy rumor making the rounds [article] - there are signs that Rove and the Neocons may have had a hand in planting the forged Niger documents in the first place.
I pray for our nation, our troops and our president and so should you -
or least fall down on your knees and thank them.
After several centuries of Arab jihad, much of the Iberian peninsula and
Italy were retaken by the brave Europeans of that time. To the
Spaniards this was known as the Reconquista (Reconquest of their...land,
culture, language and religion...no religion for some I imagine). How
macho of them!!
A later attempt to conquer Europe, this time from the East, was made by
the Ottoman Sultan of the day (a Sultan is the Jihadist leader of THE
Islamic state). This attempt was made via Balkans and the Tatars into
Russia. It too was eventually repelled...after much internal debate no
doubt.
I hope you would agree that the concept of jihad has been a cornerstone
of the Islamic faith since its inception and that its history would lead
you to intellectually conclude that it can not be appeased. While I
agree that Bush is struggling with this, Clinton failed. He kept his
head buried in the sand or...well...wherever, only to come up long
enough to fire a million dollar cruise missile at a ten dollar tent in
Afghanistan and to decline custody of Osama Bin Terrorist when Sudan
offered him to us.
Osama and the Islamic terrorist (jihadists) of our time aspire to be
like Muhammad. They had been on the offensive around the world since
the Soviets left Afghanistan. That gave them the false belief that they
could defeat the only force that stands between them and their
expansionist goals.
The impotence of the Clinton administration after several attacks on our
citizens reinforced that belief.
Let's not forget that 9/11 was not the first attempt to take down the
towers. Where was homeland security after that tragic event...Where was
the outrage?? Did not taking the fight to the hornets nest stop them?
NO.
Are there millions of peace loving Muslims in the world? I prefer to
believe there are. But I'm not hearing them. If they do exist I'm sure
of two things: they fear a dreadful death at the hands of the jihadist
among them if they profess their beliefs; and our heroes are over there
giving them the opportunity to speak. This will not happen overnight.
It will take time, it will take sacrifice - theirs and ours. Yes, the
terrorist will continue to blowup water plants, power plants and other
essentials to stifle the thing they fear most, free elections. But to
whom do the innocent victims of Saddam give thanks ? And to whom do we
give thanks that this is not happening in Manhattan?
(Study 1:) However, the three new studies suggest that on average 42% of eggs from all women have serious genetic defects that could prevent embryos surviving to term.If it's not the drugs, this would have some fascinating implications for the theories on evolution, on genetic drift, even on when life begins.(Study 2:) Nearly two-thirds of the embryos produced by the younger women and three-quarters of the embryos from the older women had chromosomal abnormalities.
(Study 3:) A study a the Shady Grove Centre for Preimplantation Genetics in Maryland found eggs from healthy donors aged 21 to 31 had a 52% change [sic] of genetic abnormality.
"These defects should not be present in such a high proportion of patients."
Experts believe it might be that the drugs used for IVF that stimulate a woman's ovaries to produce eggs add to the risk of genetic damage.
It could also be that defective eggs are common among the general population but are rejected early on by the body if they are fertilised.
Doctors already know that many women miscarry very early in pregnancy without ever realising they were pregnant.
Things that make you think a little:I know 2,000 lives is a tremendous loss to the country. In the same time frame there have been nearly 45,000 murders on American soil. Where's the outrage from the Left to these numbers? In the same time period, over 50,000 Americans have been killed by drunk drivers across the country. Yet we have state lawmakers who are also defense attorneys making it increasingly easier for repeat offenders to be given a 2nd or 3rd or 10th chance to get behind the wheel and kill innocent civillians. Where's the outrage to these numbers?When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following:
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking. But... It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.
- FDR led us into World War II.
- Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...an average of 112,500 per year.
- Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ...an average of 18,334 per year.
- John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.
- Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ...an average of 5,800 per year.
- Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
- In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!
The military morale is high! The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.
[Update 4:10pm: When quoting from other sources, please provide references -- otherwise we assume that the work is original. Better yet, post only the URL and summarize! [Snopes.com] Oh, and I don't think the user instructions were meant to be left on top of the canned rebuttal :-) - Wm.]
For further news you're unlikely to hear in White House and Defense
Department Press Conferences visit the Institute for Policy Studies at
ips-dc.org/iraq/quagmire
And, according to the U.S. National Intelligence Council, the Iraq War
has created "a training and recruitment ground for terrorists, and an
opportunity for terrorists to enhance their technical skills," in
addition to accelerated recruitment for al Queda.
This is a war on what?!!!!
So now our boys are overseas, getting killed and killing
innocent civilians, all in the name of "staying the course."
If only Bush too had had the decency to keep his indiscretions
confined to the White House...
Iraq has become a "post-graduate faculty for terrorism" and is attracting thousands of foreigners who could foment violence when they return home, the head of Canada's spy agency said in an interview published on Thursday.- ARJim Judd, director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, told the Toronto Star newspaper that a new generation of militants was using the war in Iraq to get first-hand experience.
"We all obviously hope the conflict in Iraq ends soon, but then worry about what all these people are going to do," he said. "They will re-migrate around the world and return home."
One of the few who does not mind being named, Professor Adel al-Thamary of Basra University, told me:But it helps to explain the joke,"All in all, our life is worse than when we used to live under Saddam because now we are under fire. Now we can be killed any time on the streets."
"Be nice to America or we'll bring democracy to you." [Asia Times]- AR
In response to comments from the community, the US Government Printing
Office has refined the Full Report as an improved, interactive,
user-friendly PDF, optimized for screen viewing. There is also an
executive summary, plus staff monographs and statements. Whereas the
Authorized Edition paper copy had no dates of release or of publication,
the date of release, 7/22/2004, is on the web site, which has been
frozen and archived by NARA. (National Archives and Records
Administration)
The 9/11 Commission Report is available in .pdf and HTML formats. The
page numbers in the .pdf format match those in the printed copy.
See
911commission.gov.
Read it, Americans!
Bush keeps referring to 9-11 as a basis for his war against Iraq, now
that no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) have been found.
The 9-11 Commission disagreed: (page 66)
"Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76 "Paul Wolfowitz was a hawk regarding Iraq: (page 335)
"Within the Pentagon, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz continued to press the case for dealing with Iraq. Writing to Rumsfeld on September 17 in a memo headlined "Preventing More Events," he argued that if there was even a 10 percent chance that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attack, maximum priority should be placed on eliminating that threat. Wolfowitz contended that the odds were "far more" than 1 in 10, citing Saddam's praise for the attack, his long record of involvement in terrorism, and theories that Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi agent and Iraq was behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.73 The next day, Wolfowitz renewed the argument, writing to Rumsfeld about the interest of Yousef's co-conspirator in the 1995 Manila air plot in crashing an explosives-laden plane into CIA headquarters, and about information from a foreign government regarding Iraqis' involvement in the attempted hijacking of a Gulf Air flight.Comments: WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?
Unfortunately, Wolfowitz's views ultimately prevailed. Now he is the
head of the World Bank. Heaven help the World.
It is appalling that these men including Bush and others have wasted our
young men's lives, and our country's treasure, fighting this war, which
had nothing to do with the attack on the U.S.!
This action by the demonstrably stupid Bush and the devious Wolfowitz
and their associates such as the duplicitous Rove and others certainly
constitutes evil ! Bush should be impeached!
Where is the outrage among the people of the United States?
COSTS TO DATE
US fatalities in Iraq as of 20 Oct 2005: 1992. One thousand,
nine hundred and ninety two of our finest young men.
US Wounded in Iraq as of 14 Oct 2005: 15,220. (includes those
returned to duty)
[icasualties.org]
Cost of the Iraq war, in US Dollars, to date: $202 billion (includes
$6 billion from Massachusetts alone)
[nationalpriorities.org]
I too agree that the Islamic terrorist seek to destroy Western culture
as a whole - but they must destroy US first in order to do so. By the
way, all Christian church attendance has been up since 9/11, not just in
"conservative" churches, however you define that. For example, St
Mary's Catholic church in Franklin is bursting at the seams.
Did we as a nation overreact to the events of 9/11? Perhaps when it
comes to a bit of patience with our allies... our president - the one
charged with protecting us - had and has a very difficult job of doing
that. A brief look at a before and after photo of George Bush indicates
to me a man who cares and worries about our nation. Has someone really
got you convinced this is an evil man? Sounds like something Louis
Farrakhan would say. Now I'm not a huge fan of George Bush mind you,
but look what losing an election did to John Kerry and Al Gore... these
guys would have had a nervous breakdown if they had gone through all
that Bush has gone through. Howard Dean...
I don't believe that the ENTIRE world is divided into those who love and
hate freedom. Like anything, common sense would indicate a continuum
exists. But, the discussion here is about the war and the Islamic
terrorist that seek to destroy us. We need to seek and destroy those
whose will is to do us harm. I think back to the days when President
Reagan (my hero) stood down the Godless Soviet expansionists. Oh, how
many liberals both here and in Europe called him a warmonger, how many
called him incompetent, how many questioned his character, his
integrity... oh how many were wrong... how many?? He too would have
leveraged Saddam to put a boot in the hornets nest!! And the
opportunity to offer freedom to oppressed people such as in Afghanistan
and Iraq - need we ponder what he would say to that?
P.S.
Times have changed and the voters of our nation have no liberty
to... change them back?
I was unaware that our constitution provides for change in only ONE
direction... how rich.
Flaying away with a stick at a hornets' nest while loudly proclaiming "I will stay the course" is an exercise in catastrophic leadership.- AR- Zbigniew Brzezinski
This administration squandered that unification, and the good will and trust
the world placed it in to do the right thing. Internationally, they
alienated our allies, and left us essentially alone in fighting what is
really a war in defense of Western culture more than one singularly against
American culture. Domestically, they blurred national security, budget,
tax, and social issues to advance an anti-government, conservative domestic
agenda in the name of a War on Terror while the country was busy buying duck
tape! The great galvanizing of the Christian Conservatives had little to do
with that fateful day, and had everything to do with the earlier, and
unrelated, courting of them by Karl Rove and the gang to get Bush into
office. Why the resurgence in church attendance and membership in
conservative churches, I really can't say. I have my guesses, but I think
9/11 and the terrorist threat are not high among them.
Lastly, George Bush has EVERYTHING to do with establishing military
regulations and protocol. Abu Graib? The infamous memos? The blatant
ignoring of the Geneva Conventions? As you pointed out, a president
populates his cabinet how he sees fit, and has that privilege because he was
elected. His choices are the very establishment of protocol and
regulations. He and his defense secretary, secretary of state, etc., have
everything to do with defining the culture of a war, from signaling what is
acceptable to supplying the equipment and tools necessary to do the job.
The world isn't divided into people who love freedom and those who hate it.
Yes, there are crazy extremists who wish us genuine harm, and we need to be
diligently protecting ourselves against them, but the real division is based
not on whether freedom is good or bad, but how best to protect it. Clearly,
I disagree with just about everything this administration has done, but I do
not hate freedom, as W. would have you believe. Quite the opposite. And I
believe military action was and is required to combat this threat, but I
also believe they have bungled it.
I don't hate faith either. I don't begrudge you your faith. I think it is
wonderful to hold such deep beliefs. They are just personal, they are not
the foundation on which to base foreign policy or domestic social policy in
a free (secular, even though that word clearly offends) society, despite the
role in played in our founding 225 years ago. Times have changed. Now I
will stop, I am taking up too much space on this site!
Both regrettably and necessarily, the rules did change after we were
savagely attacked by the Islamic terrorist on that beautiful autumn day
in September of 2001. I fear we will never again have the freedoms we
enjoyed that morning, and less regrettably, we can never again afford
our enemy the benefit of the doubt. It is but by the grace of a
peaceful and loving God that those planes did not carry chemical or
biological weapons that day (call it what you want if you don't believe,
but please don't try to stifle my expression of thanksgiving and love
for God by suggesting I am intolerant because I don't cite everyone's
beliefs when I seek to express the only one which I am an authority
on...mine). We must do all we can to deny them their evil objective -
our demise. Make no mistake about it, they want to destroy us and our
way of life because it is the only thing standing between them and the
creation of a super Islamic-state in the Middle East and beyond, their
stated goal.
While I'm not sure what protections - other than those measures aimed at
preventing the Islamic terrorist from destroying us - have been
dismantled, I am sure that all such measures have been approved by
Congress in overwhelming numbers and/or are being reviewed by courts
with jurisdiction. And, that the voting population of the United States
has spoken in several elections, both congressional and presidential,
since that day in September 2001 when the Islamic terrorist attempted to
decapitate us before the world. We can conclude one of two things from
this: the number of Conservative-Christians in our nation is far greater
than was thought by the left, or huge sectors of the US voting
population have decided that the Socialist driven secular movement away
from our God-derived liberty and values has gone too far. Perhaps
given the choice between Islam, Secularism, and their Judeo-Christian
values (that has served them so well for more than 225 year) they have
decided to support, advocate and practice Christianity. This would
certainly explain the explosion in attendance at our nations churches
and the construction of mega-churches across the nation. Should they
suppress such thinking? Should they vote for leaders who do not support
their views?
Should all candidates, whom liberals or Socialist believe to be
Conservative-Christian be constitutionally forbidden from holding
office? I'm not sure the "red states" would pass that amendment -
Massachusetts is questionable, however. As I'm sure you know, ours is a
Democratic Republic. Now this may sound harsh, but it means that the
majority gets to choose those who represent the nation. This is
accomplished, as it has been for more than 225 years, through elections.
Said elected officials, Presidents Bush or Clinton for example, then
appoint other individuals to positions throughout the government, such
as the United States Supreme Court.
That said, the rights of the minority must be reasonably protected as
well. I also completely agree with you that we must monitor with true
diligence our God-given blessing of liberty.
George Bush had nothing to do with establishing military regulations or
protocol... George Washington perhaps. There are long establish laws
that govern the conduct of military members, and all who pass thought
those gates of honor understand that they waive certain rights to
protect those of the nation at large. There are however, certain
administrative processes that address the dilemma of the 22 year old
enlisted troop you cite. To be quit frank; not many heroes would want a
one such as him "watching their back" so administrative discharge would
likely be welcomed by all concerned.
I can not address adequately one who would commit violent acts on
innocent people in the name of religion. I do fear, however, that the
spiritual vacuum that Socialist secularism leaves could eventually be
filled with the most violent and fastest growing religion known to
modern man. A religion that uses jihad as its method of evangelizing
when elections, words, fear, and intimidation fail.
[
I don't agree that non-believers are unable to understand the deep faith of
others. (It may well be the other way around. How many of us can imagine
the genuine anguish of devout Catholics who feel betrayed and now adrift
because of the abuse scandal?) Faith is personal, hard to articulate, and
very much a private matter. Yes, we should all be free to pray and
communicate as we wish. But the First Amendment seeks to protect us against
one person making policy that impacts others on the basis of one person's
religion, or "conversations" with "their" God. I am not making fun of one
communicating with their God. But what of the 22-year-old enlisted person's
message from his/her God that says Thou shall not kill? Does Bush's
conversation with his God override the enlisted man's conversation with his
God? What about the person who doesn't believe in God, or a divine being?
Are they left out of the conversation? Are they to do others bidding based
on another's belief? And, of course, the Islamic terrorists believe deeply
that they are doing the work of their God by flying planes into buildings
and strapping explosives to themselves. If that isn't a deep belief I don't
know what is. Yes, I think it's crazy, but they genuinely believe they are
instructed by Allah to kill all infidels. Clearly, there is no place for
religion in modern foreign policy, military policy, and domestic policy.
The country, and indeed the world, is too complicated, too diverse, to base
any policy on religion. The mess we are in is precisely due to the lack of
separation of church and state, and, getting back to Harriet Miers, we in
America should be taking steps to rebuild the wall of separation, not
seeking to bring it down further.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."I hope you would agree that a "Blessings of Liberty", as such, would be given by God, particularly during the time period and context presented above. The word blessing is found many, many times in my bible, and I'm sure in most other religious books. Its origin is deeply rooted on the blessings of God. It is very important to note that it is not something given by the state, or up to any person, organization or other authority to take away. As the bible states, it is up to the individual to decide if he or she will accept God, his blessings or even recognize him.
With regard to President Bush's most recent pick for the supreme court,
I do not agree with it either. But my reasoning is that of an apparent
lack of judicial experience, and not that she has not proven herself a
right wing nut. Any executive or responsible individual hiring for a
position would want to see a proven track record - Republicans and
Democrats are no different in this regard. Yes, there are some far
right wingers that would like to stack the court in a way that would not
benefit the nation at large. Likewise, there are some far left wingers
(socialists) who would like a shot at it too. Please indulge me while I
offer a metaphor that occurred to me when I was 18 years of age: "The
eagle has a left-wing and a right-wing, but the brain is found between
the two". I suggest the novel idea of allowing the confirmation hearing
to proceed as prescribed by the constitution and learning what
qualifications this nominee has.
I would say this, for a non-believer to suggest that they understand
the faith and relationship another has with God, or to suggest the means
by which one professes to communicate with God is crazy, completely
misses the point of at least one element of the 1st Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."Pointing this out will no doubt strike you as splitting hairs, as you are obviously committed to the concept of freedom of religion. You appear to be equally committed, however, to assuming that anyone who takes issue with the current swagger of Christian conservatives is anti-God, which is ludicrous. That conservatives across the country are up in arms with Harriet Miers being reluctant to discuss the role of religion in public policy is all the evidence you need that the wall of separation of church and state is crumbling at an alarming rate. These folks want actual proof that a justice appointed to the Supreme Court, whose most important task is to uphold the constitution, will in fact ignore it. The U.S. is not a "Christian country," it is a country that is predominantly Christian. There is a big difference, and anyone willing to point that out should not be vilified and considered anti-Christian, anti-God, or anti-American. In fact, they should be commended for their willingness and presence of mind to wade through the dangerous propaganda that permeates the airwaves, and remain committed to the principles of the constitution, which all us Americans hold dear. The Bush administration's bungling of the War on Terror, itself an important and worthy fight, has germinated the seeds of the very thing it claims to want to protect us from -- religious intolerence.
The voice of God that Bush hears is anything but. Karl Rove and Dick Cheney,
perhaps, but God? I doubt it. While I can't claim to have had actual
"conversations" with the Almighty, the Christian lessons I am guided by
include things like not lying, not stealing, feeding the poor and healing
the sick, loving thy neighbor. Not sure exactly who is whispering in Bush's
ear, but he should change the channel.
PJB, Ashcroft, Bush and Congress have done more to threaten my way
of life than any foreign agent. Locking up people without charges
and torturing them to extract confessions (sorry; "actionable intelligence")
used to be something only our enemies did...
While I am always willing to discuss domestic differences, I believe
that at the moment my focus is better spent on the advancing
self-declared enemy that seeks to destroy me; rather than attacking
fellow Americans - as the enemy would have me to do! Now... for your
benefit once again I digress - what about the threat to our way of life
and our children?
P.S.:
I was surprised to find that a seemingly tolerant and educated one such
as yourself would generalize so easily based on the mere mention of the
name Jesus Christ.
In a dramatic rebuff to President George Bush, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to the man who dared to tell the Americans that the main plank of the US argument for waging war on Iraq was based on a lie.- RHThe Nobel committee bestowed the prestigious award for 2005 on Mohamed ElBaradei, the UN official who rose to prominence by exposing the lengths that America would go to in its efforts to build a case for war.
Mr ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which shares the prize, delivered a body blow to the Bush administration on the eve of the Iraq war.
During a televised meeting of the UN Security Council in March 2003, he told assembled foreign ministers that documents purporting to prove Iraq had attempted to import uranium from Niger to make a nuclear weapon were fake.
Leading lights of the Bush administration, particularly Condoleezza Rice and Vice-President Dick Cheney, had advanced Iraq's supposed nuclear weapons programme as a major reason for going to war.
[Independent]
Published: 08 October 2005
President George Bush has claimed he was told by God to invade Iraq and attack Osama bin Laden's stronghold of Afghanistan as part of a divine mission to bring peace to the Middle East[.]Now, many believe, but it's quite... rare to have conversations with the almighty.The President made the assertion during his first meeting with Palestinian leaders in June 2003, according to a BBC series which will be broadcast this month.
"I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did."
"`And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, `Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.' And by God I'm gonna do it."
The White House has refused to comment on what it terms a private conversation.
If the Islamic terrorists put away their anger and weapons today war will
end - if we stop defending ourselves today - we, our precious children,
and our way of life will end. Do you have the will to fight and live or
cower and die?
This plague must be faced as any other that we have encountered, the
Nazis could not be defeated without war and sacrifice nor can this
racist menace that seeks to destroy our religion and our way of life.
There are always topics in the news that we have strong opinions on; this
is the place where they can be expressed. My personal list of current
topics of interest includes Iraq, Iran, the Supreme Court, Halliburton,
Intelligent Design, and our local Katrina relief effort.
Recent discussion topics on Norfolknet have included:
The ongoing Gulf War (last 9/25 10:38am)
The Delta House group home (last 3/30 9:12am)
There are no older messages, this is the first Opinion page. .